And make no mistake, that sort of effect is important. It has effects on the people currently on the team, and it will have effect on potential free agents the team will want to sign in the future. What kind of loyalty, what kind of effort will you egender, when the higher ups obviously don't believe in you?

And, as well, short series are notoriously more unpredictable than the course of a season...

The M's are 3 games out of first--this is exciting baseball, fun to watch, gut-wrenching to lose. This is why I watch baseball.

If you think 800 word diatribes about how stupid the M's front office is and what they should be doing make you a better or more informed fan, fine. I prefer to love a team, as Kundera might, as one loves a dog.

Meche will be GONE at the end of the season, to bring him back the M's would have to overspend for a wildly inconsistant pitcher. No Thanks. Let someone else make that mistake.

The odds of someone coming in and duplicating Meche's performance when the candidates are Cruceta and a bunch of guys who throw 88-89 like Baek/Blackley/Oldham/whoever are similar to roulette wheel odds.

Sure, we might end up with this year's Bob Wolcott. But go look at how Blackley/Baek/Nageotte performed in 2004- 90 IP with an ERA around 8. Then remember Piñeiro's pitching awful, so we're already down a starter. Then remember that Washburn's not exactly pitching like an All-Star, either. Then consider how shallow our bullpen is behind the top 3 guys- having TWO stopgaps in the rotation getting jocked plus Washburn almost guarantees we'll be seeing lots of Julio Mateo and whoever else is behind him coming in with runners on base. Hello, 13-8 losses in August!

If we tank the next two weeks and someone makes a sweet offer- sure, consider the offer. But coughing up a season that's within reach is a sure way to tank a franchise that is already on pace to be 1.3 million behind last year.

I'm not trying to argue just to argue. And you certainly don't trade him for someones junk...but if Bavasi has any brain in his head, he's dangling the carrott.

Then he won't fetch the same return, will he?

So, if trading Freddy Garcia netted us precisely zero players on the 25 man roster as of today, and trading Randy Winn and Ron Villone netted us exactly zero players on the 25 man roster as of today, you can't exactly guarantee me trading Gil Meche will actually pay off in 2007, can you? Sure, it might- but if you know the future, you should be putting money down in Vegas instead of arguing on a baseball board.

Meche has no track record her and no legitimate reason for us to believe that he can turn into even a Freddy Garcia type.

Other than Chris Carpenter and a host of other guys who spent years in their early to mid-20's trying to figure out how to pitch before they started getting some success, you mean.

Really. Sometimes it takes guys a few hundred IP to figure it out- especially when their careers are interrupted by, um, labrum surgery.

It's also not unheard of for someone to have a breakout year at 27 (it's the most common year for this to happen, actually). Hey, look, Meche is 27! Whaddaya know!

The thing is it's ALSO not uncommon to stay at that level for a few years.

Now granted, maybe he'll be Brett Tomko again by the time 2006 is in the books. But he might also be a decent, high 3 ERA-low 4 SP for a while too, with a chance at a decent year behind a good team, a mid-rotation guy.

You need to step back for an objective look at your team if you think trading just Meche qualifies as a firesale.

OK, the objective look at my team is we're starting a guy who's repertoire consists of 86-88 MPH crap, Piñeiro, and the AAA and AA starters are underwhelming.

Oh, and we're on pace to objectively have 3 consecutive years under .500, for the first time since 1990, as well as having the lowest attendance in a non-strike year since 1993.

Oh yeah: objectively, the Tamp Bay Devil Rays have more regular season wins during 2004, 2005 and 2006 than the Seattle Mariners.

Objectively, I also notice it's REAL easy to slip into a habit of not contending this way- like the Pirates, Brewers, Orioles, Blue Jays, Devil Rays and other teams have (the Tigers, for instance, have their first winning team since 1993 right now).

So, OK, fine, cashing in a player who's performing well for you in 2006, when you're closer to the playoffs than you were at the same time in 1995 might not be a fire sale- but it sure tells me that this team believes in jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today. And it's exactly the wrong message to send to fans and players.

Now, if it's July 30 and we've tanked the month, sure, back up the truck. But until then? The hell with that.

"That doesn't mean Garcia for Reed/Olivo/Morse wasn't the right move at the time, but trading in established talent for prospects doesn't always pay off."

In other words: giving up on someone who's good now (Meche, Garcia, Winn, Villone) does not always mean you will get someone who is good later.

Sure, they are justifiable moves to make when you're out of the race. That being said, none of our deadline deals in 2004 have paid off for us in 2006. Do I need to put "THOSE TRADES WERE UNDERSTANDABLE AT THE TIME BUT AREN'T PAYING OUT VERY WELL FOR US" in big capital letters to get this point through?

Trading a starter who's performing well at the time you trade him when you don't have enough starting pitching, and you're 2.5 games in July, is a surrender trade- perhaps not a fire sale, but the message it sends is "we have no confidence this year, let's try for some other year".

So now onto my next point- assuming the team tanks the rest of 2006, if you are a player that values winning, do you want to stay with a franchise that is playing their worst ball in 25 years, and that's likely to be dumping their GM, front office staff and field manager? Or might your eyes look to franchises that DO appear to have a clue?