My 2014 Moves (If I only owned the Team Edition)

[Baseballnut77]

I would love to make a move for Braun although I would not love what it would probably take to get him.

actually I think it would take a lot less than it would have taken at the beginning of the season so it would at least be worth a sniff

 

[unlvmariners]

I think Hughes could be the 'Millwood' type pickup except he would be a lot younger. Saunders was $6.5M for this year so basically he would be taking his spot. I really think he still has a good future. Not All-Star level, but a solid #3 or #4. Plus, with him he wouldn't be holding back any of the youngsters since he wouldn't cost much, in my scenario, and he could be moved to the pen if things didn't work out.

As far as Gordon goes, he is actually ranked 6th among LF's in WAR from 2010-2013. Braun is ranked 2nd if you are a gambler and think the PED's didn't enhance his numbers much. Would be an interesting gamble IF the price was right.

Good talking with you again UNLV.

I guess we just disagree on Hughes ability level. I agree with your thought process just not the player. I think Hughes would get beat out for a starting job forcing him to the pen and I really don't want $6 mil sitting in the pen.

Gordon makes me nervous. He feels like the guy we trade for only for him to become a bust in Seattle and another bad trade. His numbers this past season don't impress me, red flag for me. What do you think of Ethier? If Seattle did trade for someone I wouldn't mind going after Ethier. I'm not sure what his contract looks like or if the Dodgers would consider a trade.

Screw it make the trade for Braun! I've been around these casinos too long.

You too AZ!

 

[seafan]

Love most of what NW put out.

Bullpen is a giant concern as well. A good 4-5 pieces missing there, alone.

Basically, a completely new outfield, a real bullpen, and a real offense hitting in the lineup from 2-5, and maybe, just maybe, this team could get to .500 again. Needs a lot more to contend for anything.

As of right now, it's nothing more than re-arranging turds on the field.

Too pessimistic. I think with the right 6 players the ms would be over .500 and around the playoff race. 2 for the bullpen, 1 starter, 2 outfielders and a DH.

 

[seafan]

I guess we just disagree on Hughes ability level. I agree with your thought process just not the player. I think Hughes would get beat out for a starting job forcing him to the pen and I really don't want $6 mil sitting in the pen.

Gordon makes me nervous. He feels like the guy we trade for only for him to become a bust in Seattle and another bad trade. His numbers this past season don't impress me, red flag for me. What do you think of Ethier? If Seattle did trade for someone I wouldn't mind going after Ethier. I'm not sure what his contract looks like or if the Dodgers would consider a trade.

Screw it make the trade for Braun! I've been around these casinos too long.

You too AZ!

Never liked hughes either but i do think he'll be better out of ny.

It was rumored the dodgers might be looking to trade eithier or kemp. I dont know what it would take to get kemp but its a huge risk. Probably get a nice discount but it still might be prohibitive. Braun is similar but probably less risk of a flop.

 

[cezero]

Too pessimistic. I think with the right 6 players the ms would be over .500 and around the playoff race. 2 for the bullpen, 1 starter, 2 outfielders and a DH.

1) 3-4 middle of the order bats
2) 3 real outfielders with league average or better combined WAR
3) 4-5 MLB caliber bullpen additions (we're the worst or 2nd worst bullpen in baseball right now)
4) 2-3 proven starters

That is what it will take to get to .500. It will take more to contend.

There may be some overlap with numbers 1 and 2 if the right deals are made. But we're talking about the Mariners.

Number 4 might take care of itself in 2014 without Z having to do much at all. So that's the part I'm most optimistic about.

We're talking about multiple years before this team can get to .500, much less contend for anything. And that's only if the FO is competent and some of the refuse the farm has produced (outside of pitching) amounts to anything at all.

 

[Baseballnut77]

blah blah blah go waste time on the Yankees board I am sure you will be happier over there

 

[seafan]

1) 3-4 middle of the order bats
2) 3 real outfielders with league average or better combined WAR
3) 4-5 MLB caliber bullpen additions (we're the worst or 2nd worst bullpen in baseball right now)
4) 2-3 proven starters

That is what it will take to get to .500. It will take more to contend.

1.) I agree with number 1 but a couple of those could come in house. I think they should get 2 this year and see what happens with the young guys. I know you dont think that will happen, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
2.) I dont think we "need" 3. I think with almonte, saunders and ackley there is at the very least a passable platoon.
3.) Agree on 3 and with the sentiment that there will be improvement in house.
4.) Dont understand this one....How could we possibly "need" 2-3 "Proven starters". You dont need 4-5 proven starters on your team... look at the A's, Rays etc etc lots of teams make the playoffs off the backs of starters who werent proven when the year started. Our pitching will be better next year even if we add no one. We need 1 starter max.

 

[cezero]

1.) I agree with number 1 but a couple of those could come in house. I think they should get 2 this year and see what happens with the young guys. I know you dont think that will happen, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.
2.) I dont think we "need" 3. I think with almonte, saunders and ackley there is at the very least a passable platoon.
3.) Agree on 3 and with the sentiment that there will be improvement in house.
4.) Dont understand this one....How could we possibly "need" 2-3 "Proven starters". You dont need 4-5 proven starters on your team... look at the A's, Rays etc etc lots of teams make the playoffs off the backs of starters who werent proven when the year started. Our pitching will be better next year even if we add no one. We need 1 starter max.

It's unrealistic to finish 20+ games out of the playoffs, and then think "in house" solutions will fix more than a few pieces

This team isn't full of guys who are "almost there" in any way except for possibly starting pitching, and as optimistic as I am about some of them (Walker, Paxton to a lesser degree), they're still babies 100% unproven in MLB starting rotations. They have the strongest chance of any "prospects" on the team developing into competent pieces for a .500 or contending team, but it's still ludicrous to say the M's only need 1 starter.

Almonte, Saunders, and Ackley as a passable outfield for a .500 or contending team is patently absurd. Come on now. lol.

I really wonder from where people think a team this bad is somehow just a few little pieces away from being good. The comparisons to Oakland and Tampa are about as delusional as anything I've ever seen anywhere on any message board.

 

[NWinAZ]

Never liked hughes either but i do think he'll be better out of ny.

It was rumored the dodgers might be looking to trade eithier or kemp. I dont know what it would take to get kemp but its a huge risk. Probably get a nice discount but it still might be prohibitive. Braun is similar but probably less risk of a flop.

I wouldn't touch Ethier at all and I thought about the Kemp thing as well, but he would be miserable in Seattle. He is a Hollywood kind of guy and the NW would just make him cry his way out of town IMO. Good thought though.

 

[NWinAZ]

"I really wonder from where people think a team this bad is somehow just a few little pieces away from being good. The comparisons to Oakland and Tampa are about as delusional as anything I've ever seen anywhere on any message board."

I use to say this stuff on the CBS Boards and get booed at for being bitter fan. It is true though whether people want to hear it or not. Fans keep preaching that you build through the draft, you build through the draft. All teams draft! How does it make us specifically better compared to the team that are already contenders? Detroit drafts and in much lower spots yet they still have just as good prospects as us plus they are 100 times better than us at the MLB level. Cardinals as well...and so on and so on. Draft, free agency, and trades. It is a 3 headed monster to winning.

 

[unlvmariners]

. Draft, free agency, and trades. It is a 3 headed monster to winning.

I actually think luck is a big part of it also. Success in baseball is in large part dependent on individual performances. A good season from unexpected players is very possible and it can play a big role in the success of a team. A bad season from good players is also possible and it can really hurt a teams season. With that being the case I don't think any team is really more than a couple of seasons away from the possibility of competing a lot can change through the course of a season or more. I understand that a lot of things would have to happen correctly for that to happen for the Mariners or any other team for that matter.

Seattle needs a big boost from the FA market. A payroll increase would be nice to see unfortunately that is not the goal of the front office. Right now Seattle is running a bunch of young players out there that honestly don't look ready or even have the ability to play at the MLB level.

 

[NWinAZ]

I actually think luck is a big part of it also. Success in baseball is in large part dependent on individual performances. A good season from unexpected players is very possible and it can play a big role in the success of a team. A bad season from good players is also possible and it can really hurt a teams season. With that being the case I don't think any team is really more than a couple of seasons away from the possibility of competing a lot can change through the course of a season or more. I understand that a lot of things would have to happen correctly for that to happen for the Mariners or any other team for that matter.

Seattle needs a big boost from the FA market. A payroll increase would be nice to see unfortunately that is not the goal of the front office. Right now Seattle is running a bunch of young players out there that honestly don't look ready or even have the ability to play at the MLB level.

I would agree that luck plays a part. Look at our 2001 season and I think luck had a factor in it. Balls fell our way, we were almost injury free, and signings were above and beyond what anyone expected including the M's brass. But I also think you have to put yourself into the position to have luck be a factor. We are so far away from contending that luck couldn't play a big enough part to even matter.

 

[unlvmariners]

I would agree that luck plays a part. Look at our 2001 season and I think luck had a factor in it. Balls fell our way, we were almost injury free, and signings were above and beyond what anyone expected including the M's brass. But I also think you have to put yourself into the position to have luck be a factor. We are so far away from contending that luck couldn't play a big enough part to even matter.

Im not saying "luck" solely during games. I am saying luck with players. Luck with players in the draft, free agency and trades, stuff like that.

To be honest I look at some of the people on this board and there is no question they are overly optimistic. I also read some of the stuff that cezero puts out there and its clearly overly pessimistic. I don't have anything against either opinions.

Point being it is not crazy to believe that the lineup AZ posted to begin this thread would be able to get the Mariners 1 more win a week. That puts a team in playoff contention.

 

[NWinAZ]

That would be about an extra 25 wins for the season which would put M's in the mid 90's for wins which would be fun.

I think 'luck' plays more to the smaller aspects of the game than the larger. To say for example that Cardinals draft so well year after year can be partially due to luck isn't giving the Cards the benefit of good evaluating and teaching. Taking a chance on a guy like Boone in 2001 turned out to be a bit lucky...and maybe steroidal..lol Getting a guy like Ichiro was a bit lucky because he was looked at as a slap happy, goofy stroking hitter that had never really played against top pitching before. The luck comes in when our owner wants him because of the status he brought over from Japan and he was a close friend of his to a degree. If we had an American owner, would we have gone to that extent to sign him?

So luck plays a part in the daily games as well as the seasonal game I believe, but if you get enough lucky bounces you can increase your win total enough to compete. Just my opinion.

 

[seafan]

It's unrealistic to finish 20+ games out of the playoffs, and then think "in house" solutions will fix more than a few pieces

This team isn't full of guys who are "almost there" in any way except for possibly starting pitching, and as optimistic as I am about some of them (Walker, Paxton to a lesser degree), they're still babies 100% unproven in MLB starting rotations. They have the strongest chance of any "prospects" on the team developing into competent pieces for a .500 or contending team, but it's still ludicrous to say the M's only need 1 starter.

I see things a little different. The mariners 3-5 last year were possibly the worst in baseball. I think between walker/paxton youve got at least a quality #3 lets say walker and with paxton, ramirez and maybe maurer youve got at least a passable #5. Thats a conservative estimate in my opinion, walker and paxton could give this team the best 1-4 rotation in baseball. Either way its a signifacant upgrade over last year.


[/QUOTE]Almonte, Saunders, and Ackley as a passable outfield for a .500 or contending team is patently absurd. Come on now. lol.[/QUOTE]

Lol thats the worst outfield in baseball. I was saying that between the 3 of them there is atleast a passable platoon for ONE outfield spot.

 

[NWinAZ]

" I think between walker/paxton youve got at least a quality #3 lets say walker and with paxton, ramirez and maybe maurer youve got at least a passable #5. Thats a conservative estimate in my opinion, walker and paxton could give this team the best 1-4 rotation in baseball. Either way its a signifacant upgrade over last year."

I understand the optimism, but here is my problem when you rely on rookie pitchers; With all the big press for all these rookie pitchers this year, only 6 pitched more than 150 innings. It would be hard to be a factor for a team if you pitched less. Only 13 pitched 100 or more innings. So to have both Walker and Paxton being factors, it would be improbable, not impossible, but improbable. That is why I would love for them to sign a legit #3 starter and let Walker/Paxton/Ramirez/Maurer battle for the last two spots or split them over the year.

 

[seafan]

Cant disagree with what youre saying NW, were pretty much saying the same thing but i do believe one of walker/paxton will live up to the hype this year. Both have killed every level in the minors, had pretty nice september call ups and its not like they were rushed.

But yea your pretty much saying the same thing as me, walker/paxton/ramirez/maurer should be able to fill 2 spots in the rotation so we need 1 free agent starter.

 

[cezero]

Actually, NW is saying that it's improbable, though not impossible, for both Walker and Paxton to become legit 3/4/5 starters for a team hoping to get to .500 and possibly more.

It would be irresponsible for the team and for both of those kids to look at the M's starting pitching situation as being down by 1 quality arm, no matter how much optimism we might be about their potential.

 

[NWinAZ]

But yea your pretty much saying the same thing as me, walker/paxton/ramirez/maurer should be able to fill 2 spots in the rotation so we need 1 free agent starter.

I agree it would take a committee of young pitchers to fill a couple of rotation spots. Can a contending team rely on that method? In the right situation it might. I would never depend on it if I was responsible to put together a contending team.

 

[NWinAZ]

Actually, NW is saying that it's improbable, though not impossible, for both Walker and Paxton to become legit 3/4/5 starters for a team hoping to get to .500 and possibly more.

It would be irresponsible for the team and for both of those kids to look at the M's starting pitching situation as being down by 1 quality arm, no matter how much optimism we might be about their potential.

I am saying this as well. Depending on rookies to make up 40% of your SP's is not a smart way to try and contend or even reach .500. So many unknowns and limits put on them will make it tough. Also, if you plan for the rookies to be in the rotation then you wouldn't sign veterans meaning you would have no Plan B if/when it fails. Most teams don't have the fortune to have multiple MLB ready arms to change in and out at least not with the ability to still remain competitive.

It would be interesting to see how many teams made the playoffs or even competed for a spot by starting off with say 2 starting rookie pitchers. Maybe it happens more than I think.