Printable View
Actually instead of Pavano making an additional 5.3 million he could make UP TO 5.3 million so in reality his performance bonuses are 3.8 million. Shapiro has already said as well that if Pavano is healthy following spring training he has a spot in the rotation guaranteed.
Some of you are forgetting the bonuses, but just about everyone seems to be forgetting to look at the roster management strategy. By using Pavano the Indians are very likely to save at least 1 option on someone, and their probably keeping the Service Time clock from running on someone. That's easily worth $1.5 to $5 million, even if he's only a 77 ERA+ pitcher.
There are quite a few other guys they could have signed for LESS than $1.5 mil that would do the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
$1.5 mil sound pretty high for a guy who pitched 26 games in 4 years. I understand the strategy, I just think there were other/cheaper options.
Some might argue that Pavano has 'upside', which maybe true
such as?
Take your pick from the guys on this list
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=1786
if the Indians are just looking for a guy to make a few starts to keep someone like Scott Lewis in the minors for a bit longer.
If they really want a guy who's going to be a starter for the whole season:
Tim Redding (might could be had for the high end of Pavano's deal)
Odalis Perez or Josh Fogg would come cheaply and have a much better chance of pitching a whole season.
I'm not saying it is a terrible signing.
If he gets a hang-nail in spring training and misses the season...the Cleveland Indians wasted $1.5 million AND had to start the arb clock on the player anyway.
If he makes 10 starts then gets the hang nail the Indians can call up whomever and start his arb clock at that point with no worries of the player becoming a super-two.
If he pitches the whole season and earns all the incentives, he had a decent season and probably out performed his contract.
All I'm saying is:
1) i expected Pavano to sign a minor league deal this off season, not one worth maybe $6 million
2) If the Indians are just trying to fill up a roster spot there are cheaper options.
if, if, if... lots of if's.
Pavano will certainly not be Roger Clemens, but he is a known quantity. He's not a prospect, and while his performance is forecast to be on the low end of the scale, at least they know that much.
I don't see anyone cheaper then Pavano, at all. None of the players on the Minor League Free Agents list qualifies as a replacement level player simply because it's impossible to predict how they wil perform. With that uncertainty, you could spend 5x the amount of a minor league contract just to equal the $1.5 mil of Pavano's base contract.
This is all really a philosophical debate, since we're discussing two possible strategies. Neither one is really more correct then the other. The main point that I'm trying to explain is why expecting Pavano to sign a minor league contract is not seeing the reality of the current player's market. If he does receive $6 mil, then he'll have earned it, since all but $1.5 mil of that is in incentives. All signings carry a risk of the player being injured, and insurance covers most of that cost to the team anyway, so that's not a persuasive argument against grabbing him.
It's not a great signing by any means, but it hardly deserves criticism. Really, it hardly deserves any attention. Pavano does have a back story though, so I'm not really surprised at the attention.
I agree, for the most part. I don't see this as a bad signing, really. Its a risk of 1.5 million and maybe you get nothing for it. Or, maybe you get something decent, and then you pay 5-6 mil, whatever the incentives cost. My point was, and is, that IF he posts an ERA+ of 77, and you end up paying 6-7 million, then you have a serious problem. Some have difficulty understanding this, it seems, and I'm not sure why.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Posting a list of pitchers who had horrible seasons and are considered as huge busts does not mean that if Pavano is equally horrible, then its a reasonable signing. All the teams in the aforementioned transactions would love to go back in time and NOT sign those pitchers.
Why not look on the other side, players who made 25-33 starts and had an ERA+ of at least 120 or so and made much less than 1.5 million in 2008. Just in the AL this would include Garza, Lester, Litsch, Marcum, Guthrie, Danks, Floyd, Baker, Lee, Galarraga, Santana, Saunders, etc., etc.
These pitchers provided exceptional value to their teams, based on their salaries.
exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Relevant word highlighted...Quote:
These pitchers provided exceptional value to their teams, based on theor salaries.
If I looked all of these guys up, how many would I find making MLB minimum or arbitration contracts?Quote:
Just in the AL this would include Garza, Lester, Litsch, Marcum, Guthrie, Danks, Floyd, Baker, Lee, Galarraga, Santana, Saunders, etc., etc.
Pavano is far from being arbitration eligable...
Probably all, or most. Not really the point, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
At this juncture, I am not sure if there is any further point worth making. I agree that this signing is far from unusual, and hardly worth so much discussion.
Thanks for the edit.
That's what I was thinking. 40+ posts on Carl Pavano? AND all on-topic? LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Swampdog
It's a low-risk, low-reward signing.
Holy CRAP! Pavano signed?!?
why are there so few posts on this?? My god!!! this is important!!!
Yeah, relatively unimportant. Still, how many posts are there in the "word association" and "whats your favorite color" threads? To me, Pavano's signing is still far more interesting than that tripe.
Each to his own I guess.
The reason that it's relevant is because their two separate markets. Like HGM said, it's a low risk/low reward signing, so why bother with trying to use a somewhat unknown quantity by signing a MiLB free agent (or 10)? I just think that it makes sense to go with the veteran player, even if he's only a replacement level guy, in specific instances where you're not looking to that player as a long term solution. He's a stop gap to fill out the major league roster, hopefully preventing the use of some options on other players while at the same time hardly affecting the bottom line at all. Their spending the money anyway, pretty much, so they might as well spend it on one player. Stability.Quote:
Probably all, or most. Not really the point, but...
That's a good point. I beats rushing some poor kid in to a spot he isn't ready to fill yet (coughcoughPhilHughescoughcough).Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Stability = Pavano :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
That was my point. For the same (or less) money you could get a guy who was more stable than Pavano. Especially in Ohms' explanation where he's just holding a roster spot. Pavano is one of the least likely players to hold down a rotation spot for a whole season.
Pavano is quite unstable, he could be horrid or he could be average or he could be above average.
There are other guys out there who wouldn't break the bank that would be more stable...
Define "break the bank". Their getting him for nothing. $1.5 million base and up to $5 mil with incentives is a bargain basement deal, especially to fill a 6th starter role. Obviously they could have done better if they were willing to throw $10+ mil at the position, or take a chance on using an option for a new kid. That doesn't seem to be the case here, and I don't see any reason to think that is the wrong position to take for a small to mid market club who is projected to be a middle of the pack team. They are a marginally competitive organization with or without Pavano, all this does is allow them to protect their kids in AA/AAA for another year at virtually 0 cost.
Maybe break the bank-definitely break the bank-was the wrong phrase.
My main question about signing Pavano is if he'll protect the kids because with his injury history he's likely to go on the DL and they'll have to call the kid up anyway
well... if he is legitimately injured seriously enough to land on the 60 day DL, then the team likely won't have to pay his salary anyway, since insurance will (most of it anyway). So, I don't see what there is to loose.
They lost out on spending that $1.5 million on another player THIS season. They lost out on keeping a player in the minor leagues this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law