Or maybe I'm just a contrarian and overly optimistic?

I fell on black days.

:(

Well because he pitches in the Metrodome and garners pretty good numbers. Pitching in a more pitcher-friendly park like Safeco would most certainly lower his career statistics, where he could plausibly post an ERA under 4, and a WHIP under 1.3!

Think of the positives! This could mean we won't be giving up the farm for Bedard as well.

A rotation of:

1. Felix
   
2. Silva
   
3. Washburn
   
4. B-Tits
   
5. Baek/Morrow/RRS

Don't be so down on our friend from Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela!! He might just surprse you.

Silva! Silva! Silva! Silva! Silva!

 That said, @ least Seattle's home park is a good pitchers park, and you have some quality defenders like Ichiro and Beltre. Betancourt and Lopez are above avg correct? (I watch maybe 4 Mariner games a year, so I could be wrong)

 Anyway, your fantastic 4 some, Weaver, Baek, Ramirez and Feierabend had a 6.49 ERA last year. (I'm too lazy so subtract the few innings Baek and   Feierabend had in relief)  So in 367 Ip, they gave up 265 ER's.  Yikes!

 I know what your GM is thinking. If they get 180 innings out of Silva, with a 4.50 ERA. (Which based on his history is attainable) That 2 ER savings per 9 compared to the quartet last year equates to a 40 earned runs savings.  40 fewer runs allowed is significant.

 In fact, if later you were able to trade for Bedard, and he posted a 3.15 ERA over 190 innings. You basically will save another 70 earned runs over the course of the season.  That is potentially 110 fewer runs allowed than last year with a Silva and Bedard addition.  I think that puts your pythagorean theorem @ ~ 90 wins. (assuming your hitting stays the same)

 AS I said, quick and dirty calculations, so the numbers may be off.  But really, when you can get a 4.50 ERA guy to replace a 6.20 ERA guy (Weaver) that is a freaking huge upgrade. Nearly 2 runs per 9 innings. over the course of a season, it adds up.  (Plus the benefit of a more rested bullpen if your starters can go deeper into games)

  The Mariners need 2 SP's to really contend. They have no real internal options correct? Morrow maybe? Meh. Silva, while he isn't worth this type of money actually helps out the team a bit. If this deal is coupled with a Bedard deal. (Very likely since the Reds will likely not trade Jay Bruce so I think talks are stalled.) Then all of a sudden, a Bedard, Felix, Batista, Silva, Washburn rotation gets you into the Wild Card and AL West chase.  

 Also, if the Silva signing is coupled with Bedard, they will prolly see increased ticket revenues as they will be fighting for the playoffs. Is it wrong to think they could up their attendance by 200,000 fans or more? That's extra revenue they will generate that offsets part of the money spent signing Silva. I think now the Mariners will go hard after Bedard. They can now be competitive, and that will translate into an increase in revenue. But without Bedard, they likely won't be a Wild Card quality team, and thus won't see that big bump in attendance. A 80 win team, will see about the same attendance as an 83 win team. However, if Bedard puts them up to a 90 win team-- then you have something.

I just typed way too much. I can see where your  GM was coming from. From a business perspective, signing Silva in addition to getting Bedard,(Big if) could show some short term gains in terms of performance on the field, and also increase Seattle's revenue stream. Debating the impact of trading Jones, Clement and Morrow for Bedard is a topic for another day.

  If the Pirates signed Silva, this deal would be awful. It wouldn't really increase the Pirates revenue stream. But, a Silva and Bedard addition to the Mariners would.  Remember, this is a business. While it seems like it's a so-so signing from an on the field baseball standpoint, when you factor in other variables, it's not as bad. Of course, if the Mariners can't get Bedard, well then, you wouldn't get the bump in revenue and thus will be looking to compete in 2009.

 I don't feel like rereading and editing, so there  may be a few flaws.  However, if you guys get Bedard with Silva, I think you are tremendously improved as a baseball team.    

oh screw it, im just gonna get used to four years of carlos silva with the unfortunate knowlegde that whenever i get to a game, with my bad luck, he'll be pitching (i only got to two games last year... and the starters were... jeff weaver and jeff weaver. ugh...)

1. Jones/Clement/Sherrill/Butler traded for Bedard
   
2. Raul Ibanez 2 year extension for 2009-10 @ $10-12M per.

I'll be fascinated/terrified to see who they've got in the outfield to start the season.
If they can get Ibanez out, plug Jones + somebody decent at the other corner, get improvement from Betancourt... this team's going to give up a lot fewer runs.  
Yes, I know the team will take that fact as evidence that their 'plan' is 'working.'   I don't really care who gets credit or who knows correlation isn't causation and who doesn't.   I just want a good team again.  

• We don't incur the opportunity cost of losing Jones/Clement/Morrow or draft picks.
• Ten bucks says he'll be better than Kuroda, and we were about to give him the same amount of money.  We weren't this low on Kuroda, were we?
• Bill Bavasi was most likely mandated by the suits to go get a proven starter to stabilize the rotation.  He's forced into making a bad choice.  At least he chose the least-bad of the options.  Lohse would have been worse.  Kuroda would have been worse.  Raping the farm for Bedard would have been worse.

until after the bolded term is resolved.

Is Silva a bad signing because of his ability or is it just because of the years and money that he's a bad signing?

So you see, Carlos Silva was meant to pitch in the NW.

It's fate I tell you.

And if it's structured in the manner the other Ms FA SP deals have been, something like 6-10-14-14 then that's only 4/36.5 in NPV.