Mariners make multi-year offer to catcher Miguel Olivo

Leave a comment

Troy Renck of the Denver Post reported Thursday evening that free agent catcher Miguel Olivo is likely going to score a two-year, $7.5 million deal at some point in the near future.  Renck’s source must have been on the contract side of the negotiations because he wasn’t able to identify which team was behind that proposal.

We might have the answer now.

According to Jon Paul Morosi, the Mariners have a multi-year offer on the table for the 32-year-old Olivo.  Might it be of the two-year, $7.5 million variety?

Olivo turned in a pedestrian .269/.315/.449 overall batting line in 2010, but he had a .325 batting average, 11 home runs and 42 RBI before the All-Star break and Seattle will hope that he can keep that pace throughout an entire season.

Geoff Baker of the Seattle Times says that two sides — the M’s and Olivo — are still talking, and that a deal probably won’t be reached by the end of this week’s Winter Meetings.

UPDATE: Now the Tacoma News Tribune’s Ryan Divish is reporting that the Mariners have not made an offer.  They do sound interested, but this deal may take a little longer than expected to materialize.

The Nats are going to sign Francisco Rodriguez for some reason

Getty Images
2 Comments

The Nationals bullpen is a tire fire. They’re about to add another tire. Per Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports, Washington is about to sign free agent reliever Francisco Rodriguez.

K-Rod was released by the Tigers last week after posting an ERA of 7.82 over 28 appearances this season. He has a 1.658 WHIP, is allowing 11.9 hits per nine innings and is posting his highest walk rate in five years. Also worth noting: the Detroit Friggin’ Tigers decided that he was not good enough to be in their bullpen.

So, yeah, good luck with that Washington.

The Giants chemistry is suffering because a guy they all hated is gone

Getty Images
8 Comments

I’ve spent years arguing with people about team chemistry. You know the battle lines on all of that now: people who talk a lot about team chemistry tend to attribute winning or losing to good or bad chemistry, respectively. I tend to think that characterizing chemistry is a retroactive exercise in which teams that win are happy and then cite their happiness as the reason and vice versa. Jim Leyland agrees with me, for what it’s worth, so I’m pretty happy with my take.

Not that I’ll claim a monopoly on wisdom here. I’ve never played on a professional baseball team. I don’t know what it’s like to try to prepare to play baseball while surrounded by jackwagons who don’t get along with anyone. I can’t imagine that makes life easier. Indeed, based on the testimony of players I have spoken to, I will grant that there is at least some intangible yet real benefit if everyone is happy an gelling. I dismiss team chemistry arguments for the most part, but if I ran a team I’d at least try to get rid of bad seeds if their bad seeding was not outweighed by seriously outstanding on-the-field play. You want your workers happy, folks.

All of which makes me wonder what the heck to do about this passage from Ken Rosenthal’s latest column. It’s about the reeling San Francisco Giants. They have all kinds of issues — their offense is putrid, their pitching isn’t much better and they’ve been without their ace most of the year — but today Rosenthal looks at their team chemistry. It’s a quiet and subdued clubhouse, he notes, and it has a lot of people wondering if something is wrong there. What could it be?

Sandoval, who was an often noisy and boisterous presence during his time with the club, departed as a free agent after that season. Pence has suffered a number of injuries in recent years and declined offensively, making it difficult for him to be as vocal as he was in the past. Some with the Giants muse that the team even misses Angel Pagan, who created an odd sort of unity because most of the players disliked him.

Read that last sentence again. And then go on with your talk about how team chemistry is a legitimate explanatory concept regarding what makes teams win or lose as opposed to a post-hoc rationalization of it.

Not that it’s not a good article overall. There’s some interesting stuff about the Giants’ bullpen culture. And, of course, we now know why no one signed Pagan last winter.