And the Seattle-Toronto pipeline continues...?
So says MLB Trade Rumors, which has Brandon Morrow shipping north of the border for Brandon League and "a prospect." Yep.
Blue Jays To Acquire Brandon MorrowKen Rosenthal's reporting it, and physicals are in the offing. League's already had one, and Morrow's going to do the same. Rosenthal speculates that Morrow will either be a starter or a closer, and that the PtbNL should be a pitcher. Meanwhile, Jordan Bastian says the prospect could be Johermyn Chavez, who turns 21 next month and hit .283/.346/.474 in A ball.
0 recs |
42 comments
Comments
I think I agree with most of the comments I've seen Mariners fans make
namely, I’ll give Jack Z the benefit of the doubt for now, as he’s really transformed this team, but on the surface, it’s an odd move of sorts. Chavez is intriguing, but has holes and is far away. League has nice stuff but that hasn’t translated. Morrow might never be as good as he was hyped up to be once upon a time, but he’s a solid arm who, if his durability isn’t there, should make a nice back of the pen option.
Gotta give AA some credit though. I like the moves he’s made this offseason for the Blue Jays, starting with the decision at short, then the Halladay trade, and now this. Good gambles on his part.
by toonsterwu on Dec 22, 2025 4:15 PM EST reply actions
one thing i will applaud
even though i think it’s a bad deal as of what we know right now, is that, this strikes me as a “decisive” move, and I can respect a GM that believes and makes decisions like that. It sounds like he either really liked League (and there are positives) or he’s soured on Morrow (and there are reasons for that as well).
I do wonder if this leads to another trade for them, as they have enough pen options. I also wonder what this means for their rotation. They are built to contend now … but they could really use one more starter, even an innings eater type (Garland?)
by toonsterwu on Dec 22, 2025 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
I'm withholding judgment...
until the second player coming to Seattle is confirmed. If it’s Chavez, I’m not a fan of this deal at all, and I’d be surprised to find an M’s fan that was.
And this is coming from a guy who is no fan of Morrow, and thinks League is a smart trade target. It just doesn’t seem like the Mariners are getting the value you’d expect in this deal (if it’s Chavez).
by PissedMick on Dec 22, 2025 4:28 PM EST reply actions
+1
I agee with basically all of that.
Plenty to like about League: lots of GBs and Ks, brings the heat, smart trade target based on peripherals, etc. But Morrow has to have more trade value than this left, right? Maybe there just isn’t anyone who thinks he’s a starting pitcher anymore.
Someone’s twitter mentioned they heard Zach Stewart was involved, but that was this morning before Chavez’s name came out (I’m blanking on whose I read this on). That certainly would make this much, much more interesting for the M’s.
That said, Jack Z has done a pretty damn good job turning around the team he took over - I think he deserves at least a little benefit of the doubt here, I’m just disappointed Morrow’s value has dropped that considerably.
http://rswanzey.blogspot.com
by rswanzey on Dec 22, 2025 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
The Stewart stuff was a pure BS guess. As a Toronto fan I wouldn’t trade Stewart straight up for Morrow.
This is a fairly good risk for Toronto. Chavez is a decent prospect but likely wont be missed.
by metafour on Dec 22, 2025 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
BS guess?
Actually, I went back and looked it up, the source on that was David Cameron. Doesn’t mean his sources weren’t making shit up though.
“Hearing the name Zach Stewart as a possibility for the prospect coming to SEA from TOR. High GB/K pitcher, definitely fits the M’s type.”
Also of note, from his feed, is that Morrow only has one more service year than League. Of course, according to Conor Glassey of BA, Chavez was available in the Rule 5 draft. So…yuck.
http://rswanzey.blogspot.com
by rswanzey on Dec 22, 2025 9:00 PM EST up reply actions
available to anyone who could keep a 21 year-old A-baller on a major league roster
all season
by ayjackson on Dec 22, 2025 11:11 PM EST up reply actions
Completely agree
And I’m a lot higher on League than others are. I think League can be a decent closer. But Morrow can be a solid #2/#3 starter. Don’t really get why you would give up on Morrow. Must be some concerns they have about his makeup or character.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Dec 22, 2025 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
or his ability to get the ball over the plate
and his not having a second pitch.
by Daniel Berlyn on Dec 23, 2025 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Or the multiple reasons to believe he couldn't handle a starters load
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Dec 23, 2025 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
well...if you look at it like this:
Jays get: Drabek, Morrow, Wallace, D’Arnaud
Phillies get: Doc Halladay, Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies, Juan Ramirez
Mariners get: Cliff Lee, Brandon League, Johermyn Chavez
A’s get: Michael Taylor
It doesn’t look so bad for Seattle…it looks like they now didn’t give up peanuts for Cliff Lee.
by bunner on Dec 22, 2025 10:04 PM EST reply actions
Yeah, but it's not.
I mean, sure, you CAN look at it like that, but why? It’s not what happened.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 22, 2025 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
Wasn't...
Chavez Rule-5 eligible a few weeks ago??? Why not select him then for $50,000 rather than trade for him?
by Havok1517 on Dec 23, 2025 3:01 AM EST reply actions
Don't know.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 23, 2025 6:38 AM EST up reply actions
they're competing for the pennant
and Chavez, who spent all year at low-A, would be a waste of a roster spot right now
by gogotabata on Dec 23, 2025 8:49 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, ayjackson said it best above...
available to anyone who could keep a 21 year-old A-baller on a major league roster
I can’t imagine that being very appealing to any gm.
It takes neither courage nor intelligence to cheer for a team only when that team wins. The true test of a fan's mettle is the same as it is for a player: Were you there when you were needed?
aka Solace
by Jason Witte on Dec 23, 2025 8:54 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Since he was in A Ball he should of been available for the minor league portion, correct?
by Havok1517 on Dec 23, 2025 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
There is a list of 30-40 protected non-40 man players for the AAA phase
An additional number of spots is there for the AA phase also. If the FO does not protect their prospects with these, they are pretty foolish.
by tdot mariner fan on Dec 23, 2025 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
I like the pattern
Jack Z is trading away all the guys whose development patterns the previous regime messed around with. Clement, Aumont, Morrow. He’s cleaning them all out. With his scouting pedigree, if he wants to punt these guys, I give him the benefit of the doubt, especially after the Mariners’ previous Gap-ad-like fascination with promoting guys too fast and making everyone a reliever.
by aap212 on Dec 23, 2025 9:49 AM EST reply actions
+1
Interesting point.
Clement seems like a classic change-of-scenery guy, though it now seems like the old administration was correct when it all but wrote him off as a catcher.
Getting League back for Morrow tells me they’ve written off Morrow as both a starter and a potential closer. And dealing with Toronto tells me there’s no market for Morrow except among the risk-takers. So I’m inclined to think they actually did maximize his value.
by whichthat on Dec 23, 2025 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
It's almost a purge
About the only guys left who I really think of as “Bavasi guys” are like Halman, Saunders, Fields, Jose Lopez and Triunfel.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
by PaulThomas on Dec 23, 2025 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Remember, though
Bavasi/Fontaine drafted Fields, but Zduriencik signed him. He could have let the guy walk and taken the #21 overall pick in the draft.
by slamcactus on Dec 24, 2025 1:17 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, but...
You lose time and leverage in a situation like that. Plus, an unsigned first round pick was an organizational embarrassment he was inheriting. Early in his term, he may have found it necessary to just get it over with.
by aap212 on Dec 24, 2025 2:55 AM EST up reply actions
No, he shouldn't have.
The 2009 draft was vastly inferior in talent to that of the 2008 draft. Fields had more value, even as a reliever, than any other players available at the 21st pick in the 2009 draft.
by redwolf75 on Dec 24, 2025 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
2009 Draft: 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Jiovanni Mier
Kyle Gibson (rated #3 in system over Wilson Ramos by John)
Jared Mitchell (rated #2 in system over Tyler Flowers by John)
Randall Grichuk
Mike Trout (rated #1 in Angels system by John)
Yeah, who WOULDN’T take Josh Fields over that trash?
by PissedMick on Dec 24, 2025 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
right but the compensation pick wouldn't have been protected
So they might not have had the leverage to sign any of those guys without significantly overpaying (like the Yankees did with Heathcott on their compensation pick for Cole).
by jibs on Dec 24, 2025 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
I think most teams would prefer to pay more for talent...
then to sign mediocre players at market value. That move was made simply to save face for the franchise, and it was a stupid one.
by PissedMick on Dec 24, 2025 10:07 PM EST up reply actions
Heathcott was a HS draftee so he had the extra leverage of going to college. Someone like Jared Mitchell signed relatively quickly (I think he agreed as soon as the CWS was over) and almost certainly wouldn’t have went back for his senior year.
by jar75 on Dec 24, 2025 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly.
Not as simple as others are making it out to be.
by redwolf75 on Dec 25, 2025 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
It's exactly as simple as I'm making it out to be.
Yes, the M’s would’ve had less leverage signing another player than they did with Fields.
However, they actually paid MORE than market value for Fields, even though as a senior he would’ve been screwed if he didn’t sign.
The team would’ve been better off paying a Mier, Gibson, or Mitchell whatever they were asking than overpaying for a “talent” like Fields.
by PissedMick on Dec 26, 2025 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Still
I think ultimately he wanted to end the embarrassment of an unsigned first round pick when he took over the franchise. There’s no way he would have drafted Fields, but he had bigger fish to fry. Besides, money might have been an issue given where they would be drafting in ’09.
by aap212 on Dec 26, 2025 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
The Mariner blogosphere is infamously
willing to criticize the moves of its team harshly, but it supported this move. As Dave Cameron noted back when Fields was signed:
So, it’s pretty easy to sit here and wish they would have just let Fields go back in the draft, take the #21 pick next summer as compensation, and let Zduriencik and staff add another higher impact talent in June. However, it’s not so obviously cut and dried.
First, there’s a time-value thing at work here. You get Josh Fields right now, where with the #21 pick, you don’t get him until this summer, and that’s optimistic – the rule on compensation picks awarded for not signing prior year draft picks is that you only get them once. So, if the prospect the M’s took at #21 decided to take a hard line stance on his signing bonus, the M’s would be in a pay-him-or-get-nothing scenario. They would have significantly less leverage with the compensation pick than they have with Fields, so expecting a quick sign for that player is probably unrealistic. In most cases, when the team is in that kind of situation, they’ll go with a conservative pick – an overdraft on talent of a guy who they know they can sign for something close to slot money. So, hoping that the M’s could use that pick to nab an elite talent was probably wishful thinking. In reality, they’d be looking at taking a guy like Fields with that pick – a senior who couldn’t go back to school and had reduced leverage. In this case, they’re getting that kind of player now versus getting a similar player this summer and then hoping they could sign him without a potential compensation pick as leverage.
With Fields, there’s a non-zero chance that he could be pitching for this team in the second half of the year. It’s not likely, but it’s possible, and that possibility holds some value that the compensation pick just wouldn’t have. In a division that looks fairly weak, adding a 10% chance of a potential second half relief ace has some real value. So, to pass up that chance to help the ‘09 Mariners, you’d have to believe that you could get a better long term prospect this summer, and sign them with reduced leverage. Is that possible? Sure. Is it likely? I don’t know. I’m pretty sure Zduriencik and McNamara know better than we do, and I’m certain they talked about this before signing Fields.
by redwolf75 on Dec 26, 2025 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Oops, the other 2 paragraphs should have been quoted as well.
Your problem mick is that you are using hindsight to evaluate the move that the Mariners made (looking at current prospect ratings…a rather flawed thought process) instead of judging it upon the logic at the time of the signing.
by redwolf75 on Dec 26, 2025 4:09 PM EST up reply actions
Moreso than that...
I was looking at who was available at the comparable slot, and considering whether I would rather have such a player than a middle reliever. Obviously saying “the M’s could’ve gotten [this specific guy]!” is folly.
I understand the leverage involved, and the stance of bringing in a guy who can help earlier, I just don’t agree with the conclusion the M’s came to. A team that’s been able to pull solid relievers out of hats for the last several years should understand why that’s the case.
by PissedMick on Dec 26, 2025 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah that was one move I didn't really understand
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
by Gina on Dec 24, 2025 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
Aumont wasn't Bavasi's fault.
Jack Z changed him to a reliever.
But Morrow, Clement, etc. Sure.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Dec 23, 2025 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
It's a sign Jack Z wouldn't have taken him in the first place
Which is part of my point.
by aap212 on Dec 23, 2025 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
by drjayphd on 





