Jack Wilson Signs Up for 2010-2011
by Jon ~ November 13th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Multiple sources are reporting that the Seattle Mariners have signed a 2 year pact with SS Jack Wilson.
No word yet on the money, but I would say we’re looking at something like $10-12M. Don’t act surprised– we all knew this was coming from the day he was traded to Seattle. Will update…
Update: Dejan Kovacevis tweets: “Wilson’s deal believed to have total worth of $10 million.” I guessed 2 years/$10M back on the 30th for whatever that’s worth (not much, but *toot toot).
Update: Kovacevis confirms dollar figure.
Glad that’s out of the way.
Update: Larry Stone has more contract details:
Two years, $10 million guaranteed ($5 million in 2010, $5 million in 2011), plus $250,000 in performance bonuses each year (mostly plate appearances) for a potential $500,000; plus the standard awards package worth a possible $450,000. Again, no option for 2012.
A few quick thoughts:
I’m cool with this deal. The main point of contention, especially with J.J. Hardy off the table, is that there are similar shortstops on the free agent market that could be had even cheaper than Wilson in Adam Everett, Alex Gonzalez and Omar Vizquel. Wilson is probably better than all three, but the difference between them has to be pretty small. “A bird in the hand,” though. If the Mariners cut Wilson loose and failed to sign a suitable replacement the Mariners could be in trouble.
It’s done, we’re cool. Now, what about the backup? Do we really feel comfortable with Jack Hannahan and/or Bill Hall as our backup shortstop (or Josh Wilson, stashed in Tacoma) when our starter has dealt with multiple heel, calf, hamstring and knee injuries over the past year and a half? Hannahan is probably a capable SS and looked okay in his brief look there in 2009, but he has very little experience at the position and we really don’t know how well he’d do if forced to fill in for an extended period of time.
With that, I wonder if it would be smart to bring in a “true” shortstop to fill out the bench. Vizquel? He looked good at 3B and 2B last year too and was a better hitter than Hannahan. Zduriencik was said to be interested in him last offseason as well.
I’d be fine with Hannahan as well (I love both players, really), but for ~$600K more I wouldn’t mind seeing Omar finish his magical career where he started it. Just a thought.
13 Responses to Jack Wilson Signs Up for 2010-2011
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don't yet have an account, please register here and join the discussion. Registration takes only a few seconds!
rm_nixon
November 13th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
bargain. Wonder if it’s 4/6 to give us added flexibility this year. Probably not, but one could hope.
harrison
November 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Jack Wilson? Why did we sign that bum… too expensive … Josh Wilson is way better…
Jon Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
/sarcasm
eastcoastmariner
November 13th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
It’d be nice to see Omar back in a Mariner uniform but I’d completely cool with having Hanahan as a backup option instead
moethedog
November 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I like the Wilson deal. He’s ours for two years.
I can live with Hannahan as the backup SS.
I would love a Vizquel signing. Although the M’s would have to up there wheelchair and Geritol budget for he and Jr.
I sense that Bill Hall is going to be around next year but I certainly hope not. He can play the outfield and a bunch of IF positions but I think he’s doomed s far as reaching previous hitting levels. But, unless the DH guy we sign also plays the outfield well, then I think Hall is going to be on the roster. Drats…..
The Jr. sgning really inhibits roster moves becasue you basically have a guy to DH twice a week and PH the rest of the time. He can’t play in the field and he can’t DH full time.
So…..
1B/DH–Carp/Branyan/Jr. (I’m to the point where I wouldn’t invest in Branyan. Two years is a big risk, I think. If you’re going to spend the money go with a more durable guy…or overpay for Branyan for one year.
2B—Lopez, I suppose. But I’m still thinking he goes in a package deal for a pitcher.
SS-Wilson
3B–Tui. Although I will not be surprised if he ends up at 2nd base.
OF–Ichiro/Gut……and I think we sign a LF guy. Saunders has given me no hope he’s the guy. None.
C–Moore and Johnson
Util–Vizquel/Hall/Hannahan…take two of those three with one of them being Hall.
That’s 13. Signing Jr. means you can’t keep a pure back-up outfielder. Langerhans, for example.
moethedog
November 13th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Thinking about it, and after reading Larry Stone’s article….Mark DeRosa seems to be a comfortable fit in LF. Nice UZR #’s, his BABIP is due to be up next year after being off a bit last year. And he’s very versatile. Plays everywhere.
M’s will sign a LF, unless they spend way big bucks on a pitcher AND a DH.
StandinPat
November 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Wow, Saunders has given you know hope that he’s the answer in LF but DeRosa has?
DeRosa will be 35 when the season starts, isn’t necessarily likely to see a huge rebound offensively and was not very good int he AL last year. Defensively, small sample sizes and sporadic playing time provide for unreliable UZR’s, rendering them somewhat useless. All in all, DeRosa is a n againg player, most likely on the decline, is a RH hitter who might not even be league average in the AL, can’t play the infield worth beans, may or may not be competent in LF at the safe, and prob won’t come cheap…No…Thanks.
moethedog
November 14th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Pat,
You are correct. DeRosa has lots of baggage. I didn’t advocate that the M’s sign him to play LFm or didn’t mean to. I don’t think they will. But he is a very versatile guy…and given the M’s supposed roster limitations with Jr. occupying a spot, a versatile IF/OF guy isn’t a bad thing. DeRosa is probably a better (in some ways….and more expensive) version of Hall.
And in 50 starts last year his OF UZR was pretty dang good.
I hope I’m wrong on Saunders. But he looked totally overmatched at the MLB level.
Keith
StandinPat
November 14th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Fair enough Keith, I just wanted to mention that A) Sporadic UZR’s are really tough to properly value, sample size and all, and B) I think you are selling Saunders way short.
I’m a huge Saunders fan and am quick to come to his defense to please to take my rebuttal as anything personal, but when you say “Saunders has given me no hope he’s the guy. None.” I have to point out several things.
First and foremost Saunders is a guy with average or better tools across the board and an excellent work ethic, which are prob requirements #1 and #2 for being a successful major leaguer. Secondly, its not even close to fair to judge him on his first 122 MLB Ab’s. Lots and Lots and Lots of very good players struggled in their first call ups, and need a good 300-400 at bats to amke the necessary adjustments. Speaking of adjustments, this is another reason why I think Saunders will be successful. Every year he’s made progress in improving and shortening his swing, and even did so in season this year working with Cockerill.
Saunders cam out crushing the ball to the tune of a .922 OPS at AAA fresh off injury, then struggled in 122 at bats spread over sporadic playing time , and since come down the the VWL and has continued to destroy the ball. He’s a big kid with solid power and above average plate skills, he’ll get there, but even if it takes him a little bit he still brings a ton of value in the form of defense and baserunning.
moethedog
November 14th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Pat,
You’re very right. Willie Mays, IIRC, was one of those guys who didn’t hit squat when he was first up.
Saunders does bring some defense to the party. I hope I’m wrong. I was one of the loudest advocates for giving him a shot last year.
But I didn’t like the idea of making major changes in his stance and approach. It indicated to me that he had a major flaw and those are hard to remedy. I hope his struggles were just an adjustment issue and not a hole in the swing deal.
I’ld be glad to eat my words in July!
Keith
Jon
November 14th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Saunders did have major flaws in his swing. Many players do as they get to the big leagues, they struggle, then they’re fixed and they thrive. It’s a combination of two things: the minor leagues lack pitchers that can pound these problem areas, and the best coaches (in theory) are in the big leagues. Saunders made it through AAA, would have been quickly exposed in the big leagues because of his inability to hit the low or outside pitch, but the coaching staff jumped on it and now he’s better for it.
Last season Saunders played most of the year in AA and earned a promotion, but struggled in 100 ABs for Tacoma at the end of the year. The next year he destroyed AAA. Why is that any different? Destroyed AAA, struggled in 130 ABs at the big league level, and is now in a better position to perform in 2010.
moethedog
November 15th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Jon, I’m no expert, mind you….but destroying AAA pitching while having a hole in the swing is a bit different than destroying MLB pitching with a hole in your swing.
StandinPat
November 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I believe Jon was relating the jump in leagues, the initial struggle, and the subsequent adjustments made that led to him destroying said pitching, and that its a pretty common trend among young players.
The adjustment period is Saunders shoring up that hole in his swing and therefore preparing himself to be a much better MLB hitter in 2010.