Texas paper: Millwood signs with Rangers
DMZ · December 26, 2005 at 3:10 pm · Filed Under Mariners
The Dallas-Ft. Worth Star Telegram reports it’s a done deal, pending a physical tomorrow.
Update! $60m over five years, and the fifth year is voidable by the Rangers if Millwood doesn’t reach an innings target in the earlier years of the deal.
So, Washburn: 38m over 4 = ~9.5m/year
Millwood: 60m over 5 = ~12m/year
Now, whether or not you think both of those deals are crazy, the chances that Millwood will, over the life of those contracts, be worth 2.5m more a year than Washburn approach 100%
Comments
98 Responses to “Texas paper: Millwood signs with Rangers”
If it’s within $5m of the total outlay for Washburn, especially if the option is an absolute club option, I’ll be less than pleased. I doubt I’m alone in that regard.
I’m going to put this out there that IF (and this is a semi-big if) the Rangers compete for the division title this year, then next year’s FA pitchers will flock to Texas.
It is very possible for good pitchers to succeed in that ballpark. With Millwood, a few solid relief pitchers, and an outstanding closer, the Rangers will be set to make a huge splash in next year’s crop.
This reported signing supports the notion that pitchers aspire to pitch for proven offenses. The Mariners, unfortunately, do not fall into that category, therefore we will be on the sidelines in the race for FA pitching until our offense comes around.
If there is some magic potion to get us to swing the bats like the rangers then let’s have it.
(No, I’m not referring to steroids… that obviously hasn’t worked for our guys haha)
Matt, I’m with you there. Texas is shaping up to be a fairly strong contender. The AL West is not a cake-walk.
One of the big story lines of the year wiil be whether the Red Sox can recover from all their offseason skunkings, and get a decent year (as opposed to Randy Johnson’s 1998 pout year) out of the disgruntled Manny Ramirez.
One might think that this signing tilts the Sox, losers in the Millwood Sweepstakes, away from dealing a major-league-ready starting pitcher for Jeremy Reed (assuming that deal has any life left). So if there is to be a deal (please no!), the Mariners should scope-lock on Papelbon or Lester.
And finally: Wow … this could well be the Rangers’ year.
Oakland is still my pick for the West, but this is a huge step forward for Texas.
ESPN is reporting that it’s 5 years $60 million. The 5th year is a team option that vests based on innings pitched in the previous 4 years, apparently. Sigh.
I just saw 5 years/60 million on Yahoo. Quite a bit more than we paid for Washburn, though the fifth year can be voided if Millwood doesn’t pitch enough innings in years 1-4. Not quite Chan Ho Park territory, but certainly not a great contract for a pitcher with mechanical issues and a history of underperformance (given his stuff). This doesn’t make me happy about the Washburn deal, but I wouldn’t have given Kevin Millwood $48 million or so guaranteed over four years.
So … should the Mariners have made that deal?
#8 – The fan in me says “yes” they should have made that deal. I think they should’ve made that deal instead of the Washburn deal, but I know that those weren’t mutually exclusive things either.
The price is steep, but that’s the market rate now for good pitching, like it or not. I’m tired of the M’s overpaying for mediocrity. If they’re going to overpay, I’d much rather see them overpay for quality and talent (as opposed to a schmuck like Washburn).
the AP says “Free agent pitcher Kevin Millwood reached a preliminary agreement on a $60 million, five-year contract with Texas, giving the Rangers the legitimate No. 1 starter they have been seeking. Texas can void the fifth year of the deal if Millwood doesn’t pitch a certain number of innings in earlier years of the contract. Millwood is expected to undergo a physical Tuesday, and the deal likely will be finalized Wednesday.”
given what happened with the Park deal, if Millwood does end up with the health problems that supposedly scared off some teams, Texas will be very unhappy with Boras
Mr. Thompson:
Boston has, in no particular order, Shilling, Beckett, Papelbon, Wakefield, Arroyo, and Clement. And that’s assuming that they deal Wells (who wants out of Boston). I wouldn’t describe them as ‘losers’ in the Millwood Sweepstakes, given the contract that Texas gave him. I’d say this leaves the Sox in a better position than before, with the teams that lost out on Burnett and Millwood looking to their oversupply of starters with envious eyes. And Wells isn’t even dealt yet.
#10 – And Washburn has had health/durability issues also, but yet the M’s decided to sign him for an atrocious amount of $$. If you’re the M’s and you’re gonna reach a bit anyways for a starting pitcher, you might as well reach all the way and get someone good instead of someone mediocre.
Jim, I concur with AQ. I don’t like either deal (Washburn or Millwood) but if you’re going to throw away $15M (to pick a number out of thin air), you might as well have the better pitcher.
Given his rate stats and arm problems, Wasburn has a real chance to be $9M replacement level player. Millwood is at least likely to add some value.
Mr. Thompson asks: “should the Mariners have made that deal?”
On the one hand, that deal in Safeco is better than that deal in Arlington…
OTOH, I think it’s a bit much, and it depends how the innings targets are calculated – I would want a contract where he had to have 170+ innings (for example), in EACH of years one through four. I imagine that Boras structured this deal so that if he averages a certain number over the first four years, then Texas is locked in for year five. This opens the possibility of him being a good innings eater for the first three years, then having some kind of injury or meltdown in year four, shortly after year 5 becomes guaranteed…
Texas is snakebit. Millwood will toil in obscurity there. Oh well.
Millwood was clearly the preferred pitcher compared to Washburn, and he should help Texas. However, I wouldn’t annoint the Rangers as title contenders, just yet.
Millwood is their best pitcher, and he did lead the league in ERA last season. I don’t really know how pitching in Texas compares to pitching in Cleveland, but pitching in Texas has been known to be challenging, at best.
Behind Millwood, the Rangers have Padilla, Eaton, and spare parts. That is a very weak rotation made weaker by where it will be performing…
Is my name really that hard to spell?
Whoops. Very Sorry, Mr. Thomsen.
Jedi mind tricks are hard to shake, Mr. Thomsen. Sorry. *^_^*
Back to our egularly scheduled programming, then. Should Seattle have made the same deal with Millwood?
“On the one hand, that deal in Safeco is better than that deal in Arlington…”
This may be out of context with the intent of that quote, but that quote does lead to the idea that Washburn’s deal is mitigated a bit by Safeco, while Millwood’s is exacerbated by Ameriquest Field…
Yes, that’s what I was getting at, #20…
I’d say that our Pitching Dollars are worth more than Texas’ Pitching Dollars, based on park effects.
Washburn’s deal still sucks.
Millwood’s deal is not that great, either, but if we were gonna get burned, I would rather get burned on Millwood. Getting burned on Washburn’s contract is a near-certainty.
Carrying the idea of my previous post a bit further,
“Now, whether or not you think both of those deals are crazy, the chances that Millwood will, over the life of those contracts, be worth 2.5m more a year than Washburn approach 100%”
The difference between the contracts, using cost-benefit analysis, is likely to be much more than 2.5M per year, and the chances of Millwood being worth more than the absolute difference is not relevant…
Do any of you guys consider the fact that a “free agent” is free to go anywhere he pleases and for whatever reason he may not want to go to Seattle….its not like you just have to throw in an extra 2.5 mill to automatically get a guy…Millwood may have had no interest in going here….Plus to call Washborn a replacement level pitcher is beyond ridiculous…
Looking forward to some sub 4 ERA’s out of JWash
Numerous people (Buster Olney the most recent that comes to mind) have quoted “insiders” as saying that anything over TWO years to Millwood is a huge, huge risk. Apparently his shoulder isn’t as great as most think, to say the least.
The Washburn deal was a huge overpay, but I don’t think the Millwood deal would have been good for Seattle either. He probably will be hurt at some point… and how bad? ugh. A four year deal is horrible too if he’s injured for 1+ of those years.
It’s just a crappy FA class this year. I don’t think any of the pitchers would have been great deals, including Millwood.
#23: I think it’s reasonable to think that given equal offers, Millwood might choose Seattle over Texas becase a) Seattle supposedly has ‘Boras goodwill’ from the Beltre signing; b) there’s no reason to think that Texas’s future looks any brighter than Seattle’s; and c) Safeco Field is much better suited to Millwood’s skills set than Ameriquest Field, and thus is likely to make him more successful.
If Millwood had any geographical or other bias against Seattle, it was never made known.
“Apparently his shoulder isn’t as great as most think, to say the least.” – #24
This is very true. After the analysis on Lookoutlanding and the pictures of Prior releasing the ball (textbook) and Millwood doing the same (far from what you teach young pitchers), one could conclude that Millwood’s straight arm at release is the reason for any arm injuries.
Kevin Millwood is at a breaking point, guys. Starting this year, he either becomes solid or awful. With his awkward mechanics I see years of arm troubles in the next, oh say, 4-5 years.
I’m still getting the feeling that Millwood has been glorified this offseason because he had the best year last year of all free agent pitchers. Before last year, however, he was the poster-child of inconsistancy.
I guess it’s like comparing those “pretty on the inside” girls with an average looking chick. That average girl will be much more appealing if your fallback plan is cross-eyed and has 9 teeth (harsh reference to Washburn)
Texas isn’t that much better than last year. Is Millwood gonna be as good as 2005 Kenny Rogers? That’d be tough to pull off. Is Eaton really better than Chris Young? Padilla might be better than whatever they had last year. Maybe.
Soriano’s bat is gone. Replaced by Brad Wilkerson and Ian Kinsler (?). That’s not that much better.
And Francisco Crodero is going to be a free agent next year. The Rangers are gonna have to find BJ Ryan money to keep him around.
I would prefer 12 million for Millwood then 9 million for Washburn
RE: 26
LOL, have our abilities as analysts progessed so far that now we can even predict future injuries? Pitching represents a high stress activity which subjects the human arm to very near the limits of its tolerances. Anyone engaged in pitching, even an individual with ideal mechanics, is subject to sudden and unforseeable injury.
Furthermore, although a link between mechanics and injury surely exists, the myriad of factors (including usage patterns, genetics, etc) that produce an injury severly limit the predictive value of motion analysis. To predict “years” of arm trouble in the next 4-5 years for Millwood is a ridiculous claim. I could say the same exact thing for virtually any pitcher, without being far off base.
Millwood’s arm motion might lead to injury during his shiny new contract. Of course, he may be hit by a bus on his way to the ballpark and never pitch again.
Soriano’s bat is gone. Replaced by Brad Wilkerson and Ian Kinsler (?). That’s not that much better.
It’s a huge, huge upgrade. There’s really no two ways about this. Soriano’s bat is gone, but so is his horrible glove. You could stick a no-hit, slick-fielding 2B straight out of the Domincan out there next year and the team wouldn’t be that hurt overall.
That’s before we talk about the contributions of Wilkerson and Kinsler.
Kinsler, based on everything I’ve read, is a monster prospect. Monster enough that the Rangers were openly dangling Hank Blalock.
I don’t quite understand your comment, Jim. Are you suggesting that Kinsler would take over for Blalock at third base? It seems to me that, with Soriano gone, there’s a big enough hole at 2B and it’d be preferable to move a SS prospect like Kinsler to 2B rather than 3B.
Going by the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” principle, though, Blalock is definitely available for the right price.
29- I only put the 4-5 years as a wild guess and hope because that is the time when he will be in our division facing us frequently. Of course anybody can have arm troubles- I don’t intend to argue that good mechanics = healthier arm in every single person’s case
My main point is that he has been hit with injuries in the past and has been all over the board with his numbers and that he, in my eyes, is NOT an outstanding pitcher.
You also said that other factors such as usage pattern and genetics affect injuries. Sure I agree with that, but those things have been with him in the past and it’s not like they will start affecting him NOW. He has missed starts in 3 of the last 5 years and has a volatal era through that time as well.
I’m not going to go look up every pitcher that has had arm problems, but I’m willing to bet that if a pitcher has injury troubles as a young guy, those will stay with him. A young guy with fewer arm problems would tend to stay the course as he is.
All I’m saying is that though I would like to have signed Mr. Millwood, there is a high probability that he will miss time (major time) in Texas.
Your post might have been a good read. Of course, you may be sliced up by the left wing of a 747 tomorrow afternoon on your way home from work.
*note: I mean no harm, but anyone can make a perfectly logical post sound ridiculous given the right one-sided, asinine arrangement of words*
#29: Re “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” … that’s what I’m saying. I guess I see Michael Young as the moveable infield part more than Kinsler, though, since Young isn’t very good defensively. If it were my team, I’d keep Blalock, start Kinsler at short and minimize Young’s weaknesses by moving to him second and seeing if it takes.
Re Washburn and replacement level, my comment above wasn’t clear. I meant in 2008 and 2009, he has a very real (I’d say >30%) chance of being replacement level. I think he adds value in 2006 and 2007, though unlikely $9M in those years either.
As for where free agents wind up, we’ll there are a few guys who want to stay where they are (Giles) and a few who want to be in a geographical region (Pavano, others). But in general players go where the money is. Obviously if you’re talking about 3/20 vs. 3/21, other factors may come into play. But no one is walking away from 4/44 from the Mariners to sign for 3/30 elsewhere.
Okay, so now we go to Plan…what are we on now anyway?…H? It sounds like the Rangers (our division YEAH!) got as good or better a deal for Millwood as we did for Washburn. I’m beginning to see improvement in the win column with no corresponding improvement in the order of finish in the division. ’sigh’
Millwood at 5/60 or Washburn at 4/37.5? It’s Millwood every time, and its not particularly close.
I keep asking myself “why didn’t Bill consider a team option for the 5th year”? Maybe he thought about it but didn’t have the balls to go that extra couple mil per year to get a legit TOR starter, or more likely Lincoln pulled the leash back.
Anyways that new young GM for Texas is looking like he’s the next Epstein if not better. Sure he had more talent then Bill to use as trade bait, but he’s made some pretty impressive trades and signings nonetheless.
To the casual fan, they might actually think the M’s made a better signing when SafeCo helps keep JW’s ERA fairly low (not sure if this will translate into W/L record) while Arlington will raise KM’s ERA while he get’s upper teens in Wins for the next few years.
They’ll use the adage … “but Washburn’s got a lower ERA than Millwood!!!”
I think with Billy Beane and now this GM from Texas, it’s gonna be even more of a struggle for the M’s to get back to winning the division anytime soon … sighhhhhhhhh
pretty easy to spend someone else’s $22mm eh?
Look, the M’s offered 4/44 and said if they are close to come in and work out the deal but he said no thanks. Washburn is a good fit for this team because he is a fielding-dependent pitcher with a good defense and also as a lefty in Safeco. Was he worth what they paid? Well, the market says yes.
So the question is really Washburn at 4/37.5 or nobody else.
Why do people assume that the 2006 Mariners are going to be above average defensively. With Betancourt, Beltre, and Ichiro, there are three good defensive players in the everyday line-up. I think Reed’s average, maybe a little better. But left field is a hole, and Lopez isn’t much to write home about at second. Sexson wasn’t very good at first base last year.
