Frayed Knot

The seemingly up again/down again Kevin Millwood inks a major deal with the Texas stRangers: [u:f3bacb6967]5 Years[/u:f3bacb6967] @ $60 million. That's 3 seperate 5 year contracts for pitchers this winter: Burnett, Ryan & Millwood ... as the pendulum swings back toward longer deals once again. Apparently, CH Park, Darren Dreifort & Mike Hampton weren't enough to scare people or were too long ago for folks to remember.

Frayed Knot wrote: The Hardball Times is optimistic about the future of Heath Bell (2nd half of the article) The folks at Hardball Times might be optimistic about the immediate future of Heath Bell but they seem to think Juan Padilla was was a bit "lucky" last year.

"I think 4 mil per year is star money, and big money, and money that Reyes has not begun to show he warrants yet. It's also the range that Soriano and Rollins make, and I suspect what Reyes' agents will be looking for at the end of the projected 2006 season." I don't think he'll be worth $4mil at the end of this upcoming year either -- Rollins didn't make that until his 4th year (2008 for Reyes) while Soriano (MUCH more accomplished at that stage) made $5.5 in his first arb year -- the $4mil is just a projected avg of what he might make over the following 3 years ('07-'09), figuring that if he doesn't fall into the toilet he'll; a) get that amount anyway with normal progress; (maybe in a $2.5, $4, $5.5 progression?) OR get a lot more if his career takes off in the manner that one of the more highly regarded prospects constantly playing above his age level could If you prefer to opt for the $2-$3 that Reyes will likely make in '07 and risk paying him even more for the 2 years after that rather than committing to $10-$12 all at once that's fine too. You guard against the downside that he plateaus at nothing better than a package easily replaceable at low salary by the time of his 5th/6th seasons like Ordonez did. But Reyes has a lot more going for him than Ordonez: he's 4 years younger than they thought Ordonez was and 6 years younger than he actually was, has better power, MUCH better speed, and apparently a considerably better attitude and aptitude. Much closer to Rollins than Ordonez and therefore much less chance of eventually regretting the outlay.

I was actually referring to PETCO in SD in answer to Nymr's guess that IT may somewhat favor leftys. But you're right, Skydome/Rogers - being symmetrical and enclosed - isn't likely to favor anyone.

"Can you name me three current Mets, for example, who've got multi-year deals at under a million per year?" Of course not. With the minimum salary of approx 1/3 of a mil/per, a starting player will approach that $1mil mark before he ever reaches the arb years so there's no point in him signing such a deal; and if said player is that young and NOT a regular then he isn't about to get offered one. "Or are you saying that a million a year is just-regular money?" In today's game, essentially yes. See above. "To my mind, "big star" money means money that the club is unwilling to eat no matter how far south a player goes. If the Mets owe Chris Woodward 500,000 dollars and he's batting .140 in 200 ABs, they might decide to cut him. If they owe him 5,000,000 dollars, he's not going nowhere." To my mind. "big star" money is what's given to big stars -- so maybe we're just arguing semantics here. No one's proposing paying him Pujols money. The arb-years proposals made here for Reyes average around $4mil/per ("Stars" are getting twice that at least) and could very well be less than he'll make if taken on a yr-by-yr basis (see the Rollins & Soriano examples). "If the Mets owe Chris Woodward 500,000 dollars and he's batting .140 in 200 ABs, they might decide to cut him. If they owe him 5,000,000 dollars, he's not going nowhere." Except that Bonilla was sent packing while owed around $6 (they bought him out via a long-term payout, but regardless, he didn't play or keep a roster spot). Cedeno was also paid to go away with the team paying about $9 of the $10mil they still owed over 2 years. And Rey himself - the example of what Jose could become while we're busy celebrating his stolen bases - was almost all of his final year's near-$6mil to go screw up in Tampa. So, they're not only apparently willing to eat that kind of money, they already have ... several times. "The difference between the Mets and the Yankees chiefly, to my mind, is that the Yankees just sit their big-ticket players down, or swap them out, when they're playing horribly and the Mets insist that these players are slowly coming around. " Except of course when the creature in question is Giambi or Brown who were owed too much for even THAT team to fire their asses when those guys screwed up both on and off the field. So - just as in the joke about whether the lady will sleep with you for a million dollars (we've already established what we think of her morals we're now just negotiating the price) - Giambi & Brown show that ALL teams take money factors into consideration when making those kind of decisions. The difference - as noted - is at what point that kicks in. But seeing as how X million means different things to different clubs for the same reason that X thousand means different things to Bill from Long Island than it does to Bill from Redmond, Washington, I'll let them make their own decisions as to how much is too much to simply write off. Saying; 'oh they got the money - that amount means nothing to them', is kinda dumb IMO until such point that they make one of us their accountant. What we're discussing here is how much seems to us fans at this point to be too much to commit to Reyes for the years 2007-2009, or indeed if ANY amount is too much if it's for more than the upcoming year only. At this point, I've specified (even though I don't particularly care if they go long-term or yr-by-yr); - what I think will be a worthwhile amount to risk in both money & years - under what circumstances I'd offer it - why I think that amount may represent a long-term savings - and how other somewhat similar players have fared in their comparable years So, unless you want me to get specific about the type and color of the pen to be used during the signing, or whether they should do this in private or make it a catered affair, I think you're grasping at straws by throwing around the "quibbling" label.

"That Mark Green deal is killing them, though" You're right, he'll never get elected mayor. "i believe that park favors lefties, though i'm not sure" Actually it's pretty much the opposite (although they are bringing in the RCF fence a bit this year).

]I'm looking to gather opinions, well before the crisis is here, to try to evaluate coolly how we feel about offering a player (without a whole lot of evidence that he's a big star) the kind of contract that a big star warrants, based on not much more than hopes and dreams. I'm somewhat irritably pointing out that you keep quibblingNot quibbling at all. In fact I've been about as specific as the assumptions we've allowed for here can let us be about the size and type of deal I think would be worthwhile to both sides given a young player's desire for "security" and the club's want of "cost certainty" for budget planning purposes plus this team's historical reluctance towards arbitration. Not that I'm saying they HAVE TO go that route, only that I think it's one both sides would be agreeable to either after this coming year or maybe after the next.And - contrary to what you keep repeating - there IS a middle ground between a 1-year deal and a deal commensurate with being "a big star".Now, if you want to insist that such a deal needs to extend into the FA/major bucks years then that's a much bigger risk and one I wouldn't want to take with this player at this time.

'Taint him

"Adam said that the current 3 guys will probably avoid arbitration as their market value is fairly easy to peg. "Those current 3 eligibles being Castro, Zambrano & Woodward.There's not really going to be a whole lot of salary range for those 3 nor any reasons to offer anything more than 1 year, meaning that the '06 numbers will probably be some easily reached agreed upon figure."Now, whether the Mets' policy has, in the main, helped them or hurt them, there is where we have room for disagreement, and where FK and others don't like to commit themselves."Meaning what ... that I'm required to commit myself *Right Now* to being squarely behind one strategy to the exclusion of all others even though it's a year before any such decision needs to be made and having no idea what next year will look like and what numbers the other side will or won't accept or I'm doomed to be labeled forever as some sort of waffling milquetoast?OK Fine, I'm guilty!

There might be worse public speakers than Damon ... but I wouldn't want to have to listen to them.

"All we've seen is that Adam Rubin and Frayed disagree"I don't see where I'm disagreeing with him at all.I've never said that an arbitration buy-out deal is the only route to take so to avoid the arbitration process, only that it's an option that has several advantages as long as it involves a player where there's confindence in steady growth.I have no problem if they decide to take things a year at a time and Rubin thinks they might go that route and simply added that he doesn't think the current administration would eliminate taking things to arbitration as an option.

Boiling down Rubin's take:* Team is holding the line on payroll for now - mainly as a result of the big deals to Wagner/Delgado, etc. - something that'll affect the pen more than anything. The fear of getting stuck with a steep tab is essentially the reason for no arbi-offers to Looper & Hernandez and also for staying away from multi-year or high-priced offers to the likes of Tavarez/Dotel. The back end of the pen will likely be filled with vet scrap-heap pickups or camp invitees. Royce Ring is rapidly falling off the team's radar ... may not even get a ML camp invite in ST.* Nady seems to be the team choice to get the majority of the time in RF, he's much higher on their priority list right now than Diaz* Yates & Lydon - the recently released minor leaguers - almost certain to look for work in a new org.* Matsui will be the starter at 2nd (assuming he's still here on opening day) but be on a shorter leash with Woodward & Valentin in the wings* Pedro's toe issue could be being played up a bit in order to be used as an excuse to get out of the WBC. An injury reason for not pitching for your home boys would be a face saving mechanism over saying you don't want to or that your daddy (team) won't let you. Remember, the recent comments about it still hurting were said during a dinner [u:1d9affed2e]in the DR[/u:1d9affed2e].* Manny almost certainly not in the cards for all the usual reasons: money, lack of match up w/Boston, etc. It's too big a ri$k to add to the ones we already have for '07-'08. see also [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/377165p-320419c.html]today's article[/url]* Touched a bit on the future Reyes arbitration issue.Doesn't think Omar & co will be automatically as arbi-adverse as previous admins neccesarily. May deal with Reyes one year at a time when that time comes depending on how things go, yyybbb.

Brett Tomko to the Dodgers for 2 years Rondell (RonDL) White to the Twins for 1

Some thumbnails sketches on a few of the recent Well-Done (non-tender) guys http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2005/12/recapping_a_bus.php

So using Rollins as a guideline, those 2004 & 2005 years are equivelent to where Reyes is going to be in 2007 & 2008 (time served-wise) 2004 Philadelphia Phillies $2,425,000 2005 Philadelphia Phillies $3,850,000 ... and it appears that the Phils then bought out the final year of his arb-eligible tenure and made that part of his first "FA" contract. Prior to that they took it on a year-by-year basis. So that's approx $6.5 for years 4 & 5 combined, then figure on an additional [$5mil? at least] for year 6 ... bringing the total to $11.5 minimum for the 3 -- a number right in the neighborhood of the $10-$14 that was suggested would be a target for dealing w/Reyes after assuming for decent progress this coming year. Adjust things for inflation and there's a good chance that he'd get more than that taking it a year at a time, so an arbi-buyout strategy of about that 10-14 amount would likely give both sides what they want; Reyes gets the security he couldn't otherwise, and the Mets get their "cost certainty" w/o the trials & tribs of arbitration and probably at a lesser total cost. Of course there always remains the serious injury or massive sucking risk, but I'm betting that's a call they'll feel better about a year from now if things go well. If not, then you stick with a 1-year deal for '07 and re-evaluate things after that.

My first question - out of curiosity mostly, not out of doubt for your word - is where are you getting those numbers -- Retrosheet? That there weren't constant sell-outs doesn't surprise me, but I am shocked that some of them are so low. As to your theories: --The game, especially the concept of Opening Day as an event, didn't used to be marketed the way it is now. That's not the way I remember things ... OD always seemed to be a big deal for peeps and for the team, even though is wasn't so for me. I mean, I look forward to it and all because it's baseball but I never felt an urgent need to be there on account of it being BIGGER than other games. --There were many more freebies given out for Opening Day by a more social-minded ownership (remember when they used to announce both a total and a paid attendance)? Possible, but you wouldn't think they'd need freebies on opening day. --The adoption of A.L. rules regarding tickets sold as the paid attendance instead of turnstile by the N.L. in '93 (why do you suppose the Mets are always breaking single-game records?) inflates the totals nowadays. Pretty much the same theory as the previous --New York didn't view OD as a municipal holiday the way Detroit or Cincinnati did, though I haven't checked their attendance from way back. To some extent, yes. --We live in a more sports-minded, more mobile society than we used to and we make time to reach for conclusions like the one I just stated. More sports-minded and more "event" driven I think. Americans simply have more leisure time and disposable income than they did years ago, so despite the rose-colored memories of aging fans and the assumptions of younger ones who often accept everything they're told by those same older ones, the notion about the reduced popularity of baseball as compared to "The Good Old Days" is frequently slanted

Now comes word that the Yanx have re-upped Bernie to a 1-year deal, presumably to be the main DH & occasional OF sub. ]There's a difference between a four-year deal with a productive and healthy player and a seven year deal. Damon looked beat up at the end of last season* and had problems with either one or both shoulders. Maybe that was all temporary, I'm not sure. Shirley the Yanx checked into this and the contract is technically not done yet given the usual "pending a physical" caveat. * (on edit): 2005 Pre A-S Break: 343 / 386 / 473 2005 Post A-S Break: 282 / 343 / 397 2002-2004 Composite: 298 / 364 / 440

I suspect a portion of these guys will re-up with the teams that just dropped them - possibly including Yates & Lydon. These types of moves clear room on the 40-man and the non-tenders can then be re-signed to minor league deals -- so the Obermueller/Kolb deal may have had a point after all.

Except that Houston released him following his arm surgery after they decided he didn't have it anymore. Boston then took a flyer on him hoping they'd strike lightning in a bottle .. and then released him after deciding he didn't have it anymore.

Reports have Boston drawing the line at 4yrs/$40 -- so it was the money rather than the years that spooked them. Big holes for the Sox at both CF & SS right now, not a good place to be in with many of the big deals having already been made. Hanley Ramirez - the hot prospect dealt in the Josh Beckett deal - was to be their future at one or the other of those positions ... and now he's their future at neither.

Kolb had a good year for Milwaukee 2 years back before his disaster w/Los Bravos last season -- although many figured that with his virtually non-existant K-rates (57 IPs, 39 saves, 21 Ks !!) it was a long-shot that he'd repeat it. Milwaukee then trades to get him back ... and then immediately non-tenders him!?! Wes Obenmueller - the guy they dealt for him - has to be scratching his head right about now too. 'Hmmm, they thought so little of me that they traded me for some guy they didn't even want! Why didn't they just release ME and I coulda struck my own damn deal?'

"I think it's immaterial which one hits where, and you could do a thousand simulation studies without finding any discernable distinction in the offensive production of one lineup over the other." Of course it won't matter, but it's amazing how many MFY fans think that moving Jeter to the #2 slot is uber-critical.

"There would be bonuses for things like stolen bases, triples and the usual stuff. " Not legal. Incentives are not allowed for specific outcome-based statistical goals, only appearence-type ones such as ABs, games played, etc., or post-season awards like MVP & CY. "I would also factor in that in 2005 i paid him only $332,000 and his performance that yr was a steal for the team, even given the room for improvment." Every player plays his 1st year or two at near minimum wage. There's nothing unique about this w/Reyes to where the club should look to "make up" the difference later on.

He's also not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. The arm is the funny part since a large part of the complaints about Bernie concerned his arm. Damon didn't have a good arm to start with and then if got worse as he didn't seem healthy at the end of this past season. He's still a good leadoff hitter and this deal doesn't look to be too long. Of course he's going to have to chop all that hair/beard off and I'm sure he'll tell anyone who'll listen how happy he is to do it.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that Boras didn't stick to his original claim of 7 years or bust.