2010 was a disaster. Griffey should never have been re-signed, and never should have played for two months. The veteran entitlement which had (supposedly) been exorcised during 2009 sprang up again like Kudzu in 2010, poisoning the clubhouse, eventually taking down the team and its deer-in-headlights manager.

Common wisdom blames the incorporeal offense, which scored 513 runs -- exactly 100 runs less than the next worst AL team, Baltimore, for the 2010 debacle. The Ms offense was the only AL offense not to post a team OPS over .700 -- they finished at .637. It WAS an historically bad offense. We're talking original Mets level incompetence here.

The club SHOULD have finished last in runs scored -- it wasn't a good lineup. But, it was a bad offense which lived down to about the absolute worst possible result just about across the board. Ichiro was just about the only regular who didn't finish 20 points (or more) below career OPS+ (or expected result). It was the worst possible version of a really bad offense. So, it deserves the lions share of the blame for 2010 results.

But ... the team was built to have great pitching and defense with "hoped for" just-enough offense. They didn't get the pitching and defense that was expected, either.

Before 2010, I *PREDICTED* the DER would slip to 4th. The Ms DER ended up at .703 ... 4th in the AL behind Oakland, Yankees and Tampa, (just barely ahead of the .701 that Texas posted. In 2009, the club finished at .712 (with 2nd place Yanks at .698).

Instead of finishing first in runs allowed, (in 2009, Seattle allowed 692 - 40 runs better than 2nd place ChiSox), the 2010 version of the Ms gave up 698 ... good enough for only 6th place in the AL, 72 runs worse than 1st place Oakland. Texas was also better at 687 and the Angels barely missed shoving the Ms to worst in division in runs allowed, finishing 7th in the AL with 702 surrendered. Scoring was down by about 1/3 of a run - roughly 55 fewer runs allowed per team on average.

Wasn't Cliff Lee supposed to make everything a lot better? Okay, he was only around for 1/2 the season, but didn't that make ANY difference? Actually, yes. In 2009, starters allowed a 3.89 ERA with a 6.3 K/9 and a 2.01 K/BB ratio. In 2010, SPs improved their ERA slightly (3.83), and while Ks went down (5.9), the K/BB rate improved to 2.40.

The BIG difference was in the bullpen, which was a ho-hum 3.83 (6.8 and 1.87) in 2009, but swooned horribly to 4.23 (6.6 and 1.76) in 2010. While the rest of the league was improving by 1/3 of a run, Seattle's bullpen got worse by 4/10ths. So how bad was the Ms bullpen in 2010? Per Fangraphs the total reliever WAR was -0.4. The club was the ONLY team in the AL with a negative WAR. The bullpen had the 2nd worst K/9 (trailing Detroit's 6.30 with a 6.57. Despite playing in one of the most HR free stadiums in the league, only 4 team bullpens had a worse HR/9. The Ms were worst in the league in strand percentage (71.5%). In comparison, the Rangers were first at 77.9%.

So, in addition to having the worst hitting (by a wide margin) in the AL, the Ms also had the worst bullpen in the AL, (but, not by as wide a margin). The rotation was middle of the pack, (but looks better, having been helped out by the #4 ranked defense).

Before the 2010 season began, I suggested that the defense would fall to 4th, (they did), and that the bullpen was a greater concern for the team than was generally felt. I was right about that as well. I wasn't as concerned about the offense, (and I very obviously missed that call). But, at least I do have a *REASON* to explain why the offense went so horribly off the rails. I blame it on the re-introduction of veteran entitlement caused by the combo of bringing Griffey back and then welding him into the #5 slot in the lineup for 7 weeks. While I predicted Griffey to fail horribly, I did not comprehend exactly how devastating his presence would be. Of course, I really didn't believe any manager would simply leave a guy with an .450 OPS in the lineup for 7 weeks, who wasn't forced to by positional requirements and injuries. NEITHER was the case with Griffey.

For 2011, the outlook is dismal. The starting rotation, minus Lee, is middle of the pack, (at best). While Felix is a true ace, Vargas is a weak #2 and Fister is realistically no better than Silva, unless he adds something to his game. At the moment, the rotation is Felix, Vargas, Pauley, French and Fister. Barring a *MAJOR* impact by someone out of the minors, (Pineda could do this, though I am thinking he'll likely have control issues for a year or two when transitioning to the Bigs), the rotation is probably "optimistically" middle of the road - even if the defense ends up in the top 4 again.

The lineup is weak - but I think it likely the club has 5 bats producing and 4 black holes by the end of May, (which is vastly superior to the 2 and 7 that was the reality for most of 2010). But, that's still a bottom two offense.

The silent, but deadly, killer of 2011 is most likely going to be the bullpen. I warned before 2010 that the so-so 2009 bullpen was much weaker and could collapse. It did. The 2011 bullpen isn't as good as the 2010 was - *AND* Aardsma is repeatedly first in line on the who-will-Z-trade list. How many relievers for the 2010 Ms (with more than 10 innings pitched), had positive WAR values? League (0.4), Aardsma (0.2 - and supposedly on the trade block), and Kanekoa Texeira (0.2 - and long long). v If Aardsma is traded, the Ms will have a grand total of *ONE* reliever - League. The next best guy by WAR in the bullpen may well be Garrett Olson. Think about that a second. Garrett Olson may well be one pulled groin muscle from becoming the Seattle CLOSER. *THAT* is how bad the Mariner bullpen could be.

Luckily, bullpens routinely morph overnight, and they generally don't have to cost lots of money. Things COULD change (and likely will) before April. But, at the moment, there is a very real possibility that the Mariner bullpen will be much worse than the broken bats will be.

In 2010, the Seattle pen went 15-29 ... the fewest wins of any bullpen AND the most losses. If the offense improves, (likely), the club will have more leads and the bullpen loss total could climb. Thirty losses from a bullpen usually marks the league nadir. But, the 2011 Mariners could well generate 35 losses or more, unless they get a significant influx of talent that did not show up at all in 2010.

Ultimately, if the Ms move from 2 productive bats to 5, it will be a major improvement, (even if they still finish last in runs scored). But, even if the club gains 100 runs from the offense, they might well lose 100 from the bullpen alone. In 2010, I wasn't worried about the back of the rotation. I felt the club had enough depth that the numbers would allow for the failure of several potentials and the club would reap the benefits of the successes. That was pretty much what happened.

For 2011, all eyes are on the offense, which should be better, (but still not good). But, the rotation for 2011 really does have the perceived weakness that many were afraid of before 2010 began. And the weaker the rotation, the more dire the need for quality bullpen arms. The negative synergy on the pitching side - weak starters likely to get blown up early and often - coupled with bad relievers who cannot throw strikes - is an ugly trainwreck that could easily derail any progress the fans are expecting.

In 2010, while I expected Griffey to implode, I failed to anticipate the ramifications on the rest of the lineup and ended up with a far too optimistic picture of what would happen in 2010. This time around, I am attempting to anticipate the combination of the working parts. What I see is not pretty. Even as the offense comes around, if the bullpen implodes, (which I think likely), then you'll have the repeated gut punches of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That is exactly the kind of thing that can derail a young team - and the 2011 Ms will be a young team.

While it would be nice to project nice 10 win gains each year for the next 3 years into a shiny playoff team come 2013, I am growing more apprehensive about 2011 in particular. Maybe Z finds a pile of gems lying around and surprises me. But, given that almost nobody understands how bad the 2010 bullpen actually was, (or that it is likely going to get even worse), I fear that another 100 loss season is very possible.

The only good news is that there remains a lot of time for the situation to change.