Report: Tigers sign Jose Valverde
(Update 5:30 p.m.) (Update 8 p.m. to add poll)
According to Yahoo! Sports' Tim Brown, the Tigers and Jose Valverde have agreed to a two-year contract with an option for a third year. The cost of the first two years is $14 million and the Tigers' 19th-overall draft pick. The third year could cost $9 million.
Needless to say for those who read my earlier story, I dislike this deal. And based on reactions on my Twitter feed, I'm not alone with those feelings. Someday, I hope to understand the operating philosophy behind this offseason.
My second thought? The casual fan will probably like this. They don't care about draft picks, I'm sure. But they do care about closing out the ninth inning with a win. And the reputation Valverde has is being the top closer on the market. So the casual fan will likely look at this, say, "See, the Tigers are going for it in 2010. This is great news" and be happy. I can respect that line of view.
But as a baseball move fitting into a long-term plan for the Tigers, I hate it.
This story will be updated as we learn more.
162 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree
But what everyone is failing to see is not only the money but the first round draft pick, but we also lost the 34 pick overall as well. So not only are we losing money that could have been used someplace but we are now losing 2 picks this year. I dont think it was worth all of this when we have some decent choice to choose from already in house.
I think that's incorrect.
The 34th pick you’re referring to is a supplemental pick, not an inherited pick from the Tigers.
by StringTheory on Jan 14, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions
Thats possible
Just seen where it said the a second to fourth round pick, and in paranthesis it said 34 so that may be true. But still if it is a Tigers pick that is two and with the money I still feel it is to high of a cost to pay for someone like him.
StringTheory is correct
The Tigers only forfeited the first rounder. The second pick is in the sandwich round.
Ugh. I was just going to write up my “Instead of Valverde, let’s go after Kiko Calero” article tonight, too. I hate this move.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Hate is a strong word
Puzzled is the word I’d use. In a vacuum, it’s an upgrade. Combined with the shipping out of Granderson and Jackson, it makes zero sense though. At least if they’re crying poor. They must know something that we don’t know about Granderson, I think. Or they’re just a bunch of idiots. I’ll let you guys make the call on that.
I hate the move. I don’t see the upside. We got a better pitcher by wayyyy over paying and have come across as a poorly run franchise with no real idea what we’re planning on doing in 2010. And given (1) the better options available and (2) the amount of teams getting great deals in a buyers market, and (3) we were bidding against ourselves … just nothing to like in my mind.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Cameron pretty much echoes your sentiments
Link here. ‘06-’08 Rodney racked up a total 1.4 WAR. Valverde was at 2.9 over the same stretch. So it is an upgrade, however marginal it may be. I kinda think we’re over-reacting just a bit. It’s 2 years (still waiting to hear on the option details) – this isn’t the K-Rod or CoCo Cordero contract. Figuring that the team will be competitive in a pretty weak division during that stretch, you take the added wins wherever you can get them. 0.4 here, 0.3 there… Is it an overpay? Sure. But I don’t think it hamstrings the team financially (remember all of those bad contracts that are leaving), and Valverde does represent an upgrade in value. Not to mention that relief pitching is always a commodity at the deadline so the team will have depth in that area to make some moves going forward. I don’t like the move, I just don’t hate it.
You take the 0.3 and 0.4 win improvements when you can get them … at your price. You could get two relievers for half the price of Valverde and get the same amount of production between the two. Easily. I just got done penning something about it, as well.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Spending $ on closers isn't very prudent...
…considering they often come out of nowhere. Let alone why draft and trade for relievers when you end up getting spendy on one in free agency?
I’d rather Dombrowski had spent the money on a bat or 2. Who’s going to hit the damn ball? The Tigers are going to have to win every game 1-0.
I'm owner/editor of The Wayne Fontes Experience and a deputy editor at Bless You Boys.
amen, brother
this offseason has me re-thinking my support of DD. Where is the offense going to come from? It’s Cabrera and a whole bunch of question marks.
This is nearly the straw that broke the camel's back.
There is no excuse in wasting money and a draft pick on a reliever… especially with such a contract and with a ton of arms in the system. Stupid, utterly stupid.
But what bats are they going to sign?
Pretty much the only FAs left who can hit are DH types, and I don’t really want any more of those.
by SabreRoseTiger on Jan 14, 2010 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
whether or not they want to admit it
they need a DH who can hit the ball. Because for two years, they’ve had DHs who couldn’t. When Guillen gets hurt again — and let’s face it, it’s inevitable — we’ll wish the Tigers had signed a DH.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
Probably not much hope
of signing Russell Branyan then is there? He can fill-in at 3b, 1b, and corner OF when he’s not DHing. Think there’s any money left?
Maybe, if he's still without a team come spring training
There really hasn’t been much buzz on him. Still, I wonder where you’d put him during the times that Guillen is healthy, because I assumed the plan was to not have Maggs and Guillen in the field at the same time.
by SabreRoseTiger on Jan 14, 2010 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
I'd like to see Branyan in an Olde English D.
I’ve been high on him since he was in Cleveland.
by 13194013 on Jan 14, 2010 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
ugh
Granted, the dude hit the longest home run I’ve ever witnessed live (it might have been 500 feet, and I’m not exaggerating), but he’s another strikeout machine. Having seen him with the Brewers, I would not be a fan of any Branyan signing by the Tigers
Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!
Braynan gets on base.
His OPS last year was 867. While he strikes out quite a bit he’s a good risk and a left handed power hitter. I think he’d be a good fit for DH/1B; especially that whole lefty hitting thing.
This
Plus he won’t ground into DP’s if he’s striking out.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 11:26 PM EST up reply actions
This is what I was sayin’ in my fan shot yesterday. Numbers indicate that he really didn’t perform ‘beyond his means’ last year but was just simply given opportunity. Would love to have him in the lineup.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
interested to learn more about the option
Club option? player option? vesting option? etc.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 5:27 PM EST up reply actions
Since he's pretty much been an NL-only man, Valverde is pretty much an enigma to me
I’m guessing there’s some sort of peripheral stat that you all are objecting to (I apologize if this has already been brought up…My BYB attendance has been sparse recently). Still, I have three points to make:
1. They can always trade him once Zumaya/Perry/Schlereth/whoever is ready.
2. It’s better than having Kevin Gregg.
3. And for you jaded draft-loving BYBers: Just pretend that Valverde is the relief pitcher that the Tigers would’ve drafted with their first-round pick.
Because there's children present
I can’t say what I want to. But damn it!!!!
The artist formerly known as Granderson28
seriously
Is Dombrowski dead and the front office pulling a “Weekend at Bernie’s”? At least then I’d understand having eleventy bullpen pitchers.
by rock n rye on Jan 14, 2010 5:33 PM EST via mobile reply actions
This....
Still makes no sense. If he had the kind of numbers he’s put up in recent years playing in the AL I’d feel a little better but pitching in the NL and coming to AL is never a smooth transition. Ugh.
The artist formerly known as Granderson28
Boo that man!
The last move of a dying GM?!
"Without deviation from the norm, 'progress' is not possible."
by Zappatista on Jan 14, 2010 5:41 PM EST via mobile reply actions

Sorry, just had to.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
By the by: average value a draft pick brings to a club is $5.5 mil like Kurt noted yesterday.
So that means he’s making essentially $9.5 for the next two seasons.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Fine by me
Did everyone really want to rely on Zumaya or Perry? We lost our 8 and 9th inning pitchers with no real replacements.
For those or you who want to see DD go, do you remember where we were before him?! That’s right…worst team ever in the AL. We are now at least in contention and he fills the seats.
I would.
Losing a draft pick then overpaying for a situational pitcher when your real organizational strength is relievers is out and out stupid.
This
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
We’ll see how filled the seats are for a high-70’s, low-80’s win team without it’s most recognizable face and perhaps the most popular Tiger player in recent team history. If we’re slow out of the gates, I don’t know how much the attendance will pick up once the weather warms. We can’t count on the AL Central being as bad as it was last year to compete. At some point, we have to make moves to compete while being smart about it. This does neither given the impact on the season Valverde will have will be in less than 5% of all innings if he pitches 70 innings this year.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I love Granderson, but come on now...
Granderson is not worth 15 wins over a replacement player. No player is. This is still a damn good team that needs to improve this offseason to win the AL Central.
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 14, 2010 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
Our pythagorean win expectation put at us right around 81-81
So he’s not off by much.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
Darn published information...
:) I didn’t even think to check that. Actually, I owe an edit to my post, because really it would be more fair to say that Grandy is not worth 8 wins, which he’s still not. And, I’m not saying Mike is doing this, but we can’t blame that one trade.
That said, though, since you brought Pythagorean Wins into this, if our current projected wins is 81-81, that would be an improvement over our third-order W-L record from 2009, which was only 78.5-84.5. (disclaimer – I still can’t find the pythag expectation for 2010 that you’re referring to and i’m assuming that 3rd order wins are comparable to the win expectation you provided).
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 15, 2010 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks!
If I read that link correctly, it’s the 1st order win expectation for the 2009 Tigers. I was posting the 3rd order win expectation for the same, so those are definitely not comparable. I haven’t seen the win expectation for the 2010 Tigers yet. In any case, it is still clear that we’ve outperformed our expected wins by anywhere from 7 to 9 games in 2009, and that won’t repeat itself with the same roster. Changes were going to be needed to compete. Game theory suggests that alot of these moves are dynamic, rather than planned and static from the last day of the season. As the rest of the division tweaks its rosters, so must the Tigers. How they go about doing that makes for excellent offseason discussion!!! I <3 the BYB site.
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 15, 2010 9:27 AM EST up reply actions
Here’s my plan for the rest of the off season: Some more Saber 101 posts on wOBA, FIP and then WAR. Once I finish the piece on WAR, I will be using the projections around (probably CHONE) to figure out what the projection for the division is at that moment. Right now, without running any numbers, I’d guesstimate the Tigers are around a 78 win team. They really haven’t improved much this season (it’s hard to really, really improve by leaps and bounds through just a few moves anyways).
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I’m not saying Grandy is worth 8 wins above replacement. He’s projected around 3-4 WAR.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I didn’t say he was…?
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
If they view him as a 1.5 win closer (and with bullpen chaining, they could) then he is actually worth that amount of money
With that said, that doesn’t make it the right move or right deal. Type A picks bring back roughly $5 million in surplus value and that (in theory) could be added on to this deal.
On top of that, I don’t see the need to make this a multi year deal. A 1 year deal would have been ok and possibly worth the gamble b/c we got 2 supplemental picks this season and he very well could have maintained type A status heading into next off season. If that would have been the case, we could have offered him arbitration and been in line to receive the pick back. But, that is long shot now given the multi year deal.
With all the emphasis on relievers (probably too much) in the draft, trades and now in this FA signing, the pen better be lights out this season or by 2011 and among the best in the league. DD definitely constructs his bullpen different then what some of the sabermetric research would suggest he should and has definitely placed a lot of emphasis on something that is very unpredictable and basically a crapshoot each season. Lets hope it works out.
Has any sabermetrically built team ever won anything?
I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m actually curious.
1) I know the stats revolution is still in its relative infancy.
2) I’m aware of the moneyball thing, but Oakland took a couple of division titles and went nowhere in the playoffs. That theorizing only got them so far.
3) I know Theo Epstein is a stat guy, but…it’s the freaking Red Sox, they can be fairly accused of spending their way to the top.
Which leaves, what, the 03 Marlins, or Kenny Williams’ White Sox, or last year’s Phillies, or that other mid-decade champion I’d rather forget?
Even among the losers of World Series, which of those teams identify as teams built on stats?
Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!
In this day and age
pretty much all teams have in-house statistical analysis groups. Or at the very least consultants. Well, except the Royals apparently.
by ChrisDTX on Jan 14, 2010 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Oakland theorizing only got them so far?
Yeah, that only led them to win 102, 103 and 96 games in consecutive years. Clearly, it was the failure of sabermetrics they didn’t win a five game series. Or that Jeremy Giambi forgot to slide against the Yankees.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I can't remember the exact quote.
Billy Beane did say something about his teams being built for the 162 game season rather than the playoffs.
And Ahtrap: division titles are better than meandering in the basement or sitting at home come October.
You also cannot discount the Red Sox. Look at the Red Sox pre-Epstein: they spent money and didn’t exactly win.
by 13194013 on Jan 14, 2010 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I remember the quote, but it's kind of silly
In 2001, the A’s scored 884 runs and had four very good starting pitchers in Zito, Mulder, Hudson and Lidle, as well as a very good bullpen. What more could you want in the playoffs?
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions
Grit
Toughness. Clutch.
In a word, 8 David Ecksteins and Derek Jeter.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I had to rec that
because I actually chuckled out loud. :)
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
My nightmare
Nick Punto, David Eckstein, Nick Swisher and Derek Jeter as the all grit team.
Three of them are scrappy!
oh my god that would be horrible
And the worst part is I can hear the announcers swooning with joy over the scrappiness already.
//vomit
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
HEY
I really, really, really like Nick Swisher.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I do too. Which brings me to an off-topic question: Is he getting an exemption from the Korean Army? he had to serve 2 years by 2010 and I haven’t heard a thing about it.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I haven't heard anything since the WBC.
I’m hoping he gets an exemption because I like watching Choo play.
Same here
Nick Swisher is a badass.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
Ugh
Punto. The thought literally made me feel nausea just now.
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 14, 2010 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, I know viewing it casually it is silly.
But the heart of the quote is that the playoffs are a crap shoot since anything can happen in a series – especially a 5 game series. I think the Division Series should be 7.
by 13194013 on Jan 14, 2010 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think I remember something like that
But maybe he expanded on it – you could build teams to be successful in the regular season based on a logical strategy, but the playoffs had too many unexpected elements and chance played more of a part in a short series, so you couldn’t build a team for playoff success specifically, but for success in general and then hope that you could be in a position to take advantage of any breaks you would get in the playoffs.
Or maybe it was actually Ken Holland. I dunno.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
by Baroque on Jan 14, 2010 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Bingo. Playoffs in baseball = crap shoot.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
by Mike Rogers on Jan 14, 2010 7:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I’d chalk up any postseason failure to the postseason being immense luck where as 162 games is skill in roster building. I don’t like the ‘money’ argument for the Red Sox because, aside from the lackey move (and the odd fondness for Julio Lugo a few years ago) the Sox have made little to no errors and, sabermetrically speaking, have a near flawless record in getting the guys that they want at the prices that they want.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
by Mike Rogers on Jan 14, 2010 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I will go to my grave
thinking that they overpaid for JD Drew. Even though the facts don’t support it. I just hate that guy. LOL. Really, though, the Sox are a well run team with a large budget. So, yeah, it’s easy to hate on them for that.
The Cardinals are actually fairly stat minded
even if you want to ignore the Red Sox. Although, that is a logical flaw if I ever saw one. They are probably the best organization in baseball and money doesn’t guarantee anything (see the Cubs, Mets, Tigers, etc).
by Scottwood on Jan 14, 2010 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Now that he's signed....
Would you rather have had the Tigers go into 2010 with Valverde or Rodney?
Rodney would have been more costly in terms of salary, but the Tigers would still have the draft pick.
Kind of a pointless what if exercise, but curious as to the opinions.
I’m not necessarily a fan of the deal for Valverde, but I’m not hating it either, it’s better than turning it over to Perry or Zumaya, and hoping they can handle the job or survive physically, respectively.
