Lowe

by Tribe Alive on Dec 23, 2008 4:02 PM EST Comment 45 comments

I have a fantastic idea...let's sign Derek Lowe. The market is dropping for this guy everyday and he would be huge for an unstable rotation such as ours.

We still have some extra money and instead of using it on a guy like Wigginton or Hudson or even Grudzielanek (use Valbuena, Astro Cab, Carrol, and Peralta) we should spend it on Lowe.

If not Lowe then Adam Dunn or Burrell. This team still needs some major pop and a solid two or three starter. Now I know we arent getting both but one of the two would be nice. Why get Wigginton (will turn into a Dellucci/Michaels type player) when we can make a spalsh with a proven performer.

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Is this a serious thread? Really, I can’t tell.

by world dictator on Dec 23, 2008 6:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

by Jay on Dec 23, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh…well in that case, I think ill restrict my comments to say I don’t think we have anywhere near enough money to sign Lowe.

by world dictator on Dec 23, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hello WD, Jay, and Tribe Alive,

Especially when ESPN is reporting that the Mets are in “serious discussions with Lowe.”

Anyone the Yankees don’t get (and at this rate, who WON’T they get might be the better question; I wouldn’t be surprised if Manny winds up there too), the Mets might be the next logical choice, not Boston. Chances are, our chances at Lowe are extremely slim.

Sheets MIGHT be a possibility, only because of his injury history, but beyond him, it’s more likely the Wolfs and Garlands of the worlds that we could perhaps tab as additions to our rotation.

Just my 2 cents.

Merry Christmas to all LGTers! :-)

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

by indiansfan on Dec 23, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That and we don’t have $15 million

by world dictator on Dec 23, 2008 11:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think they do have $15mil, they’re just not going to spend it. I know I’m delusional, but I feel like they’d spend $10mil on Pettite—not that he’ll actually take it to play in Cleveland.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 23, 2008 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All reports I’ve seen said we had between $15-$20 million to spend this offseason. (The most recent reports I’ve seen said $15 mil). If we spent $10.5 mil on Wood we have about $10 mil max.

I know everyone wants to go after all of these big name free agents, but unless we can move payroll or sign them for $10 mill per year I’m pretty confident its not happening.

by world dictator on Dec 23, 2008 11:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention, the $2-3 mil salary increase Shoppach’s is likely to receive.

by world dictator on Dec 23, 2008 11:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The budget estimates have already accounted for that, though.

I think Dolan would extend the budget a little for the right deal on the right player. A four-year deal for a pitcher isn’t likely to be viewed as the right deal, though. A two-year deal, maybe.

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 2:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Which budget estimates are you referring to? I’m honestly curious, because I’ve been looking for a good place to find our estimated team budget for 2009 and I don’t see one on cots. I’ve just been using the information I’ve read from various articles this offseason. Still I’m pretty sure I’m in the correct ballpark.

Anyways, I agree that Dolan might be inclined to stretch the budget for the right deal, probably a two year deal as you stated for various reasons.

But I have a hard time taking idea serious when its based on the assumption we’ll raise payroll.

by world dictator on Dec 24, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m just talking about the same local reports that you’ve seen. If a reporter is saying the Indians have 15-20 million to spend this offseason, I can pretty much guarantee he’s not doing his own math. Both the reporter and/or his source for that figure already knows about Shoppach’s inevitable raise.

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I posted this before I saw the Mets were close to getting him.

With that said, I dont see why we cant try to go after a Sheets (short, incentive based contract) or Pettite. They are both light years ahead of Wolf or Garland. And, if they dont work out then we should be trying hard to add Dunn.

by Tribe Alive on Dec 24, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Dec 24, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs

I seriously dont understand what was wrong with suggesting we go after the 3rd or 4th best pitcher on the market this year.

by Tribe Alive on Dec 24, 2008 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think people are saying we wouldn’t want Lowe, I think they’re saying we don’t have anything close to the money for him.

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

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 24, 2008 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we want Lowe, I know we wanted CC, Tex probably would have been nice and Burnett would would have been good too. Unfortunately, Dolan does not have a printing press that spits out crisp, clean one hundred dollar bills like the one the Yankees had installed in the basement of their new stadium.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Dec 24, 2008 10:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is he going to go for more than 12 or 13 a year?

by Tribe Alive on Dec 24, 2008 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’d say pretty confidently that $15 million is his floor

by world dictator on Dec 24, 2008 11:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t know that, particularly if the Yankees are out of the bidding. If.

It seems somewhat likely that the Red Sox will bring him back at this point. With Drew and Bay in the corners and Ortiz at DH, they’re not going to sign a pure bat unless he can play a decent first base. That’s my guess, anyway.

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just because he’s the third or fourth best pitcher on the market doesn’t mean he should be paid like a non-CC caliber top starter. You answered your own question exactly by phrasing it the way you did. Part of his salary comes from his talent, and part comes from the supply of whatever else is available on the market.

The list of pitchers who’ve made $15M per season is small, and Lowe is not on their level. He’s not Oswalt, Zambrano, CC, or Santana. He’s pitched in Dodger Stadium in the weak league. I’ll give him some credit for pitching well with a crappy infield defense behind him. I don’t think Lowe would crumble in the AL, but he’s not posting an ERA under 4.00 in any year of that contract. I’d rather spend $20M on a Sabathia, Halladay, or Santana than spend $15M on Lowe.

by xrickx on Dec 24, 2008 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not so much the AAV, but the years. Lowe may sign for 3 and probably will sign for 4; CC took 7 and Burnett 5.

by Peter Bendix on Dec 24, 2008 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

C.C. and Santana are making 50% more than $15 million.

Oswalt and Zambrano took deals that were plainly below the free agent market, and they were not free agents.

Given the caliber of pitcher that has gotten $11 million and $12 million, I see nothing particularly outrageous about Lowe getting 15.

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Boston Globe reports Lowe is close to signing a 3 to 4 year deal with the Mets at $15 mil per.

by world dictator on Dec 24, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we think the contract is worth it, we’ll probably sign Lowe.

Chances are, Shapiro & co are going to view a 4 year, $60-70 million deal as being too much for Lowe. But if they thought it was a deal that made sense for the Indians, they’d choose to sign him.

by Peter Bendix on Dec 24, 2008 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Do you think they’d sign him for three years, $45 million?

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do think the Indians would sign him for 3 years and $45 million, yes. I don’t think Lowe would take it, he can almost certainly get more.

Do you think Shapiro would make this deal?

by Peter Bendix on Dec 24, 2008 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Close call, and it depends on how bad the Dolan family is hurting from the economic situation. At that price, the team is probably asking ownership to absorb some of the cost or risk out of their personal funds.

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that if Cleveland thought Lowe were worth 3/$45 mil they would’ve signed a cheaper closer.

by world dictator on Dec 24, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would they? There was no reason to assume that they could sign him.

by Jay on Dec 24, 2008 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lowe will be 36 on June 1.

by odradek on Dec 24, 2008 4:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Kind of out of order here, but would someone please specify why Let's Go Tribe ignores the subject line?

It's a crazy messed-up world... It's a doggy-dogg world...

by oc on Dec 25, 2008 5:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Because it’s unnecessary and awkward, and it makes the page harder to read.

by Jay on Dec 25, 2008 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mile HIgh Report is torture on my aging eyes.

You can flay me all you want for being a Denver Broncos fan.

Signature to be named later.

by emd2k3 on Dec 29, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

/flays

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 29, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you say something?

by world dictator on Dec 25, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Subject lines, my dear boy, are undignified. We here at LGT are the most civil and upstanding members of the SB Nation. We are always polite. Never attack another poster in a personal nature. Additionally we always wear three piece suits while logged in, never loosening our neckties—no matter how drunk we may get on the finest Highland Scotch that the larger majority of us sip throughout the day and well into the evening.

Now please observe proper decorum, or remove yourself from my lawn before I have to let loose the hounds.

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 26, 2008 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs

Tyler only rides his elliptical in a three piece suit.

What a disaster that collarless shirt was.

by afh4 on Dec 26, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I bet the farm we sign Lowe!

by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 26, 2008 12:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think Brad Penny is a much probable free agent target. I’m honestly surprised the Dodgers didn’t pick up his $9.25 million option.

Penny probably gets 3 yrs/$30 mil considering he won 16 games in 2006, 2007 and a few big market teams seem like they’re in the bidding.

If Penny’s contract is in the 3yrs/24 million range I think its entirely possible we sign him.

by world dictator on Dec 26, 2008 9:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I know this discussion has died down, but this seemed like the good place to mention the NY Times is reporting that the Mets offered Lowe a 3-year, $36 million contract.

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

by Buckeye Brad on Dec 30, 2008 10:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That would be a great deal for the Mets. if I’m the Red Sox, there’s no way I don’t top that deal, even with the Penny signing.

by world dictator on Dec 30, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it seems that outside of the contracts the Yankees gave out, there have been some reasonable deals (as opposed to the last couple of years).

I also wonder if this drops the price for Sheets, and if that makes us a possibility (though Shapiro may not have another 10 million or so to work with).

by JP_Frost on Dec 31, 2008 5:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Since we have reached 2009 and Lowe has still not signed, this thread still has some life… All the talk about $15M/year seems premature, as the Mets offered just $12M/year. Does the market rate of $12-13M change the discussion at all? All of the comments in the thread addressed Lowe as a $15M guy.

The Lowe contract will be interesting to track. Once a rejected contract offer goes public, can we expect the price to get much higher? He is another Boras big-name client, but does not have any of the big boys in the bidding. (I would have expected a little more action before a rejected offer goes public)

Lowe is a money pitcher in the playoffs and has pitched 180+ innings in each of the seven seasons since he became a starter. It’s hard to believe he would want to pitch in a small market, though, and we already have 2 sinkerballers… Still, would Lowe take a shorter contract for higher per year? (If this is going to be “our year”, Lowe would be nice to have come October).

Yankees and Red Sox - MLB's Axis of Evil
(And ESPN is right in the middle)

by Spidey on Jan 2, 2009 11:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

after the DeRosa trade, I don’t think there’s enough money left for Shapiro to make an interesting offer to Lowe. I also read that Lowe wasn’t impressed by the Mets offer and wants $16M per year.

by JP_Frost on Jan 4, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just because there’s a “deal” on the market doesn’t mean we can afford it. Best Buy has a lot of great deals but when you don’t have the money, you don’t have the money.

by world dictator on Jan 4, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs