| By Chris Crawford |  | By 01-21-2010 |
The payroll is starting to become a bit more clear with more information coming out seemingly by the hour (Brandon League, Bill Hall, some starting pitcher named after a cat clock)-- so we've updated it as close to perfection as possible -- and you guys can check that out right here. Since Dustin Ackley is signed to a big league contract, we added his pro rated bonus and guaranteed salary, as well as Milton Bradley's pro-rated bonus.
Edit: We have confirmation from Geoff Baker that Gutierrez will in fact be making $2 million dollars next year, so you can add $3 million in flexibility potential.
NOTE: Bradley's total payroll figure is in doubt as well, since his "signing bonus" shouldn't just naturally be transferred unless that was specifically part of the trade and the money that exchanged hands -- which I do not believe was included. So there is a good chance that Bradley's figure is $9 million, not the $10.33, so keep that in mind, too, when studying the payroll sheet.
Now, onto Ben Sheets. we talked yesterday about how the M's scout liked what he saw in Sheets, who threw for teams Tuesday in Louisiana. Churchill has tracked down more eyes that were in attendance, and subscribers can check that out right here.
Not all of those loved what they saw, by the way.
Not a subscriber yet? Tis easy -- join in on the fun by subscribing here.
scouts-on-sheets,-payroll-update
Comments
The following 69 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: rjfrik on 01-21-2010 12:12:11 Good to know Jason, Thanks for the info. I like the idea of making him earn part of his money. I think that is what the team that eventually does sign him will do. I just hope it's us. Maybe give him 6 million with another 3-4 million in incentives for the first year with an option for the second with a little more guaranteed. I think he could be a difference maker. |
| 2. By: mymrbig on 01-21-2010 12:21:50 Jason, I agree with your thoughts on Sheets. Seems like Sheets wanting a player option (if true) could be a bigger breaking point than him having to earn part of the salary. |
| 3. By: safecochatter on 01-21-2010 12:50:18 Baseball Prospectus interview with jack z... http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9967 |
| 4. By: ARock on 01-21-2010 13:02:13 Interesting comments on Sheets! On the payroll, it seems very likely that the Mariners are paying Gutierrez something more like 2-3 million this year, and shouldnt have to pay Bradley's signing bonus, so this payroll figure should be seen as a minimum available, with $3-4 Million more likely. The Mariners could spend $10M on Sheets if they want to (hopefully with much of that being based on IP incentives). |
| 5. By: safecochatter on 01-21-2010 13:38:28 taking a quote from this mornings Baseball Prospectus interview with Jack. "an interesting note on this club is that every position player on this club will be back next year. Ichiro is signed. Gutierrez is signed. Bradley is signed. And any of the young players that will play left field, whether it is Saunders—he’s a young kid who will be back..... u can take "will be back" a couple of ways but sure sounds like if you want to see saunders play in april you'll have to make the trip to tacoma. |
| 6. By: rjfrik on 01-21-2010 13:47:32 Great article on Z. I loved it. I think about the "back" thing, he was just stating that the entire team will be back in 2011. And that is important because he wants to build unity in the club that contends year in and year out. I think he is excited about the club this year, being competitive and winning and is just saying that we get everyone back next year as well, so it should carry over. I also read into this line on Chapman, that we actually made an offer to him. Z says, I guess the Reds made the best offer. Interesting. Also Barry Bonds would be interesting. I wonder if the guy could still hit 30-40 bombs as a DH. Could be cool to have him as a four hitter. Kind of hope Jr drinks some youth serum and can bang out 30 HR's this year. That would be a nice surprise. |
| 7. By: Lailoken on 01-21-2010 13:58:56 Why is Ackley being counted? Sure, he signed a MLB deal so it counts when the Commisioner's office looks to mete out luxury tax or when the M's report salaries to MLB. Reality is that money spent on Ackley was from the amateur budget covering the draft & international signings. GMZ should have that extra 1.5 mill to spend in all likelihood. |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-21-2010 14:20:00 The two don't mix, lailoken. Draft budgets are how much bonus money teams want to spend on drafted players that summer as they think about future payrolls. They still count. Now, if you want to say they have only spent x amount on the Opening Day Roster, that makes a lot of sense. But what we don't know is how the M's treat it. Do they set a 25-man OD payroll? Probably not, it's the luxury tax figures that matter most, and Ackley's money counts. |
| 9. By: safecochatter on 01-21-2010 15:04:25 6 the chapman thing struck me too. it could mean nothing. but the word apparently jumped out at me. like he was still in sort of disbelief. the last line... but at the end of the day Cincinnati put the best deal on the table, apparently. |
| 10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-21-2010 15:06:33 Chapman is a prospect, though. Can't count on him for 2010. He belongs in Double-A. |
| 11. By: Edman on 01-21-2010 15:20:04 Cincinnati paid a lot of money. It's a big gamble. I'm just glad that if he does pan out, he'll be doing it in the NL. The Nats are feeling pretty good about the deal they signed with Strasburg. |
| 12. By: JohnMcD on 01-21-2010 15:56:35 Great article JAC. Any word on the % we sign Sheets? Or maybe your guess? That would be a pretty nice 1-2-3. |
| 13. By: rocketdawg31 on 01-21-2010 16:33:33 Re: The Baseball Prospectus "Jack Z" article. I thought it was interesting that Zduriencik even mentioned Alex Liddi, and right on the heels of mentioning Triunfel. He could have gone with Poythress or Halman or even James Jones, or another name as he's mentioning "guys to build with". But Liddi is nowhere near the prospect that a healthy Triunfel is, tools-wise. But if he's in Zduriencik's head, maybe there's something he likes about the kid? At any rate, I would hope that this 2010 draft be all gangbusters...I love the moves Zduriencik made, but they came at a price: stripping a mid-level farm system out of depth, particularly in pitching. |
| 14. By: slamminghard on 01-21-2010 19:08:38 anyone else having problems accessing the pay chart.. i can read all other blogs not the pay chart |
| 15. By: ARock on 01-21-2010 20:14:54 Pay chart is currently being listed as subscriber only, I had to login to see it. |
| 16. By: baseballman on 01-21-2010 23:19:03 i want sheets in our rotation so bad! felix/lee/sheets/RRS/snell is that too much to ask for? |
| 17. By: JohnMcD on 01-21-2010 23:33:25 Well if you are giving him 10 mil than I think that is to much to ask for. Hope he does sign though but not at that price |
| 18. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 01:54:37 Jason, if obvious-Club-X from the subscriber content is totally sold on Sheets and can afford to add him, how much does the negative opportunity cost factor into Sheets' value to the Mariners if at all? To me, it's a huge factor because obvious-club-X is a serious threat to the Mariners' chances of achieving their goals next season. As far as I can tell based on some of the moves Zduriencik has made this offseason, he buys into this idea as well. Then again, maybe his ice-cold negotiating tactics require him to ignore something like this in order to keep control of the situation and avoid a bidding war. I'd be really interested in reading your thoughts on this. |
| 19. By: ernier on 01-22-2010 12:37:28 Jason - Buster Olney is saying the M's have been working on possible deals involving Jose Lopez. Have you heard anything about this? |
| 20. By: pwhit44 on 01-22-2010 13:40:27 Ernier, I think I can speak for Jason on this one. A) It's definitely for Adrian Gonzalez. or B) They likely swapping second basemen with either the Blue Jays or Phillies, straight up. Going to be one of the two. |
| 21. By: ernier on 01-22-2010 14:18:14 pwhitt44 - I'm hearing the Padres now want both Lopez and Jason Vargas for Gonzalez...if we have to include Vargas, then we shouldn't pull the trigger. That's way too much to give up for Gonzalez. |
| 22. By: Rod O. on 01-22-2010 14:37:46 If it was Vargas and Lopez for Gonzalez that's a no brainer for us. What I hear is Lopez to Washington for Josh Willingham. But there are lots of rumors going around as soon as someone like Olney who is nationally read makes that kind of comment. (Fans for 30 teams now start to speculate instead of fans for 1 or 2) |
| 23. By: pwhit44 on 01-22-2010 14:45:08 Ernier, No way I give up Vargas for A-Gonz. They'd have to throw in Tony Gwynn c.1994 at that point. |
| 24. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 14:48:00 Losing Vargas doesnt seem like a big deal at all, if we were getting Gonzales. Vargas is pretty similar to Fister, French, etc. I dont think that would be too much. (If we are also adding in good prospects, then its too much). But why would the Mariners go get Kotchman and then trade for Gonzalez (unless Kotchman was part of the deal)? That doesnt make sense. Seems like there are a bunch of crazy Lopez rumors flying around now. I'm not going to give any weight to the specifics of these rumors unless Jason or someone else credible backs them up. |
| 25. By: ASUBoyd on 01-22-2010 14:57:19 I sincerenly hope you were joking ARock, despite appearances...because the rest of that was a joke. |
| 26. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 15:04:21 Ok, then educate me. :) * Why is Vargas such a big deal? Clearly he has value, he is a reasonable 5th starter for cheap. But we have several more of those available (Fister, French, etc). Jason has stated that he feels Fister is a better option than Vargas. Lopez has a lot more value than Vargas. I would think Lopez + prospects would be required for Gonzalez. Lopez + Vargas seems a lot better deal than that. * Why would the Mariners trade for Kotchman and be on the hook to pay him at least $2M more than they freed up by trading Bill Hall, if they were just going to get Gonzalez? * Why should I believe the variety of Lopez rumors flying around that seems mostly created by fans, when I dont see them backed up by much? Now, if Jason comes out and posts that he has heard 'Lopez + Vargas for Gonzalez', then I'll certianly pay attention to it. |
| 27. By: mazono on 01-22-2010 15:17:26 Arock- 1st and for most if and when the padres trade A-gon. They don't want or need a 1st baseball they have a Kyle Blanks or banks. And what they want is quality pitching. Vargas =quality nope. |
| 28. By: baseballman on 01-22-2010 15:17:33 ARock, they were being sarcastic. think about it, why would the padres EVER trade AGon for only Lopez and Vargas?? they wouldnt, it was a joke... |
| 29. By: pwhit44 on 01-22-2010 15:19:07 Awesome. Never gets old. |
| 30. By: universalguru on 01-22-2010 15:20:28 I'm incredibly amused :D |
| 31. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 15:23:28 Ok, I didnt get the sarcasm in their post, and I replied thinking that they were serious. |
| 32. By: JohnMcD on 01-22-2010 15:28:52 Wow, that is some good stuff right there. Well looks like we are going to get Hudson if we are shopping Lopez. I dont want to jump to any conclusions though |
| 33. By: universalguru on 01-22-2010 15:40:48 JohnMcD, isn't that what you just did? I wouldn't mind Willingham at all. What's his ability to hit the gaps though? What's his speed? Obviously those will be important questions to consider. I'd do Lopez for him straight-up as long as contracts were fairly similar. |
| 34. By: JohnMcD on 01-22-2010 15:59:21 True universalguru, good call. RodO did you hear that we are shipping Lopez for Willingham because you read someones comment under MLBtraderumors? Just curious? I think we are going to get something we havent thought of, ie Jasons post on the suscriber page. Now that was crazy. |
| 35. By: dawgncarolina on 01-22-2010 16:06:30 This is a fun thread. |
| 36. By: mazono on 01-22-2010 16:32:17 FYI lee is doing a press conference at 3pm I think it was said before. |
| 37. By: k0o56 on 01-22-2010 16:54:30 This thread helped me get through a stressful day =P |
| 38. By: DRWheelock on 01-22-2010 17:09:41 My money is on Z picking up Felipe Lopez for 2B over Hudson! Both players are going to be steals this year in the $2-3.5M range! I like Willingham, and MLBTradeRumors just reported that Nats could be shopping Willingham hard now with Dunn going back to the OF. |
| 39. By: DRWheelock on 01-22-2010 17:13:25 He's definitely a high OBP guy...the kind Z likes and a RHB for LF. Not the best defensively though. |
| 40. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 17:15:59 Willingham would be pretty comparable to Lopez. Better bat (but at a position where you expect a better bat), slightly below average defender, like Lopez. Looks like Willingham has two arbitration years left? So he'll probably make something similar to what lopez is making the next two years. Swapping Lopez for him would allow us to add another decent bat at second. It would be a good move but I would worry about Willingham's defense in Safeco's left field. It would be nice to have a great defender there. Ichiro RF Figgins 3B Willingham LF Bradley DH Hudson/other 2B Gutierrez CF Kotchman 1B Johnson SS Wilson C Looks good to me, especially if we add another starter. |
| 41. By: Mackie on 01-22-2010 17:18:13 Is Lopez and/or another player or two going to be enough to get a #3-quality SP? Under what kind of circumstances would Lopez alone be enough to get that kind of SP (or would such circumstances not exist? 8-) ) Willingham's career OBP/SLG/OPS is .362/.478/.840, so he would seem to be a significant upgrade over Lopez (career .303/.412/.715). His 24 HRs last year came in 407 AB, while Lopez' 25 came in 613. Willingham hits better against lefties but hits well enough against RHP. He is four years older than Lopez, and costs about twice as much as Lopez. On one depth chart I looked at, the Nats are predicted to be using Ian Desmond at SS. They already have Cristian Guzman who is a SS, but may be moving him to 2B. Would the Nats view Lopez as an upgrade over Guzman? Maybe the Nats would trade us Willingham, but would they want Lopez? |
| 42. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 17:26:42 Yeah Willingham is a significantly better hitter than Lopez, probably ~20 runs better over the season. .320-.30 wOBA for Lopez versus .360-.370 for Willingham. Defense is a bit weaker and he is at an easier position, but he still comes out ahead. |
| 43. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 17:30:41 ARock, Willingham is not comparable to Lopez offensively, he's miles better. Lopez's on-base skills are just so awful it crushes his value despite some decent power. Zduriencik has been a Willingham fan for a while, and yes the Nats need a second baseman. |
| 44. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 17:32:05 ...and you already corrected yourself. Sorry. |
| 45. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 17:36:50 Yeah I was comparing Hudson to Kopez earlier and saw Hudson was just a little better. For some reason my brain thought that was Willingham. Willingham is definitely much better. |
| 46. By: Edman on 01-22-2010 17:46:11 Ahhhh, but to dream. The Nats do need a secondbaseman, so Lopez might fit. But, I think some here are expecting Jack to pull off some kind of miracle. I'm betting Lopez is in a Seattle uniform in April. |
| 47. By: pwhit44 on 01-22-2010 17:49:23 Jack is going out of his way to lower payroll expectations. Made a special time to address it at the Lee press conference. He's such a poker player. I can't tell whether he's trying to hide the fact that there's money to spend, or the payroll will indeed be lower than last year, and that there really isn't much at all left. |
| 48. By: Edman on 01-22-2010 17:51:15 Anyone have a link to the Lee press conference? |
| 49. By: ARock on 01-22-2010 17:52:31 If there wasnt much left, then why even bother scouting Sheets? Jack probably doesnt want to give away to other teams and agents how much is available. Its in his best interest if no one else outside the organization knows how much they have to spend. |
| 50. By: SMariners11 on 01-22-2010 18:17:28 Just curious. Has anyone talked about Noah Lowry? I do not know how well he would fit, but hoping for some feedback. |
| 51. By: Adam T on 01-22-2010 18:27:41 Lopez/Josh Fields for J. Willingham. 1/4 w/option to O. Hudson. 1/6 w/incentives to B. Sheets. Done and done. |
| 52. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 18:32:59 Something that might make sense for both the Nats and M's would be to include Christian Guzman in the deal. Washington has a ML ready SS stuck behind Guzman who is owed $8 million in 2010, the final year of his contract. The Mariners don't really have a very good backup to Jack Wilson at SS and Guzman's glove is at least decent there. He wouldn't be a bad every day second baseman, but I think by no longer being as dependent on Hannahan the door would open up for Tui to earn a spot. Willingham, Guzman, and cash for Lopez and... might workout for both teams. I'd be into it. |
| 53. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-22-2010 18:36:42 #51. You are NUTS, homie! (and I mean that in a nice way) |
| 54. By: shortstop9 on 01-22-2010 19:21:37 No to Guzman.Bradley is a better Lf than Willingham on defense.They could split and DH.Go get Dye to play LF/DH. 1 Ichiro 2 Figgins 3 Bradley 4 Dye 5 Lopez 6 Guttierez 7 Kotchman 8 Moore 9 Wilson |
| 55. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 19:28:03 Dye absolutely cannot play outfield anymore, and I'm not sure I get your point about Bradley being a better fielder than Willingham. |
| 56. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 19:30:21 P.S. Dye absolutely fell apart as a hitter in the second half of last season. I don't want to count on him to hold up for 162 games ever again. |
| 57. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 19:30:55 Absolutely... ha. Damnit. |
| 58. By: FWBrodie on 01-22-2010 19:57:44 "He's a genious AND he doesn't make boneheaded $8M moves to pick up guys like Guzman." Hence the "and cash" part. P.S. You really think Ackley's going to be ready to play big league second base at midseason? I don't. |
| 59. By: hawks02 on 01-22-2010 21:29:26 Jason, any word on if we are in on the Noah Lowry sweepstakes? I believe I had read earlier in the offseason we "might be interested" in him, (I know it's said about everyone), but I see he is getting close to signing. Just wondering if there was any link to the M's? |
| 60. By: Chris Crawford on 01-22-2010 22:47:06 Seriously? Dustin Ackley called up at mid-season? You have a better chance of seeing Dustin Diamond playing second base in July then Dustin Ackley. Could he come up in September? Maybe, if they give up on the idea of 2B...but hes not going to learn the position at the big league level in 3 months. Not gonna happen. |
| 61. By: DRWheelock on 01-22-2010 22:52:12 {EDITED FOR LENGTH} There is a reason Z man has made the most brilliant moves this offseason and "still" has $10-12M left under 2009 payroll figures. He's a genious AND he doesn't make boneheaded $8M moves to pick up guys like Guzman. Nats are known to want to sign a 2B, and Lopez HRs are similar to Willinghams, so they wouldn't be losing HR power on Lopez. Whereas they would if they went out and landed Felipe/O Cabrera/Hundson. AND Lopez is ONLY $2.3M. A couple weeks ago MLBTradeRumors had the Nats offering something like $2.5-3M for Hudson. Obviously Hudson told them to take a flying leap, so now they are known to have a little interest in O Cabrera in the $3M range. Lopez is below even that. |
| 62. By: Chris Crawford on 01-22-2010 23:01:36 Everyone please pay attention to that last post. I will be editing posts from now on that have lineup and essays. Warnings are done. It just got real. I love you all. |
| 63. By: marinerseric on 01-22-2010 23:52:23 How about I make a suggestion maybe this sounds dumb, but keep posts down to what you may text or write on twitter. |
| 64. By: Chris Crawford on 01-23-2010 00:10:43 It's not a bad suggestion at all. I'm not saying only use 140 characters or anything like that...and definitely not asking people to say u r a LOLZ. I'm just not asking for no more books, I'm telling you. No more books, no more lineups. |
| 65. By: pwhit44 on 01-23-2010 01:04:06 A couple of short paragraphs is a pretty good rule of thumb. If you find yourself spending your afternoon typing, there may be an issue. |
| 66. By: mazono on 01-23-2010 01:42:47 Chris and Jason, My personal opinion is that you guys have been nice enough. My vote is now more warnings. Glad to see you guys crackdown. |
| 67. By: maqman on 01-23-2010 08:19:55 The Ms payroll budget for 2010 was reported on the Mariner’s Official Website on November 19, 2009 in an article by Jim Street as “this year's projected payroll of around $96 million.” Now if they let that figure stand on their own website it either has some basis in fact or is deliberately misleading (to what advantage?) or they just don’t pay attention to the details of stories on their own website (Bavasi might have done that but Z I doubt). The article is at: http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091118&content_id=7685234&vkey=news_sea&fext=.jsp&c_id=sea |
| 68. By: 01v-dubs on 01-23-2010 16:51:00 Jason, I was wondering what your thoughts were on BA's top ten list for M's prospects? I'm sure you'd agree with the top 3, Ackley, Saunders, Moore, but after that I'm surprised at how they ranked the players. Liddi at 4 is to high in my opinion, if he can do well in AA next year then it might be justified. Triunfel at 5 seems fair given he was hurt last year, Pineda at 6 is interesting given he was hurt for a lot of last year, Franklin at 7 seems to high given he has not done much and has a lot of questions to answer, Halman at 8 is ok I guess given his upside, then there's Cortes at 9 and Martinez at 10. I'm more curious in why they left certain players out of the top ten like Pothyeris (who was reveled in the chat to be near the bottom of the top 30, which is very surprising to me), and Robeles given that he performed very well since coming over. Also, Tui is not in the top 10, given his growth and closeness to the bigs I thought he'd be a better fit in the top ten then Cortes and Martinez. I guess you'll probably answer this when you put out your own rankings, but just your preliminary thoughts for now would be awesome. The same goes for you Chris, I'd like to get your take |
| 69. By: Chris Crawford on 01-23-2010 19:04:08 I'm not near the talent evaluator that Jason is...but youre going to see Liddi ranked high by a lot of people, and I just don't get it. If he hits in West Tenn, I'll take it all back, until then.... I just don't get it. Youre going to see Poythress ranked low by a lot of people because of concerns about his bat speed. But he's arguably the best power bat in the system, isn't a free swinger and doesnt kill you with the glove. Let them under rate him all they want. Baseball America does a great job with their information, but try not to take everything they say as concrete (not that I'm saying any of you are, but just in case). It's not an awful list, but the list doesn't add up quite right to me either. |
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 |