The A's First $100 Million Dollar Man
"After my fourth season I asked for $43,000 and General Manager Ed Barrow told me, 'Young man, do you realize Lou Gehrig, a 16-year-man, is playing for only $44,000?' I said, Mr. Barrow, there is only one answer to that - Mr. Gehrig is terribly underpaid."
-Yankees outfielder Joe DiMaggio, coming off his MVP season in 1939 at age 24.
DiMaggio's quote above is one of my favorites, and it sets the tone for today's topic. The title of this post may seem absurd - our humble, small-to-mid market team making a nine-figure outlay for a player. But consider that, at one point, people also thought it would be impossible for any baseball player to ever make $100,000 a year. In 1949, DiMaggio himself became baseball's first.
Thirty years later, Nolan Ryan became baseball's first $1 million-a-year man in his free agent contract with the Astros in 1979. Supposedly, that contract was going to bring down the game, too.
Kevin Brown broke the $100MM contract barrier with his seven year free agent deal in 1999, and, after this off-season, there have now been a total of sixteen contracts that have broken the magical nine-figure barrier we're discussing today.
Trust me (or the historical trend) when I say, there are more to come. So, which current stars will earn the next nine-figure deals? Could any of them sign with the A's? Click the link to read more.
Many websites keep readers updated on the current FA class, and a few of the most informative ones even keep tabs on the free agent class of '09 (at the conclusion of this '08 season). We're looking a little farther down the road than that today. Thanks to MLB's service time rules and Cot's Contracts, we can, today, project who the biggest potential fish will be on the Free Agent market for the next 6 years.
(This exercise is surprisingly simple - look up a star player, find out how many service time years he's earned thus far in his career, and when that figure reaches 6, he'll be a free agent. I used the word "potential" free agents because, of course, any of these players could sign contract extensions with their current team. But for the most elite young stars - the top 5-10 young players in the game - these extensions will become less likely, as they take notice of Ryan Howard - a player with less than 3 years of service time, who will go to arbitration and earn significant raises three more times before reaching free agency - who won a $10MM victory in arbitration this past offseason).
So, barring contract extensions, what follows is a list of elite players who stand to eventually become Nine Figure Men, due to a combination of their performance and relatively young age.
FA class of '09:
Mark Teixeira
FA class of '10
Miguel Cabrera (turns 27 at the beginning of the '10 season).
FA class of '11
Scott Kazmir
FA class of '12
Hanley Ramirez (turns 28 before this season starts).
Prince Fielder (turns 28 during the season, and a California native).
Jeff Francoeur (27 for the entire season).
Ryan Howard (past age 30, but he could still command $100MM here).
Ryan Zimmerman
FA class of '13 (players who currently have between 1-2 years of service)
B.J. Upton – (turns 29 in his first FA year)
Alex Gordon (29)
Delmon Young (turns 28 during the season).
FA class of '14 (these players have all cracked the bigs, but will accumulate their first year of service this year):
Ryan Braun (30, and a native Californian).
Billy Butler – (turns 28 during the season)
Justin Upton - (becomes an FA at 26(!), turns 27 during the year).
There is a chance that players like Jay Bruce, Evan Longoria (another Californian), Andy LaRoche, and Daric Barton all enter this free agent class, but they also could easily spend enough time in the minors this year to delay their free agency into 2015.
(And heck, we gotta draw the line somewhere. I'm not gonna start projecting the Gerber Free Agent class of 2036, headlined by Salb's newborn baby).
Analysis:
There's a lot of talking points for discussion here:
*If we look at some of the most successful marquee free agent signings of the past 15 years - Barry Bonds' first deal with the Giants, Vlad's deal with the Angels, and even, I would argue, A-Rod's first deal with the Rangers (which would have been even better if the team hadn't outbid themselves by $50MM), they have a common theme - position players on the good side of age 28. That's part of why the list I made above focuses on position players, and especially youth.
*Using that criterion, my personal endorsement for the A's first $100MM splurge is...Justin Upton, assuming he reaches free agency in 2014. In fact, this could double that investment, requiring something like 9 years and $200 million. Yes, I am advocating that for the A's, and no, I'm not nuts.
Here's my logic:
*Those terrific FA classes of '12 and '13 might eat up the money of many of the wealthier teams, and leave several of them out of the bidding.
*Of all the players on that list, Upton is the only one who reaches free agency at age 26. That means he's got his entire peak in front of him. It's incredibly rare for this to happen - it means that a player cracked the big leagues as a teenager, and pretty much stayed there from then on. (It also illustrates how remarkable it is that A-Rod reached FA at 25). Studies show that teams almost always pay for past performance rather than future projected performance. In theory, Upton's 27-32 should be better than his 21-26, which means that he could be both colossally expensive and a bargain at the same time.
*Upton plays a position (right field) that is well-suited to make such a large investment in, because his defense won't become a liability over the life of the deal, and he doesn't face the injury risk of a catcher or middle-infielder. Sure, a DH or first baseman would face even less injury risk...but the problem with huge investments at these positions is, they are easily filled with pretty good Freely Available Talent that gets ignored because of their defense (like Jack Cust or Shelley Duncan). Plus, it's nice to leave either first base or DH open for a star at another position who's slightly injured or declining defensively. The Yankees have been somewhat burned by investing in the same types of aging players who all are limited to the lower rungs of the defensive spectrum (which is part of why I'd prefer Upton over, say, Billy Butler of the Royals).
*The fact that this investment is six years away allows for plenty of planning. The A's can't get the cash to suddenly afford Miguel Cabrera in two years. But with six years to plan for a player, and with no payroll "floor" in Major League Baseball, the A's could very easily plan for the future acquisition of a $20-plus million-a-year player. They simply need to complete eschew the mediocre, middling FA signings - the Loaizas and Piazzas - for the next five years, and follow this most recent offseason's blueprint for the foreseeable future. It would be easy to justify a team payroll in the 40-60 million range and playing young players exclusively for the next five years while the team saved millions in order to make their big splurge, right as they are in the middle of their contending cycle.
*I also like the timing of Upton's FA launch. The A's string of one-year renewals at the Coliseum ends in 2013, and although we've heard talk of Cisco Field happening in 2011-2012, I think it's more realistic that it gets delayed a bit, as huge projects often do. Billy Beane has said often that payroll/budget won't see a significant change until the new stadium is a reality and not merely a vision. By 2014, that vision will most certainly be complete.
So I'll leave you with this wishful thought, a vision for the year 2014:
Billy Beane raises team payroll to $100 million (one-fifth of it devoted to his new star player), signs the soon-to-be best player in the game (Justin Upton) to bat fourth, play rightfield and headline a team of burgeoning young talent entering its prime as they open Cisco Field and becoming the new AL West mini-dynasty.
Sounds good, doesn't it?
1 recs |
105
comments
Read Related
Comments
I think we'll start seeing more Andruw Jones type deals
Big money, short term.
At least, that's what I'm hoping for. Personally, I really think it's a huge risk to sign a guy to a 6, 7, 8 year (or more!) contract. One major injury -- or a crapload of nagging ones *cough* Eric Chavez *cough* can really hurt a team.
Hell, I know it's the Yankees, but imagine if A-Rod broke his leg tomorrow, missed the season, and came back a shadow of himself.
by mikev on Mar 13, 2008 8:05 AM PDT 0 recs
Those deals are more worrisome to me
If A-Rod had been signed to a one-year deal and broke his leg tomorrow, he would've been entirely a wasted investment.
Since he signed a 10-year deal, a broken leg would mean a lost season...and likely 7-8 more years of production. Sure, there's the risk of a debilitating injury, too - but on the one-year deal, there's the risk of getting jack squat out of your investment, which to me, doesn't justify the necessary "over-payment" to get the player to agree to the shorter term.
Plus, truly elite players don't sign shorter-term-than-they're-capable-of-commanding deals on the open market. Guys with serious question marks like Jason Schmidt and Andruw Jones do.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 10:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
"There is no such thing as a bad 1 year contract"
You'll hear this said often amongst GMs, even dumb ones, and I believe it whole-heartedly. As you say above "studies show" that teams pay for past performance rather than future projected performance, and this gets more and more exaggerated as the length of the contract increases.
If the player gets injured and it's a 1 year contract, yeah you lose him, but you would have lost the money for that year with a long term contract as well, and now you dont have to worry about diminished performance. If you still like the player, you can still sign him next year, and there's a good chance he will come cheaper due to the injury.
In nearly all practical, realistic cases, shorter contracts benefit the team (and the fan supporting the team) more than they benefit the player.
by oakinboston on
Mar 13, 2008 11:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
also...
teams have to take out insurance policies for contracts such as Arod's. No need to pay for one of those if it's just a 1 year deal.
by oakinboston on
Mar 13, 2008 11:53 AM PDT
up
0 recs
last reply...
one scenario in which it DOES end up being beneficial for a team to take out a long term contract is when the market value of MLB players takes a significant increase during the life of the contract (such as what has happened in the last 10 years).
When Manny began his contract in '01, people thought it was ludicrous, especially at the thought of paying somebody $20mil at 36 years old (2008). Well, now it's 2008, and to be honest, it seems much less ludicrous. Had Manny been a free agent in 05 (after a year of hitting 44 bombs and batting .308), he'd have easily been above the 20mil mark.
how the salary market is going to change is incredibly difficult to project, however.
by oakinboston on
Mar 13, 2008 12:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
How the market may change is difficult to project
But since FA, it has inflated at a rate of around 10%.
This is why backloaded contracts are actually GOOD for MLB teams. $10M in 6 years time is worth much less, in terms of player talent, than $10M today. In the meantime, the money that you are not paying that player can be invested.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 12:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yea
Of course its usually beneficial for teams to sign a short contract like a one or two, less risk of a huge decline in the player and wasting money paying out that contract for a player who's not near the level he was when they signed him. Short term contracts are obviously much better for the team that signs them than the player (no long term stability in terms of money, knowing where they'll be in a year, etc). Which is why, as notsellingjeans said, those are for "damaged goods" players like Andruw and Big Hurt when we got him, or just not very significant players. The nine figure plus star players we're talking about in this thread command the type of power where any team trying to take them on is going to have to offer a long term deal because thats what a player wants, a fat guaranteed check for the next 6-10 years regardless of how they play, as opposed to a one year deal where they have to play great, because they're back in free agency in a year and coming off an off year is going to hurt their value. I very much doubt we're going to see a move towards 1 year big money deals like you said in the original post for anyone other than the players that get them now: damaged goods and players too questionable to command a long-term deal anywhere.
take money
by yo on
Mar 13, 2008 10:02 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yes, there is such a thing as a bad 1 year contract
Mike Piazza for $6M / 1 was and is a bad contract. That $6M could have been spent as part of a bigger deal for a better player, or on prospects.
The problem with signing 1 year contracts is you are unlikely to get great players. With one year contracts, you get mediocre borderline journeymen, or declining vets.
The best you can hope with 1 year contracts are Greg Maddux / Tom Glavine types, HOF players at the very tailend of their career, which comes with a risk that they fall off the cliff.
Occasionally, you might get a good player coming off a very serious injury.
And Barry Bonds.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 12:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
id argue that it was not bad
a risk? yes. any contract carriers the risk of injury. but because it was only 1 year, we took our shot and now he's not our worry.
and the great thing about borderline journeymen or declining vets is that the vorp/$ is higher than the high-end players. and it's not like $6M really prevented us from making any moves on prospects. We were still under budget.
extrapolating out from the games he played (even the ones after injury), he could have hit 15 hr. not too shabby.
also, the new trend is to take these short term high risk type and spin them off for prospects if the team isnt competing (if sweeney produces this year, any contender would love to pick him up at the deadline for a couple C+ or a B- prospect).
by oakinboston on
Mar 13, 2008 12:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yes, we took our shot?
Are you satisfied with the results?
That is the problem with this 1 night stands with mediocre players. You often end up feeling distinctly dissatisfied after it ends.
A DH hitting 15 HRs is actually pretty shabby, unless he does lots of other things well. Nonetheless, he di not hit 15 HRs, He hit 8. His OBP was below league average, his SLG was marginally above average. For a DH being paid $6M, that is pretty shabby.
What does "under budget" mean?
VORP / $? Seriously? Marginal wins per dollar spent is the most important thing now? Never mind getting into the playoffs, winning the WS, selling tickets, selling overpriced beer, starting up a cable channel?
The Yankees are yearly almost always the worst team in terms of VORP / $, the Marlins the best. So, the conclusion?
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 12:45 PM PDT
up
0 recs
one night stands...
as opposed to long term contracts the A's could have made (giambi, tejada, mulder, hudson) or did make (chavez) and could have left us feeling so much more satisfied?
and how about Big Frank? surely you think that one wasnt bad.
i mean, we could put out counter examples until carpal tunnel sets in. just hoping people keep an open mind.
yeah, i realize the indicator i used is a bit ridiculous. but if you are going to buy into the story that the A's need to have a lower payroll and still wish to compete (and then get to WS's and sell overpriced beer), how else are you going to get there?
by oakinboston on
Mar 13, 2008 2:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm not saying all one night stands
are bad. Just as I'm not saying all long contracts are good. I'm saying that if you take a principle of never signing big contracts, you are going to never be able to go after the very good to great players. Note, I'm not advocating signing the Park Chan Hos and the Darren Dreiforts of MLB.
Hurt turned out great. How many Hurt types are there? Bonds is available this year, but, would you sign him?
Tejada would have been a great signing. The Orioles got 3 great years out of him, in which he was among the best a his position, and underpaid, one Ok year, slightly overpaid, and then traded him for 2 OK pitching prospects. That is a great return.
Hudson has turned out well for the Braves. One great year, one very good year, one mediocre year.
Giambi has given the Yanks 4 great years, one very bad year, one mediocre year, and will likely be mediocre again next year.
Mulder, even a non baseball fan could see all the honking red flags.
Of the 4 big contracts you cited, only Mulder would have been a disaster. Tejada would have great, Hudson good, and Giambi, depending if you are a contending team or not when the contract was signed, acceptable.
Also, those were not the only big contracts that could have signed, if they were willing to sign big contracts. They could have signed Vlad Guerrero.
"yeah, i realize the indicator i used is a bit ridiculous. but if you are going to buy into the story that the A's need to have a lower payroll and still wish to compete (and then get to WS's and sell overpriced beer), how else are you going to get there?"
Well, the thing with building a new stadium, selling overpriced beer, and maybe starting your own sports network is that you want to able to not have to have a lower payroll.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 14, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Piazza isn't a Maddux/Glavine type?
Piazza fit your criterion for best hope, he just fell off a cliff.
by mrrickyg on
Apr 12, 2008 11:06 PM PDT
up
0 recs
If A-Rod had been signed to a one-year deal and broke his leg tomorrow, he would've been entirely a wasted investment.
So say we sign A-Rod to 1 year, 33 million dollars and he breaks his leg. We "lose" 33 million dollars.
If we sign him for 10 years at 27 million a year, and he breaks his leg, we "lose 27 million dollars. We still "lose" a lot of money AND we are subjected to 9 more years of him perhaps not performing as well.
A-Rod is a bad example for why long term deals are bad though. For the best example, see: Mike Hampton. I'd rather have him signed for one year and completely waste the whole entire contract than sign him for several years and, well, lose practically the whole contract.
Juan Pierre: 44 Million Dollars, Juan Pierre's 3.2 WARP3: Priceless
by Travis Buck Nuckin on
Mar 13, 2008 12:56 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Again,
That's why I didn't focus on pitchers. I would never advocate signing an FA pitcher long-term. They break down more than hitters do.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 1:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Why would you believe that?
Andruw Jones signed his deal coming off a horrible injury prone, combined with concerns about his physical shape: he does not exactly look like a typical CF, ie he looks fat, having put on weight over the course of his career.
In the meanwhile, just this season, Torii Hunter got signed to a long term deal. Ichiro signed a long term extension.
Johan Santana and Carlos Zamrano got signed to long term extensions.
If you go back 1 year, there are more huge long term deals.
If ARod broke his leg tomorrow, insurance would cover it. The Eric Chavez type injuries are the problem: the player continues to drag himself out onto the field, and underperforms despite being injured.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 12:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
i agree with you on Chavez
having a bad contract. he is the middle-of-the road type contract that an injury will kill.
i was just discussing the 1-year deal.
And just because all these players got long term deals, it does not mean they are good for their respective teams. it just means that, in light of how salaries have increased historically, agents have huge amounts of leverage.
10% inflation seems difficult to keep up forever, though... the bubble is probably not far down the road.
by oakinboston on
Mar 13, 2008 12:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
My point is that I do not see any sign
that Andruw Jones type contracts are becoming more prevalent. Andruw Jones signed his contract because he is coming off a bad injury prone year.
Yes, salaries have increased tremendously. So have league wide revenues. I am going to start my salaries as a proportion of revenues rant again:
Salaries, as a proportion of revenues have actually DECLINED. As a proportion of revenues, they are now around 41%-43%.
In the NFL, often touted as an example where salaries are well managed, salaries as a proportion of the revenues are in the mid 50s. In the NBA, it is at 57%. In the NHL, after the lockout, after the players conceded defeat, they agreed to a measly 54%. /end rant
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 12:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Psst -- typo alert -- Lou Gehrig was thirty-six for roughly half of 1939
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Mar 13, 2008 8:12 AM PDT 0 recs
Crap -- never mind.
/gulps more coffee, rubs eyes
//mutters to himself
///wishes he had admin privileges
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on
Mar 13, 2008 8:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I find it works nicely to just rub the ground coffee beans directly into my eyes
I wasn't thinking about anything. I'll have to try to do that more often. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Mar 13, 2008 12:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
the Bay Area is NOT a small market
although the A's may fairly be described as a low to middle payroll team.
by OaklandSi on Mar 13, 2008 8:15 AM PDT 0 recs
well
Oakland is a small market. The bay as a whole sure as hell isn't, but the Giants have the lions share.
take money
by yo on
Mar 13, 2008 10:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Now I'm pissed off
You're willing to project Sal's newborn in 2036 but you won't give my 5 year old son, who's already the biggest kid in his preschool class, even a mention! Well up yours NSJ!!!
Just for that, I'm going to make you look bad in your own front page article.
"The A's can't get the cash to suddenly afford Miguel Cabrera in two years."
That is completely and utterly wrong. False. Incorrect. Matter o' fact, the A's could drop $20 million annual on Cabrera TOMORROW if the opportunity presented itself and the A's were interested. Currently, the A's player payroll is round numbers $50 million and that includes the payout for Kotsay. At the start of the year (as per Wolff) the payroll was budgeted in the low-70's. Let's call it $72 million... pretty simple math here.
But let's jump ahead to when Cabrera could actually become a free agent after the 2009 season. You say that the A's can't come up with the cash for Cabrera in 2 years. Let's look at the A's payroll situation for 2010, based on current contract status.
Chavez: $12 million guaranteed
Blanton, Street, Gaudin and DiNardo all 6th year arby eligible.
Cust and DJ will be 5th year arby eligible.
Denorfia, Bowen, Buck, Casilla and Murphy will be 4th year arby eligible.
Devine might be a Super 2.
Everyone else, based on the current organizational depth chart, will have experienced the chance at FA (Ellis, Duke, etc) or have less then 3 years experience.
So unless the A's plan on setting their 2010 payroll to under $50 million there is no reason to think they wouldn't have the funds to pursue Cabrera if they wanted to.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Mar 13, 2008 8:16 AM PDT 0 recs
$20M in free payroll.
This is absolutely right. If the A's manage to stay in this thing through July, they could take on some serious money.
So it goes.
by jeepers on
Mar 13, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Pat Burrell, whoo!
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Mar 13, 2008 10:02 AM PDT
up
0 recs
count me in
President of the Joey Devine fan club as of 1/15/08. Accepting applications for other positions. "He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown
by flipgatey3 on
Mar 13, 2008 6:12 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The A's should make a habit
out of taking on players who are unfairly hated in other cities.
Pat the Bat... Adam Dunn... Eric Chavez...
Wait, he's hated in this city.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Mar 13, 2008 11:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
but is he hated in Fremont?
I wasn't thinking about anything. I'll have to try to do that more often. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Mar 14, 2008 9:23 AM PDT
up
0 recs
that's an interesting topic Paul
are there other guys around the league who are in exile, or have expressed a desire to leave their current city?
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 15, 2008 9:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's fair
My calculus for "Upton over Cabrera" was: 1. Cabrera is currently a very poor defender, and I don't anticipate him becoming a better one, which would mean that 2. you'd be trying to hide him in LF, where's he's not great either. I wouldn't want to pay $20 million per for a bad defender. Upton, who has played OF for a long time and will continue to, is a very good defender and is likely to be one throughout a contract that pays him from age 26-34.
Plus, Cabrera's been so good, so early in his career, that he's inevitably going to get paid for that success. If Upton takes a slower path to stardom, that could make him more affordable (figuring in 2010 dollars vs. 2014 dollars) than Cabrera.
But the real kicker here is the stadium. When the stadium is in place, it's easier to take a $20-million-a-year gamble. It'll be hard enough to justify that in '14; it's even harder to justify while still playing in Oakland Coliseum.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
up
0 recs
This is true
I too would prefer Upton over Cabrera for the reasons you state. However, Cabrera is such a special offensive player I think you'd still get value if all he did was DH.
My goal was to mock you and make you look foolish after slighting my son. Signing a $20 million annual player anytime in the next 3 years is doable IF the A's choose to go that route.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Mar 13, 2008 10:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Your son...
is clearly on the MLB path. I guarantee he's one of the few five-year-olds in America whose Dad is already telling him to ignore his BABIP and focus on his peripheral stats.
I fully expect Beane to sign him to a really, ridiculously early pre-arb extension next fall, hoping to beat others to a potential bargain. :)
(In all seriousness, you should move the family to Venezuela when he hits high school so he can sign at 16).
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 10:32 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Better
If I can just convince him to take up switch hitting. He throws RH, so he's got that going against him as a pitcher but oh well...
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Mar 13, 2008 10:42 AM PDT
up
0 recs
My nephew
Hasn't picked a hand yet but he throws lefty and right now he's hitting righty in his tee ball league. He's probably going to be short and stocky so I'm thinking switch hitting OF. He says hes the fastest 6 year old out of all the 6 year olds and I tend to agree.
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
by niallmack on
Mar 13, 2008 10:50 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Oh ya
And during his game the coach put the tee too tall, and he just stood there looking at it waiting... Then his coach lowered it and he slammed a line drive.
RIVER CATS: AAA CHAMPS!
by niallmack on
Mar 13, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
My t-ball team is Coach Pitch
They don't even hit off the tee unless they go 5 pitches without putting a ball in play.
by mikev on
Mar 13, 2008 10:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
don't worry about handedness
By the time grover, jr. is ready to be signed, PaulThomas will have succeeded in his quest to destroy the myth of the value of LHPs.
I wasn't thinking about anything. I'll have to try to do that more often. @('.')@
by monkeyball on
Mar 13, 2008 11:03 AM PDT
up
0 recs
When Mrs. Jeans and I...
start having children in a few years, I'm afraid that I'll be like Todd Marinovich's dad, 2.0. We're talking about "tying-the-right-hand-behind-his-back" level of craziness here, people.
I'd like to apologize to all future Little League umps in the South Bay in advance.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 11:19 AM PDT
up
1 recs
any studies?
has there been any statistical studies on how successful these type of signings have been? I feel like 50-75% of them end up being a poor investment of money.
I agree that positional players who are signed at a younger age would seem to be more likely to be successful. It'd be interesting to see some stats on how much more successful though.
by dbeach13 on Mar 13, 2008 8:26 AM PDT 0 recs
What are these "dollars" of which you speak?
Also Albert Pujols could also be in the Class of '12.
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 13, 2008 9:10 AM PDT 0 recs
Missed him
He doesn't fall into the age bracket of the analysis, though.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
They may not be good investments
but I think you seriously underrate the potential earnings of pitchers.
Sabathia, Lackey, Wang, Bedard, Haren, Webb... these are Cy Young type pitchers hitting free agency for the first time. They are definitely going to get paid, and in a major way. You can already kind of squint into the future and see someone dropping $100 million on Philip Hughes or Clay Buchholz in 2013.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Mar 13, 2008 10:00 AM PDT 0 recs
True Paul
That wasn't clear in what I wrote. I didn't mean to say that the list was an exhaustive one of guys who could make $100 mil. I have no doubt that Sabathia will crack $100MM, and perhaps others from that list too.
I was trying to pinpoint only players that I thought the A's might invest in, and I limited myself to position players, thinking that was more likely. I should've left off Kazmir altogether to make that more clear, but I felt compelled to put somebody in that class and I didn't see any offensive guys I was bullish about.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 10:11 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Isn't Victor Martinez in that year?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Mar 13, 2008 11:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I didn't check him
Post-age 30 catcher decline though. Unlikely to justify a $100M investment.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 11:31 AM PDT
up
0 recs
catcher is probably another position player type I'd be leery of signing to a long term deal. they wear down so fast and so few actually break into the league at the right time to be entering FA in their primes.
I suppose we'll see what Russell Martin looks like in 2013.
by rebus on
Mar 13, 2008 11:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I think Baseball Prospectus says post 27 declines for hitters though
that's the gamble with signing a guy any older than 27 or 28. You get a few years of plateau and peak and then decline. Counter that with the increasing monetary value, as most contracts are back-heavy, and you are getting increasing money for decreasing performance.
Though contract inflation may counteract my middle statement.
As discussed about 1 month ago, I would still prefer to invest more money in the draft and international scouting, then sign the best guys to 1-3 years past their end of arby date. That's 7 to 9 years of MLB experience on one team. That's significant.
by echerrst on
Mar 13, 2008 4:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yet again, Sabean sets the bar.
Zito's 127M was laughable, but of course Santana would eclipse that because he's the best pitcher in baseball.
6 years/130M will be the de facto standard for CY caliber guys going forward.
by mikev on
Mar 13, 2008 10:45 AM PDT
up
0 recs
the other point is
yes there will be plenty of $100 million + pitchers in the next 5-6 years, but the a's first $100 million dollar man will definitely be a position player.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Mar 13, 2008 11:51 AM PDT 0 recs
question?
if Ryan Howard can go to arbitration and get $10m, why didn't Prince Fielder do the same to get a significant pay raise? I know the Brewers renewed his contract at a measly $600k.
What's the deal with that?
by sf drift king on Mar 13, 2008 12:47 PM PDT 0 recs
Howard was a Super 2, thus eligible for arbitration
Fielder was not eligible for arby, therefore got what the Brewers gave him.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Mar 13, 2008 12:51 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Howard got $10 million as a Super Two?
Wow. I thought he was a third-year guy for some reason.
That's insane. Isn't the scale for Super Twos supposed to be like 20/40/60/80 percent of market value?
Ryan Howard is not worth $50 million a year.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Mar 13, 2008 2:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I guess 127 HR in 2.5 seasons = $10 million in arby
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Mar 13, 2008 2:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That was fluky though
The Phillies screwed that up a bit, IMO - and in the process, may have a created a pretty dramatic ripple effect on future arby negotiations.
The Phillies submitted a figure of $7 million and Howard's agents submitted $10 million, and once it reaches arbitration, there is no middle ground reached - someone wins and someone loses.
Had the Phils submitted $7.5-8 million, I'll bet they would've won. Instead, they went with the figure that MCab earned in his first year of arbitration, without including an inflationary bump-up.
It may have cost them a few million bucks...and helped the case of guys like Prince Fielder next year. That case was a big "ouch" for any GM/owner with an elite pre-arb player.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 13, 2008 2:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Keith Law, says that
it is actually more along the linese of 40/60/80/80; ie the player is judged according to his year of arby eligibility.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 3:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Howard is a super 2
From Cots
The top 17 percent of players with at least 2 but less than 3 years of Major League service. (See Super 2). To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. (A year of service is 172 days. The historical cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service, though the requirement has been as high as 2 years, 140 days.)
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on
Mar 13, 2008 12:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
super 2 - ok, didn't know that existed, but it's understood.
I just thot that all young players coming out of the minors were in the control of their clubs for 6 years then become unrestricted free agents, which is why the A's were able to lock up young talent on the cheap before they became UFA's.
by sf drift king on
Mar 13, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
something doesn't make sense here
looking at Cot's baseball, Fielder's ML service is: 2.068, which is less than Howards: ML service: 2.145. So unless their info is wrong, Fielder should qualify under Super 2 status - no?
by sf drift king on
Mar 13, 2008 1:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
No
Fielder would have needed 2.086 to possibly qualify for Super 2 status.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on
Mar 13, 2008 1:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You might be reading the numbers wrong. 2.068 means two years, 68 days. You will notice that nobody ever has a number higher than 171 after the "dot," because at 172 it carries over to a full year. That is, 1.171 plus one day = 2.000.
Super 2 usually kicks in around 2.130, but it varies each year. Fielder missed by almost two months.
I wrote a long piece about Super 2 effects a couple years ago over at LetsGoTribe ... if you can wade through the Indians-centric approach, I think it will help you see the significance.
by Jay on
Mar 14, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Jay!
It's a privilege to have you here. Your front-page writing on the Indians was a real education for me, especially that Super 2 colummn you referenced above.
You guys should all go check out Jay's Indians blog, letsgotribe.com. Really knowledgeable, fun group.
"I still say put Jack Cust on some roller skates, arm him with a squeeze tube of epoxy, and let him loose in CF...righteous!" -MRod
by notsellingjeans on
Mar 14, 2008 11:39 AM PDT
up
0 recs

