Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: The Michigan Fan's Guide to Beating Ohio State Bar-right-arrows

Alleged Pronk contract offer

Tiny by rog on

Jim Ingraham at the News-Herald had a little blurb about what he reckons ails Travis Hafner.

He sites the offer Pronk turned down saying:

According to one source, the deal Hafner turned down from the Indians was for five years and $70 million. Another source said that's a little high, that the offer was actually one year and $10 million less than that.

Does the vacuum-like sound of money being sucked from Travis's theoretical future wallet during his (at this time) mediocre season drown out the inner-batting dialog that led to his previous success?  Or will Travis mash for the rest of the season and quickly make 5/70 or 4/60 look like chump change reserved for the likes of chumps and Trot Nixon?  Well, maybe not Pie Man, but you get the idea.

0 recs | Comment 107 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
AS lot of people have said it before but I'll say it again:

Offer him again, right now. Same dollars, same years.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 11:40 AM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I agree. I'm sure if we actually try during the All Star Break to sign him to an extention we can get him signed.

by world dictator on Jun 26, 2007 11:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I'd still rather throw that money, and the money used for Jake Westbrook on CC.

I'm sure that Shapiro understand that CC will likely no matter what, go elsewhere.

by Clay028 on Jun 26, 2007 12:08 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I'm in the minority here.  $70M for five is just too much - especially the way he looks now - like Mo Vaughn redux.  

One more time: we're a middle market team slowly morphing into a small market club.  We should be use the Twins model - not the Orioles one.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 26, 2007 1:11 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Actually $14 or 15M/season will be peanuts at the end of the contract, so I think it would be a fair deal. But it isn't my money to throw around either.

by talonk on Jun 26, 2007 1:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Going through a slump doesnt change his career statistics or value

by world dictator on Jun 26, 2007 1:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I hope it is a slump.  But if this keeps up, and despite last night's HR I don't see any signs of it abating, his value will continue to decline.  I bet there's not a GM out there who would trade for Pronk right now, since nobody knows what the hell is wrong with him.
Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 26, 2007 1:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Actually, there isn't a GM in the world that wouldn't trade for him right now. You don't lose faith on one of the best hitters in baseball the last two years because of 3 months.

by Joe. on Jun 26, 2007 1:36 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Alright, both of you should back away from the hyperbole ledge. Teams would/wouldn't make the trade depending on an incredible number of factors including current DH/current DH's ability to play first and ummm, everything else involved in the trade.

Sheesh.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 1:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Oh yeah, shoulda added - would you trade for Adrew Jones now?  He's got pretty good stats too.
Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 26, 2007 1:23 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
No comparison there. First, Andruw's slump is FAR worse than Hafner's and second, he was never the hitter Pronk was these last two years.

by Joe. on Jun 26, 2007 1:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Alright, I'll play a little.

Jones just turned 30 and plays a premium defensive position. A lot of his value is tied up in his ability to play CF, or at least OF. His 2006 was probably out of line but this is a guy who, when "right" (which he isn't right now) creates somewhere between 10-18 win shares with his bat and another 5 or so with his glove.

Hafner just turned 30 and is a guy who creates 20-25 win shares when right, all with his bat. I think the implication is pretty clear-Jones is going to lose value as his defense declines furhter. Hafner just has to get his bat right and his value is back.

Hafner's 04, 05, and 06 seasons are all better than any season Vaughn ever put up. Vaughn signed a 6 year $88 million dollar deal after his age 30 season. That's more expensive than the proposed Hafner deal, in total dollars, per year dollars, and years. And that's in 1998.

With both Vaughn and Jones, if I was more speculative, I might make an argument about baseball years vs. regular years. Hafner has played about half as long in the majors as either Mo or Andruw and one might think that's a good thing. This argument is made with the NBA and players who enter as teenagers-they age faster. I doubt it's a very good argument as it relates to baseball, but throwing it out there.

There's no more reason to think Hafner's going to age like Vaughn than there is to think Hafner is going age like Edgar Martinez. Vaughn had a number of weird injuries that drove him from his peak.

