Roster Almost Set

Dave · December 18, 2009 at 1:05 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Today’s dual moves of trading for Milton Bradley and re-signing Ryan Langerhans to a major league contract seem to go together. And, they would apparently point to Michael Saunders probably beginning 2010 somewhere besides Seattle – likely Tacoma, but Jack is known to be pursuing a trade involving some big pieces, and this could be the precursor to that kind of deal. Here’s why this leads me down that path.

The M’s did not acquire Bradley to just DH. He’s an average-ish defensive left fielder, which is part of the appeal to the team. They had no interest in another DH-only type of player with Griffey on the roster. And, whether he deserves it or not, Griffey is going to play more than once a month – I’ve got him penciled in for 200 to 250 at-bats at DH, which is basically playing every couple of days or so. By acquiring a guy who can play both LF and DH, the M’s have essentially created a rotating LF/DH platoon between Bradley, Griffey, Langerhans, and Hall.

On some days, we’ll see Bradley in left and Griffey at DH. On other days, it will be Langerhans in left and Bradley at DH. Against a LH pitcher, I think you’ll see Hall in left and Bradley at DH on most days. None of the four will be counted on to be full-time players, which they are not capable of being, but they will be allowed to share two jobs when the match-ups are in their favor.

Saunders just isn’t as good of a fit for this kind of role as Langerhans is. He needs to play regularly, not spend half his days sitting on the bench and coming in a as a late inning defensive replacement. The portion of the LF job share that he would be up for is probably only in line for 250-300 at-bats, which is not enough for a kid who still has stuff to work on. But it’s perfect for Langerhans, who is a quality role player but not good enough to play everyday.

Given Bradley’s role here, I think Saunders probably begins the year in Tacoma. And that’s fine – Bradley is a good enough player where that kind of move makes sense, given the team’s go-for-it approach to 2010. Whether he ends up joining the team at some point in the summer or gets shipped off at the deadline as a piece in a blockbuster trade remains to be seen. The nice thing about today’s moves is that it gives the Mariners the option to do either.

Comments

112 Responses to “Roster Almost Set”

  1. chadam on December 18th, 2009 1:11 pm

    but Jack is known to be pursuing a trade involving some big pieces, and this could be the precursor to that kind of deal

    Can you expand on this, Dave? Not trying to jump to conclusions, but were you possibly referring to Adrian Gonzalez?

  2. thehemogoblin on December 18th, 2009 1:13 pm

    Chadam, over the last two weeks, haven’t we been shown that you can’t know what Jack Zduriencik is going to do until the other team has agreed to it? For all we know, he could be trying for Gonzalez, Fielder, Pujols, Mauer, or Babe Ruth.

  3. Mr. Egaas on December 18th, 2009 1:14 pm

    So… you add a 1B via trade dangling Morrow or bring in a short-term high-upside free agent, maybe a lefty for the pen, and let the back of end of the rotation figure itself out?

    When do pitchers and catchers report?

  4. behappy on December 18th, 2009 1:16 pm

    Love the way this roster is coming together!! The only thing we are missing is a legit 1B.

    I don’t understand how some people are bitching about this trade. We got rid of a replacement level player. For Milton Bradley are you kidding me. This is like signing him on the open market for 2/9. Talk about finding value.

    Go Jack Go!!

    Merry Christmas All!

  5. Toddk on December 18th, 2009 1:17 pm

    Can you expand on this, Dave? Not trying to jump to conclusions, but were you possibly referring to Adrian Gonzalez?

    Let’s not put the cart in front of the horse. The M’s FO is very good at keeping things quiet until they come to fruition. So any name dropping now is pointless speculation.

  6. gwangung on December 18th, 2009 1:19 pm

    Options, options, options. Zduriencik is all about keeping all his options on the table. Should call him the Triple Option GM…

  7. moyerLIVES on December 18th, 2009 1:25 pm

    Can you expand on this, Dave? Not trying to jump to conclusions, but were you possibly referring to Adrian Gonzalez?

    possibly also referring to Mat Gamel stuff floating around MLBTR right now.

  8. redgum on December 18th, 2009 1:27 pm

    This is actually like releasing Silva, and signing MB for 2/6. The other 3 was for salary differential – Silva’s $24m was already committed.

  9. eponymous coward on December 18th, 2009 1:27 pm

    So, this leaves 1B and maybe some pitching depth left, right?

  10. Frozenropers on December 18th, 2009 1:29 pm

    This trade really does set up the roster nicely for a trade for a first baseman.

    Get’r done, Z!

    Happy Dance time!

  11. Frozenropers on December 18th, 2009 1:30 pm

    I’m going to have to come up with some new “moves” to incoorporate into my happy dance.
    It has gotten a little “routine” lately.

  12. heychuck01 on December 18th, 2009 1:31 pm

    This is like signing him on the open market for 2/9. Talk about finding value.

    Since the difference in salary for the 2 players over 2 years was 4mil, it is actually like signing him for 2 years at 3mil per year. It makes it seem a little better.

    I don’t agree that this is the plan. But who knows? I think Langerhans was brought back to compete with Hall for the last bench spot.

  13. bookbook on December 18th, 2009 1:38 pm

    The two “holes” that I see are “1B” and “#4 Hitter”.

    That’s nice strategic planning, since the two roles so often are embodied in the same person.

    I’m a bigger fan of Saunders than Hall (and was hoping to see Tui), but still am impressed.

  14. behappy on December 18th, 2009 1:39 pm

    Bradley can easily add 3-6wins over the next two years. Versus 0 wins that Silva would bring or not bring.

    I think that is worth the risk.

    This is just… WOW.

  15. BrianV on December 18th, 2009 1:42 pm

    If the team had released Silva and then signed a hypothetical free agent Milton Bradley for 2/6, I think we’d all jump for joy. A worthy gamble indeed.

  16. Mekias on December 18th, 2009 1:42 pm

    I don’t think we’re planning to send Saunders to AAA at this point. But Langerhans and Bradley give us the option. A lot will depend on how Saunders is swinging the bat in spring training. If he looks good, he’ll probably get the LF gig while sitting against most lefties. Bradley will DH against righties and him and Hall will both play against most lefties.

