Jump to content

Price tag for Santana & Jimenez has come down to 14.1 -14.6 $mill per season for 3/4 year deals


xian4

Recommended Posts

We may go to three years but give up a draft pick for these two ?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>.<a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Duquette">@Jim_Duquette</a>: "The price tag for both Santana & Jimenez has come down. 3-4 year range, around 14.1-14.6 mil per year." <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BlueJays&src=hash">#BlueJays</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a></p>— MLB Network Radio (@MLBNetworkRadio) <a href="

">February 9, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 220
  • Created
  • Last Reply

...and the price tag is still pretty ridiculous. Matt Garza signed for 4/$52M, which is $13M per. Garza is a more consistent pitcher than Jimenez and Santana in terms of results but has injury issues - call it a wash in performance. But his price was without a draft pick.

If the draft pick is worth, say, $10M in excess value, the market value for Jimenez/Santana is more like 3/$30M or 4/$40M - not 3/$52M or 4/$66M.

In other words, the asking price is still about 50% too high for fair value - never mind what the Orioles should consider based on their marginal situation and the existence of Burnett as a possible alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and the price tag is still pretty ridiculous. Matt Garza signed for 4/$52M, which is $13M per. Garza is a more consistent pitcher than Jimenez and Santana in terms of results but has injury issues - call it a wash in performance. But his price was without a draft pick.

If the draft pick is worth, say, $10M in excess value, the market value for Jimenez/Santana is more like 3/$30M or 4/$40M - not 3/$52M or 4/$66M.

In other words, the asking price is still about 50% too high for fair value - never mind what the Orioles should consider based on their marginal situation and the existence of Burnett as a possible alternative.

Absolutely. And they say it as if three day old bread is a deal at 20% off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If either of them is worth $42 million for three years, Burnett is worth 17 for one.

Why Santana is a better pitcher than Burnett and younger and has had recent success in the American Legaue. I would go three years 40 million for Santana. I wouldn't pay Burnett 17 million for a season just to see him get lit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other side of the coin says that Matt Garza has made 42 starts over the last two years combined and reportedly has a screw in his elbow while Santana has made over 30 starts 4 consecutive years and Jiminez has made over 30 starts 8 years in a row. Fair value for free agents? Isn't that an oxymoron?

...I explicitly mentioned that Garza has injury concerns. Even in his limited time over the last two seasons, Garza (2.6 WAR) was worth more than either Jimenez (2.1) or Santana (1.6). As I wrote, I think the three pitchers are worth about the same amount based purely on their track records - but Santana and Jimenez cost the draft pick and Garza didn't.

By "fair value" I meant that Garza set the market for pitchers in this tier, and that this quoted asking price is still far higher than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself agreeing with RZNJ here, and for some reason, Jimenez is beginning to become more appealing.

For an eventual deal in the 3 ~ 33 mil range I think that he could be a real steal. I read this article (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/43634906/) earlier last year and it makes me feel as though his performance last year is more an indicator of things to come than it is the norm to his performance. This particularly applies to his innings per start.

Some may be a bit hasty to immediately assume that he can never regain the form he had in Colorado.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly, but he has the highest upside and I would take the risk. He was great in 2010. Not so bad the first of of 2011 and then stunk for 1 1/2 years with the Indians. BUT, last year is #2 starter stuff in the AL. He has a lot of mileage on his arm but he's only 30 years old and he's a big strong guy. Maybe he lost some velocity and it took him awhile to adjust to it. Maybe he put pressure on himself going to a new league and a new team. I don't know. Maybe he'll stink but he sure didn't stink last year.

Way to many question marks for me. You have to throw 2010 out the window as he was sitting high 90's that season which is long gone. Two seasons of 5 ERA before bouncing back last year but still didn't go deep into game. The pick, years, and AAV all make me want to pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burnett is definitely the safest bet with a one year contract.

Give me Jimenez though. He is only three years removed from a year where he finished third in Cy Young voting and looked pretty damn good with Cleveland last year. I like the upside and three years at around 40 million is not breaking the bank.

Santana meanwhile is coming a year where he pitched in KC (pitchers park) and a career in LA (another pitchers park). I could easily see him getting lit up playing in Baltimore in the AL East, but he will at least give us innings.

So in conclusion Jimenez>Burnett>Santana>do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We may go to three years but give up a draft pick for these two ?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>.<a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Duquette">@Jim_Duquette</a>: "The price tag for both Santana & Jimenez has come down. 3-4 year range, around 14.1-14.6 mil per year." <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BlueJays&src=hash">#BlueJays</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Orioles&src=hash">#Orioles</a></p>? MLB Network Radio (@MLBNetworkRadio) <a href="

">February 9, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Every time a new report comes out, I am reminded of this scene from Christmas Vacation..."Do you really think it matters Eddie?"

[video=youtube;c9G1VWo_yyU]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Yeah, but the Rangers had one of the best performing lineups in baseball throughout the playoffs. The Orioles consistently go MIA on offense. Very Inconsistent. If you have a subpar bullpen, you need an offense that can score enough to bail them out. (And vica versa).
    • Tarrasco definitely thought he was catching it, you can tell by his reaction.
    • Not sure about that.  The ball is coming almost straight down at that point.   Tarascó doesn’t even think he has to jump to catch it.
    • Of course the outcome of the play should matter, and in both the videos you linked, the outcome was affected.  And a facemask call is not comparable, since that rule exists due to player safety.
    • Reminds me of one of my son's games when he was 12.  The other team had bases loaded with 1 out and the next batter hit a pretty routine pop up.  The umpires invoked the infield fly rule.  Of course, our Shortstop dropped the pop up (as 12 year olds sometimes do)...   Some of the baserunners thought they then had to try to advance and started running.  One of the runners thought it was a dead ball and he should walk back to the bag. There were runners running in all different directions, some forwards, some backwards... Then the infielders started throwing the ball away during the ensuing rundowns...   I think they managed to finally get a guy out at home ending that inning...   It was sheer pandemonium.  The umpires were laughing...
    • No way Tarrasco was getting that ball.  But I do think it might have hit the top of the fence for an extra-base hit and not an HR...
    • Are you looking for an infield fly runner's interference?  Because as far as I know, it's been 12 years since this exact situation was called.  This is the play that caused the rule to be changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJu3RL8CV_8   They let the runner bat again and called the 1st base runner out in this case, and then in the offseason clarified the rule to say that both the runner and the batter are out.  But in this case the runner's interference was fairly substantial direct contact.   If you're talking about runners interference in general, on this play Kieboom didn't touch the runner and it was called runner's interference.   https://www.mlb.com/video/yadier-molina-grounds-into-a-force-out-fielded-by-shortstop-carter-kieboom-marcell-ozuna-out-at-3rd-jose-martinez-to-2nd-yadier-molina-to-1st?q=5%2F1%2F2019 stl vs was&cp=CMS_FIRST&qt=FREETEXT&p=3   The outcome of the play shouldn't really matter.  If you commit a face mask in football, and the guy whose face mask you grabbed gets a sack-fumble and recovers, you still get the ball and you get 15 yards.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...