Figgins

by natethesnyde on Dec 3, 2009 9:53 PM PST Comment 28 comments

Why not Chone Figgins? 4/30 won't break the bank. It seems like a pretty good value for a consistent 3 win player, who was actually a 6 win player last year. We'll stick it to the Angels, and only lose a second round pick. Admittedly there is some risk signing a burner to a 4 year deal through his mid-thirties, but as a leadoff hitter who can also take a walk, he shouldn't lose all his value in the near future. I can picture him and Rajai at the top of the lineup. We have almost no payroll commitments the next few years, and we need a third baseman. Is there something I'm missing?

0 recs | Comment 28 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Chone Figgins

The Seattle Mariners are the in lead to sign Chone Figgins.

The Mariners have made progress toward a deal with free agent Chone Figgins and are clear frontrunners to sign the third baseman, multiple major league sources told FOXSports.com.

The team and Figgins’ representatives engaged in serious talks Thursday. One person briefed on the discussions said he wouldn’t be surprised if the sides agreed to a deal of at least four years over the next several days. But he cautioned that there is “nothing done” yet.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 3, 2009 9:56 PM PST reply actions

Awesome we can GET HANNAHAN BACK!!!111

by brian.only on Dec 4, 2009 6:59 PM PST up reply actions

Spending $30mill on a lead off hitter

When a middle order of potentially Cust, Hairston, and Fox drives him in. Pass. I’d take my chances with Rajai up top and spend the money on some power.

by MagicMike23 on Dec 3, 2009 10:09 PM PST reply actions

Ok, that would be great in fantasyland

But here in the real world there really isn’t a lot of great power hitters freely available, and your probably not going to find a player who’s as good as Figgins on the open market for around 7-8 million per year.

It’s fun to talk about how the A’s need to add power hitters more than lead-of hitters, but what it really comes down to is the team needs better hitters period. Beggars can’t be choosers and when a team struggles to score runs like the A’s have the last few years it’s probably not a great idea to turn your nose up at quality offensive players while waiting for the perfect fit.

by DiegoAsFan on Dec 4, 2009 2:23 AM PST up reply actions

Unlike my soon-to-be-ex-Floridian brother,

I actually like Figgins. I also lean far more in the direction of “let’s try to not suck this year even if we still won’t make the playoffs” than most of the trade-wonk participants here.

And yet, even I think signing Figgins for something like 4/$32m isn’t the right path for the A’s right now. Sure, it’s good value, but that’s a significant amount of money spent on a guy who doesn’t line up well with the A’s pace for putting together a good team.

I wouldn’t be disappointed if we did get Figgins, but I have to say I’m basically on board with the front office plan of just doing little deals around the edges and not investing much in FA’s this year.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 3, 2009 10:12 PM PST reply actions

Even with the Scutaro deal?

Not being after him, to me, is pointedly stupid considering the contract he signed. The left side of the infield might be solved by 2011, but it’s not likely.

by rebus on Dec 4, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions

The offer to Scutaro would have been good.

I have no problem with that.

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 9:10 PM PST up reply actions

We also wouldn't be stuck w/ him for 4 yrs,

Think of all the fun we’d have talking about trades in 2011.

by brian.only on Dec 4, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions

Again with Figgins, I don't see him coming to the A's unless we give him the best offer

and it seems to me that there are enough other teams who are desperate for Figgins’ services that the price could easily be driven up beyond our range.

But there’s no reason not to see what would happen.

"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau

by King Richard on Dec 3, 2009 10:28 PM PST reply actions

and of course what I mean by "the best offer"

is one of substantially greater financial value than any other.

"Life is a horizontal fall" -Jean Cocteau

by King Richard on Dec 3, 2009 10:29 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not suggesting that the a's enter a bidding war

but i’d be surprised if it came to that. Figgins has drawn very little interest for someone who is the second best position player on the market. He is extremely underrated, and given normal aging, he should still be an effective player when Carter, Wallace, Cardenas and company burst onto the scene.

by natethesnyde on Dec 3, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions

Driving up the price for other teams is a good thing...

it means they don’t end up getting steal deals that take up no payroll space…

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2009 11:43 PM PST up reply actions

Or you win the bid and get a good player...

by rebus on Dec 4, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions

DO NOT WANT

As Richard said, we’d probably have to pay through the nose to get him.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Dec 3, 2009 10:51 PM PST reply actions

I wouldn't have to pay through the nose

Dunno about you…

Apart from the “use of we” pet peeve, I think I actually have a baseball-related point here— it’s just money. The fans are clearly better off if the team doesn’t just pocket a whole bunch of cash instead of spending it on the MLB roster. And they’re way better off if the team spends money instead of talent to get players.

by PaulThomas on Dec 3, 2009 11:49 PM PST up reply actions

LOL

I agree with you about spending dough instead of talent, I just don’t think that I have the stomach to sign a speed/fielding player like Figgins for the dreaded age 35 season (which is what we’re hearing he’s being offered by others). That kinda means the A’s would have to pay him 3×11mil or 12mil to match the number Seattle is allegedly offering. Do I want to pay him 11 or 12 per (especially with our limited budget)? No.

Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-

by Daniel777 on Dec 4, 2009 12:57 AM PST up reply actions

Wow, that's an autoformat I hadn't seen before.

Put an x between two numerals and it turns it into ×.

3×3
3 × 3
3 × 3n
n3 x 3

"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan

by iglew on Dec 4, 2009 9:13 PM PST up reply actions

I'm warming up to the idea of Figgins re-signing with the Angels

Have them commit their money to a leadoff hitter instead of a guy like Holliday. Plus the Angels don’t get a pick and the A’s will get a higher pick for Duke. And it makes Wood available. How many options does Wood have left?

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Dec 3, 2009 11:33 PM PST reply actions

I think I read that Woods is out of options

But it’s not like I went back and checked the transactions history.

I guess I could do that in a bit… I’d need a donut first.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 4, 2009 7:08 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, he was optioned down each of the last three seasons

Doesn’t really matter; it looks like Figgins is going to Seattle.

This is like the worst of all possible worlds. All these good SS/3B candidates are not only NOT getting signed by Oakland, they keep going to immediate competitors who ALSO have holes, but (unlike the A’s) apparently feel like, you know, making “moves” in the offseason to “help”… my frustration is really kind of boiling over at this point.

by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2009 9:54 AM PST up reply actions

Your frustration is obvious

I’ve always liked Figgins, but he’s 32 years old and a large part of his game is dependent on his legs. Plus, he missed large chunks of time in 07 and 08 due to various injuries. These are minor red flags.

Figgins strikes me as the classic, contract-year-pseudo-bust of this offseason. He’ll be good for whoever he plays for the next few (guessing 4) years but his new team’s fans will always be looking back at 2009 as what they had hoped they were getting.

Olney reports that Beltre is asking for $10 million annual for an undisclosed number of years and DeRosa is asking for 3/27 so I doubt the A’s have intentions of pursuing a big ticket 3B.

Like it or not, the A’s have decided to give Wallace a shot to play his way off the hot corner. I know you’re pessimistic about his chances but there is a chance (maybe 1 in 3) he’ll make it.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 4, 2009 10:14 AM PST up reply actions

.

“He’ll be good for whoever he plays for the next few (guessing 4) years but his new team’s fans will always be looking back at 2009 as what they had hoped they were getting.”

Does fan opinion really mean that much?

by Graham on Dec 4, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions

C'mon

Are you going to sit there and tell me that you never once wished Beltre would hit like he did his last year as a Dodger?

Personally, I get fewer headaches when I don’t have to read post after post from people complaining about so-and-so isn’t playing up to their unrealistic expectations. Although I should have been clearer about what expectation I expect Figgins to disappoint his new team/fans with. I think he’ll miss 40+ games in two of the next four seasons. His production when he plays will be fine but the missed time will, of course, suck.

If he signs for the 4/35 I heard rumored then I don’t expect his production, even with the missed time due to injury, to drop into a negative value vs. his salary.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 4, 2009 3:42 PM PST up reply actions

There is an element of risk there

It’s not a “hahahaha even if this guy falls off a cliff he’s still worth it” goodness of the Placido Polanco contract.

But I find it pretty hard to get happy about a guy being projected to provide positive value to a division rival, regardless of how “disappointed” some of said rival’s fans are.

by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions

Well, it'd have been nice but I certainly never expected it

I know some Mariner fans did, but they’re easy to ignore/remove from LL

by Graham on Dec 7, 2009 9:11 AM PST up reply actions

I hope you use your power wisely

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Dec 7, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions

God I miss Bill Bavasi

Why couldn’t Zduriwhatever have gone to KC, with Seattle latching onto Dayton Moore instead? I hate it when the divisional rivals have more financial resources and sound management. The A’s may be in a better structural situation than Toronto is, but the AL West is shaping up to be an awfully tough competitive environment for the next few years at least.

by Faust on Dec 5, 2009 1:12 PM PST up reply actions