Dave · December 12, 2004 at 9:07 am · Filed Under Mariners 

There’s a lot of untruths floating around out there surrounding the Beltre situation. Without getting into too much detail, the M’s have the best offer on the table, and if nothing changes, he’s probably going to be a Mariner next spring. Obviously, things change on an hourly basis, though, so that doesn’t mean much. Remember that patience we asked you to exercise? Just a few more days, folks.

In a related note, a lot of people believe that Tim Hudson is going to be a Dodger by night’s end. The A’s would reportedly get Edwin Jackson and Antonio Perez. DePodesta wouldn’t include Jackson in the Randy Johnson deal last summer, so I’m surprised to see him willing to move Jackson just a few months later. If the Dodgers acquire Tim Hudson and extend his contract, they will be very hard pressed to meet the asking price for Beltre.

This should be an active afternoon for other clubs, though I don’t expect the M’s to finalize anything today. There should be several deals going through that put the wheels in motion for the big dominos to start falling, however. Interestingly enough, it appears that Edgar Renteria may be the lynchpin in this whole thing. Should be another fun day.

And remember folks; patience.


72 Responses to “Updates”

  1. David J Corcoran on December 12th, 2004 4:49 pm

    Cost of living is cheap in Boise, too…

  2. furgig on December 12th, 2004 5:01 pm

    I would worry the players don’t want to play here because of the travel schedule. Does that even come into play? I would think our reputation for having a pitcher’s park might hurt too (regardless of what the numbers say).

    A plus would be getting to be a “big fish in a small pond”. And not having to deal with the pressure of being in a city like Boston or New York. And we are only in a four team division, with a good chance to win every year.

  3. martino on December 12th, 2004 5:03 pm

    #50 – I live in NYC. Trust me – the cost of living is MUCH less in Seattle.

  4. J on December 12th, 2004 5:09 pm

    Yeah, Seattle’s among the highest in the nation for what things cost compared to what people make around here. Cost of living is not going to be a selling point.

  5. EA on December 12th, 2004 5:14 pm

    I agree that cost of living isn’t much of a selling point. If you’re making $10M/year I don’t think you are too concerned about how much the groceries cost at Safeway.

  6. Rob on December 12th, 2004 5:20 pm

    I believe cost of living is a selling point when you compare to boston or new york. Im living in boston now(for the last 4 years, gotta love college). The prices you have to play for housing are REALLY high compared to seattle.

  7. Dave Williams on December 12th, 2004 5:31 pm

    All I am suggesting is that there are ways to market Seattle as an attractive place to live/play. How you market Seattle would have to be tailored to the preferences of the individual you are trying to attract, but I believe it can be done, especially with the kind of cash we can throw around.

    #52 – you make a very good point – I do think the travel is a big issue… which is one reason I am hope Vegas and Portland eventually get MLB teams. Maybe Boise too!

  8. James T on December 12th, 2004 5:42 pm

    I’m a Red Sox fan living in Massachusetts, so this is an outsider’s perspective. I wonder if part of the problem for the Mariners is that they established a reputation. That reputation, cemented in 2001-3 was that of a team that will not make the extra effort to win it all. So, imagine that you’re Adrian Beltre or some other free agent. The Mariners wine you and dine you and tell you how committed they are to building a contender. Don’t you still have the thought somewhere in the back of your mind that this was the team that had gaping sores at third base and left field in those years but couldn’t rouse itself to do anything about them? Wouldn’t you wonder if you wouldn’t just be a token public relations signing, however expensive? So no one wants to take Howard Lincoln’s money? What a crying shame. Wouldn’t spend it before and can’t spend it now. The irony.

    This is what Sox fans feared would happen when John Henry took over as principle owner. Only it wasn’t visited on us, it fell upon the team that had almost the exact same total revenues as the Sox the first couple years of Henry’s ownership (according to Forbes magazine, IIRC). The Red Sox payroll will be over $130 million this year but the Mariners are plowing all their money back into the team with a $78 million payroll last year and a promise of a $99 million payroll this year? Really?
    I don’t say all this to mock you guys or to try and make you feel bad. We’ve had the same situation as you have with the Mariners with the Boston Bruins. Their owner, Jeremy Jacobs has never tried to win a championship but aimed to make beaucoup de bucks with a generally competitive team. 3 or 4 times, the Bruins have been just a player away from perhaps winning the Stanley Cup and each time the Bruins did nothing and came up short. I’d like to give you some optimism, but aside from your present management leaving, I’m not sure from where it would arise.

  9. Murton on December 12th, 2004 6:40 pm

    I don’t believe in this unchangeable pennypinching reputation. Wouldn’t it disappear at the sight of a big offer? Would a free agent really claim that Seattle won’t go the distance even though they’ve made the best offer? It’s possible that Seattle, like Detroit, might have to offer more, at least for a short while, but they can certainly create a new reputation for themselves. I don’t see why not.

  10. Grant on December 12th, 2004 6:41 pm

    I thought something was supposed to happen today.

  11. ChrisK on December 12th, 2004 6:41 pm

    #58 – I’ve lived in both Boston and Seattle and share your sentiments. Seattle management knows it needs to ‘make a splash’ this offseason because the team has become so bad. However, if they ever get to the point where they are 1-2 players away from serious contention again, I fear we’ll see the same non-action from this group. They can maximize profits with a ‘competitive’ team comprised of gentlemen which they can market to the ticket/merchandise-buying casual fan. The Seattle market doesn’t demand a serious contender to draw lots of fans and therefore maximize ticket, merchandise and TV/radio revenue. I think this ownership group would like get back to a 2002-2003 level of competitiveness, then rely on their marketing strategy (focusing on popular players like Ichiro and the ‘family atmosphere’ of SafeCo) to draw most fans back. The basic message is this: Bring your family to the ballpark, see our nice players, and watch our team be ‘competitive’ because, hey, you never know!

  12. Grant on December 12th, 2004 6:43 pm

    Oh my bad, I hadn’t seen that that monster Cash for Guadin trade had gone down.

  13. roger tang on December 12th, 2004 6:45 pm

    re #59
    Yes, a few free agent signings would help in that area. But it wouldn’t necessarily help a reputation for sitting on your hands at the trade deadline. It’s probably not a major factor, but if there are offers in the same neighborhood, that’s something that could very well come to pass.

    And the travel factor is obviously something that has an effect. The sense of geographic isolation is part of it, but the wear and tear of travelling has got to be a factor–sure, every team has to travel, but Seattle has one of the longest travelling schedules, and when all things are equal, that’s gotta wear on the body…

  14. Paul Molitor Cocktail on December 12th, 2004 7:03 pm

    Rotoworld reports the Ms offer is $62M for 5 years.

  15. Dave D on December 12th, 2004 7:11 pm

    I think the Boston fan commenting (Congrats on your win, long time coming) hit the nail on the head: Seattle’s national reputation used to be “competitive plucky professional group of guys, fun place to play” in the 1995 – 2001 era, and its been “lame ownership that won’t pay to compete” since then. Look at the FA’s we’ve had wander off, its always been something. Alex, greedy jerk, so what, let him go. But Randy Johnson? The guy wanted to stay here, and ownership wouldn’t put $3.2 mil on the table a year for a proven winner and one of the handful of truly awesome pitchers of this or any era, a guy you absolutely want on your side pitching Game 7. Griffey… The signature player, gets a cold shoulder somehow and wanders off, when he should have been inheriting Edgar’s DH position right about now.

    The quality of stars on the M’s has dwindled every year since about 1999, and it caught up to them in 2002, and has been downhill every year since then. Combine that with Jughead Bavasi’s stellar prowess at evaluating talent, and you get .. a steady stream of stiffs like Aurilia, Spezio, and whatever else the gill net drags in this year.

    We can’t overachieve with our farm system products any more, because we can’t judge talent like we used to. We can’t pick any other system’s pocket, like we used to do to the Reds and Yankees, because the guys doing the judging are all old and dumb now, or have quit, or the guys they’ve hired are stupid, I dunno. And the pipeline to Japan is no longer exclusive, we got our profit from that with Ichiro and Sasaki.

    There’s no natural competitive M’s advantage any more, and until they sign a sabermetrician and make Lunkhead GM listen to him once in a while, and until we decide that we want to compete down the stretch again, we’re just gonna be adrift in 3rd – 4th place every year.

  16. LB on December 12th, 2004 8:14 pm

    Howard Lincoln has a vision, a dream. He wants to get to the World Series.

    Hasn’t he figured out yet that he it will suck just as much going over to congratulate the owner of the NL team that beats him as it did when he had to smile and shake hands with Steinbrenner twice in a row? Pathetic.

    Someone needs to work with Howard on setting appropriate goals. I guarantee you George Steinbrenner’s goal is not to merely get to the World Series next year.

  17. Andy on December 12th, 2004 8:23 pm

    How much things would be different had they gone the extra mile last year for Tejada that they at least appear to be doing this year. Last offseason was the backbreaker I think. You had a team coming off multiple 90+ win seasons and they lowballed Tejada and ended up with the worst offseason acquisitions since Glenn Wilson for Phil Bradley but at least we got Mike Jackson in that deal.

  18. Dave on December 12th, 2004 8:33 pm

    The M’s lowballed Tejada? They offered 5 years, $60 million to a guy who was coming off a season where he hit .278/.336/.472. In 2003, Tejada was worth 4.7 wins above replacement. In 2003, Randy Winn was worth 4.7 wins above replacement.

    Now, obviously, Tejada had a monster year for Baltimore, by far the best of his career. He basically nailed his 90th percentile PECOTA projection in 2004. But signing contracts that will only look good if a player hits the most optimistic projection possible is a great way to find yourself in last place for a long, long time.

    The Orioles took a huge gamble and, for the first year, it paid off. I still wouldn’t want to be paying Tejada at the end of that deal, and I don’t think it was a wise signing for the Orioles. With the information on hand at the time, passing on Tejada was a good idea. Calling it lowballing is just revisionist history.

  19. Andy on December 12th, 2004 8:49 pm

    So you’re saying that Tejada is worth the same as Winn? You can crunch all of the Fantasy numbers you want but an MVP caliber shorstop is worth in the real world than than a .280 hitting lower to middle of the pack outfielder. Also it’s not just numbers that matter but what a player brings to a team. By all accounts Tejada is a fiery type of ballplayer which is something they desperately lack. So yes I think they gave him a low deal especially when that is a player they said they were really going after.

  20. Dave on December 12th, 2004 9:01 pm

    Obviously, I’m not saying Tejada is worth the same as Winn. My point was that Tejada’s 2003 season was relatively modest and nowhere near MVP caliber. Tejada wasn’t an “MVP caliber shortstop” a year ago. He was a 28-year-old (maybe, as there’s still rumors that he’s several years older than listed) who had one all-star level season sandwiched around a whole bunch of solid but not spectacular ones.

    The Orioles made a bad offer to Tejada. It worked out for one year. If Tejada reverts back to his .270/.330/.470 career line, the $65 million they owe him for the next five seasons is going to be a pretty big problem for Baltimore.

    Oh, and for all his fiery leadership, the Orioles won 78 games last year. It was a bad contract for a good player who rewarded them with a great season. There’s almost no chance that he has 5 more great seasons, though, and they’re going to be superstar money for six years to a guy who has had exactly one superstar season.

  21. jj on December 12th, 2004 9:15 pm

    #69, if five years 60 millions is called lowballing, go check out how much top FA players signed and expected to sign this year.

  22. Paul Covert on December 12th, 2004 9:17 pm

    If we get Beltre at 5/62, I’m definitely happy with that. It’s still a risk, but I had thought it might have taken 7/85 or something like that.

    Mildly OT, but… For a guy who may or may not establish himself as a MLB regular, Antonio Perez has sure been in on his share of major deals (Griffey, Piniella, and, if this goes down, Hudson; the only exception was when he went from TB to LA for Jason Romano).