Polanco Signs 4-Yr. Extension

[Sabermetrician]

Just received in my email...

 

4-year extension with the Tigers, through 2009 - no terms yet.

[YearofDaCubs]

I think Polanco is good so this is a good move by the Tigers.

[WindyCity]

Good move for Detroit. I like Polanco a lot and was hoping he'd be available for the Cubs to sign. I think he would have been a great option as an infield super-sub.

 

i.e. a great reason not to have either Macias or Neifi around next year as he could easily (and productively) backup 3B, SS, and 2B.

[SwisherSweet]

Placido is good, I just don't see the need to sign him to a long-term deal. He's not THAT good.

[WindyCity]

Placido is good, I just don't see the need to sign him to a long-term deal. He's not THAT good.

 

Depending on the terms, it could be a very good deal for Detroit to lock him up for 4 years. He's productive and can fill multiple infield positions without missing a beat.

[Uber]

Tigers signed infielder Placido Polanco to a four-year, $18.4 million extension through 2009.

Giving a player like Polanco job security for four years is rather ridiculous. There's a good chance he'll be worth the $4.6 million in 2006 and again in 2007. If the Tigers think they know what kind of player he'll be in 2008 and 2009, they're fooling themselves.

 

via Rotoworld

[Sabermetrician]

Tigers signed infielder Placido Polanco to a four-year, $18.4 million extension through 2009.

Giving a player like Polanco job security for four years is rather ridiculous. There's a good chance he'll be worth the $4.6 million in 2006 and again in 2007. If the Tigers think they know what kind of player he'll be in 2008 and 2009, they're fooling themselves.

 

via Rotoworld

 

I don't think any team would complain about having a middle infield of Polanco and Guillen locked up for 3-4 years.

 

Polanco has been a good, consistant player for a while now, and it amazes me he couldn't get a long term deal before now. The guy has a .344 career OBP, doesn't strike out, plays a good defense at 2B, and supposedly is a great guy to have in the clubhouse.

 

His OBP's since 2000:

2000-.347

2001-.342

2002-.316/.353 (STL/PHI)

2003-.352

2004-.345

2005-.376/.426 (PHI/DET)

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with Rotoworld here.

[imb]

how old is he?

[SwisherSweet]

how old is he?

 

30.

[Sabermetrician]

29

[Sabermetrician]

[Double post]

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Tigers signed infielder Placido Polanco to a four-year, $18.4 million extension through 2009.

Giving a player like Polanco job security for four years is rather ridiculous. There's a good chance he'll be worth the $4.6 million in 2006 and again in 2007. If the Tigers think they know what kind of player he'll be in 2008 and 2009, they're fooling themselves.

 

via Rotoworld

 

I don't think any team would complain about having a middle infield of Polanco and Guillen locked up for 3-4 years.

 

Polanco has been a good, consistant player for a while now, and it amazes me he couldn't get a long term deal before now. The guy has a .344 career OBP, doesn't strike out, plays a good defense at 2B, and supposedly is a great guy to have in the clubhouse.

 

His OBP's since 2000:

2000-.347

2001-.342

2002-.316/.353 (STL/PHI)

2003-.352

2004-.345

2005-.376/.426 (PHI/DET)

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with Rotoworld here.

 

Would you have signed Todd Walker to a 4-year deal before 2003?

[Sabermetrician]

Tigers signed infielder Placido Polanco to a four-year, $18.4 million extension through 2009.

Giving a player like Polanco job security for four years is rather ridiculous. There's a good chance he'll be worth the $4.6 million in 2006 and again in 2007. If the Tigers think they know what kind of player he'll be in 2008 and 2009, they're fooling themselves.

 

via Rotoworld

 

I don't think any team would complain about having a middle infield of Polanco and Guillen locked up for 3-4 years.

 

Polanco has been a good, consistant player for a while now, and it amazes me he couldn't get a long term deal before now. The guy has a .344 career OBP, doesn't strike out, plays a good defense at 2B, and supposedly is a great guy to have in the clubhouse.

 

His OBP's since 2000:

2000-.347

2001-.342

2002-.316/.353 (STL/PHI)

2003-.352

2004-.345

2005-.376/.426 (PHI/DET)

 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with Rotoworld here.

 

Would you have signed Todd Walker to a 4-year deal before 2003?

 

Walker is a little bit different than Polanco. First, Walker doesn't have near the versatility of Polanco. Polanco has played 2B, SS, and 3B this season and throughout his career, and played all pretty well. Walker has played 2B for most of the past three seasons with a couple games at 1B. And Walker on defense is probably an average 2B at best.

 

On offense, Walker's always been a good hitter. He had OBP's of .372, .343, .287/.385, .361, .349, and .353 before 2003.

 

At that point, Walker's 29, same as Polanco, and has proven himself as a very good hitter in the #2-hole. Asking the question of "Does Walker have at least 4 good seasons left?" after 2002 is the same as asking "Does Walker have at least 1 good season left?" after this season. I believe the answer to both of those questions is "Yes."

 

What seperates Polanco from Walker, however, is his defense. If money had equal value before 2003 as it did now, Walker wouldn't get the same deal that Polanco got today from the Tigers. Where Polanco got 4/18.4M (an average of 4.6 per season) from the Tigers, Walker might get around 4/15M (3.75) because he's only an average defender and really is only capable of playing one position, 2B.