Deal or No Deal Redux

• After discussing it for over a week, the Red Sox have finalized a deal with J.D. Drew for 5 years and $70 million. Drew is a better player than overrated guys like Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano and, despite the fact that he's pretty much the same age (31), he only got a 5-year deal for less money per year than both of the above. Drew's deal seems to me to be much wiser than the Soriano deal and better even than the commitment to Carlos Lee.
  But the aspect of J.D. Drew that could make this deal a mistake is durability. Despite having a great deal of talent (career 286/393/512 hitter with good defense), Drew has only topped 110 games four times in his 9-year career. J.D. Drew for 150 games is a big bargain at $14 million; but if he plays less than 120 games, he's not at all.
  There's been a lot of doubt surrounding the Drew deal, and while some of it is totally justified, I'm going to come down in favor of the deal. It's not ideal to give J.D. Drew a contract stretching into his age 35 season, but it's much more realistic when you consider the going rate for offense in this market. And I'm not quite as pessimistic about Drew's durability as others. Two of Drew's last three seasons have been his most productive; 2004 with Atlanta (305/436/569) and 2006 with the Dodgers (283/393/498). His 2005 in L.A. only saw him play 72 games, but that was mainly due to a broken wrist rather than nagging injuries.
  Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but it seems to me that too much has been made of Drew's lack of durability. It's an issue, but I think it was much more of a problem early in his career rather than in recent years. Yes, he's not going to get any healthier as he ages, but his profile -- an athletic player with good defense and a good batting average -- is a much better bet to age gracefully than the likes of Carlos Lee. Drew is a very patient hitter who should fit in very well in Boston. He'll also have the added benefit of the Designated Hitter, a luxury which he's never had before. That position is currently occupied by David Ortiz, but it would certainly be feasible for the Sox to sacrifice some defense and put Ortiz at first if Drew was day-to-day and couldn't play the field.
  The J.D. Drew deal isn't ideal, and there is the possibility that the Red Sox will regret it, but it makes much more fiscal sense than most of the deals being signed this offseason, including the deal the Sox will eventually reach with Daisuke Matsuzaka.
• It now looks more and more like Manny Ramirez won't be traded. I know -- a couple weeks ago it was supposed to be inevitable, but now it seems totally evitable. The Sox seem to be asking a high price for Manny -- understandable -- and few teams seem willing to meet it. One of the sticking points seems to be Manny's desire for a contract extension. The Sox assure people that Manny won't make any demands if he's traded, but can we really be sure? Manny's contract is only guaranteed for two years and $38 million; not too shabby for an MVP-level hitter in this year's market. But the contract does have club options for 2009 and 2010 at $20 mil. per. No club in their right mind will exercise them, but many clubs fear that Manny will make a stink if they don't. They also fear that Manny may want a big-time contract extension before he agrees to any trade. The Red Sox are providing assurances that this is not the case, and Manny does seem willing to leave Boston by any means, but you can understand a team's hesitation.
  As for me, I've already gone on record that the Sox should keep Manny. The change in economic climate makes his contract almost seem reasonable, and they shouldn't trade him away unless they're getting a big return. They were rumored to be asking the Dodgers for young reliever Jonothan Broxton (one of the best relief prospects in baseball) along with Matt Kemp and either Andy LaRoche or James Loney. This would be a good deal for Boston and a terrible one for L.A. The Dodgers have balked at giving up so much, which surprises me, given that GM Ned Colletti seems to value young talent as nothing more than a Plinko chip on The Price is Right.
• The Red Sox also signed shortstop Julio Lugo to a 4-year, $36 million deal. I've always been a Lugo fan, and have pressed teams for a long time to get him on the cheap from the Devil Rays. Well, apparently, the market has finally agreed with my evaluation of Lugo, despite a very disappointing finish to 2006 with the Dodgers (219/278/267, after hitting 308/373/498 in TB). Lugo is 31 years old, and while this is more money than I would have given him, it's not so bad given the context. The Sox may regret that fourth year, but I think Lugo will keep them happy for three years. He's a strong defender with excellent range, and he hits well for a shortstop. He's a career 277/340/402 hitter, although it should be noted that he's done much better in recent years. He's also a fairly efficient basestealer, going 24/33 (73%) last year.
• The Barry Zito sweepstakes continue, with almost half the teams in baseball expressing interest in one form or another. The only thing we know for sure is that Zito is going to be obscenely wealthy after teh deal is signed. The Mets still look like a good possibility, although the Rangers sound like they're threatening to trump everyone by offering a mega-deal (which worked so well with A-Rod). We don't know anything for sure, and it may be a while yet before Zito (read: Scott Boras) decides.
  There's a real split opinion about Zito among the statheads. I've heard him referred to dismissively as a #3 or #4 starter, which seems harsh, even to me. I've always thought Zito was overrated, since he took home an ill-gotten Cy Young Award in 2003. But I also think he's one of the 10-15 best pitchers in the AL, which sounds more like a #2 than a #4 starter. He won't deserve the contract he gets, and he'll probably be overpaid by as much as $4-5 million per year. He's not the ace that people think he is, but he's not as bad as some think. A lot depends on what you think of his durability (which has been great, but then he's logged a lot of innings on his still-young arm) and which ballpark he ends up in. Arlington would be terrible for Zito, who allows a lot of walks and a lot of home runs. He should be pushing hard for San Diego or New York, somewhere with distant fences and preferably solid defense behind him. It would make a big difference in his ERA.
• The Padres have signed Greg Maddux to a one-year, $10 million deal. In a world where Adam Eaton gets $8 million a year, Greg Maddux is easily worth $10 million, especially when limited to one-year. Petco Park is a great place for Maddux, as he's been giving up more balls in play as he gets older. Home runs plagued him in Chicago, but he looked much better in Dodger Stadium in the last half of 2006. He should provide stability and some league-average innings-munching to San Diego, who could use it behind Jake Peavy, Chris Young, and Clay Hensley. And if some of his brilliant baseball wisdom happens to rub off on the young 'uns, so much the better.
• Vicente Padilla agreed to a 3-year, $34-million contract with the Texas Rangers. He's overpaid, etc. etc., but I think he's overpaid even considering the context. The 29-year-old Padilla has only been a starting pitcher for 5 years, and yet he's only had three healthy seasons. He was productive in Philadelphia in 2002 and 2003, then suffered through two injury-plagued seasons before somewhat rebounding in Texas last year (200 IP, 4.50 ERA). The 4.50 ERA isn't too far off from Padilla's level of real ability (his career ERA is 4.06, compiled mostly in the NL), but the 200 innings is a big leap of faith. It's very arguable that Padilla is worth this much money even if he throws 200 innings of roughly league-average ball, but there's no indication that he'll throw 600 innings over the life of the deal. Padilla's hasn't demonstrated an ability to stay healthy beyond last year, and he has some self-destructive issues. On the field, he allows too many walks and is one of the most hot-headed pitchers in baseball (even Ozzie "Attilla" Guillen called him a headhunter). Off the field, Padilla has a rumored drinking problem that is certainly cause for concern.
  Perhaps I'm making too much of this. It's nice that the Rangers limited his contract to just 3 years, when Ted Lilly and Gil Meche (?!) might get four years. But the Rangers don't have any room for speculation in their pitching staff, and they shouldn't be signing contracts like they're contenders.
• The Cardinals have signed Chris Carpenter to a contract extension/reconstruction that will amount to 5 years and $63.5 million. The money isn't really a problem. Carpenter has proven that he can stay healthy after coming back from Tommy John surgery and withstanding heavy workloads, and if you can get one of the best pitchers in baseball under contract for about $13 mil. per, then you're some kind of miracle worker.
  But Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus put forth an argument that makes sense. Carpenter wasn't due to become a free agent for two more years. The Cardinals were in no rush to sign him up for the 2009-2011 seasons. In fact, considering that Carpenter will be 32 next season and is shouldering a heavy workload, it would seem to be much more prudent for the Cardinals to wait and see what Carpenter looks like in the years to come. It's not the dollars that trouble me -- it's that the Cardinals are playing weather forecaster into the far-too-distant future.
• A small trade was consummated yesterday, with the New York Mets sending young starter Brian Bannister to Kansas City for closer Ambiorix Burgos. I don't really get this from the Mets' point of view. Bannister is young and cheap, and while he's no Cy Young, the Mets need everyone they have to fill out their starting rotation. They don't need a closer; they have Billy Wagner. They could use a young middle reliever with good upside, yes, but I think they need stability in the rotation even more.
  This is a good deal for the Royals, who get a young option for their barren starting rotation. Burgos will be a loss at closer, but it's more of a loss in potential; Burgos was rushed so fast through the minor league system that he still hasn't gotten used to the big leagues (5.52 ERA in '06 along with 16!! HR allowed in just 73.1 IP).
• With Ryan Howard taking home the NL MVP award, Albert Pujols was quoted as saying that the MVP should come from a contending team. One could infer that he was referring to himself. It was an uncharacteristic remark from the usually classy Pujols, and he's since offered an apology to Howard. But the event has gotten a lot of play in the media. This happens every time someone in sports says anything challenging -- it will be mentioned and discussed on hundreds of TV and radio shows within 24 hours. Regardless of what opinion the talking heads (or headless voices) put forth, the quote itself will catch fire and take off regardless of the extent of the remark itself.
  This is silly, and it reminds us how we take sports far too seriously. Pujols got mad (justifiably so, I think) and popped off, making a stupid remark that he shouldn't have said. It was a bad move, but he has at least apologized. Luckily, the rest of us don't have a microphone shoved into our faces when we're in the foulest of moods.
• I heard a rumor that the Reds had offered Mark Loretta a two-year free agent contract. We're talking about the Reds, so we have to step Through the Looking Glass to examine their "logic." Coming into the season, the Reds had Brandon Phillips and Ryan Freel as middle infielders. Since then, they've signed Alex Gonzalez and Juan Castro to be their shortstops (why you need two backup shortstops is beyond me; I'll ask the White Knight). And now they want to bring in another second baseman? As if Phillips and Freel weren't enough?
  But I read somewhere that the justification was that the Reds wanted Loretta to platoon at first base with Scott Hatteberg.
  Do what?
  I know that the Reds think that they need 18 middle relievers and 15 middle infielders, and maybe Humpty Dumpty has assured them of the logic behind that. But I assure you that there is no good reason in this or any reality to make Mark Loretta (285/345/361 in '06, 68 career HR) your first baseman.
  I have to quote a section from Will Carroll's column on Baseball Prospectus here.
  So far, [Cincinnati GM] Wayne Krivsky's not making friends. "He's signing guys no one wants and pushing the bar up." I can't print the rest of the quote from an NL official.
  Thank you, Wayne, for carrying on the proud Cincinnati tradition of Jim Bowden and Dan O'Brien. Somewhere, Marge Schott is smiling.
• Finally, the fate of Barry Bonds, the best hitter available this offseason, is still up in the air. With the Oakland A's going after Mike Piazza as their DH, it looks more and more likely that Bonds' only real home is in San Francisco. Apparently, his agent is throwing around figures like $18 million for a one-year contract. Even Giants' GM Brian Sabean isn't that crazy. Nobody else is interested in Bonds, and everyone knows it.
  It is odd that no one else is (apparently) willing to take a flyer on what will likely be the best bargain of the offseason. The more paranoid observers might conclude that there's a conspiracy to keep Bonds from breaking Aaron's record. That might be a part of the issue, but I don't think it's an organized conspiracy so much as a personal dislike for Bonds and the hoopla he generates. I myself would sign Bonds for my team, but then I've never met the man, nor have I had to deal with his s***. And we've seen many times before that, in sports, self-interest often overcomes personal dislike. For instance, when pitcher Andy Messersmith filed the arbitration case that eventually led to free agency, the owners wanted to blackball him from the game. But Messersmith was still a good pitcher, and Ted Turner spoiled the owners' machinations by signing Messersmith to play for the Braves (Ted was like that).
  An oft-ignored issue was mentioned by Nate Silver at Baseball Prospectus. He put forth the reasonable fear among baseball executives that Barry Bonds may be going to jail. We must remember that there is still a grand jury investigation pending into Bonds' activities, and it's a big possibility that Bonds might be indicted in the near future. There is certainly, as well know, plenty of evidence against him, be it perjury, tax evasion, what have you. And there would be no recompense for an owner who spends $10 million on Bonds only to see him playing for the California Penal League.

Trades, Postings, and Options

• The Yankees traded disgruntled outfielder Gary Sheffield to the Detroit Tigers yesterday for three minor league pitchers. Sheffield, who expressed a strong dislike for many MLB teams, will apprently find temporary happiness in Detroit, where he'll be reunited from the management team (Jim Leyland, Dave Dombrowski) of his Florida Marlin days. Sheffield says that he's happy with the deal, and he's not the kind to hide his true feelings.
  This is a fine deal for the Yankees, who are able to trade excess offense (and $13 million) for some much needed minor league pitching depth. Of the three prospects the Yankees received, Humberto Sanchez is the closest to the majors. Sanchez has very strong minor league numbers and could break into the Yankee rotation as soon as 2007, depending on what happens on the free agent market. He's no superstar, but he's a very valuable young player who gives the Yanks a BIG (and cheap) insurance policy in case Mussina, Johnson, Wright & Co. don't fare very well. The other two pitchers are in the low minors, but even that is a victory; the Yankees don't have too many promising arms anywhere in their system, and any deal that gives them more young options is a good deal.
  As for the Tigers, my feelings are mixed. The three prospects the Tigers lost aren't so much the problem; while Sanchez may turn into a valuable guy, the Tigers are blessed with redundancy in the starting pitching department, and were able to let these guys go. What they needed was offense -- especially a patient hitter with a big OBP. That's Gary Sheffield in a nutshell. Sheffield will give the Tigers a big boost in patience and even more power.
  The only question is how Sheffield will perform. If Sheffield has a big year with Detroit, then you could consider it to be a good deal even if Sanchez does develop well. But that's a big "if;" Sheff is coming off an injury-plagued season that saw his offensive numbers suffer and, at age 38, isn't likely to get much better. It's a big gamble for Detroit, and you have to admire their guts (and their honest evaluation of their problems), but we'll have to wait and pass judgment after we see how healthy (and productive) Sheffield still is.
• The Cardinals re-signed outfielder Jim Edmonds to a two-year contract extension. The club had an option on Edmonds for 2007 but decided to ink him to a new two-year contract. With no center fielder in the system ready to take his job, the Cards apparently decided to take a risk on Edmonds in return for a two-year guarantee of center field stability. The deal will pay him $19 million over the course of the next two seasons. The analysis here is pretty simple: Edmonds will be 37 next year. If he plays up to his reputation, or even slightly below (i.e. his 257/350/471 2006), he'll be worth the money. But if his health deteriorate and injuries start to sap away his skills, it will be a mistake. Knowing what we know now, it's hard to fault for the Cards for locking up Edmonds. But the Cards may be exacerbating their problems by committing more money to a risky, aging player.
• The most puzzling deal so far this offseason is a trade that sent San Diego 2B Josh Barfield to the Cleveland Indians, in return for 3B/OF Kevin Kouzmanoff and pitcher Andrew Brown. This is a total steal for the Indians, who didn't really have a position for Kouzmanoff and had a hole to fill at second base (mission accomplished).
  For the Padres, though, it's more problematic. I can't really pull out my trusty "bone-headed trade" label here, but it's close. The Padres did desperately need a third baseman, and Kouzmanoff fits the bill (offensively; defense may be a stretch). But it seems to me that they traded one problem for another. They filled their hole at third base and created a hole at second base. There's no one ready to step up and replace Barfield. In fact, you could easily argue that Barfield is the more valuable player; he's younger, plays a more valuable position, and already has a good year of major league service under his belt. Kouzmanoff has yet to spend a lot of time in the majors, so we can't get a consistent read on what his offensive capabilities are. He's shown a lot of promise, but it may be a lot to ask for him to play third base everyday.
  The most puzzling thing about all of this is that I didn't know Josh Barfield was on the trading block, nor do I know why he was on the trading block. I know that the Padres needed a third baseman, and yes, GMs already say that "no one is untradeable," but realistically speaking, Barfield is the sort of player you just don't trade, unless you're getting something overwhelmingly superior in return. Barfield is a good hitter at a key defensive position with the potential for improvement. He's still amazingly cheap, with only one year of major league service time. This means that he'll be making the minimum for two years yet and won't be eligible for free agency for another five seasons at least. He's not an MVP or anything, but this is usually the type of player you keep to build a team around. As I said, I could understand trading him for a big-time improvement (say, as part of a deal for A-Rod), but the fact that such a cheap, productive player was sent of for relatively little is puzzling. It's possible that the Padres know more about Kouzmanoff (and Barfield) than I do. It's also possible that Kevin Towers is smoking the same junk that made him trade for Vinny Castilla last year.
  This is what I mean when I say that a GM should "keep his ear to the ground" in regards to trades. A lot of times a previously unavailable player will become available, and it behooves a GM to be the first one to know this. It's also possible to talk another GM into making a player available through gentle persuasion. Kudos for Indians GM Mark Shapiro for apparently doing just that.
• Dodger outfielder J.D. Drew exercised an option that allowed him to opt out of his current contract and become a free agent. I didn't mention Drew's option in my previous blog entries for a simple reason: I didn't know about it. I had read a reference to the clause before, but for some reason, thought it was in a later year of the contract. It's puzzling as to why the Dodgers put this clause in there (just as it's puzzling as to why the Cubs did the same for Aramis Ramirez). But it enabled Drew to cash out and hit the free agent market when he felt he could get more money. And, as the only left-handed power hitter on the market, he should easily top his previous annual salary of $11 million. He's also a true right fielder with good defense; most of the other top hitters on the market are of marginal defensive value, stuck in the 1B/LF/DH role (Carlos Lee, Frank Thomas, Barry Bonds, Alfonso Soriano). Even though the Dodgers have a nice batch of young talent coming up, this puts a big damper on their 2007 plans.
• Met pitcher Tom Glavine declined his player option for 2007, and the Mets are planning to do the same. I can understand that Glavine would want to be a part of this big-money free agent market; but I'm not sure why the Mets would let him go. Because without Glavine, their 2007 #1 starter is John Maine. Even with Glavine, they had some spending to do to improve the starting rotation, and his departure won't help matters at all. Word is that Glavine will be heading back to Atlanta to finish his career (and likely record his 300th win) as a Brave. This warms the cockles of this Atlanta fan's heart.
• The bidding process has been completed for Japanese pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka. It will soon be revealed which team submitted the highest bid (the bids were sealed), and that team will get exclusive bargaining rights with Matsuzaka. If the team cannot agree on a contract with him, the bid money is refunded and Matsuzaka becomes (I'm pretty sure) a free agent. But I seriously doubt that will happen.
  Early speculation was that the Yankees would have the highest bid, but rumors now have the Red Sox in the lead. This is just hearsay, and we won't know for sure for a couple days now. Other teams (reportedly) bidding on Matsuzaka include the Rangers and Diamondbacks. Matsuzaka is easily the best pitcher available this off-season. He's 26 years old and has pitched like a Cy Young winner in Japan. Even if he's "only" an All-Star in the USA, he'll be great to have at such a young age.
• Two new managers have been hired since I last spoke. Ron Washington, former Oakland A's coach, was hired to manage the Texas Rangers. And Bud Black, former Angel pitching coach, was hired to manage the Padres. Both men have good reputations within the game, having been considered management material for a while now. I really have nothing else to say in comment, since neither man has managed in the big leagues. But everything I've heard is that they're nice people and should work out. But then, when's the last time you read a story about a new manager, and the reporter said, "Johnny Jones is considered to be a poor clubhouse presence and an indifferent leader. His skills on the field are marginal, and most people in the league make fun of him." Reporters in the off-season tend to ac-cen-tchu-ate the positive.
  "Sources" are also reporting that longtime coach Manny Acta will take over as Washington Nationals manager. This is not official, but will probably be announced next week.
• Espn.com is reporting that the Yankees have discussed a deal with the Orioles involving starting pitcher Jaret Wright. The deal would send Wright to Baltimore in exchange for prospects.
  I can understand why the Yankees would want to get rid of Wright; he's expensive and not very good. Granted, they don't have a lot of options to replace him, but if they can re-sign Mike Mussina (which sounds likely), they'll have a front three of Mussina-Wang-Randy Johnson to go with prospect Phillip Hughes and perhaps a free agent. It would be a good deal for the Yankees, even if they only got a few B prospects from Baltimore.
  I can't think of any reason why the Orioles would want Jaret Wright. It wouldn't be so bad if the Yankees pick up part of his salary, but even then, they're not getting a whole lot. The O's are already committed to Erik Bedard, Daniel Cabrera, Kris Benson, and Rodrigo Lopez for their 2007 rotation. Granted, that's about as scary as an episode of Mr. Rogers, but there's really no more room for marginal, expensive pitchers. And the Orioles aren't in any position to give away prospects, even mid-level ones.
• The Mets' new ballpark will not be called Shea Stadium. It will be called CitiField, after CitiBank. This shows the growing urge to sell naming rights to parks instead of simply dubbing them with the name of the owner/executive who built them. I think that "Turner Field" will be the last of its kind in this regard.
  And is there some unwritten rule that ballparks must be named after banks and telecommunications companies?
  Banking/Insurance/Financial Insitutions:
  Chase Field (Arizona)
  The Great American Ballpark (Cincinnati)
  Comerica Park (Detroit)
  Edison International Field (Los Angeles-A)
  CitiField* (New York - N)
  Citizen's Bank Park (Philadelphia)
  PNC Park (Pittsburgh)
  AT&T Park (San Francisco)
  Safeco Field (Seattle)
  Telecommunications Companies:
  U.S.. Cellular Field (Chicago-A)
  McAfee Coliseum (Oakland)
  Ameriquest Field (Texas)
  Rogers Centre (Toronto)
  This means that once the Mets' new stadium comes, 13 of 30 ballparks will have sold naming rights to companies in these industries. Does this make sense? Why not name a ballpark after a fast food chain? Or a pharmaceutical company (Welcome to GlaxoSmithKline Field)? It won't be long before the Durham Bulls become the Merril Lynch Bulls, or the Toledo Mudhens move into Jackson Aluminum Siding Park, or the Astros move into Enron Fie-- oops, too late.
  Let's just hope they have the decency to name the new Yankee Stadium "Yankee Stadium." I very much respect the fact that the new Busch Stadium is indeed Busch Stadium, at least for now. I was really pleased when they first opened the stadium in Texas called simply The Ballpark at Arlington. But that was too simple; it had to be Ameriquest Field.
  If you're going to go with those industries, at least pick a name that lends itself to the game. The Great American Ballpark is a fabulous name for a baseball park. Even Safeco Field isn't too bad; take off that "co" and you've got "safe," which is a generally positive word. Although it does sound a bit too much like "Safeway," and we'd rather not think of buying groceries while we're at the park.
  And try to pick a company that's not about to merge or get bought out. I think we're all tired of following the Giants from Candlestick Park to 3Com Park to the new Pacific Bell Park to SBC Park and now to AT&T Park. Even though it's a completely different stadium, I'd probably still call it "Candlestick," if only because that name actually registers something in the long-term memory.
  And let's all thank heaven that Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and Dodger Stadium have remained intact for so long. The name of Busch Stadium survived the move into a new park; the name of Shea Stadium will not. Let's hope that the name of Yankee Stadium will (and I just can't imagine that it won't).

The hot stove season is heating up. I'll continue on with my look forward at American League clubs, and I'll stop by with occasional free agent updates as well.