MLB FA signings (non NYM variety) 2014-15

[Frayed Knot]

He was the higher-ceiling though less certain, the more expensive in $$ and years though not requiring a draft pick, alternative to Cuddyer.
I suppose only time will tell if not pursuing him was the more prudent move or just the cheap-ass cop-out one.

[Centerfield]

6 year, $68 million.

Pretty reasonable. At that price point, it's disappointing that the Mets were not in play.

[Frayed Knot]

Centerfield wrote: 6 year, $68 million. Pretty reasonable. At that price point, it's disappointing that the Mets were not in play.

Well, "reasonable" depends on how good he turns out to be.
Not everyone from Cuba is going to be as good as Puig or Abreu or be as ready to hit the ground running as they were even if he does turn out to be good.
That's why I'm saying that Cuddyer is the less risky move even if he has less upside.

[Centerfield]

Certainly less risky. Especially since Cuddyer played in Colorado, which is almost the equivalent of playing in the Major Leagues.

Still, for a guy who scouts say has so much raw power, it's disappointing they didn't make a run. He costs about as much as Granderson.

[bmfc1]

And he wouldn't have cost the Mets a draft pick, a player in return, or the cost of developing him in the minors.

[Frayed Knot]

I think what not just the non-signing but the lack of interest in this case shows is that, until they can get some winning, and therefore a bump in attendance, and therefore some increased revenue under their belts, they're going to remain in a risk-averse mode for a while.

[ashie62]

Maybe they are waiting to close on Boston SS Xander Bogaerts.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I wonder if Panda's defection to Boston opens up a landing spot for Muffy. Could definitely play third there.

[Frayed Knot]

Muffy & Tejada for Brandon Crawford ... WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR SANDY?!?!?!

[ashie62]

Frayed Knot wrote: I think what not just the non-signing but the lack of interest in this case shows is that, until they can get some winning, and therefore a bump in attendance, and therefore some increased revenue under their belts, they're going to remain in a risk-averse mode for a while.

They may not get the winning and other good stuff until the risk/averse mentality changes first.

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: Muffy & Tejada for Brandon Crawford ... WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR SANDY?!?!?!

Huh?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/crawfbr01.shtml
Just, .... huh?

4 seasons, over 1800 PA, minus in OPS.
For that, he'd have to be the second coming on Ozzie Smith. And he ain't.
Hope you were joking.
Later

[Edgy MD]

What do you mean by "minus in OPS"?

I don't know if he's worth Murphy and Tejada, but Crawford's alright.

[MFS62]

Edgy MD wrote: What do you mean by "minus in OPS"?

Less than 100. (I think that means less than league average)
IMO, Murphy plus Tejada is too much to give up for him.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

Hope you were joking.

Just kind of blurted out the first thing that came to my mind more than anything, BUT ...
Crawford is a 27 y/o SS with a plus-glove and is under team control for the next three years being swapped (in this theoretical example) for the guy who would lose his job anyway if we did this trade plus Muffy who could walk in a year.
Just my opinion, but I think it's the Giants who would say no to that deal first.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

MFS62 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: What do you mean by "minus in OPS"? Less than 100. (I think that means less than league average) IMO, Murphy plus Tejada is too much to give up for him. Later

Less than league average ain't minus.

I wouldn't make too much of that. Murphy's was only seven points higher in an All-Star year, and the standard is different for a shortstop, and Crawford's a good-fielding shortstop.

I'm not agitating for a trade, but Crawford's a good player that I wouldn't hate to see on my team.

[Guest sharpie]

Nelson Cruz to Mariners. 4 years/$57 mil.

[Frayed Knot]

sharpie wrote: Nelson Cruz to Mariners. 4 years/$57 mil.

BAM!!

Seattle has seemed like they've just been itching to spend money to buttress things up since the Cano signing, and after jumping from a couple of 70-some win seasons to 87 last year they seem now to be in full go-for-it mode.
This may all work out but it's also part of the trap when you sign a guy to a huge deal, you suddenly find yourself under the gun to double down again and again during the time that he's there. The M's have now had three straight years where they've signed someone to a contract worth over $100mil [Cano, then re-upped King Felix, and last week inked their young IF Kyle Seager to a lengthy deal). Here they go with a more modest deal in terms of years and money, but it's also to a 34 y/o DH.

[Edgy MD]

The Beltran trap.

[Frayed Knot]

I was thinking more of Piazza, but either one works to some degree.
The most dangerous case is where you acquire the high-priced guy while still a losing team rather than as a final piece to the puzzle and then are forced to continue to import pieces to put around him. That's why I thought of Piazza (but he gave them an identity!!) in conjunction with Cano.

[Frayed Knot]

Toriiii Hunter returns to Minnesota on a 1-year deal.
He'll turn 40 on July 18th which will be six days after the 22nd anniversary of him first signing with the Twins as their 1st round (20th overall) draft pick.

[Edgy MD]

MLB columnist Phil Rogers praised the move, saying the deal was about loyalty and character.

Hunter demonstrated Rogers' point by insulting statistical analysts and calling a reporter a prick at his re-introductory press conference.

[seawolf17]

The Yankees are paying $9M a year for a LOOGY: http://nyyfans.com/yankees/yankees-to-sign-andrew-miller-to-four-year-36-million-deal/

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Four year deals for relief pitchers are always great ideas.
Signed,
Omar Minaya

[Frayed Knot]

Matching this FA to that team was the easiest lay-up of the winter this year.
Miller was once a top prospect who seems to have found his niche in the pen and is more than just a LOOGY (lower BAA vs RHBs over the last two seasons). But, yeah, four year deals to 30 y/o relievers (turns 30 in May) are dicier even than other long-term pitching contracts.

Be interesting to see how hard the Yanx ride him as, even with the lack of splits, he's still been averaging less than 1.0 inning per/appearance when, given his size (6' 7") and background as a starter, you'd think he was capable of more batters/game a la the way they used Mariano early in his career and then Betances last year. Also, if the size of this deal signals that they're going to walk away from Robertson and his FA demands, they'll likely move Betances to closer and have Miller set-up at which point they couldn't keep him to just a one or two out guy.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Guest

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

After making adjustments to his motion two years ago, Miller's been a very nice piece (at 14-plus K/9 over the last two years), but man... at that price, each of those 50 innings he'll pitch yearly will have to be, like, super-pretty. I mean, for just a few million more per year, they could have bought an older starting outfielder with a bulging-disc issue.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I suppose cleverest interpretation is that it could be looked at as getting a "closer" for "sub-closer" money. Robertson is looking at the same payday or more based on "experience" and guys like Papelbon are making considerably more.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yabbut, splashing on relief-- whether closer or non-closer-closer-- is a going-from-88-to-92-wins kinda move. I s'pose the MFY braintrust is contractually obligated to view their chances that way, but... well...

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Oh, totally agree this is a move essentially about the MFYs explouting financial might above anything else. And it assumes the MFYs will acquire whatever else they lack with additional big spending. I mean, F them.

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah, they essentially have to spend money, if for no other reason than just the fear of looking passive and having to answer for it. But ...

- they can't do much on position players, both from being already locked into contracts they either can't or don't want to move [Teixeira, McCann, ARod, Ellsbury, Beltran, Gardner] and from there being fewer of those on the open market this winter. And trading for big chips [Kemp, etc.] is a problem because they don't have much to trade. If they spend anywhere on the lineup this winter it was probably going to be re-signing Chase Headley but there are stories out there of him already having a $50 million offer on the table from someone (maybe the Yanx, maybe someone else).

So they probably reason that a big contract for a reliever is safer/saner/shorter/cheaper than bidding on a six or seven year deal for one of the big starters out there [Lester, Scherzer, Shields] and that, even though their rotation needs as much help as anything, they're hoping that a Royals-like approach to the pen can compensate for a mediocre rotation.
And, really, if you can't copy the business plan of the team who just made the post-season for the first time in three decades, what's the point of even playing?

[Frayed Knot]

Jason Hammel, the other pitcher sent to the A's w/Jeff Samardzjia in last summer's blockbuster deal, returns to the Cubs on a 2-year deal.