Willingham Signs with Minnesota

3 Years, $21M. Presumably this means Cuddyer signs elsewhere. And by elsewhere, I mean not Cleveland. Sigh.

5 months ago Ryan 25 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

that strikes me as being pretty affordable.

by emil minty on Dec 15, 2011 5:13 PM EST reply actions

Maybe I’m being silly, but I agree. $7 million is too much for what would have been the highest OPS on the team last year?

I like ex-Phillies prospects.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 15, 2011 11:24 PM EST up reply actions

Third year. I bet they would have gone 2 × 8 with a vesting option.

It’s also possible that he just preferred Minnesota to Cleveland, although this seems like a bad moment to start a three-year deal there.

It’s also possible that the Indians just think his defense is simply atrocious.

by Jay on Dec 16, 2011 12:08 AM EST up reply actions

it seems like a third year is verbotten. But if its any of your other three options, that would make Cuddyer a possibility. Here’s to hoping.

by gmfrodo on Dec 16, 2011 6:22 AM EST up reply actions

Cuddyer to Rockies expected to be announced today.

by FallsTribeFan on Dec 16, 2011 9:46 AM EST up reply actions

This would be the appropriate year for us to give up the inappropriate third year.

by Jay on Dec 16, 2011 12:17 PM EST up reply actions

No kidding. 2012-2013 looks like the window of opportunity for this team. After 2013, Jimenez, Choo, and Cabrera could all be gone via free agency.

by Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

I heard, I could go dig this up if you’d like, that though no formal offer was made, they had talked about going 2 years at $15 million total. Of course that’s nowhere as good as 3 years at $21 total.

There’s a bit of a schism here, did they think he was a fit for our team or not? I don’t recall reading anything that said they were “not” interested in him, so I’m led to believe that they did consider him a decent fit or upgrade. At the same time I know there is consideration that he’s not real position player and ultimately a DH, if this is the case, why bother talking to his agent at all? I’m just very confused at the end result in this.

by hans on Dec 16, 2011 1:43 PM EST up reply actions

I can’t believe that his defense was what soured the Indians on him. No, he’s not a great defender, but if he was, would he even be available for the Indians to sign? The Indians need offensive pop from the corners, and that’s what he does – three straight 120 OPS+ seasons, averaging in the low 20s in home runs. He seemed to me the perfect fit for this team.

And if the Indians saw him as an eventual DH, well, that spot will be opening in a season. This is shades of the 06-07-08 teams, with fantastic hitters up the middle, but without much production from the tradiational power positions.

by Ryan on Dec 16, 2011 4:01 PM EST up reply actions

I think, bottom line, they are looking at what he can contribute in toto compared with more of a Brantley-Duncan platoon situation. Common sense says he’s an upgrade, but how much of one, and given the injury history, what’s that worth to us?

I’ll double-down and say that they’re looking at a big gap in run prevention as part of the comparison, dragging down the value-add with the bat.

by Jay on Dec 16, 2011 10:52 PM EST up reply actions

It’s really a hard signing to judge right now. 33-35 is not exactly a great time to acquire an injury prone guy who was never a great defender.

by afh4 on Dec 17, 2011 12:02 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, but it is only relative. If not signing him then who do you acquire? You certainly can’t return to the same level of production out of the corner outfield spots as last season, right?

by hans on Dec 18, 2011 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

No, but you can expect better based on luck/development/health alone.

by Jay on Dec 19, 2011 12:58 AM EST up reply actions

Expect better based on “luck”? I’m assuming you mean based on what would have been deemed a level of “unluckiness” that occured last season. I’m not so sure that was the case. Also, the risk of injury is not a foreign concept. A team should consider what it has in place and should the reality of injury occur, what it has in it’s place as a depth option. Expecting better health as a likelier outcome is fine, but it is not out of possibility or likelyhood that the team’s corner outfield does again incur injuries that limit the play of the current starters and potentially to extended periods of time.

Michael Brantly looks much better as a 4th outfielder.

by hans on Dec 19, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions

I think we had some pretty bad luck in the corner OF spots.

by Jay on Dec 19, 2011 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

I guess I’m unclear if you are lumping injury in with bad luck?

by hans on Dec 19, 2011 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

Broken bones from HBP is bad luck.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 19, 2011 8:19 PM EST up reply actions

No need to be looking at specifics. In any given season, it’s a likelihood that players will incur injuries, it’s likely that chunks of the season will go on without key players. Choo may not be likely to suffer another HBP broken hand incident, but he’s at risk of major injury just the same. It can be assumed that we will be without one of our outfielders for parts of the season, it can be assumed that we may be without two of our outfielders for parts of this season. In those times, who will the Indians be running out there?

by hans on Dec 19, 2011 10:04 PM EST up reply actions

I’d probably take that word “major” out of that sentence above, if given the chance. Should read “…he’s at risk of injury just the same.”

by hans on Dec 19, 2011 10:05 PM EST up reply actions

No need to be looking at specifics? Jay say we had bad luck, you asked how, I told you how.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 19, 2011 11:53 PM EST up reply actions

And my contention is that I don’t buy this “bad luck” argument in its use that we should expect not to have such variablity in luck next season.

If bad luck is extremely high BABIP or HR/FB% than, yes, I’d say we had bad luck last year.

If bad luck is one of our players was injured (regardless of the injury) than I don’t see it. I fully expect that we will have injuries again next year, and roughly to the extent of time lost. It may not be Choo, but it may be someone of similar value.

by hans on Dec 20, 2011 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

There aren’t a lot of players of similar value to Choo on our team. When your highest WAR producing player goes down to a broken hand via HBP, it really seems like bad luck.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Dec 20, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions