Im actually kind of surprised I didnt see this coming.

Overrated innings eater... wants 4 years... Seattle has money to spend... Its all too perfect. Nobody knows how to throw money at half ass solutions and marginal values like Bill Bavasi.

I dont even think this would be that bad a signing, but it just further validates the notion that Bavasi doesnt have a plan.

I probably watch the Mariners play 80-100 games a season on television. I am not looking forward to watching 15 Carlos Silva starts next year. He's not a terrible pitcher or anything, but god damn if I'm going to get excited about yet another league-average-ish starter with a bad K rate.

I think he has a plan, it's just not a very good plan. His plan is that Felix Hernandez, Miguel Bautista, Jarrod Washburn, and Carlos Silva constitutes a solid rotation, and the offensive core is also good and they can give the Angels a run. If he gets really lucky and everything goes right, maybe they could; the Angels aren't going to win much more than 90 games.

Not like it was any great stretch of the imagination, but I did call Lohse to Seattle back in July. So I hope this doesn't pan out, because Lohse is definitely next in line.

To be fair... groundball pitchers and really rangy infielders is a good idea... but then signings like Jeff Weaver just make me launch into another round of "who's the worst GM? Bowden or Bavasi?"

Also, signing a bunch of league averageish pitchers... also a good idea in a vacuum. BUT when you overpay them all, even if youre just overpaying a little bit... well, all that's really doing is keeping you from spending money on truly premium players when they become available.

The M's are getting a 99 Orioles feeling... this is a team that's essentially entirely built through free agency. The only major piece that was homegrown is King Felix(the two MIs are nothing great and while Putz is awesome, a 30 year old reliever isnt what you think of as a cornerstone of your franchise) ... and while Felix is as good a cornerstone as there is... I feel this just isnt the way to build a team. They are really counting on Adam Jones coming through.

So many stupid signings/trades... Asdrubal, Vidro, Sexson, Weaver... yuck.

the Angels aren't going to win much more than 90 games

Vaux, I don't know. They won 94 last year without Rivera and only 1/2 to 2/3 seasons of Speier, Kendrick, Napoli and Kotchman among other things.

Anderson will regress, big time, but this is a 92-94 win team without any breaks. Lackey, Escobar, Weaver and Garland constitute a great front four and the offense will benefit from any Juan Rivera playing time. Add in some health and development from their younger players and I think 98 wins is a possibility.

Add in the fact that the Mariners were completely healthy last year and I think it is pretty obvious that 2008 is pretty cut and dried in the Halos favor. Not to mention, this team is led by Bill Bavasi - he is bound to do something really, really stupid soon. It's been about 3 weeks.

but then signings like Jeff Weaver just make me launch into another round of "who's the worst GM? Bowden or Bavasi?"

Sabean says hi.

so next year they'll be paying Silva, Sexson, Batista, and Washburn $44M? ouch.

#6 - So are you predicting the Halos for 100 wins? 95-100?

Just curious here. I kind of still think theyre only good for about the same amount... which is whats he's saying, really, not going to "win much more than 90" wins

Id put the over/under at 95 right now having not put much thought or research into it, fwiw.



I would agree the upside is higher this year though.

#7 -

You got me. Sabean is what would happen if you combined Jim Bowden's talent evaluation with Bill Bavasi's decision making and then limited the pool of players "Bow-vasi" could sign to guys older than 32.

If Bavasi competed in the olympics I wonder if there would be hurdles.

I would agree the upside is higher this year though.

I tend to think that you have it just right. However, the upside is what makes this a better team, IMO. The chance for 100 wins is higher in 2008, but 94 is probably right.

I interpreted the "win much more than 90" as 91 or 92.

Vaux, care to define "(not) much more than 90"?

#11 - do they have hurdles in the special olympics?

#13 - I'm pretty sure they don't. If so, nevermind my post.

Jim, I was including 94 as "not much more than 90."

I'm just thinking of that outfield with Torii Hunter, Garrett Anderson, and Gary Matthews in it, and a serious regression from Chone Figgins, too. Somewhere in the 92-94 area is what I'd predict without running any numbers.

I don't see how Batista/Washburn are bad signings on hindsight. They turned out pretty decent.
What has been killing Bavasi has been his trading acumen, or lack thereof.
Asdrubal for Broussard, then letting Broussard rot, and then trading him away for a cents on a dollar.
Soriano for HoRam, nuff said.
The Sexson/Beltre signings.
The Vidro trade and sign thing. Has worked out ok remarkably, though extending Vidro was a headscratcher.

I think I agree with #4 - signing Washburn/Batista/Silva, etc. are all ok in a vacuum, and I guess you could argue that Batista and Washburn haven't been bad signings. But it's just evidence of no plan. Signing one medicore innings eater to complement a rotation as a last step towards contention, ok. But as the primary way to fill out your staff? Leaving you without money to sign the real talents? ehh

The M's are getting a 99 Orioles feeling.

I don't think that's really fair. I don't think you'd call me a Mariners optimist, and Bill Bavasi isn't any particular kind of genius, but there is Adam Jones. And Jeff Clement. And . . . Wladimir Balentein?

I've got a lot of my mental health riding on Adam Jones and Jeff Clement.

Also, signing a bunch of league averageish pitchers... also a good idea in a vacuum. BUT when you overpay them all, even if youre just overpaying a little bit

Are they overpaying? Seems to me $11 million a year for a league average starting pitcher is, if anything, a little low nowadays.

Are they overpaying? Seems to me $11 million a year for a league average starting pitcher is, if anything, a little low nowadays.

Fair enough... although one could quibble over whether that is the going rate despite the Meche signing, and whether Silva actually does constitute league average...

BUT in either case let me amend my statement to say that even paying the going rate for multiple league averag-ish starting pitchers is a good way to end up with a league average-ish team.

Free agency does, by definiton, require overpaying for a scarce resource. Theoretically, in an efficient market there would be no values in free agency... Baseball is a notoriously inefficient market in many ways but there arent exactly pitching bargains hanging around... and 44 mil for Carlos Silva isnt one of them.

Let me put it another way... you could not build an efficient or succesful team by paying the going rate for every player on your team... so its a questionable use of resources to spend so much of your payroll on a few league average players, even if it is the going rate.

That said, I did mention above that I dont mind the signing and think the deal isnt too bad for Silva. Im just not sure how much sense it makes for the Mariners. Too bad they dont have guys like Asdrubal Cabrera around to trade for a slightly below average starter/innings eater type. That would be preferable to handing out this kind of contract.

What I don't get is if they're going about signing all these types of guys, why didn't they just keep Meche, who was younger and had more upside than anyone they've brought in via free agency or trade so far?

I've had the same thought, actually. Silva does have a longer track record of being a better pitcher, but Meche is a much higher upside type of pitcher, which strikes me as a better idea for the M's, a team that (despite its 88 lucky wins last season) really couldn't get any more average than it already is.

As long as Silva isn't blocking any prospects and the Mariners didn't have many options in the FA market, the salary isn't a problem. Committing to 4 years is the bigger risk. Wasn't it just a few years ago that some team(s) wouldn't sign any pitcher to more than 3 years? The problem of course is that adding years is sometimes the only way to get the player to sign with your team.

We all have our blindspots but I've never understood the Juan Rivera love (which seems widespread here). He's got a 110 career OPS+ in part-time duty (with a slight but not huge platoon advantage) and will be 29. That makes him a really nice 4th OF but he probably doesn't add more than half a win to the Angels. He's the Matt Murton of the Angels.

Too bad they dont have guys like Asdrubal Cabrera around to trade for a slightly below average starter/innings eater type. That would be preferable to handing out this kind of contract.

So who would you trade AsCab for? Assuming that the Mariners still had him. Lowry? Even if you ignore those ugly K / BB rates, Lowry is not exactly an innings eater: ~150IP the last 2 seasons with niggling injuries.

Blanton? Would the Mariners trade within the division?

We all have our blindspots but I've never understood the Juan Rivera love (which seems widespread here). He's got a 110 career OPS+ in part-time duty (with a slight but not huge platoon advantage) and will be 29.

Walt, I'll respond to the Juan Rivera thing.

He is generally exactly as you have pegged him - a really solid 4th outfielder. However, there are a few things that make him more valuable to the Halos than the average 110 OPS+ guy.

First, Rivera was the regular LF/DH in the 2nd half of 2006 and posted an OPS+ of 138. Coming into 2007 many Angel fans expected that Rivera - in his age 28 season - would finally get 500 AB's and if that 2nd half was any indication I think many Halo supporters thought that a 125 OPS+ was probable and a 135 OPS+ was possible. That is a significant upgrade over what Anderson had been doing before he had his mini-resurgence in July/August 2007.

When Garrett Anderson is being counted on as a "power bat", Juan Rivera looks much more appealing than maybe he should. But, the Halos have not been very good at developing talent at the corners - hopefully Kotchman continues his progress and Wood comes through at AAA this year, but it is slim pickin's in that regard.

Also, Rivera emerged as the secondary power bat the Angels needed to complement Vlad - and losing Rivera was a tough blow in 2007 actually. If not for Reggie Willits playing over his head in the first half of 2007 the Halos might not have won the division by as many games as they did.

It's not a bad move by the Mariners, and it's an excellent move for Carlos Silva. Playing half his games at Safeco Field and all his games in front of one of the best defensive infields in the game is a dream scenario for him. Well, it would be if he could also get into the NL. I'm bullish on Silva's prospects with the Mariners this year. After that...

But you have to understand, that's exactly the point. Last year raised expectations; Bavasi knows that if the Mariners don't win this year, he's gone. And a GM in that position will spend every dime he can, even if it means committing to contracts certain to become albatrosses, in his effort to save his job. (I call this the Hendry Effect.)

"Somewhere in the 92-94 area is what I'd predict without running any numbers."

How many teams project to more than that? I would think only the Red Sox, maybe.

I would think the Tigers project to a good season next year. Also, IMHO Bowden has done a good job of re-stocking the Nats with high-ceiling guys.

EDIT: i.e. high-risk, high-reward guys, esp. Dukes.

I agree, but more than 92-94 wins? I doubt it.

Also, IMHO Bowden has done a good job of re-stocking the Nats with high-ceiling guys.

Position players, sure. The pitching, on the other hand...

BUT in either case let me amend my statement to say that even paying the going rate for multiple league averag-ish starting pitchers is a good way to end up with a league average-ish team.

Good point.

Free agency does, by definiton, require overpaying for a scarce resource. Theoretically, in an efficient market there would be no values in free agency... Baseball is a notoriously inefficient market in many ways but there arent exactly pitching bargains hanging around... and 44 mil for Carlos Silva isnt one of them.

Yeah, but you'll need to dip into free agency so sign someone. No farm system is that productive. And in fact, you'll need to sign some sort of SP because you need 5 of those stinkers. Signing an average pitcher to the going rate is an average move. Not a bad one, not a great one. A lot of this thread, especially early on, was unduly harsh towards it because it wasn't a very good signing, but if the Ms have a bad year, it won't be because of Silva, but because of how they filled out the other 24 slots. At least that's assuming Silva remains Silva. His K-rate scares the crud out of me. He could easily become a pumpkin.

It's not a bad move by the Mariners, and it's an excellent move for Carlos Silva. Playing half his games at Safeco Field and all his games in front of one of the best defensive infields in the game is a dream scenario for him.

Got my trusty 2008 THT Annual with me (in bookstores now! already the subject of rave reviews!), going by JOhn Dewan's fielding system, the Mariners infield made 25 fewer plays than an average defensive infield. Only teams worse: TBD, Flordia, CWS, LA, and Milwuakee. Seattle was the 25th best IF D according to that system, a little worse than Cincy and Texas. They were also average on DPs and 23rd on bunts.

Stottlemyre: Why sure, I'd love to be your pitching coach next year! How many sinkerballers do you have in the rotation?
Bavasi: Three
Stottlemyre: [shakes head] That's not enough.

Silva may not strike out many people but he walks even fewer people. In fact in 2005 he set the record for lowest walk rate in a full season of starts. I think this is a good signing especially for a team where he isn't blocking anyone, and where the team can say without too much exaggeration that they are one starting pitcher away from contention. Last year the Mariners had three good starters (including the two boring innings-eaters who actually received contracts as free agents and therefore, god help us, are theoretically "overpaid"), Jeff Weaver, and the Cha Horacio Feierabend chamber of horrors.

I think everyone is being harsh on Bavasi. No one wanted sign Gil Meche last year for that kind of money, that's why the Royals got him. He got Vidro for nothing and it worked out ok. The extension seems a little baffling. He signed Ichiro for less then it took to sign Vernon Wells and a bit more then Torii Hunter, that's a good move. The Johjima and Beltre signings turned out to be pretty good. The Sexson one didn't. The Horacio Ramirez trade was awful. But all in all, he's got the second best team in the division with two high upside bats coming up through the system very soon. It doesn't look like he's done a terrible job to me.

The Horacio Ramirez trade was awful. But all in all, he's got the second best team in the division with two high upside bats coming up through the system very soon. It doesn't look like he's done a terrible job to me.

I'd agree with this. He's not a creative gm, but he's competent. Not every gm can be above average, afterall. He had a tough offseason last year, though. There's no denying that.

Got my trusty 2008 THT Annual with me (in bookstores now! already the subject of rave reviews!), going by JOhn Dewan's fielding system, the Mariners infield made 25 fewer plays than an average defensive infield. Only teams worse: TBD, Flordia, CWS, LA, and Milwuakee. Seattle was the 25th best IF D according to that system, a little worse than Cincy and Texas. They were also average on DPs and 23rd on bunts.

Wow. Richie Sexson is that bad?

And in fact, you'll need to sign some sort of SP because you need 5 of those stinkers.

Actually, you only need four if you apply even a half-wit measure of intelligence to running your pitching staff. But just keep on taking a dozen starts a year away from your best pitchers and giving them to AAA guys, boys; that's good too.

Wow. Richie Sexson is that bad?

They're -11 in the middle infield and -14 at the corners.

Actually, you only need four if you apply even a half-wit measure of intelligence to running your pitching staff. But just keep on taking a dozen starts a year away from your best pitchers and giving them to AAA guys, boys; that's good too.

Advocating a four-man rotation? Given that no team has gone to a four-man rotation in years, you might want to revise what you consider to be a "half-wite measure of intelligence."

Given that no team has gone to a four-man rotation in years, you might want to revise what you consider to be a "half-wite measure of intelligence."

Well I think it goes without saying that nobody working for an actual baseball team is as smart as the people here, let alone as able to objectively decide what would help a team.

Well I think it goes without saying that nobody working for an actual baseball team is as smart as the people here, let alone as able to objectively decide what would help a team.

True dat. Baseball is frightened of my genius so I've been forced into politics. Everyone suffers.

I'm going to try not to hijack this thread with my tireless pulpit-pounding on the four man rotation, but the evidence that the five-man rotation helps improve effectiveness or reduce injuries to starting pitchers is near nil. Of course with a four-man, your pitchers would have to be more limited as to how much they can pitch in a given start, but honestly -- if you're going to take 8 starts per season away from, let's say, Brandon Webb, and take 8 starts away from Dan Haren, and give all 16 of those starts to Yusmeiro Petit, you had better have a very good reason. And there isn't any such concrete reason.

Here are my articles on the subject (which I'm going to re-work next month into a longer, more cohesive piece), on the off chance you might be interested:

Article 1
Article 2

Advocating a four-man rotation? Given that no team has gone to a four-man rotation in years, you might want to revise what you consider to be a "half-wite measure of intelligence."

But couldn't you pretty much do a 4.5 man, by keeping the top 4 on regular rest and skipping the #5 for off days? This seems to be ideal, and would geteach of you top 4, 3-4 extra starts (assuming health).

But couldn't you pretty much do a 4.5 man, by keeping the top 4 on regular rest and skipping the #5 for off days? This seems to be ideal, and would geteach of you top 4, 3-4 extra starts (assuming health).

This is really what the traditional 4-man rotation was. Teams always had a swing guy to fill in on occasion so the top 4 guys wouldn't get exhausted.

I'm going to try not to hijack this thread with my tireless pulpit-pounding on the four man rotation, but the evidence that the five-man rotation helps improve effectiveness or reduce injuries to starting pitchers is near nil.

There may be negligible evidence that can be pulled from the Lahman database, but it's a fact that putting additional repetitive stress on a pitcher's shoulder is a bad thing.

I think everyone is being harsh on Bavasi. No one wanted sign Gil Meche last year for that kind of money, that's why the Royals got him. He got Vidro for nothing and it worked out ok. The extension seems a little baffling. He signed Ichiro for less then it took to sign Vernon Wells and a bit more then Torii Hunter, that's a good move. The Johjima and Beltre signings turned out to be pretty good. The Sexson one didn't. The Horacio Ramirez trade was awful. But all in all, he's got the second best team in the division with two high upside bats coming up through the system very soon. It doesn't look like he's done a terrible job to me.

I've gotta take exception to some of these claims. Letting Meche go isn't one of them, though - there are very few people that believed Meche would even come close to earning his keep (& there's still plenty of time for that contract to become a multi-million dollar turd).

However:

- the Beltre signing turned out to be OK in spite of itself, & anyone that wasn't Bill Plaschke thought the same thing
- the Vidro trade essentially kept Adam Jones from getting PT he deserved last year(because a dude hitting a punchless .300 is a great guy to stick in the DH hole)
- comparing Ichrio's signing to that WTF Vernon Wells contract just shows how WTF the Vernon Wells contract is (never mind Torii Hunter)
- being the 2nd-best team in a 4-team division, where one team is lost in its own little wonderland of mediocrity, and the other team is perpetually snake-bit by injuries, isn't something worth hanging your hat on, especially when there are at least 2 other "2nd place teams" that are better than you in your league
- flipping valuable chits like Asdrubral Cabrera & Rafael Soriano for chump change is inexcusable
- no amount of grief Bavasi receives will ever equal the amount of grief Sexson has inspired within the Mariner fanbase

I think the biggest complaint re: Buzz-Buzz (and it's spot-on) is that he's pissing away Seattle's talent base on needless transactions and 80-win seasons, instead of actually addressing the team's shortcomings and trying to create an actual contender. Anyone that things last year's performance is actually indicative of the team's future is going to be in for a rude awakening next year.

- the Beltre signing turned out to be OK in spite of itself, & anyone that wasn't Bill Plaschke thought the same thing

There was a constant debate on this site about whether or not that was a good signing, so no, it wasn't slammed universally.

- the Vidro trade essentially kept Adam Jones from getting PT he deserved last year(because a dude hitting a punchless .300 is a great guy to stick in the DH hole)

Maybe Bavasi didn't want to use up Jones' service time on a year that was lost anyway and wanted him to develop in AAA. It's not like he destroyed AAA in 06. And he gets his starting spot this year and I doubt his development has been stunted. He's 22 next year.

- comparing Ichrio's signing to that WTF Vernon Wells contract just shows how WTF the Vernon Wells contract is (never mind Torii Hunter)

Are there any similiar, better CFer contracts out there? I guess the Jones one is better. The Rowand one is probably better. It's five years for a guy who is the face of the franchise who is likely to age well. That's not a bad contract, even for 20 mil a year. It's alot better then letting him go.

I think the biggest complaint re: Buzz-Buzz (and it's spot-on) is that he's pissing away Seattle's talent base on needless transactions and 80-win seasons, instead of actually addressing the team's shortcomings and trying to create an actual contender. Anyone that things last year's performance is actually indicative of the team's future is going to be in for a rude awakening next year.

I'm not saying I want Bavasi GMing my team or that he's a world beater GM, but he's not in the all-world awful category either. The franchise is in better shape then it was when he took over (IIRC he took over in 04 or 05, if I'm wrong, then the point doesn't really hold up) and it's in better shape then ten or so franchises (Pirates, O's, Rangers, Giants, Astros, Marlins, Nats, Royals, White Sox and maybe the A's). He's just not awful, he's mediocre.