Jump to content

Royale: LaRoche bid made


Carllamy

Recommended Posts

Baseball-reference.com already has their list of 10 similar hitters through 30:

1.Tony Clark (956)

2.Tino Martinez (943)

3.Joe Adcock (941)

4.Glenn Davis (937)

5.Eric Karros (935)

6.Richard Hidalgo (935)

7.Geoff Jenkins (922)

8.Lee May (918)

9.Wally Post (918)

10.Cliff Floyd (917)

That's a pretty good list of players.

LaRoche is a solid all-around 1Bman - certainly an improvement for the O's. He's not a great pickup, but he's not a bad pickup by any stretch. He's a useful player, and his presence shouldn't prevent them from getting a great player. It's even possible it could help getting a great player at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Baseball-reference.com already has their list of 10 similar hitters through 30:

1.Tony Clark (956)

2.Tino Martinez (943)

3.Joe Adcock (941)

4.Glenn Davis (937)

5.Eric Karros (935)

6.Richard Hidalgo (935)

7.Geoff Jenkins (922)

8.Lee May (918)

9.Wally Post (918)

10.Cliff Floyd (917)

That's a pretty good list of players.

LaRoche is a solid all-around 1Bman - certainly an improvement for the O's. He's not a great pickup, but he's not a bad pickup by any stretch. He's a useful player, and his presence shouldn't prevent them from getting a great player. It's even possible it could help getting a great player at some point.

Oh now you've done it. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What option does LaRoche have right now? Why would you cave to 3 years?

I get that 3/16 or so isn't that much money and its not a terrible contract but I would be sticking to a 2/12 type deal and adding in a team option or a buyout of 1-2 million.

This is the way I feel. LaRoche has no leverage here. There are two first basemen available and two teams that need first basemen. What reason is there to give him three years? Offer him two years and if he doesn't like it, he can sign with the Nats (if they offer him more, which they probably won't). If he signs with the Nats, then we sign Lee. It seems Lee isn't interested in playing in Baltimore, but I sincerely doubt he leaves millions of dollars on the table to take a part time role elsewhere. This is not rocket science!

This is an example of where I think MacPhail's patience should be a virtue. He should be percolating the hell out of this situation.

This is not to say I hate the idea of signing LaRoche to a 3/18 contract. That's a tolerable contract and I'll be glad to have, at last, a solid first baseman. It's mostly that I just simply do not understand why we would give him one. Unless MacPhail has concrete evidence Derrek Lee's new thumb is made of cottage cheese, there's no reason to cave to that third year for LaRoche.

Someone please explain to me the downside of standing firm at two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baseball-reference.com already has their list of 10 similar hitters through 30:

1.Tony Clark (956)

2.Tino Martinez (943)

3.Joe Adcock (941)

4.Glenn Davis (937)

5.Eric Karros (935)

6.Richard Hidalgo (935)

7.Geoff Jenkins (922)

8.Lee May (918)

9.Wally Post (918)

10.Cliff Floyd (917)

That's a pretty good list of players.

LaRoche is a solid all-around 1Bman - certainly an improvement for the O's. He's not a great pickup, but he's not a bad pickup by any stretch. He's a useful player, and his presence shouldn't prevent them from getting a great player. It's even possible it could help getting a great player at some point.

Yeah, I saw the comps, and that's a nice list. But I thought the point might be better made if 2050 picked out his own comparables.

I agree with everything in the bolded. He's a good player, useful, and the commitment shouldn't be so great that it precludes picking up a premium player if the opportunity arises. I just don't believe that because he has been at a certain level for three or four years, that he'll maintain that level for the next three--that's all.

I wish they'd get it done, frankly. Especially if Lee is not an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nationals. Looks like they'll platoon Morse with Bernadina in left. They need a 1st baseman. Another question is what are Lee's options besides Baltimore and Washington now that SD has signed Hudson?
I think this is a good point. LaRoche makes the most sense for the Gnats, Lee the O's. If the Gnats get LaRoche then what is Lee left with. I'd much rather have Lee, or trade for a blocked 1B like Kila, than give LaRoche 3 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were only so easy.

As to another point made by someone, I'd much rather overpay in money than in years.

They will regret giving him a 3-year deal if they wind up doing so, IMO.

I agree. I mean seriously. If this team intends to contend in the next 3 years, they aren't doing it with LaRoche. They should be trading for a young blocked 1B before giving 3 years to LaRoche.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a good point. LaRoche makes the most sense for the Gnats, Lee the O's. If the Gnats get LaRoche then what is Lee left with. I'd much rather have Lee, or trade for a blocked 1B like Kila, than give LaRoche 3 years.

