Stark's Rumblings

by MfaninAlaska on Jul 25, 2008 11:44 AM PDT Comment 38 comments

In his rumblings and grumblings article he address a couple of Mariner topics. The second one is the one I found interesting... the Twins are still interested in Beltre, which we're all aware of. The part of it that I (probably because I haven't been paying much attention to baseball lately) is that the Dodgers were interested as well, but have no dropped that interest because Beltre has a limited no trade clause that specifically includes the Dodgers.

Stark also says that Washburn and Rhodes are about the only two to likely be moved, but there's alot of interest in Ibanez but the M's have attached a pretty steep price, so if Ibanez doesn't get traded its not from a lack of interest.

Typical Mariners, not knowing when to move a player that's reaching the end of his career.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Mariners not trading an aging player becouse he's a nice guy and fan favorite?

by IceStormV1 on Jul 25, 2008 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think it's good to see us asking for a lot, though

and trying to get some value out of the deal

by Two Rs and Two Ls on Jul 25, 2008 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The Mariners should put a high price-tag on Ibanez.

What we get in a return in a trade has to match or exceed the two draft picks we’d get by offering him arbitration and letting him walk.

by BrianL on Jul 25, 2008 11:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Assuming they'd let him walk of course

which with this organization is highly doubtful. and assuming that they’d offer him Arbitration if they were going to let him walk.
They’d be better off getting players in return that are a year or two away then hoping for draft picks, considering we don’t know who’s going to be running the draft from here on out.

Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!

by MfaninAlaska on Jul 25, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a lot less uncertainty that early in the draft, though.

Fontaine’s awesomeness really comes through in the later rounds. I’m with BrianL on this one; if they get a two high quality, near ML ready prospects for Raul, awesome. If not, take the draft picks.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right, but we don't know that Fontaine's awesomeness will be around anymore.

And there’s still a TON of uncertainty in the range that the picks might come.

It depends – clearly, if the M’s are offered two high-quality prospects, you take it.
But I’m leaning a bit towards taking a deal for something less, given the uncertainties Mfan points out.

by marc w on Jul 25, 2008 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm waffling on this, really.

I know for sure that I don’t want him traded for the sake if him being traded, but what I would consider to be an acceptable return keeps changing in my mind. I would be annoyed if he was moved without getting at least one player who is near-certainty to contribute soon and one other interesting prospect. But sometimes I feel like they’d be better off holding out for two solid gusy in return. I’m torn.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dave at USSM did a study on this

He found that in general the picks a team gets from the player walking away are better than the prospects that you get in return.

by arbeck77 on Jul 25, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two things:

1: from that piece: “Yes, if you trade Ichiro, you might Grady Sizemore, but you might also get Drew Henson. If you let him walk, you might get Rene Rivera (ugh, that draft sucked), but you might also get David Wright. The odds are about the same either way.”

2: a better way to do the study would be to compare the traded players to an average value of a draft pick at 15-20, 30-35, whatever. As is, the ‘draft picks’ are skewed by a couple of steals – David Wright at 38, Huston Street at 40.

The overall point is a good one – that draft picks may be just as good as many prospects acquired in trade. But until we get names, it’s just something to keep in mind. It’s useful as a reminder not to just give Ibanez away for ‘spects – ANY spects. It should not, however, justify not moving Ibanez under any circumstances.

by marc w on Jul 25, 2008 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's also possible Raul would accept Arbitration...

Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.

by BrettJMiller on Jul 25, 2008 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it'd be highly likely

he would accept arbitration.

Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!

by MfaninAlaska on Jul 25, 2008 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When he could get a multi-year deal elsewhere?

Why in God’s name would he do that?

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be a bastard

Romanes eunt domus

by Last Fan Of Jose Lopez on Jul 25, 2008 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on if he wants to play

for the Kansas City type teams of the world. Those are the teams that will offer him multi year deals, the good ones won’t, don’t need him.

Midnight Baseball - No Lights - Only in Alaska!

by MfaninAlaska on Jul 25, 2008 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see no reason why he would rather take less money over less years

and risk injury (and money) when he could easily get a multi-year deal on the open market. It’s possible, but I see it as highly unlikely.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

More likely that the Mariners offer him a 3 year deal...

We’re getting our hopes up about 2 draft picks, or something in return, when really it’ll be 3 more years of Raul in LF…

by LantermanC on Jul 25, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which is another reason we need a competent

GM for next year.

by LantermanC on Jul 25, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's no reason to assume this.

If they hire a bad GM that makes awful moves, there will be plenty of time to be angry about it. But there’s good reason to think they’re going to hire someone at least moderately competent.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose... Nothing in the past suggests that they would do this...

Example, our last 4 managers…

by LantermanC on Jul 25, 2008 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All hired by Bavasi.

Seriously, Bavasi was really bad, and there are big problems with the organization. I don’t think anyone is debating that. People seem to forget that they were a tremendously successful franchise for a very long period of time, though.

As much as I dislike Lincoln and Armstrong, they’re not blithering idiots. And as bad as Bavasi turned out to be, I don’t recall many people being all that bent out of shape about his being hired; the consensus seemed to be that if the team was going to hire a GM from that mold, they could have done much worse.

The last five years have sucked, and I’m as tired of the incompetence as everyone. I wanted Bavasi fired because I thought the team would replace him with someone better, and there’s good reason to believe that things are going to get better. I’m really starting to find myself in total agreement with some other folks around these parts. You can assume the team is stupid and will make the absolute worst decision possible as much as you want, but if you’re going to do so, what’s the point of even talking about the future?

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just reminding myself of possibilities so I don't get

dissapointed if it happens. Remember when we were going to get Laroche for Soriano? Man, that was a high of highs for a low of lows…

by LantermanC on Jul 25, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That long period of time...

...is about seven years, top.

And you could make an argument that it was in spite of Armstrong and Lincoln, and not because of them (see Sweet Lou and to a lesser extent, Pat Gillick) (and those two probably do NOT want to ever come back under those two).

by rtang on Jul 25, 2008 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lou was fun, but he had nothing to do with the M's being as good as they were.

From 1994-2003, the Mariners contended pretty much every year. My point wasn’t that Lincoln and Armstrong were responsible for the success, just that the idea that the team can’t compete as long as they’re around is erroneous.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 25, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But a track record of failure

by JI on Jul 25, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I find it amazing

that Rhodes is getting multiple offers, and might bring back a prospect or two from the Marlins. Ron Villone II.

He’s been legitimately good this year, but getting good value for Arthur would be one hell of a move by a front office that hasn’t made a decent move in a long time.

by marc w on Jul 25, 2008 11:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs