Table of Contents

Friday, November 23, 2007

Reds Sign Francisco Cordero (probably)

The scuttlebutt is that the Reds have reached a preliminary agreement with former Texas Rangers and Milwaukee Brewers closer, 32-year old RHP Francisco Cordero. Reportedly, it is a 4-year, $46 million contract, which, Ken Rosenthal says, would be the richest 4-year deal ever given to a reliever. That comes to an average of $11.5 million per year. Therefore, Cordero essentially replaces Eric Milton on the roster, and will be (I think) the Reds' second highest paid player behind Adam Dunn. Big time signing. Here's my take on him:

History

Francisco Cordero (6'2", 235 lbs) hails from the Dominican Republic, and was signed in 1994 as a 19-year old undrafted free agent by the Detroit Tigers. Over his first several years in the minors, he was used as a starter, but he never seemed to put it together. Then, in 1997, he was converted to relief, and immediately put up stunning numbers: 0.99 ERA in 54.3 innings, striking out 67 while walking just 15 in Single-A West Michigan. Just two years later, in 1999, he made his debut with the Detroit Tigers at age 24.

That offseason, the Rangers acquired Francisco in a large deal that ended Juan Gonzalez's first tenure with the Texas Rangers. After struggling and missing time due to injury over his first two years, Cordero finally settled into the big leagues for good in 2002, and took over the closer's job for good in 2004 at age 29. Acquired by the Brewers in '06 as part of the Carlos Lee deal, Cordero was the cornerstone of Milwaukee's bullpen last season. And now, with this signing, he's a Cincinnati Red.

Recent Stats:
Year Age Team IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 %GB
BABIP
ERA
FIP
AVGa
OBPa
SLGa
OPSa
R/G
RAR
2005 30 TEX 69.0 10.3 3.9 0.7 42.9% 0.332 3.39 3.15 0.234 0.315 0.356 0.671 3.8 8.9
2006 31 TEX 48.7 10.0 3.0 0.9 43.3% 0.371 4.80 3.43 0.265 0.324 0.395 0.719 4.5 4.3
2006 31 MIL 26.7 10.1 5.4 0.7 32.8% 0.313 1.69 3.67 0.213 0.321 0.351 0.672 3.5 5.1
2007 32 MIL 63.3 12.2 2.6 0.6 40.5% 0.342 2.99 2.24 0.218 0.272 0.314 0.586 3.0 15.0
3-Year --- --- 207.7 10.8 3.5 0.7 41.1% 0.342 3.38 2.97 0.234 0.261 0.352 0.612 3.7 33.3

Cordero is the consummate power closer. His strikeout rates have always been high, and while they peaked a bit last season, we can reasonably expect 10+ k/9 rates from him next year. He is something of a fly ball pitcher, but his excellent strikeout rates seem to have helped him keep the ball in the park, even when he was pitching in the bandbox that is Ranger Ballpark (or whatever they call it these days). His walk rates can sometimes get out of hand, but that's the only thing that keeps him from being absurdly dominant. But the guy has been nothing but quality since 2002.

I see no red flags in his numbers (except maybe his age...more on that later), so I don't think it's unreasonable to anticipate something on par with his 3-year averages next season: 3.4ish ERA, 10+ k/9, 3.5 bb/9, less than 1 hr/g. That's a kind of weapon the Reds haven't had coming out of the pen in years.

Pitchf/x "Scouting"
To see what's behind those numbers, here's a pitchf/x profile on Cordero, courtesy of Josh Kalk's blog (horizontal break is from the perspective of the catcher):
Hard, Hard, Hard. The big right-hander touches 100 mph with his fastball (average of 96 mph), which tails back in on the hands of right-handed batters as much as 10 inches. His slider can also come in at over 90 mph (average of 88 mph), and has a typical break that is ~12 inches different from that of his fastball (Euclidean distance...sorry, too lazy to deal with trig tonight!). Overall, Kalk's data indicate that Cordero throws his two pitches at roughly the same frequency, though he favors the slider a bit vs. righties and the fastball a bit vs. lefties.

Evaluation of Signing

Basically, Cordero's been everything that the Reds' bullpen has not over the last three years. He throws hard, misses bats, and has been consistently effective. He has been quality. And if he can maintain that performance next year--and I see no reason he can't--the Reds bullpen should be substantially improved.

The question, of course, has to do with the cost. I don't have a lot of experience trying to assign dollar values to player production, but I'm going to give this a go.

Tom Tango's current free agent Salary Scale indicates that a 4-year deal worth $45 million (the closest to Cordero's contract) is an appropriate figure for a player capable of delivering 3 wins above replacement (WAR) per season. My player value estimates have Cordero as ~11 RAR per season over the last three years, which translates to ~1.1 WAR per season if you use a 10 runs = 1 wins approximation. Such a player, based on Tango's scale, would be worth ~$4.5 million/year. Eek.

That might be a conservative value estimate, however, because of the high leverage of the situations in which Cordero pitches. To try to account for that, we can look at WPA. Cordero's total WPA from '05-'07 was 3.0 wins above average in 207.7 IP. If we assume that a replacement reliever is a 0.470 pitcher (Tom Tango's number), over 23 games (207.7 IP / 9 = 23) a replacement pitcher would be at -0.7 wins compared to an average (0.500) pitcher. This puts Cordero at 3.0 + 0.7 = 3.7 WAR from '05-'07, or ~1.2 WAR per season. That's slightly higher than my runs-based estimate, but still puts him well shy of the 3 WAR per season needed to be worth $45 million over 4 years.

It's worth noting that a part of the reason that Cordero isn't looking as good as one would hope in these value estimates is because of the rather high baseline for relief pitcher replacement level that I'm using (which comes from Tom Tango). Relief pitching is much easier than starting, and thus replacement pitchers perform fairly close to average in relief and well below average as starters. Tango estimates that a replacement pitcher, as a reliever, will be a 0.470 pitcher (think of that as winning percentage), and has good reason for using that number. But for the sake of argument, let's use Patriot's slightly lower 0.450 replacement level for relievers instead. Over 23 games, a 0.450 pitcher would be -1.2 wins below average. That would put Cordero at 3.0 + 1.2 = 4.2 WAR from '05-'07, or 1.4 WAR/season. .... Which still would put Cordero's value at just ~$6.5 million/season. Assuming I'm doing this right.

As another comparison, JC Bradbury recently reported that he has Mariano Rivera valued at ~$6 million/year over the past three years. Even if you add 25% to that value because of the high leverage in which Rivera pitches (which JC admits he doesn't address), that still puts him at $7.5 million. Cordero has been good, but he hasn't been as good as Rivera, so $7.5 million/year would seem to be at the high end of what he could possibly be worth. I'll try to update this with other valuation systems as I see them.

So, even if we assume that Cordero will maintain his typical '05-'07 performance level over the four years of the contract, it seems clear that the Reds are massively overpaying him...perhaps on the order of double his actual value. ... Now I certainly believe that a team can stand to overpay a player now and then if they are saving elsewhere, so long as that player is making the team better. But it's kind of hard to justify paying someone twice what they're worth over a four-year deal.

Further complicating the issue is the question of Cordero's age. He turns 33 in May of next season, and will be 36 at the end of his contract. So what is the probability that he will maintain his level of production through 2011? Well, BPro hasn't yet updated their PECOTA cards following Cordero's excellent 2007 season, so think of this as conservative...but here is Cordero's "Stars and Scrubs" chart prior to last season:
My interpretation of this figure is that PECOTA predicts a drop-off in Cordero's performance both in '08 and '09, and then stabilization over the last two years of the contract. It does indicate a 30-40% chance that Cordero might maintain effectiveness ("regular" band) over the full contract. But his chances of being a "star" (which you'd hope a $11 million/year closer would be) drop to almost nothing by '09, and the 50% prediction is that he'll degenerate into a "scrub" pitcher by then. Not good. I'm guessing that this figure will look slightly more optimistic after factoring in what he did in 2007, but it probably wouldn't shift the decline estimates by more than a year or so in the Reds' advantage.

...

So, in sum, I'm torn about this signing. I'm really excited to see Cordero in the Reds' bullpen next year, and I really do think that--assuming the deal goes through, and they don't have to make substantial payroll adjustments following this signing--the Reds have demonstrably improved heading into next season.

But at the same time, my best estimate is that the Reds will be paying about twice what Cordero has been worth. I'll be interested to see other estimates on this, but I'm guessing my numbers are pretty close to accurate (maybe +-$2 million at worst?). Add to that the fact that we're going to be paying that kind of money to a pitcher headed into the twilight of his career, and you have me pretty worried. Again, I think it's ok to overpay here and there if you can save elsewhere and if the player clearly improves the ballclub. But this is kind of extreme...

But what's done is done. Let's all hope for the best, and try to avoid calling for his head the first time he blows a save, eh? If nothing else, the Reds should have a really good closer next season, and that's going to be fun to watch.

Update: Some other value estimates or projections from folks around the 'net:

MGL:

Cordero, Francisco that is, is a stud reliever/closer. One of the 3 or 4 best in baseball right now.

He is around .5 runs per 9 better than the average closer, which is worth around an extra .8 wins or so (above an average closer). I don’t know what an average closer gets paid on the FA market. Maybe 6 or 7 mil? So Cordero would be worth 8 to 9, which implies he is worth 2 WAR.

At this point I don’t know what a replacement reliever is as compared to average. I really don’t. I would think that you could take a replacement pitcher, turn him into a closer and he would be a run worse than an average closer at worst. Maybe .75 runs. At a run worse, that would mean that a replacement closer would be 1.7 wins worse than an average closer, so that Cordreo would be 2.5 WAR.

So let’s say 2 to 2.5 WAR, whatever that is worth for 3 years. [Note by Justin: By Tango's scale, over 4 years, that would be $24-34 million. Higher than my estimate.]

Dan Symborski with his ZiPS projections:
2008 ZiPS Projection - Francisco Cordero
-------------------------------------------------------------
W L G GS IP H ER HR BB SO ERA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Projection 5 2 71 0 70 61 26 5 27 80 3.34
2009? 5 3 73 0 72 64 27 5 27 78 3.37
2010? 5 2 71 0 70 63 26 5 26 75 3.34
2011? 5 2 71 0 71 65 27 5 25 73 3.42
-------------------------------------------------------------
Opt. (15%) 6 2 76 0 78 62 22 4 23 95 2.54
Pes. (15%) 3 3 59 0 56 54 26 6 25 61 4.18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Comps: Robb Nen, Troy Percival
[Note by Justin: That's very encouraging--ZiPS is a fine projection system.]
Tangotiger:

Cordero: 4/46, paying for 3.0 WAR.

A 3.0 WAR implies a relief pitcher (72 IP) with a win% of .700. This is calculated as:
(.570 - .470) * 1 = .100
+(.708 - .570) * 2 = .260

where the “* 2” is the LI. The total wins is +.376 per 9 IP, or a total of 3.0 WAR.

In post 60, I had Mo as a .700 pitcher (3.0 WAR). I can’t have Cordero that high. I would say .625 or .650 pitcher, which implies a WAR of close to 2.0, or a salary of 3/23.

A great reliever, obviously. Since 2002, his WPA has been +9.3 wins, with an LI of 1.9, on 407 IP, which means his unleveraged WPA is .610.

Relievers are incredibly overvalued, and this is yet another case. I’d like to know what was his second-best offer on the table.

I’m also not too concerned about his age. If he’s throwing fastballs with movement at 96, he’s got a “young arm”. It’s like Mo. I would guess that all old starting pitchers who used to have plus fastballs should be turned into relievers.

[Note by Justin: the difference between his and my estimates is that he incorporates an additional reward for exceptionally good relievers (performance above 0.570 is given extra merit), which essentially means the bar isn't as high to get to 3 WAR. I'd put more faith in his work than mine--as I said, this was my first go at this type of estimate. It's also worth noting that his 2 WAR estimate converges with MGL's 2-2.5 WAR estimate. This means that the Reds are probably overpaying by $10-20 million over the course of the contract.]

J.C. Bradbury (I quoted him above regarding Rivera, but here's his take on Cordero):
The contract for Cordero is simply awful. If the Reds are trying to be taken seriously by flashing some dollars, then flashing their money is all they are accomplishing. Cordero is an excellent reliever, but I don’t see how the Reds can justify spending $11.5 million/year for four years on a pitcher about to turn 33 for a team that doesn’t appear to be built for success in this timespan. Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey are gone after 2008 and Arron Harang and Bronson Arroyo are due big raises. I understand that there may be help coming from the farm, but I do not think that expectations are rosy enough to justify spending big money on a closer just yet. If the Reds put that money in other places, I believe the team would be more competitive in the near term.

Even if the Reds could use this final piece, I still think it’s a bad deal. I have Cordero producing $19.6 million over the next four seasons—$26 million more less than he’s being paid. Now, it’s pretty clear that my model isn’t predicting well for “closers.” And while I’m a believer in efficient markets and willing to acknowledge that I might be underestimating closer value, the current closer premium is excessive. And I think that Scott Linebrink’s contract supports my contention.

[Justin note: His estimate on Cordero comes in at $4.9 million/season, which is about where my initial runs-based estimate had him. I think Tango's numbers are more reliable because they take into account the leverage of the situations in which he pitches, but the end result is only a $6 million improvement over the course of the deal.]

More as I find 'em.

17 comments:

  1. J - BPro's WXRL shows Cordero a little more than 3 wins above replacement for last year, which would make him a fair value (for '08 anways). I know WXRL adjusts for lineup but I don't have Between the Numbers in front of me and I can't remember more about how it's calculated. What are your thoughts on WXRL? Good stuff as always.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Ken,

    I'm really not qualified to comment on WXRL vs. WPA, to be honest. It seems like it's doing the same thing I'm doing in trying to get a win expectancy measure above replacement.

    However, I'm skeptical about whether or not they're using a high enough baseline for replacement level relievers, and that could be a big part of the difference. I'd have to look around to see if I could find their methods.

    It's also worth noting that Cordero was exceptionally good last year, and thus is likely to decline a tad next season. As I said, something in line with his 3-year averages would be an appropriate projection.
    -j

    ReplyDelete
  3. One problem I have with some of your calculations one the value is that the replacement player value is constant across all organizations. The only way around this would be to create a metric to define the replacement players for RP in an organization by using bullpen statistics across the each minor league club, thus defining a replacement player in terms of actual talent at hand. We actually got the see the value of replacement players last year at RP, and it wasn't high at all.

    You calculation also does not factor in current market conditions. When Linebrink gets 5 mil a year, Cordero should get at least 10.

    Great post, and I really like the deal. It was especially nice to here that we stole him from the Brewers and Astros.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave,

    Replacement level is defined as the performance value of a player that one could acquire for virtually nothing. Under such a definition, it's a league-wide (or MLB-wide) value, not something that is organization specific. If an organization can't meet replacement level, that's the fault of the front office, as that level of performance should be possible to achieve for next to zero investment.

    The issue of what's available in a market is something that comes up now and then, and I'm not entirely sure that it's appropriate to go that route. It seems to me that the starting point, at least, should be to determine the value of a marginal win (currently ~4.5 million), and then assign value to players based on how much they contribute to those marginal wins vs. a replacement player. It seems to me that the reliever market, at this point, is extremely inefficient, and that's something a "smart" club could take advantage of.

    But as I said, this is stuff I've just begun to think about. So maybe I"m wrong.
    -j

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It seems to me that the reliever market, at this point, is extremely inefficient, and that's something a "smart" club could take advantage of."

    In the book 'Moneyball', this is discussed at length. Billy Beane would strongly agree with you. He repeatedly 'created' a good relief pitcher, and then traded him away for talent, and 'made' another one.

    I think we will all regret this signing. Cordero will have to put up all-star numbers for three years out of four to justify this contract.

    What about his home/road splits? He was light out in Miller Park, and below average elsewhere last year. GABP is very, very elsewhere. What will a 42.5% fly ball rate on balls in play mean for the Reds at GABP next year?

    I am afraid that what we have here is Eric Milton II.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mike,

    I think moneyball took the reliever thing a bit too far, as it gives the impression that quality relievers are expendable. That's clearly not the case--in fact, outstanding relievers are one of the most important ways to succeed in the playoffs. Nevertheless, I would be surprised to see a few teams trade their closers this offseason to take advantage of the kind of value being placed on them. Jose Valverde's name keeps getting mentioned, and the Diamondbacks seem like a pretty smart franchise..

    As for his home/away splits, I posted something about this at redlegnation.. You're looking at 22 innings in his away splits. That's not worth worry about. His career splits do show slightly better performance at home than away, but it's not substantial.

    And as for his performance at GABP, Texas is the best hitters park in the American League, and he did just fine there. I'd expect his hr rates to increase slightly, but if he can keep striking out 10+/9, there won't be enough balls in play for his flyball tendencies to make a huge impact on his value.

    I don't see this as Eric Milton II. Milton was someone who was already a demonstrably weak pitcher based on his peripherals and was coming off a very lucky season in Philadelpia. Cordero is a quality reliever. The question with Cordero is whether his age will catch up to him. That was never really the big concern with Milton--the issue there was his suckitude. :)
    -j

    ReplyDelete
  7. Justin,

    I think the point wasn't that quality relievers are expendable but rather that they really aren't that difficult to find...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, finding a reliever who has an ERA one run better than average might not be as hard as it is for starting pitchers (mostly because pitchers do better in relief), but it's clearly not as easy as some fans make it out to be--or as easy as moneyball indicated. After all, we've seen very well-run teams like the Indians struggle with their bullpen in recent years (pre-'07).

    That said, as I argued in previous posts, it is a position where a bit of creativity, a bit of luck, and a bit of insight into the relative performances of pitchers as starters or relievers can allow a good GM to assemble a quality 'pen on the cheap. Saying it's not hard, though, is taking things too far.
    -j

    ReplyDelete
  9. One of the things we have to be careful of is jumping from "bad value" to "bad signing".

    Let's say you're really hungry and have $10. There are two food vendors who will be around just long enough for you to visit one of them. You can either have a mini-burger for $1 or you can have two large pieces of pizza for $6.

    In a vacuum, clearly the half-burger is the better deal. You'd be left with $9 to go spend elsewhere. But you can't eat your $9 and you don't know if and when the next food cart is showing up.

    The context of the decision matters. While 'Coco' is certainly not a great "value" from the Wins/$ perspective, the bottom line is that the Reds are a much better team with him in the fold. Sometimes we can overthink these kinds of things.

    If you're hungry and can afford either the mini-burger or the pizza, get the one that fills you up. It remains to be see just what the financial impact of the deal is. If the Reds are forced to lose talent elsewhere because of this signing, then it definitely looks worse. But until we have a clearer picture of the fiscal landscape, let's not go too far down the road of crying "bad investment".

    Opportunity cost aside, an overpaid all-star is better than an underpaid role player. Unless the opportunity cost becomes significant, this is a great signing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. RMR,

    The only thing I would say is that we do know another cart is coming around next season and will have some, if not all, of these starters available:
    AJ Burnett
    Jon Garland
    Derek Lowe
    Pedro Martinez
    Brad Penny
    C.C Sabathia
    Johan Santana
    Ben Sheets
    Paul Byrd
    Aaron Cook
    Oliver Perez

    My only concern with this deal is that it will prohibit the Reds from being involved in what is looking like the biggest free agent market in the last 5 years. Add in several good bats (including Adam Dunn) and there could be a lot of good players available next year. Obviously the Reds won't be in play on all of them, but with so many good players available, they likely have a shot at some of them if they can put up the right money.

    So, while I like having Cordero in the pen and I think it's a great upgrade, I'm concerned that the Reds may have spent their wad too soon. Clearly we don't know what the payroll will be next year, but if the money going to Cordero keeps the Reds from pursuing one of those starters or replacing Dunn's bat (or resigning Dunn), then I'll be a little disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Justin:

    I'm not saying that building a quality pen doesn't take skill. I'm suggesting the chronic inability to build one speaks volumes....

    Spending $50M on one arm in your pen doesn't indicate competence unless the bar is simply set to the ultra-low threshold of "if it improves the team, it's a good decision". We know that's an impractical threshold in the real world. Obvious overpays typically should be reserved for those last few wins that dramatically increase a team's chances for a playoff appearance (if the Reds were sitting on 85 wins, I'd probably be less critical though I'd still be disappointed). While anything can happen, I think most reasonable observers would concede that the Cordero signing most likely isn't one such move.

    Why should even fans who only worry about wins and losses also care about this stuff? Because a FO with this kind of MO concerning personnel decisions will tend to be less able to compete with better run franchises.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I agree with a lot of what has been said since my last post, so I'm just going to respond to a few points about which I actually have something to say. :)

    @Aaron, the PECOTA projections I cited above are based on age-calibrated comparisons to Cordero's most similar pitchers. Prior to '07, the top of that list (according to BPro) included Roberto Hernandez and Eric Plunk. Hernandez remained effective through age 41, though was not as effective from age 33-41 as he was from age 27-32. Plunk seemed to fall off the wagon at age 33 (he was awesome at age 32), and never really regained his footing.

    In contrast to PECOTA, Symborski's ZiPS is very positive about Cordero throughout the contract. So that's encouraging. I'll still be quite interested in seeing the '08 PECOTAs when they come out, as they tend to be a touch more reliable than ZiPS from what I've seen (emphasis on "a touch," as ZiPS is darn good).

    So while there's certainly a chance--and perhaps a decent one--that he'll remain effective throughout his contract, there is still a significant risk that he'll decline. Obviously, we're all hoping he continues to be awesome for years to come. :)

    @Joel, I see that point, but I tend to subscribe to the idea of doing what you need to do to get ready for the coming year whenever possible--this isn't a competitive division, so even getting to 0.500 can get you in the thick of things. And we don't really know how the Reds' rotation (or anything else) will look in '08. Maybe that won't be the biggest need?

    Obviously, one shouldn't mortgage away the future by trading prospects and massively overpaying for free agents(...), but saving for the hypothetical future is tough to do because it's hard to know how many of those guys you mentioned will be available (think of all the pitchers who signed extensions this season)...not to mention what they'll cost. Tango, for example, just estimated that Santana's current free agent value to be ~$26 million/year. And starting pitchers tend to be rather risky investments as free agents...

    @Jojo,
    Because a FO with this kind of MO concerning personnel decisions will tend to be less able to compete with better run franchises.

    Took me a full minute to work out this sentence! :P

    Speaking of better-run franchises, it will be interesting to see how Masahide Kobayashi does for the Indians over the coming years. Sounds like a similar pitcher, though he doesn't throw quite as hard.
    -j

    ReplyDelete
  13. I know not all of those pitchers are going to be available, but I would bet that at least half of them will and every single pitcher on that list would be an upgrade to the Reds rotation (though admittedly I wouldn't pursue every pitcher as they all carry their own risks). And if you think it is more important to get a stud closer than a good starting pitcher, well then I think we're looking at different teams when we see the Reds.

    And finally, our objective as an organization is to win THIS year, not next year, not in 09 or 2010, but now.

    I would say the objective is to build a winning organization that is competitive every year. Do you seriously think that the addition of Cordero makes the Reds into a winner in 2008? Even if he added 5 wins (a lot for a reliever), that still leaves them about 8 games short of competing for the division. I think they'll get some improvement from Encarnacion and hopefully a longer season from Hamilton, but I also expect small falloffs from Phillips and the shortstops. Maybe Belisle will pitch better, and I think it would be great if Bailey pitched as well as Lohse did, but I wouldn't expect a lot of improvement in the rotation.

    What I'm saying is that this team still needs a lot more help than a stud closer. The influx of youth will help provide some of that, but realistically those guys will likely be more ready for 2009 than 2008. That's the point when a big free agent signing will put this team over the top. And maybe the Reds can still do that, but given that they're also going to need to replace Griffey and Dunn in the lineup, I'm not as confident that the money will be there to fill all of the necessary holes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Justin:

    I have further developed my analogy to the way the A's develop closers over at RedsZone at this link: http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63824

    ReplyDelete
  15. And if you think it is more important to get a stud closer than a good starting pitcher, well then I think we're looking at different teams when we see the Reds.

    Joel, if the good starting pitchers were available right now, I'd completely agree that the Reds would have been far better served by going after the starter. But we're talking about hypothetically-available pitchers a year from now. Maybe they'll be available. Maybe they won't.

    I don't think the Reds should severely overpay for someone at this stage (Tango's estimates have this contract at $10-20 million too much...and his valuation is more generous than mine was). But at the same time, I think you have to look at what you can do to improve the ballclub based on what is actually available right now. Doesn't mean you mortgage the future, of course. But holding onto all of your money for the rosey-looking future day seems like a good way to avoid putting yourself in a position to take advantage of a lucky streak here and there.

    It's funny, because I'm really in the middle on this signing, so no matter what I say people will disagree with me (and I realize not all of these comments are directed at me, despite my chronic narcissism). ;)

    I think it definitely improves the Reds in '08. But I also think the Reds overpaid, perhaps by as much as $20 million over the course of the contract, for what we can even optimistically count on Cordero to provide. -j

    ReplyDelete
  16. If that's where you are concerning Cordero's contract, I'm not sure how you could sit in the middle... :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think you have to look at what you can do to improve the ballclub based on what is actually available right now.

    Agreed, but overspending because so-and-so is the best available is not winning logic. I'm not going to bring up the former Reds signing that went along with that logic because Cordero is a much better pitcher, but I think you can see the damage that filling holes with the best available player logic can do.

    But holding onto all of your money for the rosey-looking future day seems like a good way to avoid putting yourself in a position to take advantage of a lucky streak here and there.

    I'm not saying that the Reds should hold on to all of their money. Rather my point is that the goal isn't just to win now, it's to win every year and that takes some planning. Teams like the Yankes, Red Sox, and Angels can look at their roster and say, "What holes need to be filled this year?" and fill them. Teams like the Reds have to plan out into the future and try to determine when holes will present themselves and whether they will have the resources to fill them. I understand what you are saying about not holding out for who might be available, but I think you do have to have an eye on the future when signing a contract like this or it might prevent you from making a better move later on.

    And it is not for me to say whether or not they will be able to sign players in the future, obviously. But I look at this signing as reactionary and I'm concerned that Krivsky may be making sacrifices for the future in order to win now.

    Ultimately I agree with you on your overall perspective on the signing. I think Cordero makes the Reds a better team and helps fix one of their needs. I also agree that it is an overpriced contract and I fear that may come back to haunt the Reds. I'm very conservative when it comes to big contracts and I'm not sure that Cordero would fall in the group that I would give one to.

    ReplyDelete