There has been some speculation that the Mariners might try to trade Chone Figgins this off-season to free up some cash for a payroll that’s pushing its limits. But speaking to general manager Jack Zduriencik this morning, it appears that’s highly unlikely to happen and that Figgins will be the team’s Opening Day third baseman.

Zdureincik asked Figgins to make the switch back to third in a conversation just before Christmas.

“His reputation has been — I think we’ve all seen it — that he’s a very good defensive third baseman,” Zduriencik said.

Zduriencik added that the 2010 season was “very interesting for Chone” in that he had to cope with the position switch over to second, dropping down to No. 2 in the order from leadoff and the pressures of playing for a new team with a big contract. The GM hopes Figgins can get off to a quicker start in 2011 “if he gets back to a comfort level where he feels he’s been successful there.”

We’ve written for the past week or so about how the Mariners appear to be right up against their budget limit of $93.5 million (the team says it can go up to last year’s Opening Day payroll) and that this would explain their lack of recent moves. I asked Zduriencik how much flexibility he has remaining.

“We didn’t have a lot of flexibility going in,” he said. “And we did some things in some areas where I thought we had some need.”

That included adding Jack Cust as a DH and bringing in Miguel Olivo as a catcher. Brendan Ryan also came in as a potential starting second baseman.

But other than that, existing contracts and raises due certain players have indeed eaten up most of the remaining room.

“We’re going to have to do some things creatively if we do anything at all,” he said.

Some had suggested that creativity might include dealing Figgins. But that appears out.

Zduriencik said the other part of his rationale for moving Figgins to third was the limited options the team had for the position. He feels infielder Josh Wilson is better off competing for a starting second base job with Ryan.

So, Figgins appears here to stay, at least for Opening Day.

The other salary-freeing option was closer David Aardsma. But Zduriencik said Aardsma’s hip surgery was a bit more involved than first expected and that the closer might not be ready to start the season.

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Well, this was certainly an interesting interview conducted by Joe Posnanski today with National Baseball Hall of Fame president Jeff Idelson. In the interview, Idelson is asked for his views on whether he thinks baseball writers are handling their vote in the right way when it comes to screening candidates who have been caught taking or linked to performance enhancing drugs.

Today’s vote saw first-timer Rafael Palmeiro limited to just 11 percent of the ballot, while Mark McGwire slipped down to 19.8 percent and Juan Gonzalez barely stayed alive at 5.2 percent. Jeff Bagwell , whose only connection to performance enhancing drugs has been through rumors and suspicion, notched 41.7 percent.

Idelson indicated that he was more than pleased with how voters have tackled the issue and seem to be upholding the ballot directive that states:

Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.

Here’s what Idelson said: “Baseball has historically been held to a very high standard, right or wrong,” he says. “There’s a certain integrity required when it comes to baseball’s highest honor, which is being inducted into the Hall of Fame. The character clause exists as it relates to the game on the field. The character clause isn’t there to evaluate and judge players socially. It’s there to relate to the game on the field. … The voters should have the freedom to measure that however they see fit.”

In fact, the quotes from Idelson about how comfortable he is with what voters have done now lead Posnanski to believe that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens may never get into the hall of Fame. I’d have to agree with that. The message sent by voters today was pretty strong.

Photo Credit: AP

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Well, this was certainly an interesting interview conducted by Joe Posnanski today with National Baseball Hall of Fame president Jeff Idelson. In the interview, Idelson is asked for his views on whether he thinks baseball writers are handling their vote in the right way when it comes to screening candidates who have been caught taking or linked to performance enhancing drugs.

Today’s vote saw first-timer Rafael Palmeiro limited to just 11 percent of the ballot, while Mark McGwire slipped down to 19.8 percent and Juan Gonzalez barely stayed alive at 5.2 percent. Jeff Bagwell , whose only connection to performance enhancing drugs has been through rumors and suspicion, notched 41.7 percent.

Idelson indicated that he was more than pleased with how voters have tackled the issue and seem to be upholding the ballot directive that states:

Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.

