raBBit Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said: Off-topic, but wanted to make sure you see it. Any intel on if the Sox are going to be in on Kikuchi? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrathofhahn Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 8 hours ago, GREEDY said: Upside? To me upside means the chance for a player to become a superstar or to significantly outplay their contract. I think there is less than a 1% chance Seager is an MVP candidate anytime in the remaining 4 years of his contract and around a 5% - 10% chance that he outplays the around $18,000,000 per year he is owed. I'd call that NO upside. This is the kind of bandaid move the Sox would have done prior to the rebuild. Agreed the last two years Seager has averaged 1.7 WAR. 2.2 WAR/600 PA. During the next thee he will make 60 million. There is zero upside there saying well he could bounce back is true then he'd be worth his contract. Just because of the term of three years I really wouldn't even be interested even if the Mariners decided to throw in prospects. 3B is a pretty hard position to find takers in the MLB most teams already have the position filled. So even if the Mariners ate close to half of the money 25-30 million I'm not sure they'd get much of a return if any. I don't think there is a market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 The M's are seemingly better off waiting for a potential rebound (obviously, this never happened with Shields, enough to find someone to assume the contract)...and that would save them quite a bit of money, if he could somehow put up 2-3 fWAR the first half of the season before the trade deadline. Right now, the "buyers" are going off his 2018 season and ignoring his overall solid performance record in terms of their financial demands. That said, compared to the money that Donaldson's getting for one year, it's not out of the realm of possibility that getting $20-25 million back from Seattle would make it more than a fair contract for the acquiring team. What type of prospects would have to be included would depend on the desperation of the acquiring team. At the very least, they should wait until Spring Training and see if there are any significant injuries to corner infielders on contending teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSpalehoseCWS Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said: Agreed the last two years Seager has averaged 1.7 WAR. 2.2 WAR/600 PA. During the next thee he will make 60 million. There is zero upside there saying well he could bounce back is true then he'd be worth his contract. Just because of the term of three years I really wouldn't even be interested even if the Mariners decided to throw in prospects. 3B is a pretty hard position to find takers in the MLB most teams already have the position filled. So even if the Mariners ate close to half of the money 25-30 million I'm not sure they'd get much of a return if any. I don't think there is a market. Yea, he is showing heavy decline the past two seasons. Was a great player a few years back, but he doesn't appear to have anything left in the tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted December 5, 2018 Author Share Posted December 5, 2018 I think Seager is a really good change of scenery guy in the right deal. Get him out of Safeco and let him play in a hitter friendly ballpark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrathofhahn Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 8 hours ago, Whitesox27 said: I think Seager is a really good change of scenery guy in the right deal. Get him out of Safeco and let him play in a hitter friendly ballpark. It's the term that is killer for me if he had one year left or even two there could be an argument to be made as a change of scenery bounceback guy but three is just too risky. I think it says alot that the Mets didn't have any interest because they are one of the few teams who could use an upgrade at 3B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 5, 2018 Share Posted December 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said: It's the term that is killer for me if he had one year left or even two there could be an argument to be made as a change of scenery bounceback guy but three is just too risky. I think it says alot that the Mets didn't have any interest because they are one of the few teams who could use an upgrade at 3B. The 4th year team option becomes a player option so you're really looking at a 4 year deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.