The $50 million dollar man

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 12:13 PM CDT in News Comment 42 comments

Flash back to Jim Reeves' assessment of the first series of the season:

Tom Hicks flew in here from Liverpool, England, on Monday, presumably with the $10 million he saved by not re-signing Gary Matthews Jr. this past off-season jingling around in his pocket with a few extra British pounds in his loose change.
What the Angels got for their $10 million was Matthews' usual spectacular defense in center field and a three-game sweep of the Rangers to open the season.

I'll let you figure out who got the best end of the deal.

* * *

Suddenly, the $50 million the Angels will pay Matthews over the next five years doesn't seem quite so extravagant.

GMJ's lines the past four years:

2004 -- .275/.350/.461, 101 OPS+
2005 -- .255/.320/.436, 96 OPS+
2006 -- .313/.371/.495, 119 OPS+
2007 -- .259/.322/.430, 101 OPS+

So...GMJ has gone back to hitting about as well as he did before his fluky 2006 season.

And that "spectacular defense" has GMJ ranked dead last (by quite a bit) in the A.L. in ZR and in RZR.

So, yeah, that $50 million still seems pretty extravagant. For all the whining that ensued when GMJ left, at this point, it looks like it was the right decision to let him go...

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Off-season signings

I still would prefer GMJ's deal to Padilla and Cat.

Not that GMJ wasn't headed to Cali anyway.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 12:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Despite Cat's horrible start, he's got a 108 OPS+. And he's signed for 2 fewer years.

by benmor78 on Sep 4, 2007 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cat

I just have a hard time getting over the draft pick he cost us

Remember that time your dog ate my goldfish, and you lied and told me I didn't have any goldfish? Why did I have the bowl bart? Why did I have the bowl?

by i hit straight ball very much on Sep 4, 2007 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

We got two picks for GMJ, so if you swapped out Cat's deal for GMJ's we gain the 16th pick back, but lose the 24th and one of our sandwich picks (I'm far too lazy to look up which one it would have been...), plus we'd be on the hook for a ton more money and we're stuck paying that money for two extra years.

I'd rather we not have signed Cat or GMJ, but I'd much rather have signed Cat and taken a pass on GMJ then vice-versa.

The 40 trumps all!

by thedirkatron on Sep 4, 2007 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

$50 million

over $13.5?

Signature

by t ball on Sep 4, 2007 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Answer

Not Cat versus GMJ. Cat AND Padilla versus GMJ.

So: $50 million to $50 million. (Or close).

Cat is an overpriced DH. He'll be gone before we're good. And Padilla is worthless.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Padilla

Why is he worthless?

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When you look at other ...

pitching signings, like the M's and Weaver, I don't think Padilla is going to turn out that badly.

by benmor78 on Sep 4, 2007 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Weaver

He was just a one year deal, though.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reply

Oh Brothers.

Why is Padilla worthless? He'll turn out okay?

Really?

Double really?

Show me some stats. Convince me otherwise.

Again. I still like watching GMJ play baseball. Cat? Padilla? Not as much.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Thoughout his career, Padilla has been a pretty good pitcher.

This year, he hasn't.

I think he's a reasonable bet to bounce back next season.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope so...

His fastball is terrific. And I like his style. But, as a fan, if I'm watching inconsistent pitching all year, I'd prefer it be a prospect throwing for tomorrow. And. As you've pointed out, he may have arm problems.

I'm just saying. If we're going to brag about the savings of $50 million on one hand. We should not forget that we actually spent $50 million on these two players - Cat and Padilla.

As for Cat, he's not a bad deal as much as I would prefer to see Murphy play LF and Botts DH (for the remainder of the year). So, despite his comeback, I don't see it as an extreme long term positive. I think DH is the easiest position to fill, down the road.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The implication you're making is that ...

the $50m we spent on Cat and Padilla would have otherwise been used on GMJ. I don't think that is the case. Hicks was clearly willing to spend quite a bit more on this team this year and had some deals fall through, but I've never seen it mentioned anywhere that the only reason Cat and Padilla were signed was because we passed on GMJ.

by Athos on Sep 4, 2007 6:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reply

I prefer fairness in arguments. To imply that the $50 million dollar man is a dud might be fair enough. But it overlooks the key fact that our own $50 million dollar expenditure was no better. Probably worse.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 8:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see how.

Cat has been a better player than GMJ this season, and he and Padilla will be off the books in two more seasons. The Angels are stuck with GMJ for four more years, the last two of which will see him making $11m and $12m respectively. That's a ton of money for a 4th outfielder.

by Athos on Sep 5, 2007 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's been so bad

that I don't see how you could be real optimistic of a return to decency. I suppose you could construct a scenario where he has been so bad because he has been hurt, but will return to complete health for next year and stay healthy, but I can't see that as a likelihood.

Also, I'd point out that one of my problems with Padilla has been that, before his big contract season last season, he was coming off of 115 and 147 inning seasons. He'll be back in that range this season, albeit with much worse performance than those two.

None of that changes anything really. Either you give him a shot to be in the rotation or you don't, and it doesn't make much sense to not even let him compete for a spot. But I think that it's unwise to bet on his bouncing back.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 5, 2007 1:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

why do you

like to watch GMJ play? Is it because he can make routine catches look spectacular by adding his own degrees of difficulty? Last weekend's series sure did have a lot of GMJ chasing after balls as they rolled to the wall.

Mark Connor just shows up to the ballpark to collect a paycheck.

by jshcmp on Sep 4, 2007 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why

I'm so confused why it's so hard to imagine that some people (me) still like one of the best players (maybe THE best) from the 2006 Rangers. GMJ is cool player. Maybe fewer people these days care about the subjective stuff, but I still do. Once a Ranger, always a Ranger.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't think so...

Doesn't Padilla have an option so if he's ineffective the next 2 years, we're off the hook?

by slimshadty12 on Sep 4, 2007 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

$33.75

is guaranteed. I'm pretty sure. So Cat and Padilla are about $47 million combined. I think.

by 3Bagger on Sep 4, 2007 9:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Naturally,

we'll soon read the straight-shooting Mr. Reeves humbly admit how wrong he was. Accountable, unbiased journalism is what he's all about.

This is me, being sarcastic...

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Sep 4, 2007 12:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Reeves

I know it's slightly off-topic, but that other investment he recently made isn't looking too bad either.

Top of the EPL, suckas! :)

"Then I met some friends for a beer, went to a BoDeans's concert, and son of a vondruke, if I didn't leave him at the concert hall."

by RCCook on Sep 4, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If his OPS+

Dips below the 100 mark by the end of the season, the more savvy posters at angelswin.com will be screaming "I told you so" to the rest of their audience.

Gary is a player I like, and I don't want to see him fail or taper off to nothing. But! His 2006 year was definitely an anomaly.

Time does funny things. The worst of which is, it keeps moving when you don't.

by Ed Coffin on Sep 4, 2007 1:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Who is the next player up

from GMJ in the MLB zone rating?

Here is a hint:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/fielding?groupId=9&sortColumn=zoneRating&sortOrder=true& amp;split=84&qualified=null&season=2007&seasonType=2

by DJCahill on Sep 4, 2007 1:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Cameron and Andruw

Rangers should just stand pat and let Byrd/Murphy patrol center next year.

Put Mayberry Jr. back at First Base.

by Jukebox Joe on Sep 4, 2007 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Byrd/Murphy

Both Byrd and Murphy have drastically exceeded expectations. There is nothing in either of their histories to suggest they are good or even acceptable starting ML outfielders. Both have benefitted from small sample sizes. Byrd has reverted to form in the second half, and Murphy likely will as well if given enough PAs.

If we go into 2008 with those guys starting in CF, we better not hope on winning anything.

I'd be up for bringing in Lofton or Cameron for a year or two until we can find a long-term solution.

by BCanfield on Sep 4, 2007 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You weren't planning

on winning anything during the 1st full year of a rebuilding process, were you?

It'd be a nice byproduct if younger players are getting an opportunity and taking advantage of it, but the most important thing is that young players receive a sufficient amount of AB's and IP so that we can make evaluations as to who will be here in '09 and beyond. We have a plan in place for the first time in a while, now we have to stick to it.

"No team has any major strengths as all NFL players are roughly the same. If you cant run on third and one it isn't because of your players." - Sharky

by Chase Irwin on Sep 4, 2007 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Torii Hunter

will be a Ranger next year. It has taken Hicks all the self discipline he can muster to keep from talking about Hunter until the season is over, but everyone seems to know that he covets Hunter, and Hunter has made it clear he is looking to move this offseason. I think the Rangers will get Hunter for 5 years and 70-75 million, and I am okay with that. Will we be ecstatic about that deal in the fifth year...doubtful. But he has remained healthy throughout his career and I would bet he can still be productive throughout the life of the contract.

I think this team will try to add one key piece both this offseason and next offseason, in the hopes of legitimately competing in '09.

by clark on Sep 4, 2007 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ack

I think GMJ's contract and performance is exactly why you don't give Torii Hunter that type of contract.

Well Mr. Burns had done it. The power plant had won it. With Roger Clemens clucking all the while.

by WyoRanger on Sep 4, 2007 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

you didn't trust any defensive statistics?

Signature

by t ball on Sep 4, 2007 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really don't

but since Adam brought them up in the post, they are relevent in this thread.

Either you have to conclude that defensive stats have some value, and Cameron is about the same defensively as GMJ, which takes quite a bit of the wind out of the get Cameron now campaign. Or you believe that defensive stats are mostly useless, which I do believe, and they could very well undervalue GMJ defensively.

Take your pick of interpretations.

by DJCahill on Sep 5, 2007 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is really funny

Andruw Jones is the 4th worst CF in ZR, and the best CF in baseball in RZR.

It does a good job of reiterating my point that most defensive stats are crap.

by DJCahill on Sep 5, 2007 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gary Matthews is also

a 104 rate CF according to BP, and 20 runs against replacement and 4 games above average.

by DJCahill on Sep 5, 2007 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

nobody is asking that Cameron be signed to a 5 year deal worth $50 million. So your point doesn't really hold well.

by benmor78 on Sep 5, 2007 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some folks are talking about

3 years for the fossilized remains of Cameron.

by DJCahill on Sep 5, 2007 7:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Who? I've seen comments about 1 or 2 year deals, I haven't seen any about 3. And, even still, it wouldn't be 3 years, $30 million, would it?

And the point that Adam was making in this post doesn't have anything to do with Cameron, does it, Dan? He's pointing out that all the "oh, no, we let GMJ go, he's the ROXORS!!" comments in the offseason were a little overblown.

by benmor78 on Sep 5, 2007 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about mark derosa?

on the season he's played 72 games at 2b, 34 at 3b, 21 at RF and 9 at 1B. 1 each at LF and SS.

2005 .243/.325/.439, 98 OPS+
2006 .296/.357/.456, 106OPS+
2007 .286/.358/.411, 97 OPS+

pretty consistant with the 2 years in texas, but those are pretty darn good numbers for a guy that can play 3+ positions. 3 years at 13 million wasn't bad. certainly more money than hairston or vazquez, but he's also a better hitter than both of them.

Al Gore 2008 http://www.myspace.com/igotsculture

by gossamer on Sep 4, 2007 2:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...

Unless Kinsler, Young or Blalock were traded, DeRosa wasn't re-signing with the Rangers...

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 4, 2007 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what's odd with that is

that the left fielder on DeRosa's new team is Soriano...who refused to get off of 2B in texas.

oh ironies.

Al Gore 2008 http://www.myspace.com/igotsculture

by gossamer on Sep 4, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yea but...

DeRosa, as is his perogative, wanted to be a starter and knew the rangers infield was full (hindsight huh?)

by bushe on Sep 4, 2007 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but...

do you want to spend that much money on what is still essentially a super-sub? A player with his skill set will always be more valuable in the NL.

by ksf42001 on Sep 4, 2007 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well

i never really got upset with the rangers for not spending the $$ to keep GMJ. no way would i have wanted them to match the angels.

derosa wouldn't have been NEAR as bad. him leaving upset me more than GMJ. in hindsight, having him play all this time at 3rd instead of vazquez would have been amazing. and then him in the OF instead of Cruz and Diaz would also have been real nice. but can't really plan on the corner OF being as shitty as it's been, or a long injury to blalock.

Al Gore 2008 http://www.myspace.com/igotsculture

by gossamer on Sep 4, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs