Reply With Quote
That's a lot of money to pay a guy to hit .222
What. The. .
Enjoy that contract, Dodgers.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3143653
Preliminary agreement would give Jones $36.2 million
Associated Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Center fielder Andruw Jones and the Los Angeles Dodgers reached a preliminary agreement Wednesday night on a $36.2 million, two-year contract.
Jones must pass a physical for the agreement to be completed, a person familiar with the deal said, speaking on condition of anonymity because no announcement had been made.
Jones will receive a $12.2 million signing bonus, of which $5.1 million is payable next year, $2.1 million in 2009 and $5 million in 2010.
He well get salaries of $9 million next year and $15 million in 2009.
He also will receive a no-trade clause.
His agreement with the Dodgers was first reported by the Los Angeles Times on its Web site.
That's a lot of money to pay a guy to hit .222
Man, if he'd hit .260 or so, they might have thrown A-Rod dough at him.
And - according to most people in baseball who don't vote for the gold glove - he has become a below average defensive CF.
In fact, the Fielding Bible had him in bottom 4 at his position last year.
so... what's the over/under on when the dodgers GM will be fired?
Defense and homers is what was needed. It's only 2 years so it's not like it's some type of albatross contract. These short term high $$$ per year contracts for vets are brilliant. Keeps them on their toes and doesn't saddle us with an underperformer for years.
He's way better than bottom 4. He's still a good defender. Much better than Pierre. At least he can throw the ball. Who exactly did they have below him?
This is from Jason Stark in his book on the overrated/underrated players:
He peaked at 493 putouts in 1999. He was still slurping up 461 in 2001. But by 2005 he was down to 365. In 2006 he was at 377. I tried looking at his total chances per game. Still way down. We're talking about 100 or so balls a year he wasn't getting to that he used to. A hundred. I thought: that can't be right. A friend suggested maybe it was a function of the Braves' pitching staff. Maybe they were just throwing fewer fly balls than they used to. Great point. So I checked. Fortunately, there's a stat that measures that, too -- zone rating (the percentage of balls fielded by a player in his typical zone).
So I called up the 2006 zone rating of all qualifying major league center fielders on ESPN.com. Guess who was last on the list? Yessir, Andruw. He also finished last in 2004. And fifth from the bottom in 2005. I kept checking. As recently as 2001, he led his league in zone rating. So obviously, we had a definitive trend on our hands. I then went back to the scout who started all this to report my findings. "I first noticed it two or three years ago," he said. "Just from sitting there, scouting, watching balls dropping in that should have been caught. I'm not talking about balls that needed to be dived for. I'm talking about balls that should be caught.
Now, the Fielding Bible is quite subjective, and I have a problem with any set of ratings that put Johnny Damon as the 7th best CF in the game - he's terrible (and certainly worse than Jones).
But, you didn't have to watch too many Braves games this past year to realize that Jones is no longer the defensive player that he once was. Far too many pop-ups and fly-balls that look like outs off the bat are falling in.
(And the 4 CFs rated lower than Jones were Lofton, Mathews Jr, Jose Bautista, and Griffey.)
All-in-all, Jones is probably nowhere near the 4th worst CF in the league. But - at this stage of his career - if you think you're getting above average defense, you're kidding yourself (and vastly over-paying).
I didn't see many Braves games this year, but I'm surprised he has fallen off that much defensively. And 4th worst is way too low. At worst he's average. I'll be taking a closer look at him this year. If his defense is that bad though, I wouldn't be surprised if they hide him in left. He was signed for HR's though, something the Dodgers desperately need. And when you're signing players for very short term contracts (2 years) you are gonna end up overpaying in the per year department.
to a different topic (i'm assuming that you're an LAD fan):
what are the odds that the O's can get Kemp & Kershaw from the Dodgers for Bedard in your opinion? what would you be willing to give up?
Kemp is untouchable. At least in my opinion. It will take a monster player to get him. And I don't think Bedard fits that description. The ones that will be moved are Ethier, Pierre, and maybe LaRoche. I hear the White Sox want Pierre, but I'm not so sure about that. Ethier is a very good young payer and I hear TB is interested in him. As for LaRoche the Dodgers need a 3rd baseman BAD. LaRoche is a top prospect, but he's not ready to play everyday at third. Supposedly the Dodgers are very close to signing a Japanese pitcher, Hideki Kuroda. I don't know much about him, but supposedly he's good and they got Saito recruiting him. If they sign him, I think they'll focus more on getting a 3rd baseman and moving either Pierre or Ethier for the best player they can get (pitching or third).
So to answer your question I don't think that deal goes down unless they're willing to accept Ethier instead of Kemp.
That was the kind of signing a team does when it is trying to trick its fans into believing it actually wants to commit the resources necessary to contend.
Defense and homers is what was needed. It's only 2 years so it's not like it's some type of albatross contract. These short term high $$$ per year contracts for vets are brilliant. Keeps them on their toes and doesn't saddle us with an underperformer for years.
No what it is, is signing a former Elite player to a 2 year contract in the hopes that he will regain his Elite form. He's not that far removed from 50+ HR's and does have 10 gold gloves. He will essentially be always playing for a new contract, so I'm sure we'll get his best effort 100% of the time. Much better than signing a player big money for 6 or 7 years and then watching him sit on his fat ass.
Kemp doesn't seem to be the sticking point. It appears to be that the Dodgers don't want to trade Kemp AND Kershaw (and being more reluctant to move Kershaw of the two).
But Bedard is the most valuable commodity that the Orioles have had in a very very long time, so they're looking for 3 or 4 great pieces as opposed to just one or two.
They definitely won't move both for Bedard, and supposedly they also wanted LaRoche in that deal. No way that happens. From what Colletti said it would take a "jaw dropper" of a deal to trade Kemp. (Of course these guys always lie)
LA Times
Kershaw is also a player they don't want to move at all. I agree with them. Glad they're taking that hard stance. But he's much more potential than Kemp is, as of right now. And as for LaRoche, I think he'll only be moved for a 3rd baseman, nothing else.
I don't see the Dodgers overpaying for Bedard. If that's what they're looking for, I doubt a deal gets done between them.
Signing a former elite player on the "hopes" he will regain his elite form is what a team does when it is more interested in making flashy moves that sell tickets in the short term than in building a real contender.
Sorry, but the Dodgers don't need to make "flashy moves" to sell tickets. Try again.
They apparently don't have to get serious about winning, either.
And how did you come to that conclusion?? Do tell.
The Dodgers have gobs of young talent. They should have even more, but their idiot GM keeps trading it away for pennies on the dollar.
But Joe Torre! and Andruw Jones! are big names that grab people's attention in easily-distracted L.A. I see it as a highly cynical move.
Hey, I guess I should give them some credit, at least they didn't fritter away more prospects for him.
Now who exactly did they trade? Kemp? LaRoche? Loney? Martin? Broxton? Kershaw? Billingsley?
Or are you talking about Edwin Jackson? Joel Guzman? Dioner Navarro? Who exactly are you talking about?
There was a Tampa Bay trade that did nothing, and one with the Royals where they dumped prospects for nothing.
I'm sure you care a great deal more about the Dodgers than I do, and you get all defensive when somebody thinks they will fail to contend, just like every other year. Whatever. I still think the Andruw Jones move sucks. I hope it's not compounded by benching that Ethier kid in order to keep playing Pierre.
To be honest, I don't think it's overpaying for Bedard. He's a legit ace (in a league where that term is thrown around way too cavalierly). He's been just as good as Santana the past 2 years, and is under contract for 2 more years as opposed to Santana's 1. So it stands to reason that he has more value.
If the Birds are going to move him, they have to get 2 or 3 guys who at (or close to) ML ready, at least one of whom projects as a future star.
If that price is too steep, then it's fair for teams to pass. But for a team like LA, even if they gave up some of their top young talent, I would have to think that adding Bedard to their rotation instantly makes them the NL favorites.
So who where these great prospects in the Tampa Bay and Royals trade that they dumped?? Any names??
I'll be the first to call out the Dodgers when they make stupid moves. Has nothing to do with being defensive, but since you are pretty much talking out of your ass you have to try to change the argument.
So again who are these great prospects that the Dodgers traded for "pennies on the dollar"??
Are you saying he has more value than Santana??
I think you're seriously overvaluing him. He's a nice player, but I'm not so sure he's a legit ace. A very good pitcher that the Dodgers would like, but far from a legit ace. 15-11 3.76 ERA and 13-5 3.16 ERA (with an injury) does not sound like legit ace numbers to me. He does have injury concerns.
Price is too steep for the Dodgers. Maybe another team will bite.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
