Old_Style wrote:Can anybody come up with a logical explanation why the M's didn't dump Washburn on the Twins when the claimed him? These jokesters up in Seattle boggle the mind.
The Twins may have wanted more than just Washburn.
Old_Style wrote:Can anybody come up with a logical explanation why the M's didn't dump Washburn on the Twins when the claimed him? These jokesters up in Seattle boggle the mind.
The Twins may have wanted more than just Washburn.
StlSluggers wrote:Either way, it wasn't necessarily the fault of Seattle's management.
They've shuffled things around over there. Let's give them at least a few months before we start calling them morons.
They haven't shuffled anything, Jay. They fired their GM and promoted the assistant to interim GM. Let's not pretend it's a regime change, these are the same people who have been making bad decisions for several years. Unless you care to believe that the rest of the front office disagreed with all of Bavasi's moves and he just went ahead and made them anyway, and I don't.
The rumors around Washburn are that Minnesota really does want him. They want to put him in the rotation and move one of their current starters to the pen (I don't get why but I will be happy if that's the case). Anyway, the M's wanted someone back who was on the Twins' 40 man roster, they balked, and an agreement couldn't be reached in time. There is word that the two sides are still talking, and if they can agree to some sort of deal then Seattle would put Washburn back on waivers, Minnesota would claim again, and a trade would be made. The second waiver posting would indeed be irrevocable waivers so whoever claimed him would just get him, but there is nothing preventing them sending someone back the other way.
Anyway, it's all up in the air. I absolutely wish they would have just let him go when they had the chance, but unfortunately I don't run the team.
StlSluggers wrote:Either way, it wasn't necessarily the fault of Seattle's management.
They've shuffled things around over there. Let's give them at least a few months before we start calling them morons.
They haven't shuffled anything, Jay. They fired their GM and promoted the assistant to interim GM. Let's not pretend it's a regime change, these are the same people who have been making bad decisions for several years. Unless you care to believe that the rest of the front office disagreed with all of Bavasi's moves and he just went ahead and made them anyway, and I don't.
I'm certainly giving them the chance to prove that Bavasi was the weight holding them down. Since his departure, they have made more good decisions than the entire sum of all of Bavasi's moves. That may not hold true in the long run, but they are certainly behaving like a different management core; at least, what I'm seeing here.
StlSluggers wrote:I'm certainly giving them the chance to prove that Bavasi was the weight holding them down. Since his departure, they have made more good decisions than the entire sum of all of Bavasi's moves. That may not hold true in the long run, but they are certainly behaving like a different management core; at least, what I'm seeing here.
What good decisions though? I don't see cutting Sexson and Vidro as good decisions. They are decisions that my five year old daughter could have made. Granted she's really smart, but still... The mere fact that Vidro continued to stay on the roster and get PT and bat cleanup for weeks after Bavasi left is not an indication that things have changed. Then I was happy to see the Rhodes deal, but not getting rid of Washburn when they had the chance at the deadline made me very sad.
Now they've got another chance to not only rid themselves of $10M in dead weight, but to actually get something back and they don't take it? Reports are the M's were offered Bonser, and they wanted Blackburn or Slowey and were turned down. If you look at the numbers, Bonser is actually a better pitcher than Washburn, and he gets the minimum while Washburn makes $10M a year. Tough decision...
The problem is that no one around baseball seems to know who is in charge. There are rumors that LP was all over the Washburn deal but it was vetoed by Lincoln/Armstrong (CEO/President). It's like they think "well he's making $10M a year so he's got to be good, if we're going to trade him we need someone good back!" forgetting all the while that he wasn't worth $10M to anyone but them in the first place. Even if it's not true, the very fact that people around baseball think it is very troubling. It's a very frustrating time to be a fan. If it were up to me, I'd fire everyone from the ownership group and the front office (with the exception of Bob Fontaine who runs the draft and has been doing a heck of a job) and start over.
Old_Style wrote:They could've just dumped him on Minnesota though, right? All I'm saying is that I would've loved to see Washburn in a Minnesota uniform.
That would have had to be irrevocable waivers. Then if Minny had put a claim in, Washburn would have been all theirs.
Not necessarily... When Minnesota claimed him, if the M's just wanted to rid themselves of the contract, then they've got the ability to just let him go. Their options are they can trade him, pull him back, or just let him go. The problem is that the M's think Washburn has value, at least more value then other teams are willing to give up for him.
If they put him on waivers again, that's irrevocable waivers, and Minnesota just gets him if/when they claim him. Although like I said earlier, the M's have leverage in the sense that they don't have to put him on waivers, so they could agree to a deal and then do this whole dance again.
The problem in Seattle is the ownership. They are interested in having a decent team, but don't want to do what it to takes to put together a good ballclub (by either dramatically rebuilding or spending). Letting go of Washburn gives off the aura that they are rebuilding to have a good team in 2-3 years, and therefore, fans may not come to the ballpark next year. THis is why they are trying to put together another decent ballclub for 2009, which Washburn is under contract for. Another team that does this is the Pirates....
buffalobillsrul2002 wrote:The problem in Seattle is the ownership. They are interested in having a decent team, but don't want to do what it to takes to put together a good ballclub (by either dramatically rebuilding or spending). Letting go of Washburn gives off the aura that they are rebuilding to have a good team in 2-3 years, and therefore, fans may not come to the ballpark next year. THis is why they are trying to put together another decent ballclub for 2009, which Washburn is under contract for. Another team that does this is the Pirates....
How many fans are showing up for a Seattle Mariners baseball game as of late?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by kellythemick » Fri Aug 15, 2008 10:52 am 
