M’s Acquire Cliff Lee!?!?!

Dave · December 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Okay, so, I’ve had a few hours to let this sink in. Initial reactions that are still premature because we don’t really know what the trade looks like, exactly.

1. I love our front office. How many names have we heard them tied to so far this winter, and yet not one whisper about Lee? They’re like ninjas. No one has any idea what they’re going to do next, but you can usually bet that it will be awesome.

2. I also love Cliff Lee. The command, the change-up, the way he pitches – he’s great. He’s as good as Felix. Maybe better. Not as talented, but right now, you have about the same odds of winning with either one on the hill. The M’s just traded for a left-handed version of Felix.

3. There are going to be a ton of inevitable comparisons between this deal and the Bedard deal. We can’t compare them until we know what we’re giving up, but let’s just get this out of the way – Bedard is no Cliff Lee. Lee is a significantly better pitcher than Bedard has ever been. The durability factor is just a (huge) bonus.

4. Remember when we talked about the need to add a bunch of wins at below market rates? Lee is roughly a +5 win pitcher and he’s going to make $8 million in 2009. The M’s just acquired about 1/3 of the wins they needed to add this winter at a price of $1.6 million per win. We’ll evaluate the total cost of the trade when the outgoing players are known, but from a budget/wins standpoint, this is exactly the kind of deal the team needed to make.

5. I talked about this briefly on FanGraphs the other day, but the M’s are at a point where every marginal win they add is significantly more valuable than the average. They just made a trade in which they picked up Lee and kept Halladay away from LAA on the same day that Lackey signed in Boston. This is a huge shift in talent between the Angels and M’s, and Hideki Matsui doesn’t close the gap that much. The M’s are still several players away from being as good as LAA, but they are legitimately at a point where the wins added have a real impact on their odds of making the playoffs. Between this move and the Figgins signing, the M’s have put themselves in a position to be legitimate contenders for the AL West crown in 2010.

6. I doubt they can sign Lee to a long term deal. Philly traded him in part because they didn’t like how negotiations on a long term deal were going with him, and it sounds like he wants to hit free agency. But that’s okay – he’s basically a lock to be a Type A free agent, so the M’s will be able to recoup a couple of draft picks even if he’s just a one year rental. This isn’t a situation where we’re looking at watching him walk away and get nothing.

7. You have to think that signing Figgins and trading for Lee will do something to convince Felix the M’s are serious about winning. I think we can take “he wants to see how committed management is to putting a good team on the field” off the list of things to be concerned about in negotiations.

8. One of the things that Tony Blengino said at the USSM event last January is that their goal was to “get good and stay good.” I don’t think anyone anticipated how quickly they planned on “getting good”. These guys do not mess around.

9. I love Cliff Lee. I’m going to do my best to be rational about the trade once its announced and we know all the parts, but just be warned ahead of time, he’s exactly the kind of pitcher that I am enamored with. He does everything I want a pitcher to do. I’m not sure I can be objective about him. He’s awesome.

Comments

236 Responses to “M’s Acquire Cliff Lee!?!?!”

  1. KaminaAyato on December 14th, 2009 1:11 pm

    WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [saving rationality for later!]

  2. Bender on December 14th, 2009 1:13 pm

    Ohmygod!!!! Please tell me you’re not kidding and this is legit. Holy crapola!!

  3. B.W.Marx on December 14th, 2009 1:13 pm

    Walken: “WOWIE WOW WOW WOW”

  4. wfan99 on December 14th, 2009 1:13 pm

    I’m very excited. I can’t imagine we gave up much Morrow plus Saunders?

  5. mariners2009 on December 14th, 2009 1:13 pm

    OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!

    (Picture me flapping my arms up and down right now like a baby duck trying to fly!)

    Let it be true!

  6. Carson on December 14th, 2009 1:13 pm

    Umm.. WOW.

    I can’t wait for details.

  7. NorskNomad on December 14th, 2009 1:14 pm

    One more reason to sing the praises of Dr. Z! Outstanding!!! Looking forward to finding out who we gave away. I trust Z that whoever it is, it makes sense.

  8. MrGenre on December 14th, 2009 1:14 pm

    I’m stunned. Even for Z, this is fantastic.

  9. Ike Clanton on December 14th, 2009 1:15 pm

    My mind is a blank.

  10. mariners2009 on December 14th, 2009 1:15 pm

    OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!

    (Picture me flapping my arms up and down like a baby duck trying to fly!)

    Let this be true!!!

  11. Ike Clanton on December 14th, 2009 1:15 pm

    My mind is a blank.

  12. Nayners on December 14th, 2009 1:15 pm

    Wait for it……wait for it……….REJOICE! The Ms my friend are in the running! (if true). Let’s go Jack! Now sign somebody that can get on base!

  13. mremis on December 14th, 2009 1:16 pm

    This is a shocker! Who are the others involved???

  14. Leroy Stanton on December 14th, 2009 1:16 pm

    I’m stunned. Even for Z, this is fantastic.

    Don’t you want to know who we gave up first?

  15. IwearMsHats on December 14th, 2009 1:17 pm

    I love cliff lee too! the poise he showed in the world series and how he shut down the yankees was so fun to watch. I hope we didn’t give up too much for 1 year, but this is huge!

  16. Leroy Stanton on December 14th, 2009 1:18 pm

    I’m stunned. Even for Z, this is fantastic.

    Don’t you want to know who we gave up first?

  17. mariners2009 on December 14th, 2009 1:21 pm

    Sorry for the double post, I got a little excited.

  18. IwearMsHats on December 14th, 2009 1:22 pm

    I love cliff lee too! the poise he showed in the world series and how he shut down the yankees was so fun to watch. I hope we didn’t give up too much for 1 year, but this is huge!

  19. mymrbig on December 14th, 2009 1:22 pm

    Cool. Very interested in hearing the rest of the names. Even if Lee left after 2010, getting 2 draft picks isn’t the end of the world, particularly depending on the prospects headed out.

  20. wfan99 on December 14th, 2009 1:23 pm

    buddy at espn confirms

  21. Gibbo on December 14th, 2009 1:23 pm

    Holy Shit!!!!!!!!! Man I cant believe this….. please let it be true. I hope we didnt give away the farm!

  22. robbbbbb on December 14th, 2009 1:27 pm

    They say that the team that gets the best player in a deal wins. If that’s true, then the M’s are strong favorites to win this deal.

    Caveat: Depends on who the M’s gave up. And that’s a big “depends.” To get a player of Lee’s caliber would entail giving up some really good young talent. I would not be surprised if Carlos Triunfel is among them.

  23. beastwarking on December 14th, 2009 1:27 pm

    Once this is announced completely, I feel bad for the server that runs this site.

    Until then
    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  24. IwearMsHats on December 14th, 2009 1:32 pm

    I love cliff lee too! the poise he showed in the world series and how he shut down the yankees was so fun to watch. I hope we didn’t give up too much for 1 year, but this is huge!

  25. Shane Snyder on December 14th, 2009 2:02 pm

    My guess is Triunfel, Morrow and Aumont.

  26. IwearMsHats on December 14th, 2009 2:03 pm

    Yikes, sorry for the multi-posts.

  27. TWownsU on December 14th, 2009 2:07 pm

    I heard it’s Morrow, Aumount and Saunders. No proof though.

  28. Chavac on December 14th, 2009 2:13 pm

    Harden who?

    I can’t imagine Jack Z would sell the farm, but I cringe to think about the young talent we gave up. On the other hand Felix-Cliff Lee is a nasty 1-2 punch.

  29. ninjasintheoutfield on December 14th, 2009 2:19 pm

    very interested to see if Brandon Morrow is included in the package going to Toronto. When I first heard this i cringed on instinct, but then i remembered we have one of the smart guys on our side this time…:) Thanks to “Zack” i can go about my day not terrified to find out who the M’s gave up. Here’s to hiring the right guys and getting the f out of the way!!!

  30. Mike Snow on December 14th, 2009 2:30 pm

    Apparently it took a little longer to stage the three-team blockbuster this year.

  31. CCW on December 14th, 2009 2:30 pm

    The King and Lee plus the Other Three.

  32. MedicineHat on December 14th, 2009 2:46 pm

    Rosenthal and Morosi write that pitcher Phillippe Aumont of the Mariners and outfielder Michael Taylor of the Phillies are among the players heading to Toronto in the trade. They say an agreement is in place to send Halladay to the Phillies and Lee to the Mariners.

  33. MedicineHat on December 14th, 2009 2:46 pm

    3:56pm: Rosenthal and Morosi write that pitcher Phillippe Aumont of the Mariners and “possibly” outfielder Michael Taylor of the Phillies are among the players heading to Toronto in the trade. They add that outfielder Michael Saunders and pitcher Brandon Morrow are “in play.” The FOX duo confirms an agreement is in place to send Halladay to the Phillies and Lee to the Mariners. MLB.com’s Jordan Bastian sees an official announcement Wednesday at the earliest.

  34. jordan on December 14th, 2009 2:53 pm

    HOLY CRAP!!! Some report that it could be Aumont, Morrow, and Saunders… now who is our left feilder?

  35. The Ancient Mariner on December 14th, 2009 2:59 pm

    My heavens . . . I have to say, I hope Morrow’s part of this deal, because if he isn’t, I’d figure Aumont has to be, and I’d rather give up Morrow than Aumont. If the package going out is no more than what Philly gave up for Lee in the first place, I’ll be a very happy camper. Lee and el Rey at the top of the rotation? Wow. For a 1-2 punch in a short series, I’m not sure anybody could top that. (Though the Phils with Halladay and Hamels would be pretty close.)

    This seems like an odd deal, though; what’s the big deal for Philly in sending out Lee for Halladay? If they’re dealing Hamels to set up Halladay/Lee at the top of their rotation, I could see where they’d want to do that (given the money commitment and the age difference, I don’t think it would be a good move, but I could see where they would do it), but simply swapping one veteran ace a year from free agency for another seems an odd move to me.

  36. guschiggins on December 14th, 2009 3:18 pm

    sources say – its going to be Phillipe Aumont, Gillies or Saunders, and Adam Moore

  37. scraps on December 14th, 2009 3:28 pm

    but simply swapping one veteran ace a year from free agency for another seems an odd move to me.

    Halladay will sign, apparently; Lee wants to test the waters.

  38. KaminaAyato on December 14th, 2009 3:35 pm

    @Ancient Mariner – Pretty much what scraps said. It sounds like it was easier (and cheaper) to sign Halladay rather than Lee. If that’s the case, it makes perfect sense.

  39. DizzleChizzle on December 14th, 2009 3:50 pm

    Would it be farfetched to think that Z is dumping unwanted talent so that he can use Lee as trade bait for new talent next season? That’s the only reason I can think of trading for a player with one year remaining on his contract.

  40. GarForever on December 14th, 2009 3:52 pm

    Depending on what we give up, and who the M’s have in LF and at 1B, this is looking a lot like “going for it.” Probably too much baseless speculation here, but I wonder if that portends that the front office is not sanguine about signing Felix long term, and sees 2010 as an optimal time to go all-in?

  41. jack_per_conte on December 14th, 2009 3:55 pm

    It can also be a way of communicating to Felix that the M’s are switching from a losing to a winning culture and organization. Nothing like a good playoff run as an added oomph to negotiations . . .

  42. joser on December 14th, 2009 3:55 pm

    Whatever the details, if this is for real, it’s going to punch some big holes in the farm system. That’s not the end of the world, but it is a little worrisome. If Moore is gone, we’re back to the Torrealba/Davis/Olivo years of grubbing around for another catcher who isn’t a black hole at the plate. If Saunders is gone, then the team has to look for a Luke Scott or somebody in yet another trade (if they’re trying to lock up both Lee and Felix, it’s not going to be a big bucks sign like Bay). And trading to fill those holes digs other holes.

    Not to be Mr Downer or anything. I mean, Cliff Lee is awesome, and a rotation that features him and Felix as Mr #1 and #1A (especially in front of the M’s defense and especially in Safeco) has to put a tremor of terror into any opposing lineup.

    But still…. yikes. Zduriencik will have created a lot more work for himself.

    The King and Lee plus the Other Three.

    Cliff and the King on the way to a ring.

  43. Islets of Ryan Langerhans on December 14th, 2009 3:56 pm

    Depending on what we give up, and who the M’s have in LF and at 1B, this is looking a lot like “going for it.”

    “Win one for the Griffey”?

  44. The Hamms Bear on December 14th, 2009 3:57 pm

    Have the sprinklers been tested for when the server bursts into flames?

  45. ima-zeliever on December 14th, 2009 3:58 pm

    Awesome! I couldn’t believe it when I heard it…

    From what I have seen it’s Aumont, Gilles, and Saunders. If we were able to hold on to Brandon Morrow, this is impressive!

  46. diderot on December 14th, 2009 3:59 pm

    This deal could be great…or it could be terrible, depending on the cost in terms of young players.
    But Toronto can’t expect the world for a guy with only a year left on his contract. And apparently they’re getting Michael Taylor and a catcher from the Phillies.
    So let’s hope not Saunders or Triufel.
    Maybe they need a designated tickler?

  47. The Ancient Mariner on December 14th, 2009 3:59 pm

    Thanks, scraps, et al.; I hadn’t registered that yet. It does make sense of everything.

    And while I’d like to keep Aumont, I think I’d rather deal both him and Morrow than give up Saunders, taken all in all.

  48. Moonwalk Graham on December 14th, 2009 4:00 pm

    Lee better not come in and be a 15 out humpty dumpty like Erik Bedarded.

    I am still recovering from the scabs left from Adam Jones winning a gold glove. I like Z a whole lot, but depending on what we give up for Lee its dicey.

    I hope we can keep Aumont. Bottom line, we need to sign Felix asap.

  49. terry on December 14th, 2009 4:00 pm

    I’ve read names like Saunders, Morrow and Aumont in the deal.

    For one year, I’m hoping it’s just relief pitchers.

  50. ima-zeliever on December 14th, 2009 4:03 pm

    It sounds like it was Aumont, Gilles, and Saunders. Morrow was a maybe which probably would mean we would get something more back if he is included or could suggest another trade talk he is in imo…

  51. xeifrank on December 14th, 2009 4:03 pm

    Lee, King and pray for spring?

    how about,
    King, Lee and climb a tree?
    hmmm.
    vr, Xei

  52. Mariners2620 on December 14th, 2009 4:04 pm

    From the way it sounds, this will not be making very much of a dent in the farm system at all. All of the guys that are being said to be in the deal are all expendable guys. Ackley will be up here soon enough.

  53. Five Number Ones on December 14th, 2009 4:05 pm

    All this talk of a 1-2 punch reminds me of a recent trade the M’s made for an ace lefty to pair with Felix.

    That said, I trust Zduriencik to give up far less for Lee than Bavasi gave up for our poor, injury-prone, Canadian mediaphobe.

    It’s great that this time, on the verge of acquiring a star southpaw, we’re excited and optimistic, instead of suspicious and angry. Please don’t abuse our trust, Jack.

  54. Paul B on December 14th, 2009 4:08 pm

    Would it be farfetched to think that Z is dumping unwanted talent so that he can use Lee as trade bait for new talent next season?

    Yes.

    Since Lee is a free agent after 2010, he’ll be with the M’s through June anyway, and probably for the whole season. If the M’s don’t get him signed to a long term deal, then they’d get the two draft picks assuming he is a Type A.

    Also, “dumping unwanted talent”? The names being tossed around aren’t like Betancourt.

  55. wabbles on December 14th, 2009 4:09 pm

    I think I’m going to put a tree in my apartment and open gifts on Jan. 11 to celebrate Z’s birthday.

  56. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 4:12 pm

    ZOMG

  57. Paul B on December 14th, 2009 4:16 pm

    It sounds like it was Aumont, Gilles, and Saunders. Morrow was a maybe which probably would mean we would get something more back if he is included or could suggest another trade talk he is in imo…

    This article makes it sound like the M’s are trying to keep Morrow instead of any of the others named.

    That said, I trust Zduriencik to give up far less for Lee than Bavasi gave up for our poor, injury-prone, Canadian mediaphobe.

    I was thinking that, too. I’m not as enamored with Saunders as I was with Jones, so that makes this deal sound better. Only getting Lee for one year though is a downside.

  58. louder on December 14th, 2009 4:16 pm

    I’m wondering if by getting Lee, the Mariners are making sure that they put a big effort in getting Lee for 2011+. I would hate to see a lot of talent get traded for Lee, than he’s gone, and the Mariners have nothing. I mean, if the Mariners are not in contention by the All Star break, will they trade Lee?

  59. joser on December 14th, 2009 4:17 pm

    Earlier Heyman said of Halladay:

    Halladay has a big say in where he goes, thanks to a full no-trade clause in a Blue Jays contract that was signed with a hometown discount. With that in mind, people who know Halladay say he is sure to approve at least the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, based on his three major criteria:
    1. A team that perennially wins.
    2. A team that trains in Florida, preferably on the west coast of Florida, near his Oldsmar home
    3. A team that perennially wins. (Yup, it’s that important.)
    With those objectives in mind, the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies look like the best fits. The Angels qualify under Nos. 1 and 3 but miss on No. 2, while the Mets may have an issue with 1 and 3.

    So I could see Halladay being willing to sign an extension with the Phillies as part of the deal, whereas Cliff Lee wants to test free agency. Which would still be true of a Mariner-uniform-wearing Cliff Lee, too.

    Depending on what we give up, and who the M’s have in LF and at 1B, this is looking a lot like “going for it.”

    Yeah, and the last time the M’s decided to “go for it” by trading for a pitcher, we got the Bedard trade. Now, I realize Zduriencik is not Bavasi and knows how to value players (his own and the other guys’) correctly. But this is essentially punching a hole in the farm to get a one-year rental. It’s one of the highest-performing rentals ever, but it’s still just a rental (and a once-every-five-days one at that). Lee will get $9M this year, but he’ll be asking a lot in free agency next year — more than the M’s will be able to afford (especially if they’re also trying to keep Felix). On the plus side, barring injury he’ll be a Type A free agent, so they will get a draft pick.

    But overall this looks like a really risky move to me.

    One positive: if Halladay goes to the Phillies, the M’s get Cliff Lee, and the Red Sox grab Lackey, the Angels are left holding the “big name pitcher” bag with nothing to put in it. Hopefully.

  60. manholecover on December 14th, 2009 4:18 pm

    I would like to think Lee is in the works for the long-term before I begin jumping up and down. Knowing Jack Z, I’m sure he has a lot of options on how to use this new piece to the M’s long-term benefit.
    The best part is that the Angels lose out on Lackey AND Halladay on the same day.

