Right Now, Signing John Lackey Makes Little Sense for the Nationals

I was surprised when I heard that the Brewers had interest in John Lackey, but I was completely shocked to see that the Nationals are throwing around the idea of signing Lackey:

"The Nationals are one of several teams who have expressed interest in free agent right-hander John Lackey, according to a baseball source.

The team is reportedly in competition with the Angels, Red Sox, Yankees and Mets for his services.

The Nationals are looking for an ace who can tutor pitchers such as John Lannan, Ross Detwiler and Stephen Strasburg. Washington has been looking for this type of pitcher since after the Trade Deadline. It ended up signing right-hander Livan Hernandez in late August. While he did a good job for the Nationals, it's less than 50-50 that he will return to the club.

Lackey, who is 31 years old, has played his entire eight-year career with the Angels. He has won 102 games and has averaged 187 innings per season. His best season was in 2007, when he went 19-9 with a 3.01 ERA with Los Angeles."

Look, I can understand why a team like the Nationals would want to go out and sign John Lackey. He would be the immediate ace of the staff and give the Nationals a presence at the top of the rotation that they have never had before. In addition, Lackey would be a great mentor to Stephen Strasburg, John Lannan, and all the other young pitchers the Nationals have in their system. It might take years for the Nationals to put all the pieces together, but adding Lackey would certainly jump start the process.

However, adding John Lackey right now is the wrong move for the Nationals. Last season, the Nationals' payroll was a diminutive $60 million dollars, which was one of the lowest in baseball. After arbitration, the Nationals should have roughly $30-$40 million committed to player salaries next season, which should give them some payroll flexibility (around $15-$20 million at least) if their payroll is to remain at or around $60 million.

In that sense, the Nationals can afford to sign John Lackey. If the Nationals have $15-$20 million to spend, then conceivably, the team would be able to throw the big bucks Lackey's way. Lackey is expected to command a deal around $15 million annually for 5-6 seasons.

But just because the Nationals might be able to afford John Lackey, doesn't mean that the team should necessarily go out and do it. If the payroll stays at (or below) $60 million next season, then the Nationals would have to spend roughly 1/4th of their total payroll to sign John Lackey. Outside of Albert Pujols, there is no one player in baseball, who we can honestly say would be worth that much of his team's total payroll. Teams simply cannot sustain success over a period of time with that economic model.

And when you take into account that Lackey is 31 years old and coming off two consecutive seasons where he missed time because of arm injuries, that hefty commitment seems like a horrible risk for the rebuilding Nationals to take.

Don't get me wrong here: I would love to see the Nationals take a shot and go out and sign John Lackey. The Lerners have a reputation of being cheap owners and I would love nothing more than to see them make a big splash, help bring a better product to DC, and finally begin to infuse some life into Nationals' baseball. But right now is not the time. Unless the Nationals have plans to increase payroll in the very near future to at least $80 million, then this deal should be nothing more than a dream.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Billy Butler Contract Extension

The Royals have very few building blocks to build around. Outside of Zack Greinke, Joakim Soria, and Billy Butler, the Royals still have tons to figure out before they become a contending team agin.

However, both Greinke and Soria are signed to long term contracts, so is it time for the Royals to look into giving Butler an extension? Butler is under team control for the next four years, but now seems like a good time for the Royals and their young slugger to look into a contract extension.

However, it remains to be seen if both sides will be able to get an extension done. A blurb in MLBTR yesterday seemed to suggest that extension talks for Billy Butler had not started yet:

"Newly minted Royals Player of the Year Billy Butler has not held long-term extension talks with the team, MLBTR learned on a conference call today. Butler will not be arbitration-eligible until after the 2010 season."

Even though there have been no talks between the two sides, can the Royals and Butler come to terms on a contract extension this winter? Maybe. Hopefully. Let's take a look at the respective goals for each side:

The Royals

1. Buyout arbitration years

2. Buyout Butler's first year of free agency

3. Butler's extension would save the team money over time

The Billy Butler Camp

1. Guaranteed money

2. More money in 2010

So how about this deal for Butler and the Royals?

(5 years/$30 million) with a $15 million dollar option for 2014

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $1 million
2011: $4 million
2012: $6 million
2013: $8 million
2014: $11 million
2015: $15 million (vesting option)

Why it works for the Royals:

1. Buyout all of Butler's arbitration years

2. Buyout one year of free agency (at least)

3. Very reasonable price

Why it works for Butler:

1. Long term security

2. Can become a free agent at 28 (or 29)

********* *********

The only incentive for the Royals to get something done now is if they can lock up Butler to a very team friendly long term deal. With this contract, I think that goal is accomplished. There is a good amount of risk in signing a young player, who is a liability in the field and has only put together one good season at the plate; but I think this is a great opportunity for the Royals to lock up a young, middle of the order hitter at a great price. Then again, the Royals might want to hold off on a contract extension until the middle of the season just to make sure that Butler's 2009 season was no fluke.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Demand for Mike Gonzalez?

SI.com's Jon Heyman notes that free agent LHP Mike Gonzalez has received a high level of interest on the free agent market:

Reliever Mike Gonzalez appears very popular in the free-agent market. There are loads of bullpen options, but he can set up, he can close and he's left-handed, making him about the most desirable of the lot.

When Gonzalez is healthy, he has electric stuff and can be one of the best left handed relief pitchers in baseball. Not only can Gonzalez get out both lefties and righties, but he has a very high strikeout rate, which makes him even more valuable in the late innings.

But moving forward, it will be interesting to see how the market for Gonzalez plays out. Because he made only $3.45 million last season, Gonzalez is a good bet to be offered arbitration by the Braves. That means that whatever team signs Gonzalez would have to give up draft picks in addition to signing Gonzalez to a multi year contract.

How mant teams out there would be willing to do that for a 31 year old left handed pitcher, who is just two years removed from Tommy John Surgery?

The best fit for Gonzalez in the free agent market might be to sign with a team that owns a first round pick somewhere in the range of 1-15. Because of the ridiculous Elias rankings system for free agent compensation, these teams only have to give up a second round pick for signing a Type A free agent.

Once Gonzalez is offered arbitration, that stable of teams will dwindle as teams ponder whether to actually give up a first round pick for Gonzalez. Even though there are lots of teams interested now, I think if Gonzalez wants to land the best deal possible and potential opportunity to close, then he should really consider signing with one of 2009's worst.
Your Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

What the Hell Were You Thinking? Francisco Cordero Edition

*Over the next couple of weeks, Jorge Says No! will take an in depth look at some of the worst contracts in baseball. We'll evaluate why the player was signed, what went wrong, and future implications of the contract. Behind every bone head decision, there has to be a reason for it...right?*

Why Sign Cordero: Coming into the 2007 offseason, the Reds knew that they needed to address their bullpen. In 2007, the Reds bullpen finished with only 34 saves in 61 chances and a league worst 5.13 ERA. The Reds bullpen was a mess and Reds management decided to go after the best free agent closer available, Francisco Cordero. The Reds figured that if they signed Cordero, the rest of their bullpen would improve because guys like David Weathers and Jared Burton could be used in set up roles instead of closing situations.

The Reds thought so highly of Cordero that they made him one of the highest paid closers in baseball history despite the fact that the Reds payroll was only a meager $74 million.

As then GM Wayne Krivsky noted at the time:

"Francisco is a guy we identified at our organizational meeting back in October as one of the, if not the most, coveted free agents from our standpoint that we would go after aggressively and try to sign," Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky said. "And that's exactly what we did."

What Went Wrong: During his first season with the Reds, Cordero struggled at times and was not the lights out closer the Reds paid so handsomely for. But to be fair, in his two seasons with the Reds, Francisco Cordero's performance has not been the problem. Sure his BB/K ratio is declining and his WHIP has gone up, but the real problem remains the Reds inability to accumulate talent, especially pitching. The Reds have so few resources that it makes no sense that they allocated such a high percentage of their resources to a closer, who will only pitch 65-70 innings each year.

If the Reds were contending for a championship, then this contract would make a lot more sense. However, it makes no sense to have a expensive closer on a team that is struggling, rebuilding, and has a limited payroll of which to work with.

Future Implications: Well, the Reds are in a tough predicament right now. They have a number of high priced veteran players, who they would love to move, but in this economy, that's easier said than done. The Reds would love to move Cordero to give them some payroll flexibility, but that's not likely to happen at this point. Look for the Reds to aggressively pursue trades for Cordero throughout the year, but for right now, I'd expect the Reds to be quite stagnant this offseason (unless they decide to move Brandon Phillips).

Lesson Learned: Only sign a expensive closer to a long term contract if your team has a realistic chance to compete or you have the financial ability to pay a closer top dollar.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Gary Matthews Jr. and Doing the "Right Thing"

This tweet comes from ESPN's Chris Singleton makes me a little nauseous:

"Gary Matthews Jr. wants out of LA bad. He's hoping the Angels will do the right thing."

Now what exactly is the right thing for the Angels to do in this situation? The market for Gary Matthews Jr sucks, no one wants to take on the $23 million owed to Matthews, and the Angels might have a need for Matthews Jr. this season if the team does not re-sign Vladimir Guerrero.

Should the Angels explore a deal for Matthews? Sure. It would probably be beneficial for them to get rid of Gary Matthews Jr given how poorly he has played during his tenure with the Angels. But should the Angels make a move just for the sake of making a move? Absolutely not. It will be a challenge for the Angels to find a taker for Matthews Jr, who at this stage in his career is not an asset at the plate and is even more of a liability in the field.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Market for Ben Sheets

Sure, Ben Sheets is injury prone. Very injury prone at that. But even though Sheets missed all of 2009, his phenomenal stuff and upside have his agent believing that the market will be very active for Ben Sheets:

"Agent Casey Close said that Sheets is doing "very well" in his rehab from flexor tendon surgery and plans to be 100 percent by the start of spring training. Close also anticipates no shortage of interest from clubs in the coming weeks.

"We have already heard from a number of teams inquiring about Ben's health and availability for 2010," Close said in an e-mail Friday to ESPN.com. "I will tell you that he has a very good chance to be one of the most impactful free agents, without question."

Sheets, 31, made four All-Star teams in Milwaukee and established a reputation as one of baseball's most formidable "stuff" pitchers despite a career record of 86-83. His best season came in 2004, when he posted a 12-14 record with a 2.70 ERA and 264 strikeouts in 237 innings."

Even though the economy is terrible and many teams are cutting costs, I agree with Close here. i think teams will view Sheets as one of the few guys on the market, who has ace stuff and can dominate a lineup. In addition, Sheets will likely be forced to take a one year deal with a low base salary and lots of incentives because of his injury history.

So what teams will should have interest in Sheets? Let's take a look:

Rangers: Sheets nearly signed with the Rangers last winter so it would not be surprising to see talks rekindled between these two sides. However, given all the turmoil with the Rangers ownership situation, it remains to be seen what kind of money the Rangers will have to offer free agents.

Astros: I know the Astros are trying to cut payroll, but if Sheets is willing to take a low base salary with plenty of incentives, then the Astros would be an intriguing option. Outside of Roy Oswalt and Wandy Rodriguez, the rest of the Astros starting rotation is a bunch of unknowns and question marks. In the end though, it will come down to money, which probably makes the Astros somewhat of a long shot here.

Mets: The Mets need a solid and consistent #2 starter behind Johan Santana and when Ben Sheets is healthy, he fits the bill. Sure his injury history is very concerning, but Sheets could be a risk worth taking for the Mets if they strike out on John Lackey

Yankees: The Yankees have the payroll to take a risk on Sheets and given their lack of rotation depth at the moment (sort of), the Yankees could take a chance on Sheets to be their fifth starter.

Red Sox: We've seen the Red Sox take chances on injured players with high ceilings before (Smoltz, Saito, Penny, and Baldelli come to mind) and signing Sheets would make a lot of sense from the Red Sox perspective. Like the Yankees, they have the payroll to take a chance on Sheets, but the Sox have a more pressing need for upper level starting pitching. If Sheets is healthy, then he might be able to give the Red Sox exactly what they need: another hard throwing, quality starting pitcher.

Tigers: Another long shot, but if they can find the funds, then Sheets would be a great fit here. The Tigers rotation is thin outside of Verlander and Jackson, so a healthy Ben Sheets could be a major boon for the Tigers. We'll see if the Tigers are willing to spend money on Sheets with Bonderman, Willis, and Nate Robertson all on the books for big money in 2010.

Dodgers: The Dodgers are in dire need of a top of the rotation starter to pair alongside Clayton Kershaw. However, with the Dodgers owners currently engaged in a nasty divorce battle, I doubt the Dodgers will be able to spend heavily on a starting pitcher. This could lead them to Sheets, who will be a far cheaper option because of his health, but offers the upside that the Dodgers crave. Sheets to the Dodgers makes a lot of sense.

Angels: With John Lackey potentially bolting this winter, the Angels could sign Sheets to replace Lackey. The Angels 2010 rotation is very deep and offers four solid starters already, so Sheets would slot in nicely as the team's fifth starter. If the Angels opt for Sheets instead of Lackey, then perhaps they could make a stronger run at a big name free agent OF like Matt Holliday or Jason Bay.

There's eight teams right there, which is a pretty healthy market in my eyes. Sheets should go to the team that offers him the best opportunity to show that he can be a healthy and productive starting pitcher for the entire baseball season.

Where do you think Sheets will end up?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Miguel Cabrera to the Red Sox? Nonsense.

Does it make sense for the Tigers to trade Miguel Cabrera? Ken Rosenthal thinks so:

"If the Red Sox were willing to offer first baseman Mark Teixeira $170 million for eight years last off-season, why wouldn't they be willing to absorb most or all of the $126 million that Cabrera is guaranteed over the next six years?

I've even got a possible trade in mind — Cabrera for Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon, third baseman Mike Lowell and a prospect, either first baseman Lars Anderson or right-hander Stolmy Pimentel.

Lowell, who would need to move to first or become a DH, is not an ideal fit. But his salary would be part of the price of doing business, just as it was when the Red Sox acquired him along with pitcher Josh Beckett from the Marlins in Nov. 2005.

If one year of Lowell at $12 million didn't help the Tigers, two of Papelbon for $20-plus million in arbitration at least would give them one of the game's best closers short-term. Anderson could be the long-term answer at first if he rebounds from a disappointing 2009, while Pimentel is one of the Sox's top pitching prospects. And the financial relief — oh boy."

Oh boy is right.

Where do we begin with this one? I'm a huge fan of Ken Rosenthal, but I think this trade has far too many holes to ever be considered realistic and lacks practical economic logic.

For starters, yes, the Tigers are having issues with their payroll right now. the economy sucks. But next season, the Tigers will have more than $40 million coming off the books and they will be in a much better position financially. Just because the Tigers are strapped for economic flexibility this winter, that doesn't mean that the Tigers should go out and trade their franchise cornerstone.

Also, this trade DOES NOT increase the Tigers' payroll flexibility this offseason. In fact, the Tigers might actually be ADDING payroll in 2010 if Papelbon's arbitration number exceeds $8 million. Between Lowell and Papelbon, the Tigers would be paying around $20 million (and probably more!) in 2010, while Cabrera will be earning $20 million. And as I mentioned before, the Tigers will be getting a massive amount of payroll of their books next season, so why should they sacrifice their best player for a minuscule (in baseball terms) amount of salary relief in 2010?

So in short, Rosenthal suggests that the Tigers trade their best player to the Red Sox because of short term salary problems, but the deal will only help the Tigers payroll situation in 2010, when the Tigers will already be removing lots of money from their payroll.

Yup, totally logical.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)