Angels sign Fuentes

[Banedon]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20081231&content_id=3730672&vkey=pr_ana&fext=.jsp&c_id=ana&partnerId=rss_ana

 

2 years with a 3rd year club option

[Post Count Padder]

I think he's better thank K-Rod, but that's just me.

[Peoriaman]

once the angels lost out on Tex and CC, this was option no 3.

[apete6]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

[The Other 15]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

[17 Seconds]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

 

???

[apete6]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

 

The Cubs. Sorry, since I don't work for the organization I guess I can't refer to them as "we".

 

Jim Hendry has done a terrible job allocating his resources this offseason.

[Monco]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

 

???

 

Hendry loves ex-Marlins?

[The Other 15]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

 

The Cubs. Sorry, since I don't work for the organization I guess I can't refer to them as "we".

 

Jim Hendry has done a terrible job allocating his resources this offseason.

 

Really? When? I went through the Cubs press releases dating back to Greggs acquisition and nothing on a 2009 contract. Cots.com still doesn't have 2009 terms for Gregg yet they have the Miles contract covered.

 

???

 

Is this another one of those things that another poster likes to describe as "we already covered this in another thread and we proved that..." or does anyone have a legitimate answer to my question?

[davell]

The 5 mill figure for Gregg is a pretty solid guesstimate on what he'll get through the arbitration process. He may wind up with a TAD less than that, but it'll almost definitely wind up between 4 and 5 at any rate......

[The Other 15]

The 5 mill figure for Gregg is a pretty solid guesstimate on what he'll get through the arbitration process. He may wind up with a TAD less than that, but it'll almost definitely wind up between 4 and 5 at any rate......

A better response than "???" but it can "almost definitely wind up between" 3 and 3.7 as well. How about we wait and see what he gets before we pass judgment?

[davell]

The 5 mill figure for Gregg is a pretty solid guesstimate on what he'll get through the arbitration process. He may wind up with a TAD less than that, but it'll almost definitely wind up between 4 and 5 at any rate......

A better response than "???" but it can "almost definitely wind up between" 3 and 3.7 as well. How about we wait and see what he gets before we pass judgment?

 

That's true, I guess.....I'm not sure if this year's slow developing and most likely "cheaper" market for most FA will affect the process or not. I noticed AZ PHIL has the trio of Cedeno, Gregg, and Wuertz at 6.5 total in his guesstimate, so if that winds up being close, I wonder how it'd break down? Maybe 4 for Gregg and 1.25 each for Cedeno and Wuertz possibly?

[17 Seconds]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

 

The Cubs. Sorry, since I don't work for the organization I guess I can't refer to them as "we".

 

Jim Hendry has done a terrible job allocating his resources this offseason.

 

Really? When? I went through the Cubs press releases dating back to Greggs acquisition and nothing on a 2009 contract. Cots.com still doesn't have 2009 terms for Gregg yet they have the Miles contract covered.

 

???

 

Is this another one of those things that another poster likes to describe as "we already covered this in another thread and we proved that..." or does anyone have a legitimate answer to my question?

 

I assumed by your post that you understood why Gregg was likely to get around 5 mil. Silly me

[The Other 15]

The 5 mill figure for Gregg is a pretty solid guesstimate on what he'll get through the arbitration process. He may wind up with a TAD less than that, but it'll almost definitely wind up between 4 and 5 at any rate......

A better response than "???" but it can "almost definitely wind up between" 3 and 3.7 as well. How about we wait and see what he gets before we pass judgment?

 

That's true, I guess.....I'm not sure if this year's slow developing and most likely "cheaper" market for most FA will affect the process or not. I noticed AZ PHIL has the trio of Cedeno, Gregg, and Wuertz at 6.5 total in his guesstimate, so if that winds up being close, I wonder how it'd break down? Maybe 4 for Gregg and 1.25 each for Cedeno and Wuertz possibly?

In any case $5 M is much to premature to bitch about when discussing Fuentes' totally unrelated to Gregg's contract. But pseudo GM's around here believe everything they post.

[17 Seconds]

The 5 mill figure for Gregg is a pretty solid guesstimate on what he'll get through the arbitration process. He may wind up with a TAD less than that, but it'll almost definitely wind up between 4 and 5 at any rate......

A better response than "???" but it can "almost definitely wind up between" 3 and 3.7 as well. How about we wait and see what he gets before we pass judgment?

 

That's true, I guess.....I'm not sure if this year's slow developing and most likely "cheaper" market for most FA will affect the process or not. I noticed AZ PHIL has the trio of Cedeno, Gregg, and Wuertz at 6.5 total in his guesstimate, so if that winds up being close, I wonder how it'd break down? Maybe 4 for Gregg and 1.25 each for Cedeno and Wuertz possibly?

In any case $5 M is much to premature to bitch about when discussing Fuentes' totally unrelated to Gregg's contract. But pseudo GM's around here believe everything they post.

 

It's related because he was discussing other options besides Gregg

[The Other 15]

2 years/$17.5 million. 9 million vesting option for a 3rd year based off of games finished.

 

And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?

Who's paying Gregg $5 mil?

 

The Cubs. Sorry, since I don't work for the organization I guess I can't refer to them as "we".

 

Jim Hendry has done a terrible job allocating his resources this offseason.

 

Really? When? I went through the Cubs press releases dating back to Greggs acquisition and nothing on a 2009 contract. Cots.com still doesn't have 2009 terms for Gregg yet they have the Miles contract covered.

 

???

 

Is this another one of those things that another poster likes to describe as "we already covered this in another thread and we proved that..." or does anyone have a legitimate answer to my question?

 

I assumed by your post that you understood why Gregg was likely to get around 5 mil. Silly me

Yes, silly you. Unless, of course there was a thread where everyone discussed this and it was proven.

[17 Seconds]

Maybe you should just stick to the topic instead of for some reason quoting a true statement I made in another thread

 

Flexing your muscle is really proving nothing

[The Other 15]

The 5 mill figure for Gregg is a pretty solid guesstimate on what he'll get through the arbitration process. He may wind up with a TAD less than that, but it'll almost definitely wind up between 4 and 5 at any rate......

A better response than "???" but it can "almost definitely wind up between" 3 and 3.7 as well. How about we wait and see what he gets before we pass judgment?

 

That's true, I guess.....I'm not sure if this year's slow developing and most likely "cheaper" market for most FA will affect the process or not. I noticed AZ PHIL has the trio of Cedeno, Gregg, and Wuertz at 6.5 total in his guesstimate, so if that winds up being close, I wonder how it'd break down? Maybe 4 for Gregg and 1.25 each for Cedeno and Wuertz possibly?

In any case $5 M is much to premature to bitch about when discussing Fuentes' totally unrelated to Gregg's contract. But pseudo GM's around here believe everything they post.

 

It's related because he was discussing other options besides Gregg

Fuentes was another option? Really? Signing a free agent closer was a option? Interestingly enough the GM didn't want to pay his FA closer top money at any risk that he avoided offering arbitration. Other than that, I couldn't agree with you more that Fuentes was a comparable option.

[17 Seconds]

I never said he was a good option or one Hendry was ever considering. I said he was an option, which he was for every GM. He could have made the same argument about Wood.

[badnews]

fuentes means fresh in english

[The Other 15]

I never said he was a good option or one Hendry was ever considering. I said he was an option, which he was for every GM. He could have made the same argument about Wood.

Which is why Greggs contract and Fuentes' contract are completely unrelated. Gregg will get paid based on option being picked up, age, performance, and similar players, while Fuentes is getting paid by FA market standards. Surely, you can see the difference.

 

Which brings me back to the original poster who asked "And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?" It was a poor attempt to make Greggs acquisition look worse by comparing his salary to a high priced free agent. Lastly, Gregg will not go to arbitration and will sign a contract in the range of $3.4 to $3.8 that will be the middle ground of the arb proposals by agent and team.

[apete6]

I never said he was a good option or one Hendry was ever considering. I said he was an option, which he was for every GM. He could have made the same argument about Wood.

Which is why Greggs contract and Fuentes' contract are completely unrelated. Gregg will get paid based on option being picked up, age, performance, and similar players, while Fuentes is getting paid by FA market standards. Surely, you can see the difference.

 

Which brings me back to the original poster who asked "And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?" It was a poor attempt to make Greggs acquisition look worse by comparing his salary to a high priced free agent. Lastly, Gregg will not go to arbitration and will sign a contract in the range of $3.4 to $3.8 that will be the middle ground of the arb proposals by agent and team.

 

So, trading Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg and likely paying him $3.5-$5 million to probably suck for 1 year is better than resigning Kerry Wood to 2/$20 or Brian Fuentes to 2/$17.5 and keeping Ceda?

[The Other 15]

I never said he was a good option or one Hendry was ever considering. I said he was an option, which he was for every GM. He could have made the same argument about Wood.

Which is why Greggs contract and Fuentes' contract are completely unrelated. Gregg will get paid based on option being picked up, age, performance, and similar players, while Fuentes is getting paid by FA market standards. Surely, you can see the difference.

 

Which brings me back to the original poster who asked "And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?" It was a poor attempt to make Greggs acquisition look worse by comparing his salary to a high priced free agent. Lastly, Gregg will not go to arbitration and will sign a contract in the range of $3.4 to $3.8 that will be the middle ground of the arb proposals by agent and team.

 

So, trading Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg and likely paying him $3.5-$5 million to probably suck for 1 year is better than resigning Kerry Wood to 2/$20 or Brian Fuentes to 2/$17.5 and keeping Ceda?

Yes, especially when your inhouse closer is making about league minimum.

 

Give me a break with how much Gregg will suck. He won't be the reincarnation of Rivera but he is an above average RH reliever that doesn't get hit hard or often and won't be paid a kings ransom. A year ago, Hendry was criticized for "gambling the season on a unreliable Kerry Wood" and this year he's criticized because he wouldn't give Wood a multi-year deal. I haven't seen so much paranoia over Ceda since they left Andy Sisco unprotected. That proved disastrous.

 

Personally, I would have liked if they kept Wood. But if you can't afford Wood, why in the world would you pay Fuentes? It's not fantasy baseball and there are money limitations.

Edited January 3, 2009 by The Other 15%

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I never said he was a good option or one Hendry was ever considering. I said he was an option, which he was for every GM. He could have made the same argument about Wood.

Which is why Greggs contract and Fuentes' contract are completely unrelated. Gregg will get paid based on option being picked up, age, performance, and similar players, while Fuentes is getting paid by FA market standards. Surely, you can see the difference.

 

Which brings me back to the original poster who asked "And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?" It was a poor attempt to make Greggs acquisition look worse by comparing his salary to a high priced free agent. Lastly, Gregg will not go to arbitration and will sign a contract in the range of $3.4 to $3.8 that will be the middle ground of the arb proposals by agent and team.

 

So, trading Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg and likely paying him $3.5-$5 million to probably suck for 1 year is better than resigning Kerry Wood to 2/$20 or Brian Fuentes to 2/$17.5 and keeping Ceda?

Yes, especially when your inhouse closer is making about league minimum. I haven't seen so much paranoia over Ceda since they left Andy Sisco unprotected. That proved disastrous.

:shock:

[17 Seconds]

I haven't seen so much paranoia over Ceda since they left Andy Sisco unprotected. That proved disastrous.

 

I think people are more upset that we used one of our top pitching prospects/trading pieces in Ceda, not that they're afraid he's going to be great.

 

But if you can't afford Wood, why in the world would you pay Fuentes?

 

Because Fuentes isn't really an injury risk?