Washburn Contract Information

by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 19, 2005 8:36 PM PST in Regular News Comment 43 comments

Four years and $37.5m - slightly worse than what we feared.

If Hardball Dollars is to believed, this pushes the Mariners' 2006 payroll just north of $80m, with arbitration still to go. So, yeah, that's about all the spending the team is going to do this offseason.

God knows I've talked about Washburn enough over the past few days, so there's no need to review everything a third or fourth time. Back in 2001 or 2002, he was an interesting pitcher, capable of touching the mid-90s and missing a few bats, but that guy is history, replaced by someone who's put up similar peripherals for three consecutive mediocre seasons and taken advantage of a lot of good fortune in posting a misleadingly low ERA in his contract year. On top of that, he's 31 years old, and hasn't exactly been the picture of perfect health. Barring injury, he should be an okay bet to finish 2006 somewhere around 4.00, but he's only going to get worse as time goes by.

Four years at nearly eight figures a pop. Even if Washburn remains moderately effective for a few seasons before burning out, this is practically an instant albatross. You shouldn't need too many guesses to figure out what'll be #1 on the next Mariner GM's to-do list.

0 recs | Comment 43 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

So you're saying

Bavasi won't be here to see the end of this contract? Shocking.

by sactown257 on Dec 19, 2005 8:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

$9.375 a year

Rotoworld is confirming.

Damn.

Who else but Quaqmire? giggity, giggity, giggity, giggity Let's Have SEX!!

by Goose on Dec 19, 2005 9:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

....so....

Why wasn't Millwood an option at an extra $2 million?

by rtang on Dec 19, 2005 9:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Because

Millwood wasn't a former Angel

by Peen on Dec 19, 2005 9:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No kidding...

Asked about the price the Mariners are paying for a pitcher who has won more than 11 games just once, Seattle general manager Bill Bavasi said: "The market is what it is."

I'd have swallowed that much easier if he had said it after giving Millwood a little more money, and heck, even that 5th year he wanted.

by WriteWingConspiracy on Dec 19, 2005 9:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Five years?

But five years is too risky for a pitcher!!

...

Yeah, Bill.

by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 19, 2005 9:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, if the market is what it is...

...and we're going to have to take risks anyways, why not Millwood?

I'm preaching to the choir here, I know...

by WriteWingConspiracy on Dec 19, 2005 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess we'll have to wait

...until we find out what Millwood signs for, but yeah, I think most of us agree with you.

by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 19, 2005 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My guess at this point

is that Millwood, like Burnett, wants to play in a certain region (sources say near his Georgia home), and has only entertained offers from teams like Seattle to drive up his asking price, in part because Scott Boras is a human hemorrhoid.

by Gomez on Dec 19, 2005 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm. Could be.

If there's solid info that Millwood wasn't serious about playing in Seattle, that DOES make signing Washburn rational.

But not at $9M+ a year....

by rtang on Dec 19, 2005 10:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Heres hoping

That Washburn Turns into the next Jamie Moyer

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 19, 2005 10:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

circa 2003 of course

Who else but Quaqmire? giggity, giggity, giggity, giggity Let's Have SEX!!

by Goose on Dec 19, 2005 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

correct

by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 19, 2005 11:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So, next off season

We'll be looking for a lefty hitting LF/DH (or two), and a TOR starting pitcher. That sounds so familiar.

by chaney on Dec 19, 2005 10:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Correction:

The new GM will need to find a new manager, left handed power and a TOR.

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 8:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

you forgot to mention

He'll be shopping for at least one starter(Moyer, possibly Pineiro and/or Meche as well) and possibly also for replacements in Left Field, DH and a new Closer (Ibanez, Everett and Guardado).

Seriously, though, isn't it possible that next years team cracks .500 in which case I wouldn't expect Bavasi and Hargrove to be sacked. After all that would be two years of continuous improvement.

by vj on Dec 20, 2005 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think closer will be taken care of in house.

