Bobby Abreu, Andy Pettitte, Derek Lowe, Jason Varitek and Jim Rice
Today is an important day in the offseason that could spur some teams to action. Once we know which free agents have been offered arbitration, teams will know for sure whether they'll need to surrender draft picks in return for signing a free agent. This won't have an impact, however, on the biggest cases; there's no mystery, for instance, concerning whether Milwaukee will offer arbitration to CC Sabathia. That will happen.
For our local clubs, Bobby Abreu and Oliver Perez will get offered arbitration, and probably no one else. It doesn't make sense for the Yankees to offer it to Andy Pettitte, since he'd accept it quickly and get himself a raise.
I wouldn't get too worked up over the likelihood of the Dodgers signing Pettitte. Yes, Pettitte and Joe Torre have an excellent relationship. But the Dodgers aren't going to match Pettitte's $16 million salary of 2008, either. And all things being equal _ if he has to take a pay cut regardless of where he goes, in other words _ Pettitte wants to pitch for the Yankees.
Perez will turn down the Mets' arbitration offer. He's going to get more, in dollars and years, on the open market.
The Abreu case is slightly more interesting. He'd probably make $18 million or so for 2009 through arbitration, but it would be a one-year deal. Through free agency, he could get, say, a three-year, $33-million deal. He'll probably go for the longer term and the larger overall package. But if, for some reason, he wanted to make a huge score at a workplace he has enjoyed, then he could accept the Yankees' offer, and the team would be thrilled.
What would the team do then, with corner options in Abreu, Johnny Damon, Xavier Nady and Nick Swisher? Probably want to keep Nady for his righty bat, right? So do you consider trading Damon? He'd be missed - he's an asset on both sides of the ball when he plays leftfield, and his good nature helps the clubhouse _ but he could probably bring back a nice haul of kids in return, as long as the Yankees helped out with the $13 million he's owed for '09.
This is a hypothetical we'll probably never have to actually contemplate. But a fun question to ponder nonetheless.
They're probably going to sacrifice their own first-rounder by signing a Type A free agent who has been offered arbitration, whether it's Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Derek Lowe, Mark Texieira or Manny Ramirez. Since they will very likely sign two such free agents, there goes their second-round pick, as well.
The good news for Yankees fans is that the team carries over both its first-round and second-round picks from 2008, as they failed to come to terms with both Gerritt Cole and Scott Bittle. And if Abreu does sign elsewhere, the Yankees will get two more picks _ one in the sandwich round between the first and second rounds, and the other dependent on the team that signs Abreu (and if that team signs any other free agents who are ranked higher than Abreu in Elias' system).
But the argument, as you'll see if you read, is sort of dated. It relies heavily on MVP balloting, runs, hits and RBI.
It reminded me of a group interview conducted in spring training 1999 with Don Zimmer, who was filling in as Yankees manager while Joe Torre was being treated for prostate cancer.
Someone asked Zim if that lineup _ remember, C Jorge Posada, 1B Tino Martinez, 2B Chuck Knoblauch, 3B Scott Brosius, SS Derek Jeter, LF Ricky Ledee/Shane Spencer, CF Bernie Williams, RF Paul O'Neill and DH Chili Davis/Darryl Strawberry _ would be the best lineup he'd ever written on a lineup card.
Zim's eyes bulged, and he took on a combative tone, as he would do occasionally if you so much as asked him the time.
"I don't know about that," he said. "I had a team with Jim Rice. Carlton Fisk. Fred Lynn. Carl Yastrzemski. Rick Burelson. Butch Hobson. Dwight Evans. Jerry Remy. George Scott. That was a pretty good lineup."*
Indeed, it was. Of course I'm not saying that Rice stunk. He was very, very good. But certainly, it must be acknowledged that his counting stats, particularly his runs and RBI, were aided by the lineup in which he played. For the 14 years of Rice's prime, 1975 through 1988, the Red Sox posted an OPS+ of over 100 _ they were above league average, in other words _ in 12 of those seasons. In the two seasons which they didn't, 1982 and 1983, they were at 99, one tick below average.
Now, to be fair, Rice helped those teams put up such good offensive numbers. But he had help.
*Posnanski-esque interruption here. First, please don't scrutinize the order in which Zim listed those players, because that's almost 10 years ago and I probably didn't get the order exactly right. Second, I like Zimmer; he can be a barrel of laughs. Catch him at the wrong moment, however...
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (18)
I think the biggest argument for Rice is the fact that Gary Carter (Player A from last week) and Kirby Puckett are in. To me, this says that in borderline cases personality does matter.
Agreed Tim. And fact that sportswriters screw up once means that we face additional problems as they lower the bar for induction to the Hall of Fame. At this point, I would love SABR to take over the process, as it will be more transparent, fair and based on some statistical reality.
I went to the inductions last year and there may have been 10,000 people for Gossage. It is in the financial interets of the HOF, Clark estates and the town to have as many entrants as possible, so quite frankly I do not think they care about any quality control.
I agree that Puckett's induction helps Rice's cause, but Carter's case is totally different. You cannot compare Carter to Rice because they played totally different positions. Carter played the toughest position on the field, while Rice played one of the easiest (and DH'd a bunch as well). There's a lot more elite offensive corner OF than their are catchers.
You have to compare each player to the other's who played his position during his era.
For what it's worth, Carter's lifetime OPS+ is 115 and Pudge Rodriguez's is 110. Most would agree that Pudge is a no doubter HOF'er. I'm just sayin'...
Posada's OPS+ is 124. Is he a Hall of Famer?
What is OPS+? If it compares to everyone else in his time than fine, but Pudge played int he juice ball/small field park and a lot of #'s get inflated. Plus his drastic downfall will probably makemany suspect he did steroids, though there's no proof of it.
My biggest memory of Pudge wont be his very clutch hits or even him telling the Union to go screw themselves he's staying with the team he wants. My memory will be when a pitcher (maybe Jimmy Key or Dave Steib???) threw at a batter and the batter turned towards Pudge. And Pudge said, "Dont look at me, he threw it." I was sickened.
Ken, can a team offer arbitration more than one year in a row? If so they can keep playing the arbitration game with Abreu. I honestly dont know why they wouldn't pay him 33 for 3. He's pretty good.
As for Rice hurting himself by playing on good teams, c'mon. Myabe he made some of the other players better by constantly being on base or being a threat behind them. If you're gonna penalize Rice for that, then you have to penalize all future HOFers that played on good teams as well.
RG,
I think we've been through what OPS+ is enough times in the last week. It is a way of measuring a player's performance, regardless of the player's on his team. RBI, runs scored, etc. all depend largely on other guys in the lineup. OPS+ is pitcher vs. batter, compared to other players of the same year. Search for it on wikipedia and read up - it's not too tough a stat to grasp, but when you do understand it your view of baseball stats might just change.
Jack,
I cited OPS+ not as an end-all-be-all for judging HOF candidacy, but it's a heckuva lot better than using MVP balloting results. If Posada had 3 more years of elite hitting, yes, I think he's a HOF'er. He has been terribly underrated in his career.
Richie, exactly where did I write that Rice hurt himself by playing on good teams? I have no intention of penalizing him for that. But I'm not going to reward him for it, either. RBI is largely a reflection of how good your team is, rather than how good you are individually.
And yes, you can keep offering players arbitration year after year - unless the player negotiates that the team CAN'T offer arbitration, which has occurred occasionally. The benefit of going year-to-year is that, should his production plummet, you can bid him farewell quickly.
I agree with James on Posada: He probably isn't in Cooperstown at this point, IMHO. That said, he has been one of the best catchers of his era.
It used to be that if a team doesn't offer arbitration to a free agent player, that player cannot re-sign with that team until May 1. A few years ago MLB change the rules that will allow teams to re-sign their free agents even if they don't offer arbitration.
Abreu and Oliver Perez will both be offer arbitration by the Yanks and Mets respectably. But neither Abreu or Perez will accept arbitration and both of them will explore the market.
Offering Pettitte arbitration doesn't make sense because the Yanks want Pettitte to take a pay cut in order for Pettitte to come back to the Yanks.
Puckett got into the HOF because he was well like by the media. Of course we didn't know about Puckett's personal problems until after he was inducted into the HOF. Rice was dislike by the media and its hurting him in the HOF ballot.
Ken, here’s what you wrote about Posada:
“He probably isn't in Cooperstown at this point, IMHO. That said, he has been one of the best catchers of his era.”
Cooperstown? My God, I should hope! Is my recollection incorrect or were there two certain HOF pitchers who went to great lengths to insure that Posada wasn’t behind the plate when their turn in the rotation came? Weren’t there other pitchers over the past ten years that felt the same way?
Posada in the HOF? What about Munson? OPS+ of 116. Oh, that’s right, we only use certain stats with certain players to prove our position. Those stats aren’t really applicable to other players. These isn’t unlike most politicians in the country today.
"Cooperstown? My God, I should hope!"
Left out the NOT at the end of that sentence. No way should Posada go into the HOF unless the guy goes on an offensive and defensive tear for the rest of his career.
What's your problem Jack?
Did I (or Ken, or anyone else for that matter) write anywhere that Munson shouldn't be in the HOF? Did I write anywhere that POSADA should be in the HOF? No.
For the 2nd time, OPS+ is NOT the end-all-be-all determinant of a player's HOF worthiness. There are a myriad other factors - longevity, position, defense, etc. However, this is basically a message board and I don't think anyone has the time or inclination to post 2,000 words about each player's HOF case.
Just what the world needs Jack - another stats-hating baseball "fan", who lets personal grudges/perceptions against baseball players cloud judgment for HOF and other awards/honors.
You know what's funny? Carter is another Puckett. Posada and Munson have compatible numbers (some higher, some lower) to Carter, and Pudge Rodriguez's numbers aren't all that close to any of them.
So thanks to the election of Carter, Posada and Munson deserve consideration. Or we could look at it more accurately and say that neither Carter nor Puckett are HOFers.
All right, enough. Everyone please take it down a level.
Munson at one point in his career was on a Hall of Fame track, but was already slowing down considerably (look at his 1978 and 1979) at the time of his death. If you remember, he was looking to switch away from catcher at age 32.
And just for the record with Posada, Jack, I assume you're referring to Clemens and Randy Johnson not wanting to pitch to him? Clemens did give up on Posada in the middle of the '99 season, but went back to him in 2000, and I'm pretty sure that Posada caught more Clemens victories than any other catcher. Johnson didn't like pitching to Posada, no question. Neither did David Cone, at the start of Posada's career. I'm not sure that disqualifies Posada from HOF consideration. He still managed to catch a ton of games in his prime.
For the record: I love stats. I just don't selectively use them but prefer to view the entire picture - all the stats. I don't think I have any "problem" but might have a different viewpoint.
I have no grudges against any player. (Managers are another story.) I have nothing against Swisher, who appears to be a good guy. I just don't want him on the Yankees. People shouldn't be demonized simply because they don't take a leap of faith and fall in lockstep based on someone's use of stats to prove that a player "might" have a good year sometime in the future.
James K you bring a lot to the table. But, don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with you. You make absolute statements, so expect them to be challenged.
OK Jack agreed. I do get pretty dogmatic about stats and opinions - something friends and family tell me all the time.
Just realize that if I post that X player should be in the HOF because of Y stat, I'm not solely basing my opinion on that lone stat. Believe me, I probably could write 2,000 words on each player's candidacy for the Hall (and maybe I will), encompassing stats and factors besides just OPS+. I just don't have the time to do it in this little space - plus my manager might get suspicious that I'm spending so much time on Newsday.com.
Also, I honestly have no agenda when I post - this is to say I'm not someone who says "Jim Rice is a HOF'er because he was most dominant/feared", then cherrypicks stats to support his case. I look at stats and other factors first, then decide.
I was just confused about the Munson thing, that's all.
Fair enough. It's all good, James K. Thanks.
BTW - Munson falls short of the HOF, IMHO.
I love Munson, but I agree... he's not an HOFer. But I stand by saying that Carter is a questionable HOFer at best. Be that as it may, it's just baseball. Thanks guys.
PS: Thanks for the shout-out, Ken.
Ken, Rice was not a very very good player,he was a GREAT player that deserves to be in the HOF. I think the way voting is done has to be completely overhauled. Nothing against Gossage,but how can he receive 70 less votes than Rice in 2004,22 less votes than Rice in 2005,1 less vote than Rice in 2006 and then all of a sudden have 42 MORE votes than Rice in 2007 and 74 MORE votes than Rice in 2008 when he was elected. It doesn't make any sense... Rice has been screwed IMO. I'm optimistic that he will finally get in this year,but if he doesn't,i'm very confident that the Veterans Committee will vote him in. His peers from his playing days already in the HOF know that he deserves it,and the old-timers in the Hall seem to greatly respect his accomplishments as well. Thanks, Garrett