In ESPNs trade deadline blog, Buster Olney says:

Baseball executives love the mental challenge of piecing together the trade deadline puzzle, and I heard this interesting speculation — and that’s all it is, speculation — from an executive with a team that is not involved in the Jarrod Washburn conversation: With the Mets now perhaps in need of a starting pitcher (in the aftermath of the MRI planned for John Maine), wouldn’t Washburn be a great fit for the Mets?

Washburn is a gritty pitcher, he usually gives six tough innings and he’d be pitching in a big ballpark. And because he’s under contract for 2009, he would give the Mets some depth protection; Pedro Martinez and Oliver Perez are eligible for free agency after this season.

The Mariners had indicated to the Yankees, in those corroded talks between the teams, that they were willing to eat a lot of Washburn’s 2008 salary but that the Yankees would have to pay the lefty’s 2009 salary. If the Mariners made a similar arrangement with the Mets and got a prospect in return, there could be a fit. And, as the executive noted, dealing Washburn to the Mets instead of the crosstown Yankees might be viewed as a victory of some sort in the Seattle front office and would allow Mets general manager Omar Minaya to let his fan base know: We got this guy the Yankees wanted.

“It’s a natural fit for those two teams,” the executive mused.

This speculation makes sense. But something else to consider as well is that the Mets have expressed interest in two other Mariners - Raul Ibanez and Arthur Rhodes. Could this be why the Yankees were not able to get Washburn as easily as had been expected? Has Omar Minaya been working on the Mariners for three players? Stay tuned.

Add to Yahoo Add to Google Furl this Add to Spurl Save to Del.icio.us Digg IT! Live Bookmarks! Blogmarks

Maybe: From Newsbusters:

Imagine if a bunch of disgruntled Mitt Romney supporters were currently stalking John McCain or Republican events loudly demanding that their candidate be nominated. Think the national press would be featuring it bigtime as an example of Republican party disunity? Well, the same thing is happening except the people are disgruntled Democrats expressing their opposition of Barack Obama while loudly continuing to support Hillary Clinton. They are known as PUMA (”People United Means Action” or “Party Unity My Ass”). PUMA was formed last month in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton conceding the Democrat nomination to Obama. However, contrary to being just a desperate last gasp by Hillary’s supporters, PUMA activities seem to be surging lately despite the overseas trip by Obama which was widely heralded by the mainstream media. In fact, the official PUMA PAC website has today announced, in a message directed towards Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, their view that the Obama trip was a “flop”:

Curious. I’ve been wondering what drives this particular movement. Is it just bitter Clinton supporters? Or are there some staunch Dems who really are unhappy with Obama and the manner in which he will have obtained the nomination. Maybe both? And what will happen after the convention? Will they just come home as most Dem talking heads are saying?

Add to Yahoo Add to Google Furl this Add to Spurl Save to Del.icio.us Digg IT! Live Bookmarks! Blogmarks