Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in Incentives
Hoynes is reporting that Keith Foulke passed his physical and that the Indians will sign him to a 1-year, $5 million contract with an additional $2 million in incentives. Also, there will be a mutual option for 2008. The Indians are claiming that Foulke and Borowski will compete for the closer's job in spring training, but I've got to believe that, if healthy, Foulke will be the clear favorite.
UPDATE: The AP and everyone else is reporting that the deal is done. Apparently Foulke feels very strongly about the Indians organization. I know this because his agent keeps saying it. It will be nice to hear Keith say it, or anything, for himself. Foulke gets $1 million less guaranteed, and $3 million less in incentives, than Gagne got from the Rangers. The deal also includes a mutual option for 2008, which means nothing to anyone.
Brian Sikorski has been designated for assigment to make room for Foulke on the 40-man roster. If he clears waivers, he'll be outrighted to Buffalo. [Jay]
82 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 4, 2007 9:08 AM EST reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
we're around $54M not counting Michaels and Betancourt - so say something south of $60M. Add Foulke and you approach $65-67M. This should still leave us some head-room if we need to pick up a player mid-summer.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
We should do everything we can to get rid of Byrd's contract. If Mulder or Carmona prove effective.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
So, in this day and age, we have to pay for some insurance.
That Howry deal (or even BJ Ryan) dont look so bad now...
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
But if Ryan was in the fold, we obviously would not have needed to sign Foulke or Borowski this year.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
It seems to have worked out either way to me.
With Ryan, we just add a few RP arms, develop Sipp, etc in a few years.
Without him, we sign arms, and sign more arms again next offseason since all these guys are on one year deals. The money is being spent.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Foulke, if healthy, has shown to be a top closer in a game. Maybe it is worth it to take a gamble when the only other option would have been an average closer or a rookie...
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
The mutual option is interesting, as it is for $5M plus any incentives that he earns this year, so up to $7 guaranteed. It's obviously a small raise, too small for him to accept if he pitches well and earns his $2M in bonuses this year. It seems to me that this option is built around him not being healthy all year or just being average this year, a middle ground option if you will. Maybe there's more to the option year that isn't known yet, which would make more sense.
I'm a big fan of mutual option years for one reason that may just be me imagining things - I think it can set the mindset of the player that the signing team is interested in him, and may give an advantage to the team to resign him vs. other teams which may be pursuing him. Does that make sense?
I (heart) this move, I'd say the best of ours this offseason. Mind you, I'm not an fan, like most here are, of the Kouz/Barfield trade - I think we could get bit there.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
From the Plain Dealer
by sgtschuler5986 on Jan 4, 2007 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Crap. The only reason I can think of for this is they don't like Garko's defense and want him to improve while in AAA this year. He can't be that bad when compared to Blake though, so what gives? Anybody agree with this move?
Here's the article:
http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/pdsports/index.ssf?/mtlogs/cleve_pdsports/archives/2007_01.html#221
686
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
And re: blake's defense, I'd think Blake would be one of the better defensive 1b in the AL if he were full time there, so the difference between Garko might be very pronounced if Garko hasn't made major strides. I don't know how to evaluate defense but everyone withing the organization, etc seems to think Casey is very, very good especially for an easy position.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
One odd comment, that I don't think can possibly be correct, is: "* Shapiro said the Indians payroll for 2007 has already exceeded projected revenues for the season."
The player payroll, all by itself, is higher than total projected team revenue? That can't possibly be true. What money source pays for operating costs for the stadium, non=player labor, the minor league costs, travel etc etc.?
Hoynes obviously misspoke, but I can't think what he really means to say... unless maybe it's ticket revenue or tickets plus concession revenue (in other words, some subset of the overall total geared to fan support of the team).
by MTF on Jan 4, 2007 4:57 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Really, who else is gonna drive the ball from the right side on this team? Victor? Shoppach? Barfield? Michaels? And who's gonna come up from Boofalo to fill that role? Francisco? In a late-and-close situation against LHP (and let's forget our division includes the best lefties in the game), I'd rather have Garko up than any of them. Is that worth a few dropped put-outs and some roster inflexibility? I think so.
by fleerdon on Jan 4, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by unfrozencaveman on Jan 4, 2007 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by unfrozencaveman on Jan 4, 2007 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by CaptainEasy on Jan 4, 2007 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by Jay on Jan 4, 2007 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Shoppach did too. Marte and Peralta should hit better....both have power from the right side.
I hope there's room for Garko on the roster. He'll be handy to have for PHing and for when Casey or Choo slumps.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
afh, I'm all for watching kids get better instead of senior citizens get...more senior...(if Fausto were on another team, I would trade Byrd for him). but Garko is hardly a raw rookie in the usual sense, and he showed an ability to adjust not just from game to game, but within at-bats. I hope Marte pounds the ball, but that doesn't change the fact that garko, my favorite or not (that's up in the air), is productive RIGHT NOW. Why not see if he can keep it up?
caveman, i take your point, hafner's repronkulous, but he's only one man, albeit an abnormally large one. and i think he could become even more frightening with some better protection. by which i mean lots of home runs. (i dig longballs, okay? there are times when you really can't wait to string together 5 hits.)
roy, that's an encouraging observation about barfield, especially since he runs. we'll see how he holds up against AL pitching. as for shoppach, or jhonny "pedro cerrano II" peralta...i enjoy watching them play, but i don't think either of them are legitimate middle-of-the-order threats, at least not presently. garko has demonstrated that capacity.
by fleerdon on Jan 4, 2007 9:59 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Now, it's possible he turns into some kind of monster. But it's pretty unlikely.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
As for his defense, he has made some comments himself on it acknowledging that he isn't all that good, but talking about working on it and needing more and more repetitions. Wasn't he playing winter ball solely for that purpose? By all accounts he's an intelligent guy who knows he has to work hard at it and is doing everything he can.
One other note about his defense, could part of the problem lie with who was throwing the ball to him? I hate anecdotal evidence, but while listening last season to games on the internet I swear I heard more than one comment on "nice grabs" or "nice dig" by Garko. I haven't seen him play at all, but I just can't imagine that he's the worst defensive 1B in the majors.
With all the unknown out there on him, and the fact that (I'm sure we all can agree on this one) there is no chance he'll get better playing 1B if he never actually plays the position. I feel that he's earned a chance to start this season. Worst case scenario is that you replace him after a few weeks with an option already in place (Blake). Plus, we all assume that Blake can play a decent first base because of his athleticism - but has he ever really done so? Wouldn't there be a learning curve and adjustment there as well? It's not like we'd be putting a ready-made gold glover there.
And while I agree that our offense is not the problem, if you change too many pieces around from one season to the next you are going to see changes in output. Don't forget that part of the offensive juggernaut we had last season was due to Blake playing RF and 1B being highly productive position all season long. Does Choo replace Blake's numbers in RF and does Blake replace 1B numbers? Or do you end up having a dip in numbers from two positions? Most here would acknowledge that I'm not a naysayer (typically I'm overly positive), but we have basically a rookie at 3B who hasn't shown he can hit in the majors yet (I'm sure he eventually will), a sophomore adjusting to a league change at 2B (sophomore slump - I really hope not), a bit of an unknown starting mostly in LF, and the hopes of a rebound at SS. And that doesn't even cover Choo in RF - who has never started daily in the ML. Doesn't putting a guy out there who has shown he can hit and offer some protection to the lineup take pressure off the rest of the offense?
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
There are some very good arguments to keep Garko in the lineup and you seem enthusiastic enough about him to make them. But power from the RH side is not one of them, unless you really think those 50 games in Cleveland, as a 25 year old, represented some radical change in who Garko is as a player.
As somebody alraedy said, you're probably as likely to get 20 homeruns out of Barfield as you are out of Garko. As with Marte, age is the significant factor here.
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
That stuff bothers me, too -- but why should everyone get so googly-eyed over an 829 OPS over 50 games? Choo had an 846 OPS -- and plays defense!
I keep coming back to this: Garko has about 1000 plate appearances in Buffalo, and there is no way to slice up the numbers to come to the conclusion that he's going to be a great hitter in the majors. Now granted, that's just the numbers, it's not the scouting. But how much are you willing to both ignore the numbers and replace the Indians' scouts' judgment with your own?
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
I am neither ignoring the numbers nor disregarding the scouting reports. I'm just puzzled at the subtle undercurrent that seems to want Garko gone. For the reasons you and afh mention, he's probably not terribly valuable in trade, and he's cheap, and he's hardworking. And more than anything, I'm uninspired by the names underneath his on the depth chart.
by fleerdon on Jan 6, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
I don't want to see Garko gone. But I do see the argument that says that giving him playing time isn't an imperative, either.
by Jay on Jan 6, 2007 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
Garko won't get any better sitting on the bench!
No offense, but Garko won't get any better at 1B if he sits on the bench; plus, how much better will he get at Buffalo? I'm not sure playing at Buffalo will help his confidence offensively or defensively.
Like I've said before, Thome wasn't very good when he moved to 1B in 1997, yet he made himself into a capable 1B. Who's to say that Garko couldn't improve himself, enough to be a solid, competent 1B? After all, 1B is considered to be one of the easiest defensive positions on the field (compared to the MI or to 3B.)
Plus, I didn't see where Garko was THAT bad over at 1B. He might not have made every play that a Gold-Glover would have made, but he hardly embarrassed himself over there in my opinion either.
Plus, Blake doesn't have much experience over there - just because he's good in the OF doesn't mean he's going to be stellar or Gold-Glove caliber over at 1B either. And like I've said before, how many teams have a Gold-Glove 1B? For every St. Louis with an Albert Pujols, there is a Chicago White Sox with Paul Konerko who wins a WS - having an above-average or Gold-Glove caliber 1B is not essential in my opinion to winning a WS. I'd be more worried about Jhonny Peralta's defense at SS than I would over who is playing 1B.
Plus, who would you rather have long-term - Garko or Blake? I think it's reasonable to assume that Blake's bat won't get any better, while Garko's has a realistic chance of improving. Plus, Blake will be 34 in 2007, so his defensive skills and range aren't likely to get any better, and it's possible they could even decline. Plus, Blake isn't a long-term answer - I doubt he'll be here beyond his current contract, especially with all the notable OF prospects we have coming through the system. If Blake is still here past 2008, it most likely would be as a back-up/super utility guy, which isn't bad, but not quite a critical piece to future Indians' teams either at this point.
In other words, it's not a slam-dunk in my opinion that Garko should be relegated to the bench or AAA Buffalo in favor of Blake, especially after what he did the last two months of 2006. It may be a small sample size, but doesn't that at least warrant a chance at a starting job? I mean, what does he have to do, play Gold-Glove defense at 1B - how many 1B do that in this league today?
Re: Garko won't get any better sitting on the benc
in this off-season has helped and he is our 1st baseman.
Re: Garko
Is he going to be Doug Mientkiewicz? Mark Teixeira? Albert Pujols? No. But neither will Blake/Luna/Martinez or whoever else slides into first.
I would say, he'll be about average. But for a 1B, I think anything short of "absolutely awful" isn't going to lose any games.
So what the organization needs to ask themselves is: What is our best option overall?
I am thinking they are suggesting that Choo's offense will be better then Garko's - I'm not sure I would agree.
by Brandini on Jan 5, 2007 8:47 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Garko
I am thinking they are suggesting that Choo's offense will be better then Garko's - I'm not sure I would agree.
What they are actually guessing is that their best option is:
- Choo-RF + Blake-1B defense rather than Blake + Garko ... and
- Choo + Blake offense vs. RHP rather than Blake + Garko or Choo + Garko
Here's what gets lost in these discussions: Choo is every bit as good of an overall prospect as Garko and probably better.
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
by Jay on Jan 5, 2007 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
by Jay on Jan 5, 2007 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
Re: Garko
by Brandini on Jan 5, 2007 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Garko
WHO DEY...
Gonna arrest next?
Re: Garko
Is there an increse in chances to 1B with a righty on the mound? Westbrook is a ground ball pitcher, etc.
Re: Garko
As you know:
Choo is the toolsy type that scouts and experts love. He has that awesome OBP to go along with it.
Garko is the prototypical player that has to be that much better then the "toolsy" player just to get a shot (this is outlined in the "Does Size Matter" column over at THT).
For a team like Cleveland that more or less REFUSES to run, much of Choo's "toolsy-ness" is eliminated and his advantage over Garko is defensively.
However, what I was stating is that the minor upgrade of Blake over Garko at 1B and Choo over Blake at RF is not very significant. That is why I concluded that the FO must have higher expectations offensively for Choo.
I do not see Garko as having ANY shot at making the team if he isn't going to make it as a full timer, that would force too many platoons and would contradict any rational behind signing Perez last season.
by Brandini on Jan 5, 2007 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Garko
When a player is described as "toolsy," it means he has all-around athletic ability and exhibits raw talent in most if not all of the traditional "five tools" (catcthing, throwing, running, hitting and power-hitting). I'm not sure how you're using it, as you seem to be saying something different.
I don't think the two-position defensive upgrade is entirely marginal, but it would be foolish not to expect Choo to outhit Garko against RHP. You could argue that Garko and Blake are a wash against RHP, but Blake clearly has the edge on defense in that case.
Given the talent we have, I think it's pretty obvious that they're starting in the right place. The real question is, if you believe strongly in Garko's talent, who should get traded?
by Jay on Jan 5, 2007 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
Garko
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 4, 2007 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
Good point about the option, but...
still, I'm not sure it will help Garko long-term, and arguably, Garko is probably more valuable to us long-term than Blake is, both because he is likelier to improve than Blake will, not to mention the fact that he is cheaper and we have very few 1B alternatives in the system at this point - outside of Head, who needs to bounce back from a mediocre to poor 2006 season - Garko might be the best option we have long-term at 1B. Blake turning 34 this year isn't going to help us long-term at 1B in my opinion, and the chances of us picking up a quality 1B in FA are slim; unless we trade for someone like a Kotchman or a Morales, I don't see who is going to play 1B for us long-term unless Head really turns it around in 2007.
Re: Good point about the option, but...
Re: Good point about the option, but...
by mkwng @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 4, 2007 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Good point about the option, but...
Re: Good point about the option, but...
(1) Choo struggles/gets injured (Blake to RF)
(2) Marte struggles/gets injured (Blake to 3B)
(3) Blake struggles/gets injured (Garko to 1B)
(4) Dellucci gets injured (Blake to LF)
Besides, as you mentioned, there aren't that many other (natural) first basemen in the high minors.
Re: Good point about the option, but...
Blake's versatility is what should allow Garko to start the season in Cleveland, not Buffalo.
by The DiaTriber on Jan 6, 2007 3:17 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Good point about the option, but...
However, when it comes to (4), wouldn't it seem more likely that Choo would move to left and Blake would stay in RF; still more playing time for Garko but a little different twist.
Of course the other possibility for (4) is that Michaels gains more playing time (gasp!) or one of our other million OFs gets a shot, such as Gut coming up from Buffalo.
by kov on Jan 8, 2007 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by Jay on Jan 4, 2007 4:48 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
Re: Foulke to Sign for $5 Million, $2 Million in I
by Brandini on Jan 5, 2007 8:48 AM EST up reply actions

by 














