Uh
Rosenthal: Three years, pending a physical. No word on money yet.
If Miguel Batista's so smart, why's he signing with Seattle?
A few months ago I was exchanging emails with Dave regarding potential bargain starters available in the offseason. Some of the names that came up, off the top of my head: Jason Johnson, Rodrigo Lopez, Angel Guzman, Kameron Loe, Jeff Weaver (this was before the playoffs), Tim Redding, and Miguel Batista. All of them looked like reasonable back-of-the-rotation starters that the Mariners could land without having to pay very much, leaving plenty of room to sign a Matsuzaka or Schmidt or whoever to put at #1.
I underestimated this market.
The Royals offered Batista $24m over three years, and there's no reason for him to take a discount to play in Seattle. In case you haven't noticed, this team's been pretty pathetic. So if and when Ken Rosenthal's words come true, Batista's going to be a Mariner through 2009 for at least $8m a season. That's a formidable deal. There's no way around it.
It's a move that shows both the intelligence and the shortcomings of the Mariner front office. Miguel Batista's a durable starter who keeps the ball on the ground and rarely gets blown out of the water, so in that respect he's a valuable pitcher. Batista, like Horacio Ramirez, Jarrod Washburn, and Richie Sexson, was properly identified as a guy who could succeed in this environment and help the team win. The problem is that, once the front office saw those potential values, they spent out the ass to get them, requiring that they consistently perform to the best of their respective abilities to be worth the price. Bavasi's heart is in the right place, but God bless him, he just struggles with the execution. If you like Miguel Batista, but his price soars above the level you expected, you don't keep bidding. You drop out and sign John Thomson instead. Yeah, he has his risks, but given the discrepancy in cost he's far and away the better gamble.
So let's say Batista chooses Seattle over Kansas City for the same contract. This means that, in 2008, the Mariners will have Batista, Beltre, Sexson, and Washburn locked up for a combined $43.13m. That's roughly 45% of the team payroll tied up in four players who might give you half that production. I know I say it over and over and over again, but one more time, bad contracts add up. If you're already operating with reduced flexibility, you don't go out and reduce it further by giving $24m to a 36 year old.
Following the Soriano trade, the Mariners had leftover cash that they needed to spend. After all, it doesn't make any sense to let the owners pocket the money. Rather than putting it towards someone who'd come on a pricey but short-term commitment, though, they're taking a three-year risk with slim odds of being worthwhile. A few days ago I was saying that, if nothing else, at least Bavasi wasn't tying up the team with future payroll, but now I can't even use that defense anymore.
All right, enough of that. At least Miguel Batista's useful, in a Jarrod Washburn sense. He doesn't strike anyone out, but he's a good bet to give you 30 starts with an ERA in the mid-4's, which has value. And where Washburn only gets by at home because of Safeco's spacious dimensions, Batista will be able to feast off of Betancourt and Beltre no matter where he pitches. The same goes for Horacio Ramirez. By making the pitchers complementary to the roster, instead of the park, you make them look better 32 times a year instead of 16. That's a good idea on the part of the front office, even if it isn't necessarily intentional. You can't waste those kinds of infield gloves on a staff of flyball pitchers.
Miguel Batista's going to be okay. When you look at a rotation of Felix/Washburn/Ramirez/Batista/Baek you feel like throwing up a little, but Batista by himself is an acceptable player, one of those guys who "always keeps his team in the game" (which I expect to hear several dozen times this year) and who's capable of improving Jose Guillen's incoherent pseudo-English. Assuming he signs, he's a fine pitcher and he improves the Mariners from where they stood a day ago. He just doesn't improve them enough.
0 recs |
86 comments
Comments
Batista and Washburn
Think about that. $54 million. Jarrod Washburn and Miguel Batista. Through 2009...
by tait644 on Dec 11, 2006 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
So who wants to be a Devil Rays fan with me?
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 11, 2006 10:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
You know, the Ms should just buy the DRays
by Matthew on Dec 11, 2006 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take the Twins
by Graham on Dec 11, 2006 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I've been pushing for the Twins for
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 12, 2006 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
attended
by tkballer22 on Dec 11, 2006 11:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uggh.
What other options are out there, really? We knew this offseason was finished when Bavasi made the bone-headed Soriano move. The M's indeed have committed to sucking next year. The players know it, the fans know it, and any player that might've potentially wanted to play in Seattle knows it, too.
Not only is the market insanely crazy, but Seattle isn't exactly a desirable location even when you ignore the idiotic decision Bavasi just made. Factor in the fact that the franchise isn't showing many signs of moving forward, and that increases the cost of trying to lure players to come here.
I thought we were at least inching forward, and had hit the valley last year. I'm not convinced we're at the bottom yet.
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 10:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Another option...
Because by giving mediocre players long term contracts that eat payroll Bavasi is not just dooming this year's team to mediocrity... he is dooming future teams in future years.
by manyoso on Dec 11, 2006 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and he is doing this
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 11, 2006 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and...
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What am I saying, though...
Here I go and defend Bavasi again, when I swore I'd never do it.
Please. Someone take the pen away from Bavasi.
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 11:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
let's define "suck"
But...when I hear ya'll say the Mariners have already given up 2007 and they're going to "suck", I envision 60-65 wins...kinda like 2004 and 2005. But...the M's are coming off a 78-win season and, barring some major injuries, look like they may get a bit better. 90 wins? Doubt it. But 80-85? Yeah, maybe. Does that mean they'll "suck"? Hardly.
Let's look at the changes so far. Guillen takes over in RF. If he stays reasonably healthy, he'll be more productive than what we had in CF (since I think we know what we'll get from Ichiro, despite his position change). We have a better bat on the bench in Broussard/Snelling, depending on the DH that day. A marginally better offense.
We lose Meche and Pineiro (assuming we lose Pineiro) and gain Ramirez and Batista. Either one is better than Pineiro and occasionally better than Meche. Perhaps a marginally better rotation.
We lose Soriano from the bullpen, but everyone else is back. Slight downgrade. I would argue to sign another set up man to go with Putz, Sherrill and Huber in the last three innings.
Defense? The same, more or less. Better in CF with Ichiro. Guillen's decent in RF, depending in part on the health of his elbow.
Results? I expect more or less the same, or perhaps slightly better. That's disappointing because we all thought more could have, or should have, been done. But will this team "suck"? I would argue no.
by spokane dude on Dec 11, 2006 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What is up with Mulder?
by Dollar97 on Dec 11, 2006 10:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I read an article
by MfaninAlaska on Dec 11, 2006 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A better option
I would much rather see the M's throw $10 million plus incentives to Mulder. With a team option, even for $12-14 million, it would be worth it.
The M's would be paying out the ass for flexibility and upside instead of paying out the ass for mediocrity.
by Jerry on Dec 11, 2006 11:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
Let me be clear. I am not arguing that this is a good move.
I am saying that this is the least worst move.
It might be more than half a season. People are saying that he will be on the mound by April, and probably back in MLB by May. That is more like 3/4 of a year.
If the M's brought in Jason Johnson to at least get them through April and May, it would be a pretty good deal.
But the big part is keeping contract short-term.
A three year deal for Batista is just one more contract for Bavasi's successor to unload.
by Jerry on Dec 11, 2006 11:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mulder was a physical mess.
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure
Obviously, with a guy like this, you would have to go over his medical reports very carefully, and do lots of exams before signing.
You are correct that there is a chance, even a good chance, that he doesn't pitch all that well next year.
But there is a 0% chance that he becomes an albatross contract keeping the m's from doing other things in 2007. There is a 0% chance of him becoming an untradable mistake.
And if the M's could get a team option for 2008, which seems pretty standard on these one-year deals recently, there is a legit chance that the club gets lucky in this whole deal.
I don't see any upside with Batista. In the best case scenario (well, at least the best reasonable scenario) he will be an overpaid #4 starter.
The M's will suck even with him pitching 200 innings of 4.5ish ball. Why not take a shot at something with upside, and hedge your bets with other options that are actually good values?
by Jerry on Dec 11, 2006 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good values?
Same problem, different guy. You'd be paying him to perform at his maximum possible ability.
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
If he was smart, he'd sign a one year deal that has a bunch of incentives in it so that if he recovers, he can cash in fast.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 11, 2006 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Out of context
No I didn't. Nice twisting of words there.
I am advocating taking a $10 mil flyer on a pitcher who could be really good in 2008.
If Mulder is healthy, he does everything that Batista can do, except way better. He has more extreme groundball tendencies. He racks up innings. Plus, he gets more K's, walks fewer batters, and is far far more lefthanded. He is also 6 years younger.
The option is the key. If Mulder gets back to his old self, the option will be a bargain. If he doesn't, you just don't exercise it. Simple as that.
Beyond 2007, there is absolutely no downside. You don't have to start thinking of how difficult it will be to trade that contract right after signing it. If it works out, sweet. If not, re-invest that money in a legitimately good player.
