Long-Term Contracts: Two Down - Many More To Go
by Royals Nation on May 23, 2008 12:54 AM EDT
59 comments
Two Down - Many More To Go
We begin our endeavors into analysis of retaining the core by examining the contracts of two current Royals players secured to long-term contracts. In my opinion, former Royals G.M. Allard Baird and current Royals G.M. Dayton Moore were extremely smart in retaining both of these players, as they proceeded at the discretion of scouts within the organization and throughout baseball and their own instincts at securing two players who would, in turn, become legitimate producers at the Major League level. Obviously, David DeJesus has just entered his prime, and Joakim Soria turned 24 less than one week ago. However, both of these players are solid producers.
DeJesus has posted a career OPS of 102+, and a career line of .282/.357/.413, solid enough for any leadoff man and further enhanced by his ability to play center-field with good enough range, instincts, and glove.
Joakim Soria, the Royals' latest birthday boy, has simply been dominant in a closers' role, posting a 2.16 career ERA in 87 1/3 innings. He will arguably be the Royals' dominant closer and cog in late inning games for the forseeable future. However, his long-term contract, agreed to on Saturday, May 17 (one day before his birthday) guarantees him an extra $2 million should he be converted to starter, and some members of the Royals blogosphere or Internet fan-nation are already clamoring for a Soria shift to the starting 5. That wholy realistic possibility makes the Soria contract a possible greater bargain.
Now, onward to the contracts. Let us begin our analysis with the numbers themselves...
Per Cot's Baseball Contracts:
David DeJesus, of
5 years/$13.8M (2006-2010), plus $6M 2011 club option
signed extension 3/06
06:$0.5M, 07:$2M, 08:$2.5M, 09:$3.6M, 10:$4.7M, 11:$6M club option ($0.5M buyout)
if DeJesus does not qualify for arbitration as a Super 2 after 2006, the contract value is reduced to $11.95M (06:$0.5M, 07:$0.6M, 08:$2.3M, 09:$3.45M, 10:$4.6M, 11:$6M / $0.5M buyout)
1 year/$0.32M (2005), renewed 3/05
drafted 2000 (4-104), $0.245M signing bonus
agent: Dan Horwits
ML service: 3.146
At age 28, we can expect DeJesus to maintain his roughly league-average (and actually slightly above average by center fielders' standards) production. While the contract is heavy on years, it is certainly not heavy on actual monetary commitments. In fact, DeJesus won't even cost significantly above average for a post-Free Agency player until the 2011 season, which is actually an option season worth $6 million. One of Baird's finer moves, in my opinion, was agreeing to keep David DeJesus in Kansas City. Although some fans overlook the center fielder, and although this sounds wholesomely cliche, his hustle, hard work, and gritty determination have attracted baseball fans to Kauffman Stadium to watch the Kansas City Royals. This city has, in many symbolic ways, learned to appreciate the type of play that DeJesus brings to the field. He is by all means an excellent teammate and an active contributor to the community. He's the type of player a front office should lock up long-term. Another long-term commitment is below. "Mexican Tough."
Joakim Soria, rhp
1 year/$0.4265M (2008)3 years/$8.75M (2009-11), plus 2012-14 club
options
signed extension 5/17/08
09:$1M, 10:$3M, 11:$4M, 12:$6M club option, 13:$8M club option, 14:$8.75M club option ($0.75M buyout for each option)
escalators based on IP (as starter) or games finished (as reliever)
2012 option guaranteed at $6M with 55 games in 2011 or 110 games in 2010-11
2012 option guaranteed at $6.5M with 400 IP in 2010-11
1 year/$0.4265M (2008), re-signed 2/20/08 (split contract)
1 year/$0.38M (2007), signed 2/07
drafted # 2 (from San Diego) in Rule 5 draft 12/06
signed (by San Diego) as minor-league free agent 12/20/05
signed for 2005 with Mexico City of Mexican League
released (by LA Dodgers) 10/12/04
signed 10/31/01 as amateur free agent (LA Dodgers)
agent: Oscar Suarez
ML service: 1.000
Should I even delve into the magnificence of Soria thus far as Royals closer? He possesses four well above average pitches in a 66-70mph, 12-6 curveball, a slider, a change-up, and a 2-seam fastball that clocks in between roughly 91-93. And according to Sam Mellinger, there is nowhere to go but up for this guy, whom former manager Buddy Bell classically deemed as "Mexican Tough."
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/610579.html
He rocks braces and an Abraham Lincoln beard, plus usually a smile — and why not? He was the primary setup man in his second big-league game, the closer in his fourth, and now, into his second season, looks capable of becoming one of the game’s best.
Numbers don’t always do it justice, but here goes: a perfect eight-for-eight on saves, zero runs surrendered in 13 one-inning appearances, a .071 batting average-against, one walk and 15 strikeouts.
“He’s the only guy on the team any of us would say, ‘I’ll bet my next paycheck this is a strike,’ ” says Brian Bannister. “That’s how much faith we have in him. We all laugh when we watch him pitch. You just know the first pitch is going to be a strike, and it’s probably going to be knee high.”
Soria is so good, so quick — and with seemingly no strain — that teammates and Royals officials can’t help but wonder about someday moving him to the rotation. His use has become one of the perpetual talking points among Royals fans.
Moving on....
In your opinion, which player should we next secure to a long-term contract? In addition, what should the contract entail, money-wise? I believe the next player in line for a long-term contract is starting pitcher Zack Greinke. More on that to come.
*Editor's note*: I would like to note that I have created a new blog entitled Retaining The Core. In this blog, I will examine long-term, pre-Free Agency contracts throughout baseball and how those deals relate to our own commitment to our young players. I will create an uncompromising tone, urging our brass and front office to guide this organization toward respectability and contention by securing our young core in the form of long-term contracts.
2 recs |
59 comments
Email
Print
Comments
While I am in favor of locking down several of our young players long-term (at some point, depending on performance)
...I would like to provide a word of caution. There is risk here for the Royals or any team which locks down young, inexperienced players long-term. There was Angel Berroa. There was Mike Sweeney. There is also Travis Hafner. I don’t know what the deal is with Travis Hafner, but I do know the numbers so far. He signed a 3 year/$7M deal with a $4.75M club option for 2008. Then, in July of 2007, they re-worked and extended the deal to make it a 4 year/$57M contract through 2012 plus a club option for 2013. These are his OPS numbers for the last few years:
2006 1.097
2007 .837
2008 .694
A lot of people though 2007 was an aberration. Now no one is quite sure. I’m not saying he’s done or anything, but the Indians tied up a hell of a lot of money in him and all of the sudden his future is quite uncertain.
My point is that we need to take the significant risk of these contracts into account. Not every talented young player is going to pan out. Some of them are going to show talent early and then fall on their faces. So the questions are who should the Royals attempt to lock down now and who should we wait and see? My plan would be:
2008
Soria
Greinke
Gordon
2009
Butler – see how he looks in the rest of 2008 and 2009. If he takes a significant step forward, they can start negotiating his extension either during or after the 2009 season. If he doesn’t take a step forward, then continue to wait and see with him. Nothing says we have to buy out all of his arbitration years.
2010
Bannister – We have him under team control for several more years, so let’s give him a good, long look. Does he prove that he’s for real? And if so, what kind of pitcher does he prove himself to be. Evaluate him after the 2009 or 2010 season and then consider the extension.
Buck? I’m not sure. He’s ok, nothing to be overly impressed with. But catchers are scarce. I’d like to extend him this year or next year if his salary demands are fairly modest.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 1:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm from a different mindset than most...
...in that, in the case of doubt, I would almost always err on the side of retaining players through contracts. Certainly the absolute nucleus of the core must be retained – this would include Greinke, Gordon, Butler, and Soria, I believe – but question marks surround players like Brian Bannister, possibly Luke Hochevar (Boras client), and the eventual everyday player Alberto Callaspo (SHOULD he pan out as the .300/.350/.400-style second baseman many people believe he can be).
I just believe, for a small-market franchise especially, locking up the nucleus early is a formidable concept, because to be honest with ourselves….the financial burdens placed upon us by the Berroa contract is vastly overrated. If David DeJesus regressed a la Berroa, HIS long-term contract would be overrated considerably. When maintained EARLY (as I am advocating in this blog and in this post!), players cost the teams far more in emotional inconvenience than cold, hard cash.
I believe the Longoria signing is a signal of things to come for Tampa Bay, and they will become a super-force, if for several years, after their other elite prospects arrive.
Obviously, Gordon and Greinke must be obtained. I highly doubt the majority of fanbase would disagree with maintaining them as soon as this season. With Butler and his rather inexplicable (IMO) power-outage this season, I think most fans err on the side of wait-and-see. With Bannister, his game plan almost exclusively involves defying numbers – and in the greater scheme of events, defying the critics. He won’t develop into a plus-fastball (94-96mph), plus-plus curveball, and plus-slider guy overnight. By all accounts, he has one and a half plus pitches, and uses deception strongly to his advantage. Will he regress? The critics say it’s probable, but if he posts, say, a 4.0-4.2 ERA through the season with strong peripherals (HRA, K/BB, SB%, etc. etc.), I believe we should lock him up based on the fact that he has defied the odds for FAR BEYOND a flukishly small period of time.
As for Buck, if he maintains his current numbers, he will provide a league-average OPS for catchers through the next 3-4 years, assuming he doesn’t regress early, as is possible, but not probable. A .700 OPS this day in age at the catcher position isn’t the problem. However, I can understand your argument, NYRoyal, re: Buck.
Other core players I identified in my blog were Callaspo (as mentioned), Luke Hochevar (again, Borass client, willingness to negotiate is highly improbable), and yes…even Mark Teahen, who is looking to be a 2000’s/2010’s version of John Mabry….a super-sub or platoon player at best. Teahen is also debatable, IMO. And here’s a conundrum surrounding Hochevar…..if the Royals offered him a (generous) 6-year/$35MM contract TODAY based on projection – would he negotiate and sign? I would think that, despite being a Boras player, he would have to consider.
As I stated, I am a firm believer of retaining players through long-term contracts based on projection, as such a concept could save any franchise literally millions upon millions of dollars. Projection comes through a fine scouting department and development team, something in my opinion we have – or at least we should have under a competent G.M. like Dayton Moore. Dayton Moore himself has mentioned retaining the core on at least two occasions, specifically. I know he wants to retain as many players as possible. If he doesn’t, as I mentioned….I think the blame must be shifted to the payroll providers….the people making the budget…..in essence, our front office.
Could Gordon regress and routinely post 85-90 OPS+ as 3B? Possible.
Could Butler regress and become an ultra-slow #2 hitter? Possible.
Could Hochevar bomb entirely and find himself out of baseball in 2011? Possible.
Could Greinke quit baseball to become a lawnmower in the 2009 offseason? Possible.
But none of those situations are probable. In fact, they are all highly, highly improbable. And I would think dumping a maximum of $10MM on a serviceable everyday player or pitcher in 2012 is an extremely worthy investment for a small-market franchise, anyway. Our scouting department, player development department, front office, and thus our common sense are all there. Now…we need to act upon them.
(Wow, a near 2:00 A.M. post from NYRoyal? Now, that is RR dedication! :) And on another note….thanks, Will, for moving this to the frontpage.)
by Royals Nation on May 23, 2008 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's something to be said for restraint.
Overpaying to lock up a player is no different than overpaying for free agents. Both can be crippling. I also think it’s worth noting that not signing a player could give the Royals the benefit of stepped up production in the famed contract year. I’m not sure if studies have been done on higher production in contract years, but that’s certainly the cliche, and I’ll buy it until it’s proven wrong.
by stuckinstl12 on May 23, 2008 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overpaying to lock up a player is no different than overpaying for free agents. Both can be crippling.
Disagree. Locking up your own player early ensures more years of his prime, and therefore his peak production. Also, long-term contracts are usually much, much, much cheaper than contracts from Free Agency. Sure, retainments can be crippling (see: Sweeney, Mike) but the percentage of crippling homegrown contracts is much smaller. (And the Sweeney contract was signed immediately before he hit Free Agency, not early as I advocate for our current young nucleus). If the contract is signed early, it can cripple a team, but only in years, which are considerably less damaging than actual monetary commitment.
it’s worth noting that not signing a player could give the Royals the benefit of stepped up production in the famed contract year. I’m not sure if studies have been done on higher production in contract years, but that’s certainly the cliche, and I’ll buy it until it’s proven wrong.
Yes, but would it be worth it to go year-to-year with Gordon, Butler, and Greinke based on this philosophy? That would be incredibly foolhardy for this organization. I understand where you’re coming from, but this philosophy does not outweigh our dire need to extend these guys.
by Royals Nation on May 23, 2008 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really disagree with you.
I just fear overcorrecting and locking up everyone. Gordon, Butler and Greinke are pretty special cases (showing the ability to produce at a young age) and signing them to extensions seems really smart. I’d want a really good price to lock up anyone else.
I overstated my case above by saying extensions and free agent contracts are not different. But, while the risk might be lower on an individual basis, blindly locking everyone up could be pretty devastating. This puts the premium on scouting and statistical projections, as you note above. My main point is that by no means are long-term contracts an easy solution to rebuilding an organization. The front office still has to guess right a high percentage of the time.
by stuckinstl12 on May 23, 2008 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good calls
For the record, I’m not exactly clamoring to sign Brian Bannister, John Buck, and Alberto Callaspo or else. However, the first three you mentioned (G, B, G) are franchise-saving important. Trading them at respective times hypothetically involves:
A) Risk (will the prospects pan out? There’s a decent percent chance they won’t…
B) Waiting period (a couple more years of sub-contention while we wait for Hochevar and Moustakas to near Free Agency…and then by the times our Greinke/Gordon prospects pan out, Hochevar and Moustakas are gone….and rinse and repeat)
C) Attendance figures/fanbase. Under a competitive ballclub, which I believe they will be if these players are locked up, our fans will return to Kauffman Stadium in droves. They will rally around and support these players. Our fanbase will skyrocket. If the opposite is done, most fans – most fans are casual fans, for the record – none of this will happen. We will continue doing what we are doing attendance and fanbase-wise.
D) Intangibles. Banishment of a small-market mentality. A no-longer cynical city on the Royals. An instillment of trust in ownership and possible future ownership. If the opposite is done, we still have a small-market mentality and cynicism in ownership.
....And there are probably more I am omitting. But I digress.
In addition, I think we need players like Daniel Cortes, Mike Moustakas, Luke Hochevar, and our 2008 #1 draft pick to really solidify themselves into this group by 2010.
by Royals Nation on May 23, 2008 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Attendance figures/fanbase. Under a competitive ballclub, which I believe they will be if these players are locked up, our fans will return to Kauffman Stadium in droves.
You can’t overstate this enough. Back in the days when the Royals would lead the AL in attendance, the fans could count on seeing Brett/White/Otis/Wilson/McRae year after year after year. The stability in the core of the Royals lineup was a selling point.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on May 23, 2008 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree,
it is important to me that I like the team I cheer for. There are some players on the Royals that I just like cheering for. Teahen, Bannister, Gload, German, Grudz, DeJesus, Meche, Gobble, etc. I also pull for Costa and Hudson.
Following a team with a lot of turnover, or with core players you just don’t like, it diminishes the hobby.
I remember how down I was when the Reds let some of my old favorites go. Chris Sabo, Barry Larkin, Nick Esasky, etc.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hafner is more a cautionary tale for siging Adam Dunn or Pat Burrell
Hafner, who has displayed classic old player skills (lots of walks, strikeouts, and home runs), was already 30 years old and only one season away from free agency when he signed his last extension. Players with Hafner’s skillset (including Carlos Delgado, Richie Sexson) tend to fall off a cliff in their early to mid 30s. Hafner was already on the downside of his peak when he signed the last extension.
Greinke (age 24), Gordon (24), and Butler (22) are in a different category. Extensions for them would include their peak years (or at least the beginning of the peak in Butler’s case). All are elite (or near elite) talents who should have their best years well in front of them. A better comparison for them is the deal Hafner signed to buy out his arbitration (and peak) years (3 years/$7 million with $4.75 million club option for his last arbitration year), which was an absolute steal.
by Gopherballs on May 23, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I think we all pretty much agree with the general principle of locking down young talent
I would imagine that just about everyone wants Greinke and Gordon extended long-term. And I’m sure many would b willing to extend Butler, Buck, Teahen etc. at least at some point, based on performance. I’d be willing to extend them all tomorrow for the right price. But the question is, what are we willing to spend? Teahen may have no power and Callaspo is a huge question mark, but I’d extend them tomorrow for 4 years/$4M (plus 3 club option years). I’m not saying that is what they are worth; I’m just making a point. The team and the player both have to make the risk-benefit analysis work for them.
So this is the hard part. How much would you be willing to pay Greinke and for how long? How about for Gordon? The numbers and the years are the really hard part. I’ve already come up with my own modest proposal for Greinke (based partially on the Carmona deal as a comp):
4 years, $32M (plus 3 options years which could make it 7 years, $73M)
2009 $4.5M
2010 $6.5M
2011 $10M
2012 $11M
2013 $12M club option
2014 $14M club option
2015 $15M club option
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 3:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hochevar
And here’s a conundrum surrounding Hochevar…..if the Royals offered him a (generous) 6-year/$35MM contract TODAY based on projection – would he negotiate and sign?
Would he sign and would it be a good deal for the Royals? You have to remember that he’s under team control through 2013. So, a 6-year deal (2009-2014) would only buy the Royals one more year of team control. So it doesn’t benefit the Royals much. Even with salary inflation, if Hochevar pitches like a #3 SP, he’d likely make something like this:
2009 – 400K
2010 – 400K
2011 – 2M
2012 – 4M
2013 – 8M
2014 – 14M
That adds up to $28.8M. So the suggested deal only buys the Royals one more year, gives him more money than he’d make through arbitration and one year of free agency and gives the Royals all of the risk. For a rookie like Hochevar, in his first year of team control, I really don’t think it makes sense for the Royals to lock him up long-term (unless it is for some ridiculously cheap deal which he and Boras would never go for). The Royals still don’t know what they have in him and they have him under control for 5 1/2 more years. It makes more sense to wait a year or two, evaluate him more closely, figure out what you have in him and then extend him a few years into free agency.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 3:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Plus you need to treat pitchers differently than position players because the risk is so much higher for injuries or sudden ineffectiveness. You rarely want to guarantee a pitcher more than three years once they get into their expensive arbitration years and beyond. Tampa Bay did a great job with Kazmir and Shields by adding on team options, which operate to extend the team’s control over the player with little financial risk.
by Gopherballs on May 23, 2008 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
It would be ridiculously premature to give Hochevar a long-term deal now. His minor league numbers leave a lot to be desired.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 23, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've heard Keith Law...
speak on the topic of who to lock up and when. If memory serves me correctly (which is debatable) he thinks the pendulum has swung too far in locking up players. Only those that will (probably) be truly special should be locked up. Soria, Greinke, and Gordon all have that potential and would probably qualify.
I think it’s dangerous to guarantee long term money to the Buck, Teahen and DeJesus’s. They profile out as average (and some below average years). You shouldn’t be locking up average. You should use it in the 6 year period on a year to year basis and look to upgrade it. Otherwise you get your hands tied as an organization on roster flexibility.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 9:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree
I’m probably the exact opposite of Royals Nation in that I think we should sign young players to long-term contracts only on rare occassions. If the player development system is hitting on all cylinders through acquisitions via the draft and international signings, I feel a competent organization should be able to ride their young players hard during the six years they are under control on affordable deals and then let them walk so another team can overpay for their later years.
For a small-market team like KC, I feel this is the most prudent strategy, although fans never want to go this route because they form a connection with players and want them to be life-long Royals.
Founder of the Rowdy Hardy Fan Club
by eazyb81 on May 23, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next to Greinke and aside from pre-arbitration players like Gordon and Butler,
DeJesus has the most valuable contract on the team. Position scarcity matters.
by Gopherballs on May 23, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
I think there’s been a rush by fans to advocate locking up every half-way decent player for the Royals. That makes no sense. I know we still feel burned by Johnny Damon and Carlos Beltran, but we have to be wise when dealing with this kind of money. Locking up a Mark Teahen (for example’s sake) and seeing him turn into a Sean Burroughs will cost us the chance to go after a free agent, or possibly lock up a good young Royals player.
I don’t think the experience of Angel Berroa (or Mike Sweeney) should sour us on locking players up, but it should serve as a cautionary tale that we can’t just lock up everyone that had one good year. Look at their career numbers, minors and majors and make prudent decisions.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 23, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure there was a time when many fans wanted us to lock down Mark Quinn and Andy Sisco to long-term contracts
You have to figure out who you want in the “core” before you extend players.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two players I do like that probably could be locked up now at a "buyers" price
Gobble and Teahen. Neither are likely to be very good players at this point, but I do see them both as above average and likely to remain valuable for the foreseeable future.
I’d be happy to see contracts like this:
Teahen, has two more years of arbitration still. Maybe three years at $15M? Something in that range?
Gobble, has one more year of arbitration left. Maybe three years at $6 or $7M?
I would love to see Gordon locked up now as well. Barring injury he probably will go super-two after this year and so the Royals have him under arbitration at least until 2011 thus no rush. Grenkie would make me happy, but given his inconsistant past it would be a larger than usual risk to sign him to a long term deal. I bet he would cost at least 3/25 at this point.
I’m not ready to make a long term committment to Bannister, Buck and Peralta yet.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 11:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Gordon cannot be a Super Two after this year
Gordon will only have two years of service time after this season. To qualify as a Super Two, the player needs almost three years of service time (usually around 2 years + 130 days of service time).
by Gopherballs on May 23, 2008 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are right. My mistake.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon will have two full seasons...
no more no less. He will be eligible for arbitration after next season for the first time.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see the advantage to locking up Teahen and Gobble
The odds that Teahen suddenly becomes a great player IMO are small, or at least outshadowed by the odds that you will want to non-tender Teahen someday.
Gobble is completely expendable in my mind. Locking him up would be a waste of money.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 23, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't just make long-term contracts with players who you think will become great
If I were the GM, I would at least start long-term contract negotiations with Teahen’s agent now. I just wouldn’t offer much. I wouldn’t be giving him a contract which gambles on him becoming a .500 SLG or even a .450 SLG player. We just don’t know that this will happen and we can’t be very confident in it right now. Given the low initial offers I’d make to his agent, Teahen might not be at all interested in such a deal and would rather go to arbitration and perhaps later free agency. But it doesn’t hurt to feel him/them out.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teahen could probably be replaced...
with a Mitch Maier or Chris Lubanski for league minimum as early as next year. You don’t overpay for mediocrity. Teahen of 2006 could not be but Teahen of 2005, 2007 and 2008 could be.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think a .350 OBP grows on trees?
Also, do you think that Maier or Lubanski will ever come anywhere near a 100 OPS+? The odds are very long against. You are vastly underrating Teahen and vastly overrating how easy it would be to replace him.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I just think
The chance that Teahen becomes great is less than the chance we’ll want to non-tender him someday. He should be fighting for his contract every year. And if he has a great year, well I have no problem paying him then. But he hasn’t proven he’s all that valuable yet.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 23, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teahen's career...
OBP is 340 not 350.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's a reason that typically people look at more recent years' numbers
One of the reasons is that a player’s rookie season isn’t usually typical of what you can expect from him in later years.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what will happen to Teahen's OBP...
after another 400 PAs establishing that he has no power
I’m not being contentious or begging the question here, I really don’t know
will it go down b/c he will get challenged more, or is he already being challenged now
by royalsreview on May 23, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does it look to you like pitchers are afraid of him and aren't challenging him right now?
It doesn’t look that way to me.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't consider Teahen mediocre.
He bats above league average, although I don’t think his numbers are league average for a right fielder.
He is an excellent outfielder, and he has only been playing out there a bit over a year.
He is one of the best baserunners in the majors.
Plus, he seems to be a good team guy. No trouble out of him. No track record of injury.
I’d consider him a good player. Not great, but better than average.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He is already ...
under team control through 2011. How much longer would you really want to extend him beyond that for?
2005 – OPS + 82
2006 – OPS + 122
2007 – OPS + 98
2008 – OPS + 90
I just don’t see how that’s an above average bat.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How relevant is a player's rookie season?
Would you like me to provide you the rookie season stats of a bunch of HOFers? If you look at 2006-2008 you have an OPS+ over 100. That’s above average. And the fact that his OPS is OBP heavy (with OBP being the more important element of OPS) makes it even better.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure it's only relevant...
if it would suit whatever argument you’re trying to make. Rookie data does count in the statbook last time I checked. Ryan Braun’s apparently counted so much they game him 45 million dollars.
Besides the point really. 2007 and 2008 are both below average.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Have I ever used rookie numbers in the past?
Rookie seasons are often/usually atypical. Players usually aren’t particularly good in their rookie season and then improve from there. So, using it gives you a skewed result, period. But if it makes you feel better to count his rookie year, go for it.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its much more in-line with his career numbers
Than 2006. Play the old Sesame Street game “one of these things is not like the other.”
2005 – OPS + 82
2006 – OPS + 122
2007 – OPS + 98
2008 – OPS + 90
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 26, 2008 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Royals only control Teahen through 2010
He is in his first arbitration year now.
I like Teahen. I’d be happy to see him sign a three, or even a four year deal if the price was right. I like the guy. He helps the team.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was super two this year.
They control him through 2011.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Super-two arb players still only have three years of arbitration.
He received arbitration this year, so he stays under arb control in 2009 and 2010. He would be free agent elibably in 2011. If I understand all these rules correctly.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Super two players...
get four years of arbitration. It’s 2011. There’s a fanpost recently that shows which players become free agents when.
by djk royal on May 24, 2008 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gobble is already a pretty good lefty reliever.
And he still has an outside chance at becoming more.
Looking at the contracts given out to middle relief, locking him up at 3/6 or 3/7 would be a pretty good deal, provided he continues to perform at the level he has the last two years.
Like Teahen, I think Gobble is pretty good. Not great, but above average.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree with you
a little about Gobble. I think he is great against LEFTIES, but I have no confidence in him against right-handed hitters. In saying that, there are a lot of guys out there that can do this for your team. If you are talking about signing him to a cheap contract then I’m all for it, but a long contract is unwise to me, in that we could get someone who does his job just about anywhere.
However, I do realize that a lot of people around here really like Gobble so I might be in the minority. I like him, I just don’t think he is anymore than a good LOOGY.
by I need more Esteban on May 23, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a tough call,
plus, I petty well expect the Royals to trade him, maybe even this year. Pretty good relief pitchers often bring in a nice return near the trading deadline.
Anyway, I like Gobble and still have a little hope he might step it up another level, perhaps even become an okay 4 or 5 starter. I think he is a keeper.
www.rockchalktalk.com for pretty good KU baseball coverage
by James Quinn on May 23, 2008 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
$2 for a LOOGY
Would be a complete waste of money IMO.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 26, 2008 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While locking up players is generally a good thing
I also think it has been wildly overrated lately. You’re not “retaining your core”. Those guys were going to be stuck in Kansas City for six years anyway. At the very best you’re buying out one or two years of free agency in these types of deals. Other than that you’re really doing is avoiding arbitration and saving yourself some money in those arbitration years.
We already have a core of players that is guaranteed to be here through at least 2010, and some through 2012 or beyond. I don’t see the need to take a financial gamble on every young decent player we have. Reward the players who produce over time, maybe it will give a financial incentive to the others.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 23, 2008 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, locking down players isn't as much about "retaining the core" as it is "extending the core"
If all you’re doing is buying out arbitration years or maybe one FA year, then you’re not helping the team much. Extending contracts well into FA years is what is important, and you should only do that when you are really confident in a player and/or if you can get a bunch of club option years to lessen the risk.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's all any of these deals do...
is buy out arbitration years and one to maybe two free agency years. Any agent who would do otherwise would be negligent. It’s a way to provide some cost certainty for both while still allowing a player the flexibility to hit the free agent market in his prime years.
If your talking about extending the last year of arbitration then maybe they will extend past the one to two free agency years but essentially your paying almost market rate by then anyways.
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you mean by "any of these deals"?
Some of the long-term contracts that have been given to young players recently have extended to multiple FA years. It is not true that any agent who would give up FA years in a long-term deal is negligent. Carmona’s agent was not negligent. Soria’s agent was not negligent. They are buying their client certain, guaranteed money. Players have risk. They can flame out. They can fail. They can Berroa. They can Sweeney. They can Hafner. These contracts buy them certain millions. And it also leaves them young enough when the contract expires that they’ll get another huge FA payday down the line.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did either of those surpass...
buying out two free agency years?
by djk royal on May 23, 2008 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't having 8 years of team control rather than 6 years a big deal?
It certainly is, particularly for a small market team.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take
NY, I generally agree with your assesments.
The only area I may differ is I might be willing to entertain a reasonable contract for Buck. I detect modest improvement, and my gut tells me he could easily assume the mantle of clubhouse leader soon. (Gordon doesn’t appear to have the personality for that, neither does Teahen or Guillen. Grud probably fills that role currently, but he will most likely be gone soon).
I also would be tempted to offer Bannister a reasonable extension this off-season. It looks like his BABIP gave him a higher than deserved performance last season, while perhaps this year is headed for the opposite. True talent may lie in the 3.90 – 4.25 ERA range, so after he posts, say a 4.50-4.75 this year, we get a good bargain by signing him.
I forsee Bannister as roughly a Jeff Suppan level – and that’s pretty damn valuable. No, it’s not an ace or a #2, but there’s something to be said for 200 guaranteed innings a year at league avg to slightly above league avg performance, especially in today’s FA pitching market.
Butler is puzzling to me. I am frustrated and surprised that he is having so much trouble adjusting to the league pounding him in with FBs this year. (It seems like he has been playing pepper with the SS the last month). I place some of the blame on Barnett, but since we aren’t privvy to his coaching, maybe Butler shares some blame? I’m trying to remember that he is only 22 – but making adjustments successfully is the difference between an avg ML and a star. For that reason, I think I would have to say wait another year or two to see exactly what Butler has or doesn’t have mentally. It might just be a case of him being such a natural talent, that this is the first time he has had to “think” about hitting and deal with any sort of “failure” at all.
by loyal2sdad on May 23, 2008 5:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm willing to entertain a reasonable contract for Buck
It is a scarce position and the Royals have no minor leaguer who projects to be anywhere near an average MLB catcher in the next 3-5 years. The question is what contract is reasonable. I don’t have a good idea off the top of my head.
I probably disagree with you.
by NYRoyal on May 23, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OMG BUT TUPMAN'S A 1.000 HITTER!!11!
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on May 23, 2008 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Easy to find Buck type talent on the FA market
There are lots of John Buck’s around the league willing to sign relatively cheap 1-2 year deals – Rod Barajas, Bengie Molina, Yorvit Torrealba, Michael Barrett….Miguel Olivo!
I like Buck, but he’s not worth guaranteeing a solid amount of money.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on May 26, 2008 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