Here’s what Idelson said: “Baseball has historically been held to a very high standard, right or wrong,” he says. “There’s a certain integrity required when it comes to baseball’s highest honor, which is being inducted into the Hall of Fame. The character clause exists as it relates to the game on the field. The character clause isn’t there to evaluate and judge players socially. It’s there to relate to the game on the field. … The voters should have the freedom to measure that however they see fit.”

In fact, the quotes from Idelson about how comfortable he is with what voters have done now lead Posnanski to believe that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens may never get into the hall of Fame. I’d have to agree with that. The message sent by voters today was pretty strong.

Photo Credit: AP

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Many of you have written in to ask me why I did not have Jeff Bagwell on my Hall of Fame ballot. I wanted yesterday to be about the whole Edgar Martinez question and not to get sidetracked by the Bagwell issue.

But you have a right to ask the question since Bagwell, on the surface, appears to have Hall of Fame worthy numbers.

One unfortunate byproduct of the Steroids Era in baseball is that writers, as voters, are now forced to make a whole bunch of value judgments on players that they did not have to before. We’ve seen a list of players on this year’s ballot who were either caught having taken steroids, were linked to performance enhancing drugs in the Mitchell Report, or flat-out admitted using them.

None of those players will be on my ballot. Not now, not next year. No Mark McGwire, no Rafael Palmeiro and no Juan Gonzalez.

And for now, at least, no Barry Bonds when it comes time. No Roger Clemens. No Alex Rodriguez. No Manny Ramirez. I feel that you have to be consistent. Performance enhancing drugs were banned in baseball 20 years ago and former commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team reminding them of that fact. That the players’ association fought to prevent any punishments or testing from being implemented until 2004 is not really the issue. Players knew they were not allowed to take steroids, but did so anyway and assumed all the risks to their health and reputations.

Some made millions off them and achieved fame. Now, those who are caught have to accept responsibility for their actions. I can’t give them a Hall vote when I have no idea when they began using or the extent to which steroids impacted their performance.

This is not the same as players taking “greenies” back in the 1960s and 1970s. Amphetamines were used by players to stay awake during the grind of an interminable 162-game season. Just like today’s players now drink Red Bull non-stop or keep packs of those 24-hour energy supplements tucked away. When I played football in the 1980s, I did so alongside players who took amphetamines and steroids. Believe me, there’s a huge difference. There were times this season when I wished I had something to keep me awake in the pressbox — right around late-July when the M’s were playing at a 110-loss clip.

But back to the point, you didn’t see records getting obliterated every year, or middle infielders hitting 40 homers all of a sudden, back in the 1960s and 1970s. With steroids, you saw tons of eye-opening, first-time stuff.

In the end, I didn’t have a vote in the 1960s and 1970s, nor did I have a say about Gaylord Perry and his spitballs. I don’t know how I’d have handled that information and have too much on my plate present-day to get into it. I do have a say today about players who cheated with steroids and compiled career numbers that may have been inflated far beyond where they’d have otherwise stood.

With Bagwell, though, it’s an entirely new question.

To date, there is no evidence anywhere, other than rumor and supposition, that Bagwell took steroids.

And I do consider myself somebody who believes in innocence until guilt is proven.

The problem is, the rumor and innuendo with Bagwell has been awfully strong for a long time and others in similar positions who denied, denied, denied — McGwire and Palmeiro — have since tested positive or admitted their use. We saw baseball writers take a heap of abuse from fans over the past decade for “closing their eyes” to steroids in the 1990s.

That wasn’t entirely true, but there are limits to what you can write with no evidence. I don’t want to ever have my eyes closed and be looking the other way. Whether it’s about steroids, or some other baseball issue. I don’t want to wake up embarassed in five years because I voted in a bunch of guys who are later found to have been some of the biggest cheats in the game’s history.

Nor do I want to be leading a witch hunt. That’s not what I’m about. Nor what many of my fellow voters, I suspect, are about. Bagwell has not been found to have done anything wrong and put up numbers that appear Hall worthy.

So, here’s what I’ve decided to do. On Bagwell and any other guys from his era I’m not totally comfortable with going forward.

Photo Credit: AP

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Edgar Martinez, in his second year on the ballot, got 32.9 percent of the vote. Players need 75 percent to be elected.

A record 581 ballots — including five blanks — were cast by Baseball Writers Association of America members with at least 10 years of service.

Martinez’s total is down from the 36.2 percent he received last year. But that’s still a strong standing and could bode well for the future.

There had been some thought Martinez’s overall vote total might decline this year because of the sheer volume of strong newcomers on the Class of 2011 ballot. Next year’s crop does not appear to be as strong.

Alomar got 90 percent of the vote. Blyleven scored 79.9 percent.

Third-highest finisher Barry Larkin polled in at 62.1 percent, while Jack Morris had 53.5 percent.

First-timer Jeff Bagwell posted 41.7 percent, while Larry Walker — whose rate stats are very similar to those of Martinez, including a career OPS+ of 140 to Edgar’s 147 — scored 20.3 percent.

Rafael Palmeiro’s positive steroids test appeared to cost him with voters. Palmeiro hit more than 500 home runs in his career, but scored just 11 percent with voters.

Juan Gonzalez was the other first-timer to remain above the 5 percent minimum cutoff, but just barely with 5.2 percent of votes. A total of 17 first-time players did not attain the required 5 percent to stay on the ballot, including ex-Mariners John Olerud and Bret Boone.

For complete voting results, turn to the opposite page.

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Tomorrow is the day that the annual Hall of Fame voting results will be announced and I’m pretty certain Edgar Martinez will be on the outside looking in once more. Martinez garnered an impressive 36.2 percent of votes in his first bid last season, but that’s still a long way from the 75 percent needed to get into Cooperstown.

My ballot had Roberto Alomar, Bert Blyleven, Barry Larkin and Tim Raines on it.

Martinez had a great career and the fact he was a designated hitter doesn’t take anything away from that, nor does it lessen what he meant to the Pacific Northwest. But there’s still a difference between a great career and a Hall of Fame career. Martinez will always be a borderline Hall of Fame case, where there will be compelling arguments both for and against in years to come. I remain open to new arguments in his favor. But just as last year, I can’t see enough to justify giving him my vote.

Yes, the DH thing is a big part of it. Not because it isn’t a baseball position — it clearly is, albeit for only 14 of 30 teams and merely 14 of 284 players listed in the lineups by those teams at any given time.

But having a position does not require somebody from that position to be voted into the Hall of Fame every year, every decade or even every quarter century. Nor does somebody having an award named after them — the DH award carrying Martinez’s name — require automatic entry into the Hall.

The fact that Martinez didn’t get called up until he was 27 also isn’t relevant. The M’s declined to use him over a veteran because he didn’t convince them to. We can agree, or disagree with that call. It’s a tough break. But that’s baseball.

My biggest reservations about Martinez’s candidacy are the things I find voters being asked to overlook when it comes to his merits.

1. We are being asked to overlook his lack of so-called “counting stats”. Clearly, Martinez isn’t even close to traditional Hall measurements for automatic entry, like 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. He barely compiled 300 homers at a position where teams load up with their most powerful guys.

2. We are also being asked to overlook his limited MVP credentials, since we are told that those awards tend to lean towards home run hitters. Part of the problem Martinez will have garnering votes, I think, is the lingering perception he was never even the MVP of his own team. Remember, those teams included Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez and Ichiro, so that’s some pretty tough company. But the Hall is all about hanging with such company.

3. Here’s what I am having the most trouble trying to overlook: the likely boost to Martinez’s number of seasons and games played and offensive numbers garnered by not having to play the field day-in, day-out, the way most of his contemporaries did.

Some say Martinez should get in because many hitters have trouble adjusting to the DH job while he excelled. That’s true, some do struggle. But the ones who go on to make a career as a DH are usually pretty good. Those are the only ones I care about in a Hall of Fame discussion, no matter how few there are.

Relief pitchers are in a similar boat. The vast majority of relief pitchers aren’t good enough to close games out in the ninth inning. But that doesn’t mean we automatically give a Hall of Fame nod to any closer who becomes eligible. Even the pioneer closers, or best of their era don’t always make it. Just ask Lee Smith.

