Frayed Knot

though it's also consistent with what I see as your "you never know nothing and can never discuss anything intelligently because I can always come up with some quibbling niggling irrelevant factoid that you can't demonstrably know, so HA HA HA on you" position. As opposed to your "you agreed back in '05 that you wouldn't be adverse to a LT deal for Reyes so even if they sign him to something ridiculous I'll repeat the "fact" that you personally approved of it for the next 8 years" position. By the end of '06 Reyes will have 3+ years of ML time served, making him a FA following the '09 season so - as mentioned by SWolf - his agent is likely to want a deal which either runs for 3 years (maybe 4): to take care of the arb years only; or something on the order of 7: which would be for (2nd half anyway) real FA money and still allow him to sell himself again aroung the age of 30. Something in between is generally not in the player's interest. Now if I'm the Mets I don't do the longer one unless he somehow turns into a superstar this season. Cards wisely did that w/Pujols but it's a rare player where that makes sense and Jose isn't one of those. So we're looking at what the proper number would be for a 3yr stint. If we start w/your assumption that $3mil will be an '07 target then the club's trick is to decide what '08 & '09 will look like with normal progress: $5mil then $7 maybe? (Soriano at the same point went $5.5, $7.5, and $10? for this year) That's $15 over the 3 seasons that you're going to have to pay anyway assuming he doesn't fall into the toilet. So a deal that offers something in the $11-$14 range over those 3 years wouldn't be out of whack. It would give Reyes the security he's never had and the Mets a set of firm numbers they can plug into their budgeting projections and everyone avoids the year-to-year haggling process. Naturally this all depends on how this season goes - both for Jose and for the market as a whole - but I could get behind a deal like that and be a whole lot less nervous about a deal like that than I was about the ones for Wagner/Pedro/Glavine for instance.

Y'know, as long as you define the act of buying out the arb years as the equivelent of "superstar money" this whole exercise is going to be slanted from the start.

The Yanx have already put the kibosh on Posada, Unit, and Mussina. They apparently tried to do the same with Jeter but that request was denied (I have no idea what criteria the various committees are using). Meanwhile, Mariano was on the radio the other day claiming he hasn't decided yet but that the decision is totally up to him. Sure it is. Omar was quoted in one of the papers saying while that they haven't denied anyone's participation, they retain the right to do so and would monitor Pedro before making a decision (or something along those lines).

"When faced with the decision to choose between my country, the United States of America and my Dominican heritage, I decided I will not dishonor either. I'm so adverse to controversy I decided to take the wimpy way out. "Sports participation should only include the admiration and respect an athlete has for a nation and family. I intend to play baseball only when I am dedicated to both. No one really likes me anyway "Playing baseball for the New York Yankees allows you to honor and advance the interest of both without division." George said I couldn't go

I still think: a) we should have offered arbitration. and that I'd rather have him than Julian Tavarez If he accepted arb he'd likely get what he's getting now but only for 1 year, and if not we'd be getting draft picks out of this StL signing. And with Looper here he'd at least be on the hook for only 1 year. Omar was quoted in one of the papers today as saying that the relievers currently on the market "all want 3 years". He's weighing the options available but thinking about waiting to see what's on the non-tender market instead.

I agree with striking both the post and the name, if only to avoid confusion. Otherwise I'm generally in favor of letting PitA's hang around in order to get abuse heped upon them.

I liked getting Benson and still do. The part I disliked was the inclusion of Huber. Pittsburgh had lost a slew of guys in the Rule 5 draft that year and Bautista was one that they wanted back. The Mets had probably already committed (mentally) to the deal and so decided to "do whatever it takes" to complete it. Once you make the decision that you have to have a particular player it's easy to keep adding on (players or years or dollars) until you get him.

What exactly were the Red Sox wrong about? They offered - and he rejected - several contracts that, in retrospect, were millions more than he deserved. If anything, they were wrong about going as far as they did to keep him. The Indians, Dodgers & Astros are rumored to be the other Nomar suitors. In this case I can see Mr. Hamm making the same mistake as Todd Zeile did in his stint there, as well as Kenny Lofton and more recently Tony Womack; choosing the "honor" of playing in the pinstripes and not realizing until too late that they really don't have a position for you and those vague promises of playing time don't amount to anything unless and until at least 2 players require emergency appendectomies in the same week. You're there to "steal" some aura from the Sox, to play the part of a trophy, to complete the "big three" SS group from the late '90s, and as insurance. Do yourself a favor dude, go somewhere where they actually want you as a ballplayer.

I think declaring yourself in favor of raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens is slightly more controversial than the stuff Wright listed. He's got a brother at Va Tech - explaining his football team of choice.

It would depend on the specifics of the multi-year deal.

]He might not just sign a one-year deal. If that's all that's offered, he really has no choice -- at least for the next 4 seasons ('06 - '09) Arbitration is merely a fall-back option that 3rd - 6th year players have to have their salary determined by an outsider if they and the team can't agree on an amount.

Tavarez also had that deal a year or so back where he went headhunting against Piazza for no apparent reason. 'Joolian' was then cornered by Pujols in the dugout who said something along the lines of; "Knock it off you fuckin' idjit, you're gonna get me killed!" Multi-year deals for middle relievers are usually really bad ideas. Even among the guys who were somewhat good: Turk, Franco, Weathers, Karsay, etc., they wound up backfiring ... and Tavarez isn't all that good.

btw, I'm not arguing in favor of a multi-year deal for Reyes now, or even a year from now; just pointing out that a long-term deal isn't something that a club enters into only when forced to by circumstances. Reyes is under NYM control for the next 4 years (if they so choose) so how they go about paying him over those years is a big decision for them. Boston saved millions by doing such a deal w/Nomar while the Yanx wasted at least as much by taking things year-by-year w/Jeter. Arbitration doesn't NEED to be acrimonious ... except that both sides almost universally try to avoid it like the plague. The Mets didn't "bid against themselves" for Matsui. There were numerous teams trying to sign him.

AB: "OH my Mr. Met, what a big head you have" MM: "Oh my Anna, what big ... "

Except that a multi-year deal helps the club also - at least the right kind of deal does. What clubs absolutely love as much as sell-outs and good weather is as much "cost certainty" as is possible to have. By inking a 3rd/4th year player to a 3 or 4 year deal the club knows exactly what he'll cost them for the next couple of years and, they not only get to avoid the often-contentious process of arbitration, they could wind up paying less over that time than the player would earn taking on a year-by-year basis. The player will often gladly give up the possibility of more cash because the longer term deal assures him of a job for another 3/4 years, security which wouldn't be available otherwise. Sometimes these deals favor the club (Boston w/Nomar way back when) and other times the player. Choosing which players to do this with is, of course, the trick and it's the purpose of Dickshot's multiple choice question. Dealing with Reyes one year at a time may cost the team more in the long run but they'll retain the option to get out from under him at any time; assuming that is that he'll play poorly enough to cause them to want to non-tender a 23 or 24 y/o with his (supposed?) talent. That was the same choice they had w/Ordonez following the '99 season. The combo of factors there: injury, phony age, regression of player, regression of market, and a deal that was too big (anticipating growing market) and too back-loaded to begin with, made it the wrong deal at the wrong time to the wrong player. We/they will get to visit the same choice next year with Reyes and in the one after that w/Wright.

They cut Bonilla w/about $6mil left Ordonez with 1/3 of his money still out there Cedeno with about 1/2 ($10mil? or so) Alomar had about 1/2 season's worth ($3-$4 mil?) Also, it's plenty easy for outsiders to say they should be eating more money for breakfast. But, unlike the investment example, going out and buying another SS (or whatever position you're trying to replace) means you have to pay the new one in addition to the one you're sitting on the bench, resulting in a huge portion of your payroll tied up in one position. So, unless we're buying into the limitless payroll scenario, let's not act so surprised if/when payroll considerations play a hand in decisions that are made or pretend that this practice is unique to one team. At what point, for example, was it prudent to cut Giambi last year when "it became obvious" that he had lost it? Lost it, that is, right up until the part where he led the majors in HRs over the 2nd half of the season. Until some corp hires me as their accountant, I'm not going to go advising them about how much is reasonable to simply write off.

Well, for those who start with the impression that the contract was a bad deal before it was ever inked, there'll never be a point that's NOT defined as dumping out too late. As it was, the Mets wound up eating 1/4 of the time and approx 1/3 of the money in that deal and - until the advent of Reyes - tried numerous other candidates [sanchez, Bordick, Relaford, Lopez, Abbott] who turned out to be no better than the one they were dumping.

="Bret Sabermetric"]Let's try this once more. You're Omar. I'm Delgago's agent. "Yo, Omar. Here's a deal. I want a 16 mil deal for my client. How many years are you willing to go at that rate?" You go: "16 mil? I'll give you a year." "Okay, but I'm pretty sure I'll get some offers for at least two years." [checks IMs] "Yep, here's an offer--no, two offers--for two years at 16 mil. No, three offers. I'm holding out for three years at this point. You willing to go three at 16 mil?" What's your answer? My answer is that if I like that price (and believed the agent's claim) I'd match the offer. Or I could say that I could give you even more years but at a lower rate ... and at this point we're back regular bargaining where both years & dollars are negotiable. Your whole premise assumes that an agent can simply pick a number and dictate that negotiations never deviate from it, plus it assumes that it's in his client's interest to do so. For the most part both players and clubs LIKE longer deals (at least up to a point) and will negotiate any aspect of the deal to get the terms to their liking. It takes two to dance and the scenario you've concocted starts out with an artificial constraint which makes no sense in the real world.

]What, am I supposed to give him a pass because he didn't see the market changing, or Rey's limited growth potential, or any of the other things you cite? Not suggesting that Phillips be let off the hook here. He backed the wrong horse, at the wrong time, with the wrong deal. btw, my objection to the deal at the time was the "backloadedness" of it which - when combined with the market correction - made the 3rd & 4th years of the deal even worse to deal with. $4+mil/year was bad enough, but when it was structured as more like $2 + $4 + $6 + $6, it made disposing of the contract even more problematic.

]That Post article is Exhibit A in the New York State vs. Phillips and Valentine et al. trial on the charge of "Impersonating a Knowledgable Baseball Person." What exactly do you expect a GM to say publicly about the SS he just signed to a 4-year deal? "Y'know, he really suxx ... and I truly expect he always will. Can't play, never could" You're treating this as "proof" of something when evidence that would say the opposite is non-existent virtually by definition. Rey's deal came after his best season when there was a plausible reason to believe that he was an improving player. It was one of 3 deals that SP handed out to arb-eligible players (Fonz & Mando were the others) in order to gain "cost certainty" throughout the arb-years and maybe the 1st FA year. He got good value on the two and missed on the 3rd. Going in to 2000, MLB was probably at it's most highly inflationary period (where you always like to lock in costs now "knowing" that it'll only cost you more later) since the beginning of the FA period in the late '70s. The problem with Rey was that - within months of signing the deal - not only did he "age" 1--1/2 years (birth cerrt discrepancy), stop improving, and miss 100+ games with a broken wrist, but the market actually reversed itself and became DEflationary for the first time in years; a condition which lasted until just about a year ago. Phillips bet on an improving player and an inflationary market and got neither.

]Delgado would be pleased because he's getting a very good rate for his services This assumes that he'd prefer $16 for 1 year over say $14 for 2, or $13 for 3 -- which I doubt would be the case. Playing it one year at a time brings the possibility that your next injury means this is your last fat paycheck. These guys have a short shelf-life and are generally more interested in security. Ask Mo Vaughn how that strategy would have worked out for him. Or Jim Thome ... Albert Belle ... Juan Gonzalez ... Kaz Matsui .. Jason Giambi ... Mike Lowell ... Bobby Bonilla Or hell, even Manny & ARod wouldn't get the same per/year deals they have now and neither of them have ever been disabled. They'd be making less money now AND not have the security.

I was about to say the same thing. I'd need to know a lot more about Vidro's state of health and state of wealth (contract status) before proposing deals for him.

Rotblatt wrote: We're apparently also interesed in Tavarez. A good idea, I think, but he's reportedly asking for four years, which is way too much. 2 years is too many. I don't like that guy -- I think he's a whack-job and he's not good enough to survive being a whack-job.

ML OFers as GMs (off the top of my head): Piniella Beane Watson (part-time OFer) One of the problem with Outfielders has been, that by not being part of the strategy sessions and mound conferences, they rarely get to demonstrate their "brains & leadership" qualities and therefore have rarely been put on the fast-track to post-playing career jobs. It's long been cited as one of the reasons (excuses) why black players - who were almost exclusively OFers in their first generation of playing - were so slow in breaking into Mgr/GM ranks.

Dickshot, your link is busted. Meanwhile, John Brattain over at The Hardball Times makes the case for Albert/Joey Belle.