  61. tdillon on December 14th, 2009 4:23 pm

    All this talk of a 1-2 punch reminds me of a recent trade the M’s made for an ace lefty to pair with Felix.

    Cliff Lee is infinitely more durable than Bedard.

    But, even if it is Morrow, Saunders, and Aumont, I’m okay with this deal. Worse case scenario, Lee is going to be a Type A free agent. A couple of #1 draft picks for him at the end of the year is pretty considerable.

    Options for LF and The Great Morrow experiment aren’t overly hard to come by. Morrow was talked about as a “change of scenery” trade for the past year. The loss of Aumont is not inconsiderable, but its very managable.

    Cliff Lee is going to be awfully exciting to watch. And he’s really at the point where a deal for him mid-season would have to be very impressive to be worthwhile.

    My initial reaction is that was traded a reclamation project, a promising everyday LF, and a legit pitching prospect for one of the top 10 pitchers in the game and 2 draft #1 draft picks. Pretty good deal for Z.

  62. GarForever on December 14th, 2009 4:26 pm

    Yeah, and the last time the M’s decided to “go for it” by trading for a pitcher, we got the Bedard trade

    Yeah, and I have my own trepidation about this deal as well, although I thought the Bedard trade had stench all over it from day one (his lack of durability being a major concern if we had only given up Jones OR Tillman). My hope is, given the brains now running the M’s, is that we’re giving up a lot less for a lot more, especially since he is very possibly a one year rental, but one with a much longer and more established track record than Bedard; add to that the fact he would be joining a much better constructed team than the one coming out of 2007. But I’m with you, Joser: I’m not sure this is a good deal if we blow a hole in the farm to do it. On the other hand, part of Z’s philosophy last year was to restock the farm so they would have the depth to pull the trigger on a deal like this should it present itself, right?

  63. Kid_A on December 14th, 2009 4:27 pm

    This move reminds me a little bit of the Matt Holliday trade a year ago. It’s not that farfetched to think the M’s could win the division this year. But, should they be struggling midseason, Lee is ideal trade bait, especially given what he did for the Phillies this postseason. And as has been mentioned, should they hang on to him and fall short at the end of the year, you’ve got 2 draft picks coming back. Most importantly though, is that as of right now, the M’s have the best 1-2 punch in baseball.

  64. diderot on December 14th, 2009 4:32 pm

    I think the best way to gauge this is to look at this from the perspective of the Blue Jays. What can they expect to get for a guy everyone knew they’d be losing at the end of the year anyway?
    The rumored name from the Phillies is Taylor, an absolute stud outfield prospect, and a catcher I’m not familiar with.
    To me, they need to find pitching to replace the hole left by Halladay.
    Aumont has local appeal for them…but Morrow has a better reputation…so hopefully our contribution is one of them, and maybe a minor prospect.

  65. spokane mariner on December 14th, 2009 4:33 pm

    Bad News Guys:

    AP reports no three team trade.

    The person spoke Monday on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press because the teams had not made any announcement. Philadelphia could give up pitchers J.A. Happ, Joe Blanton and outfielder Dominic Brown as part of a deal, the person said.

  66. CCW on December 14th, 2009 4:37 pm

    From Rotoworld:

    “ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark has learned that catching prospect Travis D’Arnaud is also headed to Toronto in Monday’s reported three-team trade.”

    If true, I don’t think Moore would be part of the deal. In fact, considering Moore is part of the M’s win-now plan, it wouldn’t make sense for him to be part of the deal in any case.

  67. Dave in Palo Alto on December 14th, 2009 4:38 pm

    This is the way off-season news should come out: big ballsy starbusts of win. Not like the slow death of the Jones/Guillen departures. It’s nice to turn your back for a minute, actually try to get some work done, and come back to good news like this.

  68. G-Man on December 14th, 2009 4:38 pm

    Wow, what a deal. Having just one year guaranteed of Lee is worrisome, but JZ has been so good so far that I’ll trust him on this.

    I’d rather give up Aumont than Morrow, but then I am never a big pitching prospect guy unless he’s The Second Coming of Felix.

  69. G-Man on December 14th, 2009 4:41 pm

    The Jays would earn fan points for landing Canadians players, too.

    Speaking of which – how ironic would it be if they somehow signed Bedard.

  70. GLS on December 14th, 2009 4:42 pm

    If the deal is finalized, the M’s will have a year to essentially “recruit” Cliff Lee and convince him Seattle is a great place to play. But, at the end of the day, it’s his decision if he wants to test the open market.

  71. DaveValleDrinkNight on December 14th, 2009 4:43 pm

    But Mr. Z, we didnt get you anything.

    THIS IS AWESOME!

  72. zzyzx on December 14th, 2009 4:43 pm

    Anyone want to figure out how to force the roof to stay open whenever anyone else is pitching? It would help in April and September at least…

  73. Sachemo on December 14th, 2009 4:45 pm

    Anyone know what’s happening with Bedard? If there’s any chance at our top 3 being Felix, Lee and Bedard…well, that would be pretty…

  74. Snuffy on December 14th, 2009 4:47 pm

    Please… let it not be Saunders. I’m convinced he will be a very useful player and eventually replace Ichiro.

  75. diderot on December 14th, 2009 4:48 pm

    the M’s will have a year to essentially “recruit” Cliff Lee and convince him Seattle is a great place to play

    Well, to me that sounds like job #1 for Griffey. If he can do it, he may actually earn his roster spot.

  76. Farmer Cam on December 14th, 2009 4:48 pm

    someone plzzzzzz call up GM Zach right away and tell him to pull this deal off.

  77. ajvis on December 14th, 2009 4:50 pm

    PROBLEM: signing a great free agents pitchers cost $17M per year for 5 years, which is way too RISKY. (5/$85M for Lackey)

    JACK Z SOLUTION: trade 2 or 3 good prospects for a cheaper, better option on a NON RISKY 1 year contract. At the end of the year (or at the deadline) get back your 2 or 3 good prospects back via Type A draft compensation.

    Bottom line, Jack Z got us a much cheaper, much better, much less risky option than Lackey, for the cost of ~1 net prospect.

  78. Wolfman on December 14th, 2009 4:50 pm

    This would be like the Randy Johnson/Curt Schilling one-two punch that won the D-Backs a championship. I wish Seattle could get Lee to sign an extension first. But his talent is incredible and would give Seattle a nightmare rotation in any playoff scenario.

    It doesn’t sound to me like the players Z would be giving up would cripple the farm system at all. Remember how fast he built the system back up when he got here, per the Putz trade and other signings. I have full confidence in Jack. This is too good to be true! Go get ‘em, Jack!

  79. Rboyle0628 on December 14th, 2009 4:52 pm

    WOW! What a way to turn around a crappy day full of final exams!!!! I heard about this before while in class and was unable to “rosterbate” in class. Cliff Lee would be such a fantastic player for the M’s. I keep hitting refresh on ESPN trying to find out more. Nobody knows for sure what is going on it seems. I can live with Saunders going though honestly. I think he will be a decent MLB player but that is all. I think Ackley has the true talent and will play in LF.

    MY godddd wow!! I really am so frickin’ excited I don’t know how to say it. I think this is a win any way you cut it. If we cant sign Lee and Felix, Lee can be either hauled off if we’re not competing in July or held for draft picks at that will help restock. In a short series though, “The King and Lee are a sight to see!!!”

  80. joser on December 14th, 2009 5:00 pm

    Anyone know what’s happening with Bedard? If there’s any chance at our top 3 being Felix, Lee and Bedard…well, that would be pretty…

    Bedard is a free agent, so he’s no longer a Mariner. And the last reports of his recovery from surgery stated that he wouldn’t be able to pitch until sometime during the season. So even if he got no other interest and Zduriencik signed him cheap as a reclamation project there’s no chance you’d see him on the roster on opening day.

    Anyone want to figure out how to force the roof to stay open whenever anyone else is pitching? It would help in April and September at least…

    I know you’re kidding, but that’s actually against the rules.

    The Jays would earn fan points for landing Canadians players, too.

    I know a lot of Jays fans (my father in Canada is one) and I don’t know a single one that would prefer “Canadian” over “better.” This isn’t hockey, where it actually matters to the National Psyche (and where those two categories more often overlap anyway).

  81. jjdouglas1 on December 14th, 2009 5:06 pm

    Hurray!! According to ESPN, the Ms are only giving up Phillipe Aumount to Toronto. Phillies giving up catcher D’Arnaud and one more prospect, believed to be OF Taylor.

    I am super excited about this trade but what do you think the chances are of signing Lee past this year? Will this have any impact on Felix negotiations? I love the trade don’t get me wrong, but I am hesitant because it seems to be a rental. How much money will this lock up and will it significantly hinder future moves by the M’s this off-season?

  82. guschiggins on December 14th, 2009 5:07 pm

    if you read the whole trade post on ESPN, its says we send Aumont to the Jays, plus 2 prospects to the Phillies.

    Methinks from what I know that Gillies or Saunders plus Adam Moore go to the Phillies – Moore would fill in for D’Arnaud going from the Phillies to the Blue Jays and give the Phillies a C prospect back. Our OF fills in for Michael Taylor going to the Jays.

  83. Kazinski on December 14th, 2009 5:07 pm

    I’m not real exited about trading Saunders, but it makes sense. If we are trading for Lee then Jack is trying to win it all in 2010. Moore is enough of a gamble at catcher, and we can’t expect to win with two unproven rookies in the lineup. But it does leave us with another hole to fill along with first and DH, but those are probably the 3 easiest positions to fill because they are not premium defensive spots.

  84. ScarTheBall on December 14th, 2009 5:11 pm

    It’s looking like Aumont is staying in Seattle.

  85. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 5:14 pm

    I’m not buying Aumont not being in the deal until I hear it from a more reliable source than the “people” Bob Elliott mentions.

  86. leon0112 on December 14th, 2009 5:14 pm

    If Saunders goes to Toronto, does Ackley get a shot at being the left fielder? He is a pretty good glove in the outfield. I know he is a rookie, but….

  87. ScarTheBall on December 14th, 2009 5:15 pm

    Nevermind… Aumont is said to not end up in Toronto. Maybe he lands in Philly.

  88. ktyler on December 14th, 2009 5:19 pm

    “M’s shortstop prospect Carlos Triunifel could be in the deal in place of Saunders, tweets Jonathan Mayo of MLB.com.”
    This would be a little less exciting…

  89. ScarTheBall on December 14th, 2009 5:21 pm

    Its almost impossible to tell what is really going on. Almost every major prospect on both the Phillies and Mariners are being mentioned by somebody.

  90. scott19 on December 14th, 2009 5:22 pm

    Speaking of which – how ironic would it be if they somehow signed Bedard.

    Actually, I was kinda thinking the same thing last year when the Jays started to deal Halladay — what with Bedard being from just outside Ottawa and all.

  91. Kid_A on December 14th, 2009 5:22 pm

    Who’s this Triunifel kid? Way to go MLBTR.

  92. banestar on December 14th, 2009 5:23 pm

    I really love how there continue to be reports of different prospects moving around in the deal. The truth of the matter is, until Halladay agrees to his extension, no one has any clue as to who was traded – aside from Lee and Halladay.

    Regardless, unless the whole farm system or Ackley is on the move, I still say good on the M’s.

  93. aaron c. on December 14th, 2009 5:28 pm

    “M’s shortstop prospect Carlos Triunifel could be in the deal in place of Saunders, tweets Jonathan Mayo of MLB.com.”
    This would be a little less exciting…

    I would much rather give up Triunfel than Saunders.

  94. Coolalvin206 on December 14th, 2009 5:29 pm

    Finally. A GM who gets the idea that If you have a golden oppurtunity to be great(even for a year) you go for it.

  95. KaminaAyato on December 14th, 2009 5:29 pm

    Now that I’ve settled down, I began to think what this trade could mean.

    The short-term thought is – we’re going to try and contend this year… for at least until the trade deadline.

    Now there’s tons of speculation as to what the Lee move means in the “long-term”. Probably one thing we may all be able to assume is that keeping both Felix and Lee is probably not possible going forward. Lee is a FA after the 2010 season, Felix after 2011.

    So that being said, we can only keep one. We don’t know where the negotiations sit between the M’s and Felix, so the 1st speculation is that the Lee pickup gives the M’s an option on the #1 going forward. If talks with Felix break down, perhaps we sign Lee and trade Felix (just like the Phillies with Lee vs. Halladay).

    If what we’re hearing about which prospects are being traded are true, they are all (or predominantly) Bavasi draft picks. Dr Z has shown that he can and will clean house, so the 2nd speculation is that obtaining Lee was so that we could then flip him for prospects and in effect trade prospects he didn’t want for prospects that he did (At perhaps at a premium since it’s a one year rent-a-player and a team could be desperate).

  96. diderot on December 14th, 2009 5:32 pm

    we can’t expect to win with two unproven rookies in the lineup

    Actually, I think this might be the only way a team like the Mariners CAN win. With top tier free agents and trade targets seeming to congregate more than ever in the Boston/New York/Philly corridor, everyone else working within a realistic budget has to hope that young assets drastically overperform.

    Yes, we’ve got to trust Z and his team to understand who best fits that description for us. But going out and paying market price for a mediocre replacement in left field leads to a predictable result. And as long as someone like Saunders is seen to have considerable upside (e.g., as Jones and Choo did) I say it’s a shame to throw him away for a one year rental. We’re not nearly in the position yet to overpay for marginal wins.

  97. jack_per_conte on December 14th, 2009 5:35 pm

    [Triunfel]

  98. scott19 on December 14th, 2009 5:49 pm

    Between Felix, Lee and Hyphen, the M’s could have possibly three 200+ “innings-eaters” next year in the rotation…Wow!

  99. G-Man on December 14th, 2009 5:52 pm

    obtaining Lee was so that we could then flip him for prospects and in effect trade prospects he didn’t want for prospects that he did

    Morrow for Lincecum?! Awesome!

    :)

  100. Faceplant on December 14th, 2009 5:54 pm

    Guys, that tweet by Mayo about Triunfel literally says nothing. It just says Triunfel could be involved. When half the tweet is made up of the words “could be”, and “maybe” you should probably just ignore it.

  101. nwivoryhunter on December 14th, 2009 5:55 pm

    This acquisition signals that Felix isn’t going to stay. You don’t trade solid prospects for a one year rental if your not trying to win now! I do like that we will get Type A FA returns for Lee and that once we trade felix we could get a solid two three prospects in return on that deal. I would feel a lot better if we were say getting a Travis Snider or J Happ back in the deal. JZ does love the win now and build for the future so that makes sense! Mixed feelings but still the look and feel of it.

  102. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 5:56 pm

    Morrow for Lincecum?! Awesome!

    Don’t make me strangle you.

  103. Faceplant on December 14th, 2009 5:58 pm

    This deal signals that Felix isn’t goign to stay?

    Uhhhhh… Okaaay….

  104. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 5:59 pm

    Dave’s latest tweet:

    Happ, Blanton, and Dominic Brown took physicals today? This deal is crazy. What would Philly have to get back to give up those three + Lee?

    Just throwin that out there. There’s got to be one or two more big names from Seattle or Toronto involved if Happ and Blanton are moving.

  105. Faceplant on December 14th, 2009 6:00 pm

    Just throwin that out there. There’s got to be one or two more big names from Seattle or Toronto involved if Happ and Blanton are moving.

    Vernon Wells!

  106. Hatch on December 14th, 2009 6:02 pm

    nwivoryhunter what gives you any indication that Felix wont stay? If anything this deal makes him wanna stay even more!

  107. nwivoryhunter on December 14th, 2009 6:05 pm

    “nwivoryhunter what gives you any indication that Felix wont stay? If anything this deal makes him wanna stay even more!”

    Like I said, you don’t trade your best three position prospects for a one year rental. JZ and the boys are to smart for that. Just think about it!

  108. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 6:07 pm

    We still don’t know who exactly is in the trade. Stop being silly.

  109. Faceplant on December 14th, 2009 6:08 pm

    Like I said, you don’t trade your best three position prospects for a one year rental. JZ and the boys are to smart for that. Just think about it!

    Two things.

    1. We have no idea who is actually involved
    and…
    2. The Mariners wouldn’t be trading them for one year of Cliff Lee, they would be trading them for either one year of Cliff Lee, and two draft picks, or a half a year of Cliff Lee and prospects acquired via trade.

  110. wetzelcoatl on December 14th, 2009 6:08 pm

    i love this deal, it greatly improves the M’s starting rotation without eating up too much payroll, also even if Lee only sticks around for one year it means Jack Z will have some cash to play with next off season when the departure of Lee and Silva will free up $20 million between the two of them

  111. firova2 on December 14th, 2009 6:08 pm

    Looking around the net I don’t see anyone mentioning Aumont’s hip condition that purportedly contributed to his move to the bullpen. It is assumed that he’s going to become a starter for Toronto, but I wonder whether he’ll even pass a physical for them. The involvement of Happ and Blanton may indicate that Toronto does indeed see Aumont as a reliever.

  112. Islets of Ryan Langerhans on December 14th, 2009 6:08 pm

    If what we’re hearing about which prospects are being traded are true, they are all (or predominantly) Bavasi draft picks. Dr Z has shown that he can and will clean house, so the 2nd speculation is that obtaining Lee was so that we could then flip him for prospects and in effect trade prospects he didn’t want for prospects that he did (At perhaps at a premium since it’s a one year rent-a-player and a team could be desperate).

    I don’t think teams can get prospects for a rent-a-player like they could back in the day. Far more likely Z wants the picks.

  113. Paul B on December 14th, 2009 6:20 pm

    Just had a thought, maybe Saunders isn’t in the trade. would the M’s have non tendered Langerhans if they knew Saunders was being traded?

  114. diderot on December 14th, 2009 6:23 pm

    It’s hard to know what to believe at this point. If Elliot’s tweet is correct that Drabek is involved, this really makes no sense at all. The Phillies refusing to give him up last year is allegedly why Halladay isn’t already in a Phillies uniform.
    And then you add in Dave’s tweet that Happ and Dominic Brown might be involved somehow (Brown also supposedly a do-not-touch) means that there could be a lot more involved…including players entering and leaving Seattle.

    Crazy time!

  115. CSM on December 14th, 2009 6:30 pm

    As long as we only gave up one of two of Morrow or Saunders and we didn’t give up Moore, I would consider this trade a success. Thank-you Z, for making me have to imagine Cliff Lee in our starting rotation which I can’t do at this moment.

  116. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 6:31 pm

    I don’t know enough about Bob Elliott to know if he’s credible or not, but he’s the only one who has brought up Drabek at all, and everything I’ve heard indicates that the Phillies looooooooooooove him.

  117. joe simpson can hit on December 14th, 2009 6:32 pm

    Rotation:
    El Rey
    Lee
    RRS
    Morrow
    Snell

    If that rotation can stay healthy and those 3, 4, and 5 pitchers can realize their talent this year, that could be filthy.

  118. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 6:34 pm

    Drayer says Saunders and Moore do not appear to be involved.

  119. formerstarQB16 on December 14th, 2009 6:39 pm

    Elliott’s new tweet says that Drabek is going to Jays, Aumont to Phil’s.

  120. IheartZ on December 14th, 2009 6:50 pm

    OK. Locked Up. Z as P-I Sportsman of the Year!

  121. deathtoflyingthings on December 14th, 2009 6:50 pm

    Lee looks to be a great addition to Felix. i am so excited to see him Seattle. It will be interesting to see what the final names traded acctually are.

  122. LB on December 14th, 2009 6:52 pm

    I hate to break it to everyone salivating over these #1 draft picks, but the Yankees found a way around that when they signed CC, AJ and Teixeira all in the same year. Think about how that works; it’ll sink in.

  123. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 7:00 pm

    Uhh, how often do you expect that to happen, exactly?

  124. jld on December 14th, 2009 7:01 pm

    i love this deal, it greatly improves the M’s starting rotation without eating up too much payroll, also even if Lee only sticks around for one year it means Jack Z will have some cash to play with next off season when the departure of Lee and Silva will free up $20 million between the two of them

    I don’t want to sour the mood in here, but Silva has two more years in a Mariners uniform, (plus a mutual option for a third, HA!) unless our magical GM can trade him for Halladay, Adrian Gonzalez, and free beer at Safeco.

  125. mymrbig on December 14th, 2009 7:01 pm

    Lots of sources saying things like “may be” and “could be.”. Chuchill is definitively saying who is involved and who is not involved (subscriber only). I’m hoping Chuchill is right and everyone else is blowing smoke with all the big names just to get some buzz for themselves, because Churchill is the only one saying much definitively (in terms of the names involved).

  126. ronlacroix on December 14th, 2009 7:05 pm

    I love it!

    But let’s not get carried away. Remember we lost 2 starting pitchers that gave us 216 innings at a 2.70 era clip last year. Consider we replaced that loss now, and we’re back to square one. Now, where are the bats, because we won’t be a better team than last year without a big bat in the lineup. Go get Bay, Jack!

  127. joser on December 14th, 2009 7:06 pm

    Just think about it!

    I continue to, and it still don’t see how your conclusion follows inevitably from your premise. Even if your premise (“best three position prospects”) is true — and there’s no certainty there is. Look at what Minnesota got from the Mets for Santana (and that was more than a one-year rental, since they were able to negotiate an extension as part of the deal).

  128. sodomojo95 on December 14th, 2009 7:19 pm

    I’m not sure I can be objective about him. He’s awesome.

    Dave was all over Cliff Lee during the postseason.

    And so far all we know is Phillippe Aumont is in the deal for the M's

  129. sodomojo95 on December 14th, 2009 7:21 pm
  130. moethedog on December 14th, 2009 7:25 pm

    ESPN is reporting Aumont and Gillies to the Phillies.

    For a rent an ace who will return two draft picks or solid trade material, the M’s are gettin off pretty cheap. You trade away two projects, get two more in return…and you get that Lee arm for a season (or part of it).

    Lee is due about $9M this year. That gives the M’s about $6M to spend. Luke Scott or Kelly Johnson plus a DH fit that budget nicely. Beltre does not!

    Both are multi-position players with a history of major-league productivity and come relatively cheap.

    I really wouldnt mind seeing BOTH of them come on board. Scott would hit clean-up in such a scenario..but it would sure make the M’s versatile through the 13 non-pitching spots.

    Something like…

    Ichiro-RF
    Figgins-3B
    Guti-CF
    Scott-LF
    Lopez-2b
    Carp-1B
    Johnson-DH
    Wilson-SS
    Moore/Johnson C

    (Or Saunders and not Carp. Move a few players positions to fit, accordingly. I vote for Carp)

    Add Hannahan, Hall, and Jr.

    You wouldn’t have a big bopper…but if Scott and Lopez can hit 25 or so…That ain’t a bad linep.

  131. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 7:26 pm

    Fox Sports:

    one source briefed on the talks said the Mariners are making an effort to keep Morrow in their rotation and instead send infield prospect Carlos Triunfel to the Blue Jays.

    Really? Wouldn’t that be kind of stupid?

  132. msb on December 14th, 2009 7:27 pm

    I don’t know enough about Bob Elliott to know if he’s credible or not, but he’s the only one who has brought up Drabek at all, and everything I’ve heard indicates that the Phillies looooooooooooove him.

    Per Stark (so, you know) Drabek is involved so the Phillies can keep D. Brown off the table– and they can be the ones getting Aumont.

  133. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 7:31 pm

    Yeah, I read that too, but it would surprise me if they’ve changed their attitude on Drabek so much that he isn’t untouchable anymore.

    But really, who the hell knows at this point.

  134. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 7:34 pm

    The Phillies got Lee last summer because they couldn’t close on Halladay. Jays wanted Drabek and at the cost of losing Halladay the Phillies refused to move him.

    For sure, the Phillies still have Drabek. They gain Halladay for four years, and lose having Lee for one. That’s a big win. Philly is going to be shipping players to Toronto to make this even out.

    Toronto must be getting a pretty bid load from Philly and Seattle, considering they only had Halladay for a year. All three GMs are going to look like geniuses after this deal is done, but it’s Halladay’s willingness to forgo free agency that is making this deal payoff for everyone.

  135. wanderinginsodo on December 14th, 2009 7:34 pm

    This is why I love baseball.

    We’re in a town where the sports news hasn’t been exciting lately, but this trade has me practically salivating. The wheeling, the dealing, the gambling… What other sport can really provide that? I am not sure the boys in the front office realize that the talk about this deal has made most of our days so much brighter! I am also relived to see some guts and a true desire to win in 2010.

    While the future is important, I am so ready for Mariners to provide electricity to Seattlites next year. Around the stadiums, it was soccer that saw a new found enthusiasm and appeal to youth. Please, please let it be baseball in 2010.

    Welcome Cliff Lee.

  136. sonichound on December 14th, 2009 7:36 pm

    Wow, per Bob Elliot, Seattle only sends out Aumont to Philly, Jays get Taylor, Drabek and D’Arnaud. Is it possible that we would get Lee for so cheap? That would leave lots of chips for Adrian Gonzalez…

  137. Jimmie the Geek on December 14th, 2009 7:43 pm

    I won’t partake in the speculation of who the M’s are giving up or not, but I have to say that when I pulled USSM up this evening I misread the top blog entry to read “M’s Acquire Cliff Floyd?!?!?”. I had to read it a few times to get it right in my head.

    Obviously, I’m still not used to the new regime’s way of doing things! ;)

    Oh, and as an aside – those of you referring to Zduriencik as ‘Dr. Z’, that’s cool. I just picture totally awesome boutique guitar amplifiers in my mind every time I read it, which is actually apropos as Zduriencik is totally awesome too!

    Jimmie

  138. daqmajor on December 14th, 2009 7:46 pm

    If it’s just Aumont that we ship off, this deal is absolutely ingenious. Aumont would almost surely be confined to a bullpen role in Seattle. I’m channeling both Dave’s words and common sense when I say that sending a minor potential impact in Aumont for a stud pitcher in Lee adds even more to why the M’s would make this trade. Aumont, while he would be a good player, does not have the value to us that he does to others, and we trade out of a position of strength and fill a position of weakness.

    Just another reason to love Z.

  139. DarkKnight1680 on December 14th, 2009 7:48 pm

    ESPN is reporting that it is Aumont and likely Gillies to the Phils for Lee. Drabek or Happ along with Taylor and d’Arnaud to Toronto for Halladay.

    If true this is a pure steal. You can get as good or better than Aumont (ticketed as a reliever) and Gillies with the 2 Type-A picks if Lee bolts. PLus it gives the M’s a legitimate division shot. Love it.

  140. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 7:49 pm

    It’s increasingly looking like (although this is just speculation on my part like everyone else is doing) that we’re giving up Aumont and Gillies and getting Lee.

    Which would leave me doing cartwheels.

  141. PhilliesPhan on December 14th, 2009 7:52 pm

    Here’s my take on it. The Phillies are going to trade Happ, Blanton and Brown for Halladay. Reports out of Philly indicated that all 3 took a physical today. The Phillies are at the edge of their payroll limit. In order to afford Halladay’s 15 million this year they have to move 15 million. Blanton was offered arbitration. He’s in line to make about 7 million (or more). Lee is going to make 9 million. Moving those two guys frees up enough money to cover Halladay’s contract. So it looks as if the Phils will move Lee to the M’s for two prospects. Aumont appears to be one of them. The Phillies figure that 4 years of Halladay (1yr @ 15 + 3yr extension @ 20 per) is beter than 1 year of Lee at 9 million. That’s assuming the prospects are close to a wash. Interesting trade to digest. As a side note as a Phillies fan I could see Moyer going from loved to hated. He’s in line to make about 8 million. If he wasn’t under contract I think the Phils would be looking at a 1-3 of Lee, Halladay and Hamels.

