Abreu to the White Sox in the Rumor Mill

davearm · February 1, 2006

Thome, Beckett, Glaus, Delgado, from a quick check. There may be more.

None of those impact players play a position of need of the Cubs though (a case can be made for Beckett I suppose)

The idea isn't that the Cubs should've gone out and gotten them, the idea is that the respective teams got those impact players without giving up anyone near Prior's worth.

And the Cubs would have been more than willing to meet the asking price for one or more of those players, if there had been a fit.

There wasn't a fit, so that particular list of players is irrelevant to this discussion.

The players where there *is* a strong fit (Tejada, Abreu) have not been dealt, because the GM of their current team is insisting on a frontline starter, not prospects or average ML talent (as was the case for the list of guys you referenced).

Now having said that, if Bobby Abreu ends up being dealt for a prospect package that the Cubs could have met or exceeded, then, and only then, will he become a poster-boy for Hendry's shortcomings.

Transmogrified Tiger · February 1, 2006

The players where there *is* a strong fit (Tejada, Abreu) have not been dealt, because the GM of their current team is insisting on a frontline starter, not prospects or average ML talent (as was the case for the list of guys you referenced).

Now having said that, if Bobby Abreu ends up being dealt for a prospect package that the Cubs could have met or exceeded, then, and only then, will he become a poster-boy for Hendry's shortcomings.

The Contreras+Dye/Abreu+Floyd rumors have as much credence as the "Phillies demand Prior" rumors, so how can you say that they are insisting on something of Prior's caliber?

goonys evil twin · February 2, 2006

There wasn't a fit, so that particular list of players is irrelevant to this discussion.

No it's not, because the discussion is not just Abreu, Tejada, Giles, or whatever other impact bats became available this offseason. You have to be able to predict the market in the future, realize what your needs are likely to be, and figure out who might fill the spot.

Hendry's failure has been a big picture failure. It's not just a winter 2005/2006 failure. It's not just this small story. It's the entire roster (which is all him), and the entire organization (which is largely his influence) and the freaking pathetic coaching staff (which again, is completely his fault for letting it get so bad).

don_kessinger_was_good · February 2, 2006

There really aren't that many good RF-ers in baseball right now worth acquiring, to be honest. Jones is a terrible solution, but there are few better players actually AVAILABLE. I cut Hendry some slack as a result based on that, I simply fault him for choosing such an awful "I need SOMEONE" solution, and at three years contract length, in JJ. A one-year deal to someone like Preston Wilson or Reggie Sanders, or maybe even trading for a youngster would have made much more sense.

I mean really, in the NL, what do you have for RF? Giles is married to San Diego, and getting old quickly. Drew is good but always hurt. Shawn Green is a shell of his former self (and has a NTC). Reds have the underachieving Austin Kearns; Cards had to settle for Juan Encarnacion; Pirates for Jeromy Burnitz. Brewers have Geoff Jenkins, that might have been a possibility, but neither he nor Cliff Floyd in New York are difference makers. Miguel Cabrera is untouchable, Jose Guillen is a head case, so was Milton Bradley (and he wasn't a difference maker). And then there's Abreu.

Story is pretty much the same in the AL, Huff was the most available but his numbers have declined every year. Trot Nixon is only valuable as a platoon player, Gary Sheffield is 70 years old, guys like Jermaine Dye and Casey Blake and Brad Wilkerson aren't difference makers. Vlade is untouchable.

So the options are pretty bleak. If the Cubs want to get this problem solved for 2007, I think they're going to need to go young. It's time to trade some pitching talent for some hitting talent, IMO. Arizona likely won't keep both Conor Jackson and Carlos Quentin, that's the first place I'd look.

davearm · February 2, 2006

No it's not, because the discussion is not just Abreu, Tejada, Giles, or whatever other impact bats became available this offseason. You have to be able to predict the market in the future, realize what your needs are likely to be, and figure out who might fill the spot.

Hendry's failure has been a big picture failure. It's not just a winter 2005/2006 failure. It's not just this small story. It's the entire roster (which is all him), and the entire organization (which is largely his influence) and the freaking pathetic coaching staff (which again, is completely his fault for letting it get so bad).

I understand this decidedly pessimistic and skeptical viewpoint, and I also realize that it's shared by many.

I just think things aren't nearly so bad as some folks make them out to be. I also think that by and large, Hendry has made good decisions as a GM.

He's had a few clunkers too (Neifi @ 2/5 for one), but none of great significance, IMO.

I'd also point out that his last kick-butt trade wasn't back in 2003 or whatever, it was last May (Hawkins -> Williams+Aardsma).

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I still believe Hendry has put this club in a very good position to be a perennial contender, based primarily on the pitching he's compiled. There's an awful lot to be excited about with many of these young guys. Ultimately some will contribute for the Cubs, and some will be traded for quality hitters (just as you're advocating).

You don't need to recite all the 'cons' on Hendry and co. I'm well aware of them all. I just see the glass as half full, personally.

davearm · February 2, 2006

There really aren't that many good RF-ers in baseball right now worth acquiring, to be honest. Jones is a terrible solution, but there are few better players actually AVAILABLE. I cut Hendry some slack as a result based on that, I simply fault him for choosing such an awful "I need SOMEONE" solution, and at three years contract length, in JJ. A one-year deal to someone like Preston Wilson or Reggie Sanders, or maybe even trading for a youngster would have made much more sense.

I mean really, in the NL, what do you have for RF? Giles is married to San Diego, and getting old quickly. Drew is good but always hurt. Shawn Green is a shell of his former self (and has a NTC). Reds have the underachieving Austin Kearns; Cards had to settle for Juan Encarnacion; Pirates for Jeromy Burnitz. Brewers have Geoff Jenkins, that might have been a possibility, but neither he nor Cliff Floyd in New York are difference makers. Miguel Cabrera is untouchable, Jose Guillen is a head case, so was Milton Bradley (and he wasn't a difference maker). And then there's Abreu.

Story is pretty much the same in the AL, Huff was the most available but his numbers have declined every year. Trot Nixon is only valuable as a platoon player, Gary Sheffield is 70 years old, guys like Jermaine Dye and Casey Blake and Brad Wilkerson aren't difference makers. Vlade is untouchable.

So the options are pretty bleak. If the Cubs want to get this problem solved for 2007, I think they're going to need to go young. It's time to trade some pitching talent for some hitting talent, IMO. Arizona likely won't keep both Conor Jackson and Carlos Quentin, that's the first place I'd look.

Well stated.

It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option.

That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

RynoRules · February 2, 2006

Kess: your point, as usual, is well taken. That said, I wish that Jim would have prepared better, as this situation should have been relatively predictable if he did his homework.

fromthestretch · February 2, 2006

There really aren't that many good RF-ers in baseball right now worth acquiring, to be honest. Jones is a terrible solution, but there are few better players actually AVAILABLE. I cut Hendry some slack as a result based on that, I simply fault him for choosing such an awful "I need SOMEONE" solution, and at three years contract length, in JJ. A one-year deal to someone like Preston Wilson or Reggie Sanders, or maybe even trading for a youngster would have made much more sense.

I mean really, in the NL, what do you have for RF? Giles is married to San Diego, and getting old quickly. Drew is good but always hurt. Shawn Green is a shell of his former self (and has a NTC). Reds have the underachieving Austin Kearns; Cards had to settle for Juan Encarnacion; Pirates for Jeromy Burnitz. Brewers have Geoff Jenkins, that might have been a possibility, but neither he nor Cliff Floyd in New York are difference makers. Miguel Cabrera is untouchable, Jose Guillen is a head case, so was Milton Bradley (and he wasn't a difference maker). And then there's Abreu.

Story is pretty much the same in the AL, Huff was the most available but his numbers have declined every year. Trot Nixon is only valuable as a platoon player, Gary Sheffield is 70 years old, guys like Jermaine Dye and Casey Blake and Brad Wilkerson aren't difference makers. Vlade is untouchable.

So the options are pretty bleak. If the Cubs want to get this problem solved for 2007, I think they're going to need to go young. It's time to trade some pitching talent for some hitting talent, IMO. Arizona likely won't keep both Conor Jackson and Carlos Quentin, that's the first place I'd look.
Well stated.

It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option.

That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy.

Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return.

I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year.

davearm · February 2, 2006

Well stated.

It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option.

That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy.

Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return.

I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year.

How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

TheDude · February 2, 2006

Kess: your point, as usual, is well taken. That said, I wish that Jim would have prepared better, as this situation should have been relatively predictable if he did his homework.

I find it fascinating that fans think they have any inkling of how much work or preparation Hendry does. Don't you think you should have more than just the tip of the iceberg showing to make that sort of judegment?

Drew Doughty · February 2, 2006

he sure seemed unprepared.

"We like Giles, but we're going to pursue Furcal instead."

*misses out on both*

Ugh.

MeatampPotatoesMan · February 2, 2006

Well stated.

It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option.

That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy.

Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return.

I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year.
How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson.

ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away.

MeatampPotatoesMan · February 2, 2006

Kess: your point, as usual, is well taken. That said, I wish that Jim would have prepared better, as this situation should have been relatively predictable if he did his homework.

I find it fascinating that fans think they have any inkling of how much work or preparation Hendry does. Don't you think you should have more than just the tip of the iceberg showing to make that sort of judegment?

It's just that option C was far worse than option A for Hendry. It usually is worse, but there's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot with a 3 year deal to Jones.

davearm · February 2, 2006

How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson.

ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away.

How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year?

About the same way it did Jones this year.

Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu.

Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing?

Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu.

Transmogrified Tiger · February 2, 2006

How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson.

ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away.
How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year?

About the same way it did Jones this year.

Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu.

Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing?

Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu.

Dye

1999: 120 OPS+

2000: 134

2001: 109

2002: 105

2003: 41 (half a season)

2004: 103

2005: 118

Jones

1999: 96 (half a season)

2000: 89

2001: 96

2002: 125

2003: 106

2004: 90

2005: 99

Dye had much more past success to base future performance.

Brian · February 2, 2006

if jones is ws mvp (for us), i'd create a shrine and worship him (maybe not).

MeatampPotatoesMan · February 2, 2006

How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson.

ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away.
How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year?

About the same way it did Jones this year.

Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu.

Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing?

Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu.

What are the odds on Jones kicking it up 3 notches like Dye did? ...and being on a winning team that gets him a lot of good pub driving up his value? not good.

we can play make believe if you want, but the Jones signing was bad. it was so bad that we're reduced to conjuring up hypothetical scenarios involving increased trade value in the future just to make us feel better.

davearm · February 2, 2006

How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson.

ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away.
How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year?

About the same way it did Jones this year.

Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu.

Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing?

Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu.

Dye

1999: 120 OPS+
2000: 134
2001: 109
2002: 105
2003: 41 (half a season)
2004: 103
2005: 118

Jones

1999: 96 (half a season)
2000: 89
2001: 96
2002: 125
2003: 106
2004: 90
2005: 99

Dye had much more past success to base future performance.

That constitutes "much more past success"???

I'm seeing a guy (Dye) that averaged 106 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('01, '02, '04), and got rewarded with a 2/$10 deal with an option for a third year.

I'm also seeing a guy (Jones) that averaged 107 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('03, '04, '05), and got rewarded with a 3/$16 deal.

Dye responded in '05 by posting his second-highest OPS+, @ 118, roughly 10% above the three-year average.

If Jones can do 118, that would be his second-highest too, and also a ~10% improvement.

These guys couldn't be more similar, statistically.

fromthestretch · February 2, 2006

Well stated.

It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option.

That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy.

Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return.

I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year.
How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

1. Wilson, if his knees are at least ok, is a better offensive threat than Jones. He hits for more power than Jones. He walks more than Jones. And, based on contract value, he apparantly costs $1 million less over the course of one season than Jones. Jones is better defensively.

2. Things change season-to-season. GOOD outfielders that aren't available now may be at the end of the 2006 season, whether it's via free agency or via trade.

3. If Wilson proves to be healthy and productive, you have the option of offering a contract extension. With Jones, you're already locked into two more years, good or bad.

4. If Wilson proves to be heatlhy and productive and decides to leave via free agency, then you might get a draft pick out of it. Chances are, you're better off with the draft pick than some 24 year-old left-hander with an 87 mph fastball who hasn't pitched above High A that you might get in return for Jones. But hey, at least he'll probably have good command.

SouthSideRyan · February 2, 2006

Jones is averaging a 99 OPS+ the past 3 seasons, not 107.

davearm · February 2, 2006

Well stated.

It's far easier to sit back and say "Jones stinks" than it is to come up with a clearly superior option.

That's not to say that you can't make a case that Hendry should have gone in a different direction with the RF opening. But the tradeoffs involved are not particularly large, once everything is considered (offense, defense, baserunning, LH vs RH, $$$, contract length, what you'd have to give up in a trade, etc.).

The fact that the Cubs gave Jones 3 years/$15 mil, and the Astros inked Preston Wilson, who's basically a right-handed version of Jones with more power, for 1 year/$4 million, doesn't make me happy.

Plugging a hole with a mediocre player for one year is fine if you can't land an impact player. It gives you the ability to go after better options the following offseason. Handcuffing yourself with a three-year deal for a mediocre player isn't a smart move. If he's bad, you can always trade him, but you'll get crap in return.

I would have preferred a deal for Mench over this. Hell, I wouldn't even complain that loudly about a one-year deal for Jones. But three years is just stupid, when a player who is very similar offensively gets one year at less per year.
How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

1. Wilson, if his knees are at least ok, is a better offensive threat than Jones. He hits for more power than Jones. He walks more than Jones. And, based on contract value, he apparantly costs $1 million less over the course of one season than Jones. Jones is better defensively.

2. Things change season-to-season. GOOD outfielders that aren't available now may be at the end of the 2006 season, whether it's via free agency or via trade.

3. If Wilson proves to be healthy and productive, you have the option of offering a contract extension. With Jones, you're already locked into two more years, good or bad.

4. If Wilson proves to be heatlhy and productive and decides to leave via free agency, then you might get a draft pick out of it. Chances are, you're better off with the draft pick than some 24 year-old left-hander with an 87 mph fastball who hasn't pitched above High A that you might get in return for Jones. But hey, at least he'll probably have good command.

I'd prefer to have a line-drive hitter that sprays the ball to all fields than a Sammy Sosa lite that's going to K 150 times a year. The difference in walk rates is negligible, BTW.

The Cubs could have just kept Nomar if they were interested in another game of injury roulette.

Jones and Wilson are scheduled to make about the same $$$ in 2006. Jones will be paid $3M in salary plus 1/3 of his $4M signing bonus. Wilson gets $4M, plus a $500K buyout if his option is not picked up.

I could be wrong, but I do not believe you can receive draft pick compensation after you decline an option on a guy and allow him to become a free agent. (Wilson's option is 3/$24M, BTW. They could buy out the option and then sign him for less, conceivably.)

Transmogrified Tiger · February 2, 2006

How is giving Wilson a 1-year deal and then letting him walk superior to giving Jones 3 years, but trading him after one (even if for crap)?

It's the same principle that was behind tendering Patterson and then trading him for scraps. Scraps are better than nothing at all.

if we're "trading him for crap" in the future, we're going to be eating some $$ as well. he's left his cheap years far behind, unlike Patterson.

ever heard of negative value? the only reason CPat brought anything is age and potential. if he was Jones' age, we couldn't have given him away.
How did the baseball world value Jermaine Dye this time last year?

About the same way it did Jones this year.

Don't look now, but Dye's being rumored to be a key piece of a deal for Bobby Abreu.

Any reason why the Jones signing is such a sure bet to turn out so much worse than the Dye signing?

Heck maybe come July, we'll all be talking about Jones and Miller/Williams/Guzman/Hill/whatever for Abreu.

Dye

1999: 120 OPS+
2000: 134
2001: 109
2002: 105
2003: 41 (half a season)
2004: 103
2005: 118

Jones

1999: 96 (half a season)
2000: 89
2001: 96
2002: 125
2003: 106
2004: 90
2005: 99

Dye had much more past success to base future performance.
That constitutes "much more past success"???

I'm seeing a guy (Dye) that averaged 106 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('01, '02, '04), and got rewarded with a 2/$10 deal with an option for a third year.

I'm also seeing a guy (Jones) that averaged 107 in OPS+ in over his previous 3 full seasons ('03, '04, '05), and got rewarded with a 3/$16 deal.

Dye responded in '05 by posting his second-highest OPS+, @ 118, roughly 10% above the three-year average.

If Jones can do 118, that would be his second-highest too, and also a ~10% improvement.

These guys couldn't be more similar, statistically.

Like SSR said, Jones was worse than that the previous 3 years. Jones's best years have been due to BABIP fluctuation that he isn't likely to approach again. In other words, unless he gets luckier on balls in play and hits .300(doubtful considering he's done it twice in 6 years and is leaving the turf for Wrigley's thick grass), he's going to be average at best for a hitter, never mind a corner outfielder.

Transmogrified Tiger · February 2, 2006

I could be wrong, but I do not believe you can receive draft pick compensation after you decline an option on a guy and allow him to become a free agent. (Wilson's option is 3/$24M, BTW. They could buy out the option and then sign him for less, conceivably.)

Options have nothing to do with draft pick compensation, unless you pick them up obviously. What matters is if you offer the player arbitration after the option is declined.

davearm · February 2, 2006

Jones is averaging a 99 OPS+ the past 3 seasons, not 107.

Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107.

Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong.

Transmogrified Tiger · February 2, 2006

Jones is averaging a 99 OPS+ the past 3 seasons, not 107.
Actually 125, 90 and 99 averages to 105, not 107.

Unless you saying Transmogrified Tiger's figures are wrong.

Uh, the numbers posted for '03-'05 are 106, 90, and 99, average of 98.

Abreu to the White Sox in the Rumor Mill

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blogs