With the free agent market officially open, everybody’s got rankings out:
- Keith Law at ESPN;
- Jeff Passan at Yahoo;
- Jon Heyman at SI;
- and AOL’s Fanhouse.
I’m also still partial to my rankings.
Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
- NEWS
- SPORTS
- O.C. football: Friday's playoff stories 27 minutes ago
- Servite gets best of San Clemente QB 1 hour & 15 minutes ago
- Bruins uneven but still win first of season 1 hour & 16 minutes ago
- Ortiz back in the UFC
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
- Today's cartoons: Job count goes to the bird 2 hours & 10 minutes ago
- Mark Steyn: Turning KSM into O.J. 2 hours & 10 minutes ago
- Letters: Illegal immigration vs. the First Amendment
- Letters: Debunking myths seculars spin against creation
Author Archive
Everybody’s free agent rankings
November 20th, 2009, 1:23 pm by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterGetting back at Boras?
November 19th, 2009, 1:14 pm by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterESPN’s Jerry Crasnick: “When Arte Moreno says flat out ‘no’ to Matt Holliday, you have to wonder: Is that Boras-related fallout from Teixeira leaving last winter?”
Without knowing any of the inner workings — you’d have to think Moreno, and any GM or owner, would be open to signing a Scott Boras client if it fills a need and the price is right. But in the owners’ battle against Boras, one thing they can do is make it impossible (or close to impossible) for Boras to use them in bidding wars. If Moreno thought Boras and Teixeira were feigning interest last year, merely to squeeze a few million more out of the Yankees, then why not get back by nipping every Boras rumor immediately and publicly? Indeed, if the owners did this sort of thing consistently, they could accomplish something like a legal version of collusion, where they take away the agents’ ability to create false competition among clubs.
On the other hand: If the Yankees (or Red Sox, or Mariners) are going to sign a guy anyway, why not let Boras use you to jack the price up? It’s not your money. Indeed, it’s your opponent’s money.
Arte Moreno: Lackey or Figgins won’t be back
November 19th, 2009, 12:16 pm by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterThere’s a whole mess of stuff worth discussing in the LA Times’ interview with Arte Moreno, but most relevant:
“”We’re at $101 million now. We were at $113 million last year. If you look at what (Lackey and Figgins are) asking, you can’t bring both of them back.”
So now we know: about $12 million, not quite the $14 million we had figured, and not the $25 million or so a lot of fans were probably hoping for. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
Based on the reports we’ve been seeing, it looks like Figgins wants around $10 million a year, and Lackey closer to $18 million a year. The Angels also need to replace (or re-sign) their DH, and replace (or re-sign) Darren Oliver.
Let’s revisit our poll:
Who would be more valuable to the Angels in 2010?
Spencer tempers offseason expectations
November 18th, 2009, 8:34 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterLyle Spencer responds to reader questions over at the Angels’ Web site, and his answers should dampen any hopes that the Angels are going to resemble the Yankees this offseason:
“I have my doubts that any of their three big names in free agency — John Lackey, Chone Figgins and Vladimir Guerrero — will be back. … don’t see the Angels signing any infielders — they’re loaded there — or catchers, relievers or outfielders. If they go after a free agent, it would likely be a starting pitcher drawing considerably less attention (and money) than Lackey.”
Spencer also notes that “I don’t think anybody knows where this is headed,” so who knows. But Bill Plunkett commented here recently that he thinks that the Angels will decrease payroll slightly, which makes Spencer’s scenario seem the likeliest one. They have about $14 million to spend to keep payroll the same. You can play with the numbers all you want, but if they truly do decrease payroll — and especially if they bring back Darren Oliver — they’d be limited to options like Ben Sheets, Jon Garland, Jason Marquis … and maybe enough left over for a second-tier DH. Or Figgins and nothing else.
And remember: The Angels made their big offseason move already — they just did it a few months early. If Scott Kazmir were a free agent right now, he’d probably be one of the 5 most attractive options.
Agent: Lackey could get Zito money
November 18th, 2009, 8:05 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterGeorge King writes in the New York Post that one agent (not Lackey’s) thinks the Angels’ ace could get a contract like Barry Zito’s seven-year, $126 million deal.
Also, the Nationals — last year’s longshot for Mark Teixeira — are reportedly interested in Lackey, in part because they see Lackey as a mentor to phenom Stephen Strasburg and other young pitchers. That makes seven teams — the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mariners, Brewers, Mets and Nationals — linked to the pitcher.
Agents — all agents — are going to try to juice up the market, but even if this is the outer edge of possibilities, look at how screwed up perceptions are about this market: A week ago, we saw a Major League executive predict that Lackey would get only three years and $36 million. It looks like nobody knows anything is really worth, after contracts plummeted during the course of the last offseason.
Abreu extension aside, we might expect another slow start to the offseason. A team that makes an early signing could get stuck with this year’s Edgar Renteria, whose contract looked worse and worse until it was considered one of the worst contracts in the game before he’d played a single game of it. Or, a team that makes an early bargain signing could get a bargain before the market corrects itself. Whichever teams make the first moves, and whichever players sign the first deals, will be gambling that they can take advantage of incomplete information. Because by the time March comes, we’ll know exactly what a player like John Lackey will sign for, and either that agent (”Zito money) or that executive (”3/$36) is going to look delusional.
The Boras binder on Damon
November 17th, 2009, 10:56 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterJon Heyman gives us a peek into Johnny Damon’s Boras Binder. Damon once told the New Yorker that reading his own Boras Binder “made me feel like Ty Cobb.” While Heyman’s tidbit is no “Oliver Perez=Sandy Koufax,” there’s a bit of space for mockery:
Boras also produced a Damon book with some surprising numbers, such as the fact that Damon is one of only two players to produce 150 runs each of the past 12 seasons (Alex Rodriguez is the other).
Damon is a fine ballplayer with a solid record of versatility and durability. But there are so many problems with this achievement.
Failed premise: Tremendous career achievements are often a terrible selling point. Consider: Tom Glavine is the winningest active starting pitcher. Great! Sign Tom Glavine and a time machine and you’ve got a good shot at the pennant. Nobody writing checks for a Major League team should care what Johnny Damon did 12 years ago, or 11 or 10 or nine, and bringing it up just reminds us that Johnny Damon is old. (Which seems like a bad strategy when you could point out that Johnny Damon just had the best OPS+ of his career.)
Failed stats: Runs produced? You probably know runs produced as a pretty meaningless statistic from the 1950s. It tells you more about the strength of one’s lineup, and one’s place in the lineup, than anything. Jorge Cantu had 150 Runs Produced this year, while Pablo Sandoval didn’t in the same number of at bats. Compare their years and try to find any other stat that suggests Cantu was a better hitter.
In fact, though, Boras is using a different, though similarly flawed, definition of runs produced, one that doesn’t subtract home runs. Otherwise, Damon would have dipped below 150 in 2001, 2007 and 2008.
Strategic parameters: Anytime you see an achievement defined as arbitrarily as this one, you know you only have to scratch a little bit to weaken it. Is 150 that much better than 140? No, but this way you get to exclude Derek Jeter. Are 12 years that much better than 11? No, but Carlos Lee has only been in the league for 11, so now he’s out. Set the parameters narrowly enough and you can pretty much exclude everybody. (Miraculous that Alex Rodriguez managed to stay eligible.)
If you use Boras’ version of the stat, but you’re a bit more flexible — say, most runs produced over the past decade — then the club loses its exclusivity. Now Damon trails ARod, Pujols, Manny, Guerrero, Lee, Berkman, Delgado, Beltran, Thome, Abreu, Helton, Tejada… and not all of those guys are players Boras wants Damon being compared to right now.
Of course, this is pretty small stuff. I hope someday we get to read the really wild stuff.
What context do minor league stats give us?
November 17th, 2009, 8:41 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterLast week, Halos Heaven’s Ryan Ghan concluded his statistical rankings of Angels’ minor league performances, rating undersized middle infielder Alexia Amarista the top 2009 performance in the system. These aren’t the same as prospect rankings, but they give us context: How good is a .557 slugging percentage in Salt Lake? How much value does Peter Bourjos’ glove add? How impressive was Mike Trout’s debut in short-season ball?
We interviewed Ryan by email about his rankings, the Angels’ approach to evaluating prospects, the disappearance of Will Smith, and the value of stats to supplement scouting.
Me: I think you would acknowledge there are some limitations to what we can deduce from these performance rankings. What are the limitations, and which players’ rankings do you think are most misleading?
Let’s all mock this trade rumor
November 17th, 2009, 7:45 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterA site called SoxNet.net says it has learned that initial trade discussions have taken place involving the Angels, Adrian Gonzalez, and an aging 1B with a bloated contract. Guess which one the Angels would get!
Seriously, this rumor makes very little sense, we all know it, we hardly need to discuss it, but in short: The claim is that the Angels would get Paul Konerko, send some prospects to San Diego, while the White Sox would get Adrian Gonzalez, and send some other prospects to San Diego. Assuming the “prospect” the Angels are sending away isn’t Gary Matthews, Jr: Why the Angels would take on Konerko when they have Kendry Morales at first base is unclear. Why they would prefer Konerko — who gets $12 million in 2010, the last year of his deal — over any of the other aging designated hitters in a crowded free agent pool is also unclear. Why they would prefer him over a less-expensive Guerrero in particular, with the resulting public relations hit they would take, is unclear. Why they would help the White Sox land the best player available this winter, instead of pursuing him themselves, is unclear. Why they would need to throw in prospects to give the White Sox salary relief is unclear. Why a team with no salary flexibility and a mediocre farm system would be able to land the best player available is unclear. Why Tony Reagins would have been replaced in the Angels’ front office by Tommy from South Side (”long time, first time“) is unclear.
SoxNet doesn’t claim the deal is imminent, and gives us plenty of disclaimers (”Also remember that GMs, especially Williams, are always talking and discussing deals. … doesn’t mean a deal will get done) to keep us from taking it seriously. Done!
Postscript: Chicagoist says the deal might not make sense … for the White Sox! “Which isn’t to say that such a deal is a no-brainer. While Replacing Konerko might seem like a good idea on paper, he is popular with the fans and a leader in the clubhouse. Trading him could upset the team’s chemistry, especially given the departures of veterans like Jim Thome and Jermaine Dye. ” Perhaps the White Sox could just give Darin Erstad another whirl to replace all that lost clubhouse goodness.
Previously:
Reagins on Holliday: Not interested
November 17th, 2009, 6:11 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterTony Reagins told the LA Times that his focus is not on free agent Matt Holliday, a Scott Boras client. “Our focus is not on him right now.”
So let’s revisit Fox Sports’ account from yesterday:
The Yankees, who need a left fielder, are interested.
The Red Sox, who need a left fielder, are interested.
The Angels, who need a power bat, are interested.
You’ll recall that Buster Olney shot down a Yankees connection yesterday. So, congratulations Boston? Or maybe Boras made up all three teams to try to milk St. Louis, the Mets or the Giants out of a few million more dollars.
Also in the Times story: Chone Figgins has reportedly drawn interest from both Chicago teams, in addition to the previously reported Mets and Phillies. The White Sox say they’re too poor to get Figgins, and after acquiring Alex Rios and Jake Peavy that seems possible. They also just acquired Mark Teahen to play third, and will move Gordon Beckham to second, so they’d have to play Figgins in left field, where he is less valuable.
Previously: Angels reportedly ‘interested’ in Holliday
Olney: Yankees not interested in Holliday
November 16th, 2009, 10:32 am by Sam Miller, The Orange County RegisterThe story we linked to a few minutes ago says the Yankees (and Angels, and Red Sox) are interested in Matt Holliday, but Buster Olney just tweeted that the Yankees aren’t, though they will feign interest to raise the bidding:
“NYY are not interested in signing Holliday. They’ll talk to Boras to keep other bidders honest, but corner outfield not a priority for them.”
Maybe the Angels and the Red Sox are doing the same thing. Like a Hot Stove version of a “Three’s Company” plot or something.
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
ADVERTISEMENT
