Mariners offseason rumor/discussion thread

[wazzu31]

That is funny. Not laughing at you, but one you mention free agency which Mariners are allergic to and then you mention getting the better side of the trades which they just seem apposed to. I get your points and I agree, but I just don't see them doing either or at least they haven't under GMZ. I have always said said you trade assets that you have extras of for positions you are thin at and then sign free agents to add to the building. M's don't seem to agree as history has proven.

It really has become hard to trust anything he does. He was a glorified scout that became a GM. He hasn't really done anything to better the franchise if you think about it.

He did a good deal with Vargas for Morales, but if he was about moving Vargas then why the hell did he not do it the trade deadline prior when Vargas had higher value to a contender.

Not a bad deal with Morse but I still do not understand giving up on Jaso so he could try to tell the world he was right by playing Montero as the starting catcher.

Figgins, enough said.

The Fister deal, well he should be banned from baseball with that deal.

I don't get how he has given Smoak so much rope that it has become hilarious yet he screwed Carp's career in Seattle when the dude was just a flat out hitter. To me it just another reason Jack is always trying to prove he is a genius. The biggest trade he made had Smoak at the centerpiece, keeping Carp but dealing Smoak meant he fudged up.

Dealing Pineda, granted Pineda hasn't done jack but he was a young all star pitcher, and all he could get was a DH. You don't deal a proven stud pitcher for a great hitting prospect. That deal should've been a star pitching prospect like Paxton and Maurer.

I just hate Howard and Chuck for everything. After he let Gillick destroy the future of the club is when he should've brought in a Jack type GM who builds farm systems not a guy like Bavasi. Bavasi is the type of GM you bring it if you have a rebuilder like Jack previous.

 

[blstoker]

Dealing Pineda, granted Pineda hasn't done jack but he was a young all star pitcher, and all he could get was a DH. You don't deal a proven stud pitcher for a great hitting prospect. That deal should've been a star pitching prospect like Paxton and Maurer.

I have to chalk this one up as a win for him. Not only have the Yankees paid Pineda over $1 million without him throwing a pitch for them, but Pineda was showing he was wearing down even quite early in the season. Over his last 16 starts, he was 3-7 with a 4.90 ERA.

I know Pineda was young (and still is) but so was Montero. If Montero duplicates his 2012 in 2013, most wouldn't even be questioning the trade, but the injury after getting demoted took out any chance he would work through his issues this season.

I know that Zunino is considered the more polished defensive catcher, but if Montero can return to hit like he did in 2012, there will be a spot on the team for him, whether it DH, C or 1B he'll get playing time, especially if Zunino continues to struggle. That is a big if, but since he's done it before, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

 

[cezero]

Trading pitching prospects is the only way this team will get better.

That's a fact.

Of course we also need to sign some quality free agents, but as others have said, they have zero incentive to come to this suckhole of a franchise. If they're good (in other words, a piece we desperately need), they'll generate interest from real teams where their agents can get the same signing money.

No matter what, it takes equal excellence in trades, FA signings, and farm development to create a real contender. For the trade part, we'll have to give up a lot of the only thing we've developed slightly well: pitching.

And the Pineda trade was fine.

 

[wazzu31]

I have to chalk this one up as a win for him. Not only have the Yankees paid Pineda over $1 million without him throwing a pitch for them, but Pineda was showing he was wearing down even quite early in the season. Over his last 16 starts, he was 3-7 with a 4.90 ERA.

I know Pineda was young (and still is) but so was Montero. If Montero duplicates his 2012 in 2013, most wouldn't even be questioning the trade, but the injury after getting demoted took out any chance he would work through his issues this season.

I know that Zunino is considered the more polished defensive catcher, but if Montero can return to hit like he did in 2012, there will be a spot on the team for him, whether it DH, C or 1B he'll get playing time, especially if Zunino continues to struggle. That is a big if, but since he's done it before, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Pineda showed signs off fatigue after throwing the most innings he has in his career, Montero never showed one sign of being a viable defensive player in the minors nor in the big leagues. Which is the huge problem with the deal, younger players have proven they can not handle being a full time DH which is the only thing Montero can do that does not hurt the team.

 

[NWinAZ]

Not a Jack fan obviously, but what scares me more is that he is inept and now desperate to make things happen. That is a Bavasi type move just waiting to happen.

I fear he will deal for Kemp and it will cost us a Jones type player and Kemp will be our newest Bedard. Plus, a big move like that is worthless unless you plan to go all in and add 4 more pieces now...which M's won't do.

 

[seahawksfan234]

That is funny. Not laughing at you, but one you mention free agency which Mariners are allergic to and then you mention getting the better side of the trades which they just seem apposed to. I get your points and I agree, but I just don't see them doing either or at least they haven't under GMZ. I have always said said you trade assets that you have extras of for positions you are thin at and then sign free agents to add to the building. M's don't seem to agree as history has proven.

Well as I said, I believe the Mariners can build talent through trades and free agency. Doesn't mean they have or will though.

 

[blstoker]

Pineda showed signs off fatigue after throwing the most innings he has in his career, Montero never showed one sign of being a viable defensive player in the minors nor in the big leagues. Which is the huge problem with the deal, younger players have proven they can not handle being a full time DH which is the only thing Montero can do that does not hurt the team.

Pineda pitched 77.1 innings in his first 12 starts (after which his effectiveness went down). His career high in inning coming into 2011 was 139.1 (2010, he also had 138.1 in 2008). It would take him 11 more starts to get to the 139.1 threshold, and they were really bad. So he started fading even before he reached his highest career innings. He's his breakdown.

12 GS 77.1 IP 2.33 ERA 6-3 REC 76 K
11 GS 63.2 IP 5.51 ERA 3-4 REC 67 K

If Pineda stays healthy and productive after the trade, this is probably a different debate, but he didn't. I hope Montero works hard on his D, and doesn't think he will be a long term DH, I'm not holdin my breath for that to happen, but anything's possible. Also, not only did the Mariners have a plethora of pitching at the time, but if they suspected his arm wouldn't hold up, trade him while you can still get something for him.

 

[seattlefan75]

Well Danny Hultzen is going to be gone for the 2014 season so much for him making the opening day roster with paxton, and walker. I dont knock our GM for drafting him because you cant predict injuries but this sucks

 

[seattlefan75]

In other news It seems like the M's are really interested in Matt Kemp which is great but I would just hate for our GM to become desperate for hitting that he would send a lot of prospects to the dodgers for him. lucky for us the dodgers have way to many outfielders, i think they would like to get rid of kemps contract especially after that huge injury he had last season. Unless the Rangers give big for him and force us to give more, I think this would be a good move

 

[cezero]

If the FO is going to spend $20 mill/year, I would hope it would be on somebody younger. Kemp is 29, and is contracted to make that much until 2019.

I see what people are saying about trading some pitching prospects for him in exchange for the Dodgers eating some or part of the salary, but a handful of excellent pitchers are literally our only bargaining chips for quality trades right now. I'm not sure that Kemp is worth it even if the Dodgers do eat some salary.

 

[NWinAZ]

No to Kemp. He is a rich teams bonus baby not a team who can't afford to miss on a deal.

Stick to free agent market and keep what we have unless you are talking guys like Smoak or Ackley/Franklin. I would like them get Logan Morrison for the right price. Add Choo and Napoli and Hart and then a legit starter. That is my basic plan since I don't think they will do much again this off season.

 

[Thisnamewasntaken]

If the FO is going to spend $20 mill/year, I would hope it would be on somebody younger. Kemp is 29, and is contracted to make that much until 2019.

I see what people are saying about trading some pitching prospects for him in exchange for the Dodgers eating some or part of the salary, but a handful of excellent pitchers are literally our only bargaining chips for quality trades right now. I'm not sure that Kemp is worth it even if the Dodgers do eat some salary.

It's not worth it unless they will eat a ton kf salary and only want Hultzen and some bullpen arms. They aren't going to want damaged goods. They're going to want Walker, in which case they can F off.

 

[Baseballnut77]

You do not I repeat DO NOT trade away your best prospects in an effort to make the team better. Only an idiot would do that. You build pitching then buy your bats. Granted we already have some young hitters who will only get better but we still need at least to good hitting outfielders to begin to think we could sneak up on some teams next year

 

[cezero]

no prospect should ever be considered completely off limits when it comes to trades, especially for a rebuilding team.

a good team is not rebuilt by prospects alone. and for the m's, what good is it to have prospects when the team is so deficient in talent everywhere, they're 20 games below .500 every fucking year? a fool would say through free agency, of course. lol.

to ever get decent, the m's are going to have to trade away prospects. anybody with a modicum of understanding about baseball knows that.

i think we're all worried about what z will do, of course.

i'm pretty much categorically against wasting the precious few trading chips the m's have on somebody like kemp, for the reasons many people have stated in this thread.

 

[NWinAZ]

I have never had a problem with the trading of prospects as long as you get good return for them. But I don't see the need to trade prospects when you are so far away from contending (unless you are trading prospects of strength positions for prospects of weak positions). Until you add via free agency or add through trading of vets who don't fit your long term plans, why trade them? Is a guy like Stanton or Trumbo or ? alone really going to make you better? They will be long gone by the time anything else develops on your team and now you lost the prospects as well who were under team control. For me that was kind of lie the Fister trade. He was still a prospect in my eyes because of lack of long term success and still being under team control. What was there to gain by dealing him when we needed so many holes to be filled? Sure it would have been nice to get 5 quality players in return for him, but that wasn't ever happening.

If any idiot doesn't believes that free agency isn't a way to building a contender, well then you are just that...an idiot. Fans pointed the Red Sox of two years ago and said 'See, free agency didn't work for them'. One year later I don't here those same fans complaining about them signing free agents. You have to be smart about who you sign just like you have to be smart on who you draft or who you trade or trade for. Jack hasn't been smart, but don't blame the system blame the man.

 

[SeattleCoug]

You absolutely need to trade prospects for major league talent to get better. Are you banking on us getting better by attracting the top free agents? Or sitting on our hands waiting for prospects to develop like we've done the last decade. They are going to need to hit on a trade or two and likely need to trade talent to get talent.

I know people love to reference the Bedard trade, but that was a different GM and it shouldnt stop you from ever trading prospects ever again!! I mean come on now

 

[NWinAZ]

You absolutely need to trade prospects for major league talent to get better. Are you banking on us getting better by attracting the top free agents? Or sitting on our hands waiting for prospects to develop like we've done the last decade. They are going to need to hit on a trade or two and likely need to trade talent to get talent.

I know people love to reference the Bedard trade, but that was a different GM and it shouldnt stop you from ever trading prospects ever again!! I mean come on now

Name one difference maker we have gotten by trading a prospect in this last decade? Fister trade? Pineda trade? Jones/Tillman trade? The Phillies trade for Lee? The Lee trade to Texas (not a prospect trade, but we turned prospects into Lee who we dealt so same thing)? The Choo trade? The Cabrera trade? The Soriano trade?

Heck, go back even further to the Cruz trade. The David Ortiz trade. The Hampton trade. The Lowe/Varitek trade.

To me you only trade prospects if you are a piece away from contention. Trading them just to add a piece when you are 5+ pieces away from mediocrity makes little sense unless once again you are trading from a position of strength for position of weakness and that only shuffles the talent pool around.

So tell me, what prospect can we trade that will bring us back enough talent to contend w/o adding any free agent talent? What benefit will that create in 3 years? 5 years?

 

[cezero]

Name one difference maker we have gotten by trading a prospect in this last decade?...

yes, the m's are terrible at making trades.

it's still an integral part of creating a perennially contending team...as is acquiring quality free agents...as is developing talent through drafts and other minor league signings.

just because the m's are spectacular failures at all of the above doesn't mean they're not all extremely important.

since the m's are one of the worst teams in the past decade at developing talent internally, that leaves getting "difference" makers here to trading some (not all, of course) of the very few players who have managed to somehow look like they could have MLB careers, and trying to acquire free agents. the free agency market is thinner than it's been in a long time thanks to PED use ebbing, and you, yourself, have talked about how little incentive "difference" maker free agents have to come or stay in seattle.

 

[NWinAZ]

My point isn't that you should never trade prospects because I have wanted us to trade any and all throughout the years. My point is you should not do it if you do not plan to add talent via another avenue as well otherwise you are not really gaining you are just replacing because you aren't going to get enough talent back to make an immediate difference while the guy you traded for is still under contract because he is gone once he isn't.

To me this is no different than giving Felix a $20M per year extension for 6 or 7 years then not putting anything around him. How did the extension make us better?

You know where I stand. It takes drafting, trades, and free agency to change the talent level. Drafting alone helps, but takes several years and is a low percentage way of doing it and it alone. Trading alone is either giving up talent for talent with little gain or future for current and it will never be enough if doing it and it alone. Free agency gives you immediate potential to improve, you lose basically nothing but a 2nd round pick or later, and you can actually gain a high pick when they leave (Morales) or you can deal them at the deadline for replacement talent IF done right.

I will ask again; What prospect(s) trade can we trade that will get us a player that turns this sub .500 team into a contender? If the move isn't to help us contend, then why would you do it at all?

Trade?
For?

I'll wait.

 

[SeattleCoug]

Im not saying we are just one piece a way and trading for a bat will put us in contention. I know better then that.
Im just saying you cannot avoid making trades that can better the team just because of past results. I just dont think we can just sit on our hands and hope Smoak, Ackely, Montero, Franklin, Walker, Paxton can develop and lead us to the postseason once of twice in the next 10 years.

Yes our trades have been ultimately been garbage for the most part recently. I just dont see us attracting any top level or mid level free agents unless we overpay. Therefore we need to hit on a trade or two if we have any hope of fielding a decent team.

To answer your question I dont think any one trade will turn us into a contender but it will have a chance to make the team better. I refuse to believe that avoiding trading because of previous trades is a smart way to run a team.