The Renteria Signing

[Clay Dreslough]

I've been reading rumors that the Red Sox signed Renteria for four years with a PLAN to trade him before the end of his contract. Considering the Sox farm system's strength in middle infielders, it's quite possible that the Sox felt that Edgar was a "safe" choice for 1 or 2 years, and then could be traded with relatively little pain when Hanley or Dustin was ready.

Anyway, I HAD to comment on this because I don't think that kind of signing makes much sense. And it reflects the misconception people have about the trade value of free agents.

A player signed as a Free Agent has, by definition, negative trade value. That is, if anyone else was willing to pay Renteria $10 million per year, then they they would have signed him as a Free Agent.

For example, let's say the Dodgers thought Renteria was worth $9 million per year for four years. Then, immediately after signing with the Red Sox for $40 million over 4 years, Edgar's value in a trade TO the Dodgers is NEGATIVE $4 million.

So you almost guarantee that you will have to eat some of his salary if you trade him. Unless of course he becomes a superstar after age 30 like, say, Barry Bonds. (As he's already earning 7 figures, he would REALLY need to turn it up to have any trade value).

That means signing him at "4-for-40" with a plan to trade him when Pedroia is ready, is a lot like signing him at something like "2-for-26". Not a good idea to spend that kind of money on any shortstop not named A-Rod or Miggy. I realize there wasn't much in the way of free agent shortstops. But for those kind of dollars, you're better off keeping Pedro, signing a replacement-level shortstop, and having money left over.

Clay

[robinhoodnik]

I never understood the logic in Boston signing Renteria over Orlando. There really isn't that much difference overall (you make up in defense what you lose in offense with Orlando) and Edgar was more expensive. I'd bet that Orlando would have taken a shorter contract to stay in Boston as well. I really don't get any part of the Renteria deal except that he was a name that would be recognizable to casual fans.

[yank4251]

A player signed as a Free Agent has, by definition, negative trade value. That is, if anyone else was willing to pay Renteria $10 million per year, then they they would have signed him as a Free Agent.

For example, let's say the Dodgers thought Renteria was worth $9 million per year for four years. Then, immediately after signing with the Red Sox for $40 million over 4 years, Edgar's value in a trade TO the Dodgers is NEGATIVE $4 million.
Clay

It's true that a team can't trade a free agent immediately after signing him because any potential trading partner would have signed the guy in the first place. But a year later, there are a whole new crop of teams in the market. Now the Braves lose Furcal and they have a gaping hole at short and Renteria suddenly looks pretty good to them.