Zito, In An Unexpected Move, Signs a F***ing Huge Contract
The San Francisco Giants have signed Barry Zito to a seven-year $126 million contract. That is $1 million per year more (on average) than Alfonso Soriano will receive from the Cubs. I am a big Zito fan. This is insane.
Regardless of insanity, this is the first move that GM Brian Sabean has made that resembles any kind of a commitment to winning since acquiring Jason Schmidt in 2001 for Armando Rios and Ryan Vogelsong (translation: Ryan Birdsong). The irony here is that if he had just tried harder to nail down Schmidt (who signed a three-year, $47 million deal with Los Angeles), he would have a better pitcher for much less money. I believe Sabean is a candidate for worst GM in the game, along with Jim Hendry and Ned Colletti (who, not by coincidence, have all doled out dumbass contracts this offseason). I'd say the Zito deal actually is very reminiscent of the Soriano deal; way too much money for a great player, but not as great as you obviously think he is, and will end up costing your team more than he brings in.
The Giants needed pitching help, but not this badly. Zito gets thrown to the front of a rotation that will likely include Matt Cain, Matt Morris, Noah Lowry and Brad Hennessey. In 2006, only Lowry and Hennessey had ERAs below the league average; none had an ERA under 4.
Zito had both of those things but also posted a WHIP of 1.40, highest among the four pitchers that will be following him. Experts have stated that this will hurt Zito, who is leaving an assumedly better defense in Oakland. John Dewan's plus/minus system, however, ranks San Francisco's defense ahead of Oakland's in every category for 2006. The Giants posted a DER of .703 to the A's .690; Prospectus has San Francisco leading Oakland .705 to .694 in team defensive effeciency. Zito, however, was the benefactor of a .713 DEF EFF while he was on the mound. I think it is reasonable to believe that Zito will have a similar year to 2006 in 2007, hopefully posting an ERA of around 3.6 or 3.7. That is worse than what Schmidt did in 2006 (3.59). What helps Zito here is his age; he is 28 to Schmidt's 33. That is a solid number two starter for the next seven years, especially considering that Zito has never missed a start due to injury, obviously not true for Schmidt. But this is a huge amount of money to invest in guy you want to help you win down the road. To save a lot of typing, I'll just say that San Francisco's depth chart looks like this at this point. They have three great prospects in Kevin Frandsen (second base), Tim Lincecum (righty), and Angel Villalona (third base, and sixteen years old, so doesn't factor in immediately). Add to that lefty Jonathan Sanchez who may very well beat Hennessey out for a spot in the rotation next year and you've got a team that will contend in the division for a few seasons. The Giants still need plenty more pieces, however (!OUTFIELD¡), and this much money going Zito's way hurts their ability to lock it up. I think this signing will, in the long run, hurt San Francisco more than it helps.
One thing is for sure: a lot of big-name players are headed to the NL West. Every team but Colorado has been involved in big offseason moves (counting Arizon's Randy Johnson trade talks), and this division could be a tight one, and not for reasons of mediocrity like this year's NL Central.
EDIT: Add $1.8 million per year (!) to Scott Boras' salary discussed below, plus $1 million for Matsuzaka. Holy shit.
[This Headline Has Been Removed Due to Legal Considerations]
So a couple days ago a site, I think it was Primer, linked to a YouTube video about a baseball-playing robot. I immediately wanted to post the video with a GREAT headline about "Sabermatricians Finally Get Their Way" or something sarcastic like that. But YouTube's search function wasn't working, and it slipped my mind. Then Deadspin has to use the headline, without asking. Well, it sucks. (Note: I am kidding.) But here is the video, in case anyone that reads this doesn't read Deadspin or Primer (you should). This is pretty amazing, and was created by Robocross.com:
July at Christmas: Red Sox and Matsuzaka Reach Deal Before Deadline
It's official. The Red Sox and Daisuke Matsuzaka have come to terms on a six-year, $52 million deal. Incentives can bring the total up to $60 million. The deal will put Matsuzaka in Boston until age 32.
