 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Baseball off season happenings.
cubfan531
Chicago Cubs: sign Xavier Nady ($3 million, pending physical) to be RF platoon primary backup OF, also sign 1B/3B Chad Tracy to a minor league deal.
San Diego Padres: Sign RHP Jon Garland to bolster their rotation and look like a team that's actually trying.
Oakland Athletics: Sign RHP Ben Sheets to a 1-year, $10 million deal. The A's may have just lost $10 million on a rehab project.
Minnesota Twins: Sign DH Jim Thome for $1.5 million.
Baseball off season happenings.
January 27, 2010 at 02:41AM View BBCode
Basically, here's what's happened today:Chicago Cubs: sign Xavier Nady ($3 million, pending physical) to be RF platoon primary backup OF, also sign 1B/3B Chad Tracy to a minor league deal.
San Diego Padres: Sign RHP Jon Garland to bolster their rotation and look like a team that's actually trying.
Oakland Athletics: Sign RHP Ben Sheets to a 1-year, $10 million deal. The A's may have just lost $10 million on a rehab project.
Minnesota Twins: Sign DH Jim Thome for $1.5 million.
dirtdevil
January 27, 2010 at 03:14AM View BBCode
i think the cubs have made some moves there that could help at very little risk. ditto for the twins. garland to san diego is a bit of a surprise, but he should do reasonably well in that big park. sheets to oakland is a stunner to me.
tworoosters
Word is Oakland are still in talks with Damon for a one year deal at around $4-5 million. As for Damon returning to New York I love Brian Cashman's recent quote:
"I'm not having any discussions on him," general manager Brian Cashman said. "His abilities exceed the money that I have."
Personally I'd probably said "his demands exceed his abilities" but Cashman gets diplomat of the year for his spin.
January 27, 2010 at 03:18AM View BBCode
Nady's a solid signing, if he passes the physica, as are Garland for less than $5 million and Thome but $10 million for Ben Sheets is a very aggressive stance for a team that wins 75 games a year.Word is Oakland are still in talks with Damon for a one year deal at around $4-5 million. As for Damon returning to New York I love Brian Cashman's recent quote:
"I'm not having any discussions on him," general manager Brian Cashman said. "His abilities exceed the money that I have."
Personally I'd probably said "his demands exceed his abilities" but Cashman gets diplomat of the year for his spin.
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 04:03AM View BBCode
Repeat after me, again, because this is very very very important. "It is never the money, it is always the years."
cubfan531
As for the Cubs, they have been making low-risk moves that should pan out no shorter than solid: Byrd, Nady, Tracy, Gray.
Thome for $1.5 million (up to an extra $700k in performance bonuses) is also pretty good, even if he's just a part time DH/pinch hitter. Maybe a game or two at 1B, and that's a big maybe.
January 27, 2010 at 04:14AM View BBCode
With incentives, I'd be willing to pay Sheets up to $14 million, he's worth it. However, base salary of no more than maybe $6 million. I don't know why they're finally willing to open up the pocketbook in Oakland, but, honestly, if they're adding Damon, it's not wisely.As for the Cubs, they have been making low-risk moves that should pan out no shorter than solid: Byrd, Nady, Tracy, Gray.
Thome for $1.5 million (up to an extra $700k in performance bonuses) is also pretty good, even if he's just a part time DH/pinch hitter. Maybe a game or two at 1B, and that's a big maybe.
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 04:19AM View BBCode
The A's aren't "opening up" the pocketbook, they're taking a flier on a guy with upside. If he sucks, or is injured, they're out 10 million. If he's good, they can flip him at the deadline for prospects. In either case, they have no long-term commitment to him.
cubfan531
January 27, 2010 at 06:06AM View BBCode
With his elbow and shoulder issues, I still say $10 million is steep for a guaranteed amount on a guy whose been healthy one season in the past six.
cubfan531
January 27, 2010 at 07:13AM View BBCode
I suppose you're right. I mean, when even Aaron Miles can even manage a multi-year deal...
dirtdevil
it matters to some teams. oakland used to be one of them. i'm much more surprised to see oakland shell out that kind of dough for him than i would have been to see, say, the cubs or yankees or red sox do it.
January 27, 2010 at 03:10PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
The money. Doesn't. Matter.
it matters to some teams. oakland used to be one of them. i'm much more surprised to see oakland shell out that kind of dough for him than i would have been to see, say, the cubs or yankees or red sox do it.
thatrogue
If they are wrong, they will have blown between $5 and $10 million (depending on how he performs and whether they can at least dump his salary). If no trade is available at the deadline, they could still offer Sheets arbitration at season's end, and possibly get an extra first rounder plus a compensation pick next season.
All-in-all, considering the way they run their team, and the financial value of talent during their first few major league seasons, it is a worthwhile risk for the A's to take.
January 27, 2010 at 03:42PM View BBCode
As Craig noted, this is about prospects and the reasonable cost of a one year deal. The A's are unlikely to contend this season. Their probable goal is to pay Sheets $5 - $6 million, then trade him for the equivalent of at least two mid-first round picks (i.e. the prospects or major league ready players they get in return). Which, considering the prospects will be further developed than amateur draftees (and presumably carry less risk as a semi-known quantity), is a very reasonable price, in light of current signing bonuses and development costs.If they are wrong, they will have blown between $5 and $10 million (depending on how he performs and whether they can at least dump his salary). If no trade is available at the deadline, they could still offer Sheets arbitration at season's end, and possibly get an extra first rounder plus a compensation pick next season.
All-in-all, considering the way they run their team, and the financial value of talent during their first few major league seasons, it is a worthwhile risk for the A's to take.
FuriousGiorge
No, Deke. No. This is not a complicated equation.
January 27, 2010 at 03:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
The money. Doesn't. Matter.
it matters to some teams. oakland used to be one of them. i'm much more surprised to see oakland shell out that kind of dough for him than i would have been to see, say, the cubs or yankees or red sox do it.
No, Deke. No. This is not a complicated equation.
dirtdevil
January 27, 2010 at 03:53PM View BBCode
those are good points. it's just more of a financial risk than i was expecting oakland to take. i was much more expecting him to end up with a contending team taking that risk. but as you say it could potentially be a nice move for the a's.
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 04:04PM View BBCode
It's not a financial risk. It's a signing bonus. Even to a small-market team, a 1-time outlay of 10 million dollars is not a huge deal.
dirtdevil
January 27, 2010 at 04:07PM View BBCode
it's not nothing either. either way though, are you not at all surprised to see him in oakland rather than chicago or someplace?
tm4559
January 27, 2010 at 05:25PM View BBCode
craig is right. the 10 million now is just luxury tax money laying around, and the league is putting pressure on clubs like oakland to spend some of it. so it is a big win for them.
FuriousGiorge
Absolutely not. Expectations are problematic in sports - if a marginal contender signs Sheets, then there is at least some expectation that he's the missing piece. If he's not, or if (maybe worse) he's good for a while and then gets injured, the team is in a very difficult position. For Oakland, this signing is all upside. For a team that has at least some hope of competing, there's a lot of risk, where a Sheets injury could blow a hole in their rotation and force them to make a sub-optimal mid-season deal due to heightened fan expectations.
January 27, 2010 at 05:39PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
it's not nothing either. either way though, are you not at all surprised to see him in oakland rather than chicago or someplace?
Absolutely not. Expectations are problematic in sports - if a marginal contender signs Sheets, then there is at least some expectation that he's the missing piece. If he's not, or if (maybe worse) he's good for a while and then gets injured, the team is in a very difficult position. For Oakland, this signing is all upside. For a team that has at least some hope of competing, there's a lot of risk, where a Sheets injury could blow a hole in their rotation and force them to make a sub-optimal mid-season deal due to heightened fan expectations.
dirtdevil
January 27, 2010 at 06:54PM View BBCode
speaking of off-season happenings, it appears that andre dawson is upset he's going in as a montreal expo. i had thought that was a no-brainer?
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 06:59PM View BBCode
If you find a professional athlete that isn't infected by a profound degree of myopia, it'll be the first one.
happy
Years matters, money doesnt?
which would you rather do:
1) sign ben sheets to 1 year 10 million
2) sign ben sheets to 4 years 10 million
The amount of money remains the same. The years changes.
January 27, 2010 at 08:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
The money. Doesn't. Matter.
Years matters, money doesnt?
which would you rather do:
1) sign ben sheets to 1 year 10 million
2) sign ben sheets to 4 years 10 million
The amount of money remains the same. The years changes.
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 08:19PM View BBCode
That's the same as saying, which would you rather do, sign Sheets for 1 year at 2.5 million or 1 year at 10 million. It's a self-negating premise.
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 08:23PM View BBCode
(In other words, Ben Sheets is not signing a deal for 2.5 million a year. You're creating a scenario which doesn't actually exist in the real world. In the real world, your options are something like, get Sheets at 1 year for 10 million, or 4 years at 30 million. If those are your options, option A is preferable.)
dirtdevil
January 27, 2010 at 08:43PM View BBCode
come now. happy is being a twit, yes, but no one was going to sign sheets for 4 years. one and a club option was about all he had a real shot at without a whole pile of incentives.
FuriousGiorge
January 27, 2010 at 08:50PM View BBCode
I understand that, but the point is that when you're looking at whether a deal is a good bargain or not, you have to focus on the total outlay at least as much as the per-year. But people have a tendency to do the math and base their understanding of the deal on the average. Long-term costs are what can cripple a team's viability, not one-year investments.