Gagne to Texas ($6 mil, 1 year)
Per Boston sports radio, Eric Gagne has signed a 1 year/$8,000,000 deal with the Texas Rangers.
Not a bad deal for someone who has thrown 15 innings since 2004.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yeah, but
by The Congo Hammer on Dec 12, 2006 1:11 PM EST reply actions
True
Worst case scenario, if it doesn't work out... Texas is used to eating bad contracts: 8 million dollars is a mere pickle compared to the sh*t sandwiches Tom Hicks is used to eating.
by SmokeyJoeWood on Dec 12, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
or...
Texas
And if he isn't, then why pay Gagne $8MM to rehab?
by ephinz on Dec 12, 2006 1:21 PM EST reply actions
insane
This is my pick for worst F/A signing of the off-season, what a shock that it's a deal done by the rangers.
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 12, 2006 1:32 PM EST reply actions
Worst deal?
I was listening to MLB radio on a plane trip yesterday and they were discussing how Gagne, with the amount and type of injuries he had, probably will never end up throwing like he used to. That being said, it's hard to imagine committing $8 mil to that type of player.
by Lunkwill Fook on Dec 12, 2006 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
draft pick?
In terms of ratio of dollars:upside ratio, I think the Henry Blanco extension is the worst so far. How does one begin to defend that move?
Not sure
The deal
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 12, 2006 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Ignoring the obvious hyperbole....
Obviously, I have no idea if Gagne did or didn't do steroids. I don't know where you got the impression he did, but I'm willing to accept a world of steroids in baseball in which EVERY PLAYER is at least half-guilty until proven otherwise. I don't see any reason to think he did, but, if you do, more power to you.
Having said that, Gagne, if healthy, will continue to dominate. Maybe you're saying he needs the steroids to stay healthy (again, I can't argue), but, if you think Gagne needs the steroids to enhance his performance, I think you're blatantly wrong.
Because of the injuries, he's lost quite a few MPH on his fastball over the past three years; he was really 88-92 during spring training/April of 2006. More than that, in every year since his stunning 2003, he's lost his pinpoint control on his always fairly flat fastball.
Did that end his dominance? Hardly. His change-up is the best single pitch in baseball. During the brief period he was pitching this past year, I would guess he was throwing it over 80% of his pitches, and still no one could pick it up. He also started throwing his huge curveball more, which is a pretty devastating pitch in its own right. Obviously, 88-92 is pretty slow to throw as a right-handed closer, but Trevor Hoffman's done alright with it, and Gagne, when healthy, has much better stuff than Hoffman.
Anyway, the contract's somewhat of a risk, obviously. I'm not devastated for the Dodgers to have lost him, because I have serious doubts about how many innings Gagne will ever be able to pitch (or at least when he'll be healthy enough to pitch them). On the other hand, one-year contracts are never that big a risk; Nomar and Frank Thomas got the same last year, and they turned into a huge bargains. If Gagne never pitches, at least the franchise won't be saddled with his contract for long.
by bleedjaxblue on Dec 12, 2006 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
Worst
Their Starting Pitching needs a lot more work than their bullpen did and I'm not sure Otsuka is going to bring the kind of help they need. Nor does Texas have the kind of track record in trading players that would make me think they COULD pull off a steal of a trade (Remember the Chris Young trade?).
Just watch, they'll end up with a number 4 an overpaid #3 or a dubious prospect in return for Otsuka.
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 12, 2006 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
Dude
by Brett Perryman on Dec 12, 2006 6:16 PM EST up reply actions
What
From a pure baseball standpoint though, it's a questionable (at best) move by the Rangers. I look forward to Theo talking them into taking Clement for Otsuka.
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 12, 2006 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
I agree.....
Anyway, this isn't 1984. One year, $6 million hardly makes an impact on payroll at all. And, given that it's one year, I struggle to see where else the Rangers could have spent $6 mil that could have offered them better results. They aren't trading away or blocking prospects with this move.
And I think your argument -- that only a team more sure to make the playoffs should bid for Gagne -- could be dead backwards: It should only be worth spending the $6 million on Gagne for a team that would need THAT BIG a payoff IF he works out in order for the move to make sense. In other words, why should the Rangers have spent that $6 million on some marginal player who couldn't POSSIBLY impact the team enough for them to be any better (from a practical, "making-the-playoffs-or-not" standpoint)? Unless your argument is that all teams who aren't projected to win the division should give up and fold -- refusing to sign anyone, period, and merely filling out their roster with double- and triple-A retreads -- I don't see why THIS free-agent signing seems like the worst. After all, some of the other big free-agent signing have been by teams such as the Cubs, Royals, Astros, Giants and Blue Jays, all of whom I think stand little chance at making the playoffs; why is the Rangers' move of bigger sin?
Also, I would be surprised if they actually plan on moving Otsuka. I assume they will look to shorten games/pitch fewer innings with their poor starters when Gagne's healthy, and thank their lucky stars that they have Otsuka as a back-up when he's not.
by bleedjaxblue on Dec 12, 2006 7:37 PM EST up reply actions
Worst
I wouldn't argue that only a contending team should try to compete. I would argue that signing Gagne to a 1 year $6M contract when you already have Otsuka makes far less sense for a non-contending team than it does for a contending team.
$6M is still $6M. The $6M you don't spend this year, can be spent next year instead and could be the difference between landing a player at 3/$32M or not landing that player because you offered 3/$30M.
by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 12, 2006 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
Red Song Pants
Why can't the Rangers go all the way in '07? The Cardinals were hardly dominant in '06, winning just a couple games more than TX, and the AL West is very winnable. TX had the best Pythagorean record in the division so one could argue it was just luck that they were so far out at the end of the season.
No team in the AL West is very strong, Jon Daniels would be a fool not to go for it.
Don't think it's a bad deal.
Honestly, I don't see why more teams don't do this more often. For instance, the Angels don't want to deal their strength (pitching), but really need 3B help. Why not go get a reasonable 3/4 type such as Maddux, Suppan, etc for $10m. They could then trade Ervin Santana or Lackey for a really nice 3B, which doesn't exist on the FA market, who would have cost them more than $15m/yr if there was one.
by FredUD on Dec 12, 2006 3:27 PM EST reply actions
Otsuka
Yahoo rumors
Boston?
Comments.....
Otsuka to Boston (closer) and another friend for Dice-K sounds good to me...
option
6 or 8m...
He threw up some decent #'s.
Closing games out is not one of the Rangers big issues if they are going to contend.
Well
This move is not really as risky your making it out to be and it could very well pay-off in the end.

by 