In the end, relievers as a group are compared to all pitchers in Cy Young Award and Hall of Fame voting and every once in a while, a really good closer breaks on through by doing something historic. But it doesn’t happen often, mainly because starting pitchers as a group are viewed as more valuable in baseball and are asked to do more for longer. I happen to think the same judgment system should apply to a DH, where they are scrutinized more critically as a group compared to the wider body of hitters because they do less. They don’t play the field every day. And even if one guy happens to be the best DH of his era, it shouldn’t automatically mean inclusion in the Hall.

The fact is, prior to his being made a permanent DH in 1995, Martinez was appearing in fewer games due to injury. He played only 131 games combined in 1993 and 1994, primarily as a third baseman.

In baseball, the more you play the field, the more prone you are to injury. You dive for balls, get hit by them, get slid into by runners, and also leave your muscles vulnerable by having to explode from a standing spot when a hitter connects. The wear and tear on a body over a 162-game season can take its toll just as much as crashing into a wall on any one play can. Your knees wear down big-time, especially on the type of artificial surface found at the Kingdome. Ask Griffey.

Martinez got to avoid all of this during his years as a DH. So, how much worse off would his offensive numbers have been if forced to continue playing a third base position that was banging him up prior to 1995? Would he still have gone on to play more than 140 games per season? Would he still be a career .312 hitter with a .418 on-base percentage, a .515 slugging percentage and a .933 on-base-plus-slugging percentage (OPS)? Or would he have drifted down just far enough to make this whole debate moot?

Better yet, if the majority of elite hitters Martinez is being compared to were given the same advantages to reduce long-term wear on their bodies, how much higher would the bar be set for Hall of Fame inclusion? Would a .400 on-base-percentage be a lot more commonplace? Might the 500-homer “minimum” for Cooperstown be upped to 600? Who knows? Griffey might have hit his 800th homer last year if he didn’t have to spend much of the past decade sidelined by injuries sustained playing the outfield.

I think it’s an important question. I’ve seen stats from Martinez supporters that show he had the 13th best on-base percentage all-time amongst players with at least 8,000 plate appearances. That’s impressive. I’m not here to denigrate the accomplishment, believe me. But what the stat doesn’t tell you is that the 12 other guys ahead of him — and many right behind — all played the field for up to nine innings per night. Would Martinez still be 13th on the list if all those other players got to limit their nightly activities to hitting only? Or would many of them have added even more years to careers, making the 8,000 plate-appearance threshold being used to support Martinez’s bid seem rather low?

This isn’t about his WAR (Wins Above Replacement) value as a fielder. Even if WAR was totally reliable in judging a fielder’s value (which it isn’t, because they’re still working out kinks in new defensive metrics), I’m not suggesting Martinez would have been so bad with the glove that it would have significantly lowered his overall worth.

No, this argument is strictly about Martinez not having to lug his body out on to the field night after night for nine innings the way most of his peers did. Whether he would have played good defense or bad isn’t really the issue. Somebody has to man positions for teams every night — whether they are good or bad at it — for games to be played. But Martinez was exempted from that physically-demanding duty.

I know his offensive WAR is very high from an historical perspective. But I also believe that Martinez’s numbers need to be extraordinary as a starting point just to consider his Cooperstown candidacy because his only job in a game was to hit. And the expectations of him should automatically be higher because his body was not being put through the same rigors as his contemporaries.

It’s because of those high numbers that I’m sitting here considering him. Believe me, I’m not shrugging him off. He got more than a third of the votes last year, so he’s hardly being treated like a fringe guy.

But now comes the added scrutiny needed because of the DH stuff. And the real question voters are struggling to answer: did Martinez do what he did for a long enough period that we can forget his lack of “counting” stats (hitting milestones reached)?

Unfortunately, we don’t have a clear-cut barometer for these things. Should the excellence be maintained over 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? We don’t have the answer. Traditionally, we have relied on the “counting stats” like career home runs, hits, RBI and runs scored to give us a clue.

