Just a quick take. I'm almost never wrong (big smile kiddies) but this time I might be, because this is in the nature of a TV interview with 10 seconds' warning. Haven't done any research at all.
So slide in spikes down, can'cha … :- )
…………………………
1. Santana isn't going to the Angels… or to any other potential AL playoff rival. YYEEAAHH! ::highfives swing it on down::
2. ADVOCATES on either side of the deal can quibble about many things, if they want to deny the legitimacy of a NYM/Seattle package comp. So, there's that caveat.
3. In the big picture, NYM's deal helps, helps greatly, to establish that the M's package is logical and right in the ballpark. I mean, it's even premium OF spect + cluster of pitcher spects; the packages are that comparable.
4. See #1. Santana to LAA, or even to NYY, would have been painnnnnnnnnnfuuuulllllllll. That Santana dude owns baseball right now.
5. In my personal opinion, not knowing a whole lot about the Mets' players but having an idea … the Mariners are offering a clearly preferable (not massively preferable) package to what the Mets are giving up.
6. Which is also logical, because $$ included, Erik Bedard is a clearly preferable commodity to Johan Santana. Bedard is almost as good as Santana and he's going to cost, what, around half as much salarywise? Not much more than that, first 4-5 years.
7. In theory, this deal would increase the pressure on Angelos. "Hey, look, man, we're getting more than the Twins got for Johan blinkin' Santana." In theory it would combine with the Orioles' PR humiliation to create massive pressure.
In practice, Peter Angelos will do whatever he feels like doing, without regard to what is reasonable or fair for anybody else. So #7 here doesn't carry much weight, but at least it means that Angelos was NOT given a lever here against the M's. That's good.
………………………….
The Mets gave up, what, like their 1-2-4-5 prospects, and you could argue that the M's giving up their 1-5-9-15 and Sherrill was giving up more.
Not up-to-the-moment on it, but I don't think many people consider Carlos Gomez a match for Adam Jones. Guerra is probably roughly a push for Tillman. The reliever spect, forget his name, can't possibly be worth as much as Sherrill is. Am guessing that Humber is worth considerably more than Butler; you tell me.
Alternatively, you could say Jones > Gomez, Humber = to Tillman maybe, Sherrill way >> over the relief spect, and then Butler and Kam < to the (low-minors, right?) Guerra….
Configure it your own way. Offer me either package and I certainly take the Mariners'.
8. So that is a stark illustration of just how smokin' HOT the Mariners' system is right now. Gut the system? After the Bedard trade, the M's top 10 would be better than the Mets' top 10 was before the trade.
Mortgage the future? Don't bring that slop into the paint. Exit Jones and Tillman, the Mariners still have a LOT of star power left in their system. Especially if you count Morrow and Clement, which I certainly do (Morrow's not being used as an SP yet).
Anyway, what's the Padna quote… Three Run Home Runs ARE Rallies. Bedard IS the M's future. But they'd have a lot of glam spects left, in addyshun.
………………………….
9. Once again, with the Mets giving up 4 of their top 5 spects for an ace in his walk year, we have had the point made to us. That if you want to dance with the prom queen… can't make the scene if you don't have the green. Aces cost talent, and lots of it.
It would be nice if franchise pitchers didn't have a large cost associated. Deal with it. 
Cheers,
Dr D
January 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Quote
dr detecto, i have been reading your blog for years. you are outstanding, and i honestly think you are at the very top of my list. that is number one. you give the best points, with an optimistic outlook. unlike ussm’s pessimism, and other’s clarity, i love you and your blog.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm Quote
Frankly this is the STEAL of the offseason. The Twins could have very well just traded the best pitcher in baseball for NOTHING.
Gomez and Guerra have the highest upside among the prospects offered, but both are also very high risk.
Think the Twins regret not taking the Hughes deal?
The M’s offer for Bedard is FAR better.. And I agree that this puts pressure on the O’s to accept the deal.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm Quote
Mets gave up their #2,3,4, and 7 according to most rankings, and didn’t even have to give up their best prospect… great deal for the Mets.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Quote
BA had this package as the Mets the 2/3/4/7 ’spects. And I think most Mets fans would agree that the Mets system is in the bottom tier in baseball.
Heck, I might like the Astros package for a declining Miguel Tejada (and the Astros were almost unanimously the worst system in baseball).
This is a total steal.
The M’s are offering far, far more. The only question is whether the salary makes it close. For that reason, I just can’t agree with this, “I mean, it’s even premium OF spect + cluster of pitcher spects; the packages are that comparable.
I mean, Jeremy Reed/Wlad/Mike Saunders are OF prospects too. Ryan Feierabend/Robert Rohrbaugh are pitching prospects. The specifics *matter*. I know Gomez is a top 100 prospect, but 2007 just highlighted how far from AJ he really is. He’s been a toolsy, plus defender with a bat that may come around one day.
Gomez slugged .414 in the PCL last year. You know about Jones.
Gomez has a career OPS under .740.
And he’s the centerpiece of the deal!
January 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Quote
One comment I saw on a twins blog that was pretty funny is that it could be argued, given scouts’ views and the propensity of prospects, especially pitching, to fail, that the Twins got more for Garza
January 29th, 2008 at 5:41 pm Quote
On a side note, I can only imagine Santana’s numbers moving to the NL to a pitcher’s park with overall good-to-great defense (Reyes, Wright, Beltran, etc).
January 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm Quote
Okay, people over at that other blog are claiming this just proves how stupid Bavasi is.
Now I am (and have been) on the fence when it comes to the Bedard trade (and remain there) but anyone that cannot understand why Bedard may cost a higher package to get NOW than Santana is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Santana is in the LAST YEAR of his deal, Minnesota has NO chance of signing him to an extension, and he has a NO TRADE clause, they have to deal him now or before the deadline or only get draft picks.
Bedard has 2 YEARS left on his deal, Baltimore has NO need to trade Bedard right now, they can wait a year and get a similar package as the Mets just got. Why would they trade him now for anything less than MORE than what Minnesota just got for Santana?
If you do not get that, you certainly are not right about everything.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:47 pm Quote
If we switched Wlad for Jones, I think we might STILL have the slighty stronger package. This is complete robbery.
They did a LOT better with Garza, and I wasn’t even particularly a fan of that deal. IMO the Twins look foolish now for passing on Phil Hughes.
Good news for my fantasy team.
Sub 2.5 ERA
10+ K/9
5+ K/BB
January 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm Quote
That orioles hangout insider said things are moving along very well and he expects a deal to be done tommorow.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pm Quote
#7
I don’t agree. You get an extra abitration year with Bedard, but Santana is more valuable because you get a 100% chance at resigning him in addition to the discounted 2008 season.
Santana is also better than Bedard and doesn’t come with the injury risk.
Of course Santana said he would only go to Boston or NY, so the Twins’ options were limited..
IMO the superstars are being undervalued this offseason, and ALL of the buying teams are looking great.. Even the rumored M deal is a great deal IMO, even though they may be paying more than what Detroit, Arizona, or NY did.
The Mets just ripped the Twins off, and thats AWESOME news for the Ms.
January 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Quote
#9
Interesting timing.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm Quote
These kinds of deals are difficult to compare, other than in hindsight. We’ll see how all the prospects develop and how the aces perform over the next several years. If it appears we are offering more for Bedard than Minnie got for Santana, well I wish we had dealt with them instead of the Oreos and Angelos. That said, the Twinkies were not compelled to deal with other AL teams and maybe just wanted Santana out of the league. Fair enough. Angelos should eventually cave to our trade, but knowing him, he might just keep Bedard for two years and lose him for nothing. That would help his team the least, so he just might do that.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:08 pm Quote
Um…Satnana is NOT better than Bedard…they’re the same now and Bedard has more upside IMHO.
I also don’t buy this “injury risk” talk.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:10 pm Quote
#10
It has NOTHING to do with the value of the respective players, I agree that Santana is the more valuable property for the ACQUIRING team, but for the team DEALING the player, Bedard has more value.
The Twins had to trade Santana now (or at least by the deadline) or not at all, Baltimore can keep Bedard for another season and still be able to get value for him.
Again, its not about the value of the commodity but about the SITUATION that commodity is in.
A house example:
I have a 2000 sguare foot home on the water in Seattle, its assessed value is 1.0 million. I just got transferred to Chicago and have to move in 8 weeks, I have to sell now in order to purchase another place in Chicago. I may be forced to take less than a million for it.
OR
I have that same home, I will be relocating in a 2 years, would I take less than a million to sell?
Santana is house 1 and the Twins are the guy moving to Chicago, Baltimore is the 2nd home owner and Bedard is home number 2.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm Quote
All that said, if I am the Mariners, my offer for Bedard has now shrunk.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm Quote
Hey thanks Cameron. :daps: hope you can comment more often.
……………
Just real quick:
Again, if true how can you comment on that, without a here-we-go-again tone? Sigh.
……………….
OK, BBA has the package as what …. 2-3-4-7. TPA has it as 1-3-4-5.
However you slice it, that’s FOUR of the Met’s BEST prospects … for an ace who will cost twice as much. The Mariners are giving up TWO of their best prospects.
NOW people say that the Mets’ org is no comparison to the M’s. :- ) Wish the Future Forty had been reflecting that, the past year….
………………..
Where is the vaunted concern for the buck now? Bedard is going to cost about $48m over the next four years — Santana, close to $100m.
That $50m (or pick your figure) … how much is that worth in terms of ammy-pick signings?! Is a first-round pick worth $25m cash?
ERIK BEDARD WOULD COST THE MARINERS ABOUT $50,000,000 LESS IN SALARY than Santana, over the next 4-5 years. Why suddenly start ignoring the VORP/$ factor now?!
…………………
I don’t doubt there’s an argument to be made that the Santana deal makes the M’s deal look costly …. but I tire of the knee-jerk defense of a tired, old, busted position.
IFF the other blogs are rushing to yell that this proves Bavasi is getting a bad deal …. well, the closed-mindedness and the screaming is getting ugly.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:23 pm Quote
.
.
My inclination, having read the first dozen comments here, and G-Money’s at SportSpot …
Is that the M’s are paying 25% more than the Mets …. for a commodity far more valuable in business terms … and NOTE CAREFULLY the M’s are trading from a comfortable surplus whereas the Mets are not.
As Bavasi has tried to remind us, the Mariners can’t play 8 glamor prospects at once. When the Safeco on-ramp starts to pile up, you’ve got to convert.
…………………
No disrespect: the average fan pays way, wayyyyyyyyy too much attention to the childish question of “who wins a trade.” And that’s not to say the M’s are losing a trade. But it wouldn’t matter if they were.
But the insistence on winning a battle, and losing a war, is getting old. “Who won the trade!!” is a 6th-grade way of looking at it.
So the last guy you bought a piece of vacant land from, got $20k too much from you, and he faked you out by putting empty conduits in the ground that you thought were trenches. He laughed all the way home. You made $60,000 at sale of the new house. You were supposed to walk away from your sixty grand because Larry won the vacant land deal?!
Real businessmen don’t laser-focus on one-upping every single partner they deal with. They focus on getting from point A to point B. Leave the “you lost the deal!!” jeering to the people who’ve never seen the inside of an escrow office.
…………………….
Winning trades isn’t the paradigm here. Winning pennants is the paradigm here. The whole laser-focus on $1.10 vs $1.00 is irrational.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:23 pm Quote
I don’t think Bedard is an injury risk, but hes more of an injury risk than Santana.
Bedard had TJ surgery and has missed time every year with some kind of setback (never topped 200 IP). He knows when to pull himself back though which I think will save him from a major injury for the next 4-5 years hopefully.
Santana has pitched 200+IP each of the last 4 years and has never had an arm injury.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Quote
Doc,
Right you are. While I don’t really care how much the M’s salaries are, we all care about ticket prices, concessions, etc. Having Bedard allows money for the LH masher we’ve needed for years.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm Quote
#14
I don’t think thats the perfect analogy. If the O’s sit on their hand they would be in a worse position than the Twins were this year with Santana.
The reality is ONE extra bargain year with Bedard, and a chance at resigning him for cheaper. But IMO it sorta balances out with the 100% shot at resigning Santana and less risk.
Overall they are probably somewhere around equally valuable.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm Quote
Agreed on the value/cost. However, I simply can’t agree with Matt that Bedard is better than Santana. I will say that Bedard put up better numbers than Santana in 2007.
However, in the last 5 years, Santana’s K/9 has ranged from 9.44 to 10.46, and his BB/9 has ranged from 1.81-2.67.
He has had a 2.92 ERA in those 5 years. Since becoming a full-time starter,
he has averaged 230 innings per year, with 219 being his low as a starter last year, and has started at least 33 games each year. His pitching style and mechanics don’t suggest he’s any sort of injury risk at all.
He also has two Cy Youngs.
Any way you slice it, Bedard is much less of a sure thing than Santana, ignoring contract size and cost. The IP thing IS important, because those are innings you don’t have to fill up with other starters and/or relievers. In fact, if factor Doc’s ERA+ * IP paradigm, Santana was preferable to Bedard even last year.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:30 pm Quote
“NOW people say that the Mets’ org is no comparison to the M’s. :- ) Wish the Future Forty had been reflecting that, the past year….”
Find me someone saying different. The Mets’ system revolves around two light-hitting OFs, and most scouts prefer Fernando Martinez. The M’s OFs are in the high minors.
The Mets pitching spects include Guerra, a toolsy guy who hasn’t made his tools translate into performance, and Humber, who’s coming off of TJ surgery and a HR-prone year in AAA.
Mulvey has #4 written all over him.
“Bedard is going to cost about $48m over the next four years — Santana, close to $100m.”
How do you get $100m? I get ~50 for Bedard, but in the neighborhood of $70-75 for Santana ($13m for 2008 + what, $20m/per?)
If the M’s could PAY Baltimore $25m and send them Mike Saunders/Rohrbaugh/Tillman or maybe Paredes, do you honestly think ANYONE in the seattle blogosphere would think twice about the deal? The money matters, but if you’re going to spend money on an FA contract (or an extension) make it on a guy like Santana. No arguments there.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:31 pm Quote
“NOW people say that the Mets’ org is no comparison to the M’s. :- ) Wish the Future Forty had been reflecting that, the past year….”
Find me someone saying different. The Mets’ system revolves around two light-hitting OFs, and most scouts prefer Fernando Martinez. The M’s OFs are in the high minors.
The Mets pitching spects include Guerra, a toolsy guy who hasn’t made his tools translate into performance, and Humber, who’s coming off of TJ surgery and a HR-prone year in AAA.
Mulvey has #4 written all over him.
“Bedard is going to cost about $48m over the next four years — Santana, close to $100m.”
How do you get $100m? I get ~50 for Bedard, but in the neighborhood of $70-75 for Santana ($13m for 2008 + what, $20m/per?)
If the M’s could PAY Baltimore $25m and send them Mike Saunders/Rohrbaugh/Tillman or maybe Paredes, do you honestly think ANYONE in the seattle blogosphere would think twice about the deal? The money matters, but if you’re going to spend money on an FA contract (or an extension) make it on a guy like Santana. No arguments there.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Quote
I don’t care about paying $1.25 on the dollar either, I would just prefer we substitute Morrow for Jones (we need Jones more than Morrow IMO), hell I would even include Wlad along with Morrow in order to keep Jones.
And its not because I think Jones is the 2nd coming, hell I think Safeco will hurt his career but we need some young talent in our offense and his defense would be huge in Safeco.
Morrow on the other hand is blocked from the rotation for 2 years (other than injuries) by this deal IMO.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm Quote
Agreed on the value/cost. However, I simply can’t agree with Matt that Bedard is better than Santana. I will say that Bedard put up better numbers than Santana in 2007.
However, in the last 5 years, Santana’s K/9 has ranged from 9.44 to 10.46, and his BB/9 has ranged from 1.81-2.67.
He has had a 2.92 ERA in those 5 years. Since becoming a full-time starter,
he has averaged 230 innings per year, with 219 being his low as a starter last year, and has started at least 33 games each year. His pitching style and mechanics don’t suggest he’s any sort of injury risk at all.
He also has two Cy Youngs.
Any way you slice it, Bedard is much less of a sure thing than Santana, ignoring contract size and cost. The IP thing IS important, because those are innings you don’t have to fill up with other starters and/or relievers. In fact, if factor Doc’s ERA+ * IP paradigm, Santana was preferable to Bedard even last year.
On a side note, in response to Doc, I don’t think its necessarily that important that the Mets traded top prospects per se as compared to the absolute value of those prospects. I do think the Twins should have gotten ALOT more, but I think Santana was sort of screwing them here with his deadline that he imposed as well as his short list of places he’d be traded to.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:35 pm Quote
Whoops.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm Quote
#20,
Yeah its probably not a perfect analogy, but I am pretty certain that it is what the Orioles are thinking.
“Either we get a no brainer package now or we hold out till next year and take a lesser but still very good package”
And not too bad of a strategy IMO.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:45 pm Quote
The Twinkies just got taken. Period.
The Twins would have been BETTER OFF keeping Santana and trying to compete like the M’s are trying to do because….
The Twins with Santana and MUCH BETTER than the M’s are with Bedard in 2008.
No way the M’s offense can compete with Morneau, Mauer, YOUNG, Cuddyer, Harris, and etc…
And SP of Santana, Liriano, Bonzer, Baker…is WAAAAY better than anything that includes Batista and Washburn.
Oh, by the way, Bedard’s agent mentioned to the Baltimore Sun reporter Meeks back in November that he EXPECTS Bedard to get Santana money in 2 years…
January 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm Quote
There are only two relevant questions. (1) What is Bedard worth to Bavasi and (2) does he value him correctly? The cost of Santana for the Mets is irrelevant. At the time of the trade, did the Reds hose the Mariners in the Griffey trade? Absolutely, but not because no one in baseball would have paid more, but because Griffey could veto any trade. Cincinnati didn’t have to compete for him. If Santana had been willing to play in Seattle, this deal demonstrates that he would have been a Mariner yesterday…BUT he wouldn’t play for the M’s.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm Quote
Doc, I don’t know if the salary differences are going to be THAT drastic. Probably around $20mil over 4-5 years.
You also have to balance against the fact that you have a 100% shot at signing Santana (since thats part of the deal) vs what..a 50-60% shot at Bedard?
Not to mention that Santana is also better and less risky. For me I’d prefer the M’s deal for Santana, even if he costs ’slightly’ more (although I don’t know if that was a possibility).
Thats not to say that I don’t think the proposed deal would be a tremendous one for the Ms (I do), but I also think the M’s are paying more for Bedard than both the Haren and Santana deals.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:58 pm Quote
#29
Ya, but the difference was that the Twins weren’t ‘quite’ as limited as the M’s were with Griffey. The Twins had a shot at Phil Hughes at one point (which would have been a better return than Oakland’s), they just overplayed their hand.
I didn’t like the Haren deal, but this is much worse. The Twins just got completely fleeced.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm Quote
Ok Dr. D and others..
I believe HIGHLY that the M’s or many other teams would be willing to trade an Adam Jones + or Jed Lowrie + or Jay Bruce + to the Twins In July this year if they were in the play-offs…knowing full well they were only getting 2+ months of one of THE best lefties in the game for the stretch run to the play-offs…much like the Astros did for Randy.
I hope Bavasi would not be so dumb as to take these 4 guys in exchange for Jones…
I am sure even Wayne K of Cinn. would not even do this deal.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:04 pm Quote
santana told the twins yesterday to get the deal done as soon as possible.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm Quote
The latest from the OH is that this deal is done by this time tomorrow.
Let’s all hope…
January 29th, 2008 at 7:30 pm Quote
i said this over at the OH but ill say it hear too. According to Geoff Baker Jones is heading back to Arizona tommorow and Sherrill will also be in Arizona tomorrow. My thinking is the orioles are going to give them both physicals in Arizona tomorrow.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:35 pm Quote
Fett,
Yes, part of Santana’s cost is because he has a couple Cy Young’s in the past. I hope we are paying for a couple Cy Young’s in Bedard’s future. Who knows, maybe they both get a few from here on out.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:42 pm Quote
Naturally, but he’s really been pretty much the same pitcher for the last 4 years with expected random deviation.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:44 pm Quote
Those of you who are so sure that Santana is better than Bedard should look at his tends. He’s been getting less effective with time…Bedard’s been up with a rocket.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:51 pm Quote
Thats not neccesarily true. Either than a higher than norm HR/F% in 2007, hes has one of the most consistent skillsets in all of baseball since 2004.
And I really don’t want this to sound like I’m against Bedard (I just prefer Santana if I had a choice)..as far as I’m concerned this was the BEST thing that could happen to the M’s.
The chances of a deal going down just skyrocketted.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Quote
Santana’s K/9 has increased each of the last three seasons.
Either way, Santana’s trends, good and bad, are all well within the realm of normal deviation for pitcher of his skill, as I’m sure you know.
And the IP issue is a real difference-maker.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:57 pm Quote
And as Taro said, that’s no knock against Bedard to say that the consensus best pitcher in baseball is better than him.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:01 pm Quote
Santana’s K rates have NOT been climbing…they’ve been essentially constant.
His HR/Fly increase does look fluky, but his BABIP has been steadily rising since 2003. Partly because the Twins’ defense has gotten worse, so that may be throwing me off.
His DNRA+ dropped from 2003 to 2004 and from 2004 to 2005 and that factors out the defense…there’s got to be a reason for that.
Even if you want to say that Johan has been consistent, I don’t see any reason to think that Bedard’s rapid improvement should be expected to regress here…I think he is what he showed last year. We shall see.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:04 pm Quote
If he truly is what he showed last year, he’s on par with Santana, perhaps a little worse since, again, you have to factor in IP. Santanas a lock for 220-230 a year.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:09 pm Quote
And the likely reason his DNRA+ dropped from 2003 to 2004 was that 2004 was his first full year as a starter (45 games, games, 18 started in 2003 compared to 34 starts in 2004). As for 2004-2005, that’s because his K rate dropped from 10.46 K/9 to a mere 9.25 (his established level is about in the mid 9s).
January 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm Quote
I’d actually prefer both Santana and Bedard, but would gladly settle for either. Now, let’s see them both as starters on the AS team.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm Quote
Klaw on ESPN back in December said he wouldn’t trade Hughes for Santana due to Santana’s declining velocity the last month of the season. He’s worried about his future.
There is always risk when dealing with a pitcher. But when you have a chance to make a significant move to get a pitcher of Bedard’s quality you do it.
Pat Gillick, every year tried to get a number one pitcher but was never able to. Everybody thought said the M’s weren’t made for the playoffs and they were right. The reason they weren’t made for the playoffs is because Gillick couldn’t get an ace. Now we’re going to have two of them and people are mad. GO FIGURE!
January 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm Quote
If anything I think the low IP counts for Bedard might protec this arm MORE than Santana’s consistently higher IP counts.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:14 pm Quote
Nice way of framing the situation Doc. Just started a business that relies very heavily on the real estate market. Yes, day late and dollar short labels apply, too bad. But I see the correlations between the 2 systems.
Count me in for preferring Santana, but not by a landslide. He has track-record dominance, which I would contradict myself if I didn’t value. Of course, he also held the Twins feet to the fire and wanted in only in certain areas, which makes the comps for the trade less relevant.
The money difference as I see it is this: If Bedard takes down ~20 mil. for the next 2 years followed by a 3 (hopefully) or 4 year deal at ~15 mil. that takes his cost to anywhere from 65-80 mil. over 6 years. If Santana takes 115-150 mil. over that same stretch than I see somewhere around 35 mil. at a minimum salary savings over that time. I have seen suggestions elsewhere that he (Santana) be offered 90 mil. over 3 years on the market.
IMO, the prudent financial move is for Bedard. I won’t call him the best in the league, and I really don’t think that either pitcher is a great candidate for late 30’s dominance, (See Jeff Fassero, both body type and stuff) but both are good values until their mid 30’s.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm Quote
I’ll take 6 years of Bedard OR Santana…don’t get me wrong…I just like Bedard’s trends better right now, especially given his cost.
Now let’s get the deal officially done so I can stop chewing holes in my fingers.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:07 pm Quote
I side slightly with Matt on this one. Obviously Santana has the track record of dominance, and he’s been the best pitcher in baseball for the last four years, but I don’t like what I’ve *seen* of him the last half of the season. Could be he was just saving his arm, I dunno. But Bedard has always dealt with stupid little injuries, so the odds of him going and blowing his arm up are waaaaay smaller than with Santana. Erik will tell us when he needs a DL stint or a skip in the rotation, Santana hasn’t proven he will do that.
And really, if Erik continues with his 2007 performance, he is the equal to what Santana has been over the last four years. I like Bedard going forward just a touch better than Santana. But I’d be thrilled with either one at the packages we’ve discussed for Bedard.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm Quote
As far as whether the Future Forty thing has been bullish or bearish on M’s prospects… I don’t know whether they keep archives. That one is like the “prove they didn’t like Adam Jones” challenge. Anybody who read it knows that they have typically had like one or two guys in “projected regulars”, practically never anybody in “projected stars”, tons of guys in fringe, etc etc.
The last several months, it’s been more bearish and that’s fine. But the background there is of being “fashionably tough but fair”. No issues with that until comes the Bedard trade, and now any group of M’s prospects is worth the GNP of India. :- )
January 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm Quote
Bedard vs Santana for quality …
Santana is entitled to be considered King Of The Hill until he’s dethroned, based on a marvelous track record:
SANTANA BPV’s
2003 - 115
2004 - 153
2005 - 153
2006 - 149
2007 - 121 (fatigue Q’s in the second half)
BEDARD BPV’s
2004 - 57 (rookie)
2005 - 78
2006 - 80 (much better 2H)
2007 - 131
Bedard is on a rocket ride up and Santana is wobbling ever so slightly, so it’s somewhat dubious whether Santana is the better (roto) pick for 08.
But will cheerfully admit that Santana is entitled to KOTH until dethroned.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:33 pm Quote
Bedard vs Santana contract -
Until today in Seattle apparently LOL, the price tag for Santana had been well established at $22-25m per season.
Here for example is Vince Gennaro, financial consultant to MLB, pegging Santana’s next contract at 6 x $25m.
So you’ve got Bedard over the next six years at:
2008 - $8m
2009 - $12m
2010ff - 4 x $15m (the figure floated around Baltimore)
And Santana at:
2008 - $12m ?
2009ff - $22-25m
That puts Bedard’s cost at around $72m for the six years and Santana’s at $120-160m.
.
.
.
.
.
Massage it, with the intent of keeping the Mariners looking stoopid, and you still wind up with a whopping $$$$$ difference. And anybody who based the anti-Jones-trade objection on VORP/$ ought to be factoring in that $$$$ savings VERY carefully.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:51 pm Quote
Thing is…when people do thos eVORP/$ things…they don’t compare Bedard to what they should compare him to. Other aces.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:14 am Quote
Fair question MarketAnalysis…but I think the sad answer is…becuz!!…Santana is a LEADER and CY Winner and he will put buttz in the seatz!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:17 am Quote
.
An interesting question. And I like the fact that you’re in reasonable proportion with your $4 vs $5 analogy. Good stuff.
Good Q with many potential responses…
………………
1. Perhaps, if the Mets are the gold standard for evaluation, this proves that the Mariners are paying a prospect more than they should be?
2. Perhaps the fact that Santana will cost about $140m over the next 6 years, compared to Bedard’s $80m, accounts for a difference of 1-2 prospects in talent exchange?
3. Why is one roto owner (Ron Shandler) willing to spend the #3 overall AL pick on Felix Hernandez, and another wouldn’t take him in the first round? Difference in talent evaluation?
4. Perhaps, if the Mariners are the gold standard for evaluation, this proves that the Twins took a weak deal?
5. Perhaps paying 4 of their top 5 prospects, some analysts believe the Mets paid more in talent than the M’s did?
6. Perhaps, keeping in mind that neither the Yankees, Red Sox, nor Mets ever got involved at all, it means that East Coast teams are hip to the fact that Bedard won’t re-sign there?
7. etc?
…………….
Good Q. Hard to nail down the reason the Mets preferred Santana. Am guessing it had something to do with the fact that they had no shot to keep Bedard long-term. Could be wrong.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:26 am Quote
I’d say that it’s more like the price in talent was similar, but that the commodities received were dissimilar.
I’d say the M’s paid $5 to get $8 and that the Mets paid $4 to get $5, after you factor in $$$ bang for the buck.
…………………………
In any objective situation where the choice was this:
Which one do you think the USSM school of thought would be recommending?
…………………………..
The USSM group has spent years arguing that you can always find ways to spend 60 cents on the dollar and get somebody 90% as good, and now with Bedard vs. Santana, all of a sudden all that goes out the window and who cares about 50 million bucks.
IF Bedard and Santana are COMPARABLE pitchers going forward, Bedard is worth a whale of a lot more in trade because he’s going to be one of the best superstar salary values in baseball.
:- ) Don’t tell me that if we had warped into this debate today … you guys wouldn’t give a couple of org top-10 guys to get a contract savings of that magnitude. C’mon. Tillman and Butler will *probably* fail. The $50m is hard on the barrelhead.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:28 am Quote
The Twins are opening a new stadium this year, right? That means they will be near sold out, all season. Takes a little pressure off keeping Santana for the year to keep people in the seats.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:34 am Quote
If the difference is gauranteed to be THAT much, than ya you prefer Bedard. The real difference is going to be much less than that.
Bedard’s agent wants Santana money, so you could see him ‘possibly’ settling in the $17-19mil range if you lock him up IMMEDIATELY. NO WAY Bedard makes only $15mil per year before FA, if you assume he continues at somewhere near his ‘07 level.
Of course this is all assuming that you can resign Bedard when in reality you are talking a “chance” at resigning Bedard vs a 100% shot resigning Santana. This is part of value that hasn’t been addressed in this thread.
In reality you’re talking about a 100% shot at signing Santana for around $130mil for 6 years ($13mil next year+5 years roughly a little over $23mil) vs a 50-60% shot or so at signing Bedard for around $100mil for 6 years ($9mil next year, 5 year extension at $18mil per)…Of course theres the risk of Bedard leaving in two years, and if Bedard and his agent wait a year, they are going to get Santana money (or very close to it).
Also I’m not understanding the need to downplay Santana in this debate. Hes consistently been the best pitcher in baseball the past four years.
There was NO decline in his peripherals in ‘07 either than HR/F%. In the second half Santana had a 9.9 K/9 and 2.1 BB/9. In September Santana had a 10.2 K/9. I’m not seeing the fatigue questions ‘at all’.
Santana is better than Bedard and is less of an injury risk. How can we seriously argue that a guy with great mechanics, averaging 220-230 IP a year, with NO injury history is more of a risk than a guy thats HAD TJ, and HAS been sidelined for an injury/fatigue/pain EVERY year, and ended last year prematurely AGAIN..with ‘actual’ fatigue issues?! Makes no sense to me.
For me their trade values are not significantly different. I’d actually ‘prefer’ to pay the extra premium in $, and less in prospects for Santana considering the consistent dominance, more IPs, injury risk, and gauranteed extention.
Of course Santana may have never accepted a trade to Seattle…we don’t know.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:37 am Quote
And again I’m crazy about landing Bedard.. its just if we’re insisting on debating Santana vs Bedard, I’m not having it.
Its kinda like arguing Carlos Pena vs Albert Pujols for me. Pena was better in 2007; how much more do you pay for Pujols though in ‘08 and beyond?
January 30th, 2008 at 1:58 am Quote
#61: I like the premise, but I think you chose the wrong guy to stack against Pujols. A more appropriate example might be Pujuls/Fielder? I don’t know anybody that honestly thought Pena would develop into what he did last year..whereas people have been projecting Bedard to become exactly what he became in 2007.
Still, your point is well taken. Santana has established himself as KOTH, without question. But going forward, I do think there are some legit concerns about his continued ridiculousness. If they were the same cost overall, I’d absolutely prefer Santana. But it’s not by a landslide..at the current costs associated, I do like Bedard better for this team.
Good perspective, though
January 30th, 2008 at 2:17 am Quote
It’s not a 50-60% shot of signing Bedard. It’s 90%. Trust me on this one.
………………..
And Taro, you are mistaking the D-O-V position on Bedard’s ability with that of baseball’s at large. :- )
Sabermetricians know how close Bedard is to Santana in ability, but that’s hardly the majority opinion. I think at Churchill’s blog I read a scout saying that “Bedard has had 9 starts as one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball.” There are going to be a lot of baseball people saying stuff like that.
You know and I know that Bedard has arrived. But a perception of doubt remains with him that does not exist with Santana.
……………….
4/$60m does sound like an incredible deal for the club, but these were the numbers being negotiated in the press in Baltimore. The sources weren’t fans. They were the leaked numbers being batted around.
4 x $15m is what has been discussed and I won’t be shocked to see it come in at that price. It is one thing to sign an FA out of a free-market bidding war, and it is a different thing to offer an arb player future security. Clubs routinely get good values out of arb/FA buyout scenarios.
………………..
But let’s say that, after his “one good year,” Bedard does pull down $17m per season x 4 years starting 2010, following two arb years … you are still talking 6/$86m vs. 6/$135m — it’s going to be around $50m difference.
…………………
But supposing the gap in salary were only $35m … that’s still the signing costs of 7 Brandon Morrows or 20 Carlos Triunfels. It makes up for an extra Chris Tillman, I should think.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:23 am Quote
#62
Interesting comparison…Actually though, Bedard was never a top prospect during his days in the minors. His stock went up in the majors (some stars were never top prospects). Pena was a top 10 overall prospect once.
Pujols/Fielder is more like a Santana/Kazmir comparison for me. Established Prime superstar vs rising young superstar.
I like the Pena and Bedard comparisons a little better because BOTH were late bloomers that broke out legitimately in 2007, both are around the same age as Pujols/Santana, and BOTH were better then Pujols/Santana in ‘07 (well Pena was/Bedard better periphs).
I also think that both of their seasons were driven partly by skills that are probably going to be difficult for them to repeat.
Pena with a 220+ PX and Bedard with a near 11K season. IMO both breakouts are definetly legit, but Pena is going to settle in as more of a 180 PX guy, and Bedard is more of a mid 9s K guy. They are going to be a level under Santana/Pujols IMO.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:27 am Quote
Which is an interesting question, by the way, one that Dr. Naka has asked before. What is an org top-10 prospect worth, in cash terms?
If Bedard saved you only $35m over Santana … it’ll actually be $50-60m … well, in terms of signing players that is:
20 Carlos Triunfels from Latin America
12 Matt Tuiasosopos who slid from the 1st round to the 3rd for signability
6-7 Andrew Miller types you could pay extra for in the 1st round
Several NPB relievers :- )
…………….
It doesn’t make any sense to get hysterical over whether the M’s are paying a prospect or two more for Bedard than the Mets did for Santana. A sense of proportion is sorely lacking here.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:31 am Quote
But oh yeah, Taro, if you’re asking who I’d draft first in Roto… sure, it would have a comforting feel to it, to take Santana.
But would you take Santana over Bedard plus a 7th-round draft pick? ’cause you’re in theory getting a $6-9m player along with Bedard … or upgrading a $4m scrub to a $12m contributor…
A roto champ like you couldn’t deploy the salary savings to more than make up the difference between Santana and Bedard? :- )
January 30th, 2008 at 2:34 am Quote
Ya, I agree with you Doc that Bedard has arrrived…sometimes I just overstate my point to support my argument.
I’m buying Bedard as one of the top 10 pitchers in ALL of baseball.
I’m just not sure if hes ‘quite’ at Santana level though.
I could see a 4 x $15mil deal if we sign him BEFORE arbitration this year. Ya. The question is how likely that is…is it really 90% or 40%. How do we know?
The price goes up substancially every year though, will Bedard accept 4 x $15 right now? His agent sounds like hes demanding Santana money.
And even at 4 x 15 ($60mil) though, thats only a $22mil saving over Santana, even you expect him to rake $23mil a year ($82mil over four years).
I’d give Jones a $22mil 4 year contract in a heartbeat.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:46 am Quote
In America, I don’t ever remember a situation like this where the player did *not* sign after the trade, and quickly.
A situation like this being, where a young player came out in the press about being interested in an extension, and a franchise had just paid so much to get him.
Bedard has every motivation in the world to lock up the security, and this Mariners regime has a track record of going hard after their franchise players to get them locked up. They got Ichiro, of course, went super hard after Junior and after ARod …
Bill Bavasi himself has *always* believed in getting his young franchise players taken care of, dating all the way back to the Salmon/Edmonds days in Anaheim.
If Erik Bedard hadn’t come out in the press and issued the invitation, I’d be wondering. But he has made it clear he is rational. With two long years to go, and a somewhat-fragile arm, and all it takes is an off year to mess it up, much less a major injury … he can’t gamble the first $70-80m against a hoped-for $120m down the line.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:51 am Quote
Ya, I’m completely cool with the price being paid for Bedard. I actually think its somewhat of a bargain.
If the Triunfels of the world are this valuable, why the heck don’t we just go out and buy ALL of them?
I’m just laser-focused on Bedard vs Santana at this point…the Mets got a great, great deal IMO.
Yes I would, but it depends on the league settings… with Santana going to the NL though, theres almost no way I’d do that tradeoff.
Looking at my Baseball Forcaster, and this is BEFORE the trade, Shandler had Santana at a 2.78 xERA ($36), with Bedard at a 3.30 xERA ($23). Shandler also gives Bedard a 218 IP and 9.8 DOM projection, which I think is a pretty generous.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:53 am Quote
Lemme check, is 4×23 82 or 92? :- )
And don’t forget 2009. Bedard gets $10 or $12m; Santana gets $22-25m. And Santana will get $5m or more over Bedard in 2008. So, about $50m difference over six years — at the $22m figure.
……………….
Actually it isn’t $22-23m that analysts predict for Santana. It is $25m or even more. We’ll see.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:53 am Quote
#68
I hope you are right…you probably are. Bedard’s agent does worry me a little though..sometimes greed makes you do things that aren’t logical.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:55 am Quote
Yo Doc…if the Mariners sign Bedard to an extension NOW…they don’t get the second arb year.
He would be taking this as an extension on his current (1-year arbitrartion) contract. Which means we’d get one year at his arb cost for 2007 and then jump into the new contract.
Say we give him 4X16 to begin 2009.
What you get then is is 10 M for now and 64 mil for the next 4 years…74 mil in 5 seasons. Johan will get 10 mil this year and probably 5X25 for the next five…so we’d be committing 74 mil and they’d be committing 135 mil but getting an extra year.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:56 am Quote
Ya.
I would think that Bedard’s agent is negotiating in the press — if Bedard signs this winter, the agent gets a check with a LOT of zeroes on the spot! (OK, a wire transfer with a lot of zeroes) and he locks in his commission.
The agent gambles on the FA market two years down the line, he could get more, but he could also get nothing.
Just for comparison, how many real estate agents do you know, who would turn down $75,000 in commissions this Feb. 15, vs. a chance to go for $120,000 at some time two years from now?
January 30th, 2008 at 2:58 am Quote
No-no-no-no, no. :- )
You give him generous “arb wins” for 2008 and 2009 and then you give him 4 x $15m for the four years following. (Am not saying that they might not wind up at 3 x $18m or something for 2010-12.)
Arb/FA buyout combo contracts always go off of the player’s arb value in years before FA.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:01 am Quote
Well if you sign Bedard before arbitration at 4 x $15mil, you don’t get the arby discount year in ‘08, but you lock the 2 FA years at cheap.
Bedard (4x$15)
Santana ($13mil + 3x$23)
Or am I wrong and is Bedard already signed in ‘08? If thats the case I think a 4x$15mil deal would be difficult.
And ya, I agree if the prices goes upwards of $25mil thats when the Bedard starts looking better than Santana..
January 30th, 2008 at 3:04 am Quote
My understanding was that Baltimore was talking two good arb year salaries, $8 and $11m or something, and then 4 x $15m.
That could be wrong, though, now that you guys mention it. We’ll see. Good stuff.
……………………
If the 4x$15m was referring to 2008-11 (?!) then ya Taro, you’d have $60m over the four years vs. $80-90m — and I see what you’re saying then — that the salary difference isn’t quite so staggering.
Guess this will come out in the wash.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:09 am Quote
Fair eough, taro. I just don’t think that hitters leaping to new plateaus are as likely to stay there as pitchers leaping to new plateaus. And don’t forget that Pena had only one full season of dominance, while Bedard had a year and a half of his Lefty impersonation. But it’s a close enough comparison to leave at minor quibbling, in my book
As far as Bedard is concerned, he should absolutely be interested in signing a long-term contract with Seattle. How many places are as well suited to his skillset, desperate for a TOR arm, flush with the cash, and despise the notion of rebuilding in the traditional sense? We know everyone wants a TOR arm, but not everyone has the cash, and I doubt Bedard wants the media in NY/BOS climbing all over him day and night.
Seattle is a perfect fit for him, really. Which brings me to my next question..
Do you think this whole delay is Angelos’ way of displaying his displeasure at the notion that Bedard would willingly sign a long-term contract with the Mariners, thus making him (Angelos) look bad for not making it happen on his watch? As I read more about PA, I come to the realization that he’s just too insecure to survive a season of ROTO with the D-O-V elite
He would never have made the deal Matt and I did last season involving Vlad and Putz, he just wouldn’t be able to handle the notion that he got had.
If PA does indeed quash this deal, MLB has to do something about it, and publicly. This is a stellar deal that is good for all of baseball, and he’s holding it up because of his own ego. At least with Steinbrenner you knew there would be action when he started whining in public.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:13 am Quote
Maybe the Mariners could be smart and sign Bedard to a five year contract that’s somewhat backloaded giving the same affect as the arb year being in there.
Something like 10/14/16/18/18 (5 years, 76 mil…essentialy 5X15)
January 30th, 2008 at 3:22 am Quote
#78: That’s pretty much the type of contract I’d anticipate him signing wherever he goes. He can’t accept less than Zito-esque money, really..I mean, what’s the reasonable argument against him getting an average $17m/year for his FA? His health concerns have to at least nearly cancel out the difference in results between himself and Zito (at least Zito immediately prior to his contract signing).
I’d like very much for this whole thing to be over with, one way or another. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the deal fell through, Bedard were available at the trade deadline and all the ’spects in the package had increased their value? Tillman torches the next level, Kam does his best Mark Lowe impersonation, Jones starts hammering MLB pitching..lol, I can almost get into this approach.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:22 am Quote
*sigh*…I doubt baseball does anything…except it comes out that Jones is perfectly healthy and that rumor came from Baltimore’s front office…then you could be looking at a serious firestorm.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:35 am Quote
It’s probably the safe bet to assume nothing will happen w/r/t sanctions for PA’s latest whine-fest. But this is a high-octane deal that was apparently all but signed and delivered when PA decided to throw a fit.
But absolutely..if they didn’t cover their tracks well enough with that reporter…that could be real trouble, and not just from MLB. I’m going to assume that a guy with Jones’ athleticism doesn’t have a degenerative hip until it’s proven otherwise.
Truthfully..this is interesting. PA is backed way into a corner now, and desperately trying to whine his way out of it.
I still think this whole thing gets resolved in the next 48 hours, one way or the other. I suppose the good news is that there’s no downside to this deal. That may have gotten lost in the crossfire here..but we are definitely in the driver’s seat here. If we make the deal, we’re odds-on favorites to win the AL West and have a club built specifically for the playoffs. If we don’t do the deal, we get to keep some immensely talented kids and see how well they develop. Tillman may end up being Gil Meche..and if we understood what Meche would top out at, we’d have been a lot happier about his performances than many of us were, since we expected more out of him.
I don’t expect Adam Jones to become Andruw Jones, but I don’t put it past him (bad hip and all
). This is a great time to be an M’s fan. Our collective futures don’t live or die with this deal..the same can’t be said of Baltimore’s position. If they fail to trade Bedard *NOW* and for *THIS* package of players, they’re almost certain to regret it.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:16 am Quote
A word on relative farm system strength. Baseball America does a pretty good job in ranking its top 100 specs, (there was a study reviewing their success rate over at Lookout Landing recently). The 2008 list isn’t up yet, but the list for 2007 is available.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/features/26983.html
Of course, spec assessment changes very fast. But, take a look at 2007.
Mets appearing in top 100: 4
Mets rankings in 2007 : Pelfre (20), F.Martinez (22), C.Gomez (60), P. Humber (73)
Ms appearing in top 100: 3
Ms rankings in 2007 : A.Jones (28), J.Clement (62), B.Morrow (87)
This, of course, is ONLY looking at the cream. But, as recently as 2007 the Mets were absolutely ahead of the Mariners AT THE TOP of their farm.
This is before Jones’ fantastic 2007 season, and doesn’t definitively mean that the Mets have a better farm. The point I’m attempting to make is that taking farm strength assessment and applying it generically to every spec is bad methodology, but one that I’ve found to be fairly common among spec watchers.
The ‘mindset’ is that if Cleveland (for example) is ranked as the #1 farm system and Houston is #30 - then the #2 spec for Houston *MUST* be an absolute dog, while anyone in the top ten for Cleveland must be destined for the bigs. That isn’t how it works. Farm systems aren’t judged JUST on talent - but also on the ability of said systems to DEVELOP said talent. And quantity versus quality can have strange impacts on ‘overall’ rankings.
I understand why people are sky high on Jones. Posting a .960 OPS in AAA is just cause for some giddyness. But, his minor league aggregate is only .830 - so the question of whether 2007 is truly breakout - or simply career year - remains up in the air. In either case, he’s in much the same place as Bedard - a perfect “sell high” candidate.
The ‘value’ assessment on Bedard/Santana does come down to the environment of the SELLER. Bedard is a “sell high” property. Santana is (unfortunately for the Twins) a “Everything must go!” fixture. They can get one extra draft pick, (which they’ll have to pay a signing bonus for), if they keep him and let him walk in FA. OR, they can acquire someone as good (or likely better) than that pick would bring, PLUS as much potential as they can get. The absolute for the Twins is that they have ZERO chance of retaining Santana.
You walk onto the car dealer’s lot and tell the salesman up front - “My engine died, so I had to walk the rest of the way - will you still take it in trade?” What kind of deal do YOU expect to get?
January 30th, 2008 at 7:21 am Quote
Nice post as usual, Sandy. I will quibble one bit w/r/t generic prospect rankings by national outlets, especially when comparing mass-media markets to Seattle. The national guys will generally have a bias towards the east coast teams, but your choice of BA is a good one. They are generally pretty fair towards overall prospect rankings. Still..if Adam Jones played in the NYY farm system, there’s little doubt in my mind that he would be the #1 hyped commodity this offseason, by a wide margin.
I love the way you point out the phenomenon of glancing at top 10/100 rankings and forgetting about the rest of the system’s overall status. This happens all the time, and it does need to be reinforced when considering the actual value of a prospect.
Great post, Sandy. Well thought-out and articulated, as usual.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:23 am Quote
Thanks for the props jonez.
In truth, I completely expect Jones 2007 season to vault him significantly up the prospect watch ladder. Based on everything prior to 2007, I don’t believe Jones would’ve been significantly higher on the BA watch list had he been a Yankee. His age and .800+ OPS prior to 2007 actually makes his 2007 prospect ranking seem pretty fair to me - maybe even just a tad optimistic.
With his 2007 numbers, he’ll probably be a top 10 spec for 2008. And, based on the LL study, that means he has a 2/3 chance of succeeding as a productive MLB player. (Of course, that also means, even as a top 10er, he’s got a 1/3 shot at failing miserably).
January 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am Quote
For whatever reason, in the 2007/2008 offseason, this part CANNOT BE STRESSED ENOUGH when discussing the M’s plans and potential impact of moves.
It would be one thing if AJ had proven he can overcome the eye ratio issues, and it would be another thing if he had proven he could translate his incredible athleticism into high quality fielding at a critical defensive position, and it would be yet another thing if he’d launched 30 ML home runs by now, etc..
To be realistic, we have to assess Jones’ value as what he is: a highly talented, hard working athlete who has taken massive strides offensively over the last couple of seasons, but still has multiple questions that he must answer performance-wise before we anoint him the next coming of Carlos Beltran.
I’m not trying to lend any credence to the ridiculous hip rumor, but consider it for just a moment. There are so many factors that can affect an athlete’s performance that it’s impossible to account for all of them. What if he is walking around with a bum hip? His career is likely to never really get off the ground, and even if it did, it would be extremely abbreviated. Or take a guy like Chris Snelling, who everybody who’s ever watched 50+ of his AB’s will say he’s as sure of a thing as you will ever see in baseball at the plate..but he couldn’t stay on the field (yet, anyways..I still hold out hope for the guy) long enough to display his ability (not potential, ability). These types of things can and do routinely interrupt what would otherwise be marvelous careers. And that’s forgetting guys like Doc Gooden, who for whatever reason couldn’t maintain their early level of focus.
There are a lot of moving parts involved, and there’s no way to account for each and every one of them.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am Quote
You’re underrating Guerra, as far as national scouting consensus goes, Doc.
He’s a big-bonus Latino pitcher who’s hitting 94 as an 18 year old.
I’m about as big a skeptic as you’ll find on his future, but Guerra is the Mets’ version of Juan Ramirez with a better changeup, and is worth a little more in perceived value than Butler + McKolio.
That could change in a year with a Butler breakout/sub-par year from Guerra, but that’s how it stands now.
That being said, the Mariners’ package is far, far superior.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am Quote
i’d be shocked (happy) but shocked if he would take 4/60 when players like silva get 4/48. i’d expect more like 4/68 to 4/72 to be what it takes after his 2 arby years
January 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am Quote
Great discussion, all.
I just want to respond to:
I go by these principles:
1. innings-eaters have value
2. dominant starters with high K/9 have more value
If and when Morrow demonstrates that he is the latter (I think he will), then I do not think they will hesitate to either move Batista to the pen or flip one of the three innings-eaters in a trade (unlike Sele, who was DFA’d when he was the Felix placeholder, I think any of these three would have trade value).
They won’t do that right away because they don’t want Morrow to have too many innings (note that NYY taking the same approach with Joba Chamberlain for the same reason) and they aren’t sure that he’s ready (which is fine; he did just what you’d want to see in VWL, but I’m trying not to put too much weight on that).
I just don’t think the “blocking Morrow” argument goes too far. A team with a chance to have three 8+ K/9 guys in its rotation will do it, preference for veteran leaders notwithstanding.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am Quote
i like how i’ve kind of come full circle here (my original spout of posts on this site was about carlos gomez, last year sometime).
i’ve fought a two-year war of attrition on other forums trying to hold down guerra’s ratings on the grounds that he’s massively overrated for the same basic reasons that triunfel is vaguely overrated (age-vs-level overstimulation). i think unusual ARL (18yo in A+, etc.) means even a little bit less for pitchers than it does for hitters when the standout performance isn’t there, because pitcher development is so dependent on tier-jumps, and simple youth doesn’t make a pitcher *that* much more likely to execute those jumps successfully.
i wouldn’t even really call guerra the mets’ juan ramirez; he does have the changeup, but ramirez has quite a bit more fastball. just based on what i’ve read, guerra has “touched” 94 but has a disturbing tendency to show up sitting 89 in any given start, while ramirez has the real-deal 94-97. it’s not a bad comp on pure value, since i don’t see one as clearly better than the other, but they’re pretty different animals.
unrelated point: not to bum anybody out, but imagine a team with a bedard-felix-lincecum front 3. that plus a shutdown bullpen and average offense would have a reasonably good chance to be one of the best teams in the major leagues.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:06 am Quote
Okay Doc,
I think you know me well enough by now to know that you are preaching to the choir when it comes to my thoughts on Bedard.
Given that fact - is it time for the M’s brass to start playing hard ball? By that I mean - do we just sit tight and wait this out for however long it takes - OR - do we now go back to the O’s brass and say - we have been straight up with this trade since day one. We told you we were offering you a better set of prospects than what the Twins were getting for a two time Cy Young award winner. Now, you know we were being up front with you. So, we want a decision in 24 hours. If we don’t have one with in that period of time - and you then reapproach us down the line - we start subtracting from our offer.
I am sure that some would see that as counter productive - but on the other side of the coin - you don’t want to be held hostage either.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:36 am Quote
My sense is that the trade will go forward as agreed to. I think:
– the Os are sensitive about nothing being final until physicals
– Jones’ slip up and backtracking, then the hip rumor, created media furor that neither side expected
– Jones could not get a plane out of Venezuela right away
– Angelos happened to be going in for a medical procedure on the exact day
All of which combined to make what whould have been a 24-48 hr. delay into a 48-72 hr. delay.
If both sides thought it was a good baseball deal on Sunday, then it will go through if nothing changes. All of the denials are just standard form and/or overreaction to Jones’ gaffe.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:40 am Quote
Something like that is probably doable, and ideal.
I would not want to wait out his arb years. If we go with one-year deals, I think there a good chance he makes close to $15mil in ARB next year, and then you’re talking $20mil per to extend him.
I hope Bavasi acts quick with the extension.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Quote
On the subject of Morrow and the rotation … (and just because I love the ironic symetry) …
Santana - age 21 - 86 IP (relief) 54/64 BB/K numbers and 6.49 ERA - Rule 5 theft.
Santana - age 22 - 43-IP (relief) 16/28 BB/K numbers and 4.74 ERA
Santana - age 23 - 108-IP (14\13 GS/relief) 49/137 BB/K and 2.99 ERA. (also, 48 IP in AAA).
Morrow - age 22 - 63-IP (relief) 50/66 BB/K numbers and 4.12 ERA
What many have forgotten is that Santana (and Liriano) both spent a fair amount of time as relievers. What has DEFINITELY been forgotten is that in 2002, when Santana finally got to start, he was called up, he became a STARTER from June until August, and then returned to the pen. AFTER going 7-4 with a 3.13 ERA, he was DEMOTED to the pen, not only in 2002, but he REMAINED in the pen until July of 2003.
The point I’m making is that just because a player STARTS a season with a given role does not mean that is where he is destined to finish the season.
Batista is 36+. Wash has a history of minor injuries. Bedard’s health is a concern. Morrow starting in the pen keeps him active and facing ML hitters until someone misses a start or two. The chance that all 5 starters will never miss a turn is the remotest of possibilities. And if Morrow is lights-out for (let’s say Wash), in June, then the club might ask Batista to move to the pen when Wash returns. The permutations are massive.
The thing is, Seattle having Morrow in the pen is a MAJOR plus, not a detriment. Pretty much every WS winner I can recall *HAD* to fill in a rotation spot during their pennant drives. (Gabbard and Lester for BoSox). The Cards entire rotation was a mess the year they won it all. The White Sox #5 slot was 22 games from El Duque and 11 from McCarthy.
An ‘ideal’ 2007 would probably see 10-12 starts from Morrow - pushing him ‘gently’ over 100 innings, but not flirting with a quantum leap into injury. My personal suspicion is that Morrow will DEFINITELY be starting in 2009, most likely having already started a rough third of 2008.
Mostly, I love the concept that HoRam might never get another shot at starting. For that to happen, Morrow needs to be in the pen as the prefered option.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Quote
Bingo, Sandy.
Worrying about burying Morrow is silly…it’s GOOD to have multiple starters in your bullpen and Morrow has already shown that he can stretch back out to starting very quickly (his winter league performance confirms it…right out of the box he was getting QSs).
Morrow and Rowland-Smith both in the pen and ready to take over for the old guys is a huge positive.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm Quote
.
Very provocative, yeah. It’s a powerful reminder that a pitcher can learn his ML craft while bouncing around different roles, predominantly bullpen …. as Earl always preached…
Naysayers wonder whether the parallel should be thrown out, since Santana had *more* starts than Morrow did in the Pac-10 and Cape (and now winter) leagues.
I don’t have to tell you that it’s a mountain out of a molehill, to claim that Santana’s 65 minors starts, vs Morrow’s 40 non-ML starts, is the dealbreaker. Lincecum & Verlander & co. should tell us that.
…………………
Santana has held up to some really heavy usage since his early-20’s bullpen stint (as did Moyer, Fassero, and tons of other guys). You can expect Brandon Morrow to gain similar benefits in the stamina department.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:09 pm Quote
People assume that 50 bullpen innings = 50 starting innings as far as total workload. They’re completely wrong.
A starter throws about an inning before he gets into each game. A reliever throws about an inning every time he gets up in the pen…which is at least once each appearance and sometimes twice or three times.
I would guess that every inning Morrow worked out of the pen this year had as much impact on him as 2.5 innings from a starter.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:33 pm Quote
Right… if you threw a young reliever 120 innings per year out of the pen he’d blow up quickly.
Just the same, it’s easier on the muscles to do 25 x 2 pushups every other day, than to do 50 x 5 pushups once per week and rest the other six :- )
Don’t think there’s much doubt that pitching out of the pen for a little while, in your early 20’s, creates less wear-and-tear on the ol’ wing.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm Quote
Really interesting stuff from Buster Olney:
Something else to consider: Always assume that the folks involved in making a trade usually have more information at their disposal than we have. And the Twins’ push to finish this deal now, rather than opting to keep Santana, raised the eyebrows of many of Smith’s baseball brethren. “They’ve obviously made the decision they have to get him out of there before spring training starts,” said another GM, “and you have to ask yourself: Why?”
I wrote here earlier this month that evaluators from four different teams saw the same signs of regression in Santana in his last seven starts at the end of last season: diminished velocity, an unwillingness to throw his slider. Two of the evaluators had concerns about this and wondered if Santana was completely healthy, and two did not, chalking the regression to the lack of late-season adrenaline on a Twins team that wasn’t in the race.
“The Twins are going to know him better than anybody,” an evaluator in the AL said Tuesday night. “It’s not that they think he’s hurt, but maybe they’re seeing signs [of decline] in him, and figure it’s better to make the move now.”
January 30th, 2008 at 7:15 pm Quote
That *is* really interesting.
Lot of reports about that diminished velo and the lack of slider. He was supposedly off-again, on-again.
With that change, I don’t doubt that Santana would be a star even with less of a FB — like Pedro. But it’s enough so that you wonder who to draft first on roto day…
January 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm Quote
#97
If that were the case though why didn’t they deal him earlier in the season when they had a shot at Phil Hughes?
Santana’s ‘07 September:
10.2 K/9
3.19 BB/9
1.16 HR/9
Theres nothing really out of ordinary in that skillset.. maybe he did fatigue at the end of the season, but it doesn’t show in his peripherals.
It doesn’t quite add up.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Quote
Ya I’m not convinved that Santana’s dropping off either. I would buy in to the speculation that his heart wasn’t in it as much, with the Twins not in contention.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:23 pm Quote
Well, regardless of what may be happening with Santana physically, I agree that with his particular skillset/toolset, he’s as close as you can get to a lock for 2.~~ ERA’s for the NYM. A move to the weaker league, with his ability to change speeds and locate? Yuck. Good luck with that, NL East. The single biggest weapon in the AL just moved to your division. The effect of that cannot be overstated.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:59 pm Quote
I’m still having a really hard time getting my mind around the idea that there will be M’s fans dancing in the street if this deal falls through…
January 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pm Quote
LOL…same Ryno.
This is a GREAT deal fo rthe Ms…a once-in-a-decade chance to land a top pitcher without giving up anyone important from the active roster except one young outfield prospect. I don’t get the negeativity…it’s very hard to understand how some of these folks don’t want to win.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:36 pm Quote
Looking at the negativity you would think that this was a super young team with a small payroll that lost 100 games last year. It’s just weird… and I get that Adam Jones is a very good prospect, but if he does become his midrange projection are fans really going to cry about trading him?
January 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm Quote
Actually Ryno, you know the weirdest part?
The lamentations ARE based on Jones hitting his midrange projection. The fear is that he’ll hit (say) .285/.340/.460 with a nice glove, be worth $10m + a year according to BP MORP metrics .. while making a minimum salary.
The fear is NOT based on Adam Jones becoming Andruw. The fear is based on merely missing the chance to underpay a fairly good player.
…………………..
Needless to say, the quick D-O-V response to that is, there are more fairly-good players where Jones came from. You can underpay Wlad or Clement or whoever instead of Jones, if that’s the meaning of life, to underpay non-arb youngsters.
A rich team is never going to (need to) give more than a few lineup slots to very young players, and they’re stacked up six deep in Seattle. (How many $427,000 position players do the Red Sox or Yankees start at any one time?)
You only have a couple of “underpay” slots available at a time, and the Mariners have more glamor candidates for those slots than they can use.
The horror over missing a chance to underpay just the first guy in line is irrational.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:29 am Quote
It reminds me of the rich guy who just wants a bargain… doesn’t matter if the car he buys is real nice, if he can get it for 40% off he will go around telling everyone what a great deal he got. The other rich guy who drives around in a BMW doesn’t need to say a whole lot, the product speaks for itself.
The first guy might think he is “smarter,” but really, if you have the resources, there are times where you don’t need to bargain hunt. Especially when you have another car in your garage that is 90% as good as the bargain car (e.g. Jones vs. Balentien).
January 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pm Quote
According to John Sickels and his 50/50 list (50 best hitting prospects/pitching prospects). Gomez ranks in at #49. Humber didn’t make the list on the pitchers side. Mulvey checks in at #32 and Guerra checks in at #23.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:59 pm Quote
.
Not being up on NL East prospects, I’d gathered from the local blog-o-sphere that it was more like the Mets had given up Chen, Kahn, and Mangini …
That even though it was 4 of the Mets’ top 5 prospects, that the Mets didn’t have any talent on any of their minor league teams, so the Mets essentially got Santana for nothing.
What’s this you say? That three of those guys *were* glamor prospects, plus Humber?
……………..
I wonder if, two months ago, the locals would have conceded the Mariners had *any* three minors in the top 50 of baseball, much less including the M’s #5 and #9 prospects in that top-50 list.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:22 pm Quote
The Mets didn’t give up any top prospect. They gave up guys that were in the bottom 100 in a weak year for prospects.
And on top of that, IMO EVERY SINGLE one of the guys they gave up are overrated.
I’d rather have Tillman than Gomez (#1 guy offered.)
January 31st, 2008 at 1:39 pm Quote
I don’t doubt that the Mets have a *relatively* weak system right now…
But the D-O-V axiom is that, with few exceptions, EVERY major league franchise has more talent in its system than fans think they do.
All my life I’ve heard how Kansas City’s system is useless, or how the Reds’ system is trash, or the Mariners don’t have a single prospect who projects to regular … and yet, all these teams have young players starting and playing well in the majors. :- )
Remember how, two-three years ago, the Mariners’ system was #27 in baseball? Do they have any young hitters and pitchers at Safeco Field now?
……………….
Present company notwithstanding …. when I hear that a club gave up 4 of its top 5 prospects and “Minnesota got nuttin’, man” I think of that as Post-Intelligencer board stuff.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm Quote
.
Incidentally, Kevin Goldstein came out with his top 100 for 2008 today. According to him, there are only two prospect lists that matter: Kevin Goldstein’s and BBA’s.
The M’s had four players in the top 100, not counting Adam Jones and Brandon Morrow:
33 - Jeff Clement
44 - Chris Tillman
55 - Carlos Triunfel
95 - Wlad Balentien
Seattle fans would have flipped Triunfel and Tillman, of course.
But you get the best pitcher in baseball — maybe the most *valuable* veteran commodity in baseball — for 2 of your top 6? I’m turning handsprings.
I thought for sure it was going to be either 2 or 3 of Jones-Morrow-Clement-Triunfel, not 1 of them.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pm Quote
.
Incidentally, Kevin Goldstein came out with his top 100 for 2008 today. According to him, there are only two prospect lists that matter: Kevin Goldstein’s and BBA’s.
The M’s had four players in the top 100, not counting Adam Jones and Brandon Morrow:
33 - Jeff Clement
44 - Chris Tillman
55 - Carlos Triunfel
95 - Wlad Balentien
Seattle fans would have flipped Triunfel and Tillman, of course.
But you get the best pitcher in baseball — maybe the most *valuable* veteran commodity in baseball — for 2 of your top 6? I’m turning handsprings.
I thought for sure it was going to be either 2 or 3 of Jones-Morrow-Clement-Triunfel, not 1 of them.
……………….
It also ought to underline for Seattle fans that there is no “mortgaging of the future” here, since the M’s are left with Morrow, Clement, Triunfel, and Wlad, not to mention Aumont, Ramirez etc.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm Quote
indeed…we have the depth now to start making real moves for the big stage…with this rotation…the Ms are a world series contender…they’re built for October and I don’t think that’s a mistake.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm Quote
Doc, what do you think about Balentien’s long term future with the M’s, assuming Jones is out? Can he succeed long term in Safeco?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pm Quote
#110
OR maybe the Mets package REALLY IS much, MUCH weaker than the Ms. I’ve done my homework on prospects since joining SilentPadna’s dynasty league, and I think the M’s are offering a TON more than the Mets did for Santana.
If you don’t take my word for it though, take KG’s word for it:
In the chat he mentions that Adam Jones would rank from #6-#10.
Carlos Gomez (the #1 prospect offered) ranks #65 in today’s list. Tillman ranks #44 as you mentioned.
And the M’s even threw in one of the best LH relievers in the deal.
The M’s offer COMPLETELY SPANKS the Mets offer.
I still think its a great deal though for the M’s; the Twins just got robbed.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:19 pm Quote
Compared to other RH corner OF’s, Balentien has:
You can’t be happy about any RH’er coming up in Safeco, but neither can you fill your farm system with top-100 list lefthand hitters (there aren’t many).
Considering their home park, Wlad has a much better shot than most.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm Quote
.
So the Mets opened at 6/$129m, or $21.5m per year, which is to follow his 2008 season (signed at $13.25m).
Santana’s people opened at 6/$157m, or $26.1m per year, to follow the year that the Mets do get at $13.25m.
…………………..
This article says that negotiations are currently at 6 years and “more than” $150m.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:35 pm Quote
BOY…at that price, Bedard is easily the better guy to go after and it’s totally logical that he should cost more in terms of players going out.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:21 am Quote
150M$ 6 years for Santana.
If what is reported is true that Bedard’s agent wants 100M$ for 7 years, it can be negotiated to 80M$ 6 years plus a vesting option 20M$ for the 7th year.
These round numbers 100 or 150 are magical numbers for pride.
MLB (TM) value CyYoung etc. very high.
DrD et al was very on spot of what it will take to sign Bedard to a multi-year contract.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:10 am Quote
Gracias Dr. N ….
Hadn’t thought about the 100 and 150 threshholds. Definitely have seen players/agents take that route before.
Dr. Naka I don’t think you’ve given us your evaluation of the Santana / Bedard contracts at those levels?
February 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm Quote
Latest on Santana negotiations … most recent reports at the top of the list:
The 3:45 pm note? Evidently the Mets wanted to hedge their bets at the end of the deal, to which Santana responded, fine, then let me hedge my bets after year 3 also.
February 1st, 2008 at 3:44 pm Quote
oh man … Santana IS A-Rod. The Mets can have him.
blah.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm Quote
.
=== SPAM FILTER ===
We raised the filter severity from “kinda mean” to “really mean”, for obvious reasons.
If you get a post eaten, just pipe up and we’ll recover it. We’ll see how things go for a couple days.
Still interested in anybody to help with admin work… gracias…
February 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm Quote
I might be able to help admin Doc…if you or your tech guy are willing to show me how the Control Panel works (I’ve adminned at MLBCenter.org before so I’m not a total stranger to it).
Santana deal is finalized. And way cheaper than we thought.
6 years, 139 million dollars, including a 7 million dollar signing bonus paid in 2008 to up his salary this eyar to 20.5 million. 132 mil and 6 years is about 22 million per year.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pm Quote
23 mil per year for just the extension. A whole lot of money, but quite a bit lower than Santanas 26 mil starting offer to the Mets. Looks like the Mets went up a little and Johan came down about the same amount, probably a nice compromise, neither side is really happy (isn’t that the definition of a compromise?)
I am a bit surprised Santanas agents didn’t just say, “Here is our offer, call us when you choose to accept it.” and plunked down 160 over 6. I mean didn’t Johan have ALL the leverage here? If a deal falls through what does he care? He just pitches for Minny or Minny trades him somewhere else and he gets another oppurtunity for a huge offer. The Mets on the other hand had ZERO leverage they had everything to lose. I am actually fairly impressed that the Mets got him down that far.
On the whole though it looks like a good contract and makes a Bedard 100 over 7 deal look like a minor miracle.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:42 pm Quote
About the spam, USSM had a simple little widget that seemed pretty effective at controlling it before they went to registration. It might be worth implementing here.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm Quote
A question to the stat gurus: How is salary earned/ projected? I can’t seem to find a good explanation of the system. Near as I can tell, as I read a week or 2 back, AJ is claimed to be an 8-9 mil. player this year and 14 mil. next. How is that derived?
Also, is it possible to use that system to grade out, say, Griffey Jr.s first 2 seasons, (using todays dollars) as a means for double checking the system? That would be an interesting benchmark for the validity of the projection system.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:29 pm Quote
Wow…the Mets really managed to do well here, both in prospect and money. Impressive job.
The added bonus is that they’re helping reduce Bedard’s value in the process (prospects/money).
February 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pm Quote
indeed.
Once the deal becomes final I expect an extension for Bedard in the neighborhood of his asking price but maybe one fewer year. instead of 100/7 ,maybe it’s 90/6
February 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm Quote
Ya, I could see something like 5/65 even.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:48 pm Quote
if we could get him to take that…I might just have to fly to Seattle to give Bavasi a hug. LOL
February 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm Quote
Yeah, although it is important to note that the Mets had him signed for $13.25 this year.
Really what you’ve got is 5 x $23.1m, with $7m of it slid up front, from a FA standpoint.
…………………..
Which leaves him a smidge over $150m for 7 years, exactly as Dr. Naka emphasized. Actual cost to the Mets of 7 x $22m.
Yep, you’d have to call that a reasonable annual salary — but the Mets gave in on the 7 fully guaranteed years. That’s important, considering that when last seen, Santana was showing signs of arm fatigue (as opposed to Bedard’s random nicks and pains lately).
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm Quote
150M$ was the magic number agent/player wanted to have.
It have been not 6 years but 7 years.
The magic number will be 100M$ for Bedard I think.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am Quote
Baseball Prospectus’ The Week In Quotes
February 12th, 2008 at 12:18 am Quote
IOW…he’s saying “if they don’t offer me a long term deal, I’ll walk…if they do, I’ll sign.”
February 12th, 2008 at 1:13 am Quote
Definitely, and the Mariners know that, and Bedard knows they know that.
Bedard isn’t somebody that you want to get angry. :- ) He has made a gracious overture, one that in fact costs him money (vis-a-vis a Scott Boras type of approach).
If the Mariners return him a chilly snub for his trouble, they can confidently expect him to remember that. Am sure they won’t.
…………………
The contract offer is a Committee decision, and they were ready to go 6/$99MM last year on Zito. They’ll be aware that Bedard is much better than Zito, and aware that they’re married to Bedard via the talent sacrifice.
Can’t imagine how it wouldn’t go quickly and smoothly.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:39 am Quote
One thing I like about getting Bedard with two years to deal is the ability to avoid the Beltre quandary. You’ve got a pitcher who just had a career year. How REAL are those numbers? Is he “only” the 2006 pitcher, and 2007 was an abberation? Or, is he REALLY the 2007 pitcher, and about to become the next Unit?
This improves the negotiating environment for Seattle. They don’t HAVE to give him Santana-esque money immediately to keep him. They have the OPTION of working an extension soon, risking getting stuck with a bloated contract before he confirms his true production level *OR* they can wait, see how he does during 2007, and then act accordingly.
If there is realy concern over his ‘brittleness’, then waiting to see how his health holds up in 2007 isn’t a bad move.
The club HOPES he is the real deal - a HoF ace blossoming late. But, there is always the chance that he implodes. The 2-year window for negotiating cuts both ways, but I’m thinking leaving Baltimore and finding oneself in a pennant race might well be incentive to keep a guy in place - a “home town” discount not unreasonable after a season.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:18 am Quote
Sandy…I would argue that because there exists uncertainty right now, THIS is the moment when a long term deal should be signed. If we don’t act now and he indeed gets hurt or proves 2007 was fluky, then he will probably be pretty upset with us and we lose a good pitcher. I we don’t act now and he proves that 2007 was no fluke, then we pay 50% more when we do act. This is the best time to commit…when the cost will be mitigated.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:36 am Quote
SABRMatt wrote:
I completely agree - AS AN OPTIMIST.
But, (to use hyperbole), if you sign Bedard to a hefty contract, (even one mitagated by the uncertainty principle you note), and he turns out to be Carl Pavano, how much long term damage have you sustained?
Paying top money to get top production should not be a problem for Seattle. They aren’t Oakland or KC, where the only way they’ll ever hold onto a superstar IS to gamble. The club has the revenue where they CAN afford a Santana. But only the Yankees can afford to pay Santana-esque money to a flame out and still have that money to spend on the replacement.
If Bedard repeats 2007, yes, he’ll cost a lot more. But then you KNOW what you’re paying for. I understand the plusses of getting the Bedard discount early. But they have to be balanced against the potential catastrophe of a long-term bloated contract for nil production.
It’s a balancing act - and one where there is NEVER any certainty.
In the end, though, a 20-million/year contract (for mutliple years) for Bedard has a MUCH higher potential to destroy the long-term prospects of the club than the trade of a single elite spec.
The “danger” is the Hampton/Neagle scenario that the Rockies ran, which not only didn’t get them into the series - it financially hamstrung them for half a decade.
Me - I’m optimistic about Bedard - and I probably would be VERY eager to ink him for his coming 5-6 year peak. I would just make every effort to not let HIM know how eager I was. Figuring out how to move slowly without ticking him off is, of course, a complicating factor.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am Quote
You have to make that judgement BEFORE you trade a lot of talent for him..When the M’s committed themselves to give up talent for Bedard, they already made their decision of whether or not to extend him.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm Quote
Exactly, taro…I think this is one of those times when you have to trust your medical team and your intuition about a guy and eat some risk to save yourself some grief down the road. One bad contract…even if it’s 16 mil per year…it’s going to prevent the Ms from competing…it’s just going to make it harder. And I don’t think Bedard is the kind of guy who will get hurt and then never be the same.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm Quote
This is an important insight, with intriguing implications, one that deserves a front-page discussion — because it places the Adam Jones ‘risk’ so clearly into perspective.
If Jones becomes a Hanley Ramirez type, you control damage very simply and easily: you find a talented young player behind him. Or at the least, find a Jose Guillen to replace (most of) his production.
The obvious implication is that if you are willing to risk $100m on DiceK — that risking a set of prospects for Josh Beckett is a walk in the park for you. What is a prospect worth, in comparison to a contract with NINE ZEROES on it?
………………
Sandy, we’ give you author access amigo, except that we don’t see you registered … perhaps you want to emphasize this in a main article for us?
Also am curious about where you see the risk on a Bedard deal — strictly an injury concern or are you thinking that maybe he had a kind of ‘fluke’ year?