Does that make me a casual fan? So be it, I’ve never claimed to be anything else.
Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!
I can't really answer your question about Valverde/Rodney, but I pretty much agree with the rest of your thoughts
Valverde probably could’ve been had for a bit less and losing the draft pick sucks, but I can think of worse things.
by SabreRoseTiger on Jan 14, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
That's like saying...
Now that you’ve been kicked in the stomach, would you have rather been punched in the balls? The fact is the Tigers didn’t have to choose between the stomach kick or the ball punch. They could have avoided it all together.
by mWesley on Jan 14, 2010 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
awesome analogy
I am going to steal that for other purposes, if that’s okay with you.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
This
Best analogy ever.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
You really don't know what choices they had..
Maybe they offered Rodney that same deal but he told them he never wanted to pitch for Jim Leyland again…or maybe he said something rude to Mrs I. at the Christmas party… Everyone gets all sabermetrically up in arms but we really don’t have much insight into what goes on behind as we think we do.
I think what he is saying
Is that the Tigers didn’t need to choose between Rodney and Valverde, and nothing else – they could have said no to both, saved the money and draft pick, and seen what the 47 bullpen arms they already have are capable of.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
Yup...
That was my point. If you have two choices that will both hurt you, you’d be silly to not take a third option to do nothing if you can do that. Basically, to justify this contract it seems to me like Valverde has to pitch great and the Tigers would have to get a playoff spot. I don’t see either of those having a great chance of happening. So, save the money this year and use it to make a run at Carl Crawford next year. ;)
Good analogy, except.....
if you don’t choose the kick or the punch, you could still be choosing one long headache that lasts the whole season.
Ugh...
Why spend this much money and a first round pick on a marginal closer? If they are going to spend money, I would have been much happier going after Erik Bedard or Ben Sheets, someone with upside that could have a major impact on our season. Valverde might be worth 1 extra win this year. Blech…
I want to echo the "epicfail" sentiment
I really do. On the other hand, I think we’re all forgetting the fact that Papa Grande is actually, you know, pretty good. I hate hate hate losing the draft pick, but it’s not like they picked up dog poop.
right
it’s just that they’re not adding a difference maker and it’s costing them a lot of money, as well as it leaves one scratching one’s head about why the team kept acquiring relievers in the draft and through trades of popular center fielders.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
exactly my sentiment, BUT
It’s becoming apparent that the deal with New York and Arizona was NOT a salary dump, but instead it took place because each player that moved was going to a team that could benefit more from it. Playing CF in the CoPa and the AL Central was not where Granderson was going to thrive in his age 29 through 34 seasons, especially against the left-handed pitchers that are starting to come into the division, and as he started to slow down and get worse jumps on the ball. It’s just part of getting older. Getting Scherzer and Coke to shut down hitters right now helps the club right now, despite the downgrade to Austin Jackson. And now, getting Valverde is an upgrade over Rodney and Lyon. Yes, financially we lose a bit because of the lost pick, but still we should look at this deal as a benefit to the 2010 Tigers, and for the next 4 seasons to come.
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 14, 2010 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
problems with that
Granderson was still one of the most productive Tigers’ batters. They replaced him with … well, we don’t know. Likely a minor leaguer, we just don’t know which one.
Phil Coke was definitely NOT a shutdown reliever, nor does he project to be one. Scherzer is a starter, who in the long term will be better than Jackson, but in the short term would probably be on par with him.
And yes, signing Valverde makes the bullpen better. But taken in the big picture, it makes little sense. Great, the team has now gone from 77 wins to 78, or maybe even 79.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
100% Agree
Curtis was great except when facing LHP and getting on base consistently this last season
by ryan_matthews28 on Jan 14, 2010 6:43 PM EST up reply actions
Curtis was .006 below league average in OBP last year.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Meaning?
Are you defending the below average OBP? I’d figure most leadoff hitters were above that league average, but I haven’t figured out how to make baseball-reference spit that out yet…
Official BYB Juju Consultant...now accepting rally creature applications!
This is the argument you’d like to make. Granderson’s was .327.
I find it a whole lot easier to use ESPN.com to sort stats like that.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 11:11 PM EST up reply actions
That’s a very small difference between what Grandy did last year in OBP vs. league average. And i’d wager that more teams than not have an average OBP guy or worse in the lead off spot more often than not. Managers, for the most part, still don’t ride the OBP train. If they did, they’d have guys like Carlos Guillen leading off when he wasn’t hitting for power but still drawing a ton of walks.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I have to say that I find the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this absolutely ridiculous
Valverde is a proven commodity and a solid addition to the team. Despite the abundance of bullpen arms under contract before this move, not one of them should have been filling you with confidence when it came to closing out potentially more games with even smaller leads than last season. The lost draft pick is unfortunate, but this move had to be made and I’m glad it was. Now we can move toward being hopeful that the core DD has assembled behind Valverde provides stability in the bullpen and that at least one of them is ready to take the reins in 2-3 years time.
by ryan_matthews28 on Jan 14, 2010 6:24 PM EST reply actions
Worst Move of the Off-Season!!
1. Granderson
2. Jackson.
3. Valverde
4. Thames
The Tigers are officially the Royals!!!!!
Your analysis leaves much to be desired.
Like analysis. Seriously, letting Thames go was not much of a loss and Jackson-Two Colored Eye Guy looks like a win for the Tigers. I’m not sure about Granderson but of all these moves, I say overpaying for Valverde for 2 to 3 years and losing a first round draft pick that could have been used to address the serious lack of position player depth in the Tigers’ system is the worst move of the off season.
How does Valverde make the Tigers better?
I am going to break things
That’s how pissed and horrified that this just happened. Eff.
by baum on Jan 14, 2010 6:45 PM EST via mobile reply actions
At least more casual fans will be happy.
Hopefully this will have some positive bump but the suspicion that DD has no coherent vision or plan for the team seems to be being proven.
I really don't understand any of you.....
1) Are we a better team today (NOW) than we were yesterday? YES! We just signed a proven closer. How many of you bitched and complained last season about Rodney and the previous seasons regarding Jonesy? Every save situation was a roller coaster. There’s a freakin’ picture dedicated to it. Give Valverde a chance. Zoom Zoom had the stuff. Hopefully someday he’ll have it again…..but seriously, what are the odds? He’s a 2000’s version of Rozema. Ryan Perry is a great kid, but he’s a kid…..let him learn the game and mature before the Tigers give him the closer’s roll. How many times last year did he lose the strike zone? Far to many times to have the mentality of a closer.
2) This argument that Valverde played in the NL is a bullsh*t argument. Do you honestly think he got saves pitching in the ninth inning against pitchers? NO! If he was in a save situation, then the opponent most likely had their best hitters or pinch hitters up to try and tie or win the game.
Bottom line is we are better today and tomorrow than we were yesterday. It’s insane to be worried about a draft pick that we don’t even know who or could have drafted.
We got a closer who led the NL in saves two years in a row in 2008 and 2007. For baseball gods sake……be happy and look forward to a fun season. It’s not your money.
If you're gonna use saves as your complete statistical argument
Then we really missed out letting Rodney leave, since he had the best save percentage in the majors of any full time closer.
Jesus Christ......F.I.N.E....let's look at something besides save %
2009:
ERA IP K BB HR
Valverde 2.33 54 56 21 5
Rodney 4.40 75 61 41 8
That's more like it...
That gives us more to work with. And for reference, Todd Jones in Florida the year before he came back to the Tigers.
ERA IP K BB HR
2.10 73 62 14 2
multiple holes
Money argument — it’s not our money, so we shouldn’t care? I agree, if the Tigers have no budget. I want them to spend $200 million and keep up with the Yankees. It’s not my money. Unfortunately, the Tigers have a budget, like almost every other team in baseball. Spending $7M on a reliever who pitches 60 innings a year when you state (as Dave Dombrowski has) you have to bring your budget down makes no sense. No, it’s not our money. But as people interested in watching a winning team, we’d like the guy in charge of the budget to do a better job spending it.
NL argument — The AL is a better league and scores a lot more runs, and that is not just due to pitchers batting. But let’s just go with your argument style on this one. Do you think the pinch hitters of the NL are better than the designated hitters of the AL? (Answer: doesn’t matter what you think, because statistics show they’re not.)
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
swiss cheese.
The problem with your money argument is that we don’t know the Tigers budget. Nobody but Illitch, his accountant, and maybe DD knows exactly how much Illitch has in his piggy bank and is willing to spend on making this team better. And I’ve said this before, you can’t believe every word DD says to the media. Now of course, Illitch wants DD to be smart with his money, so then you can try to argue that this was dumb. But that’s simply not true. Look at Valverde’s numbers/contract compared to other closers in the league.
There are arguments here that say this money could have been better spent on other holes. Yes, the Tigers have acquired a ton of relievers this off-season (although I think Coke will wind up being a starter), but who is out there right now that can fill other holes worth $7 million? Not Russel Branyan (and we can still get him because, like I said, we don’t know what Illitch is willing to spend). An inanimate draft pick? Maybe, but why not think of Valverde as that draft pick who has already panned out and we can actually use as a top closer? Losing a draft pick is the only thing that has bothered me about this signing, but we need to open our minds a little bit. All you need to do is look at Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller to realize that a draft pick isn’t a sure thing, even in the Tigers system where they have done an overall great job grabbing guys who pan out.
As for the NL/AL argument, meh. It’s statistically proven (and pretty much common sense) that pitching in the AL is a tougher task. But note that just because Valverde is going to the AL, it doesn’t automatically mean a drop off in stats. Look at K-Rod who fell off when he went to the NL. Closers are sort of an enigma, mostly due to the added pressures they face mentally. All I know, if Valverde pitches like he has over the past three years, I’m going to be a very happy fan.
Lastly, as a die-hard Tigers fan, and one that leans on the like side of this deal, what exactly do you mean by “casual fan”? Surely, if a fan doesn’t agree with your opinion, it shouldn’t automatically give them the title of a ‘casual’ fan. And this isn’t the first time you’ve implied in your posts that someone isn’t a serious fan if they aren’t in line with your thinking. This is the first time I’ve decided to say something, but I think it’s ridiculous that you question anyone’s interest in the team because some might not share your opinion. You’re better than that.
