bill hAll Star

Jose Martinez has to be dealt to an AL team. He's that bad on defense.

King Felix has been going downhill and has had some injury issues. He's likely going to ride out that final year unless the Mariners eat $22 or more million of the $27 or give up elite prospects, which as you note, they probably won't be inclined to do with a 1 year commitment.

That said, you also can't put a value on the ability to tank for the Mariners. Also to be added is the potential signing or acquisition that the Mariners do make with their savings in 2021 or 2022. I know that that is somewhat baked into the surplus value but it's clear in 2018 that many GMs/owners have decided that "you're winning or you're tanking." That can suck for fans at times, but unless there was a much better offer waiting out there for the Mariners or one thinks it was worth waiting out, what's the difference? Are the Mariners fans going to be weeping over the fact that they won 65 games instead of 70 this year without Segura? Yes, I think clearly the Mariners are trying to not be good and that's fine. Making good personnel decisions is more important than the tearing down. Based on the initial moves I question whether or not this is going to work for Seattle. I would agree, I would rather see what can happen with a fully committed rebuild as opposed to being stuck in mediocrity. Whatever plan you use to get there, the model pretty much includes 1. creating an army of prospects either to keep as your own players or use to acquire talent. 2. Align, the infusion of young talent through your minor league system up with financial flexibility in the payroll to fill in the gaps with above average talent from FA. You still have to supplement the top picks "earned" from sucking with other acquisitions for it to work. Obviously the more FA dollars you can use when the time is right, the more leeway you have with step 1. Sorry.. getting off topic at bit here So I guess obviously for them step one is create future payroll space. It's too early to really make a judgement yet I suppose. I just think they could've done a better job combining some of their steps. They have a long climb to infuse that minor league system with talent. It's pretty bare. There may be some ownership push in their dealings of shedding payroll this quickly, who knows. I'm not sure that Segura could've netted a ton more given the market and maybe they should've just dealt Diaz on his own instead of including Cano. Maybe they could've waited on Segura but there's risk to that. That said, I don't think we're talking about multiple extra stud prospects if they had done those things. I'd call it a near wash on including Cano in the Mets deal, especially since the +/- on salary probably favored the Mariners quite a bit. I'm going to just assume that the Mariners got likely the best package out there for Paxton, Cano, Segura, Diaz as of early December, 2018. Could they have squeezed an extra prospect or two out of it in July or next offseason? Maybe. I just don't think any of these guys had a ton of value save for Diaz, who they got some good prospects for. Nobody was giving up much for Segura at that contract as of today. There was not much of a market for him. Dunn and Kelenic is a pretty nice haul for Diaz.

I love your analysis on these trades. It's a good way of valuing them. That said, you also can't put a value on the ability to tank for the Mariners. Also to be added is the potential signing or acquisition that the Mariners do make with their savings in 2021 or 2022. I know that that is somewhat baked into the surplus value but it's clear in 2018 that many GMs/owners have decided that "you're winning or you're tanking." That can suck for fans at times, but unless there was a much better offer waiting out there for the Mariners or one thinks it was worth waiting out, what's the difference? Are the Mariners fans going to be weeping over the fact that they won 65 games instead of 70 this year without Segura? Maybe this move and ones that the Marlins/Rays made last year are cloaked greed moves by ownership. We'll see in 2-3 years for all 3 organizations. If they start spending with their blank slates in 2021 then I think these trades were good, regardless of what the talking heads think on value. I do think the Rays will never spend that big (but they're well-run at the baseball level) but the Marlins and Mariners are going to start spending when their rebuilds are complete. Also of note, there wasn't really a market for Segura: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-phillies-were-jean-seguras-entire-market/ So their choice was to keep him around and see if something comes up midseason/next offseason or just do it now. I don't have a problem with what they did.

I think a lot of this comes to the debate of "do owners have it as a year-to-year budget or just an overall cost?" I think it's a year to year thing, especially with the luxury tax being an issue for many teams. In which case, getting out of Segura's $ for years down the line is beneficial. So then Segura/Santana is not close to a wash. Nicasio + Segura is $69 million (nice). Santana is $40 million. However, in 2021, the Mariners will have their hands clean of Santana. Their only substantial obligation in that season right now is Seager's $18.5 million in his final year (option the year after). Leake has a $5 million option/buyout. that's pretty much it. That seems to be preferable to the rebuilding team instead of holding Segura. Sure, maybe you can find a better trade...but maybe you can't. And then you're holding the bag of a likely declining SS for $15 million/year for 2021 and 2022.

It kinda annoys me to see the Phillies pretty easily get out form under that horrible decision to sign Santana. They game him way too much money and didn't have a place to play Hoskins. Now they get a useful players in return who fit the roster much better. Segura should help them and whether they get Nicasio or Swarzak back either fit into that bullpen. There's something to be said about the risk that the Phillies took on Arrieta and Santana. They knew that they had a lot of wiggle room in the next few seasons and therefore chose to pay what was likely a higher annual cost in return for less years. I'm sure they weren't hoping to be trying to dump him right away in 2019, but only 2 years of commitment seems to make it more manageable to trade him than if he had something like 4 years at $12-15 million/each left. They also knew that even if he was playing better and they didn't want to deal him or that if they were simply stuck with him, his money would be off the books by the time they need to dig into the coffers for Nola, etc. (added to Corbin and/or Harper and/or Machado) if their plan comes to fruition.

;tldr above The Mariners have a plan. It has a higher risk/reward than the Brewers' did. They could completely strike out on this rebuild that takes 3-5 years but their plan is to get high draft picks and have a blank slate payroll in 3 years (and they got some nice players back in these trades regardless). The Astros are the prime example of hitting a home run doing this. I could understand letting Cano and other high $ guys rot on your payroll as you get a slightly better return on Diaz by himself and maybe not rushing a Segura deal. The Brewers were more in line with this. It worked for the Brewers, but I think a lot of other teams have failed doing this...and I'd argue if the "Astros plan" hits, it has a much higher ceiling.

What you are suggesting may not be "wrong" as we saw the Brewers turn around a bit quicker. However, in 2021, if they did what you suggest, they'd be paying: Cano $24 million (through 2023) Seager $18.5 million (option the following year) Leake and Gordon $6 million in buyouts (and they could be kept if they want to) Segura $15 million So that's $65 million for likely just Jean Segura to (hopefully) be a good player and junk. I understand that all of these guys can be sent out in future deals but more on that below. Now, this trade for Crawford leaned towards the idea of a salary dump. I don't like Crawford either. However, with Segura's contract and age, I'm not sure you're getting much more than that. Of course, I know that you might also advocate dealing Cano eventually...but no one's gonna take him unless you kick in even more money and take back zero prospects. Instead, they got some nice prospects back and threw in Diaz and only kicked back a little bit of financial relief. Point being, the debate is ~$60-70 million of dead money in some way, shape or form in 2021 (some of it trickling into years after that) and probably not as high of draft picks but maybe slightly better returns on trades not dumping Cano. OR Several very high picks, the modest haul they got back, and a blank slate of basically $5-20 million committed in 2021 depending on if they can get rid of Seager. They can now be aggressive in trades and free agency 2 years from now added to the fact that they should have some good prospects coming up with their draft standing that will come from this. The only thing I disagree with is the Navarez and Mallex Smith acquisitions being good. Sure, those guys are both nice players that could hang around for 2-3 years and be nice complementary players...but beyond that, they'll just be guys accumulating stats on the tank that may get dealt to contenders down the line.

Trade is good for both teams, though it's always scary as a fan to be doing both things that are happening. M's are scrapping it to rebuild, a good idea in this case, but there's always the risk of a decade in the doldrums. You can't blame the Mets for going for it with the pitching staff they have, but they probably have a 2 year window with 2 other teams that are great in the division and the Nats aren't 100% dead. The only "loss" of the trade is the Mets taking on Cano's money without getting more relief even with Bruce, Swarzak, $20 million...which the Mariners probably held them to the fire for. The Mets may likely just be paying Cano to rot in a utility role for 3 years after deGrom/Thor/etc. are gone or the team is weakened...a risk they're willing to live with, I guess.

I'd agree. If I were a Mariners fan I'd be upset as there really doesn't seem to be a plan other than reducing future payroll. I find it hard to believe that Bruce or Santana (assuming he's traded) will suit up for Seattle. I'm guessing they'll be moved in secondary deals. Given that it is assumed the M's are probably not good enough to consistently hang with the Astros, A's, and maybe even Angels (the M's were very "lucky" to be leading the WC race last year halfway, the team was not as good as the record indicated), what is your plan? Other than maybe not soiling the returns on Edwin Diaz by throwing in Cano (I still think they got a great deal), what are you guys expecting? That they trade for some stud prospects and are fighting with the Astros in 2019 or 2020? This kinda had to be done. They weren't getting a haul for anyone left on their roster even though I'd argue they might've gotten one for Diaz attached to Cano. Reducing future payroll is a plan. It does not guarantee anything, but the Brewers, Astros, Cubs, and countless other teams had to start there. Now, if 3 years from now the Mariners have a promising core and refuse to go above $90 million, then we'll talk. You may see it as reducing payroll now as some ownership slashing move to throw away Cano and toss Diaz in to do it, but the 2021 Mariners will be thanking the 2018 offseason team if there is any sort of a promising team...maybe they can sign the next guy that helps get them into the playoffs.

They got back a nice haul of prospects in the Cano trade. I assumed to dump Cano's contract they would've gotten literally nothing back and while they had to offset a bit of it, they got some nice pieces back. Even Diaz being included still should have not brought them much back. As for other moves, Sheffield is a nice pickup. Their division is loaded so they can now draft and be ready for 2022 to hopefully contend again. You don't need much more of a plan right now than "we weren't winning the division or likely the wild card this year, let's start this thing over with a blank slate."

Santana going back helps the Phillies if they're being truthful about the idea of trying to sign every elite free agent left.

I guess I had assumed that there was some sort of pitch % change that Chavez made to turn into "good reliever" a la 2016-2017 Swarzak featuring his slider more. Might've just been luck for Chavez so I take back some of my excitement about the Cubs not keeping him.

2 years, $8 million range. This is good as it takes another arm away from the Cubs' bullpen.

For most of his career, Garcia bordered on being Schoop of the OF except he gets a bit more LD/GB than FB as compared to Schoop over his career, leaving for a safer average (Schoop-esque hot streaks of doubles and not HRs like the streaks are for Schoop). Both of them swing at everything. Garcia did seem to improve his launch angle this past year and could be a 30+ HR candidate. He'd basically be bizarro Domingo at that point as a low OBP/high average guy with terrible pitch recognition. Domingo is high OBP/not as great average with maybe the some HR potential if you think that Avisail has turned the corner in getting the ball in the air more. His very good 2017 was a BABIP mirage most likely.

NM

The questionable decision was bringing in Cedeno. Seems like it was setup to just go Soria, Knebel, Jeffress. Cedeno struggling then Soria not being able to close out the inning threw everything off. Cedeno put 1 guy on with 1 out and arguably should’ve gotten a double play if Arcia wasn’t afraid to throw it with the weird shift. I get the idea that that was one bit of momentum but I bet Craig would’ve kept trying to use the bottom of his pen until any trouble arose...and of course it did pretty quickly.

Gio, Miley, Chacin games 1, 2, 3. Must really not want to face many lefties in Miller Park.

College is different because the kids have a choice of where to go and most of the best of the best chose to go to the best teams. Amateur baseball players wouldn't have a choice (more or less) in a draft, so all the top talent isn't going to funnel in to a few organizations. I agree a random draft order would be stupid but the college example does not fit. I think the draft order should be based on your combined record the previous 5 seasons or so instead of just the previous year. I think he’s explaining why there needs to be a draft to keep some parity/allow the lesser teams access to good players.

I don't want to dig too deep into this, but I recall seeing that Villar got off to a roaring start against the Rangers. Here's an oversimplified, yet telling stat: Villar (with Baltimore) vs. better than .500 teams: .232/.312/.352/.664 (142 PA) vs. worse than .500 teams: .298/.372/.452/.825 (94 PA) Schoop (with Milwaukee) vs. better than .500 teams: .188/.230/.250/.480 (87 PA) vs. worse than .500 teams: .227/.277/.477/.754 (47 PA) Point being, Villar basically cleaned up against a few AA pitching staffs. The Brewers had a pretty tough schedule, Schoop struggled against some good teams, and they had to bench him. Villar got to keep racking it up against bad pitching staffs. Another interesting split, with Baltimore, Villar racked up essentially all of his good numbers with Baltimore against "finesse pitchers" (bottom 3rd of the league in Ks + BBs)...I don't think he'd see many of those in the playoffs.

Can you stand leagues where the Yankees and Dodgers will make the playoffs every 10 years out of 10 instead every 8 or 9 out of 10 with that system? Could you imagine if the Yankees or Red Sox had the #1 overall pick this year with an already great 5 year outlook?

That may be part of it, but there is no doubt that some teams like Miami would maybe sell 20-30% more tickets if they had their stars on the team winning 78 games. The issue is that the owners are swimming in revenue sharing and TV deals and can stomach less butts in the seats. Your point remains, though, that fans may not jump ship during this rebuild due to understanding this

I mean, look at the American League outside of HOU/NYY/BOS/OAK/SEA/CLE and tell me any of those teams made a serious effort to win. Also I strongly disagree that the Brewers plan was not to win this year. They were 1 game away from the Postseason last year. Stearns wasn't just going to sit and wait. Well, the Twins and Angels tried to win at the onset of the season and the O's/Blue Jays/Kansas City were coming off of several years of pushing more chips on to the table until they busted. Detroit was in the O's/Blue Jays group, just a year or two further along. It's a bit of a complex debate, though. Have owners/GMs realized that tanking is a reasonable way to win a World Series? Yes. Have owners then decided that they can skim off the top as well? Yes. It opened up this middle market for the Brewers, no doubt. The rest of the teams have decided that they're better off shooting for the moon every 5 years (and maybe failing) instead of maxing out their payroll to finish 15 games behind the Red Sox/Yankees/Dodgers/etc. I just think maybe a little bit too much weight has been assigned to this, "the greedy oligarch owners want to sit on their pile of money and the Brewers exploited the league." The Marlins honestly should've rebuilt if their goal is to win a title someday (yes, the Yelich trade was robbery, the rest of their trades look fine).

Their bullpen is arguably as good as the current Brewers' bullpen (if all guys are healthy/firing correctly) but they also have a modest weakness at starting pitcher, especially since Severino started struggling in the 2nd half. Basically it comes down to a 108 team beating up on some vulnerable starting pitchers throwing off all of their strengths.

Keep in mind the bottom tier of the AL is probably the worst it has ever been. Every top tier team probably won a good 5-10 games more than they would in a more normal year. Except the Yankees didn't really win that many more against the Royals, Twins, Orioles, and the Blue Jays. They went 35-17 against them which should be within what you would expect a .673 winning percentage is good but not anything abnormal. But you're saying a 100-win team isn't impressive because they're down 2-1 to a 108 win team?