Top 50 FA's according to SI.com

A nice rundown.

Oliver Perez is my new thing. All lefties. All the time.

8 months ago afh4 Comment 51 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Howzabout some Juan Cruz.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 31, 2008 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’d even take some Brandon Lyon.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 31, 2008 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am going to pretend that the only prediction for the Indians wasn’t signing Casey Blake.

by bewwolv on Oct 31, 2008 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s one of those things you see coming a mile away but you keep denying anyway.

Hopefully signing Blake is down on the third base priority list after about 5 or 6 trade possibilities.

by Ryan on Oct 31, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am in total loser denial

by Roger Dorn on Oct 31, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reading between the lines, the word “grit” even appears in his SI profile.

"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter

by Denver Tribe Fan on Oct 31, 2008 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve tried to couch my thoughts on Blake in more analytical terms, but mostly I’m just tired of him. If we played Marte at third all 2009, he might well underperform Blake’s 2009, but I’d be less bored by it.

I recognize that this is just a grass-is-greener situation, and that he may end up being our best option. But I wouldn’t lament the fact that our better options didn’t pan out, I’d lament the fact that we re-signed Casey Blake.

by fleerdon on Nov 1, 2008 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

So, I guess he felt obligated to have all of them return to baseball? How many fo those are permantly done and just don’t know it yet?

proverbial "moron in a hurry"

by 94neverout on Oct 31, 2008 2:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is a list where the quality seems to drop off pretty rapidly.

by APV on Oct 31, 2008 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yea, somewhere between 20 and 21.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 31, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is not at all surprising, but here are the teams that he predicts to sign his top ten FA: Dodgers, Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Blue Jays, Mets, Angels. And the Cubs/Mets have 5 of the next 9. So a team from NY/LA/Chi/Bos will sign 14 of the top 19 free agents.

We all knew this, but it’s interesting to quantify how dominating the big market teams are in the free agent market. Of course this is just a prediction, but I’m sure the actual outcome will be similar.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Oct 31, 2008 3:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well it’s not like the teams with payrolls <$70m are gonna sign CC for $25M a year. So the teams with the highest payrolls are gonna sign the most expensive free agents – what a penatrating insight!

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Oct 31, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Chuck, like I said we already knew this. I wasn’t trying to be insightful. I just thought it was interesting to actually see how only a few teams dominate the FA market. It’s not like it’s only the top half of the teams; it’s only the top 20-25% of the teams that sign all the big free agents.

The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 1, 2008 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really wasn’t addressing your comment Brad – just the talking heads that predict where the various FAs are gonna go. It’s pretty easy to name the usual suspects when discussing the top tier FAs. And it’s never the Indians.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Nov 1, 2008 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is going to be that way until baseball, has a few teams fold.

Fan in Texas

by fanintexas on Nov 1, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It isn’t so much that a handful of teams dominate the free agent market as that a handful of teams dominate the “analysis.” Any dumbass can say the Yankees will bid on Sabathia, but who’s smart enough to figure out that Guerrero will end up in Anaheim, or A-Rod in Texas?

by Jay on Nov 1, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ll take a #19 and a #34 to go, please.

by KevinV on Nov 1, 2008 4:07 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

unless one of those is an order of taquitos i’m not even going to click on the link to see who the other one is

by APV on Nov 1, 2008 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no way we offer the Big Unit a $12M+ one year deal. Not … gonna ….. happn

by talonk on Nov 1, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why not?

1. we have the money to spend
2. He could fill our need for a #3 starter
2. He is a relatively reliable pitcher over the course of a season, even at 45
5. the length of the contract is low

what’s not to like?

by KevinV on Nov 1, 2008 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The fact that he’s getting ready to totally crater – and we ain’t got $12M+ to spend on a stiff. We’ve already got Hafner.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Nov 1, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we can’t find anyone else to sign, and the money is just sitting around, I don’t see why one year of $12 mil would be a bad thing. If he bombs, he’s off the books. If he succeeds, so much the better.

by Voltaire on Nov 1, 2008 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d rather sign Barry Bonds for that price.

And no, I’m not kidding. Though to be fair I’m not sure if its my intrigue of taking a flyer on Bonds or my disinclination to sign Johnson for $12 mil.

Regardless, I heard that Johnson only wants to play on the west coast and is likely to only make $4 million-ish next year.

by world dictator on Nov 2, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

$12M could be steep, but for $4M he would have to be worth a shot

I cant see him playing for Tim Wakefield money though

by KevinV on Nov 2, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can absolutely see Johnson playing for Wakefield money. At this point in his career he probably just wants to play so he’s inclined to give a discount to a “home town” team, ie one close to his home on the west coast.

I doubt Johnson is going to stray far from home, and I doubt Cleveland would be the place he’d go if he did, making this discussion moot.

by world dictator on Nov 3, 2008 3:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t very clear.

I mean to say I don’t see him playing here for Wakefield money.

He could very well work outs some sort of discount to go where he wants to go at that price, but he is worth much more than $4M.

by KevinV on Nov 3, 2008 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Johnson has been in the NL for eight of the last ten years. His only two years in the AL, at age 41 and 42, he was a very average starting pitcher. Throw in his recent injury troubles, and I don’t see much chance that a Johnson signing at age 45 pays off.

by Jay on Nov 1, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

His 2 most recent AL seasons were not at all average. I think this is a good example of needing to look at the numbers with some additional information in mind.

2005: was a good starter, striking out 211 and posting an ERA+ of 112.
2006: had a herniated disc through our the season and he had a well below average (ERA+ 90) year.
2007: started off good (123 ERA+) , but reinjured the back on July 3rd, knocking him out for the year. But this time he had the disc permanently removed. I don’t know if that opens him up to a different kind of injury, but he certainly can’t herniate that disc again if he doesn’t have it.
2008: returns from the injury and posts a very solid 117 ERA+ striking out 172 over 184 IP.

I’m sure his numbers from 2008 would have been worse in the AL, but I still think he would have been good enough for the #3 spot in our 2009 rotation. I am not sure how to quantify that though.

His age is certainly an issue. But I think a 1 year deal is a pretty low risk proposition. Especially because I don’t see a lot of other starting pitcher being affordable to us.

by KevinV on Nov 3, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I completely agree. On a one-year deal, Johnson has a pretty high upside. It does come with substantial risk, of course, but his upside is higher than perhaps any other starter that we have a reasonable chance of signing.

Johnson’s biggest problem at this stage in his career (besides injuries) is the long ball. He was absolutely dreadful in Arizona – his homer rate in Arizona is 1.53 per nine, whereas his homer rate in road games during the same time is 0.076 per nine.

For those who like raw numbers, Johnson allowed 23 homers in 135 innings in Arizona, and only 8 homers in 105 innings on the road.

Considering that ~~Jacobs~~ Progressive Field is a relatively difficult park in which to hit homers, I’d say that Johnson could be a pretty smart investment for us.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 3, 2008 12:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d say that Johnson could be a pretty smart investment for us

Except – except for his age and injuries. Man, that’s a huge exception. If I wasn’t so lazy I’d do a little study on injury rates among pitchers and age. I’ll bet it’s astronomical for 45 y.o. 6’ 10" pitchers with herniated discs.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Nov 3, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He is certainly an injury risk. But he doesn’t have that disc any more. He can hurt something else as a 46 year old with a repairded back. But he can’t hurt that particular disc again.

But I think it is a reasonable bet that we can get 150 IP with an ERA+ 110 or so out of him.

by KevinV on Nov 3, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Without getting too didactic, removing the disc only transfers the strain to the two adjoining vertibrae. So yeah, he can’t collapse that disc again, but it substantially increased the risk of collapsing the others. Especially if he continues to stress his spine with the same activity that collapse the first disc, i.e. pitching.

Resident LGT beer kinda sewer

by mauichuck on Nov 3, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Johnson’s IP per season, since age 40:

245, 225, 205, 56, 184.

Of course there’s a significant risk that the guy gets hurt. But the risk isn’t SO significant as to make it not worth a one-year deal. And the upside is an ERA+, as Kevin suggests, of 110 (or perhaps upwards of 120). That’s pretty high upside.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 3, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You know, as long as we’re discussing REALLY OLD pitchers, let’s toss Jamie Moyer into the mix. He’s not the dominant pitcher that Johnson is, but he’s much less of an injury risk given the way he throws, he’s very reliable, and he’s been at around 200 innings pretty consistently. Yeah, he’s a soft-tossing lefty. But, he’s likely to be a LOT cheaper than Johnson (who’s coming off at $15 million dollar season).

by peter m on Nov 3, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Moyer would be SIGNIFICANTLY worse than Johnson in the AL next year.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 3, 2008 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably, in the sense that Johnson gives up fewer base runners and has had lower OPS against than Moyer by a wide margin. But, he cost more than twice as much as Moyer this year, so presumably would expect a substantially higher salary. And, Moyer has been a 200 inning pitcher for a very long time and hasn’t had the injury history that Johnson has. I’m not saying Moyer is a better pitcher (he’s not); but, among the old pitchers in the free agent pool, Moyer might be the better BUY.

by peter m on Nov 3, 2008 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His 2 most recent AL seasons were not at all average. I think this is a good example of needing to look at the numbers with some additional information in mind.

“Not at all” average? Not at all? Really? All AL pitchers had an RA of 4.84, and Johnson’s was 4.74. The difference in raw run prevention between Johnson and average was insignificant. I agree that additional information yields a more detailed picture, but it doesn’t change that basic fact.

It was an exaggeration for me to call him “very average,” given his K rates, given that he seems to have had some bad luck/defense working against him, given that he was throwing 200 IP even in an off year. Fact is, though, the run prevention was certainly nothing special, and he was 41 and 42 then, and he’s 45 now.

This past year, he was a solid above-average pitcher over 184 innings, a nice comeback season, but this is the National League. I am not the least bit convinced that he’d be better than a #4 pitcher back in the AL, with better hitters in every spot in the lineup and that pesky DH thing.

Funny, nobody has mentioned the best pro-Unit argument, which is that his second half was far better than his first half, which suggests that he was gaining strength and/or control as the season progressed.

by Jay on Nov 3, 2008 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The point that I was trying to convey was that his last 2 AL seasons were very different from each other. I do not think it is very fair to just lump them together, take the average and say that’s how he performed. Even if the net total for those 2 seasons is average, that doesn’t make either season average.

Lets use RA as the metric, because you referenced it.

In 2005 his RA was 4.06, well below average. 2005 was a very good season.
In 2006 his RA was 5.48, well above average. 2006 was a very bad season.

He was not close to an average pitcher in either of those 2 seasons.

The fact that he was injured though most of 2006 & 2007 should color how we look at those stat lines. The fact that he had a solid 2008 ( 4.5 RA) shows that he not the 2006 Johnson when healthy.

Good point about his 2nd half performance too.

by KevinV on Nov 4, 2008 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As I often say with prospects, we shouldn’t pretend like an injury is a positive indicator — and in fact that is probably ten times as true when it comes to pitchers in their 40’s.

I take your point about the two seasons, but it leads us to a worse prognosis, since his “bad” season (age 42) was more recent than his “good” season (age 41).

by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I absolutely agree that his age is an enormous red flag. Taking a chance on any 45 year old pitcher has significant risk.

I also agree that he is an injury risk, possible even more than a typical 45 year old pitcher, if such a thing exists. You are right, his back injury is not a positive indicator.

But there are strong indicators in his favor:
1. The fact that after being hurt for the better part of 2 years, he was able to come back and post an above average, relatively healthy 184 IP in 2008.
2. His stronger performance and workload as the year went on. Look at his IP and RA month by month:

Month – GS – IP – RA
April – 4 – 20.2 – 6.97
May – 5 – 31 – 3.19
June – 5 – 30.1 – 7.71
July – 5 – 30 – 3.60
Aug – 6 – 40.1 – 3.14
Sept – 5 – 31.2 – 3.69

3. High upside for a one year rental.

I think he would be a solid signing for us on a one year deal.

by KevinV on Nov 4, 2008 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay. Good talk.

by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Off that list I suspect Shapiro will at least talk (not necessarily offer anything) to the following:

Lowe, Sheets, Ol Perez, Fuentes, Wood, Juan Cruz, Hudson, Blake (yikes), Biemel, Dennys Reyes, Looper and Byrd.

If I had my wishes, it would be to sign Grud for a one year deal (not gonna happen) and Wood to be our closer, with Jensen the co-closer in waiting. I’d be happy with Juan Cruz as a fallback from Wood. And I thnk Baldelli would be a great 4th OF if we end up dealing Gutz/Ben.

by talonk on Nov 1, 2008 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not Garland? Not sure he’s the best option, but he’ll be cheaper than Sheets, I’d imagine.

by peter m on Nov 1, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

why would you want Garland though?

The only value he has is his durability, but other than that he’s pretty worthless. I could live with his low K rate if he were a good groundball pitcher, but he isn’t. He gives up a ton of hits, including a big amount of homers, and despite good control, allows way too many baserunners. It’s funny because his stats are pretty similar to Carlos Silva’s and it’s likely he’ll get a comparable deal, so while he is indeed cheaper than Sheets, he’s still a little pricey and whole lot worse.

by JP_Frost on Nov 1, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t really want Garland. But, I would be surprised if they don’t “kick the tires” to see what he’s gonna cost. Your description of him makes him sound a lot like Byrd, which I don’t think is that far off — durable, eats some innings for you, not a great pitcher at all, but serviceable. We signed Byrd later in his career to a deal that gave him around 7 million a year. If we could get Garland for a comparable rate (obviously somewhat higher, given that we’re several years later), the Indians might go for it. I certaintly wouldn’t pay him $12 million a year, though, which is what he made last year. I don’t agree that Silva is that similar — fewer innings, higher BAA, and so on. Silva walks far fewer batters. Neither is a great pitcher, but I think I’d take Garland if the money were the same (it probably won’t be – I admit). Overall, I hope they get someone better.

by peter m on Nov 1, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d take Garland WAY before Silva. But not for $12M.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Nov 1, 2008 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Using THT’s PRC over the last three years, Sheets hasn’t been a whole lot better than Garland.

Starting with the most recent
Garland: 59, 75, 82 = 216
Sheets: 99, 65, 54 = 218
Silva: 34, 77, 46 = 157

Garland and Sheets get it done in different ways. There was an article at THT that was linked here about Sheets and how he offers different value to different teams. The teams Sheets offers the least value to, Garland probably offers the most, and vice versa. Where the Indians fit in, probably depends on your view of the Indians’ playoff chances as presently constituted.

by ClarkM on Nov 2, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs