Indians Fans Can Relax

On Tuesday, I shared a report by MASN's Phil Wood that said the Nationals had contacted the Indians regarding a possible trade for CF Grady Sizemore and SP Fausto Carmona.  Now, ESPN's Buster Olney reports that conversation never happened.

So what does this mean?  It's means that Buster Olney is now Captain Buzzkill.  Thanks Buster!  You've destroyed one of the only decent rumors around! 

Was that over-the-top?  Perhaps it was.

Nationals Interested in Sizemore, Carmona

According to MASN’s Phil Wood, the Nationals are working on a “number” of trades, and have spoken to the Indians about possibility of trading for Grady Sizemore and Fausto Carmona.  While I see why the Nationals would be interested in making such a deal, I don’t see how the Indians would benefit, outside of a financial reprieve.

Despite two disappointing, injury riddled seasons, Sizemore is still the Indians best trade chip.  To trade him now, while he’s recovering from microfracture surgery, makes little sense because they’d be trading him at a point where his value is at its lowest point.  At 28, Sizemore has a pretty good chance of fully recovering and recapturing his elite status as a 5-6 WAR player.  If I was the Indians GM, I would give Sizemore an opportunity to prove he’s healthy and productive before engaging in serious trade talks.  While there is, of course, some risk to taking the “wait and see” approach, there’s also tremendous reward.  If he fully recovers and recaptures his status as an elite player, the Indians would be in the position of being able to name their price for Sizemore.  For a struggling small market club with a modest payroll, that’s a great position to be in.*  If Sizemore gets hurt or struggles out of the gate, his value would, obviously, take another hit; thus making a trade even more prohibitive for the Indians.  Still, the potential value gained by waiting is far greater than the potential value lost.  While waiting might be a risk, it’s a smart risk, and one the Indians should take. 

  

* Sizemore also has a very team friendly contract that would help improve his trade value, particularly if he's healthy and productive.  He's due to make $7.5M this season, and the Indians hold an $8.5M option for 2012.

Fausto Carmona enjoyed a bounce back season in 2010 after two dreadful seasons in which he struggled mightily with poor control.  Considering how "pitching poor" the Nationals are right now, it's not difficult to understand why the Nationals are interested in trading for him.  (By the same token, the Indians aren't exactly stacked with pitchers either, and would probably benefit from keeping him around for a few more years.)  At 27, he still has very good stuff, and could recapture his 2007 form if a few things break the right way for him.  He has a three pitch repertoire that features an above average two-seam fastball with heavy sink, an above average slider with good tilt, and a plus change up.  On the negative side, Carmona not only walks a few too many batters, but allows too much contact for my liking.  Still, he induces ground balls at such a high rate that his "negative" traits are almost forgivable.  Additionally, Carmona's contract is pretty favorable.  He has one more guaranteed season, at $6.1M, remaining on the four year $15M he signed prior to the 2008 season, plus options that could extend the deal out to 2014.  Considering the current value of a win (around $5M), the options are extremely team friendly:  2012 at $7M, 2013 at $9M, and 2014 at $12M.  While he is certainly an attractive trade candidate, it almost makes more sense for the Indians to hold on to him considering his age and relatively nominal salary. 

If I were the Indians, I'd stand pat for while.  As I see it the Indians could get substantially more in return for both players if they waited until the July 31st deadline to trade either player.  For starters, pitchers typically bring back more in return at the deadline when fringe playoff caliber teams are scrambling for useful starting pitchers.   Two, for the reasons I've already outlined for Sizemore.  Patience in this case is a virtue worth exercising.

Cubs Trade Gorzelanny to Nationals

UPDATE (1/17/2011 at 5:46 p.m.):  There's been an update regarding the prospects going to the Cubs.  According to Fox Sports, one of the prospects heading to the Cubs is outfielder Michael Burgess.  Drafted with the 49th overall pick in the 2007 amateur draft by the Nationals, Burgess projects as a corner outfielder with decent power.  While his contact rates improved last season between A and AA ball, some scouts have expressed concerns as to whether he'll make enough contact to be a productive major league regular.

MLB.com is also reporting that right hander A.J. Morris is the pitcher going to the Cubs.  No word on who the third player is at this point.

UPDATE (1/17/2011 at 5:41 p.m.):  Dave Cameron of USS Mariner and Fangraphs just posted an interesting tweet about Tom Gorzelanny.  Among pitchers with at least 130 IP, Gorzelanny finished 113th out of 115 in BB/9.  The only pitchers he was ahead of were Scott Kazmir and Bud Norris.  Perhaps the Cubs made the right move after all.  I'm kind of surprised I missed that to be perfectly honest.

Original Post (1/17/2011 at 3:28 p.m.):  According to Bruce Levine of ESPN Chicago, the Cubs have traded LHP Tom Gorzelanny to the Nationals in exchange for three prospects.  This report is fresh off of the Twitter "presses," so I haven't been able to find any details regarding the prospects the Cubs will receive in return.   The word is that Nationals will be giving up two pitchers and an outfielder.*  

* Judging by the Nationals top 20 prospects per John Sickels, the Nationals farm system is incredibly shallow once you get beyond Bryce Harper, Derek Norris, and Danny Espinoza.  If Cubs fans are looking for prospects to replace the quality prospects traded to the Rays (like Chris Archer), they won't be happy with this trade.  The best they can probably hope for is A.J. Cole or Michael Burgess.  Both players are nice, but they won't be difference makers at the major league level.

Apparently, after trading for Matt Garza, the Cubs felt compelled to trade one of their other five starting pitchers.  The Cubs don't need six starting pitchers.  Moving Gorzelanny allows Carlos Silva, who is due $12M next season, to slot back into the fifth spot of the rotation.  This leaves them without a proven left-handed starter.  There has been talk of moving left handed reliever James Russell into the rotation, but that would likely require removing either Randy Wells or Carlos Silva from the rotation.

From a financial perspective, the Cubs have a ton of payroll tied up for 2011.  With the Cubs signing Geovany Soto to a one year $3M contract yesterday, the Cubs payroll ballooned to $119M, and they still have least two high profile arbitration cases in Garza and Marmol to get through.  Gorzelanny was due for a considerable raise going into his second year of arbitration eligibility.  The Cubs needed to shed unnecessary payroll where ever possible, so trading Gorzelanny makes sense. 
 
For the Nationals, this trade represents a moderate upgrade for their rotation.  The Nationals have reportedly fallen short in their quest for Cliff Lee, Carl Pavano, Matt Garza, and Zach Greinke.  As such Gorzelanny serves as a decent, but unfulfilling, consolation prize.  The Nationals will probably fit Gorzelanny into the number four spot in their rotation behind Livan Hernandez, Jason Marquis, and Jordan Zimmerman.  

Gorzelanny went 7-9 with a 3.92 FIP, 7.86 K/9, 1.75 K/BB, and 2.3 wins above the replacement level.

Carl Pavano Update

For the last couple of weeks, everyone thought Pavano had two serious suitors:  the Twins and Nationals.  Then, earlier this week, Tom Boswell of the Washington Post reported that Nationals GM Mike Rizzo told him that they weren't even talking to Pavano's people.

I hear we are “the finalist” along with the Twins. We’ve never spoken to Pavano and we haven’t talked to his agent since the winter meetings.

Interesting.  I'm not sure if he's trying to save face here, but it does explain why there haven't been any reports about meetings being held or offers being made to Pavano  Plus, despite the Nationals obvious need for starting pitching, I never really understood how Pavano fit into their plans.  If you're going to sign a 35 year old pitcher like Pavano, you should do it to add depth to the middle or back end of your rotation.  The Nats would be signing him to front their rotation.  While Pavano is good enough to serve as the staff ace on a non-contender, it doesn't make any sense to sign him based on the contract he's demanding.  The Nationals will not be a contender by the time his contract expires, so it's probably smarter for them to save up their money for a talent that will have greater long-term impact.

In other Pavano news...

According to Joe Christensen of the Star Tribune, Carl Pavano could finally make a decision about the Twins offer by Monday or Tuesday...or three weeks from now.  Who knows really?  These negotiations have been moving at a snail's pace, and it's not like he's fielding several others.  On January 6th, Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports tweeted that the Twins "were closing in on Pavano."  That was nine days ago.  Yesterday, Jon Heyman of SI tweeted that a Twins "deal could happen any day now."  Thanks for the info Heyman, but I'll believe it when I see it. 

I know the deal is inevitable, but there's no reason why it should be taking so long.  Part of me wonders if Pavano's team is stringing this along in hopes that another team will get involved, thus forcing the Twins to improve their offer.  It's not going to happen.  There just aren't a lot of teams interested in signing an oft-injured, 35 year old pitcher to a multi-year deal.

Nationals Sign LaRoche for Two Years

The Nationals finally have a first baseman.  According to MSNBC, LaRoche will sign a two year $16M contract that includes a $10M option (or $1M buyout) for the 2013 season.  The author of the report I found had this to say.

"The money is outrageous, but the Nationals have to overpay some free agents to convince them to join the organization, which hasn't had much success recently and could be several years from competing."

Is the money really outrageous?  Well, I guess it is in the "I can't believe baseball players are being paid $16M to play a game" line of thinking, but that's not really relevant for this discussion.  Is his salary outrageous in terms of baseball?  That depends on your perspective.  LaRoche is an average first baseman in just about every sense of the word.  He puts up solid offensive numbers, but he's never among the top ten or fifteen at his position.  After removing the 2005 outlier season, his defensive stats are just about league average for his career per UZR--Dewan's plus/minus tells a slightly different story.  In terms of value, he's been worth 2.0-2.5 wins above the replacement level over the last five seasons, which is the break even point for acceptable performance among league average starting players.  Is he a stud?  No.  Is he someone you're super excited to have on your team?  Probably not.  Still, he'll provide steady, consistent value, and likely will help his team more than he hurts it.

This offseason, we've seen the average cost of a win on the free agent market skyrocket from approximately $4M per win to nearly $5M.  Based on LaRoche's recent WAR history, it's not unreasonable to expect LaRoche to provide between $20-25M in performance based value during his the two guaranteed seasons of his contract.  If he continued to produce on this level, he would actually be underpaid not overpaid.  So to answer my original question, his salary is far from outrageous in baseball terms. 

Do I think the Nationals could've signed LaRoche to a more team friendly contract?  Absolutely, but that's a different question entirely.  

LaRoche Nearing Two Year Deal with Nats

The long national nightmare is nearly over.  Are you ready for it?  According to Bill Ladson of mlb.com, transcendent first baseman Adam LaRoche appears to be on the verge of signing a two year deal with the Washington Nationals.  Terms of the deal have not been disclosed.

All sarcasm and joking aside, this looks to be a decent move for the Nationals--primarily because it's really their only option for filling the hole left at first base by Adam Dunn.  While he won't come anywhere close to matching Dunn's offensive production, he certainly be an upgrade.  Plus, he'll provide nearly the same value for half of the price.  Seems like a good move all around for the Nats.   

Greinke Turned Down Nats Trade Despite Offer of Extension

I may rip on Jon Heyman quite a bit, but it’s mostly in fun.  Still, I have to give him a little credit every so often.  He has a way of digging up information on a story—even when one doesn’t exist.  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

greinke rejected #nats but accepted #brewers bec he believes milwaukee can win sooner, i hear. also said to like city

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.  Despite signing Jayson Werth to a massive 7 year $126M contract, the Nationals are still at least three years away from being serious playoff contenders.  Outside of Werth, only All-Star third baseman Ryan Zimmerman could be classified as an established organizational cornerstone.  While they do have some very interesting young talent in Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmerman, Drew Storen, and Bryce Harper, each of them come with their own set of questions.  In the case of Strasburg and Zimmerman, those questions primarily deal with their ability to return to form after Tommy John surgery.   

Still, Greinke’s concerns didn’t stop the Nationals from trying to sweeten the pot by offering him a “big” contract extension.  While there is neither word regarding the size of the Nationals offer, nor positive confirmation of this report, I tend to believe it’s pretty reliable.  According to Tom Boswell of the Washington Post indicated that the Nationals "...think Greinke is better than [Cliff] Lee and four years younger and are far more interested in him."  Lee and Greinke have a remarkably similar skill set, so it makes sense that the Nationals would be so aggressive in trying to obtain Greinke via any means imaginable.  Any time you can trade for someone you believe will become “next Cliff Lee,” and then lock him up to a long-term extension, you have to do it.  Right? 

Losing Greinke to the Brewers has to be a huge blow to a team trying to not only build a competitive roster, but also rebuild their public image.  Still, it’s not a total loss.  The Nationals front office deserves a lot of credit for being aggressive in their pursuit of Greinke.  They did everything they could.  In the end, it wasn’t about the money.  He just wasn’t comfortable with their ability to compete during the next two years.

LaRoche Being Courted by Nationals

After being spurned by Adam Dunn and Derrek Lee, the Nationals have turned their lonely eyes to Adam LaRoche.

According to Bill Ladson of MLB.com, the Nationals have offered LaRoche a two year contract.  While the terms of the offer have not been disclosed, the annual average salary is believed to be in the $8-9M range.  As I've mentioned previously, LaRoche is reportedly looking for a three year deal. but the Nationals seem unwilling to go beyond two seasons. 

Last season, LaRoche produced a .261/.320/.468 (.339 wOBA) triple slash line despite playing half of his games at Chase Field, one of the most homer friendly ballparks in the majors.  He's been a consistent 2.0 win player for the past five seasons, so he shouldn't have any problems providing enough value to justify his contract.  Still, at 31 years old, LaRoche looks to be on the downside of his career.  His plays spotty defense at the easiest position on the diamond, and he creates far too many outs due to his inability to draw walks and avoid strikeouts. 

Considering LaRoche's lack of options, I don't see any reason for the Nationals to budge from their position.  He probably should have accepted the three year offer he received from Baltimore a few weeks ago.

And Then There Were Two...

Howard Sinker of the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Carl Pavano has narrowed his selection down to two teams.

From all we hear, Carl Pavano now has to choose between two teams -- the Twins and Washington.

The hang-up is supposed to be that Pavano wants a three-year deal and teams are unwilling to go beyond two for a pitcher who will turn 35 in January and -- as much as Twins fans cherish the 17 victories in 2010 and his veteran presence -- still has a four-year black hole in his career from the Yankees contract.  Any general manager who ignores that 145 innings-for-$39 million bust, regardless of what's happened since, is not exercising reasonable caution.

The solution is pretty obvious, a two-year deal with some kind of option for 2013.

I think Sinker is right.  Unless Mike Rizzo gets another case of the crazies, and offers him a three year deal with a full no-trade clause,Pavano will likely sign a two year deal with a option for a third year.  It seems like only a matter of time before he signs with the Twins.  With Mauer, Morneau, and Lirano in tow, the Twins are legitimate contenders for a title.  If that's not enough, Pavano doesn't want to leave.  It just makes too much sense.  The Nationals seem like nothing more than a pawn being used to drive up the price on the Twins.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a deal done within the next week.

Checking in on Pavano

According to Nick Carfardo of the Boston Globe there are three, maybe four, teams still interested in right-handed starting pitcher Carl Pavano:

Pavano elected to go slowly in negotiations and let the market play out, so there was no deal before Christmas. Now what? Well, he remains the top free agent pitcher on the market and will hold out for three years. A lot of teams are interested, including Minnesota, Washington, Texas, and possibly Seattle if it can free up some money.

With Brandon Webb signing with the Rangers yesterday evening, we can pull them out of the running for Pavano.  They could surprise me and make a run at Pavano (they do have money to burn), but I don't see them being interested in signing another injury riddled right-hander who is on the wrong side of 30.  That is, unless he's willing to take a two year deal at a slightly reduced price. 

The Mariners don't seem like a great bet either.  This is especially true considering I haven't seen any reports indicating the Mariners are even casually interested in bringing Pavano to Seattle.  This, of course, doesn't mean they aren't interested.  It just means it's less likely to be interested.  Furthermore, I'm not sure it's in the best interested of the Mariners to sign Pavano.  Currently, they're a rebuilding team with a below average rotation that's projected to be 70-75 win team in 2011.  Even with Pavano in the mix, they're still a rebuilding team with a below average rotation.  Signing him maybe adds 2-3 wins onto their year end total.  If signing Pavano doesn't make them a legitimate playoff contender (and it likely won't), it's probably more prudent for the Mariners to save their money for a rainy day.  Until we hear otherwise, we should probably assume the race for Pavano is of the two team variety.

That leaves the Twins and Nationals as the de facto front runners.  After throwing $126M and a full no-trade clause at right fielder Jayson Werth, they were rumored to be more than slightly interested in signing this year's premier free agent starting pitcher, Cliff Lee.  Lee ended signing with the Phillies, so the money they had earmarked still remains.  The Nationals shallow rotation is currently headed up Livan Hernandez and Jason Marquis, so obviously, they have a need for another starter.  Normally, I would suggest they follow the same path I suggested for the Mariners, but it's clear their not interested in making rational signings--only big splashes.  The Twins, knowing Pavano is interested in remaining in the Twin Cities, have a huge edge on their end of the negotiations.  Until their hand is forced, they have no reason to offer Pavano a contract beyond two years.  If Pavano has any chance of getting a three year contract this year, he'll probably have to convince Nationals GM Mike Rizzo to blink first.

The longer Pavano waits to sign a deal, the more his situation becomes reminiscent of Joel Pineiro's situation from last offseason.  The difference between the two situations is that Pineiro was coming off an unlikely comeback season that followed five seasons of ineffectiveness.  Pavano, of course, has a two year track record of success after his four year run of ineffectiveness.  A few have speculated that interested teams are reluctant to sign Pavano to a three year deal based on his performance during his four year deal with the Yankees.  While that might be a legitimate reason, I think teams are far more concerned about giving a three year deal to a player at his age and injury history.  In all likelihood, I think Pavano ends up signing a two year contract, especially if negotiations extend beyond the BCS title game on January 10th.

Moneyball Still Lives

Ken Rosenthal reports that the Washington Nationals have agreed to send outfielder Josh Willingham to the Oakland Athletics in exchange for relief pitcher Henry Rodriguez and outfield prospect Corey Brown. 

What does this mean for the Nationals?

The Nationals have been trying to unload Willingham for the past year and a half.  With Jayson Werth in the fold, it sort of makes sense that Willingham would be expendable.  That said, I'm having a hard time finding a left fielder, currently on the roster, that's worthy of receiving 600 plate appearances in 2011.  Roger Bernadina seems like the most obvious choice to replace Willingham in left field, but he's not exactly the ideal solution.  Last season, Bernadina hit .246/.307/.384 (.311 wOBA), while playing below average defense at his position.  Essentially, he was a replacement level player.  While Bernadina is going into his age-27 season, there's no reason to believe he'll improve too far beyond his current performance level.  The other option is to go with Michael Morse.  Right now, Morse is projected to be the Nationals starting first baseman, but if they sign Derrek Lee, he could slot into the left field slot.  Morse, 28, is a bit of a late bloomer.  He has above average on base and slugging ability (.289/.352/.519).  He's poor defensively, so putting him in left field would be a liability.  Outside of the internal options, the free agent market looks pretty bleak with Johnny Damon, Jose Guillen, Brad Hawpe, and Rick Ankiel as the best available.

So what did the Nationals get in return?  In Henry Rodriguez, the Nationals get the power bullpen arm they desperately need.  Rodriguez induces a lot of whiffs, and has average control.  He has a good fastball, but still needs some work on his secondary pitches.  Ultimately, he could grow into the seventh inning guy behind Clippard and Storen.  In Corey Brown, the Nationals get a solid prospect with raw power.  He's probably best suited for a corner outfield position, but does have the range to play CF.  He played in AAA last season, but could probably use another couple of months in AAA before getting promoted to the majors.

What does this mean for the Athletics?

The Athletics get a quintessential Moneyball type player.  Willingham works pitchers, draws walks, and hits for decent power.  He doesn't play great defense, but he's acceptable in left field.  Ultimately, he would work best in a righty/lefty platoon situation with Willingham playing against left-handers, and the defensively oriented Ryan Sweeney playing against right-handers.  Still, he should fit in well in an A's lineup in desperate need of some thump.  He's not going to hit 30-35 home runs a season, but he should provide at least +15-20 wRAA next season assuming at least 500 plate appearances. 

The Willingham trade blocks the A's top two outfield prospects, Michael Taylor and Chris Carter.  Per Keith Law's assessment, Taylor is a "mess right now at the plate," and Carter is "best stuck at first base or DH" (both of which are occupied at the moment).  Law predicts that one or both prospects will be traded within the next couple of weeks.  This wouldn't surprise me, as Billy Beane is not afraid to pull the trigger and make some moves.  These moves haven't always worked out ,as Beane has a history of trading away promising offensive oriented prospects who later blossom with other teams (see Andre Ethier and Carlos Gonzalez).  Plus, it might not be a bad move to hold onto at least one of these players, as Willingham is in his final season of arbitration eligibility and will be a free agent next season. 

All in all, this looks like a very good trade for the A's in the short term.  They get a cheap, undervalued piece to their offensive puzzle, while giving them an opportunity to allow their top prospects to develop further.

No Trade Clause for Werth? Amazing...

Ok.  It's official.  Scott Boras has some naughty pictures of Nationals GM Mike Rizzo, and he used them to blackmail Rizzo into giving Jayson Werth that ridiculous 7 year $126M contract.  How do I know?  The terms of the deal just got crazier.  The Nationals gave him a full no trade clause.

Take a deep breath.  You heard me right.  The Nationals gave a 31 year old right fielder (albeit a very good one right now) a 7 year $126M contract with a full no trade clause.  NBC Hardball Talk's Craig Calcaterra brought some much needed levity to the situation as he want to do:

 "I find this interesting only insofar as I thought that a seven-year, $126 million contract to a corner outfielder over 30 was a defacto no-trade clause to begin with."

Touche.  My problem with the no trade clause given to Werth is that it's gratuitous.  To make matters worse is that it didn't sound like there was any actual negotiating involved in this deal.  Based on the reports I've read, Rizzo offered the contract to Werth (through Boras), and Boras said something to the effect of, "Where do we sign?"  The Nationals probably could've gotten away with either not offering the clause at all, or negotiating the clause into the contract but with a lower average annual salary.  Essentially, the Nationals out negotiated themselves.  Even if they wanted to get out from underneath this albatross of a contract (and they will), they won't be able to unless they get expressed written permission from Werth himself.  Yikes!  

Other highlights from the press conference include the following nuggets:

"One thing I saw with the Nationals team the last few seasons, competing against them, is a grittiness and a willingness to win. They have some talent. It's very young and unpolished. ... I look forward to working with them."

Being a DC Metro resident, I got a chance to see the Nationals a lot, too.  I wish I hadn't, but I did nonetheless.  Outside of Strasburg and Zimmerman (and the occasional Dunn bomb), this team was depressing to watch.  They might have some talent, but they're hardly very talented.  He's got a few 74-88 seasons in his future, so I hope he still enjoys "working with them" in two or three years.

"Over the course of my career I've played with guys who've played into their 40s and seen the kinds of things you need to do to keep yourself in shape. My grandfather played 19 years...I think I have a long career ahead...definitely into my 40s.

Now, that steroid testing is in place, you see player's declining much earlier than their early 40s--unless their name is Jamie Moyer, and he doesn't count because he's a freak of nature.  I have no doubt Werth will keep himself in excellent shape.  I do have serious doubts of him being worth the money he'll be paid in the last three years of his contract.

"The young talent in this organization is immense. With the length of the contract I got, I felt good about this. ... I've been in the postseason a lot the last few years. That's what you play for, what you get to spring training early for. I hate to lose, that's for sure. I don't want to say anything bad about Philly. Look at last year, we had the best record and we didn't win. Nothing's guaranteed. We've got a good scrappy team. You go out there and take your chances."

Yes, Strasburg, Harper, and both Zimmermans are immensely talented.  Outside of that, the Nationals have a pretty shallow farm system, especially at the upper echelons.  Most publications have them ranked in the middle of the pack at best in 2010, and most of that was due to Strasburg.  I love how he says he "hates to lose," yet he signed with a team that's lost 478 games (average of 95.6 games) in the last five seasons. 

Yeah, this wasn't all about the money at all.  Was it?  And that's ok.  There are very few people that would turn down that kind of money, especially when they were being offered between 60-70% of that from other teams.  I just wish people would drop the charade.

Nats to Offer Contract to Lee? Possibly, but We're not Really Sure...

UPDATE (12/7/2010 at 8:00 pm):  News Flash!  Jon Heyman reports that there isn't one, but two mystery teams looking to offer Cliff Lee seven years, and neither of those teams are the Yankees or Rangers.  So who could those teams be?  The Red Sox, Angels, and Tigers are all looking to spend money this offseason.  None of those teams seem to be great fits for Lee.  Stay tuned...


Original Post (12/7/2010 at 3:05 pm):  Do you remember the days when the Cliff Lee sweepstakes was a two team race?  Well, those days are long gone--maybe.  The Nationals...yes, the same Nationals that just gave Jayson Werth a 7 year $126M contract...have re-expressed interest in Cliff Lee.  Well, kinda sorta.  Not really.  Perhaps?  Ok, I'll be honest, no one has a clue.  Here's a recap of this morning's events:

10:00 am:  Buster Olney tweeted that there was a lot buzz around the Winter Meetings that the Nationals were going to offer Lee a seven year contract.  That makes sense.  Any time you can give a 32 year old pitcher a seven year contract worth around $22-25M a year, you have to do it, right?   After all, they're flush with cash after all of the money they saved by signing Jayson Werth to a team friendly deal.  Anywho... 

Yes, that was sarcasm.  In case you couldn't tell.

11:00 am:  All hell breaks loose.  First, there were reports that the Nats weren't going to offer Lee seven years, but would still likely make an offer.  Then, there was a report the Nats would go to seven years because they knew the Yankees wouldn't.*  Up is down.  Left is right.  Cats and dogs are playing together.  What is the world coming to?   

* Ok.  Before I go any further, if the Yankees aren't willing to go to seven years for a pitcher they're obsessed with, then the Nats (or any other team) probably shouldn't either.  That should send up a huge red flag.  It's possible...albeit slightly...that you're overpaying for the player. 

12:00 pm:  Finally, Jon Heyman laid this baby to rest when he let everyone know that the Nats weren't looking to sign Cliff Lee.  Or so we thought...

1:00 pm:  Adam Kilgore of the Washington Post tweeted that the Nationals and Lee are "maintaining dialogue."  I'm not even sure what that means.  "Maintaining dialogue" could mean they've made a play date where they intend to practice french kissing while braiding each other's hair and eating cookie dough ice cream.  

2:00 pm:  Jon Heyman re-enters the fun when he shares that Lee has at least one seven year offer around $20-25M per season--but neither the Nats (because they may or not be involved) nor the Yankees (who won't go higher than six years) made the offer.  Who else could it be?  I can't believe it's the Rangers because they were rumored to have only offered him four years.  I have a hard time believing they went from four years to seven in the manner of a couple of days.  Who else could it be?  No one else has been rumored to be hot after Lee.  Do I smell a mystery team?

3:00 pm:  Buster Olney reports the Yankees are prepared to offer Lee a six year deal, but likely won't go to a seventh.  Why?  They have standards.  They never give out long term deals that take a player past age 37.  Oh wait...

That brings us up to date on Cliff Lee.  I hope you're thoroughly confused.  I know I am.

Werth's Big Contract Resets the Market Place

As I mentioned yesterday, Scott Boras is the type of agent who recommends that his top-tier clients wait until late in the offseason before deciding on where to sign.  That is, of course, unless some crazy team comes out of nowhere, and throws bags of money in his client's direction.  In the case of Jayson Werth that's exactly what happened.

MLB.com's Todd Zoleski reports the Washington Nationals have signed right fielder Jayson Werth to a 7 year $126M contract.  Just the other day, Scott Boras confidant, Jon Heyman, predicted Werth would likely see a contract similar to the 4 year $66M deal Jason Bay received last year from.  To see him, instead, receive a contract similar to Matt Holliday's 7 years $120M deal with the Cardinals is pretty shocking. 

The Washington Nationals free agent splash is one that will likely have huge implications on the rest of the free agent market.   Buster Olney tweeted that it "has the impact of an 8.0 earthquake," and compared it to the shockwaves felt after the Dodgers signed a Kevin Brown to a 7 year $105M contract in 1998.  Some might consider this statement to be a bit of an exaggeration, but I don't. 

Werth does a lot of things very well:  hits for power and average, gets on base at a high rate, runs the bases well, and plays excellent defense at a corner outfield spot.  While I don't think giving Werth an average annual salary of $18M per season is excessive (I have him pegged as being worth $15-16M per season over the next five years), it's still ill advised.   This is especially true when you're paying that kind of money out over seven years to a player who will be 38 years old when the contract expires.  The Nationals, still 2-3 years away from being contenders, probably shouldn't have signed Werth.  It would've been a lot smarter for them to save up their money, and focus on developing their farm system.  That said, if they had to sign him, they probably should have signed him to a five year deal rather than a seven year deal.  Then again, if the Nationals hadn't been so willing to overpay for Werth's services, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

So how does this affect the rest of the free agent market?  It completely resets it.  Everything we thought we knew can get thrown out the window.  If Werth can get 7 years $126M, then Crawford probably won't be willing to take the 6 years $112M contract I suggested he was worth in October.  Instead, he'll probably get a deal closer to 8 years $160-170M.  This narrows down Crawford's suitors to the big guns:  the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels. 

Cliff Lee's price probably went up as well.  If Werth can get a 7 year deal at 31 years old, why can't Lee get the same at 32?  Lee is after all, the premier pitcher on the free agent market.  With Lee, we're now looking at C.C. Sabathia money--7 years $161M.  Keep in mind that Sabathia received his contract when he was 27 years old.  The Rangers aren't going to commit to Lee for that long, so this all but guarantees he signs with the Yankees.

What about Adrian Beltre?  Well, initially I had him pegged at 4/$56M or 5/$64M.  Now, we might be seriously looking at him getting a deal closer to 5/$80M, which was unthinkable when the offseason started.  The Angels and Orioles are among the teams interested.  If the Orioles don't land Mark Reynolds in a trade, I expect them to go hard after Beltre.  Like the Nationals, the O's might need to overpay in order to acquire a premier free agent.   That said, the Angels had the most unproductive third base situation in baseball in 2010, and are desperate to upgrade.  If they don't sign their primary target (Crawford), we might see the Angels overpay Beltre in order to avoid coming up empty handed.  Beltre has a home in Los Angeles, which makes Anaheim an ideal destination for both parties.

As you can see, this contract has wide reaching implications.  It essentially sets the tone for the free agent market for years to come, and kick starts the next period of salary inflation.  The scary part is that this contract will probably be topped at least three more times over the next few months when Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and Adrian Gonzalez sign their megadeals. 

Are the Nationals Really Interested in Cliff Lee?

According to ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick, they are.  An anonymous baseball insider said the following:

"They're going to step up and try to get a top free agent.  They'd like to make a splash.''

I have no doubt the Nationals would like to make a splash, but I like to live in a reality-based world.  The Yankees seem to need to sign Lee.  After missing the World Series this year due to a shallow rotation, it appears they’re going to make him their primary focus.  Also, Lee has indicated that he’s interested in the idea of re-signing with the Rangers.  While it’s unclear if Lee would be willing to take a home town discount for a team he’s only played with for four months, Arlington is closer in proximity to his home than every other one of his potential suitors. 

Where do the Nationals fall in this situation?  They’re clearly stuck on the other side of the fence looking in.  While they made significant improvements last year, they still have to be looked at as a non-contender that’s still two to three years (at least) away from contending.  They have some interesting building blocks, but many of those building blocks (outside of Ryan Zimmerman) are still a few years away from competing at a high level.  Jordan Zimmerman is a potential number two starter, but he just came back from Tommy John surgery.  Stephen Strasburg has staff ace written all over him, but he’s just started recovering from TJ.  There’s no guarantee how he’ll pitch after he recovers.  Then you have Bryce Harper.  As good as he projects to be, he’s only 17 years old.  He could end up a superstar, or he could be one of the biggest busts of all time.  It’s way too early to tell at this point. 

Despite the strides they made last season, the Nationals still have a lot of rebuilding left to do.  Trying to outbid the Yankees on a big time free agent pitcher is not the smartest move for them to make at this time.  Even if they succeeded in signing Lee, its unlikely Lee would still be an ace quality pitcher by the time the Nats were ready to contend.  The Nationals best move is to be shrewd and patient when it comes to making player moves, not bold and reckless.