If Martinez had 500 homers or 3,000 hits, he’d probably get in easily. Paul Molitor played more than half his games as a DH, but got in the Hall because he logged 3,319 hits — the ninth most all-time. Frank Thomas will likely be a first-ballot Hall of Famer, despite lengthy DH service, because he hit 521 homers. What these “counting stats” do is help eliminate the argument that a guy was only “Cooperstown great” for a relatively brief segment of their career. You don’t get to 3,000 hits or 500 homers by playing six exceptional seasons. Or eight. We’re not talking Dave Kingman here, either. Most of the guys voted in to the Hall have the other stats to go with their counting stat milestones.

But Martinez just doesn’t have the counting stats. He’s not even close. We are being asked to make an exception in his case, while we’re already overlooking the fact he didn’t play the field like most of his contemporaries.

We are asked to look at his “rate” stats — his career batting average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage. All are highly impressive. But the question becomes: did Martinez post his .312 average, .413 OBP and .515 slugging over a long enough period? And that’s the problem with his candidacy. He’s right on the border.

The best argument I’ve seen for Martinez to-date, the one that’s truly made me stop and think over the past year, comes near the bottom of this ESPN.com column. It states that Martinez’s park-adjusted OPS+ was at 150 or greater in eight different seasons. That means he was 50 percent better than his peers in those seasons. Most others with such stats are in the Hall or headed there soon.

But let’s examine that a bit further.

First, let’s ask the question: how many 150 OPS+ seasons would Martinez have had if put through the same daily rigors as those other Hall of Fame players? How would his body have held up? Can you really compare Martinez with Mickey Mantle when the latter was sprinting and diving all over the outfield in between putting up his offensive numbers? It’s just not the same thing. Even if both had at least eight seasons of an OPS+ of 150 or greater.

Second, let’s start comparing apples to apples by looking the significance of Martinez’s eight seasons of 150 OPS+ when compared to actual Hall of Famers. Because in many cases, the rate stats posted by Martinez simply don’t stack up as well as you might think. To me, this “eight-season” thing seems rather arbitrary, a creative way for some people to slip him on to a list of Hall of Fame names where he’s clearly outgunned when you dig beneath the surface.

Photo Credit: AP

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Happy New Year to all of you out there on a gorgeous Monday morning in Seattle, where 2011 has begun with a bang as the Seahawks are NFC West champions and get to host a playoff game. This is pretty much what every NFL team shoots for — other than a first-round bye — which is why, as we wrote last week, you never, EVER, sacrifice a season by tanking your final game just to move up a few draft slots. Enjoy it, because even an 11-5 season would not have guaranteed you getting any closer to a Super Bowl than this 7-9 campaign just did.

Back to the Mariners, who begin 2011 in a bit of a pickle.

Last week, we told you the team’s payroll was already pushing $88 million in committed money. Well, we forgot something important in our tabulations — the $1 million bonus hike Felix Hernandez automatically receives for winning the Cy Young Award.

So, that brings the Mariners up to $89 million and change. After that, you have Erik Bedard’s money to consider. We told you Bedard will get $1 million if he makes it to the mound, but then has another $6.35 million in incentives tacked on.

Let’s be conservative here and estimate he reaches half of that total. Which is what the team is banking on for a rotation that otherwise includes Jason Vargas, Doug Fister, Michael Pineda and David Pauley/Luke French after Hernandez. Well, setting aside half of Bedard’s incentive money leaves the team smack dab at just under $93 million. The most the team will spend is roughly its $93.5 million payroll from last year.

And so, folks, what that means is the Mariners are pretty much out of money.

So, yes, the David Aardsma hip injury is indeed serious when it comes to the team upgrading its pitching ranks. Aardsma is to undergo surgery in Vail, Colo. today and should make it to a mound at some point in spring training. But that’s a long way from being trade ready. Remember, Rob Johnson made it to spring training last year after hip surgery and was actually ready to go by opening day. Didn’t turn out so well and he now admits he wasn’t as physically able as he is now.

Some have suggested the Mariners could merely trade Aardsma at the coming trade deadline and it won’t make much of a difference.

