Mariners offseason rumor/discussion thread

[NWinAZ]

I have never said you don't make trades because of past bad trades. I say fire the GM for that, but don't stop trading. I just think you don't give up youth when you don't have another avenue to attract talent first. I think bad teams stay bad longer by doing that. They get marginal return on prospects and those returns leave at first opportunity and then you no longer have the prospects either to use or trade when needed.

My bad analogy of the week is this; don't build your walls until you have a solid foundation. Our foundation is weak as all get out. So if you have to overpay to get free agent here, then that is what yo do. It is their fault we are in a position that FA's don't want to come here. You can blame Safeco, but they would still come if we had the team of 2001. Players want to play for a winner and get paid. If they can get both, they will choose that every time. So we either have to find a way to become a winner first in order to pay going free agent rates or we have to overpay to try and become a winner for others to follow at going rate.

I don't want to see a return of the 80's in Seattle where we traded every young talent to try and bring fans in with mediocre vets and past their prime names while still finishing at or near the bottom. There is a time and place to trade prospects, but we just are not there yet and this again is from a guy that wanted us to deal Pineda, Ackley, Franklin, and a few others just a couple years back when their respective values were high(er).

 

[cezero]

I have never said you don't make trades because of past bad trades. I say fire the GM for that, but don't stop trading. I just think you don't give up youth when you don't have another avenue to attract talent first...

the other avenue you're talking about is free agency, right? your argument about not doing well with acquiring difference makers through trades is equally applicable to acquiring difference makers through free agency.

surely you understand that, right?

quality free agents don't want to come here. the only offensive player worth a shit we've gotten in the past 5 years was morales, who was acquired, that's right, through a trade. and when he hit free agency, he was out of here. we're talking about pretty much a strict DH guy with limited use value for a team who would rather be anywhere than here, and with an agent who realizes how stupid it would be for him to stay here.

it takes a balance of trades and free agency acquisitions is my main point. and it's irrefutable to anybody with common sense. if some quality free agents ever want to come here and the FO is willing to pay for them, then GREAT. the odds are not good, and i think you must know that. come on. lol.

for a team as horrific as the m's at developing talent, it's a good idea to make strategic trades to acquire talent that real MLB franchises have cultivated...especially offensive talent. we're going to have to give up some high quality kids for it.

no worries for you and a lot of other people set on holding onto all high level prospects, though. the m's fo will most definitely do the worst possible things for this joke of a team. i have little doubt about that.

 

[cezero]

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?

as soon as you tell me what holding onto the bare handful of high level prospects does to help a team perennially 20 games below .500 contend in 3 or 5 years.

it's patently absurd to think that trading prospects is only for a team a move or two away from contention. that mentality will keep the m's below .500 for at least another decade.

as with any baseball fan, i'd be expecting a package deal for any of our excellent prospects that would most likely involve several players and 2-3 teams in on the deal.

 

[cezero]

dear lord

1) the m's are somewhat good at developing pitchers, and others teams may covet them.
2) the m's have massive offensive deficiencies with no cure in sight through their own farm.
3) free agents don't come here/the front office won't pay for them.

it's simple logic that you'll have to give up some of #1 to build up #2.

any other argument is infantile.

we're talking about z and howchuck, though, so congrats to those of you who are illogical, i guess.

 

[SeattleCoug]

I don't feel like trying to get something for package involving Paxton and Franklin will gut our farm system to bad. I really think either Franklin or Ackley will be traded.

This team has an obvious need for two outfield bats. Thats not an opinion, that's just taking a peek at our current roster and realizing we have nothing. Preferably right handed hitters because what we have is mostly left handed. I think one will be through FA and one through a trade.

 

[johnfree63]

dear lord

1) the m's are somewhat good at developing pitchers, and others teams may covet them.
2) the m's have massive offensive deficiencies with no cure in sight through their own farm.
3) free agents don't come here/the front office won't pay for them.

it's simple logic that you'll have to give up some of #1 to build up #2.

any other argument is infantile.

we're talking about z and howchuck, though, so congrats to those of you who are illogical, i guess.

