Affeldt Signs with Giants

by Ryan on Nov 18, 2008 12:49 AM EST in News Comment 22 comments

The Giants have signed Jeremy Affeldt to a two-year deal worth $8M. The left-hander isn't really a matchup guy, and that's a good thing; he's been a versatile and durable reliever, making 74 and 75 appearances, respectively, since moving to the bullpen on a full-time basis in 2007. Last season with the Reds he was used as a multi-inning setup man, and he averaged more than a strikeout an inning. With the Rockies in 2007, he threw only 59.0 innings, which was really a misuse of his strengths. Almost every bullpen could use a guy like him, and the price looks reasonable.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

On one hand this is disappointing, I think Affeldt was near the top of a lot of our wish lists.

On the other hand, if what he signed for id the current market rate, it gives me some hope we can afford a couple decent relievers.

by KevinV on Nov 18, 2008 9:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

This happened pretty quickly. Either Affeldt really wanted to pitch in the Bay area, or this represents a good contract for a guy like him. I agree that it’s not an unreasonable price; if that’s what relievers are getting, we might just sign someone useful this time around.

by peter m on Nov 18, 2008 9:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rosenthal says the Giants are still interested in Juan Cruz.

Now you listen here and you listen good, Giants: Back off.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 18, 2008 10:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Juan Cruz will be overvalued because he’s undervalued, if that makes sense.

Kerry Wood is just plain undervalued. If you want a dominant 9th inning guy, there he is.

by xrickx on Nov 18, 2008 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You think Kerry Wood is undervalued compared to Juan Cruz?

I’m listening. I’m open to being convinced.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 18, 2008 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. I think Kerry Wood is ready to start a second phase of his career. I think Kerry Wood is at the same stage in his career where Jermaine Dye was when Dye was signed by the White Sox. They’ve showed it before. They had issues. And now, they’re about to deliver.

I’m a cautious shopper when it comes to relievers. Juan Cruz has put up nice numbers, but he’s been used a lot like David Riske was used as an Indian—in non-critical situations. I’m not saying I’m discounting his stats, but caveat emptor. He’s been treated lightly, he has major control issues, and he’s not that much younger than Wood (1.5 years)

Meanwhile, Kerry Wood is a shut-down reliever. Yes, he has an injury history (so does Cruz), but that was largely a product of pitcher abuse. Wood is primed to be a dominant reliever for a few seasons. He has the stuff and the track record of success.

I pay more for Wood over Cruz for the same reasons I pay Hoffman over Affeldt. There’s some value in the production certainty they provide. Looking at Cruz/Affeldt’s strikeout numbers are nice, but their “under the radar” status doesn’t hold when other teams have taken notice. Affeldt last year for 1 year, $3M was a great deal for the Reds. Now he’s on a multiple-year contract for more money with higher expectations. Cruz’s cheap time is over. He’s going to get paid. If I’m going to commit substantial funds, I’d rather pay Wood over two or three years than Cruz over that same time period.

by xrickx on Nov 18, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Affeldt last year for 1 year, $3M was a great deal for the Reds. Now he’s on a multiple-year contract for more money with higher expectations.

While I see what you’re saying I don’t see too much difference between a 1 yr/$3M deal and a 2 yr/$8M deal, and especially not when the latter deal is coming off a better year.

I like Kerry Wood. I’d be happy to sign him. But it all depends on the price. As good as he is a team like the Indians can still pay too much when it’s weighed against risk.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 18, 2008 1:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m in agreement that, obviously, at a certain point the dollars allocated to the player rob the deal from being beneficial. There’s a money threshold on every deal.

And I think a two-year deal isn’t so bad (there years, yikes: see David Dellucci). But the fact of the matter is that it’s an $8M commitment rather than a $3M commitment. Neither is going to cripple a franchise, so it’s not like the Giants really opened the purse strings here. I think the key take-away is just that the point of finding undervalued assets, at least with Affeldt and Cruz, is gone unless you plan to use them as a starter or a closer (in which a $4M annual salary is peanuts, right?).

For free agency in general, you can argue that there’s no undervalued asset. But that’d be unfair if you’re comparing free agent prices with pre-free agent salaries. It’s a whole new market. And it’s one in which I’d rather not dabble.

by xrickx on Nov 18, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the key take-away is just that the point of finding undervalued assets, at least with Affeldt and Cruz, is gone unless you plan to use them as a starter or a close

This whole reliever search for me hasn’t really been about finding a closer. I know the FO would never look at it this way—or maybe they’d like to but can’t publicly talk like this—but to me it’s just about accumulating as much talent as possible in the bullpen and letting the roles figure themselves out.

I also doubt they could sign a guy like Cruz without telling him he’d be the closer. Or Wood.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 18, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea, I’m of the opinion that you only pay for the closer, and even that’s arguable. I like the “talent accumulation” building of a bullpen. But I think an impeccable or a disastrous bullpen is the easiest way to trick your pythagorean record, and the talent accumulation lends itself to producing the extremes: hell pen or 2007 bullpen.

I’d rather not pay for middle relief when Heath Bell, Joakim Soria, and Chad Durbin are out there, ripe for the taking. I also think the Indians’ refusal to commit big dollars in the bullpen (a wise decision for a team with a limited budget) contributes to the extreme volatility of an already volatile bunch. But if you have to skimp somewhere, this is where I’d skimp as well.

I haven’t put my finger on it, and I hate to resort to the bullpen “mentality” argument, but maybe there’s something to be said for having defined bullpen roles with an established closer, then letting all the pieces fall in place below. Of course, you then look at the Rays bullpen last year and they blow that theory to pieces.

by xrickx on Nov 18, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Woods might be a better deal at 3 yr/$30 million but if you don’t have the $30 million you don’t have it. That’s part of bargin bin shopping that small market teams have to do.

You can’t evaluate the value of Hoffman/Afeldt or Cruz/Woods, without taking into consideration the opprotunity cost of not being able to fill other holes.

by world dictator on Nov 19, 2008 12:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we have the 30 mil, and I think I kind of buy xrickx’s instincts on this.

There is a serious logical problem with the idea of “loading up the pen with talent” rather than one premium reliever, and that problem is, if they had any real talent, they’d be a premium relievers or starters, and since they’re not, they’re just part of the massive heap of “maybe so and maybe not” relievers, also known as “relievers.”

Of course, Wood was a starter, and a damned good starter, and more than good enough to remain a starter — he just couldn’t stay healthy that way. And that sounds like a pretty damned good recipe for a highly effective reliever to me.

by Jay on Nov 19, 2008 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess what I mean by loading up the pen with talent is essentially acquiring one premium reliever, since I feel like there are a ton of guys already on the team ready to contribute in a more positive way than last year (Meloan, Miller, Sipp, better Betancourt, etc.). Since I already feel like the bullpen should be reasonably solid or at the very least have a decent crapshoot chance of breaking out, I don’t feel like we need to overextend ourselves to bring in a “closer.” One extra good piece should do it, and let them figure it out in spring training.

Of course like I mentioned few relievers worth any FA bidding would sign without being offered the closer’s job and Kerry Wood may very well be worth the money anyway.

So yeah, I just hope it all works out. I don’t want to tie up too many resources to fix the bullpen but I want it fixed. Basically I’m hoping to get lucky. If we’re going to trade for an infielder there’s always the possibility of getting a Meloan-type guy back in the deal, which would be absolutely fine with me.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 19, 2008 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we’re getting to the same point.

I just look at it as the Twins approach. The Red Sox have done the same thing, too. Secure the lights out closer. Find a decent eighth inning guy. Have yourself the situation left-hander. And then patch together the rest, knowing that you’re going to win most of the games in which you enter the 8th inning with a lead.

With a solid closer, I think the Indians have the 8th inning taken care of between Jensen Lewis and Rafael Perez. Then, the likes of Betancourt, Kobayashi, Rundles, Meloan, Miller, and Sipp can patch together the other innings.

by xrickx on Nov 19, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Kerry Wood is looking for 4 years. Hoynes has some smaller tidbits in there as well.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 20, 2008 10:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

are there big tidbits? just wondering.

by Brick. on Nov 20, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Touché.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Nov 20, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

orioles are to jamie walker and danys baez as giants are to afeldt and juan cruz?

by Brick. on Nov 18, 2008 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think its different for a couple of reasons:

1. 2/8 does not equal 3/12

2. The NL West does not equal the AL East.

by ClarkM on Nov 18, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2/8 does not equal 3/12

I’m tempted to take this and use it as a sig in a non-baseball forum, just to be confusing. Math is broken, everything you know is wrong, that sort of thing.

by Logodaedalus on Nov 19, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs