Dead Man Walking
Back when the Seattle Mariners first signed Chone Figgins - pretty much out of nowhere, as I recall, although there might have been a few rapidly intensifying rumors in the lead-up - I wouldn't say that people were necessarily ecstatic. Figgins wasn't exactly the big, forceful bat a lot of people had in mind. Chone Figgins could camp within a grade school diorama, and his slugging percentages have always reflected that.
But, at least around here, my sense was that people were content. Pleased, even. While Figgins wouldn't be expected to bring power, he'd be expected to bring pretty much everything else, and the overall package would make for a quality player. He could draw a walk, he could run, he could play a mean third base - at best, Figgins would be an underpaid and underrated star, and at worst, maybe he'd be around league-average, since he was the athletic sort, and the athletic sort tends to age well. At the time, it was hard to see how Figgins could turn into a disaster.
Fast-forward two years. We've learned something about the expression "at worst." At worst, we all die, or endure such agony that we wish we were dead. When it comes to a baseball player, the worst is that he's awful, completely awful, irredeemably awful. Chone Figgins is awful, and he looks irredeemably awful. He's not - that's just bias on my part, and there's a mathematical chance he bounces back - but the future doesn't look good. Not in the long-term, and not in the short-term.
Figgins has been so bad that we've had to reconsider how we expect players to age. Figgins has been so bad that we wonder how we didn't see this coming before. "He's a slap-hitter with zero power! How did this ever work?!" Figgins has been so bad that, yesterday, a report emerged that the Mariners are willing to chip in a lot of money to trade him away, and none of us batted an eye, because, of course. Of course the Mariners would be willing to chip in a lot of money to trade him away, because who would take him otherwise?
The Chone Figgins idea, however wise it might have been at the beginning, is a bust, and it's hard to see him sticking around as a Seattle Mariner.
And yet, today, as of the last time I checked, Chone Figgins remains a Seattle Mariner. He's still team property, and he's still owed seventeen million dollars over the next two years.
The situation is...this word is badly overused, and in need of some more well-known synonyms, but the situation is awkward. If the season were to start tomorrow, Chone Figgins would probably be on the Mariners. I don't know what he would be doing, but he would probably be there, as some kind of emergency stopgap. The Mariners would hope for him to show some glimmer of life, while giving him precious few opportunities to show some glimmer of life.
Or maybe he wouldn't be. Maybe the Mariners would cut him. I don't know. But the Mariners haven't cut him yet. Chone Figgins is still shown as a Seattle Mariner on his Wikipedia page, and Wikipedia knows things about people before the people do.
So Chone Figgins is still the property - in a baseball sense - of a team that has no use for him. Look around at some of the other bad contracts in baseball. Barry Zito has a bad contract, but the Giants have reason to believe he could be their fifth starter. Jayson Werth has a bad contract, but the Nationals have reason to believe he could be a productive hitter. Vernon Wells has a bad contract, but the Angels have reason to believe he could be a productive hitter. Alex Rios has a bad contract, but the White Sox have reason to believe he could be a productive player.
Do the Mariners have reason to believe that Chone Figgins could be a productive anything? A helpful anything? Figgins turns 34 in January. He's been a Mariner for just over 1,000 trips to the plate. Over those plate appearances, he's slugged .285. Remember that home run he hit on opening day? That was one of two home runs he's hit with Seattle.
Again, I guess there's a mathematical chance that Figgins could work as a utility player, but probably not anything more than that. Chone Figgins has two years left on his contract, and he's not a guy you can start, or a guy the Mariners seem particularly interested in keeping around.
He's a guy who just kind of exists there on the roster for the time being. It's weird for us to think about, and it has to be far weirder for Figgins himself to think about, since he can't have any idea what 2012 might have in store. He doesn't know where he's going to play, and he doesn't know what kind of job he might end up having. He just knows he's going to get paid a lot. I guess that helps, albeit not as much as the casual audience thinks.
I do not think Chone Figgins returns as a Seattle Mariner in 2012. I think he shows up with someone else, either because the Mariners traded him for nothing, traded him for a bad contract, or dropped him outright. If and when Figgins lands elsewhere, I expect that he'll talk about getting a fresh start and never quite being comfortable batting behind Ichiro. I think that's a bullshit excuse, and you think that's a bullshit excuse, but Figgins has to believe in that, he has to believe there's some reason for what's happened, because he can't believe he's as finished as he's looked. If he believed that, he'd quit playing.
So I don't think we'll have to watch Chone Figgins in a Mariners uniform next season. For the time being, though, he's still figuratively wearing one. I think this is weird for everybody.
52 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The whole Figgins thing is such a bummer.
Beltre, my favorite player, left – but my second favorite (Figgins!) was signed. So hey! Pretty neat!
Things did not turn out to be pretty neat.
by Eyebrows on Nov 15, 2011 4:10 PM PST via mobile reply actions 6 recs
Anyway, isn't it weird to just wish that a player who used to be so good would just disappear?
by Eyebrows on Nov 15, 2011 4:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Eh, but Junior was Old Junior. He was known to be a different player for a long time.
Figgins was good right before we signed him.
by Eyebrows on Nov 15, 2011 5:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Pseudo mobile-rec for understatement and class.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
by THolt on Nov 16, 2011 10:49 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
I was pretty happy with the signing at the time.
I didn’t have an opinion on the contract. I didn’t really know what he was worth. All I based that on was watching him annoy the shit out of me whenever we played the angels.
In hindsight, he became even more annoying… and if I didn’t have my tinfoil hat on right now, I would think that was the angels plan the whole time
Chone Figgins has a bad contract, but the Mariners have reason to believe he could be a productive designated runner.
The 1974 Oakland Athletics had one and they won the World Series!
"Perhaps the worst comment I've ever seen on LL." - sanford_and_son.
by Ride the Apocalypse on Nov 15, 2011 4:26 PM PST reply actions
At least he never threatened to kill anyone
by Poochie on Nov 15, 2011 4:40 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I hope he goes somewhere else, and prospers.
But please, not as a leadoff hitter. We don’t need to give fuel to that group of Mariners fans.
I can't wait for that opening day home run and first week of a respectable on base percentage, followed by an abysmal drop-off full of undisciplined at bats and shallow fly balls!
"Perhaps the worst comment I've ever seen on LL." - sanford_and_son.
by Ride the Apocalypse on Nov 15, 2011 6:51 PM PST up reply actions
I was unhappy with the signing and then was convinced I was acting out of irrational hatred.
The lesson here is that irrational hatred is always an emotion that should be trusted.
by Aaron Campeau on Nov 15, 2011 9:46 PM PST reply actions 8 recs
A little friendly editing
When it comes to a baseball player, the worst is that he’s awful, completely awful, irredeemably awful. And costs $36 million to be awful.
Well, beneath "awful," there's "Zitomyfuckingod."
Beneath that? Who knows. But you know some GM will find out soon enough.
//sigh
No, see, you contended that:
worst = awful, completely awful, irredeemably awful. And costs $36 million to be awful.
I asked what, then, would be a player who is awful, completely awful, irredeemably awful and costs more than $36 million. My implication being that those are worst then what you have defined as worst, rendering your “little friendly editing” false. To which you have now replied in a nonsequitor about adjective levels beneath awful. You appear to have missed the train here.
In other words, Jeff’s sentence didn’t need an addendum and inserting one actually makes it wrong.
by Matthew on Nov 16, 2011 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Jesus this subthread turned awfully serious awfully fast.
No more unwanted, unrequested, superfluous friendly edits for you, then
by fiftyone on Nov 17, 2011 12:27 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah but would you trade Figgins for Zito??
Zito at least wins a few games a year here and there and is used to being on a team that doesn’t score runs…
Of course that means Figgins would fit right in with the Giants offensive scheme…
Tobias FĂĽnke: Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist!!
by TooManyNinjas on Nov 17, 2011 10:43 PM PST up reply actions
The Figgins contract is actually one of the most reasonable "awful" contracts you can have.
by Patrick Stites on Nov 15, 2011 11:19 PM PST up reply actions
Jeff's entire post was aboubt how Chone Figgins costs a ton of money to be awful
there’s no need to tell him to keep emphasizing it.
by seattlebruin on Nov 16, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
If Chone Figgins didn't cost a ton of money, no one would care that he sucks
we actually like Luis Rodriguez
by seattlebruin on Nov 16, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
I was pleased with the signing at the time
Like you said, not jumping and down ecstatic, but pleased.
Now? I’d sure pay him $17 million not to play for my team.
I was not pleased with the signing at the time.
I mean, I didn’t envision a drop off, but I basically looked at it as “the Mariners are getting a player to replace Beltre who is not Beltre and will never be Beltre. This is fucking dumb, but we took something shiny from the Angels, so that’s neat.”
The contract isn't that bad
$9M is 2 WAR. It was reasonable to think Figgins could give us 2 WAR for 4 years. Reasonable. Stupid Figlet.
I think the line of thought was that we needed about 9 wins out of Figgins to make it work
and it seemed like a reasonable bet that he could provide the bulk of that value in the first two seasons, leaving some room for him to decline or be a role player later.
by seattlebruin on Nov 16, 2011 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
No it didn't.
It’s been about $4.5M/WAR for the past couple years
I felt we were replacing Beltre with someone who was a better fit.
I have my doubts he would have hit as well as he has (even adjusted for park) if he had stayed in Seattle.
Is there any reason whatever to believe that this is an offseason ([massive] lack of) effort thing?
Or a situation in which were to radically alter his approach we’d see improvement? I’m not in a position to look up just how steep a cliff his BABIP threw itself off. Outside massive regression (which would seem to me to indicate an almost unbelievable amount of luck during the “good” portion of his career) I don’t see any other reason. But I’m not good at that sort of abstract analysis.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
by THolt on Nov 16, 2011 10:55 AM PST via iPhone app reply actions
*were "he" to alter
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
by THolt on Nov 16, 2011 10:56 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
I read the title of this article and looked at the picture and my first thought was "Milton Bradley is dead?"
It honestly wouldn’t surprised me. Not that I think he will kill himself or get in trouble. It’s is just that he has so much drama that something is bound to happen
by luciuswolfey_96 on Nov 16, 2011 4:51 PM PST reply actions
Watching Rafael Furcal in the postseason, he was very similar to Figgins this year.
He was swinging weakly, hitting popups to shallow opposite field or shallow foul territory. Then he got moved down to the bottom of the order and started hacking and I saw a drastic change in his approach and style. I hope the same can happen to Figgins. He really looks like he’s swinging half-assed and has been for a while. Not saying he’s dogging it, but his approach is so in-between that he’s not taking walks or making solid contact. I still have hope and if he can be a utility infielder this year and put up a decent 260/340/380 line, I’d be okay with that.
But I’d be happier if we traded him for some bats. Wood bats. To hit with.
IGNORE ME
I hope they give him a shot in spring training.
And that he has a come back player of the year kind of season.
But I’m far, far from hopeful.
Probably closer to deluded.
I like to think he is literally wearing a uni during the winter
That’s wierd
by mutpup on Nov 17, 2011 6:57 AM PST via iPhone app reply actions

by 



