Also, when did being happy about the team acquiring a closer to save games (equating to: wins!) and the Tigers sending a message that they are indeed “going for it in 2010” become such a bad thing? You act like this move cripples the Tigers long-term…
.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
If the Tigers were going for it in '10
Why would they get rid of Granderson? No matter what you think of Granderson, you can’t argue that he wouldn’t provide a hell of a lot more to this team’s chances at success than Ajax/Clete/Wells/whoever we throw out there.
I loved Granderson
I think he’s awful vs LHPs and the general fan base has a somewhat blurred vision of his potential ceiling (that he actually already reached) because of how great of a person he is, but I was legitimately a huge fan of him overall. I donated money to his Grand Kids charity and was as giddy as a school girl when I got the autographed photo of him in the mail.
But I put those feelings aside and truly think the Tigers figured he was maxed out in Detroit. He declined considerably over the past 3 years and the Tigers had a chance to make a smart move, not only financially, but to improve their rotation and potentially get a younger version of Grandy, who many believe is ready to start at the pro level (then throw in a couple viable relievers as the proverbial cherry on top). Was it a big risk? Yes, but I see the tremendous upside in it, all around, and think we’re all going to be pleasantly surprised by this team next year without whatever Granderson would have produced.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
But is there a lot of trust we should be putting into the Dombrowski in his judgement on peaks and whatnot? He’s given numerous bad contracts after career years (or before ANY year in the case of Dontrelle). The Guillen trade is over half a decade old and the Magglio deal is hurting us now (but I still will defend that deal because of the bad team tax).
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
I'd like to think
he’s learned from those mistakes. Instead of signing Jackson to a massive extension (like he did with Nate & Dontrelle) or allowing him to earn more than what he might think he’s worth through arb, he did something he hasn’t done before - sold high and got pretty damn good talent in return. I think it’s risky and yes, it’s very unpopular amongst most fans, but I commend him for trying to learn from his past mistakes.
Do we trust his judgment on peaks and what not? It’s hard to say… I still think he’s done way more good for this team than bad and I’m not sure how much those few bad contracts have affected how he’s been able to run the rest of the team. I will say, I’d rather him error on the side of selling high too soon than dishing out huge contracts after a guy has one or two good years. Wouldn’t you?
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
I think he means casual fan as in one who doesn't dive into some sort of statistical analysis.
The divide on this move I am seeing is pretty much along those lines. The people that follow sabrmetrics and the like are touchy because they’ve been questioned and it has lead to those seeing one thing one way being called something by someone else.
I admit my personal bias is that relievers are not worth signing as free agents and that dedicated closers and set up men are resource sinks that can be avoided by cheaper, in house options.
K-Rod’s numbers went down, most likely, because he was on a worse team. Closers are very team dependant and he went from a good team to team that did terrible.
There were a ton of signs that K-Rod was going to fall off in his move to the Mets. Down velocity, k-rates, rising bb-rates, etc etc…
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
This confirms it
We are the NY Mets of the AL. We spend money for no good reason other than to handicap ourselves in the future!
by baum on Jan 14, 2010 7:10 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I agree with MSU4LIF.
I think a lot of this hatred of DD is just because he traded Granderson. Big name trades have always been a part of this game’s history. This blog has really turned sort of glass half-empty in the last month. Face it, like him or hate him, DD has guts and he’s out there trying to make positive changes. It’s done! It might actually work out in Detroit’s favor in the long run. When it comes to how much money, I don’t care. It’s not mine. How many years did NYY have the biggest payroll and bomb in the playoffs? I loved gloating over the NY papers after the Tigers whipped them in the 06 playoffs! Money isn’t everything. Try thinking positive for a change.
As cool as WS championships are...
They often don’t prove who the best team was. Do you really think the Tigers were better than the Yankees in 06? If so, do you then think that the Cardinals were the best team in the majors that year? You can build a better team and still not win the World Series. The Yankees money has given them great teams over a long stretch and gotten them into the playoffs many times and won them many rings. I guess since they’ve only managed to win five world series in the last fourteen years and averaged 97.5 wins per season over that stretch proves that money isn’t everything, but it sure makes a heck of a difference.
Sports are streaky.
Yes, the team with the best record over the course of a long season is often the best team. . . . but the best record does not always translate to a championship. I am sure someone has statistics about that issue. What I know is that Detroit backed into the playoffs in 06 then got hot. Then through a combination of playing a team coached to be better fundamentally, and a week-long wait for the WS to start, Detroit loses. The RS in 04 coming from an 0-3 deficit, are the best example, but regardless of the sport, how many times do you see a team down 3 to 1 and come back to win. It happens. Which is my point. Money may get you into the playoffs, but it’s not a guarantee of a championship. The Marlins have won two WS since ’97, one with a high payroll and one without, yet they seem to be competitive just about every year. Go figure.
by watsonstclair on Jan 14, 2010 8:46 PM EST up reply actions
not the money
For me, it’s loss of the draft pick after DD indicated that he wanted the team to get younger.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
+1 Exactly!
DD is being two-faced right now. I’m sick of this jekle and Hyde crap. I just want some consistency and truth from him.
by baum on Jan 14, 2010 8:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
or...
it’s not that he wanted to get younger – he wanted to get better. did DD say as much?
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 14, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
How does Valverde make us better?
All relievers are fungible, closers are only overpaid b/c of saves, etc, etc…
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with all of those
I don’t think anyone is saying that Valverde is worth that money or that draft pick, but he will be a positive to this team because he’ll contribute a valuable 60 IP that I’m not sure Casey Fien or another younger guy would be emotionally ready to handle. These aren’t just walking breathing WARP values out there – they’re kids in a lot of cases. If DD still continues to indicate that we’re getting younger, it may be because he’s trying to say the right thing to not piss off the fan base even more about dealing Granderson and Jackson. It appears that some people could not accept the possibility that the Granderson/Jackson deal was an effort to get better by trading guys who DD felt he could “sell high” at and buy guys who were otherwise undervalued. Taken in that context, I am simply glad to see us add a pitcher like Valverde even if I think what we had to pay to get him was too much.
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 15, 2010 1:25 AM EST up reply actions
Why the Valvarde signing is disliked:
A .Closers do not add much value to a team.
B. Paying closers is a resource sink.
C. Valverde is a closer
D. Detroit is trying to get younger.
E. Detroit is trying to make better use of its assets.
If condition A is true and B is true than signing C immediately disproves D and E.
Signing Valverde is a 180 about face on the reasons Granderson was traded. Detroit’s only real strength in their system right now is relief arms. Signing a “proven” closer helps about as much as signing another mascot in a platoon… except the mascot may entice more kids into coming to the ballpark.
Detroit is not a better team by signing Valverde; in fact they may be a worse team thanks to sinking resources into an unnecessary reliever than into a positional player, where many a weakness lay. Instead of having that money as flexibility in the season to, perhaps, make another trade, Detroit has basically thrown the money away into a resource that they already have an overabundance of throughout their entire organization.
Money is everything – without prudent spending all you do is create problems for the present and future. Valverde is a sunk cost for the next 2 to 3 years. While other, bad, contracts are going to come off the books, the Valverde signing ties up resources the Tigers could use today and we’re stuck with losing a potential player that could help down the road.
In essence, signing Valverde not only costs money and a draft pick but, and here is what I am really upset about, costs our younger relievers innings they could use to prove themselves in the majors. Signing Valverde is basically retarding the growth of our relievers in the “closer” situation, costing the Tigers money that could be put to better use and losing us a draft pick.
Valverde is a three situation loss signing and DD has shown he has little planning for the future of this team or is incredibly susceptible to the whims of a fanbase that can easily be placated by winning instead of bending to some vocal but nonsensical and panic induced wishes.
by 13194013 on Jan 14, 2010 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
Preach it, my brotha.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
Rec'd
For being awesome.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 14, 2010 11:29 PM EST up reply actions
It's All Good...
I mean, so far DD has more successful experience running winning baseball organizations than most(?) of the people on this site. He’s got more (inside) information and pretty much has shown he understands how things work. You might like/dislike the move, but don’t lose sleep or loyalty over it…your speculation on the result is not going to be any better than his given everything he knows vs everything you know.
I don’t like that kind of blind faith. Dayton Moore is a baseball GM and I am not, does that make him good?
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
No, but it makes him a better GM than you...
Not to be rude, but he actually is one, and there’s a ton of difference with regards to what he knows about his teams situation. And we’re not talking about Dayton Moore. A little benefit of the doubt for DD is not blind faith. I’d listen to someone who has actually taken a professional baseball team to the playoffs (and WS). I’d even prefer to trust Dayton Moore about meetings/negotiations that he was involved in as opposed to some keyboard jockey on the internet. I know it’s fun to speculate, but going crazy over stuff when we really know only a fraction of the whole story is kinda self-aggrandizing isn’t it?
You can only trust so far.
And not questioning moves is silly. GMs are accountable for the product on the field and despite being a GM they make bad decisions. To give a free pass just because someone holds a position is silly. Dombrowski is accountable to the fan base for the product he puts on the field if he wants to continue to draw people to Comerica or get people to care about the Tigers on television.
Part of that accountability is being questioned on any and all maneuvers, especially ones that seem to be counter to what aims DD claimed the Tigers have for the future (getting younger).
by 13194013 on Jan 14, 2010 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree completely..
Especially the part about “accountable for the product on the field”. So far, he’s put pretty good teams on the field and the 2010 Tigers have not taken the field yet.
Bingo.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
sorry, but you're making an awful argument here
“he’s a GM and you’re not.”
why are you even here then? It’s obviously not to see what other people think about the deal, because no one here is a GM.
Actually, we should just shut down the whole blog and just read press releases.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 9:49 PM EST up reply actions
Not really.
I’ve yet to see anyone name the specific players they’re concerned about losing out on between the 19th pick and the compensatory picks. You can only talk about the draft in the abstract for so long because it’s really not just an abstract thing- it’s actual players.
And even if one is just talking about the pure numbers game of amassing as many prospects as possible, then depending on the contract terms it’s still entirely likely that Valverde will result in a first round pick in a couple of years.
So honestly, yes, I’m willing to give the scouting staff the benefit of the doubt until I hear some specific takes otherwise. Because while all the talk of draft picks may be in the abstract here, you can be sure the Tigers considered their draft plan and who they’d like to target before they made this deal. I don’t find it much of a stretch to believe that perhaps they simply don’t value anyone in this particular draft enough at that spot to hold on to the pick.
that is one small complaint of many presented by people here
and not even what he was talking about.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
If he is a better GM than one of us isn't the question ...
Any of the GMs in baseball is better than we are – that’s why they get paid. But they aren’t dealing with or competing with fans for free agents or negotiating trades, they are dealing with other GMs.
The question is if Dombrowski is better than most other GMs and in particular the ones he deals with when making trades. Mike Milbury is probably (although barely) a better hockey GM than I am, but was so notoriously bad that finally no team will hire him and he has to make his salary saying stupid things on television at intermission shows. Is Dombrowski good enough of a GM to formulate a plan and stick to it and not be swayed by emotions or distracted by bright shiny statistics, or not? I think that is what people are questioning, not “can I run a team better than the GM” but “would another GM do a better job?”
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
Benefit of the doubt for what, though? Dave Dombrowski’s spent a ton of money — consistently in the top 8 in the majors — and have one playoff appearance to show for it. If we bow out to the Yankees in 06, is the benefit of the doubt something that should still be there? The postseason is a crap shoot and I’m thankful that the Tigers went to that world series but I think it’s bought him time that he hasn’t truly earned because we’re still toiling in mediocrity and making bad contractual determinations (in my opinion of course).
I didn’t say that I was a better GM than Dayton Moore. I also wouldn’t be a better politician than the ones currently in office, but that doesn’t mean that opinions cannot be shared and/or expressed.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
The poll is interesting.
Definitely a split in the fan base on the signing and probably along the baseball philosophical divide.
things
I think D.D. does a fine job as a general rule,I think he got rid of granderson at the right time and Jackson too but I’d like to see us use the highbrow scouting dept. we hired away from boston I’m tired of over paying old guys who won’t do any better than the young guys over the long haul and dave there has to be somewhere in the organization for jim price that the public doesn’t have to listen to.
I'm probably alone here (mostly)
but I like this. I can’t really explain why. I don’t know much about him, but I have an Astros fan for a friend (lucky him) who said this is super good for our team. Also, if it is true that he is a hard thrower who had a 2.33 ERA last season, then that makes me feel even better. It’s just a gut feeling, I think. You can point out his flaws, but I still will feel good about having him closing us out.
I don't have a signature.
apparently you're not if you look at the poll!
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 8:58 PM EST up reply actions
Alas, I guess I am not alone
Check out his wikipedia article (as of 9:01), under “Career”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Valverde
I don't have a signature.
My guess as to what happened....
1. DD had it planned all along. I doubt it, but this is actually possible.
2. The team dumped Jackson, and if they’d stopped there, few would have blinked much. The team, upon dumping Grandy for whatever reason (clearly it wasn’t $, so either they thought his best years were behind him or there’s a smoking gun somewhere nobody has found), noticed the fan dismany and took a look at the ticket sales, and freaked.
If #2 is true, they may have decided to go out and get anything to toss to the fanbase as a peace offering.
I can’t come up with any other reasons. And I’m trying. If nothing else, Papa Grande is pretty damn entertaining, and a touch insane. Problem is, as I said yesterday, a closer is not worth a tenth of a damn if you’re consistently behind 4-2 going into the 9th.
#2 sounds quite plausible
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 14, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
It does to me, too.
And that scares me – it reminds me of Edmonton Oilers fans complaining that their team focuses so much on pursuing the big name star player that they never sign cheaper, effective players who will help the team win, but want the flashy star to sell tickets and drum up support for a new arena funded by the taxpayers.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
now I won't be able to get to sleep
Damon instead of Granderson?
//gulp
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
That came up on twitter while I was driving home...
right past US Cellular. I cannot describe the doom I felt.
Brian Burke was at a Sabermetric conference at one of the Ivy League schools I believe (it was a couple years ago and they were discussing advanced stats in each sport) and Burke said that you can build winners with nameless players the casual fans don’t know; however, you have to win even more with those types of players to draw fans out. You can be a moderate winner with names people know and draw better because of it.
My old blog is Tigers By The Numbers.
Now I write at Bless You Boys.
Like music? See what I'm listening to at my Last.fm account.
My take
We’re probably rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic a bit, at least for 2010. The 2010 team is probably not going to contend either way. As such, adding a closer at this money (and losing a draft choice) is probably not worth it.
Still, we all remember that a lot of dead money comes off the payroll after 2010, and all of it will be off by 2011. I think we all hope that the Tigers can compete in 2011. As such, if you’re going to sign a closer, you might as well have him around for one or both seasons. I also have seen enough crappy bullpens in recent years that I’m not sold on our “bullpen depth.”
As far as losing a draft pick, I don’t like it. I do take quite a bit of solace in the fact that the Tigers are well known to spend over slot to sign draft picks. If they throw a lot of money at their other draft choices, they can certainly overcome a lost pick.
so to sum up
I probably wouldn’t have signed him, or at least would’ve tried to work out a sign and trade with Houston to save the draft pick, but it might not be a bad thing to have a good closer around the next few years.

by 

















