M’s after Hatteberg

DMZ · December 24, 2005 at 11:00 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Yes, there’s stuff to gab about.

John Hickey at the PI on the M’s interest in Hatteberg and Ishii. Hatteberg would be a lefty backup to Sexson which from a Hargrove matchup sense seems okay, but Sexson hit righties pretty well last year. However… Hatteberg is a picking machine. Picking machine!

Hatteberg’s agent wants us to believe that there are teams looking at Hatteberg as a starter. To which I say: which teams don’t have first basemen already better than Hatteberg aaaaaaaand would be willing to take on Hatteberg instead of (say) trading for one of Toronto’s 20 stockpiled 1B guys because they need better-than-Hatteberg 1B performance?

Also, if anything interesting happens today, go ahead! Throw it in here as a comment. We’re likely not going to be as on top of breaking news as we might otherwise be.


100 Responses to “M’s after Hatteberg”

  1. joealb on December 25th, 2005 2:53 am

    How about Ramon Martinez, He slap hits lefties better then WFB and can play any infield position. Not a whole lot of speed on the basepaths so WFB would still be the 25th guy…. Kind of like Charles Gipson was ….

    Lawton OF LHB
    Hatteberg 1B/PH/DH LHB
    Rivera C/RHB
    Martinez INF/RHB
    Bloomquist OF/INF/PR/RHB

  2. terry on December 25th, 2005 3:31 am

    #36: Id take Ryan Freel over Bloomquist,,,,anyday and he’s just the first name to pop into my head…..

  3. The Ancient Mariner on December 25th, 2005 6:34 am

    Hey, I’d take Ricky Weeks over Bloomquist, too; which is not that much less relevant, since Ryan Freel isn’t likely to be randomly available for peanuts.

  4. kg on December 25th, 2005 7:09 am

    TNT’s Corey Brock says Jeremy Reed will be dealt Monday.
    Maybe for Arroyo?

  5. MacMariner on December 25th, 2005 7:53 am

    #54. Where do you see that? I don’t see it on their website.

  6. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 9:21 am

    [Expletive] NO NO NO

    Anyways, to respond to some other stuff. I think we need to consider the bullpen as people as well. Saying 6 or 7 man bullpen is fine, but which people would be used. As far as I count, there are 10 ML-esque bullpen arms in Seattle right now, and a couple more in Tacoma.

    ML: Sherill, Eddie, Soriano, Putz, Mateo, Carvajal, The Rule 5 guy, Atchison, Nageotte, Thornton
    Tacoma: Foppert, Bazardo

    It’s a crap load of arms for only 6 spots. I imagine the Rule 5 guy isn’t going to stay, but even then, your keeping one of Nageotte, Carvajal, Thornton, Atchison for the big club? (BTW, does Nags have any options left?) Even with a 12 man staff there’s a ton of depth. Somebody’s getting traded out of that group.

  7. ebbnflow on December 25th, 2005 9:28 am

    Whoops – forgot to close a tag… Sorry.

  8. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 9:36 am

    If it needs to be a little clearer than above, here is what Brock actually says

    “I just have a feeling that the M’s are really torn on moving Reed more than ever now. I think they’re finally starting to recognize that moving a young player who has always hit in the minors and can play great defense might be a move they’ll regret.
    Now watch, they’ll deal him Monday.”

    Clearly not serious. Whew I’m relieved.

  9. ebbnflow on December 25th, 2005 9:49 am

    Matthew- agreed. The Mariners have a -ton- of decent arms(!)

    The way I see it, Guardado, Soriano, Sherrill, Putz, and Mateo are all locks at this point (barring a trade).

    So this leaves the 6th and possibly 7th spots open (if they go with a 12 man pitching staff).

    If it’s two spots, I’m pretty sure that Atchison would have the early lead in securing the 6th slot. The 7th would then be the token lefty spot, with Thornton, Gonzalez (Rule 5), and former Angels reliever Woods duking it out there.

    Nags will probably stay in Tacoma, since they still (hopefully) want to stretch him back out so that he’s able to go “starter” innings. Carvajal is probably going to converted to a starter as well. In fact, this was Colorado’s intent at one point – to send him down to AA and have him adjust to a new role. I figure that Seattle will want to do the same.

    Anyway, Nags and Woods have options, so they can be yo-yo’ed. If Thornton and Gonzalez don’t make the team, though, they’re gone.