Well, that’s not exactly true. The best time to trade Aardsma was at last July’s deadline. The Mariners are now paying for the fact they did not do that. They paid about $1 million last season to keep Aardsma for the final two months, and now could pay another $2 million or more if they hang on to him until early July.

That’s $3 million total in added money paid to a closer on a team that already has Brandon League and really doesn’t need an elite closer at this stage. Also, $3 million for a team now pretty much down to fumes where its available cash to upgrade the 2011 squad is concerned.

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

There’s a group calling itself the Baseball Bloggers Alliance that recently undertook its own version of the Hall of Fame ballot. In the end, they wound up voting to send Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven to Cooperstown.

For me, that’s an interesting development in a year when I’ve heard plenty of writers suggest they’ll be putting the most names on their ballots that they ever have. The Baseball Writers Association of America conducts the official Hall of Fame voting. You get a lifetime BBWAA vote after 10 years of being a member. Believe me, the members do take this thing very seriously.

You can vote for up to 10 players each year.

My final vote (which I’ll make public tomorrow) contains more names than the bloggers alliance had on theirs. But that’s the beauty of the whole thing. We can agree to disagree and still be friends and continue to enjoy baseball.

In recent years, I’ve seen the BBWAA called all kinds of angry names, and accused of being “too exclusive”, or an “elite cabal”, or a bunch of “vindictive old men” for not voting in that particular year’s cause celebre. I’ve found the bickering about the Hall of Fame rather humorous at times. I’ve often wished we’d take real elections more seriously in this country and approach them with the same type of passion.

But anyway, for all the abuse the BBWAA members have taken (as if they get together in a small room and plan out their votes as a group) we have here a 250-member blog association that had a chance to rectify what some have seen as an injustice. To make the Hall more “inclusive” in a year when many voters are putting more names on their ballots than ever before. The association counts five Seattle area blogs as members, including Seattle Sports Insider and SODO Mojo.

And what did all of those nationwide blogs do?

They voted in the two shoo-in guys. And that’s it.

No Jeff Bagwell. No Edgar Martinez. No Tim Raines. No Fred McGriff.

They were close on some of these names. Maybe after another year or two of reflection, those names will get in. Just like in real Hall of Fame voting.

Do I have a problem with it? Nope.

My own ballot contained twice as many names, but that’s merely my opinion.

The thing about baseball’s Hall is, it’s a selective place.

In hockey, they let in every third-line center for a Stanley Cup team. Not so in baseball. There exists a wide spectrum of voters with varying ideas of what makes a Hall of Famer. And diversity of opinion is a great thing. It means there are very few borderline cases making it into Cooperstown. It means those players who are allowed in are there because they are deserved. Of that, there can be no doubt.

For the borderline cases that miss out, well, they are called borderline for good reason. Doesn’t mean they have to end up on the positive side of the border.

What did the Baseball Bloggers Alliance teach us?

Photo Credit: AP

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Just got off the phone with Mariners closer David Aardsma down in Arizona, who confirmed that he’ll be having surgery on the labrum in his left hip this coming Monday.

Aardsma said the hip has been bothering him since the season ended. Towards the end of the year, he was shut down with what the Mariners felt was an oblique muscle injury. But as the off-season progressed and Aardsma still felt pain when he tried to throw, he got it checked out on his own.

“When I started doing my throwing program, it became clear to me that it wasn’t an oblique,” he said. “If it was an oblique, it would have gone away on its own.”

Instead, the possible labrum problem was detected a few weeks ago.

“We got it checked out and came up with something more serious,” he said.

Aardsma said he immediately informed the team and the Mariners had their own people look at it. Two days ago, Aardsma saw specialist Dr. Marc Phillipon in Vail, Colo., who diagnosed that the labrum was what was causing the pain and recommended surgery. The surgery is scheduled for Monday in Vail. Phillipon is the same specialist who handled surgery on Alex Rodriguez two years ago.

“What they told me is that after four weeks I should be able to start throwing and do my full rehabiliation regimen,” Aardsma said. “And then, on Day 1 that the season starts, I should be fully ready to go.”

That latter part will depend on how quickly Aardsma responds to the rehab work. He isn’t certain he’ll be ready to go as normal once spring training opens in February.

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog

Christmas came and went for the Mariners and not a creature was stirring, not even famed December deal-maker Jack Zduriencik. Of course, we still have a few days left in the month, thought the biggest rumors the Mariners have been linked to appear to see them in bargain-hunting (or, dumpster-diving for the cynics out there) mode once again.

Chris Capuano? Could be a low-risk, decent return arm, given how Safeco Field should minimize his flaws. Or, he could be the mound version of Casey Kotchman. You know, a guy who hasn’t had a good season since 2007 and is now in a lesser role (bullpen) as opposed to being a starter? Safeco was supposed to play well to Kotchman’s hitting style. How’d that work out?

So far, the moves made by the Mariners have not exactly been blockbusters given their historically bad offense and 101 losses in 2010. Brendan Ryan looks like the replacement for Jack Wilson (clone, if you will) once he leaves, while Jack Cust and Miguel Olivo should provide some offensive upgrades. But seriously, even with those adds, this offense continues to look like one of the game’s bottom three.

On the mound, the Mariners will have Felix Hernandez and then? So far, the biggest names to follow are Jason Vargas and a guy, Erik Bedard, who hasn’t pitched in a game in nearly two years.

So yes, there is plenty of room for improvement. Why aren’t the Mariners making greater impact deals? Well, one explanation is that they really are going to “let the kids play” and are prepared to sacrifice a sink-or-swim year for several young prospects while again piling up 90+ losses.

Honestly, I don’t believe Zduriencik is in favor of that. He’s already served notice to the young guys that they aren’t “on scholarship” here and I do think he knows there are quicker ways to get a team turned around than this.

But the real problem, I think, is evidenced in the chart below. The Mariners are quickly running out of money to spend in 2011, even with a bevy of cheap youngsters in the fold. According to my rough estimates — and as always, give or take a couple of million — the Mariners have about $87 million already committed to their 2011 payroll in guaranteed money, potential arbitration settlements and players no longer here

Throw another $1 million on to that pile in easily-reachable incentives for certain players — taking the total to $88 million — and you’re looking at a team with about $5.5 million left to spend at most if they’re to equal last year’s total. A few weeks back, at the winter meetings, team president Chuck Armstrong said the Mariners would not be cutting payroll from what they spent last year. See the above video to hear Armstrong’s payroll comments.

Armstrong has maintained that the team’s true payroll was between $93.5 million and $94 million last season. That total included $5.5 million in monies still being paid out on the salaries of Carlos Silva and Yuniesky Betancourt – the same amount owed on those two players again in 2011.

We discussed this exact payroll amount back in April on Geoff Baker Live! (starting around the 3min30sec mark) in confirming that the team had indeed cut payroll by over $5 million from Opening Day of 2009. This time around, Armstrong insists there is no mandate to cut and that the team can spend up to what it did on Opening Day of 2010.

So, let’s run those numbers for 2011 so far and see where the team is at.

Ichiro 17,000,000
Milton Bradley 12,000,000
Chone Figgins 9,500,000
Felix Hernandez 10,700,000
Jack Wilson 5,000,000
David Aardsma 4,500,000 est
Franklin Gutierrez 4,312,500
Miguel Olivo 3,500,000
Jack Cust 2,500,000
Brandon League 2,500,000 est
Dustin Ackley 1,500,000
Jason Vargas 1,200,000 est
Erik Bedard 1,000,000
Brendan Ryan 1,000,000 est
Josh Wilson 700,000 est
Michael Saunders 435,000
Shawn Kelley 435,000 est
Doug Fister 435,000 est
Adam Moore 430,000 est
Justin Smoak 430,000 est
Garrett Olson 424,000 est
Matt Tuiasosopo 424,000 est
Dan Cortes 414,000 est
Cesar Jimenez 414,000 est
Josh Lueke 414,000 est
Michael Pineda 414,000 est

Carlos Silva money to Cubs — 4,500,000
Yuniesky Betancourt salary — 1,000,000

Read more…

View full post on The Seattle Times: Mariners Blog