Prospect Insider - Mariners Contending in 2009?

Mariners Contending in 2009?

By Jason A. Churchill

By 12-04-2008

What's all this talk about the Seattle Mariners contending in 2009? Yep, that's right, baseball analysts everywhere are suggesting it's more than just possible, and yours truly woke up last Friday and responded the same way during a Q & A.

Joe Sheehan at Baseball Prospectus, writing for SI.com, penned a piece today about this very subject and it's really not as out of the question and some of us may believe.

First of all, if you play the what-if game, things look much better from the Mariners' perspective.

What if Felix Hernandez continues to mature and develop, turning himself into exactly what he should be?

What if Erik Bedard pitches like the free-agent-to-be he is and hands the M's a season that resembles his 2007 output?

What if Ryan Rowland-Smith and Brandon Morrow prove to be significant upgrades to what the club sent out there in the fourth and fifth slot in the rotation in 2008?

What if Carlos Silva at least finds a place between his 2007 and 2008 performances?

What if J.J. Putz and Adrian Beltre are both retained and healthy?

What if Mark Lowe, another year removed from rare and tricky elbow surgery, proves to be a solid 7th-inning option, or better?

What if Jose Lopez comes to spring training in better shape, aiding him at least somewhat defensively, and builds on his well above-average (for AL 2B) offensive season of a year ago?

What if Raul Ibanez gives the M's a going away present and whips Yuniesky Betancourt into the best shape of his life and he comes in with 2006 defense, if not better offensive production, too?

What if Kenji Johjima shows up to play this year, even if it's somewhere under his 2006 and 2007 offensive seasons?

What if one or two of the younger players (Clement, Balentien, Saunders, Valbuena, Johnson, Reed, Tuiasosopo) prove to be valuable in 2009?

Now, that's a lot of ifs, but not one of them is far-fetched, and most of them are good bets, particularly the first half-dozen.

And we haven't talked about additions the club could make from here on out, or the fact that the Los Angeles Angels could very well fall back to the pack if they are not able to retain Mark Teixeira or effectively replace his production in the lineup.

The 2009 American League West might be up for grabs, with perhaps an upstart Oakland club and a surprising Mariners team ready to take advantage.

But what moves would be necessary in order to truly give the M's a shot to contend for six months in the American League next year?

Certainly not trading Juan Ramirez for Willie Harris or dealing for Eric Byrnes, retaining Miguel Batista and Jarrod Washburn and not adding more than one significant upgrade offensively, like Sheehan suggests, or giving Adam Dunn more money than he's worth, something else Sheehan suggests.

Sheehan isn't necessarily suggesting that the Mariners do any of this, just that if they wanted to try and contend in 2009, that's the way he'd do it.

And while none of those moves are prohibitive to the rebuilding of the Mariners, which is imperative, they also don't hand the club and Gm Jack Zduriencik very much performance certainty.

If you aren't at least somewhat confident that the rest of the roster can support the move, why give Dunn, or Burrell for that matter, 10-15 million a year for at least three years?

Adding Byrnes' contract is ridiculous, unless it's a swap of bad deals (Silva), and instead of conceding that Ichiro shouldn't play center field for the dumbest reason's of all time (he hits better and feels more comfortable in right?) play him where he helps the team most and plant a bat in right field instead of Willie Harris and Ichiro anchoring the absolute worst offensive outfield in history of would-be contenders.

Dunn and Burrell shouldn't interest any team that wants to win unless they are DH'ing them. If Ichiro is in right, can you imagine Dunn or Burrell in left? Didn't we just get done with one of the biggest defensive liabilities out there in Ibanez?

Okay, so you're probably wondering what I would do if everyone else is wrong about the way to build a contender for 2009 in Seattle.

First off, I don't think Sheehan is wrong, necessarily, his process is correct, I think. I just disagree that the team he puts together can actually contend.

I'd much prefer Dave Cameron's strategy where the club is more aggressive on the trade market.

And more than being aggressive, I certainly believe Zduriencik needs to be creative.

But that also brings up another question. Should the club even be trying to contend in 2009?

I say yes, but there are stipulations.

Stop-gaps have to be paid that way, for one, and no contract should be offered that has a good chance to be in the way of contention AFTER 2009.

Giving Dunn or Burrell three or more years at 10-15 million per year is just that kind of deal, since neither is likely to age well, and both should be a DH, which blocks the exact spot that makes the most sense for Jeff Clement should he continue to struggle defensively behind the plate.

First base is possible, just not very likely.

The club is better off, in my opinion, targeting left-handed power hitting, above-average defenders across the board, and figuring out what they have in some of the ready to near-ready prospects with an eye on 2010.

This way, the club contends if things go their way, i.e., some of the what ifs above, instead of blocking playing time for some of the younger players by giving their time to stop-gaps.

mariners-contending-in-2009

Comments
The following 23 comment(s) for this article are shown below:

1. By: rocketdawg31 on 12-05-2008 09:42:19
No way in SIN do I want Adam Dunn anywhere within ten feet of this team. The man has chemistry issues, defense issues and we don't need any more of either. I admire the man's raw power, but this is exactly the type of ballplayer that is completely out of the game by the age of 33-34. And some schmuck is going to go ahead and give him $12-million-plus a year, on a multi-year deal...let's make sure it's NOT us. The Mariners, more than ANY other organization, should know better about how those kind of deals work out.

I also am not willing to part with a Juan Ramirez for a Willie Harris-type. Not a big enough return for a guy with Ramirez' ceiling.

2. By: Snave on 12-05-2008 09:42:29
Well, according to what MLBTradeRumors says Rosenthal says, Zduriencik apparently isn't viewing the team as being in a rebuild mode. So getting involved in talks for free agents may be more for real than for formality or the sake of appearances.

I also like the Cameron strategy better than what Sheehan suggests. Affeldt is no longer available, but the rest of the players Cameron mentions are still out there. Either plan would add some defense, which is sorely needed. Cameron's plan would seem to add more well-rounded players. Interesting stuff!

I think things will be better for the M's in 2009. They do have a number of ways to get going in the right direction.

3. By: littlelinny6 on 12-05-2008 11:47:24
Jason,
Since I believe beyond our situation at 1B/DH, defense as you mention should be a top priority. Since defense is generally undervalued in baseball today, who can we get via Rule 5 drafts or other AAA/AA players with good gloves, especially a corner outfielder assuming Ichiro is put back in center. Also, what about Michael Saunders starting in LF next year, ahead of Balentien, is that a possibility? It seems he would be a defensive upgrade at the very least. In the short term the only way I see this team competing is getting considerably better on defense and having Bedard healthy for a good 1/2 punch. Couple that will solid seasons offensively from Beltre, Lopez, Clement, and maybe Branyan and maybe they could win some close 3-2 and 4-3 games.

4. By: Jay Yencich on 12-05-2008 12:47:02
I particularly liked number six on that list. Wasn't building a bullpen one of the things the M's were historically good at? Without spending high picks on relievers or overpaying new ones from the outside? I hope that Zduriencik has a good feel for that sort of thing.

5. By: CrustyJuggler on 12-05-2008 12:48:08
JAC, What do you think of BA's top ten for the M's? Halman #1?.. Triunfel #4? Not the way I would have guessed for sure.

6. By: 01v-dubs on 12-05-2008 13:51:57
#5 It's also interesting because BA just did the AFL's top prospects and they ranked Triunfel #5 and left Halman off that list.

JAC In the top ten BA said that Triunfel struggled at 2nd base, but as I understood it he was doing quite well there. I saw him in the AFL, and I'm no scout, but he looked good at 2nd, and SS for that matter.

7. By: CrustyJuggler on 12-05-2008 14:49:12
To do with Sheehan's article, I agree on most points except the Ramirez/Harris trade. I think Balentien is already a huge upgrade defensively for LF. No need wasting a good young arm like Ramirez for a middling guy like Harris. I also think, as he talks about signing Dunn, that it would be a better move to go after Milton Bradley. He would be cheaper than Dunn and is an all around better player. He is an injury risk but I would much rather have Bradley's .300+ average in there over Dunn's .230.

Bradley could be that big bat we need to let us actually compete in 2009.

8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-05-2008 15:31:01
dubs,

Triunfel looked okay at second to me in the AFL, but he only played nine innings there.

At short, where he played two games in front of me, he was just okay. Not bad, but not great, either.

I think with more time he can play second, and I'd rather Triunfel move to left field than play third base.

I think his average or better footspeed is wasted a bit at third, especially when left field at Safeco is so critical defensively.

And his arm, well, it's a 75 or 80 on the scouting scale, and it's getting more accurate every day.

re: Juggler

I think Bradley is good idea, too, but not for 4/48.

9. By: slamcactus on 12-05-2008 16:08:51
With all the third basemen behind him in the system (Triunfel, Martinez, De Jesus), any chance the Ms move Halman to a corner outfield position? Everything I've heard suggests he's below average at third, but he's definitely athletic enough to handle a corner.

10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-05-2008 16:28:00
I'm not sure who ya mean, slam, because Halman, as I'm sure you know, is already an outfielder, not a third baseman.

Tui, ya mean?

11. By: Walrus on 12-05-2008 19:01:56
Jason,
I torn on Halman.
So many reports on how bad his pitch recognition is, and how that is really not getting much better...like in AFL.
Would it make sense to try to "sell high" on Halman now, and get a B prospect at middle infield or pitching? Or use Halman as trade bait to get more for Washburn or Yuni?
Or is it best just to wait another year of development?
I really worry that if Halman does not have a big year this year, his value as a prospect will really drop fast.

12. By: Pumpkin on 12-05-2008 20:29:58
Personally speaking it seems to me that the mariners have been trying to contend the next year, every year since 2002, and so far it doesn't seem to be working very well. We seem to be getting progressively worse. Not that we won't do better next year, it is hard to do worse than what we did. But there is a rather big difference from getting better to being in contention, and winning the WS which is our ultimate goal. What I would like to hear from the front office is screw 2009 and probably 2010 as well. Start building a strong farm system from the bottom up and as those players begin to arrive, we will get progressively better and better, and not for the short term either, we could build a system that could rule the AL west for years.

13. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-06-2008 01:22:18
I think it's best to wait on Halman and see. He's never going to be an 80-walk guy who strikes out fewer than a quarter of his ABs, but to get high value out of him on the field, he has to shed some whiffs and add a few more walks while sustaining his developing power.

And I don't think you EVER punt two years ahead. That's absurd.

14. By: CrustyJuggler on 12-06-2008 01:37:14
Jason,
You spoke of a trade in the works earlier this week. Do you think clearing 4 spots off the 40-man maybe a preclude to that deal? Its obvious they probably are looking to add a Rule 5 player as well but having 4 spots clear seems a bit excessive going into the winter meetings.

15. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-06-2008 01:45:14
Possibly, but they are in the middle of discussing more than one trade, apparently, and one or more of them could come to a head in Vegas.

As for the rule 5, i hear they like two arms and a position player, but haven't concluded whether they are going to take anyone yet.

16. By: CrustyJuggler on 12-06-2008 03:27:16
What do you think of Donnie Veal as a possible Rule 5 guy? You think he can stick as a starter or could he a possible pen option in '09 if the M's pick him up?

17. By: rotoenquire on 12-06-2008 19:44:14
That is allot of what ifs, but not too far fetched. However with some deals maybe comming to a head in the winter meetings. Are any of them the once mentioned in the past. Beltre to the Dodogers, Ichiro to the Cubs, Washburn to the Yankees, Putz to the Mets...I like the ideas of some of these moves if can add our bad with our good and get even a couple guys with upswing i can still see a contender in 09' come from Seattle.

Imagine a staff of Felix, Penny, Lowe, Morrow, R.A.Smith/McDonald/Heilman

1B J. Lopez
2B O. Hudson
SS Betencourt
3B B. Dewitt
OF Balentien
OF Pie
OF Rivera
DH Clement
C M. Ramirez/Zaun

CL K. Wood
RP J. Biemel
RP Oliver/ Weathers

Maybe even offer something to get Sheets.....The payroll would be allot less no baggage and a better all around team. still some ifs and poss. upgrades needed later, but would be a fun team to watch.

18. By: CrustyJuggler on 12-06-2008 19:53:59
Since when has any team had a turn over that big? Thats like 7+ free agents you have there.

19. By: hmbaseball7 on 12-07-2008 00:43:05
This isn't a video game. And you kept our worst position player.

20. By: rotoenquire on 12-07-2008 12:10:21
almost all those guys are cheap, except for Hudson and Lowe, Biemel...all others should come in at a price below normal givin injury risk and economy.

But looks maybe Beltre could be headed to the Twins for Cuddyer for a DH role...then were would Clement go? Is maybe Johjima going someplace soon?

21. By: CrustyJuggler on 12-07-2008 12:48:31
Do not believe that Geoff Baker tripe for one second. If Cuddyer came back on a Beltre deal, it would be as salary relief. Much the way we would like to get rid of Washburn. He would be a throw in to even out Beltre's 12 million dollar salary.

That means we would have to get probably 2 young players back that make little to no money. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be worth for us.

Seriously, why would the Mariners trade the best defensive 3B in baseball that will give us .260/25/100 for a DH type that couldn't even come close to those numbers at the plate? Just nonsensical.

If GMZ trades Beltre for Cuddyer straight up, I will eat my hat and quit watching baseball. (It ain't happenin')

22. By: hmbaseball7 on 12-07-2008 14:54:09
I think Kerry Wood wouldn't come cheap too. Yeah they would have to be pretty desperate to trade Beltre for Cuddyer straight up.

23. By: hmbaseball7 on 12-07-2008 14:54:29
I think Kerry Wood wouldn't come cheap too. Yeah they would have to be pretty desperate to trade Beltre for Cuddyer straight up.

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!