HOT STOVE LEAGUE 2K4/2K5

Never mind inflation, I'm talking about Market Value 2004 vs Market Value 1997. Nobody's getting the 6yr+ contracts that were so common in the late 90's. Nobody's getting $15M+/yr either. Pedro's 2004 market value is in the $10-$13M range assuming he's healthy (which is far from a certainty, particularly over a three-year span).

Re: playoffs, Pedro had a 4.00 ERA this year in 27 IP. That's good (considering the higher level of competition) but not great, and not the kind of performance that makes you spend a few million more per year plus an extra year on the contract just to make sure you get that particular guy.

In the 1999 playoffs he was a lot better, and of course was a better pitcher then too. And five years younger. And on the DL four or five fewer times.

AiSF:
What makes you think there has been a lot of permanent inflation between 1997 and 2004 (obv at various points things were very inflated, but I not so sure things haven't stabilized at roughly the same point they were around then)?

Very easy to say from an SF viewpoint (where the regional economy stalled then bombed), but at a national level, there is indeed permanent inflation:

Year PPI CPI
1997 -0.1% 2.3%
1998 -2.5% 1.6%
1999 0.9% 2.2%
2000 5.7% 3.4%
2001 1.1% 2.8%
2002 -2.3% 1.6%
2003 5.3% 2.3%

MiR:
Never mind inflation, I'm talking about Market Value 2004 vs Market Value 1997. Nobody's getting the 6yr+ contracts that were so common in the late 90's. Nobody's getting $15M+/yr either.

YET. We have yet to see any allstar young players sign (hellllloooo Beltran and Beltre!... not to say they deserve those type of contracts).

Re: playoffs, Pedro had a 4.00 ERA this year in 27 IP. That's good (considering the higher level of competition) but not great, and not the kind of performance that makes you spend a few million more per year plus an extra year on the contract just to make sure you get that particular guy.

Yes the team that owned him this year in the playoffs (whom he referred to quite publically as his "Daddy") was a $192M 1/2 allstar team (albeit with no chemistry). Yes, that team could knock 4 Runs in off anyone in the league. Big whoop.

In the 1999 playoffs he was a lot better, and of course was a better pitcher then too. And five years younger. And on the DL four or five fewer times.

Yes, and guys, trust me, I think that the Mets (or the Angels or whomever) will have their doctors and trainers present to look into Pedro's health to give the deal the "OK".

i don't think the offer's unreasonable if the mets can pay it. before entering 2004 pedro was the unanimous "most talented pitcher in baseball" - that has to be taken into account. he then had a subpar year but threw more innings than he has in years. i thought going in a 3/39 contract was in the about what he should expect, maybe a fourth year if someone (the yankees) got desparate. this certainly isn't a crazy offer for a 33 year old ace+++ . the bosox kinda lowballed him, i dunno if that's what's causing this reaction or what.

benitez's contract, otoh, is ludicrous.

yeah, sportsradio is saying that pedro is basically waiting for the yankees offer.

also, local sportsradio says that SF is not done yet and are pretty much ready to announce the signing of Jermaine Dye tomorrow. They also confirmed that they are courting a "major league lefty"... could it be RJ?

"the bosox kinda lowballed him, i dunno if that's what's causing this reaction or what."

Isn't that offer about what Schilling makes per year?

schilling took a much-balleyhood below market value contract, and his was like 3/36 or something (i could be wrong about this). and he wasn't coming off an 18M dollar WS season either.

gary sheffield got a 3/39 contract last year. granted it was from the yankees, but it was pretty much market value by any estimation and i can't see why pedro doesn't deserve a similar, if not superior, offer.

YET. We have yet to see any allstar young players sign (hellllloooo Beltran and Beltre!... not to say they deserve those type of contracts).
The key word is "young". Those guys haven't hit their peak years yet.

The Sheffield contract from last year is a good example of the way the market has declined since 2000-1.

The Mets doctors can examine Pedro every which way, it doesn't matter if he's healthy right now, what matters is how likely he will break down in the future. He was on the DL nearly every year in his seven years with Boston, and there's no reason to assume that those trends won't continue. He doesn't throw as hard as he used to, his K/9IP ratio has declined for three straight years, and his K/BB ratio has declined for four straight years.

I'm a huge Pedro fan, but I think 3/38 is a risk. Maddux was a Cy contender only two years ago (16-6 2.62) but the same signs of decline had set in. And Maddux was *healthy* for his entire career! Now Maddux is making $6M. Similarly, I think Pedro will put up solid, but not great numbers, basically duplicating what he did last year. Is 16-9 3.90 for three years really worth $38M?

>the Sheffield contract from last year is a good example of the way the market has declined since 2000-1.

that may be true, but it's also a decent gauge for pedro's contract, imo. admittedly it's a bit awkward but it was what sprung to mind at the time, and i think their strengths and weaknesses probably even out nicely.

but more pertinent are the three biggest pitching deals of last year (that i can sort of remember):

colon 4/54
pettitte 3/39 REJECTED
vazquez 4/45

so, apparently it is.

honestly, i don't see much of an argument here. you've got a nominal superstar (fuck, nearly a legend) coming off a world series season in which he was paid 18 million dollars - so he's gonna be expecting big cash no matter HOW he performed. his big weakness is health, but he threw more innings last season than in any since his monstrous cy-worthy 2000 campaign. he's only 33. and though his performance was way down (to a mere 'very good'), in every year BEFORE that he was, on a rate basis, the best starter of all time - so you've got quite a lot of upside to gamble on. all in all, a risk (as w/ any injury prone pitcher - or as the hardcore statheads would probably say, any pitcher), but a worthy one if you've got the cash and need pitching.

er "don't see much of an issue here" obv.

anyway i'm all for the yanks offering up a big money 3 year contract (4 guaranteed is def stretching it) so i'm not just playing 'petey's' agent here.

Pedro's contract was 7y/90M or so, which is 13M/yr on average -- exactly what he's being offered now. And he signed it as the market was peaking, when he was coming off a Cy Young season and was entering his peak age range.

Furthermore, top pitchers almost always make less than top position players. So maybe my Sheffield comparison wasn't the most appropriate ... instead, consider Maddux, who signed a five-year deal -- still in his prime, which unfortunately doesn't apply to Pedro anymore -- the year after Pedro for ~$11M per.

Let's hope the Mets have changed docs since the Mo Vaughn exam. (Oh yeah -- rumor is Mo wants to try a comeback. Really.)

NY Times has major buzzkill on Mets-Pedro today; I pray it's true. Source says Mets would have to "overwhelm" him to pry him from Sox (ie, 4 years guaranteed at around 14.5 per).

'gax, "20 wins easy" in the NL East? With whose bullpen? Not likely even with the Braves', who have no interest.

Morbs, this is a guy who pitched for Boston and you have the nerve to bring up bullpen issues. :-D

So I got the terms of the Benitez deal:

Base Salary (+ signing bonus)
2005 $2.5M (+$1.6M) = $4.1M
2006 $4.0M (+$2.6M) = $6.6M
2007 $7.6M (+$0.0M) = $7.6M
2008 $0.0M (+$1.6M) = $1.6M
2009 $0.0M (+$1.6M) = $1.6M

Kendall & Beane:
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/12/01/sp_athletics_065_db.jpg

Baseball Prospectus has really overcomplicated their Statistics page, but Pedro's bullpen support was positive last year.

benitez = ugueth urbina. benitez /= keith foulke.

mir, there are some obvious problems w/ using a contracts signed 8 years ago as your comparison point, one of them being that the market wasn't CLOSE to it's peak - it didn't peak until 4 years later, when mike mussina - definitely NOT coming off a cy young season - signed a 6 year 85 million dollar deal (w/ an option for a 7th at 17M = 7yr/102M).

there's also randy johnson, who signed that huge contract at 39 during the big regression year of aught2. (i wanted to say 2/40 but that can't be right since he's still under contract. was it 3yrs at 18M per??)

as for maddux's CURRENT contract, it's a pretty strong parallel but one, it's the exception and not the rule, two, "upside" - and this is just my perception, but with maddux there wasn't much chance he was going to return to his sub-3.00 era ways, while pedro's still a major strikeout pitcher, and i think there's still hope he's going to regain whatever it was he lost last year (that's up to ML teams to decide). there's also a world of difference between 33 and 37. but generally, i think if you're a big name and can put up a 3.50 era, you're going to make 11-14M per.

exactly! if anything the recent success of late 30s/early 40s pitchers has helped early 30s/mid 30s pitchers get better deals.

Agreed that Mussina's free agent year was the true peak of the market -- however, Mussina's 2000 was actually a very good year despite the poor W-L record (poor run support), and considering he'd been putting up great numbers consistenly for ten years, had rarely been injured, and was only 31, he was considered the prize pitching free agent on the market that year, easy.

Unit is a freak of nature and is certainly not a fair comparison for the expected performance of great pitchers in their late-30's. Again -- the guy was a workhorse and had hardly ever been injured when he signed with the DBacks.

Unlike the other pitchers we've been mentioning, Pedro is a) past his peak, and b) injured a hell of a lot.

i think if you're a big name and can put up a 3.50 era, you're going to make 11-14M per

I agree, but this is more the reality of the market than smart GM'ing. And again, I wouldn't have a problem with Pedro earning 13M, I'd have a problem giving him that money for three years or more.

but sometimes even smart GMs have to concede to the reality of the market. and (while it might not be true if he wants to stay in boston badly enough) if you don't offer pedro a third year, you're not going to sign him. that may be perfectly acceptable, or it may not. it depends on your situation and you aspirations.

sure pedro's past his peak, but then his peak was a level on par with anything in the history of baseball, so...

Rewind OTM... Mussina 2000 was 5th in AL in Adjusted ERA, 3rd in raw ERA & strikeouts.

Pedro lookin' like Glavine 2 winters ago. The issue is he's likely to be WAY past his prime halfway through a 4-year contract, and/or a 170-inning pitcher.

Randy Johnson: Trade Talk With Boston

RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
Update: The Red Sox and Diamondbacks have held numerous discussions involving Johnson in the last five days, the Providence Journal reports. Arizona is looking for a package that would include Bronson Arroyo, pitching prospect Jon Lester and at least one other top prospect.

Recommendation: A trade for Johnson, who may request an extension past 2005 in exchange for approving a trade to Boston, would likely preclude the Red Sox from re-signing Pedro Martinez, who has received a three-year offer from the Mets.

so doc and mir: what exactly do you think pedro deserves? just what the sox offered him? i doubt that was a take it or leave it offer, though with the way the sox operate it could've been. but i don't think one year is going to keep the red sox from signing pedro. and i don't think it's realistic to expect a 33 year old ace to get no more than 2 years guaranteed.

also earl, that's apparently old news: the rumor of note right now is that johnson to NYY is imminent, with arizona receiving, i shit thee not, javier vazquez, tom gordon, eric duncan (yanks #1 prospect), and 12M dollars.

Good lord that's seems crazy. I mean I know that Steinbrenner has a lot of money, but that just seems impossibly silly.

you're not kidding. fucking insane. oh, and there was something about giving johnson an extension too. i mean you could keep vazquez, gordon, and duncan and sign pavano AND clement for that money. or go after pedro, save yourself 20M or whatever, spite your rival and end up with a bona fide ace who also happens to be like a decade younger.

i hope this is bogus.

Is Duncan a legit prospect, or is he the beneficiary of Steinbrenner's minor-league trade-bait downsizing?

Other problems - what happens to the bullpen if their 2nd best guy goes west?

I hope the rumor's bogus, but I also hope it's not (for obvious, gleeful reasons) (tee hee).

I think Pedro deserves less than he'll take. I can't imagine a team --Red Sox, Mets, Angels -- that can't squeeze more wins out of that many dollars for the next 3-4 years from other players.

That Unit-NYY deal is insane, if true. It's so insane, I'm having serious trouble believing it.

Doc OTM re Pedro. A fair offer, IMO, is 2Y/25M guaranteed, with a third year extension to kick in automatically if he pitches more than 200 innings in 2006. I'm glad I'm not Theo Epstein -- how would YOU like to explain to Pedro "we think you're a risky signing because of your injuries so we have to offer you less". I'm pretty sure Pedro would balk at an offer like the one I proposed.

Is the lefty the Giants are supposedly after a reliever or a starter?

Supposedly a set-up guy but I'm trying to think of any available lefty relievers.

to be honest, i'm not sure i'd even want to see vazquez for RJ straight up, with no money changing hands. it's apparently a gammons rumor, btw.

PG is hepped up on Kay Hanley's stash, it seems.

(Stop thinking that, you pervs.)

Steve "pigpen" Kline - free agent lefty reliever. heard the Yanks were thinking about him.

we heard something slightly different...

'A baseball official told MLB.com that Arizona is asking for Javier Vazquez and cash considerations to put toward his three-year, $34.5 million contract, as well as prospects Eric Duncan and Chien-Ming Wang. In addition to the three players and the cash, Arizona wants the Yankees to deal for one of Oakland's "Big Three" of Barry Zito, Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder, and include that pitcher in the trade as well.'

all i can say is:

haha!

WHOA

Where was this ball-busting when the Red Sox came acallin' for Schilling?

well, so much for that.

the deal's dead. check this shit out:
Arizona asked for Vazquez, $18.5 million, four or five prospects, and a pitcher from a list of 10: Oakland's Tim Hudson and Barry Zito, Florida's A.J. Burnett, Detroit's Jeremy Bonderman, Toronto's Ted Lilly, Los Angeles' Edwin Jackson, Tampa Bay's Scott Kazmir, Colorado's Shawn Chacon and Jason Jennings, and Texas' Kenny Rogers.

like ... wha???

http://www.nj.com/sportsflash/baseball/index.ssf?/base/sports-8/1101953654167491.xml&storylist=baseball

whoa. i thought w/ colangelo gone that shit was over with. i guess garagiola was more than a pawn?

don't be surprised if he's traded to boston for bronson arroyo and a prospect.

(remember that az asked for nick johnson (who's value was ultra-high at the time) AND soriano for schilling last year before trading him to the sox for casey fossum and that one AAAA pitcher. er. 2 AAAA pitchers. i have a whole thread devoted to that fucking trade somewhere)

(we know)

it's never gonna stop, man

RANDY JOHNSON TO BOSTON FOR SHEA HILLENBRAND!!!!

What ever happened to BHK?

yanc3y freaked me the fuck out for like .6 seconds there.

RUMOR HAS IT the yankees offered JON LIEBER a 3 year 21M contract and are close to netting ERIC MILTON. cuz (mediorcre) PITCHING WINS!!!

Reviving ILB ...

According to Andrew, the last 17 days of posts have been unfortunately lost ...

I think it may've also erased the RJ deal!

lupica has his revenge.

this reminds me over the weekend on sportsradio i heard some jackass going on in the wake of the mulder trade (btw wow) about how 'moneyball doesn't work' and how 'when theo epstein finally tossed all that bill james nonsense aside the red sox finally won' and how 'oakland isn't committed to winning' and, wait for it, 'they need to be like the mets and show their fans they're willing to spend what it takes to win'

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

blount please remind me
why you listen to morons
and (more) why you care

It's the same reason why we read John Kruk's columns -- we love a good train wreck every now and then.

god bless ilx's shitty servers!!!