A's sign Street for 1 Year: No Long-Term Deal?
by athleticsBB4life on Jan 17, 2008 3:36 PM PST
in News
47 comments
Today, the A's avoided arbitration with Huston Street and signed him to a one year contract.
What does this mean in terms of a long-term contract. I was expecting the A's to buy out the rest of Street's arbitration years. This may mean he will be leaving town soon and Devine will take over as the closer.
0 recs |
47 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Nah
Players are often signed to long-term contracts during the season or during spring training. I can't count the number of "avoided arbitration 1/07 / signed contract 3/07" type deals I've seen while perusing Cot's...
Plus which, sometimes signing a long-term deal makes a player more valuable as a trade chip, not less. Look at Swisher.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 3:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Look at Haren v Santana ...
by devo on Jan 17, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so, are you saying ...
... Beane should sign Street to a LT extension to maximize his trade value, and then deal him?
I agree with doing that, but ... isn't that in some way akin to demoting/delaying the promotion of promising young players solely to delay the start of their clocks? Wouldn't that, in the same way, potentially poison the water in Oakland for players who might potentially sign LT deals in the future? Haren, Swisher, Street -- the players (and their agents) would see the precedent, and not only refuse to sign LT deals with Beane, but could also bring the trade value of the players into the room come arbitration time.
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2008 4:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
because unlike that situation, which is governed by the collective bargaining agreement as interpreted by the teams (and, at least theoretically, subject to grievances by players), this one is negotiated between the player and his team (and isn't grievable). There's no breach of contract by a team if it signs a player and then trades him (unless the player has a no-trade clause).
And as I've argued before, the primary purpose of long-term contracts in pre-free-agency years is to provide cost certainty (to teams) and income certainty/injury insurance (to players), not to guarantee that a player will remain with a given team.
As for the last point-- I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that's an issue that's allowed to be brought into an arbitration hearing, in much the same way that you can't use free-agent salaries as evidence on behalf of a first-year arbitration player.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think what monkeyball is saying....
Is not whether it is technically against the rules but rather whether players would hesitate to sign club-friendly deals in the future. Players may give a home-team discount but if they have a good risk being traded anyway, why do it?
However, I think you are partially right. Players sign the long term deals normally for insurance against injury or lack of performance (Bobby Crosby anyone?). That said players may still think twice about including one of their free agency years in their long term deal they sign with the team.
by vignette17 on Jan 17, 2008 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bronson Arroyo signed a below market
deal with Boston...which in turn made him more attractive to Cincinnati. Supposedly he even had a verbal agreement from the Red Sox that he wouldn't be traded without his consent. Their word wasn't worth much. Rather they considered themselves shrewd negotiators. I'm impressed with their brilliance myself.
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 17, 2008 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we're all right
To be sure, PaulThomas is correct that it doesn't violate the collective-bargaining agreement; and that, ultimately (if I may interpolate from his and your responses), the players are driven by no less base motives than the owners/GMs are -- they're all after risk minimization, cost certainty, and maximizing their own net.
I think there is some potential element of players/agents giving Beane a rep and it impacting negotiations slightly down the road -- though not a very high potential, and not much impact at that.
Really, what I was after was the moralizing that came after the collective-bargaining argument back in the "we can't keep players down because it would be wrong" argument a couple weeks back.
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2008 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't see this as a morality issue
When teams are abusing a position of power to engage in shady dealings (in which players have no say), I have a problem with it. This is open negotiation, though. If a player is willing to take a hometown discount in exchange for a no-trade clause, terrific. If not... well, they couldn't come to an agreement. Happens every day.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where's the poison?
You're suggesting that future A's will be disinclined to sign long-term deals with the A's if they see other A's who sign long-term deals get traded.
This argument rests on the idea that players think being traded is a bad thing. Now, I realize that everyone here thinks Oakland is the best place to be and being sent anywhere else is a "demotion", but do we really think the players see it that way?
Sure, moving is disruptive in the short term, but is Swisher's life or career any worse for being in Chicago now? When a young player looks at the Haren trade, I don't think he says, "Gee, Danny got screwed; maybe I'll get screwed, too." More likely he thinks, "Hey, if the team sucks just as I'm reaching the prime of my career, I'll probably get sent to a better team with a real shot at the playoffs."
The possibility of being traded has both positives and negatives, but I don't see young professional baseball players seeing it as a net negative. Especially if the team has a history of sending favored players to cities they prefer -- as we do: Swisher, Haren, and Kotsay were all reasonably pleased with their destination, as were Hudson and Mulder. If Blanton goes to Cincy or DJ goes to Minnesota, that would continue the pattern.
by iglew on Jan 18, 2008 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
missing poll option
all of the above, at various points in the season.
by xbhaskarx on Jan 17, 2008 3:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
missing "Calero, to maximize his trade value"
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2008 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The phrase "Calero's trade value" is an oxymoron
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so, we thought, was "Kotsay's trade value"
Calero's full contract for '08 is less than what the Braves will be paying Kotsay, his health is less tenuous, and he potentially could contribute a lot more on the field than Kotsay (if he proves healthy/effective in ST/first half).
by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2008 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
or Kendall's trade value
or the trade value of a D'dFA Milton Bradley...
by salb918 on Jan 17, 2008 6:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
I didn't think DFAed Bradley's trade value was zero... dunno about you.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 6:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Missing "Harden, for the two games he's healthy"
by Ozzz on Jan 17, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Volatility of reliever performance and health
I would never give one an extension through his arby years. There's practically no point.
How many closers are good for 6-7 consecutive years - without a surgery that costs them an entire season, or a season where they struggled mightily? Not many.
There's nothing wrong with playing Street year to year, whether he's being traded this year or not.
If I were a trading partner with Oakland, given Street's slight injury concerns, I'd almost certainly find him more attractive on his current three year, year-to-year re-up than I would if he had a 5-year extension that locked me in for $30M plus. Far less risk involved in your investment - and in the cost/benefit analysis, that risk is greater than the reward of shaving a few million off his potential free agent salary.
It's different for hitters - who tend to be healthier on the whole - and for starters who have demonstrated career-long health and have passed through the Injury Nexus (Haren).
A reliever is an entirely different animal. As an organizational philosophy, I'd steer clear of arby extensions with them.
But that's just like, my opinion, man.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 17, 2008 5:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
some guy named Mariano Rivera
by athleticsBB4life on Jan 17, 2008 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
His question was how many
the answer: very few. One example is one example.
by mikeA on Jan 17, 2008 5:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Preach
mikeA is in the building.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 17, 2008 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What did the A's give Arthur Rhodes?
and it kind of came back to bite them.
by One won lost won on Jan 17, 2008 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now that he's already hit arbi ...
it's only a 3 year commitment ($10-12m?), not a 5 year, $30m commitment.
by devo on Jan 17, 2008 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
I was accounting for a 1- or 2-year FA buyout as part of the extension.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 17, 2008 6:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No surprise here
Extending Street by buying out his arbitration years doesn't make much sense for us. He's been fairly injury prone...and even if he has a tremendous next few seasons, as a closer, its not like his arby award is going to hit $15mil or anything. I doubt there were too many agreeable contracts for both sides.
Remember, we are somewhat the exception to the rule by extending thru arby years...
by SeanR on Jan 17, 2008 5:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Completely off-topic, but...
I'm guessing that Danny Putnam is gonna pass through waivers. We're not at 10 days yet (I think this is Day 7 or so), but players normally have at least "passed through" to all the teams much faster than the full ten days.
Shhhhhhhh...we can discuss this, but let's do it quietly. I don't want to jinx anything.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 17, 2008 5:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, if so... I think it proves my point
I'm not sure he'd even be a starter on the AAA depth chart at this stage.
He'll have a year to reverse his situation. If he breaks out, he'll get another shot at the majors in September. If not, he won't be protected from Rule 5.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Devine
gave up a grand slam in his first 2 Major League appearances and gave up the winning HR in that 18 inning playoff game in 05'. That doesn't make me feel confident enough to want him as closer. of course that was a couple years ago.
If Street is dealt and Embree is still on the team I imagine he will be in there because of his performance in the role in 07' AND to increase his trade value.
by micdog2001 on Jan 17, 2008 5:45 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You'll forgive him for having trouble ...
with Major League hitters something like three months after he finished college, won't you?
by devo on Jan 17, 2008 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Be thankful for that attitude
It's what allowed Oakland to get him for Mark Kotsay.
Me, I want to see Andrew Brown at closer (or... starter?) if Street gets traded. The guy was a strikeout machine last season.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 6:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
street
gave up a series ending walk-off hr in the 06 alcs.
and eck gave up a pretty famous walk-off hr in the world series.
by xbhaskarx on Jan 17, 2008 10:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and Harden gave up Nixon's GWHR ...
... and hasn't been healthy since!
by monkeyball on Jan 18, 2008 12:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's
I think it's great that we got Devine (and other pitcher) for Kotsay and I'm not saying Devine couldn't be a closer it just makes me think twice when you make history for being bad. I don't know the situation, did Devine come in with the bases loaded or did he load them himself?
by micdog2001 on Jan 21, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Worth $3.3 million
If you ask me, which you didn't, that's an awful lot for a rebuilding team to give to a closer (the one position you don't really need unless you're in contention.)
by BWH on Jan 17, 2008 7:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What's the alternative? Non-tendering him?
The guy's an elite reliever by any definition of the term. I don't see what the issue is. Every team needs good pitchers-- that's how you become good to begin with.
by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 11:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I meant
that $3.3 million is a lot to pay a guy who's only gonna throw about 70-80 innings in a rebuilding year, but it's not a lot to pay a guy who's gonna do the same thing on a competitive team. I still don't see the point in having an expensive (granted, $3.3 isn't that much, but still) ace reliever unless you're in win-now mode.
The alternative to paying him is trading him.
by BWH on Jan 17, 2008 11:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It makes infinitely more sense
to pay him now and then trade him at the correct time (namely, when someone feels they need a closer and is willing to overpay) than to force a trade when the market isn't at its peak. Especially given that the team is practically swimming in cash right now.
BTW, 3.3 million won't buy you even a league-average reliever on the free agent market.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2008 9:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
I'm saying that between now and July 31st, he's going to get traded, for the following reasons:
- The A's have no real use for a closer.
- The A's have no reason to pay a guy more than the league minimum to throw only about 75 innings, unless he's part of their long term plans.
- Street's much more valuable to a contender.
- Even the best closers (especially ones with injury histories) shouldn't be locked up long term, because of their high volatility.
- Teams who are trying to win in 2008 will give up a lot for an ace reliever who's making $700K less than Ron Mahay.
I don't think Street will be an A come August 1st (probably sooner), and I think the A's will get quite a bit for him.
by BWH on Jan 18, 2008 10:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess
The A's will have to cross their fingers and hope that there are a bunch of contending teams with bad bullpens and good farm systems.
The ideal situation, I think, would be one in which the Rays contend, but Percival sucks. It looks to me like the Rays are again going to tank next season, however. Other than them... who's actually looking? The Yankees and Reds just gave buku bucks to their closers. Maybe the D-Backs again, once they realize that trading Jose Valverde for a pile of poop probably was not the greatest idea in the world.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2008 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I must insist: "beaucoup"
by monkeyball on Jan 18, 2008 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees could really use ...
the next Mariano Rivera ... let Rivera be John Wetteland for a couple more years to Huston's Rivera, then let Street take over the closer's role by the time he's eligible for free agency.
by devo on Jan 18, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's true
I think the A's best trading partners will continue to be middle-class teams, though.
In theory, Street - like Haren - would seem to garner the greatest bounty from a team that is both in great need AND wary of payroll growing too high.
The Yanks are 1-2 years away from being able to buy some combination of Joe Nathan, K-Rod, and Rafael Soriano, for $50M plus apiece.
Your best-case scenario for a Street trade in the AL is Joe Borowski or Todd Jones falling apart (although I know the Tigers aren't middle-class, but you gotta figure their payroll binge ends somewhere).
In the NL, the DBacks were a good call by Paul, although flipping Valverde for Qualls says, "We don't value the save statistic, but we know you do"...
Perhaps Padres if Hoffman finally goes down for the count? That deal could yield our 3b/2b of the future.
Again, I think it'll happen when a mid-market team in playoff contention loses its closer due to very serious injury or ineffectiveness. That's the perfect combo that would lead to a team really backing up the prospect truck.
by notsellingjeans on Jan 18, 2008 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a good point ...
although between now and 7/31, Street will be the best available reliever -- so if the Yankees want an upgrade in that department, there's no where else they can go, for any amount of money.
That said, I'd feel a lot better about him going to the Padres ...
by devo on Jan 18, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I couldn't help but be influenced
by the ZIPS review of that trade, which showed Qualls' "optimistic" ERA+ as the same as Valverde's "average"...
Valverde's K rate is like 2x Qualls'.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2008 4:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To those predicting a mid-season Street trade
Better hope he stays healthy till then, otherwise we eat his contract this year, then lose him to free agency.
by asfansince1989 on Jan 18, 2008 3:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Uhhh
Street is a free agent in 2010.
He could blow out his shoulder and elbow combined and still be pitching again by then.
by PaulThomas on Jan 18, 2008 4:02 PM 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.
