Thoughts on Mark Ellis and Jack Cust

beyond what they say in interviews. However, I’m not sure that Ellis would have “playing closer to his South Dakota roots” (where? Colorado? Kansas City? Minnesota? St. Louis?) as a major factor, given that he now lives in Arizona.

I believe he is sincere about wishing to remain with the A’s. That said, I imagine that money, years on the contract, and a chance to play in the postseason would all be priorities for him.

Except I’m fine with picking up Ellis option or restructuring the deal in some way. Point is that I want him as my 2Bman next year, not Rosales.

The thought of Ellis qualifying for type A status didn’t even cross my mind. Great post, NSJ. Wow. I’m kinda stunned.

For all the grumbling about how long the playoffs take to complete, they could probably start them a day sooner. I was ready to turn on the TV tonight and see some playoff baseball. Instead I’m losing (as usual) at Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune against my wife.

i personaly would like to see ellis return next year,maybe for a bit less than his option states like 4-5 mill,if he can revert to his old self wich he seamed to at the end of this season he could return to a .270avg/12 hr/65-70 rbi guy wich would be great for the team,personally im done with cust.I like how you mention a TRUE DH well the A’s need a TRUE DH,25-35hrs not 13 from cust,he had some bright spots this season but not enough to over shadow his unability to hit in the clutch,and be a true 4th place hitter.The A’s have plenty of cash that that they can afford a good power hitter to fill the DH spot and fill an outfield spot with a Type-A free agent.(WERTH)

Seems entirely reasonable.

I also agree that Ellis seems quite sincere about wanting to stay.

Especially the discussion of the market for Cust.

Very well done.

Good read.

Although I don’t know how much affect it’s going to have, with the way type A FA classifications have hurt players’ values on the open market the last couple off-seasons I have to think that if the A’s offered Ellis arbitration he would take it. I think the decision still comes down to accepting the option or non-tendering him and either letting him go or trying to re-sign him on a cheaper deal.

I’m hiring you.

Great, great stuff NSJ.

before technical decisions are made (like the A’s declining the option, or Ellis requesting/declining arbitration). The A’s won’t decline the option and then talk to Ellis about a $4M deal, or a 2 year / $7M deal in January if he hasn’t signed elsewhere, etc. — they’ll decline the option knowing how they’ve both agreed for it to play out.

Also, regarding both Ellis and Cust it’s worth noting that the A’s almost never go to arbitration with a player. They’ve been really consistent about avoiding hearings, so I’d expect them to do that with either player if arbitration becomes a possibility.

If the A’s exercise an option on a Type A, then they lose picks?

And, if they let him go, decline arbitration, but sign him later, do they again lose picks?

If they let the option go but sign a deal (either in arbitration or on the side), do they lose picks?

or basically anyone who’s not a perennial all-star. I don’t mind if they offer him arbitration, and also don’t mind if they get cheap with him. But I don’t want Orlando Hudson or someone instead of him.

I was hoping to find a Type A who had barely qualified and looked like an attractive addition for the A’s.

Here’s my logic: The truly elite FAs will be pursued by tons of teams – they are good enough that most teams wouldn’t balk at signing them just because they lose their first- or second-round draft pick.

But a guy like Orlando Hudson last year, or Valverde last year – that’s a niche window to sign a free agent for a bargain price. A free agent player who:

1.) qualifies as a Type A,
2.) gets offered arbitration and declines,
3.) finds out the hard way that he’s not truly an elite player, and that teams aren’t willing to give up their top draft pick to sign him.

Those guys end up being good bargains. Valverde was a good bargain for the Tigers (although I personally don’t agree with them giving up the No. 17 overall pick to sign him, but that’s beside the point). Hudson was a good signing for the Twins.

That logic is what brought me to bringing up Victor Martinez and Adam Dunn in a thread the other day. They are good offensive players, but they have perhaps just enough warts to have their value suppressed if they were to reach Type A status in free agency (therefore costing the signing team a pick).

But unfortunately, Dunn and V-Mart are not good fits with the A’s, as many people noted in that thread when I brought it up.

(Incidentally, the latest rankings compute Dunn as a Type B, rendering that argument moot).

But the larger point stands:

An unheralded Type A free agent that declines an arbitration offer potentially offers the best bargain on the market, especially if he is signed by a team that has the last protected first round pick, which the A’s do.

Unfortunately, there’s not a Type A free agent hitter that will be offered arbitration who is a good fit on the A’s. Then you look at the pitchers:

1.) Jorge De La Rosa jumps out, because he’s 29 years old, has one of the top 5 groundball rates in the league among SPs, and has a good strikeout rate. He also scares the crap out of me, because he walks more people than a grade-school crossing guard. But that logic applies to all teams signing him, so he qualifies as a “warts” guy, and perhaps his value will be significantly depressed by virtue of him reaching Type A status. If we strike out on Jarl Crawerth, I have no qualms about signing JDLR to a value/bargain 3 year deal for $18-21M (I think he can beat this offer; I’m also not willing to “overpay” to sign him, the way I am for Crawford). Signing JDLR frees the team up to trade an SP for a bat, and it potentially yields two great draft picks down the road – a three-year deal puts JDLR back on the FA market as a Type A Free Agent at age 32, with good stats inflated by pitching in Oakland. The team could safely offer him arb and expect that he’d command a multi-year deal.

2.) Next you look at (gulp) Type A relievers. Sounds crazy, I know. The A’s are Reliever Factory already, and reliever performance is notoriously volatile and injury-prone. But there are at least 5 good Type A free-agent middle relievers who will offered arbitration. Perhaps a few of them will simply accept the offer, wisely recognizing that Type A status will depress their value and that Justin Speier 4 year/$18M deals don’t get handed out willy-nilly for middle relievers anymore. My hunch is that a few of those Type A middle relievers decline and make it to the open market. But those guys aren’t sexy additions, and they’re barely even fun to talk about.

So, in conclusion: Even though I would like for the A’s (on philosophical principle) to use this opportunity of having a protected first-round draft pick to pursue an unheralded Type A draft pick whose value is depressed because of the compensation status attached to him, unfortunately, there isn’t really a good fit for their team on the FA market that fits that extremely narrow description.*

*Unless you count JDLR as a good fit. And like I said, the walks are scary.

If anybody is interested in doing an analytical, sabermetric piece on a player, similar to the way Jack Cust and Trevor Cahill have been extremely closely scrutinized here, Jorge De La Rosa would be a great candidate to get that type of treatment. The community would learn a lot about him, and he’s a potential target for the A’s, I’d imagine.

I like the basis idea there, but I hate how you present it.

In your scenario, Mark has a choice: he can either say yes or no to the offer you describe. If he says no, then it goes to arbitration and he’s signed for a year at whatever the arbiters decide on. If he says yes, then he can check out the free market, at which point he has another choice: he can either take another offer, in which case the A’s get the picks, or he can say no to everyone else and go with the A’s two-year offer.

There is some disagreement in the thread over exactly how much Mark would end up with in arbitration, but it seems to me it won’t be a whole lot different from the $6m we’d pay by just taking his option. Therefore, your offer amounts to a three-way choice for Ellis where he can select his preference among 1 yr for $~6m, 2 yrs for $8-9m, or decline arbitration and take an offer from someone else.

Since it amounts to Ellis’s choice anyway, why do you have to make it sound so negative? The way you’ve worded it, you tell him twice that we don’t want him, first when you say “we are unwilling to make a multi-year commitment” and second when you say “we would prefer you not accept”. Furthermore, if his choice is the one year for ~$6m, you set it up so that we get there through the unpleasant means of arbitration instead of just picking up the option.

Why not instead say, “Mark, we like you and we want to pick up your option for $6m. If you prefer a longer contract, we’d also be happy to sign your for two years for $8-9m. However, we also understand that you might want to try your luck in the market looking for a better contract elsewhere. If that’s your choice, we respect that and will give you the opportunity but only on the condition that you agree to decline arbitration when we offer it.”

It amounts to the exact same thing, but it’s much more pleasant. Sure, I realize the negotiations will be done through an agent and the agent is going to see through all the sentiment and focus on the basic facts. Even so, what is the point of taking such an adversarial tone? As far as I can tell, it gains you absolutely nothing except to possibly piss the guy off and/or make him feel unwanted if he does end up taking one of the Oakland offers.

1) Automatic free agency for eligible players, without the need for election;
2) A five-day period at the end of the World Series (shortened from 15) during which only the free agent’s original team may sign him to a new contract;
3) Earlier deadlines for the original teams to offer, and for the players to accept, salary arbitration under the rules of the Basic Agreement;
4) An earlier date for clubs to make tender and non-tender decisions;
5) Stricter rules for all parties (the MLBPA, MLB, clubs, players and agents) to guard against collusion in the free-agent process;
6) Restrictions on the abilities of the clubs, players and agents to conduct their free-agent negotiations through use of the media.

I need some time to chew on the idea of a 2 year deal with Ellis.

Cust, however, is a different matter. He’s cheap and coming off a seemingly good bounce back year. So it makes almost too much sense to bring him back…

Except his 2010 numbers were fueled by a BABIP 50 points higher than his career average and his ISO dropped for the 4th straight year to .166. If the A’s sign Cust for $4 million in 2011 they are almost certain not to pursue another option at DH. If his BABIP returns to his career norm of .338 (or under, like it did in 2008 and 2009) than with the associated loss in power Cust will cost the A’s in 2011. Not so much in wasted money, but in a lost opportunity to upgrade a purely offensive position in a line-up that has a lot of good gloves but admittedly needs to score more runs.