Add new comment

Just because we feel like we have money to burn and want to put it somewhere.
After all this work to obtain payroll flexibility and young talent, we need to have the roster add up to some arbitrary salary figure to show we're serious about winning?
Look, I'm not thrilled either at the idea that we're cutting payroll...but who says we're doing that?  If Iwakuma is brilliant and we sign him to a 5 year extension for 60 mil, then we're not cutting payroll, we just delayed using it - and we wanted to confirm Iwakuma's health and stateside success before spending the cash.
Or maybe like Grumpy says we're driving hard bargains.  Iwakuma is pitching for us for nothing, so that's certainly possible.  Or saving funds for a trade during the year, for an Alex-Gordon type, who will need to be extended.
I hear DaddyO loud and clear:  most of us have been very disappointed by the payroll chicanery around here over the last decade.  "Freddy Garcia's arbitration win stole all our cookies" is a teeth gritting phrase.
But I don't know how the Mariners are feeling about payroll and their future plans.  I don't need the payroll THIS year just to keep that $90 million-ish figure from falling if the player doesn't fit. But after talking to Zduriencik, Jerry Crasnick says "The Mariners' payroll is expected to top $90 million again this year."  Maybe he's inventing that idea, or Jack lied to him, or the Mariners are gonna spend 20 million on international free agents this signing period.
But I don't need the Ms to force it.  Add the right player or players to this team, not just the ones that cost the right amount on the spreadsheet.  If Edwin Jackson doesn't want to come here (let's say he likes Boston better) should we overpay him to make it happen?
Should we have done that with the Pineda trade? "I'm sorry, I can't take just Montero because he doesn't make enough money, can't you throw Burnett into the deal too?" That seems silly to me.
If we don't feel we need him, should we sign Jackson (or anyone) to a 4-year contract just to prove we're serious?  Just a week ago we were rumored to be in on Jackson if he DOES want a 1-year deal to prove himself, since the Safe would be great for that and we'd maintain payroll flexibility as well as hedge bets for the coming year.
So it doesn't sound like money is the issue.  Roster construction is the issue. I'd love to add Edwin for a year and extend whichever is better between he and Iwakuma.  That's great for us and a good way to hold payroll decisions while awaiting more information as well.
But if we stand pat we're cutting payroll for the year by 10 or 15 million and coming nowhere near that $90 mil figure.  I expect to add some to get to it, whether it's now or at the deadline, or even in the offseason once our needs are properly understood.  And to be honest I'm thrilled that we didn't give a Cuddyer 4/40 just to make bloggers and sportswriters satisfied with our monetary expenditures.
If payroll keeps shrinking and we force Jack to do this rebuild while continually cutting 8 figures a year from the budget, that's a huge problem for me.
If we're letting the GM build the team as he sees fit and not blowing it on any more Figginses (like Bagginses...) then I can't complain.  Pay great players to come here - and to stay here.  Add great young talent to the team.  Build the farm and the wins. 
And as the guide says...Don't Panic!
Past payroll failures are not necessarily indicative of future results.
I hope.
~G