    Provided we go with seven pitchers, I’m thinking Atch and Gonzo make it, Thornton is bid adieu, and we end up with a stacked Tacoma rotation with MLB-serviceable arms practically bursting out at the seams. Along with the arms you mentioned (Nags, Foppert, and Bazardo), we’re also looking at some additional solid relievers (Fruto, Jimenez, Green, Heaverlo, Key, and Nate Mateo) and the makings of an intriguing staff (Livingston, Cruceta, Harris, and eventually Blackley).

    Not bad. And there are many worse things than having a surplus of solid, potentially MLB serviceable arms…

  10. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 11:31 am

    Exactly the way I see it Ebbnflow…
    I don’t know that I’m too concerned about Thornton or Gonzalez. Yeah, if they don’t make the team they must be moved (released, traded, offerred back(click all that apply)) but it seems they are in position to trade an Ofer and a RP or 2. Hopefully they’ll wait til Spring Training to decide who they want.

    It seems that a trade of Mateo, Soriano, Guardado or Putz would be more valuable after other teams have given chances to internal options and they’ve failed or gotten injured (because there will always be some teams that this is the case for).

    I have no problem with them finding a few more ML ready releivers to trade for prospects late in the spring. It could be a great way to rebuild every year. I know it’s lunacy and I don’t recall seeing anyone do it, but it could work out great. They’ve done an admirable job of stockpiling young arms in deals of the last year.

  11. AQ on December 25th, 2005 11:39 am

    #60 – With all our of decent bullpen arms, it makes one wonder why they re-signed Guardado? It’s been shown time and time again that you can take a good middle reliever and make them a closer for cheap (Joe Nathan and Chad Cordero are two examples that come to mind). There’s always the chance of failure of course (see Arthur Rhodes closing in Oakland), but I would think that Soriano or Putz have the proper stuff for closing.

    I would have rather seen them not resign Guardado, annoit Soriano or Putz the closer, and use the $6 million from Guardado towards Millwood instead of having Washburn and Guardado…

  12. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 11:47 am

    Totally agree on the BK Kim, why not just say Kim anyway? Sunny Kim is not a FA or a starter, so there’s nothing to confuse here! That’s like saying Knotts per hour or MLB baseball, and the more recent WBC baseball, redundancy is rampant.

  13. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 11:52 am

    AQ: Guardado is Sooooooooo tradeable. Every FA RP (Late inning) that signed this offseason is making 1/4 again what he is and most of them aren’t as good or LH.

  14. AQ on December 25th, 2005 11:56 am

    #64 – That’s a good point.. I’m sure someone will want Eddie at the trade deadline, just like last year. I just wished they would’ve traded him last year because I felt like his value was never going to be higher than it was at that point.

    By re-signing him now with the intent to trade him (assuming that’s the M’s intent), they’re rolling the dice that he’ll perform in a similar fashion to last year and that’s not a given. I hope it does work out in that manner, however.

  15. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 12:13 pm

    Like I said in #61 the most opportune time to trade would be after some teams have had thier best options fail in Spring Training nad you are more sure you’ve got excess.

  16. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 12:30 pm

    Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and Joyful Kwanzaa, all.

    #62: I think you might be missing the fact that having an established closer already in place is an essential part of what entice top free-agent starters to come to a team. If I’m Joe Top-Tier Free-Agent Starter choosing between two teams with roughly equivalent offers on the table, one of the deciding factors for me is going to be “Which team can best protect my leads?” If one of teams vying for my services has an established closer coming off a strong season (like Guardado) and the other team has a young kid with good closer “stuff” but no track record of sustained success as a closer (like Putz) … well, seems to me the choice would be obvious.

    Without rehashing the whole tired Millwood-vs.-Washburn thing, I think it’s fair to say that the Mariners would have been hard-pressed to get any top free agent pitcher if they couldn’t point to having an established closer. Retaining Guardado was not only smart because he’s been consistently successful and valuable (and we have no evidence that his shoulder is about to explode), but because he makes other pitchers look better because he can a) protect what they give him; and b) bail them out of their messes.

    Putz and Sherrill are valuable arms who will play valuable roles, and I believe either could fill in as closer should Eddie get hurt and go a credible job … but you can’t quite say those things about them the way you can about Guardado.

    The more I think about it, the more I think the M’s did right in keeping Eddie. For 2006, anyway.