I see the decision as similar to chosing between buying a really shitty sandwich or a lottery scratch ticket. You know that sandwich is going to suck. The chances of winning the scratch ticket aren't that good, but, even if it doesn't work out, you don't get stuck with a shitty ass sandwich.
Sure, its pissing away money. But it wouldn't keep the M's from also signing a guy like John Thomson and Jason Jennings. Since the money won't roll over into 2008 anyhow, why not? There aren't any other good alternatives.
by Jerry on Dec 11, 2006 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
poetry corner?
by lexomatic on Dec 11, 2006 11:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
It's almost an Ms commercial waiting to happen
by Alex B on Dec 11, 2006 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Apathy......
by Dollar97 on Dec 11, 2006 1:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Heh...
That was like four days ago.
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've always held onto hope...
by Dollar97 on Dec 11, 2006 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, remember the 80's
by G_ on Dec 11, 2006 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very well, do I remember 'em...
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So true...so true
They should be thankful for that.
by marc w on Dec 11, 2006 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank god I was like 5
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 11, 2006 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I survived Bill Plummer
by Dollar97 on Dec 11, 2006 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mitch Williams....et. al.
by Dollar97 on Dec 11, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, dude
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At my age....
by Dollar97 on Dec 11, 2006 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I liked Mitch Williams
He was contrasting his road to the majors with that of Rangers slugging phenom (a true immortal of 80s baseball) Pete Incaviglia.
(Pete never played in the minors coming up; like Olerud he went straight from college to MLB. Mitch played several years in the minors, but started at age 17, which meant he was still younger than Inky when they both made the show).
by marc w on Dec 11, 2006 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wheeeee
I was at a Phillies game late in the 2005 season and Mitch Williams was attending the game.
They showed him on the big screen with a "Phillies welcome Mitch Williams!", and I remarked to my friend, "Wow, they're actually letting Wild Thing come within the city limits of Philadelphia again?"
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno...
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And...
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, they were, but
And either way, the team sucked and lost a lot of games in the time period when I was really learning about baseball. So growing up in Seattle would have had about the same effect, I'm sure.
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe in the late 80's
That may be three more times than the M's ever go.
Also, Deanna, here it is, straight from your Christmas wish list -- http://shop.mlb.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2362763
by ppl4life on Dec 11, 2006 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but
Hey, that's cool, the DVD has footage from the 1950 series? I was just reading up a series that a Phillies blogger did on the Whiz Kids a few weeks ago. Good stuff. Shame it doesn't have 1915 :)
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That, and...
by PositivePaul on Dec 11, 2006 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It is better to have loved and lost
Yeah, things are frustrating right now, but nowhere near as bad as the 1980s.
There was no hope in the 1980s. The 1980s Mariners did everything wrong. They drafted poorly. They developed players poorly. For the few legitimate prospects who did develop, management blocked them with inferior players(Danny Tartabull, Harold Reynolds, Edgar Martinez). They traded away most of the decent players in their arbitration years to save money. They spent no money on free agents, and made trades only to save money, not to make the team more competitive. The only new acquisitions were a steady stream of washed up players trying to hang on for one more year (Pat Putnam, Richie Zisk, Gorman Thomas, Steve Balboni). They filled line-ups with low OBP hitters and entire rosters with Bloomquist-level producers. There was a constant threat to move the team. The team was marketed horribly. The uniforms were ugly. The Kingdome was depressing. The seats were uncomfortable and angled away from the infield. Even the food was bad.
With apologies to our friends at Royals Review, take the pre-Moore Royals, take away Alex Gordon, Billy Butler, and Luke Hochevar, and make them play in the Metrodome, and you have the 1980s Mariners.
by G_ on Dec 11, 2006 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The oldest I was in the 80s
by Mariner John on Dec 11, 2006 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rosenthal is saying it's done, pending a physical
by Goose on Dec 11, 2006 2:07 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
30 innings, mid-4's ERA
After all, Safeco is a pitcher's park. Just not for Mariners pitchers.
But mid-4's would be nice, if he could pull it off. He won't, though.
by Tom2000 on Dec 11, 2006 2:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
30 innings?
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 11, 2006 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Im not a big fan of over 8 mil a year for him, but I actually really like this signing. I think Batista will have a solid season.
by MFAN on Dec 11, 2006 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A solid season is one thing.
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
thats what I don't like about the deal
by MFAN on Dec 11, 2006 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I mentioned this earlier today in an email...
