| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 11-21-2011 |
I just wrote over the weekend that the Seattle Mariners should trade closer Brandon League and then Monday ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney tweets that the M's are among the clubs that have inquired about the availability of Oakland Athletics closer Andrew Bailey.
I tweeted said report and what happened after that I should have seen coming. Lots of "why?" questions, as in, why would the M's want Bailey when it will cost them trade pieces?
First of all, to my knowledge there has been no trade, and not even an offer. There are several reasons to check in on a player's availability.
1. Because the inquiring club would like to have that player
2. Because the inquiring team might need a partner in a 3-way trade scenario
3. Because the inquiring team might need to acquire a piece to make another trade they have brewing a reality.
4. Because the inquiring team has a somewhat similar player and are tracking the asking price
5. Because they are hoping to drive up the asking price for rival clubs
Pay close attention to No. 4. The M's could either be looking for a multi-year Brandon League replacement that is a proven commodity, or attempting to trace the value of such a player so they have a better idea what League could be worth on the trade market.
If it's the latter, the M's could prefer to know one way or the other on League -- whether or not they will try and trade him -- before they may other moves this winter.
In any event, don't freak out because you are worried the M's are trading Justin Smoak, Nick Franklin and Vincent Catricala for Bailey. They aren't. The M's and A's have similar needs, so it's highly unlikely they match up in a significant deal.
It never hurts to check in, however, and as I outlined above, there are several factors that come into play that would warrant making such a phone call.
the-m\'s-interest-in-bailey
Comments
The following 54 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: wbathurs on 11-21-2011 18:09:42 Jason, Buster mentions that it is a sellers market. Is that for closers or just for players in general. TIA! |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-21-2011 18:17:03 Closers/Relievers in general. |
| 3. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 11-21-2011 18:34:06 Jason, I went over to the Reds blog, Mark Sheridan, and they are saying they need starting pitching and we seem to have that. Why not trade one of our SP's, say Pineda,the only one who has really proven himself, although minimally? And pick up one of their prospect catchers? I don't think we need Alonso as he is 1B and LF. We have plenty of prospects for those positions but not for catcher. |
| 4. By: Wes45 on 11-21-2011 19:33:16 I'm perplexed by the suggestions across multiple Mariners bogs related to trading Michael Pineda. We've got kid not yet 23 years old with #1 starter potential and everybody seems to want to trade him. Do people not realize that this would make Jason Vargas our #2 starter with Blake Beavan at #3??? It is not fait accompli that our pitching prospects develop to their ceiling potential. While I hold out as much hope for them as anybody, I'm confused by the lack of value for what Pineda is. Why has he proven himself only minimally? Yankees fans talk about Ivan Nova like he's the most recent Apple product and he's not half the pitcher that Pineda is. Why would we trade a guy who has produced in the majors (171 innings, 1.10 WHIP) for a minor league catcher? I'm on board with trying to get one of their catchers but giving Pineda for one reeks of a Bavasi move. |
| 5. By: pwhit44 on 11-21-2011 19:47:33 Don't worry, dude. Pineda is not going to be traded straight up for a catching prospect. A Pineda deal would net us one of the following: 1) a group of good prospects; 2) a good/great major league player; 3) an elite major league player as part of a package from M's 4) some combination of 1-3. He would get us more than just one minor league catcher. The Mariners know how valuable he is more than you do. So don't worry. |
| 6. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 11-21-2011 22:15:47 Shannon Drayer had a post about Jacoby Ellsbury possibly being traded for starting pitching. It is a good read and wouldn't that be a worthwhile trade acquisition. He had a war of 9.7 in 2011. The highest in baseball and identical to Ken Griffey , Jr back in 03, I believe. http://mynorthwest.com/374/581345/Could-the-answer-be-in-Boston |
| 7. By: Adam P. Boyd on 11-21-2011 22:20:30 Ellsbury would be quite the interesting piece. I think your numbers are a little off though, cdiggins. Ellsbury's fWAR was 9.4 in 2011 and bWAR was 7.2. Griffey's WAR in 2003 was 1.6. 1997 though - 9.4 |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-21-2011 22:44:03 Trading Pineda for any player that is a free agent after 2013 is absurd. ABSURD. Especially one represented by Scott Boras. Ellsbury, also, is so far from what the M's need most -- power bats -- that I can't even believe some are buying the idea. Sure, Ellsbury had a big year and that included homers, doubles, triples, but do you really expect him to A) have that kind of year every year, or even ever again, for that matter? B) Produce power like that playing half his games at Safeco? C) Be such a factor in a lineup where he's the best fit to bat No. 3 or 4? Not even a remotely good idea. |
| 9. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 11-21-2011 23:17:02 Drayer is saying that an extension would need to be signed and he has let it be known he would like to return to West coast as he is from Oregon and he is unhappy in Boston. I don't see where it would be absurd to acquire an MVP candidate if they can get an extension. And I know that Boras clients don't often do that but maybe he would. He may not have the power in Safeco but he does bat left and that helps. Even if he produced ONLY 4 or 5 WAR, that would be welcomed. If M's can keep adding 4 WAR players and Carp, Ackley, Smoak can produce decent numbers then this team might compete. I think it is a good idea. |
| 10. By: Jason A. Churchill on 11-21-2011 23:58:53 Ellsbury has not said that, for one. And the league will not allow pre-trade extensions. Goodbye stupid Ellsbury rumor. |
| 11. By: Gibbo on 11-22-2011 00:18:30 Wes45 - the reason why many suggest moving Pineda is that is one area of true depth and It's a fickle position where injury could take him away from us very quickly. So his value is high we desperately need a bat so he is the logical guy to trade from strength for a position of weakness. Imagine a deal with the Royals for Alex Gordon and Moustakas, now these guys would address areas of weaknesses. They probably wouldnt move them but put Pineda in a trade and many teams will listen. Not saying they are two guys we should get but we more he is a guy that will allow us to seriously make a play for guys we need more than Pineda. We will get a guy that can slot in at 2 while we wait for Hultzen and co, who are pretty darn close to ready. |
| 12. By: Ungnome on 11-22-2011 01:11:18 It looks like the M's are just gaging the market. Bailey is better and cheaper than League. Im not sold on trading League and going with Lueke/Wilhelmson as the closer. No, teams shouldnt pay top dollar for closers but going with a guy who couldnt stay in the majors last year doesnt make me feel very confident. Its not like League is going to cost a boat load of cash. He has been consistent over several years calming my fears of volitility tanking his trade value. If Ellsbury wants to return to the west coast then let him come as a FA. Giving up talent from an organization starved for talent doesnt seem like a smart move regardless of the type of player he is. "We have all this pitching talent, we should trade it before they get hurt!" Yes but that is a reason to hoard pitching, not trade it. Yes, there may be some busts but having more bullets is better than less. I wouldnt want to trade away the good and be left with the bad. Secondly, where was this line of thinking when Felix was younger? He could get hurt! We should trade him before his elbow explodes so we can get value! Oh, you mean he contributes value being on the team, too? I fail to see how trading Pineda and his approximately 3 WAR for anyone is enough of a positive move to matter this year. If you want to argue that Prince Fielder is not enough to make a difference then trading Pineda for anyone is not enough to make a difference. Fielder + Pineda > Votto - Pineda. Honestly, I would like to see the player that IS enough to get the M's over the top. Just because the team "is not ready to compete" doesnt mean the team shouldnt add big pieces when they present themselves. If this team is not ready to comepete then I ask: Why is Felix on this roster? We arent ready to compete, remember? All the same arguments against Fielder can be recycled for Felix (Fielder bad body = Pitcher injury risk). Players like Prince dont come around every year and when a team has an opportunity to grab that player they should do it. Getting all the small pieces, which are easier to acquire and more interchangable, before getting a big piece is naive. The reason why good players get a lot of money is because they are hard to acquire. Do yourself a favor and look at the rotation going in to 2012 as it stands now. Now subtract Pineda. What a sexy rotation! Both Hultzen and Paxton will be making their ML debuts next year, barring injury or ineffectiveness, and that helps make Pineda expendable in trade. If the M's want to improve in 2013 then the trade route looks to be the easiest way considering the FA class. If Pineda improves at all, or even maintains, in 2012 his value will increase. If that happens he will garner more in trade meaning the M's will have to, in theory, give up less. To me it is very short-sighted to trade Pineda now unless another team is willing to value him as a legit #1 starter. Sorry for going off-topic. I dont post often and all this has been building. |
| 13. By: Ungnome on 11-22-2011 01:14:18 Alex Gordon has had 1 good year bouyed by a .358 BABIP. Talk about trading at the top of someones value. |
| 14. By: rightwingrick on 11-22-2011 01:32:30 The idea that we would or should trade very young, very inexpensive, and All-Star potential pitchers (whether it's Hernandez, Pineda, Paxton, Hultzen, or Taijuan Walker) makes next to no sense to me. Great pitching is the hardest and most expensive commodity to find, and having young pitching that good is even more difficult to find. Pitchers are also disabled more frequently than most other players, so you MUST have depth. I think Jack Z will continue to trade "second level" pitchers like Doug Fister, Jason Vargas, Blake Beavan, etc. and build the base from those trades. It will be an interesting December and January. I thought for sure we'd go get Dumit as a catching backup, and grab Grady Sizemore for outfield protection in both left and center field. Not happening, so what Jack does next will be fun to watch. |
| 15. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 11-22-2011 08:32:45 "I think Jack Z will continue to trade "second level" pitchers like Doug Fister, Jason Vargas, Blake Beavan, etc. and build the base from those trades." rightwingrick, I don't think Jack Z will continue doing that because all he will get back in return is "second level" prospects/players and have a flotilla of those.No one is going to trade a valuable ML ready player for second tier players. That's what got us Robinson, Wells, etc. M's NEED 4 or 5 WAR players. As many as they can manage and their greatest strength is SPing and Pineda is their best trade bait. So even if they sign Fielder, which they won't, they are still desperate for hitting. So where does that hitting come from? It has to come from trading something of value and Jack Z will figure something out I am sure. Maybe not Ellsbury but something. |
| 16. By: safecochatter on 11-22-2011 11:40:04 i agree with 11 that the m's are a good match with kansas city. i'd prefer Salvador Perez and Moustakas. Gordon would be ok,but like someone said that would be buying high. i was waiting for gordon to come back to earth all year,but he didn't. maybe he's finally gonna live up to expectations. if m's and kc haven't kicked the tires on each others roster i'd be shocked.Pineda is "exactly" what kc is looking for. If M's can get a couple of holes filled,and still have felix,hultzen,paxton and walker for 2013,I'm good.. |
| 17. By: Ungnome on 11-22-2011 12:44:13 "No one is going to trade a valuable ML ready player for second tier players." Philadelphia-Seattle Cliff Lee trade. 'Nuff said. "the reason why many suggest moving Pineda is that is one area of true depth and It's a fickle position where injury could take him away from us very quickly." "If M's can get a couple of holes filled,and still have felix,hultzen,paxton and walker for 2013, I'm good." If Pineda can get injured so can the other kids. "M's NEED 4 or 5 WAR players. As many as they can manage...So even if they sign Fielder, which they won't, they are desperate for hitting." Beggars cant be choosers. Premium guys are hard to come by. If you expect one to just fall in your lap when the time is right I think you will be disappointed. I hope the M's sign Fielder and dumb-luck themselves into the playoffs so I can say "But, I thought we werent ready to compete." |
| 18. By: rjfrik on 11-22-2011 13:20:33 Has anyone read Dave's new piece over on USSM? Holy shit what a blow the M's organization. The new CBA just announced that there will be a hard cap, 2.9 million on all international free agents and the better a team does in the win loss column the lower that 2.9 will go down. This is arguably the worst M's news (sans players passing) that I've heard in a long time. Bob Engle and our #1 international scouting department just became essentially obsolete. If we had one area in baseball where we had an advantage over the rest of the league it was in international scouting. Now we have been regulated back to the middle of the pack with everyone else. This is such bullshit. So now the Yankees get to spend 250 million on salaries and get the same advantage as we do on the international market. What were they thinking? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| 19. By: Edman on 11-22-2011 13:55:21 rjfrik, settle down, don't overreact. Dave is missing one major point. He assumes that International Free Agents will continue to get the money that they are now. If anything, it hurts the Free Agents themselves, because it prevents any team like the Yankees from outspending teams like the Royals, simply because they have more financial resources. Maybe now, you won't see multiple millions of dollars spent on marginal players. Nothing substantial happens to the Mariners. It just means that a guy like Bob Engle is more valuable. Separating out the real quality players so that your cap money is better spent is all that is going to happen. If anything, it helps the Mariners, and substantially helps teams like the Royals, so that teams like the Yankees can't come in and spend as much money as they want. It helps baseball, and more importantly, helps assure some fairness when second and third-round picks in the draft, from making less money than a less refined player, just because he's an International signee. Dave missed on this one. Sometimes you have to do what is good for baseball, and not cry because it's not good for your team. |
| 20. By: rjfrik on 11-22-2011 17:28:25 Edman, I 100% disagree with you. This hurts the M's because the M's are one of the teams that are "Yankeesh" on the International Free Agent market. We are one of the few teams that spend big and have a bigger piece of our budget tied to the International Free Agent market instead of the dedicated elsewhere. Why do we have a bigger budget then most on the international market? Because we have Bob Engle. If the Yankees had Bob Engle they would spend big on international players but they don't. This drastically reduces our international budget and brings it all the way back to the pack with the rest of the league, including teams like the Yankees. So now even though we have the best international scout, Engle, down in Latin American we can't go after all of his recommendations. He's one of the best scouts at targeting young international players that can and will develop. Now if he targets 5 guys in a year, instead of going after all five as he could do with no cap, he can only go after 2-3 possibly with the new cap. This now lets the other 2-3 guys go to other teams that might not have had the scouting department we have down there. It's unfair and agree or disagree is a major blow to this organization in my opinion and obviously the opinion of others. This one hurts. And if we are going to argue about what's good for baseball then there should be a straight across the board salary cap of 125 million dollars and you can't go over it no matter what. If that fairness was implemented then I would not be up in arms over this cap on the international market because, as you said, would be good for baseball by making all teams play fairly. But as you and everyone else knows, baseball doesn't play fairly at all. The big market teams get to spend as much money as they want to and the small market teams get screwed by not being able to pay their star players. This is the one sport where there is extreme bias to the big market teams. This new rule is no different and just falls in the company line of baseball having a select group of teams that are the "cool kids" and get to essentially do what ever they want to. The only way the "other kids" get a chance to sit at the cool table every few years is from excellent scouting. Well now a part of that has been removed. Lame. |
| 21. By: Edman on 11-22-2011 18:35:37 Disagree all you want. It does not impare the Mariners by any amount to worry about. It impares the International Free Agents. If the M's want to spend all of their $2.9 million on one player, they're free to do so. It's going to drive down the overall cost for individual free agents. Players who got $3 million, simply are not. Teams are going to have to budget their spending. The same competition is going to be there. But instead of paying some kid with High School skills, what a kid coming out of college would get in the upper part of the draft, it's going to tip the International Free Agent salary more in-line with what they would get if they were drafted out of high school in the US. IMO, you and several others are looking only at the surface. The only difference is, instead of trying to bid against the large market team's deep pockets, teams are going to have to make solid evaluations to get the biggest bang for their buck. I that regard, Seattle still has an advantage with Engle and his staff. Engle certainly will still be able to compete for the top talent. That hasn't changed. Now, he doesn't have to worry about teams with deep pockets using their financial resources to overpay, because they can absorb the loss, if they are wrong. And as good as Bob Engle is, don't for a minute think that other teams are lagging far behind in regard to International scouting. It's not the extreme gap you seem to think it is. Losers whine about what they don't have. Winners find solutions to work with what they have. Jason has made mention of how a lot of less-skilled kids get paid too much, when compared to kids who go to college here. Now, maybe that will put itself back in line. |
| 22. By: masonb on 11-22-2011 19:05:41 Edman and rjfrik, I think you are both right in some degree. While I agree that it is going to put thing on an even playing field, what's going to keep the top talents from demanding say 2-2.5mil. Whereas, the F.O used to be able to sign 3 of those guys due to great scouting, they now will have to decide on 1 or none. I just have a hard time seeing the top guys go from demanding 4mil or so to now being cool with 1mil. This 2.9 number just seems pretty low, and after hearing a snippet somewhere that MLB is hoping to have an international draft by 2014, it makes a little more sense, but I think there will be an immidiate negative impact on int'l scouting and signing and it will take a few years for teams to figure it out and for the salary demands of the top players to come back down to Earth. That's where as Edman says having the best int'l scouting dept. comes in handy. |
| 23. By: rjfrik on 11-22-2011 20:29:06 Edman, You have it all wrong. In the language of this deal there is no hard slotting for International Free Agents. They are indeed just what it says they are, Free Agents. If you think that this rule is going to drastically reduce the cost of an International Free Agent, you are out of your mind. That's not how economics work friend. Player A that has the same or better talent then Player B who signed for 2 million dollars the year before isn't going to sign for less then 2 million dollars just because teams only have 2.9 million to spend. It's not their problem that teams only have 2.9 million to spend now, they are still going to want their money. What this does is limits the amount of players a team can sign a year and pushes the players that aren't singed by said team back into the pool for other teams to acquire. It undoubtedly will limit the amount of kids you can sign even if you scouted them. The following equation is how you are thinking about this. If you and I were in the same company and I made $130,000 a year because I worked harder and you only made 60,000 because you didn't really care about working as hard and the boss came in and said "starting tomorrow everyone will make $90,000", do you think that I could then turn around and tell my mortgage company "Hey I know my mortgage was $4000 a month, but going forward I'm only going to pay you $2500 a month because my company put a cap on my earning potential"? Of course I couldn't. The cost of Free Agents are going anywhere, in fact because of inflation they can only go up over time. You thinking is completely illogical. |
| 24. By: Edman on 11-22-2011 21:11:35 Where in the world did I say ANYTHING about hard slotting? You're hell-bent on your opinion, no matter how exaggerated that it is. No, it's not perfect, but at least it will prevent the Yankees, or any team, from overspending. Most of all, it will help keep the inflated International contracts for mediocre players. The worse thing to come out of this, is that teams like the Royals and Astros have a better chance to compete. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's still going to get down to who scouts the best to find the bargains. |
| 25. By: jgstecker on 11-22-2011 21:20:31 Rjfrik- If Player A wants $2 million but no one will give it to him, he's out of luck. He'll take the most he can get and like it. The price isn't going up next year for a 17 year old kid who missed a year of development. He'll take what he's offered because it beats working for $2 an hour. That's how economics works. |
| 26. By: rjfrik on 11-23-2011 00:02:32 Edman. There will be no bargains. If a player is worth 2 million dollars in talent he will get 2 million dollars. For you and stecker to think that these players are going to start taking price cuts is beyond ridiculous. I'm talking about the economics of the game. I work in the entertainment business, I have an agent. My salary has increased my entire career. When I first started out in the business I got a certain amount of money, as I worked more and more and accumulated more experience under my belt, my price went up. My agent could get more money because I was a proven commodity. Now I will make a certain amount on any job. If a producer asks for my services he has to pay what I say or he can go blow apples. If a producer has a certain budget, I still get my price. My experience (or talent) justifies my price and I will get it. You guys are delusional to think that if Player A has the same talent as another player who obtained a certain amount of money from the previous year that Player A won't get the same amount or more money. Why should Player A take a drastic pay cut? He wouldn't and you can be bet that any agent worth a damn won't allow him to take a cut. Any agent will try and obtain as much money for his player as his players talent allots him to acquire. The big talents on the International Free Agent Market aren't taking any pay cuts. If you want a young pitcher equivalent to the young Felix Hernandez we acquired, well pay him 2.5 million dollars and you can have him. If you don't somebody will. And if that somebody is the M's, guess what? They just spent their entire budget on one player. That is an extreme example, but if you want to acquire great players 2.9 million will only get you a few. And if you finish with a good record and maybe made the playoffs every once in a blue moon like we did in 2001 then your 2.9 million drops down into the 1 million dollar range. For a team, such as the Mariners, with one of, if not the best International scouts out there, the new CBA just crippled the shit out of them. |
| 27. By: short on 11-23-2011 00:26:14 I'd like to respond to some of Jason's points on the new CBA. I think your concerns are really valid and this might screw baseball up some, but there are some mitigating factors people should consider. As for the draft slotting causing players to choose other sports or college, in some cases the change will be temporary. If Jake Locker hadn't gotten drafted as high as he did by the NFL, he may well have chosen the longer career and higher salary potential of baseball. Note that he DID choose a different sport even under the old system. You can't win 'em all. Also, some players are taking advantage of the wide-open signing bonus situation to use college for leverage, fully intending to sign with the team that drafts them. We can't know how many players this includes, but a lot of those guys are going to play baseball period. And some that do go to college will be back after a few years. At worst it's a temporary hit to the talent level in the game. And those guys that DO decide to play ball will be costing their teams less, leaving more for free agency. This could help parity. As many have pointed out, the new system favors smart teams who are good at scounting. I think the M's are a smart team. They've shown they know how to scout and draft well. And they have more money than a lot of other teams. We'll be fine. |
| 28. By: Edman on 11-23-2011 01:50:29 Okay rjfrik.....let's try a new form of math for you. Let's just pick a figure. Let's say that all MLB teams spent an average of $4.5 million per team on International Free Agents this season. If they that figure is reduced to $2.9 million, those that want the big dollars can demand what they want. Maybe, some will get what they want. But, any way you look at it, there is less money available, regardless of what they want. They can take their talent to Japan. Or, maybe accept a contract from the Astros, because the Yankees, Rangers, Red Sox, etc., have already spent their money. Just like the MLB, the great players will get a bulk of the money. I have no problem with Seattle not being able to outspend other teams. Especially, if those teams with deep pockets, can't simply buy who they want. I'd rather see talent distributed around the league, than the best talent only going to a few teams. What I'm tired of seeing is Seattle in particular, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on marginal prospects, especially when college kids don't have that kind of leverage. On a different subject, try to remove the brag factor from your posts. I've seen you play that card several times. You must be in entertainment, you obviously like talking about yourself. Personally, I find it snobbish. |
| 29. By: masonb on 11-23-2011 10:36:02 Edman calling others snobbish: once again pot meet kettle. Were you not the one name dropping about some scout you met at the Everett game and saying things like, "He told me this, but I'm not going to tell you."? How is that any different? Stop trying to be a mod on this board. It's frustrating because I'm sure half the time people don't even want to take the time to write their opinions, because you are going to come running in with some personal insult or just critique everything they said. rjfrik was simply trying to use a real-life application of this type of situation so that you could understand. And you know what? He's dead on. The top players are going to go out and demand most if not all of each team's international budget. Over the long run, we might see a general deflation in bonuses given out, but it certainly isn't going to happen right away. Whereas the Mariners used to go out and be able to spend say 5 million of 3-4 of the top talents, they are only going to be able to get 1-2 of those guys now. Sure, it's going to increase parody and be "good for the game", but there's no denying that it screws the Mariners over. It's taking away from the talent pool. It's much to simple of an argument to just say, oh well now all the top players are going to accept 50% less than what they were expecting. It just doesn't work like that, and quite frankly it's naive to think that it's going to work like that. |
| 30. By: VikingArthur on 11-23-2011 10:53:57 |
| 31. By: VikingArthur on 11-23-2011 11:00:15 Oops on #30... Edman is 1000% correct about this. If each team is limited to 2.9 million in IFA spending that means, as a whole, MLB can spend $87 million on IFAs. For the sake of a basic math discussion (the "economics" of entertainment notwithstanding) let's suppose that MLB spends $125 million now. That 38 million dollar drop in spending WILL, BY VERY DEFINITION, lower the average cost of each player if the same number of players sign. Just because Player A thinks he is worth $5 million and an equivalent player in the old system got the $5 million... he will not get $5 million. He can throw a tantrum and complain all he wants but he simply won't get as much. Basic basic math. |
| 32. By: PositivePaul on 11-23-2011 11:38:03 Official 80's boy band lyric warning Watch it, all of you, with the name calling & personal attacks, please :-) |
| 33. By: Edman on 11-23-2011 11:41:18 Call me a snob if you wish, but I don't brag about what I do, as compared to others. I don't care what anyone here does. If you pump gas or achor the evening news, we're all the same. This isn't rkfrik's first time down this lane. He could have put in general terms, but instead chose to talk about himself. As far as the scout goes, it had nothing to do with bragging, but sharing information that didn't come from some low level scout. I wanted to qualify it as coming from someone close to Jack. If you find that snobbish, be my guest. rjfrik has talked about how much he makes, compared to others. Now, brags about be so important, that he "and his agent" can make demands. He could have taken himself out of the equation. Like I said, if this was a first time, I'd let it pass. But he's a repeat offender. You want a real example, one most can relate to? My annual raises use to amount to at least 3.5%, and often more. The economy has fallen into the dumper. However much I think I'm worth, I have two choices. Accept that I'm not going to get what I think I'm worth, and will have to settle for what the market will bare until I have more influence. Or, I can protest, quit my job, and look for another with no prospects. Most would be happy with a million or so dollars. Wouldn't you, for playing a kids game? Who hasn't felt that? And to think that the International Free Agents have any leverage to demand isn't realistic. They already have an advantage that drafted kids do, in that they can market themselves to anyone they choose. I find it funny, in a way. Some complain about the large market teams spending a lot more money than most the other teams. Then, when it may affect the Mariners, then suddenly it's not fair. It's good for baseball, and more fair to the drafted kids. I'll turn this around on rjfrik. Would he be in favor of some kid out of college getting paid the same as he does, without actually having experience in his field? I doubt it. |
| 34. By: PositivePaul on 11-23-2011 11:44:29 Edman... |
| 35. By: Edman on 11-23-2011 11:52:05 Sorry Paul, I didn't see your post. |
| 36. By: rjfrik on 11-23-2011 12:32:51 First off Ed, I rarely if ever talk about myself. I would love to see all these posts I talk about myself or brag...That's just asinine. In fact I rarely chime in unless I'm passionate about something. Second, Masonb is exactly right. The only reason I told you about myself is because it brings up a real life situation that correlates to what we are discussing here. Sports IS entertainment. I'm in the entertainment industry, thus I have a direct knowledge and insight into this. That is why I brought it up, so you could understand, nothing more, nothing less. If you are a doctor and we are talking about surgery and you have direct knowledge of said surgery and you gave me a real life story about said surgery, I would not attack you and say you are bragging about your self. Wow. Third, My point is that this hurst the M's and I'm an M's fan. Your point is who cares about the M's, it's good for baseball. Do I care about baseball? Yes. Do I care about the M's success infinitely more? Hell Yes. Yes they still could get a good player or two, but gone are the days where we scooped up 5 good guys because of all the hard work Engle has done down in Latin America or because of how much money we have invested in our Latin American infrastructure. Now, as you mentioned we can grab two elite guys and the others can go to the Astros or Indians or Royals. Great, it's good for baseball, but guess what? This sucks ass for the M's. The Mariners invested heavily in Latin America, from academies to advanced scouts to hold a distinct advantage in one avenue of building a baseball team, well that advantage has been severely severed. It would be like baseball telling the Yankees that you can no longer spend 200 million on a team, you can only spend 100 million, so the rest of the league can get some of the guys you attract. Do you think the Yankees would be happy about it? I understand your point Edman, you want what's best for baseball. I respect that. But once in a while you have to learn to respect the points of others. What's my point? I want what's good for the Mariners. Good day. |
| 37. By: nighthawk180 on 11-23-2011 12:52:55 rjfrikm, You are spot on about that this makes the mariners in a worst position in the international market. They wont be able to spend freely like they used too. But the only thing I see bad about this now is that 2.9 million is all ANY team can pay. Which brings me to Edman's point. If we cant sign all 5 of the best but sign maybe 1-2 with our 2.9 million cap everyone else has that same cap. If the players think that they are worth 2.9 million they will ask for it if they get it then that is that teams whole budget. One less team to worry about. While I'm not in the entertainment business I think I have an idea why they have budgets too. Actors and Actress's have a portfolio and experience and what not to back up their demands. What is stopping them from signing every A lister to star in their movie. In other words you can ask whatever you want doesnt mean your gonna get it. Same thing with the International F/A classes of the future. With everyone having a cap will make others think about how much they spend and offer to those IFA players. Its up to them if they will except those offers or not. Again this does suck for the Mariners, Bob Engle and crew but it sucks for everyone just the same. Thats what makes it not sting so bad for me. It definitly still sucks tho you are right rjfrik. |
| 38. By: masonb on 11-23-2011 13:09:18 what rjfrik said. This is definitely a kick in the balls to the Mariners and to argue otherwise is futile. In fact, I don't think there's anyway that you could spin this as a positive even for baseball. The past several years have seen alot of the big-time prospects go to the lower market clubs or middle tier clubs like Seattle, KC, Pittsburgh, Washington, Toronto, Oakland, Minnesota etc. Because these clubs can't really compete for the upper tier free agents with the Bostons and New Yorks of the world, the best route to take is to develop talent internally and either see that talent pay off at the Major League level or trade it to improve at the Major League level. The name of the game is really asset procurement. The new CBA SEVERLY takes away any kind of advantage those clubs at getting these international prospects. Not only that, but since the larger market clubs are more flush with "assets" in the first place, they're risk is somewhat more mitigated than a club like Kansas City that has to hit a homerun with every single international prospect they sign now. And as several others, including myself have stated, what's keeping the top guys from demanding 2.9 million bonuses? What's more likely to happen is that those players end up going to the larger market clubs, because all things being equal, a player would most likely prefer a prestigious franchise to the alternative. This 2.9 million number perplexes me, because it just seems so low. It would have made more sense to go 5 or even 4 million. I just think in the long run this isn't good for baseball, and I've yet to see a convincing argument to prove otherwise. Just simply saying there's X number of dollars, therefore ALL players will be fine with significantly less money is a far too linear way of thinking. |
| 39. By: Edman on 11-23-2011 13:11:48 rjfrik, I get your point. Your first post on the matter was a bit over the top. It isn't the worst news for the M's. It's not good, but rules change all the time. Every team suffered in some fashion. Seattle has to improve its drafts and stop depending on International Free Agents to make up for the shortfall of the Bavasi era. Jack has done a good job, in that regard. Look at how much Texas spent this year on IFAs. They won't be able to do that again. So, that helps Seattle, rather than hinder them. The entire game of baseball is financially unsound. At least this is more fair to kids being drafted. You won't see kids with equal or less talent, being signed for more than the draftees get. Teams are not going to be able to spend freely. They are going to have to maximize the value of their $2.9 million. And, with Engle and company, they will be even more powerful now, because they are very good at evaluating talent. That still gives the Mariners an advantage. I didn't disrespect your point of view. However, that I disagree with it has nothing to do with the value of your point of view. I countered your opinion, to which you called it "lame". I didn't make it personal, you did. If anyone didn't want to accept another point of view, it was you. You have your opinion, I have mine. But please don't try to sell me off as the instigator. You played a part. Enough said. |
| 40. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2011 14:00:19 Ed, this hurts the Ms, plain and simple. They had a competitive advantage in International Free Agency, but by your own admission, the CBA levels the playing field. So which is it Ed, because you can't lose your competitive advantage and not be hurt. You get into these arguments with people, as many people have said, just to be argumentative, and in the process, cosntantly contradict yourself, case in point- "Seattle has to improve its drafts and stop depending on International Free Agents to make up for the shortfall of the Bavasi era" "And, with Engle and company, they will be even more powerful now, because they are very good at evaluating talent. That still gives the Mariners an advantage." So they can't depend as much on the International market, but their International scouting department got more powerful? There seems to be some very misguided and short sided opinions of this, and the rational for how this doesn't negatively affect the Ms is well, irrational. First off, Ed, Viking, Jgstecker, others who keep throwing around the $2.9 mil number, that's only for next year. After that a teams budget will be inversely proportional to their record, meaning that if the Ms get better as a team, their budget will shrink even further. How would that allow them to still take advantage of their superior scouting? The top IFAs are scouted similarly by most teams, but if the Ms win say 90 games, it will effectively remove them from the running for said player, because 25 other teams can simply offer more. Engle will continue to have value to the Ms, because they will need him to find some hidden gems in order to not be completely out of the market, but it certain doesn't add to the value of that department. Also, if you've paid attention to the Ms in the IFA market, you'll notice some years they are relatively quiet, while others they sign multiple players. Now they will have a set budget for every year, there is no, we won't spend our money this year, but can break the bank next year. It will compel teams to spend their entire budget every year, as those monies won't carry over, and their budget could be reduced if their record improves. And this notion that the top IFAs won't still garner multi million dollar offers is completely bunk. The top guys can still ask for a teams entire budget, because if team A doesn't want to blow their entire budget, some other team, who has never been in the kid's house, can simply come along and make that offer to the kid. Teams that try and spread their budget over a couple of players, will simply miss out to a team that decides to put all their eggs in one basket. |
| 41. By: jgstecker on 11-23-2011 14:22:35 I have to (respectfully) disagree with the idea that the new CBA hurts low income teams amateur talent. First of all, they'll have more money to spend on IFAs after 2012--nearly twice as much as the big boys. That's a pretty sizeable advantage on that front. Secondly. the draft is going to heavily favor the little guys after 2012. The first six piick after the first round will be lottery picks divided up between the poorest teams. After those picks there may be a handful of compensation picks, but those will only go to teams who lost players who signed for 12 million a year or more. AND the teams that sign the player will lose their pick. THIS IS HUGE - that lost pick does not go to the team who lost the player. It is simply deleted from the draft and everyone moves up. This means that the second round will always start around pick #37 overall (I'm not sure at this point if unsigned picks will garner compensation in the following draft, but it seems like a moot point now). For comparison, the M's drafted with the second pick in the second round in 2011 at around 70th overall. If the new rules were in effect then, they would be picking their 3rd round selection before then. That's a free Top 50 prospect and you don't have to factor in signability. |
| 42. By: masonb on 11-23-2011 14:31:50 But is the new hard slotting system completely taking away signability issues? No. Teams can still go significantly over cap to sign a draft pick, they just taxed for it. If you have a player like Bryce Harper or Steven Strasburg come along and picked first, those players can still get a ton of money. The team just has to surrender to firsts for it. Do you think there are teams out there who would sacrifice two drafts picks for Harper or Strasburg type players? You bet your ass they would. It certainly negatively affects agents leverage, but for the top players who keep falling for signability issues, you could still see those players demand money very much over slot. |
