- Thread starter
- #81
Money well spentI guess he earned the $2 we got for him
Didn't need this guy...ugh
I still don’t get why the M’s didn’t at least kick the tires on giving him the number 5 job. Cause I keep hearing now the M’s might need to trade for a 5th starterI guess he earned the $2 we got for him
Agreed. I thought it was a smart signing. Then to give him away was confusing. There was no need to do anything wit him. So Mariners.I still don’t get why the M’s didn’t at least kick the tires on giving him the number 5 job. Cause I keep hearing now the M’s might need to trade for a 5th starter
I wasn't fond of the signing since he's basically on empty but I do agree should have given him a few starts to see what he had left.I still don’t get why the M’s didn’t at least kick the tires on giving him the number 5 job. Cause I keep hearing now the M’s might need to trade for a 5th starter
I don’t necessarily think he was on empty this year. Not saying he would be great, but he showed flashes in Tacoma and giving him league minimum beats trading prospects for a 5th starter. I’m sure it wouldn’t be a top prospect but the Mariners have had a bad history of trading lower tier prospects and those go onto to be studs.I wasn't fond of the signing since he's basically on empty but I do agree should have given him a few starts to see what he had left.
This just shows us the FO has no direction on which way it wants to go. Go get Trevor Bauer on a vet min.I don’t necessarily think he was on empty this year. Not saying he would be great, but he showed flashes in Tacoma and giving him league minimum beats trading prospects for a 5th starter. I’m sure it wouldn’t be a top prospect but the Mariners have had a bad history of trading lower tier prospects and those go onto to be studs.
Interesting theory.Maybe they have discussed it and that’s really why Griggs resigned