Prospect Insider - If the M's are for real

If the M's are for real

By Jason A. Churchill

By 05-23-2011

The Seattle Mariners are 22-24 and just a game and a half out of first place in the American League West. This is both good and bad. For one, contending is the goal. But it's a division where the Texas Rangers have been without key players, including the league's reigning MVP, for most of the season, and the other two clubs have as many flaws as do the M's.

So, are they for real?

That depends on what "for real" means. If it means a .500ish club, the answer is probably yes. Before the season the majority of those out there that cared to venture a prediction guessed somewhere between 68 and 78 wins. A few predicted fewer, and a few predicted more. But very few.

But if "for real" means winning the west, the answer isn't the same. Yet.

The M's are very likely to look to add to their roster, make upgrades if you will, between now and July 31 (and beyond, even) and there will be some decent players available. Clearly the club doesn't have a glaring need in the rotation, but they still need offense and as long as they are within striking distance in the division it will make some sense to consider trades.

Ackley,
Dustin Ackley will certainly provide an offensive upgrade, as long as he's not simply replacing the starting second baseman, which has been Adam Kennedy more often than not lately. Calling up Ackley and playing him in place of Kennedy may help a little, but it's not the best way the M's can utilize their top prospect.

Aside from tossing Ackley into left field -- which is a breach of the investment in the player's transition to second base over the last 18-19 months -- sliding Kennedy to third and playing Ackley at second upgrades not one, but two spots in the batting order.

Kennedy, however, doesn't have a great track record at third, playing 90 games there in his career -- all in 2009 and 2010 -- but committing 14 errors and displaying well below-average range at the position. It still might be a good move for a decent portion of innings, at least until Chone Figgins does anything at all to deserve more time in the lineup.

Trades
The M's were surefire sellers before the season started, with the possibility of trading a rejuvenated Erik Bedard for a young piece or two, and possibly sending out David Aardsma or Brandon League -- or both -- for cheaper roster pieces that fit into the future.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and the club is likely to already be checking around the league for offensive help. And no, not backup help or No. 5 starters. The Mariners need average or better regulars in left field and third base. They are likely stuck with Jack Cust at DH for now and will certainly have to stick with Miguel Olivo behind the plate, but both players have hit of late.

Here are some potential trade targets going forward. And please note that I am not suggesting these to be perfect fits, nor am I saying others clubs are certain to deal these players, But trust me, they make sense on several levels, despite a few of them struggling in their own right.

Michael Cuddyer, OF/3B -- Minnesota Twins
Cuddyer was never a good third baseman and is struggling at the plate to the tune of a triple-slash line of .259/.320/.380 this season, but is capable of 20 points more OBP and 30-50 more in the slugging area and could offer the M's right-handed options at third and in left field.

The Twins are one of only two clubs that are double-digit games back in their division (Houston is the other) and they're as likely to sell this summer as anyone else in baseball. Cuddyer is a free agent at season's end and isn;t likely to return in 2012.

Jason Kubel, LF/DH -- Minnesota Twins
Several clubs will likely have interest in Kubel who is performing at the plate. He's not good in the outfield so he's not ideal for Seattle's spacious left field, but if Cust has more games like April than he has had in May, Seattle could pull the plug and look at Kubel.

Ryan Ludwick, LF -- San Diego Padres
Ludwick is tough to figure out defensively according to the advanced stats, but the scouting suggests he's average at very best. Having said that, he's not terrible and could provide some right-handed pop in a part-time role.

Laynce Nix, OF/DH -- Washington Nationals
Another not-so-good outfielder, but one with some power. Certainly not on the top of the list, but if the price is super cheap he's a better bet to hit than the three kids Saunders, Peguero and Wilson.

Carlos Beltran, OF -- New York Mets
Beltran will be traded if he doesn't get hurt and would be a pretty large upgrade, but Seattle wouldn't be the only club interested and how much money the Mets are willing to throw into the deal would probably dictate whether the M's could be real players for the switch-hitter's services.

Matt Capps, RHP -- Minnesota Twins
The Twins could also deal Joe Nathan, but Capps is a free agent after the season and contenders that need late-inning help could clamor to add his reliability and closing experience. Seattle is no different, especially since David Aardsma isn't due back until July, and it's not out of the question that he misses the entire season.

There are several others that are, will be or could be available this summer.

Trade bait
So if the M's are contending and looking to add to the roster and not subtract veterans, how do they upgrade? The ownership could OK a budget busting move for the right player, such as Beltran, but Jack Zduriencik is going to have to be creative, moving the right young talent to acquire the proven veteran players.

The Pegueros, Wilsons, Greg Halmans and Alex Liddis of the world do not have much trade value, nor does Michael Saunders -- at least not to the point where you can just throw them into a package with Blake Beavan or Luke French and expect to get Ludwick or Cuddyer back. The M's will have to sacrifice something to get something, unless they are taking on excess money.

I can't imagine a deal may come along that would warrant parting with Nick Franklin, or any of the top few prospects, and nobody else in the org carries enough weight to headline a trade.

In other words, it's going to be difficult and based very much on money and Zduriencik's ability to mix and match and perhaps get a third team involved.

A year from now an arm like Jason Vargas might be expendable since James Paxton could be ready by then, or the big southpaw could be the bait himself -- just not this year.

In the end, the M's are for real enough to stay the course, look to get better without sacrificing any of the future and seeing what happens. It could be a summer where the M's buy in June and sell in July if and when they struggle and finally fall out of reach.

if-the-m\'s-are-for-real

Comments
The following 80 comment(s) for this article are shown below:

1. By: tonydif on 05-23-2011 00:53:54
Jasons correct, The huge hole in the lineup is 3B...the position has no one in the system close to stepping in. Problem is, 20 teams in MLB want better hitting 3B. The position has taken a huge hit offensively throughout the league this year.(anyone in a fantasy league knows what i mean!!!!) To find a decent 3B will be difficult.

An extra veteran in the OF would be nice, but its not a pressing need. The combination of saunders/peguero/and Wilson will get better, not worse. With the right matchups, the position should provide above "replacement level" production.

2B is Ackleys, with Kennedy and Wilson providing good depth. Luis Rodroguez's days are numbered.

Not sure if they can make a run for the division, but they won't be 10 games out with a month to go, thats for sure.

2. By: Boy9988 on 05-23-2011 02:06:59
I disagree. We still should be sellers. Especially Bedard. We need to gather as much young talent as we can and add veteran talent in FA where it isn't going to cost us our players of the future. Sell Bedard, Figgins(for cash if nothing else), J Wilson and Ray and stick with Peguero and Wilson in left.

3. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 02:55:29
Boy, GMs are not paid to turn their back on opportunity. If they are close enough, and don't have to spend a lot to get some upgrades, JZ has to listen. Just the way it is.

4. By: rocketdawg31 on 05-23-2011 06:24:10

I agree with Edman. Sure, we're building. But if Texas doesn't pull away with this once all horses are all systems go for them?

We stand a shot at this, in that case.

And we need a playoff run's "shot in the arm" as an org as much as anyone in baseball.

2B is Ackley's, with Kennedy and Wilson providing good depth. Luis Rodriguez' days are numbered.

I have to disagree, tonydif. What makes you think this org is so enamored with Wilson? Me, I take Rodriguez over Wilson- Rodriguez offers just as much versatility, a better bat and Wilson has more value (which isn't to say "a whole lot") in a trade.

