Angels Sign Torii Hunter
by jackcustismyhero32 on Nov 21, 2007 11:30 PM PST
97 comments
It's a five year deal.
Salary unknown yet.
UPDATE:
ESPN says $90.
MLB.com story
So much for waiting until after Thanksgiving....
ugh
0 recs |
97 comments
Email
Print
Comments
"at least 80 million" according to espn.
another deal that seems curious unless other shoes are going to drop. they did sign a cf to a big contract last offseason...
by mikeA on Nov 21, 2007 11:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
hmm
Definitely makes me think its going to be something like a starting pitcher (Santana?) plus an outfielder (Willits) for a shortstop (Tejada?) or something like that. I have no idea if that's a fair deal or not but thats the first thing that popped into my head.
I wish the A's would do something interesting soon. It's not as fun speculating about other teams.
by drmmerchk on Nov 21, 2007 11:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
nah
i'll bet they try and land Miguel Cabrera before they try for Miggy.
by jackcustismyhero32 on Nov 21, 2007 11:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
yeah
I really have no idea what they're gonna do, but it makes sense that they'd get an infielder. I guess we'll have to wait and see :)
by drmmerchk on Nov 22, 2007 12:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The LA Times Claims $80M
http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseba...
"The Angels pulled off their second stunner of the week late Wednesday night, signing free-agent center fielder Torii Hunter to a five-year deal that is believed to be worth about $80 million."
I knew somebody on AN would already have it. Nice.
by louismg on Nov 21, 2007 11:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
i was actually really surprised
when i saw no one had it.
by jackcustismyhero32 on Nov 21, 2007 11:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Dammit, I like Torii.
We just gotta hope he dives more.
by danmerqury on Nov 21, 2007 11:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
So I guess we'll be rebuilding then...
I mean, LA just got a right handed power bat and will probably land another one before the season even starts while we traded for two "yawn" AA pitchers.
Haren and Blanton to Boston and NYM should give us a chance for 2010. Hope BB is enjoying his trip in Europe
by oaklandfan40 on Nov 21, 2007 11:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Eh, this means they just
wasted $55M on Sarge Jnr. He isn't a good enough hitter for a corner.
by rfloh on Nov 22, 2007 1:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
simbiant is right
This doesn't make the Angels any scarier. Torii went for .676 OPS against A's pitchers last year. This is crap - makes me think the Angels have no direction, and that they're signing baseball cards - it'll make the SoCal fan base happy though, until May at least.
by sonomanate on Nov 22, 2007 3:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Gary Matthews Jr...
is now a 50 million dollar backup?????
WTF?
This is the most shocked I've been since I heard Juan Pierre got 44 million dollars!
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Nov 22, 2007 12:32 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
wow--torii to LAA
Now this I did not expect. I have to think that this is a prelude to other moves to follow, but for LAA to throw $140mil at the CF spot in 2 years makes no sense. Someone is going somewhere, but who?Vlad, Willits, and Santana for Bedard, Mora, and Tejada? (Just a joke---but an intriguing one...) Anderson's contract makes him hard to move, ditto Matthews...who is gonna be packin' his bags out of LA?
by kitoko on Nov 22, 2007 1:02 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Matthews can't be moved...
He's got a no-trade clause through 2009, and the angels just neutered most of his value. Maybe they're planning on just having Hunter and Matthews man the OF and let Vladdy save all his energy for the plate.
by okteds on Nov 22, 2007 1:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
torii isn't that good...
he still can't take a pitch and his defense is going downhill. this doesn't make the angels anymore scary to me really. however, the sarge jr. move now is even worse, i am really interested in what their plan is moving forward.
by simbiant on Nov 22, 2007 2:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Asinine
Believe me this will go down as one of the worst FA signings in recent memory. Torii is absolutely not an All Star caliber hitter - he's adequate, but not great - and his skills in CF, like all 32 year old outfielders, have declined and will sharply decline in the next season or two. This is the type of deal that makes me proud to be an A's fan - a fan of a team that doesn't get handcuffed with ridiculous deals dolled out mediocre players. Good job Anaheim! For $130m you've committed yourself to two mid-30s declining outfielders, neither of which hit consistently - a late 90s-era Devon White x2. Brilliant.
by sonomanate on Nov 22, 2007 3:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Worst FA signing in recent memory?
Stop the hyperbole.
Defensively, UZR from MGL last 3 years had him at:
07 +13
06 +3
05 +9
runs above average.
Offensively, Batting Runs, last 3 years: 3.7, 8.5, 17.7.
If you accept that his defense is good, that would make him about 2 wins above average.
$80M or so is the going rate for players who are 2 wins above average.
If you believe that his defense is merely average, which some defensive metrics then that's a different matter.
This contract depends on just how good defensively he is.
by rfloh on Nov 22, 2007 3:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sir, I beg to differ
Torii Hunter has played 8 full years (about), and has been an above average hitter in 5 of them. Sure, he's worth 80 million over 5 years if he's the .500 SLG, 30 homer guy he's been the past 2 years. But what about the 2003 Hunter, whose OPS+ was 98, and his OBP was .312, playing 154 games? Who's to say he won't be that Torii Hunter next year, or the year after?
The guy's career high OBP. is .337. His career OBP is .324, well below the league average. And they'll be paying him until he's 37. And he has a history of injuries.
A 32 year old, league average hitter, however excellent his defense may be (he's lost a step, but having Mathews in LF will probably help him), is simply not worthy of a 5 year deal, for any amount of money. Let alone $16 million AAV. This is a poor signing.
Is Mathews-Hunter-Vlad/Anderson really so much better than Willits-Mathews-Vlad/Anderson, when Hunter makes 16 million, and Willits makes the league minimum? Is Hunter $16 million better than Reggie Willits? (Willits' WARP3 last year, age 26, was 6.0. Hunter's WARP3 when he was 26? 4.7. And Hunter's only had a WARP3 higher than 6.0 three times).
All in all: bad, bad signing.
by BWH on Nov 22, 2007 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly what I was thinking
That Willits is making $15,600,000 less than Hunter a year, and will probably pass him by in WARP3 within a year or two (assuming Willits gets traded and gets regular playing time).
And Willits isn't just an OBP flash-in-the-pan. He put up strong OBP throughout his minor league track record too. Of course he has no power, but any player that gets on base almost 40% of the time will have strong value.
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Nov 22, 2007 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Most standard projections
are based on a player's last 3 years, not something that happened 5 years ago. Since you want to go back further, why stop at 2003, why not 2002? Or 2001? From 2002, Batting Runs: 17.5. (-3.3), 2.5, 3.7, 8.5, 17.7. All in runs above average offensively.
Batting Runs fully takes into account OBP, and weights it correctly.
Let's say his hitting is 5 runs above average. A fair assumption given that he has been: 3.7, 8.5, 17.7, the last 3 years.
If you accept that his defense is 10 runs above average, that makes him 15 runs above average in total. 5 more runs for playing CF. That's 20 runs, 2 wins above average, 4 wins above replacement.
In the current market, $80M / 5 is what a 2 wins above average, 4 wins above replacement player is worth.
His decline is balanced out by inflation, unless he falls off a cliff.
$16M AAV is what a 2 wins above average player gets.
If you think that his defense is average, or below average, then the valuation changes.
As for your comparison to Willits, the issue isn't whether Hunter is better than Willits. The issue is whether Hunter is better than Matthews. Yes, I'm assuming that Reagins is going to recognise that Matthews is a sunk cost, the equivalent of Jason Kendall to use a comparison.
by rfloh on Nov 22, 2007 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
All fine points
But can we really expect the Angels to sit Matthews? IF they play Willits in LF, this makes more sense. But I don't see that happening. I'm assuming they'll play Matthews in LF and Hunter in CF, with Vlad/Anderson splitting RF/DH duties. I could be wrong.
And Hunter's not going to be the player he is now at age 37, or even 34. His offensive numbers are based pretty heavily on batting average, not secondary skills like pitch selection. And as we all know, BA has pretty high variance, with less projective value than, say, BB rate. And once that batspeed starts to slow, BA drops like a rock.
The line about inflation is what makes me most skeptical. MLB can't continue to pull in money at this pace, can it? The US dollar hit an all time low this past week. And apparently the deal is worth $90 million, not $80 million. By 2012, the market will pretty much even out, or maybe even experience deflation.
And let's not underestimate his injury history. One big injury could cost the Angels 8-10 million dollars.
Does it make the Angels better in 2008? Absolutely. Will they win the division in 2008 (with or without Torii)? Probably (though I hope I'm wrong).
But it's not the money, it's the years. And I've got a feeling this contract is gonna look bad in 2011.
by BWH on Nov 22, 2007 11:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, here's the thing
in studies by Bill James, he found that "toolsy" players age better than players with "old player skills". Or in other words, Alfonso Soriano in his 30s is a better long term bet than Carlos Lee in his 30s. Now, obviously Hunter is no Soriano, but he is more "toolsy" than "oldsy".
Yes, BA has a higher variance than say BB rate. That doesn't mean that is has no predictive value, with a large enough sample. No one is going to argue that Ichiro! contact ability is the same as Adam Dunn's contract ability.
As for inflation, keep in mind that revenue growth has dramatically outpaced spending on players' salaries. Player salaries equated to 41% of revenues in 2007. Around 2002, it was 56%.
Also, player salaries have been consistently inflating at around a 10% rate for some time now. Multiple studies have come up with an around 10% rate of annual inflation. This rate isn't simply for the last 2 years, but over a long term. I seriously doubt that player salaries are going to actually deflate.
As for the years, teams have 2 options when signing FAs:
(a)overpay in years, that is sign a player past an age where he declines (dramatically)
(b)overpay in dollars, that is sign a player to a front loaded shorter term deal that is more expensive in AAV.
Both strategies have their strengths and weaknesses.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this is a great deal. I'm basically saying that this is an "inefficient" deal that improves their team. They overpaid for an improvement.
by rfloh on Nov 23, 2007 12:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Angels signed an $18M a year insurance policy
Sorry, but I really don't buy the contention that Hunter CF, Matthews RF is much (if at all) better than Matthews CF, Rivera RF. Hitting-wise Hunter and Rivera are not substantially apart in value, and unless the foot injury is still bugging him, Rivera's a fine defensive right fielder with a good arm-- so I'm not really seeing the defensive upgrade either. If anything, moving GMJ to right field (which they seem intent on doing) probably weakens them at center.
I'm not saying this contract is worthless-- I'd want an insurance policy for Juan Rivera too, although it's not like Vlad is incapable of playing the field any longer-- but it doesn't seem worth $18M a year, that's for sure.
by PaulThomas on Nov 23, 2007 1:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good move for the Angels...
...in a vacuum. It's hard to argue that he won't be an upgrade in the outfield both offensively and defensively, than Willits and Rivera - at least for the first few years.
It just seems like Hunter really isn't what this team needed. Then again, if all this is heading up to trading for a talented infielder like Cabrera or Tejada, it might all make sense. And the Angels are a better team for it (on first blush, anyway).
I suggest that Reagins was never in favor of the Matthews signing and is already putting his stamp on the team.
by salb918 on Nov 22, 2007 4:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I should also point out that
with a couple of expensive, if not necessarily bad, contracts (Hunter, Matthews) the Angels will be hard-pressed to re-sign Vlad, Lackey, K-Rod, Escobar, et. al. who will all be FAs after '09. Until then...goddam, this team is loaded.
by salb918 on Nov 22, 2007 4:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cot's is saying 5 year/$90 million
Has anyone seen anything about what kind of budget Reagins has to spend? He's got $99 million invested in 11 players and he still owes K-Rod arby. Last year the Angels spent just under $110 million, I'm guessing the new GM got permission to raise that figure.
The bastards!
by grover on Nov 22, 2007 7:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's
actually pretty easy to argue that he won't be an upgrade offensively: Hunter is 32 and has a career OPS+ of 104, while Rivera is 28 and has a career OPS+ of 110.
It does make the Angels a better team, by improving both their defense and their depth, but it doesn't make them unbeatable.
by andeux on Nov 23, 2007 11:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I see it ...
GMJ and Hunter are fairly comparable defensively ... so this brings a small upgrade to CF and a large upgrade to RF defensively, as GMJ slides over. I'm not sure how much RF defense is really worth, but I find it hard to imagine it's really that much.
Offensively, Hunter isn't replacing an outfielder in the lineup, he's replacing the DH, as Vlad moves to DH and GMJ replaces him in RF. While Hunter is likely to put up good numbers for a CF, they'll likely be sub-par, if not down right bad for a DH.
I find it hard to believe that this move improves the team in any meaningful way. If there's more coming ... well we can evaluate future moves when they happen ... but, absent that ... I'm not sure what kind of move really helps them. The only position that really has room for improvement is 3b and while Cabrera would certainly be an enormous upgrade at the position, I don't see how this move would impact his acquisition. I can't imagine the Marlins want GMJ ...
by devo on Nov 23, 2007 9:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very curious, with both the Os and Fish
rebuilding.
by The Dogfather on Nov 22, 2007 6:42 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Worst free-agent signing EVER!!!!! Tori Hunter
is going to cost the Angles 10 wins this year with his terrible bat and glove. I'd much rather go with our platoon of Kotsay and Denorfia (now those are two MVP candidates), then Matthews and Hunter.
Lock and load, the '08 West title is ours for the taking!!!!!
by Bacon on Nov 22, 2007 6:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Why is everyone down so hard on Hunter?
He's still an average to good defender according to about every metric, and his offense is a plus in CF. He's likely to decline throughout the course of his contract, and he's unlikely to approach his 2007 numbers again, but he's still a good defender who plays CF. ZiPS projects him at .276/.329/.462 for next year, and the A's would kill for that production.
Maybe the Angels just realized what a horrible contract they gave to Gary Matthews Jr. and decided to eat it, in which case this signing makes sense for them.
by MrIncognito on Nov 22, 2007 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You've obviously unfamiliar with Bacon's work.
by EastCoastA on Nov 22, 2007 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, You're
by EastCoastA on Nov 22, 2007 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
killing 4 production
Maybe the A's would kill for those kind of numbers from the CF spot--but one thing they will NOT do for that kind of production is pay $90m for it! LOL
by kitoko on Nov 22, 2007 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the deal for Miguel Cabrera
will be imho, Kendrick, Willits, Mathis and Santana or Saunders, this would give the Marlins the catcher and cf they need, the player they want, and pitching which is always useful. They could trade Willis for pitching prospects after this.
If its for Tejada maybe is Willits and Wood.
Now the Twins need a CF, and they are shopping Santana, maybe could be a Willits, Wood, Saunders, Adenhart for Santana?
by jahs34 on Nov 22, 2007 7:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Forgot About Rivera
Twins need a DH too, so Rivera, Willits, plus pitching could be.
by jahs34 on Nov 22, 2007 7:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You'd be happy with that if you were
a Marlin. Cabrera's going to be expensive very soon, and that's a lot of useful talent coming their way.
by OldhamA on Nov 22, 2007 8:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There's no way in hell
I'd take that over LaRoche, Kemp, and Kershaw. One star-caliber guy and 3 marginal major leaguers versus 3 star-caliber guys?
Angels are definitely going to have to cough up more than that.
by PaulThomas on Nov 22, 2007 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is
Kemp is not a CF, if you were the twins who do you play there?
by jahs34 on Nov 22, 2007 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not bad for the A's
ESPN's story reads ike Hunter is the power bat the Angels have been looking for to protect Vlad, and if that's the case this deal is great for the A's. Hunter's still a good CF with a decent amount of pop, but he's not in the same league as Vlad. I agree with the people that say these moves are a precursor to a trade-in a vacuum they don't make sense (Juan Rivera, Ervin Santana, and one or two of their prospects=Miguel Cabrera?).
by Doug on Nov 22, 2007 7:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I doub't it would be Rivera, Santana and Prospect
If they get Cabrera, it'd more likely be something like: Kendrick, Wood, Willits and Adenhart for Cabrera and Uggla.
by Zonis on Nov 22, 2007 7:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, didn't see that one coming.
I don't think Hunter is a terrible sign, but like Sal said, I'm confused as to how he fits. Presumably, Matthews moves to a corner, but now they have Matthews, Hunter, Vlad, Guerrero, Willits, and Garret for four positions, and all of them except Willits are essentially untraceable.
by jeepers on Nov 22, 2007 8:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Untraceable?
The fiends! They've created a STEALTH OUTFIELD!
(I apologize for this post.)
by Nate on Nov 22, 2007 8:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HH reaction
Apparently Scioscia was on a radio show saying his plan is for Matthews to play RF and to have Guerrero DH.
Most reaction to the Hunter signing is generally positive, although there's a few detractors. One person said "$15mm plus for a guy with a career .324 OBP" which gives me the warm fuzzies.
Other comments along those lines:
"Why are we signing Torii friggin' Hunter?
And why is everyone so excited about it? Nobody even mentioned his name up until now. Are we really giving $25 million a year to two aging centerfielders? Total madness.
I can understand this if we were going to ship off Matthews, but with his no trade clause....wow, just wow.
The guy cashed in on a great free agent season, and has just fleeced us. This is GMJ part two."
"People need to look at the facts
Torii Hunter has a similar career line to Jacque Jones
Would people be getting excited if we just gave $80 to Jones? No. They are getting excited just because his name is Torii Hunter."
I'd actually dispute that his line is that similar to Jones, still, Torii's sitting on a career OPS+ of 104.
"I agree that this is a lame signing. It doesn't address the situation at third base and it signs the team up for Hunter's decline years; they're preemptively writing another Garret Anderson contract when they need to be getting Miguel Cabrera or A-Rod."
by Nate on Nov 22, 2007 8:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I hate to admit it
But I was also curious as to HH's reaction.
I'll give the asshole his due, Rev made a good point about the Angels' infield being inexpensive for the next few years. Following that train of thought though, does that mean that the Angels are out of the running for Miguel Cabrera? Or are the Angels simply willing to accept a payroll over $125 million?
by grover on Nov 22, 2007 9:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rev's point about the IF/ OF thing
is good, but their great cheap pitching is going to get less cheap pretty damn soon.
Lackey and Escobar are FAs after 09. If they add Cabrera and sign him to a new contract, and keep Lackey, Escobar and Vlad that payroll is going to probably be well over $125M. Unless they replace Vlad and GA with Cabrera.
by rfloh on Nov 22, 2007 9:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Post '09
Anderson will be off the books, Matthews will lose the bulk of his no-trade protection and Cabrera will probably insist on tasting the FA market regardless of where he's playing.
As long as the Angels' farm system keeps producing prospects other teams want they'll have flexibility.
by grover on Nov 22, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm assuming that if they blow a boatload
of young players on Cabrera, they are going to insist on an extension.
As for GMJ losing trade protection, sure, he'll also be older and probably worse. Let's see if they can trade him without eating a big part of the contract.
by rfloh on Nov 22, 2007 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LAAOLAIA are trying to buy up to the BoSox level
in hopes they can get the rings this year and/or next.
The only thing that would make me feel better is if they send off 2-4 young studs obtaining Cabrerra.
by A s Eh on Nov 22, 2007 8:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to see Kendrick and Weaver
packaged to get M. Cabrera. One hole plugged, one created, Weaver downgraded to Garland, and a crowded outfield of aging veterans (Anderson, GMJ, Torii, Vlad, Rivera).
by Nico on Nov 22, 2007 8:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rivera clearly won't be re-signed
which is good news for Oakland, as I think he'd be a solid pickup and not terribly expensive. (Also probably not Type A given his cruddy stats this year.) Obviously right now the team doesn't have a need at corner outfield, but things can change in a year.
by PaulThomas on Nov 22, 2007 10:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Angels in the OF
GA
GMJ
Hunter
Willits
Rivera
DH: Vlad
There's room if Vlad is their Full-Time DH, no?
If the Angels let Rivera go, we should be all over this one.
by Colorado Fan on Nov 24, 2007 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we could use Rivera's bat
but we also really have no place for him. Buck, Swisher, and Barton = no room to add a corner OFer without subtracting one of these guys - all three of whom are bats the A's want/need in the lineup, while Buck and Swisher are better defensive OFers than Rivera.
by Nico on Nov 24, 2007 11:05 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
An extra bat never hurts
especially since Rivera is right-handed.
by PaulThomas on Nov 24, 2007 12:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't help, though, if there's
nowhere to put it. Or if it has to take ABs away from your few other good hitters. I'm not sure how signing Rivera could avoid this problem. I'd love to have Rivera's bat in the lineup, but I'm not quite willing to put up with his defensive play at SS!
by Nico on Nov 24, 2007 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I just don't believe he's going
to be on the bench. Call me a chronic pessimist, or whatever, but if the team doesn't go into the season with at least 3 quality backups at every position, I start getting really nervous.
I dunno, maybe they've improved things on the injury front, but the team was totally incapable of keeping Travis Buck healthy last season (or the season before, for that matter).
by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2007 12:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{types in "thumb guard" on webMD}
by Nico on Nov 25, 2007 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: all three of you
the Angels aren't just going to release him; they'll trade him to some team that is not the A's.
by mikeA on Nov 24, 2007 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought he was a free agent -
by Nico on Nov 24, 2007 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, not an FA.
That was an arby buyout deal.
He has 5 years of service time right now. He gets freedom only if the Angels non tender him.
by rfloh on Nov 24, 2007 10:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess there's always hope, eh?
Maybe they'll decide it's not worth the ~$3 million for what they seem to perceive as a 6th outfielder (after GMJ, Hunter, Anderson, Willits, and Vlad, and arguably Chone Figgins as well) and release him. Dumber things have been done...
by PaulThomas on Nov 25, 2007 1:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Strange signing...
This is a weird move because it doesn't seem to make the Angels better and in fact makes them less flexible with less wiggle room on payroll. They threw good money after bad---after wasting $50m on Matthews, they turn right around and throw $80m at Torii...
The Marlins and Orioles are not taking on any of their bloated contracts in a trade, so who will they ship to make room? Hmmmm...
For Sciosia to say Vlad will DH is welcome news to me...I'm tired of seeing him throw our guys out anyway. $125m for a DH....sweet.
by kitoko on Nov 22, 2007 9:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Twins get the LAA's first rounder next year
From MLB Trade Rumors
The Twins must be pleasantly surprised - they get the Angels' 27th overall pick next June. All the other teams thought to be in the mix for Hunter had their first round picks protected. The loss of the pick just accentuates how much the Halos overpaid here.
by Eastbayjim on Nov 22, 2007 9:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was thinking that too- he's gotta be a
Type "A" so that means a first rounder for Minnesota, and for them that's good news.
by still bills kingdom on Nov 22, 2007 10:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they're going to build TWO teams.
They have two CFs, and almost enough starting pitching for two rotations.
by oblique on Nov 22, 2007 9:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's it
I guess we have to sign Andruw Jones for one-year and $10MM to match them.
by jubjub on Nov 22, 2007 9:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is a real surprise.
Hunter is right when he says "we shocked the world" and whatnot- I don't think anybody expected this.
Between this and the Garland acquisition, it seems like they're stocking up to do more deals from a position of strength which shouldn't be tough since they've got good organizational depth anyway.
What concerns me, as an A's fan, is that they're probably just getting started.
I wouldn't be shocked if they now push harder for Miguel Cabrera and even do something crazy like go after Tejada as well- in other words, not one or the other but BOTH... Moreno is frickin' made of money so I don't think the payroll is an issue here for ownership (to be fair to Arte Moreno, though, he's not only made of money he also made it himself so no grudge there) and it seems Reagins has been given license to do what he wants to build a team that can win this year and seriously contend for the next 2 or 3 years if not beyond, payroll be damned possibly.
I suspect they're not worried about the Rangers, not terribly concerned about the Mariners, and can see that the A's are less than likely to seriously contend the next couple years either so they're seizing their opportunity to potentially dominate the division the next 2 or 3 years and push for another title. Can't really fault that thinking if they've got the money to do it with, I guess.
Doesn't mean we have to like it though...
by still bills kingdom on Nov 22, 2007 10:04 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting signing
I would agree that there must be another trade planned after this, with the Halos just trading for Jon Garland. When is Billy gonna come home from vacation and start "figuring out the health of the club"?
Is there any exact figure on how much the current payroll is for 2008? I want to know how much under payroll the club is from 2007. If the A's are gonna blow up the team then blow it up already. Otherwise, I'd like to see what Beane can do to try and compete for 2008. Let's Go Oakland!
by mrod on Nov 22, 2007 10:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is great news for the A's
Seriously.
The suddenness of this means the Angels massively overpaid for Hunter-- there's no way it gets kept under wraps otherwise. 5 years $90 million is ridiculous for someone with a sub-league-average OBP.
His defense has been good, but especially since he has a history of injuries, it's not real likely to stay good for a lot longer.
Their payroll is going to absolutely explode this offseason. At the moment, I'm calculating $140 million. I don't care how much money Moreno has, there's no way that the Angels can take in that much revenue.
Part of me wants the Angels to now blow their farm system on Cabrera and Tejada, just so that the A's know that they should rebuild for 2010, but I think at present the team still has an excellent shot at winning the division.
by PaulThomas on Nov 22, 2007 12:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
The owners are not poor
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune
Hunter said he was close to a deal with the Chicago White Sox, whose best offer was for five years and about $75 million. The Texas Rangers increased their offer to six years, $84 million, hoping to keep Hunter close to his home in Prosper, Texas.
Hunter also received a five-year, $75 million offer from the Kansas City Royals.
by rfloh on Nov 22, 2007 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
KC?
KC?
KC must have known the Rangers/LAA would top their $75 offer.
LOL. ...or Torii made it known KC wasn't on his "A" list.
LOL
by A s Eh on Nov 22, 2007 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Honestly, I have no idea what Reagins thinks he's doing. At this point, he's acting like Sabean with more money at his disposal.
I'm not really convinced that Reagins has signalled with this signing that he was opposed to the Sarge Jr signing -- as other folks have pointed out, he just signed an older, more fragile, more expensive Sarge Jr in Hunter. Sure, Reagins could have been of the opinion that they shouldn't have signed Mathews and waited for Hunter this year -- but he's still signing ... an older, more fragile, more expensive Sarge Jr in Hunter. The philosophy remains the same. It'd be like Sabean not resigning Feliz to acquire Koskie.
I think this also does nothing but increase my odds of eventually being right with my annual March prediction that the entire Angels roster crumbles to calcium shards. An OF of Vlad-Hunter-Anderson? That's 150 DL days next year, minimum; if I were going to lay money, I'd bet 300 with the over.
Reagins seems to have no concept of risk analysis -- unless, of course, his primary risk analysis was "I'm a rookie GM with a top-tier payroll; I'd damn well better spend my way to a WS appearance in the next 2 years or I'll lose my job."
by monkeyball on Nov 22, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sad thing?
Not signing Feliz to sign Koskie is exactly the kind of thing that I worry (in my Giants-fan alter ego) about Sabean doing.
Vlad's not going to be in the outfield, though. Right now it's Anderson-Hunter-GMJ with Willits and Rivera as backups. I think it's transparently obvious that they'd be better off with Willits or Rivera playing in place of Anderson, who's little short of insulting defensively at this point, but I'm counting on the Angels to be stupid enough not to do that.
by PaulThomas on Nov 22, 2007 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ehem
It's a bad signing right now for all the reasons listed above; injuries, decline, never really was that good of a player... However, if this deal leads to them dealing for Cabrera then there's no way in hell we're winning the division this year or next year. As much as I don't want to see us rebuild, there doesn't seem to be a point in wasting time by trying to compete this year.
by Helloooo 1st on Nov 22, 2007 1:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Mmm...Depends on who the Angels
actually had to give up to get Cabrera...See my front-page analysis tomorrow for more on that...(Did I just call myself a moron?)
by Nico on Nov 22, 2007 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A personal invite from Nico
by Helloooo 1st on Nov 22, 2007 9:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
I'm not so sure I agree. Short of giving up Lackey or Vlad, I don't think it matters who they give up for Cabrera. If any combination of Willits, Kendrick, Mathis, Wood, Santana, Saunders, etc... is what it takes to get it done then they're a-ok for the next few years.
by Helloooo 1st on Nov 22, 2007 9:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A humble critique:
Most of AN views MLB from a very "A's-centric" perspective.
Yes, $90M would be lunacy if it were the A's offering the contract.
No, it's not lunacy for the Angels to do this. No, Reagins is not an idiot. It's a perfectly defensible acquisition.
The Angels' attendance is outstanding, and it's only going to continue to get better. They make plenty of money, and they know that perennial playoff appearances will lead to a bump in franchise valuation similar to what Boston has experienced. They are in the process of establishing themselves as an annual guaranteed playoff participant, a la Yankees/Boston.
Here's what teams with money (Yankees, Angels, Boston, Dodgers) should do, and are doing, right now:
Use their financial strength to buy up the best FAs every year, REGARDLESS of whether or not they are stocked at that position. Then, they use their most liquid assets (prospects, 0-3 players, and guys in the last year of their contracts) to acquire their needs.
Signing Hunter sets them up to include Willits in the Cabrera deal, or to re-route Rivera in a different deal. Plain and simple.
Signing Andruw/Rowand would allow the Yankees to do the same thing with Melky in a hypothetical Santana package.
They are certainly considering doing just that.
But it's foolish to look at the Angels outfield and say, "These guys are stupid! They already have five guys for these spots."
They know that a.) they have money, and b.) the only offensive talent on the current FA market is in the OF. To take a pass on that, when they have the money to spend, would be lunacy.
The average fan doesn't get this...but it makes sense that the average fan should be, and is, a step behind the curve of where a GM is. After all, they get paid to do this stuff. They aren't stupid.
by notsellingjeans on Nov 22, 2007 9:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A fair arguement
This is also the best arguement I've heard for introducing a salary cap.
by grover on Nov 22, 2007 10:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There aren't already 9012463 others?
The best argument I've heard: it's actually fair. I mean, perish the thought, I know, but most games are more fun when everyone actually has an equal chance of winning at the outset.
As for NSJ's hypothesis, it makes sense except that I just can't see them having this much money. They're slightly ahead of the Giants in terms of ticket revenues, as far as I can tell, and the Giants have been unable to sustain payrolls above about $100 million.
by PaulThomas on Nov 22, 2007 10:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Giants/Angels
The Angels also probably aren't paying down as much stadium debt annually.
The Angels also have seen their franchise valuation skyrocket since Moreno bought them; therefore, Moreno may be more willing to suffer a short-term financial loss than Magowan.
This would actually be very smart on Moreno's part, given what it would do to the Angels franchise valuation going forward. They have a very nice window here to assert their dominance over the AL West, and they'd be foolish to squander it.
It's kinda like the window the Giants had with Bonds for the past decade or so, which Magowan/Sabean squandered, by not "overpaying" to give Vlad an offer he couldn't refuse - say, the 5 year, 90M Torii just received from the Angels. (Vlad is just the most egregious example; there were several opportunities for the Giants to buy a very good free agent and overextend the budget a little in the short-term, rather than buy the crappy re-treads they invested in who left them mired in mediocrity, but stayed within the budget).
Inadequate understanding of the Winning Cycle on the other side of the Bay: It's the most damning critique of that administration's tenure. Pinch pennies when they are on the cusp of greatness, lie to their fanbase and spend money worthlessly when they're already beginning to erode.
by notsellingjeans on Nov 23, 2007 9:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But, but, but if Sabean had signed Vlad
he wouldn't have money for Michael Tucker, AJ, JT, Dustin Hermanson and Deivi Cruz.
I actually agree with your hypothesis here. It's lunacy to refuse to pay stars because you need to pay mediocrities. Mediocrities can always be obtained through the draft, and as FATs.
by rfloh on Nov 23, 2007 11:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Debt
Not just stadium debt, but debt in general. Aside from the three that are paid in full, the Angels are the team with the lowest corporate debt. That's usually left out when observers (like the Forbes guy) try to guess net revenue, but it's relevant to considerations of how much money is available to spend.
There's a lot of teams out there with debt/value ratios well over 50%. Both New York teams are mortgaged to the hilt, for example. Then again, 20% equity in the Yankees is still worth more than 70% equity in the A's....
by iglew on Nov 23, 2007 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting MDL...
and also far outside my wheelhouse. Can you elaborate a little bit more?
In layman, are you saying that the Angels are one of the most "paid in full" teams, in terms of debt owed?
Also, who are the three that are paid in full?
That's very interesting stuff. (Link?)
Good man. Always appreciate your stuff.
by notsellingjeans on Nov 23, 2007 6:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really my wheelhouse either
I didn't mean to represent myself as an expert or anything. I know a little about finance, through my job, but it's not like I have a business degree or anything. MLB financing is a deep dark mystery, and I really don't know any more than what you find on those Forbes pages.
All I'm saying is that any business gets its capital from somewhere. If it's a public company it comes from selling shares, but no MLB team is public. If it's a private company, it comes from owners' contributions (ie, equity-financing) or it comes from borrowing (ie, debt-financing).
There are advantages and disadvantages to each. One difference is that with debt-financing you've got to make regular payments on your loan. By convention, interest expense generally isn't included in operating income (eg, in the Forbes numbers), and of course the principal isn't either since it's really not even an expense at all. But in terms of cash flow, the company that has a lot of debt has to set aside money for servicing the debt, whereas the equity-financed company doesn't necessarily have to pay dividends to the same degree.
Different owners make different choices, depending on their situation. Often when a team changes hands it takes on a lot of debt because the new owners simply don't have the cash to finance it all. Same idea as a leveraged buyout. Also, there's plenty of reasons why debt makes better sense as a business decision. The owners that are leveraged up the ying-yang aren't necessarily being reckless; it may well be a perfectly sound financial strategy.
Anyway, some owners are known to have very low debt/equity ratios, and Moreno is one of them. The three teams with no debt are the Blue Jays, the Cubs, and the Braves. For Toronto the reason is obvious: Canada's tax laws don't favor debt-financing like America's do. As far as I know the Blue Jays have never been debt-financed at all. The other two have had low debt for several years, and according to Forbes they're down to zero in 2007. I'm not sure why, but I wonder if it has something to do with TV superstation networks.
The Yankees used to have low debt, but now it's high again. Steinbrenner has a large and complicated empire. Probably he's jiggered money around in some way so it makes sense to leverage the team to free up capital for something else.
That's how it looks to me, anyway, but if anyone knows better, please correct me. There must be an MBA or two in the community who knows this stuff far better than I do.
by iglew on Nov 24, 2007 5:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
great post mdl!
I am fascinated by the financial underpinnings of professional sports. Where can I find the kind of info you have quoted in your post?
by kitoko on Nov 23, 2007 11:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Forbes does an article every year
The one for 2007 is here.
These numbers should be taken with a very large grain of salt, since the authors are really just guessing. The fact of the matter is that all MLB financial information is kept private, so we really don't know what's going on.
But as uncertain as the Forbes numbers are, I don't know of anyone else who has tried to do better.
by iglew on Nov 24, 2007 5:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with this ...
is that Torii Hunter doesn't actually represent an offensive upgrade. Unless the idea behind this is to basically swallow GMJ's contract and make him a fourth outfielder, and based on Scioscia's comments, Hunter is taking the DH's spot in the lineup. He'd be an upgrade over GMJ ... but he's not an upgrade over any halfway reasonable DH.
BTW, The way you're discussing your theory here, arguing that basically money doesn't matter and acquiring talent should be the team's only goal, regardless of position, works a lot better than presenting it as a way of ultimately curbing costs for the Yankees ...
by devo on Nov 23, 2007 10:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn't trying to curb the Yankees' costs
It was "How they can buy a World Series".
But yes, it certainly applies to the Yankees too.
Torii doesn't need to be an offensive upgrade; he has to be as good as the stuff the Angels already have. That way they can trade the cheap, now-redundant stuff they already have in the OF to fill their need (3b). It's irrelevant that he's a more expensive version of what they have, because money is what they have and redundancy (at SP thanks to Garland, and OF thanks to Hunter) is what they needed to feel comfortable trading their liquid assets.
Signing Torii does at least four positive things for the Angels, a few of which we haven't even discussed yet:
a.) He allows them to make Vlad a full-time DH, which is where they can maximize his value for the next two years and keep him healthy, which is a must. That has value. If Vlad has a great year as their DH and feels comfortable in that role, they'll sign him to an extension after the '08 season.
b.) He allows them to trade Willits and Rivera(?) to acquire an upgrade a third base.
c.) They kept him from the Rangers, which simultaneously makes someone in their division worse and makes them slightly better. He was probably the Rangers' top offseason priority.
d.) It drives up the price of labor for the poorer teams. If he's "worth" 18M, that drives up Rowand an extra million or two...and now Texas has to decide if they like Rowand for the amount of money they were prepared to offer Torii. (They won't, which means they'll end up once again getting a second-division center fielder, like Corey Patterson).
I disagree with you slightly Devin because I don't think the Yankees want to curb costs, not even their own, really. They want costs to escalate. The more costs escalate leaguewide, the more the Yankees price their competitors out of the market. Better than anyone else, they can stomach continual inflation, so its in their best interest to make at least one huge offer/signing per offseason to set the market for their competitors.
That's part of why both the Red Sox and the Yankees at least dip their feet into everything now. They have to drive up the price for the other. The Red Sox have no interest in Santana. They just have to make the Yankees think they have interest in Santana, to ensure that the Yankees include at least one of their elite pitching prospects in their offers, for fear that the Red Sox can and will offer something equal or better. Or why the Yankees floated some Lowell/first base/15M per year nonsense prior to him signing.
Between Rowand, Andruw Jones, Miguel Cabrera, Johan, and Bedard too, if he is truly being shopped...
Why would the Yankees/Red Sox/Angels/Mets/Dodgers let these guys out of their grasp?
I don't think they will. Those teams have money to spend, prospects to burn, and so, they'll spend it. Part of it is to drive up the price of labor and another part of it is to block those players from making impacts for their competitors.
Don't be shocked if those five players - probably the best five still available(?) - all end up spread somewhere amongst those five teams. Not coincidentally, they are arguably the league's five wealthiest.
Rowand and Jones will be the next two dominoes to fall. Two of those five teams will sign those guys for the same reason the Angels signed Torii - it'll create enough depth in their respective OFs that they can trade OF prospects and strengthen their offers for Cabrera/Johan/Bedard, etc.
by notsellingjeans on Nov 24, 2007 12:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Just a nitpick
The Mets do NOT have prospects to burn. They have money to burn yes, but not prospects. They won't be able to compete with the Dodgers, Sox, Yanks in a prospects for stars trade.
Also, while your hypothesis is interesting, I haven't seen much evidence of it.
The Red Sox didn't appear to show much interest in ARod. The Mets expressed what appears to be only cursory interest in him. The Angels actually publicly stated that they wouldn't overpay for ARod.
The main competitor with the Red Sox for Lowell's services appeared to be the Phillies.
No team made a serious bid for Mariano Rivera, other than the Yankees.
The Mets did try for Posada, but they actually genuinely have a huge hole at catcher.
None of the Mets, Yanks, or Red Sox showed even cursory interest in Torii.
by rfloh on Nov 24, 2007 1:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
