Unit deal done, pending contingencies

OP
OP
K

Kolo

Registered User
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
3,820
Reaction score
0
AZZenny said:
Speaking only for myself, I am distressed by the offseason thus far because:

We have a so-so pitcher with some questions about his health signed to an overly-rich, overly long contract.

We have a potential slugger with significant injury history signed to an overly rich, overly long contract.

We have a fan-favorite infielder with declining speed and skills signed to an overly rich, overly long contract.

We have a light-hitting defensively-useless veteran catcher signed - for some reason that escapes me.

We are shipping out the greatest lefty starter alive, and reportedly we are saving his salary to invest in really good young players.

But wait - we are spending that 'saved' salary on a decent-hitting but at this point grotesquely overpaid outfielder on the downside of his career. (Shawn Green is not as 'youthful' as Finley, for sure.) We will apparently offer that OF a lucrative contract extension - if you think Green is going to take a big pay cut to come here, think again. (By domino effect, I look for Gonzo to seek a similar contract/extension by mid-season if he's at all healthy.)

We are getting an arbitration-eligible pitcher we once traded away, who thus far remains more potential than realization, and who has an unusual arm injury doctors aren't even sure how to evaluate or treat. (I bet they'll sign him to a multi-year deal before ST is over.)

So rather than seeing inflated payroll moved off the books in 2005/2006 so we can slim down and go after real young talent, we will have a load of payroll tied up over the next 4 years on guys who were not our first choices, several on the declining side of their careers, and three of whom have known serious injury histories.

Maybe we'll be lucky - But if we're unlucky at all, we've once again strapped ourselves down financially so it'll be hard to recover from our mistakes.

Oh yeah - we have a defensively sound, light-hitting infielder signed to an appropriate contract. If the Royce Clayton signing is the best deal cut thus far, we're not doing that well.


You don't just see our glass half empty, you see it scattered in shards on the kitchen floor. My unsolicited advice? Get a new glass, fill it up w/ Guiness, and hope for the best.
 

sly fly

Devil Me This
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Posts
2,469
Reaction score
0
Location
N. Phx
AZZENNY...

Why do you care so much about payroll? Who gives a flying monkey if these guys want to spend THEIR money?

All I'm concerned about is the product on the field at the present. And, presently, it's a helluva lot better than last year.

Without these moves, every prognosticator would be predicting a dead last finish for our Dbacks.

Just remember the titles/pennants this franchise has won in such a short time. And, give them a "little" credit for going out and trying to improve this team. Also, I'm personally glad the RJ saga is coming to a close. After all... he's the one who wanted out so he could gravy-train off the Yankee mystique.
 

boondockdrunk

Resident Drunkard
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Posts
1,582
Reaction score
40
I hate to see RJ go... he might be the best pitcher I will ever see pitch. But I am not going to be mad at him for wanting to leave. I mean he wants some records and he would have a better chance at reaching them if he was on the Yanks.

Dont forget that this organization would be nothing if we didnt get RJ to pitch for us in 1999. He made this organization a winner, and I will be always be thankful for that.
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
sly fly said:
AZZENNY...

Why do you care so much about payroll? Who gives a flying monkey if these guys want to spend THEIR money?

Not AZZENNY, but it is because the fans know roughly how much they will spend, and can see that there are better ways to improve the team than giving $16M of the budget to Green.
 

AZZenny

Registered User
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
9,235
Reaction score
2
Location
Cave Creek
it is because the fans know roughly how much they will spend, and can see that there are better ways to improve the team than giving $16M of the budget to Green.

LOL - Thanks! It's the short-sighted 'penny-wise/pound foolish' approach that bothers me. I think if you follow the minors closely, as I do, you tend to look ahead, not just see the coming season. However, I understand that having royally and publically screwed up the concept of rebuilding last season, the owners feel pressure to put something at least watchable on the field. I'm sure I'll be more grateful come summer. :D

I'd be OK with these players if the money was spent more prudently and the maximum years given to older, injury-prone, or mediocre guys were 2 , and they called it an interim plan. Even then, I don't see how spending Unit's money on Green, PLUS adding more years, benefits the team. We're effectively out of the running for any big-time young-stud FA for the next few years, 'cause we just promised the dough elsewhere.
 
OP
OP
K

Kolo

Registered User
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
3,820
Reaction score
0
AZZenny said:
it is because the fans know roughly how much they will spend, and can see that there are better ways to improve the team than giving $16M of the budget to Green.

