22 Things I Believe About This Trade

Dave · January 27, 2008 at 7:31 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

1. Erik Bedard is awesome – one of the five best pitchers in the American League.

2. Erik Bedard and Felix Hernandez are both candidates for the 2008 AL Cy Young Award.

3. Two great pitchers and mediocre everything else is not a formula for consistent success.

4. The Mariners are going to miss Adam Jones. Badly.

5. The Mariners right fielder in 2008 is going to suck.

6. The Mariners outfield defense is going to suck.

7. In 2009, we’re going to be hunting for two new corner outfielders.

8. The Angels are still the most likely team in baseball to win their division.

9. The Mariners improved themselves by, at most, 2-3 wins in 2008 with this deal.

10. If Erik Bedard isn’t healthy all year, we’ll be analyzing the new GM in 10 months.

11. The Mariners wouldn’t have made this trade if they understood how to value defense.

12. I will run out of analogies for this trade before spring training starts.

13. The total amount of talent given up will rival only the Bartolo Colon trade of 2002.

14. The biggest loser in this deal will be Jarrod Washburn.

15. This trade cements the fact that Brandon Morrow will never start a game for the M’s.

16. The idea that the M’s valued Morrow over Jones is so ridiculous, I can’t even fathom it.

17. The Mariners are now paying Horacio $2.75 million to fight for the role of long reliever.

18. In July, the M’s will be talking about trading for a veteran relieve to improve the ‘pen.

19. Geoff Baker and I will never agree on any of this.

20. Jeff Sullivan and I will agree on all of this.

21. I won’t care much over losing Chris Tillman. I will care deeply over losing Carlos Triunfel.

22. The M’s have, once again, taken a bad path to a good goal. It will, once again, not work.


292 Responses to “22 Things I Believe About This Trade”

  1. bubblegumcrisis on January 28th, 2008 8:47 am

    Edgar, I’m sure the Bedard fans read it, but c’mon that is shoddy analysis that adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation. Have you actually watched Bedard pitch a game? In your mind, Wwhat constitutes a proven ace anyway? 2 years of dominance? 3 years? Bedard is as good as it gets and if he’s not a proven ace to you right now then I don’t know what to tell you.

  2. Steve T on January 28th, 2008 8:56 am

    Hey, are we going to challenge the AL record for fewest runs scored this year? If Ichiro has an off year, we could smash it.

    How much of Bedard’s super-duper greatness disappears when he’s pitching in front of the Sculpture Garden outfield of Ichiro and two statues? That’s gotta add a half-run to his ERA right there. Or maybe he’ll get lucky and it’ll all go into the error column and off his ERA. We still lose, though.

    Losing Jones is bad. Losing Triunfel is criminal. Jones is a likely All-Star; Triunfel’s a potential MVP for years to come. What scares me about this trade isn’t 2008 as much as it is 2010, after Bedard has led us to a couple more 80 win seasons while Jones and Triunfel are showing off their plaques and trophies.

    My prediction for ’08 goes up a notch: I’ll say 78 wins.

    And Dave @13: I AM a pessimist who hates the organization. I’m not afraid to say it. I’ve been putting up with this crap for too many decades. God damn the Seattle Mariners.

  3. JSully on January 28th, 2008 8:58 am


    I think your analysis of Bedard over-simplifies a few things:

    – his career K figures were closer to 8 K/9 than 7. For a starting pitcher, averaging nearly a strikeout per inning is elite performance (only 16 players averaged > 8 K’s/9 last year).

    – Shutouts, complete games and WHIP are all essentially useless in player evaluation. Go to:


    for more information.

    – Citing the fact that he hasn’t reached a specific benchmark before last season doesn’t take legitimate skills growth into consideration. Bedard just finished his age 28 season and was easily one of the three or four best pitchers in the AL despite playing in the same division as Boston and New York. Most of the available data suggests that players peak somewhere between their mid-20’s and early 30’s; while I don’t think Bedard will strike out nearly 11 batters per nine innings pitched, he is a great pitcher. In fact, given the nature of their contracts I would argue he is more valuable than Santana is at this moment in time.

    That fact has gotten somewhat lost in the mix. I fully understand the reasons why some don’t want to trade Jones (and I agree with most of them), but it’s not as if Bavasi traded for Noah Lowry or Tim Hudson.

  4. dlb on January 28th, 2008 8:58 am

    I can’t find anywhere that says Triunfel is included in the deal. Where is everyone getting that info?

  5. rebsox on January 28th, 2008 9:02 am

    This can still be a great trade IF the Mariners can sign Bedard to a long-term contract. I believe Dave’s analysis on this trade is based on the assumption that Bedard is determined to test free-agency. Actually, from what I’ve read, that is not necessarily the case. Since the trade is not “officially” confirmed, you could hope that it’s contingent on a contract extension…

    In any event, as a Red Sox fan, I am thrilled to see Bedard leave the division- for obvious reasons. I don’t care if Jones can scorch the ball, and if the other prospects are also very strong; my team can counter that, but we can’t seem to hit off Erik Bedard.

  6. Carson on January 28th, 2008 9:03 am

    ESPN.com is now reporting that Sherrill (and AJ of course) is telling teammates that he is scheduled for a physical in Baltimore.

  7. AQ on January 28th, 2008 9:05 am

    “That fact has gotten somewhat lost in the mix. I fully understand the reasons why some don’t want to trade Jones (and I agree with most of them), but it’s not as if Bavasi traded for Noah Lowry or Tim Hudson.”

    Funny that you mention Noah Lowry. The #1 most similar pitcher to Erik Bedard (per Baseball Reference) is Noah Lowry.


  8. Jeff Nye on January 28th, 2008 9:06 am

    I’m pretty sure I wasn’t Stalin when I went to bed last night; as far as this morning goes, ask me after I’ve finished my first cup of coffee.

    Here’s the thing, though (I’m speaking for the other volunteer mods to an extent, but I’m fairly sure they’d agree with me):

    We could moderate a LOT more heavily than we do. I know that I personally approved a lot of things last night that I didn’t agree with, but that were at least not needlessly vitriolic/insulting.

    What WILL get you edited, deleted, or attacked by killer bees is when you think that you have the right to come here and act like a jerk just because it’s the Internet, or be needlessly contrarian just to create conflict (and yes, that IS different than just having a differing, well-supported opinion).

    I’m not going to drift this thread any further, but I thought that point was worth addressing. If you think the moderation here is too heavy-handed, I can’t particularly bring myself to weep for you; if anything, we are probably a little TOO lenient at times.

  9. edgar for mayor on January 28th, 2008 9:08 am

    >>Edgar, I’m sure the Bedard fans read it, but c’mon that is shoddy analysis that adds nothing worthwhile to the conversation. Have you actually watched Bedard pitch a game? In your mind, Wwhat constitutes a proven ace anyway? 2 years of dominance? 3 years? Bedard is as good as it gets and if he’s not a proven ace to you right now then I don’t know what to tell you.>>

    Shoddy Analysis…sure. His lifetime record excluding his career year…is a shoddy analysis…don’t be stupid. I’ve Bedard pitch, I’ve seen him pitch before JUST last year as well. Yes Bedard had a dominate season, one ins which he couldn’t even fully complete due to injury…that sure sound like a super swell ace to me. ” I’ll pour my heart out fro 13 wins…then I might not be healthy anymore”.

    For the amount of future studs we gave up in this deal, you’d better give me a sure fire ace. Not a “Yeah I had one good season” ace. He’s not a proven ace…since does one great year make you a proven ace. Ace last year? yes? Before that? No. Albert Pujlos and Johan Santana both had sub par seasons…does that make them sub par players now? No. Its the same with Erik Bedard.

  10. JSully on January 28th, 2008 9:09 am

    Probably because he has the same moderate bouts of control problems that Lowry has. His #2 comp is Scott Kazmir and I think that anyone who has seen the three of them pitch would say Bedard is more Kazmir than Lowry.

  11. snapper on January 28th, 2008 9:27 am

    “Bedard’s Career WHIP before last year 1.83. Ace? No.”

    Stop Saying that. It’s just not true. Eyeballing it on B-Ref, it was about 1.40.

  12. edgar for mayor on January 28th, 2008 9:30 am

    261- My math came out to 1.83
    1.40 isn’t ace like either…so what your point “B-Ref”. Don’t get nick-picky and change the topic. i was saying his number are not ace like…and you’re math doesn’t prove different.

  13. Graham on January 28th, 2008 9:33 am

    edgar for mayor, you might want to find a better way of getting your point across lest the bees be unleashed.

  14. Carson on January 28th, 2008 9:33 am

    Jeff Nye – I can’t imagine the crap storm you guys dealt with last night. That had to of been some sort of record for the most posts (amongst the three threads) in that time frame for this blog.

    Moderators rarely get thanks for the work they do (same with the authors), so thank you guys. Please don’t allow the idiocy of some to bring you down and take away a generally fantastic learning community from those of us who enjoy it.

  15. IdahoInvader on January 28th, 2008 9:37 am


    Yes you very likely could be

    Maybe we could get a ASA (Softball) exemption and play four outfielders like in slow pitch. Bonds, Ibanez, Ichiro and W-Lad.

