Isn't that offer about what Schilling makes per year?
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 02:08 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 02:40 (nineteen years ago) link
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?
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 05:07 (nineteen years ago) link
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 4/54pettitte 3/39 REJECTEDvazquez 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.
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 06:54 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 07:08 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 07:19 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 14:25 (nineteen years ago) link
So I got the terms of the Benitez deal:
Base Salary (+ signing bonus)2005 $2.5M (+$1.6M) = $4.1M2006 $4.0M (+$2.6M) = $6.6M2007 $7.6M (+$0.0M) = $7.6M2008 $0.0M (+$1.6M) = $1.6M2009 $0.0M (+$1.6M) = $1.6M
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 14:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 15:54 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 18:56 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:25 (nineteen years ago) link
sure pedro's past his peak, but then his peak was a level on par with anything in the history of baseball, so...
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:30 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 19:51 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 20:01 (nineteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 20:50 (nineteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:11 (nineteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:13 (nineteen years ago) link
i hope this is bogus.
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:23 (nineteen years ago) link
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).
― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:46 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 21:59 (nineteen years ago) link
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.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:17 (nineteen years ago) link
― Leeeter van den Hoogenband (Leee), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:39 (nineteen years ago) link
― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:42 (nineteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:45 (nineteen years ago) link
(Stop thinking that, you pervs.)
― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 1 December 2004 22:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― bnw (bnw), Thursday, 2 December 2004 00:09 (nineteen years ago) link
'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.'
― maura (maura), Thursday, 2 December 2004 01:49 (nineteen years ago) link
haha!
― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:19 (nineteen years ago) link
Where was this ball-busting when the Red Sox came acallin' for Schilling?
― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:46 (nineteen years ago) link
― maura (maura), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:48 (nineteen years ago) link
like ... wha???
http://www.nj.com/sportsflash/baseball/index.ssf?/base/sports-8/1101953654167491.xml&storylist=baseball
― maura (maura), Thursday, 2 December 2004 02:53 (nineteen years ago) link
don't be surprised if he's traded to boston for bronson arroyo and a prospect.
― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 2 December 2004 03:19 (nineteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 2 December 2004 03:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 2 December 2004 03:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 2 December 2004 05:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:47 (nineteen years ago) link
― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 2 December 2004 17:59 (nineteen years ago) link
RUMOR HAS IT the yankees offered JON LIEBER a 3 year 21M contract and are close to netting ERIC MILTON. cuz (mediorcre) PITCHING WINS!!!
― John (jdahlem), Thursday, 2 December 2004 18:50 (nineteen years ago) link
According to Andrew, the last 17 days of posts have been unfortunately lost ...
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 00:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― The boobs previously known as Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 01:14 (nineteen years ago) link
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'
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 03:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― Haibun (Begs2Differ), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 03:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 03:57 (nineteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 05:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 05:56 (nineteen years ago) link
― Riot Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 07:15 (nineteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 09:02 (nineteen years ago) link
Shawn Green didn't want to leave LA, so him holding up that trade probably got his wish not to leave. Appearantly the sports talk radio and local writers were frying DiPodesta over this potential trade and losing Beltre, so the Dodgers got cold feet.
Considering how poorly Mulder pitched down the stretch, maybe there is something they know and are getting rid of him while he has high value. Danny Haren looked like he had pretty good stuff in the playoffs, whether or not that will translate into being a good starter, I don't know.
The A's could be like the Reds, who give away all of their spare talent for people that do nothing. The Reds big moves this off season are getting Ramon Ortiz, signing Shawn Estes and Kent Mercker. They need pitching, but oh well...someone has to pitch.
― Earl Nash (earlnash), Tuesday, 21 December 2004 10:23 (nineteen years ago) link