 |
|
|
| |
« Sherman's Latest: Yankees' Off-Season Plans | Main | Latest On Pedro Alvarez »
Mariners' Top Pick Remains Unsigned
Jim Hickey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that the Mariners and their top pick, Josh Fields, remain about $500K apart in their negotiations. As a player that has completed his college eligibility, Fields was not subject to the August 15 deadline for picks to sign.
Fields' agent, Scott Boras is demanding $2MM while the Mariners are said to be offering $1.5MM, which is in line with the MLB's slotting recommendations. Hickey feels it is unlikely that Boras and Fields will move from their asking price and seem willing to let Fields pitch for an independent league team this year and re-enter the draft next June.
Bleeding Blue and Teal thinks the Mariners may be better off not signing Fields. They question the M's need for a closer while the team is rebuilding and note that Seattle could have four of the top 50 picks next year if Fields goes unsigned.
Fields (#20 overall) is one of three first round picks that has not signed. The other two players, Aaron Crow (WAS, #9 overall) and Gerrit Cole (NYY, #28) did not sign prior to the deadline. Crow has signed with an independent league team and Cole will play for UCLA.
Cork Gaines writes for RaysIndex.com and can be reached here.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e554d461f98833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mariners' Top Pick Remains Unsigned:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
I have to agree with Bleeding Blue and Teal on this one. As long as they pick an easily signable player with the comp pick, it would be a good idea to let him go.
If Brandon Morrow does not pan out as a starter, he will be closing.Where would Fields go then? The M's aren't close enough to contending to pick a closer who will be in the majors very soon; they need fundamental pieces that will help them in the long run.
Posted by: melonis rex | August 31, 2008 at 02:25 PM
As one of the guys who writes at BBT, I can't say I share this opinion. I think we'd be better of signing Fields, and then groom him into the dominant closer he has the potential to be. Jon puts up the great argument that we can begin to restack our farm system by receiving 4 first round picks, but, if we sign Fields, we can then trade Putz. I believe that J.J. Putz can rake in a bigger stock of prospects because somebody out there be willing to overpay for Putz.
That is just the way I see it.
Posted by: baseballismylyf4 | August 31, 2008 at 03:00 PM
Putz has to regain his position as an elite closer before he rakes in anything.
Posted by: blueandteal | August 31, 2008 at 03:47 PM
No disagreement. But, I think that Putz will draw attention, even if he were traded in November/December. He's been injury plagued this year, and while it may turn some teams away, there will be teams desperate enough to pay for him, overpay, that is...
Posted by: baseballismylyf4 | August 31, 2008 at 05:48 PM
This really is logical either way.
Fields is a young gun that can be groomed to be JJ's replacement over the Mariners rebuilding years. Its very unlikely he is a lights out, shut the door type guy right away anyway. If they sign him, he can have his year or two to get in the groove of things. This of course leaves the door open to trade Putz. People who say the pick is bad because the M's don't need a closer.. Whats the logic behind keeping a 30+ year old Putz?
If he does sign, that would allow them to deal Putz this winter or next year before the deadline. I imagine he could haul in quite a bit more value in return than the comp pick for Fields would.
I think they should stand fast on that offer of 1.5 mil. If he signs, fine. Trade Putz. If he doesn't.. whatever. We get another pick.
It really doesn't hurt either way.
Posted by: thr33niL | August 31, 2008 at 10:20 PM
It's a shame Seattle didn't drop Putz on Boston when they wanted him earlier in the year, despite his struggles/injuries. That would have saved the team over $10M.
Posted by: blueandteal | August 31, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Here is how I see it: giving Fields an extra $500k allows the team to trade Putz and free up $6M they would have owed JJ.
Even if they got nothing in return for JJ except salary relief, that's a net $3M saved for the 2009 season (another $1M in 2010 for the buyout) and Fields would be under team control for quite a while where JJ is probably gone after '09 no matter what.
How is that not a better deal then, to just pony up the full $2M asking price and save $4M over the next two years? Is next year's draft pick going to really require that much less than $2M?
I know that it is highway robbery on the part of Boras... but this is the same team paying Jarrod Washburn $10.35M in 2009.
Posted by: Seal Clubbers | September 01, 2008 at 11:35 AM