  142. Dave on December 14th, 2009 7:54 pm

    Again, logic tests. If the Phillies have to trade Cliff Lee in order to fit Halladay into the budget and recoup some of the prospects they lose in getting Halladay, then they would call 28 GMs and say “hey, what will you give me for Lee.”

    And one of those teams, or maybe 10 of those teams, would offer up a substantially better package than Aumont/Gillies.

    There’s no way we’re getting Lee for that unless Jack slipped something into Ruben Amaro’s drink.

  143. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 7:59 pm

    It doesn’t seem right that M’s players are going to Philly only. If the Phillies can land Halladay on their own then of course they will.

    But why get rid of Lee and not let him play out 2010? And even if it were to clear salary for Halladay, why give him to us now and so cheaply?

    At least one of our players must be going to Toronto. Philly didn’t quite have the package and needed our guy. We wanted Lee to unlock the deal.

    That’s the way it has to be. One of our guys, at least, will end up in Toronto.

  144. Jeff Nye on December 14th, 2009 8:01 pm

    Hey, Jack’s a good looking guy, maybe he sidled up to Amaro at the winter meetings and slipped him a time-delay Mickey.

    Anyway, it’s likely that you’re right, Dave. I’d be just fine with Morrow/Aumont/Gillies, which is a lot more likely. Saunders/Aumont/Gillies, I’d be less fine with but still okay. After that’s when it gets hazy.

  145. DKulich on December 14th, 2009 8:01 pm

    Call it a hunch, but I think this deal isn’t going to happen. Things aren’t adding up, and this might have been some one jumping the gun on a three team rumor, not a true deal.

  146. jack_per_conte on December 14th, 2009 8:07 pm

    If it’s Aumont/Gillies, then there has to be a Saunders or a Morrow getting coughed up somewhere here. The Indians got Carrasco, Knapp, Marson & Donald for Lee at the end of the year, and that was considered a poor haul. Let’s say Aumont and Gillies are fairly equivalent (big arms, some health worries, most likely back of the bullpen guys finally), and I’d say Gillies’ value is closer to a Marson (I’d rate Marson, who is majors ready but basically a 2nd division starting or very nice backup catcher), there’s still the Carrasco/Donald portion of value. Carrasco has ace stuff and apparently my dog’s psyche, while Donald is a middle-class man’s Bloomquist. Hmmmm.

  147. daqmajor on December 14th, 2009 8:08 pm

    Beware of a server crash, this trade has gotten a lot of M’s fans flooding to the blogosphere and pressing F5.

  148. jack_per_conte on December 14th, 2009 8:09 pm

    Where I say “Aumont and Gillies are fairly equivalent” I meant, Aumont and Knapp are fairly equivalent in value.

  149. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 8:13 pm

    Jack, would the Carrasco/Donald gap in value be made up by Ben Francisco, an extra half year of Cliff Lee, plus a shot at a signing Lee to an extension? Because we won’t be getting any of those things…

  150. ASUBoyd on December 14th, 2009 8:15 pm

    The word going around is that it is Aumont, Gillies and a third player. Not Saunders/Morrow

  151. Mariners2620 on December 14th, 2009 8:17 pm

    When someone jumps the gun, others clarify before talking about it on ESPN etc….

  152. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 8:17 pm

    I think things are lining up cleanly, and the deal will happen.

    If you’re Toronto: You’ve got Halladay for a year. The clock is ticking and value is diminishing. Is there someone who will overpay?

    If you’re Philly: You’ve got Lee for a year. If Halladay signs an extension he’s worth a ton more than a year of Lee. You’ve worked hard with Toronto on Halladay but didn’t get it done.

    If you’re Seattle: You’ve got the prospects Philly needs to close the deal with Toronto.

    With a little mixing and matching to balance thing a little you can easily see a deal where Toronto, Philly, and Seattle all win.

    Because Halladay is willing to sign an extension with Philly and not with the Jays, is worth different amounts to each team. An overpayment to Toronto is a bargain to Philly. Seattle fits in the same way.

    This deal is clear, if Halladay and the Phillies agree to the extension this thing sings.

  153. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 8:20 pm

    Sorry for skipping the occassional word, but hopefully it was clear enough.

  154. joser on December 14th, 2009 8:21 pm

    Looking at what the Indians got for Lee isn’t especially instructive, because he had more years to play then and the market environment was different. Look at what the Twins got for Santana (which was actually a better deal too because he negotiated an extension rather than being a one-year rental). Look at what the Brewers gave up for half a year of Sabbathia (instructive because Zduriencik was with the Brewers then, but trade-deadline deals involving non-contenders and hopefuls aren’t perfect analogs either).

  155. marinermoose79 on December 14th, 2009 8:23 pm

    ESPN is reporting that it is Aumont and likely Gillies to the Phils for Lee. Drabek or Happ along with Taylor and d’Arnaud to Toronto for Halladay.

    If true this is a pure steal. You can get as good or better than Aumont (ticketed as a reliever) and Gillies with the 2 Type-A picks if Lee bolts. PLus it gives the M’s a legitimate division shot. Love it

    OMG! If this is true F@!kIN STEAL MAN. :) U ROCK JACK Z!

  156. joser on December 14th, 2009 8:25 pm

    Of course now that word is out, I bet the Phillies and Jays are getting all kinds of calls from other GMs who want to horn in and be the third party in the deal. Heck, I’d be worried about the Angels offering some of their prospects to get a year of Lee. They are already in the “Win Now!” mode (and have been for a while) and they have the hole left by Lackey to fill (and a better shot at re-signing Lee to boot).

    Be very, very worried about a last minute snake in the grass.

  157. jordan on December 14th, 2009 8:29 pm

    Latest update says Toronto gets Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D’Arnaud; Philly gets Roy Halladay and Philippe Aumont; and the Mariners getting Cliff Lee, plus another piece or pieces.

    Hahaha, I wish, only giving up Aumont for Lee, and another piece(s)??

  158. mremis on December 14th, 2009 8:29 pm

    Is this trade going to happen? I find it odd that it has taken this long for it all to get finalized. I could see it all blowing up and the M’s not getting Lee.

  159. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 8:31 pm

    I don’t think there are great comparisons for this deal out there. The Phillies had to pay Toronto to get Halladay. But they didn’t have enough so they sold Lee. If you can’t get Halladay without that piece from Seattle, does Seattle pay market price for Lee? No way.

  160. Paul L on December 14th, 2009 8:34 pm

    Can’t someone still come in an offer something better?

    I’m a little worried that we end up being the bridesmaid again.

  161. Kazinski on December 14th, 2009 8:36 pm

    Aumont/Gillies would only make sense if we were getting back Lee/Moyer. Then Jamie can have a co-farewell tour with Jr. sitting on the bench all year on the DL. And the Phillies can clear 15.5m (9 + 6.5) off the books. That is just a little too cynical though even for the most penny pinching GM.

  162. Liam on December 14th, 2009 8:37 pm

    I find it odd that it has taken this long for it all to get finalized

    I guess you weren’t around for the Bedard deal then? That dragged on for weeks.

  163. LB on December 14th, 2009 8:37 pm

    >> I hate to break it to everyone salivating over these #1 draft picks…
    > Uhh, how often do you expect that to happen, exactly?

    We’ll know after the 2010 season, when NYY can make FA offers to Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford and Joe Mauer.

  164. EricL on December 14th, 2009 8:43 pm

    Re: the talk that Cliff Lee is dead set on playing out his contract.

    I give you this quote from Lee’s agent:

    “We had taken a position at the end of Spring Training with the Indians that Cliff was going to play out the remainder of his contract and enter the free-agent market,” Braunecker said. “We’ve never had any of those conversations with the Phillies of any sort. That was exclusive to the situation with Cleveland.”

  165. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 8:43 pm

    philly.com reader poll:
    Who would you rather have, Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee?
    Roy Halladay 4634 (50.1%)
    Cliff Lee 4615 (49.9%)
    Total votes = 9249

  166. frontstreetfan on December 14th, 2009 8:47 pm

    The Mariners have budget room. They just might wind up with Hamels and Lee for Gillies, Aumont, JcRamirez and Morrow. Phillies get Halladay and keep Morrow send off one of their prospects

  167. Typical Idiot Fan on December 14th, 2009 8:49 pm

    With the way the rumors are going, eventually the Mariners are going to get Cliff Lee for nothing…

  168. mremis on December 14th, 2009 8:51 pm

    I find it odd that it has taken this long for it all to get finalized

    I guess you weren’t around for the Bedard deal then? That dragged on for weeks.

    Oh I was definitely around, but the situations are much different. As a Mariner fan during the Bedard deal, I didn’t want it to happen so I didn’t really care how long it took/didn’t take. In this case, I would really like if this deal went through, I can’t have this will it/won’t it tension during exam time, the suspense is killing me. I don’t want to get all hyped up over nothing. (I hope that makes sense)

  169. Kazinski on December 14th, 2009 8:51 pm

    Let fix that poll:

    philly.com reader poll:
    Who would you rather have, Roy Halladay for 4 years or Cliff Lee for 1?
    Roy Halladay 4634 (50.1% 99.1)
    Cliff Lee 4615 (49.9% 0.9)
    Total votes = 9249

  170. onetreehugger on December 14th, 2009 8:53 pm

    I know it’s exciting having one of the best pitchers coming here. I bet he gives up so few runs that we almost score more than he gives up. But maybe someone who understands these things better than I do can explain what’s going on.

