How to assess when to sign/not sign a player? [Archive]

SubwayFanatic

11-26-05, 10:06 PM

AMYanks

11-26-05, 10:11 PM

I wouldn't give Gordon a 3 year deal. I'd rather sign low-priced FAs, and use some of the farm system arms.

NewEraYanks2527

11-26-05, 10:42 PM

I wouldn't give Gordon a 3 year deal. I'd rather sign low-priced FAs, and use some of the farm system arms.
I'm with you on that. While Gordon puts up good numbers in the regular season, he has not looked good in big games in big spots. He is aging and the production and results the Yankees will get out of him does not merit a third year.

nyg02005

11-26-05, 10:46 PM

If it is up to me, there are still some good reliever out there so I will delay offering him the 3rd yr as long as I am sure that I have that option before he decides. When it is time to decide, I would first gauge the market and the realistic goal and direction of the team.
The team consist of players that have a one yr contract(sheff, mussina) who are earning a lot and probably will not be re-signed next season. If the team plans to be a serious contender then I may overpay for gordon if I sense that he is the best available. If the teams plan is just to contend as much as they can but are also willing to take a yr off then I will not give gordon the 3rd yr.

Wang's Groundballs

11-26-05, 11:01 PM

I was talking with someone about this earlier today...

Tom Gordon, for instance, wants a 3-year deal. If Gordon walks, you can make a very good argument that the Yankees may not be able to find a bullpen arm as good as him. However, you could also argue that it's very unlikely, given his age and his workload, that Gordon will still be producing at a high level for the entire duration of that contract.

How should the front office handle contracts like these? Is the reward of bringing one of the top bullpen arms back worth the risk of potentially having a declining player in 2007 and 2008?

I don't think it is, especially with the unpredictability of bullpen arms and especially with his decline in K/9 almost every year since 1999 and his increase in HR/9 the last 3 years or so. I think he'll still be a very good to elite reliever in 2006 but I wouldn't bet on it after that.

For the bullpen I hope we offer Dotel a Lieber-like deal and fill in the rest with Rule V guys and minor leaguers.

JavyVazquezIsSick

11-26-05, 11:18 PM

I don't think it is, especially with the unpredictability of bullpen arms and especially with his decline in K/9 almost every year since 1999 and his increase in HR/9 the last 3 years or so. I think he'll still be a very good to elite reliever in 2006 but I wouldn't bet on it after that.

For the bullpen I hope we offer Dotel a Lieber-like deal and fill in the rest with Rule V guys and minor leaguers.

A decline in K/9 doesn't necessarily translate into a decline in production...

yankees76

11-27-05, 12:27 AM

AMYanks

11-27-05, 12:40 AM

Here's where I am at with Gordon. Now that we have lost the opportunity to sign Eyre, Howry and Ryan, if the choice is (i) giving Gordon two years, (ii) giving him three years or (iii) losing him altogether, I say sign him to three years.

Here's why: we are not necesarily signing him to pitch the 8th inning for three years. If he wants to pitch for three more years, fine. He can pitch the 6th inning in year 3 or pitch mop up in year 3. He will be fine in mop up at 41 years old. Having him for the next year or two seems worth it, given what is currently available this year and proposed to be available next. We can afford it, and he is legitimate...until you get to the 8th inning in the Postseason in a game you must have.

I don't understand why you would sign him to a three year contract, when you present a two year contract as an option? Sure, he can be the mopup guy in his third year, but you can re-sign him for a year at a lower price to do that in his third year, especially if he has become a worse pitcher than he was when he originally signed the contract (which is a near guarantee). And by that third year, with the surplus of low-level arms we have, someone should be ready that can do as good a job, at a cheaper price.

yankees76

11-27-05, 12:51 AM

I don't understand why you would sign him to a three year contract, when you present a two year contract as an option? Sure, he can be the mopup guy in his third year, but you can re-sign him for a year at a lower price to do that in his third year, especially if he has become a worse pitcher than he was when he originally signed the contract (which is a near guarantee). And by that third year, with the surplus of low-level arms we have, someone should be ready that can do as good a job, at a cheaper price.

We have had a huge problem identifying guys who can get the job done in the 6th and 7th innings over the last couple of years. Flash can clearly get the job done in the 8th inning next year. If other options become available for the 7th or 8th inning in 2007 and 2008, that's great, because we will also have Gordon under contract. We have nothing, nothing in the BP after Flash and Mo right now, and so, signing him to three years now is not a big deal: we are not guaranteeing him that he will pitch in the 8th inning in year 3. Basically, we need six pitchers in the BP, and with Sturtze, Mo and Flash under contract, we have 2 1/2 options. My reasoning for signing Flash to three years is that, otherwise we might lose him, and we will certainly NOT have five or six better BP pitchers than him (at any price) in 2007 and 2008.

AMYanks

11-27-05, 12:55 AM

We have had a huge problem identifying guys who can get the job done in the 6th and 7th innings over the last couple of years. Flash can clearly get the job done in the 8th inning next year. If other options become available for the 7th or 8th inning in 2007 and 2008, that's great, because we will also have Gordon under contract. We have nothing, nothing in the BP after Flash and Mo right now, and so, signing him to three years now is not a big deal: we are not guaranteeing him that he will pitch in the 8th inning in year 3. Basically, we need six pitchers in the BP, and with Sturtze, Mo and Flash under contract, we have 2 1/2 options. My reasoning for signing Flash to three years is that, otherwise we might lose him, and we will certainly NOT have five or six better BP pitchers than him (at any price) in 2007 and 2008.

I think there is a good chance that, when Gordon is 40 years old, he will barely be an average pitcher. There was a moderate dropoff in performance from 2004 to 2005, and it's likely it will continue. In three years, I have a hard time believing there won't be a similar option out there, who is younger, and costs less than $5M (which is what he'll probably be making).

yankees76

11-27-05, 01:02 AM

I think there is a good chance that, when Gordon is 40 years old, he will barely be an average pitcher. There was a moderate dropoff in performance from 2004 to 2005, and it's likely it will continue. In three years, I have a hard time believing there won't be a similar option out there, who is younger, and costs less than $5M (which is what he'll probably be making).

I hope you are right, because we might not re-sign Flash. I am aware of the baseball truism, that right-handed relievers are a dime dozen, but we have not found a dozen with our dimes, and we have basically missed out on the available FAs this offseason. I cannot see Flash, who had a 2.50 ERA this year, dropping off so much that he is completely worthless in year 3. I am all for growing the team from within, and I am all over our minor leaguears (our best guys are at Trenton). With all of the money in the organization, I see absolutely no harm in throwing a few extra million towards Flash. This is a much smaller issue than Posada's soon-to-be guaranteed year in 2007 and Johnson's guaranteed year in 2008.

AMYanks

11-27-05, 01:06 AM

I hope you are right, because we might not re-sign Flash. I am aware of the baseball truism, that right-handed relievers are a dime dozen, but we have not found a dozen with our dimes, and we have basically missed out on the available FAs this offseason. I cannot see Flash, who had a 2.50 ERA this year, dropping off so much that he is completely worthless in year 3. I am all for growing the team from within, and I am all over our minor leaguears (our best guys are at Trenton). With all of the money in the organization, I see absolutely no harm in throwing a few extra million towards Flash. This is a much smaller issue than Posada's soon-to-be guaranteed year in 2007 and Johnson's guaranteed year in 2008.

What do you mean, Johnson's guaranteed year in 2008? Does he have an option for that year that will kick in with certain performance? All I know is that he is due $3.5M in 2008 via deferred payments.

But Posada's option is a much larger issue than a 3-year deal for Gordon, I agree. Unfortunately, that is inevitable.

yankees76

11-27-05, 01:12 AM

What do you mean, Johnson's guaranteed year in 2008? Does he have an option for that year that will kick in with certain performance? All I know is that he is due $3.5M in 2008 via deferred payments.

But Posada's option is a much larger issue than a 3-year deal for Gordon, I agree. Unfortunately, that is inevitable.

Mispoke. You are right. All Johnson is owed in 2008 is the $3.5.

http://russells.freeshell.org/ddollars/team.php?team=yankees&name=Yankees

My only point was, and I have waffled back and forth on Flash, is that I have finally come to peace with signing him for three years. There is total crap available this year and next, and he can clearly get the job done. If he is our 5th or 6th inning mop up guy in 2008, then we will have a friggin' good team. He is just not going to drop off that much. He is at too high a level right now.

AMYanks

11-27-05, 01:15 AM

Mispoke. You are right. All Johnson is owed in 2008 is the $3.5.

http://russells.freeshell.org/ddollars/team.php?team=yankees&name=Yankees

My only point was, and I have waffled back and forth on Flash, is that I have finally come to peace with signing him for three years. There is total crap available this year and next, and he can clearly get the job done. If he is our 5th or 6th inning mop up guy in 2008, then we will have a friggin' good team. He is just not going to drop off that much. He is at too high a level right now.

You may be right, and if he is signed to a 3-year deal, I pray that you are. But, there was a dropoff from 2004 to 2005. And over 3 years, there is a possibility it could continue each and every year, worse and worse each year.

But, hopefully he is productive enough in 2008 to be the 4th guy.

yankees76

11-27-05, 01:20 AM

You may be right, and if he is signed to a 3-year deal, I pray that you are. But, there was a dropoff from 2004 to 2005. And over 3 years, there is a possibility it could continue each and every year, worse and worse each year.

But, hopefully he is productive enough in 2008 to be the 4th guy.

As he gets to the end of his career, I bet he starts throwing the curve again. You know the one, the one that froze hitters when he was closing for the Sox, and the one that got him injured. He has not been throwing the curve as much since he has been with the Yanks, because he has a plus-fastball and has been trying to extend his career, but I bet at the end he says, WTF, let's go for it.

I Love Wang

11-27-05, 01:27 AM

A decline in K/9 doesn't necessarily translate into a decline in production...

You're right. Only about 90% of the time. And they dropped a lot last year. If he continues to improve his G/F ratio, it might not matter as much, but I'm wary of taking that chance.

yankees76

11-27-05, 01:28 AM

You're right. Only about 90% of the time. And they dropped a lot last year. If he continues to improve his G/F ratio, it might not matter as much, but I'm wary of taking that chance.

Who are you going to replace him with? Jason Marquis?

Vin

11-27-05, 01:38 AM

Tom Gordon, for instance, wants a 3-year deal. If Gordon walks, you can make a very good argument that the Yankees may not be able to find a bullpen arm as good as him. However, you could also argue that it's very unlikely, given his age and his workload, that Gordon will still be producing at a high level for the entire duration of that contract.

Sign Gordon for two years and offer a bit more money.

SubwayFanatic

11-27-05, 02:35 AM

Mispoke. You are right. All Johnson is owed in 2008 is the $3.5.

http://russells.freeshell.org/ddollars/team.php?team=yankees&name=Yankees

My only point was, and I have waffled back and forth on Flash, is that I have finally come to peace with signing him for three years. There is total crap available this year and next, and he can clearly get the job done. If he is our 5th or 6th inning mop up guy in 2008, then we will have a friggin' good team. He is just not going to drop off that much. He is at too high a level right now.

You know, you may have a point.

Plus, even if Gordon is a complete stiff in 2008, does that really mean that the team is doomed? Even if Gordon isn't nearly the same pitcher, is that really going to sink the Yankees' chance of making of the playoffs?

I'm not so sure.

TheScooter

11-27-05, 07:50 AM

The only thing I would offer Gordon is salary arbitration

longtimeyankeefan

11-27-05, 08:54 AM

The only thing I would offer Gordon is salary arbitration

I agree - IMO, Gordon's best years are behind him and he does not deserve a three year contract. If he will accept a two year contract, fine - he is not worth a three year deal.

Wang's Groundballs

11-27-05, 10:41 AM

A decline in K/9 doesn't necessarily translate into a decline in production...

Of course it doesn't all the time. And I wouldn't be so worried if his BB/9 hadn't jumped back up in 2005 along with his HR/9. But I worry a lot about Gordon at this age and with how overworked he was in 2004.

Nome

11-27-05, 11:37 AM

Just remember what happened to David Cone when we signed him to a $12 million one year contract right after his perfect game.

Sometimes the best deals are the ones not made.

I want Gordon back but not for more than two years at a time

Andy

yanksconstantino24

11-27-05, 11:40 AM

The only way I would give Tom Gordon three years is if he agreed to take the majority of the money in the first two years, and the third year at a lower rate. That way, Gordon has three season guaranteed, but if he stinks by the third year, it won't be as expensive if the Yankees have to release him in the final year.

JavyVazquezIsSick

11-27-05, 11:46 AM

You're right. Only about 90% of the time. And they dropped a lot last year. If he continues to improve his G/F ratio, it might not matter as much, but I'm wary of taking that chance.

It dropped less than two in one year, which isn't too drastic. His G/F ratio has steadily increased since 2002. Also considering last year was his best year as a relief pitcher and this year was his second best, it's very possible he can continue being productive the next 3 years. That said, I don't think he would be worth the money thats being offered, and his performances in the postseason is highly suspect, but there really aren't many other solutions available. I wouldn't be horrified if they signed him for 3 years in the 15-16 million dollar range...