If anything, Rodriguez is under-utilized right now.

5. By: rocketdawg31 on 05-23-2011 06:25:13

Sorry for the accidental overdose of italics, troops.

6. By: Mackie on 05-23-2011 08:57:13
Nice suggestions, Jason. I have always been a Kubel fan, and Ludwick is pretty decent. For the right price, either could be a welcome addition. If the team is contending, management can't go into sell mode. It sends the wrong message to fans, especially fans of a franchise with a history like that of the M's.

While not all trades have to happen right at the deadline, the trading deadline is still more than 60 days off. Would the teams who are sellers this year want to hold off as long as they can at deadline time in order to try and maximize their hauls?

So much of this involves timing. The Mariners could make a trade a month from now, but then be out of the race by the end of July, and that could be awful depending on who they traded away. Thus if they make a move during the next month or so, it would seem it might not be a major one and might just represent tinkering. I am guessing they may have to wait until at least early- or even mid-July to figure out whether they need to make a good-sized deal or not.

Bedard looks awfully good so far, but we all know his history. He looks healthy at this point, but I wouldn't count on anything from him, and I'm just glad every time he goes out and makes a start without hurting himself. He has been great to watch so far this year! If he is not on the DL by July, he could have some excellent value... but if the team is still in it by then, I might consider keeping him and taking the gamble he could last the whole season, then try trading him during the winter.

I completely agree that 3B and LF are the black holes on offense at the moment. But as the season goes on, others could develop. Just have to wait and see, and hope positive trends continue.

7. By: Jerry on 05-23-2011 09:02:28
I would hate to see the M's give up anything of value for any of the names listed above.

If they can get a serviceable bat for 3B without giving up much, fine. But I wouldn't sacrifice much. One interesting name: Wilson Betemit. He is putting up good numbers this year, and is a free agent next year. KC will probably call up Mike Moustakas at some point this season, so he could be available.

But, again, I don't think this club should be trading valuable pieces for rental players. Bad idea. They aren't legit contenders yet. They need to stay the course.

Edman suggests that GM's are not paid to turn their backs on opportunities. I would argue that a GM is paid to protect the best long-term interest of the franchise. Getting ahead of themselves now, and thinking they are a legit contender when they clearly aren't, would be a good example of that.

Bill Bavasi did this a few times. Remember the Ben Broussard and Eduardo Perez trades? And the Eric Bedard move? The ability to accurately judge the quality of your club is a huge asset to any GM. Hopefully Jack doesn't lose sight of this. If he can make a value move to improve the club a bit now, without giving up players who will help in 2012 and 2013, great. But picking up a good upgrade at 3B isn't going to be that easy. And picking up relievers via midseason trade almost always means overpaying.

As far as LF, I like Peguero. With Peguero, Saunders, and Wilson on the club, I'd just let them play and hope one of them sticks.

I think this whole thing will sort itself out soon enough. The M's are getting a great run from their starters, but lets keep things in perspective. They just swept one of the worst teams in baseball. The Rangers are a MUCH better club, and can expect to get a lot better when the core of their team comes back of the DL. And the Angels are a much better club than the M's right now, too. One month from now, I bet that the M's will be 5-6 games back, and this won't be as much of an issue.

8. By: baseballman on 05-23-2011 10:05:28
Like Edman said, think Jack will look at all offers that will make us better.

A correlation could probably be made between the 2010 Seahawks and the 2011 Mariners. Both teams are/were rebuilding and yet the Hawks bought on Lynch in the middle of the season and Polumbus and Balmer right before the season started. They did that to stay competitive throughout the NFL season and look how it turned out? A team with a bunch of holes in a weak division made the playoffs and won a game.

There's this notion that a team that's rebuilding must SELL, SELL, SELL! And it's just not true. I don't think you will ever see Jack make the type of deal Texas made with us last year for a half season of a vet for just this year. In Beltran's case, it would mainly be about finances not so much about the talent we'd give up.

Jack will make moves to make this team better now and in the future. There is nothing wrong with competing while rebuilding.

9. By: AntsInIn on 05-23-2011 10:46:22
First and foremost, if the M's are in it to win it this year, they need to hang on to Bedard. The entire SP corps, along with Ackley, Smoak and Nick Franklin, should be off limits. Everyone else is free game to trade

Oh PLEASE not Cuddyer. The dude has an OPS+ of 94 and his defense is below average. Cuddyer is a below-average OFer who is getting a look simply because offense is low all around.

LOVE the Beltran idea. If the M's want to compete, I think eating money is much easier to do at this stage than sending talent to lower the amount of sunk cost. Maybe Nintendo's new console means more sales and thus more money available to the M's (kidding).

2 additional alternatives I would love to hear some feedback on:

First, Ryan Roberts of Arizona. Roberts is putting up a .277/.396/.487 line so far and can play both OF and 3B. This year is his first year of arbitration, so even with these numbers he is a cheaper fill-in at 3B than Figgins until Rendon (making a massive assumption here, granted) is ready. To get Roberts, the M's would have to start with sending League, considering how AZ's bullpen is a superfund site. Saunders might also have to go along with, as well as a younger SP at the A+ or AA level (not Walker or Paxton though).

Second, Ryan Doumit from Pittsburgh. Line so far: .291/.358/.477. Doumit can also play the OF and can substitute for Olivo when he needs an off-day. Doumit will be an FA, so this will be purely a rental. He's also making around $4 million, so a little bit of a salary increase is in store. The Pirates are playing surprisingly well this year and have a realistic chance at .500, so they aren't just going to give Doumit away. This may sound odd, but I could see Jack Wilson being a centerpiece here. The Pirates have had Brandon Wood and Ronny Cedeno playing SS. Wilson would actually be a bit of an upgrade, and plus he's a well-liked Pittsburgh player and thus might help the Pirates show the fans that they're gonna try to hit .500 this year. Along with Wilson, Mike Carp would also go. Carp is 24 and most likely has no place on the M's with Smoak so firmly in place. The Pirates are currently playing the corpse of Lyle Overbay at 1B, and Carp is at least as good as him, plus cheaper and cost controlled.

If these trades are done and Ackley called up, come July the M's could be trotting out a lineup of:

Ichiro (RF)
Figgins (3B)
Smoak (1B)
Roberts (LF)
Doumit (DH)
Gutierrez (CF)
Olivo (C)
Ackley (2B)
Ryan (SS)

Which is a huge upgrade over the current lineup, and only costs the M's Brandon League, Mike Carp, Jack Wilson and a decent, mid-level arm. This lineup also allows flexibility for Doumit's injury prone-ness by having him DH. Roberts can play 3rd if (or, please God, when) Figgins is traded.

10. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 11:36:58
Yes Jerry, Jack has to consider the present. Opportunities don't always come along. The goal is to get to the playoffs, even if you have to squeak in. You don't think the Seahawks were happy to reach the playoffs, even though they squeaked in?

Let's stop the Bavasi comparisons. Jack isn't Bill. Jack has his own road and so far, has proven that he's done a decent job of not blow-up the franchise.

Things can change from year to year. The ultimate goal is to get into the playoffs. As we've all witnessed over the last 10-15 years, teams who aren't expected to win it all, have peaked at the right time. The Giants were proof of that.

Yes, Jack has to be careful not to trade too much, as does any GM. But the idea that he shouldn't even consider it, is irrational and pessimistic. It is a sure way to get fired, if you go to your boss and tell him you don't want to try, because you're scared of making a bad move.

