Should the Royals Go After Edwin Jackson?
by Freneau on Jan 29, 2012 11:13 AM EST
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintYesterday Joe Sheehan wrote in his newsletter (which I recommend subscribing to) that the Royals should go after Edwin Jackson. Sheehan is and has been a Jackson advocate, pointing out that over the last three years, he's been very effective. For whatever reason, he's the rare example of the demand for a player not having a recency bias.
Since being traded to the Tigers, Jackson has made 96 starts, posted a 108 ERA+ and struck out 7.1 per nine. Next season will be his age 28 season, so he still has some upside.
As Sheehan points out, there aren't many teams left for Jackson to sign with and the Royals should be in that group.
The weakest link on the Royals is a starting rotation that, while improved, is loaded with back-rotation types like Bruce Chen and Luke Hochevar. The Royals don't need starts; they need a starting pitcher, and if signing Jackson means Danny Duffy goes back to Triple-A or Luis Mendoza starts the year as a long man, neither of those is that bad relative to the three- or four-win upgrade Jackson represents over those two and the other in-house options. Adding Jackson makes managing the staff easier, thanks to his reliability, and because Jackson is 28 and improving, he even brings some upside. The Royals don't catch the Tigers by signing Jackson. However, the move would close the gap between the teams and make it more likely that an upset would happen. It also starts to position the team for 2013, which should be their year to win.
It's hard to know just what exactly the market for Jackson now is. Sheehan threw out Buerhle's contract as a possible comp -- 4 years $58 million -- which is as good as guess as any. The Red Sox are still out there as possible rivals, the most likely big market team that should be interested. According to internet rumors, Jackson has multiple three-year offers before him. Could the patented Dayton Moore extra year be enough to sign Jackson?
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why not?
He’d be 31 in the last year of his contract, and would probably lose 1-1.5 mph off his fastball over that time, but he’s rock solid. He’d be a solid starter over 4 years, easy. And he could be first-rate #2 for the most of the time. – TL
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
It depends.
Jackson is still young. He’s 28. I would do the deal, but I don’t know if Dayton would.
I think that we are overestimating the amount of pitching prospects we have. I would like for us to sign him, not only for us to get closer to competing this year, but to help us compete in the long run.
That being said, I think it would be more valuable for them to just evaluate what they have this year and go after a pitcher next year. I would like to see them get Grienke back or get Hamels or Cain.
I'm a 15 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
2012 is the year we shine (hopefully. If not, then it will be 2013).
by Jack Marsh on Jan 29, 2012 11:34 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
$14.5MM a year seems a little rich
and has been pointed out, with some of baseball’s aging curves, it’s most likely his best year of the contract will be 2012, the year we will have the least projectable likelihood of making the playoffs.
I’m not against signing him, I just think it would not have enough reward for the risk unless we slashed millions off of the 4/$58MM.
Jackson
IMO, it would be a bad move. You’re talking about 14.5 million per, over 4 years for a guy with a 60-60 record, and a lifetime ERA of 4.46(WHIP – 1.48) and BAA of .276. Who has pitched for better than average teams during his career. I would put that 60 million to much better use(Alex Gordon for one), Eric Hosmer or Mike Moustakas if they’re willing to sign long term for another.
by R_F on Jan 29, 2012 12:01 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
agree with this exactly
2012... the year the Royals finish above .500
by Somewhere Over Dwayne Bowe on Jan 29, 2012 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
You've missed the point.
The story on Jackson is that he was brought up when he was like 20 or 21 years old and he struggled mightily. But the last 3 years, he’s been as consistent as anybody. And during that time, he’s been above average.
If those are the statistics you want to look at:
In the last three years (as hawkinscm87 points out he has improved) he has a 35-30 record, 3.96 ERA, 1.363 WHIP, .267 BAA on a .311 BABIP.
He has also been worth 9.1 bWAR and 11.2 fWAR.
Since 2008, his FIPs have gone from 4.88 to 4.28 to 3.86 to 3.55 while his xFIPs have gone from 4.97 to 4.32 to 3.71 and 3.73. He has done that despite the BABIP against going up in the last three years (.276 to .313 to .330).
by stlfan on Jan 29, 2012 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
One expensive 2/3 type pitcher that has a large opportunity cost is not going to catch the Tigers.
Pass.
Go Royals!
Sure
But it would get us closer. If the Royals want to get to the top in the next five years, they can’t remain passive. Detroit is spending, and spending big. I think Edwin would be a great piece to add, and unless the FO is dead set on never spending at a competitive level he is probably worth three price
by YouDon'tPhaseMeGobble on Jan 29, 2012 4:54 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Why is there always a "not sure" option?
Just make it yes or no… if people aren’t sure then they won’t vote. We don’t need to know 10 percent of the people can’t make a decision on an opinion poll.
2012... the year the Royals finish above .500
by Somewhere Over Dwayne Bowe on Jan 29, 2012 12:34 PM EST reply actions
Thank You For
Expressing your opinion.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jan 29, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you are probably right
since this is sports and really not that important
overall, if there are people that really don’t know, i think that’s good information to have
by Freneau on Jan 29, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
"not sure" certainly gives an idea of the strength of the "yes" and "no" totals
plus something something about poll bias without a “none of the above” option.
I chose "Not sure"
And I’m fairly confident I am more educated on the topic than you. The reason I say “not sure” is because I’m honestly not sure about the dollar amount. It seems a little high to me. The problem is, I don’t know if that’s a valid point because a much worse pitcher (Buerhle) got that kind of money. I think Jackson is worth more than Buerhle, but I’d prefer something like 4 years/$51M.
by hawkinscm87 on Jan 29, 2012 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
You can't talk
to one of arrowhead prides finest like that, he needs to go back and talk shit on matt cassell or whatever they do over there.
Shit + Shit = More Shit
by Kansas City Keith on Jan 29, 2012 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
Dude, he's got the coolest user name on either site!
He’s told us several times!
There are literally DOZENS of us!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 29, 2012 9:54 PM EST up reply actions
No, unless Jackson came at a large discount, which he will not
This has come up about once every couple of weeks this offseason. Jackson would likely be fine for a year or two, but as with just about every pitcher, the attrition rate is pretty high, so there is a pretty good risk that Jackson is hurt or ineffective by 2014. The Royals are better off maintaining payroll flexibility and giving that money to a pitcher who is healthy and effective then (or other needs, like buying out Hosmer’s arbitration years). The Royals just cannot commit 15-20% of the future payroll to a non-elite pitcher.
If Jackson has multiple 3 year offers, that means he will likely get 4 years or 3 years at a non-discounted rate.
No!!!!!!
jackson is a #3 at best and we already have a rotation full of them. It is time to get some feet wet. Start with Monty to begin the season and start to work in the others. Has anyone else noticed that nobody wants to keep this guy? There is a reason he has pitched for as many teams as he has already. They have seen that he isn’t worth this kind of maney. That is why they are not in the line to sign him and also why he isn’t signed already.
Jackson
Bears zero resemblance to any pitcher we have here now. He is light years better. He has averaged over 200 innings the last 4 years. He has 2 seasons in the last 3 with an ERA below 4.00. The Royals not only don’t have anyone on their roster who has thrown 200 innings even once in their career, everyone who has ever thrown 200 innings for them (other than Greinke) is out of the majors. He has a 108 ERA+ the last 3 years while throwing more innings than Sanchez has in the last 4, than Hochevar has in his career, or than Chen has in the last 6.
He is a complete step up in our crappiest position. We should get him.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
Since it's getting late...
…in the free agent game, and I doubt Jackson wants to go unemployed for 2012, it seems that he’d come cheaper than Buehrle. So I’m not sure he’d have to be as expensive as speculated above.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
Well, there is that. But...
…it’s not a sure start date and players do, I noticed, like to play. I say that in all seriousness. I can see someone taking a below market deal to get on the field and compete—-provided he feels itchy and the season is getting close.
"Sir,--It has been wittily remarked that there are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third and most aggravated is statistics." *The National Observer* (June 13, 1891): p. 93-94.
Matters if KC thinks they have any shot at next years FA class which is a lot deeper
At this point with Fielder signing with Detroit I’d stand pat and let Duffy, Montgomery and Lamb get another year under their belt see if someone develops into a top of line guy
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
After mulling it over for a few minutes...
