Listing this w/ the inadequate compensations -- Larry Bigbie and Brian Roberts for Rafael Palmeiro, 1999 -- seems a bit off, given that Roberts is still providing top-notch value as one of the premier 2Bers in the game, and Raffy's long since gone. At worst (based on BP's EQR, and even accounting for Raffy's return to Baltimore in addition to his 5 years in TX), they're a push.

That said, kudos, nice work, Mike Crudale, etc.

Picks after 1999 that could make this list:

2000 - Braves get Adam Wainwright and Aaron Herr for losing Russ Springer

Blue Jays get Dustin McGowan and Peter Bauer for losing Graeme Lloyd

Braves get Kelly Johnson for losing Jose Hernandez

2001 - Mets get Aaron Heilman and David Wright for losing Mike Hampton

Red Sox get Kelly Shoppach for losing Rheal Cormier

A's get Jeremy Bonderman and John Rheinecker for losing Kevin Appier

2002 - A's get Nick Swisher and Mark Teahen for losing Johnny Damon, and Joe Blanton and Jeremy Brown for losing Jason Giambi

2003 - DBacks get Conor Jackson for losing Greg Colbrunn

Braves get Jarrod Salatlamacchia and Jo Jo Reyes for losing Mike Remlinger

2004 - Twins get Glen Perkins and Matthew Fox for losing Eddie Guardado

Dodgers get Blake DeWitt and Justin Orenduff for losing Paul Quantrill

Rangers get Eric Hurley for losing John Thomson

A's get Huston Street and Michael Rogers for losing Miguel Tejada

2005 - Red Sox get Jacoby Ellsbury and Jed Lowrie for losing Orlando Cabrera

Cards get Colby Rasmus and Mark McCormick for losing Edgar Renteria

2006 - Yanks get Ian Kennedy and Joba Chamberlain for losing Tom Gordon

I'll say that Bonds deal worked out pretty well for the Giants.

I really, really don't like the general idea of looking at what specific picks turned into when rewarding or criticizing free agency decisions.

It is silly because if you let a superstar go away and you offer arb and get the picks and the guy(s) you picked is/are a bust it looks like you got nothing for it, when you might have made a great draft selection right before/after your comp picks with a draft choice you got from someone else. Too much chance and happenstance in there.

I really, really don't like the general idea of looking at what specific picks turned into when rewarding or criticizing free agency decisions.

I agree. To take an extreme example from above, it shows Jeremy Brown as compensation for Giambi. But if the A's don't get a compensation pick, they probably just pick Brown with their next pick anyway, since nobody else had him rated that highly. In other words, who's to say which is the compensation pick and which is the regular pick? It's not that easy.

Travis Fryman as compensation for Lance Parrish worked out well.

Todd Hundley was nice compensation for the Orioles signing Ray Knight.

But if the A's don't get a compensation pick, they probably just pick Brown with their next pick anyway, since nobody else had him rated that highly.

Isn't that example going to be pretty rare, particularly when we're talking about first rounders? The A's reaching on that pick seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I can't imagine that if the Mets didn't have the 38th pick, that David Wright would be available at pick 70.

I was surprised that Larry Bigbie and Brian Roberts for Rafael Palmeiro was put in the "not so great" compensation box on the side. Palmeiro had a bunch more good years, but Bigbie was a decent ballplayer, and Roberts has been one of the top 2-3 2Bs in the AL for most of his career, plus he hasn't made very much money.

Does #9's post mean I get a Coke? (I am thirsty...)

I can't imagine that if the Mets didn't have the 38th pick, that David Wright would be available at pick 70.

IIRC the Mets were quite surprised he was available at 38.

I can't imagine that if the Mets didn't have the 38th pick, that David Wright would be available at pick 70.

You could use that same argument though and presume, rightly or wrongly, that if the Mets didn't have that picked that would've plucked him at 18 overall that year.

You offer arb, and you get the picks. That is the value you get there. Using, and developing the picks is a completely different ballgame.
There are so many other factors involved, that have nothing to do with the decision you made half a year prior to offer arb to get the picks, that affect who you ultimately get from a pick.
It is unreasonable to expect a team to forecast, 6 months prior, what players will fall to what picks when they make their arb decisions. Plus there are differences in teams abilities to draft and develop talent, as well as luck in how the picks develop.
Using a pick poorly or wisely doesn't make your choice to offer, or not offer, arb to get picks any wiser or poorer.

I think what this reveals is that signing middle relievers as free agents is probably not a great idea.

I think what this reveals is that signing middle relievers as free agents is probably not a great idea.

Wait, $22 Million and picks for Bradford/Walker et al and a bullpen that managed to give up 20+ runs to TX wasn't the smartest play?

Seemed like a good idea at the time...

Mauro Gozzo [...] If you remember them, congratulations—you’re a bigger dork than I am.

How could anyone not! He started the game for the Mets in 1994 when John Smoltz hit John Cangelosi and Cangelosi charged the mound.

Mauro Gozzo [...] If you remember them, congratulations—you’re a bigger dork than I am.



How could anyone not! He started the game for the Mets in 1994 when John Smoltz hit John Cangelosi and Cangelosi charged the mound.

I believe he was also involved in the David Cone/Ed Hearn deal.

Mauro Gozzo [...] If you remember them, congratulations—you’re a bigger dork than I am.



How could anyone not! He started the game for the Mets in 1994 when John Smoltz hit John Cangelosi and Cangelosi charged the mound.



I believe he was also involved in the David Cone/Ed Hearn deal.

I could've sworn that I heard Gozzo referred to as "Goose" while he played with the Jays. That nickname isn't listed at B-R though. Maybe I heard one announcer say this and it just stuck with me.

I remember "Goose" Gozzo as well.

I could've sworn that I heard Gozzo referred to as "Goose" while he played with the Jays. That nickname isn't listed at B-R though. Maybe I heard one announcer say this and it just stuck with me.

Yeah that's what I remember. I think he was really popular with the Italian community too.

Edit: confirmation

Wow, I guess we're all bigger dorks than Geoff Young.

Wow, I guess we're all bigger dorks than Geoff Young.

It could be worse on the dork front, you could like Star Trek.

Not only do I remember Gozzo (won three starts down the stretch for the '89 division-winner Jays) (people called him 'Goose' but he didn't like it so we stopped), but Cummings and Sanchez too: hotshot pitching prospects who came up for the Jays, pitched decently early on but with no run support, and never amounted to anything. I think Sanchez was a first-round pick. What, I'm not supposed to remember guys like this?

Not only do I remember Gozzo (won three starts down the stretch for the '89 division-winner Jays) (people called him 'Goose' but he didn't like it so we stopped), but Cummings and Sanchez too: hotshot pitching prospects who came up for the Jays, pitched decently early on but with no run support, and never amounted to anything. I think Sanchez was a first-round pick. What, I'm not supposed to remember guys like this?

It's all about the baseball cards.

To clarify, the Bigbie/Roberts for Palmeiro deal wasn't meant as a slam on Roberts. I simply listed every single HOFer or would-be HOFer who had been signed as a free agent prior to 2000. That's pretty much the only one that worked out okay for the team that lost the free agent.

And yeah, of course, we can't use this list to reward or criticize specific signings. As I acknowledged at the top of the piece, hindsight is 20/20. This was just for fun.

Also, I'm still a bigger dork than you.

To clarify, the Bigbie/Roberts for Palmeiro deal wasn't meant as a slam on Roberts. I simply listed every single HOFer or would-be HOFer who had been signed as a free agent prior to 2000. That's pretty much the only one that worked out okay for the team that lost the free agent.

Well, the Red Sox let Clemens go, but that was pretty closely tied to trading for Pedro Martinez. The guys they got with the draft picks weren't any good, but that's a side point.

And, for what it's worth, Joe Hesketh was at least as valuable to Montreal as Tony Perez was to Boston after he signed with them.

You could use that same argument though and presume, rightly or wrongly, that if the Mets didn't have that picked that would've plucked him at 18 overall that year.

Right, plus a team might gain picks from letting a free agent go, but lose them for signing a free agent. So you can swap picks around in the first round. And also, if there was no compensation, then the sandwich picks would be 2nd round picks anyway.

I just think that it's too simplistic to say that the picked players were the compensation for the free agent's departure. The damage in doing that, IMO, is that it becomes very easy to say "let the guy go and take the picks", when the picks are really not all that valuable.

I just think that it's too simplistic to say that the picked players were the compensation for the free agent's departure. The damage in doing that, IMO, is that it becomes very easy to say "let the guy go and take the picks", when the picks are really not all that valuable.

Well, I think it's very much the right way to look at it, as long as you do it systematically and not just on a "gotcha" basis. If a team did a comprehensive look at how the instances in which a compensable FA was signed, and what value that FA rendered to the team that signed him, and then compared it to the value that the drafting team received down the road when it exercised the draft pick, you'd begin to get a pretty good picture of whether it's a good idea.

You might also be able to mine that data to learn whether:

1) Certain kinds of FA signings are more likely than others to burn you -- based on the age of the player signed, or something else in his history.

2) Your team in particular has done a good job either on the signing side, or on the "letting them go" side, or on the drafting side, which would tell you something more specific about what is likely to be right choice in the next case you face.

But I think in general it is quite right to think of the picked player as "compensation" for the FA's departure. And I think the picks are, in fact, "all that valuable," especially because the picks we are talking about here are all first and second round picks. If your team is doing its job, those ought to be as valuable to the organization, and as precious, as a lot of the FAs these teams are signing. I mean, geez, look at some of the guys these teams are signing. It's not all Carlos Beltran and Barry Bonds.

The 1989 Donruss Sanchez used to annoy me, because he was a Rated Rookie, but Donruss didn't print minor league stats. I actually read the minor league stats.

I mean, geez, look at some of the guys these teams are signing. It's not all Carlos Beltran and Barry Bonds.

But it's the Adam Dunns and CC Sabathias that generate the comments. Granted, those are the players that get the threads, but still. And it's also used to say that existing prospects are less valuable than the picks in these kinds of trades. But the prospects have already not flamed out, so they hold some value over a pick in that regard as well.

And it's also used to say that existing prospects are less valuable than the picks in these kinds of trades.

Right. There are several different perspectives you could be looking at the choices from.

1) Team A has a player who might depart as a FA. Should it let him go (take the picks), try to keep him, or trade him for prospects? Knowing the value of the picks it would get if he leaves as a FA is critical, relative not only to HIS value, but the value of the already-in-the-minors prospects it might trade him for. So it's not a one-or-the-other question; it's a three-way question.

2) Team B is trying to decide whether to sign that FA. For that team, we are assuming that he's already hit the market, so the trade issue is off the table. For Team B, it is an either/or question: is the FA's expected production more valuable than that of the draft pick it will sacrifice? For me, Team B ought to be looking at that question very carefully, based on the long history of its own and other teams' experiences with this, because for a lot of so-so FAs who somehow get into the compensable category (it's often a mystery to me how, exactly . . . .), I honestly think it should have been pretty darned predictable that they were no more likely to be a "hit" than the # 17 (or whatever) pick in the first round of the draft. Again, they ain't all Type A's, even if they are labeled that way.

3) Team C is trying to decide whether to acquire a soon-to-be FA for the stretch drive. If it gives up prospects, it really is giving up less than meets the eye, because it will soon replenish its system when the FA leaves (if he leaves) and Team C recoups the draft picks. It needs to know NOT the relative value of FA v. the prospects it trades, but rather the relative value of the prospects v. the draft picks. This is true at least to the extent it has no intention of signing the FA to an extension, which we know is often the case.