Mariner free agents
DMZ · October 28, 2005 at 8:11 am · Filed Under Mariners
No Mariner filed in the opening batch, but in alphabetical order, I present the possibilities:
LHP Eddie Guardado (mutual option, team still pondering their $6.5m option)
PH-L Dave Hansen
RHP Shigetoshi Hasegawa (club option ha ha ha ha)
LHP Jamie Moyer
RHP Jeff Nelson
IF-R Pokey Reese
C-R Dan Wilson
Comments
137 Responses to “Mariner free agents”
Why not pick up Eddie’s option and then trade him? I’m assuming if someone would pay him closer money, they wouldn’t mind giving something up to get him. Would they have to wait to trade him until the season under such a scenerio? It seems like you could get players and save the money. Am I missing something?
Yup, Smulyan’s in the game—and I’m glad. Everything he ever said in Seattle was the truth, but all it got him here was a kick in the rear. And he was the guy who brought in Jongwaard, as I recall, and definitely the one who made the Ms farm system into one with a large net talent output, if not talent that the FO had the sense to keep and use. I’ve never had any problem with Smulyan, and if he gets the Nats he’ll do a good job with them.
#97: Sheets’ deal came from new ownership in Milwaukee, which seems a bit more willing to spend than good ol’ Bud was. So, not necessarily revenue sharing money.
#102– Jongewaard came in under Argyros; remember his involvement in getting Argyros to agree to Griffey instead of Harkey — he’d been there 3-4 years when Smulyan bought the team.
#100: I follow the Red Sox pretty closely, and the deal reported in Boston papers last year was 3/$27m for Radke.
Anyway, my point is unchanged. The Twins are using revenue sharing money to keep Radke in Minnesota (and if he wants to be there, good for him, FA’s should get to pick — that’s the whole point of free agency). By keeping him in Minnesota with a competitive salary, there was one less FA pitcher in the marketplace last year, which made what Matt Clement and Kris Benson and Jaret Wright et. al. were selling (to rich NY and Boston teams) a scarcer good.
Fair enough, but it remains to be shown how much of that money was from revenue sharing and how much of it was from increases in revenue due to increases in ticket prices and attendance.
When I look around, I see a handful of examples like this, but it’s not enough to convince me that revenue sharing has had a significant effect on overall FA salaries.
I don’t have the data at hand to refute DMZ’s claim that nothing’s changed and it’s always been this way. Anecdotally, I can tell you that a lot of hearts were broken in both NY and Boston this year when Sheets took himself off the FA market, and his is bigger deal than the Brewers have ever given anyone. I don’t see how they could have made that deal without the revenue sharing money.
Using normal money?
Arguing absolute contract value is deceptive anyway. The Brewers have paid players a ton of money before. Look just to the 2002 Brewers, who were paying Hammonds more than Sheets got this year.
Brad Radke is another case in point; he turned down a (1 year longer) deal from Boston with the same AAV as the one he signed last year with the Twins. If the Twins don’t have the revenue sharing money, I don’t see where the $18m comes to pay for him, nor the 4/$40m for Johan Santana. That was a franchise that was supposed to be contracted not so long ago.
This is a franchise owned by one of the richest people on the planet. He’s not hurting for money. It’s been quite profitable for him to take revenue-sharing money and pocket it. It’s a good argument against revenue sharing.
Everything he ever said in Seattle was the truth, but all it got him here was a kick in the rear.
Well, I’m happy to see that you haven’t given up writing things as you recall them without checking any facts or doing any research. It’s a rock of stability in this scary, mixed-up world.
How about August 1992, when he said he wasn’t planning (and would defend to the death or some nonsense) to or intending to sell the team, before he gave the city the 45-day ultimatum on revenue or else he’d sell the team?
That was a whopper.
#107: I trusted http://kffl.com/player/4916/mlb?addplayer=4916, which said that the Sheets contract was the largest in team history. I do not follow the Brewers closely, so if Hammonds had a better deal a few years ago, I stand corrected.
I certainly don’t approve of owners pocketing revenue sharing money, but I don’t know how you fix that without a minimum team payroll in the CBA, and the MLBPA will never agree to that because they see it as a step toward a hard salary cap.
I think it’s reasonable to expect the team to invest its TV and stadium revenues (and revenue sharing money) back into payroll. Arguing that the Twins’ owner (or any other owner) is so rich that he should be funneling his personal wealth into team payroll is something different. Why should we expect him to do this–because he implicitly signed up to bleed money for the fans’ sake when he bought a team?
The Twins owner has profited greatly by running his team on a shoestring budget and pocketing revenue-sharing money. In so doing, he’s done a lot of damage over the years to his team’s own revenue streams.
Should we then excuse not spending any money on his operation because, by not spending money on his operation, he has no money to spend?
That’s crazy. He has a ton of money. He could spend it and build better revenue streams for his team, and does not, because he feels he can make more money as he does today. And he’s right.
If anything, revenue sharing is a great incentive for owners like him to do nothing and let their teams rot. Which they do.
Should we then excuse not spending any money …
Well, no. I said I didn’t approve of it.
I see you don’t like revenue sharing. As a fan of two “rich” teams, it’s not my favorite part of the MLB labor landscape, either. What I don’t know is, what is your proposal to fix it? Some teams aren’t abusing revenue sharing (Oakland?), and it doesn’t seem fair to burn them by killing revenue sharing. And a minimum payroll won’t get past the union anytime in the next ten years. So…
You’re making assumptions you can’t support.
One of my minor claims to baseball analysis internet fame* is the “Zumsteg Plan” for revenue sharing. Go check it out. It gets cited every once in a while. It also made some MLB people really mad at me, which was amusing.
Don’t like revenue sharing indeed.
* which is like 15m of fame on internet time, and only 6 people see it
DMZ: “The Twins owner has profited greatly by running his team on a shoestring budget and pocketing revenue-sharing money. In so doing, he’s done a lot of damage over the years to his team’s own revenue streams.”
I did some digging to try to find numbers that back this up, but I can’t really find anything as definitive as you make it sound. In a Feb. 2002 article at BP, Doug Pappas figured the Twins made a profit of about $0.5M in 2001 after the revenue sharing money was taken into account. Considering that’s about 2% of that team’s payroll, I don’t see that as profiting greatly.
The difference in Twins’ payroll from 2002 to 2005 is $16M Clearly, some of that is due to an increase in revenue. I couldn’t find this year’s revenue sharing numbers, but I think it would at least be interesting to see how closely the $16M matches the change in revenue sharing from 2002 to 2005.
So, my question remains, how much of that increase is due to increase in revenue and how much of it is due to increased revenue sharing? I don’t think the answer is immediately obvious, and it seems like an important point if we are discussing how much revenue sharing has helped or not helped certain teams.
FWIW, I recall reading “the Zumsteg Plan” when it was first published. Actually, that was the period when I first got into BP, as I was freaked out that there might be another strike, and BP seemed to have the most even-handed view of bargaining process I could find. I wonder who the other 5 people are…
Derek, you misread me, another constant in an ever-changing world. I never said that he always told the truth; rather Smulyan’s points about the franchinse, the market, and the town were all dead on.
A ridiculously underpaid local media contract: check. The world’s largest turd for a stadium at which venue attendance would never reach levels necessary for major purchases: check. New statium needed: check. Public money needed: check (he didn’t have it and no new owner with a brain would come into the existing market and pay for a stadium out of pocket): check. Local notables and media honchos unwilling to muster the necessary political push for the makeover: check. Complacent fans content to coast: check. Move the team rather than throw money at down a pit when everybody but everybody blew him off as ‘not a local guy’: che–well, I’m glad that didn’t happen, but as the owner he had that option, yes. Now, I haven’t checked back to see whether he was a booster for revenue-sharing when that idea was nascent, but to my general recollection he was, and that practice is in my view important for the game’s future if less relevant now for the Mariners franchise.
George Argyros, you can say all the evil things about him you want to, and I’ll second them at double the volume. And he _did_ sour many of those local notables and fans on stepping up to get a new stadium: for HIM: NO WAY!! Smulyan came in fresh, called it like it was, and faced the wrath of Nice City—but he was dead right, and everything he insisted needed to happen has happened, and has made the franchise strong in the way it needed to be. He won’t get the credit for telling the truth and asking for a team effort of course. Nobody here likes to recall treating him shabbily _before_ he tried to take the franchise and run.
Heh, y’know, that’s the first time I’ve ever read the “Zumsteg Plan” but I like it. However, could you have possibly tried to be more obvious with trying to make the Mariners the highest revenue team in baseball? 😉
BTW, under that plan, the Anaheim Angels got hosed. Totally hosed. But now that they’re the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, does that mean we have to split the LA market?
Hmm…
I’d like to see an “update” to the “Zumsteg Plan” with the Expos now being in Washington DC and LA doing it’s “forced sharing of territory” thing. I’d also like to know what other cities in baseball “should” have a baseball team based on their population MSA’s that you cited. I’m curious as to where the Royals would go now that DC is taken.
The “Proven Closer” tag is something of an oxymoron (though not on a par with “nice moustache”) …
Guys who hadn’t saved 30 games in their career prior to ’05 and had 20+ this year: Chad Cordero, K-Rod, Lidge, Derek Turnbow, BJ Ryan, Hermanson, Jenks, Miguel Batista, Ryan Dempster, Brian Fuentes, Huston Street, Tyler Walker, Yancy Brozoban, Mike MacDougal.
Guys with 30+ prior to ’05: Rivera, Wickman, Hoffman, Nathan, Danys Baez, Tood Jones, Isringhausen, Wagner, Guardado, Mesa, Benitez, Foulke, Timlin, Graves, Urbina, Percival, Gagne, Dotel.
Now … taking into consideration ineffective spells, delicate psyches, and (in half the the cases) arms connected to shoulders with Scotch tape and staples … how many guys in the 2nd group would you pay $4M+ for? I count ONE, and his name rhymes with Semiahmoo Barbera (sort of). I won’t point out that he’ll be 36 next month, since age clearly isn’t a factor on whatever planet that guy comes from. By my standards (and long-term statistical records) the number of PROVEN CLOSERS in mlb is ONE. And he’s not available.
I don’t have salary info on all the guys in Group 1, but I doubt any of them made $1M (maybe Dempster?). A guy making $750,000 a year who save 25 games is making $30k a save. I’ll say that’s what a closer is worth. At $6M Eddie would be making $200k per, if he saves 30. On a sub-.500 team, that is useless as tits on a bull. Or a moustache, on anybody.
Dave , what your take on Paul Bryd? as a fit for the M’s?
[discussed, dismissed many times]
Also FWIW, Hansen filed.
Did you notice that Esteban Loaiza also is a FA? The Nats excercised their $4.5M option, but he had an out clause and voided it. Looks like he’s going to try for big $.
No, Adoba, there’s not.
Loaiza asked for 3 years, $21 million. He won’t get that, I don’t think. I’d guess he’ll end up at 2 years, $15 million, with a team option on the 3rd year and a significant buyout.
I did some digging to try to find numbers that back this up, but I can’t really find anything as definitive as you make it sound. In a Feb. 2002 article at BP, Doug Pappas figured the Twins made a profit of about $0.5M in 2001 after the revenue sharing money was taken into account. Considering that’s about 2% of that team’s payroll, I don’t see that as profiting greatly.
Don’t just look at it in terms of year-to-year money-in-pocket, where Pohlad’s made some money to a couple million a year depending on his team’s success on-field.
Look at it in terms of franchise value. In 2002, Pohlad’s Twins were worth, by Forbes estimates, $127m. In 2004, they were worth $168m. That’s $41m he’s made in two years.
Bela, above:
Derek, you misread me, another constant in an ever-changing world. I never said that he always told the truth; rather Smulyan’s points about the franchinse, the market, and the town were all dead on.
I’m sorry, I really thought… lemme go look.
Bela, in the comment I responded to:
Everything he ever said in Seattle was the truth, but all it got him here was a kick in the rear.
Wow, yes. I’m crazy for thinking you said that everything he said in Seattle was the truth, and for thinking of an obvious example where that clearly wasn’t true.
Jeez
I tried to adapt the Zumsteg plan to hockey about a year ago, but I couldn’t get all the data I needed.
I really do think that the players’ unions should take something like the Zumsteg Plan to the public whenever there’s a discussion of competitive balance. The owners always bargain in the press – why dont the players?
When you compare Giles to Konerko, you have to remember that the National League isn’t as good as the American League, as Bill Krueger said recently. Players that can’t hit at all in th eAmerican league (Olivo, for example) suddenly hit like all stars in the National League. Players who are great hitters in the NL (Kevin Mitchell, for example) are often busts in the AL. I am wary of signing a national league free agent for a lot of money with the expectation of his stats being as good in the AL.
There is not proper place for this, so…
Manny has yet again requested a trade from Boston. He may not be left handed sock, but he sure is left field sock. Should the M’s be interested. What would it take to get him, and how much of his greeen monster salary could we convince Boston to pay.
ramirez, beltre, sexson, ibanez…
126- ramirez has been slowly but steadily declining offensively for years, and his defense is laughable. the offensive decline has been masked by his high rbi and hr totals in the mainstream press. however, he could be a dh in seattle with ibanez in lf. keeping in mind that players like him tend to age relatively quickly, i would say that ramirez is worth no more than $8m a year to the mariners over the final 3 years. i cant see the sox eating $36m. what does everyone else think?
2002- .450 obp/.647 slg
2003- .427/.587
2004- .397/.613
2005- .388/.594
in fenway, of course.
“Look at it in terms of franchise value. In 2002, Pohlad’s Twins were worth, by Forbes estimates, $127m. In 2004, they were worth $168m. That’s $41m he’s made in two years.”
Sure, but does that mean he’s just pocketed the additional revenue money? It’s likely that Pohlad had some sort of plan for operating his business before revenue sharing was increased. When revenue sharing was increased, did his plan change from using a certain part of his total revenue on team expenses to using a certain part of his pre-sharing revenue and pocketing the rest? If he’s using the additional revenue sharing money to increase the payroll, then revenue sharing has benefitted Twins’ fans.
Point taken that Pohlad is making a bundle of money on the Twins, but we still haven’t shown much about how revenue sharing has affected the amount of money that goes to their team expenses.
#126: Manny has 5/10 no-trade rights. He’s not goint to approve a trade to Seattle, and the M’s won’t give up what the Red Sox want for him, anyway.
Has anyone considered Mark Sweeney as a potential for the left handed bat we’re always searching for? His numbers last year were about like Raul’s, but with better plate discipline, and he was .300/.400/.500 away from Petco. He seems like someone you could sign for 1 year, $1 mil or less who could give you a solid 400-450 ab’s dhing, breaking ritchie at first, and playing some corner outfield, and tide the team over until next year’s better free agent crop.
Re:125
Are you really trying to argue that the failure of Kevin Mitchell and other NL free agents reflects not only a superior quality of play in the AL but one that has persisted for 15 yrs?
I hate arguments like that (IE the saints are 12-0 against the packers in the last 25 years. Great except for the fact that 0 continuity exists between the teams)
KEVIN MITCHELL (# 131) – BTW, if what Kevin Mitchell said was true, then it IS easier to hit in the NL than in the AL. Kevin didn’t care for that curving stuff that AL pitchers were always throwing him; he longed for the NL, “where pitchers aren’t afraid to challenge you with fastballs.”
(It strikes me that if a guy hits over 100 HR in three years, the better part of valor suggests that you not challenge him with fastballs.)
#89 must all jokes be followed by “this is a joke”?
I say Glendon Rusch, Millwood, Jojima and Jacque Jones. If Millwood asks for too much look at someone like Tony Armas or Loiaza who is trying to prove something. Kevin Brown, seeminly a premadonna prick, is’t going to want to come all the way up to washington. Sweeney isn’t a bad option either, good suggestion, he reminds me of Mabry. Too bad Raul does a lot of the same things.
The above was supposed to say that I wished the Mariners were as successful as the rotting Twins the last couple of years.
I like Weaver and Loaiza over Millwood and/or Bennett. Pay an appropriate amount for #2-4 pitchers, not #1 money for #2-4 pitchers. Forget Ramirez (too expensive, won’t come to Seattle), Sweeney (unless he’s willing to wear one of those blow up sumo costumes to try to protect himself from getting injured), Brown (old n’ busted), and Rusch (too much hope, not enough stuff). Keep Torreabla/Rivera until Clement is ready (I’m betting 2007) and use the posting/contract money you’d use on Yojima for more pressing needs that don’t have a long-term solution (i.e. – starting pitching, LF/DH, CF(?)).