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It means that
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Given the market for SP's...
John Thomson might wind up signing for ridiculous $$$ too. I haven't seen anyone signed cheaply... so as much as I hate to defend Bavasi... what is he supposed to do? Spend $53 million just for the right to argue with Scott Boras over DiceK? The Royals are even ponying up big time for Gilgamesh. Everyone here wants to give Bavasi an "F" grade, so what should we give Theo Epstein? An "F-"?
Whoever said, Bavasi has to do something to save his job... is dead right, even if these moves are less than spectacular. Personally, I'd rather suffer through a throw-away season of watching all our prospects get playing time myself... but Bill has to try to put a winner on the field without busting the budget, and he's doing a reasonable job of that.
by johnbai on Dec 11, 2006 3:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Kip Wells was pretty cheap
by Mariner John on Dec 11, 2006 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but Kip Wells sucks.
by Deanna on Dec 11, 2006 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So does Jason Marquis
by Mariner John on Dec 11, 2006 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re: Given the market for SP's...
Atleast if he would have signed Thomson to 1 year he could have made the argument that this years FA sucked and he just did 1 year deals not to hurt the team. But a 3 year deal to this guy is a joke and seriously hurts the team... if you can't see that - then your are part of the M's FO.
by Lamda on Dec 11, 2006 3:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Really bad pitcher?
by Mariner John on Dec 11, 2006 4:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If FA pitching is too expensive
by Jeff on Dec 11, 2006 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey guys where's the love?
Now, I know we haven't gotten much better. But the team has improved with this trade and this signing. Perhaps it could have improved more (OK, it definitely could have improved more). But the Mariners are a better team now than they were a week ago. Its the cost that's driving everyone nuts.
Let's not get crushed because of how 45 million of the payroll will be tied up in two years. Not yet anyhow. Next year hasn't happened yet, and to me it doesn't look that bad. Jerry was going on about how much better Oakland's rotation is than ours.
It was much, much better last year as well, except last year their aces were injured most of the time, and it was the Batistas, Ramirez(es), and the Lehrs that Beane had stockpiled that got them through tghe season. We have a good offense, and now our pitching will be at the very least league average, with some (not much, admittedly) upside.
And before you start calling it the worst run organization in baseball, let's just take a moment to consider the moves made by the Cubs (over a quarter billion spent this offseason) and Orioles (Baez, anyone? Oh, and the trade for LaRoche that was nixed because 'Brian Roberts is popular'?). Or imagine what it feels like to be a Marlins fan? Reds? I mean, there's a lawsuit over how stupid a deal Krivsky made.
Things aren't good, but they ain't all that bad either. I think M's can finish over .500, and if last year was any indication, that means they have a shot at the WS.
by Mere Tantalisers on Dec 11, 2006 5:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
oops
by Mere Tantalisers on Dec 11, 2006 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No it doesn't
by Goose on Dec 11, 2006 6:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
We're not better than we were
by Rollo Tomasi on Dec 12, 2006 3:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not true
Having depth in starters is harder to achieve than depth in the bullpen. Ours is still plenty deep, and now there's one more guy who can cover the first 6 innings.
It was a shitty deal not because we are so much worse without soriano as because he could have fetched a much better return.
by Mere Tantalisers on Dec 12, 2006 8:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Losing Soriano AND Lowe (forever?) though
by Alex B on Dec 12, 2006 9:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Guys face the facts
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 12, 2006 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Marquis had a worse year
by Scruffy Lefty on Dec 12, 2006 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's Lima-Time!
Oh, and he also had a 6.65 ERA in 196+ innings in 2000.
If there's ever a Hacking Mass Hall of Fame, Lima's got to be the first inductee.
by marc w on Dec 12, 2006 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't really disagree much with that
by Alex B on Dec 12, 2006 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah thats
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 12, 2006 10:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I stand by it
by Mere Tantalisers on Dec 12, 2006 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm excited
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 12, 2006 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking solid
by Gomez on Dec 12, 2006 8:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not to mention that maybe
by Goose on Dec 12, 2006 10:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, lest we forget
by Gomez on Dec 14, 2006 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Miguel Batista?
I can live with this, even for the money involved. It's not Batista's fault we signed Washburn, Sexson and Guillen.
by Gomez on Dec 11, 2006 6:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Batista
Lee
by tiger337 on Dec 11, 2006 7:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Any idea how much the average salary will rise?
by Mariner John on Dec 11, 2006 9:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 