LOL - Thanks! It's the short-sighted 'penny-wise/pound foolish' approach that bothers me. I think if you follow the minors closely, as I do, you tend to look ahead, not just see the coming season. However, I understand that having royally and publically screwed up the concept of rebuilding last season, the owners feel pressure to put something at least watchable on the field. I'm sure I'll be more grateful come summer. :D

I'd be OK with these players if the money was spent more prudently and the maximum years given to older, injury-prone, or mediocre guys were 2 , and they called it an interim plan. Even then, I don't see how spending Unit's money on Green, PLUS adding more years, benefits the team. We're effectively out of the running for any big-time young-stud FA for the next few years, 'cause we just promised the dough elsewhere.

Yea, let's save our dough just in case Ben Sheets becomes a free agent in a few years and really wants to pitch in AZ for $15 million a year, and suck in the meantime.
 

Evil Ash

Henchman Supreme
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
9,757
Reaction score
1,987
Location
On a flying cocoon
Hugh Jass said:
Yea, let's save our dough just in case Ben Sheets becomes a free agent in a few years and really wants to pitch in AZ for $15 million a year, and suck in the meantime.

LOL. Yeah I'm not a big fan of that approach. Some people seem to fall in love with the Billy Bean type of approach of getting prospects and hoping that they will do well but fail to come to realization that Moneyball has won exactly NOTHING. Good prospect does NOT mean they'll be a good pro.

Did we make wise moves? I believe so, I think even if we do this trade it helps us. Did we overpay for free agents? No, the market is what determines what a player is worth not you and me and the market said we paid exact value for both Glaus and Ortiz (whether people want to agree with that or not).

Green will NOT be signed to a contract even close to the value that he signed his last one. It will probably be in the $8 mill a year range
 
Last edited:

AZZenny

Registered User
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
9,235
Reaction score
2
Location
Cave Creek
I recall that last year people were really hot to get Vlad Guerrero... too bad, no dough! There have been several top FA out there this season - alas all Boras clients it seems - and other teams with some cash reserves can bid for guys like Pavano (although I think he's probably a little bit overrated), Delgado, Beltran, Renteria - really, I'm not saying count only on prospects. Just not convinced you need to spend like it's burning a hole in your pocket. The Moneyball part I wholeheartedly endorse is: shop very carefully. Have a plan. Do your research. Be creative getting what you need.

Be very happy to munch crow if this team gels and really competes - but think I'll still work on my "I told you so" dance outfit just in case.

btw - obviously I'm in a minority and the owners apparently do know how to entice most fans.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
16,670
Reaction score
15,017
Evil Ash said:
Did we make wise moves? I believe so, I think even if we do this trade it helps us. Did we overpay for free agents? No, the market is what determines what a player is worth not you and me and the market said we paid exact value for both Glaus and Ortiz (whether people want to agree with that or not).


By this logic, everyone is paid fair market value, and nobody ever gets overpaid. I know you don't believe this is true. Plenty of players get contracts far above and below their market value.
 

Ryanwb

ASFN IDOL
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
35,576
Reaction score
6
Location
Mesa
ASUCHRIS said:
Plenty of players get contracts far above and below their market value.
Friggen Matt Clement got a huge pay day and he still hasn't done squat in this league
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
Evil Ash said:
LOL. Yeah I'm not a big fan of that approach. Some people seem to fall in love with the Billy Bean type of approach of getting prospects and hoping that they will do well but fail to come to realization that Moneyball has won exactly NOTHING. Good prospect does NOT mean they'll be a good pro.

Did we make wise moves? I believe so, I think even if we do this trade it helps us. Did we overpay for free agents? No, the market is what determines what a player is worth not you and me and the market said we paid exact value for both Glaus and Ortiz (whether people want to agree with that or not).

Green will NOT be signed to a contract even close to the value that he signed his last one. It will probably be in the $8 mill a year range

Making the decision to NOT trade for a $16M underachiever isnt Moneyball (I personally cant stand moneyball), its common sense. There are better options to spend that available money on.
 
Last edited:

Evil Ash

Henchman Supreme
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
9,757
Reaction score
1,987
Location
On a flying cocoon
ASUCHRIS said:
By this logic, everyone is paid fair market value, and nobody ever gets overpaid. I know you don't believe this is true. Plenty of players get contracts far above and below their market value.

True to a point. In all honesty I think most MLB players are overpaid.

What I mean by market value is if you are bidding up against other teams, what other teams are willing to pay to get that certain player. In order to get that player then you have to pay just above what other teams are willing to give him. There are times where teams simply give in to the agent (ie. the ARod deal) and don't go what with the market value gives.

Of course, I'm talking more about players that have produced and their value is based on production. When talking about players get deals based purely on their potential (i.e. the Matt Clement deal) those market values can often be sketchy and are overvalued.

For both Glaus and Ortiz, I feel the Dbacks paid about what they should
 
Last edited:

Evil Ash

Henchman Supreme
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
9,757
Reaction score
1,987
Location
On a flying cocoon
coyoteshockeyfan said:
Making the decision to NOT trade for a $16M underachiever isnt Moneyball (I personally cant stand moneyball), its common sense. There are better options to spend that available money on.

Like what exactly?

I think the main reasons we are taking Green is that 1) he fills a need
and 2) its the only way we're going to get the RJ trade to work (to trade a big money contract, you have to receive one in return)
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
Evil Ash said:
Like what exactly?

I think the main reasons we are taking Green is that 1) he fills a need
and 2) its the only way we're going to get the RJ trade to work (to trade a big money contract, you have to receive one in return)

Well, first off, I am not convinced we need to dump RJ (but Im not on the inside so I dont know that for sure). So I dont think we should get rid of him unless the deal is right. Second, if you are dealing with the Yankees, no, you probably dont have to take on a big money contract. Green does fill a need, but at too great a price, so we should be looking at other options to fill that need. I dont think I need to remind you that we have plenty more holes to fill, so giving one underperforming (but still decent) player that big of a piece of the pie when that money needs to be spread around to cover other areas doesnt make any sense.
 

Evil Ash

Henchman Supreme
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
9,757
Reaction score
1,987
Location
On a flying cocoon
coyoteshockeyfan said:
Well, first off, I am not convinced we need to dump RJ (but Im not on the inside so I dont know that for sure). So I dont think we should get rid of him unless the deal is right.

Thats fair but him only wanting to go only to Yankees hurts us in this regard. If he really wants to go (as some reports say) then you have to take the best deal available and this is it.

Second, if you are dealing with the Yankees, no, you probably dont have to take on a big money contract.

See this where the complications of being in a 3 team trade come about. We aren't just trading with the Yankees, we are also trading with the Dodgers in order to get players that we actually like and can fill the trade.

The Yankees have nothing we want in return and the Dodgers are doing this deal to lower their payrole to make FA moves. In order for that to happen we had to take Green's deal

Green does fill a need, but at too great a price, so we should be looking at other options to fill that need. I dont think I need to remind you that we have plenty more holes to fill, so giving one underperforming (but still decent) player that big of a piece of the pie when that money needs to be spread around to cover other areas doesnt make any sense.

1) The only player that we can afford to fill that need without getting rid of Randy's contract is Jeremy Burnitz. Personally given the choice between the 2 I'd pick Green everytime.

2) Lets not be too overdramatic here. I mean Green's deal ends this year and his extension will not be close to the value of his previous contract due to his lack of production the past couple of years
 
Last edited:

MaoTosiFanClub

The problem
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Posts
12,801
Reaction score
6,820
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
Why do people still think that not trading Johnson is an option? The guy has been bitching and moaning for a trade for the past eight months. Yeah, I guess we could hold onto him through the season since he's contractually bound to us. That way we can watch him mope through 162 games and walk at the end of the year for nothing. Great idea. :rolleyes:
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
Evil Ash said:
1) The only player that we can afford to fill that need without getting Randy's contract is Jeremy Burnitz. Personally given the choice between the 2 I'd pick Green everytime.

2) Lets not be too overdramatic here. I mean Green's deal ends this year and his extension will not be close to the value of his previous contract due to his lack of production the past couple of years

Ah, but would you rather have Green or Burnitz and 12 million or so to improve the team elsewhere? And yes, Green only having one year left is a good sign, but if he wants an extension in order to waive his NTC, where does that put guys like Carlos Quinten, who chances are will be ready in a year or two? Id rather not have the Diamondbacks not give out large/long contracts to guys like Green given the circumstances.
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
MaoTosiFanClub said:
Why do people still think that not trading Johnson is an option? The guy has been bitching and moaning for a trade for the past eight months. Yeah, I guess we could hold onto him through the season since he's contractually bound to us. That way we can watch him mope through 162 games and walk at the end of the year for nothing. Great idea. :rolleyes:

And Im sure he told you that he wants out over dinner last night, right? Nobody knows for sure what he really wants except for him and the front office. It seems like every few days theres a new "report" on what RJ wants in the papers, contradicting another one. He's a professional, I doubt he'd tank the season if he wasnt traded. I believe in making the right deal. Shawn Green is not the right deal.
 
Last edited:

Evil Ash

Henchman Supreme
Joined
Jun 26, 2003
Posts
9,757
Reaction score
1,987
Location
On a flying cocoon
coyoteshockeyfan said:
Ah, but would you rather have Green or Burnitz and 12 million or so to improve the team elsewhere? And yes, Green only having one year left is a good sign, but if he wants an extension in order to waive his NTC, where does that put guys like Carlos Quinten, who chances are will be ready in a year or two? Id rather not have the Diamondbacks not give out large/long contracts to guys like Green given the circumstances.

I think there must be a communication breakdown here. The $12 million to improve the team is NOT an option

The reason we can take someone like Green's contract is that we are getting rid of RJ's deal. We aren't increasing the payrole if the rumors are that the Yankees will pay the difference in salaries and even if those rumors aren't true then we increased payrole slightly.

If we kept RJ's salary and signed Burnitz we are increasing the payrole meaning we do NOT have extra money to spend elsewhere.
 

coyoteshockeyfan

Fool In The Rain
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Posts
8,942
Reaction score
405
Evil Ash said:
I think there must be a communication breakdown here. The $12 million to improve the team is NOT an option

The reason we can take someone like Green's contract is that we are getting rid of RJ's deal. We aren't increasing the payrole if the rumors are that the Yankees will pay the difference in salaries and even if those rumors aren't true then we increased payrole slightly.

If we kept RJ's salary and signed Burnitz we are increasing the payrole meaning we do NOT have extra money to spend elsewhere.

I realize that. I meant that we would have that extra money if we traded RJ for something else that DIDNT add up to $16M+ and then signed Burnitz, as opposed to trading RJ for Green.
 

MaoTosiFanClub

The problem
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Posts
12,801
Reaction score
6,820
Location
Scottsdale, AZ
coyoteshockeyfan said:
And Im sure he told you that he wants out over dinner last night, right? Nobody knows for sure what he really wants except for him and the front office. It seems like every few days theres a new "report" on what RJ wants in the papers, contradicting another one. He's a professional, I doubt he'd tank the season if he wasnt traded. I believe in making the right deal. Shawn Green is not the right deal.

I didn't need Randy to tell me, his agent has been telling anyone who will listen that he wants out. Do you really think his agent is just saying these things without Randy's approval or knowledge? It's ludicrous to even think that's a possibility. And I don't know what reports you are seeing, every one since July has been pretty consistent in reporting Unit's desire to play elsewhere.
 
OP
OP
K

Kolo

Registered User
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
3,820
Reaction score
0
The Dodgers submitted their paperwork to the league office via a 2 a.m. fax, so the 72 hour window for extensions begins soon. There'll probably be a happy Christmas in the Unit household and a belated happy Chanukkah in the Green household.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1950729
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
MaoTosiFanClub said:
I didn't need Randy to tell me, his agent has been telling anyone who will listen that he wants out. Do you really think his agent is just saying these things without Randy's approval or knowledge? It's ludicrous to even think that's a possibility. And I don't know what reports you are seeing, every one since July has been pretty consistent in reporting Unit's desire to play elsewhere.

Players pay their agents to do all the dirty work for them. Randy would look like a total jerk telling the media that he wants out.... which is why his agent is doing it for him. I feel absolutely certain that his agent is saying exactly what Randy told him to say.

On the other hand if Randy changes his mind he can always say his agent misquoted him.
 

AZZenny

Registered User
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
9,235
Reaction score
2
Location
Cave Creek
LOL - reportedly a few days ago Kendricks or Joe said that 'what Randy wants depends on which day you talk to him.' The idea of uprooting his family and lifestyle change (no facial hair!!)may trigger some ambivalence as the deal gets closer.

If we hadn't boggled ourselves so badly on the combined Schilling/Sexson deals, we would have probably been more flexible and realistic on dealing RJ. I suspect the F.O. feels they HAVE to have something flashy like Green to trot out there to show that we got 'real value' in return. :rolleyes: That, of course, remains to be seen, and we'll have to check back in a year or two.

Two things I appreciate if RJ is in NY - he'll totally eclipse Pedro, which is hysterically funny; the NY media will implode.
 
Top