Tejada en route to Houston: Does this trigger more moves that affect Oakland?
by mikev
on Dec 12, 2007 10:27 AM PST
According to this ESPN link, Miggy is finally getting out of Baltimore and heading to the Astros.
The Orioles get Luke Scott, pitchers Matt Albers, Troy Patton and Dennis Sarfate, and third baseman Michael Costanzo. The only one I know of is Scott, who's supposed to be pretty good.
Anyway, this will probably result in subsequent trades of Roberts and Bedard by the Orioles. To me, this will set the market for possible trades of Dan Haren, Joe Blanton, and possibly Mark Ellis if Beane decides to blow the team up and look towards Fremont.
0 recs |
63
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
high cost
Patton was ranked their third best prospect by Baseball America, Costanzo sixth. Scott is a cheap quality regular, and Albers was third on the team's 2007 top prospect list.
by rebus on Dec 12, 2007 10:19 AM PST 0 recs
Meh
Patton is a solid prospect but the rest are fairly pedestrian. Costanzo being 6th on the Astros' list is more a reflection of how bare their system is than his status as a prospect.
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 10:29 AM PST
up
0 recs
Agreed
The Astros system is as dry as the Sahara. Basically skipping the 2007 draft didn't help none, either. (The first pick they had and actually signed was, IIRC, a 5th-rounder.)
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 10:38 AM PST
up
0 recs
i didn't think
someone would give that much for Tejada. i supose it's a deal if he's at sortstop for them.
heh, now i'm wondering if Baltimore settled because of the Mitchell report...
by rebus on
Dec 12, 2007 10:46 AM PST
up
0 recs
interesting theory
if tejada's name is not mentioned in the mitchell report, i'll eat my hat.
by xbhaskarx on
Dec 12, 2007 12:02 PM PST
up
0 recs
if Bonds isn't mentioned ...
... HollywoodOz will eat his new Mariners hat.
by monkeyball on
Dec 12, 2007 12:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
my hat is safe
by xbhaskarx on
Dec 13, 2007 4:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
Tejada will play SS for Houston
according to Ken Rosenthal
by OaklandSi on Dec 12, 2007 10:23 AM PST 0 recs
surprised
when I didn't see Adam Everett in the list of players sent to Baltimore. Guess he'll be packing his bags soon, seems he's too good defensively to be a backup or insurance.
by Eric in Atlanta on Dec 12, 2007 10:31 AM PST 0 recs
If we're gonna have a no hit SS next year
I'd like it to be Everett. Pretty much the only player who does what he does with the glove. See here:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ne...
(not sure if you need a BP sub to see that or not, basically its a fielding metric graph showing Adam Everett as a point about 20 runs by each metric away from all the other infielders.
Go see what needs to be done Billy.
by awesomer on
Dec 12, 2007 10:45 AM PST
up
0 recs
yup
by mikeA on
Dec 12, 2007 10:51 AM PST
up
0 recs
SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT
That point on the graph should be taken with about a pound of salt. Adam Everett played only 66 games this last year.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 11:01 AM PST
up
0 recs
Crosby only plays about 90 games a year
Combined that equals a full season!
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 11:11 AM PST
up
0 recs
Trouble is you can be sure
they'll always be on the DL simultaneously.
by green star oakland on
Dec 12, 2007 11:12 AM PST
up
0 recs
Keep one in a bubble wrapped room
until the other gets hurt, then you'll have both available!
<Note to self... leave air holes this time.>
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 11:14 AM PST
up
0 recs
Ha !
You think Crosby couldn't injure himself in a bubble-wrapped room ?
At least we've found the limit of your skepticism.
by green star oakland on
Dec 12, 2007 11:17 AM PST
up
0 recs
Actually
I was thinking about putting Everett in the bubble wrapped room, maybe he'd be able to stay healthy that way.
Crosby will get hurt regardless of his environment, so use him up 1st.
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 11:20 AM PST
up
0 recs
This is my theory on Rich Harden
Keep him in a bubble wrapped room, and only let him out to pitch in the postseason.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 11:17 AM PST
up
0 recs
What about in the offseason? If we're keeping
him in there until we reach the post season you're going to start seeing his face on milk cartons.
by OldhamA on
Dec 12, 2007 3:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Christ, what an airhole
by monkeyball on
Dec 12, 2007 11:56 AM PST
up
0 recs
Just so you don't take one in the earhole
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 12:01 PM PST
up
0 recs
If I'm reading the graph correctly,
it's talking about his 2006 season. 149 games.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 11:16 AM PST
up
0 recs
Yeah, so what?
I'm wrong, big whoop ...
Seriously, though, it is worth noting that his 2006 season is anomalous, compared to both the league and his 2005 season -- which is not labeled, but clearly isn't anywhere near his 2006 season. If you take a peak at his traditional fielding stats, that season looks like an aberration through that lens as well.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 11:25 AM PST
up
0 recs
True dat
... well, there's a reason why he's about to get non-tendered by a basically last-place club.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 11:30 AM PST
up
0 recs
He's been by far the best defensive SS
for quite awhile.
by mikeA on
Dec 12, 2007 11:33 AM PST
up
0 recs
Has he? Lets see ...
RZR
2007 .871, tied for 2nd best (if he qualified) with a much higher OOZ rate than the other 2.
2006 .891, #1 by a wide margin, #2 in OOZ
2005 .860, #3, #2 in OOZ
Summary -- good case for the best, but Reyes and Vizquel are comparable.
UZR
2003-mid 2007
Everett, 33 runs prevented above average per 150 games, #1 by a wide margin. Vizquel and Reyes finish well down the list. Neifi Perez, who finished high in RZR as well is 2nd at 20.
PMR
2007 101.12, 12th in the league. Vizquel edges him while Reyes finished well down the list. Tulowitzki is #1 by a good margin and was 4th in RZR (as a rookie, his 2007 midseason numbers in UZR are not helpful).
2006 108.2, led the league by a small margin. Vizquel was above average but well down the list. Reyes is well below average.
So, yes, I think it's fair to conclude that he has been the league's best defensive shortstop over the last three years. His mantle must be getting full of Gold Gloves ...
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 12:00 PM PST
up
0 recs
Hah!
You made a funny.
Like Gold Gloves are won based on merit. Sheesh, what next?
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 12:02 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well they are based on merit ...
they are awarded to the guy with the best bat, who could most afford to attempt to use a gold glove in the field because he would make up for it based on his strong offensive play ...
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 12:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm glad you did that instead of
someone asking me to back up my comment.
by mikeA on
Dec 12, 2007 1:08 PM PST
up
0 recs
yeah
that graph would be a lot more meaningful if each point represented a 3 year period.
by rebus on
Dec 12, 2007 11:37 AM PST
up
0 recs
Triggers Giants signing Rowand
for 5 years.
Brian Sabean lol.
by awesomer on Dec 12, 2007 1:04 PM PST 0 recs
clearly a repercussion
of losing the Luke Scott sweepstakes.
by mikev on
Dec 12, 2007 1:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
Isnt that a solid signing?
I've not seen him play much, but his stats seem pretty good, especially for a centre fielder. Assuming he can hold a glove there that is.
Of course, I'm waiting for all the guys with the win shares, and value over replacement player stats to come in!
by OldhamA on
Dec 12, 2007 3:13 PM PST
up
0 recs
Those aren't really necessary
OPS+ is good enough-- his career mark is only 106, i.e. 6% better than average, and he's on the downslope at age 30. The Giants will be lucky if he plays like a league-average centerfielder during his contract, and "league-average" is not what the Giants need right now.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 3:21 PM PST
up
0 recs
You sure are convinced ...
Rowand is falling off a cliff next week.
He's been an above average hitter for his career and he's coming off a great season.
Granted, five years out he'll probably be over paid -- but EVERY FA contract works that way.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 3:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
What Rowand does next week is irrelevant
because the Giants don't have a snowball's chance in hell of competing before some combination of Fairley, Alderson, Bumgarner and Villalona hit the majors, which is 2011 or later. I'm pretty convinced Rowand is "falling off a cliff" sometime within the next 3 years. In the part of his contract which is actually relevant, he's going to be overpaid.
I mean, with this money and the money they're spending on Roberts, Durham and Aurilia, they could have signed A-Rod. You tell me which is better: A-Rod/Frandsen/Ortmeier/Schierholtz or Rowand/Roberts/Durham/Aurilia.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 4:05 PM PST
up
0 recs
That's a silly comparison ...
Of course in 2008 they would be better with A-Rod than Rowand/Roberts/Durham/Aurilia. But only one of those fellas was signed in the offseason leading up to 2008 and A-Rod was not on the market in 2007 when the balance of those guys signed their contracts.
They weren't signed to help the team compete in 2008 -- they were signed, however questionably, to help the team compete in 2007 before seeing Bonds sail off into __.
Clearly, you and I realize that, in terms of the bottom line, there is little value in the Giants pursuit of 80 wins. They have a bad team and adding Rowand doesn't change that -- but they don't see it that way. For whatever reason, they think it is worthwhile.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 4:17 PM PST
up
0 recs
They've got to start building somewhere
Is there another CF that you'd prefer over the course of a 5 year deal?
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 4:32 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well, they could wait until the team
is actually competitive, and then sign the best name on the market then...
I mean, couldn't they have like flipped someone (Correia?) to the Royals for DeJesus? He'd provide essentially the same production for zillions of dollars cheaper, at a younger age.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 4:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
How does this hurt them ...
in any way?
Seriously, other than a second round pick, what is the downside?
Is there somewhere you think they would be better of spending the money?
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 4:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
It hurts them
because by the time they have a chance to be good, they'll be paying a not-very-good player 12 million dollars which could presumably be better spent then.
by mikeA on
Dec 12, 2007 5:01 PM PST
up
0 recs
That's true ...
but it assumes that they wouldn't have spent it otherwise.
I assume -- and I realize I'm constructing a truism here -- that the Giants feel the need to at least pretend like they care about the results on the field over the next few years and so they would have spent it somewhere. That may or may not actually be true, but I think you'd agree that any player the Giants could sign for five years this offseason is quite likely to be not-very-good by the end of his contract.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 5:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
That's true
but no one's forcing them to sign a five year contract. They could pretend to compete by signing someone to a shorter contract; maybe a one year contract. Like maybe someone who's better than Rowand anyway and is popular with the fans. Someone like, oh, say, I don't know....
by mikeA on
Dec 12, 2007 5:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
On the surface, that seems like a good idea ...
but, for whatever reason, I think it's clear that's not an option they had on their table.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 6:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'll admit I don't know if this is possible,
but couldn't they have just thrown the money into servicing the stadium mortgage?
Long term contract for Lincecum?
More Latin American contracts?
Fukudome? (Projects to outhit Rowand by about 100 OPS points, signed for same salary but 1 year less.)
David Eckstein? At least he would waste fewer dollars for a shorter time, while not blocking the few actual decent prospects the team has and actually playing a position of some use to the team. (I can't believe I'm using David Eckstein as a model of a superior free agent signing...)
Bonds?
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 5:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
At the very least ...
it could be indirectly put into the mortgage -- invested, likely at a higher return than the interest they're paying, with the proceeds used to pay down the tail end of the debt when the time comes.
But (and this answers LA contracts, as well), I believe the Giants made this deal because they feel the need (for whatever reason) to act like they believe they can be competetive over the next couple of years. To put a product on the field that isn't entirely embarrassing.
I doubt that this deal has any impact on their ability to offer a long term contract to Lincecum. They aren't complete morons, they do understand the most basic aspects of a budget.
Why would they sign Eckstein? They have a better option (yes, even as bad as his offense was last year, his defense still made him comparable to or better than Eckstein) in Omar Vizquel.
Fukudome likely would have been a better investment ... I don't know why they didn't pursue him instead (or maybe they did ...).
Bonds, for whatever reason, clearly wasn't considered a real option.
Regardless, the marginal difference in the value they get from their hypothetical free agent signings, the small differences in value really would not have any effect on a team in the Giants' position.
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 5:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
I guess I was figuring Eckstein at 2B
and then flip Durham for Sexson in an exchange of awful contracts.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 5:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
Sexson gets paid twice as much as Durham ...
and, frankly, isn't a great bet to out hit him ... on the plus side, Sexson is probably a better fielding second baseman ...
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 6:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
James projects Sexson at 71 OPS points better
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 6:17 PM PST
up
0 recs
Obviously, I was exagerating ...
I do think Durham + ? is likely to outhit Sexson + Eckstein, though ...
by devo on
Dec 12, 2007 6:34 PM PST
up
0 recs
? = Dan Johnson
Dan Johnson. While (obviously) not anything special, DJ is a good bet to outhit the likes of Ryan Klesko or Rich Aurilia, and maybe even Sexson. And he's available for the low, low price of almost nothing. But I'm sure the Giants will look for some proven veteran instead.
by andeux on
Dec 12, 2007 6:49 PM PST
up
0 recs
So many problems with this statement
When are the Giants going to get good? Give me a timeframe to work with here. We know they probably won't be good in 2008 so paying the guy this year doesn't really matter, technically all the money they spend this season will be "wasted".
They signed a guy with a particular skill set. Rght now, the best 2009 FA option that shares a similiar skill set is probably Jim Edmonds, maybe Jay Payton. Both of whom are at least 4 years older than Rowand.
On the financial side, the Giants haven't spent less then $90 million on player salaries in the last 3 years. They haven't dropped below $82 million in 5 years. They now have $69.45 million invested in 12 players for 2008, with 3 1st year arby eligible cases waiting for raises. The rest of their roster makes around $400 K each.
That's less than $80 million in player salary for 2008. They're well within their presumable budget.
Lets look ahead to 2010. The Giants have 3 current players under contract for that long, Lincecum might be a Super 2 but he might not even be arby eligible. Signing Rowand has done nothing to compromise their ability to sign more talent down the road.
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 7:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
Barring a Cubs-like dollar-gasm
and the free agent class to work with it, the Giants will not be good until at least 2010. That's assuming Villalona develops at the speed that Miguel Cabrera did and they can get one or more high-school arms to the majors at age 21. In other words, it's extremely optimistic. A more realistic projection is 2011.
The Giants need to be saving money to deploy on top players who are signing their first free agent contracts in the period between 2009 and 2011. The Carl Crawfords, Curtis Grandersons, Victor Martinezes of the world. I would assume you've got your committed $28 million on Zito, Lowry and Cain. Lincecum will be a Super-Two (or else the Giants are unbelievably screwed) to bump it up to around 30. Most of the bullpen and the backup catcher will be in arbitration, along with Jonathan Sanchez (call that another $10 million). It seems like they can optimistically assume that 2B (Frandsen/Velez), 3B (Denker), LF (Schierholtz) and RF (Ortmeier/Bowker) can be covered in at least not completely embarrassing fashion by internal guys. Villalona arrives to play first base.
Let's be optimistic here and call the rotation and bullpen 6 wins above average in total. The above position players will probably be on the order of 1 or 2 wins below average.
So, you got $60 million or so to play around with (probably more, but salaries will be higher as well so it evens out), and with that money, you need a catcher, a shortstop, and a center fielder, along with ideally another top-notch starter and upgrades at 2B and corner OF (where the putative starters project to be below-average regulars). These players need to be 5-6 wins above average to put the team in the playoff hunt.
Now the Giants blow $12 million of that on Rowand. He's not likely to remain good in center field, so he may be headed to a corner. Whoops. He's likely to be average at best at that point, so now you need maybe half a win less but have a bunch less free cash to sign guys with.
#1 irony: Rowand's contract may prevent the Giants from signing the very guy they almost traded Lincecum for, Alex Rios.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 12, 2007 8:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
Here's the thing
None of the players you mentioned are likely to become FA until after the 2010 season.
Hes Rownd lost his skills in CF? I don't know. If he has than the Giants screwed up regardless of how much or how little they spent. If he hasn't then they've got a CF for the next 5 years.
Unless the Giants have drastically cut their player salary payroll, and it is up to YOU to prove that they have, then I don't see how Rowand's signing hurts their ability to sign FA talent in 2009 and beyond.
by grover on
Dec 13, 2007 5:49 AM PST
up
0 recs
It doesn't hurt their ability to sign
any one (probably even two) given free agent(s).
What it does hurt is the ability to sign a sufficient QUANTITY of free agents to make the team competitive, which is what the whole lengthy middle ramble was about.
The players above will, IIRC, become free agents after respectively the 2009 (Crawford), 2010 (Martinez), and 2011 (Granderson) seasons.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 13, 2007 9:21 AM PST
up
0 recs
Victor Martinez? Seriously?
He'll be two years older than Rowand is ... if you're concerned about Rowand's potential defensive declines ... well, I suppose Martinez can't get much worse -- but he will likely be headed to first base, where, in his peak years, he's only a bit above average at the position ...
He also accumulates more of the sexy stats (HRs, RBIs) so he'll probably get paid quite a bit more, especially if he can convince the Indians to continue to let him catch with some regularity.
He will most likely be a horrible, horrible signing.
The Rays have club options on Crawford through 2010. If he can stay health over the next three years, though, he's probably looking at near A-Rod type money.
If the Giants wanted Granderson, there would only be one year of overlap with Rowand's contract. They could probably figure out a way to make it work.
by devo on
Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM PST
up
0 recs
Disclaimer
The aforementioned list was the product of like 5 minutes on Cot's and my faulty memory of what players are available at the respective positions.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on V-Mart, I think. He improved his defense dramatically this season. He's never had a full season OPS under .850. And catchers typically seem to peak later than other players (perhaps because their defensive value is not speed-based).
by PaulThomas on
Dec 13, 2007 12:31 PM PST
up
0 recs
They would have had to bump payroll
regardless of signing Rowand if they wanted to add 3 or more prime FA's in the next two years.
by grover on
Dec 13, 2007 5:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
Maybe, and now they have to bump it $12 million
more, because they're spending $12 million on Aaron Rowand.
I fail to see where you're going with this.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 13, 2007 6:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
Good news for the A's!
This trade, in and of itself, directly affects the off-season strategy of the Angels a lot more than it does the A's. Sure, the Orioles COULD keep the dominoes falling and trade Bedard, thereby re-setting the market for Blanton/Haren, but the team's most likely to trade for Haren/Blanton would probably also be interested in Bedard, meaning that should Erik be traded, one less suitor would be available for the A's starters, shrinking the market AND the potential return.
But as far as the Angels go, this trade must sting. Tejada was their Plan B after Cabrera was traded to Detroit, and now that he's off the table, where are they going to go for that big, 3rd base bat that they need?
Scott Rolen?
Joe Crede?
Edwin Encarnacion?
Those bats won't protect Vlad, won't scare the A's pitching staff and won't markedly help secure the AL West crown for the Angels.
by Taj Adib on Dec 12, 2007 3:33 PM PST 0 recs
This is just me thinking here
But Cincy has been willing to discuss moving Edwin Encarnacion in their search for more pitching. The Angels have extra pitching and a need at 3B. I'm not sure what the Reds would ask for but the potential for a match is there.
by grover on
Dec 12, 2007 4:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
