JD's One Year Deals (a review of Tim MacMahon's lovefest)

by sam in so cal on Sep 21, 2008 12:22 PM CDT

Daniels has done wonders with one-year deals

Now that the season has progressed and nears its completion, it seems like a good opportunity to review a midseason rave from DMN writer and underappreciated DMN blog contributor Tim MacMahon.

Tim usually has a lot of negative things to say about the Rangers, but I refer back to one of his more glowing posts about JD's prowess with one year deals - turning something into nothing...

Strangely absent is any reference to Jason Jennings - a COMPLETE failure by JD.

Touted prematurely as a "success story" was the signing of Ponson.

Bradley flamed out sometime after this was written May 20th, contributing very little when the Rangers needed July/August momentum. IF Daniels had an opportunity to move Bradley and didn't then it was another failure, but if there were no offers then it was probably a good signing although Bradley ultimately failed to see his maximum potential despite a great start to the season.

The Lofton year was great for the future of the franchise.

I dissent from MacMahon and question what Sammy Sosa provided this team during his one year.

Gagne was a great move even though Gabbard is, in retrospect, another waste. Murphy hopefully continues to overachieve.

Low risk/high rewards or just a couple of good moves with a healthy dose of crap littering the list of one year signings?

Also, since at least half of the one year signings have been busts, the "low risk" component is actually double for the signings that worked out, right?

In other words, if Bradley was considered a success at $5M (don't know any of the salaries off the top of my head and won't look), you also needs to add salaries of Jennings, Broussard and Ponson to that amount to determine total amount risked versus what was received (high reward). This year the Rangers spent several million on one year contracts and got Bradley. Risk versus reward, good or very average?

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

"Bradley flamed out sometime after this was written May 20th, contributing very little when the Rangers needed July/August momentum."

Bradley from May 21st to date: .313/.435/.558
Bradley in July/August: .341/.469/.556

I guess the argument here is that Bradley’s nagging injuries have been a drain on his offensive value, but I wouldn’t term that “contributing very little.”

Baseball Time in Arlington

by Joey Matschulat on Sep 21, 2008 12:48 PM CDT reply actions

thanks for the comment

i REALLY respect the work that you put into your website and appreciate you taking the time to post here – although i think you avoided commenting on the overall question i was posing

to your point, MB’s numbers have been great, but you are correct that good numbers are only relevant when the player plays.

“sometime after may 20th…” (a date i used b/c that’s when tim penned his rave)

let’s use june 12th – september 19th

183 ABs

to me, that’s contributing very little – especially since MB was arguably the cornerstone of the ranger offense. the team needed him, and to that end he was not there. it’s nothing new for MB. in fact, it’s pretty much his MO.

august 5th – september 19th

the rangers were +6 games. over the next 41 games, MB had 87 ABs, and the rangers went 15-26. to me, that’s contributing very little.

producing great numbers when you play is one thing. producing great numbers when the team needs you speaks more toward a meaningful contribution.

by sam in so cal on Sep 21, 2008 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions

Getting 52.5 runs over a replacement player

for 5 million dollars is a steal no matter how you look at it.

The Gagne deal also netted us Beltre and we all saw how bad Gagne has been since traded last deadline. A few months of Beltre for a few million dollars got us an amazing OF prospect, an extra arm for the bullpen or rotation, and an OF who can post a 112 OPS+ through 174 Major League games.

Ponson gave us a solid starter for a couple of months for the Major League minimum. Again, nothing but good in that.

Also, look at Ramon Vazquez this year. We got a great utility player for nothing.

Guardado is another one. He helped our bullpen out a lot and JD flipped him at the right time to give the team something for the future as well.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Sep 21, 2008 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions

I think you're missing something important about 1-year deals.

They don’t tie the team down. We signed 4 free agents. 3 of them sucked, but we won’t have to worry about any of them affecting the team going forward. In today’s market where guys like Gary Matthews get $11MM over 5 years, there really aren’t a lot of negative things to say about any 1-year deal unless you believe a player was overpaid from the beginning.

I mention that last part because it can be argued that Jennings and Broussard were probably not good signings at the time. The bright side remains, though. When 2009 rolls around, those two contracts won’t affect payroll.

It's filed under 'D'... for donut.

by NoNameOnCard on Sep 21, 2008 9:03 PM CDT reply actions