Dodgers sign Rafael Furcal

by Hang Man on Dec 3, 2005 8:47 PM PST

Hot off of the press!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/dodgers/la-spw-dodgers4dec04,1,3257611.story?coll=la-head lines-sports

Free agent Rafael Furcal has agreed in principle to a three-year contract with the Dodgers that would make him one of the highest paid shortstops ever, a source close to the negotiations said Saturday. The deal would guarantee Furcal, 28, nearly $40 million.

How does this impact the A's trade possibilities with the Cubs?

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hmm...

Wonder where they are going to play him. Obviously Izturis is the better defender, do they trade him??? Maybe they move Furcal to second and Kent to first or trade Kent. Interesting move. It's a lot of money but Furcal one of the 2 or 3 best hitting shortstops in the league.

I don't know about any deal with the cubs, I just don't see it happening. I guess Neifi will once again be the man at short.

by Little Rickey on Dec 3, 2005 9:12 PM PST reply actions

Izturis

He's going to miss most of the year with a bum throwing arm, the Dodgers won't have to worry about who plays SS until after Kent walks out the FA door.

I don't hate, I just respond aggressively to stupidity

by grover on Dec 3, 2005 11:13 PM PST up reply actions

Uh

As pointed out below by UCDStomper, Furcal is defintiely not one of the 2 or 3 best hitting shortstops. He's incredibly overrated. Thank goodness we have Bobby Crosby for el cheapo. Crosby's a better hitter than Furcal.

by OaktownTribesman on Dec 4, 2005 7:43 AM PST up reply actions

Actually, he said one of the two or three best

in the league, as in the national league. The only shortstops in the nl argueably better offensively are Felipe Lopez and Jimmy Rollins.

by SuperDingus on Dec 4, 2005 6:09 PM PST up reply actions

Better than Guzman???

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 4, 2005 9:45 PM PST up reply actions

ALBATROSS

Let's play imaginary GM for one minute. Close your eyes and pretend that you are a GM and a player agent just asked for 13 million a year for someone who has never hit over .300, hit more than 15 homers, or had an OBP greater than .360. What would you do? Personally I would tell him I would rather sign BJ Ryan, Kyle Farnsworth, and 2 Scott Eyre's before I would ever commit to that.

Sure, Furcal does play good defense and can steal a base, but I mean where does it end? It is times like this that I am thankful that the A's aren't involved in FA 99% of the time.

by UCD Stomper @ Athletics Nation on Dec 3, 2005 11:15 PM PST reply actions

Yes, but

The LA media will love it because the Dodgers just signed a "name" ...

They'd rather have a team of names that underachieves so they can complain about that, than a team of nobodies who wins.

Be glad you don't live down here and have to listen to Talk Radio all day ... it would make you crazy.

by Crosbino on Dec 4, 2005 1:28 AM PST up reply actions

That is just what I thought

Just like the Cubs, the Dodgers are trying to stop "other" local team from grabbing the spotlight.

by Hang Man on Dec 4, 2005 9:04 AM PST up reply actions

furcal had a .394 obp

his rookie year, and a decent amount of walks. He's regressed since then.

by SuperDingus on Dec 4, 2005 6:11 PM PST up reply actions

My feeling is

Izuris moves to second, and Furcal goes to third, and Kent takes over at first. It's possible Izuris stays at short and Furcal goes to third, but they seem set on handing 3B to LaRoche. An infield of Kent, Izuris, Furcal, and LaRoche is not bad at all.

"Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out" - Vaclav Havel

by Czech Micah on Dec 3, 2005 11:48 PM PST reply actions

furcal will not move to third.

he's a shortstop. as a braves fan I honestly can't imagine him playing third base ever.

by larrysgurl on Dec 4, 2005 10:26 AM PST up reply actions

Not So Bad

This deal isn't as bad as it looks on the surface. The Dodgers are paying top dollar, to be sure, but they are going to get Furcal's age 28-30 seasons. It's worth overpaying for those seasons if it means that you're not paying for the inevitable decline phase. A team signing him to a 5/50 contract will take an awful risk of wasting the 20 MM over the final two years or injury or ineffectiveness.

In this case, the Dodgers overpaid by ~3 MM /yr, making a 9 MM investment in a) Paying the premium to obtain him and b) Not paying for two extra years of decline. Colletti ain't dumb.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 4, 2005 8:17 AM PST reply actions

Isn't BAD???

$13M per year for Furcal isn't bad it's just INSANE!!!! Can you imagine what Crosby will ask for in a few years?

by Olijerez77 on Dec 4, 2005 10:08 AM PST reply actions

Well...

what he asks for will depend on whether his jaw is wired shut at the time!

I don't hate, I just respond aggressively to stupidity

by grover on Dec 4, 2005 10:25 AM PST up reply actions

it is INSANE

I wanted furcal back on the braves, but I am very glad that JS didn't give him that much money. that would have pretty much been the only player the braves could have signed.

by larrysgurl on Dec 4, 2005 10:28 AM PST up reply actions

Give me three shortstops who outhit Furcal...

.284/.348/.409- (career) Keep in mind that he's slugged well over .400 for the past three years. That's a pretty good line for a solid fielder who steals 30 bases a year. 13 mil may be a bit much, but they have money to spend, he's young, has some upside, and finished last year very strong after stinking up the joint in nthe first half, plus it's only three years. This is a case of the dodgers identifying a need and doing what it took to bring him into the fold. Not a bad move at all.

by Little Rickey on Dec 4, 2005 1:32 PM PST reply actions