Free Agent Starters

by stickpiano on Nov 13, 2008 11:12 AM EST Comment 90 comments

I know it isn't Shapiro's style - but why not make a splash in the FA market?

Would 3 years - 40 million get you any of the following starters?

AJ Burnett - no, the Yankees will go higher
Randy Wolf
Ryan Dempster - will the Cubs go 4 years?
Oliver Perez - do the Mets out bid?
Ben Sheets - surely he'll get more, but maybe he's in play for this amount
Derek Lowe - is he a 15 million dollar man in this market?

If you could splash the cash on one of these starters, who would it be, and for how much?

Though perhaps Brad Penny or another injury reclamation is more Shap's style.

I guess I'll open the bidding on second tier guys like Jon Garland, Kyle Lohse, or Braden Looper.

0 recs | Comment 90 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Derek Lowe unless the Red Sox decide to outbid us. I’m sure it gets Oliver Perez as well, but I don’t think he’s worth it.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 11:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It gets you Perez or Wolf. I don’t think it gets you even close to the rest.

by afh4 on Nov 13, 2008 11:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think I’m just having trouble putting a market value on Lowe. What do you have?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

First off, I’d be very surprised if it’s less than 4 years. This is probably Lowe’s last contract-there’s no reason for him to minimize years unless he wants to retire sooner, which I don’t think anyone anticipates.

I peg Lowe at between 55 and 60 over 4. Javier Vazquez signed a three year extension at 11.5 before last season. Johan Santana gets paid about 20 a year. The market continues to float up.

So, my logic is that Lowe is an order of magnitude better than Vazquez and worse than Santana. Since CC’s going to set the high end of the market with Santana money and the low end is already set by guys like Vazquez, Lowe seems like a perfect candidate to peg the middle of the market at somewhere between 13.75 and 15 over 4 (or maybe even more) years.

Of course, what do I know. It just seems to me that the demand for Lowe is going to be very, very high. I feel like there’s a vibe around here like he’s some kind of “hidden gem” but I think we feel that way only because we ignore the NL and the West Coast most of the year.

He’s not a hidden gem. He’s a guy who’s 20% better than the norm in his career and hasn’t had a bad year since 2004.

by afh4 on Nov 13, 2008 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot about Boras. Of course it won’t be for anything less than 3.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m glad someone else pointed out that Lowe isn’t the cheaper hidden gem alternative to every FA pitcher mentioned.

by world dictator on Nov 13, 2008 11:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With Kyle Lohse getting 4 years, $41M, there’s your new low-end for veteran innings eaters. Then you have Carlos Silva and his 4 years, $48M, but I think attached to it that contract has the Bavasi quotient.

Lowe has pitched in the weak league in a pitcher’s park. To his credit, the sinkerballer had no defense behind him all year (Nomar, Blake, DeWitt, Laroche, Berroa, Kent). He’s been damn consistent, and some how these factors are going to add up to a 3 year, $45M deal with Boston or a 4 year, $55-60M deal with somebody else.

by xrickx on Nov 13, 2008 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

3/45 or 4/60 seems exactly right for Lowe.

And you know what? If I was Shapiro, I think I’d offer him that deal.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 13, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I concur. We’ve got the money, and I look at Lowe as having the least amount of variance of all those available options.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Nov 13, 2008 1:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And a (relatively) low amount of injury risk as well.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 13, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lowe is not going for just 4/60. My take on all of these signings is that if you would take that deal if you were the tribe, the numbers are too low.

by oxforddave on Nov 14, 2008 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone have a problem with a SP 2-5 lineup that looks like this?

Lowe
Westbrook
Carmona
Laffey

That’s a lot of groundballs.

by Toxicadam on Nov 13, 2008 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plus, while he’s not as extreme as those four, Huff has shown the ability to get twice as many grounders as fly balls in the minors…

And then if we sign Mark Ellis, we’re all set!

by Peter Bendix on Nov 13, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously. Bummer.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No fear. I hear Jamey Carroll’s been putting in long hours with Tom Emanski’s instructional videos this off-season.

by APV on Nov 13, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

back to back to back AAU Championships.

by ClarkM on Nov 13, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It was supported by the crime dog fred mcgriff

by hans on Nov 13, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

With Westbrook out for a chunk of the year, how about this?

Lowe
Carmona
Rich Hill
Laffey

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Then Carmona and Hill could compete to see who could walk the most batters!

by Peter Bendix on Nov 13, 2008 4:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Talk ill of Carmona and be aware of the consequences which follow

by APV on Nov 13, 2008 6:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

See avatar -————>

-Guy Formerly Known as DrFaustusCarmona

by Logodaedalus on Nov 13, 2008 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have no idea why you switched your screen name.

I also have no idea what some of the words you occasionally use mean.

Additionally, I have no idea what your current screen name means, but I almost positive it’s something clever.

by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 14, 2008 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I switched it because I became aware that there had been about it as a nickname for the Tribe pitcher discussions before I got here, and I didn’t want it to be interpreted as referring to that.

As to the new one, probably better you think it’s clever than I explain it…

by Logodaedalus on Nov 14, 2008 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I actually didn’t know that you were he, but now that I do, there does seem to be a resemblance.

Is there a story other than the dictionary definition of logodaedaly as “verbal legerdomain”? [logos from the Greek for words + Daedalus the Minotaur trapping labyrinth-builder]

by FredOx on Nov 14, 2008 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It feels like my posts have gotten a lot nerdier since I switched, but since it happened right around the end of the season, that’s probably why. Once there’s actual baseball to watch again, it will probably sublimate some of that…

There’s not much of a story, really… It was originally intended as a nod to Lolita and Nabokov, who’s one of my favorite writers (perhaps not surprisingly if you know his work), though that was a while ago when I started using it on another forum. So…just a bit of nerdulence that got carried over here I guess.

by Logodaedalus on Nov 15, 2008 2:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m not sure what happened to that sentence…. should read “…I became aware that there had been discussions about it as a nickname for the Tribe pitcher…” It’s like I’m speaking some strange mutant version of German or something in the original

by Logodaedalus on Nov 15, 2008 2:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Your right, it made slightly more sense when I went back and read it in a German accent.

by PatBordersHelmet on Nov 15, 2008 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello nickjs21,

Perhaps you intentionally left out Lee because he’s been a career flyball pitcher, though his GO/FO ratio did go up in 2008. Otherwise, how did you forget about our reigning Cy Young winner? :-)

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Nov 14, 2008 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all. It was a response to a projected 2 through 5.

Besides, I think it was Chuck who said Lee’s gonna be a bum next year.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 14, 2008 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Nick,

Yes, I see that Tox said “2-5” – my bad.

Let’s hope Chuck is wrong; even if Lee isn’t quite as good as he was last year, even 75-80 percent of his 2008 performance would still be a very solid year for him and the Indians, and being that he’s only 30-YO, I would think another season or two of similar performance (to 2008) in his career wouldn’t be out of the question.

In fact, thinking about it more, as Jay mentioned about signing Lee to a long-term extension this offseason, it probably would be more worthwhile to sign Lee to a long-term extension rather than sign a questionable FA starting pitcher. If you can do both, that’s fine, but thinking about it more, it might be more worthwhile to put more money into reinking Lee to an additional 2-3 years on his current contract (along with raising the annual amount for his next two years) rather than taking a chance on signing Sheets or Perez to a lengthy contract. Even signing Lowe to a lengthy contract could be a bit riskier, being that Lowe is older than Lee and will likely decline at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Otherwise, by this time next year, we may be considering the possibility of either preparing for Lee’s final season with the Indians and getting draft picks (he has a 2010 club option, I believe) or looking for a worthwhile trade for us to make, either at this time next season or June to July 2010, much like we did with Sabathia, provided we aren’t in the race. If we are, then it’s more likely to be the prior scenario.

Just something to keep in mind that sometimes the best FA signings are of the players that you already have, not the ones you don’t and are not as familiar with.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Nov 14, 2008 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Neither Perez nor Sheets will be getting a lengthy contract from the Indians. Three years, maybe, but I don’t consider that lengthy.

I’ll have to kick around the numbers a bit more, but I think if push came to shove I’d rather sign another frontline starter and either collect the draft pick when Lee leaves or trade him.

by world dictator on Nov 15, 2008 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello WD,

I can understand why you would want to sign a frontline starter and collect either the draft pick or trade package from Lee leaving us (via FA or a trade, respectively).

However, outside of probably Sabathia (and the postseason is a concern with him, admittedly), I’m not sure any of the other potential FA starters are a lock to be better than Lee long-term:

While Sheets’ pure stuff is better than Lee’s, Sheets has also had considerably more injury trouble than Lee, who really was only affected by injury in 2007.

Lowe is older than Lee, and like Lee, I’m not sure I see Lowe as being a true frontline starter, certainly not like Sabathia. Of the two, I think Lee has the better chance of pitching more like a frontline starter or a good #2-#3 for a longer period of time than Lowe.

I think the key to Lee is whether he has figured out mentally what it takes to perform at a consistently high level so that he can continue putting up good to very good seasons for the next several seasons. I’d like to think that he has, probably because of what happened in 2007 (if there can be a silver lining to that rough season).

Therefore, I’m thinking that he could probably put up very solid seasons for another 5-6 years, enough to be at least a good to very good mid-rotation (i.e. #3) starter or even a very solid frontline starter (not in the same mold as Sabathia, but be solid enough to lead the rotation if necessary).

Combine the familiarity the Indians have with Lee as compared to Lowe and Sheets, as well as the fact that Lowe will be 36-YO in June and the fact that Sheets has not been able to stay consistently healthy for any length of time, and I’d think I’d rather put that money into resigning Lee so that he is here through 2012-2014 (where Lee will be in his age 33-35 seasons).

The only clear upgrade in my mind is Sabathia, and chances are, we have virtually NO chance of signing him, so I’d still stick with Lee and see if we can add another starter with the money we have after we have reinked Lee to a long-term extension.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Nov 18, 2008 11:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why re-sign Lee now? He’s under contract for the next two seasons. He’s only had one season of excellence, along with one other above-average season in his career. Even if you’re optimistic about Lee’s chances of maintaining this success (which I am, to a degree – I think an ERA more around 3.50 is reasonable, not 2.50), why re-up now?

You have Lee’s age-31 and 32 seasons under contract. Why pay for his age 33-35 seasons after his ONE excellent season?

by Peter Bendix on Nov 19, 2008 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I call this the Romeo Crennel strategy

by Roger Dorn on Nov 19, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I quite agree. I’m optimistic about Lee’s future performance, but to bet on 2008 not being an outlier would be foolish. Moreover, Lee still has to be seen as a significant injury risk.

Seems to me we got a nice extension done with Westbrook just one year prior to free agency, and we wish we had waited until that point with Hafner. I was a proponent of the two-years-out extension at one point, but at this point, I think it has to be a situation where the player really wants to get it done and is willing to give to make it happen.

by Jay on Nov 19, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello guys,

I think I was thinking of that “2-year out” rule as increasing our chances of retaining Lee. I agree that it’s a bit of a risk, but is it more of a risk than possibly plunking a 3- or 4-year contract on someone like Sheets or Lowe, who either has injury issues himself (Sheets) or the wrong side of age (Lowe)?

That’s why I thought of that suggestion, but I agree that it’s not without risk.

As for Hafner, the really unfortunate circumstance, in my opinion, is the fact that we were willing to offer him that contract during a season (2007) when he was performing less than he had in his prior 2-3 seasons. Outside of April, the next 3 months he had done as poorly as he had ever done here.

I can understand why the Indians were willing to offer him that contract – they essentially concluded that Hafner will bounce back – he’s just going through a “downslide” for the season and will rebound. It’s too bad that the Indians didn’t wait longer to see if Hafner was in a “downslide” or was just on his way to really losing his ability to hit.

Granted, I’m not sure anyone would have thought that possible at that time, being that he should be in the prime of his career, but if the Indians had erred more on the side of caution, you wonder what other move or moves they could have made with the money they used to sign Hafner – could they have resigned Sabathia? Doubtful, but certainly better odds than they have now (virtually non-existent). Would the Indians be in a better, more certain position now if that money had gone toward resigning Sabathia instead of Hafner? Very likely, yes.

Of course, that’s partly hindsight, but at the same time, I wish they had been a bit more hesitant to offer him that contract because of how he was performing in 2007. If that contract had been offered at that same point in 2006, when he was in the midst of his best season, I think it would have been easier for the Indians to swallow now, being that you were paying for a guy who was having an outstanding season, after a few very good seasons, but offering it to him at that point in time when he was struggling unlike he had at any point in the past makes it sting a little more for me because it just seemed we presumed he would bounce back, rather than think, “maybe there’s something going on here and we should be cautious until we know for sure that this won’t be a long-term problem.”

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Nov 24, 2008 10:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it’s a bit of a risk, but is it more of a risk than possibly plunking a 3- or 4-year contract on someone like Sheets or Lowe, who either has injury issues himself (Sheets) or the wrong side of age (Lowe)?

Are those the only two options? How about, none of the above?

if the Indians had erred more on the side of caution, you wonder what other move or moves they could have made with the money they used to sign Hafner – could they have resigned Sabathia?

I personally don’t think having enough money was the issue with Sabathia. I’m confident they offered him $100 million in July, or were willing to go that far had negotiations gone forward. They were not and are not willing to commit $140 million, and if they found an extra $20 million in extra annual revenue tomorrow, I don’t think their judgment on Sabathia would change.

Beyond our specific budget, there is the real question of what the player is really worth paying. We have a structural problem in the industry where it isn’t just that the Yankees and a few others have more money to pay Sabathia, but they actually will get a better financial return on that investment than the Indians would. So I’m saying, we actually have the $140 million — barely — but he isn’t worth that much money to us. I mean, hell, Westbrook and Hafner combined only cost us $87 million.

Would the Indians be in a better, more certain position now if that money had gone toward resigning Sabathia instead of Hafner? Very likely, yes.

But this is just hindsight. On the day Hafner signed, even though he’d struggled, would you have traded Hafner and $86 million in cash for Sabathia? Of course not. You only would do that now because you think Hafner is worthless.

Sabathia is going to sign a deal between 120M and 180M, depending on whether he chooses to drive up the bidding and/or go to some preferred destination for less money. The problem with a top-dollar contract is that it only pays off if the guy has virtually no injury problems and no significant off-years. Two years from now, what will you be saying about the Sabathia deal in hindsight? How many pitcher contracts beyond three years have ever worked out well? Five? Three?

Of course Hafner’s situation is frustrating, and of course it would be nice to have C.C. But the one deal is perhaps 40% of the other, and the one is being viewed in hindsight after a worst-case scenario has unfolded while the other is viewed with rosey-goggled optimism.

by Jay on Nov 25, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ooh – I think Bavasi Quotient has a great potential as a term to analyze bad free agent contracts agreed to by desparate GMs.

“Realistically, given the state of the market, Derek Lowe should get a deal somewhere between 55 and 60 mil over 4 years. However, that does not account for the Bavasi Quotient, which might boost his market value for some desparate team once CC Sabathia is off the market.”

Also, it would be a great band name:

“Hello, Seattle! We’re Bavasi Quotient! We’re here to rock your world!”

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Nov 13, 2008 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

do you like wolf? his numbers are NL-inflated recently, but he could be a tick better than paul byrd imho.

by stickpiano on Nov 13, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What no poll to vote with?

by talonk on Nov 13, 2008 11:35 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

stickpiano doesn’t want to get incorporated into the Nate Silver-borg

by APV on Nov 13, 2008 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

actually, i would have no problem being assimilated by nate silver. 538 pretty much ruled my life for the last two months.

and i wasn’t super interested in the poll since people would invariably complain that certain pitcher would command much more money than i had stipulated, thus shouldn’t be in the poll.

by stickpiano on Nov 13, 2008 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No probs … it just seemed you set up a poll, but didn’t include it ;)

by talonk on Nov 13, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s more of a focus group.

by Jay on Nov 13, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who’s behind the one-way mirror?

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Nov 13, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two-way mirror. Brain fart.

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Nov 13, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Jabberwock?

by Logodaedalus on Nov 13, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I prefer the Jabberwockeez

by talonk on Nov 13, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone think that the current economic conditions may reduce the amount that clubs will pay for FAs? Next year’s advertising and ticket revenues have to be impacted by the decline in the stock market and layoffs.

by kov on Nov 13, 2008 11:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

TNMI?

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

by westbrook on Nov 13, 2008 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Could you spell out TNMI for me?

by kov on Nov 13, 2008 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The New Market Inefficiency.

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

by westbrook on Nov 18, 2008 1:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. We saw it in 2002, and what’s going on right now economically is more severe than that.

by Jay on Nov 13, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I saw today where the Red Sox are not raising ticket prices for the first time in 14 years, and I’m thinking about how NY is going to sell the high-price tickets in the new stadium. Thus, will they (and other teams) have enough optimism to spend a lot on player salaries.

by kov on Nov 13, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

“…To weave in another sport analogy – for most individual investors, the current environment is 4th and 1 yard and down six points on the opponent’s goal line, or 3 balls and 2 strikes in the bottom of the ninth, tied with a runner on third… It’s clutch time.”

- John Russel (Rusty) Vanneman, CFA, CMT is the Director of Research for E*TRADE Capital Management, LLC.

Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF

by jhon on Nov 14, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/jumps out window

by joeee on Nov 14, 2008 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Where’s Jeter when you need him?

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

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 14, 2008 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh…and the smartest investment of this group will be Ben Sheets if he’s going to take a one or two year deal to prove he’s healthy.

by xrickx on Nov 13, 2008 11:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

a 1 year deal with a club option would be a great move on Sheets.

how much money would it take? 1 year/13 million? 15 million option with a 2 million buy out? That makes it either a 1 year 15 mil deal or a 2 year 28 mil deal.

would that put sheets on the bump in cleveland?

by stickpiano on Nov 13, 2008 12:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A 1-year deal for Ben Sheets, a good pitcher coming off injuries which reduce his market value.

Golly, that sounds like a . . . .

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

by Buckeye Brad on Nov 13, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

deal?

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Nov 13, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A signing, really.

But I doubt there isn’t someone out there who won’t offer Sheets at least 3 years.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

fantasy?

by dgcambridge on Nov 13, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Potassium Meitnerisulfide?

by Logodaedalus on Nov 13, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why should Sheets agree to a second year club option?

by Jay on Nov 13, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If it gets us one year I’ll give him a player option for a second.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 13, 2008 1:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think Sheets would want a club option if he agrees to a one-year deal. If he’s hurt/pitches poorly, the club will decline the option. And if he’s healthy and pitches well, he’d want to hit the market.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 13, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

People need to stop pitching the idea that Sheets will accept a contract that has both (a) fewer years than he wants, and (b) a club option. It ain’t gonna happen, because it makes absolutely no sense for him.

by Jay on Nov 13, 2008 8:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No chance Sheets signs a one year deal unless he’s unsatisfied with the multiple three year offers he’s going to get.

Besides, if Sheets signed a one year deal, I’m sure it’d be with the Brewers, or at least in the NL

by world dictator on Nov 13, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it’d take 2 years, maybe slip in a club option for third, Shapiro style.

I think someone gives him 3 yrs though… someone like the Braves.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Nov 13, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

unless they end up with Peavy …. which was on the Rumor Mill lately.

by talonk on Nov 13, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I heard that they’re looking for TWO pitchers. Peavy + FA somebody.

Yunel Escobar is a player.

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Nov 13, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How are they going to trade for Peavy and still field an offense? I mean, they had Gregor Blanco start 144 games for them in the OF, some 70 of which were in left field for God’s sake.

by NickFantana on Nov 13, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Who?

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

by westbrook on Nov 18, 2008 1:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s actually not the worst player in the world. He had some decent on-base numbers in the minors, although he has no power at all and, while he has some speed, he gets caught stealing too often to really call him a base-stealer. If we traded for him, we could drop Grady down in the batting order……

by peter m on Nov 18, 2008 9:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Can we just slip in a club sandwich instead

by hans on Nov 13, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees will give Sheets three, possibly four years, if they miss out on one of CC, Burnett, or Lowe. (Rumor has it they intend to sign two of the three)

by world dictator on Nov 13, 2008 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

perez wants 4 or 5 years

by Sizemorgasim on Nov 13, 2008 4:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So I guess we’re not signing Derek Lowe.

Boras, according to executives with two different teams interested in Derek Lowe, is telling clubs he wants “a Zito-type contract” for the free-agent right-hander.

That’s Zito, as in Barry Zito, as in seven years, $126 million.

Zito signed the deal before the season in which he turned 29. Lowe, who has averaged 208 innings and a 3.79 ERA the past seven seasons, turns 36 on June 1.

It’s always good in these negotiations to bring to mind the worst FA contract in recent history and tell GMs you want that.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 19, 2008 8:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe by “Zito-like contract” he simply means a contract that is a really bad idea. For Lowe, that might be less than 7/126.

by APV on Nov 19, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is essentially what he’s saying. “In the current market for premium pitchers, my client will command the kind of contract that will be viewed as an incredibly bad decision within two to three years, if not sooner.”

by Jay on Nov 19, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The bidding starts at $16M per year according to the Post. We’ll see if he comes down.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 20, 2008 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The salary may not be out of line, it’s the years that’s the real problem.

by Jay on Nov 20, 2008 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t be shocked if the $ comes down, but I would think a Boras client is going to stand firm on a lot of years.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 20, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I could see a 4-year deal with a 5th year vesting option based on IP (170 in the 4th year, or 340 between the 3rd and 4th).

They could “structure” it as a 5-year deal, and Boras could claim he got 5 years for Lowe.

by Peter Bendix on Nov 20, 2008 2:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Boras clients sometimes end up twisting in the wind, though.

The strategy is, if there’s an insane offer out there, we’re going to find it by setting ridiculous expectations and holding firm. That doesn’t work if the insane offer really isn’t out there, however.

by Jay on Nov 20, 2008 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs