Dave · December 12, 2004 at 9:14 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Ken Rosenthal reports that the M’s are closing in on a deal for Richie Sexson.

Considering the offers he’s gotten to date and walked away from, here’s to hoping this one doesn’t materialize.

Update: Yep, this one looks to be true. As long as the physical pans out, we could see a press conference tonight. If the numbers being tossed around are true, too much money for too many years. I’m actively rooting for Sexson to fail the physical.


177 Responses to “Sexson”

  1. Kris on December 13th, 2004 1:25 pm

    I dunno… I think it could be a bad move but so what, I mean really this team has very little long-term $ commitment to anybody else right now and this does not take them out of the bidding for their principal target – Beltre. Do I love Sexson? No. But I don’t understand why all the whining and moaning about getting a potential big-time bat into the lineup either. What would you rather they spend the money on? A Speez/Ibanez/Aurilia combo again? I think there is just no making some people happy.

  2. Dash on December 13th, 2004 1:40 pm

    #148 No our outfield would probably look more like this:
    RF – Ichiro
    CF – Winn (if traded than Reed)
    LF – Sexson
    DH/1B/LF Ibanez

  3. Mike on December 13th, 2004 1:41 pm

    Frozenropers, I agree with you. I think the Delgado price soared thru the roof. I hope the M’s are focused on Betre at this point (I hope Drew is plan B) and we forget about Sexson playing LF.

  4. IgnatiusReilly on December 13th, 2004 2:06 pm

    So, is this a done deal or isn’t it? New articles being released in the last few minutes seem to be saying Baltimore / Mets are in on Sexson still. Old articles, or what?

  5. Scraps on December 13th, 2004 2:09 pm

    Why is it that some people who approve of the Mariners’ moves are unable to argue with those who disagree without calling them “whiners” and saying that nothing will please us? Since we hardly stop talking about what would please us, it’s obviously untrue, and “whiner” is no more civil than “management boot-licker” would be. Can we discuss this like adults, please?

  6. Matt on December 13th, 2004 2:21 pm

    Re: #154 — just heard on ESPN Radio within the hour that Sexson’s agent is saying no deal is done with the M’s, and that the Orioles are still involved in the talks.

  7. Kris on December 13th, 2004 2:32 pm

    Sorry, but I think whining is just the best adjective to use…since none of us are GM’s, and none of us can know the structural integrity of his shoulder (i.e. predict the future) we must react to the facts we know – my approach is to concede that Sexson may be a huge bust if his shoulder explodes, but other than that has significant potential benefits over the current status quo. He’s not old, and he was very good when last seen playing. Everyone is overpaid in the current market, so that goes without saying. The approach of most of the posts ‘arguing’ against signing him are “NOOO!” and “WHY?” and “Bavasi is a moron” – which is just complaining for the sake of complaining in my view. If this somewhat more optimistic view makes me a management boot-licker, so be it.

  8. Jeff on December 13th, 2004 2:40 pm

    It’s certainly true that we don’t know the condition of Sexson’s shoulder. Only one team has a full medical report on him, Arizona, and they wouldn’t guarantee Sexson more than a year — while at the same time throwing tons of money at Russ Ortiz and Troy Glaus. That, I believe, says something.

  9. Scraps on December 13th, 2004 2:42 pm

    Well, it makes me wish for a user filter. I have some adjectives in mind for the kind of reading comprehension you’re displaying, but I don’t think they’re appropriate for this venue.

  10. Kris on December 13th, 2004 2:52 pm

    # 159: Nice. I thought you were the one who wanted civility?

  11. The Ancient Mariner on December 13th, 2004 3:06 pm

    As for contract terms, on ESPNews, Steve Phillips said that the buzz in the lobby is that Seattle has agreed to a 4-year $48-million deal with Sexson, pending a successful physical; the host, Brian Kenny, thought that was ridiculous for a *healthy* Sexson.

  12. Adam S on December 13th, 2004 3:16 pm

    #152. I assume if we sign Delgado and Sexson, Ibanez will be traded and Bucky will DH. Otherwise the M’s would be talking about Delgado/Sexson as the 1B and DH.

    I was kinda down on this deal when I first heard it, but given the lunacy of contracts (6M for Koskie, 10M for Glaus, 16M for Delgado) this seems reasonable. I assume the M’s will insure Sexson against a recurrance of the shoulder injury, so if he blows up they’ll get most of the money back and can try someone else — they won’t have $30M down the drain.

  13. The Ancient Mariner on December 13th, 2004 3:31 pm

    It would seem unlikely that the M’s would be able to insure such a contract, since Sexson’s shoulder problem is a pre-existing condition.

  14. simon on December 13th, 2004 3:41 pm

    Why are you all so enamored with Beltre. I live in L.A. and no one down here seems interested in signing him. He had one good year.

  15. JPWood on December 13th, 2004 4:03 pm

    #154/156: The AP has this out now:
    “Sexson’s agent, Casey Close, said that Seattle and Baltimore were still competing for Sexson.”

  16. paul mocker on December 13th, 2004 4:24 pm

    Thank you for contributing that info, JPWood

  17. paul mocker on December 13th, 2004 4:27 pm

    I wonder who would win in a trade between Beane and Bavasi?

  18. paul mocker on December 13th, 2004 4:31 pm

    We don’t need Hudson for 2005 since we won’t be competitive. Although Beane must be licking his chops to deal with Bavasi, Bavasi wouldn’t be dumb enough to get Hudson.

  19. Daaaannnn on December 13th, 2004 4:50 pm

    While the orioles outbidding the M’s on sexson might be good, having the M’s lose out on both beltre and sexson would be bad. Nobody wants to see the team make a desparation signing and spend too much

  20. Mike on December 13th, 2004 5:10 pm

    Drew is still out there!

  21. David J Corcoran on December 13th, 2004 5:12 pm

    **** this ****!!!! I can’t stand this ****in team!!!!!!! What are these ****in “moves”!??!?!?!?!?!

    Sexson?!?!?!? Richie Sexson?!?!?!

    If we get Beltre, I am OK with this, but if this is “the” signing, I will be pissed.


  22. David J Corcoran on December 13th, 2004 5:14 pm

    I mean, first is kind of a secondary objective:

    PRIMARY OBJECTIVES (in my mind)
    1. 3RD BASEMAN
    2. STARTER


    1. 1B/CF
    3. BENCH BAT



  23. David J Corcoran on December 13th, 2004 5:17 pm

    Sorry for the venting, BTW…This just has me a little bit stressed.

  24. Basebliman on December 13th, 2004 5:48 pm

    It could be worse. At least Pete O’Brien isn’t on the market.

  25. mr kenny on December 13th, 2004 7:45 pm

    maybe not so done — O’s still hoping to acquire Sexson( linky)
    i love the quote: “Having lived in Seattle, I know that Portland and Seattle are two different cities.”

  26. bilbo on December 13th, 2004 9:41 pm

    forget sexson and delgado at those prices. If 1B is so important, trade for N Johnson since he seems to be on the block.

    If Bavasi wants to spend that $, get a SP and 3B. I would rather take chances and overspend for the Belts or try and acquire another OF.

  27. David on December 13th, 2004 9:54 pm

    Nick Johnson, yes! and splurge on Beltre and Clement! that would be a happy trio to me.