User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6241 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Sam Hutcheson is the Rickey Henderson of... Posted: November 08, 2009 at 03:35 PM (#3382252)Anyone not named Heyward.
Bagwell?
The Santana and Lee deals only happened b/c the seller took ridiculously poor packages out of desperation.
He actually had that .673 OPS at double-A, which is much better.
How far back?
You just don't talk about this stuff. It ends up building pressure on you to trade him. You talk yourself into the idea that he has to go -- "otherwise we'll get nothing for him." Then you end up making a crappy deal which pisses off your fans and does you no good from a baseball perspective either.
This is probably the single-best contract in the game right now (maybe Longoria's). Gonzalez is a huge money-maker for the Padres. I can't conceive of a package that would be sufficiently worth it from a baseball sense to make up for the money lost.
They should hold onto him and, if a good offer comes along, trade him in July 2011. Please the fans, take the profit and the draft picks. And stop talking about trading Gonzalez immediately.
Concur 100%.
I think Minn would have been much better off trying to win one more year with Santana, and take the 2 picks than the dross they got.
Cleveland would be way better off with Lee and Martinez trying to steal a division next year than the 4 B- guys that got from Phillie.
Or the Padres could extend him. SD is not exactly a small market. If they do their job over the next 2 years, they should be able to support a $100M payroll in 2011.
Cite? I get that he's local, I get that he's a great guy. I'm sure every 10 year old south of Camp Pendleton wants to be Adrian Gonzalez when they grow up. But the team drew less than 2 million fans last year--nobody's watching the Padres with Gonzo, so why not try to improve the team? Wouldn't a winning club be a better "money-maker"?
Probably, but the team should be able to build a winning team around someone like Gonzalez (and his extremely reasonable contract). If they trade him, any hope of building that winning team just gets pushed down the road another couple years - assuming that whatever they acquire for him actually turns out to be as good as they hope.
He's a ~6 WAR player making $10M combined over the next two years. It's virtually impossible to trade him and make the team better.
As cfb says you'd need a rookie of the year type player, say Andrew McCutchen (3.5 WAR), plus another average major leaguer (2 WAR), and more, and you'd still be better off with Gonzalez b/c you concentrate the value at one position.
and how is he hurting the team from winning? as mentioned his contract is a great deal, his performance is outstanding and recent history suggests that trading a very good player for prospects rarely pan out, and arguably may not even pan out better than maintaining the player and getting the draft picks for when he goes to free agency.
Gonzo is providing wins for the team, just the rest of the team needs to improve, it's very unlikely than any package of players that they get will improve the team in the immediate future, and debateable if it helps long term even.
Regarding the plural headline, Heath Bell was an All-Star this year, and his value probably will never be higher than it is now.
now that is someone that a team like the Padres should seriously consider trading, what good is a closer for a 75 win team, if you can get something back in a deal, before his salary skyrockets, then make the trade. (this is of course assuming he's not a free agent or something)
But what's a ridiculous package that might be offered?
Is Boston going to offer Ellsbury, Buchholz, and Bard? Because that package still makes the Padres worse next year, even if Buchholz and Bard don't flame out.
Who has a ridiculous package to offer? And of the teams that can put one together, who will actually put one on the table? I don't think the Red Sox are going to include Kelly and Westmoreland and Buchholz and Bard, and it really isn't even worth it to San Diego to consider less than a package like that.
EDIT: Coke to snapper.
But we've seen multiple times now, you don't get "a haul" for these guys. The Twins didn't get "a haul" for Santana, the Indians didn't get "a haul" for Lee or Martinez. Cle got one very good prospect for Sabathia, and LaPorta is no sure thing.
The price of the looming extension sharply limits the teams bidding for these guys, and limits the packages being offered. The last "haul" was for Haren, who had 3 years left on a favorable contract.
Why shouldn't SD try to do a quick rebuild so they get better enough that they can extend Gonzalez? There's no powerhouse in the division (with the McCourts' divorce hamstringing the Dodgers) that makes competing in 2011 impossible.
I have no idea how good some of these players are really, but Nick Hundley put up a solid half a season or so, 300 plate appearances with 98 ops+ from a catcher at age 25 is something that you can feel good about. Cabrera had a fantastic year for a 22 year old shortstop, if he has any defense in him, he's already a plus player. Headleys a solid player, Kouzamanoff isn't a lost cause, Banks is probably going to be something worthwhile, ... they have a few pieces already in place and need to just up the complementary pieces and get a rotation.
Right now they are lacking in pitching big time, but they seem to be on the verge of having a solid-to-good offensive team.
Not my point.
Again: offered a fair haul of talent (yes, I know, that's unlikely), would anyone besides Walt hold onto AGonz simply to avoid losing (phantom) revenue over the next two years? That's really all I'm arguing here.
I'd hold on to him to avoid destroying my fan/revenue base so I could resign him.
Every team can afford one big contract for a superstar. Why shouldn't Gonzalez be that for SD?
At the rumored $40 mil payroll, SD cannot actually afford the contract it would take to keep Gonzalez after the current deal, though. That's kind of the point....you can't just assume it away.
It is not clear that a single player actually impacts revenue/fanbase all that much; certainly, the research I've seen suggests that winning more games has a greater impact over the course of a season (not on 'day 1' of a high profile signing, perahps, but ultimately).
If someone offers an above-average starting position player, an above average starter, and a significant prospect with a couple of those being cost-controlled the Padres should simply take the deal. I'm not sure what they'll actually be offered, though
Your fanbase didn't show up last year (under 2 million attendance), and the revenue base isn't there. It's already destroyed. I'm with pkb33 here--if snapper or Walt could explain how being a 72-win team without AGonz for two years rather than a 78-win team with him is going to destroy the Padres revenue base, I'm very interested to hear (no snark, genuinely curious). Absent that, it seems to be more of an emotional argument about how MLB should be (each team gets to keep their best player) rather than a rational argument focused on helping the Padres build the best team.
That $40M payroll is a very short term thing, and Gonzalez is signed cheaply through 2011. There's no need to trade him for financial reasons.
Longer term, the Padres can certainly sustain an $80-100M payroll. They had revenue of $175M in 2009 with a crappy team. They had a $75M payroll in 2008.
With that payroll, they can afford Gonzalez. I'd offer him a 5 year $90-100M extension right now. Gonzalez has yet to have a big payday. I think he takes it.
The team sucked last year, and they still had $175M in revenue,
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_San-Diego-Padres_336838.html
They can do a lot worse if the fans sense a 5 year tear down coming.
San Diego is NOT a small market. They can sustain a reasonable payroll when their owner is not going through a hideous divorce.
Longer term, the Padres can certainly sustain an $80-100M payroll. They had revenue of $175M in 2009 with a crappy team. They had a $75M payroll in 2008.
Your point, and what I responded to, was about an extension e.g. 'affording one big contract' so talking about 2010-11 is irrelevant. They have suggested they think they will be in the $40 mil range going forward. That may, of course, be unduly conservative, sure.
There is no reason to think a five-year rebuilding is their plan, or required. In fact, as the thread seems to have made clear, the point of a trade would be to get guys who are MLB ready and thus, would allow for a significant overall improvement by year two. I don't know if you are being hyperbolic for effect or don't understand what is being suggested but in either case, I don't think it's very relevant. I mean, in that crappy division no team can possibly be five years from contention!
Your hypothesis that they can afford $100 mil going forward is baseless. Their revenues have changed, and it's not clear they will fully rebound---much less go up to support the $25 mil higher payroll that you suggest.
Could it happen? Sure. Is it a sure thing, as you keep assuming? No.
Their attendance dropped 21% this year with AGonz in the lineup. If it drops by the same amount next year, they'd be worst in baseball. So no, they really can't do a lot worse.
San Diego's market size is besides the point. How does losing AGonz destroy their revenue base?
He did get the last Pads' foam finger.*
Megan is the Milton Bradley of the Nichols/Parker household.
His deal is good, so I agree they definitely shouldn't be thinking they *have* to move him. However, they do have Kyle Blanks at his position, so if they can find a good match, I don't see why they shouldn't consider it. If San Diego isn't a small market, they can consider more than just prospects in return, which would increase their chances of finding a deal worth making.
Probably not much. Their attendance dropped by 500,000 this year with him. And the often-overlooked reality is that teams tend to have an attendance floor. That is, an attendance total they'll likely reach no matter how what the on-field product looks like. Notice the Pirates still draw about 19,500 per game despite few marketable players and a long run of futility? Since the Padres only had total attendance about 350,000 fans greater than Pittsburgh this year, I would imagine that the 1.9MM fans they drew this year is pretty close to their attendance floor.
If they do end up bouncing back to an $75mm payroll as suggested above by snapper it would make it more possible to sign him. But given the state of the Padres farm system they don't really look like a good team going forward anyway
agreed about the attendence floor, but I don't think San Diego has reached that point yet, trading a star player may be the signal that tells the fans that they aren't trying to compete. If they are serious about the 40mil payroll then it's already too late and any actions they do won't make a bit of a difference.
Very possibly true, but I imagine their floor isn't much lower than the 1.92MM fans they drew this year. San Diego is a significantly larger market with much better weather than Pittsburgh, which drew 350K fewer fans, so I don't think the Padres' attendance floor is much lower than what they drew in 2009.
Yup. Last years 20%/500,000 drop-off is the "crash" that folks here are predicting would follow AGonz's departure. It could go down again, but in all likelihood by not nearly so much.
The problem is a logjam at 1B. Just by the numbers, playing Blanks in the OF looks like a big enough defensive drain to somewhat undermine his production at the plate (if UZR is off, fair enough, I haven't seen him play much). If AGonz is that important to the team because of his local roots, and his local roots mean enough to him to sign an extension, what could the team get for Blanks?
Of course A-Gon makes so little money and the prospect of getting fair value for him is so bad it still doesn't make sense to trade him.
It looks to me that if a team is going to get "a haul" that's how they have to go about it; by correctly judging the talent in a partner's lower minors, and getting many players who pan out. No team now is going to give up that much talent close to the majors, so a deal like this should aim for the long term and winding up with many players who are under team control for 6 years. I'd be willing to bet that Jed has a pretty good idea of he thinks those players are in the Red Sox system.
Brandon Lyon (prospect? 23 when traded, but already 3 seasons under his belt.) - innings muncher out of the pen, last 4 years ERA+ 121/176/98/159
Kelly Shoppach has had some real success in limited ABs and is getting long in the tooth
Kason Gabbard is looking to be like an okay ML starter
Don't forget he traded away Engel Beltre with Gabbard and Murphy
Someone mentioned Luke Allen, nothing yet.
David Riske's been excellent for extended periods (whoops, he was 30.)
Cla Meredith, for what he's worth.
Mike Gonzalez
Jason Kershner's one year.
So I'd say Gonzalez is clearly second. And Engel Beltre is the big one up in the air.
Attendance isn't the only revenue component. You have to worry about TV ratings, too.
And just like attendance, Padres TV rating are already falling, down to 3.8 this season, from a 7.0 in 2007. All with AGonz in the lineup.
The 7.0 rating reflected a competitive team which tied for the wildcard (losing the play-in). I think it's pretty clear that winning translates to butts in seats, TV ratings, and ultimately $$$; still not clear on how AGonz himself does anything similar.
They didn't all have "tons of success" but these one time Sox prospects have logged a decent amount of time in the Majors after getting traded this decade: Jorge de la Rosa, Matt Murton, Frank Francisco, Brandon Moss, Tomo Ohka, Josh Hancock, Wil Ledezma (Rule 5), Shea Hillenbrand, Casey Fossum, Cla Meredith, Justin Duchscherer, Craig Hansen, Anibal Sanchez, Kelly Shoppach, Justin Masterson, Kason Gabbard, Raphael Betancourt (lost to free agency), Chris Reitsma, Adam Everett (if you go back two weeks into the 90s), Lew Ford, Dennis Tankersley (remember when he was the next big thing?), Donnie Sadler, and Sun Woo Kim. Nick Hagadone, Engel Beltre, and Bryan Price may yet turn into something.
So yeah, Freddy Sanchez is probably number 2 (14.3 WAR since leaving Boston), though Everett's close at 11.6, and Betancourt (9.4), Ohka (8.9), Duchscherer (7.0), de la Rosa (7.1) Shoppach (6.8), Ford (5.2), Francisco (4.0), Murton (3.7), Murphy (3.6) Hillenbrand (3.4), Reitsma (3.0) Anibal Sanchez (2.6), Fossum (2.5), and Mererdith (2.2) all carved out careers for themselves, with more still to come from many of them.
I'm not arguing that he generates ticket sales or revenues or his own. I'm arguing they can't get better by trading him. There's no way any package generates half his value over the next two years.
Is Boston going to offer Ellsbury, Buchholz and Bard?
Why not build around him. Have we learned nothing from the Santana trade? There's no reason that SD can't be back above .500 by 2011, and in a position to resign Gonzalez.
Again, even with the shitty attendance and ratings in 2009, they had revenue of $175M
They can afford an $80M+ payroll, and they can afford to extend Gonzalez.
It will be much easier to build a 90+ win team with a 5-6 WAR player at 1B.
I'm not convinced Gonzalez is that guy after putting up WARs of 3.9, 3.3 and 3.4 from 06-08 and posting an ISO of .152 in the minors. Age 27 season and all that.
You may be right. But again, where is the great package of players coming from to make it worth trading him?
So, why can't they trade Blanks?
Well, we've learned that Lester, Ellsbury and Lowrie are better than Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Deolis Guerra, and Kevin Mulvey.
2nd edit- for redundancy and snark
Actually, the opposite has been shown. No one has been willing to part with real prospects to get Johan Santana, Cliff Lee or Victor Martinez. Teams value cost controlled regulars more than anything.
SD can give Blanks a year in LF to show his bat is for real (they're not winning anything this year), and if he's as good as the "trade-Gonzalez" faction says, he'll be worth FAR MORE in a trade (with 5 years of team control) even if he's not as good as Gonzalez.
No idea; it'll be easier to tell how prospects are valued within the industry once the prospect lists start coming out. Does Kelly/Reddick/Tazawa get it done?
Looking at San Diego internally, now appears to be ####-or-get-off-the-pot time for Blanks. He slashed 303/394/505 in the minors and 250/355/514 in 172 PAs in the majors. His size (listed at 6'6" 285) scouting reports (Goldstein: "the Padres have all but given up on their earlier hopes for him as a Dave Parker-esque outfielder"), and UZR in the OF (-10.3/150) make first base his only realistic position.
They're not going to get a Colon package for him, and they shouldn't accept a Santana one, but something in the middle would work, considering where they are in the success cycle and their other options at first.
Again, that the Twins did a poor job of evaluating talent doesn't mean they weren't presented with a good offer. See [65].
That said, I'm not averse to trading Blanks instead.
You're kidding right?
Start the package with Buchholz and Reddick, and maybe it gets somewhere.
I had a feeling this "SD has to trade Gonzalez" included a large helping of Red Sox fanboyism.
If the Yankees were trying to get him (of course they have no room so it's moot) I'd assume the conversation would start at Hughes and Montero or Romine.
Do we know for a fact that was offered? Or it's what Minn asked for?
How many years of team control does Buchholz have left, anyway? I've seen 4 bandied about, but near as I can tell, it's 5: he had less than a full year of service time coming into the year (154 days according to Cot's) and was in the minors for about half of this year. No doubt he'll be a super-2 after next season, but I think he won't be a free agent until after 2014.
The amount of attrition between "19, dominate A ball and is projectable" and "effective MLB pitcher" is immense. There still has to be a >50% Kelly never even makes the show.
I just don't see the Sox putting Buchholz in a package for anyone other than Felix or Hanley. He's too important to their team next year.
You shouldn't be able to trade for a superstar w/o giving up something that hurts your team.
IIRC, it was Lester/Ells/Lowrie+ or Buchholz/Lowrie+. The offers were reported widely and consistently, enough for me to accept it. I'm not gonna dig around for FO confirmation, so if you're skeptical, be skeptical.
Even so, the offer Minnesota did take might look a lot better if they hadn't rushed Gomez up; he was certainly a 'real' prospect. I'm not sure that the Twins' poor development choices have anything to do with what the Mets offered them.
For one thing, it's "SD has very good reasons to trade Gonzalez." And like most Sox fans I know I'm wary of dealing with SD, because Hoyer knows the Sox up and down. Unless there are players that he and Epstein value very differently (and Epstein is right), it's not a great bargaining position for Boston. And unless Gonzalez is willing to sign an extension, a lot of his value (cost) is much less important to a rich team (it might make more sense to split the prospect cost with Detroit, give them AGonz and take Miggy Cabrera).
Of course, if Gonzalez is available the Sox won't be the only team in on him.
They can afford an $80M+ payroll, and they can afford to extend Gonzalez.
Again, until you can put together a more coherent explanation for your take on their forward-looking payroll situation you aren't going to convince anyone to make the set of assumptions you continue to make.
Where am I lacking in coherence?
Forbes estimates SD's 2009 revenue at $175M, it has been over $150M every year since 2005.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/33/baseball-values-09_San-Diego-Padres_336838.html
$150M in revenue can certainly support a $75M payroll as they did in 2008.
If they decide to keep payroll at $40M it's because the ownership is pulling a Loria and extracting big wads of cash from the team.
The Red Sox must be interested in one of their players.
No.
The Padres don't "have to" trade Gonzalez; as snapper said, that is big-market fanboyism, like we saw during the endless Santana trade cycle. Doing so makes a certain amount of sense. Gonzalez is popular with the fan base in the South Bay where he hails from; he is not, and never will be, a guy who actually puts a lot of butts in the seats.
You're mis-remembering. Buchholz was strictly off limits, as was Joba from the Yankees side.
The Sox supposedly had 2 different offers on the table: Lester, Coco + minor leaguers (Lowrie + an OFer IIRC) or Ellsbury + the minor leaguers. The Twins were after Lester, Ellsbury, and the mlers.
Of course this also leaves out the idea that the Sox had "only discussed players" and had not made an offer of any kind, and were only really in it to keep him away from the Yankees.
And the odds that Buchholz pulls another '08, gets hurt, or completely flakes out are pretty damn high too. It's funny how fast people's opinions of Buchholz change: mid-09 he was just another failed prospect. Callis even said he'd rather have Tazawa. Now he's the golden boy again.
You shouldn't be able to trade for a superstar w/o giving up something that hurts your team.
Teams trade for superstars all the time without giving up key cogs of their current team. See: Beckett, Santana, Sabathia, Haren, Lee, Holliday (both trades), Cabrera, Teixeira (both trades). The important thing is to get good players. Should Texas be upset that Andrus and and Feliz didn't immediately "hurt" the Braves?
Buchholz actually didn't pitch that badly in '08. He had an excellent strikeout rate, and good HR rate, but walked a few too many guys, and got absolutely murdered in terms of BABIP.
As for prospects the Red Sox have traded, and how they've panned out - let's remember that other than Hanley Ramirez, most of the guys they've traded have been their mid-tier prospects, not their top guys. The idea that Kelly Shoppach and Lew Ford haven't turned into superstars doesn't mean that the Red Sox prospects are overrated. Ford, in fact, greatly exceeded any reasonable expectations. I suppose you could call Casey Fossum a flop, but I think he's really the only one who was traded with a top notch prospect label who didn't turn into at least a decent player.
But Adrian Gonzalez is not going to get traded anywhere, at least not during his present contract. His Age 28 and Age 29 years will cost the Padres less than 11 million dollars combined. FOR BOTH YEARS. This may make him arguably the most valuable player in baseball the next two years. The only way that Adrian Gonzalez will be traded on his present contract is if the Padres were offered such a package that they would crazy not to take, like Heyward + Freeman + Hanson, or something else outrageous.
It's just not happening. Indulging in trade rumors is always fun and all but when there's no way in hell it's going to happen, there's no point. Can't we talk about how awesome Adrian Gonzalez in other respects?
I had forgotten that he was the number one overall pick in 2000 for the Marlins. Does anyone else remember him as a signability pick?
Craig Hansen? I think the luster was gone by the time he was traded. He'd raced through the minors, then pitched poorly in three innings the year he was drafted, pitched terribly the whole next year, stayed in the minors the year after that, and then came up and pitched decidedly below average ball for the start of 2008 when he was traded to Pittsburgh, where he's continued to flouder. I think most Red Sox fans were surprised anyone wanted him at all by that point. He still throws hard, but he's never had any command at the major league level. In 2008, he was diagnosed with sleep apnea, and there was some hope that he might receive successful treatment for that, and it would fix everything, but I don't think anyone outside the Pirates' organization took him seriously as a prospect in 2008.
I don't know if this is true. There is no long run of futility in San Diego, but there is a HUGE amount of anger. Although there were some very poor years after 1998 when the referendum for the new stadium was passed on the heels of the WS appearance, the Padres enjoyed their best stretch of baseball in franchise history after moving into Petco in 2004. They had a winning record in each of the first 4 season in Petco, the longest period in franchise history; they won 2 straight division titles and went to game 163 the next year with a chance to be in the playoffs for the third season in a row.
However, there was a real revolution of rising expectations amongst "fans" of the team. Many, many people, or at least the most vocal crowd, feel betrayed by Moores/the Padres organization because, rather than appreciating the winning teams which were on display in Petco, they focused on the low payroll and lack of big name free agent signings. The early success in Petco was seen as a betrayal, bizarrely, instead of redemption.
Now you have two losing season in a row, an organization in transition, or turmoil in the minds of the many angry fans,(ownership change, management change, biggest star, Jake Peavy, traded, etc.) and a very bad economy. I think the Padres could see even more drop in attendance figures next year and trading Gonzalez certainly won't help that.
San Diego has a much larger population than Pittsburgh, but it is probably not a significantly larger market. A large number of residents are transplants who do not switch their rooting loyalties. Another large portion of the population is transient: Navy and Marine Corps both have a large population in San Diego. The weather is actually a disincentive to attendance. San Diegans love to do anything other than watch a losing team and they have ample opportunity to do so. Great weather, great beaches, mountain and desert activities within a short drive, sailing on the bay and in the harbor, Mexico a short drive or trolley ride away, L.A. beckons just to the north. Look at attendance for any professional team in SD and you will see the fans stay away in droves when there is a losing team put on the field.
...Or if Jed and ownership decide that keeping him cheap for 2 years and watching him leave for draft picks is less advantageous to the franchise than getting an infusion of talent that will speed their rebuilding process. It's not like the entire thread hasn't been back and forth on this topic before your rant.
The question isn't whether they can support a high payroll once in a while, but whether they can support that level consistently, and on that score, given the cost of doing business in San Diego (which is a relatively high-cost market) I'm not so sure $150M is enough. A lot depends on the amount of debt that new ownership has accrued.
It's also not expandable. Like Pittsburgh, San Diego is hemmed in, by LA to the north, Arizona to the east, Mexico to the south, and the ocean to the west. With the natural market having a relatively small geographic footprint and containing (as #86 notes) a lot of people who don't have roots in the area, the Padres have a lot of the "small-market" constraints that the Pirates have.
Now, having said that, the Padres don't have to trade Gonzalez. He's very much affordable even within the confines of a $40 million payroll. But they do have a problem to which #87 alludes; SD needs to rebuild almost from the ground up, because the farm system has been a train wreck. Gonzalez is by far the most marketable chip they have, and it's a near certainty that he'll test the market in 2 years. Hoyer would be crazy not to at least listen to offers.
-- MWE
I don't think anyone disputes that. However, recent trade history points to the offers being underwhelming at best.
If your best alternative is the Cliff Lee package, I say try and extend him and if not, take the picks.
Players/contracts I'd rather have than Gonzalez:
Hanley (5 years $64.5M, $18M next two years)
Justin Upton($3.3M in bonuses, one year pre-arb, 3 years arb)
Longoria (4/$13.5M, plus three options)
Zimmerman (4/$41.675M)
Kemp (3 arb years)
Kershaw (5 years team control, may be super 2 after next year)
Pedroia (5/$39M plus option)
Lester (4/$29M plus option)
Zobrist (4 years team control, may be super 2)
Heyward (6 years team control, just under 7 if they play roster games)
McCann (4/$26M plus option)
Braun (6/$41.5M)
Greinke (3/$34.25M)
Utley (4/$60M)
Lincecum (4 arb years)
Sizemore (2/$13.1M plus $8.5M option)
Tulo (4/$17.25M plus option)
Close calls: Haren, Adam Jones, Wright, Pujols, Wieters, Hanson.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main