Did the Phillies Overpay for Placido Polanco?

It looks like the Phillies have found their starting third baseman. Welcome aboard, Placido Polanco:

"According to multiple sources familiar with the club's thinking, the two sides are closing in on a three-year, $18 million deal, pending a physical.

The 34-year-old infielder arrived in Philadelphia on Thursday morning to take that physical, and told NBC-10 TV's John Clark that he's "excited to join a championship team."

Before Wednesday, the Phillies appeared to be locked in on three potential free-agent third basemen -- Polanco, Adrian Beltre and Mark DeRosa. But talks intensified with Polanco's agents Wednesday, a day after his old team, the Tigers, declined to offer him arbitration."

I understand why the Phillies went after Polanco and I actually think he's a nice addition to their lineup. He's a solid #2 hitter, who can hit for average, put the ball in play, and hit for some power (10 HR, 30 2B). Remember that in the three seasons prior to 2009, Polanco's batting average never dipped below .300 and he even hit .341 in 2007. From that perspective, I think the Phillies made the right move making a play for Polanco.

However, I'm very skeptical about giving Polanco a three year deal because there is a good amount of risk involved here. Polanco is 34 years old and by the time the contract expires he will be 37, which is a risk given how many players' skills diminish as they get older. Also, we have to wonder about how well Polanco will be able to man the hot corner. The benefit of having Pedro Feliz over the past two years was that his defense was spectacular. Can the Phillies expect Polanco to be the same type of defender as Feliz? Absolutely not. I think the Phillies expect Polanco to be an average to above average fielder, but because Polanco has not played the position in any capacity since 2005.

This deal could turn out great for the Phillies in 2010 and even 2011, but I'm nervous to see how a 36 year old Polanco can perform at third base everyday for the Phillies in 2012.
***Was this a smart signing for the Phillies?***

Should the Brewers Sign Randy Wolf?

Are the Brewers and Randy Wolf a possible match? It looks like GM Doug Melvin has his sights set on the Dodgers left hander:

"It's probably not likely that the Dodgers would be active in the bidding for Wolf after not offering him arbitration but you never know. Not surprisingly, Wolf says he thinks he has earned a multi-year deal after a nice season with the Dodgers (11-7, 3.23 ERA).

Wolf also says he is being courted by several teams, including a couple that have been "aggressive." Though Brewers GM Doug Melvin has kept his plans secret in his search for pitching, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Milwaukee is one of those aggressive teams. It's my understanding that Wolf is high on the list of pitchers the Brewers are showing interest in."

While it would be a big splash for the Brewers to bring in Wolf, you have to ask yourself just how much better the Brewers would be with Randy Wolf in the fold. Sure Wolf had a fantastic 2009 season with the Dodgers, but his career ERA is 4.13 and historically he is much more of a middle of the rotation starter than a front line starter. Before 2009, the last time Randy Wolf's ERA was below 4 was 2002.

It's not that Wolf would not help the Brewers starting rotation in 2010. The Brewers starting staff was one of the worst in the National League and this team needs as many quality starting pitchers as they can possibly get. Wolf would certainly be an upgrade over a majority of the starting pitchers they have right now.

But the problem for the Brewers is that in order to bring Wolf on board, the Brewers would have to pay Wolf like a top of the line starting pitcher ($10 million or so annually). What are the odds that Randy Wolf will be able to duplicate his 2009 performance? Given his past history, I'd say that the odds are higher that Wolf's ERA will be much closer to 4 than 3.23. In addition, Wolf's BABIP last season was an amazing .257, which suggests that when the ball was put in play, Wolf was extremely lucky in getting batters out. Chances are that Wolf will not be able to repeat this performance in 2010.

With the Brewers payroll hovering around $80 million in 2010, I can't justify the Brewers spending 1/8th of that on Randy Wolf when there are better options with less risk on the free agent market. Also, because the Dodgers did not offer Randy Wolf arbitration, I would expect the market for Wolf to heat up and bigger market clubs will be less hesitant to offer Wolf the big bucks. I can't help but think that if the Brewers commit three or four years to Randy Wolf, that this deal could turn into Jeff Suppan 2.0.

The way I see it there is far too much risk involved here for the Brewers to get seriously involved in the Wolf bidding unless somehow Wolf's price tag comes down to the $7-$9 million dollar range, which probably won't happen.

******Does it make sense for the Brewers to go after Randy Wolf?*********

Billy Wagner Fallout: Is Omar Minaya too Nice?

Since it was announced yesterday that the Braves had signed Billy Wagner to a one year contract, Mets GM Omar Minaya has been getting destroyed in the media. The reason? Minaya traded Wagner this August for two fringe prospects instead of holding onto Wagner. As a result, the Red Sox offered Wagner salary arbitration at the end of the season and the Braves ultimately signed Wagner, which meant that the Red Sox were now in line to pick up the Braves' first round pick.

What a bummer for the Mets.

Essentially, the Mets essentially traded Wagner away for two fringe prospects but if they held on to him and offered Wagner arbitration, then the Mets would have gotten an addition two draft picks (1 first round, 1 sandwich).

From the Mets' perspective, there were a number of reasons why the would want to make this deal:

1. they really like the prospects they got in return
2. they wanted to save some money
3. doing a favor for Billy Wagner

Out of those three options, number three seems like the worst one to base a decision off of, but unfortunately for Met fans, it looks like that's how Omar Minaya made up his mind:

"He wanted to be part of a pennant race," Mets general manager Omar Minaya said on a conference call. "We were able to get a couple of prospects for him. We felt it was the right thing to do."

So in a nutshell, the Mets traded Billy Wagner to the Red Sox in large part so they could give him an opportunity to play in the postseason? As nice as that sounds, that's a terrible way for the organization to base their decision. Sure, I bet the Mets like Chris Carter a bit and yes, it's nice to save some money, but I'm sure Omar Minaya would love to have another first round draft pick at his disposal right about now to eventually add some depth to the Mets farm system.

***Where do you stand on this? Was Minaya's decision stupid, careless, or just too nice?***

Can the Cardinals Afford to Keep Matt Holliday?

Do the Cardinals need to keep Matt Holliday? Dayn Perry thinks so:

"Holliday, as noted above, thrived after his trade to St. Louis, and the Cardinals, despite some payroll limitations, figure to be serious bidders. They could use him. At first, it seemed that signing Holliday might make it more difficult for the Cards to see to the more essential business of signing Albert Pujols to a contract extension. In recent days, though, the matter has become a bit more complicated.

If the Cardinals re-upped with Holliday, then there would be less room in the budget for a mammoth Pujols contract. On the other hand, if the Cardinals don't re-sign Holliday, then Pujols might question ownership's devotion to winning. Also keep in mind the Cardinals gave up top prospect Brett Wallace — among others — to get Holliday. That fact only adds to the pressure to re-sign him."

As the Cardinals look into giving Holliday an extension, the first thing they need to do is set aside $25-$30 million bucks annually because that's essentially what it's going to cost to keep Albert Pujols in St. Louis long term. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that; the Cardinals need to keep Pujols at all costs.
I
Now, if the Cardinals plan to operate with a budget somewhere in the $90 million dollar range for next few seasons, that would leave between $60-$65 million for the Cardinals to spend on the other 24 players once they extend Pujols.

Now ask yourself this, can the Cardinals afford to commit $15-$20 million dollars annually to Matt Holliday if they only have $60-$65 million to play with for the other 24 spots on the roster?

I'd have a tough time arguing for that logic. A team cannot simply commit roughly 45-50% of the their total payroll to just two players, even if they are two of the best players in the world. That's just not a winning formula, especially in baseball where there are so different aspects and facets to constructing a competitive team.

There's no doubt that the Cardinals right now are in a bind. As Perry noted, it's vital for the franchise to make every effort possible to keep Matt Holliday around to show Pujols that they are serious about putting a winning product on the field, however, the Cardinals would be better off letting Holliday go, retaining their financial flexibility, and trying to improve the club in other ways.

Remember folks, if people don't think the Cardinals are serious about winning, all they need to do is look back at this summer when the Cardinals traded for Matt Holliday. Even though they lost, that was the move that signaled that the Cardinals were serious about winning and that they were going to go for it. Even if the Cardinals cannot re-sign Holliday, I think their negotiations with Albert Pujols will go along as planned and he will sign the new richest contract in Cardinals history.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Javier Vazquez Fallacy

How will the Braves acquire the right handed power hitter they so desperately covet? By trading Javier Vazquez, of course!

"The Braves are in a stronger position now, but Wren faces a difficult challenge in his search for a hitter. Lowe, with three years and $45 million remaining on his contract, is too expensive to bring a significant return. My hunch is that the Braves will need to trade Vazquez, who finished sixth in the NL in ERA last season and is signed for one more year at $11.5 million.

Only Vazquez could bring the bopper the Braves need."

In theory, Vazquez should be able to bring back quality right handed power hitter. Vazquez was one of the best pitchers in the NL in 2009 and I'm sure that there are plenty of teams out there, who would love to have Vazquez on their side.

But how many of these teams actually have right handed power hitters to trade?

Not many. Would any of these names actually appeal to the Braves in return for Vazquez?

-Ryan Ludwick
-Derrek Lee (good option, but doubtful the Cubs would deal him)
-Nelson Cruz
-Jorge Cantu
-Dan Uggla

In my opinion, none of those guys outside of Lee have the same type of value to the Braves that Vazquez has and will have in 2010. Even with six starters, Vazquez is still an intregal member of the Braves starting rotation and the Braves should only trade him if they are completely blown away by an offer. But as you can see, there are a limited number of impact right handed power hitters on the trade market right now.

In addition, there are several other hurdles for the Braves as they look into trading Javier Vazquez:

1. Contract

-Vazquez only has one more year left on his deal at $11.5 million and he will be a free agent after the 2010 season. How many teams are out there that are willing to pay a premium price for Vazquez and then risk losing him after 2010? For example, would the Rangers give up four seasons of Nelson Cruz at a cheap price for one season of Javier Vazquez? Nope. Would the Cardinals surrender three years of Ryan Ludwick for one year of Vazquez? Maybe, but I dunno if Ludwick fits the bill after his sub par 2009 season.

2. No trade clause

-Vazquez has a limited no trade clause that allows him to block trades to all NL West and AL West clubs. That limits the number of teams, who will be interested in pursuing Vazquez.

If the Braves are really that desperate to find a taker for Vazquez, I think their best option would be trade him for prospects to free up salary. This would allow them to go after Matt Holliday or Jason Bay in free agency and sell high on Vazquez after his stellar 2009 season.

This idea that if the Braves trade Javier Vazquez that they are destined to receive their coveted power hitter in return is absurd. There are too many obstacles and roadblocks that lie ahead for the Braves by simply trading Vazquez for a power hitter if they want to get true value for the pitcher. So my advice to Frank Wren is this: go for the prospects, which will lead to financial flexibility, which could then lead to Holliday or Bay.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Arbitration Fallout: Jose Valverde

Much to my surprise, the Astros decided to offer arbitration to Jose Valverde:

"First of all, we'd love to be able to figure out a way to have Jose, Hawkins and Tejada all back, and it's still possible," Wade said. "It's going to take some economic gymnastics to make it happen. We just felt it made sense to offer Jose, who's a premier closer. If he signs elsewhere, we'd end up with two draft picks, and if he accepts arbitration and comes back to us, we'll be overjoyed."

The Astros also didn't offer arbitration to Type B reliever Doug Brocail, who isn't in the club's plans for 2010.

Valverde, 31, saved 25 games in 29 chances and posted a 2.33 ERA in 52 games last season, missing 41 games with a strained right calf. He went 4-1 with 23 saves and a 1.76 ERA in the final 44 games and finished the season with an active save streak of 19.

If Valverde, who made $8 million last season, winds up signing with another team, the Astros would receive two compensation picks in next year's First-Year Player Draft, a factor that could make some teams think twice about signing the former All-Star closer.

In the midst of slashing payroll and trying to get younger, I still don't think it's a smart play to potentially commit more than $10 million dollars annually to a closer. If Valverde somehow accepts the offer, then the Astros would have more than $65 million dollars (of a $85-$90 million dollar payroll) committed to just five players. The Astros have to be banking that Valverde will settle for nothing less than a multi year contract and he is bound to decline the offer and seek out greener pastures.

At this point, does it make any sense for Valverde to accept the Astros arbitration offer? If he's looking to maximize his earning potential in 2010, then he should absolutely accept because I doubt he's going to make as much as the Astros will have to pay him through arbitration. Valverde is regarded as one of the premier closers on the free agent market, so it's a lock that he will receive a huge contract on the free agent market, right?

Wrong. As we saw last season with Brian Fuentes and K-Rod, the market for closers tends to depreciate when the economy is poor and given all the closing options out there for teams this winter, is it out of the realm of possibility to think that Valverde might not get the free agent riches he craves?

We'll see how the market develops for Valverde, but no matter what, the Astros decision to offer Valverde arbitration is a calculated risk with a nice reward attached (two high draft picks).

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Arbitration Fallout: Benjie Molina

Yesterday, I advocated for the Giants to offer Benjie Molina salary arbitration. But the Giants were unwilling to take the risk:

"The Giants declined to offer salary arbitration to Bengie Molina, the clearest signal yet that they will have a different catcher on opening day.

They also didn't offer arbitration to their other free agents: outfielder Randy Winn, right-hander Bob Howry, left-hander Randy Johnson, right-hander Brad Penny, and infielders Juan Uribe and Rich Aurilia.

The Giants are attempting to bring back Penny at a salary far less than what he would command in front of an arbitration panel.

Molina, the Giants' only Type A free agent, could have netted two draft picks if he were offered arbitration but declined and signed with another club. But if he had been offered arbitration and accepted, he would have returned on a one-year contract at a salary likely in excess of the $6 million he made last season.

The Giants have top prospect Buster Posey knocking on the door and cheaper catching options on the free-agent market."

I understand the risk involved with offering Molina salary arbitration because the Giants really, really do not want to be committed to $8 million dollars of Benjie Molina in 2010 with Buster Posey coming on board.

But I still think with the catching market this weak, that there was a significant chance that Molina would not have accepted the arbitration offer and he would have tested the free agent market.

To me, this was a risk worth taking for the Giants. If Posey beats out Molina for the starting gig, then so be it; Molina is an expensive backup and potential trade bait. If Molina beats out Posey for the starting gig, then it's obvious that the kid isn't ready and lucky for the Giants that they have Molina around. And even if Molina signed elsewhere, he would have netted the Giants two high draft picks, which is an obvious boon for the Giants.

We'll see if the Giants even make an effort to bring Molina back from here on out. I doubt it. Now that teams do not have to offer Molina arbitration, I would expect him to land a nice multi year contract with some team.

If Brian Schneider can land a two year deal, then I'm confident that Benjie Molina can do the same.

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

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)