I’d probably wait on it. There’s a chance that Paulino, Duffy, or Montgomery could put up Jackson-like numbers this year and it would do nothing for us. The chances of those 3 getting better for 2013 is more likely and they’re cheaper—and like Clint mentioned, Lamb will be in the mix again. And Lamb may be the best out of Duffy/Monty/Lamb.
You guys talk about this
as if they will all be in a rotation together soon. I hope that happens, but SP prospects cannot be counted on. You don’t wait for them, they arrive- and many of them never do. You get pitching when you have a chance to get it, and if you end up with too much (which we are REALLY far away from) you can pick and choose who to deal.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
I thought I was fairly careful to not say anything crazy.
I didn’t say they would all end up in the rotation. I just mean that, if one of those pitchers puts up Jackson-like numbers, it doesn’t help anything this year. So we should wait and see what they do. If none of our high level pitching prospects hit, then it’s time to sign FAs. Fortunately, the 2013 FAs will be more abundant.
More articles like this please.
It was written professionally but still in a bloggy way, which is a good thing because sometimes I just get tired of the clutter in newspaper articles.
Probably Not
The issue is signing Jackson to 4 years, probably hinder the Royals’ ability to sign some of their young talent (Hosmer) long term. Now, that’s a long shot anyway, but if you give Jackson $14 million a year for 4 years, you might as well start packing Hosmer’s bags right now. Besides, the Royals have a few potential Jackson’s waiting (Monty, Crow, Odorizzi, Lamb). It will take just a little more patience, but I think Jackson is a big money mistake.
I would, however, be willing to over pay Oswalt for one year. Say $8-10 million for a single season. That would keep us competitive this season AND give us a trade chip at deadline AND give us space to sign our young guys. I know he probably doesn’t want to come here, but make it a hard sell.
Oswalt apparently wants to pitch close to his home state of Mississippi
and Missouri is SEC Country.
I would bet on Boras getting Jackson 3+option maybe even 4+option
after everything is settled. Boras knows this is his last big FA this year and he’ll get more than we’re expecting
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
Yeah
I do not think Jackson with get “Lackey money” like Boras floated early in the offseason, but if Boras already has at least one three-year deal that is acceptable and he knows there is no real other option out there for that team to acquire, he can sit back and wait to see if another team gets antsy and pulls an Illitch.
I can't believe Boras would mention Lackey knowing Jackson might have to sign with the Red Sox.
Be like saying around here, “Cody Ross should be looking at a Jose Guillen-type deal”
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jan 29, 2012 7:23 PM EST up reply actions
Boras said he expected Jackson to get something like 5 years and $80-$90 million
“Lackey money” was my term to describe that kind of deal.
Ahhh, that makes sense.
5/80-90 would be too much for my blood, though.
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jan 29, 2012 8:20 PM EST up reply actions
So Sheehan doesn't think it'll win us the division in 2012, but "will position us for success in 2013"
Why in the hell wouldn’t we just wait for next year’s FA class? From what I see, there will probably be several pitchers available for a better value than this.
Not only that, but we give our in house options another year to see who will pan out and who won’t. That way, we’ll know where we stand and what we need (or at least be a little closer).
I say use that money to lock up Hosmer and Gordon.
MAJOR LEAGUE (The Royals)
Rachel Phelps (Royals Management): I think he'll fit right in with our team concept.
Charlie Donovan (Royals Fans): That reminds me, I was going to ask you. What exactly *is* our team concept?
by Royals Medic on Jan 29, 2012 2:59 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
In house options
cannot be counted on. If they are good enough, they will make it and kick one of our lesser pitchers (not Jackson) to the curb. If they are not we still need to address a glaring weakness on this team. Our starting pitching ERA was .65 runs higher than the average of the other 13 teams last year, and did not go deep into games either.
I think we should get Jackson AND go for a pitcher next year if we want to go for the post season. post season teams have pitching depth. 9 of the 10 starters on the 2 World Series teams last year would have been our #1.
We could get Jackson, get a #1 next year, and STILL be needing a couple of lucky breaks with prospects to have a staff worthy of taking us on a post season run.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
In that case, wouldn't it make more sense for the Royals to just see what we have next year?
We clearly aren’t quite close enough yet (Unless a lot of things go our way, which is possible). We have talent at the AA-AAA levels. We also have no sure things in the majors, but lots of #2-3 upside.
There also will be plenty of players just as good as Jackson on the market in 2013, and cheaper.
If I were them, here’s how I would play it:
Let Sanchez go to Free Agency, or possibly resign him (Which I will get to in a second).
Keep the top starter out of Hochevar, Chen, and Paulino. Trade the bottom two for whoever you can get.
Keep 2 spots open for whoever does the best out of Montgomery, Duffy, Lamb, Crow, Dwyer, Odorizzi, and Arguelles. Keep the rest of them in AAA for depth. If only one of those pitchers performs well, then package a trade for a low-end #1 starter based around some of those pitchers to fill the vacant spot.
Sign both a #1 and #2 starter. Some of the #1 starters available include Zack Grienke, Cole Hamels, Matt Cain, and James Shields (If his option is not exercised). Some of the #2 starters available include Anibal Sanchez, Jonathan Sanchez (Who we could re-sign if he performs well), Hiroki Kuroda, Ervin Santana (If his option is not exercised), Shaun Marcum, and Colby Lewis.
I think that we need to see what we have in the rotation above all this year. If players take strides, then keep ’em or flip them for a good haul. If they suck, get rid of them. Above all, we need at least two new pitchers in the rotation in 2013, if not a complete overhaul.
There are so many better pitchers than Jackson on the market next year. We need to see what we have, and that’s why i think we should wait.
I'm a 15 year old freshman in high school with a love for all things Royals and Packers.
2012 is the year we shine (hopefully. If not, then it will be 2013).
I have serious doubts that 80% of the pitchers you mentioned above...
will make it to FA next year. And the ones left will be too expensive because they will be too few.
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jan 29, 2012 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
I love the youthful enthusiasm Jack has...
But most of his plans revolve around signing a legit #1 somewhere down the road… How often have even the Yankees been able to pull that off in recent memory? Sabathia and….. ????
Sounds great in theory… But when the biggest market with the richest history struggles to pull in the biggest pitchers… Well, I’ve gotta say I’m guarded in my optimism about landing one (except for MAYBE Greinke… And not because he’s a formal Royal, but because the guy is just weird…)
There are literally DOZENS of us!
by Tracer Bullet 82 on Jan 29, 2012 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
To me
Jack, starting pitching is like the offensive line in football. That is to say that you must address it every year, even when you seem to be set-and we are so far from set. On paper right now, there is more pitching available next season, yes. But many things can happen between now and then, including several of the pitchers on the list being resigned by their own teams, or dealt in deadline deals and signing extensions with the teams they are dealt to. Chances are that one or two of then will have an injury problem. I see you have Sanchez listed as a #2, which is a stretch. Jackson > Sanchez.
The point is that Jackson is available now, perhaps for a reduced rate. Even if we sign him, we would still need to address starting pitching in 2013. Making an improvement this year will make us more desirable to the free agent class of next year, but even then, we are not guaranteed to get one of the #1s.
The biggest thing I disagree with (and many people have mentioned doing this) is “keeping a spot open” for an exciting prospect. This is not something you can do if you wish to be successful. You improve what you have and make them earn it. Right now we have one pitcher that has one season where he pitched at a #2 starter level in the majors, (Jonathan Sanchez, 2010) and if he does it this year he is probably gone, maybe even at the trade deadline. Bruce Chen has one or two seasons of #3 production in a 14 year career. No one else on our team has produced even one season at a #3 starter level. While it is to be hoped that two or more of the prospects reach a #3 level or higher, there is no guarantee that they will. If we ever have too much good starting pitching (and I would love to have that kind of problem just once) the overflow is easily tradeable for prospects or major league level help.
Another pitcher that is undervalued that the Royals should go after is Javier Vasquez. Over the past 5 years he has averaged 199 IP and a 109 ERA+, and that includes his much publicized Yankee debacle. He has had 10 career seasons at a #3 level or higher, including last year. I would say 5 of those were at a #1 or #2 level. He may be available for one or two years at a Sanchez like rate. I would be happy to get one of these guys but what if we got both?
Jackson, Vasquez, Sanchez, Chen and then Paulino or Hochevar. (The loser could be long relief or in the minors) That could be a playoff pitching staff. There will be a couple of injuries to provide opps for other starters. (Chen is a lock for at least one DL trip per year, last years 155 innings was the 2nd highest in his career) Paulino has options, and Hochevar can be sent down if his season ending run proves to be a fluke. (Which I fear it might) Chen and Sanchez are tradeable if Paulino and Hochevar both do well or if a prospect arrives. Sanchez will be a free agent next year anyway, as could Vasquez if we only do a one year deal instead of two. At least one of the Chen/Hochevar/Paulino will have a bad season. There will be plenty of room for prospects later this year and next.
I have watched the Royals slowly push back the year we will make our run. If we do not take winning seriously when we have the opportunity, and continue to “wait” for maybes, next year we will talking about 2014, and in 2014 we will talking about 2015, and pretty soon we will talking about which of this wave of players we can afford to keep. I would like for a team with a crystal clear need to do something to address that need and not blow smoke up my ass.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
until i see jackson sign for a reduced rate....
i refuse to even think about him being available for said reduced rate. people were talking 3 weeks ago about prince signing a 1 year deal and hitting the market again next offseason….now he’s got $214 million coming to him. boras will get him a huge contract
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
This
We’re at a point where although it is not likely that we will contend, if things break our way and we get lucky, we could be in a division hunt. We’re close. So I don’t agree with the philosophy you have to wait until you the consensus is you are a contender, because as I think we have seen with small market teams, it is difficult to predict when teams take that “leap.” We should be looking for getting bargain players when we can, not waiting around for something good to happen to us. If EJax can be had at below market value, it makes sense to go after him. If we can’t, it doesn’t make sense. And that probably goes for next winter too – I don’t see us being in a position to overpay for a guy everyone thinks is an ace. We’re probably going to have to pursue guys who are a bit flawed – like EJax or Oswalt – who for some reason or another are being undervalued. And we have to start that process now. There is no reason we can’t be contenders this year.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Completely agree with this.
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jan 30, 2012 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
I voted Yes
but I don’t think it would take that. Jackson has been dangling for a while and might sign for less time and/or money per year. Dave Cameron says that at this point 3 years at $30 million might be enough to make him jump and that would be a steal.
Barring injury, Jackson would be good enough to be one of our starters regardless of any prospects that really make an impact. He would be out unquestioned ace in 2012.
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
There is a pretty big difference between 3 years, $30 million and 4 years, $58 million
That article came out almost a week ago and before the report that Jackson had multiple 3 year offers. Assuming he does not go for the big one year deal with Boston or somebody, I would guess Jackson gets comfortably more than $30 million guaranteed (but not the $58 million either).
Maybe we can trade Chen to the "other" team offering him multiple years
We’d probably have to eat some cash though, and find some other funny locker room guy.
For what it’s worth, next year’s FA class might be deeper, but there are also going to be a lot more teams looking for pitchers, there is not going to be the value everyone is banking on. And Jackson is as good as any of them not named Hamels, Cain or Greinke, who are going to get way more money and have no chance of signing here.
I’d be happy if Jackson signed here, although I think 4/$58M might be a little high. Guarantee him $40M over 3 years with an option year. $12.5M per with a $2.5M buyout.
Personally, I’d would be seeing what the Rays want for Wade Davis. They have six starters and there aren’t many teams still looking for pitchers.
I am not buying the more teams looking next year argument
Over half the teams in baseball were looking for starters this year and the free agent market was basically Wilson, Darvish, Buehrle, and Jackson, yet Jackson is not finding anyone going crazy for him. Next year, there are about a dozen starters in the same class or better than Jackson (plus Kuroda and likely Oswalt again). And by waiting until next offseason, the team is guaranteed to know which of those pitchers is healthy and still effective.
And for the love of Amos Otis, Wade Davis is the one Rays starter to avoid.
Wade Davis is crap.
Maybe Jeff Niemann.
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jan 29, 2012 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
I should have capitalized MAYBE...
cause I’m not all that on Niemann, either, but definitely not Davis. He’s a #5 and we’ve got like 7 of those, it seems like.
If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.
by setupunchtag on Jan 29, 2012 8:06 PM EST up reply actions
No, unless Glass is willing to spend $85-$90mm
I doubt Jackson will be the final piece, and any salary over $10 per year is gonna max out our payroll. We need to wait at least 1 year to make an all-in move like this.
by Loose Seal on Jan 29, 2012 5:21 PM EST via iPhone app reply actions
IF I believed team payroll could rest comfortably around $80m a year
I’d probably go 3/$38m on Jackson with a club option year four for $14-$15m with a $3-$4m buyout.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
by JKWard on Jan 29, 2012 9:01 PM EST via mobile reply actions
But I'd rather give Oswalt a four month test drive at $12m
We should trade for Vance Worley.
by JKWard on Jan 29, 2012 9:03 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
unfortunately oswalt has no desire to pitch for the royals
based on what he’s said in the past and the teams he’s been seriously connected to this offseason
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 29, 2012 10:18 PM EST up reply actions
Very true. Which is sad. But hey.
He’s getting older and has a balky back to deal with. I can see why he would hold out for a contender, but the thinking seems skewed, because even if he signed to a team like the Royals, a not-really-contending contender, he’s going to get traded if they are out of it, and he may make the playoffs if they are actually contending. But it might have more to do with market and geography than anything.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
not if he signs in stl...which seems more and more likely
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
Bigger market, I suppose. Team just one the WS, probably carries some weight
I can see reasons for signing with StL over KC as an aging FA starter coming off an injury season, but I would not be surprised to hear that the Royals didn’t really have interest in Oswalt, or Jackson for that matter.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
southern teams, nl teams and winning teams have been his stated preferences....
both texas and stl…the two teams he wants to pitch for have 2 of the 3
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 8:16 PM EST up reply actions
Sign him if his price drops
Hey there Royals fan. I just recently signed up so I can post some comments on this site. I am a constant reader for the past couple of years so I figure that I just put my two cents worth in (also, I can’t find many Royals fans since I left MO to move out west so it will give me a chance to talk Royals).
I won’t sign him unless we get him for 3 years for around $11-12 million a year. He isn’t an elite pitcher but he is good. He doesn’t have many innings on his arm and he will be the ace right away. Looking at our current staff, Hochevar and Paulino should make the rotation and will get plenty of looks and Duffy and Monty are the only prospects that are major league ready so if they spend some time in the minors then fine. They will get some time in the ML due to injuries and bad performances. Other pitchers like SOS, Mazzaro, Mendoza, etc. are just organizational fillers like Clint Robinson is at first. They are young arms with ML experience that we need in case we have injuries. Lamb, Dwyer, Jake, etc. aren’t ready for the bigs yet so no need to rush them. And Crow could spend some time in AAA learning how to start again.
If we get Jackson for a decent price the following year we get one of those top line starters in FA (because chances are we get only one) mixed in with either Hochevar or Paulino stepping up, or if they don’t then maybe Duffy or Monty then we will have a decent rotation in 2013. Fill in the back with the young arms and we are a contender.
I say it is worth a shot. Now is the time to really start building up. If the price range is nice then we won’t ruin our future, but anything higher than $12 million a year and more than 3 years (except for options) I won’t do. As a small market team we need to rely on prospects first and not FA.
i think
that signing jackson this year for that price makes sense, because there is way too much uncertainty about our prospects and next year’s FA class…if many of our prospects flop/get injured, and a lot of the projected FA pitchers sign deals, all of a sudden we’re scrambling for arms…i think he’s a good pitcher that would pair nicely with sanchez and hochevar, and you’re still giving yourself options for 2013…too many starters would sure be a good problem to have.
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
--Albert Einstein
by Home Run Tony Cogan on Jan 29, 2012 11:21 PM EST reply actions
I agree, in the sense that good pitching is rare and valuable,
so if you can get top-tier pitching at a good deal, then do it. #2 starters don’t just grow on trees. Yes, the Royals have less room for error salary-wise, but I think EJ looks like a risk worth taking.
Kila's slash for Apr 20 to May 4, 2011, right before he was sent down: .276 / .344 / .448
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 30, 2012 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
I thought we were saving for Greinke
can’t pay for both!
Kansas City Royals: your 2006 and 2007 NL Central champions!
Would rather get Oswalt, provided he's healthy
I don’t want to tie us up to a long-term deal. I think it makes sense to pursue a pitcher if the price is right.
OTOH, if you can get a bargain for Jackson and keep the deal at 3-4 years, its worth doing. I don’t think you can just wait til next offseason thinking you can grab a better class of pitchers. It seems like there is a wave of big TV deals for teams now, so there could be some crazy spending next winter. Grab what you can now and sort things out next winter if you have to.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Agreed on all counts
batter nine you sucky
by marbotty on Jan 30, 2012 9:49 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
oswalt isnt healthy...
that should be clear when a guy with his track record is looking for a 1 year deal….and he wont sign with a team that isnt a for sure contender
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 9:57 AM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't be surprised if that ends up being correct
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 30, 2012 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
The best fans in baseball that I've talked to are convinced he's going to grace their overage roster this year.
Oswalt that is…
I'm waiting for my wave of talent to arrive.
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jan 30, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
If we sign him, will we still be able to re-sign Yuni next year?
That’s the question we should be asking ourselves
batter nine you sucky
by marbotty on Jan 30, 2012 9:49 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I prefer
Jackson to Chen, but we’ve made that bed and are lying in it. I’d pass now.
chen and jackson are in no way interchangeable financially
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
never claimed that??
I’m talking about that roster spot. I understand Jackson makes more money and for longer. I’m not ready to bring Jackson at the expense of getting Duffy, Monty, Paulino, etc. If Moore would have passed on Chen, then Jackson would have made perfect sense.
a roster spot for a guy like jackson isnt an issue
the money with jackson is the issue and i have little doubt that he’s going to sign somewhere than makes sense. baltimore’s going to pay big…and probably for at least 4 years
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
a roster spot for a guy like jackson isnt an issue
the money with jackson is the issue and i have little doubt that he’s going to sign somewhere than makes sense. baltimore’s going to pay big…and probably for at least 4 years
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
not sure what you're getting at
This is a post about whether the Royals should sign Jackson. I say no, because we already signed Chen. Wish we hadn’t signed Chen, but he’s here so an addition of Jackson would be at the expense of Duffy or Paulino.
it isnt a matter of simply if we should sign jackson...
obviously, he’s an upgrade, but at what cost financially? there’s room for him. duffy being in AAA working on his control and efficiency isnt a bad thing. someone will get hurt. someone will struggle.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
I guess this is where we disagree. There’s not room for him anymore. I guess if the cost and term comes down I’d be ok with Duffy at AAA, but that is not ideal at all in my opinion. Duffy needs to learn at MLB level now. I realize reasonable people can disagree on that fact.
duffy wasnt without his flaws in AAA....
while he was dominant in some ways, he wasnt very efficient and that showed itself in his major league time
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
i guess
It seemed AAA hitters are willing to get themselves out on his stuff out of the zone. Major leauge hitters were not. Not sure how going down and getting guys out with stuff that doesn’t play in MLB will help. I’m only for bringing in pieces when the ones we have don’t look like they’ll help us win over the next 3-4 seasons. Duffy looks like he can help, so I don’t want to block him. Chen does not (nor does Sanchez for that matter) so I wouldn’t have brought him back.
I realize people get hurt, etc. but Royals should have a plan in place for their major pieces assuming no injuries then build depth for injuries on top of that plan. The plan is for Duffy to be a rotation mainstay for years now. I wouldn’t throw a wrench in that right now.
More importantly, you could argue that maybe he didn't pitch enough in AAA
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Jan 30, 2012 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
i dont really buy into that theory with pitchers...
i think when a guy shows he’s dominant for a reasonable period of time, he should move. this is basically what dayton has done. however, and i said this when he was called up, i dont think he had been dominant enough. i need to see more efficiency from him
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 31, 2012 12:25 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think there's any way to spin 39.2 IP in AA
and 42.0 IP in AAA as enough seasoning in the high minors. Generally, I might agree with you, but this is a situation in which he almost couldn’t have dominated enough to warrant the promotion.
Sporadically musing on the Royals at both Royals Review and Royalscentricity, pop culture at Inconsiderate Prick, SVU at Munch My Benson and on Twitter at Old Man Duggan
by Old Man Duggan on Jan 31, 2012 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
will this let everyone forget about the roy oswalt fantasies?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/01/roy-oswalt-not-interested-in-indians-blue-jays.html
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:32 AM EST reply actions
Kansas City is lovelier than Cleveland!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 30, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions
not lovelier than toronto though
but clearly lovelier than stl….obviously, loveliness isnt oswalt’s priority
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 30, 2012 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
Considering he'll only spend half of six or seven months there
And that time will more than likely be spent in a hotel suite.
We should trade for Vance Worley.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
