Free agent 'dominoes' to assist Mariners?
Free agency may not be a big avenue for Seattle this winter, but watch for the... dominoes.
No one believes the Seattle Mariners will be in the market for Juan Soto, or any significant free agent for that matter. And even if they’re willing to spend market money on mid-tier types their home ballpark remains a significant obstacle. But free agency remains an important piece of the puzzle for Jerry Dipoto as he looks to find more offense and shore up the bullpen.
Get 30% Off Annual ‘Superstar’ Tier at Baseball Things
-One year FREE subscription to Mariners After Midnight
-NEW in Offseason 2024-25: Monthly Video Chats, this tier only
-Access to Live Worksheets (Google Sheets) for Prospect Rankings & Updates. The worksheet includes tools grades, my notes from all live looks & more! (in-season only)
-NEW in 2025: Note sharing on any and all draft prospects
-Early access to annual prospect updates: 2 weeks before the public
More often that not, clubs sign free agents and simply implement them onto their roster, filling a hole or improving a weakness. Occasionally, however, that player supplants another capable one leaving Player B without an ideal role. That player then becomes a potential trade candidate.
For example:
The Atlanta Braves have been mentioned as one of the frontrunners for free agent shortstop Willy Adames. If they land him, Orlando Arcia then becomes a bench player. And maybe that works just fine for the Braves, but Arcia may also be valuable trade bait.
Arcia, 30, is signed through 2025 at $2 million with a $2 million club option for 2026. He posted back-to-back league average offensive numbers and played excellent defense at shortstop in 2022 and 2023. He fell off in 2024 — .218/.271/.354, 72 wRC+ — but did hit 17 homers for the second straight season.
Should the Braves make Arcia available in this madeup but plausible scenario, the Mariners could consider Arcia at second base.
I know what most of you are saying: So what? Arcia isn’t a good hitter, why would Seattle want him?
First of all, I’m not saying he should be at the top of the lost, but Arcia might be good and simply had a down 2024. Second, he’s very inexpensive in salary, and there’s really no chance the club fills all three open infield spots with what anyone would call a good hitter. One of those spots, perhaps two, is going to stay in-house or be someone like Arcia.
Another one:
Let’s say the New York Mets sign Christian Walker, letting Pete Alonso leave town and sign with the Chicago Cubs. The Cubs, in turn, could look to move Michael Busch, their primary first baseman in 2024 who put up a 118 wRC+ and 21 homers. Busch, 26, gets on base and has 30-homer power. He can also play third in a pinch. He’s a player, that despite his propensity to strike out, should interest Seattle.
Side Note: For four years one of the Dodgers’ scouts kept telling me — pretty much every time I saw him — Busch should be in Seattle. Busch is the bat in Los Angeles the Mariners should be trying to get. His lefty swing fits the ballpark (pull power) and he walks enough to counter the strikeouts.
This domino effect can also happen more indirectly, too — it literally has no bounds. Clubs sign players, and sometimes reallocate resources by trading others as a result. But it can go a step further with payroll-forced reactions — add a pricey player in one area, go with a cheaper one elsewhere and trade the pricier incumbent (Andrés Giménez in Cleveland? Ian Happ in Chicago?)
So while you’re watching, with a scowl most likely, at free agents signing with everyone but the Mariners, think along with the club’s front office, because there are domino effects to every transaction, often creating an opportunity that wasn’t there before.
Another thing to keep in mind when gathering all the shared ideas is the cost for short-term players in trade.
Josh Naylor, for example.
The Guardians may very well be open to dealing Naylor, a player that was on my go-get list until this season.He’s due nearly $10 million this season, the clubs prefers to live in the bottom 10 of the league in spending (No. 23 in 2024 at $106 million), and they have $89 million committed to 16 players with a lot of weaknesses to consider. Naylor could fetch them some talent, and they have Kyle Manzardo ready to take over at first base.
But Naylor would be a one-year fix and the trade cost is likely akin to what occurs at the trade deadline. It’s like buying bulk.
And extensions are even less likely on players in their final years before free agency — unless the offer reflects free-agent money.
Not that Soto is a trade comp for Naylor, but the package the New York Yankees surrendered to land Soto should tell you all you need to know:
-Michael King, RHP (29): King brought two years of control to the San Diego Padres and posted a 4-win season
-Kyle Higashioka, C (34): One year of a No. 2 catcher worth around 1.5 fWAR every year
-Drew Thorpe, RHP (23): Was flipped in the package to land RHP Dylan Cease. Mid-rotation upside, perhaps a bit more.
-Randy Vasquez, RHP (25): Brought six years of control, started 20 games for the Padres. No. 4 future.
-Jhony Brito, RHP (26): Brought six years of control, pitched in 26 games out of the bullpen, has mid-rotation upside.
Sure, it’s Juan Soto, but it’s a haul.
Naylor is likely to cost a small handful of Top 25 prospects, including at least one in the Top 8 and two in the Top 12 or so. And then after the season you’re right back in the same place looking for that hitter. It’s not a sustainable practice.
The deal Seattle made with the Minnesota Twins for Jorge Polanco — OF Gabriel Gonzalez, RHR Darren Bowen, RHP Anthony DeSclafani, RHR Justin Topa — is about 50% the way to the same territory. Resources are finite, a club that doesn’t make an impact in free agency cannot ship out assets year to year, over and over.
The same goes for the likes of Kyle Tucker, Vladimir Guerrero Jr., and to some degree Bo Bichette. They’re bad ideas because they will cost big-time talent to acquire, and there’s a less-than-good chance they’re around longer than a year.
Interesting piece, as always. Am I wrong or am I sensing that you are now leaning a little more toward "hoarding prospects" than you were approaching the 2024 trade deadline? Is the difference that, in July 2024, the M's were trading with the knowledge that Houston and Texas were very vulnerable? Ergo a really good 'rental' (e.g. Vlad) may have been worth a bunch of prospects? Whereas now, with the competitiveness of the AL West more uncertain for 2025, you are suggesting they should be more cautious and tilt toward "sustainability" (a term you did not use but, as a fan, I am starting to hate - even though I understand the merits). Am I crazy? Just trying to reconcile what seems like a bit of inconsistency. Thanks Church!