News, M’s and otherwise

DMZ · October 20, 2005 at 7:32 am · Filed Under General baseball, Mariners 

Leo Mazzone, legendary pitching coach and possible Hall of Fame candidate, left for Baltimore after a brief flirtation with the Yankees. Orioles manager Sam Perlozzo is a long-time friend. Too bad the Mariners didn’t get him, of course, but whaddayagonnado.

Former Mariner pitching coach Bryan Price got shut out of managerial jobs and took a place-holder position as pitching coach for former Mariner manager Bob Melvin with the Diamondbacks.

Joe Girardi is the new Marlins manager.

Discussion on who the Mariners might still get rages. Larry LaRue in the TNT files a report that makes it seem as if organizational candidates Jim Slaton and Rafael Chaves are forgotten (which is odd).

On the original short list of possible candidates to succeed Bryan Price in Seattle two weeks ago, Slaton hasn’t yet interviewed – and Chaves said he hasn’t even been told he is a candidate.

LaRue also gets some quotes from Guardado, who’s annoyed the team didn’t immediately tell him whether they’d be picking up his team option.

“If they said, ‘Look, we want you back but not at the larger figure,’ fine, I’d understand that,” Guardado said. “Or if they said, ‘We don’t want you back, period,’ I’d understand that, too.

“But why push it until the free-agency period begins? Why not just talk to me now? If they don’t want me back, no hard feelings – but let me start to explore my other options as soon as I can.

“I’ve shown them respect for two years, and I’d love to come back and be part of what could happen here. Just talk to me.”

And I include this only because it seems to pop up on every freaking comment thread, Bob Finnigan would like us to know that Ichiro is sad and neglected.

And the World Series is White Sox v Astros.


61 Responses to “News, M’s and otherwise”

  1. Shoeless Jose on October 20th, 2005 5:30 pm

    Yeah. His strategy: Leave the starter in. Leave the starter in. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    It was good enough for every team in the first 70+ years of baseball, wasn’t it?

  2. msb on October 20th, 2005 5:47 pm

    ESPN online has a pair of articles about Bagwell & Thomas as (mostly) spectators for this Series… which included the wierd fact I’d missed, that they were both born May 27, 1968, (as well as both MVPs in ’94)

  3. Mat on October 20th, 2005 7:08 pm

    “It was good enough for every team in the first 70+ years of baseball, wasn’t it?”

    Is it clear that it was good enough for all those teams? After all, only one team won the World Series each year. Seems like a lot of them had some room for improvement.

  4. NBarnes on October 20th, 2005 7:11 pm

    These would presumably be the same White Sox that “couldn’t sustain their lead” and were “poorly managed” as we were assured here early in the season. Mid-season, I got an email assuring me that this stance hadn’t changed, and the proof was in all the one-run games the team had won . . . which couldn’t be sustained since it rested on the heads of Gardner and Buerhle.

    Anyone want to re-examine assumptions?

    They didn’t sustain their lead. Feel free to look at Chicago’s pre-ASB and post-ASB records. The only reason Chicago’s in the World Series now is that Cleveland choked badly in their last six games.

  5. Bela Txadux on October 20th, 2005 8:17 pm

    Regardless of the absolute value of a ‘closer,’ Eddie unquestionably had a good year in that role, despite pitching with diminished velocity after rehabbing his shoulder instead of surgery. He wore down in September, but then he was being used too much in August, and there was the shoulder issue as well. All this while pitching for a dog-faced team that belly-flopped deep into the tank, especially during the last six weeks, which said team is also going nowhere next year most likely. Eddie gets on the horn and says, freely transcribed, “I’d like to be rewarded for showing up and playing hard among a bunch of guys who didn’t do either. Where’s organizational loyalty?”

    If the Ms don’t pick up Eddie at the team option, he’s gone. I hope everyone advocating the team decline that option recognizes that. Does anyone think Eddie can’t beat one year at four and a half on the open market? I’m sure he can, and I’m sure that his agent is sure as well. Yes, there are many quality closing arms on the market this year, although as comments above state, some of the best ones may not end up entering the open market after all. Arguably, many of those arms are ‘better’ as closers than Eddie from a quantitative standpoint, again with the real value of closer being subject to discussion. Many teams value consistency; even more value the ‘proven closer.’ I’m not saying such teams are smarter or even smart; Troy Percival’s deal last year is evidence to the contrary—but it’s also evidence that there are such teams out there.

    Eddie is NOT going to take the player option again. He had to last year, and it was fair: no one knew if he was even going to pitch in ’05. Come the time, he closed, effectively, and all year long. His higher pay option was intended to be for closing, effectively. So the Ms declining the team option will be the same as non-tendering him. . . . And a _great_ sign to potential free agent signees, no? Going nickle-slick on a team leader who played hurt all year for dog-face team? I most sincerely hope that I NEVER see the Ms organization go that way, on Eddie or anyone.

    Now, I would far prefer that the team exercise his option at six and half, and then trade him. The market for Eddie goes down at that price, sure it does, but it doesn’t go to zero. That he’s only signed for one year hedges the risk for the acquiring team, too. The Yankees may be interested in B. J. Ryan, for example, but they are a team that values ‘experience.’ I’d mucn prefer re-upping Eddie, dealing him to the Yankers, and then the _Ms_ signing B. J. Ryan. . . . The Ms FO doesn’t think like that, though, or at least only does do under extreme duress.

    To me, the only sign of Eddie’s option being unresolved to this point is that, quite typically, the Ms FO can’t make up its collective mindset. The Ms were willing to deal Eddie at the Break, and that is an indication to me that they would be as willing and more to deal him now, given their dire needs in the rotation which will soak up payroll. So if the Ms are going to deal him anyway, they needn’t rush in picking up his option; in such case, Eddie’s ‘state of mind’ is of peripheral importance as well. But keep him or deal him it will be at six and a half. Or he walks. And would be right to do so, and probably better paid for longer if he did.

  6. Bela Txadux on October 20th, 2005 8:32 pm

    One great thing about Mazzone moving to Baltimore is that now we will really get the demonstration of whether or not he has a superior pitcher-management regime. No more Schuerholz catching useble guys in the dragnet. No more handful of Aces rotation to keep the numbers good. Leo has a completely new group of faces; will their collective numbers show a significant, positive bump after his arrival? This, to me, will be one of the things in baseball to keep a very close eye on over the next two years.

  7. Jon Helfgott on October 20th, 2005 8:55 pm

    56: Anyone who still doubts Mazzone will still be able to do so even if he succeeds in Baltimore. A lot of people were expecting 2006 breakouts from Daniel Cabrera and Eric Bedard (given a full season of health) before the Mazzone hiring.

  8. Russ on October 20th, 2005 10:05 pm

    Adios Eddie, thanks for the memories…and the funny faces and barfing on the mound.

    Hello Mr. Soriano. I’m so glad to see you in the 9th. We all know you can close with the best. Here kid, take the ball, shut em down.

    We simply do not need Eddie on this team, not at 4.5 and most certainly not at 6+. If somebody wants to pay a guy with duct tape holding his arm on more then 4.5, please please let it be another team.

  9. Bruce on October 20th, 2005 11:14 pm

    On the contrary, Bela, Percival’s recent example should only soften the market for Eddie. Maybe not so much that 4.5M seems like the lottery, but it will certainly be on his agent’s mind.

    He pitched through the injury, and pitched well, but he’s still injured. I don’t want the M’s to chance being on the hook for 6.5M when it finally gives. Not even to bet that they can flip him.

  10. Jon Helfgott on October 21st, 2005 1:54 am

    Rafael Soriano’s small sample rehab stats, 2005.

    In brief stops across 5 levels, Soriano’s total line:
    23.2 IP, 33K, 4 BB, 1.52 ERA
    13.11 K/9, 8.25 K:BB

    Isolating his time split between AAA and Seattle:
    12.2 IP, 20K, 2 BB, 1.42 ERA
    14.22 K/9, 10 K/BB

    It may be too early to count on his prolonged health, and those stats have no predictive value…but the guy’s good. Scary good. A healthy Soriano’s a good bet to outperform even a fully healthy Guardado in 2006, much less a Guardado with a torn rotater cuff.

    Of course, I’d prefer to see if a healthy Soriano is capable of starting…but that’s an argument for another time. In any case, I’m damned excited to see what Soriano’s capable of next year.

  11. Bela Txadux on October 21st, 2005 7:54 pm

    Yes, I’m very encouraged about Soriano. And, yes, I’d rather see him starting; plenty of guys come back from TJ to start over prolonged periods, i.e. Smoltz, Schilling, to name a few.

    I’m not arguing that Eddy should be back with the Ms to relieve. I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but I think his value in the overall context is maximized by trading him. —But he has to be under contract to do that. And the only way _that_ is going to happen is at six and a half for one. I suspect the Ms are trying to decide now whether to keep him to relieve or deal him, and that has more to do with the tremulous silence that is agitating Steady Eddie. To me, the answer would have been pretty obvious by the final game of the year, but we’re dealing with groupthink, here, so.

    . . . Whatever.