    Unless it’s for someone like Adrian Gonzalez or Prince Fielder, I don’t want to deal Morrow or Saunders. I’d prefer Morrow in the rotation and giving Saunders a chance to make the club. I’m fine with Branyan at 1B and hitting #4.

  17. horatiosanzserif on December 18th, 2009 1:46 pm

    RIP, Jason Bay rumors.

  18. Frozenropers on December 18th, 2009 1:47 pm

    Since the difference in salary for the 2 players over 2 years was 4mil, it is actually like signing him for 2 years at 3mil per year. It makes it seem a little better.

    The difference in the salaries isn’t what he was refering to. Silva’s salary was already a sunken cost. We sent $9 million in cash to the Cubs in the deal. Thus if you assume Silva’s salary was already a sunken cost and was providing no value you essentially just signed Bradley for 2 years and the $9 million in cash we just sent to the Cubs in the deal. Hence the……

    This is like signing him on the open market for 2/9. Talk about finding value.

    Just clarifying.

  19. hub on December 18th, 2009 1:48 pm

    When Jack is our GM, rosterbating is actually ‘fun’!

  20. BrianV on December 18th, 2009 1:50 pm

    RIP, Jason Bay rumors.

    Thank Jebus.

  21. The Ancient Mariner on December 18th, 2009 1:53 pm

    One question: does anyone know how Bradley and Lee got along when they were both in Cleveland?

  22. Mekias on December 18th, 2009 1:53 pm

    The difference in the salaries isn’t what he was refering to. Silva’s salary was already a sunken cost. We sent $9 million in cash to the Cubs in the deal. Thus if you assume Silva’s salary was already a sunken cost and was providing no value you essentially just signed Bradley for 2 years and the $9 million in cash we just sent to the Cubs in the deal.

    If Silva’s salary is a sunken cost then 3 of the 9 million we sent to Chicago was sunken cost too. No matter how you slice it, we’re paying 6 million for 2 years of Bradley.

  23. BrianV on December 18th, 2009 1:53 pm

    The difference in the salaries isn’t what he was refering to. Silva’s salary was already a sunken cost. We sent $9 million in cash to the Cubs in the deal. Thus if you assume Silva’s salary was already a sunken cost and was providing no value you essentially just signed Bradley for 2 years and the $9 million in cash we just sent to the Cubs in the deal. Hence the……

    Except that Bradley is making 3 million less than Silva, so that cuts that 2/9 down to 2/6, doesn’t it?

    I may be missing something.

  24. hub on December 18th, 2009 1:54 pm

    Aye, wasn’t 3-4mil in ‘sunken’ cost raised from the bottom of the ocean due to saved salary costs?

  25. The Ancient Mariner on December 18th, 2009 1:55 pm

    Frozenropers: we’re paying $21 million + $9 million – $25 million for Bradley, which = $5 million.

  26. Route 21 on December 18th, 2009 1:55 pm

    I’m fine with Branyan at 1B and hitting #4.

    How worried are all of you about Branyan’s health, and, regression to his career mean?

    I really like the guy, and I still am concerned.

    Who else besides him would you all like to see? Or is the solution as straightforward and boringly obvious as resign Beltre, Chone -> 2B, Lopez -> 1B?

    Presumably, Lopez hurts less in the field at 1B. But his offense is only meh for 1B/DH types, and his being cheap is less important, now that we’re in spend-to-win-in-2010 mode.

  27. John S. on December 18th, 2009 1:55 pm

    I still think Branyan would be fine at 1B. That’s about the only piece missing at this point, and why get involved in an expensive trade for Gonzalez or Fielder when you can likely get good production from Russell at a fraction of the price? Let him have his two-year deal. It’s not that big of a commitment.

    Maybe you see if the Braves will take Morrow and Lopez for Lowe to slot in at No. 3, and then sign Felipe Lopez. But even that might be overkill.

    Luke Scott is another interesting name for LF, but then you risk cutting into Bradley’s PT, and he’s going to have to be handled with kid gloves as it is.

  28. PouxBear on December 18th, 2009 1:58 pm

    I’ll take Branyan at 1/$4 m and perhaps Sheets/Bedard at this point and be happy. AGon or Fielder might just make my head explode.

    So just out of curiousity, do you guys have to lighten up on the implausability of trades now that GMZ has pulled two rabbits out of his arse?

    Silva for Bradley might have been OK, but Aumont, Tillies, and Rameriez for Lee would have been mocked incessantly.

  29. TomTuttle on December 18th, 2009 1:58 pm

    I like this trade if only because I don’t think Z would make this trade if he thought Bradley would be such a trainwreck here.

    Bradley worked out fine in Texas two years ago, so he could potentially work out fine here.

  30. Mekias on December 18th, 2009 2:02 pm

    Branyan has always been a big HR per AB guy so 31 homers didn’t surprise me too much. I am worried about his back and he’s a definite risk health-wise but who else is out there that is within our budget AND wants to come here. Hopefully we sign him for one year only and that will limit the risks somewhat.

  31. Leroy Stanton on December 18th, 2009 2:09 pm

    Branyan is a classic feast-or-famine type hitter. And the more he plays the more likely famine will ensue. He won’t be back.

  32. mattlock on December 18th, 2009 2:09 pm

    I’m not sure if I like Branyan as a starting 1B, given his back problems. The potential for another post-All Star tumble seems rather significant. The fact that he’s never really played a full season, and his first real chance ended the way that last year did… DH might be the best option for him. Of course, that’s purely speculation.

  33. Dave.S on December 18th, 2009 2:10 pm

    Guys, I hate to be negative with my first comment ever, but Branyan’s gone. I hope Lopez is willing to play first because I think he will do it well, but I don’t think Hall is an adquate every day 2b.

  34. dingbatman on December 18th, 2009 2:13 pm

    I am worried about his back and he’s a definite risk health-wise but who else is out there that is within our budget AND wants to come here.