    Remember, Washburn is a bad signing because it’s too many years for too much money, but there’s no reason to think he’s going to be awful in 2006. If Washburn can consistently hand over leads to his bullpen or at least keep the Mariners in games, then having a guy like Eddie close the door with authority could be worth several wins in the standings. Remember, there are few holes in this lineup right now.

    Despite all the pessimism, I think there’s a reasonable chance the M’s could chase for a wild-card berth in 2006 … and if that comes to pass, Eddie Guardado will likely be a huge reason why.

  17. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 12:41 pm

    Merry Christmas!

    That’s all true and I’m glad you didn’t list the too oft-injured Soriano, though he’s got the most potential of being a closer. The question is whether what they would get in a trade of Guardado is worth more to the M’s than all of that at this point, after the starting 5 has been pretty well decided(barring injury or trade).

  18. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 1:36 pm

    Jim, I want to raise a few points of contention.

    1) If you what you say it true about having an established closer being important to FA signings, there’s still no harm done in trading Eddie in March. You’ve already made all your FA signings by then. And if you know you’re going to deal him, you can just go ahead and spend that extra 7 mil beforehand.

    2) I think there actually are plenty of reasons to think Washburn will be awful in 2006. That’s why I’m so against this signing, you’re not even likely (I’d say) to get a good first year out of the guy.

  19. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 2:33 pm

    I guess you could deal Eddie in the spring. I personally don’t want to. I don’t see Putz as quite good enough to be a closer, given his tater-tastic tendencies. Sherrill could well be a good closer, but we just don’t know at this point, and I wouldn’t throw the whole mess into Soriano’s hands right away until he shows sustained good health and performance.

    I just don’t agree that Washburn will be awful in ’06. He won’t be GREAT, but the downward trend in his numbers isn’t THAT steep. I think he’ll be at least a league-average starter in 2006, and possibly even a little better (a lot depends on who his outfielders will wind up being). Too bad he won’t be tradeable even if he has a good season, though. Anybody have his 2006 PECOTA numbers handy?

  20. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 2:44 pm

    Washburn was one of 4 SP I thought would be worth talking about in the offseason. I only think that the money and length of contract were too much. I’d rather have seen a similiar pitcher signed for 1-2 years with the idea that there will be better FA SP by the end of thier contract or internal player advancement. I suppose that same idea is in effect for Moyer though. Washburn is definately an improvement over Franklin, except for the extra money paid out for that improvement. There is no proof as of yet whether Washburn will be a good signing. Nobody would have backed up the FO not signing a pitcer in the offseason and Washburn was possibly the 3rd best the M’s had a chance to sign. For all we know Burnett and Millwood would not have signed here for any wothwhile amount, as we already know is the case for Clemens.

    I’d like to hear your solutions to what you perceive is a problem, not just your complaint. Who was available if Burnett (beleived to want to play only for an East coast team) and Millwood (preference unknown) would not sign here? Who should they have gone after if not Washburn?

  21. DMZ on December 25th, 2005 3:17 pm

    As to whether there’s proof Washburn’s a good signing: of course not. We can’t know that until the contract’s up. But given all we know about Washburn’s performance record, and how he achieved it, we can be pretty confident it stinks.

  22. Jeff on December 25th, 2005 3:18 pm

    See also: Dave’s offseason plan, wherein he advocates going after Esteban Loaiza and Kevin Brown in addition to Burnett and Millwood.

  23. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 3:36 pm

    #70: There’s this incorrect perception that the only pitchers available were those in the free-agent market.

    Piffle. If you’re a shrewd GM and can exploit weaknesses in the overall market, then you can pry loose a lot of good talent already under contract by way of a trade. But the Mariners seemed to act like it was Washburn, Millwood or bust … that they HAD to make a splash in the free-agent market or look bad to their peers, players and fans. That was an utterly myopic decision.

    Look at the proposed three-way trade that might shake loose Mark Prior. MARK PRIOR! The veil of his preceived unavailability has been pulled back … and voila! He can be had! But no, all we heard was Washburn-Millwood-Burnett-Weaver, over and over, as though it was some mantra with Tourette’s. BS. Barry Zito’s out there, Mark Prior’s out there, Adam Eaton … who knows who else? But the Mariners willnever know, it seems, because it doesn’t seem to occur to them to think that way, in terms of the overall market. Just more idiot refrains: “GOTTA SIGN A BIG FREE AGENT, GOTTA SIGN A BIG FREE AGENT …”

    Washburn isn’t good, and will get worse. I just feel, looking at how his numbers are trending, he won’t be a horrible liability until 2007. So I like the short-term idea of loading up with the idea that a 2006 wild-card berth isn’t completely out of the question. And if that train rolls off the tracks by July, then you trade and dump whatever you can (Guardado, Sexson, Everett, Lawton, etc.) to desperate condenders in exchange for young talent.

  24. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 3:48 pm

    I’m not saying Washburn will be bad in 2006. I’m just saying there’s definately reason to believe he could be. He could also do mysteriously pitch better with runners on base again and have an ERA in the low 3s. I just think it’s equally likely you see 2003/2004 results as 2002/2005.

    As for alternatives, it really depends on information we don’t have. How much more would Burnett have needed to come here? If I knew he had 5/55 in the books, I would have gone up to somewhere around 5/62.5. We still don’t know about Millwood. I would be looking at options like Kevin Brown and BH Kim on the cheap, trading Gil Meche and his 4M to free up more salary room to afford Millwood/Burnett. I would have gone after Byrd and Loaiza at what they got. But no matter what, even at the risk of doing nothing else, would I have given Washburn what he got guarenteed. I could see 4 years, 28M base guarenteed with incentives up to 2.5M a year, sure, but not the whole thing guarenteed.

  25. terrybenish on December 25th, 2005 4:28 pm


    when was the last time that Washburn was good?..he’s been barely
    avg in a pitcher’s park with a good offensive team…177 ip, less than
    6 innings per start…I think that’s what you’re going to get again, unless he’s hurt.

    What’s good for you?

  26. DMZ on December 25th, 2005 4:47 pm

    Except that… Jim never wrote that Washburn was good, so I don’t see where there’s a point of contention ehre. In the most optimistic thing there you might construe that way was that he’d be above average next year.

  27. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 4:51 pm

    I’m not going to get dragged into some sort of straw-man argument in which I get cast as Washburn’s defender. I’ll say it again: Washburn’s contract is a disaster. But there’s no reason, looking at his numbers, to think that Washburn himself is going to fall off a cliff in 2006. A lot depends on the quality of his defense, and in particular who will be patrolling center field on Opening Day. He’s NOT going to be good. But his defense could potentially make him look a whole lot better than he is, and he himself — based on the stats that reflect the things that Washburn himself controls — could be a reliable league-average innings sponge in 2006. That’s all. I don’t think he’ll be a drain on a team trying to win, based on the degree of downward trend in his K/9, K/W, H/IP and GB/FB rates and ratios, until 2007.

    If Washburn can give up two or three runs and depart after six innings — typically enough to keep the Mariners within striking distance — then he can leave and turn over the game to one of American League’s best bullpens. We are overlooking the fact that the M’s bullpen in 2006 looks like it’s going to be AMAZING. Between a good bullpen, good defense and a decline that’s not likely to kill the team for another year, Washburn can be part of a better-than-.500, possibly-reach-for-a-wild-card team in 2006.

    That’s how I see it.

  28. terry on December 25th, 2005 5:02 pm

    Just because Prior MIGHT be dealt for a potential hall of famer that addresses the Cubs needs certainly doesnt mean he would be available to the M’s.

    With this team it was either blow a hole to fill one or fill it with free agents…. there is nothin’ myopic about seeing reality clearly… #73’s assessment seems a bit puzzling. Bavasi offered up White Castle in a trade market looking for lobster and surprisingly wasnt able to get anything done. Bavasi is roundly being criticized for offering one of his true chips to fill a hole. He isnt going to get a better deal for Reed so I dont know how this market could be described as an easy one for acquiring arms via trades. Basically, you have to let yourself get ripped off in order to plug in a compromise. The best arms that were traded (i.e. Becket) went for high end prospects-ones that are likely considered more desireable than Reed by most GMs.

    Lets face it, Meche for Dunn or Pineiro for Dontrell Willis wasnt going to happen any sooner than a playboy bunny was going to walk into Dave’s living room dressed in edible undies and a bra made from million dollar bills while holding a funnel and a 300 year old bottle of Scotch…. The M’s dont have the chips….they arent going to be able to make nachos via trades….

  29. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 5:10 pm

    It all depends on who you see as untradeable. I take a wider view of that than most … I think that come the midseason trade deadlines, a lot of desperate contenders will be willing to pay premium prices for Eddie Guardado or Richie Sexson or whoever else might be a) playing well; and b) can be replaced if the team is out of contention with players with whom the Mariners can afford to experiment, ala 2004. Creative, flexible, aggressive general managers with sharp player-evaluation skills can create trade scenarios that shake loose Mark Priors if they choose to make the effort.

  30. terry on December 25th, 2005 5:38 pm

    Yes but youre not talking about making a move that significantly improves the Ms in the near future. Youre talking about trading a *nucleus* guy under contract for a few more years (Richie) for hopes and dreams that will be a couple of years away. Youre also talking about a typical market where taking on Richie’s 10 million a year contract is considered mitigating enough to mean it would be very unlikely to get several guys in return that you could immediately plug in and experiment with. Furthermore, its unlikely a team in contention is going to trade pitching.

    It would be a miracle to trade half a season of an aging reliever with a bum arm for anything significant…if the M’s were contemplating a firesale, theyre not operating with the best leverage. The time to trade Eddie to maximize return is now.

    If Bavasi wanted to shake loose Prior, he’d have to offer Ichiro….Reed wouldnt cut it…. thats the unfortunate spot the Ms are in….no chips to make nachos…no lettuce to make salid, no beans to make chili, no chicken heads to make chicken head soup….well you get the idea… its blow a hole to fill a hole and unfortauntely, I cant see a scenario where the M’s would really have the leverage they’d need to get anything other than a compromise in return or at least a few years further away from contention (in other words, id prefer to stock you farm via the draft).

  31. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 5:40 pm

    You’re taking me way too literally, Terry. All these things are loose illustrations in the service of a greater point — that the availability of quality pitchers and players is not limited to the free-agent market. And the Mariners have largely behaved as though it is.

  32. Dave in Palo Alto on December 25th, 2005 6:32 pm

    If I can just mention one thing relating to the possible departure of Jeremy Reed, since I don’t think the Mariners will be playoff contenders in 2006…..

    Andruw Jones in 2007?

  33. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 6:53 pm

    #82: He’ll be monstrously overpriced and in his decline years. Pass.

    Maybe you meant ADAM Jones in 2007?

  34. [nope] on December 25th, 2005 8:29 pm


  35. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 8:32 pm

    Um, DMZ, I feel deeply confused about whether or not that’s the real Willie Bloomquist. If only because I saw Willie and Mattie partying together at a San Franscico hotel after an A’s game last May. Those two, plus Dobbs, seemed to comprise a tight subphylum of soggy utilitude.

  36. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 9:02 pm

    The point is that those players are NOT available to a team that has nothing expendable of value. Yes there are a couple names here that could pry loose a Prior or a Zito, but do you want to trade Ichiro or Felix? Reed, Betancourt and prospects? Guardado Reed and prospects? Now we’re talking about weakening your talent stockpile AND blowing multiple holes to fill one spot!

    If you had Zito what would you expect from the M’s?

    You’re lying to yourself if you say Morse, Mateo and Reed, or some collaberation of more marginal talent! Marginal talent pries marginal talent loose. Prior is an AllStar and if you’re trying to trade prospects they need to be blue chip. (Felix is a major leaguer) Name one in the M’s farm system? Do you consider his value on par with Zito’s? Now name another. Would you accept those 2 for Prior? What woult it take?

    More than the M’s should be willing to part with. Especially the oft-overated Zito. If you’re talking Willis I’d consider trading what it would take (Clement, Jones + more) I certainly would be upset if they traded the farm for Zito! If you’re thinking Zito is even worth going after you haven’t broken down his numbers. They don’t hold a candle to his name or reputation.

    How about Jones + Clement + Guardado? Your answer to this is likely the answer we’d get to Morse + Meche + Everett + Thornton or whatever joke we wish we could trade to pry loose Prior. I’d trade Ichiro for 2 young fireballers (lefty,righty or both LH) but I don’t think the m’s would or could find the suitor. Boston might think trading for Ichiro would help them save face (CF-Leadoff) and replace Damon, but even Lester and Papelbon are lower tier prospects. What else is there to trade? It’s easy to say “we can trade for…” than it is to give up what it would take to get them.

  37. Jim Thomsen on December 25th, 2005 9:17 pm

    Um, you can let me decide what my answers would be, thank you.

  38. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 10:03 pm

    Adam Jones, Jeff Clement and Eddie Guardado for Mark Prior?

    1:36pm: Hendry informs me that this deal would pass his office.
    1:36:05pm: I put Hendry on hold and scream at my assitant to get Prior’s agent on the phone.
    1:42pm: I ask Prior’s agent how Big M would feel moving out of that bandbox of Wrigley and coming to SafeCo. I inquire about how likely he might be to stay past his arb years (i.e. is he Pavano/Burnett?)
    1:42:03pm: Assuming the answer is favorable towards Prior staying in Seattle, the paperwork is faxed over to Chicago and I hop a charter jet there in person to sign the deal.
    6:00pm(PST): I laugh myself silly at how stupid Jim Hendry is and do a boo-yah dance in downtown Chicago screaming “You just traded Prior! You just traded Prior! HA HA HA” and waving a brand new Prior Mariners jersey.

  39. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 10:06 pm

    My direction was not to make up your mind, but ask what you thought would be a worthwhile trade for the players you think are worth going after.

  40. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 10:09 pm

    9:30 AM Tues. Guardado fails Physical…

  41. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 10:13 pm

    I am humbled by your ability to argue 3+ sides of the same discussion simultaneously.

  42. LF Monster on December 25th, 2005 10:18 pm

    Why thank you.

  43. Matthew Carruth on December 25th, 2005 10:36 pm

    Just so people don’t think I’m nuts, the imagined timeline was in response to a statement, since moderated, that said it would take our top two prospects + Eddie to land Prior, but that most of us wouldn’t make that trade.

  44. John D. on December 26th, 2005 1:01 am

    LUIS GONZALEZ – I keep hearing two things: either that he makes the team or that he gets offered back. Can’t the Mariners decide that he needs a full year of AAA seasoning, and work out a trade to keep him–then send him down? Dave?

  45. Mr. Egaas on December 26th, 2005 2:54 am

    BK Kim came up a bit earlier.

    With guys like Tomko and Elarton getting 2 years and over 8 million, BK Kim sounds like a great signing at 1 year for 2-3 million. He can fill a 5th rotation spot in a bind (it’s the Mariners, somebody will get hurt…) or pitch out of the pen. Get on the phone Billy.

  46. bongo on December 26th, 2005 7:50 am

    Do the Mariners really need to carry 12 pitchers? It would be interesting to hear Casey Stengel’s opinion on Mike Hargrove, which I suspect would be less than contemplementary. One particularly interesting passage in “Forging Genius” related to the Stengel’s roster construction (pp. 248):

    “A note to present-day managers: the reason Stengel was able to do this was because he didn’t overstuff his bullpen at the expense of position players… he did not carry as many pitchers as he could fit on a charter plane… knowing that if his best pitcher was a righty and his fourth-best pitcher was a left, he’d better leave the righty in the game even if Ted Williams was coming to the plate.”

    As an aside, here is an Oakland As wish list:

  47. Matthew Carruth on December 26th, 2005 11:31 am

    John D, no Rule 5 picks must serve the entire year on the active roster or be sent back.

    Do the Mariners need to carry 12? Hell no. But since Hargrove doesn’t like to look beyond the L or R in determining matchups, he likes to have as many pitchers as possible. (Do the Mariners need Hargrove around? Hell no. But that’s another rant)

  48. Jim Thomsen on December 26th, 2005 12:36 pm

    I’m not clear how Rule 5 works in the case of Luis Gonzalez. I read the Mariners’ press release on his acquisition, and as far as I can tell, the M’s did not draft Gonzalez from Colorado in the draft, though it appears the Rockies drafted him. Does that mean the M’s are bound by the same Rule 5 rules as the Rockies in terms of carrying him on the 25-man roster all season long?

  49. JAS on December 26th, 2005 1:13 pm

    Luis Gonzalez is subject to Rule 5 provisions. Allusions to a trade allowing Gonzalez being sent to AAA mean that the M’s could send a player or cash to the team Gonzalez was drafted from (Dodgers) and Gonzalez would no longer be a Rule 5 player. If Gonzalez is released from the 25 man roster, he would go back to LA, not Colorado.

  50. Hobo on December 31st, 2005 4:42 am

    Well neither Wes Helms or Eric Byrnes are options any longer. Byrnes signed a healthy $2 1/4 Million dollar single-season deal with the D-Backs to start in Centerfield, pushing back CF-of-the-future Chris Young.

    Helms signed an $800K single-season deal (worth up to $1 Million with incentives) with the Florida Marlins.

    So I guess its Hatteberg or home-grown for ‘depth’ in the infield bench?