That's all true but I think you keep a prospect like Taijuan Walker. He could be a future #1, his stuff is that good. I know you hate the "ceiling" argument but his ceiling is far above the other M's pitching prospects. I just don't think you give him up for a James Shields level position player (It's hard to come up with a trade equivalent. So I thought of the Myers/Shields trade).

 

[NWinAZ]

as soon as you tell me what holding onto the bare handful of high level prospects does to help a team perennially 20 games below .500 contend in 3 or 5 years.

it's patently absurd to think that trading prospects is only for a team a move or two away from contention. that mentality will keep the m's below .500 for at least another decade.

as with any baseball fan, i'd be expecting a package deal for any of our excellent prospects that would most likely involve several players and 2-3 teams in on the deal.

Case and point: Last year we had a deal in place giving up Walker/Franklin/Furbush/Pryor for Upton. How would that have made us better in short term? Long term? In any term?

People on here seem to think that we can trade Franklin for guys like Cabrera and Scherzer. It takes 2 top prospects and a couple pen arms to get you an average+ player. So after making a trade like the Upton one, how does that make free agents want to come here more? It still doesn't. Overpay for 4 good quality free agents (they will come if the price is right), then look to fill holes by trading prospects if still needed. It just doesn't work the other way.

-----------------
"it's patently absurd to think that trading prospects is only for a team a move or two away from contention. that mentality will keep the m's below .500 for at least another decade."

And if you keep trading prospects for marginal returns (because that is what you get for prospects unless you get lucky) and do nothing else but draft, then you will be sub .500 for two decades.

If you are talking trading a guy like Paxton for a guy like Wil Myers, then I get it. If you are talking the Upton type deal (even if it was say for Votto), then are we still over .500? How long before Votto says I want out of here? So then you trade Votto for???? prospects. Just like the Lee deal all over again. Did that get us closer to .500?

Still waiting to see how trading what few prospects we have makes us better now or in the future w/o adding free agents as well?

 

[cezero]

according to rosenthal, the m's tried to do a 1 for 1 trade to acquire wil myers for one of our big 3 pitching prospects last year, and it fell just short for the m's since they were looking for a veteran arm in return instead.

thank goodness that trade didn't happen, because it's so categorically stupid to trade prospects.

herp derp.

 

[cezero]

That's all true but I think you keep a prospect like Taijuan Walker. He could be a future #1, his stuff is that good. I know you hate the "ceiling" argument but his ceiling is far above the other M's pitching prospects. I just don't think you give him up for a James Shields level position player (It's hard to come up with a trade equivalent. So I thought of the Myers/Shields trade).

i'm not advocating bad trades

dear lord

 

[NWinAZ]

according to rosenthal, the m's tried to do a 1 for 1 trade to acquire wil myers for one of our big 3 pitching prospects last year, and it fell just short for the m's since they were looking for a veteran arm in return instead.

thank goodness that trade didn't happen, because it's so categorically stupid to trade prospects.

herp derp.

1- You are advocating trading prospects for veterans when we need 5 vets to even think about contending and it takes 2+ prospects to get a vet worth having.

2- Now you use an example of trading a pitching prospect for Myers as a good move and any fan who objects trading prospects is dumb. This is trading a prospect for a prospect since Myers was still as unknown at the MLB level as much as Ackley, Montero, or Franklin and I already said that trading a prospect from a position of strength for a prospect of a position of weakness is fine and it doesn't change the the dynamic of the prospect overall depth.

3- Ask KC if they would rather have Myers for the next 5+ years or Shields for the next couple when they didn't improve much from trading their best prospect for a vet and didn't add enough talent to matter.

herp derp.

 

[NWinAZ]

And for the trade example above, Myers was a top 3 prospect in baseball and the big return for him was a #2 SP coming off a 2.7 WAR which was down 2.5 WAR from the year before.

If you sign free agents, you can keep your prospects until they either develop and contribute or trade them when you have needs to fill when you are close enough to contend. I can't think of one case in the last 20 years where a bad team became good by trading prospects for vets w/o adding talent first. All that does is increase your team payroll and lessen your team control over players. Good teams have done it. Mediocre teams have had mixed success on doing it. Bad teams to my knowledge have never been successful at it.

