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

    • If you’d asked me a few weeks ago, I probably would have told you that I didn’t care if Aaron Judge hit homer 60, 61 or 62 against us.    I’m not sure what’s changed, but in the words of the great Mox from Varsity Blues, “I say, ‘**** that.’”  I do not want to see our guys pitching to him this weekend.    I do not want to see Judge (who, for the record, I don’t have much of a problem with) celebrating at our expense. I don’t want to see his teammates celebrating at our expense. I sure as hell don’t want to see their fans celebrating at our expense.    Nothing would please me more this weekend than seeing Yankee fans crying about how we walked Judge 12-15 times over three games and how they bought tickets to see him hit #62 and blah blah blah.  Nothing would please me more than, after years of seeing Judge destroy our pitching, giving him absolutely nothing to hit and having him stand on first base all weekend while the boos rain down. I want us to be the bad guys. I want us to be the killjoys.  I do not want Hyde to give in. And even if he does have our guys pitch to Judge, I want our guys to be smart and throw everything in the dirt. Or airmail it over the home plate umpire.    I doubt it happens.  I’m sure some poor sap like Baumann or Baker or Krehbiel or  Reed will go down in history as the sucker who grooved a belt high fastball to Judge for #62. He’ll be on replays forever.  And after the game he’ll give some stock answer about “wanting to challenge him” or something which is silly because our pitching hasn’t ever been a challenge for Judge.    So, Hyde and/or Elias, if you’re reading, just walk Judge all weekend long. Make the Yankees and their fans miserable. Be the bad guys. Don’t let anyone have fun at our expense. It’s a new era for Orioles baseball, we’re no longer a laughingstock. No longer a team to set records against. No longer a team to beat up on.  Do not give in.    Milligan, out. 
    • I think it's pretty simple... they like him more than Tyler Nevin as a backup 1B, and they don't trust anyone else on the team to play first base. There were reports of Santander and Gunnar taking reps at first but nothing saying that the results were passable. I'm guessing they didn't like what they saw.
    • Not to mention this was AFTER Hays ruined the chances last night by GIDP against Barnes and like clockwork he repeats the feat. So yea Mullins just might have been a better option there.
    • Well, Chirinos did hit a homer!  
    • I feel like Elias has decided recently that they are out of it, and now its about securing better odds for the draft lottery by putting out lineups like today's.  
    • Great contributions at the MLB level from  top prospects this year....Adley, Gunner of course, but Stowers, Vavra playing big roles.  But look what is still on the way....and soon! Great seasons from Westburg, Norby, Ortiz, Cowser, who all finish the season at AAA with OPS > .800 on the season.  Then we have Coby Mayo and Hunter Haskin at Bowie.  Krjstad wasn't great at Aberdeen, but his slash line for the season was still .309/394/457/851 on the year.   That's at least 7 very high end hitting prospects before you even get into the great debuts from several of the 2022 class. Honestly I know people want to go for it in 2023, but I don't think we need to spend big money on free agent bats.   Much rather invest any increased salary $$ in pitching  
    • Their schedules don't matter. The Orioles have reached their ceiling. They have played their behinds off, but this is how far this payroll can possibly take them.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...