PBC Blog

Authors

Post-Gazette beat writers Dejan Kovacevic and Chuck Finder blog about the Pittsburgh Baseball Club.

Register to comment
Guide to commenting

Syndication

Wilson, Seattle talking extension

By Dejan Kovacevic | 3:49 p.m. Friday

Jack Wilson, the Pirates' shortstop most of this decade, is discussing a multiyear extension with Seattle that would keep him from becoming a free agent.

The Mariners are believed to have offered a two-year contract worth more than the two-year offer the Pirates made Wilson -- $8 million -- shortly before trading him July 29. Wilson has an $8.4 million club option for 2010, with a $600,000 buyout, one that Seattle general manager Jack Zduriencik said at the time of the trade he would consider exercising.

Wilson recently was named the top defensive shortstop in Major League Baseball this past season by the Fielding Bible, a statistics-based publication headed by Bill James. He batted .255 with five home runs and 39 RBIs, missing much of his two months with the Mariners to injury.

In the trade, the Pirates acquired shortstop Ronny Cedeno, first baseman Jeff Clement and pitching prospects Aaron Pribanic, Brett Lorin and Nate Adcock, for Wilson, pitcher Ian Snell and $3.3 million in cash.


Posted Nov 06 2009, 03:49 PM by Dejan Kovacevic
Filed under:

Comments

Why Didn't I get to see Roberto? wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 3:53 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEAL PICK UP THE PHONE AND GET A DEAL DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thundercrack wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 3:55 PM

Jack Wilson to his agent:

"Hey, See if Seattle with sign me. Freddie signed a deal so I have to sign somewhere. Do you know Freddie and I played agains each other in high school and then became best buds when we played together in Pittsburgh?  I gotta go, I have to call DK to tell him all the details"

Thundercrack wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 3:56 PM

Hopefully he can sign with Seattle soon and we can all officially Move On.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 3:56 PM

Firsties.This should not be much of a surprise.IMO

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 3:57 PM

Active day.  Threads coming fast and furious.

wozzle wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:04 PM

"...missing much of his two months with the Mariners to injury".

A fair bit of his three months with the Pirates, and much of the previous year as well.  Same with Freddy.  The PBC can't replace injured players too well, so it's wise to avoid the injury-prone.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:04 PM

Lerud's position with the PBC is not looking too good with Sanchez moving to AA sometime in 2010.

JuniataKid wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:04 PM

Ah well. We all knew he wasn't coming back to Pittsburgh.

Still boggles my mind that we have no one in the minors who can step in when a regular leaves. Unbelievable.

wozzle wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:05 PM

From the previous thread - any complaints about these assignments?

Thought not;-)

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:06 PM

JAL - the ants have motion sickness they've marched so much!

jersey joe wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:09 PM

I have been thinking about this what pitcher you would want for one game and I am in on the premise that it should be a pirate pitcher and in our lifetime and I want to win that game and so I move the rotation around of Blass and the candy man and bob veale and kison to pitch Harvey Haddix.  One of the single best pitching performances of all time is for the game I look to for a repeat perfomance

Dejan Kovacevic wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:09 PM

@Thundercrack: That is good, but this one did not come from Wilson or anyone on Wilson's side, for that matter. That is as far as I will go, obviously, but thought it was worth sharing.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:15 PM

We need a "stick one in the batter's ear" kind of pitcher.Does Kison have any relatives in college?

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:15 PM

<<Hopefully he can sign with Seattle soon and we can all officially Move On.>>

Oh Thundercrack, that was hilarious.

Harken back to April 19, 2009, when Doumit getting hurt hit the blog. If you're bored this weekend, you could scroll the blog archives for the 2,456.456,981 comments about missing out on Weiters,

This group does many things. It does NOT move on.

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:17 PM

From an earlier thread on the dirty(also female) soccer player we have an update.

nbcsports.msnbc.com/.../sports-soccer

MarkInDallas wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:23 PM

Posted after ants marched...

Abolute -

Actually, according to DK, Huntington wanted to do the Bay for Lee package but Coonelly nixed it because he thought more could be had waiting for Bay to recover from injury.

So, yes, you should definitely keep that in mind when you consider that Huntington looked at a Cliff Lee with a 6+ ERA and thought he could be worth Jason Bay.

And that should be kept in mind when looking at Huntington's evaluation of 6+ ERA Ohlendorf, 6+ ERA Hanrahan, Morton, Hart, etc.

Huntington just might know something you and I don't.

The job of the talent evaluators of the Pirates is pretty tough, because those are the kinds of guys you HAVE to find to be successful. OK, so Brian Cashman can look at CC Sabathia and "I think he'd be good for our team". Big deal.

The Pirates are just never going to be able to get either established or minor league talent that is can't miss in trade. Teams don't give up their Lincecums and Tommy Hansons when everyone can see they are going to be stellar.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:31 PM

Looking at that list of 2006 draft picks reminds me that I recently read a Mariners Sabermetric expert's blog where he was advocating trading Brandon Morrow for JJ Hardy. I wouldn't go Lincoln for Hardy. It will be interesting to see whether Morrow or Lincoln turns out better.

I had suggested Duke for Hardy.

Looks like Huntington likes Duke better than I thought because obviously he didn't float that out there. You know for sure that he inquired about Hardy. Because for sure the Brewers would have taken that over what they got.

Wilson's possible extension and the Hardy trade make it look pretty likely that Cedeno will be the SS in 2010. It's hard to see another candidate around.

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:34 PM

POH

I bet the ants do have motion sickness :)

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:37 PM

AS for Lerud, i asked a couple of weeks ago why he was on the 40 man What team would take a Rule 5 player whose 6 season minor league BA is .228 and has never played above AA and has 42 HRs in 1740 at bats?

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:39 PM

Teams don't give up their Lincecums and Tommy Hansons when everyone can see they are going to be stellar.

At least when Lincecum goes FA if we throw in a little ganja we have a better chance at signing him. lol

absolute59 wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:47 PM

Markindallas:

If you are correct that NH wanted to do deal and FC nixed it then it does say alot of NH talent evaluation skills in a positive way.

However, the InZiskweTrust post the from DK about the pirates pulling out of Lee trade was

"The decision, made jointly through the entire chain of command, was that the value for Bay was not enough. "

If NH agreed the deal was not enough because he did not see that Lee could be a dominate pitcher then it goes into the total evaluations.

I also agree that NH has a more difficult job than brian cashman however, if the Pirates are ever going to get out of this losing cycle they are going to need a GM who see that Lee can be a dominate pitcher and is a good deal for Bay and that Ohlendorf can be a quality ML starter and is a good guy to get in a deal for Nady.  He got the Ohlendorf one right.  If he nixed the Bay deal, he got that one wrong.  All I have been saying is that you have to put both on the scale when we evaluate the job of NH now and in the future

If in fact NH wanted to  

Thundercrack wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:49 PM

I thought I read that one reason FC nixed the Bay for Lee deal was that he wanted younger players.  He thought the guys coming back from Clev. were older and too close to FA, espcially Lee.

If Lee would have straightend himself out we would have just dealt him before the next trade deadline.

21sthebest wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:00 PM

Absolute,

You may be on to something with Neal not seeing that Lee was going to be a dominate pitcher coming off of a 6.29 ERA year (and his ERA had been increasing for two years).

In fact, 29 GM's blew it and 1 GM blew it 12 times with respect to Albert Pujols.  It happens.

leadoff wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:02 PM

OH, Boy, what shoulda, coulda,  woulda, I would be a mulit-millionaire if I could go back in time and every team in baseball would win a world series if they could go back in time.

Do the Bucs evaluate their own moves? According to Neal, all moves are evaluated before trades and after trades.

The Bucs are where they are right now and the only thing that matters is where do they go from here?

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:03 PM

GoBucs--I tried to warn you about bringing up Nate. (Pssst---shhhhhhh)

PoH--I think it is soooo appropriate that other than the "ants marching" you are the ONLY poster/commenter on the Ole Dreamy Eyes thread. You must have worked that out with DK.

TC--move on?   MOVE ON?  HERE?  You've GOT to be kidding?!  And then you post a comment about Bay/Lee.

absolute--I've heard before and believe Mark's explanation.  I have never heard Ziskie's before.  It does, however, sound like corporate "we're all on the same page here" speak.  It certainly doesn't sound like reality.  Also, at the time there were a lot of rumors that "the top" nixed it, it wasn't clear at that time if it was BN or FC; it was clear it wasn't Neal.

absolute59 wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:06 PM

TC:

In Dec 2007 Lee was 29 with 4 years in bigs thus 2 years of control. Shoppach was 27 with 2 years in bigs and 4 years of control and Fransisco was 26 with 1 year in bigs thus 5 years of control.

The guys they got other than Morris were not significantly younger. Hansen 25 - 4 years of control; Laroche 25-5 years of control and Moss 25 and 4 years of control.  

G-Man wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:10 PM

PoH -

>>This group does many things. It does NOT move on.<<

I laughed so hard at that I levitated out of the recliner.

You win a Hap Cap for what you wrote.  __/_H_\

What you said kinda reminds me how, when I moved from Pittsburgh to Richmond, the people in Richmond were still fighting the Civil War in discussions. And 35 years later, they are still fighting it here.

I look forward to reading the blog in 2017. My guess is folks here will be talking about the Bay and McLouth trades.

G-Man wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:12 PM

Arriba -

>>[PoH is] the ONLY poster/commenter on the Ole Dreamy Eyes thread.<<

I saw a CNN report that she had to be talked in off the ledge at the newspaper not long after she read about Virgil.  ;-)

belfry wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:19 PM

This Wilson banter is puzzling to me: Dejan saying that Jack would welcome a return to Pburgh, yet wasn't Wilson quoted a week or two ago as saying he would rather stay in Seattle?

This is starting to read like that reality crap show Bachelor/Bachelorette posting board which I tease my wife about.

But you know what, I'm not sure which of us is to be pitied more, at this point.

MarkInDallas wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:19 PM

absolute - I look at it like this. Let's say you and your boss have a disagreement on what path to take. You say, "Let's soft sell this account" and your boss wants to hard sell. You take the hard sell approach and it doesn't work. Do you then go around telling everyone that you could've gotten the account if only he had listened to you? Or do you say "We discussed it and it was a mutual decision".

Anyway, just because these kinds of deals don't always work out as you hope doesn't mean they made a mistake. The expectation cannot be that they hit on every trade or signing they make. The expectation is that when viewed as a whole, they came out ahead and improved the team over the timeframe they were expecting.

I keep bringing this up and nobody of the anti-FO crowd likes to acknowledge -

In 2005, Rangers' new GM Jon Daniels immediately traded away Adrian Gonzalez and Chris Young for much less than we got for Bay. Yet, he hit on the Mark Teixeira deal and some free agent fliers and suddenly the Rangers have the best farm system in all of baseball and have a very bright future. It took 3 years of losing to make the Rangers a winner in the fourth year, and the Pirates were in MUCH worse shape than the Rangers when NH took over.

Thundercrack wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:23 PM

AB59,

Thanks for posting that info.

The key to that deal was Lee.  The Bucs weren't going to trade their best player for a pitcher coming off a bad year-who they only had 2 years of control if he turned it around.

They were not going to gamble.

And I thought the outfielder wasn't Francisco but Franklin Gutierrez?  He wasn't proven then either--but I think he's turned out to be a pretty good OF  (more glove than bat)

Demery44 wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:24 PM

MarkinDallas, can we change your name to NealinPNC?

My-Key-Tee wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:36 PM

Demery,  NealinPNC - now that's funny!

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:41 PM

TC--actually that is exactly what Neal wanted to do, trade Bay for Lee.  And if you think about it, it is consistent with Neal's MO.  They would be swapping 2 players with the same years of control, both of whom were coming off bad years and needed to turn it around.  I was against it at the time, but it actually makes sense.  No criticism of Neal intended--he wanted to do it.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:50 PM

Come to think of it, maybe the way the Bay/Lee thing turned out is why FC approved the McLouth trade.  You know, "I nixed a trade (Bay/Lee) that would have worked out better than what we ended up doing (Bay/Bosox/LA) so maybe I should trust my GM."

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:16 PM

What?No new thread?It's been 2 hours!  :-)

indianafanatic wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:20 PM

Did it ever occur to any of the pro vs anti crowd that the display of venom here on the blog rivals the rhetoric outta DC. It is Sarah Palin vs Rachel Maddow part 2. All smoke and no substance. All female dogging and no common sense. However u want to describe it, telling sign NuHo/Demery asking Mark to change his name to NealinPNC, it may provoke a smile or two but in the end does nothing to adavance civil dialogue

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:22 PM

I wonder when the "Bucs trade for Lincecum" thread is going to pop up?

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:25 PM

indianafanatic  -

civil dialogue.....what kinda #&%@* do you expect from (^$$##@^ when all they say is %$@#*&  whenever they want to %&$#**%^ some body off for @&^%$#*^%?

Gee whilickers Mr Indy are you joshing me?

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:31 PM

Either my neighbor is burning leaves or Lincecum is firing up a fatty. lol

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:40 PM

There's a lot more to the Bay/Lee than just how Lee turned out.

Think about who the pitching coach was at the time Bay was traded. Think about the infield behind Lee had he come here, the outfield farther back.

There is a lot to a pitcher's performance. I know he's the guy on the hill doing the work, but what about his catcher, his pitching coach, the program he's put on, the way he uses his days of rest.

Maybe Lee wouldn't have turned out as well a couple of years ago in Pittsburgh. To this admin's defense, maybe the Yankees couldn't have gotten out of Ohlendorf what Kerrigan and Company have.

Bizrow wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:43 PM

Maz - in my day, before working at a Nuke plant/random testing, they used to call it doobies.

Now if the PG starts doing random testing in here, we are in big trouble.

I hope this is an allowed post.

So we are down to 36 men on the 40 man.  Two from the 60 day to add. 38.   Then to protect from rule 5, we have to add Gorksys, Lincoln, Morris with Shelby on the line, I don't think Negrych (the guy from Pitt) needs protected.  I think we're going to have to drop at least 3-4 more, to give room to pick up a bargain basement FA and to take the obligatory Rule 5 pick.

So who goes, Dumatrait, Claggett, Sues, Uviedo, Bix, Pearce, Moss??  Just to throw a few names out there.

And catching wise we have 3, Diaz is out of options, Jarmillo is not, but I remember when Kendall broke his ankle, that made Bonifay trade Jose Guillen for two catchers due to lack of depth there.

GM meetings next week?

Groat2Maz2Strangeglove wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:47 PM

Hopeful One,

I usually agree with you.

However, Nate McLouth was NOT standing in McCutch's way!

Nate said he preferred to play in center.  He did not say, "I won't play anywhere else but center!"

On the softball team I play on, I always let them know I prefer to play outfield.  However, I play 1st Base for the betterment of the team.

There was nothing wrong with Nate stating his preference.  He was not the reason McCutch was in AAA, and McCutch was brought up one day after the date passed to qualify for an extra year before arbitration.  That was NO COINCIDENCE!  

Besides:  Nate had a nice neck——his neck reminded me of Van Slyke!!

BFD wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:49 PM

per DK's article....... and $3.3 million in cash.....

---------

That's all folks....that pretty much sums up our Buco owner........

DMac wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:50 PM

Holey Moley!  

Here's what happens when you stay away for a day...stuff happens.  Sheesh.  :-)

Sorry about Vasquez, PoH.  Who talked you off the Clemente Bridge?   ;-)

Manny_Sanguine wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 6:56 PM

You can never find your Best Bolt when you really need it

BFD wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:03 PM

The expectation cannot be that they hit on every trade or signing they make.

-----------

couldn't disagree more Mark.......Yes, a GM will miss a few, but if this is how they are thinking, then it explains the past 17 years.

Bizrow wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:10 PM

Well, I know we're not allowed to talk about this, Emily Post rules I guess, where are they posted btw, you can't hit them all, but you can't afford swings and misses when you are talking about a JBay, and honestly, I would take back the Nate trade in a nuclear minute, do we think the new kid on the block snookered an organization that has been in the playoffs, without huge spending for about as many years as we've been under 500?

Plenty of Hope wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:12 PM

Groat - I never said blocking in the McLouth trade. I just find it weird that people wig out still when we had a replacement in the system. We didn't for second, for example, and that was harder to watch when Freddy left.

There's a difference between a widow that has two cars, and someone asks to buy one... and the widow that has one car and sells it because someone asked to buy it. Now she's walking to the grocery store and by the time she gets home the milk is bad and three of the eggs are cracked.

You are so right about the neck.

Let me also point out that Nate did not go on this season to win some huge award, he did not become a pitcher and hurl a perfect game, he did not find a cure for cancer and he did not make an appearance in the post season.

Jack Wilson purportedly has found a cure for cancer, but that's another story....

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:24 PM

Bizrow -Dumatrait and Bix could be removed.I doubt anyone wants those two.Sues will 27 and he was promoted to AAA in time to pitch 12 innings.I think they're going to keep Moss and Pearce.Of course with Clement available Pearce could be removed.So, Dumatrait ,Bix,Sues,and maybe Pearce.  

Bizrow wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:27 PM

Lerude, sorry for the spelling was ranked the no 21 best prospect in the PBC org in 09, so there was work to be done.

But was he cute?  Sorry, the devli made me say that.

Ok Wilson had goofy teeth, at first, but he was also rated as the best defensive shortstop by one ranking, Nate did not have a good year, he got hurt, our return was not stellar either.

Milledge trade on the other hand has some promise.

But thats my spin, and spin is what its all about, your perspective on things, I guess.  What side of the tracks you live on??

mazfromiowa wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:34 PM

What side of the tracks you live on??

As Johnny Rivers would say...The poor side of town

Bizrow wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:42 PM

Me too Maz, me too

Yes, good choices regarding the 40 man, and that does not account for any, what does leadoff say, dumpster hunting?  Something like that but it makes me laugh when I read it, every time.

There could be a few more to go.

You know what though?  I get to keep my seats in RF, I can afford to go, I can afford a primanti's for my sweetie and me, l have the dogs, I get to visit my son, Chris, not "the boy", life is sweet, can't and don't want to ask for more.

Night all, last nasty thought, does Roseanne Barr post here now??

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:42 PM

Biz

Yes Lerud has much work left, which is why I do se any team taking him in Rule 5.

indianafanatic wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:49 PM

evenin all

I have to make a quick mea culpa.

Earlier I said that htere was not one FA I would like to see the Pirates adopt (sign). I am taking a mulligan and ask that this team go after Jermaine Dye White Sox LF

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 7:58 PM

BFD

Not sure what you mean by 3.3 million in cash sums up the Bucco owner?  Did you misread what DK wrote.  They gave Seattle 3.3 million along with Wilson and Snell.

Las Vegas Pirate Fan wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 8:14 PM

We paid $3.3mil to Seattle.  Sums up quite the opposite of our 'Buco' owner.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 8:43 PM

Not to let facts get in the way, but they gave Seattle 3.3 million and saved approx 5 million (Snell's guarantee and Jack's buyout).  I'm no math major, but 5 is more than 3.3.

Cajun Thunder wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 8:50 PM

Jermaine Dye...will be 36 at the start of 2010 season...paid $11.5M in 2009. UZR over the last 4 seasons AVERAGED right around -22. (That's Adam Dunn in the OF territory) Hit .250 in 2009.

Short answer...not only no...but H-E-double hockey sticks no.

radio wave wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 8:55 PM

Good evening inmates near and far.

Mr. Hadar if you're out there; Let's hope Hawks don't have issues tomorrow.

POH: Am I to assume Vasquez was "dreamy eyes"?

Biz: Great analysis  of the 40 man situation.

I can see Pearce and Bix going..

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:08 PM

Arriba

True but the point was BFD seemed to think they got 3.3 and showed how the owner was.  

As for the rest, have to add and subtract salaries of all involved--gets complicated.

radio wave wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:11 PM

Tigers let go of Marcus Thames, at age 32. would Bucs have any interest?

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:14 PM

JAL--my retort was more directed to LVF since he said it meant the opposite.  But it really is not complicated at all.  All you have to do is see what they slashed from MLB payroll last year and this year.  It would be impossible at this point to have spent that money elsewhere.  But the reality of the Wilson/Snell trade by itself was it saved them money.  Simple arithmetic.

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:21 PM

Arriba

True, they slashed a lot but i think most of it was well slashed.  Wilson and Sanchez's injury record is more likely to get worse at their ages.  IMO neither was worth what they would get this year and SF and Seattle want to pay them and take a chance so be it.

leadoff wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:22 PM

Biz

Lets get it straight, it is Dumster Diving, not Dumster Hunting, Neal already knows where all the dumpsters are? Sheesh

On another note, I see that Strasburg was scratched tonight because of the infamous upper body injury (Neck).

JAL wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:28 PM

Radio

For the right price--streaky hitter with some good power the last few seasons.

pi-rat wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 9:39 PM

dumpster hunting?

I bet even nutho could hit a dumpster.

re last thread- did hinkse whine his way out of here or cry his way out of here? I'm not sure the on-line stats clarify that.. I just hope he doesn't show again.

what happens to one's coif when such diving is taking place? I would pay cash money for an FO picture in a dumpster. maybe pants can rig one up?

leadoff wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 10:05 PM

Pi-rat

I bet even nutho could hit a dumpster.

___________________________

I don't know if he could hit a dumpster, but I do know that if you let Bob, Frank or Neal hold the flag, I'll bet NuHo comes awfully close to that hole.

JHadar wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 10:35 PM

Radio -- Another all day meeting tomorrow, so will miss the game, I keep guarding my optimism with the Hawks, and Northwestern has been a spoiler too often of late -- but we are at home, and we're due to put a 4-quarter game together.  I'll definitely be rooting for Penn State vs Ohio State.  

Read through the blog from time to time today, but other people said everything that I was going to say before I got caught up.  

pi-rat wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 11:42 PM

looks like angels have adapted buc's strategery of 'if we didn't win with them might as well let them go' in letting figgins and vlad go. think the buc FO will poly up 30 mil a year for winners? [that is rhetorical question]

perry-like clarification: I am very sorry if I said crier/whiner hinske was a free agent. apparently crier/whiner hinske did not declare [yet]. I get grabbing some pine and getting all that bling is just fine when one's backside sports the pinstripes.

Las Vegas Pirate Fan wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Fri, Nov 6 2009 11:51 PM

'my retort was more directed to LVF since he said it meant the opposite.  But it really is not complicated at all.  All you have to do is see what they slashed from MLB payroll last year and this year.  It would be impossible at this point to have spent that money elsewhere.  But the reality of the Wilson/Snell trade by itself was it saved them money.  Simple arithmetic.'

__________________________________________________

The fact the we paid ANYTHING to the Mariners was the opposite of anything BN had ever done.  That's all I was stating....as someone else claimed it summed up our owner because they (wrongly) thought we had received the money from the Mariners.

Ok. So we saved 5 mil and sent away 3.3.  Do we not pay the 5 players we received in return anything?  Seems to be a wash to me.  Although, clearly a little more complicated than just spending 3.3 and saving 5.

Drew71 wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Sat, Nov 7 2009 12:46 AM

Femme Soccer Fatale...oh, if i was a few years younger and a few years more single...she's MY KINDA GAL.

TRUE story: mrs drew once told me that some girl at high school graduation grabbed her to threaten her (over a BOY no less).  mrs drew, all 4 foot 11 1/2 of her, spun around and dug into girl's arm, bringing blood and tears from said girl.

When mrs drew told me this story, a told her i've never been more, you know (family blog).

So my guess is soccer girl got 1suspension, 118 date requests and 4 proposals.

"mrs drew mrs drew mrs drew mrs drew...we gotta thannnnggg goin' on."

ok, ok baseball.  hmmm.  how bout them yankees?  (that was painful.)

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Sat, Nov 7 2009 12:55 AM

JAL and LVF--all i was doing was applying one of the 3 R's--Rithmetic, and I get an analysis of the Jack and Freddy trades and a nit pick about me not counting some chump change.  Yes, they did spend more than just the 3.3, but what ya'll were saying is BN sent 3.3 to Seattle (not mentioning the 5 mil savings) and I was just correcting that.  If you would have said it was a wash, you would have saved me a post.  I know there's a new thread, but I didn't want to bore tomorrow's crowd.

Arriba Wilver wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Sat, Nov 7 2009 1:27 AM

Ants have marched.

======================

The Deacon wrote re: Wilson, Seattle talking extension
on Sat, Nov 7 2009 1:56 AM

I liked Jack, but it's time to move on.