Hypothetically Speaking: The Prince Fielder Contract Extension

Can the Brewers keep Prince Fielder long term? Well, according to this tweet from Jon Heyman, the Brewers are going to give it a go.

#brewers plan to try to lock up prince fielder this winter. dont put it past milwaukee (1 of 9 teams to draw 3 mil fans)

But the question remains: can this extension actually happen? With the Brewers payroll remaining around $80 million and Fielder likely to command $15-$20 million annually, the prospects of a contract extension seem bleak, at best.

But in the name of optimism, let's try to make this extension happen. Let's start off with the goals of each side:

The Brewers

1. Lock up Prince Fielder long term

2. Maintain as much payroll flexibility as possible in the process

3. Hometown discount?

The Prince Fielder Camp

1. Big money contract

2. Become one of the highest paid players in baseball

3. Increased salaries in 2010, and 2011

4. Sign a deal that shows how highly the Brewers value Prince

So how about this deal for Fielder and the Brewers?

(4 years/$72 million) with a fifth year vesting option at $23 million

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $14 million
2011: $18 million
2012: $19 million
2013: $21 million
2014: $23 million (vesting option)

Why it works for the Brewers:

1. Buyout two free agent years

2. Keep Fielder in Milwaukee

3. Prevent him from hitting the open market

4. Brewers only guarantee Fielder on season where he will make $20 million+

Why it works for Fielder

1. Long term security

2. Makes more money in 2010 and probably a little more in 2011

3. Fielder can become a free agent after 2013 (29 years old) or 2014 (30 years old)

********* **********

It's very difficult for the Brewers to commit 25% of their total payroll to one player, which is exactly what they would be doing if they sign Fielder to a contract extension that averages out $20 million annually. The advantage of this deal for the Brewers is that they retain their star in the near future at $18 million annually, which is a little bit of a discount considering what Prince would/could make on the open market. This extension would be a risk for the Brewers because of the exorbitant amount of money they would owe Prince, but if they truly feel like this is a player who they cannot afford to lose right now, a contract extension like this would be the way to go.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Social Network With Jorge Says No!

With all the social network mumbojumbo now out there, it's become imperative that every blog out there devote themselves to facebook and twitter. And yes, I have followed suit hoping to give you, the readers, every chance you can to interact with Jorge Says No!

Follow Jorge Says No! on facebook! (Become a fan on the site!!)

Follow Jorge Says No! on twitter! (Follow me!!)

And as always, if you have any questions feel free to contact me at: jorgesaysno@gmail.com or simply leave a comment!

Thanks for reading!

Ten Burning Free Agent Questions (Part III)

With free agency beginning at midnight, Jorge Says No! will examine ten burning free agent questions. We will break down the 10 questions into 3 parts because quite frankly, my extended responses became far more extended then I initially intended them to be.

See part I here
See part II here

********* *********

7. How poor will the closers market be?

-This is going to be a fascinating winter for closers. There are a number of factors at play here:

a. There are plenty of closers on the market

(Rodney, Soriano, Gonzalez, Gregg, Putz, Valverde, Wagner, Lyon)

b. There are not too many teams that need closers/will pay big bucks for a closer

As strange as that seems, it appears to be true this winter. Here is the preliminary list of teams that might need a closer this winter:

-Astros
-Braves
-Tigers
-Nationals?
-Phillies?
-Cubs?

And ask yourself, out of those six teams, how many of them are willing to spend big bucks on a closer? Not the Astros. Not the Tigers. Definitely not the Phillies or Cubs. Maybe the Braves? How about the Nationals? They could be one of the only teams willing to toss around the idea of a long term contract for a closer.

The options are limited. What does this mean for the closers' market? It's could be a rough year for free agent closers. I expect some of these guys (probably half) to resign with their former clubs or simply accept arbitration because they better deals that they thought would be out there are looking ominously absent this winter.

c. Closers available via trade

There are a number of closers, who could become trade bait this winter, which would further cut into the market. Guys like Heath Bell, Bobby Jenks, and Kerry Wood could be on the move to teams willing to pay their salaries and a few prospects.

********* ***********

8. How will the "injury risks" starting pitchers fare?

-the free agent market for starting pitchers can be broken down by categories:

1. the ace (Lackey)
2. solid yet unspectacular starters (Wolf, Pettitte, Marquis)
3. one year wonder? (Pineiro)
4. Middle of the rotation (Davis, Garland, Padilla, Pavano, Penny)
5. "injury risks"

That last category will be absolutely fascinating to see how it plays out. Even though the market for starting pitchers is weak, there is a strong crop of high upside pitchers with injury concerns/coming off injury plagued 2009 seasons. I'm eager to see the reception these guys get on the open market in a bad economy. How many teams will be willing to take that risk?

Let's take a look at the crop of "injury risks":

• Rich Harden: did not miss much time in 2009, but can he actually be counted on to throw more than 150 IP in a season or make more than 25 starts? I wouldn't hold my breath considering Harden's injury plagued past.
• Justin Duchscherer: Put up fantastic numbers for the A's in 2008, but missed all of 2009 because of injuries and depression. If he comes back healthy, then he could be a major coup for the team that signs him.
  
• Kelvim Escobar: Has not pitched since 2007, but could be worth a minor league deal. If he's healthy, Escobar has electric stuff.
  
• Erik Bedard: This was supposed to be the year where Bedard cashed in on the free agent riches, but because of injuries, he will have to wait. Bedard has only made 30 starts over the past two seasons, but when he's healthy, his stuff is dominant.
  
• Brett Myers: Has not been an effective starting pitcher since 2006, but he could be worth the risk for a team looking for a #5 starter. Myers has very good stuff and is still young enough (29) to suggest that the best years of his career could still be ahead of him.
  
• Ben Sheets: Missed all of 2009 because of a shoulder injury, but he should be healthy around spring training. Sheets was one of the best starting pitchers in the NL in 2008 and it'll be fascinating to see how many teams take a chance on him based on his 2008 performance alone

So which one of these guys gets the biggest contract? I say Sheets does, followed by Bedard and Harden.


9. How will the Aroldis Chapman bidding play out?

- Aroldis Chapman, the young fireballer from Cuba, is considered to be one of the best young pitching prospects in the world, even though he is quite raw. However, that won't stop teams from bidding for his services with the hope that sometime soon (hopefully this year) Chapman will be an impact starting pitcher at the major league level.

This is one of those scenarios where everybody knows who the main players will be: the Yankees and Red Sox. Those are the two teams that have extensive histories of signing international players and have the money to spend on a risk like Aroldis Chapman.

So if it comes down to the Yankees and Red Sox, then how high will the bidding go for Chapman? The answer: it depends how much these two teams want Chapman. If both teams are seriously interested, then Chapman could receive an offer north of $40 million; but if one of those teams drops out of the bidding, then perhaps Chapman will have to settle for something in the $25-$30 million dollar range.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't at least consider some long shots in the race for Chapman, but at this stage, I don't think there are any teams out there with the financial backing to take on such a risk. Maybe the Mariners get involved if the price is right, but even that scenario seems far fetched.

10. Who will be the first free agent to sign with a new team?

Random guess: Kiko Calero, Giants

Post your guesses in the comments.

****** ******

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Ten Burning Free Agent Questions (Part II)

With free agency beginning at midnight, Jorge Says No! will examine ten burning free agent questions. We will break down the 10 questions into 3 parts because quite frankly, my extended responses became far more extended then I initially intended them to be.

See part I here

********* ************

4. Ownership Turmoil: How much will the Dodgers and Rangers be able to spend?

-Consider this question the great unknown. No one knows how this will play out and no one expects a final outcome anytime soon.

Over the past few years, the Dodgers have been one of the biggest spenders on the free agent market, splurging in years past to sign (and re-sign) guys like: Jason Schmidt, Rafael Furcal, Andruw Jones, Juan Pierre, Manny Ramirez, and Orlando Hudson. But it does not look like the Dodgers will be able to throw their money around this winter. The divorce of Jaime and Frank McCourt is sure to prevent GM Ned Colletti from making too many costly moves because no one honestly knows how the ownership situation will player out or who actually owns the team right now.

On the other hand, the Rangers have been fairly quiet in the free agent market in the past couple of years. Don't expect much to change this year. With the Rangers ownership situation in flux, it's doubtful that the Rangers can afford to make a big splash on the market and sign one of the top free agents. It will be interesting to see if the Rangers are able to make a play for someone in the Rich Harden, Ben Sheets, Erik Bedard group.


5. How close will Matt Holliday come to "Mark Teixeira" money?

-We're only a few weeks removed from game 6 of the World Series, but super agent Scott Boras has already made a big push for his client, Matt Holliday. Boras has stated over and over again that Matt Holliday is a franchise player and he expects to land a contract similar to the one that Mark Teixiera signed with the Yankees last winter.

Will that happen? Probably not. As I wrote a few weeks back, there is simply not enough competition on the market or enough teams that can spend the big bucks right now for Holliday to get such a large contract.

This could become a four team race between the Mets, Red Sox, Cardinals, and Yankees for Holliday's services. If that's the case, Holliday's best chance at landing a big deal is if the Yankees and Red Sox decide to go hard after him and wind up bidding against each other. That scenario isn't likely, but Scott Boras can dream, right?

I still say Holliday winds up with a deal north of $100 million total, but well shy of the $180 million dollar benchmark that Boras has in mind.


6. How close will John Lackey come to "AJ Burnett" money?

-5 years/$82 milllion. Seems like a daunting contract in this economy, right? Especially for a 31 year old pitcher, who has missed time in each of the past two seasons because of injuries.

But nevertheless, I'm confident that Lackey will get his big payday. Lackey is far and away the best pitcher on the free agent market and unlike Matt Holliday, he has no real competition or cheap second options, who provide the ability, stability, and leadership that Lackey brings. While he is not in the same category as Johan Santana, CC Sabathia, or Roy Halladay; Lackey is a pretty damn good pitcher in his own right and in this market, he is the only "ace" out there.

There will be a handful of teams, who could be interested in Lackey: Angels, Mets, Yankees, Mariners, Brewers, and Red Sox all could/should have varying levels of interest in Lackey. My guess: Lackey exceeds a $80 million dollar contract this winter.

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Ten Burning Free Agent Questions (Part I)

With free agency beginning at midnight, Jorge Says No! will examine ten burning free agent questions. We will break down the 10 questions into 3 parts because quite frankly, my extended responses became far more extended then I initially intended them to be.

1. Where will the money come from?

-As you sit back and wonder where some of the big name free agents are going to end up, here is a sobering thought for you: many of the notoriously aggressive spending teams cannot do that this year. Caution is in the air. Case in point, take a look at the free agent expectations for the teams with the top 11 payrolls in 2009:

1. Yankees: They're the Yankees. Of course they can spend. But will they? See Question 2

2. Mets: Could be active on the free agent market, but to what extent? How badly were the Mets hurt by the Bernie Madoff scandal? Can they afford to spend big money on one free agent?

3. Cubs: Looking to cut payroll. Minor moves possible, but I doubt they spend much.

4. Tigers: Looking to cut payroll. Not expected to be major players in free agency unless they can trade some high salaried players.

5. Phillies: Tons of money tied up in player salary already; likely have $15 million to spend.

6. Red Sox: Lots of money coming off the books this winter. They could be aggressive players on the free agent market.

7. Angels: Tons of money tied up in player salary already; likely have $12 million to spend.

8. Dodgers: Plenty of turmoil because their owners are getting divorced, which could (and is) get ugly. Not sure how much the Dodgers will be able to spend this winter.

9. Astros: Cutting payroll; have too much money committed to Berkman, Lee and Oswalt.

10. Mariners: Lots of money coming off the books this winter. They could be aggressive players on the free agent market.

11. White Sox: Tons of money tied up in player salary already; not likely to be major players in free agency

12. Braves: Lots of money coming off the books this winter, but I don't see the Braves as major players on the free agent market unless they can move Derek Lowe.

13. Cardinals: They only have $50 million locked up right now, but they have to think about signing Albert Pujols to a extension before 2011, which will be very expensive. Can they afford to take on another big contract?

Here's the final tally:

Tons to spend: Red Sox, Yankees, Mariners

Likely to spend: Mets

Some to spend: Angels, Phillies, Cardinals, Braves

Very little to spend: Cubs, White Sox

Cutting Payroll: Astros, Tigers

Question Mark: Dodgers

Now ask yourself this, out of the teams that were not in the top 13, how many of those teams are looking to add payroll? I can think of two: the Diamondbacks with roughly $15 million to spend and the Twins, who are opening up a new ballpark and new to extend Joe Mauer.

Yup, it's going to be a cold winter for many free agents.

2. How active will the Yankees be?

-Heading into last offseason, the Yankees were clearing roughly $80 million in payroll and it became clear that they were going to make a major push for free agent CC Sabathia. Not surprisingly, the Yankees signed Sabathia to the largest contract ever handed out to a pitcher. And the Yankees didn't stop there; they went out and signed AJ Burnett and Mark Teixeira to huge contracts that capped off the Yankees' spending spree. The final damage: $423 million dollars spent and one World Series won.

As the Yankees move forward into 2010, it'll be interesting to see how the Yankees choose to spend (or not) their riches. The Yankees have more than $30 million coming off the books and yes, they can afford to make yet another big splash on the free agent market. With a payroll that exceeds $200 million, the Yankees could (and should) always be players in the free agent market to some degree.

However, this winter could prove to be different for the Yankees. Instead of going after a big name free agent OF, the Yankees could opt to simply re-sign Johnny Damon and/or Hideki Matsui. Instead of going after a big time starting pitcher, the Yankees could opt to resign Andy Pettitte and let Phil Hughes and co. develop in the back end of the rotation.

At the same time, these are the Yankees. Never count them out. Ever. It would not surprise me to see the Yankees take advantage of the down economy and sign a big name free agent. With so many teams unable and unwilling to spend the big bucks, this winter actually sets up nicely for the Yankees, who made a massive profit in 2009, to make a big splash in free agency.

3. Who will be the type A casualties?

-Last offseason, a number of players, namely Orlando Hudson, Juan Cruz, and Orlando Hudson, were forced to endure long waits before signing with teams because teams refused to part with a draft pick to sign them. Because Hudson, Cabrera, and Cruz were offered arbitration, their former team was guaranteed a draft pick (and potentially two) once another team signed team.

This winter, a number of guys could be hurt by their type A status. Relief pitchers like Rafael Betancourt, LaTroy Hawkins, Octavio Dotel, and Darren Oliver are candidates; second baseman Orlando Hudson is another viable option; and shortstop Marco Scutaro is coming off a career season, but teams might shy away from him because he is a type A.

There are two options for these guys to prevent becoming type A casualties:

1. former team declines to offer them arbitration
2. re-sign with former team

The fact remains that in such a horrid financial market, teams are going to be reluctant to give up draft picks in addition to paying a boatload of money for a free agent unless he is a premium talent.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

How about Kawakami for Hart?

Not surprisingly, the Brewers turned down the Braves offer of Derek Lowe for Corey Hart. I'm sure the Brewers cannot afford to take on the $45 million owed to Lowe. Hell, even half of that might be too much for the Brewers right now.

But once again I have to ask, doesn't Kenshin Kawakami for Corey Hart make more sense for both sides?

Discuss.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Tim Lincecum Contract Extension

*I'm reposting this piece from early October in honor of Tim Lincecum winning the 2009 NL CY Young award. Now let the debate begin: what kind of extension will/should the Giants offer Lincecum? Comment away.*

Now that the Giants are officially eliminated from playoff contention, they can finally focus a long term deal for The Freak, Tim Lincecum. Under ordinary circumstances, the Giants would be in no rush to negotiate with Lincecum. Lincecum will not become a free agent until after the 2013 season and he will be eligible for arbitration for the first time this winter.

But make no mistake about it, Tim Lincecum is no ordinary player.

In just under three full seasons in the major leagues, Lincecum has established himself as the premier right handed pitcher in the National League. Last season, Lincecum was awarded the NL CY Young award after winning 18 games on a terrible Giants team. Lincecum did not just win games, he dominated them. In 227 innings pitched, Lincecum struck out 265 hitters and finished the year with a phenomenal 2.62 ERA.

And incredibly, Lincecum has followed up his stellar 2008 season with an even better 2009 season. Lincecum is one of the front runners for the CY Young award again this season and currently has a 14-7 record with a 2.47 ERA and 254 strikeouts in 218 IP.

At 25 years old, it's scary just how good Lincecum has become. He has become the face of the Giants in just three seasons, which is a miracle for the Giants in the post Barry Bonds era.

But Lincecum's dominance is going to come at a price for the Giants. A hefty price. Because of Lincecum's amazing performance, he's set to demolish all kinds of records this offseason when/if he reaches arbitration. Is it unrealistic to think that Lincecum's salary could escalate this offseason from $650,000 to around $10 million in arbitration? Probably not.

From my point of view, it would make sense for the Giants to try and sign Lincecum to a long term contract now. If Lincecum is able to keep up this high level of performance and the Giants fail to lock him up, then Lincecum's salary is bound to skyrocket in the next couple of years.

For the Giants, the goal of a contract extension with Lincecum would be to at least buy out a majority of Lincecum's arbitration years. If possible, I'm sure the Giants would love to buy out one of Lincecum's arbitration years, but that might be asking too much at this point.

And for the Lincecum camp, the goal of a contract extension with the Giants would be to guarantee that Lincecum would be paid like one of the top starting pitchers in baseball. There's no doubt in my mind that if Lincecum goes year to year with arbitration, then he could potentially earn more, but having millions of dollars guaranteed has to be quite alluring. And the only way I'd consider giving up a year of free agency is if the deal is massive and groundbreaking.

Now, I've heard the Zack Greinke extensions as a possible starting point for the Lincecum extension because Greinke is the best pitcher in the American League. However, I'd argue that Greinke's extension has nothing to do with Lincecum's. Greinke signed his extension (4 years/$38 million) last season after having one very good season. At this point, Lincecum has had one very good season and two ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC seasons as he looks towards his contract extension. The Greinke extension pales in comparison to what Lincecum should get.

So how about either of these deals for Lincecum?

(3 years/$45 million)

2010: $9 million
2011: $16 million
2012: $20 million

*********** ***********

(5 years/$77 million)

2010: $9 million
2011: $12 million
2012: $15 million
2013: $19 million
2014: $22 million

This deal would make Lincecum one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball by 2012 (per year) and would buy out all of Lincecum's arbitration years and one year of free agency. The total package would exceed $75 million through 2014 and give Lincecum the opportunity to become a free agent again when he's just 30 years old.

Thoughts? Is this contract realistic? Does it make sense?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Felix Hernandez Contract Extension

After Felix Hernandez finished second in the CY Young voting to Zack Greinke, Larry Stone writes about what the future holds for King Felix in Seattle:

"At some point between now and opening day 2010 — precisely when this will happen is a state secret, guarded zealously by both sides — general manager Jack Zduriencik and Hernandez's agent, Alan Nero, will engage in serious talks about a contract extension.

To review: Hernandez is eligible for free agency after the 2011 season, giving him two more seasons under Mariners control. Best case.

In absence of an extension, Hernandez's salary during those two seasons will either be negotiated by the two parties, or determined via the arbitration process.

Either way, Hernandez, who made $3.8 million in 2009, is now poised to catapult into the financial stratosphere. Nothing like he stands to get on the open market, mind you (which, absent an injury, will be riches unknown to any player not named Alex Rodriguez), but likely in or near the eight-figure neighborhood."

Obviously, the Felix Hernandez contract talks are going to dominate the Seattle sports scene over the next two years unless something gets done. This contract extension has the potential to break records because of Felix's age and ability.

Let's take a look at the goals of each side:

The Mariners

1. Keep Hernandez in Seattle long term

2. Prevent Hernandez from hitting the open market after 2011

The Felix Hernandez Camp

1. Guaranteed money (lots)

2. More money in 2010

3. Become one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball

So how about this deal for Hernandez and the Mariners?

(7 years/$130 million)
with a $25 million dollar player option for 2017 and a early termination player option after 2014.

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $11 million
2011: $14 million
2012: $18 million
2013: $20 million
2014: $21 million (opt out clause)
2015: $22 million
2016: $24 million
2017: $25 million (player option)

Why it works for the Mariners:

1. Buyout Hernandez's two remaining arbitration years

2.Keep Hernandez is Seattle

3. Prevent him from hitting the open market

Why it works for Hernandez:

1. Long term security

2. Third biggest contract given out to a pitcher ever

3. If Hernandez is not happy in Seattle, he can leave after 2014

4. Makes $25 million during what should have been his final two arbitration seasons

The advantage of this deal for Hernandez is that it gives him plenty of options: if he is happy he can stay in Seattle and remain one of the highest paid players in baseball. If Hernandez is unhappy, then he can always bolt after 2014 and set all kinds of records for a free agent pitcher.

From the Mariners' perspective, this deal only guarantees them another 4 years of King Felix, but at this point, I think that's a risk that they are willing to take. There would be ample pressure on the Mariners to put a competitive product on the field in the next four years to show Felix that this team is devoted to winning. If the Mariners fail to win from now until 2014, that could be a good reason for Felix Hernandez to opt out.

This contract shows how much they value Hernandez, what he means to the organization, and if King Felix likes Seattle and the Mariners organization, then this will be difficult to top on the open market.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Mets Trade for Roy Halladay?

I say no; but Dayn Perry says yes. His reasoning:

"There's making personnel decisions, and then there's performing triage. In the Mets' case, it's the latter. The Mets fell to pieces in 2009, but they still return an enviable core (Johan Santana, Carlos Beltran, David Wright, Jose Reyes, Francisco Rodriguez). The challenge, then, is surrounding that enviable core with something other than dreck. Enter Halladay. When he's healthy (and once you adjust for strength of opposition), Halladay is the best pitcher in baseball. He's also bound for free agency, and that's why the Jays are willing to trade him. The Mets can send Fernando Martinez and Wilmer Flores to Toronto, and — just as critically — they can take Vernon Wells' contract off the Jays' hands (wings?). That's a hefty cost for the Mets, but for their troubles they'll trot out one of the best one-two punches ever."

Perry's argument is a simple one: Roy Halladay is one of the best pitchers in baseball and having both him and Johan Santana in the same rotation would be dynamic. No one is denying that. Any Mets fan would kill to see that.

But the reason why Perry's suggestion will never happen is because of Vernon Wells. If the Mets agree to take on Wells and the $105 million owed to him over the next five years, then we can all declare GM Omar Minaya to be psychologically insane. There is no way that the burden of Wells's contract right now is worth one year of Roy Halladay. the suggestion that the Mets would even consider taking on Wells is laughable.

Think about the cost of this deal for the Mets: for one year of Roy Halladay, the Mets would have to take on a declining player, who owns the worst contract in baseball; give up a substantial amount of prospects, and potentially pony up $40-$60 million to Halladay for a contract extension.

Honestly, if the Mets are that set on paying a starting pitcher a boatload of money this winter, then it would make more sense to go after John Lackey, who would cost roughly the same as Halladay this season ($15 million or so), but not require that the Mets give up prospects or have to take on a terrible contract.

But on top of all the Vernon Wells nonsense that Perry brings up is this reality: the Mets have many holes. Over the past few seasons, the Mets have struggled to assemble the right complementary pieces to surround their fantastic core group of players. Given the Mets unstable financial situation (thanks, Bernie Madoff), the Mets simply cannot throw all their money at one guy and neglect to address all their other needs. Under Perry's scenario, the Mets would certainly be throwing whatever financial flexibility they had this winter away by committing themselves to more than $35 million in payroll in 2010. There's no way the Mets would be able to take on that much salary and fill the rest of their needs.

Bottom line: if the Mets are economically able to make a run at a expensive, big time pitcher, then by all means, they should do it. But it would be a huge mistake to just add one player to the core and forget about all the other complementary players that the Mets need to add this winter if 2010 is going to be a success. The Mets need more than Roy Halladay, John Lackey, or any other top flight pitcher can offer.

And the Mets need to stay as far away from Vernon Wells as possible. Far, far, far away.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Right Now, Signing John Lackey Makes Little Sense for the Nationals

I was surprised when I heard that the Brewers had interest in John Lackey, but I was completely shocked to see that the Nationals are throwing around the idea of signing Lackey:

"The Nationals are one of several teams who have expressed interest in free agent right-hander John Lackey, according to a baseball source.

The team is reportedly in competition with the Angels, Red Sox, Yankees and Mets for his services.

The Nationals are looking for an ace who can tutor pitchers such as John Lannan, Ross Detwiler and Stephen Strasburg. Washington has been looking for this type of pitcher since after the Trade Deadline. It ended up signing right-hander Livan Hernandez in late August. While he did a good job for the Nationals, it's less than 50-50 that he will return to the club.

Lackey, who is 31 years old, has played his entire eight-year career with the Angels. He has won 102 games and has averaged 187 innings per season. His best season was in 2007, when he went 19-9 with a 3.01 ERA with Los Angeles."

Look, I can understand why a team like the Nationals would want to go out and sign John Lackey. He would be the immediate ace of the staff and give the Nationals a presence at the top of the rotation that they have never had before. In addition, Lackey would be a great mentor to Stephen Strasburg, John Lannan, and all the other young pitchers the Nationals have in their system. It might take years for the Nationals to put all the pieces together, but adding Lackey would certainly jump start the process.

However, adding John Lackey right now is the wrong move for the Nationals. Last season, the Nationals' payroll was a diminutive $60 million dollars, which was one of the lowest in baseball. After arbitration, the Nationals should have roughly $30-$40 million committed to player salaries next season, which should give them some payroll flexibility (around $15-$20 million at least) if their payroll is to remain at or around $60 million.

In that sense, the Nationals can afford to sign John Lackey. If the Nationals have $15-$20 million to spend, then conceivably, the team would be able to throw the big bucks Lackey's way. Lackey is expected to command a deal around $15 million annually for 5-6 seasons.

But just because the Nationals might be able to afford John Lackey, doesn't mean that the team should necessarily go out and do it. If the payroll stays at (or below) $60 million next season, then the Nationals would have to spend roughly 1/4th of their total payroll to sign John Lackey. Outside of Albert Pujols, there is no one player in baseball, who we can honestly say would be worth that much of his team's total payroll. Teams simply cannot sustain success over a period of time with that economic model.

And when you take into account that Lackey is 31 years old and coming off two consecutive seasons where he missed time because of arm injuries, that hefty commitment seems like a horrible risk for the rebuilding Nationals to take.

Don't get me wrong here: I would love to see the Nationals take a shot and go out and sign John Lackey. The Lerners have a reputation of being cheap owners and I would love nothing more than to see them make a big splash, help bring a better product to DC, and finally begin to infuse some life into Nationals' baseball. But right now is not the time. Unless the Nationals have plans to increase payroll in the very near future to at least $80 million, then this deal should be nothing more than a dream.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Billy Butler Contract Extension

The Royals have very few building blocks to build around. Outside of Zack Greinke, Joakim Soria, and Billy Butler, the Royals still have tons to figure out before they become a contending team agin.

However, both Greinke and Soria are signed to long term contracts, so is it time for the Royals to look into giving Butler an extension? Butler is under team control for the next four years, but now seems like a good time for the Royals and their young slugger to look into a contract extension.

However, it remains to be seen if both sides will be able to get an extension done. A blurb in MLBTR yesterday seemed to suggest that extension talks for Billy Butler had not started yet:

"Newly minted Royals Player of the Year Billy Butler has not held long-term extension talks with the team, MLBTR learned on a conference call today. Butler will not be arbitration-eligible until after the 2010 season."

Even though there have been no talks between the two sides, can the Royals and Butler come to terms on a contract extension this winter? Maybe. Hopefully. Let's take a look at the respective goals for each side:

The Royals

1. Buyout arbitration years

2. Buyout Butler's first year of free agency

3. Butler's extension would save the team money over time

The Billy Butler Camp

1. Guaranteed money

2. More money in 2010

So how about this deal for Butler and the Royals?

(5 years/$30 million) with a $15 million dollar option for 2014

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $1 million
2011: $4 million
2012: $6 million
2013: $8 million
2014: $11 million
2015: $15 million (vesting option)

Why it works for the Royals:

1. Buyout all of Butler's arbitration years

2. Buyout one year of free agency (at least)

3. Very reasonable price

Why it works for Butler:

1. Long term security

2. Can become a free agent at 28 (or 29)

********* *********

The only incentive for the Royals to get something done now is if they can lock up Butler to a very team friendly long term deal. With this contract, I think that goal is accomplished. There is a good amount of risk in signing a young player, who is a liability in the field and has only put together one good season at the plate; but I think this is a great opportunity for the Royals to lock up a young, middle of the order hitter at a great price. Then again, the Royals might want to hold off on a contract extension until the middle of the season just to make sure that Butler's 2009 season was no fluke.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Demand for Mike Gonzalez?

SI.com's Jon Heyman notes that free agent LHP Mike Gonzalez has received a high level of interest on the free agent market:

Reliever Mike Gonzalez appears very popular in the free-agent market. There are loads of bullpen options, but he can set up, he can close and he's left-handed, making him about the most desirable of the lot.

When Gonzalez is healthy, he has electric stuff and can be one of the best left handed relief pitchers in baseball. Not only can Gonzalez get out both lefties and righties, but he has a very high strikeout rate, which makes him even more valuable in the late innings.

But moving forward, it will be interesting to see how the market for Gonzalez plays out. Because he made only $3.45 million last season, Gonzalez is a good bet to be offered arbitration by the Braves. That means that whatever team signs Gonzalez would have to give up draft picks in addition to signing Gonzalez to a multi year contract.

How mant teams out there would be willing to do that for a 31 year old left handed pitcher, who is just two years removed from Tommy John Surgery?

The best fit for Gonzalez in the free agent market might be to sign with a team that owns a first round pick somewhere in the range of 1-15. Because of the ridiculous Elias rankings system for free agent compensation, these teams only have to give up a second round pick for signing a Type A free agent.

Once Gonzalez is offered arbitration, that stable of teams will dwindle as teams ponder whether to actually give up a first round pick for Gonzalez. Even though there are lots of teams interested now, I think if Gonzalez wants to land the best deal possible and potential opportunity to close, then he should really consider signing with one of 2009's worst.
Your Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Francisco Cordero Edition

*Over the next couple of weeks, Jorge Says No! will take an in depth look at some of the worst contracts in baseball. We'll evaluate why the player was signed, what went wrong, and future implications of the contract. Behind every bone head decision, there has to be a reason for it...right?*

Why Sign Cordero: Coming into the 2007 offseason, the Reds knew that they needed to address their bullpen. In 2007, the Reds bullpen finished with only 34 saves in 61 chances and a league worst 5.13 ERA. The Reds bullpen was a mess and Reds management decided to go after the best free agent closer available, Francisco Cordero. The Reds figured that if they signed Cordero, the rest of their bullpen would improve because guys like David Weathers and Jared Burton could be used in set up roles instead of closing situations.

The Reds thought so highly of Cordero that they made him one of the highest paid closers in baseball history despite the fact that the Reds payroll was only a meager $74 million.

As then GM Wayne Krivsky noted at the time:

"Francisco is a guy we identified at our organizational meeting back in October as one of the, if not the most, coveted free agents from our standpoint that we would go after aggressively and try to sign," Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "And that's exactly what we did."

What Went Wrong: During his first season with the Reds, Cordero struggled at times and was not the lights out closer the Reds paid so handsomely for. But to be fair, in his two seasons with the Reds, Francisco Cordero's performance has not been the problem. Sure his BB/K ratio is declining and his WHIP has gone up, but the real problem remains the Reds inability to accumulate talent, especially pitching. The Reds have so few resources that it makes no sense that they allocated such a high percentage of their resources to a closer, who will only pitch 65-70 innings each year.

If the Reds were contending for a championship, then this contract would make a lot more sense. However, it makes no sense to have a expensive closer on a team that is struggling, rebuilding, and has a limited payroll of which to work with.

Future Implications: Well, the Reds are in a tough predicament right now. They have a number of high priced veteran players, who they would love to move, but in this economy, that's easier said than done. The Reds would love to move Cordero to give them some payroll flexibility, but that's not likely to happen at this point. Look for the Reds to aggressively pursue trades for Cordero throughout the year, but for right now, I'd expect the Reds to be quite stagnant this offseason (unless they decide to move Brandon Phillips).

Lesson Learned: Only sign a expensive closer to a long term contract if your team has a realistic chance to compete or you have the financial ability to pay a closer top dollar.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)