11. By: Jason A. Churchill on 05-23-2011 12:18:28
Today I am on the side of trading to get better as long as it doesn't mean dealing away Franklin, Walker, Paxton, etc. And if deals include Triunfel, Chavez, etc -- the middling prospects with upside but a lot of risk that they won't develop -- I'd still want more than a rental of am average player.

But there are 2-3 year options out there that could be had, too. Like I said, it's going to take some creativity.

12. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 12:26:11
I have every confidence in Jack and his crew to make the right decisions for this franchise when it comes to the Draft and making trades. The only trade he made that is still questionable is Morrow and that is still to be determined.

He repeatedly makes great decisions and what a difference from Bavasi or Woody Woodward or.. can't even remember...oh, yeah, Gillick.

Anyway, go Jack!!!

13. By: slamcactus on 05-23-2011 12:36:17
No matter what you think this team is the obvious answer is wait a month. In a month we'll have a much clearer idea of the division - Hamilton and Cruz will be back soon, Guti's working his way to full strength, Ackley will be up in the majors, Bedard will or will not have had his arm fall off, and we'll start to have a sense of how Pineda stands up to his 2nd trip through the league.

I'm still more in the camp that says the team has to use its short-term pieces like Bedard, League, etc. to go for guys who can contribute for multiple seasons. I think anything else would be overreacting to a single winning streak. But obviously if the team's still 3 games or less back out of first a month from now, I will happily change my tune.

14. By: rjfrik on 05-23-2011 12:44:53
I'm in the "lets wait and see" camp.

Look at who this team has beat up as of late. The twins (worst team in baseball), Depleted Angels team and the padres (who arguably we match up with better then any other team. A team that can't hit that plays in a pitchers ball park).

After this the Twins series we could be a game off of being a .500 club or a team that actually is over .500 (if we get the sweep, which I think is unlikely). Then we come home and go up against some boys from the East before a central road trip to face teams that are playing much better then they were when we faced them earlier in the year. I think come mid June after our homestand with the Angels and Phillies we should re-asses this idea. But as of now it's way to early.

You have to take into account who we have played and who we are playing in the next month. We only play 4 series against teams with losing records in over the rest of May and all of June while we play 7 series against teams with winning records. Our record against those 4 losing teams is 2-6 (we haven't played the Nationals - but we usually get our butts handed to us by them for some stupid reason). The winning teams we face such as the Yankees, TB, Philly, Atl and Florida are some of the best teams in baseball.

Let's get a better perspective of where we are on July 1st. He we hold serve with the .500 record and the Rangers haven't went on a tear, then I would be open to hang on to pieces and buy (as long as it's not significant prospects).

Should be an interesting month and a week.

15. By: FelixElRey on 05-23-2011 12:58:54
I would be most open to a minor tweak to improve the offense now. Obviously, most teams with serious deadline value guys will want to wait for teams to get desperate. This way, if Bedard gets hurt or Pineda comes down to earth, then we still have time to become sellers without having already traded away young talent.

If things stay the way they are with us within reach, Jack absolutely cannot trade Bedard. That would be disastrous with the fanbase.

16. By: Mackie on 05-23-2011 13:19:14
I agree with FelixElRey, and would add that minor tweaks might not even have to come from outside the organization.

Here's hoping that if Ackley is up with the M's in the next month he can handle major league pitching well-enough to provide an upgrade to the offense from his position. Giving Kennedy some time at 3B could be a positive tweak too if Figgins doesn't start hitting a bit more. If Cust isn't doing much in a few weeks, maybe it's time to cut him loose and give Carp a shot? There are still some things they can do without making trades.

I'd rather see the team continue to examine its inventory of players to see who they have in their system that can be of help... although some internal moves could facilitate trades, like bringing up Ackley might facilitate a trade of Jack Wilson.

I like Anstinin's idea about not trading any of the SPs if the M's are in contention, provided that our SPs can continue to perform reasonably well as a group.

Still too many questions, there still seem to be lots of holes to fill on the ballclub, but if nothing else they are providing us with some entertaining baseball.

17. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 13:37:11
Mackie, I think that Jack could trade Bedard and get some needed pieces and he would do that only if he were confident he could replace him...like he did with JJ PUtz or by having someone in minors ready to step up.

I don't think he would let "fan reaction" influence his approach. And I don't think he has to worry about his job, as some think. The suits know what a great job he is doing inspite of last years downfall.

18. By: slamcactus on 05-23-2011 13:41:27
Despite my "wait and see" preference, I'm also fine with minor tweaks. I'm still a huge (perhaps unreasonably so) fan of Chris Denorfia, who should be available for cheap. I'd also be into exploring a trade for Detroit's Charles Furbush, who doesn't appear to have an immediate future in the Tigers' rotation (behind Andy Oliver on the depth chart for the #6 starter spot, and Jacob Turner isn't far behind - Furbush is a rich man's Luke French with a proven ability to get hitters to swing and miss in the minors - I'd love to grab him if the price were right).

Most importantly, Detroit's one of the few teams for whom Chone Figgins might actually be an upgrade. Inge has been worse on both sides of the ball so far this year. I'd take on most of Figgins' salary to get Furbush in return, and it wouldn't be a particularly tough decision.

19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 05-23-2011 14:01:09
The problem with waiting is you could fall out of contention while you wait, whereas a deal or two now can help the club stay in it. So waiting isn't the obvious answer. That is why clubs are looking at deals now. Texas, the Angels, Reds, Giants, Phillies and Braves, that I know of, have all been active already.

20. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 14:03:40
Many hear tend to worry too much that we'll trade someone important. As Jason said, there are a handful of untouchables. But, if you can make a trade that offers not only help this year, but help over the next season, they why not consider it? To get someone who you would possibly have replaced in the offseason as a FA, why not give up a decent prospect?

Bavasi is gone, stop assuming every trade could be disaster. And, don't fall in live with the Mariner prospects. Because they're our best, doesn't mean they stack up quite that high when compared to all of baseball.

21. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 14:05:07
Jason, any idea who these teams have been going after? Anyone on M's?Starting pitching? Do you think M's could take a Vargas or Bedard and pick up a bat (ter)? If so, who?

22. By: stickball on 05-23-2011 14:09:54
If I'm Detroit I don't make that deal. There's not enough of an improvement of Figgins over Inge.

23. By: PositivePaul on 05-23-2011 14:17:25
Not sure what it would take, but I'd LOVE to take Beltran off of the Mets' hands. I might give up an OF prospect that might have some upside, but I'm not sure the M's have what it takes.

I'm definitely hip with giving Kennedy some long looks at third. Luis Rodrigez would be OK too. Anything so that I don't have to watch Figgins anymore...

I'm still not sold on Cust either. I'm fine with replacing him now -- DH is the easiest spot to fill. I'm not sure why it's been so hard for Jack to fill it.

24. By: short on 05-23-2011 14:21:43
Come mid-June if the Mariners are still kind of hanging around, not in first, but not far out like they are now, and the wild card still looks as improbable as it always is, I think Jack will be sorely tempted to trade Bedard. Assuming Bedard keeps pitching like he has recently, there will be a market for him. And his injury history is such that to keep him until the deadline is a gamble.

And Jack will get the best talent he can, which may or may not help us this season. There may not be an ML-ready player available that can step right in like Smoak did.

What will suck if this happens is if the M's stay close come September when they have to shut down Pineda at his innings limit (whatever that is). That would be demoralizing, but you can't risk Pineda's arm for one playoff run. A staff of Felix, Vargas, Fister plus two chumps from Tacoma is not a staff this team is likely to win a playoff series with. Keep Bedard and you're really talking. Unless he gets broken.

25. By: slamcactus on 05-23-2011 14:48:49
"The problem with waiting is you could fall out of contention while you wait, whereas a deal or two now can help the club stay in it. So waiting isn't the obvious answer. That is why clubs are looking at deals now. Texas, the Angels, Reds, Giants, Phillies and Braves, that I know of, have all been active already."

But the problem with making big deals on the back of a 5-game winning streak against bad teams is you run the risk of acting (and giving up valuable pieces) based on a false estimation of the team's abilities. It's taken a pretty epic run from our starting pitchers to get the team to within 2 games of .500. The team has all sorts of problems, and Texas figures to get a lot better when Hamilton returns next week.

It makes sense to act if you think the Ms are a true talent ~81-win team and the division can be taken with ~85 wins or so. A marginal improvement then would put us in striking distance. Move either of those dials in either direction (either thinking the Ms are currently worse or that it will take something like 87 wins to take the division), and buying starts to make much less sense.

Coming into the year I thought the Ms were about a 76-win team, which assumed a healthy Gutierrez, a bit of a bounceback from Figgins, slightly better production from Cust, non-black hole level performances out of Saunders and Olivo, and the type of year we've come to expect from Ichiro. Instead, all of those players have been under expectations, but Smoak, Kennedy, and the starting rotation have picked up the slack a bit. The result is my expectations are roughly the same as the beginning of the year (I expect a slight regression from Pineda, a bigger one from Fister, and of course Bedard's arm can fall off at any moment, but I think Olivo, Ichiro, and a healthy Gutierrez will help make up for that).

As such, I think we're talking about needing to add a whole heap of value if we're going to get to even the 85-win level. This team doesn't have the resources to go after a Beltran or a Fielder at the deadline, and I'd rather hold on to the moderately valuable pieces like Triunfel than use them to get non impact guys like Cuddyer and Kubel.

26. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 14:57:11
Short, exactly why would Jack be interested in trading one of the keys to the rotation, in Bedard, if he wants to contend this year? Bedard is payroll friendly, and he wouldn't be worried about the future, if the M's can contend now. This wouldn't be about getting more pieces for the future, but living in the moment. Imagine the excitement, if Seattle is a couple of games out, going down the stretch. You don't think that might boost attendance?

27. By: short on 05-23-2011 15:08:42
Edman: because Bedard could stop being able to pitch at any moment. More than any other starter on our roster, the risk with Bedard is worth considering.

When I started thinking about this I was on the side of keeping Bedard for exactly the reason that this team really needs a pennant race. I hope we get one. But I think if the Mariners are not strongly out front in mid-June, and if teams are making solid offers for Bedard, Jack will be tempted to deal him.

Texas just got Cruz and Hamilton back today. The M's have been playing punchless opponents lately. We need the next month of baseball to play out for there to really be an argument about keeping Bedard. Gun to my head right now, I'd deal him for the right package, though. This team has too many holes, little payroll room and not much to trade in order to keep up with the AL West teams that don't have all of those problems.

28. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 15:14:13
If M's pitching is that good maybe they can keep good hitting teams, like Texas (with Cruz and Hamilton) and Yankees and TB, under control

They were effective against Red Sox and that is a powerhouse team. We shall soon see how good they are.

29. By: baseballforever on 05-23-2011 15:57:00
My prediction: Jack Z will trade Bedard while value is high (similar to JJ Putz), and get a similarly high return.

The Yankees need a good starter. They have 3 minor league Catchers in their top 10 prospects, per MLB.com/prospects (Jesus Montero, #1, AAA, 21; Gary Sanchez, #2, A, 18; Austin Romine, #5, AA, 22).

The M's desperately need Catching in their system.

I would trade Bedard for any one of those 3 Catchers, +/- other Yankee prospects.

30. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 16:34:37
So what if Bedard could be unable to pitch at any moment? Felix could tear a rotator cuff. Smoak could break his leg. You simply can't worry about it. Anything can happen, and if you make stupid decisions because of fear, then you deserve to sit at home with the rest of the losers.

Winning has it's risks.

31. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 16:50:42
#29, Montero is a great prospect, but he's not expected to remain at catcher. He's likely a DH or 1B for most of his career. Very similar to Delgado.

32. By: short on 05-23-2011 16:58:32
Edman,
If you don't do a good job of evaluating risk you make the Bedard deal of 2008. In that deal Baltimore's risk (of prospects failing, getting hurt, whatever) was distributed across five bodies. For the M's it was all wrapped up in one arm. Bavasi traded a lot of talent for one pitcher with an injury history which, according to you, he would have been stupid to consider.

You can bet that any offers for Bedard will be made with this risk in mind, because most GMs understand that risk of re-injury diminishes Bedard's value. So there might not be any good ones and we keep him. But if you can get a solid return for Bedard (and the team isn't running away with the West I think you deal him.)

If the Mariners go on a tear and find themselves five games up a month from now, I really think that changes the calculation. Just have to wait and see.

33. By: Jerry on 05-23-2011 17:45:30
I agree that, if the M's are contending come July, it wouldn't be a bad idea make a smart more or two in order to improve.

However, I really don't see that happening.

Again, we are coming off a win streak that is based on 1) playing against bad competition and 2) featured an insane run by the starting staff. Call me an eternal pessimist, but I just don't see that continuing.

I'd love to be wrong, though.

As a side note, if I were Jack, I would still make the same types of moves we had been talking about in the rosterbation thread a while back: dealing vets (especially relievers) for undervalued assets. Slamcactus brought up some interesting ideas. If the M's want to improve their lineup, why not try to pick up someone who will be around for multiple years? Even if it means hurting the bullpen a bit.

But, honestly, I don't see this being an issue in a few weeks. I just don't think this club is good enough to contend. In fact, I think this is exactly what most M's fans expected to see: a young club that is better than last year (how could it not be, really?), but still a year or so away from legit contender status.

34. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 18:01:30
Clubs are not going to give much for Bedard due to his history. And they will for Vargas who has pitched very well for extended periods of time with some periods of poor pitching. He does not have injury history.

If Jack can replace him from inside org., then why not trade him for one of the NY catching prospects? Or a power bat?

Bedard can be a #3 starter, Fister #4, and find a #5 from within.

35. By: baseballman on 05-23-2011 18:31:37
Why do some posters assume Jack has lost his mind and will sell the farm for middling players?

It's not a mistake to buy right now. We did it last year and then more than a month later we sold. We traded for Branyan and then traded Lee.

Being a buyer right now doesn't mean we're trading our best assets and going all-in for this year.

36. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 18:48:34
Again, short, winners take risks, losers sit at home and watch.

Bavasi traded a lot of talent for one pitcher with an injury history which, according to you, he would have been stupid to consider.

The point wasn't that injury factors shouldn't be considered, it was that if you have a chance to make a run at the playoffs, you don't let injury paranoia dictate the moves you make. How long does he have to stay healthy, in that scenario? Extactly one season. He doesn't have to pitch the next three.

You're willing to assume the worse, and ignore the best. Bedard gets injured, so what? He didn't cost us much this year, so anything he adds is golden.

cfiggins, it's a huge if to replace Bedard. There is no pitcher anywhere in the Seattle organization who could replace Bedard.

37. By: sexymarinersfan on 05-23-2011 18:56:53
I think David Pauley would be a wonderful candidate for the #5 spot should we end up trading any of our current starting pitchers.

38. By: Buhner on 05-23-2011 19:04:43
Jason,
Could a Triunfel, Fields and Kasparek kind of package get David Wright. Would you make a deal for him if you could dump Figgins?

39. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 19:05:03
I agree, sexy, Pauley and maybe others for #5 that could replace Bedard or Vargas. Again I think Vargas would draw more interest with his injury history (or lack thereof).

40. By: short on 05-23-2011 19:06:41
Yeah, you can't expect to replace Bedard from within this season. If you trade him it's very likely to hurt any chance to win this year.

If you keep Bedard in hopes of going to the postseason then he gets hurt and you miss the playoffs, you've lost whatever value you could have gotten for him. And that value could help the team for years to come. It's not a trivial risk.

BUT, I agree that if the team looks like a serious contender, you should keep Bedard. A shot at the playoffs is worth the risk, but only if you've got a real shot.

I find it a really interesting conundrum because it's really not at all clear what the team should do.

41. By: Jason A. Churchill on 05-23-2011 19:10:18
Slam,

I never suggested making big deals NOW. But not doing anything significant now isn't automatically the best way to go about it. Especially when other clubs are out there talking deals. At best it drives the price up on players the club might have strong interest in. At worst, you get both priced out because you waited or your team needed that boost to stay a legit contender.

There is no step-by-step guide. Every year is different. They should absolutely NOT wait. But that doesn't mean pull the trigger, either. It all depends.

42. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 19:58:05
But I have heard Jack say that you can sell and build your team for the present at the same time...and he is smart enough to do that

43. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 05-23-2011 20:00:44
What is you sell Vargas and get a substantial bat that increases this teams offense, their greatest weakness? It's a risk but they have to get more offense or they will not contend.

44. By: rjfrik on 05-23-2011 20:35:08
exactly cdiggins. If you can sell off a Bedard or Vargas from a place of strength and replace that value with a bat that could shore up a place of weakness you would have to consider it.

If you could get a legitimate MLB bat for LF or 3B for Bedard or Vargas that would increase your overall team WAR, then why wouldn't you consider doing it?

It doesn't always have to be player A for prospect A or multiple prospects. We could actually make a trade for big league players by trading away a big league player.

45. By: Edman on 05-23-2011 20:36:03
I would suggest that had the Giants traded on of their valuable starters for an offensive upgrade, they might not have won the World Series.

When you have pitching that is that strong (assuming that Seattle's rotation continues this strong) do you really need a significant bat, or just some solid upgrades where there are offensive weaknesses?

I think you Jack can make some deals to get enough of an offensive upgrade, while keeping the rotation in place. They don't need a David Wright, Prince Fielder, or similar kind of bats to do that.

46. By: slamcactus on 05-23-2011 20:36:53
I'm confused, Jason. You don't necessarily think they should make deals now, but waiting is also wrong. Are you talking about looking at deals more minor than the guys you mentioned? Because as I've said, I'm all for that.

Or if you're just talking about working the phones to see what the team might be able to make happen in a few weeks, then obviously I can get behind that as well. But I'm not sure if either of those things is what you meant.

47. By: slamcactus on 05-23-2011 20:37:56
"cfiggins, it's a huge if to replace Bedard. There is no pitcher anywhere in the Seattle organization who could replace Bedard."

It's a huge if to keep Bedard, too. Or have you forgotten the last 3 years? You can't rely on Bedard to throw a complete season. You can't even rely on him to throw 100 innings.

48. By: StandinPat on 05-23-2011 21:01:03
"So what if Bedard could be unable to pitch at any moment? Felix could tear a rotator cuff. Smoak could break his leg. You simply can't worry about it"

This is absolutely asinine. How on earth is a routinely injured Bedard having a routine injury anywhere close to the same as Felix or Smoak having a freak injury?

I honestly don't understand why you are so oblivious to the fact that Bedard is with out a doubt, the most injury prone Mariner currently on the roster. The last time he was healthy and pitching in the majors was 2009, and before that, he was coming of yet another injury.

It's incredible to me that anyone can't see the parallels between Bedard's 2009 and 2011. Both years he was coming off injury, both years he started off well and built up some potential trade value, both years the Ms were only a handful of games back and this whole should they, shouldn't argument came up. And how did that turn out again? Oh yes Bedard inevitably got injured and the Ms got bubkiss. To automatically rule out the idea of trying to get value for Bedard is just plain crazy. What if Bedard nets you a prospect or two, which in turn are flipped for a solid LF bat? That doesn't improve your team? It doesn't give you just a good of chance, possibly even better of making the playoffs?

"I would suggest that had the Giants traded on of their valuable starters for an offensive upgrade, they might not have won the World Series."

I would also suggest that the acquisition of Cody Ross far outweighed any contribution their 5th starter gave them.

Honestly it's pretty simple, Bedard is a huge risk to get hurt and miss time, or simply suffer from the fatigue of not having pitched in a year and a half. This whole Bedard v Pauley argument is pretty silly when you consider that the odds ARE that Pauley(Or another SP) will wind up throwing a good number of innings whether you keep Bedard or not.

"Again, short, winners take risks, losers sit at home and watch."

That's right Ed, the sit at home and watch the perpetually injured man, get injured again, knowing they could have "taken a risk" and tried to flip him for another piece that addresses a more glaring weakness in their team.

49. By: rjfrik on 05-23-2011 21:05:05
Exactly slam.

Edman this is the reason you MAKE that trade. If a team gives you a MLB bat that would improve our team for Bedard right now you would take it. As long as it improves the team you should take it. Who cares if its a position player or a pitcher.

If let's say the Red's offer Chris Heisley for Erik Bedard right now you should take it immediately. Heisley is a back up OF who would immediately be one of our better position players (top 3). Yes you lose your #3 pitcher for the remainder of the year but you acquire a guy who would be one of your top players for the next 4 years.

That is the type of trade I could see happening. That's the type of value we (the ones proposing a Bedard trade) are talking about. Unfortunately the Reds don't need pitching. But you get the idea

50. By: gwangung on 05-23-2011 22:11:08
"That's right Ed, the sit at home and watch the perpetually injured man, get injured again, knowing they could have "taken a risk" and tried to flip him for another piece that addresses a more glaring weakness in their team."

With who? They know Bedard is just as injury prone as you do. They're not going to offer a solid major league player, and probably not a solid prospect either.

If they do, fine; take the deal. And you can ASK for one all you want. But you won't get anywhere expecting it.

51. By: StandinPat on 05-24-2011 01:44:53
"With who?"

I'm guessing you meant "with whom?" as who would be their trading partner. Could be anyone, could be no one, but neither you or I know that in either direction so ruling out the possibility of trading Bedard AND still being able to compete this year is absurd. Teams get desperate every single year and over pay. Will they do it for Bedard? Possibly. Assuming that it couldn't happen as of late May is ridiculous. Wilson Ramos, who was suppose to be one of the Twins main chips to acquire Cliff Lee was moved for Matt Capps straight up. Yeah, I guess no team ever over pays at the trade deadline huh?

52. By: StandinPat on 05-24-2011 01:51:04
FWIW, Churchill's comment in the chat on what the Ms could possibly get for Bedard at the dealine

"maybe a B level prospect or a useful big leaguer."

53. By: rjfrik on 05-24-2011 11:53:21
Teams in the race at the deadline usually overpay, just the nature of the business.

Also those two Rangers stars that have been on the DL for over a month came back last night and both hit bombs. This is the primary reason I am skeptical about selling off pieces to compete. When Texas has their full lineup we just don't have the fire power to compete, even if we acquire a piece or two.

54. By: Edman on 05-24-2011 12:07:25
For some of you, take a step back. You approach the whole Bedard thing with the approach that he must be traded. No, he doesn't have to be traded. It's more valuable to the Mariners to potentially reach the playoffs, than to worry about getting a B level prospect or two, or a servicable major leaguer. Seattle is not going to get someone who is going to come in provide immediate impact to the offense. Contending teams need those kind of players during their own run. Is it possible that a contender would get desparate enough to think they need Bedard? Sure. But, Seattle is not going to worry about his injury potential, if he's still making a strong showing in July. They are not paid to be pessimists. The nature of the business is to evaluate opportunity, and take reasonably thought out risks.

Don't try to marry your personal views, with what Jack might do. That's a loser's bet. None of us here is smart enough to be a GM. Paraphrasing Mike Hargrove...."Baseball is a unique sport. It's like having a BBQ with everyone telling you the right way to cook the meat."

55. By: StandinPat on 05-24-2011 15:06:04
"For some of you, take a step back. You approach the whole Bedard thing with the approach that he must be traded"

How exactly are you speaking of Ed? Maybe you need to take a step back, and quit inserting your own hyperbole into the comments of others. The only thing I've seen are people saying that they feel the Ms "should" or that they "would" if they were in charge. No one has said "must" as if you simply trade him for anything no matter what.

"It's more valuable to the Mariners to potentially reach the playoffs"

By your own admission, the Ms are very unlikely to catch the Rangers, esp now that Cruz and Hamilton have both been activated, but Bedard should be kept around for a playoff push? These seem to be two contradictory trains of thought.

"Seattle is not going to get someone who is going to come in provide immediate impact to the offense"

So now you can predict what the trade market will bare out two months in advance? You do realize their are currently only two Ms, Smoak and Kennedy, who are league average or better at the plate right?

"The nature of the business is to evaluate opportunity, and take reasonably thought out risks."

Counting on Bedard to pitch for the entire season is anything but a "reasonably thought out risk"

56. By: baseballman on 05-24-2011 15:31:19
Hey Pat, what does "How exactly are you speaking of Ed?" mean?

In post 51 you ever so condescendingly corrected a poster for using the word "who" instead of "whom." Maybe you should focus more on your own grammatical shortcomings instead of others?

57. By: short on 05-24-2011 15:38:23
Exactly, StandinPat. I'm not pushing for Bedard to go. I don't think Jack is or should be making a lot of calls to make a deal for him...yet.

But I'm seriously concerned that Texas is going to begin to pull away again, and that a month from now it's likely to be clear the M's are only nominally in a race for the pennant. That's when it makes sense to see if Bedard can be turned into something valuable beyond this season.

But I share Edman's concern that this is effectively throwing in the towel, given the lack of a replacement and the fact that Pineda can't go deep into September. It is kind of "losery." It all depends on the return. For me it would have to be a player that has a good chance of filling a position of need in the near future. The Capps for Ramos trade is an example, as mentioned above. (Man, don't you know Minnesota wishes they had Ramos right now!) And Bedard should be worth more than Capps if he keeps pitching like he has.

58. By: Edman on 05-24-2011 15:41:50
For Christ's sake, Pat, stop being so literal. You know what I meant by must, you're just spinning it. Must relates to "their" opinions. That, in their opinion, there is no other option. That the M's should sit on pins and needles, and act now, before Bedard is broken.

Everything here is an opinion, Pat, do I really need to state it as such?

There is a difference between "unlikely" and "impossible". Does it mean that they should give up, because it's unlikely? Hell no, they shouldn't. But it does mean that they shouldn't go all-in, hoping to win.

Again Pat, I doubt that Seattle is going to get any significant piece back in trade for Bedard. Again, opinion. Do I need to clarify it for you to keep you from overracting?

And yes, counting on Bedard pitching for the entire season, is a marginal risk, but not nearly as overstated as some here think. It doesn't mean that it isn't well thought out. He had a pretty serious injury that required a long recovery time. To conclude from that, that he's an injury risk, is just assuming the worse. At one time, Tommy John surgery was the kiss of death for most pitchers. I'm willing to give Bedard's surgery a chance to prove it's value, before making a foolish leap.

59. By: short on 05-24-2011 16:04:57
But thinking nobody will offer anything for Bedard is inconsistent with the notion that he's not a serious injury risk. To think so is to assume GM's around the league are really bad at estimating injury risk. And it only takes one GM to be willing to gamble on Bedard for us to get a good deal for him.

I think most GM's are like you, actually: willing to gamble something to make it to the postseason. I think Jack will get some good offers. If the M's are looking like champs, he shouldn't accept them. If Jack thinks the M's chances at the postseason are bad, he should.

I think trading Bedard will be hard to sell to fans and to the players if the M's look like they have a legit shot. Unless we get back a player that can play right now, this would clearly be throwing in the towel. If the M's can keep up with Texas until mid-July I bet we don't trade him.

60. By: rjfrik on 05-24-2011 16:10:57
Edman,

you are making absolutes on your opinion. You have no possible way to verify this as a fact.

"Seattle is not going to get someone who is going to come in provide immediate impact to the offense."

I beg to differ with your opinion, not your fact, because that statement is not a fact. I think Bedard could indeed bring in an offensive player that on the M's would be a starter and immediately be one of the better offensive players on the team. You talk in previous posts about Jack's ability to go get talent. Well I would think you would lean on that thought when it comes to the Bedard trade. If Bedard is traded it's not going to be for garbage or a middling prospect. It's going to be for someone who will help the team now and in the future.

And you state that it's more important for the M's to make the playoffs then get a serviceable major leaguer.

Why can't that serviceable major leaguer take over a position of weakness (lets say Left Field) and help the current club make the playoffs because of his bat. Could you imagine how much the offense will improve if we replace the .200 average .550 OPS guys we have there now with someone that can hit .275 and has an OPS of .800? It would win easily 3-4 more games on the season. We can do both. That's the point I'm making.

61. By: Edman on 05-24-2011 17:25:16
rjfrik, because I think you can get someone close to that kind of hitter, without it being Bedard, using some of the names Jason has mentioned.

And no, I can't imagine it, because I think it will be very difficult to replace Bedard's perfomances with the likes of Luke French and David Pauley. Some seem to think that's an easy thing to replace.

So if it's your premise that contenders are likely to have an interest, how many have the kind of player you seem to think is available, that wouldn't want them for their own playoff run?

The likey sellers are going to be teams out of the playoff contention. Teams that aren't looking for immediate return. Contenders will likely want to trade pieces from their farm system.

Teams that can bring offensive help, don't likely want a Bedard, because they are looking to rebuild. And, as Jason has stated, Seattle has to act now, and not at the trading deadline to make a move.

IMHO, some are fixated on Bedard being traded.....then they worry about other options. I think you can keep Bedard, trade some good B prospects, and compete.

And, Seattle cannot be concerned with what Texas is doing. They can't worry about Texas winning or losing, they have to focus on what makes sense for them to keep in the race. It could mean a large boost in revenue, come August and September.

62. By: short on 05-24-2011 17:57:02
Edman, it's like you weren't here for the Lee trade. Who wanted Lee? Contenders. What were they offering? Near-ML-ready talent (Montero, Ramos, Smoak). This scenario will be similar with Bedard, but I would be surprised to see the top-level talent being offered.

Unless there's a bidding war, in which case that may be exactly what Jack is offered.

If the M's are trailing Texas by five games in second place in late July, but are above .500 would you take Montero for Bedard? To me this is a "yes" because Texas is likely to maintain that lead, Bedard is in injury risk, and Montero is a very good hitter.

63. By: Edman on 05-24-2011 19:02:01
As happens with most threads here, it all gets focused on the trading deadline, instead of the subject matter.

The point was to look at possible upgrades to be see if the M's can stay with the pack until the trading deadline. Yet, it has been turned into something further reaching.

I find it funny that people are concerned about Bedard's injury factors, but not mentioning that Hamilton and Cruz don't exactly have a penchant for staying healthy. It could also be that one or both are injured again, come August, then what does Seattle do?

Worry about the deadline, when we get there. But if you can make some improvements in the offense by adding someone like Ryan Ludwick without having to give up much, it's worth the risk.

IMHO, Bedard for Montero is a huge fantasy. The difference between Lee and Bedard is very significant. Lee is an established ace, and has been. Bedard is trying to prove he can be. Set those sights much lower.

64. By: jellison on 05-24-2011 20:38:30
Regarding comment #7, a Wilson Betemit trade and sign could be the type of July move that is low key and addresses a longer term need for the Ms, assuming that Kansas City is ready to part with him. I would be interested in any thoughts anyone has on how much of an improvement Betemit would be over Figgins and Rodriguez.

Carlos Beltran, once traded, should have about $13M owed to him for the remainder 2011. Jack Wilson will be owed $3.1M for the remainder of 2011. Wilson could make sense for the Mets, assuming they will trade Reyes. Could the Mariners take on $10M in salary, and what more would the Mets want in return?

I don't see how Figgins is tradable at this point. He's still owed $24M over the next 2.5 years. Figgins could still be useful for the occasional start, as a pinch runner, and defensive late inning substitution (I don't see any platoon possibilities for Figgins, he appears to be equally bad from both sides of the plate). Are there any examples of switch hitters that had to bat solely from one side to recover from a batting slump? Perhaps Figgins should be platooned, if only to simplify his approach at the plate.

An infield of Betemit, Ryan, Ackley, Rodriguez, Kennedy, and Smoak would be fairly flexible. Is this an infield that the Ms could win with in 2012?

65. By: rjfrik on 05-24-2011 21:21:19
Edman,

I see your points. I wouldn't trade Bedard (right now) for anything unless I was blown away. My whole stance has been it's too early to buy or sell as of today. My stance was to wait a month until the end of June beginning of July and see where we are. At that point make the decision to buy or sell. That's when I would field offers on Bedard. As of today though. I would stand pat. Let the team figure out who they are and let players establish some more value (especially Bedard). If continues to pitch like an ace until the deadline there might be some very anxious clubs that seriously overpay for his services (Yankees being one of them). You just never know.

66. By: slamcactus on 05-25-2011 12:02:05
Jesus Montero's value is lower now than it was last summer. Not to a huge degree, but if prospect lists were re-ordered today, Montero would be out of most peoples' top-10.

I don't think the Yankees would give him up for Bedard, but I don't think I'd want him, either. People like him, but his skillset screams bust to me.

67. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 12:55:33
rjfrik, the words "establish some more value" bother me, to be honest. It indicates to me that you feel the M's should be a breeding ground for other teams. They aren't numbers on an accounting ledger, they're baseball players.

I'd rather they work hard at becoming a team, and worry less about what potential bounty they can bring. That will sort itself out when the time comes. It's all thinking way to far ahead.

68. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 13:08:29
Edman,

I'm thinking just as far ahead as you are with Bedard. You want him for a playoff run and possible resigning. How is that not thinking far ahead?

Jesus man. You constantly contradict yourself.

My statement in no way indicates I want the M's to be a breeding ground for other teams. There are a handful (3-4) guys on this team that I would move if the right deal came along. I have stated who these players are and one of them is Bedard. You can find my reasoning for this up in the threads. I have no need to explain it again.

I find it extremely obtuse that you cannot fathom this reasoning. Are you so stubborn that it's your way or the highway with all thought? Can you not understand where other points of view are coming from? And how they CAN help the current and future Mariners out?

It baffles me man. It truly baffles me.

69. By: Edman on 05-25-2011 14:13:41
rjfrik, where did I indicate that I think my way is the only way? I get your point of view, and I don't agree with it, in regard to being more concerned about a player establishing trade value. I'm more interested in them trying to continue to win games.

Any player is available at the right price. Who doesn't get that? That's the business of baseball. I'm open to the possibility of trading Bedard, if the conditions are right. Some here have approached it as nearly a given that he be traded. The reasons vary.

I am not thinking ahead, because I don't know if they can, or can't be a serious playoff contender. But I'm not interested as to what this or that player can fetch at the trading deadline. It's too far away to worry about. At this point, it's about winning games, not about worrying what a player's trade value is. The priority now, is winning. Let the cards fall where they may. I'm not going to get upset if they trade someone or keep them, as long as they don't give up now.

I don't give a crap if they keep Bedard or not. But, I wouldn't want them to deal him, simply because he has trade value or share the same paranoia over injury that some here do. That isn't thinking ahead, it's being practical. Bedard is more valuable to the M's, if he is a part of helping to keep the M's winning. That is more valuable than a prospect on a team that has such a poor winning record over the last four years.

70. By: rjfrik on 05-25-2011 16:50:00
Ok. Well it looks like we are on the same page then. I guess I lack in communication is all it was.

We both would trade Bedard for the right package, but in no way want to trade him just to trade him.

Looks like we just had different ways of expressing that statement.

71. By: slamcactus on 05-25-2011 21:07:12
"That is more valuable than a prospect on a team that has such a poor winning record over the last four years."

You realize that every single baseball player in the history of ever was once a prospect, right? Productive baseball players aren't delivered by a stork. They develop. And the most valuable contributor to a major league team is a guy that team has through his entire period of club control.

Obviously we don't deal Bedard for an organizational filler. Nobody's saying use him to go out and get Fabian Williamson back. But the right move may very well be centered around a mere prospect.

Question (I honestly don't remember your reaction, if you registered any). Were you against the Putz trade at the time?

72. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 00:43:14
"Question (I honestly don't remember your reaction, if you registered any). Were you against the Putz trade at the time?"

Of course he was. Edman is always against trading players until it happens, at which point it was a great move.

73. By: dewey on 05-26-2011 01:04:24
We got our best pitching going against the eveil empire this weekend if we get 2 of 3 i might take a small sip of the kool aid but a very small sip.We our killing the bad teams and i hope we kill the good teams im from Mosouri the show me state..lol

74. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 12:09:44
dawg, how about you take your personal attacks and think them, instead of type them.

No, I wasn't against the Putz trade, because I realized how depleted the farm system was at the time. There was virtually no help in the minors. I did have concerns about trying to replace a closer like JJ. Not many of us knew much about the minor portions of the deal. Carp was actually thought by many to be a more important piece of the puzzle than Vargas.

Some were arguing that Guti's defense alone, was all that was important. I disagreed, and still do. He has to put up at least league average numbers offensively to be valuable. If he was hitting like the current Michael Saunders, how long do you think he was stick in CF?

All that said, there is a major difference between then, and now. At the time the M's were falling with little to keep them from falling further. That trade was important to the current success of the team in this winning streak. In hindsight, Vargas alone from that trade, would have been enough in return.

You sight the second best trade Seattle ever made (Moyer for Bragg, being the best). That's not really a good argument.

And please, not the "every single baseball player was a prospect" argument. That's like saying every US born NBA player played basketball in high school. So what? The greater number of MLB players who failed to become even league average players were prospect too. And that is more an argument that prospects fail, more than they succeed. It doesn't make your case.

If Seattle believes that there's even a slim chance to win the division, you can bet cash money on the fact that they will not trade Bedard "mere prospect". The will not sacrifice a chance at the post-season, for someone who won't help now. The right move is based on opinion. As a franchise, the Mariners play every season for one reason, and one reason only, to get to the playoffs, if they have the opportunity. That, is a fact.

75. By: dawgncarolina on 05-26-2011 12:15:56
"dawg, how about you take your personal attacks and think them, instead of type them."

They're not personal attacks. They are facts based on years of observation. I'm not sure if you are in denial about your patterns or oblivious to them, but they're readily apparent to anyone who's read your posts over the years.

76. By: StandinPat on 05-26-2011 12:22:06
#56 I wasn't trying to being condescending, just the whole who/whom thing is a bit of a pet peeve as it seems very few use it correctly these days. And yeah, I got typing too fast and transposed my W and H. I know you were trying to make a point, but I really hope you could have figured out "How" was suppose to be "Who."

#58 Holy Geez Ed, where to begin.

"For Christ's sake, Pat, stop being so literal. You know what I meant by must"

1) Are you actually bitching about me responding to what you actually said, and not my own version of it? People usually say "that's not what I said, quit putting words in my mouth" not "that's exactly what I said, why are you taking it at face value"

2) You're right, I do know what you meant by must, and that wasn't what anyone was saying, hence my reply. Which brings me to...

"you're just spinning it"

I think you're confused. When I respond to exactly what you said, that's taking it at face value. When you take respond to something someone has said by switching one or two words and thusly changing the actually meaning of the poster's original comment, that is spinning it.

"That, in their opinion, there is no other option"

No one said that, just that they felt it was the best option. The above reflects your "spin" on their opinion.

"Everything here is an opinion, Pat, do I really need to state it as such?"

As rjfrik stated, then maybe quit expressing your opinion as fact. In the comment I responded to quit started your little rant, you stated "Seattle is not going to get someone who is going to come in provide immediate impact to the offense." That sounds less like someone expressing an opinion and more like someone telling everyone else how it is. Couple that with the fact that it's a baseless statement and that you have nothing to back that notion up, yeah maybe you should throw in a little "I'm my opinion" or "I think/feel that" instead of making statements as absolutes when you have no actual evidence of them even being remotely true.

"There is a difference between "unlikely" and "impossible". Does it mean that they should give up, because it's unlikely? Hell no, they shouldn't. But it does mean that they shouldn't go all-in, hoping to win."

And you lost me. Which side are you arguing now? They shouldn't give up, they shouldn't go all in, they shouldn't consider trading Bedard because it helps them win a couple more games this year, but they aren't likely to catch Texas. This kind of sounds like arguing for the sake of arguing. If someone states an opinion in one direction, you disagree, if someone else states it in the other, you disagree.

"Again, opinion. Do I need to clarify it for you to keep you from overracting?"

So basically if I respond to your opinion then I'm "overracting" but if you poo poo almost every other poster's opinion on this site you are simply well within your means? Seems more than a bit hypocritical. If you are going to disagree with everyone under the sun and tell them how wrong they are, I don't see how you can be so indignant when it happens to you.

"And yes, counting on Bedard pitching for the entire season, is a marginal risk, but not nearly as overstated as some here think."

This one is a doozy. In Bedard's 7 previous seasons, he's had 2 that could be considered "entire," with none of them ever coming in an M's uniform. That's more than a "marginal" risk.

"He had a pretty serious injury that required a long recovery time. To conclude from that, that he's an injury risk, is just assuming the worse."

First of all, he didn't have "an" injury, he's had injuries. Either you've blocked out the history of Erik Bedard from your memory, or you're simply ignoring it to try and make your point. For clarification, he had 3 major surgeries since he pitched last and has had only one season as a professional when he didn't make a trip to the DL. That's an injury risk Ed, it's not "assuming" anything.

"At one time, Tommy John surgery was the kiss of death for most pitchers. I'm willing to give Bedard's surgery a chance to prove it's value, before making a foolish leap."

You're right Ed, Tommy John surgery isn't the "kiss of death" it once was. But Erik didn't have Tommy John Surgery, he had shoulder surgery, and shoulder injury's are still scary as shit.

"I don't give a crap if they keep Bedard or not"

Again, this is the kind of contradictory crap that drives me crazy. You flat out stated you think the M's should keep and then resign him, and the second anyone mentioned trading him you've been against it, and yes argued with their "opinion." But yet you don't give a crap either way? There is a couple of pages worth of posts that would seem to be on the contrary.

77. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 12:59:31
Pat, parse away if you wish. If you don't realize that you can not care if they trade Bedard, while at the same time support resigning him, if he proves that he's healthy, that's not my problem.

One is not exclusive of the other.

I do have a problem with those who have stated that Seattle should trade Bedard, based only on his injury risk, and not looking at his value if it keeps Seattle in the pennant race. Some are willing to accept B-level prospects. Yes, he's a greater injury risk, there is no denying that. If he gets through the season and makes the pennant race interesting come August and September, I'm good with keeping him.

Beyond that, I won't comment. You're entitled to your opinions.

78. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 13:01:22
And dawg, fact or not, don't speak for me, okay?

79. By: slamcactus on 05-26-2011 14:12:23
"And please, not the "every single baseball player was a prospect" argument. That's like saying every US born NBA player played basketball in high school. So what? The greater number of MLB players who failed to become even league average players were prospect too. And that is more an argument that prospects fail, more than they succeed. It doesn't make your case."

Yes, prospects have a reasonably high failure rate. So do pitchers coming off multiple shoulder surgeries. So do guys on the wrong side of 30.

The flip-side to "a lot of prospects fail" is that a prospect who pans out is the most valuable property in baseball. You get 6 years of club control, 3 of which are at the league minimum, and 3 of which are at substantial discounts. It's much, much better to try and build around prospects than injury-prone pitchers and non-elite hitters in their mid-30s.

Obviously we don't want to deal Bedard right now. And if we're still within 2-3 games a month from now, we should probably hold off then, too. But if we're 5-6 back with 2 teams in front of us, it's an absolute no-brainer.

80. By: Edman on 05-26-2011 16:17:19
slam, I'm in absolute agreement. You and I don't differ on that opinion. However, earlier in the thread, so were insisting that Bedard be traded, regardless, and that's not even practical.

Getting a chance at the playoffs, is a higher priority that getting prospects, if the conditions are right.

You are not currently logged in. If you'd like to comment on this report, please log in.
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!