And I think we have a very good chance of cracking .500

Who else but Quaqmire? giggity, giggity, giggity, giggity Let's Have SEX!!

by Goose on Dec 20, 2005 8:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I think .500 saves the jobs of both Bavasi and Hargrove, and Bavasi knows it. He probably knows this team had a good shot at .500 as it was and felt he only needed to make an addition or two, which would explain why our offseason's been the suck. All we'd have to do is win 80 games and Lincoln would guarantee Bavasi and Grover at least another couple years.

by Gomez on Dec 20, 2005 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Any chance

Brian Sabean would be our new GM next year? His contract with the Giants expires after the '06 season.

Do I Have to Love These Guys?

by Phildopip on Dec 20, 2005 10:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sabean

Would he be much of an improvement?

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Sabean...

has been excessively criticized by the online community. He has done a fairly good job identifying freely available talent, particularly in the pitching department and his infatuation with elderly players can at least be defended (Tom Gorman did so in a moderately compelling manner). That said, I would not weep if he left my beloved Giants following the 2006 season.

by kenshin1 on Dec 20, 2005 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not by any means slamming Sabean

He is just, IMO, incredibly similar to Bill Bavasi. When the M's make a change, they need a new blood GM.

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 11:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Moyer & Co

Moyer never produced more than slightly above replacement until he was around 30. Then he became a Mariner and a statgeek's nightmare.
Washburn came up in '98, improved for a couple of years (anyone see Joel in this?) and then, through injuries and historically logical diminishing returns, started showing peripheral drop-offs as early as 4 years ago.
There won't be a Moyer rebound or renaissance or whatever because Washburn's golden age is already in the past. Moyer's wasn't.
I see his curve as a down-trending stock I'm still holding and trying to pick the sales peak on before it bottoms out. I could sell my stone tomorrow, but Bavasi will have trouble selling his at all.

JPWood

by JPWood on Dec 20, 2005 4:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Something to keep in mind

If we would of waited and still went after Millwood and then say right after Christmas Washburn signs with someone else and Weaver signs somwhere else and we went into January after Millwood, what if he just decides he doesn't want to come here.Then we're screwed.We have nothing, not a thing.I would rather have what we have now with Washburn then nothing.

Who else but Quaqmire? giggity, giggity, giggity, giggity Let's Have SEX!!

by Goose on Dec 20, 2005 9:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

That's where we differ.

I'd rather have nothing than Washburn at this contract.

by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 20, 2005 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

by Matthew on Dec 20, 2005 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We are screwed now

Washburn's contract is practically untradeable.

Is Washburn an improvement over what else was out there last year? A little bit. But at nearly $9.4 per season, there were plenty of other options out there at a fraction of the cost that would have performed equally or better.

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: We are screwed now

And it's not like Washburn is that "missing piece" we needed to add to become World Series favorites. He didn't put us over the top, he just made us a little more likely to finish a few games over .500.

The contract won't be a killer in 2006, but for 2007-2009, the Mariners will effectively be working with a payroll that's $9m+ below where they say it is, because Washburn probably won't be adding much of anything to the ballclub.

by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 20, 2005 9:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd argue that

Washburn wouldn't help anymore than a healthy Meche next season and will cost 2 to 3 times more. He

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I see your point

And say what you want about its validity, but ownership and the fans probably would have skewered Bavasi for not making a big starting pitcher signing this winter, knowing he made it a priority. This contract is terrible no matter how you slice it, but even if we brought in better low-cost pitchers, Bavasi would have eaten a lot of crap for not signing the big name, and even if those starters had done well, not signing the big name would have been used as the determinant factor in ownership firing Bavasi after next season if we didn't improve.

I'm not saying it's right, but Bavasi probably felt under the gun, and knew he probably doesn't have as good a shot at Millwood as everyone thinks, having lost Burnett without a fighting chance for location reasons. So he went with the biggest name with the best surface numbers, and he's stuck with an albatross contract, but at least ownership can't say he didn't try.

by Gomez on Dec 20, 2005 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Washburn beats Meche on FIP and xFIP

...so I'd have to say "no".

I also point this out to you:

http://www.lookoutlanding.com/story/2005/10/28/221624/50

by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2005 10:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

So you are telling me

that he will be a better pitcher because of the Safe? That his ERA will be better? That his declining skill set and health issues make him worth the $9.4 million? I'll take a season of Meche at $4 million over 4 years of Washburn at $9.4 million per every day of the week.

I'm not saying Washburn isn't an improvement, his cost doesn't justify the minimal improvement and the cost over the next four years.

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

What you said was:

"Washburn wouldn't help anymore than a healthy Meche next season and will cost 2 to 3 times more."

I don't agree with the signing either, for the reasons you cited. That doesn't mean Gil Meche is likely to outperform him.

And odds seem to be that Meche AND Washburn will be on the roster next year. Franklin might be back too (at reduced salary).

by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2005 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

As Meche enters his prime

Washburn is leaving it (as his decreasing peripherals indicate). Meche has distanced himself from the shoulder surgeries and while he has been pretty ineffective or the past couple years, I think that if he is able to stay healthy all year, he would post similar to better numbers than Washburn.

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Meche = Brett Tomko

They are both RHP with decent fastballs who don't strike out people, walk too many people, and are flyball pitchers.

What exactly has Tomko done of note from ages 28-32?

by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2005 12:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well since you brought it up

Tomko posted better FIP, xFIP, better K/G, induced more GB, allowed fewer HR/9. Outside of their ERA, Tomko and Washburn were incredibly similar pitchers last year, and one is looking for a one year deal, the other just got almost 8 figures for four years.

And I understand where you are coming from regarding Meche. He isn't a super star and he has been a let down. I just don't see how Washburn can pitch better than he did last year. His ERA was the most impressive thing about his numbers and thats not saying a whole lot.

by Trent on Dec 20, 2005 12:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

the market

The market for pitchers is what it is. Maybe some day starters won't command this sort of contract, but they do now. It's not in the interest of the M's management to go into the season with the rotation they had pre-Washburn. I agree with the above poster: for lots of reasons (mostly to keep the region from losing interest completely), they need to be around .500 at least next year.

Now, the M's could spend a LOT more money, if they wanted, and still be profitable, by all the accounts we've heard. So, they could add Millwood if they wanted to (and he wanted to leave his cherished red clay of Georgia for our own version of the piney woods). And let's face it, the rotation needs someone of that caliber to be competitive with the rest of our little division.

But failing another big signing or trade, they are betting that Washburn gives them a shot at .500, and they might be right. In this view, the M's tread water for a year, waiting to see if any of their assets blossom, a trade can bring someone of real consequence to the rotation or some little piece of luck falls from the sky, call me Kismet!

I think sometimes we focus too much on the money/budget side of things as it applies to individual players, and we lose sight of the bigger picture (total organization assets, marketing plans/spin, pricing calculations, etc.). The biz doesn't stop at figuring out the "real" value of an individual player.

So, Washburn. Too many years. Too much money. We all agree. But for the M's it may make perfect sense: Hey, he finished fourth in the league in ERA; they can market that! And if they are right, the franchise CAN project itself forward with some hope.

Of course, they could be wrong...

rightly, in every age it is assumed we are witnessing the disappearance of the last traces of paradise... Cioran

by toonprivate on Dec 20, 2005 11:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

If you look at the big picture...

Every signing or trade the M's made or considered made the team older.

For a team that spent 2004 and 2005 weighted down by contracts by players in their mid-30's, it would seem the M's didn't learn a heck of a lot.

by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2005 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

What you said was:

"Washburn wouldn't help anymore than a healthy Meche next season and will cost 2 to 3 times more."

I don't agree with the signing either, for the reasons you cited. That doesn't mean Gil Meche is likely to outperform him.

And odds seem to be that Meche AND Washburn will be on the roster next year. Franklin might be back too (at reduced salary).

by eponymous coward on Dec 20, 2005 11:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I believe...

there's an echo in the room...

by basebliman on Dec 20, 2005 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Brushback

has a hilarious article here

by peterpeter on Dec 20, 2005 12:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

That was funny stuff

Thanks for posting that, man. It's funny because it's somewhat true.

"I always hear front offices complain that `the market is what it is' as if they are just responding to forces out of their control," said the GM, who asked not to be identified. "Actually the market is so crazy because teams are so willing to flush their money down the toilet. If every GM just decided to be frugal, the advantage would shift right back to the teams. We could even coordinate it by all agreeing not to spend over a certain amount of money on free agents. Is that collusion? Sure, by baseball's standards. In every other sport it's known as a 'salary cap.' So it's really just a matter of semantics."

by Gomez on Dec 20, 2005 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs