| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 10-06-2011 |
I'll take an in-depth look at any and all potential targets for the Seattle Mariners over the next several weeks. Some won't be legitimate candidates at all, some will be, but they all need to be addressed since we don't know exactly what the M's are thinking, nor do we know the thought process of the other clubs that could be involved. Today, let's talk about David Wright and how he may or may not fit in with the M's and whether or not trading for him is possible and makes sense.David Wright is a well above-average third baseman, showing good lateral range to both sides with a rare ability to track slow rollers on the grass in front of him and to spring back like an outfielder and snare soft liners, shallow fly balls and foul pops. He's probably not quite the defender Evan Longoria, Ryan Zimmerman and Adrian Beltre are, but he's very good without a glaring weakness.
Offensively, Wright has had five superb seasons in 7 1/2 years of big league service. He's posted an OPS+ of more than 130 during those five seasons, including 149 in 2007 and 141 in 2008. The past three seasons, however, Wright, who will be 29 this December, has shown signs of decline.
Subscribers can check out the rest of the file on David Wright by clicking here.
To become a subscriber and gain access to the Wright file, as well as the upcoming features on other potential targets such as Prince Fielder and Joey Votto, click here.
potential-winter-target:-david-wright
Comments
The following 32 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: SMariners11 on 10-06-2011 19:17:38 If that is what it takes, I think I would have to pass honestly. |
| 2. By: Edman on 10-06-2011 20:22:48 Wright as some question marks for me. They're going to want some big time prospects, and possibly someone off the twenty-man roster who is productive. Then, after trading for him (unless it's a pre-condition), you are going to have to sign him to a new long-term contract. If he bounces back, he's going to want at least an Adrian Beltre type contract, I would think. Personally, I'd rather sign Fielder or Pujols, if that's possible, and keep the prospects. When there is a better understanding of the few pieces that you lack, then you can trade a top prospect to fill a hole. Wright makes since for a team that's missing a couple pieces, rather than one that is missing several. How much do you give up for one or two years of service? Seattle needs a couple long-term answers, IMO. |
| 3. By: Adam P. Boyd on 10-06-2011 21:31:15 PASS. Wright's wOBA has gone down every year since 2007 and it is questionable whether he is even an average defender anymore. In 9,723.2 innings at 3B his career UZR is -28.1. Over the last three seasons (3,498.2 innings) he has -31.1 UZR, -10+ each of the last three seasons. Someone else can trade some pieces to take on an expensive, declining player. |
| 4. By: aerichner on 10-06-2011 21:46:02 Agree with all the comments. Wouldnt hate the move but its just not worth the price. What's the price? Subscribe to find out :-) |
| 5. By: valencia on 10-06-2011 22:32:56 His hitting is declining (mostly power fluctuation), his defense is atrocious (-10 UZR/year last 3 years), he's not cheap ($14 million/year) and he'll cost elite prospects. No thanks. Do you think Ryan Zimmerman is a potential option? His contract is up in 2 years like Wright's, and Rendon is in place to replace him. Also rumors indicate if a long-term extension isn't done this off-season he'll be hitting FA. |
| 6. By: tpcman on 10-06-2011 22:45:02 I do not giveup any starting pitching until it puts you over the top. Relievers yes. Franklin, Seeger, Triunfel yes. Even Smoke? Wright does not bring enough power or opposite field hitting to warrant. I think you can patch for one more year. When that "better than Smoltz, Glavine, Avery, and Maddux come on line is the time. Guys below might buy you 2-3 years What about Youklis---like his makeup, .832 OPS Michael Young .854 OPS Mark Reynolds Baltimor Big Question--could we pry Wieters from Baltimor? |
| 7. By: aerichner on 10-06-2011 23:11:10 Big Question--could we pry Wieters from Baltimor? Small answer - Nope |
| 8. By: safecochatter on 10-06-2011 23:27:41 it may sound more like a "moneyball" type of move,but how about prying Alex Gordon from Royals and move him back to 3rd? Baltimor ?? |
| 9. By: marinermutt on 10-07-2011 09:40:30 "Personally, I'd rather sign Fielder or Pujols" In my view, we have zero chance of signing Pujols. No possible way he comes to Seattle. Why would he? Come to a losing team that is still at least 1 year and more likely 2 away from competing. And we won't be able to pay someone like Pujols what his market value is. Based on Baker's article in the Times this morning, I highly doubt we would be able to sign Fielder even if Fielder would want to come to Seattle which I doubt for the same reasons as Pujols. From the sounds of it, ownership hasn't had a cash call since the construction overrun at Safeco. So I don't expect there is much of a chance of any in the near future so that means we are running our team on the operating capital the M's bring in and with lower attendance, that COULD mean a lower payroll. I guess it just depends on what type of cash surplus the team has and if they are willing to spend some of it. |
| 10. By: rjfrik on 10-07-2011 11:00:33 Pass on Wright. I really wish Jack would of got in on the news his old club was looking for a top flight pitcher and would deal Brett Lawrie for the that piece. I would trade Pineda for Lawrie straight up and I'm sure the Brewers would rather have Pineda then Marcum. That's the type of guy we should be looking for, but is that guy out there? Not sure. I don't look around baseball and see a lot of great young 3B blocked at their position. Lawrie Ackley Smoak would of been a hell of a young core to build around. |
| 11. By: rjfrik on 10-07-2011 11:05:55 Jason, If Nippon Ham posts Darvish, would the M's be one of the players at that table? He's a top of the rotation guy. You could say we really don't need pitching, but in my opinion you can never have enough assets. Add him and all of the sudden you can trade a few of your top flight pitching prospects for the right bats. |
| 12. By: Edman on 10-07-2011 11:28:38 I'm no sure why the M's would want in on Darvish. He's going to be very expensive to sign, and they have much cheaper options. They don't have a particular need for pitching. If he was a young Matsui, maybe. As good as you think the young Mariner pitching is, other teams are not going to give up what Seattle needs for relatively unproven young pitchers. Besides, why would the M's want to give up payroll flexability? And, the bats Seattle needs are probably going to be established, which means that you have to add their salary on top of what you pay Darvish. I'd say a less than 10% chance of Seattle getting into a bidding war with a team like the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. |
| 13. By: marinerforever on 10-07-2011 11:38:19 rjfrik dont ever base any of your thoughts on what baker says baker is an idiot. I have a pretty good feeling that there will be budget room to add a moto bat they wouldnt of brought gmz back without him laying out his plans on how to improve his team and by his comments around the trade deadline where he said pitchers are easier to find than moto bats i believe they are going to make a couple big splashes with trade and free agent acqustions |
| 14. By: Edman on 10-07-2011 12:34:53 Agree with marinerforever, Geoff Baker often makes uninformed guesses, based on his personal opinion. Basicially, he's like most of us, except he gets a more public platform. If I want an informed and thought-out opinion, I refer to Shannon Drayer. By far, she is logical and clearly states what is fact and what is speculation on her part. |
| 15. By: Mackie on 10-07-2011 12:37:05 A lot of what they do depends on what payroll flexibility is available for next year, and as to Edman's comment about that, I have to agree. Even then, I think they will bid on Darvish, as they should. This team needs to throw its fans a few bones for next season, and if nothing else, at least visibly pursuing some top-notch players would give the average fan the notion that the Mariners are trying. The process of bidding for Darvish isn't necessarily visible, but for players like Pujols and Fielder I hope the M's will make some offers. I would say that if the Mariners want to move up in the standings, hitting is the obvious area of need. But I would also say they DO have a particular need for starting pitching. Vargas looks average at best, Beavan is still pretty young and finding his way, and the thought of Furbush in next year's rotation is not particularly appealing. I guess the question is, is Yu Darvish really that good? The Mariners' scouting department probably knows the answer there. He might cost a bundle, but they would not have to trade anybody in order to acquire him in the event they posted the winning bid. Put him in the rotation with Felix and Pineda and the Mariners could have a great first three. The young pitchers are indeed relatively unproven, and of course we can't be counting on all of them now to give us a fantastic rotation for years to come... But as we introduce them to the majors, it could be very nice to have a few really good pitchers in the rotation to complement the youth. Thus I hope that while the team acquires some hitting this winter to help the lineup, I hope they can also get a veteran pitcher or two, maybe to help the bullpen as well as the rotation. I don't believe most fans are as patient with the rebuilding process as some of us are, and I hope that while the Mariners build organizational strength, they can take that into account and find ways to make the team more fun for fans to watch as the rebuild continues. |
| 16. By: maqman on 10-07-2011 13:35:31 I'm not in favor of Wright for all the reasons stated above. Also not in love with spending a fortune on Darvish, because with his posting fee and contract he is going to cost many millions and the Yankees, Rangers and Red Sox have them to spend, we don't. We have some good pitching talent coming on board within the next year to supplement what we have to start the season. I wouldn't mind signing Bedard to another contract similar to the one he got last year but not a multi-year guaranteed contract. |
| 17. By: rjfrik on 10-07-2011 14:12:35 Mariner and Ed, I don't read Geoff Baker at all, ever, I live in L.A. and I'm a Mariners fan, so I get my fix off reading Dave and Jason's blogs and occasionally read a couple of the other blogs, but never the Seattle papers. It was just an idea I had personally. We have young pitching assets that could be traded out for a couple of bats. My thought is why not ship those assets out for two good bats and then bring in a young top of the rotation pitching asset where it doesn't cost us players just cash. If we signed Fielder, Darvish and traded Paxton and Pineda for two bats, we would be in pretty good shape in my opinion. It was just an idea. Darvish is the best pitcher to ever come out of Japan. Kid is good. |
| 18. By: JonathanAicardi on 10-07-2011 14:34:33 I can't imagine the M's being a big player for Wright even if he didn't have these problems. He's an example of a player that theoretically fits the team in a vacuum. But unless you're stealing him in the way Cliff Lee was, you can't justify that high a price for what might be only 1 year of a declining player. The best opp the M's have at offense is to develop their own bats and build the winning atmosphere that helps incoming hitters overlook the bane of hitting in Safeco. The only outside options I can really see are those who have the incentive to make the move, i.e. unproven or bounce back candidates looking for full time work. |
| 19. By: dawgncarolina on 10-08-2011 01:25:13 I like the Wright idea, depending on what he would cost. He's definitely one of my top targets for the off season. I would much prefer him to Prince. |
| 20. By: Tommy O on 10-08-2011 21:08:10 JAC your reach and back ground for this piece is top notch. Most impressive is the way you laid it out for us Ms fans to form our own opinion. Nicely done pal. Im not 100% sold but, Wright and Fielder would win the west. Would Saunders, Vargas, Figins and Truifel get er dun?? |
| 21. By: Tommy O on 10-08-2011 21:09:35 Sorry- "reach" should be "take". |
| 22. By: DAMellen on 10-09-2011 03:26:33 I'd like to see the Mariners add a strong thirdbaseman, but I wouldn't give up Michael, Taijuan, Danny, or J-Pax for a rental. Those guys are young, cost-controlled studs and as such, should only be traded for other young, cost-controlled studs. |
| 23. By: Edman on 10-09-2011 10:26:31 Tommy O, I see your kind of post a lot, and I always ask the same thing, why would another team want those four guys? The four you mention are guys that Seattle could live with out, but if Seattle could live without them, why would the Mets want Figgins? To get them to take Figgins and his high salary, along with two years of mediocrity, would mean that they would want much more talent. What about Saunders is special, or could be special. At this point, he's a project. Vargas (probably $5 millon plus) is getting expensive. Add his salary to Figgins' salary, now they're taking on nearly quite a chunk of salary. So, that leads Truifel. Carlos had a good year, but not a great one. Other than to Seattle fans, he's not seen as a great prospect. I see the high number of mediocre prospect proposals all the time. The number of bodies included in a trade, doesn't make it more appealing. Teams want potential everyday players in trade. Not guys who fill a minor league roster. And especially not taking on more salary, unless the players that come with that salary are very good. I'm not trying to slam you. But, I'm trying to get you and others who propose trades to think them out logically. Look at it from the other team's point of view. Why would they want to take on salary? Why would they want the talent that you propose Seattle would send to them? They have no urgent need to trade Wright. If they are trying to dump salary, then they aren't going to want Figgins. If you were trading Wright, wouldn't you want someone like Pineda, Walker, Ackley, Paxton? I sure would. And, any trade proposal would have to include one or more of them. |
| 24. By: ripperlv on 10-09-2011 12:02:49 Nice analysis on Wright. I think you make a case for not getting him, whether that was your intention or not. I look forward to future articles. - Also nice post Edman. |
| 25. By: FelixElRey on 10-09-2011 13:53:47 Obviously not the big splash-type acquisition, but I wonder if Chase Headley is on our radar. His salary is getting up there for the tight-wad Padres, he has played some LF (not sure how successfully). At 27, there's still some development to hope for. Plus, playing in Petco, his numbers won't take a hit from the size of Safeco. Not to mention 80% of our trades are with the Padres! (obviously not true but it seems that way some times) |
| 26. By: valencia on 10-09-2011 21:35:22 Chase Headley is definitely on the radar, but he's not being moved by 2013 mid-season at the earliest unless the package wows Hoyer. The Padres need players like him to stay relevant, then trade them to stay relevant. Hopefully by then we'll know whether our current crop of 3B prospects (Martinez, Catricala, Liddi) are worth anything or not. |
| 27. By: marinerforever on 10-11-2011 23:28:32 Credit to Dave Cameron for idea. The deal that makes too much sense is a cost neutral Figgins for Zito swap. Luis Rodriguez can Figgins better than Figgins can so the M's can tell Figgins to go Figgins himself. Zito fights for a starter spot with Hultzen, Paxton, Beavan, Furbush. He is the reclamation project/Bedard starter guy that people want. He buys time for whoever isnt ready or if the team wants to limit innings. The M's get two years of a back end starter that the team would have otherwise had to paid for. Pretty sure this makes sense for the Giants. If Seager can play all over the diamond, then he and Liddi could do a semi-platoon thing for third base. Seager is the utility infielder that plays everyday. Liddi plays third base when someone gets a day off but Seager is the starting third baseman. That doesn't help Liddi's development but it is a thought. Note: Im not advocating this but I bet this happens if someone gets hurt next year. Jason, please do a Grady Sizemore trade target. Thanks! |
| 28. By: Edman on 10-12-2011 11:48:25 I'm not at all interested in a Barry Zito for Figgins swap. It's a horrible idea, much like Cameron's idea to swap Bradley for Silva. Figgins has much more likelyhood of regaining some of his value, than Zito. While I'd rather have neither, the "you take my problem, I'll take yours" swaps are seldom successful. At least Figgins can be a semi-useful utility infielder. And, it's not beyond reason that he could regain some value. However, what about the last three years of Barry Zito suggests he would nothing more than an expensive Vargas? No thanks. It's another hail Mary with little chance of helping the team at all. We already have that in Figgins. |
| 29. By: Rudolf on 10-12-2011 13:38:05 Didn't Bradley have a better chance of regaining value than Silva? Silva was total junk in Seattle. I think Figgins is T.U.. Semi-useful as a pinch runner, maybe. On top of his seeming inability to play the game of baseball, he's become a bit of a clubhouse cancer. What young player wants to look over in the dugout at the overpaid, dogeyed vet waiting to die? How does that work for building toward the future? Zito might be 90% of Jason Vargas. The question is: would he improve our rotation over Furbush and company? Or if we traded Vargas, would Zito fill his slot? We could probably trade Figgins if we pay most of his salary. For argument's sake, make it 2 million a year we save. Would we sign Zito to a 2 million per/ 2 year contract if given the chance? I want Figgins out. His time here is done as far as I'm concerned. If he rebounds somewhere else, screw him all the more. Thanks for the memories, Chone. |
| 30. By: FelixElRey on 10-12-2011 13:57:42 So Edman, you consider Zito = Vargas if you take money out of the equation? If that's true, then you should love the idea. Vargas helped this team, while Figgins did not. So, if you have to pay a particular price for a particular player, why not pay that money for someone that can help the team? |
| 31. By: aerichner on 10-12-2011 14:11:40 What is it with Edman throwing Cameron under the bus so many times? Damn. How was Bradley for Silva a horrible idea? Seemed like a GREAT idea to get a guy who led the AL in OPS a year or two before the deal. The only problem was sending money back to the Cubs but whatever. It was a risk worth taking. And while I do think Figgins does have a chance to regain value (unlike Silva), I wouldnt mind trying another bad contract for bad contract swap - not necessarily Zito but I wouldnt mind him. Figgins is irrelevant b/c the team will either go with Liddi/Seager until they find their long term answer or they will sign/trade for someone - no need to have Figgins. Trade him for another expensive player that fits a need. He can go sulk somewhere else. If he comes back, and he plays, I want him leading off - crazy, I know. |
| 32. By: tkballer22 on 11-06-2011 11:04:22 Reading in NY Post that Wright could be had for a young, defensive-minded CF and an arm or two. They are talking to the Angels, possibly about Peter Bourjos. I cant believe that we don't have what it takes to get Wright. I say we package Gutierrez along with someone like Taijuan Walker to get the deal done. Then again, Michael Saunders and Walker, to me could get it done. Walker would equal the one-to-two arms and should be better than anything LAAA would offer. Bourjos put up decent MLB numbers. He's faster than Guti and had better MLB numbers than Saunders. However, its worth it to put an offer in and try to get him. Honestly, I think he'd be the best option at 3B for us. It would then free up someone like Liddi or Seager to be moved in a deal for another bat. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |