Image

Baltimore @ Seattle

User avatar
BlackMamba
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,297
And1: 81
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Cd. de M
         

Baltimore @ Seattle 

Post#1 » by BlackMamba » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:16 pm

3 game home series.

the pitching matchup gives the mariners the edge, first two games we have f
MrNate
Sophomore
Posts: 112
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Pullman/Federal Way, WA
Contact:

 

Post#2 » by MrNate » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:37 pm

Nothing could be worse than our last series against the orioles, hopefully our pen starts to perform a little better.
User avatar
b_roy7
Veteran
Posts: 2,908
And1: 0
Joined: May 11, 2007
Contact:

 

Post#3 » by b_roy7 » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:06 am

Please let Bedard pitch the 3rd game. Redemption time for the M's.
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

Re: Baltimore @ Seattle 

Post#4 » by Sweezo » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:37 am

BlackMamba wrote:3 game home series.

the pitching matchup gives the mariners the edge, first two games we have f
User avatar
Bay_Areas_Finest
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,505
And1: 1
Joined: Apr 10, 2006
Location: Bay Area, California

 

Post#5 » by Bay_Areas_Finest » Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:17 am

Why didn't anyone tell me that Arthur Rhodes was still tossin 94-95 mph? Dude can still be useful, for sure.

God damn, how many great games has Felix pitched this year w/o a win? 3 or 4 now?
User avatar
b_roy7
Veteran
Posts: 2,908
And1: 0
Joined: May 11, 2007
Contact:

 

Post#6 » by b_roy7 » Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:38 am

^I think 3. JJ's back.
User avatar
BlackMamba
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,297
And1: 81
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Cd. de M
         

 

Post#7 » by BlackMamba » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:48 pm

yeah, i've been worried about the felix situation. he has pitched some amazing games, still the offense can do anything so he goes out without decision.

and good to have putz back, i think this stabilizes the bullpen.

and yes, i just saw dickey i no longer the starter for game 3, it's washburn.

and about bedard, if he's back i think it would be vs. the A's or even vs. the indians.
MrNate
Sophomore
Posts: 112
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Pullman/Federal Way, WA
Contact:

Re: Baltimore @ Seattle 

Post#8 » by MrNate » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:42 pm

Sweezo wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Actually, Dickey was just optioned to Tacoma. Which I'm thinking means he's gone since last time he went through waivers any team could have claimed him. I think he has some value to an MLB team...


Didn't we give Minnesota some scrub minor league catcher so we didn't have to deal with that anymore? I'm pretty sure we did.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#9 » by Basketball Jesus » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:58 pm

Yeah; the Mariners gave up Jair Fernandez to obtain Dickey's option.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
Ex-hippie
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,213
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 17, 2003

 

Post#10 » by Ex-hippie » Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:15 pm

I don't think Sweezo was referring to the requirement that he be offered back to Minnesota or Milwaukee or whoever it was. That was taken care of by the trade. It was about a possible waiver wire claim. I'm not sure I understand, though, since Dickey's contract is a minor league contract -- not that I really know, but I'd think a player under a minor league contract can actually be sent to the minors like the agreement says. Or maybe not; maybe when the team "purchased the contract" of Dickey rather than "recalling" him the way they do with prospects, it subjected him to the normal procedures. I don't know. Anybody got a baseball equivalent of the Larry Coon FAQ here?
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#11 » by Basketball Jesus » Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:17 pm

Looking at his career, I think Dickey may have had some of his original options left.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

 

Post#12 » by Sweezo » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:17 am

I'd been bagging on the Rhodes idea quite a bit, but...who expected him to be throwing as hard as he is right now? I'm still 100% against having him overtake RRS but I guess I'll take a hard throwing Rhodes over an inconsistent EOF for the time being.

It's great having JJ back. I was concerned, but he looked as good as ever last night.

Ex-hippie wrote:I don't think Sweezo was referring to the requirement that he be offered back to Minnesota or Milwaukee or whoever it was. That was taken care of by the trade. It was about a possible waiver wire claim. I'm not sure I understand, though, since Dickey's contract is a minor league contract -- not that I really know, but I'd think a player under a minor league contract can actually be sent to the minors like the agreement says. Or maybe not; maybe when the team "purchased the contract" of Dickey rather than "recalling" him the way they do with prospects, it subjected him to the normal procedures. I don't know. Anybody got a baseball equivalent of the Larry Coon FAQ here?


Yep.

This Dickey thing really doesn't make sense to me now, as it seemed pretty clear that once we traded away the scrub catcher to the Twins, we still had to pass Dickey through waivers to get him to AAA. Why would we have to go through the latter process if he still had options remaining?
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

 

Post#13 » by Sweezo » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:28 am

Go figure, Silva's at home...and his K's and BB's are spiking again.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#14 » by Basketball Jesus » Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:55 pm

Silva pitched a pretty decent game but, man, were the M
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
User avatar
Bay_Areas_Finest
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,505
And1: 1
Joined: Apr 10, 2006
Location: Bay Area, California

 

Post#15 » by Bay_Areas_Finest » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:30 pm

We need Barry Bonds in the worst way.
User avatar
BlackMamba
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,297
And1: 81
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Cd. de M
         

 

Post#16 » by BlackMamba » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:47 pm

or like BBJ points out, some fresh young talent that can make us feel calm that in the next 5 years we'll have good pitching and good batting.
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

 

Post#17 » by Sweezo » Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:19 pm

I'm comfortable with the pitching. For the most part, the starters have kept the M's in ballgames. I can't fault Silva, a contact pitcher, for giving up two runs in seven innings. Or even RRS for giving up a solo shot. If your staff gives up three runs, they've done their job.

And if a starter goes down, other teams have worse contingency plans than Baek or Dickey. Meanwhile, Morrow's looking alot better as well.

Offensively, though...holy crap. It's a problem when you think adding Barry Bonds would bring some youth to the lineup...

Meanwhile, Oakland signs Frank Thomas for about $350k. What a crock of ****.
User avatar
Basketball Jesus
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 31,180
And1: 7
Joined: Sep 04, 2003
Location: P-nuts + hair doos

 

Post#18 » by Basketball Jesus » Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:40 pm

Bonds isn
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
Sweezo
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 18,215
And1: 36
Joined: Aug 12, 2001
       

 

Post#19 » by Sweezo » Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:31 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:Bonds isn
User avatar
b_roy7
Veteran
Posts: 2,908
And1: 0
Joined: May 11, 2007
Contact:

 

Post#20 » by b_roy7 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:06 am

Wow, giving up a 5-0 lead. There goes the bullpen again.

Return to Seattle Mariners