    After all Z’s constant talk about restocking the minors and acquiring players that can not only help us now but in the future, too, and how he won’t give up being really good for years in the future to be pretty good for one year now, he gives up several of our top prospects for a one-and-done?

    Even if we get a couple of draft picks out of this that doesn’t mean the guys we draft will work out and ever make the majors.

    So who can explain how this fits in the overall strategy? Most my baseball fandom was with minor leage teams who have whoever the organization sends them, so this is new and a bit confusing to me.

  171. BobbyAyalaFan4Life on December 14th, 2009 8:54 pm

    The latest report from Elliott, who is the Toronto Sun sports writer, says what we’ve been seeing, regarding giving up only Aumont and an additional player coming to Seattle, but with an important kicker…cash.
    So if…

    “There’s no way we’re getting Lee for that unless Jack slipped something into Ruben Amaro’s drink.”

    Dave, in your opinion, would $6M from the M’s to Philly be enough to slip in Ruben’s drink?
    Elliott’s last update includes $6M going to the Phils in cash, but does not indicate who its coming from (but fairly obviously, it’d be us).

  172. mymrbig on December 14th, 2009 8:55 pm

    With the way the rumors are going, eventually the Mariners are going to get Cliff Lee for nothing…

    I agree, but have to include the corollary. One of these two will be the package.
    (1) Aumont for Lee, straight-up; or
    (2) Saunders, Moore, Triunfel, Ramirez, Gillies, and Aumont for Lee.

    Reader poll?

  173. 300Level on December 14th, 2009 8:57 pm

    onetreehugger – who says he can’t sign a long term deal after playing at Safeco and in front of our defense for a year? Who says Jack is giving up “several top prospects”?

  174. Taylor H on December 14th, 2009 9:00 pm

    Uh, neither 1 nor 2. Probably Gillies, Ramirez, and Aumont.

  175. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 9:01 pm

    Kazinski,

    You don’t live in Philly. You’re trying to view this rationally.

    What Lee did in his half season and in the post season embedded him in the history of Philly sports. I saw people crying today on the news that he could be traded for Halladay.

  176. Taylor H on December 14th, 2009 9:01 pm

    I agree, but have to include the corollary. One of these two will be the package.
    (1) Aumont for Lee, straight-up; or
    (2) Saunders, Moore, Triunfel, Ramirez, Gillies, and Aumont for Lee.
    Reader poll?

    Uh, neither….

  177. Alex on December 14th, 2009 9:05 pm

    [Triunfel]

  178. pabco33 on December 14th, 2009 9:08 pm

    ESPN Sportscenter just reported that it is Aumont and Gillies. That is a great deal and Jack Z is the master!

  179. jouish on December 14th, 2009 9:11 pm

    I wish they wouldn’t break news stories like this without getting all the details. The suspense is KILLING me.

  180. luisam911 on December 14th, 2009 9:13 pm

    This is such a steal if its only Gillies and Aumont.
    Maybe, it’s a good thing we didn’t sign Harden. :D
    I also love Bakers latest post,”Panic in Angels Central.” This is in the bag once Roy signs his extension.

  181. sodomojo95 on December 14th, 2009 9:20 pm

    [Triunfel]

  182. PouxBear on December 14th, 2009 9:22 pm

    SportsCenter just reported we gave up Gillies and Aumont…and that’s it. For what it’s worth.

  183. IwearMsHats on December 14th, 2009 9:23 pm

    I don’t think Jack is out to rip another club off. I’m sure he offered something to the phillies that is of equal value to them as cliff lee would be to the m’s. That said, he seems to be a very shrewd dealer and wants the maximum value for the players he’s willing to trade off…except for Yuni.

  184. dawsonct on December 14th, 2009 9:27 pm

    …For a handful of prospects !!?! OH PLEASE BE TRUE!!!

  185. behappy on December 14th, 2009 9:30 pm

    Per SportsCenter it is Amount and Gillies…What a steal. Go Jack Go…

  186. Liam on December 14th, 2009 9:30 pm

    Is it possible to rip off another GM? It’s not like he is some shady used car salesman, this is one GM to another. The deal doesn’t get made unless both sides are happy with the return.

  187. IwearMsHats on December 14th, 2009 9:32 pm

    Is it possible to rip off another GM? It’s not like he is some shady used car salesman, this is one GM to another. The deal doesn’t get made unless both sides are happy with the return.

    Bavasi anyone?

  188. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 9:34 pm

    Liam, were you around at all for the Bavasi years?

  189. behappy on December 14th, 2009 9:35 pm

    So who wants to start up a Jack Zduriencik fan club..wow!

  190. hmbaseball7 on December 14th, 2009 9:36 pm

    Rosenthal says the 6 million will come from the Jays.

  191. Carson on December 14th, 2009 9:37 pm

    With the thought that we’re giving up Gillies and Aumont, Bobby Valentine says we’ve mortgaged the future.

  192. dingbatman on December 14th, 2009 9:39 pm

    One small item in the Bob Elliot tweet has the M’s giving up Aumont+$6 million. Combined with Lee’s salary ($7million?) we’ve used $13 million of our budget. Add that to the Figgins deal and our spending seems to be about done…doesn’t it???

  193. ajvis on December 14th, 2009 9:40 pm

    @BobbyAyalaFan for life.

    The $6M in cash would answer the question why Seattle would get Lee rather than any other MLB club with prospects to trade. It at least narrows it down to clubs with the room to spend $15M ($9M in salary and $6M in trade)

    If that is the case, we are basically getting Lee for 1 year for $15M + giving up Aumount. That makes a little more sense. I think overall, I still like the deal because we are essentially getting a 1/$15M Free agent + we’ll get 2 draft picks after he leaves.

  194. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 9:41 pm

    So somebody made this comment on LL after the Washburn trade, but I think it deserves to be resurrected tonight.

  195. JerBear on December 14th, 2009 9:44 pm

    Elliott’s last update includes $6M going to the Phils in cash, but does not indicate who its coming from (but fairly obviously, it’d be us).

    Actually it’s been fairly obvious (and reported from the beginning) that it’s coming from the Jays.

  196. sodomojo95 on December 14th, 2009 9:45 pm

    $6 million. Combined with Lee’s salary ($7million?)

    Lee earns $9 next year and Bobby Valentine is officially an idiotbox

  197. joshman12 on December 14th, 2009 9:45 pm

    I think Elliot’s Twitter post meant the $6 mil was coming from TOR. But maybe I read it wrong.

  198. Liam on December 14th, 2009 9:47 pm

    That’s what Ken_Rosenthal is saying, the $6 is from Toronto.

  199. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 9:48 pm

    Rosenthal reports it’s Aumont, Gillies, plus a third player. And that the $6M is coming from Toronto.

  200. joshman12 on December 14th, 2009 9:48 pm

    So, does this blow the budget for a possible Beltre return? Figured with the BoSox’s recent FA signings(Lackey/Cameron) they’d be out of the Beltre running so we’d have a chance at him, but maybe not now.

  201. CCW on December 14th, 2009 9:51 pm

    Having just done 15 minutes of internet research, I can report that the current consensus is in fact that the M’s are only giving up Aumont and Gillies, with several references to cash as well. I concur with the folks above… I think that rumor passes the smell test (barely) if the M’s do kick in several million dollars in cash. I would think other teams with money – Angels, Cubs, White Sox, Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox – would have matched the cash and the prospects, but maybe the Phillies didn’t want to deal with teams that they viewed as direct competitors. Maybe they see the chances of Lee hurting them in the World Series or road thereto as a Mariner to be less than with one of those other teams. Maybe I just just wait until tomorrow…

  202. cumminjb on December 14th, 2009 9:51 pm

    After reading and re-reading the ESPN report, it certainly seems that some people think much more highly of Aumont than we do.

  203. CCW on December 14th, 2009 9:52 pm

    And in the time I type the post, things change. Tomorrow…

  204. daqmajor on December 14th, 2009 9:56 pm

    I’m cool with this as long a its just Aumont and Gillies. A third top-10 prospect and your pushing it. Please let Philly be providing the final prospect…

  205. budstyla on December 14th, 2009 10:03 pm

    What about the fact that even if we lose Lee after this year we get not just the picks, but more cash to spend in a much better free agency year? The $ it would have cost to get Lackey gets you much more next off season… Now we get a stud pitcher for 2010, the draft picks, and dollars to spend afte the season… Happy times!!

  206. dawsonct on December 14th, 2009 10:03 pm

    Lee doesn’t give up many HR’s, but is a fly-ball pitcher, so if we get that speedy glove in LF, we could be looking at a lot of quick, low pitch innings.

    Ohhh BABY, I hope this works! It is SO cool to have competent leadership running a team I root for!

  207. sodomojo95 on December 14th, 2009 10:05 pm

    With the BoSox recent FA signings(Lackey/Cameron) they’d be out of the Beltre running

    I think you’re forgetting that the Red Sox don’t have a budget. The Red Sox are no longer the lovable losers that get out spent by the Yankees

    So far Red Sox have spent $85 on Lackey, $15M on Cameron, and you forgot Chapman at another $15M. Meanwhile, the Red Sox are
    on the verge of trading Lowell and $9M to Texas

    Anyway, as for Cliff Lee I guess the Phillies were thinking Halladay for 4 years Aumont > Lee for 1 year Drabek

  208. snowsk8 on December 14th, 2009 10:08 pm

    It’s nice… with Z doing the dealing I get excited. Not scared like with Bavasi!

    Any chance we unloaded Silva in the deal? Yeah… probably not!

  209. Chris Miller on December 14th, 2009 10:09 pm

    We’ve seen the lefty/flyball/strikeout thing here work. Except he’s good at the strikeout part. Good pick for the park again. Love it!

    This is the kind of move I’ve dreamed of for years! We never pulled this crap off. Three way trades for star players. Can’t deny Z has some serious balls.

    I’m guessing Bavasi would have spent silly money for Lackey, or given Washburn (or some other mediocre starter) a repeat on Washburns last contract instead.

  210. hub on December 14th, 2009 10:12 pm

    so if we get that speedy glove in LF, we could be looking at a lot of quick, low pitch innings.

    I like Gardner.

  211. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 10:18 pm

    Before the day started I would have thought a Lee speculation to be amoung the most idiotic/unrealistic ideas.

    What’s stupid to consider now?

  212. Jeffrey D on December 14th, 2009 10:19 pm

    I can’t even spell sight words at this hour.

  213. Typical Idiot Fan on December 14th, 2009 10:22 pm

    I like Gardner.

    I like him right where he is.

  214. Chris Miller on December 14th, 2009 10:23 pm

    What’s hilarious is this looked like Rosenthal making crap up. He even worded it like it was some gut hunch, which it seems that some writers do when they’re making crap up. I’m guessing he knew more than having a hunch.

  215. joser on December 14th, 2009 10:23 pm

    With the thought that we’re giving up Gillies and Aumont, Bobby Valentine says we’ve mortgaged the future.

    I wonder if Bobby Valentine can name any other M’s prospects off the top of his head. Before today, I wonder if he could’ve named Gillies or Aumont.

  216. mw3 on December 14th, 2009 10:26 pm

    All hail TRADE CZAR Z!

  217. sodomojo95 on December 14th, 2009 10:29 pm

    I feel like Toronto is getting jipped. As it stands, the trade isn’t a three way deal, but two separate trades.

    And for Roy Halladay (~Felix) $6M the Blue Jays get Drabek, Taylor, and D’Arnaud?

  218. henryv on December 14th, 2009 10:32 pm

    Aumont is a relief pitcher… A freaking relief pitcher… And he’s a prospect.

    What is the actual value in prospect relief pitchers? About the same as Billy Baldwin.

  219. Catherwood on December 14th, 2009 10:44 pm

    Assuming the deal – whatever the heck the deal is – goes through, then we can probably only count on Lee for one year, though, right?

    Because I can’t figure out how we can afford both Cliff Lee and King Felix with extensions (contract, that is, not hair, although Felix might look pretty boss with those). My initial thought is that Felix is the much more valuable guy to sign long-term, but is that true? Or would there be some scenario where the team could somehow cobble together the clams to sign ‘em both?

  220. CCW on December 14th, 2009 10:50 pm

    I doubt they have the money to sign both guys to long-term deals, but it sure helps to have two options. Helps with leverage and helps with flexibility.

  221. Chris Miller on December 14th, 2009 10:58 pm

    I’d sooner get Lee at 1 year at $8 mil than $20 mil at a bazillion years or whatever it’d take to extend him.

  222. huhwhat on December 14th, 2009 11:01 pm

    So the third player seems to be JC Ramirez? I guess if that’s all the M’s are giving up in 2 A-Ball Prospects and a young RH Relief Pitcher for 1 year of Cliff Lee and at least Type A comp at the end of it, I can’t say I have any issue with the deal.

  223. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 11:01 pm

    Churchill says it’s Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez. Un-freakin-believable.

  224. Typical Idiot Fan on December 14th, 2009 11:12 pm

    And for Roy Halladay (~Felix) $6M the Blue Jays get Drabek, Taylor, and D’Arnaud?

    That’s three good -> great prospects. Drabek projects well. Taylor hits for average, power, and plays good defense. d’Arnaud should be an offensive catcher.

    I’m not sure we have prospects that really compare.

  225. Paul L on December 14th, 2009 11:15 pm

    [politics]

  226. Briggstar on December 14th, 2009 11:29 pm

    If you’re like me, salivating, panting, red-faced after plowing through Dave’s post and all 225 comments (so far), how does this number grab you:

    Cliff Lee is 29-3 lifetime versus the AL West.

    29 AND 3 = a .906 winning percentage. Granted, that includes a handful of games against our beloved M’s. Hmm, taking that into account, maybe it’s even sweeter. Oh, and as mentioned earlier, 5-1 at Safeco.

    After lurking on this site for about 3 years, today I had to bite the bullet and join the fray. I’m officially joining the Z bandwagon too.

    ps: big shouts to my buddy, Dave C.!)

  227. joshman12 on December 14th, 2009 11:39 pm

    Just read an article by Jack Daniels(real name?) on Bleacher Report. He wrote that getting both Figgy and Lee will cost M’s $17 mil leaving $33 mil to spend this offseason. Is that even possible??? That’d get you Jason Bay and go a long way to getting maybe Beltre back in M’s blue. That’s like fantasy/playstation baseball! The article also mentions Morrow going in the trade for Lee, but I haven’t seen his name anywhere else so it’s probably not all correct, but it gets me really excited as a M’s fan.

  228. Mike Snow on December 14th, 2009 11:41 pm

    Cliff Lee is 29-3 lifetime versus the AL West.

    Actually, the correct win-loss record is 23-9, of which 9-1 is against the Mariners.

  229. 3cardmonty on December 14th, 2009 11:47 pm

    Briggs, you’ve been lurking for three years but you still think Lee’s win% against the AL West is a meaningful statistic? Sorry, don’t want to come off as harsh, but, yeah. I remember Bavasi using that statistic as a justification for signing Silva.

    Josh, I’m pretty sure those figures are wrong. Dave addressed this in the comments recently because some writers have been tossing around the $50M figure. He showed how he arrived at his figures and explained the mistakes involved in the $50M number. I don’t remember the specifics but I definitely trust Dave’s math more than Jack Daniels/Bleacher Report’s.

  230. Briggstar on December 15th, 2009 12:15 am

    Corrections noted Mike. (My alibi? Mild dyslexia and restrained euphoria plus 10 Firefox tabs of statistics and hot stove reports make for a toxic brew.)

    3card: Silva is to Lee what Bavasi is to Jackie Z. I stand by my excitement, tempered only by having muddled the numbers a bit in my delirium.

    I’ll chalk it up to a friendly rookie hazing by the both of you. I look forward to a spirited tickle after the game from Griff too.

  231. joser on December 15th, 2009 12:23 am

    Yeah, that $50M is just lazy math and a sign of a writer you shouldn’t pay much attention to (if it sounds like “fantasy/playstation baseball!” it probably is). You can arrive at a number like that by taking the ’09 payroll, just subtracting the players who are now off the books (Beltre, Johjima, etc), and hey, look: $50M. That completely overlooks the increases many players will see in arbitration (which in the case of Felix is quite a bit) and makes some other dubious assumptions as well. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation trying to estimate arbitration awards and arrived at just under $30M left over to play with assuming the payroll held constant, and that was before the Figgins deal. It’s possible the owners have loosened the strings a little, but attendance was down this year and a lot of butts moved to cheaper seats and bought less concessions, so revenue was down even more. I wouldn’t be surprised if “flat” is a generous guess as to this year’s payroll relative to last year’s.

  232. Briggstar on December 15th, 2009 12:44 am

    In no particular order (with bold denoting studs):

    Sabathia, Burnett & Pettitte…
    Beckett, Lackey & Lester
    Halladay, Hamels & Happ…
    King Felix, Cliff Lee & RR Smith…
    Lincecum, Cain & Zito…
    Webb, Haren & Jackson…

    Unless I’m forgetting a worthy staff somewhere, this deal – in my murky head at least – vaults us into the upper echelon of baseball, does it not?

  233. Briggstar on December 15th, 2009 12:46 am

    woops*Halladay, Hamels & Happ

  234. Bodhizefa on December 15th, 2009 6:59 am

    I am in utter shock. I figured the best we could come up with for our 2010 rotation would be either Aaron Harang or Derek Lowe. Now it looks like those are the pitchers that the Angels are going to have to take a long hard look at instead. There were a lot of smug Angels fans saying we were foolish to think we could compete with them next year regardless of their team’s losses (this was in many a Figgins thread across the internet). I don’t think those fans are going to be heard from for a while now if the Cliff Lee trade goes through.

    My faith wavered when Zduriencik didn’t sign Rich Harden. And I now readily admit that was a mistake. Zduriencik is the f’ing man.

  235. universalguru on December 15th, 2009 7:10 am

    Is it possible that Lee accepts a one-year deal from Seattle at the end of the year so he can enter a less pitching rich free agency (Vasquez, Webb, Beckett, etc.)? That is assuming we sign Felix of course. Or maybe I don’t the market that year yet?

  236. Briggstar on December 15th, 2009 9:55 am

    This speculative thread has been trumped by the more ‘official’ one this morning, but I’d be remiss not to also include Carpenter, Wainwright and Piniero in the elite staffs list.

    While our numbers 3-5 come with question marks, a Hernandez-Lee punch at the top may edge any other in baseball, especially in Safeco Field.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.