| 43. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2011 14:53:31 "I have to (respectfully) disagree with the idea that the new CBA hurts low income teams amateur talent" I'm not sure who you are referencing as making this claim, but let's take a look at it for half a second. Is Tampa Bay a low income team? Pretty sure they are, in fact they had the second lowest payroll in all of baseball. Well then how did they make the playoffs this year? Was it possibly by deciding investing a extra couple million over slot in the draft was a better way for them to build a team than giving Crawford 20+? Does the new CBA greatly hamper their ability over spend in the draft, in order to save money on their MLB payroll? Wouldn't that hurt them? |
| 44. By: jgstecker on 11-23-2011 15:06:08 Tampa could draft the exact same players the did in the past. They just don't have to pay them over slot now. Saves them money. The players have almost no leverage. What are the kids going to do? Refuse to sign and move up a couple picks in a subsequent draft and get hard slotted again. That's a big risk for a small payoff. I guess Tampa can't hoard Type B compensation picks anymore. But I'm pretty sure everyone thought that system was bogus. They will get a shot at one of those lottery picks though. Giving a team an extra top 35 slection is a major boost. Again, they can draft a true top 35 talent who isn't going to have a lot of leverage to risk not signing for slot. Anyway, I was responding mostly to masonb's assertion that small market teams were getting hosed. I don't see it. |
| 45. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2011 15:40:22 "Tampa could draft the exact same players the did in the past." You're clearly not grasping this. Sure they could draft them, but they aren't going to dissuade them from going to, or staying in school by offering them slot money. They had to offer these kids exponentially more money than slot to entice them to sign, thus allowing the Rays to increase the level of talent they were bringing in over a standard 3, 4, 10th, whatever round talent. By spending a couple mil more in the draft, it allowed the Rays to compete with teams spending tens of millions more on their MLB payroll. Now, that ability has waived bye bye. "The players have almost no leverage. What are the kids going to do?" The players have the same leverage they've always had. Honoring a strong scholarship offer, or staying in school for additional years. The Ms were able to get Walker for an absolute bargain, but were unable to sign Stanek even after offering him a potentially larger sum. Why? Because Stanek had a very strong scholarship offer, where as Walker had basically none. And really, going back to the original argument, we aren't talking about how it will affect the players, we are talking how it will affect the teams. A team will now have to pay a hefty penalty for taking a first round talent, with a strong commitment, later in the draft and offering him enough money to pass on school. Whether or not a player has a ton to gain long-term is besides the point. Plenty of players have passed up plenty of money to go to or stay in school, now teams will lose the ability to make an offer too good to pass up. And if you think it's only the large market teams using this tactic, guess again. In fact, going forward, it will only be the large market teams with the ability stomach such penalties. |
| 46. By: Edman on 11-23-2011 15:44:51 Pat, you do understand that there is a difference between being powerful does not have to imply that the Mariners themselves are more powerful? You said: So which is it Ed, because you can't lose your competitive advantage and not be hurt. Simple. They didn't lose their competative advantage, just their ability to spend more than some others. Those are different things. They will still be competative, but what Engle is best at, hasn't changed, his ability to sell the Seattle Mariner organization to IFAs. He just can't offer the moon anymore. And, neither can any other team. So they can't depend as much on the International market, but their International scouting department got more powerful? The market doesn't have anything to do with the power of the scouting department. I misused the word powerful, and should have used the word important. The Mariners are going to have to manage their budget to get the best talent available while staying within the maximum budget they are alotted, which next year, is $2.9 million. Hense, they're going to have to be even more diligent about who they sign, and for what money. And this notion that the top IFAs won't still garner multi million dollar offers is completely bunk. The top guys can still ask for a teams entire budget, because if team A doesn't want to blow their entire budget, some other team, who has never been in the kid's house, can simply come along and make that offer to the kid. Fine, I'm good with it. If one team wishes to spend all their money on one player, so be it. But, it also prevents a rival like Texas or Anaheim from grabbing three of these type players. And, means that they won't be able to sign anymore. I would have to think that unless a kid is the next coming of Albert Pujols, that they will want to come away with more than one IFA. It's also going to allow the Pirates, Astros, Orioles, etc., the ability to sign a kid, that might have gone to the Mariners, Yankees, etc. Does it hurt the Mariners? Yes. Is it devistating? Absolutely not, anymore than it is several other teams. For all the wonders of the Mariner International Scouting department, did their efforts make them hugely successful? No. The failings of the Amature Draft to be able to support those IFAs is why the M's are where they are. |
| 47. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2011 16:15:10 "Pat, you do understand that there is a difference between being powerful does not have to imply that the Mariners themselves are more powerful?" This literally makes no sense. "Simple. They didn't lose their competative advantage, just their ability to spend more than some others. Those are different things." No, actually those are the same thing. Their ability to out spend other teams WAS an advantage, and now it has been removed. "They will still be competative, but what Engle is best at, hasn't changed, his ability to sell the Seattle Mariner organization to IFAs. He just can't offer the moon anymore. And, neither can any other team." First off, I think you are confusing "being competitive" and "having a competitive advantage." No one is saying they've completely lost the ability to sign IFAs, they just lost the advantage they once had in this department. As far as Engle selling the organization to IFAs, you know what a great tool for selling people is? Money? And now the Ms are limited in what money they can spend. And like I stated before, this will have its greatest affect in the years the Ms really like several prospects, but can only really target one or two, because they are now limited on when they can decide to go big. "The Mariners are going to have to manage their budget to get the best talent available while staying within the maximum budget they are alotted, which next year, is $2.9 million. Hense, they're going to have to be even more diligent about who they sign, and for what money." Again, that 2.9 is ONLY for next year. After that it will be affected by a teams W/L record, so if the Ms start to become a perennial contender, they will have even less to work with. They could theoretically have a budget of 2 mil, while another team has one of 4 mil, meaning no matter how badly they want a player, or how well they've scouted him, and how great their relationship is, there will be teams out there that can simply out bid them. And before you start with the "teams get out bid now," the only get out bid when they decide the money is too great, not because the MLB told them they can't spend anymore. "Does it hurt the Mariners? Yes" Which was rjs original point, which you disagreed with and told him he was flat wrong. "Disagree all you want. It does not impare the Mariners by any amount to worry about" "Nothing substantial happens to the Mariners." |
| 48. By: StandinPat on 11-23-2011 16:19:19 "For all the wonders of the Mariner International Scouting department, did their efforts make them hugely successful? No" Another argument that is completely beside rjs original point. He stated this would negatively affect the Ms, albeit he went a bit overboard in his post, but the fact is you told him that he was wrong, and that ha and Dave were missing the point. The point however was simply that this new rules would hurt the Ms more than other teams, which is 100% true, not the success rate of said IFAs, which would be a completely different discussion. |
| 49. By: nighthawk180 on 11-23-2011 16:28:30 To further post 41, Those picks between the low market teams can be traded too if i heard correctly from MLB tv. Which is a huge advantage to them. They may not have the money to sign the player. Now i could have heard wrong but im pretty sure thats what Ken Rosenthal said. Guys regardless how much it screws the mariners it screws every other club the same. Nobody next year can spend over 2.9 million. Once they hit that mark they are done. Period. For every team no exceptions. I dont care who said what or whatever the other person said it sucks for the mariners just as much for the rest of the league. Back to baseball and away from personal bashing plz |
| 50. By: rjfrik on 11-23-2011 16:54:47 Ed, I have to respond one more time, even though I was done. Why? Because you accuse me of stuff I never said. I never once attacked you personally Edman. All I ever did was state that I disagreed with you and that in my opinion your reasoning behind our different point of views was illogical. That's it. I never called you "Lame". Not even sure where you got that from. I called the situation for the M's lame. You are the one that came over the top and got personal by saying I talk about my self and I'm snobbish. As a fellow poster, I must tell you, you do this way to much. Attack other people and then claim, under false pretenses, they attacked you first. I'm done with that. On another note. I need to say something about this comment. "For all the wonders of the Mariner International Scouting department, did their efforts make them hugely successful? No" Go back and look at the last ten years Engle has been running shop and look at all the top talent that he has acquired from Latin America compared to the rest of baseball. No other team in baseball even comes close in my opinion. Are a lot of those players on other teams? You betcha, for the reason we had a horrible GM willing to trade them away for squat. But if you go down the list of players Engle has acquired, it could be an a team that easily wins a World Series. And as Pat has said, the years where Engle targets five guys the M's need to have and acquiring are over. I'm sure this is all a moot point anyways. All this is doing is setting the stage for an International Draft. My guess is by 2016, when the Union and the league go to the tables again, we will have one. |
| 51. By: masonb on 11-23-2011 17:19:21 There was a snippet on MLBTradeRumors that said an international draft could be instituted by 2014. If that's the case, it makes total sense. They might be trying to artificially deflate signing bonus demands so when the time comes for a draft, the demands won't be ridiculous. But again, that's conjecture on my part. It will be interesting to see how these changes affect player development but I just don't see how these changes could be positive. |
| 52. By: Edman on 11-23-2011 18:34:52 It appears to be absolutly about instituting an International draft. This is likly a pre-cursor until it can be accomplished. |
| 53. By: Juan Valdez on 11-23-2011 21:54:00 Some thoughts: 1) What really sticks out to me is how low the cap is. $2.9 mil is not much. 2) Given that $2.9 mil really isn't very much, I don't really like the idea that a team's budget will go down when they get better. 3) Yes, this does hurt the M's in that it constrains their ability to take advantage of the international network they've built. Like some others said, in years where the M's see 5 guys that are legitimate $1 mil players, they no longer have the ability to allocate funds to go after those guys. 4) But, as Edman has pointed out, neither does anyone else, and where the M's retain an advantage is in the evaluation process that *should* give them an advantage when it comes to prioritizing how those funds are allocated. Over at USSM, someone made the point that while everyone may agree on who the top 20 prospects are, there will be much less agreement on prospects 21 - 40. This is an area where a team that is strong in evaluation would have an advantage. 5) Also over at USSM, someone made the comment that this will turn the IFA market into college recruiting. I think this is true. Teams will need to get better at selling kids and their parents on the organization itself. 6) I want to hear more about the rules around trading cap space. That is extremely interesting. 7) Does this rule apply equally to Japanese Free Agents? If so, that seems unfair. These guys aren't amateurs and shouldn't be lumped together with 16 year olds from the D.R. |
| 54. By: StandinPat on 11-29-2011 14:59:22 "Guys regardless how much it screws the mariners it screws every other club the same. Nobody next year can spend over 2.9 million. Once they hit that mark they are done. Period. For every team no exceptions. I dont care who said what or whatever the other person said it sucks for the mariners just as much for the rest of the league." This is just completely untrue. It affects all teams differently. If team A typically spends $6 mil in a year, then the new rules severely hamper them, but if team B doesn't typically spend more than $2 mil, then it won't hamper them at all. That is the epitome of affecting each club at a different level. As far as the 2.9 number goes, it's for ONE year. People need to stop quoting that number as if it's the new cap. After next year, EVERY team will have a different cap, again affecting every team differently. The new rules do not create an equal playing field for all teams, and does not "screw" every team the same. |
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 |