Today In Uninteresting Mariners Rumors
This is actually more like Yesterday In Uninteresting Mariners Rumors, since I first saw this sometime Sunday evening, but as you can imagine, it didn't exceed my Sunday threshold. There exists a threshold below which I will not write about something on a Sunday, and this was below that level. Now it's Monday!
Hit it, Jon Morosi!
Source: George Sherrill, free agent LHR, drawing interest from #Royals, #Phillies, #BlueJays, #Mariners.
Oh, so you want Prince Fielder rumors? You only want to talk about Prince Fielder rumors, or rumors involving players as good or as visible as Prince Fielder? Too bad. They can't all be that exciting. If they were all that exciting, you wouldn't appreciate how exciting they are. You need shit rumors like this and the Arthur Rhodes rumor to be able to keep the other rumors in perspective. This way, it isn't Prince Fielder!, Prince Fielder, Prince Fielder, Prince Fielder. It's Prince Fielder!, Darren Ford, Prince Fielder!, Arthur Rhodes, Prince Fielder!, George Sherrill, Prince Fielder!.
Sherrill, obviously, is a former Mariner. So is Rhodes. So are some of the other guys to whom the Mariners have been linked. One also recalls that the Mariners brought Tony Butler back into the system a year ago. Bedard's gone, Butler's back, Sherrill could come back. Piece by piece...
So here's the thing about this rumor. It makes sense on two levels: the Mariners are in open pursuit of a lefty for the bullpen, and the Mariners have expressed an interest in adding to the bullpen some kind of vet. Sherrill is a lefty, and Sherrill is a vet. Okay, sure, he fits. He fits pretty well.
But Sherrill is a lefty vet who got $1.2 million as a free agent a year ago coming off a bad season. He got $4.5 million the year before that. Now he's not coming off a bad season. Last season, with the Braves, Sherrill had trouble against righties like usual, but he struck out 32 lefties while walking just one. That is a strikeout-to-walk ratio of 32:1. That is an excellent ratio of strikeouts to walks.
So it stands to reason that Sherrill is going to get paid a little bit. Why should the Mariners be the team that pays him? They're highly unlikely to contend in 2012. Sherrill's 34. He's a specialist. What money the Mariners have could be put to better use elsewhere.
It doesn't make sense to me unless Sherrill comes at a huge discount, and I don't know why Sherrill would come at a huge discount. 32 to 1. He's better suited to get signed by a contender, so the Mariners don't strike me as much of a likely match.
And that is Today (Yesterday) In Uninteresting Mariners Rumors. I hope that you are suitably uninterested.
37 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What's the scoop on Prince Fielder?
Haven’t heard his name in a while.
(sarcasm)
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
Sherrill
since the M’s strategy these days doesn’t seem to involve trying to contend, their next best strategy (one they employed with Cliff Lee and tried to employ on Adrian Gonzalez) is to sign or trade for a player like George Sherrill. While he may seem overpriced for the team, if he has a good half season, he can be flipped for a prospect or two at the deadline and the other team’s on the hook for a third of the salary too…
by JWGS on Dec 12, 2011 12:27 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I'm pretty confident that the Mariners' strategy is to contend.
Maybe not in 2012 or as quickly as a lot of fans would like, but the team still wants to contend.
No matter where you go, there you are.
by KC Mariner on Dec 12, 2011 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
To imply that a team doesn't want to contend is asinine.
Each team wants to contend year-in, year-out. However, most of them look at what they can realisitically do while taking many factors in account in each given year. While this team may not contend right away, they are building a solid base for contention in say 2013 or 2014. But to say that a team doesn’t want to contend at all in any year is just plain false.
by Fuzz on Dec 12, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
But I thought we were still going for a "Major League" thing...
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 12, 2011 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
I've started to appreciate the "Ownership has absolutely NO interest in making the team better" comments
for their entertainment value. It’s amazing what people can delude themselves into believing.
by Aly Edge on Dec 12, 2011 8:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Me too.
Just that I’m worried. I guess what I’m worried about is the stick-to-it-iveness (people say that, but boy does it look stupid spelled out) of the ownership. It seems like it would be right up their alley to give in while the ship is, indeed slowly, being righted.
"Satisfaction is the enemy of success." SanFranPreps
by perfectstrat on Dec 12, 2011 9:44 PM PST up reply actions
Jack Zduriencik is not the perfect GM.
He’s made some amazing trades and seems to have a great eye for minor league talent, but he also makes a lot of really stupid smaller moves, wastes opportunities like he did this most recent rule 5, and appears to refuse to make changes when it is apparent to everyone that a change needs to be made. He should not be fired if he fails to sign Prince Fielder, but if he doesn’t make moves that help to improve this team and the fans want to give him crap for it, he’s not free of blame for their awfulness. The fans may be mad at him for the wrong reasons, and certainly JWGS is a lunatic, but the GM has made enough questionable moves of late that I sometimes wonder why he gets as defended with the vigor that he does.
...and now I'm here
Fair enough
But there’s a difference between believing ownership has no interest whatsoever in fielding a winning team and being worried that ownership will cave to public pressure.
I have been sufficiently whelmed.
by sanford_and_son on Dec 12, 2011 1:01 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
My mood could currently be described as "gruntled"
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Dec 12, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
I recalled recently that once upon a time the Mariners brought back Norm Charlton at the end of his career.
We won 116 games! Science.
follow @casetines
The magic from bringing back a beloved Mariner only lasts for one year though, so Z better time it right.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Norm Charlton was known as "The Sheriff."
Sherrill sounds like sheriff. Therefore the M’s will win 116 games. Science!
by themanleyman on Dec 12, 2011 4:20 PM PST up reply actions
When Sherrill was the closer in Baltimore
They played a “Brim Reaper” video before he came out. Worst nickname for a player.
by BrendanHarrisLives on Dec 12, 2011 4:11 PM PST reply actions
As long as you don't touch.
But no, he isn’t good.
Oh
Sherrill. I remember trading him for Emilio Bonafacio my first year playing fantasy.
He does seem like a decent candidate for a rebound. Could be usefulish piece in the bullpen.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 13, 2011 8:29 AM PST reply actions
Just a heads up, "Nobody cares about your fantasy team."
(unless there is a thread talking about fantasy teams, avoid any kind of fantasy team talk)
Oh
I didn’t want anyone to. More of a dumb comment. I apologize though.
My main point is that I like Sherrill, as more than a specialist. I think it’d be a good move.
Obviously though it’s possible the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on Fielder. Consequently, that’s what I want to happen. I think the Mariners could build around him, Ackley, and their rotation, and be competitive in what’s becoming a cuthroat AL West. Plus, I’m curious to see what Fielder could do in that park.
On that note, I’m presuming Smoak would becoming available if y’all sign Fielder. Am I presuming wrong? He’d be an interesting target for the Pirates in my opinion.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 13, 2011 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Remember that we have a DH position. ;)
Signing Fielder doesn’t mean moving Smoak at all. Fielder DH, Smoak 1b, Carp through those 2 positions and LF (Eric Wedge said in winter meetings interview that he sees Carp as a fulltime OF, for what that’s worth).
So yeah, would take more than that – plus the Mariners selling very low on Smoak – to make him available.
I guess
that’s true. I remembered the DH, I just wondered if it would be economically advisable to pay a DH that much.
Seems like you could trade Smoak for a solid return, play Fielder at 1B, and find a DH cheap that would be just as good a hitter as Smoak. Maybe not. I’d have to think about that more.
Fair point, and ya it would probably be foolish to sell low on Smoak.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 13, 2011 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
But you're saying that the M's should find a DH that's cheap and as good as Smoak.
And I think we already have one. His name is Smoak.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 13, 2011 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
That
makes sense… I dunno. I guess my point is, Smoak is a good, young player that is more valuable as another team’s 1B, than he is either being a DH or making Fielder a DH. I also mean more valuable as in more valuable for both teams because the Mariners would be able to get a haul in return for Smoak that would be worth it rather than having him
(a) play 1B and make Fielder DH (which would make him an expensive as hell DH)
(b) be the DH
That seems to be standard thinking, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.. I’m trying to wrap my head around that one. Maybe, for example, the Mariners could call up Dimitri Young who’s allegedly coming back, and have him DH for table scraps, get talent for Smoak, and Young would provide similar value to Smoak as a DH because neither have to play in the field, where Smoak would presumably distance himself from Young.
That’s all contingent on getting a solid return for Smoak, which may not be possible admittedly.
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 13, 2011 2:21 PM PST up reply actions

by 

