I don't know how Travis is going to age but I think it's an ok gamble to get him on the (relative) cheap and see if you end up with a bargain. I mean if you could get him as low as 4 years/60 would you do it? That's the other total speculated in the article, right?

It's like anything else: you can take the chance now with the bigger risk or you can wait and maybe miss out on a bargain or miss out on misspending a whole lot of money.

And just as a point of information, would we be buying out his option year (2008 at 4.75 million) and doing the additional years after that or is it adding the length of the contract after the option year?

That team option is F'ing brilliant by the way. Go Shap, go.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 1:42 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
i gotta admit i'm a little scared by $15M/season, too.

by nctribefan on Jun 26, 2007 1:26 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
All of this is shades of Nomar Garciaparra, who turned down a four-year, $60 million extension from the Red Sox and has ended up making about half that much.

$15M x 4 seems a little high for the Indians, two years out, but I'd believe a fifth year option could take it to $70 million.

by Jay on Jun 26, 2007 1:51 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
OK, let me be a little clearer.  $15M per year is just too much for Cleveland to pay for any player.  Period.  I don't care if it's Babe Ruth hitting and pitching.  OK, that's a little much - if he's was hitting and pitching maybe then.  But I was against signing Manny for similar money and in retrospect, even knowing how well he's performed, I still wouldn't do it.

This kind of money distorts the entire club payroll structure and cripple's a GM.  And the unknowns are scary.  Despite how he looks - you know like a indestructable version of Sherk - Pronk's had his injury history.  The elbow - the wrist - stuff that really does impact a hitter.

And I only mention Jones/Vaughn as examples of what can go wrong and where the risk is.  There's plenty of others near and dear to Tribe fans hearts - Baerga, Tony Horton, the wheels coming off Belle rather quickly.  

We're gonna have $65-80M to work with over the next 2-3 years.  You gotta be very careful how you husband it.  We seem to be doing alright with a league average DH now, maybe we'd be doing alright with another league average DH and paying league average DH money.  

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 26, 2007 2:08 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Baseball is a pay to play league.I agree you dont just toss out a giant check to anyone because you have a hole in your lineup/rotation but I think 15 mil for a player that is very special, hafner and cc, is worth the risk. I play to win the series and that means sometimes you have to take a chance.

by world dictator on Jun 26, 2007 7:07 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
This whole situation fascinates me to the point of fanboy anticipation over what will transpire.  As a fan of the Cleveland Indians, I'm terrified.  As a fan of baseball and the business behind it, I believe a book could be written about the decision Shapiro has to make.  I've gone back and forth and back again between the three possible outcomes:  We sign Hafner, we sign CC, we sign neither.  Then of course there's the question of what we do with the player we don't sign ... Anyway, we've delved into all those topics over and over again.  I really can't wait to see what happens.

Boy ... if we thought letting Brandon Phillips go was a big deal, imagine what this board will look like in three years if Hafner hits his 50th HR in pinstripes, or CC hoists the Cy Young for Seattle.  

by nickjs21 on Jun 26, 2007 2:20 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Your last sentence made me throw up in mouth like six times.  Otherwise, I agree it will be interesting.  For what it's worth, I think we end up re-signing neither and trading neither.  To give E5ini as much as possible to complain about.

by NickFantana on Jun 26, 2007 3:28 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Thought you were channeling Tarzan there for a minute.
Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 26, 2007 3:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
It's difficult to speak when you've just vomited.  

by nickjs21 on Jun 26, 2007 3:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
On topic - I agree they're both gone in their walk years.  There's no way in hell we can out bid the Yankees/BoSox/Cubs of this world.  And like I keep sayin' - it's all about the Benjarmins.
Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 26, 2007 3:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I've said it before, but the most reassuring constant in a situation like this is Shapiro.  Judging by the opinions on this site, neither decision is going to be welcomed with open arms, but I have faith that he will make the RIGHT decision (i.e. one that won't cripple the team long-term, like mauichuck said).  Whatever happens, it will be hard to justify letting X player go; I've seen solid arguments made for both scenarios here.  

As of now, I agree that Shap should be aggressive in his dealings with Hafner during the All-Star break, but it would be kind of awkward to agree to a contract in principle and have the team wait-and-see as to how he finishes the season.  If the team isn't scared away by this season's slump (betting it's temporary here), then they should go ahead with the original plan and get him signed during the break.  Assuming the FO and its scouts know something we don't (pretty safe assumption, I think) and something serious HAS developed with Hafner, they should stay away until seasons' end.  

Pretty messy situation, if you ask me.

by Pronk33 on Jun 26, 2007 3:42 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I think it might be easier, to let Hafner walk, if there was anybody in the minor league system who projects to be a "plus" DH or 1B, within a year or two.  If that person exists, I don't know who it is.

Shapiro has few options, Borris knows it, and Shapiro knows that Borris knows it.  Tough spot for Shapiro.

by CaptainEasy on Jun 26, 2007 8:05 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Are you talking about Scott Boras? He's not an evil Russian.

And anways, I don't think Hafner is a Boras client.

If Hafner's agent is some other guy named Borris, apologies.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 8:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Natasha!  Must get Moose and Squirrel for Fearless Leader!  Sign big contract to hit ball!
Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jun 26, 2007 8:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I was thinking that Pronk's agent was Jeff Borris (who is Barry Bonds' agent).  talonk has disabused me of that notion.  Mea culpa.

Replace "Borris" with "Brian Peters and Scott Parker".

by CaptainEasy on Jun 27, 2007 6:07 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
That's the enigma, I suppose.  We have more high-ceiling starters in the minors right now than we do high-ceiling power bats, but at the same time CC would arguably be more valuable at the end of a new contract than Hafner would be.  That's the problem for me, anyway.  

All this talk about possible trades to shore up the bullpen and corner OF spots ... I wouldn't be surprised if Shapiro worked in another team's minor-league upside power hitting prospect to trade talks.  Because to me it's just as much a need as the other two.

by nickjs21 on Jun 26, 2007 8:18 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Pronk's agents are Brian Peters and Scott Parker.

by talonk on Jun 27, 2007 12:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Woodsmeister I love it!!!
Natasha! Must get Moose and Squirrel for Fearless Leader! Sign big contract to hit ball!

by crackaddictwhit on Jun 26, 2007 9:43 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
People that think 15 million is too much for Hafner: what do you want to do then? Let both Hafner and CC walk?

by Joe. on Jun 26, 2007 11:06 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
It's certainly an option.  You get extra first round draft picks and save a TON of money with no risk of a bad contract tying your hands in the future because of injury or lost effectiveness.  The A's have been doing it for years.

It's not necessarily what I'm advocating, but you almost sounded as if it wasn't an option, when it certainly is.

by nickjs21 on Jun 26, 2007 11:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
They let Tejada and Zito walk. Mulder and Hudson they traded and actually improved the team.

Of all those, only Tejada really hurt them.

the A's never have had a player the aulity of CC or Hafner. Losing a top 5 hitter in MLB and a top 5 pitcher in MLB would be nothing short of devastating.

by Joe. on Jun 26, 2007 11:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
What's he exaggerating? That CC and Pronk are top 5? Or that it would be devastating?
"The hibachi is coming to a city near you. I'm cooking chicken and shrimp, but if you want to throw a double team my way, filet mignon gets cooked too"

by Rayman on Jun 26, 2007 11:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
The whole thing. Hafner isn't close to a top 5 hitter in the majors right now, and CC is a push. That's not a knock on either of them-top f'ing 5 in the entire majors is a ridiculous statement about nearly any player.

This is not even at the end of this year we're talking about, people. It's the end of next year. A lot of things can happen: injury, this continued Hafner nonsense, etc etc.

Any mention of their loss being "devestating" at this point is just absurd. For all we know Adam Miller will be lights out in 2008. Or Grady will take another big step forward. Or we could trade both of them for huge hauls. Or we could sign some big ticket FA.  Or ANYTHING else. It's 2009 we're talking about.

Sheesh.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 11:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
How is Sabathia not a top 5 pitcher right now? I'd take Peavy, Santana, and Lackey over him That's it.

And Pronk being top 5? I was being generous. Last year, Rob Neyer decalred him as the best hitter in baseball and if that doesn't sit well with you, he's at least number 2 behind Pujols. And 3 months changes nothing.

I'm not saying we'll be the Royals if we lose them both, but I don't see us being within 10 wins of the previous year.

by Joe. on Jun 27, 2007 12:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
It's ridiculous hyperbole. Just admit it. It's too far away to say anything like "we won't be withing ten games." What if we have another year like 2006 next year?

And why does "right now" matter? I shouldn't have used the phrase but your implication is that we would be losing top-5ers at both when they leave; that is at the end of the 2008 season.

I don't care about arguing whether Sabathia is or isn't top 5. The point is he's not automatically so. Just off the top of my head, guys who could very well be better than CC by the time his contract is over and/or who are possibly better than him now: Verlander, Haren, Chris Young, Ian Snell, Chris Young, Matt Cain, Beckett, Matsuzaka, Hamels, Lincecum, etc etc etc. You're trying to project that CC is a top 5 pitcher when he walks. That's impossible to do, especially considering he's not even a lock right now.

Similarly with Hafner, guys better now or when he would walk: A-Rod, Prince Fielder, Miguel Cabrera, Pujols, Ryan Howard, either of the Uptons, Ortiz, Sizemore, David Wright, Vic. And a number of guys not in the majors. And just because you declare that three months doesn't change anything doesn't mean it's biblical fact. Who knows what it means? Who knows what his yet to happen 2008 means?

You're trying to make sweeping statements about something that is over a season and a half away. This is what a lot of White Sox fans did after 2005.

Things change so, so fast in baseball.  

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2007 12:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I don't see how you can think half those guys are projecting to be better hitters than Hafner in just a year. I'm solely talking about hitting: nothing to do with their positional value.

Of those guys you mentioned for pitchers, almost all of them do have a chance to be better than CC (except Chris Young, he blows). But projecting CC to be top 5 is a pretty safe bet in my opinion. His walk rates have gone down every year and strikeout rates have gone up every year. At this pace, he's going to have Paul Byrd like walk rates and Santana like K rates in 2008 (note: that was hyperbole :) ).

by Joe. on Jun 27, 2007 12:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
The point is that projecting any of those guys is the same fool's errand as projecting Hafner/Sabathia. It's pretty much impossible to do so.

And with regards to the hitters, nearly all of those guys are better hitters than Hafner right now. There's no law written that says he has to start OPSing over 1.000 again. Do I want that? Yeah. Does it make any more sense to project it for Hafner than to project it for someone like Cabrera or Wright, who's way younger? No.

And that's not even the big picture. The big picture is you made these projections, then compounded them into saying they would be "devestating." C'mon dude. We add up a bunch of contingencies (Hafner/CC continue to be great/healthy), ignore a bunch others (Adam Miller, other players developing, free agency, possibility of a traed), and then come with a statement of their effect? Really?

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2007 12:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
I guess we'll see. Even if they aren't top 5 in 08 (which I think they will), the fact that at one point they both were still makes them huge losses. But hopefully we'll at least resign one.

by Joe. on Jun 27, 2007 12:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Well if Verlander's in there you gotta include Bonderman.

And right now Hafner's not even the best hitter on his own team.  What about Vic and Jhonny?

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 27, 2007 7:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to be rude but seriously dude...
Afh4

You normally make pretty intelligent comments but your argument 1. makes no sense and has no basis and 2. is trying to disprove a highly subjective analysis.

First problem is that you're trying to operate in both worlds. You say that Hafner is not a top 5 hitter in baseball because he is going through a slump right now but then you say CC isn't one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball because he might not be when  we sign him next year. You can't twist the time frame of the debate in order to make your argument more convient.

Next, your arguments are all "maybe's" and "what if's". I agree that a players stock changes from year to year but I fail to see how your argument is unique to ANY multi year contract ever signed. You never know for sure where a player is going to be value wise in any year of his contract.

Futhermore the players that you listed above COULD be better than CC or Hafner next year but I could say that Hafner might be the best hitter in baseball next year and/or CC might be the best pitcher in baseball next year. The speculation game swings both ways. Although the obvious rebuttal to your argument is that we DO have a chance to resign CC and Hafner and we DON'T have a chance to acquire any of those other players.

And really, "You can't say losing Hafner/CC would be devastating because they might lose it or not stay healthy". Thats shitty logic. Minus some signficant reason like age/injury history, you always assume that a player is going to stay within his normal range of output for the year. I defy you to find a sports executive who would say losing their best hitter and best pitcher is not a signficant loss.

Also, labeling anything "the best" is highly subjective. You could ask 5 different managers/GM;s/Scouts and get 5 different answers of who is among the top 5 hitters/pitchers in baseball. But I think the fact that you can find multiple people in baseball that would probably list them in the top 5 proves that is more than just hyperbole.

Finally, your argument that we shouldn't speculate because baseball changes so fast is interesting considering that 1. This is a sports blog and 2 All we do on here is speculate.

by world dictator on Jun 27, 2007 7:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Not to be rude but seriously dude...
Well first, it almost seems like you're agreeing with Andrew by saying it's all subjective and that everyone has different ideas of who the top 5 hitters/pitchers are.

I defy you to find a sports executive who would say losing their best hitter and best pitcher is not a signficant loss.

Billy Beane!  Thank you!  We've been over this.  Billy Beane lost TWO AL MVPs in Giambi and Tejada.  He won 103 games the year after Giambi left.  Not devastating.  After Tejada they won 91, 5 less wins from the year before.  The Mariners lost A-Rod and won 116 games.  Not devastating.  I'm not saying it's because they lost their superstars, but they certainly didn't suck in a devastating matter.  Not even in a significant matter.

I'm not for letting them both walk.  I don't know what I'm for right now.  But some of you seem to believe that were we to lose Hafner and CC, we would be left with a four-man rotation and the pitcher would hit because we'd no longer have a DH.  Losing Hafner and CC would clear up A LOT of money to make some moves.  Pieces would be replaced.  Giambi, at his peak, could not be replaced (they got Hatteberg), and neither could Tejada (Crosby) or A-Rod (a younger Carlos Guillen).  But they improved other parts of their team with the money they had left over.

by nickjs21 on Jun 27, 2007 10:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Not to be rude but seriously dude...
Well first, it almost seems like you're agreeing with Andrew by saying it's all subjective and that everyone has different ideas of who the top 5 hitters/pitchers are.

I defy you to find a sports executive who would say losing their best hitter and best pitcher is not a signficant loss.

Billy Beane!  Thank you!  We've been over this.  Billy Beane lost TWO AL MVPs in Giambi and Tejada.  He won 103 games the year after Giambi left.  Not devastating.  After Tejada they won 91, 5 less wins from the year before.  The Mariners lost A-Rod and won 116 games.  Not devastating.  I'm not saying it's because they lost their superstars, but they certainly didn't suck in a devastating matter.  Not even in a significant matter.

A devastating loss does not mean you fold up shop and give up. Bill Beane did his job ,which was to make sure his team wins games. However, its signficantly harder to do your job when your star players are gone. If CC got injured tomorrow knock on wood it would be a devastating loss. It does not mean that we are doomed to fail. No one is saying abandon all hope but people are logically saying that if we lose our Ace and a very very good hitter it's kind of a big deal.

I'm not for letting them both walk.  I don't know what I'm for right now.  But some of you seem to believe that were we to lose Hafner and CC, we would be left with a four-man rotation and the pitcher would hit because we'd no longer have a DH.  Losing Hafner and CC would clear up A LOT of money to make some moves.  Pieces would be replaced.  Giambi, at his peak, could not be replaced (they got Hatteberg), and neither could Tejada (Crosby) or A-Rod (a younger Carlos Guillen).  But they improved other parts of their team with the money they had left over.

No one is saying anything near that drastic. Of course you always have to ask yourself if the players are worth signing. Thats discussion we're engaging in now. If you advocate letting them go then just say so and make a case for that. (Not trying to pidgeonhole you I'm just saying.)

by world dictator on Jun 27, 2007 2:32 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Not to be rude but seriously dude...
As this nonsense so often does, this is about semantics.

It's really the fact that "devastating" is being dull down to "not a reason to fold up shop." That's not what devastating means.

Devastate-to lay waste; render desolate; cause extensive destruction or ruin utterly; to leave in ruins.

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2007 2:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Not to be rude but seriously dude...
I actually changed the timeframe to make my argument less cohesive than changed it back to what he actually intended.

I don't really know what horse you have in this race. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all.

My issue is that it's gross overstatement to, right now in 2007, say that the loss of Hafner/CC will be:

1. The loss of both a top 5 hitter and a top 5 pitcher in the majors.

and

2. That the loss of both will be devestating to the team.

and

3. Ignoring the myriad variables in between 1 and 2 in order to create a cause and effect relationship.

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2007 10:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Jason Giambi.  Jason Giambi used to play for the A's.  And he was really, really good at the time.  

My point is the A's don't sign their FA players, and you seemed to be saying that doing so is out of the question.

by nickjs21 on Jun 26, 2007 11:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Tejada was also far more ridiculous than people realize. He was killing the ball from SS.

They also let Damon walk in a slightly modified scenario.

Mulder was probably the current version of Sabathia's equal in his 23-25 seasons.

Pitchers fall off. Fast.

I'm not even against signing these guys. It's just that distorting their value doesn't help anything.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 11:48 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Actually the A's trade their players and not let them walk.  As long as you get an elite pitcher a year away or ready and an elite hitter 2 years away.  The trade windfall from Hafner and Sabathia would be huge.  Don't rule out signing them but see what you can get.  On the other hand, I could not bear to see Sabathia in another uniform.  I guess we could sign both Sabathia and Hafner and trade Byrd but what happens when Peralta, Sizemore and Martinez contracts balloon?  What happens when we have to spend real money on a closer?  Too many questions.
Natasha! Must get Moose and Squirrel for Fearless Leader! Sign big contract to hit ball!

by crackaddictwhit on Jun 26, 2007 11:34 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Actually the A's trade their players and not let them walk.

A partial list of free agents let go by the A's in the past several years:

Barry Zito
Jason Giambi
Miguel Tejada
Johnny Damon
Keith Foulke
Ray Durham
Damian Miller
Jason Isringhausen
Jermaine Dye

by Jay on Jun 27, 2007 11:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
IMO, you never have to spend real money on a closer.  A closer is just a young reliever you shift to the 9th.

by nickjs21 on Jun 27, 2007 11:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Aye, you're right.  It didn't work for Fausto, so let's never try it again.  

by nickjs21 on Jun 27, 2007 1:20 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
That's a bit of an overreaction.  Your point about the closer being a young reliever struck me as a significant oversimplification of the process, as if a team could just stick any young reliever there and the closer problem is solved.  It doesn't work that way.  '

Either a reliever has the stuff and the mental toughness to do the job, or he doesn't.  Very often, closers are discovered out of desparation or lack of other options (Jose Mesa comes to mind) and the need to replace an injured primary closer, but it's not as simple as sticking any old young reliever in the spot, even if, like Fausto, he's got the stuff.

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jun 27, 2007 2:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
My whole point was in response to the question, What happens when we have to spend real money on a closer?  And the answer is, we don't.  A closer is just a good reliever with an extra stat added.  I'm of the school that there is no difference between getting guys out in the 9th and getting guys out in the 7th.  If you have a cheap reliever that can do this (get guys out) while allowing a very low amount of baserunners (either by strikeouts, keeping pitches down and staying in the strike zone, or both), then put him in the 9th and let him accumulate a relatively meaningless stat.  When his value goes up because of it, find another cheap young reliever.  I hate to sound like I'm from the Church of Billy Beane, but none of this is new.

You're right, it's not as simple as putting any reliever in the closer's role.  That reliever has to be GOOD.  But good and expensive aren't the same thing.   When you pay big money for a free agent closer, you're often throwing money at something that can be done at a very small price.  All it takes is a harder look at undervalued guys.  BJ Ryan makes a lot of money in Toronto, but Jeremy Accardo is doing the same thing just as effectively for league minimum.

Fausto just had a bad string of luck.  His performance in the bullpen beforehand and his performance in the rotation afterwards lead me to believe as much.  Maybe he psyched himself out in the 9th inning, but that's the fault of the stigma we've built around closing.  Also, EVERYONE gives up home runs to David Ortiz.

by nickjs21 on Jun 27, 2007 3:15 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
A closer is just a good reliever with an extra stat added

This is like fingernails on a blackboard for me.  Let me expose myself to unfettered ridicule from posters to this site.  Here goes: there are players who are clutch and players who choke.  There I said it.  And you have to be more than GOOD - you also hafta have nerves of steel.

Orel Hershiesher says the last three outs are the toughest - ask Alan Embree.

Closing is about self-confidence, but it also helps if you've got a Zumaya's heater or Hoffman's change-up.  But you gotta have both.  One without the other makes you Duaner Sanchez or Shawn Camp.

Sometimes you just gotta be lucky

by mauichuck on Jun 27, 2007 3:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Agree to disagree.

As for Embree, who's to say against the same batters he wouldn't have coughed up those runs in the 8th?  Well ... he wouldn't have.  But that's because the manager thinks the 9th inning is different.  In the 8th, he has no problem pulling Embree, but in the 9th, Embree's the closer, so he's the only option.  It's that fallacy that may have won us a game.

by nickjs21 on Jun 27, 2007 3:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Perhaps surprisingly, I vaguely agree with this, with regard to closers.

I don't really get down for clutch hitting; too many studies seem to indicate that it's just mathematically not there. Casey Blake's three/four year stretch has pretty much finished convincing me.

With closers though, there's something else going on. Some guys can do it, some can't. It seems to not even be that dependent on run prevention (see Borowski, J.) but instead tying/winning run prevention.

by afh4 on Jun 27, 2007 3:59 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
As far as the mental aspect of being a closer goes (the "toughness"), I do think a pitcher can psyche himself out in the 9th (see Carmona, Fausto).  But unlike other people, I don't believe this is because the 9th inning is any different.  It's because baseball people as a whole have convinced the pitcher it is, and he works himself up to the point of losing command, hanging a breaking pitch, or whatever.

by nickjs21 on Jun 27, 2007 4:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
You maybe right, but it is the same result in the end.

by oxforddave on Jun 27, 2007 4:21 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
Does anyone think the A's buck tradition and make a push for the hometown kid (CC)? Or is that an automatic no-go in Beaneball?
Turf Toe -- Sports skewered weakly (and weekly.)

by emd2k3 on Jun 26, 2007 11:40 PM EDT   0 recs

Re: Alleged Pronk contract offer
If Sabathia really wants to go to the Bay Area in 2009, the A's don't stand a chance I fear (I kind of like the A's when they don't play the Indians).

SFG not only loves to spend but CC loves to hit.

And they have a ton of contracts coming off at the end of 2008-Bonds should be gone, Morris comes off, Ray Durham comes off, Rich Aurilla, Mike Matheny (if they even pick up his '08 option).

By my math, if they have someone occupying the Bonds money space but not locked up through 2009 (probably not Bonds but a collection of other players), it's close to 40 million a year.

Even if the A's want him, I don't think they'll be able to play ball with Sabean.

by afh4 on Jun 26, 2007 11:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs