Jorge Says No!: November 2009

Thursday, November 26, 2009

The Orioles Need to Stay Patient

Can the Orioles afford to sign a big name free agent? Andy McPhail says yes:

MacPhail insists any media or fan skeptics that question whether the club is willing to offer a big contract under the right circumstances, are off base.

"We offered over 140 million dollars to Teixeria, who could have just as easily accepted it and I wish he had. To think we wouldn't go out there or that offer somehow is not genuine is absurd. It's over twice what was offered in the history of the franchise before.

"People should see now why we thought that was a legitimate get. If we could have had a switch-hitting, good defensive first baseman in the middle of a lineup that already had Roberts and Jones with Markakis, Reimold and Wieters, we would have had something special going forward for a while.

"We have to be careful about who those (big dollar) players are. And I have to be responsible. Contracts of that magnitude, unless you are an extroadinarily wealthy club, can sink a franchise. You have to be judicious when you go out there. But we were out there a year ago."

So the Orioles, under the right circumstances, are not against offering a free agent a big-dollar contract?

"We've already done it. Did it last year."

While $140 million is a pretty impressive offer, unless Mark Teixiera really (and when I say really, I mean really) wanted to play in Baltimore, there was no way the Orioles were going to land Teixeira last season. The Yankees offer blew the Orioles out of the water and nearly every other tram that was involved topped the Orioles best offer.

And there lies the problem for McPhail: how do the Orioles get big name free agents to sign big contracts that will keep them in Baltimore for the next 6-8 years? Right now, that task is not easy. In fact, it's next to impossible.

Sure the Orioles have some great young pieces (Nick Markakis, Adam Jones, Nolan Reimold, Matt Wieters, Brian Matusz, etc), but right now those guys are just that: pieces. Markakis and Jones are the Orioles only proven young commodities (Brian Roberts is a stud as well), which means that the Orioles still have a long ways to go before they can be considered contenders. That's a problem because most free agents will go to the place that offers them the best deal in terms of money and winning. The only way for the Orioles to attract top free agent talent right now is to vastly overpay them, which obviously is not a sound strategy.

So what McPhail should do is sit back and wait. Let the 2010 season play out and let the Orioles young kids develop. Hopefully, if everything goes according to plan, the Orioles young kids show the baseball world how talented they are and all of a sudden, Baltimore becomes a team with lots of money to spend, great young pieces, and a desirable place for free agents to play. It can't be fun to play in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox, but if Matt Wieters and the rest of the young Orioles progress as expected, then that team could be great and tons of fun to play for.

And right now, the 2010 free agent class looks pretty intriguing from the Orioles point of view: Josh Beckett, Cliff Lee, Brandon Webb, and Javier Vazquez are all set to become free agents. Is it out of the realm of possibility to think that if the Orioles put together a good show in 2010 that they can be players for a big name free agent? I don't think so.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Two Reasons why the Tigers Should Not Trade Miguel Cabrera

With all the Miguel Cabrera trade talk swirling around, it's hard to figure out how serious these discussions are. The Tigers money situation is bad, but is it really bad enough where the Tigers have to trade their best position player? I find that hard to believe. I'm a strong believer that the Tigers need to build around Cabrera, not trade him, and here are my two main reasons why:

1. Franchise Player

-Miguel Cabrera is one of the few true franchise players in baseball right now. Cabrera is not in the same category as Albert Pujols, Joe Mauer, or Alex Rodriguez; but sure is one of the ten best hitters in baseball and is a consistent force in the middle of the Tigers' lineup. If the Tigers trade Cabrera, they would have a ton of payroll and some nice prospects to show for it, but how would they replace Cabrera's production? Young players with Cabrera's hitting ability are almost impossible to come by, so it would make sense for the Tigers to hold onto their best short term and long term asset.

Yes, the incident at the end of the season looked very ugly for Cabrera and really embarrassed the Tigers, but we have to remember how young Cabrera is. Mistakes happen. The Tigers have to hope that Cabrera will grow from the incident and that a situation like that will never happen again because he is far too talented for the Tigers to move because of one mistake.

2. 2011

-Sure the Tigers payroll situation looks crappy right now, but after the season ends, the Tigers will have an enormous amount of salary coming off the books (Bonderman, Willis, Robertson, Magglio). With that in mind, there is no reason for the Tigers to make a major move now that would send Cabrera elsewhere. The salary relief that the Tigers crave will be present next winter and the Tigers will be able to build around Cabrera and hopefully extend Justin Verlander.

It'd be wise for the Tigers to hold onto Cabrera and instead move around some smaller contracts this winter that will help ease their financial burden in the short term.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Hypothetically Speaking: The Joe Mauer Contract Extension

Now that Joe Mauer has been named the 2009 AL MVP, the focus shifts to the real drama now: will the Twins sign Mauer to a contract extension?

For those Twins fans fearful that this year's MVP award will make it more difficult to keep Joe Mauer past 2010, General Manager Bill Smith tried offering some soothing words Monday.

"Do you think if he finished second, the price was going to come down?" Smith said, cracking a smile. "So no, Joe said it perfectly: 'Today, let's celebrate the MVP Award, and we've got time to work on the other stuff.' "

To be sure, it didn't take validation from the writers to establish Mauer's soaring value. He's a two-time Gold Glove catcher, a three-time American League batting champ and now, an MVP. All this at age 26, with a four-year, $33 million contract set to expire after next season, just when the Yankees and Red Sox figure to be shopping for new catchers.

No wonder it took the national media fewer than five minutes to begin peppering Mauer with contract questions during a teleconference.

"I knew I'd probably run into a question like that," Mauer said. "I've always said it will take care of itself when it needs to."

So, let's take care of some of that contract stuff for Mr. Mauer. There is no better time than now to get the contract extension done!

Here are the goals for each side:

The Twins

1. Lock up Joe Mauer long term

2. Don't eat up too much payroll

3. Hometown discount!!!!!

The Joe Mauer Camp

1. Big money contract

2. Stay in Minnesota

So how about this deal for Mauer and the Twins?

(6 years/$120 million) with a $24 million dollar option for 2016 (7 years/$144 million)

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $15 million
2011: $18 million
2012: $19 million
2013: $21 million
2014: $23 million
2015: $24 million
2016: $24 million (club option)

Why it works for the Twins:

1. Keep Mauer in Minnesota

2. Prevent him from hitting the open market

Why it works for Mauer

1. Stays in Minnesota

2. Becomes highest paid catcher in baseball

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

For Joe Mauer, this deal represents his strong desire to stay in Minnesota long term and help put together a winning product there. Sure, he could have gotten a bigger and longer contract on the open market (7 years/$150 mil, 8 years/$160 mil), but given the Twins payroll flexibility, this deal would represent a massive commitment for them. It does help that the Twins are moving into a new stadium in 2010 because without the added revenue, there's virtually no way that a deal like this could have been offered. $20 million annually is not too shabby for the former frugal spending Twins.

If the Twins payroll stays around the $90 million mark, then they will be committing a large portion of their payroll to a catcher. I don't think any baseball fan out there is too fond of this idea, but quite simply, Mauer is worth it. He is one of the best players in baseball and represents so much to the Twins organization.

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Monday, November 23, 2009

Joe Mauer Will Be Very Expensive

In his latest must read column, ESPN's Buster Olney outlines what the future holds for the soon to be AL MVP Joe Mauer:

"And I'd say that my best guess is yes, the Twins will open the checkbook and spend big dollars to keep the superstar catcher, who will be told today, officially, that he is the winner of the AL Most Valuable Player Award. He and Albert Pujols are baseball's best hitters now, and in time, he might be regarded as the greatest catcher ever. He is, of course, a hometown guy for the Twins, and the last thing that the team wants, as it begins play in a publicly-funded park, is to have the imminent departure of its most marketable player hang over the franchise throughout the 2010 season.

The Twins would never give Mauer an A-Rod kind of deal, but they know that he and agent Ron Shapiro aren't going to give them a blue-light special, either (and neither will the leadership of the Players Association, which has been aggressively leaning on the agents to muster good contracts and essentially is making it clear that it will scour any deal it considers to be less than worthy.)

The team will undoubtedly offer him a record-setting deal for his position, and if he signs, there would appear to be a pretty good chance that he will make a larger percentage of his team's payroll than any player in the majors by the 2012 season. Mauer will want to take advantage of his place in the market, but at the same time, I don't think he'll try to scrape loose every nickel that is available to him (and let's face it -- in order to do that, he'd probably have to go to Boston or the Yankees."

Hold up.

I have no doubts that Mauer will become the highest paid catcher in baseball and I'm sure he will become the highest paid player on the Twins as soon as he signs his massive contract extension. I'm assuming the numbers will be staggering, well exceeding 6 years and well north of $100 million dollars. I don't care how good Joe Mauer is; that's some serious cash for a catcher.

But I have my doubts that Joe Mauer will make a larger percentage of his team's payroll than any player in the majors by the 2012 season. I'm not saying that Mauer won't get handsomely paid because we all know that he will. But what I am saying is that there are a number of reasons why Mauer will narrowly miss out on the title.

Here's why:

1. The Twins payroll is set to increase.

-With the new building opening in 2010, the Twins payroll is expected to jump from about $70 million to $90 million. A recent estimate puts the Twins 2010 payroll at $93 million. If the Twins maintained their $70 million dollar payroll, then I'm sure that Mauer would have been the "highest percentage" if he signed with Minnesota considering that he's a virtual lock to make roughly $20 million annually.

2. Felix Hernandez

-King Felix is set to become a free agent after 2011 and there's a chance, albeit an outside chance, that he could become the highest paid pitcher in baseball and become the "highest percentage" player.

3. Albert Pujols

-Now we're talking. Phat Albert is set to become a free agent after the 2011 season and I'm sure the Cardinals will do everything in their power to lock him up long term. However, if Pujols hits the market, who knows how much money he could get? $25 million? $30 million? No matter, Pujols is sure to become one of the highest paid players in baseball whenever he signs his next deal. If Pujols signs with the Cardinals, who have roughly $80-$95 million to spend, then there's no reason to think that Pujols annual salary won't take up 25-33% of the team's total payroll.

4. Prince, Carl Crawford, etc.

-If Prince Fielder re-signs with the Brewers he could come close to being the "highest percentage"

-If Carl Crawford signs a extension with the Rays similar to this one, then he could come close to being the "highest percentage" in 2012.

-If the Rangers ownership situation completely blows up and they are forced to cut payroll, then Michael Young could the choice.

-If the Blue Jays cut costs in 2012, then Vernon Wells could be the answer.

-And if the Marlins' payroll fails to increase, then Hanley Ramirez could very well become the "highest percentage" player in 2012.

Well see how close Mauer comes to the title, but as you can see, the competition will be stiff. As you can see here, there are numerous options and it is simply too early to tell how the entire market will play out by 2012.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Carl Crawford Contract Extension

Can the Rays keep Carl Crawford long term? Maybe. A discussion could be looming:

TRADE WINDS: According to an industry source, the Rangers and White Sox have shown interest in CF B.J. Upton, and the Mets and Braves have inquired about All-Star LF Carl Crawford. The Rays have said they're interested in discussing a long-term deal with Crawford, who is eligible to be a free agent after the 2010 season.

Carl Crawford wants to be a Ray long term. The Rays want to sign Carl Crawford long term. So what's the problem here?

Money.

The Rays have one of the smallest payrolls in baseball and Crawford, 28, is one of the best left fielders in baseball and is sure to command a huge salary on the free agent market next winter.

But like I said before, the good news is that both sides seem interested in getting a deal done. Can a deal actually happen? That's another story.

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

The Rays

1. Lock up Carl Crawford long term

2. Don't eat up too much payroll

3. Discount...please?

The Carl Crawford Camp

1. Big money contract

2. Attempt to maximize Crawford's value in Tampa

3. Increased salary in 2010

4. Stay in Tampa (if that's really what he wants)

So how about this deal for Crawford and the Rays?

(3 years/$45 million)

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $13 million
2011: $14 million
2012: $18 million

Why it works for the Rays:

1. Buyout two free agent years

2. Keep Crawford in Tampa

3. Prevent him from hitting the open market

4. Affordable contract and possible trade chip in the future

Why it works for Crawford

1. Stays in Tampa

2. Makes more money in 2010

3. Crawford can be a free agent when he is 30 years old

4. Guaranteed money

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

I dunno about this one. I imagine that this is what it will take for the Rays to sign Crawford, but can anyone actually see this type of deal happening? Are the Rays really ready to commit so much of their payroll to one guy? Assuming they have a $60 million dollar payroll, signing Crawford to this extension would take up at least 25% of the total payroll every year. Not good. But then again, the Rays are set to lose Carlos Pena, Pat Burrell and Dan Wheeler next winter so maybe the Rays will actually have some funds to play with.

The Rays would be able to hold onto one of their most valuable assets for a few seasons and hope to the baseball Gods that they get a new stadium, which means increased revenue in the future, which means a higher payroll for the Rays.

One can dream, right?

Do the Rays have any chance to sign Crawford to a long term deal this winter?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Did the Marlins Make a Mistake with Josh Johnson?

A few weeks back, we suggested a 4 year/$40 million dollar extension for Josh Johnson. However, it looks like talks of a contract extension are dead:

There will be no long-term contract for pitcher Josh Johnson with the Florida Marlins this winter, his agent said Friday.

Agent Matt Sosnick told ESPN.com that negotiations between the Marlins and Johnson have reached an "impasse," and Johnson expects to play under a one-year deal in 2010. Johnson will be eligible for free agency after the 2011 season, and a failure to reach agreement on a multiyear contract would probably force the Marlins to explore a trade before then.

"Based on our conversations, there's no chance of doing a long-term deal with the Marlins," Sosnick said. "We made it clear that it was going to be this year or it wasn't going to happen. It was now or never. And the Marlins agreed."

------- ----------

"Josh made it clear that his first choice was to sign a deal and stay with the Marlins," Sosnick said. "He loves the Marlins and he loves Florida. We were willing to give the Marlins what we thought was a significant break, but they just weren't comfortable going to the fourth year."

Hmmmmm, interesting call. Why on earth would the Marlins not give Johnson a fourth year? Here are my top three reasons why:

1. Injury risk

-Johnson is only a year and a half removed from Tommy John surgery so in theory, there is risk in giving him a long term deal.

2. Being cheap

-The Marlins are a notoriously frugal franchise and they rarely sign their homegrown talent to long term contracts.

3. Philosophy

-I honestly cannot remember the last time the Marlins signed a pitcher to a long term deal.

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

No matter what the reason is, the Marlins come off looking awfully cheap here. With a new stadium set to open in the near future, most people assumed that the Marlins would be more aggressive with signing players and spending. No one expected them to ever spend like the Yankees, but anything is an improvement over a $30 million dollar payroll.

This has to be a hard pill for Marlins fans to swallow. Johnson is only 25 years old and could have been under team control at a reasonable price for the next four years, instead of two years. Hell, the opportunity was perfect for the Marlins. Johnson has the ability to be one of the top 10 pitchers in all of baseball, but he was willing to take a contract extension now because:

a. he loved Florida
b. he pitched only 1 full season after Tommy John surgery
c. he was under team control for the next two seasons and would have accepted buying out two free agent years in return for a pay raise in 2010 and 2011.

Now the question turns to this: will the Marlins look to trade Johnson this winter? Considering how high Johnson's value is combined with the limited number of impact free agent starting pitchers on the market, I would say that now is the optimal time to trade Johnson. The team that trades for him will control his rights for two full seasons, which should bring back a large package for the Marlins.

Did the Marlins make a mistake here? Should they have guaranteed Johnson a fourth year?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Friday, November 20, 2009

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)

Ten Burning Free Agent Questions (Part III)

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)

Thursday, November 19, 2009

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)

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

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)

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

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)

Monday, November 16, 2009

Gary Matthews Jr. and Doing the "Right Thing"

This tweet comes from ESPN's Chris Singleton makes me a little nauseous:

"Gary Matthews Jr. wants out of LA bad. He's hoping the Angels will do the right thing."

Now what exactly is the right thing for the Angels to do in this situation? The market for Gary Matthews Jr sucks, no one wants to take on the $23 million owed to Matthews, and the Angels might have a need for Matthews Jr. this season if the team does not re-sign Vladimir Guerrero.

Should the Angels explore a deal for Matthews? Sure. It would probably be beneficial for them to get rid of Gary Matthews Jr given how poorly he has played during his tenure with the Angels. But should the Angels make a move just for the sake of making a move? Absolutely not. It will be a challenge for the Angels to find a taker for Matthews Jr, who at this stage in his career is not an asset at the plate and is even more of a liability in the field.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Market for Ben Sheets

Sure, Ben Sheets is injury prone. Very injury prone at that. But even though Sheets missed all of 2009, his phenomenal stuff and upside have his agent believing that the market will be very active for Ben Sheets:

"Agent Casey Close said that Sheets is doing "very well" in his rehab from flexor tendon surgery and plans to be 100 percent by the start of spring training. Close also anticipates no shortage of interest from clubs in the coming weeks.
"We have already heard from a number of teams inquiring about Ben's health and availability for 2010," Close said in an e-mail Friday to ESPN.com. "I will tell you that he has a very good chance to be one of the most impactful free agents, without question."
Sheets, 31, made four All-Star teams in Milwaukee and established a reputation as one of baseball's most formidable "stuff" pitchers despite a career record of 86-83. His best season came in 2004, when he posted a 12-14 record with a 2.70 ERA and 264 strikeouts in 237 innings."

Even though the economy is terrible and many teams are cutting costs, I agree with Close here. i think teams will view Sheets as one of the few guys on the market, who has ace stuff and can dominate a lineup. In addition, Sheets will likely be forced to take a one year deal with a low base salary and lots of incentives because of his injury history.

So what teams will should have interest in Sheets? Let's take a look:

Rangers: Sheets nearly signed with the Rangers last winter so it would not be surprising to see talks rekindled between these two sides. However, given all the turmoil with the Rangers ownership situation, it remains to be seen what kind of money the Rangers will have to offer free agents.

Astros: I know the Astros are trying to cut payroll, but if Sheets is willing to take a low base salary with plenty of incentives, then the Astros would be an intriguing option. Outside of Roy Oswalt and Wandy Rodriguez, the rest of the Astros starting rotation is a bunch of unknowns and question marks. In the end though, it will come down to money, which probably makes the Astros somewhat of a long shot here.

Mets: The Mets need a solid and consistent #2 starter behind Johan Santana and when Ben Sheets is healthy, he fits the bill. Sure his injury history is very concerning, but Sheets could be a risk worth taking for the Mets if they strike out on John Lackey

Yankees: The Yankees have the payroll to take a risk on Sheets and given their lack of rotation depth at the moment (sort of), the Yankees could take a chance on Sheets to be their fifth starter.

Red Sox: We've seen the Red Sox take chances on injured players with high ceilings before (Smoltz, Saito, Penny, and Baldelli come to mind) and signing Sheets would make a lot of sense from the Red Sox perspective. Like the Yankees, they have the payroll to take a chance on Sheets, but the Sox have a more pressing need for upper level starting pitching. If Sheets is healthy, then he might be able to give the Red Sox exactly what they need: another hard throwing, quality starting pitcher.

Tigers: Another long shot, but if they can find the funds, then Sheets would be a great fit here. The Tigers rotation is thin outside of Verlander and Jackson, so a healthy Ben Sheets could be a major boon for the Tigers. We'll see if the Tigers are willing to spend money on Sheets with Bonderman, Willis, and Nate Robertson all on the books for big money in 2010.

Dodgers: The Dodgers are in dire need of a top of the rotation starter to pair alongside Clayton Kershaw. However, with the Dodgers owners currently engaged in a nasty divorce battle, I doubt the Dodgers will be able to spend heavily on a starting pitcher. This could lead them to Sheets, who will be a far cheaper option because of his health, but offers the upside that the Dodgers crave. Sheets to the Dodgers makes a lot of sense.

Angels: With John Lackey potentially bolting this winter, the Angels could sign Sheets to replace Lackey. The Angels 2010 rotation is very deep and offers four solid starters already, so Sheets would slot in nicely as the team's fifth starter. If the Angels opt for Sheets instead of Lackey, then perhaps they could make a stronger run at a big name free agent OF like Matt Holliday or Jason Bay.

There's eight teams right there, which is a pretty healthy market in my eyes. Sheets should go to the team that offers him the best opportunity to show that he can be a healthy and productive starting pitcher for the entire baseball season.

Where do you think Sheets will end up?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Miguel Cabrera to the Red Sox? Nonsense.

Does it make sense for the Tigers to trade Miguel Cabrera? Ken Rosenthal thinks so:

"If the Red Sox were willing to offer first baseman Mark Teixeira $170 million for eight years last off-season, why wouldn't they be willing to absorb most or all of the $126 million that Cabrera is guaranteed over the next six years?

I've even got a possible trade in mind — Cabrera for Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon, third baseman Mike Lowell and a prospect, either first baseman Lars Anderson or right-hander Stolmy Pimentel.

Lowell, who would need to move to first or become a DH, is not an ideal fit. But his salary would be part of the price of doing business, just as it was when the Red Sox acquired him along with pitcher Josh Beckett from the Marlins in Nov. 2005.

If one year of Lowell at $12 million didn't help the Tigers, two of Papelbon for $20-plus million in arbitration at least would give them one of the game's best closers short-term. Anderson could be the long-term answer at first if he rebounds from a disappointing 2009, while Pimentel is one of the Sox's top pitching prospects. And the financial relief — oh boy."

Oh boy is right.

Where do we begin with this one? I'm a huge fan of Ken Rosenthal, but I think this trade has far too many holes to ever be considered realistic and lacks practical economic logic.

For starters, yes, the Tigers are having issues with their payroll right now. the economy sucks. But next season, the Tigers will have more than $40 million coming off the books and they will be in a much better position financially. Just because the Tigers are strapped for economic flexibility this winter, that doesn't mean that the Tigers should go out and trade their franchise cornerstone.

Also, this trade DOES NOT increase the Tigers' payroll flexibility this offseason. In fact, the Tigers might actually be ADDING payroll in 2010 if Papelbon's arbitration number exceeds $8 million. Between Lowell and Papelbon, the Tigers would be paying around $20 million (and probably more!) in 2010, while Cabrera will be earning $20 million. And as I mentioned before, the Tigers will be getting a massive amount of payroll of their books next season, so why should they sacrifice their best player for a minuscule (in baseball terms) amount of salary relief in 2010?

So in short, Rosenthal suggests that the Tigers trade their best player to the Red Sox because of short term salary problems, but the deal will only help the Tigers payroll situation in 2010, when the Tigers will already be removing lots of money from their payroll.

Yup, totally logical.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Hypothetically Speaking: Contract Extensions

I'm interested to hear your thoughts and opinions on our hypothetically contract extensions so far. So if you would, please take a look at the players we've highlighted and chime in the comments section. More to come!

Victor Martinez (5 years/$65 million)

Javier Vazquez (3 years/$36 million)

Josh Beckett (4 years/$67 million)

Billy Butler (5 years/$30 million)

Adrian Gonzalez (5 years/$70 million)

Tim Lincecum (4 years/$55 million)

John Danks (4 years/$24 million)

Josh Johnson (4 years/$40 million)

Justin Verlander (4 years/$60 million)

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Saturday, November 14, 2009

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Carlos Guillen 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 Re-Sign Guillen: How did Carlos Guillen get a 4 year/$48 million dollar contract from the Tigers? The answer: good timing and lots of luck. Guillen put together the best offensive season of any AL shortstop in 2006 by hitting 19 home runs, driving in 85, hitting .320, and scoring 102 runs. Guillen led all shortstops in OPS in 2006 and seemed to be a player on the rise.

At the same time, the Tigers were coming off a surprise run to the World Series and looked to lock up their core players long term. The Tigers identified Guillen as a core player and wanted to sign him to an extension before he could become a free agent after the season. With all those things in mind, the Tigers ultimately decided to make Guillen one of the highest paid shortstops in baseball and banked on him continuing to be a productive force at the dish.

As GM Dave Dombroski stated:

"We've very thrilled to reach this agreement," president/CEO/general manager Dave Dombrowski said. "He's one of our core players who has done so much for us, not only on the field but off the field. We're very pleased to have done this."

--------- ---------

"We're very pleased to get this done," Dombrowski said. "It's something both sides have worked hard to get done. There's been a lot of compromises on both sides, for Carlos to stay part of the organization and for us to get him to remain. So we're absolutely thrilled."

What Went Wrong: Injuries, injuries, injuries. Guillen was actually a very productive player for the Tigers in 2007, but his 2008 and 2009 seasons have been cut short by injuries and he has failed to be the consistent, middle of the order hitter the Tigers needed.

In addition, Guillen can no longer play shortstop because of concerns about his agility and mobility. The Tigers have shifted Guillen from left field to first base to third base in the hopes of finding a suitable position for Guillen to play. For now, it looks like Guillen will be relegated to playing left field and being one of the Tigers primary DHs.

Future Implications: The Tigers are strapped financially this offseason as they have six or seven bad contracts on the books. Guillen's contract does not make matters any easier and restricts the Tigers payroll flexibility this winter. As a result of all these bad contracts, the Tigers might look to move Edwin Jackson and/or Curtis Granderson this winter. If the Tigers could find a taker for Guillen and the $20+ million owed to him over the next two years, I'm sure they would jump at the offer in heartbeat.

Lesson Learned: Injuries suck. There is no way to prevent them, but in the case of Guillen, there were warning signs from the start. Guillen missed significant time in 2003 and 2005 because of injuries, so does it surprise anyone to see that Guillen has dealt with his fair share of injuries over the past two seasons and that he is no longer able to play shortstop? I think not.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Market Analysis: The Mariners, Jack Wilson, and Freddy Sanchez

The Mariners and Jack Wilson finally came to terms on a new contract yesterday:

The 31-year-old defensive whiz signed a $10 million, two-year contract with the Mariners. According to terms obtained by The Associated Press, Wilson gets $5 million in each of the next two seasons and can earn $250,000 a year in performance bonuses: $50,000 for 450 plate appearances, and $100,000 each for 500 and 550 plate appearances.

Seattle had an $8.4 million option with a $600,000 buyout under the contract Wilson had agreed to with the Pirates before the 2006 season.

The Mariners had inherited that contract from Pittsburgh on July 29, when they traded for the 31-year-old Wilson plus pitcher Ian Snell, for infielder Ronny Cedeno, catcher Jeff Clement and three minor league pitchers.

"I'm really, really excited to be back in Seattle. It's such a great chance to win and compete," Wilson said, remembering his 8 1/2 losing seasons with the Pirates.

Overall, it's hard not to like this move for the Mariners even though $5 million annually is a little steep for my blood right now. It remains to be seen just how much Wilson can make an impact with the bat, but where it counts for the Mariners is with the glove. If he can provide the Mariners with top notch defense at short, then there is no question he will be worth $5 million annually. It depends on how good Wilson's defense is over the next two seasons, how productive he is with the bat, and most importantly, Wilson's health.

I'm interested to see the impact of Jack Wilson's deal moving forward this offseason. You can make the case that the Mariners now have three of the best defensive players in baseball (Wilson, Gutirrez, and Ichiro), which is important because the Mariners play in the spacious and pitcher friendly, Safeco Field. When you take those two things into account, the Mariners could become the desired landing spot for free agent pitchers this winter. the only thing that can make this situation any more appealing to free agent pitchers is if the Mariners add some impact bats in their lineup, which I'm sure they will given how much money they have to spend this summer.

It's fascinating to note that the Mariners and Wilson (2 years/$10 million) drew up almost the identical contract to the one that Freddy Sanchez signed with the Giants last week (2 years/$12 million). Both players were in similar situations. Both guys were:

acquired via trade at the deadline
missed time in the second half because of injuries
had expensive options for 2010 that were not likely to be picked up, but both wanted to stay with their respective teams

Interestingly enough, the Giants and Mariners were in a similar situation as well. Both teams:

gave up promising prospects at the deadline (for Wilson and Sanchez, respectively)
had no short term options internally to replace the player if they did not come to terms

These deals look like amicable solutions for both sides. The Mariners and Giants respectively might have given Wilson and Sanchez a little extra annually, but that was a much better scenario for the team then any of the alternatives: pick up the expensive 2010 option or let the player test the free agent market. And as for Sanchez and Wilson, they signed contracts that probably earned them a little more than they would have gotten on the free agent market and they get to stay put for another two years.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Friday, November 13, 2009

The Trade Market Does Not Favor the Reds

Just a few months after acquiring Scott Rolen and the $11 million owed to him in 2010, the Reds are looking to cut costs and move some of their high priced talent.

"The Reds are not cutting payroll, but they are looking to free up dollars and create flexibility for other moves.
Thus, everyone on their roster is available except first baseman Joey Votto, outfielder Jay Bruce and third baseman Scott Rolen, according to one source with knowledge of the club's thinking.
The team's highest-priced players — closer Francisco Cordero, second baseman Brandon Phillips and right-handers Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo — all are in play."

However, herein lies the big problem for the Reds: the high priced players they'd be looking to deal will have a tough time generating serious interest on the trade market. Case in point:

Francisco Cordero: Sure Cordero put up great numbers in 2009 and would be a very useful player for so many contending teams, but it's an impossible task trying to find a taker for Cordero's 2 year/$25 million dollar contract in this economy. Also, there are about seven closers on the free agent market this winter and a handful of others, who are cheaper and more realistic options than Cordero to be traded.

Brandon Phillips: Phillips is probably the Reds most tradeable asset because he is a productive second baseman and is only owed $6.75 million in 2010. However, with Felipe Lopez and Orlando Hudson on the free agent market and Luis Castillo and Dan Uggla available on the trade market; the Reds might have a tough time getting a strong package in return for Phillips. The Reds best chance to maximize Phillips' value would be if a team wants to move Phillips to shortstop because the market for shortstops this winter is painfully weak outside of Marco Scutaro.

Aaron Harang/Bronson Arroyo: The Reds are in a tough spot here with these two pitchers because both guys clearly are not top of the rotation starters at this point, but both guys are getting paid like aces. The Reds have more than $23 million committed to these two pitchers in 2010, which makes both of them virtually unmovable unless:

1. The Reds take a back another bad contract in return
2. The Reds package Arroyo/Harang with a valuable commodity like Brandon Phillips

The problem with the second option is the Reds probably would not receive much value in return aside from salary relief. I'd like to think that the Reds would want more than just payroll flexibility if they are going to move Phillips.

As a small market club looking to cut costs/redistribute their resources, the Reds are going to have a rough time this winter because of baseball's economic climate.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Gary Matthews Jr. Edition

"One of our objectives during this off-season was to improve ourselves in center field," said Stoneman. "We believe Gary is a great fit for this ballclub. In addition to his outstanding play in center field, he has the versatility to leadoff or hit deeper in the batting order."

What Went Wrong: This signing seemed doomed from the start. During his first spring training with the Angels, Matthews was linked in a HGH sting that led to Matthews Jr. being named in the Mitchell Report. During his first season with the Angels, Matthews played a solid center field (3.6 UZR) and hit for some power (19 home runs), but was generally viewed as a disappointment because the rest of his offensive numbers dipped. The Angels were not satisfied with Matthews production so the following offseason, the Angels went out and signed all star Torii Hunter to a 5 year/$90 million dollar contract even though Matthews Jr. was still under contract for the next 4 years.

For the past two seasons, Matthews has been the most expensive fourth outfielder on the planet (outside of Juan Pierre) and he has not been productive off the bench. His offense has been on the steady decline as his playing time has waned and even worse, Matthews defense has taken the plunge and he now ranks as one of the worst defensive outfielders in baseball (-13.7 UZR in 2008; -24.6 UZR in 2009). To put things in perspective, fangraphs notes that Matthews has been worth negative dollars in 2008 and 2009.

Future Implications: The impact of the Gary Matthews Jr. signing is a topic that can be debated for years. On one hand, the Angels were still able to sign big name free agents like Torii Hunter while Matthews was under contract, but on the other hand, the Angels watched guys like Mark Teixiera and Francisco Rodriguez walk and they were unable to make a big push to sign any major free agents last season. Did Matthews Jr.'s contract prevent the Angels from making a big splash? Who knows.

Looking forward, Matthews Jr. wants out of Anaheim. His tenure with the Angels has been filled with frustration and it would be best for him if the Angels were able to deal him. However, that's easier said than done. Matthews is still owed 2 years/$23 million on his contract and I doubt there are teams that are eager to pick up his salary. The Angels could be stuck a very expensive and probably unhappy Matthews in 2010.

Lesson Learned: Be very cautious when signing players after career years. This contract looked absurd at the time and now it looks even more absurd. Matthews capitalized on one good season and the Angels took the bait. As a result, the Angels are paying the price for that decision now.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Pirates Trade Ryan Doumit?

After the Pirates traded Nate McLouth last spring, I figured the Pirates would be building around Ryan Doumit and his team friendly contract. Well, maybe not:

"Pirates switch hitter Ryan Doumit drew interest from several teams during this week's general managers' meetings in Chicago, multiple Major League sources said Thursday.

The sources believe Pittsburgh would not hesitate to move Doumit, 28, in the right deal. The Pirates have dealt a number of veteran players since Neal Huntington took over as general manager at the end of the 2007 season.

Doumit batted .250 with 10 home runs and 38 RBIs in an injury-shortened 2009 season. But his appeal is twofold: Doumit has the potential to hit for power, as evidenced by his .858 OPS in 2008, and he has big-league experience as a catcher, first baseman and right fielder.

There is a range of opinion within the industry as to which position suits him best. While he's not considered a superb defender anywhere on the diamond, his versatility could appeal to teams that need to add a power bat — but aren't entirely sure where."

Tough call for the Pirates here.

On one hand, the free agent market for catchers is horribly weak this offseason, so the Pirates could conceivably capitalize on a barren market and get a nice package in return for Doumit. There could be a number of teams interested in Doumit- the Mets, Giants, Blue Jays, Rays, Royals, Brewers, and more could have some interest in the Pirates backstop. The Pirates might be able to get back some upper echelon prospects in return and hopefully help the Pirates move forward with their rebuilding process.

However, the Pirates have to wonder if they would be selling low on Doumit. Here is a guy, who is just a year removed from hitting .318 with 15 HR and 71 RBI. Doumit was one of the best hitting catchers in the NL in 2008, but he missed a large chunk of the 2009 seasons because of injuries. Doumit seems to be one of the few young catchers out there with a nice upside at the dish and he certainly did not have one of his better seasons in 2009.

In addition, Doumit's contract makes him a very valuable commodity to the Pirates because he is under team control for the next four years (including two team options) at a very reasonable rate ($23-$24 million total). He is one of the few players that the Pirates can build around in the future and trading him would be another blow for the fan base, who watched the Pirates' roster get purged last summer.

My advice: unless the Pirates are completely overwhelmed by an offer, they should hold onto Doumit.

Should the Pirates look to trade Doumit? Let us know in the comments.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Who Has More Value: Jason Bay or Matt Hollday?

I meant to touch on this nugget last week, but for some reason I forgot about it. In this chat on WEEI, former Red Sox GM Dan Duquette is asked a (somewhat) simple question and gives a rather startling response:

12:19 [Comment From JeremyJeremy: ]
Who would value more, Jason Bay or Matt Holliday?
(My interpretation: As a GM, who would you value more, Jason Bay or Matt Holliday?

Dan Duquette:
Jason Bay performed in both the NL and AL, and Matt Holliday has only established that he can perform in the NL. With those two going into the market probably Bay will do a little bit better than Holliday because he performed in both leagues.

Does that logic make any sense at all? Outside of Jason Bay's agent, it's accepted throughout the baseball community that Matt Holliday is the superior player and in turn, the best free agent on the free agent market.

Should teams be willing to pay more for Jason Bay because he played in a great situation in Boston, was surrounded by potent hitters for two years, and not surprisingly, put up some of the best numbers of his career? I think not. If you compare the AL experiences of Bay and Holliday, you'll clearly see that Bay was in a great lineup with other great hitters around him while Holliday was stuck on a terrible team, in a terrible ballpark, with very little offensive talent around him.

Duquette's logic in stating that Bay will do better than Holliday because of his performance in the AL is laughable. For starters, Matt Holliday only played three months in Oakland and yes, while he did struggle during his tenure with the A's, there are plenty of reasons why this was the case:

1. Holliday was adjusting to a new league
2. Holliday was adjusting to a new team
3. Holliday was surrounded by one of the worst lineups in baseball
4. Holliday was playing in one of the worst hitters parks in baseball

I seriously doubt that GMs around baseball will rank Bay above Holliday because Matt Holliday struggled for a few months during his first stint in the American League. If anything, Holliday's struggles with the A's are a good reason for AL teams to proceed with caution when pursuing Holliday, but that's not a valid reason to rank Bay above Holliday.

I'm sure given this economic climate there will be teams out there who pursue Bay instead of Holliday simply because of the cost. But if you ask any of those GMs if they would prefer Holliday or Bay, I guarantee a majority would say Holliday regardless of how he performed during his brief stay with the Athletics.

Valuing Bay over Holliday solely on their respective experiences in the AL is ludicrous....Matt Holliday's contract will exceed Jason Bay's.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

How High Will the Chone Figgins Bidding Go?

Back in September, I predicted that Chone Figgins would land a 4 year/$44 million dollar contract this winter. But given the teams that are interested in Figgins already, that number could go north of $44 million. Look at this tweet from Jon Heyman:

"#mets, #phillies competing with #angels for versatile chone figgins."

If it comes down to those three teams for Figgins, then I expect Figgins price tag to go up ($50 million dollar range, maybe?). There are two important points to take into account here:

1. All three of these teams (should) have payrolls that exceed $100 million in 2010 and are considered big market clubs

The Angels have lots of money to spend this offseason
The Mets are looking to make improvements and should be players for the major free agents
The Phillies are willing to spend if it will help the team in 2010

2. Each team has a strong reason to pursue Figgins...case in point:

Angels: Figgins was the heart and soul of their offense in 2009 and the Angels would love retain the speedy leadoff hitter. The Angels have allowed home grown talent to depart via free agency in the past, but losing Figgins (even with Brandon Wood waiting in the wings) would be a blow for the Angels.

Mets: The Mets already have David Wright locked in at third base for the foreseeable future, but the Mets have plenty of reasons to want Chone Figgins. The Mets value his defensive versatility and he would be a dynamite player in the spacious Citi Field. In addition, Figgins would give the Mets the option to have Jose Reyes bat third in the order, which would add a whole new dimension to the Mets lineup and give the Mets a potent offense at Citi Field.

Phillies: If the Phillies can acquire Figgins, then watch out-this team would be loaded offensively. The Phillies would love to have Figgins replace Jimmy Rollins as the team's primary leadoff hitter and would provide the Phillies with an OBP machine, who could steal 30-40 bases. With all the talent the Phillies have in the middle of their lineup, it would not be surprising to see Figgins score 130-140 runs in 2010. And no, that's not an exaggeration.

The Phillies seem ready to make another big move because they sense that their window to win will close in the coming years, so despite their high payroll at the moment, I would still consider the Phillies to be the favorite for Figgins.

How high do you think the bidding will go? Let us know in the comments.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Aaron Rowand 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 Rowand: After the 2007 season, the Giants were in a state of flux. The team was coming off a terrible 2007 season where the team finished in last place and was one of the worst offensive teams in baseball. In addition, the Giants decided to cut ties with superstar Barry Bonds and were saddled with expensive veteran contracts.

On the other hand, Aaron Rowand was coming off a career year with the Phillies were he set new career highs in several offensive categories (thanks to the bandbox in Philadelphia!) and solidified his place as one of the premier defensive players in baseball. Also the Giants were motivated to add Rowand because of the grittiness, toughness, and attitude that he would bring to the locker room and help the Giants transition into the post Barry Bonds era.

As GM Brian Sabean noted at the time:

"Aaron (Rowand) is an all-around player who is coming into his prime and helps us check off two boxes -- an extremely talented defensive center fielder and a middle of the order presence," said Sabean. "His ability in center field definitely plays to our ballpark and will help provide more stability to our pitching staff. His no nonsense approach on the field and in the clubhouse will be welcomed. Aaron is unquestionably a winning player"

What Went Wrong: During his tenure with the Giants, Rowand has not been a bad player. But the problem is that the Giants are not paying Aaron Rowand $12 million annually to simply be an average player offensively and defensively. Rowand's performance at the plate over the past two years suggests that his 2007 season was merely a fluke and that the Giants paid big money to a mediocre offensive player. In addition, Rowand's much ballyhooed defensive ability has slipped over the past two seasons and he has put up the two lowest UZR's of his career in center field.

Future Implications: When Rowand arrived with the Giants two years ago, the Giants primary weakness was their offense. Two years later, the Giants offense still stinks and the team needs to address their offensive needs in the offseason. It will be interesting to see if the Giants make a big splash this offseason when they are committing $32 million between Barry Zito and Aaron Rowand in 2010. The Giants payroll is only expected to be around $80-$90 million, which doesn't leave GM Brian Sabean with much leeway to make a big splash if he wants to extend Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain in the near future.

Lesson Learned: Aaron Rowand is a nice player, but under no circumstances should the Giants have doled out $60 million over 5 years for his services. The odds of him putting up offensive numbers like he did in 2007 were slim to none in the Giants ballpark and overpaying for grittiness and toughness is not the smartest move in the long run. When it comes down to it, Rowand is simply an average hitter, who cannot get on base enough or hit for enough power to justify the huge contract. In short, a career year should not equal a huge payday. We know this, but does Brian Sabean?

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Johnny Damon, the Yankees, and Contract Extensions

Once again, we find Scott Boras pimping one of his clients. For what seems like the thousandth time this offseason, Boras talked glowingly about client Johnny Damon:

"Johnny Damon is at that point where he's played 12 years and 140-games plus, and put up this remarkable career. Then you're talking about Pete Rose, Willie Mays. You're talking about all of these players who went on to play until 40 at very high levels. So chronological age doesn't play any part in his genetics.

"Certainly, you have to look at the Yankees' history. What they've paid players at like age, and maybe did not have his genetics. In fairness, those are things I can discuss with teams when the time comes."

Two years ago, the Yankees committed four years to Jorge Posada, then 36, and three years to Mariano Rivera, then about to turn 38."

Boras is correct about one thing here: Damon, Rivera, and Posada are all similar in age during the time of their respective free agencies.

However, the comparison of Damon to Rivera and Posada is simply ludicrous and stupid. There is a major difference between the free agencies of these three players and it has nothing to do with performance.

Mariano Rivera: Does anyone actually think the Yankees would let Mariano Rivera walk? Neither did I. Even though Rivera was "past his prime" the Yankees simply had to pony up for Rivera because he was and is irreplaceable. Rivera was one of the greatest Yankees of all time, a respected guy in the clubhouse, a guy who the Yankees could depend on in playoffs, and one of the best closers in baseball.

Once again, Mariano Rivera was IRREPLACEABLE...even at (almost) 38 years old.

Jorge Posada: When Jorge Posada was a free agent after the 2007 season, he was coming off one of the greatest offensive regular seasons ever for a catcher. Like Rivera, Posada was one of the most respected and well known Yankees, who teams and baseball people assumed the Yankees would take care of (handsomely). Furthermore, the Yankees could not afford to let Posada sign with another team because the catching market sucked and the Yankees had no in house options to replace Posada.

Like Mariano Rivera, Jorge Posada was IRREPLACEABLE...even at 36 years old.

Johnny Damon: Unlike Rivera and Posada, Johnny Damon is certainly replaceable for the New York Yankees. Don't get me wrong, Damon is a fine player and a welcome addition to the Yankees' lineup, but if Johnny Damon bolts the Bronx this winter, I doubt there will be wholesale protests about the move. Here's why: the Yankees have a number of options to replace Damon should he go elsewhere: they could sign Matt Holliday; they could move Swisher to left field and play Brett Gardner everyday; they could explore the trade market; they could re-sign Hideki Matsui; or they could simply plug in top prospect Austin Jackson.

No matter what the Yankees decide to do, they will have a capable option ready and able to replace Johnny Damon.

In addition, Damon certainly does not have the stature that Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada had at the time of their respective free agencies. Both Rivera and Damon were lifelong Yankees when they hit the market, but Damon has been with the Yankees for just four years and will never come close to ascending to the stature of Posada or Rivera.

Johnny Damon is REPLACEABLE, which is why the Yankees should not and will not offer Damon more than a one or two year contract.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Tigers Should NOT Trade Edwin Jackson

Is Edwin Jackson tradeable? Say it ain't so!

"The Tigers have made Jackson available on the trade market as part of an effort to alleviate their payroll crunch, multiple major league sources told FOXSports.com.

It's not clear if club president/general manager Dave Dombrowski is engaged in serious talks with other clubs about Jackson. There is no indication that a deal is close. But it's telling that the team is considering trade scenarios involving Jackson at all.

The Tigers' Opening Day payroll this year was roughly $132 million, among the highest in baseball. Even if that figure stays the same, Dombrowski will need to shift resources in order to make upgrades.

Why? It's simple: Escalating contracts signed during better economic times are causing a squeeze."

Look, I understand that the Tigers have a number of holes that they need to fill this offseason and their economic situation is shaky at best. Edwin Jackson becomes an attractive trade candidate for the Tigers because he is young, coming off a fantastic season, and is due a nice raise in arbitration.

But in my opinion, trading Jackson is the wrong move for the Tigers to make. Just look at the Tigers rotation-after Verlander, Porcello, and Jackson; there is not much else there right now. Unless the Tigers are confident in Jeremy Bonderman, Nate Robertson, or dare I say Dontrelle Willis, there is no way that the Tigers can afford to trade one of their three best starting pitchers and realistically expect to compete in 2010.

The Tigers simply do not have any capable replacements ready to shoulder the load should Jackson be dealt.

In addition, the Tigers areas of need might not be that costly. The Tigers need to add a closer, some pieces to the back end of the bullpen, a shortstop and maybe a second baseman. Well, luckily for the Tigers, the market is flush with capable closers, so the odds are high that if Dombrowski is patient, that he will be able to land one (or maybe two) closer(s) at a very team friendly rate ($8-$9 million or so). It would be smart for the Tigers to bring back Adam Everett, who will probably command nothing more than a one year deal worth $2 or so million bucks.

Assuming that the Tigers have roughly $12 million to work with, I see no reason why Dombrowski cannot fill most of the team's needs with the cash at hand without moving Edwin Jackson.

And finally, both Justin Verlander and Edwin Jackson will be free agents after the 2011 season. Assuming that both guys put together productive 2010 and 2011 seasons, there's no reason to think that both of these guys won't be handsomely paid. But luckily for the Tigers, they will have the ability to lock up both pitchers. After the 2010 season, the Tigers have an astounding amount of money coming off the books, which they will then be able to use to keep Verlander and Edwin Jackson around long term.

So even though the situation looks dire in 2010, the reality is that after the season is over, the Tigers will have a tremendous amount of payroll flexibility and should have the ability to sign Edwin Jackson to a long term contract if they choose too.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Mariners Guarantee Russell Branyan a Second Year?

If you were a GM, would you feel comfortable guarateeing two years to Russell Branyan? The Mariners might be, but they look a little hesitant to give Branyan anything more than a one year deal off the bat:

"Branyan is coming off a 31-homer breakthrough season that was marred at the end by a back injury. He didn't play after Aug. 28 because of a herniated disk, but said Tuesday his back is considerably improved.

"I really want to get something done; I really want to stay in Seattle and be there the next couple of years," he said. "That would be awesome. It would be nice to finish out my career there. But it's obviously in their hands. It really is. I'm not being too demanding. I just want a fair shake.

"I've said all along I would like more than a one-year deal. I would like to try to find some sort of security. I played my whole career under a one-year contract. I feel like I'm in position now I can be a little larger part of a ball team and factor into bringing a championship to Seattle."

The article goes on to state that the Mariners did indeed offer Branyan a one year deal with an option for a second. I think Branyan made the right choice in turning that offer down because I think he can do far better than that on the free agent market.

However, the Mariners are now in a very interesting spot. Russell Branyan was the Mariners top power hitter last season and could have hit 40 home runs if not for a September injury and a weak second half. Without him in the lineup, there's no way that the Mariners would have stayed in contention for as long as they did. Simply put, Russell Branyan was awesome at the dish for the Mariners in 2009 and if the Mariners are going to compete in 2010, they will need Branyan (or a power hitter like him) to put up big numbers in the middle of the Mariners lineup.

With that in mind, if the Mariners can lock up Branyan for $4-$5 million dollars annually and he hit 30-40 home runs in 2010, then that contract will look like a steal for the Mariners.

At the same time though, the Mariners have to be careful here. This is the same Russell Branyan, who for years had teams salivating over his power, but disappointed by his inability to put it all together. Sure Branyan had a solid 2009, but what if the Russell Branyan's 2009 season was simply a fluke? There is some risk here in signing Branyan to a multi year contract simply because his history does not suggest that he will be able to sustain such a high level of performance.

Sure, the Mariners have a payroll that allows them to take some chances, but giving two years guaranteed to Branyan has the ability to bit the Mariners in the butt if the 33 year old Branyan struggles at the dish.

In the end, I think Branyan and the Mariners will come to terms on a two year pact. The reason why: locking up Branyan to a reasonably priced contract will allow the Mariners to focus their money and efforts on the bigger prizes this offseason: Jason Bay, John Lackey, and maybe even a contract extension for Felix Hernandez.

So...what should the Mariners do?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Hypothetically Speaking: The Javier Vazquez Contract Extension

For the past few weeks, fans and baseball people have been suggesting that the Braves will trade Javier Vazquez this offseason. Even though Vazquez is coming off the best season of his career, the Braves have a surplus of starting pitching and are in dire need of a power hitter. Vazquez, who will be a free agent after the season, is one of the Braves most attractive trade pieces and seems to the logical choice for the Braves to move.

But are the Braves actually looking to extend Javier Vazquez? David O'Brien writes:

"Vazquez, coming off arguably his best season and one of the best by any pitcher in the majors in 2009, is owed just $11.5 million in 2010 before he can become a free agent. If they had their druthers, the Braves would like to keep him, maybe re-sign him to a long-term deal. He’s a fine pitcher and teammate and a great example for the other pitchers, and Vazquez has made it known he’d prefer to stay in Atlanta, where he always wanted to pitch and where his first season was everything he’d hoped it would be (well, except for the Braves not making the playoffs)."

So is a contract extension possible? What would it take for the Braves and Vazquez to come to an agreement on a contract extension? Let's take a look at the goals for each side:

The Braves

1. Keep their ace at a reasonable price

2. Retain their rotation depth for 2010 and beyond

The Javier Vazquez Camp

1. Financial Security

2. Stay in Atlanta (where he wants to be)

So how about this deal for Vazquez and the Braves?

(3 years/$36 million) with limited no trade clause restricting what teams he can be traded too

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $14 million
2011: $11 million
2012: $11 million
2013: $16 million (team option)

Why it works for the Braves:

1. Keep their ace under contract

2. "hometown discount" (makes only $22 million from 2011-2012 when he could make much more on the free agent market)

3. Contract expires in 2012 along with Tim Hudson's contract and Derek Lowe's contract. (Just in time to extend Jair Jurrjens and Tommy Hanson!)

Why it works for Vazquez:

1. Financial Security

2. Stays in Atlanta long term

3. Gets an extra $2.5 million in 2010 just for signing the extension

If the Braves fail to sign Vazquez to a contract extension, then I could see the Braves turning around and dealing Vazquez for either a power hitter or salary relief.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Jeff Suppan 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 Suppan: Looking back, it's hard to fathom why the Brewers decided to make such a vast commitment to Jeff Suppan. Prior to the 2005 season, Suppan was nothing more than an average to below average pitcher, who only had one season with an ERA below 4.

But the 2006 offseason was the perfect storm for Suppan. He had a number of different things going for him.

1. Huge postseason
-For those that don't remember, Suppan was the MVP of the 2006 NLCS and pitched a memorable game 7 against the Mets . Because of his post season performance, his stock was at an all time high and he gained a reputation as a big game pitcher.

2. Consistent
-Suppan's calling card on the free agent market was his durability and his ability to take the ball every fifth day. From 1999-2006, Suppan never made less than 30 starts in any season.

3. Free agent market
-Aside from Barry Zito, the free agent market was barren of quality starting pitchers. Even though Suppan was far from an ace, his performance in the postseason combined with the lack of starting pitchers on the market made Suppan immensely more valuable than he actually was.

As GM Doug Melvin noted at the time:

Suppan is expected to join Sheets, Chris Capuano, Dave Bush and Claudio Vargas in Milwaukee's starting rotation. Adding depth to that group had been a priority for Melvin, but the GM had been critical of some other free-agent contracts awarded in this frenzied offseason. Suppan was worth spending on, Melvin said.
"This guy has more wins than Barry Zito over the last three years," said Melvin, referring to the consensus No. 1 free-agent pitcher on the market. "There's more to it than win totals, but that says something. He has 44 wins over the last three years and he has won some big games."

What Went Wrong: Simply put, Suppan reverted back to his pre 2004 ways. In each of his three seasons with the Brewers, Suppan's ERA has exceededded 4.62 and he has never won more than 12 games. Suppan's ERA has gone up in each season with the Brewers and he has performed nothing like the "big game, durable, ace" that GM Doug Melvin thought he was acquiring.

Future Implications: Luckily for the Brewers, Suppan's contract expires after this season so the future implications of this deal should be minimal. However, Suppan is owed $12.5 million in 2010, which will limit the Brewers payroll flexibility this offseason. Hypothetically speaking, if the Brewers did not have Jeff Suppan and the $12.5 million owed to him, the would they have been forced to trade JJ Hardy? More food for thought: if the Brewers did not have Jeff Suppan, then would the Brewers have been able to make a stronger run last winter at CC Sabathia?

Lesson Learned: Ask yourself this: should a team with a $70-$80 million dollar payroll really commit $8-$12 million annually to a mediocre pitcher, who is past his prime and lacking dominant stuff? I think not.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Phillies Can Be Scary Good...Right?

Even though the Phillies already have a boatload of money (almost $110 million) committed to player salaries before arbitration, that does not appear to be stopping them from making a serious run at Roy Halladay this winter. It's that kind of attitude that can separate the Phillies from the rest of the NL once again and make them one of the favorites to win the World Series:

"The Phils paid nearly $140 million in salary and bonuses in 2009, and they already have more than $106 million committed to 12 players for 2010. That's before Joe Blanton, Shane Victorino, and Carlos Ruiz get significant raises. That is also before they get a third baseman and upgrade the bullpen.

There won't be a lot of room to take on Halladay's $15.75 million salary for 2010, but sources say the Phillies might make an exception for that caliber of pitcher and make another big run at the World Series while they have Lee (he can be a free agent after 2010), Jimmy Rollins, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, and Jayson Werth in their primes.

As many as a dozen teams could be in the running for Halladay, so his coming to Philadelphia is far from a sure thing. But don't count it out. These are the glory days for the Phillies. They are thinking big, and players want to play for them.

"We're in a fortunate position," Amaro said in general. "We've become an attractive place to go."

Kudos to the Phillies for actually recognizing their window. Too often in sports, teams fail to recognize their window for success until that window has actually closed and by that time, it is too late. Because most of their core players are already in their 30s, the Phillies know that the time to win is now and acquiring Halladay would put them on that path.

However, at the same time, there has to be some thought into the future of the Phillies. If the Phillies go ahead and trade for Halladay, they will probably have to deal at least two of their top prospects in addition to JA Happ. While the acquisition of Halladay would certainly make the team stronger in 2010, the Phillies farm system would be absolutely decimated from the Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay trades and the team would be lacking depth throughout the organization. If the Phillies are struck with a series of injuries or poor play, then they might struggle, even with Roy Hallday.
So what cost is acceptable for the Phillies to accept their window and make a play for Halladay? At what point do the Phillies hold off on acquiring Halladay because they'd be risking too much of their future? If the Phillies have the chance to make a trade for Halladay, should they do it?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Why Would the Orioles Sign Chone Figgins?

Lost in Tim Kurkjian's piece about the offseason is this nugget about Chone Figgins and the Orioles:

"Figgins had a poor postseason at the plate, but will be coveted by several teams (White Sox? Orioles?) if he gets to free agency. Chances are, the Angels won't let him get away."

Now, I can understand why the White Sox would want Figgins given his speed and ability to get on base. He would be the ideal leadoff hitter in that lineup and would make the White Sox lineup much, much better.

However, I'm failing to understand why the Orioles would even get involved in the Chone Figgins sweepstakes. I understand that with Melvin Mora moving on, the Orioles will need a new third baseman in 2010.

But why would Chone Figgins be the answer? Sure he's the best third baseman on the free agent market, but he makes absolutely no sense for the rebuilding Orioles for the following reasons:

1. He will be very, very costly ($11-$13 million annually)
2. Figgins will be 32 next season and is not a long term building block
3. The Orioles already have a player with the same strengths as Figgins (Brian Roberts)
4. The Orioles are finally devoid of any bad contracts or again veterans...so do they really want to commit an expensive, long term deal to a player, who will eat up roughly 1/8th of their total payroll? Not in my eyes.
5. The Orioles have no chance to compete in 2010
6. The focus has to be on building for the future and developing their young players...not bringing in aging, expensive, veteran players!

In short, there is no plausible reason why the Orioles should covet Chone Figgins right now. None whatsoever.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Market for Roy Halladay

The market for Roy Halladay is bound to heat up over the next few weeks. Yes, it finally looks as though the Jays have made the decision to at least explore the idea of trading their all world pitcher. What teams would be interested in the perennial all-star? Everybody???:

“Everybody would want him,” said one Blue Jays insider. “It’s would they have the prospects to make us better and would they give them up?”

There is also one more item for prospective suitors to consider: Would Halladay want to go to there?

The 32-year-old will earn $15.75 million US this season in the final year of a contract that also includes a no-trade clause, meaning Halladay can veto any deal not to his liking."

Ok, so not everybody would be looking to acquire Roy Halladay. But given his ability, you can understand why everybody would want Halladay. But what teams actually have a realistic chance at acquiring Roy Halladay?

First off, the team has to fit these three criteria:

1. Have top prospects to deal
2. Have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010 to entice Halladay to waive his no trade clause
3. Have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010 (and hopefully beyond)

With that in mind, let's take a look at what teams should (and probably will) be interested in the Blue Jays ace and explore what teams meet the three criteria:

Phillies:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-Yes. The Phillies came close to acquiring Halladay at the trading deadline last July, but ultimately opted for Cliff Lee instead. The Phillies have a number of prospects and pieces that would interest the Blue Jays (Happ, Brown, Drabek, etc), but it remains to be seen if the Phillies are any more willing to part with those guys now than they were in July.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Yes, the Phillies won the World Series in 2008 and made the World Series in 2009. They are one of the best teams in the NL and adding Halladay would only make the Phillies stronger.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

-It remains to be seen how much money the Phillies will be able to spend this offseason given that they already have $109 million committed to 2010 player salaries. And finally, would the Phillies be willing to acquire Halladay even though both he and Cliff Lee will be free agents after the season?

Then again, a rotation featuring Halladay, Lee, and Hamels would be pretty incredible and make the Phillies the heavy, heavy favorites to win the NL East.

Red Sox:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-The Red Sox have one of the deepest farm systems in baseball, but it remains to be seen what prospects GM Theo Epstein would be willing to part with to acquire a possible one year rental.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Absolutely. The Red Sox made the playoffs in 2009 and have been one of baseball's model franchises since winning the World Series in 2004. The Sox starting rotation is not necessarily a weak point right now, but if they acquire Halladay, their rotation will instantly become one of the best (if not the best) in baseball.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

The Red Sox will have roughly $20-$30 million to play with this winter, which means that acquiring Roy Halladay is pretty realistic economically for the Sox. However, if the Sox acquire Halladay, they will be faced with the daunting task of trying to resign both Halladay and Josh Beckett at year's end.

It comes down to this: what is one year of Roy Halladay worth to the Red Sox?

Angels:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-The Angels have a number of interesting pieces to move, but I'm not sure that the Angels have enough high end talent to entice the Blue Jays to move Halladay. The Angels have talented prospects like Jordan Walden and Hank Conger, but I'm not sure that those guys rank as highly as Drabek, Buchholz, or Brown.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Yes. The Angels are by far the best team in the AL West and even though the team will be undergoing some major changes this winter, the Angels should be able to compete in 2010, especially if Roy Halladay comes on board.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

-The Angels have plenty of money coming off the books this winter, which makes them a stronger possibility for Halladay if they decide to go that route.

Dodgers:

1. Do they have top prospects to deal?

-The Dodgers have a number of valuable pieces and young prospects to offer the Blue Jays, but I'd be interested to see if the Dodgers would be willing to move Chad Billingsley or Andre Ethier to acquire Halladay.

2. Do they have a legitimate chance to compete in 2010?

-Yes. Halladay is exactly the kind of front line pitcher the Dodgers need and would make the Dodgers the favorites in the NL.

3. Do they have the money to afford Roy Halladay in 2010?

-You have to wonder how much money the Dodgers would be willing to take on with all of this McCourt divorce business going down. $15 million is a lot of money especially with all the arbitration cases the Dodgers have this offseason. No one is really sure how much the Dodgers can spend at this point.

And finally, no matter what you read, never count out the Yankees in the Halladay sweepstakes. Never ever, count out the Yankees.

Do you think Roy Halladay will be traded? If so, where?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Monday, November 9, 2009

Should the Dodgers Trade Juan Pierre?

Now that Manny Ramirez is officially back with the Dodgers, it looks as though the Dodgers will look to trade Juan Pierre. Take it away, Dylan Hernandez:

"With Ramirez back, the Dodgers can resume searching for a team to which they could deal outfielder Juan Pierre, who has two years and $18.5 million left on his contract. Colletti and his top assistants will head to Chicago for the general managers meetings, which start Monday."

Everyone seems to be clamoring at the idea to trade Pierre. And why not? Even though Pierre is set to make $10 million next season, it looks very likely that he will be a fourth outfielder yet again for the Dodgers, which is awkward for all parties involved. Pierre played very, very well during Manny Ramirez's absence and there is little doubt around baseball that Juan Pierre deserves to be a starting outfielder. He is simply on the wrong team and in the wrong situation.

At the same time, is there a case to be made that the Dodgers should not trade Pierre? Absolutely.

If the Dodgers do indeed find a taker for Pierre, then they will probably be forced to eat a large portion of the $18.5 million remaining on Pierre's contract. In addition, what are the chances that the Dodgers will actually get something valuable/useful in return? If the Dodgers don't eat any of the contract, then I'm sure they will have to take another bad contract back in return. And if the Dodgers eat a majority of the contract like we all expect them too, then what's the likely return on Pierre? A couple of mediocre prospects, no?

With that in mind, if the Dodgers cannot get payroll flexibility or something of value in return for Pierre, then they should just hang onto Pierre for the time being. Even though he is "just" a fourth outfielder, Pierre could have tremendous value for the Dodgers if any of their outfielders get hurt or he could provide useful depth for the Dodgers off the bench like he did last year.

I know the situation is not ideal given how much Pierre is making, but that does not mean the Dodgers should just give up Pierre for nothing while eating most of his salary. If Pierre is back with the Dodgers in 2010, then I'm sure he will find some way to contribute and make himself useful or even more tradeable.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Alfonso Soriano Edition

"Once we re-signed Aramis, he was our target guy. We clearly felt he was the best free agent on the market," Hendry said. "I think we're all surprised and happy that the player and his representatives wanted to act so quickly. Usually these type players end up being high stress and high-stakes poker right down to the end."

What Went Wrong: Soriano put together a stellar first season with the Cubs in 2007 in which he led the Cubs in most of the major offensive categories despite missing time with a torn quad. In 2008, Soriano missed a large chunk of time because of injuries and as a result, he only played in 109 games. Despite leading the Cubs in home runs again, the season was trying for Soriano as he struggled defensively in left field and became a liability in the outfield. Things (hopefully) bottomed out for Soriano is 2009 when he hit just .241 with 20 HR, played horrible defense once again, and missed most of September because of knee surgery.

Future Implications: The biggest problem with the Soriano contract currently is that it makes it very difficult for the Cubs to make any moves. To be fair, Soriano's contract is not solely responsible for this, but for better or for worse, it seems as though the Cubs are stuck with Soriano for the foreseeable future. He is signed through the 2014 season when he will be 38 years old, which has to be a scary thought for Cubs fans, who have already witnessed their fair share of injuries with Soriano. If Soriano does not return to his all-star form at the plate, then this contract could haunt the Cubs for the next five seasons.

Lesson Learned: It's hard to feel sorry for the Cubs in this situation even though Soriano has been a disappointment over the past two seasons. Anytime you commit 8 years to a 30 year old player, there are important risk factors that you have to consider: injuries and decline. Unfortunately for the Cubs, Soriano has been dealing with his fair share of injuries during his tenure with the Cubs and even though it's not totally clear right now if he is truly declining, there is plenty for the Cubs to be concerned about. Conventional wisdom would suggest that as Soriano shifts father away from his prime years that his numbers will decline even further; for the Cubs sake, they have to hope that the opposite is true for Soriano.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Brewers Sign John Lackey?

I'm skeptical, but Buster Olney is more optomisitic than I:

"Remember, it was only a year ago when Milwaukee offered CC Sabathia a $100 million deal, so the Brewers clearly are prepared to pay big dollars for a big-time starting pitcher. And they have a clear need: Even with rising star Yovani Gallardo anchoring the staff, Milwaukee ranked dead last in starters' ERA at 5.37 and 27th in rotation innings this past season.

The Brewers conceivably could enter into trade conversations for Vazquez or Halladay, but this course would be problematic. Milwaukee traded aggressively in 2007 and 2008, most notably for Sabathia, and this depleted its farm system. Trading a top young player for a one-year rental like Vazquez or Halladay might not make sense

It probably would make more sense for the Brewers to take a serious run at Lackey, who as a free agent would not cost them talent in trade. He would take pressure off Gallardo and fit their team culture.

The Brewers also could easily structure a Lackey deal to fit their payroll into the future. Jeff Suppan's contract will expire after next season, and the only real long-term obligation the Brewers have set in stone is to young slugger Ryan Braun, who is signed through the 2015 season. Milwaukee just reduced salary obligations by trading J.J. Hardy to the Twins and replacing Mike Cameron (who made $10 million last season) with Carlos Gomez."

There's no doubt that if the Brewers add Lackey, then this team would become one of the favorites in the NL Central. A rotation led by Lackey and Yovani Gallardo would be one of the best 1-2 combos in baseball.

But before getting all giddy at the thought of Lackey joining the Brewers, ask yourself this: should a team with a $80 million dollar payroll commit more than 15% of their total payroll for the next 4-6 years to a 31 year old starting pitcher for with a history of arm problems? That doesn't seem like a risk that I would be willing to take.

Furthermore, if the Brewers sign Lackey, that would just about eliminate the possibility of the Brewers retaining Prince Fielder long term. Fielder is certain to command a contract worth $15-$20 million dollars annually, which would make it almost impossible for the Brewers to retain him, unless they felt comfortable spending between 40-50% of their total payroll on two players. At this stage in the game, are the Brewers prepared to give themselves no chance to resign Fielder?

Of course, if the Brewers plan on trading Fielder, then they could conceivably sign Lackey and not have to worry about a possible payroll logjam. But once again, ask yourself, is John Lackey worth the risk for the Brewers?

I understand that the Brewers need to take advantage of the limited window they have right now to compete, but Lackey is too expensive, requires too much of a commitment, restricts their payroll flexibility, and ultimately, is not worth the risk for the Brewers, who unfortunately do not have an exorbitant payroll.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Did the Twins Make a Mistake by Picking Up Michael Cuddyer's Option?

$10.5 million for Michael Cuddyer in 2011! Rob Neyer is not a fan:

"Cuddyer is a good hitter but a subpar outfielder, resulting in a player who is, at his best, worth less than $10 million. Granted, considering the $1 million buyout, the Twins essentially have committed to spending $9.5 million on Cuddyer in 2011. And $9.5 million isn't much more than what he was worth this year, and in 2007 (2008 was a disaster).

Of course the problem is that Cuddyer has entered his decline phase. He'll turn 31 next spring and (more to the point) 32 in 2011. He might be just as good in 2011 as he was in 2009 ... but we know that he probably won't be. We know that instead of being a (roughly) $9 million player, as he was this year, he's more likely to be an $8 million player or a $7 million player.

No, the difference between Cuddyer's salary and his value is not a great deal of money. But the Twins have a history of overspending on decent players while complaining about the high price of truly great players. Remember, it was just a year ago that they couldn't afford Johan Santana but quite happily blew $9 million on Craig Monroe and Livan Hernandez. And if they're not able to keep Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer in the long term, their money mismanagement is simply going to drop them from contention."

I dunno if I would call this money mismanagement. Sure $10.5 million might be slightly excessive for Michael Cuddyer, but I don't mind this move at all for the Twins. As long as their payroll jumps as expected into the $80-$90 million dollar range, then spending $10.5 million on Michael Cuddyer is not a horrible move. If the Twins' payroll was closer to $60 million, then I would completely understand Neyer's frustration with the Twins, but these are different times for the Twins. Instead of operating like a small market franchise, the Twins should (and hopefully will) have a more aggressive approach and take advantage of their new resources.

What I find strange about Neyer's response is his last sentence about the futures of Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau. The Twins actually do have Justin Morneau locked up long term-he is signed through 2013-a move that was praised throughout baseball. And even though Joe Mauer is a free agent to be after the 2010 season, the odds are high that he will remain with the Twins and it should be taken as a good sign that the Twins want to surround Mauer with quality talent. Hopefully with their new resources, the Twins will not have a problem locking up Joe Mauer to a long term contract similar to the one that Justin Morneau signed a few years back.

And finally, I'd to see any evidence that Neyer has that Cuddyer is currently on the decline. I understand that as players get older, they generally decline, but Cuddyer's numbers this season do not present any evidence that he will decline in the near future. Picking up Cuddyer's option is a good risk for the Twins to take and if you need any evidence of that, just look at Cuddyer's stats in 2007 and 2009.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Friday, November 6, 2009

Twins Acquire JJ Hardy

It didn't take long for the Brewers to make the trade everybody saw coming.

"The ticker tape was still falling in Manhattan on Friday when the Brewers dealt shortstop J.J. Hardy, a staple of trade rumors this year, to the Twins for speedy center fielder Carlos Gomez. The Brewers announced the trade on their official Twitter feed."

From the Twins' perspective, this trade is a major boon. Before acquiring Orlando Cabrera from the A's last July, the Twins struggled to find a capable starting shortstop, who could give them some production at the dish. Even though Hardy struggled in 2009, you have to remember that in the two seasons prior, Hardy hit 26 and 24 home runs respectively, which made Hardy one of the best hitting shortstops in baseball. This is a good risk for the Twins, who needed to add some impact right handed hitters to their lineup. This acquisition also means that Orlando Cabrera will not be returning to the Twins in 2010.

In addition, it will be interesting to see what this deal means for the Twins' payroll. With a new ballpark opening up in 2010, the Twins budget has been rumored to be on the rise for sometime now. By acquiring JJ Hardy, the Twins will be adding around $4 million in salary, but could it signal a more aggressive approach to free agency?

From the Brewers' perspective, moving Hardy became a necessity. With Alcides Escobar entrenched at short, there was no way that the Brewers could justify paying Hardy around $5 million next season to be a bench player. The Brewers' payroll simply does not give the team that luxury and most baseball people presumed that Hardy would be on the move this winter.

The acquisition of Carlos Gomez is a shrewd move by GM Doug Melvin. Gomez is still young and raw, but he has fantastic tools and is one of the fastest players in baseball today. But Gomez gives GM Doug Melvin tons of options moving forward this offseason. Because of the Gomez acquisition, the Brewers are likely to let free agent center fielder Mike Cameron walk, which should free up roughly $10 million dollars for Melvin to spend on starting pitching.

Overall, this trade has the potential to be a win-win for both sides.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Jeremy Hermida: Classic Theo Epstein

Last offseason, GM Theo Epstein opted against making a big splash in free agency and instead decided to make a number of "low risk, high reward" signings. Epstein went out and signed John Smoltz, Brad Penny, Takashi Saito, and Rocco Baldelli to 1 year contracts with plenty of incentives. All of those players were coming off injury plagued seasons, but their history suggested that if they were healthy, they could be productive and help the Red Sox.

However, the plan did not work out. The only signing that truly panned out for the Red Sox was Takashi Saito. Penny and Smoltz struggled with the Red Sox and failed to complete the season with the team and Baldelli was nothing more than a average hitter and never really made a big impact with the Red Sox.

Most teams can't afford to go 1 of 4 on free agent signings. However, the Red Sox are not like most teams. The Sox have the second highest payroll in baseball and they can afford to take risks on free agents. The Red Sox spent almost $12 million dollars on Smoltz, Baldelli, and Penny; which is not even 10% of the teams' total payroll.

This offseason, it looks like the Red Sox are taking a very similar approach. Yesterday, the Sox acquired OF Jeremy Hermida from the Marlins for two prospects. Hermida was one of the Marlins top prospects a few years back, but has never fully figured it out at the major league level. The Marlins were likely to non tender Hermida this offseason because Hermida was arbitration eligible and likely to get a nice raise that would make him too expensive for the frugal Marlins.

But for the Red Sox, acquiring Hermida was a risk they could afford to take. While $4 million dollars is a lot for the Marlins to pay the struggling outfielder, the Red Sox could afford to take a chance on Hermida, hoping that he discovers his ability in the majors. The Red Sox $140 million+ payroll gives them the flexibility to take risks.

This is another example of a "low risk, high reward" deal for the Red Sox. If Hermida pans out, then the Red Sox have a starting OF under team control for the next few years, but if Hermida continues to struggle, then the Red Sox can simply not offer him arbitration next year and cut their minimal losses.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Josh Johnson Contract Extension

Will the Marlins sign Josh Johnson to a contract extension? MLB.com's Joe Friscaro sure thinks so:

"I think the Marlins will sign Josh Johnson to a long-term deal. As hard as it was to see Beckett and Mike Lowell get traded, the Marlins received Hanley Ramirez in return. Ramirez is among the top five players in the game, so trading Beckett ended up being a good deal. The jury is still out on the Cabrera trade. But in your question, which I shortened for space reasons, you also mentioned you wanted Dontrelle Willis signed to a long-term deal. Had the Marlins done that, considering all the struggles Willis has gone through, it wouldn't have been a wise decision."

What would it take for the Marlins to keep Josh Johnson long term? Let's take a look at what each side would need to make Johnson a Marlin for the foreseeable future.

The Marlins

1. Buyout the two remaining years of arbitration

2. Buyout at least two years of Johnson's free agent seasons

3. Reasonable salary that increases as the Marlins payroll is set to increase

The Josh Johnson Camp

1. Financial Security

2. Eventually become one of the highest paid pitchers (annually) in the NL

So how about this deal for Johnson and the Marlins?

(4 years/$40 million)

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $4 million
2011: $8 million
2012: $13 million
2013: $15 million

Why it works for the Marlins:

1. Buyout 2 years of arbitration

2. Buyout 2 years of free agency

3. Backloaded deal that corresponds to the opening of Marlins' new stadium, which should lead to an increased payroll

Why it works for Johnson:

1. Financial Security

2. Become a free agent at age 29 after the 2013 season

If the Marlins let Johnson become a free agent after the 2011 season, there is a very high possibility that he could become one of the highest paid pitchers in baseball history. Granted, that statement is contingent on Johnson staying healthy and dominant for the next two seasons, but he definitely has the ability to do so.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Thursday, November 5, 2009

What Should the Nationals Do this Offseason?

As Alden Gonzalez notes, the Nationals will have some payroll flexibility this offseason. Rejoice!?

"The day after the end of the World Series marks the unofficial beginning of the offseason and the official start of free agency, which means it's decision time for Major League clubs. For the Nationals, it also means one very important thing: a little contractual freedom.

Beginning Thursday, players with expiring contracts and at least six years of Major League service time have a 15-day window to file for free agency. During that time, the team that player ended the 2009 season with has exclusive negotiation rights. After that, they are free to sign with any team.

For the Nationals, that means the $10 million Dmitri Young made in two injury-riddled seasons will be off the books, and so will the $10 million club option for Austin Kearns they almost certainly won't pick up -- instead opting for the $1 million buyout."

According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, the Nationals only have roughly $28 million committed in player salaries right now, which of course is before arbitration. It remains to be seen what the Nationals' budget will be for 2010, but I imagine that the number will be somewhere in the $50-$60 million dollar range.

If that's the case, then could the Nationals make an impact on the free agent market? Maybe, but doubtful. The last thing I would expect the Nationals to do is to spend a boatload on any one free agent, but if Adam Dunn showed us anything last year, we shouldn't count out the Nats just yet, especially given how many decent free agents there could be this offseason.

With that said, the Nationals need to address their glaring needs in the starting rotation and in the bullpen. I understand that the Nationals are building for the future through the draft, but there is only so many 100+ loss teams that Nationals fans will be able to stomach before they are completely turned off to the team. The Nationals need to show the city some improvement in 2010 if they want to begin to establish a fan base and a legacy of winning.

In addition, there are a few things the Nationals need to do before diving into the free agent market:

1. Extension for Josh Willingham?

2. What to do with Scott Olson?

Finally, I'd love to see the Nationals take a chance on a pitcher like Todd Wellemeyer or Brett Myers, two pitchers who have injury concerns, won't be terribly expensive, would not cost the Nationals draft picks, and have high upside.

Any other suggestions?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Mark Teahen to the White Sox: Where's the Upside?

Are the trade winds 'brewin in Chicago? You be the judge:

"While the Yankees and Phillies continued to wage their World Series battle Wednesday night, the Chicago White Sox and Kansas City Royals were making a trade.

The Daily News learned the White Sox have agreed to send second baseman Chris Getz and third baseman Josh Fields to the Royals for Mark Teahen, who is expected to replace Jermaine Dye as Chicago's right fielder.

Teahen hit .271 with 12 homers and 50 RBI for the Royals in '09, but in 77 games lifetime against the White Sox he has batted .277 with 12 homers and 41 RBI, which may explain why they wanted him on their side."

There is one word that comes to mind when talking about this trade: upside.

From the Royals perspective, there is plenty of upside in this deal. GM Dayton Moore traded away a mediocre player with a rising price tag for two inexpensive players, who are under team control for the foreseeable future and actually have some talent. Chris Getz was the White Sox starting second baseman this season and has a lifetime OBP in the minors of .380. And it was just a few years ago that Josh Fields was one of the White Sox best prospects and remember that in 2007, Fields hit 23 home runs for the White Sox.

However, I'm struggling to comprehend where White Sox GM Kenny Williams sees the upside in this deal for his team. At this stage in his career, Mark Teahen is what he is: a mediocre hitter with some pop, who can play a average right field. Teahen has never developed in the OBP force that he was projected to become and his batting average has been on the decline since 2006. In addition, Teahen does not seem to be an adequate fit to replace Jermaine Dye's bat in right field, even though his defense is vastly superior to Dye's. And finally, Teahen will probably earn more than $4 million dollars in arbitration this season, which would actually make him a candidate to be non tendered. According to fangraphs, Teahen has not been worth more than $1.3 million in either of the past two seasons.

So until something official comes down, I have a tough time believing this deal as constructed. This deal would seem to greatly benefit the Royals, but it does not look like a high upside trade that Kenny Williams would typically make.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The John Danks Contract Extension

The White Sox tried to sign John Danks to a contract extension last year, but Danks wisely held off. Now Danks is looking for a long term deal and has put himself in a great position to land a significant contract should the White Sox try to extend Danks:

"It would be nice to have the security," said Danks, who has that security, even if he doesn't officially possess it in writing. "I'm very excited to sign a multi-year deal."
That excitement level for Danks doesn't quite carry over to signing any deal put in front of him by the White Sox. After presenting these same basic long-term contract thoughts during the offseason leading into 2009, Danks and Gavin Floyd, a pair of young rotation cornerstones, were offered four-year, $15.5 million extensions last March, with a $9.5 million option for 2013.
Floyd accepted the deal, but despite Danks' high level of loyalty to the franchise, he turned it down, with advice from Jeff Berry, his representative. Some eight months later and with a second straight season of starting success behind him, Danks looks back at this decision without regret but also looks forward to another multi-year opportunity.
"We are not talking yet," said Danks, when asked about renewed contract discussions with the team. "But [general manager] Kenny [Williams] and [assistant general manager] Rick [Hahn] are probably looking at the World Series to finish up and then go from there with this team.

So with that in mind, let's take a look at the goals each side should have moving forward:

The White Sox

1. Buyout arbitration years

2. If possible, buy out Danks first year of free agency and maybe even his second

The John Danks Camp

1. Guaranteed money

2. Try to keep the contract to 3 or 4 years so that Danks will hit free agency after 2012 or 2013

So how about this deal for Danks and the White Sox?

(4 years/$24 million) with a $12 million dollar option for 2014

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $2 million
2011: $5 million
2012: $7 million
2013: $10 million
2014: $11 million (team option)

Why it works for the White Sox:

1. Buyout all of Danks's arbitration years

2. Buyout one (maybe 2) year of free agency

3. Very reasonable price

Why it works for Danks:

1. Long term security

2. Ability to become free agent after 2013 (age 28) or 2014 (age 29)

Danks can probably earn more through arbitration on a year to year basis, but this much guaranteed money would be very difficult to turn down.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Travis Hafner 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 Re-Sign Hafner: There are plenty of reasons why the Indians wanted to give Hafner a contract extension. From 2004-2006, Hafner was one of the best hitters in the AL and gave the Indians fantastic production in the middle of the order. At the time the extension was signed in 2007, Hafner was just 30 years old and seemed to have a number of very productive seasons ahead of him.

Furthermore, the Indians wanted to lock up Hafner because the feeling was that if Hafner hit the free agent market, then there was no chance the Indians would be able to compete for his services. The only chance the Indians had to retain Hafner was to sign him to an extension well before he hit free agency.

As GM Mark Shapiro noted in January 2007:

Beyond that, however, the Indians will have to shell out large sums of money if they're going to ensure that Sabathia and Hafner don't become the next wave of players to sign their first big contract with the Tribe and their second elsewhere.
"Those guys have become great players in the American League, so it would take a significant contract to extend those guys," Shapiro said. "I would imagine they're willing to listen. It still will be a challenge in light of what's happened this offseason in free agency.
"We'll see if there's enough common ground to extend them, recognizing there are multiple junctures ahead to look at extending these guys. There's Spring Training this year, there's next offseason and there's the following offseason before these guys are no longer Indians."

What Went Wrong: Injuries, injuries, injuries. Hafner's was actually declining statistically in the beginning of the 2007 season, but the Indians decided to sign him to a contract extension anyway. Hafner missed a majority of the 2008 season and a large chunk of the 2009 season because of injuries and he has not put up MVP type numbers since 2006.

Future Implications: There is no doubt that this contract will significantly limit the Indians financial flexibility over the next few seasons. Hafner is owed $37.5 million over the next three seasons, a figure that makes him almost impossible to move at this time. Luckily for the Indians, Hafner's contract expires the same season as Grady Sizemore's, which could help the Indians deliver a competitive offer to their superstar centerfielder.

Lesson Learned: Once again, we've found that the Indians getting unlucky with injuries. The Indians thought they had a franchise player in Hafner, but injuries have prevented him from putting up huge numbers. In my opinion, Hafner was a worthwhile risk for the Indians and even though the move has not panned out so far, the Indians aggressiveness has to be commended. However, it's hard for a team like the Indians to commit so much payroll to a DH, but clearly the Indians viewed Hafner has an exceptional talent, who they needed to keep.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

What Team is Trading For Akinori Iwamura?

It looks like the Rays are on the verge of trading Akinori Iwamura, but no one seems to know the other team involved:

"Just got back to New York and heard from an industry source who's not with the Rays that they are on the verge of completing a trade of 2B Akinori Iwamura.

The Rays were looking to do some kind of deal since they weren't planning to pick up the $4.85-million option to bring him back. What's interesting is that the source indicated the deal wasn't with the Cubs or the Dodgers as has been speculated on but to an unexpected team. Hmmm."

If I was a betting man, I'd place these three teams at the top of my list for Iwamura:

1. Twins: he's a low cost option at 2B, who is only signed through 2010, and would be a great fit at the top of the lineup. Also, the Twins outrighted Brian Buscher today, so we'll find out if there is a correlation between these two moves.

2. Mariners: Iwamura would be a nice versatile option for the Mariners as he can play 2B and 3B. If the Mariners choose not to re-sign Adrian Beltre, Iwamura could play 3B.

3. Tigers: With the health of Scott Sizemore somewhat up in the air, Iwamura could be a back up plan should the Tigers not feel comfortable with Sizemore at 2B. Also, if Brandon Inge struggles at third, Iwamura could see time there as well.

Where do you think Iwamura will be traded?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Joe Morgan on Coveted Free Agents

Classic Joe Morgan. Even when I agree with him, I get a good laugh. Simple, simple, simple:

AR(MN):

Who do you think will be the most coveted free agent this offseason?

Joe Morgan(11:14 AM):

There are a lot of free agents out there. Matt Holliday is one of the guys. A lot of teams looking for offense will be going after him. John Lackey is a free agent from the Angels. I would think those are two guys that teams would want. The ones looking for offense look for Holliday, the ones looking for pitching look for Lackey. But I also think there will be some trades too. The Blue Jays made Halladay available before, they might try to trade him again.

Where are the Fire Joe Morgan guys when you need them?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

John Grabow and the Market for Left Handed Relief Pitchers

It looks like the Cubs are getting closer to locking up John Grabow. Take it away Bruce Levine:

"Agent Paul Kinzer represents Grabow, who would be the team's left-handed set-up man and a possible back-up closer in the event Carlos Marmol is injured or needs a day off.

The two sides are talking about a two-year deal for anywhere between a total of $6.5 million and $7.5 million. Grabow's people would like a vesting option for a third year added to the contract.

Also, certain incentives will be built into the package that will include games finished."

Look, I have no problem with the years or the amount being talked about by Levine. Grabow is a above average left handed relief pitcher and in this day in age, that seems like a fair deal for both sides. And on the plus side, the deal is a whole lot better than the one the Yankees gave Damaso Marte last year (3 years/$12 million).

However, I absolutely hate this deal for the Cubs right now. Here is a team that has limited payroll flexibility headed into 2010 and they are all set to use a chunk of it early on in free agency to lock up a left handed set up man.

The big problem that I have with this is that if the Cubs play it cautious with Grabow, then I'd expect the market to drop for him and perhaps the Cubs could retain him at a more team friendly price. Grabow is a type A free agent, which is the Cubs offer him arbitration, should have teams shying away from Grabow, unwilling to give up draft picks for a mediocre left handed set up man.

Simply put, the Cubs have an opportunity to gain leverage in these negotiations, but instead they are looking to lock Grabow up immediately.

As for the left handed relief market, this could play out a lot like it did last year. There are many competent left handed bullpen arms on the market, which could benefit those who sign early and really hurt those who wait until late December or January to sign. Last year we saw Damaso Marte sign a 3 year deal with the Yankees and Jeremy Affledt signed a 2 year deal with the Giants very early in the offseason. At the same time, guys like Joe Beimel and Will Ohman were left taking one year contracts because there was no market.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Jake Westbrook 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?*

Before the 2007 season began, the Indians signed Jake Westbrook to a contract extension from 2008-2010. During that time period, Westbrook has made just 5 starts for the Indians as the team has plummeted in the standings and has been forced to deal away two of their star pitchers. So what the hell were you thinking, Cleveland?

Why Re-Sign Westbrook: Even though Westbrook was far from an ace, he was a consistent and steady presence in the Indians' rotation and could be counted on to give the team 200+ IP every season. The 2007 free agent class was horrifically weak with starting pitchers, which is important because Westbrook would have been highly sought after on the open market. Realistically, the Indians probably knew that their chances of resigning CC Sabathia after the 2008 season were slim to none and it was important for the team to lock up a member of their starting rotation. Furthermore, the Indians were impressed with Westbrook's leadership abilities and thought very highly of him.

As GM Mark Shapiro noted at the time:

"Given the market for quality starting pitching, it's reasonable to assume that a healthy Westbrook could command somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million a year. Rather than approach Westbrook about an extension at the end of the season, before the market got out of whack, the Tribe picked up his '07 option worth $6.1 million.
"Jake is a guy we value and believe in," Shapiro said. "He's truly taken on a leadership role as well. He's a guy we'd like to have here beyond next year."

What Went Wrong: Westbrook made 25 starts in 2007 after signing the extension, but he went down early in 2008 with elbow pain. Initially, Westbrook thought that he would be able to pitch through the pain, but by June, Westbrook was forced to undergo Tommy John Surgery that knocked him out for the rest of the 2008 season and all of the 2009 season.

Future Implications: Westbrook's extension is set to expire after this year so the impact of the contract will probably be minimal from here on out, but make no mistake about it, this deal has hinder the Indians' financial flexibility. In 2008, the Indians were forced to trade free agent to be CC Sabathia because they could not afford to resign him. In 2009, the Indians decided to move Cliff Lee even though he was signed through 2010 because they were convinced that they could not sign him. Westbrook's annual salary ($11 million) takes up roughly 14% of the Indians total payroll, which is a crushing blow for GM Mark Shapiro over the past year and a half.

Lesson Learned: I dunno if there is a specific lesson that the Indians can take from the Westbrook extension because injuries have forced Westbrook to miss most of the last two seasons. The Indians took a gamble by signing Westbrook to a long term extension, but the results have not been pretty. At the same time, if a small market team is going to spend 1/7th of their total payroll on a pitcher, his ceiling should be higher than that of a middle of the rotation starting pitcher, don't cha think?

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Monday, November 2, 2009

Freddy Sanchez, Felipe Lopez, and the Second Base Market

This past Friday, the Giants re-signed 2B Freddy Sanchez to a 2 year/$12 million dollar contract. The move was important for the Giants for two reasons:

1. They did not have to pick up Sanchez's $8.1 million dollar option in 2010
2. "validates" trading Tim Alderson (admittedly weak point to make)

Even though Sanchez hits for a high average and plays solid defense, I was surprised to see the Giants pony up $6 million annually for Sanchez considering his lack of power, speed, and low OBP.

Does the Freddy Sanchez contract bode well for the other free agent second basemen on the free agent market (namely Orlando Hudson and Felipe Lopez)?

Not necessarily.

Conventional wisdom would suggest that Felipe Lopez should earn a contract well north of the 2 years/$12 million the Giants gave Freddy Sanchez. Lopez is younger, was statistically better than Sanchez is almost every offense category in 2009, and was an effective defensive second baseman.

However, there are two glaring issues that could prevent a market from developing for Felipe Lopez:

1. Type A Free Agent

-If the Brewers decide to offer Lopez arbitration, are there any teams out there that will surrender two draft picks for him?

2. Where will the money come from?

-If you look at the number of teams out there, who will be searching for a second baseman this offseason, it's hard to see where the big bucks will come from. Here is my preliminary list:

Dodgers (if they decide not to start Blake DeWitt/re-sign Orlando Hudson)
Mets (if they trade Castillo)
Twins (low cost)
Tigers (depending on the health of Scott Sizemore)
Cubs (if they can afford it?)

It's hard to foresee any of those teams opting to spend $8 million plus on a second baseman this offseason. That's not a good sign for Felipe Lopez early on.

As for Orlando Hudson, even though he was an all-star this past season, the market is not looking favorable for him either. Once again, Hudson is a Type A free agent, which is sure to scare teams away from signing him should the Dodgers offer him arbitration. The best thing that can happen to Orlando Hudson at this point is for the Dodgers to not offer him arbitration (which would increase his chances of a multi year contract) or to simply re-sign with the Dodgers (very unlikely) at a figure slightly higher than Sanchez's, this way he does not have to settle at a bargain basement price like last season.

So in the end, while I think the Giants got a fair deal for Freddy Sanchez, they might find that they actually overpaid for his services (a la Damaso Marte last season) simply because the free agent market is not looking promising for second basemen.

Thoughts?

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Followers

Advertising

Interviews

Blog Archive

Information

Subscribe Now

MLB Shop

Sports Betting

Online Casino Reports

Partner Sites

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Monday, November 23, 2009

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Friday, November 20, 2009

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Monday, November 16, 2009

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Friday, November 13, 2009

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Monday, November 9, 2009

Friday, November 6, 2009

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Monday, November 2, 2009

Baccarat Bettor

Sports Gambling

Florist One

Betus Sportsbook

BoyleSports

Online Casinos Elite

OnlineSeats

Party Poker

Blogroll

About Me