The M’s defense was below average last year. Everyone’s essentially assuming that Betancourt is going to be enough to take a below average defense and make them good. It might be true, but it might not be. It’s certainly far from a proven fact that the defense is going to be good.
So the question is really Washburn at 4/37.5 or nobody else.
This is silly. And people believe it. It’s astonishing.
Washburn’s no better than Jason Johnson. Johnson just got a 1 year, $4 million deal from Cleveland. It’s time people stopped believing in this myth of market value. A bunch of stupid signings do not make stupid signings any less stupid.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a stupid signing, just that it was a go-no go decision. Bavasi didn’t want to be left w/o a chair and whether we agree with it or not, it was the decision that was made.
To say that they could have given Millwood $60mm is just as stupid since a)they weren’t going to do it and b) we do’t know if he would have taken it from Seattle (remember they made him a good/great offer and he said no)
I also find it funny that you don’t believe in market value but state that you would give Millwood $60mm…
#41: I believe he said if it was between Washburn at 4/37.5 and Millwood 5/60, Millwood is the better deal  not that he would take Millwood at 5/60 out of context.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a stupid signing, just that it was a go-no go decision.
Which it’s clearly not.
To say that they could have given Millwood $60mm is just as stupid since a)they weren’t going to do it
Read this again. You’re arguing that it’s stupid to say the M’s could do something because they wouldn’t do it. Wouldn’t and couldn’t are not synonyms. That the M’s refused to offer a 5/60 contract to Millwood in no way implys that they couldn’t have.
I also find it funny that you don’t believe in market value but state that you would give Millwood $60mm…
I never said I’d sign Millwood for 5/60.
so now Jim is channeling Dave?
I am merely making the point that if they wanted Washburn then it was gonna cost them what they paid. And as for context, I didn’t say that Washburn wasn’t replacable by someone less expensive or that he was worth it so Dave didn’t have to imply that I am (or anyone who understands market value is) stupid.
btw, I guess Moyer was a bad signing too since they could have had Johnson for $1.5mm less?
gee, thanks for the english lessons dave. do you want to argue the point or discuss semantics? (btw, english is my second language)
the point is that the m’s were not going to give Millwood 60mm and apparently you agree that they shouldn’t have (or is it couldn’t have or wouldn’t have)
I am merely making the point that if they wanted Washburn then it was gonna cost them what they paid.
You’re doing exactly what the Mariners do. They figure out who they want, then pay him enough to sign him. It’s foolish. There’s no reason to separate cost from desire. Factor cost into the “do we want him” discussion. Do you want Jarrod Washburn for 1 year at $1 million? Obviously. 4/37.5? Hell no. So, somewhere in between is a line where the contract stops making sense. The M’s didn’t bother to figure out where that was.
And as for context, I didn’t say that Washburn wasn’t replacable by someone less expensive
Here’s your exact quote: “So the question is really Washburn at 4/37.5 or nobody else.”
You clearly stated that Washburn wasn’t replaceable by someone less expensive. You stated outright that he wasn’t replaceable at all.
Dave didn’t have to imply that I am (or anyone who understands market value is) stupid.
I didn’t imply that you or anyone who understand market value is stupid. I understand the concept of market value. I think the concept, as currently applied by a significant amount of major league front offices to their decision making, is ridiculously stupid.
I guess Moyer was a bad signing too since they could have had Johnson for $1.5mm less?
Moyer’s a local hero and has significant non-performance value to the team. And he’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Do we have any knowledge about how much handedness played a part in this decision (Washburn) and non-decision (Millwood)?
In addition to all the stuff that made the press release (heart, knowledge of “how to win,” playoff experience, etc.), it seems to me that the Mariners decided to overpay Washburn in part simply because he was left-handed. Safeco would seem to be a little friendlier to LHP since the fence is closer in RF, though I haven’t checked the LHP park factors as compared to the RHP park factors. Also, there seems to be a desire amongst teams that they need to have so many left-handed starters. I suspect these were all things that were considered when the FO decided to bring in Washburn, and while they don’t make the decision any better, it’s always nice to know what drives these decisions.
Dave, the point of the washburn at 4/37.5 or nobody else comment was that if they wanted one of the top pitchers then that is what it would cost them. Just like if they wanted Millwood then 5/60 is what it was going to cost them. Both deals are ridiculous.
Don’t tell me you honestly believe Johnson is as good a pitcher as Washburn, do you? And the Moyer comment was for when you come back and tell me that their K/9 and k/bb etc. are similar, to which I say so are Moyer’s.
Dave, the point of the washburn at 4/37.5 or nobody else comment was that if they wanted one of the top pitchers then that is what it would cost them.
But they didn’t get one of the top pitchers. They got Jarrod Washburn.
This whole thing started because you claimed it was Washburn or nothing, which is clearly not true. If you don’t believe that its Washburn or nothing, then you’re right, and we don’t disagree. But I don’t get the point of making the comment if you don’t believe it.
Don’t tell me you honestly believe Johnson is as good a pitcher as Washburn, do you?
I’ve got a finished post in the queue comparing the two. There’s a good argument to be made that not only is Johnson as good as Washburn, but that he’s actually better. I’m not sure if I’d go that far, but the difference between the two is basically hair splitting.
#48 – I guess it would depend on what your definition of a “top pitcher” is. I (for one) do not consider Washburn a top pitcher. Just because someone is willing to ridiculously overpay someone does not make them a “top pitcher”.
To quote Tyler Durden from “Fight Club” = “Sticking feathers up your butt doesn’t make you a chicken”
Washburn did not deserve a 4/37.5 contract. Millwood really didn’t “deserve” a 5/60 either, but Millwood was more deserving of his contract than Washburn is of his based on a variety of statistical factors. I could go through a breakdown of these factors, but something tells me that you wouldn’t want to see what we’re driving at here, unfortunately.
Guardado option picked up for 1 year, $6 million base.
Moyer signed to an incentive based contract for 1 year, $5.5 million base.
Everett signed to a 1 year contract with a buyout of a 2nd year option, $3.4 million base.
Lawton signed to an incentive based 1 year contract, $400k base.
Washburn signed for 4 years at $37.5 million guaranteed.
Which one of the above is different from the rest. (I admit that I intentionally left off the Johjima signing for the purposes of this exercise.)
Seriously, I don’t have that many problems with the Everett signing. If it works out, great. If it doesn’t then he’s off the books for next year, as are Moyer, Lawton, and Guardado.
The Washburn signing is just terrible terrible terrible! Paying Loaiza 1 year for $18 million would have been better. Any pitcher for 1 year would have been better. At least the M’s would have a much bigger budget to work with to re-constitute the team the next year.
If you take out the Washburn signing, this offseason front office strategy actually looks like there is some serious thinking behind it. Don’t commit longer than 1 year to any free agents, let the youngsters mature another year, see what you have at the end of 2006, and then go hard with multi-year contracts in the 2006-2007 offseason when the free agent class might be qualitatively better.
well, I believe that they got one of the best pitchers “available” in the FA market. I don’t believe he is a TOR starter but he is a solid #3. I also believe they overpaid him by about $3mm/yr and a year or two too many. If he is there big offseason SP then the M’s aren’t going anywhere next year, but if they manage to pull in an actual TOR via trade then they have as good a shot at the ALW as the others.
I look forward to your article on Johnson/Washburn. BTW, I enjoy the discourse because it is a great way to learn about the game
Seriously, I don’t have that many problems with the Everett signing. If it works out, great. If it doesn’t then he’s off the books for next year, as are Moyer, Lawton, and Guardado.
Except the odds of it not working out are pretty decent (because Everett’s pretty awful), and we could have afforded to pay Kevin Millwood his first 12 million, and have a cheap platoon option for Lawton to boot.
The problem is that taken AS A WHOLE, the signings are:
Guardado: age 35
Johjima: age 30
Moyer: age 42
Everett: age 35
Washburn: age 31
Lawton: age 34
Basically, this is what the M’s did in 2002 with Sierra, Cirillo and Baldwin, and in 2004 with Aurilia, Spiezio and McCracken all over again: sign a bunch of guys on the wrong side of 30 and hope and pray they don’t fall off a cliff, and just continue to be mediocre and overpaid. The only guy on that list likely to be a good value in 2008 is Johjima, and that’s not a lock considering he’s been heavily used at C in Japan… and given our past history with players suddenly going into disaster mode the last few years, how anybody can look at those signings as a group and think we’re making progress compared to 2005…well, I don’t see it.
It didn’t get us anywhere in 2002, and it dragged us down by 2004 once the core Mariner team from 2000-2001 got old/traded/lost their fastballs/etc. I’m not seeing this as a strategy for 2006 so much as the same sort of aimless shambling the Baltimores and Texases of the world do- one year it’s Chan Ho Park, another year it’s Jarrod Washburn.
#50. He was one of the top pitchers available, whether you like him or not. I didn’t say that he was a TOR starter but he was one of the best pitchers “available” on the FA market. I also said I thought he was overpaid and for too long.
Washburn is not the pitcher any saber wants but he is effective and a true #3 pitcher.
Washburn is not the pitcher any saber wants but he is effective and a true #3 pitcher.
Just because you keep saying it doesn’t make it true.
Jarrod Washburn is the third best starter on a non-playoff team. Last I checked, that wasn’t our goal.
TOR pitchers? You mean Toronto pitchers?
Okay, it took me awhile but I believe you mean TOP OF THE ROTATION pitchers. But shouldn’t that be TotR pitchers, kind of like LotR… you don’t leave off the the in abbreviating Tolkien’s classic. Of course, maybe you’re refering to TOP OF ROTATION pitcher (without the the) which begs the question: which rotation? Mariners AAA rotation? Mariners spring training rotation? Which one?
I confess I couldn’t figure out MOTO last year when discussing trades to improve our hitting lineup. It was embarrassing to have to ask.
And a slight tangent… I enjoy hearing old The The songs as television commercial diddies and such.
At least we’ve learned to not give those 30+ guys 3 year contracts (sans Washburn) and instead give them 1 year deals. It’s a bit of progress and more than some teams can claim.
I’m leaning heavy on the side that thinks Millwood made a Burnett decree re: Seattle.
Washburn is not the pitcher any saber wants but he is effective and a true #3 pitcher.
Tell me, was he an effective and true #3 in 2003-2004, when he went 21-23 with an ERA over 4.50, since apparently we’re not allowed to use stats “sabers” like?
If we get that from him the next two years, will you be pleased?
I’m not seeing this as a strategy for 2006 so much as the same sort of aimless shambling…
Yeah, I realize I overstated it by calling it a strategy and the Washburn signing pretty much seals it as the aimless shambling that you’re refering to. But even though Everett and others don’t actually improve the team, at least without the Washburn signing you could say that the front office has an eye on the longterm future of the team.
At least we’ve learned to not give those 30+ guys 3 year contracts (sans Washburn) and instead give them 1 year deals. It’s a bit of progress and more than some teams can claim.
Except for Everett, there’s an option that apparently vests on usage. My guess is if he hits .255/.315/.425 for 120 games with triple crown numbers of .255/21/85, he’ll vest and the front office will think this is great- even though those are pretty awful numbers from a DH (the average AL DH has hit .264/.345/.447 since 2001).
Oh, and Ruben Sierra and James Baldwin weren’t multiyear deals, either. It was pretty predictable that they’d either be mediocre or bad, though.
#51, Rusty:
They are all similar in one aspect–handedness. Washburn, Moyer, Guardado: all LHP. Lawton bats lefty, and Everett is a switch-hitter who was brought in for his lefty sock. Johjima bats righty, but looking at the acquisitions as a whole, it seems that the organization is putting a large emphasis on the asymmetry of the home park they play in.
55. Just because he doesn’t fit your profile of what constitutes a good pitcher doesn’t mean he isn’t effective or a solid #3 pitcher either. I know it is sacrilegious on this site to say so, but it is possible to pitch to contact and be a good/effective pitcher. His k/9 might not be pretty but he keeps the ball in the park and doesn’t walk a lot of guys and doesn’t give up a lot of HRs either. As a result, he doesn’t allow a lot of runs to score, which is what a pitcher is supposed to do.
Sooooo he’s Ryan Franklin, who we just released, in a good year.
#58. EC, if he has a 3.2 era like he did last year or a 3.93 era (like he has over his career) for the next two years will you?
3.93? In Safeco? For that money? I’d be livid. And probably will.
63. Umm, no Derek, I said LOW HR/9 not high. Big difference between pitching to contact effectively and serving up BP.
Ummm, no, Biblo, I said “in a good year”.
And the difference is not so large. See: Ryan Franklin, good year, vs Ryan Franklin, bad year.
Well 3.93 would be better than anybody on the staff not named Felix, but that wasn’t my point, was it?
if i got Ryan’s good year every year, then I would be happy with him on my team. And lets be honest, so would you.
and Franklin gives up a lot more bb and gophers than Washburn, even pitching in Safeco.
actually, I take that back, neither of us would want Franklin. IN ANY YEAR!
“if i got Ryan’s good year every year, then I would be happy with him on my team.”
If you got that from a player, then it would cease to be Ryan Franklin in any meaningful sense.
Not for that kind of money.
You seem to be confused about a fundamental aspect of pitcher evaluation, so I’m going to try and be nice about this.
A pitcher has very little control over what happens after a batter makes contact and puts a ball into play. You can go look up the Voros/Woolner/Tippett research articles if you’d like.
So if you’re Ryan Franklin, and you don’t give up walks and don’t strike out guys, relying almost entirely on your defense, if you’ve got a good defense and you’re lucky, you look good. If the balls drop that night, you get shelled. So it is from game to game and year to year.
Not to say that these guys aren’t valuable in that role, but that skillset: pound the strikezone, gamble on a hit rather than give up a walk — is common and cheap. There’s no need to pay for it.
Further, it’s important to realize that when you look at, say, Franklin’s good season. If he puts up a 2.50 ERA without striking anyone out, there’s a chance he’ll do it again.
But the odds he’ll put up a league-average line are far, far greater.
This is why that argument for Washburn fails: no pitcher can reliably put the ball into play and get a huge number more outs than you’d expect. If that’s not a skill, than you’re paying for something that doesn’t exist, and that’s folly.
Four comments in a row = sorry, but it’s time for you to hit the David J. Corcoran Memorial Time-Out Lounge.
Hey Bilbo, I ran the #’rs. Over the last 3 years Franklin Pitched 677 innings and gave up 95 gave up 95 HR’s. Washburn pitched 577 innings and gave up 73 HR’s. You figure it out.
Oops! I typeoed, Washburn only pitched 534 innings.
DMZ, at what point do you consider a skill that has been repeated a repeatable skill?
Again, I am not saying that Washburn is an “ace” or even worth what the M’s are paying him, merely that he is a good MOR starter and an improvement over what we had last year. But you cannot deny that he has some skill that has allowed him to succeed -repeatedly- in spite of low K/9 rates. Has he had some mediocre years? absolutely. At some point you have to look at the individual and not lump him into the masses because historically that is where the majority fall.
#46–”Moyer’s a local hero and has significant non-performance value to the team.”
speaking of which, anyone see the Moyer Foundation special on Christmas day?
at what point do you consider a skill that has been repeated a repeatable skill?
Again, I refuse to grant you the premise of this question.
Preventing hits on balls in play to the extent you seem to think is not a repeatable skill. Even Jamie Moyer, who over his career has had fewer balls-in-play go for hits, has only a modest effect.
Strikeouts are repeatable.
Low walks are repeatable.
Putting 100 balls into play and only seeing 2 of them go for hits is not.
Seriously, go read Voros/Tippet/Woolner’s research before you continue arguing this.
I can guarantee that BB has read Voros and knows the saber-side well but yet he felt it appropriate to pay what he did for Washburn. Why? I am not saying that it makes it a good decision, in fact, I would rather have Millwood as well.
But the reality is that the M’s signed Washburn and I have been trying to understand why. My research has led me to believe that Washburn does some things that match up well with the M’s and will allow him to be an above average pitcher in Seattle.(namely, a LHP in Safeco, decent HR/9, holds runners well and a good defense behind him).
While Voros talks about the inability of pitchers to control balls in play, it doesn’t mean that pitchers can’t do other things to icrease their effectiveness. Also, as I understand it Voros and Woolner have some interesting comments on handedness and trickery, which may be relevant to this discussion.
I can guarantee that BB has read Voros and knows the saber-side well but yet he felt it appropriate to pay what he did for Washburn.
Your guarantee is reckless. Bavasi may have heard of what Voros et al have looked at, but that doesn’t mean he’s up on current research. For one example, Bavasi doesn’t know about advanced defensive metrics different people are working on, like Davenport/MGL/etc.
He doesn’t. It’s that simple. He doesn’t evaluate defense that way.
Arguing that Washburn is going to be an above-average pitcher here is an argument that any pitcher would be above-average here, and if that’s true, then *any* pitcher would be above-average here, and paying Washburn that money is pointless.
While Voros talks about the inability of pitchers to control balls in play, it doesn’t mean that pitchers can’t do other things to icrease their effectiveness.
Yes, like striking batters out, which Washburn doesn’t do.
The factors that are being investigated (does being a pitcher who changes speed allow a pitcher to do better on BIP?) are, even if they pan out, almost insignificant in comparison to a batter who strikes out an extra guy a game.
9 million per year for trickery? Even the 6 million that Bilbo seems to think Washburn is worth is a bit steep for trickery.
It’s unfathomable to me that Bavasi truly understands the theories that Voros and Trippet have researched and reported on. Yes, he might have read it but how can he understand it when he signs guys like Washburn and Sele. Granted, those are the only two starting pitcher data points we have but they run almost directly counter to the theories being discussed.
There were good DIPS pitchers available this year. But their names were Burnett, Milwood, Loiaza and Kevin Brown. Bavasi struck out on the first three. And unfortunately Brown carries the biggest risk in terms of performance of those 4, although he’ll probably sign for the least contract too.
Oh, I forgot to mention one excellent DIPS pitcher who was made available in trade, Josh Beckett. But darn if the Red Sox didn’t snap him up. There’s an organization that understand DIPS theory.
Bilbo, I posted Washburn’s HR’s given up and innings pitched over the last 3 years so you would see that saying he has a “decent” HR/9 inning rate is not really true. Ryan Franklin gave up 1.26 HR’s per 9 innings over the last 3 years and Washburn has given up 1.23 over the same time period. Even if adjusted for park differences Washburn is average at best at keeping balls in the park.
Changing speeds in the range that major league pitchers do has little bearing on how a batted ball entering the playing field might move differently (ie. towards defenders, ground, higher, less squarly than it looked like it might be hit 1/10 second before)in comparison to movement and spin. But then even a good change-up moves because of gravity pulling the object further down against lesser momentum than the expected (or comparison A) Fastball. Spin can easily change with the amount and angle of contact…Thier research is in a limited and not complete field of baseball possibility. It’s the greatest thing in the world to the people who will eventually expand upon that research, but…
Sele last year was a good signing…Low $$$ high possible reward. It did not work out greatly, but it worked out. He was not good, but he wasn’t paid good bench player money to be in the starting 5. What more should we have expected?
DMZ what SP had a .020 batted against that you are claiming they can’t repeat? (I fully agree it’s worth betting against the streak, (the whole farm))
Jarrod Washburn succeeded because he stranded 82 percent of his runners last year.
That is NOT a skill.
Period.
Unbundle yer panties, guys. One of Millwood’s comps is Chan Ho Park. He’s been a flyball pitcher three years of his career, though that tendency has turned around the last few years. He’s had an ERA+ of more than 104 just three times in eight seasons, while the man he replaced, Kenny Rogers, had an ERA+ of less than 104 in 11 seasons just four times — and this was while Millwood was pitching in principally pitcher-friendly environments, and Rogers was pitching in hitter-friendly parks! I see this deal as remarkably like one the Rangers signed for Chan Ho Park, save for the fact that Millwood has been healthy throughout his career. He may be around to pitch, but I don’t see him being the savior of the Texas rotation everyone here seems to think he is.
Look past ERA.
It’s the mantra of the offseason.
Yo, Dave, I dig that, which is why I tell you that right behind Washburn in the list of overrated pitchers (as measured by DIPS) we find Kevin Millwood. He got immensely lucky; it won’t happen again, and the betting money is that he’ll be a pumpkin by the All Star break.
Millwood’s Fielding Independant ERA: 3.77
Millwood’s expected Fielding Independant ERA: 3.99
Yes, Millwood pitched over his head. That’s obvious.
But if you think a FIP below 4 is a pumpkin, well, you’ve got some pretty high standards. Millwood’s FIP was 5th best in the AL last year and his xFIP was 7th best.
Millwood’s not the best pitcher in the AL, and yes, there was a lot of luck (or non-repeatable skills, or whatever) involved in his winning the ERA title. But he’s so far from a pumpkin, it’s not even funny.
Various. Great, great thread.
‘Boras goodwill’ Texas is the ultimate repository of Boras Goodwill after the ARod deal..
“Why do people assume that the 2006 Mariners are going to be above average defensively. With Betancourt, Beltre, and Ichiro, there are three good defensive players in the everyday line-up. I think Reed’s average, maybe a little better. But left field is a hole, and Lopez isn’t much to write home about at second. Sexson wasn’t very good at first base last year.” Dave, this is so, so cogent. Could you do some relative evaluation weighted by position with comments at least at a division level?
“Your guarantee is reckless. Bavasi may have heard of what Voros et al have looked at, but that doesn’t mean he’s up on current research. For one example, Bavasi doesn’t know about advanced defensive metrics different people are working on, like Davenport/MGL/etc.” Derek, would it be possible to project the 40 or 25 man roster, given the new contracts for two or three years, with guestimates on prospects accepted? It seems so much of this is driven by bb’s own contract and this is a poor man’s Gillick doing a this year or bust, excepting the Washburn signing as due to his long term relationship. Long winded way of saying this year may push the long term building of the club backward.
There does not seem to be any standard screen to pick these people. From a standard scouting perspective, in terms of “tools”, Washburn and Everett are far off their personal bests and far below any standard of good. Some of the scouting screens might say warning about each of them, such as consistentcy of fastball, as in he touched 90 but was 87-88 most of the game…ip/games has declined. For Everett, he’s just plain fat and can’t run any more…12 doubles 23 hrs is not going to be matched in this park…its perplexing cause the numbers point to the same thing. Why they would be signed, let alone at fairly rich levels in Everett’s case and the Washburn levels screams of complete desperation and incompetence.
Lawton is a good signing and makes the Everett thing look even more strange, unless he ends up in cf…
I don’t know that I’m especially disappointed. The Washburn signing sucked, but I don’t know that that means we should have dedicated 5 years 60m to Millwood. If we were going to contend next year it might have been worth it, but in the absence of enough other moves to make this year count it probably would have been best to sign neither Millwood or Washburn, pick up a few question mark pitchers, and spending this year seeing what we got.
Well said, #92. If we could not get Millwood or Burnett, I would have been happier with several (cheap) (1-year only) question marks. How many 5-year contracts with pitchers work out well? How many 4-year contracts? When will GMs learn? Will I repeat that question every off-season until my head explodes? Only time will tell.
Just generally curious about the opening salvo that “the chances that Millwood will, over the life of those contracts, be worth 2.5m more a year than Washburn approach 100%”
Something happened in 2004 that made him worth only $7.0 Million for the 2005 season. As stated earlier or on a separate thread, there are a lot of factors that one cannot predict (most notably injury) that can make a pitching contract worth it, or a bust over the whole term.
“One of Millwood’s comps is Chan Ho Park.”
Did you follow the link you provided? Chan Ho Park’s name is nowhere to be found. Similarly, in Millwood’s list of PECOTA comps, Park is nowhere to be found. They both signed multi-year deals with Texas, past that, I don’t know that I’d call them similar pitchers.
90 – Dave, is FIP better or worse than DIPS at projecting future years’ ERAs?
95 – my bad, it’s backwards; one of Chan Ho Park’s comps is Millwood.
I was mildly surprised that a team that is paying Alex to play for the Yankees would spring for a 5 year contract for a pitcher.
I realize that Millwood is not Park, but still, a pitcher is risky.
LF Monster in #85, I’m with you on the lack of refinement in research on batted balls in play. It’s better than nothing, and in particular it indicates clearly the worth of Ks and BBs; it is far less clear in evaluating subtle differences in outcome based on pitcher-specfic movements on pitches which are a function of skill and hence repeatable. Guys with low K/9s are inherently worth less, but _specific individuals_ with unique spin or motion may influence outcomes to a degree which _pitchers as a whole_ cannot. The question isn’t settled, and the differences are significant in evaluating someone like, say, Kenny Rogers.
Millwood was going to cost a bundle to sign; that is the outcome here. He’d be nice to have, but I’m not crying that the Ms didn’t pay this particular price. That someone conceived of Jarrod Washburn as a ‘reasonable alternative’ makes me cry like Viga-Glum.