    As someone said in a comment upthread what this is boiled down to is a 1st base/#4 hitter who will be greatly responsible for the offensive production of the team. I don’t see Jack Z taking another risk at this position since he is already presumably taking risks at catcher and now LF/DH. I would look for him to make a trade for an established/productive player at this spot.

  35. joser on December 18th, 2009 2:14 pm

    Wak & the other coaches kept Saunders in the batting cages last year rather than on the field when he was with the team, so I expect they’d rather see him in Tacoma getting regular ABs and working on his hitting while he waits for a call up. And given the chances that Hall might break down and/or Bradley might get suspended or otherwise be unavailable to play, he probably won’t be waiting until September.

    Assuming he doesn’t get traded, of course. Or show up in Spring Training tearing the cover off the ball to all fields.

  36. amnizu on December 18th, 2009 2:14 pm

    The two “holes” that I see are “1B” and “#4 Hitter”.

    Yep, exactly. For this reason I don’t see the M’s signing Beltre and doing a shift around on the infield because Beltre does not provide that traditional cleanup hitter presence. Only way the signing of Beltre makes sense is if Lopez is part of a blockbuster trade for a big name 1b, leaving 2b open to be played by Figgins.

    Regardless, I still think Beltre goes to Boston as long as Lowell goes to Texas, the M’s won’t be able to beat Boston’s offer especially after committing another 3 Mil to the Cubs in compensation for Bradley next season. It’s looking more like a short term deal for 1b next season. Which is fine, with Bradley and say Branyan at 1b that gets the M’s pretty darn close to a 90 win team on paper.

  37. John S. on December 18th, 2009 2:16 pm

    We’ve given up very little in the way of prospects so far, so I have no problem just adding a 1B, whomever that might be, and calling it good. Luke Scott did play 10 games for the O’s there last season, so he might even be an option. I don’t see how he could be any more of a liability than Branyan defensively.

    As we travel through 2010, we can always trade for a No. 3 if Morrow and/or RRS aren’t performing up to snuff. If Bradley starts acting up you just cut him (saving about $3 million over dead weight Silva), and trade for a left fielder (Luke Scott) or bring up Saunders.

  38. Bonegar Grifftinez on December 18th, 2009 2:17 pm

    I was super excited as a Cub fan for about ten seconds when I heard Bradley was gone. Then depressed to find out he went to the only other team I follow and want to win. The M’s. Thought I was rid of this guy and he went to the only other place where he can still annoy me.

    I wanted to respond to some of the comments about Bradley and Cubs fans that have been posted on this site. First let me say that racism is unacceptable as is anything a fan yells that degrades or demeans any player. Having said that I will say that Cubs fans are passionate and sometimes you have to put up with them yelling stupid stuff. Bradley should have done his research and known what Cubs fans were like and either not signed that deal or put up with the fans. There is no excuse for being a clubhouse cancer and for treating good baseball people with disrespect. As for the rumors that Bradley wouldn’t respond to Lou calling him a POS I can tell you that Bradley disrespected Lou with his actions on and off field and some of his comments throughout the course of the year. So yeah, good on him for not getting into it with Lou but he deserved what he got in that exchange and his behavior throughout the season was deplorable.

    I don’t like this deal from Seattle’s perspective unless they think they can flip him to Texas or Tampa in some sort of deal that the Cubs couldn’t pull off. The Cubs do seem to lack a lot of top prospects right now.

  39. Leroy Stanton on December 18th, 2009 2:18 pm

    I think the M’s are just about done. I think they’ll go with LaRoche at 1B and add a situational lefty, probably someone like Sherrill. Griffey will get his time as DH against RHs, but you’ll also see Langerhans, Hannahan, and Hall get playing time by resting the regulars at DH. Hall will effectively be the RH DH.

    C Moore
    1B LaRoche
    2B Lopez
    3B Figgins
    SS Wilson
    LF Bradley
    CF Gutierrez
    RF Ichiro
    DH Griffey

    OF Langerhans
    IF/OF Hall
    IF Hannahan
    C Johnson

    SP Felix
    SP Lee
    SP Morrow
    SP RRS
    SP Snell

    CL Aarsdma
    RH Lowe
    RH Kelley
    RH White
    RH Texeira
    LH Sherrill
    LH French

  40. tdillon on December 18th, 2009 2:20 pm

    The two “holes” that I see are “1B” and “#4 Hitter”.

    #4 Hitter? There is no need to fill a slot. That’s exactly the wrong approach to building a roster. Find the player that fits your position whose overall WAR will make you win. They don’t have to be a high-K/high-HR hitter to play well. Check overall value of a player, then arrange your batting order accordingly.

  41. Mariners2620 on December 18th, 2009 2:23 pm

    Boston can’t afford to give Beltre the 13-15 million Boras has said they are looking for after the Lackey/Cameron signings

  42. adcoleman on December 18th, 2009 2:28 pm

    Bradley- $23M left on his contract
    Silva- $25M left on his contract: ($11.5M each year in 2010 & 2011, $2M buyout in 2012).

    So doing the math: $25M in sunk cost for Silva’s contract subtracted from the $23M for Bradley + $9M cash to Chicago = $7M for 2 years of Bradley.
    ($23M + $9M) – $25M = $7M.

    I think any M’s fan would take a player of Bradley’s caliber for 2 years, $7M total.

  43. Frozenropers on December 18th, 2009 2:29 pm

    Except that Bradley is making 3 million less than Silva, so that cuts that 2/9 down to 2/6, doesn’t it?

    I may be missing something.

    Nope, you are right. My mistake. It is 2/$6MM.

  44. Frozenropers on December 18th, 2009 2:31 pm

    Frozenropers: we’re paying $21 million + $9 million – $25 million for Bradley, which = $5 million.

    You are right. Was it $25MM or $24MM for Silva remaining? Above someone said the difference was $3MM?

    If the difference was $4MM then it is 2/$5MM if it was $3MM then it is 2/$6MM.

    Either way……good deals.

  45. Rod O. on December 18th, 2009 2:33 pm

    One issue I have with Branyan that no one brings up while they only seem to focus on his back, is last year he didn’t want to hit 3 or 4. They had to keep moveing him to 2 or 5 since he wasn’t comfortable in the 3 or 4 spots. I think a 1B that is more willing to hit in the middle is more useful then one that seemed afraid to last year.

  46. amnizu on December 18th, 2009 2:33 pm

    Boston can’t afford to give Beltre the 13-15 million Boras has said they are looking for after the Lackey/Cameron signings

    Sure they can if they move most of Lowell’s 12 Mil to Texas. According to Cot’s Boston is 122 Mil committed for 2010 with Lackey and Cameron.

  47. Tboneman on December 18th, 2009 2:34 pm

    We still need to establish a #3 starter who can eat up 200+ innings, and win at least half the time (.500 pitcher). If we don’t have that, our bullpen will get over worked, and even 3-4 run leads won’t be safe in the 7th and 8th innings.
    Maybe we will get this from Ryan Roland-Smith, Morrow (if we are extremely lucky), or from a trade (most likely).
    Either way, in my opinion, that is the most important “next piece”.

  48. Mekias on December 18th, 2009 2:35 pm

    Actually, it’s 25 million for Silva and 22 million for Bradley. Bradley is making 9 million this year and 13 million next year. So the breakdown per year is:

    2010: 3.5 more
    2011: 4.5 more
    2012: (2.0) less
    ===
    6.0 million difference

  49. shortbus on December 18th, 2009 2:36 pm

    If Z has any more trades up his sleeve I hope it’s for 1B. Looking over the 1B FA options at this point, I think I’d rather just see Carp out there for league minimum. The remaining options now that Johnson is gone just aren’t a sure bet to be any better.

    Unless they think Branyan’s back won’t hurt his swing. As someone with a similar injury I have a hard time believing it won’t.

  50. Tboneman on December 18th, 2009 2:38 pm

    Not to say another big bat wouldn’t help. But on balance, I strongly believe having a strong #3 starter would give us the most wins for the buck at this point. The ripple effect on our bullpen (not needing pitch as much) would equate to more than a few wins.

  51. amnizu on December 18th, 2009 2:40 pm

    Boston can’t afford to give Beltre the 13-15 million Boras has said they are looking for after the Lackey/Cameron signings

    Sure they can if they move most of Lowell’s 12 Mil to Texas. According to Cot’s Boston is 122 Mil committed for 2010 with Lackey and Cameron.

    So, after re-checking the rumor mill looks like Lowell + 9 mil to Texas. That brings Boston’s down to 118 to 119 committed. Figure Beltre at 13 mil puts Boston at 132 and gives them wiggle room under their rumored 140 mil ceiling.

  52. Frozenropers on December 18th, 2009 2:41 pm

    6.0 million difference

    Thanks! That settles that question.

    Now for the next deal. We need a 1st bagger.

  53. Alex on December 18th, 2009 2:42 pm

    When some team signs Branyan next week, I will expect to see Prinze Fielder or Adrian Gonzalez in a Mariner unifor the next day. :)

  54. Mariners2620 on December 18th, 2009 2:43 pm

    The deal for Lowell says that the Sox will be sending 9 million to the Rangers as well.

  55. Snake Hippo on December 18th, 2009 2:46 pm

    For all we know, he could be trying for Gonzalez, Fielder, Pujols, Mauer, or Babe Ruth.

    We already have Babe Ruth.

  56. just a fan on December 18th, 2009 2:49 pm

    Does anybody here think that signing Griffey for $2.2-3.9 million is worth it if it means the team is more confident about bringing in good ballplayers like Milton Bradley on the cheap?

    We’ll see how long it lasts, but at least for now, Milton is stoked to be playing with Griffey. And if Milton’s happy, we’ll be happy. And if Milton’s not happy . . . .

  57. dingbatman on December 18th, 2009 2:53 pm

    I don’t think we can consider Branyan as “low risk” anymore. Last year there were very little expectations on how the team would do so he proved to be a nice pick up. Expectations are higher this year and Jack is already rolling the dice on LF/DH and catcher. Even on a 1 year contract Branyan would be very risky.

  58. SeasonTix on December 18th, 2009 2:58 pm

    I remember Jose Guillen came to the M’s with a reputation as a guy with a bad attitude. He worked out OK.

    Wak is the perfect manager for a guy like Bradley, he relates to each player individually and seems to know what buttons to push.

  59. dawgnmemphis on December 18th, 2009 2:59 pm

    Does anybody here think that signing Griffey for $2.2-3.9 million is worth it if it means the team is more confident about bringing in good ballplayers like Milton Bradley on the cheap?

    I think the money is easily justifiable. It’s the roster spot that’s a lot harder to swallow.

    I’d have no problem paying Griffey $4 million to be the world’s most touchy bench coach.

  60. ck on December 18th, 2009 3:05 pm

    re : Roster
    Swing from the Heels; Sexson, Jojima, Beltre gone, will Lopez be with the team on Opening Day ?

  61. Pat Dillon on December 18th, 2009 3:06 pm

    I’m looking forward to reading the Mariners’ chapter in the 2010 BP.

  62. ck on December 18th, 2009 3:07 pm

    I forgot Yuni., Thank you, Jack Z.

  63. Anthony on December 18th, 2009 3:11 pm


    The money, which will be paid out over two years, is to offset the difference in salaries (Bradley is owed $21 million over the next two years and Silva is due $25 million over the same period) and to make up for Silva’s poor performance.

    $6 million sent, $4 million difference in salaries, so Silva’s poor performance is only worth -$2 million?

    According to fangraphs, he was worth -0.1 WAR and -$400,000 over 28.2 IP. IF he was to perform at that level over 200 innings, he would be worth -$2.8 million/season and -.7 WAR. Not counting his last two years (abborations to either extreme), Bradley has historically been worth $10 million and 3 WAR.

    If we get HALF that over the next two years, that’s a net gain of 3.7 WAR and $15.6 million of value for $6 million (or $9, depending on where you’re reading) = $1.6 million/win.

    Saunders is projected at 1.7 WAR and $7.6 million in value next year, or roughly equal to what Bradley’s half of average projections would bring. As far as on-field projections are concerned, this is a very high-value move. If you end up cutting him because he can’t behave himself, you’re essentially paying $6 to improve your club by replacing Silva with (at least) a replacement level pitcher and keeping similar production in LF.

    In a nutshell, this is a fine example of a low risk, high reward deal.

  64. just a fan on December 18th, 2009 3:24 pm

    It’s the roster spot [Griffey] that’s a lot harder to swallow.

    Yeah, but maybe Jack just wanted the challenge of building a 24-man team.

  65. KaminaAyato on December 18th, 2009 3:32 pm

    We still need to establish a #3 starter who can eat up 200+ innings, and win at least half the time (.500 pitcher).

    *ahem* Rowland-Smith anyone? Why does he keep getting overlooked? He may not get 200, but he certainly can get 180.

  66. nirvana98116 on December 18th, 2009 3:42 pm

    Everyone thinks Brayan is still a good fit for 1B but he has back issues and might not last the entire year. Why not look into Carlos Delgado on a one year prove your worth time deal? Delgado is a perfect fit for Safeco’s demensions and he is still a solid defender. We aren’t getting any older but for one year this might be a good move. 25+ homers and a solid guy in the club house, I could live with that.

    I’m a college student in Oregon from Seattle and I haven’t seen this many people from another state this excited for the Mariners. People are talking it up and are excited for more moves to come. Go Jack Z! JZ might be more popular in Seattle then the team itself right now. I see JZ winning executive of the year. Can’t wait to come home for the season…

  67. Jarvis on December 18th, 2009 3:42 pm

    I don’t agree that the Ms are done. They still have salary room and, if necessary, plenty of prospects to swing a deal for a top first baseman. As excited as I am about this trade, Bradley is not someone you can absolutely count upon to provide the run production we’re looking for. They still lack an acceptable clean-up hitter, and if they’re really going for it, they need to go all in. If that means dangling Morrow, and/or Triufel (sp?), and/or even Ackley to bring in an AGonz or Fielder calibre player, then they should pull the trigger.

    On a related note, everyone here is assuming the Ms will continue with a 12-man pitching staff, with 13 position players. I disagree. With both Felix and Lee at the top of their rotation, the Ms can afford to go with only 11 pitchers if they need to. Even if our bullpen gets worn down after our 3, 4, & 5 starters get shelled, our two aces can usually be counted on to go deep into their games, thereby giving the relievers a needed break.

  68. diderot on December 18th, 2009 3:43 pm

    his behavior throughout the season was deplorable.

    For those of us who didn’t watch the Cubs every day, can you elaborate? Give us the top five offenses.

    The reason I ask is that it’s really frustrating trying to find a cohesive list of career offenses that indicate he’s a ‘cancer’. All I find are people saying ‘he was good for me’.

    After playing for seven different teams, you’d think someone had written the definitive story on him. There are a couple hundred players who shared a clubhouse with him. Certainly some reporter has gone to an array of them and asked, ‘what was good about him…what was bad about him…and what do you think personally–would you want him on your team again?’

    I just think we’d all be better off with some evidence…even if it’s anonymous.

  69. amnizu on December 18th, 2009 3:45 pm

    $6 million sent, $4 million difference in salaries, so Silva’s poor performance is only worth -$2 million?

    If I remember correctly Silva has a mutual option for 2012 that includes a 2M buyout, so this could explain the extra 2M. Only makes this deal better for the M’s IMHO. Cubs stand to make a little interest off the 2010 payment.

  70. dchappelle on December 18th, 2009 4:32 pm

    I still Saunders as one of Zduriencik’s mistakes. Did he really go from being “too good to keep in AAA anymore” to someone we have to find a replacement for just on 1 month of bad regular MLB play?

    Don’t we have to let the kids play at some point?

  71. Alex on December 18th, 2009 4:34 pm

    Does anybody here think that signing Griffey for $2.2-3.9 million is worth it if it means the team is more confident about bringing in good ballplayers like Milton Bradley on the cheap?

    Yes. If we have to pay Griffey $3M so that we can pay Bradley $6 to have him be productive and keep him in line, its totally worth it.

    Also, signing Griffey is no longer costing us Langerhans! Because we dumped Silva, that freed up the needed roster spot.

  72. Bonegar Grifftinez on December 18th, 2009 4:36 pm

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/cubs/2009/09/memory_lane_with_cubs_milton_b.html

    These are some of his quotes. It’s hard to come up with a list and I couldn’t find one. But I heard a lot of rumors throughout the season. There were a few times when he refused to be available to pinch hit. People always claim Bradley is a perfectionist and hates losing and all that. If you are a competitor you would play if healthy and even if you weren’t healthy I would think you would try to play if they needed you. Plus blaming external sources for his struggles doesn’t sit well with me either.

  73. nathaniel dawson on December 18th, 2009 4:37 pm

    we’re paying $21 million + $9 million – $25 million for Bradley, which = $5 million.

    That looks right to me. Do some of you have different information than what Cot’s is reporting? They are usually reliable and accurate, and have Bradley’s salary at $9 and 12 MM for the next two years, and we’re sending 9$ MM to the Cubs. Silva is at $11.5, 11.5 with the 2MM buyout. It looks like the Ancient one’s math is right. It should be $5 MM extra for 2 years of Bradley.

    bookbook: The two “holes” that I see are “1B” and “#4 Hitter”.

    tdillon: #4 Hitter? There is no need to fill a slot. That’s exactly the wrong approach to building a roster. Find the player that fits your position whose overall WAR will make you win.

    Yes. Any player can bat #4 in the order. It’s not necessary to limit your choices to one certain type of hitter.

    Figure Beltre at 13 mil puts Boston at 132 and gives them wiggle room under their rumored 140 mil ceiling.

    Why would Boston want to pay Beltre $13 MM per year? That looks way over market value right now.

  74. nathaniel dawson on December 18th, 2009 4:42 pm

    Presumably, Lopez hurts less in the field at 1B. But his offense is only meh for 1B/DH types, and his being cheap is less important, now that we’re in spend-to-win-in-2010 mode.

    His being cheap is one of the reasons we can add wins by signing Chone Figgins and trading for Ckiff Lee and Milton Bradley. The Mariners have a budget, and it’s always going to matter how much players cost.

  75. littlesongs on December 18th, 2009 4:43 pm

    I have expressed disdain for this trade idea in the past, but I have immense faith in our front office and the clubhouse.

    What I find the most telling and gratifying about this trade (and the Lee deal too) is that Jack Zduriencik has shown so much faith in us as fans.

    If we cheer for our Mariners and support them through the ups and downs of the season, this has every chance of working out just fine.

    In other words, if everyone does their job, this team could scale great heights. Every day I find myself exponentially more excited for next year.

  76. n8tron3030 on December 18th, 2009 4:44 pm
  77. n8tron3030 on December 18th, 2009 4:44 pm

    Oops, sorry for not closing that link tag.

  78. aaron c. on December 18th, 2009 4:45 pm

    I still Saunders as one of Zduriencik’s mistakes. Did he really go from being “too good to keep in AAA anymore” to someone we have to find a replacement for just on 1 month of bad regular MLB play?

    Don’t we have to let the kids play at some point?

    Saunders hasn’t had very much time in AAA at all. And yeah, we have to “play the kids” at some point, but if you feel like you have a legitimate shot to get to the playoffs and you have the chance to upgrade your team, you absolutely have to do it. (Within reason, of course.)

  79. Bonegar Grifftinez on December 18th, 2009 4:49 pm

    There’s this (found on MyNW article):

    Frankly, the list isn’t as long as I expected. I guess that goes along with feeling I get from the media that when the going is good, things are fine, but when the going is bad, things seem to go into a death spiral. Let’s hope we don’t experience that. Otherwise, yay!

    All of those were before his time as a Cub though. He had several off field incidents this year as well as in the clubhouse and even the dugout during the games where he lost it. I am not big on chemistry and all of that I think teams winning makes guys get along but he didn’t produce much last year. And if he has to be happy to produce then it is a risk. Unhappy and cancerous in the clubhouse AND not performing is a tough combo to swallow. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen though.

  80. Jeremariner on December 18th, 2009 4:49 pm

    Both Griffey and Bradley have a passion for communicating their disagreements with upper management through the use of custom clothing (Bradley wearing a F*** Eric Wedge t-shirt, and Griffey donning the Don W neckties).
    With a little good humor, perhaps Griffey can take Bradley’s skills at creating personalized clothing and use them for the better.
    And with a little luck, maybe that good humor can translate onto the field.
    Let us wish upon our lucky [super]star.

  81. Bonegar Grifftinez on December 18th, 2009 4:50 pm

    Sorry forgot to close the block quote.

    There’s this (found on MyNW article):

    Frankly, the list isn’t as long as I expected. I guess that goes along with feeling I get from the media that when the going is good, things are fine, but when the going is bad, things seem to go into a death spiral. Let’s hope we don’t experience that. Otherwise, yay!

    All of those were before his time as a Cub though. He had several off field incidents this year as well as in the clubhouse and even the dugout during the games where he lost it. I am not big on chemistry and all of that I think teams winning makes guys get along but he didn’t produce much last year. And if he has to be happy to produce then it is a risk. Unhappy and cancerous in the clubhouse AND not performing is a tough combo to swallow. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen though.

  82. domedonger on December 18th, 2009 4:55 pm

    The Bradley thing I’m ok with. I think a lot of his problems in Chicago had a lot to do with the media and the Cubs’ cranky fans. (Did you watch the ’08 LA series? Did you listen to the crowd? They weren’t having any fun) Both are much more forgiving in the Emerald City. Griffey and Wak will sit on Mr. Bradley anyway. If worse comes to worse we’ll bounce the guy and it will be fine. To me at this point he’s a part of the puzzle, not the whole picture. I haven’t been this jacked for baseball season this early in a long time. Bonus! We get rid of Silva. He was a haunting reminder of what we all went through. Viva Jack Z!

  83. ima-zeliever on December 18th, 2009 5:09 pm

    So… the Brewers are interested in Morrow, but don’t want to trade Gamel. How about the guy on the other corner if we throw in a bit more?

  84. gag harbor on December 18th, 2009 5:11 pm

    How many ex-Indians on the roster now? Sign Branyan for 1B and it’s 4 starters?

  85. dfowler03 on December 18th, 2009 5:47 pm

    Why are people so insistant on aquiring another big bat? This team is almost perfect where it is. Anyone hear the addage “a run saved is a run earned?” Look at our defense, no question its the best in baseball. Our rotation/bullpen are near the top also. Getting Bradley was the last major move I expect to see (unless we can get gonzo from SD, hes way to good to pass up). Be happy with the current roster and remember: IN JACK WE TRUST

  86. gag harbor on December 18th, 2009 6:27 pm

    Well a light-hitting first basemen would be a silly thing to go for so how about the logical choice of a slugger to play there?

  87. Paul B on December 18th, 2009 6:29 pm

    There’s what seems to be a pretty good wikipedia article on Bradley.

    For those that want a run down of his career and links to articles about his problems.

  88. Paul B on December 18th, 2009 6:33 pm

    Well a light-hitting first basemen would be a silly thing to go for so how about the logical choice of a slugger to play there?

    See here’s the thing that grates with that. The word “slugger” seems to limit the choice to a power hitter, perhaps a one dimensional power hitter who could have a low wOBA.

    What we want is someone who has a good total offensive and defensive value (WAR). That may be someone who hits a lot of homeruns, but it may also be someone who hits a lot of doubles instead, or someone who has a balanced game and does a little of everything.

  89. Coug1990 on December 18th, 2009 6:43 pm

    I am not big on chemistry and all of that I think teams winning makes guys get along but he didn’t produce much last year.

    Bonegar, he may not have had a great year last year, but to say he didn’t produce is a little strong. Among regulars, his .378 OBP would have been second on the Mariners behind Ichiro and his .775 OPS would have been third on the Mariners.

    So, while he wasn’t great last year, he was productive.

  90. ClaytonMiles on December 18th, 2009 7:32 pm

    Great post. I feel really informed about the team’s remaining checklist, field and clubhouse options – especially Saunders’s future.
    It seems there is no point in fixating on acquiring specific players. Just trust Jack Z to know the path and be able to bend reality to his will. We aare hitting the top of the roler coaster.
    After all, the Mariners have new friends everywhere (look closely).
    The work of JackZ?

  91. ClaytonMiles on December 18th, 2009 7:34 pm

    I’m sorry for the typo.

  92. wtnuke on December 18th, 2009 7:39 pm

    In a perfect world, Jack Z finds some way to convince the Reds to trade us Joey Votto for some salmon and a year of free rides on the Washington ferries.

  93. gwangung on December 18th, 2009 7:40 pm

    It seems there is no point in fixating on acquiring specific players.

    I think it’s more a matter of figuring out what you need, and seeing what can produce that need. (Which is a difference between this front office and more traditional offices). They ask the right question–what gives the team the widest spread between runs allowed and runs scored–and find a solution (one player or a set of players) to fit. THink the past fixated on a particular player and not on what the player offered and couldnt devise creative ways of getting that.

  94. Coug1990 on December 18th, 2009 7:52 pm

    I think the brilliance of this front office is that they are extremely prepared. They never have just one option, so if the first doesn’t work, they just move on to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

    This way they are never panicked into overpaying/making a bad deal. Something that Bavasi had happen to him all the time.

  95. snapper on December 18th, 2009 7:58 pm

    This is an interesting move for Seattle. They clearly win big on talent and clear a dead-weight contract.

    However, history tells us that Bradley will wear out his welcome. He will blow up, the question is when.

    If the M’s get a productive season out of Bradley and contend this year, and then blows up next season, then they win big.

    If Bradley’s unproductive and is his usual self, he could go a long way to destroying the season, and they’ll wish for Silva back.

  96. wtnuke on December 18th, 2009 8:06 pm

    What about Lyle Overbay out of Centralia, WA? I think we a have the cash, he’s a lefty with some pop, Toronto is looking for a few prospects…good or bad idea?

  97. argh on December 18th, 2009 8:06 pm

    Drayer’s citing to Stark saying the Ms will be sending $15 million to Chicago and not just $6 million. Any idea which (if either) is correct?

  98. Mariners2620 on December 18th, 2009 8:10 pm

    You honestly cannot compare Milton Bradley’s attitudinal problems in the past with what he might do in Seattle. Seattle is a city where the media could care less what they are doing. It is going to be different, there will be absolutely zero pressure on him, and playing for the Cubs was definitely a bigger stage then playing at Safeco. He will come in and realize that all we are trying to do here is have a ton of fun and win games. It’s going to work out fine, and be a phenomenal season.

  99. wtnuke on December 18th, 2009 8:12 pm

    I have a hard time believing we’re paying out all of our payroll flexibility for a shot at a good season…

  100. moethedog on December 18th, 2009 8:20 pm

    I put this up on Proball NW (Formally Bleeding Blue and Teal”

    Both baseball-reference and fangraphs (unless I’m missing something)have Bradley’s career line at .277/.371/.450.

    Interestingly…according to baseball-reference….His splits as a RH batter are significantly better than as a lefty.

    RH he hits .306/.387/.497…dang impressive. But Safeco is death on RH power guys, as we know.

    LH he hits .266/.365/.431 Which compares as not quite the LH hitter that Andy LaRoche is (.274/.343/.497)

    So figuring he’s going to hit against a bunch more righties (so he’s swinging from the left side) than lefties and he’s a cancer of the highest level then he becomes a bunch less impressive (if he was anyway).

    Agreed…he’s better than Silva…but only worth it if you take the salary break and cut him loose. My 2 cents, anyway.

    BTW…he is a career (baseball-reference) .327/.453/.537 DH. That is over 453 career PA’s while a DH. 415 of those PA’s occured in 2008…a year that is unapproachable again because of his BAbip and that he played in a band box. In fact his road splits in ‘08 were .290/.410/.462 and 6 homers with a .384 BAbip. His HOME splits were .358/.466/.679 with 16 homers and a .393 BAbip.

    So…he’s a nice bat, but not what has been advertised. Plus he hasn’t been a plus defender in the OF since 2004 and he’s a Stage 5 cancer.

    He better buy into the love-fest real early….and he better get a bunch of RH PA’s on the road…..other than that he’s like the girlfriend that everybody else dumped for good reason. We shouldn’t have married him.

    Keith

  101. Coug1990 on December 18th, 2009 8:21 pm

    I have a hard time believing we’re paying out all of our payroll flexibility for a shot at a good season…

    What do you mean?

  102. Mariners2620 on December 18th, 2009 8:24 pm

    I think he is referring to the comment that a guy above us made, that said that Shannon Drayer is stating that the Mariners are giving the Cubs 15 million instead of 9 million. there is no way in hell that this would happen.

  103. amnizu on December 18th, 2009 8:26 pm

    Why would Boston want to pay Beltre $13 MM per year? That looks way over market value right now.

    Kinda out of context and not to the point of my post. The original point is Boston has plenty of payroll room and flexibility to sign Beltre at his requested rate, didn’t say anything about the current market and his value compared to it. Now, that said if they sign Holladay or Bay and extend Becket they may be tapped out and just keep Lowell. Regardless, the thought that Beltre would give Seattle a sweetheart deal is just not viable at this time, maybe in February if he is still on the market, but not in December.

    So looping it all back around to being on topic. I’d much rather see the M’s go sign or trade for a 3+ WAR 1b than bring Beltre back. Mainly because doing so will cost less money and allow for future payroll flexibility if the M’s need to make a move come July.

  104. psea on December 18th, 2009 8:35 pm

    Help me please,

    So great trade today. But this notion that we’re almost done is a little frightening. Maybe I’m an idiot, but I still don’t see the offense that will allow us to be serious contenders. Where is the guy who can take C.C. Sabathia’s best pitch in the biggest game and hit it out? Where is Jason Bay? You don’t want to pay him? Where is the trade for the big bat we need for the big game. It is no longer about a season of sabermetrics… it is about winning a game against the best pitcher in the game outside Seattle. I’m not sure it’s there. If not Bay, we need someone else. Rather have him than give up the farm.

  105. Liam on December 18th, 2009 8:40 pm

    Drayer’s citing to Stark saying the Ms will be sending $15 million to Chicago and not just $6 million. Any idea which (if either) is correct?

    Do you have a link, it’s not on her blog or twitter?

  106. argh on December 18th, 2009 8:43 pm

    Notes…ESPN’s Jayson Stark is reporting that this is not a straight player for player exchange. According to Stark the Mariners will send 9 million dollars with Silva, 3 million in 2010 to cover the salaray difference then 6 million over the next 2 years in payroll relief to the Cubs…The busy M’s made a move before the trade signing Ryan Langerhans to a one year Major League contract this morning…

    On the blog at 11:19 a.m.

  107. argh on December 18th, 2009 8:44 pm

    And now, finally, I see I read much too fast and added incorrectly.

    Sorry.

  108. Mariners2620 on December 18th, 2009 8:46 pm

    This is just what I would like for the Mariners to do from here. Beltre is going to have to suck it up and realize he isn’t getting the 13-15 million a year that Boras and his self think they can get. He will end up having to settle for a 3-4 year 8-9 million a year contract, unless the Red Sox pull another 12 G’s out of there asses, which I don’t see happening seeing as how they just signed Lackey/Cameron and are expected to send 9 million to the Rangers with the Lowell trade. I say that Beltre’s best option would be to come back to the Mariners for the kind of numbers I suggested up top. If you could do that, then you have Beltre, Wilson, Figgins,?, Bradley, Gutierrez, and Ichiro as your defense. Completely awesome. I would also like them to trade for Adrian Gonzalez with Saunders (seeing as how Ackley will be up here in 2011 and we already have Greg Halman as well), Morrow, Lopez, and a few others I suppose. Who doesn’t want Adrian Gonzalez, he would do amazing things to this lineup and bring a solid glove with him as well. I understand that the chances are minuscule, but with Z it may be possible. It’s just what I would love for them to do, not what I actually believe they are going to do.

  109. rightwingrick on December 18th, 2009 9:01 pm

    Could be wrong here, but I don’t think we are even close to being set. My guess is a SP signing, a 2B signing, and a huge trade involving an existing SP, existing RP, existing 2B, and top prospect(s).

  110. tmac9311 on December 18th, 2009 9:48 pm

    After thinking about it, I love this trade. I feel as if this is almost fail proof for the M’s. Bradley’s coming into a team:

    A: That had a 30 minute hugfest at the end of the season last year, because they love playing with each other so much.

    B: That has Two HoFers (Junior, ICHIRO) and two frontrunners for the Cy Young. This team is loaded with talent.

    C: A defense and pitching first team. No one is going to ride him for going 0-4, because Wilson and others will be doing that alot.

    D: If Bradley does in fact hit behind Ichiro, Figgins; he will be sitting in a situation where nearly every at bat will create a RBI situation.

    If he can’t be happy with that, his career in Seattle won’t end, his baseball career all together will. If a player finds a way to hate that situation, why would any team think he would like theirs better?

    Could be wrong here, but I don’t think we are even close to being set. My guess is a SP signing, a 2B signing, and a huge trade involving an existing SP, existing RP, existing 2B, and top prospect(s).

    I like your way of thinking, and that’s what I’m hoping for. Votto, Butler, Gonzalez, maybe another 1B not yet brought up. I’m not sure I want to give Morrow up, as right now I like the fantasy of a Felix/Lee/Sheets/RRS/Morrow five man rotation. Although I suppose a Felix/Lee/Sheets/RRS/Snell isn’t much different. If we can even afford to sign Sheets wants the other holes are filled.

    As for the hole we’d have if we lost Lopez, I’m not convinced you fill that with a 2B. Sure I’d love to have Hudson, but maybe someone like Crede would fit the team better, though I don’t think he generates the WAR we are looking for.

    All I know is I hope Jack has more up his sleeve than Russel Branyan, the team right now looks awesome, but I’ve really enjoyed waiting for the next move we make, and I don’t really want the moves to stop pouring in.

  111. MrZDevotee on December 18th, 2009 10:31 pm

    Hi guys.
    I’ve been reading awhile, but this is my first post.

    I’m not concerned about Bradley. If you look in his past, in smaller markets with less sensational journalists (Oakland, Texas) he never had problems. Piniella’s a hot head, off the cuff kinda guy (whom I love, actually) which obviously clashes with Bradley’s sensitive side, whereas Wak is very much into learning his players and finding the avenue to use their talents the best.

    I think this is a deal that came about because we were dangling Silva to anyone who would listen before we dumped him. I don’t think he would have made it to Spring Training either way.

    All I know is that if you told me at the end of last season that we would enter 2010 minus the contracts of Carlos Silva and Kenji Johjima, trade 3 prospects for a Cy Young winner, and add the American League leader in walks to the least patient lineup in baseball (who can also steal 40 bases)– I’d have laughed until my sides hurt.

    Wow. That’s all there is to it. We’re not even done yet, but if we were– I’d still be excited for 2010. (I finish every thought these days with a giggle and saying to myself “Cliff-f***ing-LEE!!!”)

  112. eponymous coward on December 19th, 2009 9:19 am

    B: That has Two HoFers (Junior, ICHIRO) and two frontrunners for the Cy Young. This team is loaded with talent.

    Junior is going to the HOF, sure, but he hasn’t been a player performing at a HOF level since last decade (2000). This is a mid-to-high 80′s team in terms of talent level, which is good, but certainly not loaded. (Compare and contrast with the Yankees if you want a team that’s “loaded”.)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.