This is mentioned here a lot, which leads me to wonder: what are the Royals thinkng with this guy? Are they planning to leave him in AAA until he becomes a MiL free agent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you "feel" this, but history is against you.

We'll only really know for sure in three years, but here's an interesting exercise. I gather that you've been watching baseball for a while, so you probably remember a lot of players. Take a couple of minutes, and make out a list of 10 former players who seem more or less similar to Andy LaRoche: the same kind of player, roughly the same skills and same level of performance. I'm not going to tell you who to pick, except--don't pick any superstars. Because LaRoche isn't a superstar. He isn't Larry Walker or Eddie Murray. He isn't even Fred McGriff. He's a guy who has had several 25 HR seasons and exactly one 100 RBI season. You might also want to skip the years roughly 1995-2008 because steroids artificially extended a lot of careers.

Now, when you have that list, go to Baseball Reference and look at the career stats of the players you picked. In particular, look to see how many of those players had three straight years, at ages 31, 32, 33, that were all as good as the three seasons which preceded them. Basically, see how often a player was as good through age 33 as he was through age 30.

You will probably find a couple of players who were as good at age 33 as they were when they were when they were 28 or 29. But most won't be. Because most players--except the great ones--start to decline past age 30. Sometimes they decline a little, sometimes a lot. Sometimes they slump and bounce back for a year. But overall, they decline. That's a fact, not supposition, based on the history of thousands of careers over the decades.

I'm not going to be unhappy if the O's sign LaRoche for $18-20MM over three years. (Really). I just don't assume that because he had 25 HR and 100 RBI this year, that he will produce anything like 75 HRs and 300 RBI over the next three years. That almost certainly won't happen.

See, you've already limited me to not be able to pick anyone that is deemed a star, no one that played between '95-2008. What's to say that Laroche couldn't be a star. If he produces what he has lately, then that's all you can expect for $7-8 million a year. We signed David Segui for 3 years at $21 million a few years back, and I'm quoting someone else that posted this, but "A partial season ticket holder saw more home games than Segui in that 3 year stretch". No-one is expecting Laroche to bang out 50 HRS, nor do I put him in that class. Only the naive would not expect a player to deline as he gets older. No-one is trying to say he has a cape hidden under his jersey. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't expect him to drop off the table as it has been made to sound like he will after 2 years of a 3 year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't always get what you want. Its not a terrible contract, we get the player we want then do it. You can't win them all when it comes to the contract game.

The Orioles will have to overpay either in years or money.

But LaRoche isn't the type of player you overpay for. He isn't the player whose demands you cave to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw the comps, and that's a nice list. But I thought the point might be better made if 2050 picked out his own comparables.

I agree with everything in the bolded. He's a good player, useful, and the commitment shouldn't be so great that it precludes picking up a premium player if the opportunity arises. I just don't believe that because he has been at a certain level for three or four years, that he'll maintain that level for the next three--that's all.

I wish they'd get it done, frankly. Especially if Lee is not an option.

Since the legwork was done for me, I'll just say this. Tino Martinez was one of the most clutch guys for the Yankees in his tenure, and I can remember him beating us a few times in Camden with walk offs. There are a few on the list that Ruzious was kind enough to devise that are possible Hall candidates, such as Martinez, and Tony Clark. I'm all for making the team better with whatever might help. We passed on Dunn, lost on Konerko, passed on Pena, so when heading down to the second tier, I think Laroche is a upgrade , and also an upgrade over Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could live with that $ amount. If we have to go 3 years to get a solid first baseman for the first time in a long, long time, I'm down with it.

Seriously. One of the things that has frustrated me during this losing streak has been the lack of players good enough to warrant playing them everyday. No continuity in the lineup makes for a poor offense. For me, continuity in the lineup means a better offense simply by virtue of having players good enough to play them everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I reading this right? Tino Martinez and Tony Clark are possible Hall of Famers?

Tino averaged 27 HRS and 102 RBIS in 16 seasons in the majors. He ended with a .271 lifetime batting average. Not saying he would be a first ballot entry, but there would be reason for argument that his numbers could land him in Coperstown yes. Now I'm sure that's a whole entirely diffrent debate,and before this goes completey off topic. Laroche is not a automatic to be a All Star, but he's also not a automatic to fall on his face within 3 years either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...