Yay?

by Matthew on Aug 9, 2008 10:56 AM PDT in Regular News Comment 56 comments

Team sources have indicated that pitcher Jarrod Washburn cleared waivers and can now be traded without fear of a claim to block a move.

Source

This isn't horrible news, because Washburn could still be traded and it is actually good news in that sense since we are now free to trade him anywhere and if we do manage to get something back that person just has to be not part of the team's 40-man roster. However, I might have preferred someone to claim Washburn and have Seattle just say "okay". I want to be Washburn-free more than I want to hold out for something potentially useful far down the line in return.

At least they were smart enough to put him on waivers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Asked earlier this year about what he expects in the off-season, he said he wanted a four-year-contract, and though he’s likely to get an offer or two in that range, a three-year deal seems more like what Seattle would request.
For how much? The bidding for a man coming off three consecutive 100-RBI seasons – and being a good citizen and clubhouse force, to boot – would probably start in the $10-$11 million a year range.

Source

Anyone still think Raul might accept arbitration? He won't. And while you're down there praying for the Ms to trade Washburn you might as well tack on an extra one that the Mariners do not hand Raul a 3Y/$36MM (my prediction since back in February) contract.

0 recs | Comment 56 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Isn't this an indication that no one wants to take his contract, though?

I would guess that any deal that might go down now would only involve partial salary relief. Of course, even getting $6-8M off the books could be helpful.

by ubelmann on Aug 9, 2008 11:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That sucks that the Yankees didn't claim him off of waivers

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 11:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rauuuullllll

Is carrying the team right now. Unfortunately he couldn’t carry the jocks of Mr.’s Arod, junior, Edgar, Buener etc back in the day. I say it would be better spent than what Bavasi did for R. Sexton or Beltre. I guess a two year deal would be better for the M’s

Lost in the dusty desert

by HighPlainsDrifter on Aug 9, 2008 11:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No deal at all would be best

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about a 0 year deal for bupkis and nada for a signing bonus?

Draft picks.

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd totally beOK with the M's kicking in

a 500k signing bonus if Raul would take a 0 year contract and walk away. Maybe toss in a vesting option for an additional 0 year extension if he reaches 500 plate appearances.

by DCMariner on Aug 9, 2008 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except...

To say that signing Ibanez to an extension, at his age, with his total lack of defensive value, would be a better expenditure of resources than Adrian Beltre’s contract is patently absurd. Beltre is really good and just now entering his peak.

While the Sexson contract was terrible, he was at least still in his peak when it was signed and put in a few good years; Raul is 36. He’d be an adequate DH, but he’s going to get LF money. That’s a huge waste of resources.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a fantastic FanComment and should be commended for only spelling 2 player's names wrong.

by Robert on Aug 9, 2008 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet Baby Jesus,

you just know the M’s would jump at signing that deal for Ibanez. I’m afraid.

by DCMariner on Aug 9, 2008 11:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What? Of course Raul - as DH

If we put it in writing that he needs to play DH as much as possible – bonuses for plate appearances as DH or something – I’d be absolutely fine with Raul as DH for 3y/33m. Then see if Wlad is really the LF of the future or if there’s a LF to be had somewhere.

People keep talking about salaries as if they matter. It’s play money, folks. Quality matters more. Raul has been predicted to take a nosedive offensively for 2 or 3 years and it hasn’t happened. We can stand another 3 years of him (or a year or two years and then trading him if this mythical drop-off ever happens).

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Care to elaborate?

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, for starters

Designated hitters are plentiful in the market. We could probably find one who is just as good as Raul at the plate and it wouldn’t cost us nearly as much.. And more than likely that person wouldn’t be 37.

It isn’t “play money” either. This team has limited resources and ownership is not going to spend more than a certain amount, even if that amount is higher than a lot of other teams. That’s why our payroll isn’t $2 billion instead of $110 million (or whatever it is, I’m too lazy to look it up right now).

The more of those limited resources you sink into bad investments the less you have on hand to make good investments. Sinking a bunch of money into the DH position when you don’t have to spend close to that much for the same performance is just stupid.

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Raul is a known quantity who keeps himself in good condition, has a fanbase here, likely has 2 to 3 more good years in him. I don’t think it’d be a waste unless there was a power hitting LF or 1B that the Ms didn’t get due to money.

A lot of contracts are going away. A lot of money is freed up. And RRS and Morrow, plus possibly-maybe-a-spot-starting-RAD, is enough pitching to keep the Ms from blowing that freed up money on yet another mediocre pitcher. The Ms should have enough money to go looking for LF, RF and/or 1B bats in the fall.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets and Burnett = mediocre pitching.

Awesome.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You think either of them would want to come here?

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Money talks.

Also start using the subject line, please.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a clubhouse with so-called selfish players...

...the last thing they need is more guys coming there only for boatloads of money.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So-called is really the operative word here, isn't it?

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not buying Baker's reports on the clubhouse

Selfish bastard Erik Bedard turned out to be a great guy when I got a chance to interact with him. So if he missed the mark by that much on Bedard, why would I trust him about the rest of the clubhouse?

I’m sure the chemistry sucks in there right now, but that’s because we’re a bad team. Come spring training things may look pretty different.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

different @ spring training - here's hoping

As far as Bedard – a guy can be great to customers but aloof or a jerk to his coworkers; I work with plenty all the time. :)

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, he was 'supposed' to be a jerk to fans too.

Not so much.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still say he wasn't joking when he pointed to arm flopping around.

by Robert on Aug 9, 2008 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey look! Most of our old, bad investments are going away!

Let’s make new bad investments!

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but... but.. we like Raul.

The Ms don’t make their money off of run of the mill players. Ask average person off the street who plays for the Mariners and they’ll name Ichiro and Raul. Possibly Felix. That’s it. The stands are not filled with diehards who populate the blogs. Hard to convince folks to get behind a guy we got “b/c he’s cheap”.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless that guy helps the team win.

Boone, Olerud, Moyer. All tremendously popular players with the fans. All gone. Fans still come.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough.

See below comments too.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fans will like it even more when we actually get to the playoffs because we used our payroll effectively

They’ll get over Raul, this kind of pandering to marketability is part of what got us in this mess in the first place.

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll believe it when I see it

...but ok.

Does Oakland have a strong fanbase? Getting no-names and mid-names, using payroll effectively, getting to the playoffs using a roster built that way… sounds like wanting to be Oakland North.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Except Oakland can't spend ANY money and has a terrible stadium.

No one’s saying “don’t spend any money,” they’re saying “spend money intelligently.”

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We have a much larger payroll than Oakland

I’m not proposing we spend less on the team, I’m proposing we spend it in a smart way. Having a much larger payroll than anyone in this division gives us an advantage we have been squandering for a long time by making bad investments such as these.

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can we at least all agree...

...that this current front office is the wrong set of people to trust re: spending all that money intelligently?

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully the new GM will be

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We don't know yet

It’s going to be interesting to find out

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not play money. It's real money. Why is this so hard for people to get?

Any money they spend on Raul to DH can’t be spent on other players. You can find an adequate DH for way, way, way less than $10 million.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's like I didn't write a post on this a week ago!

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still wish you would back up your absurd claims about the lack of an obvious correlation between mechanics and injury with some actual evidence.

I mean, you talk about it all the time, but I want data. Equations, even.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We demand MORE backwards 6's

And would it kill you to throw in an upside down Q every once in a while? God.

by OlSalty on Aug 9, 2008 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh huh.

read read read
Ok.
The money part: With so much money coming off the books for other contracts going away (Vidro, Sexson, etc.), where should that $ be spent instead of Raul?
The roster part: Who on the roster is he blocking @ DH, if you were sign him as DH for 2009?

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Middle infielders. Pitching. Felix.

Everyone else who can hit like an average DH.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

MIddle infielders: Clear the bench of Willie, Cairo, Burke and you have room for miscellaneous middle infielders. Raul at DH, by himself, does not clog the arteries.
Pitching: See previous about money off the books for Vidro, Sexson, etc.
Felix: See previous about money off the books for Vidro, Sexson, etc. Plus keeping around RRS, Morrow, RAD instead of overpaying for pitching.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

How much money do you think we have free?

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So if that money is needed elsewhere...

Name 3 times in this century where the Mariners were priced out of a decent player. (Matsuzaka notwithstanding, b/c no one seriously expected the Red Sox to put up that kind of posting $).

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tejada, Guerrero, Beltran.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tejada – Granted.
Guerrero – Was money the issue? Really? He only just said today that he wants to be a lifetime Angel.
Beltran – Doesn’t seem like we missed out on much.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guerrero we asked Bavasi about this. Did you?

Beltran: what the hell is wrong with your brain?

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bavasi’s inability to get Guerrero… if you asked him and Bavasi answered money, well, ok. But Bavasi’s inability to get Guerrero would seem, from other signings, to be more about Bavasi’s inability.

Beltran – I’m sorry, I have a cold. A quick visit to mlb.com corrected me. I have no idea who I was thinking of. Mea culpa.

So you’re saying the $ saved by not keeping Raul is enough to put the Ms over the top in a bidding war for a decent LF/RF/1B bat? Who would you overpay for this offseason at one of those positions?

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Furcal and Burnett are the two top targets, with Sheets and Teixeira somewhere below that.

Getting both of those requires more than Sexson/Vidro money, and that’s not to mention the salary increases for all of our arbitration-eligable players.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

arbitration-eligable players

OH – dang, completely forgot about that. Any kind of napkin math I had just went out the window, after blowing my nose on the napkin.

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I might be kind of with you on Raul to DH if we had ditched Kenji but otherwise that money is more cost-effective elsewhere.

by Graham on Aug 9, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AHA

I knew it! It’s Joh / Yamauchi’s fault! If we could just get rid of Joh…

by Spoomeister on Aug 9, 2008 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're looking at it wrong.

Poor decisions are poor decisions. Giving Raul too much money is a poor decision. Spending way too much money to fill positions that could have been filled much cheaper is a big part of the reason the M’s are where they are today. The whole point is that they shouldn’t overpay for anyone at those positions, unless they’re a star. Raul is not a star.

You never know what can happen over the course of a contract, even a two or three year contract. Having too much money tied up in Raul may prevent the M’s from making a trade that helps them be more competitive, signing free agents next year, etc. etc. etc. The M’s shouldn’t re-sign Raul next year because he’s not going to be worth nearly what he’s likely to get.

J.K.L.

by acblue on Aug 9, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs