Well, gee whiz, why don’t we trade Adrian to them with a couple of prospects of our own, for 3 PTBNL? (I really hate giving the M’s front office any ideas for dumb and dumber deals, but I had to throw that one out there)

I mean, who needs Adrian’s defense, when the pitching is so s…ty crummy?

Oh, yeah, what’s the plan for the immediate future if this deal went through? Put Miguel Cairo at 3B? Leave the bag empty, hope Yuni can increase his range a little, and let Raul field anything that gets past Yuni?

By trading these players and receiving a good return the M’s can get back to winning baseball games faster than by keeping them.

Like Graham said, what’s your plan for replacing these players’ production?

In Beltre’s specific case, let’s not make the infield defense any worse, please.

How?

Adrian Beltre is a very good player who is a solid piece to a puzzle…just not the Mariners puzzle. He is an outstanding defensive thirdbaseman with a reasonable contract entering the prime of his career. Why trade this player? Because the M’s have too many holes and not enough quality players.

The same goes for Putz and Bedard. Why trade these guys? They are quality players that can contribute to a quality team for a reasonable salary. The M’s should trade these guys because they can bring back returns that will make this team better.

With these players the M’s are a well below average team. By trading these players and receiving a good return the M’s can get back to winning baseball games faster than by keeping them.

This is a huge pet peeve of mine, contractualy speaking. Not only are you setting yourself up for a massively bloated payroll in 3, 4 or 5 years, but by the time you sign a free agent those 5th years at $18M are looking ugly.

I mean, if you front loaded some and back loaded others it might make since. Why not pay Player X like this- Year 1: $22M, Year 2: $18M, Year 3: $12M, ect.. This way your actually paying for the skills and production you’d be receiving. Duh.

I remember having a back-and-forth with a couple of guys in a bar right after the two were signed. They were absolutely pumped about Sexson but pretty dubious about Beltre — in part because they thought Dodgers stadium might be more hitter-friendly than Safeco, something I wasn’t willing to challenge without a trip to a reference source. But I was arguing for Beltre over Sexson, because of Beltre’s defense — 3B being a hole for the team only a little less perennial than left field — and also because Sexson’s freakish shoulder injury left me uncertain about his durability. Most of my knowledge of Beltre at the time was based on what I read at USSM, and I had already come to the conclusion that Beltre was the better deal. As it turns out durability wasn’t Sexson’s problem (and this year it has been Beltre’s to some extent) but it was obvious even then that the backloading of Richie’s deal was going to lead to regrets in the last couple of years of his contract, even if he kept hitting.