Just remember 4 prospects including our best for an Upton. That should be enough to end the conversation. It is enough to end it on my end.

 

[blstoker]

I don't think Safeco is the factor in free agents coming here that everyone is making it out to be. The real issue is that the team has gained a reputation of not caring about winning. Free agents would come here if they thought there was a chance to win. Without the ability to show that there is gonna be a quality team that can help players get to the playoffs, why would they want to come here?

With that in mind, trading away your best talent to get guys that won't make the team competitive, only gives you the Pittsburgh treatment. For 20 years they went without a winning season, but they were the major leagues farm system.

 

[cezero]

No doubt this organization will build this team back to contention by holding onto all pitching prospects instead of looking to make strategic trades to acquire equivalent offensive talent that other teams have managed to develop. It's a great plan, too. That'll help the team make back the 25-30 more wins they need per year to contend for sure.

It's a much better plan than using an abundance of something we have to acquire pieces we cannot develop on our own and cannot lure to come here through free agency.

 

[cezero]

There is no team that contends year in and year out that hasn't traded away prospects to acquire other long-term pieces they need.

The truly successful teams combine that with holding onto a lot of their prospects, of course, and then balance it with free agent acquisitions.

The M's front office has only been on its game with the balance I'm talking about fleetingly in its history...hence its utter failure the vast majority of its existence.

 

[blstoker]

It's a much better plan than using an abundance of something we have to acquire pieces we cannot develop on our own and cannot lure to come here through free agency.

How is it that the team has pitching in abundance? They were 13th out of 15 in the AL in ERA this past season. Add that to the 12th ranked offense, and the team has so many holes, that Walker/Hultzen/Paxton can't possibly bring enough back to shore up all those holes, especially since they could fill in 3 starting spots in the rotation, while packaging 2 or all three together may get us 1 player in return to fill a need somewhere.

Prospects are a luxury to a good team, but to a bad team they are worth their weight in gold, or even more. There isn't any reason the team couldn't fill their needs with free agents if they would just spend the money.

 

[cezero]

the m's FO will oblige the ignorant for sure

that's all

 

[Thisnamewasntaken]

I don't think Safeco is the factor in free agents coming here that everyone is making it out to be.

Well lets put it this way, Safeco is still a pitchers park for the most part right? Well Josh Johnson just decided to sign with the Padres (Petco also pitchers park) instead of pitching alongside Felix/Iwakuma and building value here. Now I can make that assumption but we really don't know if Z even offered him anything? I'm hearing JJ turned down more $ to go to the Padres. Why? To re-establish value in a pitchers park of course. We saw no mention of Seattle. These are the sort of deals Z likes though. So for us to not even hear anything about JJ linked to M's either says Z wasn't interested or another Free Agent didn't want to come here.

 

[seafan]

I like the idea of getting kemp but i wouldnt trade the big 2 for him. If its a deal centered around one of ackley/franklin with some other prospects im ok with that.

 

[seattlefan75]

I think the key to winning in baseball is pitching if we can have our 3-5 starters pitch and ERA of 4.0 or less along with a strong bullpen/closer we can contend teams like the indians, royals and rays had good seasons and didnt have an allstar lineup. looking at there rotation they have great pitching, needless to say with ours outside of felix and kuma pitching was non existant

 

[NWinAZ]

I think the key to winning in baseball is pitching if we can have our 3-5 starters pitch and ERA of 4.0 or less along with a strong bullpen/closer we can contend teams like the indians, royals and rays had good seasons and didnt have an allstar lineup. looking at there rotation they have great pitching, needless to say with ours outside of felix and kuma pitching was non existant

I agree with your point. All think all of agree that a great balance of pitching, hitting, and defense gives you the best chance of winning, but if you can't acquire all three great pitching will always keep you competitive. If they can't sign any bats, then they need to go after 2 stud pitchers from a group including Garza, Tanaka, Colon, and Kuroda. Not the greatest group, but the top I see available in free agency. You use Walker and Paxton in the 5th role and bullpen somehow. That also allows you to deal Ramirez plus others for something.