This is an interesting one to analyze. My first instinct tells me that Boston has gotten the better deal here. If Matsuzaka is as good as advertised, they have locked up a top-tier starter through his prime, for a salary below what top-notch starters are making, especially in this market.
If Matsuzaka falters, however, the Red Sox could end up with the kind of albatross contract that is often born out of these signings. Keep in mind that Matsuzaka has thrown an incredible workload for his age, including an especially brutal high school senior season. If he starts to wear down (and big league hitters start to figure him out) within three or four years, the Red Sox could have spent a lot more money than will be returned, and would be hard-pressed to move him.
I had heard that originally Scott Boras was seeking a three-year deal for his pitcher, hoping to get more money per season and also to get Matsuzaka back on the market in the middle of his prime. This is obviously impossible now, and Matsuzaka is faced with a real "make it or break it" situation over the next three years. (Not REALLY, since he gets the money either way. I'm speaking in terms of legacy and role with the Sox, I suppose.) I don't think Matsuzaka will be another Hideki Irabu, but I don't see him turning out to be Sidd Finch either.
One more comment: I think it's unfair to just throw around the negative implications behind the accusation that "Boston is investing over $100 million in this guy!" It technically is true, but what Boston did was what was necessary to lock him up. You can't say they really overspent; the posting fee was a blind process, and though Theo Epstein did outbid Brian Cashman by about $20 million, you can't fault him for making sure he had some clearance in hurdling the Yankees' bid. The Yankees have a much larger reputation for overspending, and if Epstein had let Matsuzaka get away to New York, he'd never have heard the end of it, as he still hasn't over Johnny Damon. As far as the actual contract is concerned, Boras had every right to contest that the posting fee should not significantly negatively affect Matsuzaka's earnings, since Matsuzaka will see none of that money and it doesn't count towards the Red Sox's reported salary. Considering that the Sox would have paid more for Barry Zito, or even Jason Schmidt, this contract strikes me as reasonable. (I personally would have cut it by a few years.)
Boston is taking a gamble, but it strikes me as a very reasonable one. Until Barry Zito finds a new home, Boston has the most sought-after signed player of the offseason, and for less than $10 million a year, a price they can surely afford. With Toronto making sensible moves as well (although not as many as you'd like to see), the AL East should be another wild ride in 2007.
...because sportswriters are no smarter than you or me. I'm serious about this. Sportswriters are people that happened to major in journalism or something, and mouth off in an entertaining enough way to be published. That's the only explanation for how awful they are at their own jobs.
A columnist in my hometown paper has been mouthing off recently about how much we need to punish Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa for their steroid use. As those who read this know, I have a very specific opinion about steroid use, which I outlined in this e-mail to said columnist this morning (you don't have to read the whole thing, skimming will suffice):
Dear [sportswriter]-
I have wanted to write in for a long time about a lot of things, but the steroids issue is finally what brought it on. I believe an entire nation of sportswriters is taking an illogical and hypocritical stance on Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame eligibility, which they are using to write a myriad of self-important columns that fall all over themselves to proclaim how proud they are not to vote for McGwire, or for that matter Sammy Sosa. Now I am certainly not accusing you of the latter, but readers in most papers, including ours, do not get both sides of this issue.
There are a few facts here:
1) Mark McGwire has never been proven to have taken steroids. 2) At the time of McGwire's career, steroids were not banned by Major League Baseball.
So I'll start with the basics: until we have proof otherwise, Mr. McGwire is innocent on the counts both of breaking the law and breaking the rules. Now, I think he took steroids. That messy tap dance in front of congress was certainly indicitave of something, but it was not proof. In the United States, this is a seminal aspect of our justice system. Why is this principle being abandoned by so many writers? Until it is proven, the writers should not let it affect their ballots.
This morning you mentioned that Bud Selig and Donald Fehr may be feeling guilty that they did not address the problem sooner. I believe it is the writers who should be feeling guilty. It is their job to report. I believe that the reason writers are so quick to persecute McGwire is that they HAVE proof. They were in the locker rooms in the late 90s, they saw the acne, the swelling, the andro, hell probably even the needles. The reason the proof writers have now is not coming out is that they know THEY will have to face the public on why they didn't report on it when it was happening. Selig and Fehr may be the baseball brass, but they do not spend time in locker rooms, faced with all the evidence. The writers do, and could have brought all of this up, but for the "magical summer of 98" that changed baseball that wasn't to be interfered with. And now they are writing that McGwire and Sosa should be punished for being dishonest to baseball.
There are a number of other points I'd like to make beyond these, and these points are valid even if it is assumed that McGwire was a steroid user.
First, the National Baseball Hall of Fame is not owned by nor affiliated with Major League Baseball. It is by no means under any obligation to honor only MLB players, or honor MLB rules. But, all the best players play in MLB, and they are the only ones the Hall would honor anyway. Even if McGwire had broken a MLB rule (which he didn't), that should have no bearing on his enshrinement in the hall. Whitey Ford is in the hall, as is Gaylord Perry. Perry goes around bragging about how he cheated, which I believe is and always has been a slap in the face of MLB, and no one pays him a second thought. This is, I believe, also the main argument for putting Pete Rose in the hall. It is perfectly acceptable, as has been proposed, to include on these players' plaques their career shames. But the Hall exists to honor baseball achievements, whether or not it has MLB's blessing. Baseball as a sport owes a lot to McGwire and Sosa, plus they both had Hall of Fame careers.
You also mentioned in this morning's column that it is not drug use we are concerned with, but performance-enhancing drug use. Mr. [sportswriter], I am surprised at the naïvete you display with this comment. Surely a sportswriter of your stature has been aroud long enough to remember the epidemic use of amphetamines in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Even if you hadn't been around then, you must have read "Ball Four", Jim Bouton's game-changing book that contains scores of mentions of just how prevalent "greenies" were in the game. Dozens of players from this era have been voted in without a second thought. Steroids are more powerful and more dangerous, to be sure, but the idea that performance-enhancing drugs are okay "to an extent" is a hypocritical and dangerous idea.
I return to the fact that McGwire broke no rules while in Major League Baseball, as steroids were not banned by the organization. Yes, they were and are illegal in the United States for these purposes, but as I am sure you know, breaking the law is NOT the same as breaking the rules. Just ask Darryl Strawberry, Paul Molitor, Steve Howe, or Ruben Rivera about that. These are all players that were given second chances after law-breaking problems (Molitor was voted into the Hall of Fame, mind you).
To summarize, cheating has been around, law-breaking has been around, performance-enhancing drugs have been around, long before this debate ever took hold. You'll some from each column with bright bronze faces in the Hall, and none are in danger of getting the boot. THe final, most important argument is the subject of what a bad example these steroid-users are setting for the young people of America. I would respond to this in two ways. The first is that the steroid problem is, in the Majors, under control. Guillermo Mota has just been suspended for 50 games, and the public and officials of baseball have never been more aware or privy to the situation as they are now. Examples do not need to be made of McGwire and Sosa; it will accomplish nothing. The kids you are worried about endangering are not old enough to have been following the summer of 98; the current steps being taken are enough. Secondly, as you know, if you walk into a room of pro athletes and spit, you will hit three or four bad examples for kids. Ben Wallace's gun problem, Ray Lewis' murder trial, Dominik Hasek's assault trial, Juan Uribe's arrest; off the top of my head, there's an example from each of the four major sports. People romanticize sports to such an extent that crimes "against the game" as McGwire has supposedly commited are worse than crimes against humanity. This, right here, is the real problem.
I know a lot of these arguments are based on "this is okay because of all these precedents" kind of thinking, and that's not the idea I'm trying to get across. I just think that McGwire is an unfair scapegoat of an era that is only getting this treatment because he was THAT good, Hall-of-Fame good, and therefore that much more in the public eye. Sportswriters throw around lines that "he cheated" so much without looking into what really connotates cheating, as well as what connotates cheating that is "okay". (I notice Kenny Rogers hasn't been banned from baseball recently.) Your column is based on short opinions without the space to get into it in depth, this I understand. But I think that means you should think more carefully about the issues you spearhead within it.
Thank you for your time, and best wishes for the Holiday season,
Carnival Matleuse
Here is his response. I have edited nothing, it contained no salutation or farewell, and I'm going to try to get it to show up in the lovely blue text it came to me in:
Are you wearing blinders? There is lots of evidence that McGwire used steroids and probably heavily for most of his career. Start with Canseco's book. If Canseco made it up, why hasn't McGwire sued for libel or slander? McGwire's name was prominent in a federal steroids investigation in the 1990s. If McGwire didn't cheat, why didn't he deny it at the steroid hearings? For your information, in 1991, Commissioner Fay Vincent issued baseball's Drug Policy and Prevention Program, prohibiting the use of all illegals drugs -- INCLUDING steroids (without a doctor's prescription). Baseball writers aren't assigned to investigate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. There are other people who do that sort of work. It wasn't the responsibility of the baseball writers to blow the whistle on McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, etc. They reported what happened on the field. When they are asked to vote for the Hall of Fame, character and sportsmanship are supposed to be considered. If they believed a candidate cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs, it is reasonable to consider that a negative. Bonds was a Hall of Fame calibre player before he began using steroids in 1999 (in my opinion), but he never would've hit 73 HRs in a season or won his last four of seven MVP awards without a BIG boost from steroids. Amphetamines don't help turn decent sluggers into super sluggers. Steroids and human growth hormone do. The Hall of Fame voters aren't sending McGwire to prison. They are likely to keep him out of the Hall of Fame -- at least for now. The Hall of Fame vote in an individual thing. If a writer believes cheating turned a very good player into a Hall of Famer, it is reasonable for that voter to reject McGwire as a legitimate Hall of Famer. The only diffrerence between McGwire and Ragael Palmeiro is that Palmeiro got caught.
You see what I mean? Blow-by-blow:
-His first six sentences are a waste, because I admit in my letter that I BELIEVE McGwire took steroids. I just said there isn't any proof, which there isn't. "McGwire won't sue Canseco" is not proof.
-The next sentence puts me in my place a little. Didn't know that about Faye Vincent. But I still contend that the rules were ambiguous enough to merit question. And he STILL doesn't rebut my "cheaters" argument.
-We then have these six sentences, which make me throw up:
Baseball writers aren't assigned to investigate the use of performance-enhancing drugs. There are other people who do that sort of work. It wasn't the responsibility of the baseball writers to blow the whistle on McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, etc. They reported what happened on the field. When they are asked to vote for the Hall of Fame, character and sportsmanship are supposed to be considered. If they believed a candidate cheated by using performance-enhancing drugs, it is reasonable to consider that a negative.
"BASEBALL WRITERS AREN'T ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE THE USE OF PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS"??? "THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO DO THAT SORT OF WORK"??? What the hell are you talking about? Journalists investigate! That's the freakin' point! And it's okay if journalists ignore the shit during a player's career, but then it's okay afterwards to come out and bash the guy when he can no longer sever your ties with the organization? JOURNALISTS ARE SPINELESS ROBOTS THAT DO WHATEVER THEIR BOSS TELLS THEM TO, AND YOU ARE RIGHT NOW SAYING YOU'RE PROUD OF THAT, AS A JOURNALIST.
-The next sentence about Barry Bonds is weird. Is saying he would still vote for Bonds? Wouldn't? I honestly can't tell.
-Remember in my letter when I mentioned that a really good justification is needed for a "some performance-enhancing drugs are okay" argument? Well, the next two sentences provide that argument, with no justification. Thanks for reading my letter, asshole.
-The following four sentences are a conclusion in which he basically states the points I am arguing against, without arguing for them. "If a writer believes cheating turned a very good player into a Hall of Famer, it is reasonable for that voter to reject McGwire as a legitimate Hall of Famer." That is actually a good sentence. But he still fails to address the hypocrisy of letting SOME cheaters into the hall, but not the BAD ones.
-I think my favorite part of his whole response is the out-of-the-blue last line: "The only diffrerence between McGwire and Ragael Palmeiro is that Palmeiro got caught." Rafael Palmeiro? What?! Who brought that up? Did I say I thought Palmeiro shouldn't be in the hall because of steroids? No, I didn't. Where did this come from?
So, we have 21 total sentences, two of which are worth anything. This guy has a coveted job in a metropolitan newspaper. It's not in a major-league market, but it's no cow town. (It is in a AAA market.) This is a lesson for everyone: Don't take crap from writers just because of their position. They are, honestly, no smarter than you or me, no better at writing, and no more knowledgable about sports or, apparently, ethics.
---
And now for an undeserved attack on Bill Simmons:
Bill Simmons has said that bloggers are just wannabe sportswriters. Well, I think I could say the same thing about Bill Simmons. The only difference is that he gets paid. And he doesn't talk about sports.
I'll make some comments myself here, in chronological order. Starting with, oh, I don't know,
Red Sox ink Drew for 5 years, $70 million
Red Sox Fans everywhere are throwing up in their mouths. This is a great move for Drew, who gets to play on a primo-stage for $3 million more than he would have gotten in Los Angeles. Many people see Drew as a selfish prima donna who is always hurt and is getting on in years. This has some truth to it, although Drew has had three great seasons in a row, including the shortened-by-injury-which-was-obviously-Paul Depodesta's-fault 2005. Since he got to the league, Drew has, literally, alternated between healthy and hurt seasons, with 2007 looking grim if the pattern holds. But in those last three healthy years he's posted EqAs of .335, .334 and .300, and WARP3's of 8.6 and 9.2 in those last two. With the silly, silly market right now, I think this is a good move for the Sox, who need a good fielder in right field (which Drew is) and a five-hole hitter that can.... hit at all. Last year the Sox ranked 30th, and by no small margin, in five-hold OPS. Drew has a great swing for Fenway park, and this deal could be integral to the Sox's success next season. If he stays healthy, and doesn't let the Boston media get to him. Which he likely won't, and will, respectively. Sigh.
Maddux signs with Padres
Greg Maddux's last awesome season was in 2002, when he posted an ERA of 2.62, good for an ERA+ of 157. He's gone way downhill since then, although had a weirdly successful season in 2006 posting average numbers with Chicago and very good numbers with Los Angeles. Now the Padres have given him $7 million (up to $10 million if he achieves numerous innings incentives) to try and recreate that SoCal magic in 2007. It's a lot of money for a pitcher... not of Maddux'scaliber, of course, but of Maddux's recent production. PETCO Park is every pitcher's dream, and so is the NL West (especially if Bonds departs San Francisco), so the odds seem to be in his favor to at least have a decent season in 2007 at age 41. But don't look for him to bring what a REAL $10 million pitcher would.
Red Sox sign Julio Lugo for 4 years, $36 million
Well, the Red Sox needed a shortstop, and that's exactly what they got. Not sure if he's worth the money... Lugo is serviceable in the field, and not wince-inducing with the bat. Most of his career highs came in 2005, and OPS+ of 105 and an OBP of .362; both of those totals have not come close to being equalled by any other seasons in his career. He also posted a FRAR of 45 that year, never scoring above 26 any other. As Charlie points out, the Sox probably thought Dustin Pedroia would be better at second, but a good second baseman can be had on this market for a much more reasonable price than this.
Mets deal Brian Bannister to the Royals for Ambiorix Burgos
Both teams get something they need here. The Mets trade away a serviceable starter for a decent relief arm, and the Royals get a starter that will help remove the word "abominable" from many descriptions of their rotation.
Burgos has always been touted as being better than he's pitched, but he will only be 23 next year. Surrounded by a shitload of good pitchers, as he will be in New York, is a good place for a young pitcher to learn the ropes (See: Rivera, Mariano, circa 1995).
Bannister pitched well in his rookie season, although he got some help from his defense. Kansas City might drown him as it did Zack Greinke, both because he is moving to the American League and because he is playing for an awful team.
Schmidt signs with Los Angeles for three years, $47 million
This is a huge relief for Dodger fans after the idiotic signings of Juan Pierre and Randy Wolf. Three of Schmidt's last four seasons have been great, and 2003 can only be described as fabuloso. After an injury-laced 2005 Schimdt came back to form last season, and three years is a very reasonable amount of time to lock him up for (ages 34, 35, and 36). The word is that the Dodgers will now trade a starter, possibly Brad Penny, for a bat.
Indians sign Joe Borowski to a one-year, $4.25 million deal
Borowski had a hell of a season in 2006, but didn't pass a physical in Philadelphia recently. This is a gamble for Cleveland, but if that shoulder is all right, they got themselves a good closer.
I watched a bunch of The Simpsons Season Three on DVD last night. A couple notable things:
-In the commentary for "Homer at the Bat", show-runner Al Jean mentions that "all the players were really great to work with. Except for one whose name I won't mention, but it rhymes with 'Manseco'."
-In "Bart's Friend Falls in Love", Bart takes advantage of Milhouse's otherwise-occupied attention to rip him off in some baseball card trades. My favorite part: "I'll take your Ozzie Smith rookie card for my Vizquel." Back when these two were actually playing, people realized their respective values. Now that Smith is a distant memory, this helps bring into clearer context the idiocy of writers who want Vizquel in the hall because "he is almost as good in the field as Ozzie and he can hit better", to sum it up. 1) He is NOT almost as good as Ozzie was, and 2) WHO CARES.
Here's a great article from the Onion, presumably written by Ned Colletti. I'm glad the Onion is doing sports now; before all we had was the Brushback, which had laugh-out-loud headlines but terrible writing. The Onion's writing as always been top-notch.
And also, here's some info on Toronto Star columnist Richard Griffin's sex life, completely unsolicited.
I won't be posting for a couple days, but keep checking out Prospectus' updates on the winter meetings. Maybe the next time I see you, Manny Ramirez will have been traded. Maybe.
Seriously, it's fun. The Hardball Times'John Brattain (whose stuff I generally like, but is a little fluffy, although he's an admitted Jays fan so that's worth some points) has written a great indictment of the BBWAA members that will proudly not be voting for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame. Here are the best parts:
Mark McGwire was part of an era, an era that happened with owners, general managers, managers, agents, the MLBPA and the media acting as willing accomplices. The Yankees struck a steroid clause that could void the deal on Jason Giambi’s massive contract. Teams offered major money to these juiced-up behemoths to put runs of the board. The MLBPA fought tooth and nail to protect players ‘right’ to take steroids. Managers never invoked the ‘probable cause’ provision in the labour agreement to have a player tested for performance enhancing drugs. Agents gleefully cashed commission checks from their ‘roided up clients. The media saw the players balloon up in a way they never saw major leaguers before and saw unprecedented performances. They were in the locker room. They saw the body acne and other physical symptoms characteristic of steroid use.
(...)
They could’ve blown the whistle but guess what? To do that would’ve risked backlash, access, and their relations with players. They chose to wimp out and not do their jobs and report.
Now that they don’t have to face these players any more and answer to them for what they write, now they’re acting like tough guys, standing up to protect the integrity of the game and saying there’s no way they’d vote a “cheater” into the Hall of Fame. It’s like bad-mouthing the class bully two years after he’s moved 3,000 miles away.
