If you could sign 1 person in FA this off-season who would it be and why? I have to go with CC Sabathia, first off he's 28 years old, he's left handed and he has no injury history. He's a stud, and you can build your rotation and team off of him.
Printable View
If you could sign 1 person in FA this off-season who would it be and why? I have to go with CC Sabathia, first off he's 28 years old, he's left handed and he has no injury history. He's a stud, and you can build your rotation and team off of him.
Mark Teixeira.
Same hereQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
depends on the team and needs of course, though for me it depends largely on length of contract. I'd love CC for 3 to 4 years...wouldn't want to touch him for the 7 type deal Zito signed. CC likely will command that deal and more.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrewCrewFan255
I've softened my stance a bit on CC....he really impressed me this year though I still wouldn't want to gamble 7+ years of near 20 mil per or more on him.
Texiera is the safest bet.....I also like Milton Bradley despite the troubles I think he can be a bargain. Same with Adam Dunn. Tex will likely command 7 years plus. I'm not a fan of those type deals.
Braves - Texeria
Yankees - CC
Mets - CC
Reds - Dunn
Mark Texiera
The Brewers probably ruined CC by pitching him so much, so I'd go Tex.
He pitched more in 2007.Quote:
Originally Posted by twinsGM
everyone worries about that 3 days rest crap... thats probably what he meansQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I am sure CC will be fine. He held up this year and did not fade, and he has always shown enduranceQuote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
why isn't Milton Bradley getting any love on any of these FA posts?? He's 30, and in his prime, had a monster year. I read he's a FA but am I incorrect in that??? His past issues will make him an absolute bargain for someone. I know there's baggage, but there's also a bargain, dollar and contract length wise. I think he'd be a super pickup for just about anyone and much less of a financial long term gamble than Tex & CC.
He is a free agent.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
He's got attitude problems (which, personally, I don't care much about), but more importantly, he's a huge injury risk. Even this year, he played in only 126 games, and he's only had two seasons above 100 games. He's an immense talent, but he's not going to get more than 2-3 years because of the injury concerns. He could wind up being a great pickup, but there's a huge element of risk. The thing with Tex is that he comes with no risk. He has no attitude problems, no injury concerns, has always performed at a consistently high level and is relatively young.
tex will cost 6 to 7 years at 20 mil per...THATS a ton of risk. hes only 2 yrs older than milton who will likely go for 2-3 yrs and 10 mil per. yes injury history but less risky signing long term. not the same talent, but solidQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
All long-term deals have risk, but I'd rather have a 29 year old Gold Glove first basemen that routinely puts up a 135ish OPS+ and has proven to be durable than a 31 year old corner outfielder/DH capable of putting up a great offensive season but who has proven himself to be very injury-prone.
With Teixeira, you know you're gonna get a .300/.400/.500 season, great defense, 30+ HR, 100+ RBI, 150 games. With Bradley, you just don't know what you're going to get.
Oh I agree...largely however it would depend on the team IMO. I see how alot of teams would view Bradley as less risky because he's costing 1/4 of the total contract that Tex would for half the duration. Not as much upside....true, but I just don't like the long term high dollar contracts. You claim you know what you're getting, but one serious injury from setting my team back for years due to the burden of that contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Bradley and Tex aren't fair comparisons anyhow...i'm not comparing him with Tex. Only stating that I think Bradley can be had for a steal and is a high value pick up. His previous issues/injuries devalue his contract while his numbers last year were amazing. If the interviews lead you to think his troubles are behind him, he's well worth the value.
agreed on the long big contracts... as the braves/yankees/reds/giants/rangers how those contracts turn out far to often
Of course. It does depend on the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I don't disagree there.Quote:
Only stating that I think Bradley can be had for a steal and is a high value pick up. His previous issues/injuries devalue his contract while his numbers last year were amazing. If the interviews lead you to think his troubles are behind him, he's well worth the value.
Alot of those big long term deals actually have panned out for teams, specifically amongst the pitchers. I believe it was Houston who said quite a few months ago that deals longer than 3 years at more than 10 mil per were in most cases poor, or less than 50% were good in the end (something like that). Examination found just the opposite however, most of them do pan out. However the few that don't (hampton type) really hurt a team.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
**edit...in fact it was ohms not houston who made the statement. We found at best it was one to one good to bad, deals longer than 4 years big dollar contracts. Its a big risk long term....many times it pays off, but in alot of occassions it does not.
I think the Giants should make up for the Zito signing by doing what it takes to get Tex. Hes what they need at a position they need. Basically the opposite of Zito. Everyone says they won't do it, but one can hope.
Can they AFFORD to throw massive money at Tex after throwing massive money at Zito? It's not like San Fran gets the kind of money in their market that the New Yorks and LAs of the league make.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
The Giants are already "making up" for signing Zito by NOT being able to sign anymore high-priced free agents, so they're suffering for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue9
Ken Griffey Junior to Seattle, no one player can fix Seattle's Problems....so I say go for the popular choice. :)
I second that. Cant win now so might as well plug asses into the seats.
I agree with that... I think he'll end up back in Seattle.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
makes sense.....but what makes more sense is him trying to win a championship. Thats always been his goal...he's running out of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
And hit a wall in the 2007 playoffs and the beginning of 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I see his arm falling off in 2009.
1. Where would the Sox play him?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
2. Who needs another Carl Everett.
Who said anything about the Sox getting him??Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I dont' think he's as bad as Everett personally. But you are making my point. His 'reputation' is going to drive his price per year and length of contract down despite his monster year last year. He's a bargain for his talents which makes him less risky as he won't cost as much.
I agree CC is a big injury risk....as his work ethic has been questioned during his cleveland days and the guy likes to eat. Metabolism's a b!tch, trust me on that one...and as he ages it will catch up to him in the next few years. Buyer beware as he's surely looking for a 7 year deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Bradley still missed 1/4th of the season last year, and his 126 games played was his highest total in four years. I'm all for signing a guy that had a monster year, but it would be great if he'd be able to stay healthy and play more than 140 games more than once in his entire career.
Games played by year:
2000: 42 (part of the season in minor leagues)
2001: 77 (part of the season in minor leagues)
2002: 98
2003: 101
2004: 141
2005: 75
2006: 96
2007: 61
2008: 126
I wouldn't mind Zaun as a guy who could help out with resting Tek. That's about it.
Do you think the Red Sox will re-sign Varitek then?
which is why, despite his numbers he'll go cheap. it's low risk high reward type player.Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
no because he'll ask for too much money and probably get it somewhere. If he can't get the big dollars, the Sox will take him back because there are no other viable options that are better.Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
Yea, it was me.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
My real point is that the damage is too great when the deal isn't paying off. Very few players can maintain the level of performance over 7 to 10 years that would require signing them to a top 1% level contract. So, you might be getting a good deal for 2-3 years (better performance then you're paying for), but over the remaining 4-7 years of the contract the team is usually paying through the nose for much more average performance. Having those resources tied up for an average performance can definitely harm a team's ability to build and improve.
Having some bad games does not mean he "hit a wall." So, basically, he worked 240 innings in 2007, and thus sucked in the playoffs because of that workload, and than rested all winter, but come April, still sucked...and then, magically, come May 1, he went back to pitching like he did in the 2007 regular season?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
Pitchers have bad games. Pitchers have strings of bad games. It doesn't always mean that anything's wrong with them. The entire body of evidence indicates that Sabathia is a very durable pitcher and able to handle relatively high workloads.
I'm hopeful. I still think it could work if Tek catches 100-110 game or so. I think he's done a lot of work and if you can cut his games some, he would be more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
For the Mets... I'd really, really like to say K-Rod, but looking seriously at our needs, it has to be Orlando Hudson
For the Phils, they really only need a outfielder because Burrell might end up leaving Philly. Who's our new outfielder?
Eric Hinske - He's not worth that much, has decent pop, and if he stuggles we got Geoff Genkins off the bench.