Clement Blocked.

by Metty5 on Apr 25, 2008 5:23 PM EDT

I was trying to think of a great name for this but it didn't work out.

Seattle Mariners Executive Vice President & General Manager of Baseball Operations Bill Bavasi announced today that the Mariners have agreed to terms with catcher Kenji Johjima on a three-year contract extension.

Johjima, who was eligible for free agency at the end of this season, is now signed through 2011. Per club policy, terms of the contract were not disclosed.

What does this mean for Clement?

I don't think he is dumb enough to move him. But I don't see another option. Do you stick him at DH, I don't?

Clement will be around 27 when this contract expires.

Maybe the mets can trick them into giving him up for Delgado!

0 recs | Comment 54 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Options

Clement will be replacing Vidro as the Mariners DH, likely in the not so distant future. Also, I wouldn’t be suprised if he is Richie Sexson’s replacement once his contract expires.

However, I believe that Bavasi has made a huge mistake here by not allowing Clement’s power bat to make a great impact at a traditionally weak hitting position. Not that I am suprised since Bavasi is known for making terrible moves.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Apr 25, 2008 5:29 PM EDT 0 recs

+1

I agree completely.

by El Duq of Hurl on Apr 25, 2008 6:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

Trade

I’ve long thought it would make a great deal of sense for the Reds to send Jr. to the M’s for Clement. Granted, that’s a very win-now move for the M’s, and a white flag for the Reds, but maybe if they continue to flail come midseason they’d be able to find a package that would work.

I’d highly doubt that happening, as Walt Jocketty will likely be making moves to improve the Reds chances right now.

And getting back to Clement, I’d always heard that he was passable at catcher, and if that is actually the case, then the M’s definitely should try and make the most of that. Likely, that means dealing Clement to a pretender for some needed part come midseason. To the Nats for Nick Johnson perhaps? The Nats may already have Jesus Flores, but a catcher who can hit 280/365/530 in the show would be pretty valuable.

by GuyinNY on Apr 25, 2008 5:52 PM EDT 0 recs

Question

Why would the move Clement for Nick Johnson when they can just plug in the younger, cheaper, and BETTER Clement at first base?

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Apr 25, 2008 6:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

Because they're the Mariners

by demondeaconsbaseball on Apr 25, 2008 6:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

LOL

Good point.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Apr 25, 2008 6:28 PM EDT up 0 recs

Of course it would make great sense for the Reds.

It’s terrible for the Mariners. Jeff Clement’s skill set to a Major League team isn’t too far off in value from Griffey’s. He just needs a chance to play.

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 12:55 AM EDT up 0 recs

On the other hand, if you can, why not keep both?

Theoretically, the Mariners could decide to do a two position platoon between DH and C for Johjima and Clement – both play 75-80 games at catcher and 75-80 at DH. That way you’d get both bats in the line-up, and they might both remain fresh. It might also allow Clement to play at catcher much longer than he might otherwise have been able to

by OldProspects on Apr 25, 2008 5:53 PM EDT 0 recs

I'd

really like to see a team try this.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Apr 25, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is a really bad idea

Johjima is well below average as a DH and gains a good bit of value from his defense. If Clement can handle the catcher position, the correct move is to trade Johjima. If he can’t, then Johjima catches and Clement plays 1b/DH.

by rwperu34 on Apr 26, 2008 9:41 AM EDT up 0 recs

I don't have enough money for enough beer to keep following this organization

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 12:52 AM EDT 0 recs

what a fair weather fan

you had one of the better teams in baseball last year, take it easy with the misery

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 1:40 AM EDT up 0 recs

fair weather fan?

agonizing over the M’s interminable personnel gaffes doesn’t make you a fair weather fan, it makes you a smart fan. One that wants his team to succeed.

by DrunkIrish on Apr 26, 2008 2:02 AM EDT up 0 recs

fans that gripe over every little thing

even the good moves! are not good fans

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 3:02 AM EDT up 0 recs

It's not a god-awful contract.

It’s the fact that the brass just refuses to learn from the mistakes they’ve made in the past. Despite the trends of how well catchers do in their age 33-34-35 seasons, they say, “Look at his track record! He’s sure to keep it up for 3 years!” They consistently ignore positional aging patterns and as a result they hold on a year or two too long while they often pay them up the wazoo. Then they act surprised when it happens.

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

It's not just complaining, it's critiquing. It's just poor roster construction.

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

you have zero insight

on what makes a “good” fan. Just because you think a good fan doesn’t criticize his team’s moves doesn’t mean it’s true. A good fan roots for his team to win and wants it to be run well. Speaking up when it’s being run badly is a sign of the clearest sign of a good fan.

by DrunkIrish on Apr 26, 2008 3:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Take it easy, it was satire.

Of course I’m not going to stop following the Mariners. I buy cable every spring and summer BECAUSE of the Mariners. Do you really think there are fair weather fans that have the tenacity to regularly read a blog that 95 percent of baseball patrons don’t really care about? No offense to John, but we all know that only the most die hard of baseball fans pay attention to prospects as much as we who read this blog.

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 1:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

+1

There is nothing wrong with poking fun at an inept organization. I am a Royals fan so trust me, I have dealt with more than my share of bad decisions.

Also, you are 100% correct when you state that only the most diehard fans read blogs such as this.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Apr 26, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yikes people

take it easy with the bashing until you know what the terms of the deal are.
Johjima is a quality player and there are plenty of ways to get Clement and Johjima playing time, especially in the AL.

There is no way that acquiring good ballplayers at a good price can ever be a bad move. Better to have a log jam than too little talent, at least you have options.

Also, as others have said, this gives the Mariners more options when replacing Sexson. Now they don’t have to worry about going out and paying for another 1b and having that turn out like Sexson.

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 1:46 AM EDT 0 recs

Money

The deal was for $24M over three years, or 3 x $8M if you prefer. Basically it’s Bengie Molina’s deal with the Giants plus an addition $8 mil. However you want to spin it, that’s not a smart move money-wise for the M’s. Then again, neither was the Silva deal, the Batista deal, the Sexson deal, the Washburn deal, the Vidro option…

can we just agree that if Raul Ibanez isn’t involved, Billy Bavasi is incapable of locking up a player at a good price?

by DrunkIrish on Apr 26, 2008 2:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

uhhh

Johjima is better than Molina, and in much better shape. 3 years at 24 mil is not a bad price for good catching these days. keep in mind how much player contracts have changed in the last few years

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 3:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

But still don’t think it’s a good contract, mostly just due to Clement waiting in the wings, who could outproduce Johjima offensively and at a fraction of the cost. Johjima already hit his peak and will only go downhill from here, but Clement is on the rise and could great value to the team at catcher even without being a stud on defense.

So what I'm saying I wouldn't gripe about it so much if they didn't have such a solid and major-league ready backstop just waiting in Triple-A, but they could have really used this money on a free agent signing that could really help them contend (where art though Barry Bonds?)  Not that the Mariners are the most cash-strapped team, but if there's anything I've learned from watching the Yankees, it's that SMART allocation of money makes the difference between winning and losing (Pavano can go cry about it into his solid gold hankerchief)

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Apr 26, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up 0 recs

Johjima and Molina

are pretty comparable as catchers. They’ll both give you a league average OPS+ and are average/above average defensively. Johjima caught a higher percentage of runners last year, but Benji’s got a couple gold gloves. It’s really a wash as far as their market value.

Unfortunately, this deal is just another example that Bavasi can’t construct anything better than a mediocre team, even with a top payroll. The M’s continue to give big contracts to mid-range players, while vastly cheaper options with comparable performances are right there in front of them. As a result, they “can’t afford” to land the Mark Teixeira, Adam Dunn, CC Sabathia, and John Lackey types when they hit the market, and instead spend another $8M a year on the next Miguel Batista.

by DrunkIrish on Apr 26, 2008 4:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

WHAT?

The Washburn deal is a bad deal? How is 9 million a year for a left handed SP who throws about 190 innings a season in the low to mid 4 ERA area a bad deal? A lot of teams are paying a lot more for less. And Silva has been great. He has performed wonderfully since coming to the Pacific Northwest, and except for a bad 2006 with Minnesota he has been a great pro. Maybe he doesn’t put up the sexy stats for you, I don’t know. And Miguel Batista may not be the best starting pitcher out there, but he is performing as well as you can expect. In today’s market, a 12+ win pitcher for 8 million a year is a bargain.

I’ll agree with you about the Vidro and Sexson deals. I wasn’t a fan of the Sexson or Beltre signings when they happened. Beltre is playing almost up to his contract, but I would never consider his deal a bargain.

I like this deal for Johjima though. I know people here love these prospects, but Clement is not a sure thing. NO PROSPECT IS A SURE THING. When you are trying to win you do not put all your eggs in a prospect’s basket. I expect Clement to be up this year working a lot at DH and 1B. Johjima’s contract may restrict Jeff’s ability to catch in the majors in the immediate future, but I don’t think it will have a great impact on him not seeing the majors. They need to do it soon so they can get Vidro out of the line-up. Sexson may not be getting on base a lot either, but at least he has some power. I like the idea of using Clement at DH and as the back-up Catcher. You d that, and then you don’t have to carry the usual second catcher and you can then have another pitcher or bat off the bench that can both help the team more than a weak hitting back-up catcher.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Apr 26, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up 0 recs

It's a bad deal because pitchers of the same skill set can be had for a fraction of the price.

Ryan Rowland-Smith offers 80 percent of what Washburn does and he’s making the league minimum. Sure he probably won’t pitch 190 innings a year, but that’s why you have Cha Sueng Baek to soak up what RRS didn’t. That’s $36 million saved going toward a star free agent. And what about Carlos Silva? A closed-minded organization commits $60 million over 4 years, while a smarter organization like the Rockies guarentees $400k to Josh Towers and league minimum to a replacement level pitcher.

You’re obviously talking about market value, in which you’re correct that Washburn is not overpaid. But it’s not a contract that smart organizations make. I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell would rather have RRS, Towers, Baek and someone like Mark Teixeira in ‘09 than Carlos Silva and Jarrod Washburn.

I like this deal for Johjima though. I know people here love these prospects, but Clement is not a sure thing. NO PROSPECT IS A SURE THING.

And Johjima at age 32 is a sure thing? Even if you look at the best offensive catchers of all time, you can count all the ones who were productive in their age 33-34-35 seasons on your hands. Jeff Clement at age 25-26-27 is just as risky as Johjima, and again, it’s at a fraction of the price.

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 2:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

if you are trying to go to the playoffs

counting on Josh Towers won’t get you there. As you said, he is replacment level-ish. Silva is not.
Towers is a decent flyer to take but with Silva you can be reasonably sure he will be a solid mid-rotation guy. With Towers you are always one step away from disaster. He put up an 8-something ERA last year. That isn’t just some “random variation” or “bad luck”. That is crap pitchhing.

And you are going to count on Cha Sung Baek to replace part of Washburn? A 28 yo with an 88 career ERA+, a middling track record, and not much stuff or potential?
WTF?

And you know Ryan Rowland-Smith has been a relief pitcher something like 80-90 pct of his pro games?
You can’t just SAY he will be a solid starter and make it so

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yes, you can.

Not alone, but if you had Baek, RRS and Mark Teixeira you sure as hell could. Josh Towers is 80 percent of Carlos Silva for 100 IP and gets paid 20 times less. Then Baek, RRS and RA Dickey can eat up the rest of the 100 IP. Compacting the amount of money you spend on role players to save money for stars is how annual contending teams are built. Role players don’t deserve long term contracts.

And are you seriously using ERA to evaluate a pitcher? Is this thread taking place in 1980? Towers’ 2007 was 100 innings of 6.3 K/G, 1.8 BB/G, 1.48 HR/9 pitching while Silva was at 200 IP of 4.1 / 2.2/ 0.8. One you called replacement level, the other you called a mid-rotation guy. Why is that? Sure, Silva has been doing this for the past few years and can do it for double the innings, but if you’re taking Silva over a combination of the rest of the above pitchers, you’re also taking on a $60 million long term commitment.

Towers + RRS + Baek + maybe another replacement level starter (RA Dickey?) can combine to give you a full year of 80 percent what Silva offers for less than $2 million spent and no long term commitments.

And hell yes I’d count on Baek to do what Wash can do.
- 5.7/ 3.3/ 1.6
- 4.6/ 1.5/ 1.2
You can probably guess which one is Washburn, but if you’re the one constructing this roster, why, General Manager nms, would you pay him far and away more than a 3-man tandem of replacement-level starters for $2 million?

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

ha ha ha ha

youre insane.

Towers can put up whatever components he wants. Over the course of his career his has shown that he can not consistantly avoid giving up lots and lots of runs. Thats what will happen when you throw like a high schooler. Baseball is about more than component percentages. One is a replacement level BECAUSE HE IS.

“Sure, Silva has been doing this for the past few years and can do it for double the innings,”

Yes, yes that is why. Duh, how is that hard to understand.
I never said the Silva deal was thrifty but to think that, from a performance standpoint, Josh Towers, RRS and Baek are going to be anything like solid starting pitchers is foolhardy.

You are getting locked into just looking at some numbers and ignoring the big picture. Putting up good component numbers does not always mean you are a good pitcher. Simple as that.

And when a pitchers ERA is EIGHT sure you can evaluate him on that. Its not like that is some fluke.. good pitchers don’t pitch that poorly.
And how is a #3 starter a “role player”?
Is Adrian Beltre a “role player”?
No..

And, one again, how do you get off just assuming RRS will be a good starting pitcher.
That is like assuming a good 3b can play 2b. It CAN happen, depending on the individual, but its not lock

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Well, FF totally nuked my post.

So here it is in short:

- You can’t discount Towers’ 2006 without discounting Silva’s. 5.33 xFIP vs. Silva’s 5.09. Both were terrible, one was terribly unlucky. Both rebounded in 2007 with xFIPs of 4.67 and 4.31. The one who had an unsustainably low HR/FB of 9.6 in his walk year signed a $60 million contract.

- One is a replacement level BECAUSE HE IS.

This is your answer to the question Why is one replacement level and the other isn’t? Not good enough.

Yes, yes that is why. Duh, how is that hard to understand.

And this is your answer to the question, Why do you call Silva a #3 while calling Towers replacement level?. So, according to you, the difference between a #3 starter and a replacement level starter is that one can pitch more innings. Explain.

- You are getting locked into just looking at some numbers and ignoring the big picture. Putting up good component numbers does not always mean you are a good pitcher. Simple as that.

You’re using ERA to filter Towers from Silva. You’re in no position to teach me anything. You can pitch well while sporting a terrible ERA, just like you can pitch a lot worse than your ERA says you are.

Carlos Silva is not a #3 starter. Number 3 starters aren’t extreme pitch-to-contact guys who put up average ground ball rates. You’re only calling him a #3 starter because of his good ERA last year. Carlos Silva is a back-end rotation starter who’s being paid like a #3 because of a sparkly ERA in his walk year. There are many, many pitchers of his skill set toiling away in the Minor Leagues just begging for a chance to be paid Major League minimum, and they can be taught how to pitch in the Majors. This is how teams understanding the fundamentals of the replacement-level concept find their Lenny DiNardos and Rodrigo Lopezs; and eventually get their hands on Jack Custs and Jeff Keppingers.

Yes, you can consistently put up good peripherals and consistently get worse than expected results, a la Jeremy Bonderman and 2006’s Felix Hernandez. These kinds of pitchers just don’t know how to pitch and/or are stubborn. But with guys who are thankful for a Major League job at all, an experienced catcher or manager can call the game for you, thus negating the problem.

And I am not assuming RRS can be a good starter. You’re assuming that Jarrod Washburn is. RRS is replacement level, and Washburn is borderline replacement level. RRS has the ability to do 90 percent of what Washburn can for less than half his innings, and Baek/Dickey can pitch at replacement level for the rest. And if they can’t, then you can find other replacement starters who can. It takes very little resources to find them.

by elrey34 on Apr 28, 2008 1:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

haha

you have no touch with the realities of baseball

by nms on Apr 28, 2008 5:15 AM EDT up 0 recs

Really?

No touch with the realities of baseball? It seems to me that if you look at the teams that have been consistently successful this decade – Boston, Oakland, San Diego, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, Angels pre-2007 – limiting the number of expensive contracts they give to mediocre players and embracing replacement level is something they all have in common. The Yankees don’t count, for obvious reasons.

by slamcactus on Apr 28, 2008 9:44 AM EDT up 0 recs

You have no answers to any of my questions.

If there’s anyone out of touch here, it’s you.

by elrey34 on Apr 29, 2008 10:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Towers is junk, Silva is a solid pitcher

and talking about unsustainable HR rates obviously doesn’t watch them pitch.

by pedrophile on Apr 30, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

And even you can only come up with statements without backing.

by elrey34 on Apr 30, 2008 10:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

SIlva

2004 solid
2005 excellent
2006 junk – he had no stuff that year.
2007 solid
2008 looking solid

You can’t just average out his numbers. 2006 he didn’t have the same stuff and stunk. I do think there will be a point where Silva drops off the map fast since he relies on excellent control and an excellent sinker.

Towers
2001 solid
2002 stunk limited appearance
2003 solid limited appearance
2004 stunk
2005 miracle happened. era solid. watched him a lot. he was incredibly lucky. lots of hits, hr’s. not many k’s. fly ball pitcher if I remember.
2006 stunk
2007 stunk

This is a very easy comparison to make.

by pedrophile on May 1, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up 0 recs

And a lot of teams...

can find mid-to-high 4’s ERA-type pitchers for next to nothing. Like the A’s, with Dana Eveland and Chad Gaudin. Or the Blue Jays with Shaun Marcum, Dustin McGowan, and Jesse Litsch. Or the Cardinals with Brad Thompson, Braden Looper, and Todd Wellermeyer. It’s not hard to find a pitcher than can put up a 4-point-something ERA with Safeco as his home field. Congratulating the Mariners for committing $30-plus million dollars for one player who can do it isn’t something I’m prepared to do.

by DrunkIrish on Apr 26, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up 0 recs

what the *#@#

Did someone severely beat you with the stupid stick?

Trying to say it’s easy to get a Marcum, McGowan and Litsch in the rotation is beyond dumb. Litsch is solid. I do expect him to come back to earth but he’s a nice back-end guy. Marcum is a #3 type starter which is very very hard to get and seriously under-rated. McGowan has a better arm than Halladay. It will probably take a few years to truly come into his own though. Maybe a #3 starter this year? I’d be impressed with that.

But to say this is easy for teams to do this? Or they can get them for next to nothing? That’s insane.

by pedrophile on Apr 26, 2008 7:50 PM EDT up 0 recs

yeah exactly

McGowan, for instance, cost a first round pick, a big bonus and years of development.

by nms on Apr 27, 2008 1:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

What would McGowan have cost you a year ago at this time?

After six years in the minors, and two awful major league stints. Certainly not a ton, or anything worth the equivalent of $30M+. Pitchers like this are there to be had. Maybe not always with a first round pedigree and great stuff, but it’s horrendously stupid to say it’s very hard to find cheap, underachieving pitchers with upside.

Smart teams don’t spend big on average to below-average pitching when it’s out there to be had if you look hard enough. Argue that if you want, but you’ll be wrong.

by DrunkIrish on Apr 27, 2008 3:54 AM EDT up 0 recs

you do realize...

....that being a real GM isn’t like your fantasy league, right? you don’t get to just pick up whatever talent you think might be on a roll lately. i’m not sure why you think you’re GM would necessarily be smarter than opposing GMs at identifying their own talent.

by bleedjaxblue on Apr 27, 2008 5:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

The fact that...

the A’s in particular do this all the time through trades makes me think it’s not impossible. Players like this sneak through waivers fairly often as well, as you may have noticed with guys like Josh Towers, Joe Kennedy (4.79 career ERA, .034 higher than Miguel Batista’s—while he was alive, of course), Kirk Saarloos, and Robinson Tejeda just recently. It wouldn’t upset you if your team signed guys only marginally better than this to 4-year contracts for seven figures a year, while ignoring a freely available option?

by DrunkIrish on Apr 27, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

first of all

Joe Kennedy is not Dustin McGowan. i hope we agree on that.

second of all, i fully appreciate the job Beane does at cobbling together spare parts to create quite competent “filler” to round out his roster. but, if everyone identified talent that well, then he wouldn’t be able to make those trades. by definition.

so i guess what you’re really saying is, “i wish my GM were Billy Beane, or someone even better than Billy Beane.” sure, you probably still wouldn’t be able to score McGowan, hell—you probably won’t even get a Jarrod Washburn (consistently giving you near 200 innings of league-average ball is fairly significantly better than any of the pitchers you mentioned). but you’d be able to get something valuable off of waivers. i don’t disagree.

so, i want to know - who do you suggest the M’s grab right now? as long as it’s “easy” to identify who’ll be worthwhile off of waivers. and a caveat - they can’t be picked by a real team who has priority before the M’s.

by bleedjaxblue on Apr 27, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up 0 recs

neither is he Marcum

and to get both?

by pedrophile on Apr 28, 2008 8:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

I'll echo what he said and add that

having Looper, Thompson and Wellemeyer as your back three will hurt your team, not help it. Its certainly doing that to the Cardinals

by nms on Apr 27, 2008 1:07 AM EDT up 0 recs

Obviously, that's not something you strive for.

But would you rather pay Washburn, Silva, and Batista a total of $30M each year, or run the slightly less effective (maybe) trio out there for under $6M, and split the remaining $24M on an elite hitter and a solid role player?

Filling a team with expensive mediocrity is a terrible way to try to build a winning team. Give me stars and scrubs any day.

by DrunkIrish on Apr 27, 2008 4:02 AM EDT up 0 recs

what just happened to my post? weird

They already have such a solid and major-league ready backstop just waiting in Triple-A, but they could have really used this money on a free agent signing that could really help them contend (where art though Barry Bonds?)
So what I’m saying I wouldn’t gripe about it so much if they didn’t have such a solid and major-league ready backstop just waiting in Triple-A, but they could have really used this money on a free agent signing that could really help them contend (where art though Barry Bonds?) Not that the Mariners are the most cash-strapped team, but if there’s anything I’ve learned from watching the Yankees, it’s that SMART allocation of money makes the difference between winning and losing (Pavano can go cry about it into his solid gold hankerchief)

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Apr 26, 2008 12:23 PM EDT 0 recs

Screw Barry Bonds...

No team is going to sign him this season, or ever again (barring a contending team losing a DH to injury for a long period of time).... I think his career is finished. He is a PR Nightmare, and the 20 HRs he could hit this year will not make up for it.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Apr 26, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

A .400 OBP and a .300 ISO for 100 games has a lot of value

as does a player who millions of fans pay cold hard cash to see in person. Whether they pay the money to cheer or boo him, people love him. Maybe they love him in the sense that they love to hate him, but in monetary value to baseball, it’s the same thing in practicality.

Julio Mateo is a wife-beater, Scot Speizio and Francisco Liriano drink and drive, and Elijah Dukes is scum of the earth—and nobody hates them nearly as much as they hate Barry even though they have directly posed a greater threat to society than he has. You’re probably right that nobody will offer Barry a contract ever again, but that doesn’t make it any more wrong than it is to give the above players a contract.

MLB should be ashamed of itself as far as I’m concerned.

by elrey34 on Apr 26, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

you know

its hard to get a contract when you are asking for far more than you are worth

by nms on Apr 26, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

He's Barry Bonds

.276/.480/.565 last year with the Giants! That’s an OPS+ of 170+ in 126 games, and in the AL where he can DH, spread those numbers over 140 or 150 games.

Compare that with Jose Guillen and his 12 million dollar contract going .290/.353/.460 with an OPS+ of 116.

I would pay what Bonds is asking.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Apr 26, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

me2 me3 me4

by pedrophile on Apr 26, 2008 8:18 PM EDT up 0 recs

Julio Mateo is a wife-beater, Scot Speizio and Francisco Liriano drink and drive, and Elijah Dukes is scum of the earth—and nobody hates them nearly as much as they hate Barry even though they have directly posed a greater threat to society than he has. You’re probably right that nobody will offer Barry a contract ever again, but that doesn’t make it any more wrong than it is to give the above players a contract.
MLB should be ashamed of itself as far as I’m concerned.

I’ve read similar arguments before, but never stated this well. I agree, the hypocrisy is disgusting.

Neglectful father of David Quinowski

by marcello on Apr 27, 2008 3:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

None of those things impact baseball, though

When gambling posed a real threat to the integrity of the game, people got banned from the game whether they were nice guys or not. The issue being addressed wasn’t their character, but baseball’s. It’s the same thing here. Guys like Bonds going out and breaking records has seriously threatened the integrity of the game in the eyes of many fans, and that affects the game of baseball more than any wifebeater ever could. Even if Bonds was a clean-cut, white, reporter-loving choirboy, he’d still be the posterboy for the steroids era and he would still be an embarrassment. Rafael Palmeiro’s unceremonious exit and Mark McGwire’s HOF votes (or lack thereof) are pretty good evidence of that…

There have been total jackasses in baseball forever, and there always will be. Ty Cobb, for example. Baseball has always been pretty forgiving of players like that. Guys like Josh Hamilton, Elijah Dukes, Brett Myers… they get chance after chance. If they get too far out of line, it’s the law’s job to deal with them, not their employer’s. Baseball reserves its most extreme reactions for players whose poor conduct affects the game itself. Honestly, in comparison to how it’s dealt with gambling, MLB has been pretty lenient. I expected a few lifetime bans by now!

by chaney on Apr 29, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up 0 recs