Polling The ‘Sphere

I recently sent out a short, 5-question poll to a number of people, including analysts, scouts, front office executives, beat writers, and notable bloggers, and these are the results.

The questions are centered around the current free agent market and how it relates to the Seattle Mariners and their strategy toward the future – starting now.

These are pretty interesting, and I thank those who participated for their time and efforts.

---

Q: Is it wise for the Seattle Mariners, considering finances as well as public relations and their competitive future, to be aggressive in what is clearly a market not bearing the fruits of safe, value contracts? Why or why not?

---

I’d love to see the Mariners be aggressive in making intelligent moves. If they were aggressive in acquiring Manny Ramirez, I’d be doing back flips. But, despite the failings of the team the past few seasons, that is still not justification for spending money on mediocre players just to give the perception that you’re trying.– Dave Cameron, USSMariner.com

---

It is unlikely wise for the Mariners to spend in this market. I think that too many of this offseason’s contracts will hamstring the opportunity to compete in 2008 and 2009. Therefore the Mariners should look to trades and value signings in order to make another incremental improvement.– David Josef Clark, FanHome.com

---

I can’t think of any reason why a team in Seattle’s position should be spending the kind of money it takes to land a figure in today’s free agent market. Bavasi is much better off looking into low-risk ventures, like the Guillen signing over this past weekend, and making sensible trades for proven talent.– Anonymous National Contributor

---

Its wise for them to be willing to make sacrifices to upgrade this team for 2007, while not losing site of the overall franchise improvement. A middle rotation guy isn’t worth the investment if that’s all they can do. Front-line pitching is hard to find these days, so I don’t envy Bill Bavasi one bit.-Seth Everett, MLB Radio

---

No, it wouldn’t be wise for the Mariners to act aggressively in this poor FA market – as much as it might act as a short-term PR fix, the problems such an approach would cause down the road would only make
things worse. That said, the M’s *do* need to be aggressive in scouring the trade market, now more than
ever. There are values to be had if the front office looks hard enough.– Jeff Sullivan, LookoutLanding.com

---

If the Seattle Mariners throw out the kind of cash that this market is demanding, the entire front office, all of them, should be fired – by someone, anyone, Mr. Nintendo, Bud Selig, David Stern, the President of the United States, someone. This is a winter where this club has to be smart. Another group ofbad spending could truly cripple the franchise for the next decade.– Assistant GM, NL West

---

Q: Considering the hot-seat positions of GM Bill Bavasi, field manager Mike Hargrove and possibly Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong as well, do you believe the club has to do something extremely proactive to appease season ticket holders and fans in general, while making a
strong attempt to improve the club, despite the wicked nature of this year’s free agent market?

---

I believe part of the job responsibilities of the decision makers is to be a steward of the best interests of the franchise. While it’s easy to say from the outside, since my job isn’t on the line, I believe that when decisions are being made in an attempt to save someone’s job, then that person has already disqualified themselves from their position and should be removed. The focus of the front office should be on building a winning franchise, and not on creating a public perception that allows them to continue receiving a paycheck.– Dave Cameron

---

Yes, They most certainly do. Attendance is in a freefall and the only way to get early season attendance is to make a splashy deal, be it in free agency or via trade. It is unfortunate, but the management of the team will have to act in this way because they will be unemployed if they do not.

– David Josef Clark

---

The higher-ups should already understand that it’s not a good market and thus the GM and manager’s job status should be assessed accordingly. Bavasi shouldn’t be fired if the moves he does make before spring training, and during the year, pay off and he gets good value in a large percentage of the personnel decisions. Hargrove shouldn’t be fired as long as the club takes a full step or two forward and as long as it appears that the players are responding well to the way he’s running the roster.

– Anonymous National Contributor

---

This club could use some good PR…. Apathy is the worst thing that a ballclub can face in a city. However, I evaluate Bill on what young pitching he has. For example, Felix is considered an untouchable. If so, then let’s start to see a return on that investment.

That young pitching is the only thing that this team can do because Johan Santana-types don’t grow on trees. This year should be about progress, that’s the only realistic goal I can think of.

– Seth Everett

---

I think the organization does need to do something to regenerate interest in the team, but at the same time I don’t think signing a free agent is the way to do it. Jason Schmidt would be effective in getting the fans going, but someone like, say, Manny Ramirez would do the same thing while also helping the Mariners win. It should be noted, though, that trying to appease the fan base is a lousy way to run a ballclub, and that winning always has more drawing power than names. All the front office needs to do is make this a good team.

The rest will sort itself out.

– Jeff Sullivan

---

It’s an impossible situation, if that’s the way things are up there. Bavasi can’t effectively do his GM gig if he’s forced to win enough to save his job, regardless of the damage it may do to their future. It may be time for Lincoln and Armstrong to give in, or even give up their positions, if they aren’t smart enough to see this.

– Assistant GM

---

Q: Jason Schmidt – Wise to offer a 34-year-old four or more years for $12-15 million in order to achieve some of the immediate goals of the franchise?

---

It’s almost never wise to offer any pitcher four or more years. Toss in Jason Schmidt’s age, recent performance decline, and injury history, and giving him a four year deal is simply asking for trouble. There are times when long term contracts make sense for both the player and the franchise, but Jason Schmidt is not one of those times. – Dave Cameron

---

Wise? No. Necessary considering the market and the team’s needs in the starting rotation? Yes. I would be loathe to go five years, and would not want to go on the high end of that dollar value. I would also prefer that the contract offer be frontloaded in order give maximum flexibility to the club at the end of the deal.

– David Josef Clark

---

It’s probably not even a good move to give him three years, let alone four, at least of the guaranteed money variety. His market value is around 4 and 48, but he could drive the price up past 5/65. The Mariners would be much better off passing on Schmidt and realizing that they are a better franchise for it, even though they may not be a better team in 2007.

– Anonymous National Contributor

---

I wouldn’t do it for 4 years…. 2, plus an option is all I’d do. And that goes for most teams in the league, not just the Mariners. I think we’ve already seen the best of Jason Schmidt.

– Seth Everett

---

Schmidt would be fine on an expensive but short contract, but I fear that the probability of his significant decline is far too high to justify a four-or five-year commitment. It’d be different if I knew that he’d be the only overpaid player on the team, but I think we all know that won’t be the case.

– Jeff Sullivan

---

We’ve been talking to Schmidt and his reps but the money he’s asking for is not realistic, especially since he’s ignoring any club east of the desert, including the Cubs, who offered him $15 million per. For Seattle? It’s a terrible, terrible idea. Two years makes some sense. Three if you have to, and if it’s for 10-12, but anything past that and it’s a PR move for the local kid, and maybe nothing else. Their scouts know what we all know; Schmidt is a No. 3 starter looking for ace dough.

– Assistant GM

---

Q: Middle of the rotation types, such as Gil Meche, Vicente Padilla and Ted Lilly — a relatively decent investment for a club in Seattle’s position, even if it costs $8-10 million per for 3-5 years?

---

The middle class of pitchers, with an established reputation for being mediocre, are the most overvalued commodity in baseball right now. Teams are paying for names and past performance, and despite the huge failure rates of recent similar signings, they continue to not learn their lesson. Committing $8 to $10 million for a back-end starter is a great way to insure that your team underachieves.

– Dave Cameron

---

No. The team already has one middle of the rotation guy at a higher value in Washburn. I would rather they sign a guy like Okha or Park for lower dollars and less commitment or count on filling two spots from minor leaguers or Woods. The lack of attachment to the veteran presence would then allow the club to quickly react to poor performance and go with hot arms.

– David Josef Clark

---

Tolerable investment at a MAX of $24m/3yr. Anything higher than that and you need to walk away. There are just too many random guys who can give you 180 half-decent innings to warrant giving Gil Meche four years.

– Jeff Sullivan

---

Meche has been a prospect his entire career…. Cut the cord. Padilla and Lilly don’t’ thrill me that much. Suppan or Randy Wolf were the only pitchers I’ve been real high on, from this free agent class.

Wolf signed with the Dodgers, and I don’t think Suppan is interested in Seattle. I realize I’m not painting a pretty picture, and I think Bill knows that.

– Seth Everett

---

Not at those dollars. That’s frontline money and the teams that know which guys to give that and which aren’t worth the risk, are the ones that will come out of this frenzy ahead of the game. Clubs without other hindering contracts have a little lattitude, but not very much. Seems Toronto is collecting the mediocre on the mound and that’s sad because Halladay is tremendous. Seattle isn’t one of those teams that can afford it – not in the pocket book, nor on the field.

– Assistant GM

---

Yuck. I talked to a GM on friday before he left for Florida (winter meetings) and he was –hoping– that one of the above names would come –down– to 4 and 36. This will keep getting worse, every year, until teams show some ability to spend more intelligently, particularly on pitching. The Mariners aren’t being mentioned in most talks, except for Schmidt, and that’s been all speculation to this point. Pray they stay way, Mariners fans. I feel for ya.

– Anonymous National Contributor

---

Q: How important ,and perhaps reasonable is it, in general, for the Mariners to be responsible when making decisions on big-money players this winter, again taking their situation into consideration, i.e., last-place finishes for three straight years even though they have spent tons of cash?

---

The Mariners front office is full of well-compensated executives who have been around the game a long time and have decades of experience in franchise building. If a few seasons of poor on field performance is enough to convince the baseball operations department to forsake wise team building philosophy in search of a short term gain in wins, than the team needs new people making decisions.

– Dave Cameron

---

It’s getting more and more crucial for this particular group, and that includes the team’s president (Armstrong) and their spokesman and CEO (Lincoln) that they make better decisions than in the past. I don’t frown so much on Richie Sexson and Adrian Beltre, but they have been in the middle of so many disasterous PR situations with their big name guys (AROD, Griffey, Randy Johnson), that they haven’t the room for another last-place finish, further falling attendance and a return to the dreaded 1980s as a franchise.

– Anonymous National Contributor

---

Well, I think payroll is not directly connected to results. Teams should spend between $50-$100 million. If the right decisions are made on the minor league level, then a GMs job is easy under those circumstances. The bottom line for the M’s is that they had a veteran team and didn’t replace those aging players in time. Moyer held them up when he refused the trade in 2005 to Houston. Beltre has underachieved but I still think we all would have made that signing. It’s a tough road for Seattle, and this is a big year for Mr. Bavasi (who I am a huge fan of).

– Seth Everett

---

The team needs to win now. Falling attendance in what is now an older park can only be combatted with winning. Hopefully a culture of winning can replace what is already here. Waiting until next year is no longer going to satisfy the Pacific Northwest.– David Josef Clark

---

The reason the Mariners have been in last place for three straight years is that they haven’t spent their
money wisely. Therefore it’s more important that they’re careful with their money now than ever before,
because the longer you continue the same cycle, the longer it is before you can get out of it. It’s always
smart to be responsible with your money, but since the Mariners are already giving a ton to
Beltre/Sexson/Washburn for an underwhelming return, for them it’s critical. Rushing to sign one of these
free agents will only set them back. – Jeff Sullivan

---

I’ve heard some rumors that not only will four guys lose their jobs if things aren’t turned around, but that this very issue that the question asks, must be handled with better results, or that, as much as anything else will be the reason why massive changes are made.But what that does is put four guys into bad situations, and if they simply make choices to save their jobs, Seattle is doomed. The key is for everyone to be on the same page, and so far, there is no reason to believe that they are. – Assistant GM

---