Thu, Aug 21, 2008
by Geoff Young
My latest article at Hardball Times focuses on 10 of the most lopsided free agent compensation picks in history. Enjoy!
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
Filed under Baseball.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Send Geoff email or comment on the article (comments are moderated).
Tags: free agent, hardball times
Possibly Related Posts
Your comments are welcome and encouraged. However, they are subject to moderation, which means that only the best will be published. By submitting comments, you acknowledge that you have read, understood, and agreed to abide by the Ducksnorts Community Guidelines and Moderation Policy.
August 21, 2008 at 10:53 am
Typical that the Padres would end up on there twice. Kind of sums up why the organization has been historically so crappy, doesn’t it?
August 21, 2008 at 10:54 am
Great read, Geoff. I got it last night. Yeah, I got bored with the news…of another Peavy road loss featuring another HR given up.
August 21, 2008 at 10:57 am
It’s been awesome to see Jody Gerut have the type of comeback season he’s having. I guess it’s been one of just a few bright spots on the major league team in ‘08. I envision him as the team’s starting CF or RF for the next 3 seasons. If the last few months are any indication, I think he could even handle the #3 spot in the batting order against right-handers with no problem.
But his offseason status is starting to stress me out. As I understand it, he’s a free agent after the season. So the Padres will likely offer him arbitration. He can accept and then an arbitrator would decide how much he makes in ‘09 unless they agree on a multi-year deal. Or he can decline and become a free agent on the open market, where teams like the Yankees, Cubs, and about 10 other teams that can easily offer more than the Padres can bid for his services. I’m pretty sure those teams are going to notice what he’s been doing the last few months so there should be interest.
So here’s a question for anyone out there that might know more about this than me. If he declines arbitration and he signs elsewhere, how do they determine what type of FA he will be? And if he accepts and they don’t agree on a multi-year deal, how much will it cost to sign him for one year? I wonder if they take into consideration that he hasn’t played for a few years. If they base it solely on this season’s stats alone, which should be in the range of a .300 BA and 17 HR’s, he could be making a ton of money next season, probably more than the Padres can spend on one player.
August 21, 2008 at 11:11 am
#3@JMAR: I believe they will sign Jody to a new deal, before the World Series is over.
August 21, 2008 at 11:22 am
#3@JMAR: I don’t really have answers to your technical questions, and I’m not even 100% sure he’s a free agent after the year, but I think he’ll sign a deal with San Diego. He seems to really like it here and was quoted as wanting to stay. If he left I don’t think he’d be eligible for a compensation pick because those rankings are based on the last two years.
August 21, 2008 at 11:32 am
#4@Field39: A few weeks ago, I was thinking that maybe a 2 year, $7 million dollar deal would get it done. Then about a week ago, I was thinking, maybe 3 years, $15 million. Now I have a feeling we’re getting into 3 years, $21-25 million territory. If he continues to play like this, that’s a bargain. But that might guarantee that the team doesn’t pick up Giles’ option next season. I think we’re in for a very interesting offseason.
August 21, 2008 at 11:36 am
#6@JMAR: You want interestng?
They trade Adrian for a boat load prospects and bring up Kyle.
August 21, 2008 at 11:44 am
#7@Field39: That’s not interesting. That’s lunacy.
August 21, 2008 at 11:51 am
Gerut is a free agent. He signed a one-year deal for $700K before the season, with performance bonuses:
$10,000 for 200 PAs; $25,000 each for 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 PAs; $50,000 for 550 PAs
August 21, 2008 at 11:58 am
#5@Ben B.: I’ve also heard him say that he’d love to stay here. I don’t think he’s looking to break the bank but at 30 years old, this might be his best chance at a big payday. I’m not sure why he’s a free agent (this is only his 4th ML season, but maybe they count the two seasons he was injured towards his eligibility), I’ve just read that he is going to be after this season.
#7@Field39: It would be a frustrating season, but very interesting. However, if they were going to go that route, I think they would try to get Jake to waive his no-trade clause and trade him for some top prospects.
Some people don’t think this matters, but Adrian is from San Diego, he’s Mexican, active in the community, and he’s a 26 year-old superstar. That is the perfect combination for this town. He should be untouchable under any circumstance. But Jake also fits the same mold of being a young superstar who is active in the community. I don’t think that Alderson or Towers think the team is that far away to do something that drastic.
August 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm
#10@JMAR: Well, he was a free agent before this season, probably because he was essentially out of baseball, I think. He did not play in the majors or minors in 2006 and 2007.
When that happens, you’re a free agent.
August 21, 2008 at 12:28 pm
#10@JMAR: If he was injured but still property of a team, I think those years would count for him. But I’m just guessing.
August 21, 2008 at 12:30 pm
#11@Kevin: I was just thinking that might be the case. That makes sense.
August 21, 2008 at 12:34 pm
#13@JMAR: I’m guessing.
August 21, 2008 at 12:35 pm
#11@Kevin: But he was a free agent like Marcus Giles was a free agent before 2007, because his team had non-tendered him, not because he had used up his years under team control. I think. I’m not sure what happens to those people after they’re signed by another organization; are they still under team control if they had years left?
#12@Kevin: I’m pretty sure if you’re on the major league disabled list your clock is still running. For example, Francisco Liriano came into this year with over 2 years of major league service despite missing all of last year with his injury. So I guess those injured years would still count for Gerut. But did he lose time to the minors in 2003, 2004, or 2005 that would still give another year of team control? And do the usual 6 years even apply since he was a free agent already?
August 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm
#15@Ben B.: You got me.
August 21, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Gerut has 324 plate appearances this season. I’m not sold that he is the answer. He could be, but I’m not convinced.
August 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Nate Silver has a cool free article up looking at the 26-50 most valuable players going forward plus honorable mentions. Since neither Peavy nor Gonzalez are mentioned in it, I expect they’ll slot in somewhere in the first 25 when Silver gets to those.
http://baseballprospectus.com/.....cleid=7975
August 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The most surprising name on the list is Ryan Zimmerman.
This year, at 23, his OPS+ is 89. Last year, it was 107+. Pretty good but not top 50 commodity stuff.
August 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm
#19@Kevin: Isn’t a large part of Zimmerman’s value his fielding?
August 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm
#20@Richard Wade: He’s very good, but still …
August 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm
#8@Kevin: No, that’s rebuilding.
August 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
#22@Pat: Not with a player that good at that price. A player who basically said he doesn’t care what he makes and boy does he contract show that.
07:$0.5M, 08:$0.75M, 09:$3M, 10:$4.75M,
11:$5.5M club option (no buyout)
August 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm
#19@Kevin: I think he explained his rationale pretty well. The guy has been a better than league average bat for two years already and he’s only 23 this year. Most guys don’t even break into the bigs until they’re 22, 23, 24. He’s also had some injury problems this year, hasn’t he? I see he’s only played in 75 games so I’m thinking this is likely the cause of his decreased performance this year and it’s likely he’ll rebound next year, and he’ll then still have two more years before he’s really hitting his prime of late 20’s! If he really is as good a defender as Silver says, seems like a reasonable ranking.
August 21, 2008 at 2:25 pm
#6@JMAR: 2 years @ 5-6 million should get it done. No way on earth anyone will pay Gerut 25 million for 3 years, nor should they. I have seen so many Gerut like 340 at bat heroes over the years become also rans the next year. Like Kevin, I am not sold yet that he is the everyday answer in centerfield for the next 3 years.
August 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm
#23@Kevin: I’m not saying they should do it, nor that they will do it, but look at what Beane does in Oakland on a semi-regular basis.
If you can get serious return in terms of prospects, you really feel you need to develop your farm in order to bcome competitive in two or three years and you don’t feel you will be competitive next year or the year after by standing pat and making small changes, you make the trade.
August 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm
#24@Pat: He could be exactly right. I’m just saying I was surprised.
August 21, 2008 at 2:33 pm
#26@Pat: I see what you are saying.
But the price on Adrian and Peavy help quite a bit in making them untouchable.
August 21, 2008 at 2:38 pm
#27@Kevin: Gotcha. I looked at the link for last year’s rankings and was surprised to see Zimmerman was 11th! I’ll bet it’s not just Silver’s take but PECOTA probably really likes him, too.
August 21, 2008 at 2:44 pm
#28@Kevin: Yep, I understand what you’re saying, too, but it’s a two sided equation. The price/contract/years under control are also what will help bring back extra prospects or higher ceiling prospects.
It seems to me most teams, or many teams, are cathcing on to the idea you can’t give up a bunch of guys, or top level guys, for someone you won’t be able to afford in a year or two, or even three. If you want quality and quantity in return, you have to give up guys like Haren who are under team control for several years, talented and affordable.
August 21, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Not to keep blowing the horn for Kouzmanoff, but since May 1, he is slugging .496, 21st in the league. That’s before any adjustments, of course.
That’s 374 plate appearances, more than Gerut.
August 21, 2008 at 2:49 pm
#31@Kevin: That’s really impressive for playing in Petco as often as he does!
August 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm
#31@Kevin: His home/road splits this year are crazy:
Home: .244/.287/.415
Road: 318/.348/.504
Has there ever been a home/road platoon. Should the Padres acquire a all glove-no hit veteran for home games?
August 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#33@Kevin: Of couse, my some defensive measures, they already have a above average glove-no hit third baseman at home — Kouzmanoff.
August 21, 2008 at 3:15 pm
#33@Kevin: I think I got my numbers right. Since May 1 he’s SLG .444 at home, XBH% is 37.2% and his ISO is .202. Not sure if the latter two are good or not, but the .444 in Petco is very good.
The team only SLG .360 at home, and the NL only .401 in Petco versus .412 overall. So he’s quite a bit better than the NL average and WAY better than the team as a whole. Even Adrian is “only” SLG .406 at home and he hasn’t had any bad months.
When you compare Kouz Home: .244/.287/.415 to Adrian Home: .238/.339/.406, Kouz looks pretty darn good. If he could learn to draw a BB, he’d be amazing. I’m very surprised at how well he stacks up against Adrian at home, but the 52 points of OBP is huge.
August 21, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#33@Kevin: I think that would be a great idea to do for your 5th starter(s). Have one guy who basically pitches at home and one guy who goes on the road.
Your “home” pitcher is someone like Banks who is a heavy fly ball guy. On the road he becomes a long man, and you have a heavy ground ball guy pitch. When people had 10-11 man staffs it would probably have been unwieldy, but now when the 12 (or even 13) man staff is the status quo it’s not like there won’t be enough leeway to make this work.
August 21, 2008 at 3:19 pm
#32@Pat: #33@Kevin: That’s also really impressive considering the guy swings at almost everything. I won’t be disappointed at all if Kouz is our 3B in 2009. But I really can’t imagine at least a few teams not looking at those road stats and thinking, “Wow, if only this guy didn’t have to play half of his games at Petco, he would be a beast. And he’s only what, 27 years old?”
That kind of thinking by a GM can land us a pretty good player or two in return.
Of course, the other side of the argument will be, “This guy has a worse BB-K ratio than Khalil Greene and he’s nothing special defensively. I’m not giving up a major league caliber pitcher or top pitching prospect for that. How about a #4 starter with some upside?”
I would rather keep Kouz if that was the case.
August 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm
#35@Pat: Nice. Good points.
August 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It seems that the only untouchables on this team should be Peavy and A. Gonzalez, and maybe Bell if you think he’ll be the closer next year. I like Kouzmanoff but the Padres have Headley on the roster, who is probably as good as Kouzmanoff offensively and is a better defender at third. He’s playing out of position right now, doing a terrible job in left field, and I can’t imagine that his hitting wouldn’t improve if he were playing his natural position. Plus, Kouzmanoff has a chronic bad back. Back problems are a serious red flag for third basemen. Just ask the Oakland A’s. I think if the Padres can get real value in the offseaason for KK (perhaps from the Yankees, who need a RH-hitting 1B/DH), they should go for it. A guy like Ian Kennedy along with a reclamation project like Melky Cabrera or even Kei Igawa would be plenty for KK.
I’m ambivalent about Gerut. He missed most of 4 seasons with injuries, so at any minute he could lose any value he has. His defense is better than I expected in center, and he could be a useful platoon outfielder/ defensive replacement. Depends on his health and his contract demands - if he’s asking for more than 4-5 million per forget it. He’s not THAT good.
And I really hope the Padres use September to see if any of the kids can play. I don’t particularly need to see Scott Hairston all the time; we know what he can do.
August 21, 2008 at 3:46 pm
#36@Masticore317: I agree. I was also like to see no definite fifth starter.
Use three pitchers in that game, about three innings each, guys who are good for three innings but not more. And when someone like Banks doesn’t have it in the first or second, take him out quick, so you don’t lose the game early.
In the past two years, Black has failed to get Wells and Maddux out of the game in time. They would have a shutout through five, then a loss after six.
August 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm
#39@David Coonce:
So…you’re saying the Padres should trade Kouz?
I totally agree. Trade him, before he turns into a pumpkin!
Dude, you’ve been posting essentially the same comment several times daily for the better part of a week.
August 21, 2008 at 4:33 pm
#41@Lance Richardson:
Sorry you feel that way. The threads here, especially lately, always seem to focus on Kouzmanoff. Since I doubt most people read threads more than a day old, I don’t mind repeating myself - isn’t the point of something like Ducksnorts to encourage discussion amongst Padres fans? I think about the Padres all day long, sadly, and this is the only forum I get to talk about the way I feel. I live in Southern Indiana, and I sincereley doubt I could find 10 people in my city who even know who kevin Kouzmanoff is. Cut me some slack.
August 21, 2008 at 4:36 pm
#41@Lance Richardson: Lance, you’ve been angry for a week. What gives ?
August 21, 2008 at 4:44 pm
#40@Kevin:
In the mid-90s, I wanna say 93 or 94, Larussa tried this very thing - he had a four-day rotation of sorts, in which he had very specific usage patterns for each of his pitchers. It was something like:
Day 1: Welch pitched innings 1-3, Darling pitched 4-6, Gossage pitched the 7th and then a couple relievers closed out the game. In Game 2, Bobby Witt would pitch 1-3, Van Poppell 4-6, Storm davis 7-8, etc.
It continued like that - the pitchers pitched more frequently but in controlled, short outings. For example, Darling would be the 4-6 pitcher on day 1, then pitch 1-3 on day 3 or 4. There were 3 relievers on no schedule, to ensure late-inning work or mop-up duty. It seemed like an interesting idead - the A’s of that time had a bunch of older pitchers who couldn’t really go late into games, and there’s probably some value in having a different look every time through the lineup. And any complaining by the staff about reduced win opportunities (since the starters only went 3 or 4 innings) was allayed by the fact that the starters pitched more often and would get to pitch those inning 4-6 slots, thus earning victories.
It seemed like an interesting idea, but Larussa abandoned it rather quickly; not sure why. the A’s were terrible at that time, so it was worth shaking it up. It seems like the idea could work better now; pitching staffs in 2008 often comprise 13 or even 14 pitchers, while in 1993 most staffs had 10 or 11. But you’d have to have a bunch of selfless veteran pitchers to make it work.
And Milwaukee, this season, has toyed with a #5 home/road starter, with McClung on the road and Bush at home. Not sure if they’ve stuck with it.
The problem is, the Padres would have to have two almost entirely different starting rotations.
August 21, 2008 at 5:06 pm
#44@David Coonce: I think I remember that.
I’m just talking about the No. 5 spot in the roation.
August 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm
#45@Kevin:
I could see a Banks at home/Hensley on the road sort of split. But the Padres don’t really have a 2/3/4 starter right now, so the fifth starter seems like less of an issue.
August 21, 2008 at 6:13 pm
#44@David Coonce:
From Rany Jazayerli’s blog
( http://www.ranyontheroyals.com.....night.html ):
“On July 19th, 1993, with his once-vaunted A’s languishing at 39-49 and in sixth place in the AL West, Tony La Russa went to a three-man rotation of sorts. La Russa had a 13-man pitching staff at the time, which would be a little unusual today and was utterly unthinkable back then, and divided nine of the pitchers into three “groups” – Ron Darling was paired with Todd Van Poppel and Kevin Campbell, Bobby Witt with Mike Mohler and John Briscoe, Bob Welch with Kelly Downs and Goose Gossage. The other four pitchers were used as traditional relievers in the late innings.
Darling, Witt, and Welch were the traditional “starters”, but did not actually start the games, entering in the middle innings instead. Why? Because they would not have been eligible for the win had they started and thrown less than five innings. (Many thanks to this link for the exact details.)
The plan lasted for about a week, partly because of the resistance to the idea and partly because it didn’t seem to work. Looking at the names above, it’s obvious why it didn’t work – none of the pitchers were any good. The entire pitching staff consisted of longtime veterans who were pitching on fumes, or overhyped rookies who would never amount to much (I’m looking at you, Todd.) The A’s gave up the most runs in the league that year – which is why La Russa was desperate enough to try something that radical to begin with.”
August 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm
#47@Lance Richardson:
The link Rany refers to is :
http://www.baseballthinkfactor.....s_pitching
August 21, 2008 at 6:20 pm
#47@Lance Richardson:
Thanks for the link. I remembered it solely from reading about it in the Oakland newspapers while on vacation that year, and trying to google it wasn’t very effective. But putting some of the details together it makes sense why it failed. John Briscoe? Mike Mohler?
I am surprised that any team had 13 pitchers in ‘93, but I suppose if any manager had that many pitchers it would have been LaRussa.
Still, there’s no reason it couldn’t work, if the right personnel was assembled. But it’s definitely still a longshot.
August 21, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I have long thought that such an arrangement could work. At some point we may see a team with a mediocre staff try it successfully, spawning some imitators.
It certainly seems no more outlandish than today’s pitcher usage would seem to a fan from fifty years ago.
August 21, 2008 at 6:30 pm
#37@JMAR: Yeah, if he only had a little more plate discipline, but it seems unlikely to develop much more at this point.
#38@Kevin: Cheers. Enjoyed “talking” with you this afternoon!
August 21, 2008 at 6:34 pm
#44@David Coonce: Wow! I never even realized Gossage played for LaRussa, but sure enough in 92 nad 93 he did.
August 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
#52@Pat:
Yeah, he hung around there for a while at the end, oddly enough as just a middle-reliever. It seems that now closers end their careers as closers, no matter how ineffective (See Borowski, Joe). Very seldom does a closer switch back to middle-relief late in his career, but Gossage did it.