zambrano signs

[seanimal]

well whatss your definition of "worked out". I'm pretty confident that Z has 5 more years of consistent production in him.

 

What if those five years of consistent production become diluted by 5 years of injury-related poor or non-performance?

 

I hope Z makes it through the length of this contract unscathed, however, I probably wouldn't go all-in based on the faith that he will.

[Guest]

I'll give it a try: zero. The only stat you need.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the number of big money, five year deals for pitchers that have really worked out well for the team who signs the pitcher for the duration of the deal.

 

 

 

btw - I still would have signed Z to the contract and I'm happy to have him on board. It's a huge risk, but one that had to be taken at this point.

 

well whatss your definition of "worked out". I'm pretty confident that Z has 5 more years of consistent production in him.

Name a 5 year or longer, high money deal that produced even four years of ace-quality pitching.

[Outshined_One]

Name a 5 year or longer, high money deal that produced even four years of ace-quality pitching.

 

I think Oswalt has it in him. We'll see.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'll give it a try: zero. The only stat you need.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the number of big money, five year deals for pitchers that have really worked out well for the team who signs the pitcher for the duration of the deal.

 

 

 

btw - I still would have signed Z to the contract and I'm happy to have him on board. It's a huge risk, but one that had to be taken at this point.

 

well whatss your definition of "worked out". I'm pretty confident that Z has 5 more years of consistent production in him.

Name a 5 year or longer, high money deal that produced even four years of ace-quality pitching.

 

I really have a hard time believing there are none. I didn't look much, but Greg Maddux was signed by the Braves in 1993 for 5-years, $28 million. Obviously, that's chump change now, but it wasn't then. Wikipedia says the Yankees offered $6 million more, however. That deal definitely produced four years of ace-quality pitching (astounding ERA+'s of 171, 273, 259, 162, 191), though maybe one can protest "high money" -- though I believe it was.

 

That said, I agree with your overarching point. The deal is a gamble; albeit a gamble I'd make.

[Guest]

I'd agree with your example of Maddux being an exception to the rule I stated.

 

So, we're up to one. Should I start naming deals that worked out badly? I'm pretty sure I can top one. :D

[Banedon]

"My strong belief is that we couldn't have replaced Carlos," Hendry said. "I didn't have an appetite to be on the free agent pitching market all winter. There was nobody close to his ability available."

 

I don't normally do this but...

 

Is that the first time Jim hasn't had an appetite for something??

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Maximum efficiency in handling Carlos' situation became impossible quite a while ago. There's a threshold where the shorter length of his time before free agency works against him in two ways. One, that teams aren't as willing to give up as much for him, and second, that any extension he gets will go farther than a team should be comfortable extending a pitcher.

 

With that in mind, the choice is between:

 

Draft picks + 12 million in this year's FA class

 

Z at this contract, with the very real risk he'll break down and be unproductive and expensive by the end of the deal

 

The lesser return you could get for Z in trade + 12 million in this year's FA class

 

 

 

There isn't a no-brainer option there. Dealing him would seem to be the least realistic proposition, especially with how tightly GM's were hoarding prospects this deadline. Choosing between signing Z and letting him leave, I think they made the right call. Considering the FA class, our current rotation situation and who is in house to perform in the rotation, as well as Z himself(age, injury history, repertoire, etc), I think it's much more likely that we'd be unable to replace Z in the short term than his contract becoming a force that keeps a large market team like ours from making necessary moves.

[Jazz]

I'd agree with your example of Maddux being an exception to the rule I stated.

 

So, we're up to one. Should I start naming deals that worked out badly? I'm pretty sure I can top one. :D

 

well obviously its a high risk type thing, but i think that not doing this deal, with as under market as it was (even though it was 18 mil a year), would be rather stupid. I'd be really pissed to see him just walk away. Real glad he's locked up.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'd agree with your example of Maddux being an exception to the rule I stated.

 

So, we're up to one. Should I start naming deals that worked out badly? I'm pretty sure I can top one. :D

 

Ha ha. I definitely agree with your point. I certainly won't be able to name many (if any) more. I bet there's a couple more though. The list of such deals that didn't work out will be nigh interminable.

 

Edit: It also helps prove your point that I had to go to an all-time great to find an exception.

[CubColtPacer]

Mike Mussina's long-term deal didn't turn out to be that bad. There are others that I suspect would be just fine, but it's really hard to find contract data from 10 years ago.

[Exile on Waveland]

Mike Mussina's long-term deal didn't turn out to be that bad. There are others that I suspect would be just fine, but it's really hard to find contract data from 10 years ago.

 

I actually looked at Mussina first. His ERA+'s were 142, 108, 129, 98 and 101 in his first five years with the Yankees. While that's not bad, it's not four years out of five of ace-level production.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think a much better comparison would be to the same age bracket as Z, rather than guys who signed similar contracts later in their careers. Extra credit to examples who threw a bunch of innings early in their careers like Z.

[Exile on Waveland]

I think a much better comparison would be to the same age bracket as Z, rather than guys who signed similar contracts later in their careers. Extra credit to examples who threw a bunch of innings early in their careers like Z.

 

Agreed. So who's going to work on finding that data?

[CubFanPhilly]

I'd agree with your example of Maddux being an exception to the rule I stated.

 

So, we're up to one. Should I start naming deals that worked out badly? I'm pretty sure I can top one. :D

 

- Pedro was lights out over his six year deal 1998-2002: 160, 245, 285, 189, 196, 212.

 

-Randy Johnson was very good over a 4-year plus exercised option contract from 1999-2003: 178, 177, 184, 190, 100.

 

- Clemens never signed a 5 year deal, but any team that had signed him to a 5-year contract would've done just fine (twice over in his career).

 

-Likewise for Schilling.

 

-Mussina was solid (but not "Ace" material) over his six year deal 2001-2006: 148, 108, 98, 101, 125.

 

Though I agree, these are the exceptions.

[CubFanPhilly]

Pedro's a decent comparison. I hope Z's contract works out so well:

 

Martinez

Contract from 1998-2002. Age 26-30. Pre-contract IP: 910

Pre-contract ERA+ 151, 123, 120, 117, 221, 160

Over the contract: 160, 245, 285, 189, 196, 212.

 

Zambrano

Pre-contract IP: ~1150 by the end of this year.

Pre-contract ERA+ 110, 136, 165, 131, 136, 117

[Guest]

Mike Mussina's long-term deal didn't turn out to be that bad. There are others that I suspect would be just fine, but it's really hard to find contract data from 10 years ago.

Would you really want Mussina & his deal this whole time?

[Mephistopheles]

this sucks

 

Sarcasm, right?

not really.

 

So you'd really let Zambrano walk any for nothing with a huge gaping hole to fill in your rotation? This rotation already has a question mark in it so why would you make that an even bigger area of concern?

 

better than having a huge gaping hole in our rotation that costs 18 mil.

 

What else would you want to fill the void that he would have left in the rotation? I like Gallagher a lot, but would you expect a rotation of Lilly, Marquis, Hill, Gallagher, and Marshall to win you a lot of games?

 

And how is Zambrano a huge hole in the rotation? He is wild at times, but his stuff is among the best in the league and he's still only 26.

 

is Zambrano + Marshall better than two 45 million dollar pitchers? You know, given the decline in Zambrano's walk rate and the most likely underlying issue, probably not.

[CubFanPhilly]

Of course the poster boy for what can go wrong with long-term big money pitcher deals:

 

8 years / $121 mil.

 

Pre-Contract ERA+

107, 115, 107, 104, 121, 150, 139

 

Contract ERA+

96, 80, 108, 101, 126, DNP, DNP, ???

 

Mike Hampton says "Hi".

[Exile on Waveland]

Most similar players to Zambrano, at the same age, according to baseball-reference.com: Ramon Martinez, Dave Boswell, Jim Maloney, Pedro Martinez, Ismael Valdez, Jim Nash, Dan Petry, Jake Peavy, Andy Benes and Steve Barber.

 

Zambrano has thus far pitched 1145 innings. With 41 games left Zambrano should make eight more starts, accruing approximately 52 more innings (he's averaging about 6.5 innings per start this season) putting him at 1197 for his career. He will have pitched more innings than everyone on the list except Maloney and Petry, though most everyone is close.

 

Ramon Martinez pitched 206 innings as a 27-year-old, then never threw more than 168 and wasn't the same. Boswell threw only 29 innings after turning 27. Maloney had three more successful seasons before completely collapsing, Pedro is the hopeful archetype (ERA+'s of 245, 285, 189, 196, 212, 125, 148, 96), Valdez was pretty good for two more seasons, Nash pitched only one more (poor) season, Petry was below average for six more seasons, Peavy is obviously incomplete, Benes was a reliable starter for seven more seasons (three above average and four just below), and, finally, Barber pitched through age 36 but didn't do much.

 

Now, I have no idea if this is helpful in the least. The lone pitcher that stood out after age 26 on the list was Pedro, who is virtuoso. That's not to say history portends a complete collapse for Zambrano, however.

[Mephistopheles]

the analysis you provided really doesnt mean anything. you didnt compare it to anything. you just looked at one random pitcher (zambrano) suspected injury and went to his comps. the thing is youre going to find A LOT of injuries for any pitchers comps no matter how durable they are. just because maloney and ramon went kaputt it doesnt really mean that zambranos comps are risky. take oswalt for instance. five of the top six comps for him were done as a sp by the time they turned 30.

[CubColtPacer]

Mike Mussina's long-term deal didn't turn out to be that bad. There are others that I suspect would be just fine, but it's really hard to find contract data from 10 years ago.

Would you really want Mussina & his deal this whole time?

 

If I were a large market team, yes I'd want Mussina and that 6 year deal. He was durable throughout those years. He had 3 very good years, 1 above average, and 2 average.

 

Teams every year end up wasting money on 1-2 year deals for bad pitchers/paying for reclamation projects/giving rookie pitchers without much promise starts (which usually end up being terrible starts) because they don't have enough pitching. If I have a guy who I know is going to be in my rotation and durable every year like Mussina was, and more often then not was going to be very good (and the rest of the time at least average), I wouldn't mind at all giving him a deal like he got.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Who are the two 45 million dollar pitchers? Even with the ability to use Marshall + prospects that can be dealt because of depth created by the picks Z got us, I don't see it.

[Exile on Waveland]

the analysis you provided really doesnt mean anything. you didnt compare it to anything. you just looked at one random pitcher (zambrano) suspected injury and went to his comps. the thing is youre going to find A LOT of injuries for any pitchers comps no matter how durable they are. just because maloney and ramon went kaputt it doesnt really mean that zambranos comps are risky. take oswalt for instance. five of the top six comps for him were done as a sp by the time they turned 30.

 

Yes, I agree. That's why I said I didn't know if it was really helpful. It's pretty random. Truffle (or was it TT? Eh, someone with a T-name) asked about similar pitchers that had thrown similar innings, that's what I found. Obviously, no two players are the same and therefore basically any analysis like this will be pretty tenuous.

[Banedon]

Who are the two 45 million dollar pitchers? Even with the ability to use Marshall + prospects that can be dealt because of depth created by the picks Z got us, I don't see it.

 

They sure aren't in the 08 free agent market.

[Andy]

Z and Ramirez both left 20+ million on the table, probably closer to 30, to stay here.

 

There aren't many teams that inspire that kind of loyalty from star players even once a decade, let alone twice in eight months.