Reactions to the Jose Valverde signing
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 6:00 AM EST
in Detroit Tigers News
Email
PrintThe Tigers reportedly signed closer Jose Valverde for $14 million over two years with a third-year option at $9 million. The Astros also get Detroit's 19th-overall draft pick.
Here's a collection of feedback on the deal (all are direct quotes). I'd like to have it more balanced, but it's hard to find all that many opinions in favor of the deal.
Tigers bloggers: feel free to drop a link to your stuff in the comments.
- Dave Cameron of Fangraphs.com: Valverde to the Tigers
Seriously, in a market where everyone else is finding bargains, the Tigers pay $7 million a year for a good-but-not-great relief pitcher, and give up a draft pick for the right to do so. Were they not paying attention to the rest of the contracts being handed out? Did they not realize they were bidding against themselves? How do you justify dumping Curtis Granderson to save money, and then use that money (and more!) to sign a flyball reliever with command problems who has never pitched in the AL?
- Rob Neyer of ESPN.com: Tigers spend $14 million on short man
I wish I could disagree with Cameron, if only for variety's sake. But this strikes me as a monumentally poor use of $14 million and a first-round draft choice. Not because Valverde's a useless pitcher; he's actually quite useful. But a pitcher like Valverde -- any relief pitcher, really -- should be the final ingredient. You fill all the other holes you can fill, and when you're satisfied with your catchers and your first baseman and your second baseman and your shortstop and your third baseman and your three outfielders and your four best starting pitchers
- Lynn Henning, Detroit News: Jose Valverde worth price Tigers paid for needed closer
I've heard people say there's no reason to invest in Valverde. The 2010 season is lost. Hang on instead to that draft pick. Save some cash. This year already has been conceded. *snip* The Tigers got in Valverde an outstanding pitcher. As a National League scout told me earlier this week, he's one of the few pitchers around who can come into the ninth, throw 15 consecutive fastballs, and get three quick outs.
- Steve Kornacki, MLive.com -- Paying big bucks for closer Jose Valverde will be worth it for Tigers
It was either Valverde or roll the dice. And considering he made $8 million last year with an injury that did not involve his arm and had no lasting effects, the money is justified. He has saved 86 percent of 194 opportunities in his career, and Tigers career saves leader Todd Jones finished his career at 81 percent. Jones was at 86 percent in each of his past three seasons with Detroit.
- Billfer of Detroit Tigers Weblog: Tigers find enough in the cushions for Valverde
The Tigers based on run differential were a .500 team in 2009 and they have moved the wrong direction this year. Even in a weak division I don’t see Valverde being the difference between contending and not contending meaning that Valverde is more luxury than necessity. A luxury that not only costs them money, but also Detroit’s first round draft pick. The kind of pick that would probably be in the top 5 prospects in the Tigers system.
- Matt Snyder, AOL Fanhouse -- Jose Valverde Signs With Detroit
Valverde wouldn't have signed anywhere unless he was guaranteed the role of closer, so he will slide in immediately as the Tigers' ninth-inning guy. With Joel Zumaya, Phil Coke, Ryan Perry and Daniel Schereth bridging the gap from starting pitching to Valverde, the Tigers now have a pretty formidable bullpen to go with their young starting rotation. The question now shifts to whether or not they can get enough offense to support their pitching.
- John Parent, Tigers Tracks
Wasn’t it just a month ago that Dave Dombrowski traded two young stars in order to clear some payroll? If this is how he planned on using the spare cash, I’m a bit disappointed. Sure, the pitching staff appears to be set for a while, but where exactly, do they think the runs are going to come from? If there was a spare $7 MM laying around, I sure would have liked to see them try to add a veteran LH hitter to use when Carlos Guillen breaks down again, and he will.
- Lee Panas, Tigers sign Valverde
According to The Bill James Handbook, (Valverde) had 41 clean outings in 52 games last year. A clean outing is any appearance in which a reliever does not allow a run or an inherited run to score. His 79% clean outing percentage compared favorably to Fernando Rodney (70%), Brandon Lyon (69%) and the MLB average (64%) in 2009.
- Blake VandeBunte, The Spot Starters -- Fernando Rodney Jose Valverde?
I’m not a huge fan of the Valverde signing. The money sort of bugs me (as much as someone else’s money can bother a guy) and the giving up of the 19th pick really grinds my gears. Oh well. The Tigers hedged their bets in a way, but picking up two supplemental picks when they lost Rodney and Brandon Lyon.
- Matt Wallace, (the now-back-online) Take 75 North -- Tigers add Valverde as closer
t makes not a lick of sense to me. People who like the move will say it gives them a surer bet at the closer position. Why do the Tigers have such a burning desire for certainty at the closer position? They are taking a risk on their second baseman. They are taking a risk on their center fielder. Can they possibly believe their closer is more important to their success than those two positions. It certainly seems possible because Valverde over the next two years will be making precisely as much money as Curtis Granderson would have. Wrap your brain around that.
*snip*
This looks to me like a move to convince themselves and fans they are contenders. That’s one approach, but I’d prefer they address bigger team needs to place themselves more squarely in that category.
92 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Where's the beef ?
Years ago, Wendys had a commericial using that slogan. Sometimes I think DD is more of a beef-brain. We all suffered through a disastrous 08 season to be fooled by being the best mediocre team in 09 for most of the season in a division of full of mediocrity. I am ok with rebuilding, moving out worthless contracts, and waiting for next year. I am ok with spending and trying to win now. We cannot do both, but DD seems to be doing just that. Honestly, I am more concerned with JL. Should we fail again this year to make the playoffs, will DD realize that the manager we have cannot finish? Except for 97 when he lucked into playing Cleveland and almost losing, when has JL not choked at the end?
I'm probably taking this too personally
But I still feel like this deal is a slap in the face as a fan. You justify trading Grandy and EJ for two reasons: It saves money and it lowers payroll. Even if you don’t think the Tigers are over paying for Valverde it still hurts to think we will spending more on him than we would have spent on Grandy for the next two years. He also stands in the way of developing one of the young arms we have recently collected as a closer. So even if we didn’t give up a 1st round pick I would be annoyed by this deal. The fact that we do give up a first rounder though is maddening. Did we really trade away 2 of our better players to accumulate youth so that we could waste a first round pick on a soon to be 32 year old journey man reliever who is one full season removed from back to back 40+ saves seasons?
I suppose my greatest problem with this deal is that as a fan who was buying into the philosophy that lead the team to trade one of my favorite players (Grandy) I now have to sit here feeling like even if Valverde helps in 2010 and 2011 (and possibly 2012) does he help us beyond that. Will we be sitting here in 2012 wishing we had had that first round pick? Will this stunt the growth of a Schlerth, Perry or Coke? Basicly, I hate the deal because unless we get a World Series title with Valverde I will always question the deal regardless of Valverde’s performance.
I can't believe I ate the whole thing!
by tigerfaninChicago on Jan 15, 2010 7:47 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Oops . . .
What I as trying to say . . . the only way this makes sense is if there are some major moves yet to be made . . . and I just don’t see what those moves might be. But, this is a contender move, not a rebuilding move.
This is will fix the 2-1 loss problem
I keep thinking back to last year’s string of 2-1 losses and what might have been if we had just a little more offense – just an additional hit here or there. This will not do it.
BTW – trading away Granderson and Jackson made sense if you believe (as DD likely did) that they were at their peak value and not necessarily to cut payroll or save money. The most likely cause for the trade is that DD thought the Tigers would be stronger with the replacements + whoever he can sign with the payroll headroom.
"I have seen the future, and it is much like the present, only longer" - Dan Quisenberry
Neyer vs Kornacki
I do agree with Neyer that this isn’t the BEST use of $14MM and a #1 pick. That doesn’t mean it won’t still help the club this year. However I also think that Kornacki from MLive is out of his league, trying to sell this as a good deal by comparing Valverde’s save percentage (flaw #1) to Todd Jones (flaw #2 – do two flaws make a solid ground stand?).
by TigerFanInCleveland on Jan 15, 2010 8:05 AM EST reply actions
I tend to agree with Cameron and Billfer if you haven't already noticed
There are a few reasons why this deal makes absolutely no sense in my mind (I’ll try to articulate it as best as I can):
1)Valverde is the kind of player that you sign once every other piece of your roster is secure and solidified. He is the kind of player that helps a team in need of that one final piece make the push to win a title. Is our outfield of Guillen/Ordonez/Clete/Ajax/Raburn really as good as it gets? Is there no way that we could have used part of that 7M to sign another insurance policy?? Even if we do feel comfortable with having 3 of those guys in the lineup every night, do we feel comfortable with 4 of them? If not, we should have signed either a positional player or DH. There are plenty of guys out there who would have signed for 1-3M for a one year contract who could put up .9 WAR, which is what Valverde posted last year when he apparently had disgusting numbers.
2)It’s typically not smart financially to devote so much money to a player who sees the field so little. If you know a player will contribute to 3-4% of your teams inning total, then in what world does it make sense to pay them as much as one of your starting positional players who positively impacts the game so much more?
3)We shouldn’t be adding to positions of strength. This is a lot like reason #1. Why add to the strongest part of the team? What are the positives and negatives of this? The positives: you get a solid RP. The negatives: you continue to potentially derail the careers of highly talented young players simply for the sake of having a more established player on the roster. The difference between Valverde and any of the guys who could have held his roster spot this year is minimal; it might be .5 WAR at most, which translates to an additional $2M. So instead of spending 2-3M more for that .5 WAR, we just spent 6-7M more, depending on the player. I’m sure there was a positional player we could’ve added who would provide a positive difference of more than .5 WAR over the person they would have replaced for fewer than 7M dollars more. If so, then we made a disastrous move in terms of cost effectiveness.
4) Finally, that draft pick. When you take into consideration the fact that a first round draft pick will bring ~5.2M worth of value to your team over the life of the initial cost-controlled contract (and you have to; you can’t ignore that fact), then we essentially are automatically valuing Valverde to be 5.2M more than the contract we gave him. That’s no small chunk of cash. I don’t know that Valverde was worth such an impressive potential young talent. This team needs to continue to restock the farm system, and it’s really hard to do so when you are shipping out draft picks.
This move makes DD seriously appear as if he has absolutely no clear plan in sight. It’s short sighted and is the antithesis of the massive deal he made earlier this offseason. I just don’t understand how DD thinks we are anywhere near a title contending team; it’ll be hard enough with the moves we made this offseason to keep up with the Twins and Sox, considering that they haven’t gotten any worse. This move simply screams of desperation to make a flashy move for the sake of making of flashy move, when all it really does is stunts development of players we already have in a position where we have the most strength and depth, and it completely ignores the areas where we need to add depth/upgrades in order to compete over 162 games.
Valverde signing.
Hang in there folks. The team will try addressing other needs as spring training plays out. Way too many arms mean that a deal or two may take place before opening day.
Thoughts from Eye Of The Tigers
Thanks Kurt for encouraging comments on this one. Below are a couple of quotes from my story this morning:
“There is a saying rattling around in my head tonight. I originally heard it in the parlance of a fantasy baseball draft strategy article some years back. It seems appropriate in the wake of the Tigers signing of Jose Valverde.
Never reach for a closer.
Winning teams don’t do it, especially when there are other holes to fill, much more important holes. Closers are unstable, unreliable, difficult to predict and have a shelf life roughly equivalent to a mango. Every year incumbent closers, making big money, flame out and are replaced by young kids making near the league minimum who are ultimately as effective, if not more so."
“For the money the Tigers just agreed to pay Jose Valverde (upt to $23 million) the team could have signed Scott Podsednik, Marlon Byrd and Adam Kennedy. Or Jermaine Dye, Orlando Hudson and Randy Winn, with enough left over to sign Matt Capps.
This ballclub needs offensive help more than it needs a big name free agent closer. Period. A true leadoff hitter, a true two hole hitter and a power bat seem to be the consensus. All of these needs could have been addressed, but as the saying goes – coulda, shoulda, woulda means you didn’t."
I would've been okay with Capps...
much cheaper and still a good pitcher with closing experience. This move makes no sense for all the reason you have listed. You put it nicely to say the least.
My Music: Now on last.fm!!
My Blog: Inside A Head
"For the money the Tigers just agreed to pay Jose Valverde (upt to $23 million) the team could have signed Scott Podsednik, Marlon Byrd and Adam Kennedy. Or Jermaine Dye, Orlando Hudson and Randy Winn, with enough left over to sign Matt Capps.
You’re assuming all these guys would want to come to Detroit. Remember, there were reports that the Tigers were interested in Podsednik. There was a whisper about grabbing Hudson, too. My guess is Detroit tried. Also, Hudson wanted $9MM & Dye made $11 MM each of the past two years, so no they couldn’t have signed one of them and still had enough left over for Capps (who signed for $3.5 MM) if we’re keeping within the $7 MM /year Valverde’s getting.
Remember, also, that Valverde’s third year is up to the Tigers, so unless he pitches like he has the past three years, the option probably won’t be picked up.
Never reach for a closer. Winning teams don’t do it,
Phillies… I wouldn’t make such a declarative statement, when that’s exactly what the 2008 WS champs did.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
The Angels as well
They doled out big $ for Fuentes. While they didn’t win it all, they certainly were successful in ’09.
And Fuentes failed
Plus the Phils got LIdge for what was seen as garbage- nobody saw Bourn as anything special at the time.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 15, 2010 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
I don't think I'd say he failed
He saved games at just a single % point less than he did the year before. Angles made it past the Red Sox, in a series he had 2 saves in. Not a bad year for the Angles — he helped make them better.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Actually, Kurt said "drop a link to your stuff"
But thanks for sharing, John.
by Ian Casselberry on Jan 15, 2010 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
overpaid? how?
If you think closers are not valuable generally (and there are a few organizations that agree with you) then of course the Tigers overpaid for Valverde. But the Tigers DO think closers are valuable (as many other organizations do as well) so – conceding this – let’s compare Valverde’s contract to other closers signed this offseason and last offseason:
Last offseason (closer – ’10 salary/number of years of contract w/ + for added option year)
Krod – 11.5M/3+
Lidge – $11.5M/3+
Wood – $10.5M/2+
Fuentes – $9M/2+
Hoffman – $8M/2
(probably not relevant, but here’s other well-paid closers contracts that were signed in ’08:)
Nathan – $11.25M/4+
Rivera – $15M/3
Cordero – $12M/4+
Now, here are closer deals (average salary) signed this offseason:
Valverde – $7M/2+
Gonzalez – $6M/2
Soriano – $7.5M/1
Lyon – $5M/3
Based on those comps, I think Valverde’s contract fits the market very well. Now, again, if you think Tigers should have spent the money differently, or that closers aren’t valuable to begin with – well those are different arguments. I don’t believe the Tigers overpaid.
by TigerFaninDC on Jan 15, 2010 10:44 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
You contradict yourself and I don't know if you realize it
You say that Valverde’s deal fits in nicely with other closer signings. That may be true, however just because other teams are signing RP to ridiculous contracts does not mean that Valverde’s contract is any less absurd. We still paid too much for a shiny number (saves) that doesn’t indicate a pitcher’s true talent and effectiveness. Just because the market overpays for something does not excuse us when we follow the market and make a stupid deal like this. That’s the point that Mike and Kurt and a variety of other people have been trying to make. Closers aren’t that valuable to begin with, but the market says they are. Well, the market is wrong and DD has blindly followed market value to determine a player’s worth in the case. Simply put, DD make a bad move.
by baum on Jan 15, 2010 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
separate your arguments
belief: proven closers are not valuable/worth paying
this seems to be your position and the position of others you’ve mentioned. if it is, then there’s no reason to even consider valverde’s (or any other closer’s) actual contract.
belief: proven closers are actually valuable
this seems to be dave dombrowski’s position as well as the position of the following teams: Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, Rays, Phillies, Astros, Mets, Reds, Indians, Royals, Angels, Braves…
I’m not arguing anything about value of proven closer. I’m pointing out that if you want a proven closer, you have to pay at least $5M to get the least proven one (Lyon)
by TigerFaninDC on Jan 15, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
That's not true
Capps signed a year for $3.5 this off-season
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
yes, i did overlook capps
but to overclarify – I’m definitely not saying I heart closers. I’m saying the Tigers do. And that if they wanted a closer like Valverde they paid him what the going rate is for a closer like valverde. above – cameron infers there are bargins for closers which doesn’t seem true when you look at deals for gonzalez, soriano, wagner, lyon, and rodney (your capps expample the exception).
by TigerFaninDC on Jan 15, 2010 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
Cameron is right
There are bargains for closers….if you’re willing to give your closer role to a guy that hasn’t amassed a large number of them in the past. Apparently teams would rather overpay simply because some mediocre pitcher has gotten the magical save, rather than trusting their best bullpen guys to get the job done when its needed.
no he's still not
•Dave Cameron of Fangraphs.com: Valverde to the Tigers
“Seriously, in a market where everyone else is finding bargains, the Tigers pay $7 million a year for a good-but-not-great relief pitcher, and give up a draft pick for the right to do so.”
he’s wrong saying you can find a bargin on the market (soriano, wagner, gonzalez, lyon). he’s not saying a bargin could be had by promoting a player from within. the ‘market’ part being the significant difference.
by TigerFaninDC on Jan 15, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
He's also talking about bargain players in a bigger context
He’s talking about the Kelly Johnsons and Adam LaRoches. Guys who could very well play significant roles who are taking pay cuts this winter. There are all kinds of players signing for less this winter than they would have even a year or two ago, and then the Tigers go out and seemingly bid against themselves and make a bad signing when they probably could have signed someone else or Valverde himself for less.
I’m counting 12 dumb GMs and that’s just from TigerFaninDC’s post. Man! How do these morons hang on to their jobs?
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Good question
Some contracts may be worth it for those teams. Some of those teams projected to be good enough where maybe paying for a marginal win is worth more to them. It sure isn’t to us right now, though. And that is what you continue to overlook.
See I think it's what everyone else is overlooking
Just because they traded everyone’s man crush away doesn’t mean the Tigers will actually be worse. The Tigers plan on being “good enough” and that’s what makes this move more than acceptable to me. I appreciate it, even. I understand the “we lose a 1st round draft pick” arguments… that all makes sense to me. But anyone who says that $7 MM is too much for a closer, you’re not looking at that list of closers above. The Tigers got a very good closer for cheaper than what other teams are getting equally talented closers for. Yes, I agree that just because everyone is doing it doesn’t make it right, but fact is, you’re not going to get a good closer unless you shell out some dough. And let’s not forget the Tigers get two comp picks for losing Lyon and Rodney, so they’re not completely losing out in the draft because of this signing.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
by Packey on Jan 15, 2010 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This has very little to do with how I "feel" about granderson
This has everything to do with the fact that, Valverde being a prime example, closers are overpaid and overhyped. Even if we still had Granderson, I would be against this trade, maybe less so than I am right now, but against it nonetheless. Valverde has never been worth more than 1.7 WAR and that was 5 years ago, before he became a closer. Since he has become a closer his WAR totals have been: 1.4, 0.8, 0.7, which shows me that he should be making around $4M/year just to make the value of the contract equal his contributions. He has been worth ~1WAR the past three years. I expect that number to be about the same, if not slightly worse, since he is moving to the AL. How is it justifiable to be paying him almost double of what he is providing in value for the team???? As much as I thought I’d never use KC as a good example, why don’t you go ask them about Joakim Soria. Considering his stuff, he is one of the best closers in the game currently. He’s on a team that has no chance of winning, so he gets less recognition than he should, but he has filthy stuff. I’m pretty sure they didn’t go out and sign him for huge amounts of money. Or how about Mariano Rivera? Everyone agrees he is the best closer of all time, so he must’ve gone to the Yankees through free agency for a huge payday, right? Nope. Sometimes you have to have a little faith in the relievers you have, and I think that given the Tigers current glut of really talented relievers, there would be at least one of them who would make a mighty fine closer. The problem really is that we have way too many people who believe that you NEED a “qualified and tested” closer in order to remain competitive. The comp picks help, but they sure as hell don’t make up for the fact that we paid 7/year + 5M equivalent of losing that 1st round pick. Thats WAAAAY too much for a guy who has shown his worth to be around 4M/year.
......
Are these values ever actually adhered to? I’ve said this before, the Tigers don’t have a cap, and nobody here knows their budget so we can’t act like we do — given the salaries of other closers with similar numbers to Valverde, $7 MM is actually somewhat of a bargain. I went through every closer in the pros and right now the avg. salary is just under $6 MM. The rare cases like Soria, who I know is very good, and make $3 MM are because they sprouted from the system (and he’s set to make $8 MM in 2 years). I’m not sure what point you were trying to make about Rivera. He came from the Yankees system, but look how much he costs now. He saves 89% of his opps compared to Valverde’s 86%. And let’s say that somehow the WAR is the tell all for someone’s value, the $3 million we’d supposedly be overpaying Valverde (plus the arbitrary value of the 19th draft pick) is less than 8% of our payroll. Not “WAAAYY too much.” It’s not a big freaking deal. But again, you can only really judge overpayment in a world with a salary cap and there is no cap, so we have no way of knowing what the consequences are of the Tigers giving Valverde $7 MM.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
And for clarification of my opinion on closers in general...
I don’t think you absolutely NEED a “qualified and tested” closer. I just don’t think signing one is necessarily a bad thing. It let’s the young guys get some experience in the middle, less pressure, innings. If they’re awesome and the Tigers feel they’re ready to move up, we can always trade Valverde or! …. we can be satisfied with what could be one of the best bullpens in the AL.
I’d like to think Perry is our future closer. But if we plan on contending in 2010 &/or 2011, I’d rather have a proven closer than risk losing saves (in other words, wins) by throwing out a closer by committee or someone not experienced enough to shut the door at a high rate like Valverde has throughout his career. I don’t think it’s very complicated, it doesn’t need any intricate stats for this argument.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Closers don't allow for wins at a higher rate than regular relievers
So thus, they are nothing more than glorified relievers because they tend to pitch the last inning. Once again, set up guys pitch in just as many nervewrackingly close games as closers. But since you don’t need stats to convince you of a player’s effectiveness, this whole thing is moot. You’ll never make me believe your opinions, and my statistical arguments will never convince you of anything either. So let’s agree to disagree on this one. We will just have to see who is right later on…….if Valverde is the savior you claim, then I’ll eat my words. But his numbers seem unsustainable, and I think he will regress and look fairly average.
Fact is, some guys can’t handle the 9th inning like they can handle the 7th or 8th, even if the score is the same. I’d rather not take the risk these next couple years if Tigers are going to contend.
But since you don’t need stats to convince you of a player’s effectiveness,
I said I don’t need intricate stats. I don’t care about WAR because whether his value is $4 million or $7 million, it’s a very very very small difference in our payroll of 100+ MM (and there’s no cap).
As for stats, I didn’t respond to your ‘casual’ fan comment in the other thread because it didn’t make sense to me and with all due respect, I didn’t ask you what Kurt meant. The reason I’m not banging my head against the wall as a result of this signing isn’t because I don’t dive into stats. In fact, the first thing I did was look at the save percentages and Valverde saves 86% of his opportunities. He has a proven track record — 116 saves (87%) in the last 3 seasons. I’d rather have a guy who I know is going to save games at that rate than a guy who could turn out to blow 3-5 more games a season, potentially the difference in winning the Central.
You see, I “dove” into some basic stats that tell the major story, despite having had him on my fantasy team the past couple years and watching his games on MLB.tv when he’d come in for save opps, in other words, I backed up what I already knew from observing him pitch on a regular basis. I’d like to think that I don’t adhere to stats and stats only… I like to bring in my personal experiences with baseball, knowing that it’s not a completely computerized program. There are outside variables that play into all this stuff, not just formulas created by guys who never played the game. I respect the hell out of all the work those people put into them and the breadth of opinion it brings to discussions like this, but I don’t think they are tell all by any means.
We know what we’re getting with Valverde — a solid closer who bolsters the overall bullpen because now whatever guy you feel could have filled in just as fine can now dominate all the same in the middle innings. It makes the Tigers a better team as a result. I never said Valverde is going to be the Tiger savior, so please don’t put words in my mouth. All I’ve said is that this is a smart sign and I don’t think we overpayed. My only problem with the trade is that we lose a #1 draft pick, but value now is more than value down the road and Valverde is helping the Tigers now. It also helps that we get 2 comp picks in the middle of the 1st and 2nd round, a couple picks not far off from where we got Porcello in 2007.
Having said all that and clearing up a few misunderstandings, I’ll graciously agree to disagree. Pleasure debating with you. Let’s hope I’m right for the sake of our 2010 Tigers. :)
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
I guess I don’t know what casual fan comment you’re bringing up here. The funny thing is you rehashed your opint in about 12 different ways and I rehashed mine just as many times, yet we seem to just be arguing past each other. The more extreme you got, I simply followed suit. It’s just hard for me to even want to even try to understand where you’re coming from when I’m told that the lens in which I view things is so incredibly wrong that you cannot possibly consider its merits. If you discount my methods before you discount my premise, then leave it at that. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I’ll continue to see this as a bad signing. It may only be a couple million more than what I’d consider to be barely acceptable, but when we have chronically overpaid players by a couple million per year each year, that adds up to a lot of money wasted. I would simply recommend that you read into some fairly simple advanced metrics to get a better understanding of how baseball is being evaluated by a large number of people now. Sometimes looking at things in a new light actually allows for a more holistic view of the subject you are studying.
My bad
It was someone else who replied to the “casual” fan comment… not you. Sorry to confuse you there.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
It may only be a couple million more than what I’d consider to be barely acceptable, but when we have chronically overpaid players by a couple million per year each year, that adds up to a lot of money wasted.
So the value of $4 MM is just barely acceptable now? That’s his value you said, why would it only be ‘barely’ acceptable. You are contradicting yourself here. And what I’ve quoted from you is revealing as to why you really dislike this signing — your view of the past contracts are tainting your vision of this one. The consensus between most fans is that the Tigers jumped the gun and have some bad contracts, yes, but those contracts shouldn’t automatically trigger a response from you that this is a bad signing just because a WAR figure tells you he’s not worth $7 million — without taking into consideration any of my arguments (like the avg. salary of closers in the pros, what he’s making compared to other closers with similar stats, the fact he was signed for less guaranteed money than Lyon).
Continually, you fail to address the fact that we DO NOT know the Tigers budget. There is no salary cap, so to know if we’re truly overpaying a guy don’t you think you should know exactly how much the Tigers are willing to spend on players?
Lastly, I find you telling me to “simply read into some fairly simple advance metrics to get a better understanding of how baseball is being evaluated by a large number of people now” rather pompous and condescending. I know how baseball is being evaluated nowadays — I worked in the baseball division of a sports agency where my lone job was to do statistical number crunching to determine the value of certain players who we’d subsequently look to represent. I understand it fully, but the only thing that’s incredibly wrong with your “lens” is that you fail to realize stats are not tell all. This isn’t a computerized program or Franchise mode on Xbox. As I’ve said, I respect the hell out of people who use intricate stats as the crux for their argument, but it’s a shame when they don’t look up from the numbers once in a while. You’re missing a lot by not finding a nice balance between stat projections & reality. But I’m just wasting my time because you’ve said you’re not even trying to understand me.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
The numbers only tell part of the story
I have been making my case beyond simply looking at numbers, just not in this specific argument. I agree that we don’t know the budget; I don’t know if Illitch even has a budget; he’s always seemed to spend when he feels it’s necessary, so it’s difficult to say. At the same time, we have one of the 5 highest salaries in MLB right now, and the cash flow is bound to end at some point. I’m simply assuming its sooner rather than later. Considering that, it seems that a team that spends that much should be able to compete with other teams that spend similar amounts; if not, then that team is spending its money unwisely. I simply think this is one more bad contract on a pile of them. I think the human implications are more damning against this signing than the simple numbers of it, too. I agree that it’s great to have an established closer and a veteran presence in the clubhouse; however, from many accounts I’ve read, Valverde is not the kind of positive presence that you want teaching the younger guys. Secondly, Valverde takes the place of a player that could contribute more regularly and adds to a position of strength, leaving all of our weaknesses glaring right at us. I simply think it would be wiser to find more cost effective ways to add a few position players/starting pitchers for a similar amount that we gave for just Valverde. So does this make our team better? Yes and no. It does strengthen the bullpen, but means that barring any major moves later this offseason (which could happen) our weaknesses have not been addressed. Finally, this signing doesn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the moves we have made this offseason. We seem to be trying to get younger and more cost effective, but then we go out and get a 30 year old reliever for a decent chunk of money. The front office is sending the message that we want to get younger and cheaper but we still want to win now. And unless we are a team that has a ton of deep young talent across the board, it seems like the mightiest of mountains to climb. I could definitely be wrong, but we look like a mediocre team, whether you look at any numbers or not. We have a lot of question marks surrounding players, particularly players that have aged quickly over the past few years. It’s hard to know what to expect out of guys like Guillen, Maggs, Inge, etc…. I don’t think that we can simply expect everyone to rebound after some poor seasons last year, and the two young guys that will be taking starting spots most likely are completely unproven. I hope I’m wrong and Leyland gets these guys to win 90 games and a division title—I really do—but this looks like a team that will most likely win 78-83 games and will finish 2-4 in a weak AL Central to me. In a vacuum, this deal doesn’t look good to me, and in the bigger picture it helps a little, but it doesn’t help in the places we need it most. I respect your opinion; I simply disagree with it. We simply represent the two factions that seem to have sprouted in this debate. It’s been enjoyable, thanks. No hard feelings here.
None here either
About this whole getting younger thing: We still got younger. It’s hard to send a message that you’re trying to make the entire team younger when you re-sign your soon to be 33-year old SS, you have a soon to be 36-year old RF, 34-year old LF, and soon to be 33-year old 3B. Even Gerald Laird is 30.
Fernando Rodney was 32 most of last season, his best in his career. Valverde is just a month younger than Brandon Lyon at 30. So it’s not like they signed an old timer here. They got younger even at the closer spot.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Definitely
I can excuse the Everett deal as decent because we signed him for 1.5M and it was only for 1 year. It’s the outfield that kills me. More than anything, I think it’s the fact that besides Ajax, we will be throwing two decrepit, poor defensive players in the corners. I was glad to see Lyon and Rodney go, particularly since I see relievers as entirely fungible (if you hadn’t figured that out yet). Although there may be a few bumps along the way, the difference between a cheap young RP and an experienced on are fairly minimal over the course of the season, so I’d always rather see the cheap guys out there so that we can spend out money on some serious talent in the field. Maybe it isn’t that we’re trying to get younger so much as I thought DD was trying to bring in value guys—players that don’t cost a whole lot but bring more to the team than we signed them for. And that’s where I see the Valverde signing as a failure. He will definitely bring some entertainment to the games, though.
Totally respect your opinion
And I am 100% with you in preferring the cheap guys… but it’s hard to get cheap guys who can pitch like Valverde. We could wait around and hope to get a gem like the Royals did with Soria (and who knows, we could have that in Perry), but I’m excited that we got a proven commodity in Valverde and can now allow Perry and others to blossom as middle relievers — making our bullpen lethal if they do come into fruition.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Also, trading Granderson
doesn’t mean they’ll be better either. At least not this year. It’s likely that these young guys will need a year or two to truly develop into solid major leaguers.
Yes
But Valverde’s true talent is evident in his career 10.96 K/9 and 3:1 K/BB ratio. Saves are irrelevant – dude can pitch.
I never said he couldnt
He can pitch. He is a GOOD pitcher. In fact, he is a very good relief pitcher. But his contribution to the team is not worth 7 million.
I don't understand
This obsession with value at this point in the offseason. For most tiger fans, we weren’t wondering if we would “overpay” a free agent so much as wondering if we would “pay” any free agent. Unlike in fantasy baseball, in Major League Baseball there are unequal and undefined resources. That’s why the Yankees go to the playoffs every year. Was Valverde statistically “worth” $7 million per? No. But our team decided to make a late-offseason improvement rather than pocket the money, so I’m happy with it. Heck, we might make more moves, because again, resources are not limited or defined. I’d be an even bigger fan of this if we also got a LF bat.
In the end, all that matters is wins and losses. Do we have infinite resources? No. But I’d rather we spend more than less. I don’t care if Mr. Illitch earns more dollars than he puts in. If I did, I’d be a huge fan of the Marlins and A’s. But I’m a Tigers fan, and I care more about winning on the field than in the accounting office.
A lifelong Tigers fan
The obsession is
that baseball is like any other business. And it’s stupid to hire some slob for 100K/year at your office when he isn’t worth more than 50K, because A) he doesn’t actually contribute enough to be worth it, and b) he hurts your businesses chances of spending money in other ways that may be more effective. It’s the same with ballplayers. I want to see a winner as much as the next guy, buts it’s ludicrous to think that its okay to spend whatever on whomever. That’s why the Mets have a huge payroll every year (much like the Tigers) and never actually do anything. We are quickly becoming the AL version of the Mets. We may be spending more money, but I argue that we aren’t really getting any better.
Waka waka waka
Haha, I should have known better than to try to persuade a muppet!
A lifelong Tigers fan
Yeah, you're right
Since it’s not my money, Illitch should just throw it around according to whatever whims he may have that day. And he should, as should we all, completely trust dombrowski to always be right with the moves he makes. That’s why Dontrelle’s contract isn’t so bad, eh?
Overpaid?
My only thought on the subject of whether the Tigers overpaid would be to ask, who were they bidding against? Mostly themselves I would imagine. Recent reports I saw stated the Cardinals were the only other serious bidder and that they were “nowhere near” $7MM per year. The DBacks dropped out and Houston has Lyon and Lindstrom so there was no market there. But who knows, all speculation I suppose.
by jelletlambie on Jan 15, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Papa Grande - Better Ingredients. Stranger Signing.
by caeg68 on Jan 15, 2010 10:55 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Hahaha. I like this.
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.
Signing a closer for this roster is like owning a sports car when you only drive on two tracks
sure he’ll look good but there’s not a lot of purpose on an 81 win team.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 11:51 AM EST via mobile reply actions 1 recs
Whatever........
we have one of the highest payrolls in MLB AND we just signed THE PREMIER CLOSER of this FA market. We are going to be awesome this year and easily win the central, and Valverde was that player that is going to get us there……….
Yeah
but if 81 wins is your baseline, you and add/subtract 4 or 5 wins due to randomness and luck. With that in mind, with good luck this could be an 86 win team which just might be enough to win this division. It almost was in ’09.
then you're asking the team to outperform two years in a row
sure it can be done. but that’s asking an awful lot.
interesting article, by the by.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
84-88 on the win curve is the most expensive wins to add. Still, that is only around 5 mil per win and we’re paying over that. It’s just not a good allocation of funds in my opinion.
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 a fan of this signing because i think we still need a bat
but, yahoo is reporting that might not be a problem. Johnny damon might be signing to play left field.
I Like Pie
Please don't call things "hott"
Or “hot” for that matter. Reminds me too much of Paris Hilton.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 15, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Reserving Judgment
Hard to like the signing at this point. The analogies are aplenty but, it kind of feels like putting a shiny bow on a bad gift. The gift is weak, but hey look at the bow! Having said that, if this is followed up by a significant improvement to the offense, I’m loving the Papa Grande addition. Mr. I and DD have come to realize this is perennially winnable division, even with gaping holes (i.e. the 09 Twins, only because they are most recent). Hopefully he works a little quicker on the mound and wears his hat a little straighter than his predecessor…I can deal with the antics as long as we’re shaking hands
How Accurate Are Any of These Guys?
I don’t mean to be facetious, but I’ve been looking around a little and I can’t find much info on the past performance of any of these prognosticators. If I don’t know what Kurt Mensching’s (to pick on someone) WARG rating (‘wins above random guess) for the past couple years, how can I take his arguements seriously? Is there someplace I can go to find out how accurate some of these experts have been over the last 10-15 seasons? Does anyone keep a historical record of predicting performance? How accurate are they…a couple wins+-? Does anyone have a record of predicting playoff teams or even attendance/revenue generation? All these guys are just throwing up crap and I don’t know who to take seriously!
cool thing about SBNation is that search bar in the corner.
go look it up and start some writer stats.
My Music: Now on last.fm!!
My Blog: Inside A Head
Terribly inaccurate
I won’t speak for others, but my track record (at Take 75 North) feels like it is pretty terrible. I don’t see how that’s all that relevant, though. People are making arguments about this move in particular. I don’t see how hating the Jackson-Joyce trade or giving a shoulder shrug to the Washburn move affects arguments raised about this move.
by mattintoledo on Jan 15, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
It would seem to matter to me...
Just like a player, if someone has a history of decent production/prediction, I would be able to infer that person is generally well informed, thoughtful, has researched his arguements, has his decision making priorities in order, etc. All stuff that would help me in judging the validity of his points. I’m not going to waste my time listening to my mother rattle on about the Tigers when history has shown she don’t know squat.
I can’t listen/read every commentator on the internet, I’d like to have some information on who’s just trolling for reactions and who I could learn something from.
I can guarantee this...
All you have to do is look at the number of comments I generate and I can unequivocally say I am not just trolling for reactions.
Seriously, though, you can put together a very reasonable argument about the wisdom of a move and have it turn out to be terribly inaccurate. Results based judgment of a writer is probably about as bad an idea as results based judgment of pitchers.
by mattintoledo on Jan 15, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
actually, mine's pretty damn accurate you'll find if you read over a long period of time
No, I don’t know how the Tigers will do this year. They could be good. They could be average. But they won’t be bad. My gut tells me they can compete for the division title. (So does (did?) PECOTA, although it does not seem to like Porcello in the rotation and nipped several wins off the Tigers’ total in the past few days.) I’ll pencil them in for 84-86 wins this year, which very well might be enough to make the playoffs in a rather balanced American League Central.
Most likely? I’m going to put the Tigers at 17-15 from here on. That gives them an 86-76 record.
Actual result? 86-76, the 77th loss in the one-game playoff.
there are qutie a few others where those came from
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Sorta what I'm looking for...
Obviously I can’t go back and try to read all the posts of the above quoted experts over a long period of time. I just thought given the love of stats by these people that there would be a place that keeps stats on the stats. It would be nice to know who uses what methods and how accurate they are over a period of time.
I did find this 2009 PECOTA Central Projection
Thanks for the PECOTA clue…this is from the SB nation version of the Royals site with what they say PECOTA projected for the 2009 Central Division..
Here is PECOTA’s guess regarding the Central:
Cleveland: 84-78
Minnesota: 79-83
Detroit: 78-84
Kansas City: 75-87
White Sox: 74-88
I don’t think there’s single team in the right spot. Sorry but this is all getting very confusing.
that's why I think you have to use it as a starting point
I like to use PECOTA, it’s pretty good actually. It called the 2006 Tigers being a team to watch when most “experts” were picking them last. It picked the White Sox winning the year before. It picked the White Sox falling apart in 2007 (or was it 08?) It’s a great baseline.
But you have to look at its assumptions — and this stands for all computer projections, both team and individual — and adjust them yourself based on other information.
How well you do that (and how much good and bad luck cancels out) will decide how good you do at predicting.
I think longtime readers of mack avenue tigers will tell you i’m uncannily good at reading the tea leaves, but no one is perfect.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
It was in 2008 (the ChiSox collapse)
And I’d echo what Kurt said- PECOTA can’t pick all breakouts and all collapses.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 15, 2010 6:42 PM EST up reply actions
I guess I was under the wrong impression...
Given the absolute declaritive statements made by so many people quoting these stats and the levels of condescension towards those that don’t use them, I was under the impression the models weren’t quite so narrow and the variances weren’t quite so large.
I guess what I’m finding out is not too many people are as expert as they claim…pretty shocking eh?
Any day of the week I’d take most of them over the “experts” the media trots out. Just a small example, but most in the media thought the Tigers were bound for last place and a mid-May fire sale, but I don’t think a lot of people around here thought that was going to happen.
But were a lot of people quoting computer predictions, or were they quoting stats (which are nothing more than a recording of what actually occurred) and using them to infer a future? I don’t remember a lot of use of PECOTA projections in the debates I’ve seen on BYB. WAR (wins above replacement), simply put, is telling you the win value of what actually happened, based first on actual events on a baseball field and using historical data to convert that into how many runs that is typically worth. Then you convert the runs into wins based, again, on historical data.
So what I think you’ll find annoys the statistically minded is the Tigers are spending more to assure the ninth inning has a name-closer in it than they are spending on shortstop. Yet which affects the season more? Shortstop.
If the Tigers knew they were going to have $14 to $23M to spend over the next two years, why not invest more of it into bigger needs?
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not one to quote stats at people...
there are lots of people around here to do that for me. But like Kurt said above, stats are just recording of what occurred. In regards to the Tigers, I watched nearly every game, without quoting stats at you I can pretty much say that my gut opinion on what’s going on can pretty pretty accurate to whatever that stats are saying because I essentially watched the stats get made.
Now I’m not claiming to be an expert in anyway. I watch the Tigers, pretty much exclusively. In regards to this trade I can only base my judgment of the signing upon what I know about the Tigers. The system overall is weak in positional players, a first round draft pick would’ve helped that. The Tigers have a bunch of relievers already but not alot in the other positions on the field. A left handed bat of a pretty good SP would have been smarter ways to spend money. And just as a more personal feeling about this, I hate to think the Grandy got traded to the yankee’s just to free up money to sign a player who doesn’t fill an area of our greatest need.
Am I right about this? I don’t know. The Tigers could be a nice surprise to even the most optimistic of us for all I know. But based upon what I’ve seen from the Tigers of last year, what I know about the Tigers of now, I see no reason whatsoever to like this move.
My Music: Now on last.fm!!
My Blog: Inside A Head
Don't think of the Grandy trade...
as freeing money up to sign Valverde. It was its own separate transaction that does not correlate. It looks that way, and might be hard not to think of it that way, since Grandy was traded first and then the signing happened, but especially since there is no salary cap, the Tigers could have just as easily signed Valverde without ever trading Grandy. Try to think of the Valverde deal by itself before trying to justify it along the lines of the Granderson trade.
Another thing… the Tigers system has been weak in positional players for years. The Tigers have put themselves in that position by drafting 14 pitchers with their first round picks since 1990. And just because they don’t have the 19th pick anymore, doesn’t mean they can’t draft positional players with their 2 comp picks. Those picks come in between round 1 and 2. That’s anywhere from 14-20 slots away from 19… not that big of a difference given there are over 1,500 players drafted once the draft is complete. The Tigers have proved that they have done a good job finding talent in later rounds lately (and remember Porcello fell to 27)… if they are scouting diligently, they’ll get a couple guys in the sandwich round just as valuable as a guy they could have gotten at 19
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
I understand that there is no cap...
but it doesn’t mean that the owner of a team is just willing to spend away. You have to connect the trade of Grandy and other following moves because despite our owners desire to win, he’s only going to spend so much to do so and considering how much money he’s already spending I bet this trade doesn’t happen if some money wasn’t cleared off the books.