  16. Mister on January 28th, 2008 9:41 am

    Re: 247

    Erik Bedard has had three consecutive years of declining ERA and WHIP and increasing K/9 and control. He’s gone 28-16 on a team that has been well below .500. In the second half last year he went 7-1 with 92 Ks in 75 innings, and he’s at the age when power pitchers hit their prime. This is a pitcher that has been building towards ace status for several years and to suggest otherwise is to not have done your homework. Ron Shandler put it best: “He’s arrived.”

  17. Graham on January 28th, 2008 9:44 am

    Of course, mentioning WHIP at all while undertaking any sort of serious analysis could also be construed as not doing one’s homework.

  18. Mister on January 28th, 2008 9:45 am

    I omitted that the 28-16 is over the past two years..the O’s went 139-185.

  19. Mister on January 28th, 2008 9:47 am

    OK Graham. But can you take his stats over the past three years and make the argument that his ’07 was an abberation?

  20. snapper on January 28th, 2008 9:47 am

    “1.40 isn’t ace like either…so what your point “B-Ref”. Don’t get nick-picky and change the topic. i was saying his number are not ace like…and you’re math doesn’t prove different.”

    My point is your post was misleading. A 1.83 WHIP is not major league caliber; it’s HoRam bad.

    1.40, and improving, is a whole different situation.

    The argument isn’t that Bedard is bad, it’s that he’s risky, and the M’s aren’t ready to win a championship.

  21. Carson on January 28th, 2008 9:49 am

    edgar for mayor – Win/Loss record is not the best way to analyze a pitcher (See: Ramirez, Horacio). His injury was one that he could have been pitched through had the O’s been contenders, and his being shut down actually turns out to help the Mariners.

    I don’t agree with the trade, but could think of far better ways to make the argument (though, they’ve been beaten to death, so I won’t).

    Alos, could you spin the fact that he isn’t a proven ace a few more ways? I count roughly seven in that one post alone. You’ve almost sold me.

  22. Graham on January 28th, 2008 9:51 am

    OK Graham. But can you take his stats over the past three years and make the argument that his ‘07 was an abberation?

    No, because I don’t think it is an abberation. Bedard is amazing.

    And I still hate this trade.

  23. Carson on January 28th, 2008 9:51 am

    Just reported on ESPN:


    May another long painful wait begin.

  24. AQ on January 28th, 2008 9:54 am


  25. Carson on January 28th, 2008 9:55 am

    Graham – You have prepared yourself for the pro-trade folks who are now going to question how one can think a guy is amazing, but oppose the trade, after that comment, right?

  26. Graham on January 28th, 2008 10:00 am

    I’ll probably just tell them that I have a rudimentary understanding of roster construction and they do not.

  27. Steve T on January 28th, 2008 10:05 am

    Here’s the deal: I don’t CARE if Bedard is an ace or not.

    I don’t think “ace” is a particularly meaningful word.

  28. Mister on January 28th, 2008 10:12 am

    My point is that all of Bedard’s performance indicators have been pointing towards stardom and that anyone who suggests ’07 was an outlier season should be swarmed just as someone suggesting Jones is “just a prospect” should be swarmed. You can define ace however you want, but the numbers he is projected to put up, with a high degree of reliability, should suffice.

  29. pensive on January 28th, 2008 10:21 am

    Jeff Nye #58

    I for one agree the moderators showed great restraint last night. (most the time actually).

    I still don’t fully grasp Blog proper etiquette as this was my first experience with them. I took t he idea I was in the authors home. Except I can drink more, but the same manners apply.

    Most importantly their home their rules. I am not forced to come or stay. I appreciate the time and effort the Hosts sacrifice to educate,inform and entertain. All for no charge.

    The past couple of years it does appear there are many more “fast guns”. Their sole purpose appears to be to argue with the authors. Many times same points over and over with out ever having read prior lengthy well researched Posts.

    I think the Moderators all have shown great restraint over the past couple of years. I only hope that for Derek and Dave it doesn’t top being a little fun.

    Folks like me appreciate the education over the past 5 years. Thank you.

  30. ooter on January 28th, 2008 10:27 am


  31. lailaihei on January 28th, 2008 11:32 am

    There are 100 more comments in this blog than innings Bedard will likely pitch next year.

  32. shortbus on January 28th, 2008 11:40 am

    Here is the flaw in the logic of the FO and those that support this deal: Richie Sexson. Let’s say that the FO is correct about the “Ace-ness” of Bedard and the impact he’ll have on the starting rotation and the bullpen. Fine. We’ve improved the pitching, but at the cost of outfield defense and offense. Without making up for Guillen’s lost offense or improving outfield defense the team is net no better than last year. Bavasi loves Ibanez in LF so we need to make it up on the offensive side. How is the difference going to be made up?

    Let’s assume we fill RF with a guy from AAA (Reed, Balentien, Morse) or a retread FA (Gonazlez, Lofton). (BTW — Anyone have any better ideas??) With the assumption that the rest of the team’s hitters do essentially what they did last season (a big if with oldies like Vidro and Ibanez) and that Lopez improves a little…the only way the offense makes up for the loss of Guillen is a huge year from (drum roll please) Richie F’n Sexson. We’ve heard McLaren say he thinks Sexson will “return to form” this year so I think we can safely assume this is figuring into their thinking. How damn long do we have to hang the hopes of this franchise on a resurgent Sexson? He’s not getting any younger and has always been about 2 MPH of bat speed away from being on the scrap heap. The M’s need to learn that hope is not a plan. We have no solution if Sexson continues his season-long sub-.700 OPS “slump.”

  33. scott19 on January 28th, 2008 1:11 pm

    Edgar – again, a valid point. For a historical perspective on the “super swell ace who would’ve been even more awesome if not for injury” theory, see also: Gullett, Don; Fernandez, Sid; or Guzman, Juan.

    Just saying.

  34. Colorado M's Fan on January 28th, 2008 1:30 pm

    #240, #258.

    I understand that there are differences between USSM and other forum based websites. For example, at the Seattle PI, if you make statements that are out of line on a regular basis, your account is deleted and in some cases your ISP is banned. I could be wrong, but my observation of USSM indicates that those options aren’t on the table, hence the very heavy and very specific individual use of censorship and moderating. So saying things like “we could be a lot harder on them” is believable, except for time when say:

    -USSM Author makes a case.
    -Comment with (sometimes valid) counterpoint
    -Angry, insult laced retort by USSM.
    -Comment responds (but is deleted).

    Behind the scenes I could believe that deletion may have been well justified, however, from a 3rd party perspective, it looks pretty bad. Which isn’t to say you guys are actually Stalinist, just that it sometimes looks that way.

  35. DMZ on January 28th, 2008 1:32 pm

    Show me an “angry, insult laced retort by USSM”.

    I’m not seeing them, and I’m curious what qualifies in your eyes.

  36. Colorado M's Fan on January 28th, 2008 3:41 pm

    Just hit ctrl-f and enter “Dave.” His first several comments contain insulting language (i.e. “don’t be an idiot,” “ignorant masses,” “worst comparison in history of mankind”). I could go further but why bother, its no secret that emotions have been riding high in this thread.

    Also, I apologize for using the term “Stalinist,” thats obviously a huge exaggeration. A more apt term would probably be “O’ Reillyesque.”

    I like USSM a lot and I think its clearly the most educated Seattle sports website there is. I’m not trying to badmouth USSM, I’m just sharing an observation about a pattern of behavior I don’t particularly care for.

  37. DMZ on January 28th, 2008 3:58 pm

    Saying that someone shouldn’t be an idiot in is, again, != saying that person’s an idiot.

    Saying that something might be the worst comparison in the history of mankind is not an “angry, insult laced retort”.

    As for the masses thing, well, I can see how that reads.

    And yet I still don’t read these as “angry, insult laced”.

  38. Colorado M's Fan on January 28th, 2008 4:54 pm

    Don’t be an idiot, DMZ, of course saying “don’t be an idiot” is insulting. 😛

    The anger in these posts is undeniable. As far as insult laced, yeah, there is insulting language used in some of these posts. I wasn’t saying that one post in itself had 10+ insults in it, just that this thread does.

    And to be fair to you, I noticed that you kept yourself completely under control in this thread. So by saying “USSM author” I probably should have been more specific.

  39. gwangung on January 28th, 2008 5:29 pm

    And to be fair to you, I noticed that you kept yourself completely under control in this thread. So by saying “USSM author” I probably should have been more specific.

    Well, yeah…most people liked to be blamed for what they actually do and say….I mean, if you blame one person for what someone else does, you come off looking like an….idiot….

  40. kearly on January 28th, 2008 10:34 pm

    Which thankfully I didn’t, so I’m not. I was just complimenting DMZ as a way to bridge the gap in our disagreement. Heck, if I obsessed and had done as much work as these guys have on the Jones/Bedard trade, and had as strong a position as them, I’d probably be upset too.

  41. Taylor H on January 29th, 2008 3:54 pm

    Colorado M’s Fan – I take my hat off to you for your correct assessment of the current USSM issues. I think Dave ought to be more mature about this whole thing. Yes, he’s tired of arguments based on unreliable evidence, but he still needs to act like an adult and not just insult anyone who disagrees with him.

  42. Jeff Nye on January 29th, 2008 4:02 pm

    I’ve already said, once, that this is not the “Dave is a big meanie” thread.

    Don’t mistake DMZ trying to be nice and address your concerns as an excuse to keep bashing Dave.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.