Game 9, Mariners at Royals

DMZ · April 14, 2005 at 10:05 am · Filed Under Game Threads 

Moyer v Bautista, 11:10 am, no TV, KOMO radio only.

Also in minor league action, you can listen to the Rainiers in Sacramento against the Rivercats at 12:35. Curtoooooooooo!! Baek’s getting the start.

This is the M’s chance to get over .500 for the first time in a year-and-then-some (which does not count their opening 1-0 record). I know it’s pointless this early in the season, but that’d be pretty cool. Still, the real test of the team’s going to be the brutal mid-late April/mid-May schedule (Angels, Indians, Rangers, A’s, Angels, Red Sox, Yankees, Red Sox, Yankees — ugh).

Incidentally, it looks like Friday is Pineiro, Saturday is Franklin, and Sunday is Meche, who’s having his elbow inflammation “honored” by moving his start back.


377 Responses to “Game 9, Mariners at Royals”

  1. Jeremy on April 14th, 2005 7:35 pm

    The Mariners will never trade Jamie Moyer.

    End of discussion.

    In other news, not everyone cares about the New York-Boston rivalry (Hello Bristol!)

  2. Jim Thomsen on April 14th, 2005 7:54 pm

    Wonder if the director’s cut of “Fever Pitch,” when it goes to DVD, will include Jimmy Fallon being digitally inserted into footage of the Sheffield-fan brawl from tonight?

  3. John D. on April 14th, 2005 8:25 pm

    Only once have I read the sentiment, “Well, it’s only KC.”
    But be of good cheer. I have been reading the Minneapolis STAR-TRIBUNE during the TWINS’ sweep of the TIGERS, and not once did I read, “It’s only Detroit.” (Wins are wins.)

  4. Marty Lighthizer on April 14th, 2005 8:29 pm

    I hope so. I also hope he suffers a virtual injury in the CG altercation and is unable to act any longer. (Assuming of course he could act in the first place…)

  5. David J Corcoran on April 14th, 2005 8:31 pm

    Re 338:

    “Innings eaters are good. 5.00 ERA innings eaters won’t last unless on a bad team. Then there are Colon, Ponson, L. Hernandez archetypes who give you good ERA and lots of innings. (Isn’t Franklin and innings eater?)”

    Not sure where you are coming from. Colon ate innings…with a 5.01 ERA.
    Ponson did to…with a 5.30 ERA, and Livan is in a different league, as a seriously underrated pitcher.

    But to say that Colon couldn’t last on a winning team with a 5.00 ERA…well…he did. And he was their ace. Ponson was Baltimore’s ace, although Baltimore was a pretty crummy team.

    My point isn’t that having Colon at the front of your rotation is a good thing, but that a pitcher with a 5+ ERA will almost always stick in the rotation of a WINNING TEAM if he can eat innings.

  6. Marty Lighthizer on April 14th, 2005 8:48 pm

    Re 352 again,
    Or maybe the director’s cut could have Fenway security escort Fallon out of the movie entirely…

  7. Matt Williams on April 15th, 2005 12:04 am

    My point isn’t that having Colon at the front of your rotation is a good thing, but that a pitcher with a 5+ ERA will almost always stick in the rotation of a WINNING TEAM if he can eat innings.

    Almost any team could pull up a guy from AAA who could do 3 or 4 innings at a time with a 5 ERA. I’m too drunk to crunch the numbers, but out of the playoff teams last year I would bet $100 that fewer than half of them had one of their top 5 starters (by innings) had a 5+ ERA.

    Guys who fail like that, but can eat innings, are Ryan Franklin. A guy who would be abandoned by a winning team, but is the best long relief option on a team that makes a slow pitch softball team look like a defensive powerhouse.

  8. BDA on April 15th, 2005 5:07 am

    Hey, what’s up with Beltre’s back? From MSNBC:

    “Seattle star Adrian Beltre left the game in the fourth inning with a back injury. No information on the injury was reported immediately after the game, but it is believed that Beltre was taken out as a precaution due to tightness in his back. Mariners manager Mike Hargrove doesn’t expect Beltre to miss any games.”

  9. Jeff Sullivan on April 15th, 2005 5:43 am

    He tweaked his lower back making a play at third. It didn’t seem too bad at the time.

  10. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 8:05 am

    Any more news on Beltre?

  11. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 8:09 am

    No one has refuted my argument that the M’s ownership places a high value on the PR/Marketing value of certain players relative to their on-field ability. This business decision has hurt the team and will continue to hurt the team.

    I cited 4 players (Moyer, Boone, Bloomquist, and Wilson) and someone turned it in to a discussion of the ability to trade Moyer.

  12. Dave on April 15th, 2005 8:43 am

    Moyer – he battles and that is admirable. The fact that we won’t trade him disgusts me.

    I cited 4 players (Moyer, Boone, Bloomquist, and Wilson) and someone turned it in to a discussion of the ability to trade Moyer.

    That “someone”, that’s you, Paul.

  13. Jeff Sullivan on April 15th, 2005 9:08 am

    Correction: Beltre hurt his back swinging in the first, not fielding in the third. At least, according to the PI.

  14. Jeff Sullivan on April 15th, 2005 9:15 am

    …or the Times. Whatever. Shut up.

  15. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 9:18 am

    Dave, read the thread again.

  16. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 9:20 am

    7-5, M’s win tonight.

    Beltre comes back to pinch-hit a game winning single in the 9th.


  17. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 9:23 am

    Curious article in the PI this morning about our favorite (speaking for Dave if he doesn’t mind) — Billy Beane.

    I’m glad to see him relax. His view of the game is changing – a sure sign of growth.

    That an article about the A’s GM is in a Seattle paper is a curiosity.

  18. DMZ on April 15th, 2005 9:35 am

    On reading the thread again:
    218 – Paul suggests Moyer should be traded if he racks up a few wins
    …becomes “10-5 rights” and some other thoughts on whether Moyer’s position might make it tough. Maybe 4-5 comments on this.

    321 – Paul “Moyer – he battles and that is admirable. The fact that we won’t trade him disgusts me. It sends a message that you can be average but if you have fans, we will keep you. It’s why we won’t ever win the World Series. Wilson, Bloomquist, Moyer remind me that business of baseball informs every baseball decision in this town.”

    Paul, it was you. Twice.
    You originated the “trade Moyer” discussion.
    You originated the “we won’t trade him” discussion.


  19. DoesntCompute on April 15th, 2005 9:36 am


    People have given very good arguments against your assertions regarding Moyer but you have ignored them. I don’t think it will do any good but I will try to briefly cover the others.

    Boone: Was a top tier 2nd baseman until last year. Could slippage be predicted? Yes. Is his contract totally out of line with a top tier 2nd baseman? No.

    Bloomquist: I don’t know what the fascination with him is but I find it interesting that the managers he has worked for seem to like him. It is one thing for upper management to put a guy on the roster and it is another for the manager to actually use him. I think Bloomquist has something that old-time baseball men like. Please note that I’m not saying this is correct thinking.

    Wilson: It has been covered before that Wilson is not a bad backup catcher when compared to the rest of the backup catchers. Is his salary too high? Yes by maybe a million or two. The M’s have an ~90 million payroll. A million or two to them is not the same as it would be to the A’s. I agree that keeping Wilson as one of the final links to the ’95 season is a marketing decision but I believe the decision is also based on showing loyalty to those that have gone to war for you.

    Two of the people you mentioned (Bloomquist and Wilson) have larger than deserved contracts based on their performance but their contracts are still small enough that I don’t think you can make the case that they are keeping the M’s from the world series.

    Boone and Moyer have higher salaries but they were in line with their production when signed. These contracts may be hurting the M’s chances to go to World Series but the other part of your argument does not hold for them. Their contracts were in line with their production and not inflated because they are nice guys.

    I think these signing do point to problems in the FO but not the one you accuse them of. The signings show a lack of accounting for a decline in performance based on age, a lack of drafting quality players, and a lack of planning for roster construction.

  20. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 9:41 am

    Derek do you often think for Dave? Or only speak for him?

    Again, no refutation of my main theses. I find that curious.

  21. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 9:47 am

    Doesn’tcompute. I can agree with your view. It seems sound.

    I don’t care about the money invested. I’m more interested in building a sound team – one that place wins on a higher scale than profit. That is all.

    I think we would all agree that flags fly forever and a championship would do more for profit that the likability of a nice guy.

  22. paul mocker on April 15th, 2005 9:49 am

    What you highlighted shows you didn’t understand. I’ll take the blame for that since I probably wasn’t clear.

    Moyer is an “example” of ownership’s profit-centered thinking. I could have chosen any of the Fan Favorite Four to analyze. I hope that makes it more clear.

  23. John in L.A. on April 15th, 2005 10:15 am


  24. DMZ on April 15th, 2005 10:20 am

    “What you highlighted shows you didn’t understand.”

    … boom!

    well folks, if you were curious how short my fuse is lately, there you go. It’s that long.

  25. Dave on April 15th, 2005 10:31 am

    Moyer is an “example” of ownership’s profit-centered thinking.

    Not that I really want to continue this thread, but that’s your opinion, supported by… nothing.

    When they resigned him to a 3 year contract, he was coming off a terrific season. They didn’t resign him as a community service project; he was legitimately good, and they were betting that he would continue to be.

    They aren’t talking about trading him because, well, the collective bargaining agreement won’t let them, there isn’t any kind of market for him, they don’t have many viable options to replace him, and he’s shown no interest in wanting to leave.

    You’ve built a huge strawman, and are criticizing other people based on what you think they might not do for reasons that you believe based on, well, bitterness, maybe?

    It’s just weird the lengths you’re willing to go to support your preconceived notion.

  26. ahaha on April 15th, 2005 1:21 pm

    Irrationality will never go out of style.

  27. Steve Thornton on April 15th, 2005 2:10 pm


    Also answers the question, “how deep is a hole?”. That was some impressive digging.

    Man, I think the refusal of the M’s management to even CONSIDER trading Moyer for, uh, Albert Pujols, Ben Sheets, and Johan Santana proves how corporate and media-driven they are.