With that said I think the trade was made to infuse some young, MLB ready pitching into it’s major league roster. Any money cleared up was icing on the cake of that goal. It’s obvious with this signing that there is no fire sale. So after the trade I must now assess what the Tigers do any or all the money that they cleared up. You know my assessment of that. I won’t continue to blabber on about it.
My Music: Now on last.fm!!
My Blog: Inside A Head
CHONE's projections are good to look at too
They all are, actually. You should never restrict yourself to looking at just one projection system.
a good point
looking at the average for the top prediction systems is a nice way to go, too.
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 15, 2010 9:22 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, save for the Bill James projections. The optimism in them really make me unable to take them seriously.
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 15, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
Am I the only one who thinks...
That if it had been the Sawx or Yanks making this same deal for this same guys, the national media would have loved it?
And as for all us Tiger fans, well, I think we’re used to thins like this not working out. If he comes out and pitches to his ability, it will be money well spent.
by crwi on Jan 15, 2010 1:16 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
That's because the national media is a bunch of dimbulbs.
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
You know why there's been such a negative reaction to the Tigers making this move?
I don’t get your point with the Yanks or Sox. Both have closers, and even if we are to assume that one of those two teams had an opening, then yes there would be a much better reaction to the move by the media. You know why? Because both those teams are markedly better than the Tigers, and neither team has made any move where they trade one of their best players due to financial problems, and them use that money to acquire a closer.
The Tigers are not a team that’s going to do all that much winning in 2010. Wasting 14 million and a draft pick on a closer is not smart at all. It’d be different if it were Boston or NY, because this would be the sort of move to help finalize the roster. You know, because those teams (among others) are legitimate championship contenders.
by FloridaownsFSU on Jan 16, 2010 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I really hope this move works out.
Because I am a fan of the Tigers but just because I hope there are positive results does not mean I like the signing.
Hold the Phone
Ok, I think we are all Friday Morning Quarterbacking here. Regardless of what they spent., the tigers went out and got a proven closer. There are not a lot of relief pitchers out there that has the mentality to close out a ball game. Its not the same as pitching in the 6th or seventh inning. Yes they gave up a 1st round draft pick. A pick that no one knows who it would’ve been and no one knows if the draft would’ve made the club. And even if he did, were talking a few years down the line. Who is going to close? Zoom Zoom? Thats possible but what if he gets hurt again or cant handle the pressure? Ryan Perry? Thats also a possibility, but, he’s a rookie he could also fold. So they went out and got someone who is proven. Yes, the Tigers are going to have to fill a couple of holes in the next couple years. But, I’ve got to believe they have the pitching of the future, hopefully a 2nd basemen of the future and they certainly have the outfieders of the future. They are a little short at catcher, 3rd base, and shortstop. With all that said, I believe they have increased thier chances of being competitive in 2010. Although they could still use a veteran lefty bat. Thoughts?
by blueleo on Jan 15, 2010 1:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I understand this line of logic
But at the same time, Valverde doesn’t make us younger like DD wanted, and it doesn’t really make us that much better. Proven Closers are great, but when you’re dealing with a team that has question marks at DH, LF, CF, and 2B, spending on that Proven Closer becomes kind of ridiculous. I mean, if you’re going to give up the first-rounder, at least do it for a player that will have a legitimate impact- sign Matt Holliday for goodness sakes.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 15, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
DD wants in
He’s trying hard right now to be a part of the contest, and he’s doing all in his power to step out from behind Dayton Moore
I'm totally over this
You all make good points (well, most of you anyway). Bottom line, I can’t wait until April when all of this actually starts to play out. We’ll see how we all feel about this move come October.
Your last line is a tad ridiculous.
Only on the blogs do clubs actually behave in that fashion. The Tigers signed a relief pitcher the casual fan has likely never heard of, with the intention this will put butts in the seats? That really doesn’t make any sense at all.
It's a business.
I was leaning toward skipping my trips to Lakeland in March, but in the last couple of days I find myself rethinking the idea. I want to see what this team will be like. Maybe one of DD’s goals is to win some games and pack the park. (Well, duh Watson!)
Here' how Useless Today explains it.....
The Tigers will shell out $7 million this year to have Jose Valverde close games for them, but the hit on the club’s expenditures is going to be less.
The Tigers reportedly have agreed to a two-year deal for $14 million with a $9 million option for a third season, pending the completion of a physical for Valverde, who saved 25 games for the Astros last season despite missing two months because of a bad calf muscle.
By signing him, Detroit gives Houston its choice in the first round of the draft, the 19th overall selection. Not having a No. 1 means the Tigers don’t have to pay the $4-plus million it took them to sign right-hander Rick Porcello in 2007 and right-hander Jacob Turner in 2009.
That reduces the net cost of signing Valverde for the first year of his deal to about $3 million for a season’s worth of saves.
That savings would be partially offset by the cost of the two supplemental choices the Tigers have between the first and second rounds for the departure of free agent relievers Brandon Lyon and Fernando Rodney. Detroit can be expected to follow recent trends here and take two players who fall out of the first round because of perceived signing difficulties, then sign them
that is certainly one way of looking at it
Although the assumption the Tigers would spend Porcello money on the 19th pick is a bit too far for my tastes because they have the 19th pick. I’d expect they’d spend more like Perry money, which is half of that. A Porcello dropping that far is not going to happen every year, especially with MLB teams valuing the draft higher than in past years. Guys that might have dropped are being drafted and signed now.
And we also have to remember that the Tigers are giving up a cost controlled player. Just like paying Porcello all that money up front meant they are paying a very good pitcher less money than he’s worth for a few years, giving up a first round pick means they’ll be giving up the opportunity to save money on a player over the next few years. (that’s where the 5 M surplus figure comes in).
All your favorite Tigers blog are belong to me.
Bless You Boys.com -- MackAvenueTigers.com
by Kurt Mensching on Jan 17, 2010 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bless You Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
