Should Mark Grace retire?

[RLakin]

Originally posted by unc84steve
Based on this clubs past generosity, I'm assuming that any "retirement plan" for Mark Grace would include his $1.75 M (which is less than one-sixth of $10 mill--Grace's contract also was negotiated in this year's depressed market BTW).

Again, the past is irrelevant. Nobody would give back money they are entitled to. But nobody is entitled to a roster spot.

Let's agree it was "selfish" for Matt Williams to refuse to "help the Diamondbacks" get a legit cleanup hitter (Larry Walker) by invoking the no-trade clause the club agreed to. (Let's assume the "Larry Walker also vetoed the trade" is polite PR.

Would it not be equally "selfish" for Mark Grace not to "trade" his roster spot for a coaching spot? This would allow a much more productive player like Chad Tracy or Alex Cintron step up. Grace could still help Lyle Overbay, as Matty "mentored" Chad.

If things didn't work out, Mark could "un-retire" like fellow Cubs teammate Ryne Sandberg or fellow Chicago sports legend Michael Jordan.

Sorry, I forgot that Grace muscled the D-Backs for another $750,000. He originally agreed to $1 mill per in a handshake agreement w/ Colangelo. Afterwards, he squeezed the D-Backs after exploiting some limited interest in the bad market that you described. My mistake.

As to the other points, I think you're right on the money. The D-Backs should pursue the promotion of youth in the infield, just as they seem to finally have embraced some of their young arms in the bullpen/pitching staff.

And your assumption about Walker would seem to correct. The Rockies own color commentator confirmed this much when he a told a local radio station that Walker basically agreed to disagree on the trade only after Matt Williams told the Rockies he would not be coming aboard.

Speaking of the trade, I couldn't help but notice this comment:

If you were working for a company and they tried to transfer you, but you had the option of staying in the city you love, where your kids live, would you pass up on that opportunity to please a bunch of people you never met?

Rudy P must have missed the required reading regarding the Williams trade when Matt, himself, states "Right now (my kids are) fine. Right now if I were playing somewhere else it would be fine. I think they could handle it." The article is called "Williams considers a return to S.F. Ex-Giant still close to Baker." It appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 19th 2001. I suggest you read it. Especially when you condemn people and then cite hollow concepts that are contradicted by the very person that you use to allegorize your point, in print.

 

[moviegeekjn]

Originally posted by DWKB
SF, I don't know how you have knowledge of Durazo's little league stats when he was 7 years old (1981?!?) but I'm sure you're right that he wasn't on the DL much that year

Best laugh of the night on the boards. Truly impressive--what is the URL for the T-ball stats on our guys? THAT is some incredible scouting work on SF's part!!!! heh

 

[schillingfan]

Ha!Ha! you guys, 1981 was one of the best years of my life. When you enter old age, your brain is one of the first things to go and you start living in the past.

DWKB, I don't per se have a problem with waiving Grace from a team standpoint. It would get you the benefit of Cintron or Tracy from AAA who may hit better than Grace. That does put quite a load on a rookie, with no real back-up for him. I'd have preferred they said goodbye to Grace over the winter and take his many and give it to Colbrunn.

They could waive Matty and accomplish the same thing, but he is a productive right handed pinch hitter, platoon, so I don't see that would better the team.

The major difference, which I said before and Steve pointedly ignored was that Matty's existence on the team, didn't just block a guy from AAA like Grace's does, but because of the huge salary, he blocked the team acquiring a quality free agent over the winter.

I said at the time of the Walker trade that the stuff about Walker refusing to defer salary was just cover for Matty refusing the trade. I believed at the time that if Walker was really adamant that he didn't want to defer the trade still would have gone through because either the D-Backs couldn't enforce a deferment, or they wouldn't have insisted if they really wanted Walker.

 

[Rudy P]

Originally posted by RLakin

Rudy P must have missed the required reading regarding the Williams trade when Matt, himself, states "Right now (my kids are) fine. Right now if I were playing somewhere else it would be fine. I think they could handle it." The article is called "Williams considers a return to S.F. Ex-Giant still close to Baker." It appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 19th 2001. I suggest you read it. Especially when you condemn people and then cite hollow concepts that are contradicted by the very person that you use to allegorize your point, in print.

1) That quote was from October, 2001. More than a year before the attempted trade was made. Things change in a year. Maybe at that point Williams' kids needed him again. Maybe they didn't. The point is, you can't pull a quote from any time and apply it to a current situation. Things change in a year.

2) The bottom line is, Williams did not want to go, and, thanks to the Arizona Diamondbacks, Williams did not have to go. End of story. Any one of you would have done the same. And BC867, I admire you for flying your kids out there, you seem like a dedicated father, but be honest, if you would have had the option of not going to Albuquerque, would you have gone?

 

[AZZenny]

Not to get in the way of a good hypothetical debate, but...it ain't going to happen. Grace isn't going to retire or be waived (unless he is perhaps given the alternative of the Stottlemyre-Morgan extended vacation plan with a nagging groin pull). Matty isn't going to show a sudden spark of concern for the greater good either, and alas, because he pops up less often in certain situations, the team won't swallow his salary. Short of serious injuries, we don't get to try Tracy and Cintron or Terrero up here until September. btw - all our talk of Colby - he is afflicted with D-Back-batitis right now, too, batting .000 with a .167 OBP in 10 PA. We'd be barking just as hard about the idiocy of resigning an old injured bench player for XX dollars if we had kept him. Absence makes the heart, etc....

The real concern is that almost half our position players are batting below .220. We only have eight guys with OBP above .300. That will continue to kill us, and it has to be realistically, not hypothetically, remedied.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by schillingfan
The major difference, which I said before and Steve pointedly ignored was that Matty's existence on the team, didn't just block a guy from AAA like Grace's does, but because of the huge salary, he blocked the team acquiring a quality free agent over the winter.

Geez, I've been accused of responding imagined points in posts & now I'm told "Steve pointedly ignored" an issue in a post that didn't have my name without my name in it. No chance of that happening here.

Originally posted by schillingfan
I said at the time of the Walker trade that the stuff about Walker refusing to defer salary was just cover for Matty refusing the trade. I believed at the time that if Walker was really adamant that he didn't want to defer the trade still would have gone through because either the D-Backs couldn't enforce a deferment, or they wouldn't have insisted if they really wanted Walker.

If we want to discuss what exactly happened in the Larry Walker for Matt Williams & others trade I'll be happy to start a separate thread. I think it's a diversion to the issue at hand about whether Mark Grace should retire.

Link to "Walker for Williams trade revisted" thread

 

[schillingfan]

Hey Steve, you started the discussion with the question of whether Grace should retire and why do people dog Matty and not Grace when neither are producing.

BTW, you still are ignoring my argument. Do you think the fact that one player blocks a AAA player who never has been considered more than a utility infielder is less significant than blocking the signing of or trade for an impact free agent?

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Hey Steve, you started the discussion with the question of whether Grace should retire and why do people dog Matty and not Grace when neither are producing.

BTW, you still are ignoring my argument. Do you think the fact that one player blocks a AAA player who never has been considered more than a utility infielder is less significant than blocking the signing of or trade for an impact free agent?

You are right; one thing at a time. Let's discuss your argument.

Simple answer: I disagree with your premise, so I'll restate it. I think one player (Mark Grace) blocking a AAA player who can play a variety of positions ("utility infielder" sounds negative) and who wasn't considered much of a prospect until he put together a decent 2002 at AAA, reportedly worked hard in the off-season, had a great Spring Training, and is playing fantastic at AAA is very significant.

Not only is Mark Grace blocking Alex Cintron, but his selfishness is blocking anyone who can take that roster spot, including Chad Tracy. Because, unlike Mark Grace, Matt Williams can play both corner infield positions. That is, unless the purpose of the D'backs is to provide "you never know what to expect" clownish, last place entertainment ala the 1962 Mets by using left-handed 3rd basemen.

Again, if you insist on this claim that Matt Williams is responsible for stopping the club from signing a free agent due to his salary (that is what you are saying, right?) you raise several issues I think might be worth debating in a separate thread. In short, why blame Matty for the club's generosity? Do we blame Finley for signing him? Do we blame Randy for signing him? Do we blame Mantei for the money on him? Womack? McCracken? Grace? Craig Counsell? I don't. I blame the management & fans who ask for these players on the front end and act shocked when the bill comes after the feast.

 

[AZZenny]

I'm not sure why Mark Grace is "selfish" but Q, Matty, Tony, Swindell (who took his fat paycheck for no performance and would have happily clogged a roster spot, I suspect) are any less selfish. It's the same point in the season for all of them. If it's fine for Matty and Tony to ride out their contracts for marginal performance, then it's equally fine for Grace to ride his. Chew out management for a long series of fiscally unsound decisions if you want, but- Oh, wait! - that doesn't give you the same wacko pleasure you get from picking on Mark Grace, does it?

 

[Moose Lady]

In reading all this I have to wonder, where were all you people in 98, 99 when JC was signing all these players for their big salaries? I don't seem to remember many of you back then b!tching and moaning about the salary amount or no trade clauses. So now that we have done exactly what JC set out to do in his 5 yr plan, now everyone is ticked off about having to finish paying these players the rest of their contract. Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways. People back then thought it was great having a baseball team loaded with all the talent that JC got for it. Obviously he signed a couple of them for a little longer and more money than he should have. But would any of you give back the World Series trophy in order to not have to put up with Matty etc this year????? I didn't think so.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by finleyfanatic
In reading all this I have to wonder, where were all you people in 98, 99 when JC was signing all these players for their big salaries? I don't seem to remember many of you back then b!tching and moaning about the salary amount or no trade clauses. So now that we have done exactly what JC set out to do in his 5 yr plan, now everyone is ticked off about having to finish paying these players the rest of their contract. Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways. People back then thought it was great having a baseball team loaded with all the talent that JC got for it. Obviously he signed a couple of them for a little longer and more money than he should have. But would any of you give back the World Series trophy in order to not have to put up with Matty etc this year????? I didn't think so.

Honestly I wasn't a DBacks fan back then as I wasn't living in AZ and didn't really think I would ever move here either.

I do have a question about the implications in your post. I am very greatful for the WS Championship the DBacks won, but I don't see how you can definately say that we won that championship because of the bad contracts.

I think we won it in spite of them. I think we made enough smart signings to counteract the dumb ones. Why do we have to chose both or neither?

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by AZZenny
Oh, wait! - that doesn't give you the same wacko pleasure you get from picking on Mark Grace, does it?

Excuse me? Are you questioning my motives? If so I'll be happy to start a separate threads about whether or not it's fair game to do the following:

1. Discuss the motives of other people who post instead of their arguments.

2. If so, how appropriate the use of the word "wacko" is to be applied to their pleasures or motives to anyone, or to me in particular.

If we're going to about the Arizona Diamondbacks actually trying to win games and a 2003 Championship, then I think the issue of Mark Grace's retirement is relevant. Obviously this is a big "if"

For those who care about 2003, being about the Arizona Diamondbacks too--not just about Mark Grace and his fans--and it can be about both--let's move on.

Originally posted by AZZenny
I'm not sure why Mark Grace is "selfish" but Q, Matty, Tony, Swindell (who took his fat paycheck for no performance and would have happily clogged a roster spot, I suspect) are any less selfish. It's the same point in the season for all of them. If it's fine for Matty and Tony to ride out their contracts for marginal performance, then it's equally fine for Grace to ride his.

Most athletes want to hang on past their time. Heck, outside of sports, bosses approach workers all the time who think they have something to contribute to the organization. But I don't see how this principle "equally" applies to Grace too. The players union never stood for this kind of solidarity. Each case should be handled on an individual basis.

As long as we seem to feel free discussing psychological issues on this forum, the following link might be helpful to many:

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross' "Five Stages of Grief"

 

[BC867]

Originally posted by Rudy P
And BC867, I admire you for flying your kids out there, you seem like a dedicated father, but be honest, if you would have had the option of not going to Albuquerque, would you have gone?

No, of course not, Rudy!

But I didn't say, a couple of years before that, that I'd like to finish my career somewhere besides Phoenix.

It wasn't a case of Matty not being willing to leave Arizona . . . it was him selectively deciding where he would go!

With the no-trade clause, it was his right to do that.

And as a fan, it's my right to resent how it hurt the team!

 

[Moose Lady]

Originally posted by DWKB
Honestly I wasn't a DBacks fan back then as I wasn't living in AZ and didn't really think I would ever move here either.

I do have a question about the implications in your post. I am very greatful for the WS Championship the DBacks won, but I don't see how you can definately say that we won that championship because of the bad contracts.

I think we won it in spite of them. I think we made enough smart signings to counteract the dumb ones. Why do we have to chose both or neither?

That's something (that we won in spite of instead of because of) that I've heard alot of people say in regards to BB and us winning games. Jay was a "bad" contract and he scored the winning run. If you are going to say "in spite of the bad contracts" who all does that encompass? Matty, probably Jay and...........???? Most all of the others that were on the team back then are gone now. Having Matty and Jay were the ones that made the "new" team look better for all the others to want to come to, so that is worth something. If you asked JC, he might very well agree with you that the contracts were too long. OTOH, neither one of them would have signed for just a 1 or 2 yr deal. IMO (and maybe JC's too) winning the WS was worth what we did to get a team together that could go out and win it. How many teams out there have been trying for years and years to win a WS and we did it in only 4 yrs. That should be worth something. My only point was that when we got Matty, Jay etc. no one was complaining that JC gave them more than they worth or signed them for 2 yrs longer than he should have. Of course now it's easier to see what JC did wrong but at the time there wasn't all this complaining. You can't change something after the fact so why bother wasting energy on complaining about it? They were part of the team that won us the WS which I don't think anyone would trade for Matty & Jay. At least I hope not.

 

[BC867]

Originally posted by finleyfanatic
Jay was a "bad" contract and he scored the winning run.

Just for the record, FF. Jay was on base because he couldn't successfully advance the runner on a sacrifice, and bunted into a forceout. It's ironic that failing at something, that he used to do so well, resulted in him scoring the winning run!

It was nostalgic seeing him and Williams (who was on-deck when Gonzo got his Series-winning hit) hugging at home plate. It would have been an ideal moment for them to pass into the sunset!

I wonder if Bell and Williams have ever shared that thought. They could have been poster legends instead of guys who didn't know when to move on!

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by unc84steve
Again, if you insist on this claim that Matt Williams is responsible for stopping the club from signing a free agent due to his salary (that is what you are saying, right?) you raise several issues I think might be worth debating in a separate thread. In short, why blame Matty for the club's generosity? Do we blame Finley for signing him? Do we blame Randy for signing him? Do we blame Mantei for the money on him? Womack? McCracken? Grace? Craig Counsell? I don't. I blame the management & fans who ask for these players on the front end and act shocked when the bill comes after the feast.

Woah, I don't blame Matt Williams for taking the $10 mil, or hate or resent him for it. I thought the question was who is a greater drag on the team and if I could magically wipe someone out of existence, whose non-existence would benefit the team more?

The obvious answer to that question is Williams because of the $10 mil contract. Grace is a small drag on the team's fortunes, Williams a huge drag. Doesn't matter how we got there. Unless your question is a different one, if so then please explain to me what we are debating here.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by finleyfanatic
That's something (that we won in spite of instead of because of) that I've heard alot of people say in regards to BB and us winning games. Jay was a "bad" contract and he scored the winning run. If you are going to say "in spite of the bad contracts" who all does that encompass? Matty, probably Jay and...........???? Most all of the others that were on the team back then are gone now. Having Matty and Jay were the ones that made the "new" team look better for all the others to want to come to, so that is worth something. If you asked JC, he might very well agree with you that the contracts were too long. OTOH, neither one of them would have signed for just a 1 or 2 yr deal. IMO (and maybe JC's too) winning the WS was worth what we did to get a team together that could go out and win it. How many teams out there have been trying for years and years to win a WS and we did it in only 4 yrs. That should be worth something. My only point was that when we got Matty, Jay etc. no one was complaining that JC gave them more than they worth or signed them for 2 yrs longer than he should have. Of course now it's easier to see what JC did wrong but at the time there wasn't all this complaining. You can't change something after the fact so why bother wasting energy on complaining about it? They were part of the team that won us the WS which I don't think anyone would trade for Matty & Jay. At least I hope not.

Personally, I'm very happy that the 11/4/2001 Game 7 9th inning started with Mark Grace getting off a hit of of Mariano "Death to Lefties" Rivera, and ended with Jay Bell in the arms of Matt Williams. These are the "bad guys" of our story, right? (along with Jerry Colangelo who wasted all that money on bad contracts).

I grew up a Cubs fan (last World Champ 1908 ), finleyfanatic a WhiteSox fan (last WC 1917), AZZenny a BoSox fan (last WC 1918 ), schillingfan still is a phillies phan (one WC in their history). DWKB for his stathead smarts, acutally up his own front-end money into this franchise by buying D'back season tickets (he said I could tell--I told him it was dumb--there's a fungible "free market" by the 4th St. garage).

Life is more complex than 100% heroes & villians. For my money & memories, the 2001 D'backs were as close to perfection as anything this side of heaven--over-coming human flaws made it more perfect.

Mark Grace said "they'll have to tear the jersey off my back." That's a good kind of selfishness--the same as our aces who want to stay another inning in the game. I've been skeptical of this Joe DiMaggio "he knew when to get out" mythology. It's the same as Joe D. never being thrown out trying to take an extra base or diving for the ball--the man was afraid of looking bad. IMO, that was selfish and cost the Yankees bases & outs all for his image.

In other words, I completely understand Mark Grace's "selfishness" and it's up to the team & fans to make decisions. Are we writing off the 2003 season? Is Mark Grace on the roster helping or hurting? Would Bob Brenly put the 25th roster spot to better use with Alex Cintron or Chad Tracy? Does someone have the heart or guts to have a beer with Mark Grace to tell him what nobody else will?

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Woah, I don't blame Matt Williams for taking the $10 mil, or hate or resent him for it. I thought the question was who is a greater drag on the team and if I could magically wipe someone out of existence, whose non-existence would benefit the team more?

The obvious answer to that question is Williams because of the $10 mil contract. Grace is a small drag on the team's fortunes, Williams a huge drag. Doesn't matter how we got there. Unless your question is a different one, if so then please explain to me what we are debating here.

If we were debating who's contract we could go back in time to eliminate, sure maybe Matt Williams' would be the choice, but I've heard many times that his contract attracted Steve Finley & Randy Johnson, which led to the priceless "trophy & rings". On the other hand, Mark Grace's was signed this past off-season and could not have jeopardized the 2001 magic season, even in such a what if scenario.

If we're discussing the thread: "Should Mark Grace retire?" I'll be happy to "explain to [you] what we are debating here." If Matt Williams becomes relevant and there's a debate about whether "Grace is a small drag on the team's fortunes [and] Williams a huge drag" I disagree. The money has already been signed over, but the roster spot(s) haven't. So if you don't resent Matt taking the $10 Mil, let's "accept the things [we] cannot change"--i.e. the past. Let's focus on the things we can change--the present and future.

The focus is then who helps the team more on the roster. Intangibles count, both for good and for bad, but so do tangibles. Mark Grace is paid to do three things: hit, field & mentor. He's failing at the first two, has done an excellent job mentoring Lyle Overbay--but he still could do that if he became a coach. Mark Grace could still be the great guy in the locker room. If you look at the stats you'll see this is a classic decline. For some reason, nobody mentioned he lost half a hundred points off his batting average.

Matt Williams on the other hand, despite his usual injury, posted decent on-base & slugging pct figures that fit in with the context of his recent injury-plagued years. He hits lefties. He fields well. Heck, platoon him with the LH-hitting Chad Tracy so Chad can serve his intership, then we can ask Matt to retire if he can't get his batting average over .200

Again, I'm assuming that people here want the D'backs to win games and stay in contention. Then again, it seems that some people think that Mark Grace getting a "fair shot" is more important that the team trying to win in 2003. Is that what this team is all about?

 

[schillingfan]

Steve. here was how you started your original post:

I'm puzzled why on this board Matt Williams gets called a "lineup cancer," and an "oxymoron" as a cleanup hitter, when he leaves 4 men on base, and even has his fielding criticized. Yet on Sunday when we score only once, when Mark Grace leaves 6 men on base in 3 plate appearances (twice: 2-on 2 out, once 2nd & 3rd one out) the announcers say Gracie's "having a tough afternoon" & nothing is said on this board.

So I took your question as "why do people rag on Matty as a lineup cancer and not Grace?" the answer to me is simple, Grace's presence keeps a AAA guy such as Cintron or Tracy in Tucson, Williams's presence keeps a quality free agent from coming here.

Thus if asked should Grace retire or should Williams retire, it's not only a question of Williams' mildly better contribution to the team (right handed platoon) v. Grace's, it's also the financial benefits to be reaped if Williams retires.

I think both should retire, but I'd prefer Matty because of the money could be put to better use. If the question is who should be waived, well then Grace because his contributions are less and money wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Lefty]

I think Ted Williams bowed out with grace. How many players went out on their own terms? As for Grace and Williams retiring. If you were in their shoes would you retire right now? Matt and Mark have been playing baseball all their lives and they still think they can contribute. Calling it quits in April would be too hard for them. Also, I doubt they would give up the money they are making.

 

[moviegeekjn]

Very few players bow out gracefully at the perfect time.... Ted Williams is a great example, and Mark McGwire certainly bowed out at an opportune time, passing up guaranteed mega-millions so that the Cardinals could pick up a quality free agent. But those are exceptional cases.

People can rag all they want... but passing up guaranteed money like that when you have the opportunity to go out and play the game you love.... while thinking every day that perhaps THIS will be the day that you can contribute something towards winnning another game.... is the "normal" behavior for aging athletes. Heck, we all thought Jay Bell was done and should have retired before last year, but he still held on and made the Mets squad this year.

In a perfect world, it would be great to see the home team never make a bad contract.... and to see veteran players bow out at exactly the right time with optimal benefit to the team.... but it just ain't gonna happen... That's hard enough to achieve in Fantasy leagues!

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Steve. here was how you started your original post:
So I took your question as "why do people rag on Matty as a lineup cancer and not Grace?" the answer to me is simple, Grace's presence keeps a AAA guy such as Cintron or Tracy in Tucson, Williams's presence keeps a quality free agent from coming here.

Thus if asked should Grace retire or should Williams retire, it's not only a question of Williams' mildly better contribution to the team (right handed platoon) v. Grace's, it's also the financial benefits to be reaped if Williams retires.

I think both should retire, but I'd prefer Matty because of the money could be put to better use. If the question is who should be waived, well then Grace because his contributions are less and money wouldn't be an issue.

I think we found our misunderstanding:

I assume that somehow the players & Jerry will agree that the players will keep their 2003 money ($10 mil for Matty, $1.75 for Grace). You assume retirement will "save" the club money as well as the roster spot. I'm just talking about the roster spot.

Everything about this organization's loyalty & generosity toward its fans & players tells me that it will still pay the 2003 money.

 

[unc84steve]

I don't know if others care, but I do.

I was listening to Sunday's nitecap vs. the Mets. The announcers noted that in the past 4 AB's, Mark Grace had left runners on base. I wondered if it would be best for the team if he made another out, to make it clear to him and/or others he should retire. I obsess a lot about such things. I wondered if it was a "wacko pleasure."

When the announcers said "Base hit for Grace!" I pumped my fist & was so happy. I don't know why & I don't care--right this second. I know I care about this team and want to see them win. I know rooting for teams is very emotional & irrational, and that makes it great.

Actually, sometimes it drives me crazy when I find myself liking this team. That's baseball.

 

[AZZenny]

and then he gets a HOMER! LOL - Just when I was ready to slide over to the dark side with you on this one, Steve... Guess I'll reserve my disdain for Woefulmack.

There is something about this team that gets into the blood, that wins you over, and of course that is a source of tremendous frustration as well as joy. Last year Curt or Gonzo or someone commented that the D-Backs mean something very special to the city and state, unlike very many other baseball teams, and I think it's true.

I was at the Suns game tonight and was so frustrated by what seemed to be terribly undisciplined play (and lousy umpiring) and of course basketball just isn't baseball -- but damned if they didn't finally nail their own feet to the floor and get 'er done. Afterwards they were saying how as a group they never, ever quit. They never feel like, "OK, we did better than anyone expected, that's good for a young team, but we're done in." I thought, "How like the D-Backs!"