No. Just... no.

With rue this contract will be laden in less than 2 years.

I am blocked from looking at Sexson's b-ref page here at work. I can see most other pages.

first three letters of his name.

If this had been the first big signing of the offseason, I'd rip it to shreds. In light of the other signings (ie Glaus), it doesn't look so bad. I'm still glad it wasn't the O's.

I am occasionally blocked from posting opinions that a certain policy is "socialist" on the internet because most spam-blocking software scans all posts for the word "cialis", which is contained in the word socialist.

Summary of M's fans opinions from USS Mariner:

-This is a bad signing.
-Thank God we got someone.
-We should be going after Beltre instead.
-We could still go after Beltre.
-This FA market is hard to figure, wild, crazy.
-Bavasi is an idiot.
-Bavasi may have realized that he is unlikely to get Beltre, Beltran, Renteria, Drew, or anyone else better than Sexson.

first three letters of his name.

No wonder they call you Nasty Nate. :-)

aren't getting any more money from Japan than the Devil Rays

Well, they probably get more Japanese tourists buying tix than the D-Rays and Japanese companies are willing to buy ads in the park (so more demand for ads = higher prices) so they get some boost from the Ichiro connection. Small, I'm sure, but some.

But in what universe is Sexson worth almost as much as Guerrero? Makes that Derrek Lee contract look better and better.

What's cialis? And why are they the only source of junk mail in my junk mail box every day?

Walt,

Guerrero is not available this offsesason. If he was, I'm sure he'd get plenty more than Sexson.

In light of the other signings (ie Glaus), it doesn't look so bad.

I think it looks bad even in light of the Glaus signing.

AT, you're more of a levitra fan, I take it?

Initial reaction- yeeesh. That's a lot of money. But, ball go far when/if Richie hits. An offensive improvement, for sure. Makes Delgado more expensive, I'd think.

I should have just googled it and saved myself the embarassment.

Hey, Mike Ditka ain't embarrassed, why should you be?

I'd be more embarassed if I were Bill Bavasi.

Makes Delgado more expensive, I'd think.

I'm hoping just expensive enough that it knocks the Orioles out of the bidding . . . . and not a dollar more.

To me, the Sexson signing is the mirror image of the Martinez signing: for the reasons Harvey's Wallbanger noted on the other Sexson thread, there's good reason to think that Sexson is still getting better as a hitter -- more walks, better strike zone judgment. The trend, before last year's injury, was good. While the Mets have to worry about whether and how fast Pedro is going to decline, the Mariners can legitimately hope Sexson hasn't yet peaked.

I'm hoping just expensive enough that it knocks the Orioles out of the bidding . . . . and not a dollar more.

Assuming Angelos isn't being a complete tightwad, the Orioles have a lot of money to throw around...they had a reasonable payroll last year, a bunch of bad contracts are coming off the books, and they haven't spend anything yet this offseason. So in theory (and I recognize that, in theory, communism works), the Orioles shouldn't have any problem outbidding the Mets.

Forget Delgado for the Mets, he's Mo Vaughn waiting to happen. Drew please?

Seems like an awful lot of money for a first baseman who's unlikely to put up an OPS+ better than 125. The upside is he could have a career year after turning 30, which might mean an OPS+ of what? 140? 150? The downside is he might never return to his old form and wind up league average or worse.

Even without the injury I don't like this signing. Too much money for a 30 year old guy at a non-defensive position who's a good but not great hitter.

Bad signing. Sigh. Put me in the "we should have been going after Beltre" and "maybe we can still go after Beltre" camp. If the latter happens, I'm a lot more okay with this signing because it just means the M's want to be a BIG market team.

I can't believe he got 50. Am I the only who thinks that Delgado is noticeably superior and also thought that Delgado would be lucky to get 48 Mil?

for the reasons Harvey's Wallbanger noted on the other Sexson thread, there's good reason to think that Sexson is still getting better as a hitter -- more walks, better strike zone judgment. The trend, before last year's injury, was good. While the Mets have to worry about whether and how fast Pedro is going to decline, the Mariners can legitimately hope Sexson hasn't yet peaked.

Sexson has always had what Bill James called "old players' skills." Guys with that skill set generally peak early and don't age very well. To expect a year better than his 2003 is overly optimistic.

but Richie is improving as a hitter and he plays an ok 1st. They overpaid, but not by all that much (maybe 2-3 mill/year, imo).

Look at the trend line in Sexson's walks, beginning in 1999, through his last full year in 2003:

34, 59, 60, 70, 98

He may have "old players' skills," but until I see that trend level off, I like the chances that he will continue to add walks, increase his OBP, and thus become a more valuable offensive player. I sure wouldn't bet against him having 110 walks and a .390 OBP in 2005, put it that way.

Rotoworld says the M's are still in on Beltre:

According to the Seattle Times, the Mariners could soon have Adrian Beltre signed to a deal worth $60 million or more.
It was reported that Beltre was offered $62 million over five years by Seattle. That's a proposal the Dodgers shouldn't be afraid of matching. Dec. 16 - 5:50 am et

Forget Delgado for the Mets, he's Mo Vaughn waiting to happen. Drew please?

He is? Their builds, training habits etc. are night and day. Delgado keeps himself in pretty good shape and was well over .300/.400/.600 once he got healthy.

His age (33) is a concern, but I see no reason why he couldn't give 3-4 years good service.

For the right price of course.

Best Regards

John

That projection looks generous to me, but what do I know? Betting on him to put up an OBP 21 points higher than his career average and only 9 points worse than his career best, coming off an injury and moving to a tough park, seems overly hopeful.

34, 59, 60, 70, 98

That looks like a guy who learned to take a walk, then leveled off for three years, then made a huge jump. His 2004 numbers, in just 90 ABs, had him back down to the 60-70 range for a full season, which is right around where I'd place him... assuming he's healthy.

Before this offseason got into swing, I was laughing my head off at a Mike and the Maddog discussion where they agreed that Delgado would want 4/48. Things sure have changed.

If the Mariners don't add someone to protect Sexson more than anyone on the current roster can, he'll have 110 walks, no problem.

Look at the trend line in Sexson's walks, beginning in 1999, through his last full year in 2003:

34, 59, 60, 70, 98

Well, let's put those numbers into a more meaningful context. First, by subtracting out IBB and then comparing the rate (BB/PA):
That's a good increase in rate, but it's not as drastic as the raw walk totals imply. As Daren said, he plateaud in 2000-02 and then there was an uptick in 2003. It remains to be seen whether that's a genuine improvement in talent level or just a statistical anomaly. To me, that data suggest a regression back to a rate of ~9.5% is more likely than an increase in rate, especially given his age.

His 2004 numbers, in just 90 ABs, had him back down to the 60-70 range for a full season, which is right around where I'd place him...

Actually, his walk rate in 2004 (walks in 13.4% of his PAs) was the best of his career, putting him on pace for around 100 non-intentional walks....

To me, that data suggest a regression back to a rate of ~9.5% is more likely than an increase in rate, especially given his age.

Granted. But my original point still holds, which is that Mariners can reasonably hope that he has not yet peaked as a hitter, and especially in terms of his walk rate. Continued improvement may not be the most likely outcome, but it is certainly a reasonable possibility.

More generally, it's just monumentally obvious now that ball clubs, pretty much across the board, regardless of market size or place in the standings, see the FA market completely differently than they did a year ago. ALL of them are "overpaid" by comparison to contracts signed last off-season. The only way to make sense of it is to compare them to one another, and the Sexson deal is pretty damned comparable to the Glaus one.

Actually, his walk rate in 2004 (walks in 13.4% of his PAs) was the best of his career,

Ah, but not if you mistakenly look at the HR column instead of the walk column.

Granted. But my original point still holds, which is that Mariners can reasonably hope that he has not yet peaked as a hitter, and especially in terms of his walk rate.

Well, you can reasonably hope anything. But there's nothing to suggest that Sexson has not yet reached his peak. He had an extremely consistent level of production from ages 25-28, which was a small step up from his previous work. Any projection forward should expect that he'll get a little worse each of the next 4 years.

I think Dan's analysis here is pretty right on. If the Mariners end up landing Beltre, I'll move my opinion of this signing more squarely into the positive column.

In the Mike Cameron threads last year, some people noted that Safeco was very hard on RH power hitters, but rather neutral on LH power hitters. If so, this makes Sexson kind of an odd choice (and makes Delgado look like the better fit).

It was reported that Beltre was offered $62 million over five years by Seattle. That's a proposal the Dodgers shouldn't be afraid of matching.

If Beltre goes for that and it isn't to the Dodgers I would be sick. I'm betting he gets a $100 million. He's a 25 year old superb third baseman who just hit .334 48 121 with half his games in Dodger stadium for the love of cripes. He's still a year younger than this year's NL ROY, and less than year older that the AL ROY.

I think that Sexson is a much bigger risk than Glaus, and the Glaus signing is a much better signing

I stated my reasons in posts numbers 106, 109 & 110 of this Glaus Thread

From those posts, you can see why medically I think it is pretty obvious that Glaus is less of a risk.

And Glaus is a THIRD BASEMAN, until proven otherwise. And worst case he moves to first.

Sexson is a first baseman who may be moved to left field.

Please, how about a little objectivity here. In the mad rush to condemn everything about the D Backs, I can't see how any rational person thinks the Sexson signing is ok but maybe slightly overpaid, and the glaus signing is just a bad signing.

Does not make sense.

You'll have to break it down for me, because I didn't see anything in your earlier posts that convinced me that Glaus was less of a risk than Sexson.

Glaus's value to the D-Backs is the same whether he plays 1B or 3B so long as Tracy is the guy who will play the other position (currently the D-Backs' plan). Long term, he's very clearly headed for 1B. The D-Backs have a number of good hitting prospects on their way up, each of whom has a good chance of needing to wind up playing 1B. Glaus potentially blocks a future cornerstone of the next good Arizona team. As they will not be competitive in 2005, there is no reason to commit to him for 4 years.

I've criticized the Sexson deal on an earlier thread for similar reasons: the Mariners likely will not be competitive in 2005 either, unless they sign Beltre. If they can sign him, then the Sexson deal makes more sense. Also, the marginal difference between Sexson and Spiezio is much greater than the upgrade from Hillenbrand to Glaus.

Finally, as one of the highest revenue teams in baseball the Mariners can better afford to overpay a guy like Sexson. The D-Backs have one of the smallest markets in baseball, according to one well-researched estimate.. Mistakes like Ortiz and Glaus will hinder this team for the next four years. At least with the Mariners and Sexson, they can afford to target another elite hitter with whom to build their ballclub around (ie, Beltre).

Terrible signing, based upon his Superlwts projection for next year, which is only 4 runs above an average first baseman. Sure, he can hit, but so can the average first baseman, and his UZR projection is -5. A first baseman can never be worth a lot unless he can play defense like Erstad or hit like Helton. There are just too many players who can play first base halfway decently and hit pretty well, who can be gotten for almost nothing (like John Gall, e.g.). Delgado has way the better projection, at +20, and Glaus, as a third baseman, is also way the better player. Glaus is going to lose a tom of value as a first baseman. Some of that value can be gotten back if he ends up being an excellent defender at first, but not nearly all of it. Moving a player to first when they can still play another position, other than left or right, pretty well, is always a bad idea, and sometimes a terrible idea, as was the case with Erstad...

You'll have to break it down for me, because I didn't see anything in your earlier posts that convinced me that Glaus was less of a risk than Sexson.

I will give you the short version first:

Glaus hit 7 homers in 90 at bats after he came back from surgery, and then hit 2 more in 11 more post season at bats.

9 homers in 101 post surgery at bats would seem to indicate that his power stroke was not affected by his surgery. You have no idea about Sexson. No one has seen him swing a bat.

That right there makes Sexson a bigger risk than Glaus. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

As far as the medical reasons, my earlier posts were pretty specific about the risk of Sexsons shoulder popping out again. According to the doctors who performed the surgery, at least a 10% chance. They could not make the shoulder so tight as to insure it won't pop out again because that would restrict his range of motion too much.
If the shoulder keeps popping out, it is career threatening.

Glaus had a tear in his rotator cuff that has been repared. The risk is he won't be able to take 150 games worth of throws over the first. So the WORST case with Glaus is he has to move to 1b, in which case he is a little overpaid as a first baseman.

The worst case with Sexson is he can't play at all.
To me that is a pretty big difference.


As for the money and contending and all that, you are just plain wrong. There is EVERY reason to commit to him for 4 years. In the first place, they would not be able to sign him if they didnt. And if they did not make some high profile signings, no one would come to the ballpark.

On top of that, Glaus is almost 2 1/2 years YOUNGER than Sexson. You don't think that matters either , I assume.


We have Glaus, a proven power hitter with good on base percentage who plays an important defensive position tied up for ages 28,29,30,31.

It's a good signing.

Finally, there is this article again about the d back payroll and finances:

Payroll cuts aid D-Backs signings

Craig Harris
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 14, 2004 12:00 AM

Call it addition by subtraction.

That's the easiest way to explain how the debt-laden Diamondbacks have afforded their recent free-agent signings, Ken Kendrick, a general partner, said Monday.

"There is an agenda out there that we are a poor team, that we are bankrupt and we have no money. Therefore, we cannot afford any ballplayers," Kendrick said somewhat mockingly. "But what no one has accounted . . . we have $40 million shed from our payroll."

Last year that money went to 11 players who are no longer under contract. Since Thursday the Diamondbacks have earmarked $17.45 million on four free agents for 2005: third baseman Troy Glaus, pitcher Russ Ortiz and infielders Craig Counsell and Royce Clayton.

Clayton signed Monday, and Counsell's contract will become official once he passes a physical this week.

The moves have baffled some because of the Diamondbacks' well-publicized history of going deep into debt to build a franchise that won the 2001 World Series. With $165 million owed in deferred salaries and last season's team-record 111 losses, the conventional wisdom was that it would take years for the team to rebuild.

However, the Diamondbacks have been extremely aggressive this off-season, thanks largely to a long-term infusion of capital from investors, and Kendrick said the team is not done acquiring free agents.

Although he would not disclose names, Kendrick said the Diamondbacks are still looking to add a power-hitting outfielder, pitchers and possibly a first baseman.

"We have another $12 million to $14 million to spend (next year) to finish out our team with new players," Kendrick said. "It's not a complicated math problem."

The Diamondbacks also have pitchers Randy Johnson ($16 million) and Brandon Webb ($715,000) and outfielder Luis Gonzalez ($10 million) under contract for the upcoming season. No other player currently on the roster will earn more than $750,000; most will earn between $300,000 and $500,000.

The 25-player payroll will hover in the low-$60 million range, Kendrick said, but the ownership group could increase that if the team is within striking distance of the playoffs.

"We are totally comfortable with our budget," Kendrick said. "And we want to put a competitive team out there."

The 2004 season payroll was about $77 million, and the team paid another $28 million to players whose salaries were deferred from previous seasons. Next season, the Diamondbacks will pay about $30 million - in principal and interest - in deferred salaries. By 2010, nearly all of the deferred compensation debt will be retired.

Kendrick and three other investors in 2002 pledged $160 million over 10 years in exchange for more control of the team. Kendrick this year successfully raised another $99 million. Those commitments bring in roughly $26 million a year.

Kendrick also said he's optimistic that the free-agent signings will bolster season ticket renewals.

Prior to the signings, about 75 percent of the roughly 19,000 season ticket holders had renewed for 2005, he said.

"What we hope will happen is now that they (fans) are seeing the changes, they will go out and renew," Kendrick said.
Accounting for the money
Eleven players no longer under contract accounted for $39.6 million of the Diamondbacks' $77 million 2004 payroll. The four deals already made amount to $17.45 million. The team intends to spend another $10 million to $12 million and still remain within a budget in the low $60 million range.

2004 out* 2005 in*
Richie Sexson - $8.73 Troy Glaus - $8.25
Steve Finley - $ 7 Russ Ortiz - $6.5
Matt Mantei - $7 Craig Counsell - $1.35
Elmer Dessens - $4 Royce Clayton - $1.35
Danny Bautista - $4
6 others** - $8.85
Total - $39.6 Total - $17.45

*Salary in millions.
**Greg Colbrunn ($2.75), Shea Hillenbrand ($2.6), Roberto Alomar ($1), Carlos Baerga ($1), Shane Reynolds ($1), Steve Sparks ($.5).

9 homers in 101 post surgery at bats would seem to indicate that his power stroke was not affected by his surgery.

Nine homers in 101 at bats tells you little or nothing.

he risk is he won't be able to take 150 games worth of throws over the first. So the WORST case with Glaus is he has to move to 1b, in which case he is a little overpaid as a first baseman.


No way. The risk is that he has to be a DH. Sure, a poor-throwing 1B is not as harmful as a poor-throwing 3B, but it's still harmful. I'd say the risk is pretty small that he has to be a DH, but it's there -- or at least, the risk that he'll be a bad first baseman is there. From what I've read, it sounds to me like he'd deteriorated into a pretty poor third baseman, so I think the very best case scenario with Glaus is a poor fielding, strong hitting 3B, or an OK fielding, good hitting 1B.

Having said all that, I think you have to take into account one important point shoewizard (and others) have made: Arizona was almost certainly severely constrained by the number of FAs willing to consider them at all. Last year was a very, very bad year, not just because of the W-L record, but because of the front office chaos and the Randy Johnson circus. On many levels, it's just not going to be an easy sell for a lot of FAs right now. The fact that a quality player, like Glaus, with a genuinely high upside if healthy, was obtainable, made it totally reasonable for Arizona to make the move it made -- especially now that it's so obvious there's been a substantial shift upward in the salary scale.

Gammons says the Mariners and Beltre have agreed on a five-year deal.

Gammons says the Mariners and Beltre have agreed on a five-year deal.

If true, that's shorter than I thought he'd get. I'm guessing $75 Million.

Sam, thank you , thank you... Finally a voice of reason.

To tell you the truth, I am actually encouraged by some of the things the d back ownership is doing.

1.) Got rid of Jerry C, who was going to bankrupt the franchise

2.) Raised a ton of money to cover debts and allow team to compete

3.) Instituted restraint policies with regards to deferred contract. (No longer allowed)

4.) doing their best to keep team icon Randy Johnson on the team, and if they can't making sure they don't give him up for nothing.

The Ortiz signing is pretty questionable, and they definitely did not need BOTH Counsell and Clayton.
So they have a ways to go before they are making smarter personnell decisions, but I just don't accept that Glaus is one of their mistakes.

I forgot to add point 5 above:

Keeping payroll under 70 million, (less than last year) while fielding a better team.

If Beltre gets the predicted $12M, he'll have to be considered the best signing of the offseason thus far--a title right up there with king of the dipshits.

I heard 5-62, or 12.4

I find it hard, if not impossible to believe that Depodesta won't match that, or go to 13.

Agreed. I think it's a major mistake if Depodesta lets Beltre slip at the price especially given the money he paid for Kent.

Now I just heard 5 yrs 65 million on ESPN Radio.

13 a year

Beltre might be the best signing of this offseason at $14M or $15M a year.

ESPN is reporting this as a done deal and he has signed.

The only negative argument I can see on the Beltre thing is the concern about a contract-year explosion. Will he still be the 2004 Beltre now that he's signed the big deal, instead of seeking it?

Beltre was 25 last year. I think it's a lot more likely that he finally came into his own (health and baseball-wise) than had some walk-year fluke season.

IIRC, one thing that hasn't changed much over the years for him is his defense. His defense automatically is worth about half that contract.

It's a good deal, unless Beltre turns out like Richard Hidalgo or Kal Daniels or even John Olerud.

I still like it better than 90% of the deals signed so far.

J**** C****. For 5/65 the Orioles should have signed him and moved Mora back to LF. If true, great move by the Mariners.

9 homers in 101 post surgery at bats would seem to indicate that his power stroke was not affected by his surgery. You have no idea about Sexson. No one has seen him swing a bat.

That right there makes Sexson a bigger risk than Glaus. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

His performance in 100 at bats is hardly definitive proof that there is no long term impact on his production. All those numbers prove is that he hit some homers in 100 at bats. If you don't understand the basic concepts of elementary statistics, I can't help you.

The prognosis on Sexson has always been that he will make a full recovery and all reports are that he has progressed as expected. Prior to the injury he had been quite durable.

Glaus was bothered by his shoulder in 2002 and blamed it for the dropoff in his production. When it shut him down in 2003, he was supposed to have made a full recovery by last spring. Less than a month into the season, he reinjured himself. Thie same injury has affected his ability to contribute over the past three seasons, limiting him to 305 games over that time.

Without hearing a similar opinion on the likelihood of a recurrence of Glaus's injury being potentially career-ending, the 10% estimate cannot be put into proper context. All that information says is that Sexson is a risk; it does not mean that he's a better risk than Glaus. The worst-case scenario for all players is a career-ending injury; asserting that doesn't apply to Glaus is rather silly. Glaus has a proven track record of being unable to recover from a serious injury, Sexon does not.

FWIW, over the lives of the contract, I believe that Glaus has a better chance of breaking out with a monster year, but also missing significant time to injury; Sexson has a better chance to continue with some very solid, but less-than-spectacular seasons.


On top of that, Glaus is almost 2 1/2 years YOUNGER than Sexson. You don't think that matters either , I assume.

You assume incorrectly and unnecessarily. Earlier in *this* thread I said that given his skill set and age it was unlikely that Sexson would improve, and in fact the data suggest that he will decline over the life of this contract. Glaus may be only 28, but he's several years removed from his last good season. He may recapture his success of 2000, but it's also very possible that he'll never be more than he was in 2001-03.

As for the article you copied-and-pasted, that's irrelevant to the big picture: Arizona is a small market team that will continue to owe a good deal of deferred money for the next ten years. Seattle can better weather an unproductive or overpaid Sexson than Arizona can an unproductive or overpaid Glaus. That's the reality of their two market sizes and is a structural advantage that will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

Obviously, Arizona can still contend despite the limitations of their market, but they will need to do it by being smart and efficient. Risky contracts like Glaus and moronic ones like Ortiz when they are where they are in a rebuilding phase of the success cycle are a poor strategy.

If Beltre gets the predicted $12M, he'll have to be considered the best signing of the offseason thus far

I agree. The Mariners will still need a breakout year from Reed and at least one of their young pitchers in order to challenge Anaheim, though.

Sexson, Boone, Beltre and whoever they put at short will be one powerful and fun to watch IF. Boone and Beltre are above average defensively and Sexson is a little above average isn't he?

Does the AL West now have the best IFs in the league?? I remember when everyone thought the Yankees were going to have one of the greatest IFs ever. Now it's just Jeter and his...male-companion.

6-4-3,

Don't be a snob. Of course I understand basic statistical principals, and sample size issues.

101 is a bigger sample size than ZERO, which is how many swings Sexson has had to prove he is not affected by his surgery.

The 10% chance of re injury figure for Sexson was put out there by the doctors that operated on him. Take it for what it is worth.

Glaus played in an average of 158 games from 1999-2002. He injured the rotator cuff diving on the turf in July of 2003. He tried to fix it with rest and rehab, but that failed and eventually required surgery in 2004. He had the surgery and returned to play and swung an effective bat. But that means nothing to you at all when evaluating relative risk.

You are trying to "stretch out" the effects of this injury to justify your claim. But you are reaching. Stick with facts. They will do you better.

1.) Glaus is being paid 5 million less than Sexson over the same period of time.

2.) At least he has SOME playing time under his belt since his surgery to prove he can still hit, which Sexson has none of.

3.) He is 2 1/2 years younger than Sexson

4.) He plays a more important defensive position.

5.) Clearly glaus was the best player available to the D Backs and they were not in a position to just abandon all hopes of being competitive in 2005. They would lose even more of their fan base if they did. They needed a big right handed bat, and basically got one almost as good as Sexson to replace him.

If NONE of these factors is enough to at least moderate you opinion somewhat as to the relative risks and merits of these two signings, then you clearly have an agenda and really refuse to back down because you want to bash and hate the d backs.

Fine . Have at it.

6-4-3.... I forgot to add one more thing.

According to your "rules" a small or mid market team is not allowed to sign free agents to 8 figure contacts, especially if they had been bad the year before.

Tell that to the Tigers.

And also you might want to check population growth projections for Maricopa county too. When was the study you linked done.? Is it a recent study, within the last year or so?

In any case, don't blink. You might miss Arizona's asecension from "small market" to "mid market"

If they were mid market, would an 8 figure salary be allowable then?

Don't be a snob. Of course I understand basic statistical principals, and sample size issues.

If you check what you wrote earlier, I was just mocking your attempt at snobbery. Regardless, if you understand the concept of sample size, your reliance on 100 at bats to "prove" anything is an odd way of going about it. Not to mention that many of those ABs were against inferior September call-up pitching (hate to burst your bubble, but ############# Jason Grilli isn't exactly a novel skill).


101 is a bigger sample size than ZERO, which is how many swings Sexson has had to prove he is not affected by his surgery.

It means absolutely nothing. Sexson was never supposed to be ready by season's end (partly on account of the D-Backs being a .315 team). Glaus was supposed to be 100% by the start of the season, reinjured himself, and wasn't 100% recovered until September. In other words, Sexson has been on track; Glaus's bum shoulder has lingered for 3 seasons.


The 10% chance of re injury figure for Sexson was put out there by the doctors that operated on him. Take it for what it is worth.

This is slightly more informative than performance over 100 ABs, but only because that point was completely without relevance. However, 10% only speaks to Sexson's future risk; it does not provide evidence that Sexson is a comparatively greater risk than Glaus, which is what you originally tried to appropriate it for.


Glaus played in an average of 158 games from 1999-2002. He injured the rotator cuff diving on the turf in July of 2003. He tried to fix it with rest and rehab, but that failed and eventually required surgery in 2004. He had the surgery and returned to play and swung an effective bat. But that means nothing to you at all when evaluating relative risk.

No, Glaus originally injured the shoulder prior to the 2003 season and it was used to explain his mediocre season in 2002. His bum shoulder has been an injury that has cost him production in the past three seasons (25-27).


You are trying to "stretch out" the effects of this injury to justify your claim. But you are reaching. Stick with facts. They will do you better.

You describe yourself, friend.


1.) Glaus is being paid 5 million less than Sexson over the same period of time.

True. Congratulations, this is the first sentence of your post that is both accurate and relevant. Good job. Now can you keep it up?


2.) At least he has SOME playing time under his belt since his surgery to prove he can still hit, which Sexson has none of.

Bzzt. Guess not. Not relevant. Can you get back on track?


3.) He is 2 1/2 years younger than Sexson

True and relevant, but also stipulated to by me in earlier posts.


4.) He plays a more important defensive position.

That remains to be seen. Anyway, so long as Tracy plays whatever corner infield spot Glaus isn't occupying, the effective marginal value to the D-Backs is the same whether he mans first or third.


5.) Clearly glaus was the best player available to the D Backs and they were not in a position to just abandon all hopes of being competitive in 2005. They would lose even more of their fan base if they did. They needed a big right handed bat, and basically got one almost as good as Sexson to replace him.

It may be true that he was the best player available to them. But that's just conjecture on your part that rests on the assumption that the D-Back front office has a clue when it comes to evaluating talent. In other words, they'd know the better player when they see him. Their other signings indicate that they're pretty clueless in that department.

Regardless, signing an injury-prone player at this point in their success cycle is poor strategy. Will they draw more fans in 2005 than they would had they not signed Glaus? Yes. Will they contend in 2005? Doubtful. Will spending $11M on Glaus in 2006-8 be the best use of that money? Remains to be seen, but given that at least one of their hitting prospects will need to shift to 1B, its likely that Glaus will block him. If so, then his contract becomes at best a sub-optimal use of funds, at worst an albatross if he continues to be hampered by injury.


If NONE of these factors is enough to at least moderate you opinion somewhat as to the relative risks and merits of these two signings, then you clearly have an agenda and really refuse to back down because you want to bash and hate the d backs.

Yes, that's it: I have an agenda. I'm going to hate the D-Backs regardless of what they do.

Had they signed Beltre rather than Glaus, I'd be singing their praises right now. Had they signed Clement rather than Ortiz, I'd call them inspired. Had they signed Walker rather than Clayton and Counsell, I'd call them shrewed.

But that's not who they signed. They've thrown a lot of money at a mediocrity (Ortiz) and committed to an uncertainty (Glaus) at a point where they are unlikely to contend in the upcoming season. If/when he breaks down, that's going to make signing someone who can put them over the top in future years very, very difficult. They may sell more tickets next season, but not long term if these signings cost them a real chance at contending.


To be continued...

According to your "rules" a small or mid market team is not allowed to sign free agents to 8 figure contacts, especially if they had been bad the year before.

Now this is a strawman and possibly your biggest distortion yet. I never said that small market teams like the D-Backs should never sign players to big contracts. What I did say is that Glaus isn't the guy I'd want to commit to for 4 years.


Tell that to the Tigers.

I assume you are referring to the Rodriguez contract (who was a surer thing than Glaus is now). They won 72 games last year, and their improvement over 2003 was due to a couple of other shrewd moves; Rodriguez alone did not win them 29 more games. Anyway, is 72 wins really what you aspire to?


And also you might want to check population growth projections for Maricopa county too. When was the study you linked done.? Is it a recent study, within the last year or so?

Late 90s, I believe. Anyway, I just checked a Nielsen Media Research estimates, dated 09/20/04. It ranks Phoenix as the 15th largest DMA (as compared to 19th when the other study was done). Congratulations, your team's market is now bigger than Denver, Miami, and Cleveland!


In any case, don't blink. You might miss Arizona's asecension from "small market" to "mid market"

At 1.6M homes, the Phoenix DMA remains at the lower end of "mid-markets." Even after a large population growth spurt, Arizona remains below the median for market size. If Glaus breaks down, they cannot write off his contract as a larger market team could.


Now the Sexson signing isn't all that great. But given where they are as a team, it makes more sense for them than Arizona's signing of Glaus. Along with Beltre, Seattle could be interesting in 2005 and even if they aren't, a bad contract doesn't hurt them as much as Arizona.

6-4-3, you are so full of distortions, it's truly disturbing.

1.) You are in fact a hater and a basher. It is so obvious. The insertion of the d backs win % in your point shows that. It is simply there to be a diss, and does not enhance your point. You go on later in your post to rant about the other D Backs signings.
But this debate is not about the other D Backs signings. It is about the Glaus signing, and the Sexson signing, and the and the perceived merits and risks of these two signings. Ortiz, Clayton, et. al have nothing to do with it. However your inclusion here is just further evidence that your bias against the Arizona organization is coloring your debate points quite a bit.

2.) You will need to show me a specific link, story, or update that shows Glaus injured his shoulder in 2002. Otherwise you must concede that point.

This is from the Sporting News:

Injured player July 23, 2003 - 9:51 p.m.
Glaus was put on the 15-day disabled list Wednesday because of a right shoulder injury. The move was retroactive to Tuesday, a day after Glaus was hurt when he landed awkwardly on his shoulder fielding a bunt. (Jason Langendorf/TSN)

I have combed all the updates and scouting reports. He played through numerous injuries in 2002, but the shoulder does not appear as any of them. So once again, produce evidence the shoulder was hurt in 2002, not 2003, or concede the point. Thank you.

3.) You need to take your nose out of the book for minute. The fact that Glaus came back EARLY from the surgery, when it was expected that he would not even play again is a testament to his recuperative abilities. I followed his injury very closely, because I have owned him in a keeper league for several years, so I am very familiar with his history. He was not expected to come back in September at all.

As far as the importance of 101 at bats: It is not referenced as an indicator or pedictor of talent, or future performance. I am not saying because he hit a homer every 11 at bats in September October then that is what is going to happen going forward.
So stop thinking like a statistician for just a moment.

I am simply stating that the fact that he came back for a month and half, and swung the bat effectively for most of that time, is certainly an indicator that he has recovered from the injury, and DEFINITELY more of an indicator than Richie Sexson can show you at this point in time.

As far as the Market issues:

It's amazing to me that you could post an out of date study, that no longer reflects Arizona's standing in terms of Market size, and when called on it , type out several more paragraphs of misinformation.

Phoenix is the fastest growing LARGE city in the country, and in fact if not already, it will soon replace Philadelphia as the 5th largest city in the country. In addition, Maricopa County contains many large affluent suburbs that are not under the Phoenix umbrella. You need to consider them as well, not jut "Phoenix"

Arizona's population Grew 40% between 1990-2000, and will grow another 20% over the next 10 years.

======================================================

You can continue being a Bandwago Basher. Like I said, have at it.

The Ownership group led by kendrick has done some really good things in the last year. These are smart, successful people, who have a different view than you do of their "success cycle".

They have gotten rid of Colangelo, whose faulty business plan is what caused the debt in the first place.

They have raised significant amounts of money to cover defferred salary and debt.

They have instituted policies like no more deferred money contracts.

They are actually reducing payroll from last year, while putting a more competitive team on the field.

They have done alot of good things here in the last several months.

So you continue to bash any and all things D Back. Please be sure to come back to me and say hello when the team has finished over .500, contended at least for the NL West, and Glaus has had a better season than Sexson.

bump

bump

Please be sure to come back to me and say hello when the team has finished over .500, contended at least for the NL West, and Glaus has had a better season than Sexson.

I'll be truly stunned if the D'Backs finish over .500. They might contend for the NL West, at least for a substantial portion of the season, the same way the Mets "contended" for the NL East for a good part of 2004 by playing around .500 before falling apart. And anyone who would bet on either Glaus OR Sexson in such a comparison needs to be a little more risk averse, because they are both substantial risks to spend more than 100 games on the DL, and/or to feel the effects of their prior injuries on their performance.

I'd bet money that Glaus will have better OPS+ with 81 games at the BOB than Sexson will with 81 games at Safeco.

There's not much here worth responding to, but since it matters so much to you to "bump" the thread at least two times in 45 minutes, I'll briefly comment on a few of your comparatively more cogent points.

I have no irrational hate of the D-Backs. It's simply my opinion that after their 2001 Series win nearly every move they've made has weakened their team in both the short- and long-term. Mentioning some of the less brilliant ones speaks to a pattern of behavior from a clueless front office, one of the latest instances of which is the signing of Glaus. You claim that a new, more competent front office has taken over that's committed to winning and has a strategy, yet whine when I mention some of their other moves that are clearly poorly-conceived: Ortiz, Clayton, and (if it goes through) Johnson for Green.

Their winning percentage from last year speaks to where they currently reside in terms of their success cycle. If I truly hated everything D-Back, why would I praise their hitting prospects?

You b-tch and moan about your knowledge of statistics being mocked, yet still cling to the idea that Glaus's performance in September provides anything informative. Either you know how to properly contextualize numbers or you don't. And you still haven't explained why Glaus being ready in September when he was supposed to be ready Opening Day is more impressive than Sexson being on schedule for his recovery.

Finally, city size is irrelevant for determining market size. Phoenix's DMA is nowhere near that of Philadelphia's. Apparently your handle on elementary marketing principles is about on par with your grasp on statistics.

I'd bet money that Glaus will have better OPS+ with 81 games at the BOB than Sexson will with 81 games at Safeco.

It's certainly possible, but I see a larger standard deviation with Glaus than Sexson. In other words, Glaus has a better chance to bust out with an MVP-worthy year than Sexson, but he also has a better chance to crash-and-burn or turn in another good-but-unspectacular season (ala 2002).

It's simply my opinion that after their 2001 Series win nearly every move they've made has weakened their team in both the short- and long-term. Mentioning some of the less brilliant ones speaks to a pattern of behavior from a clueless front office, one of the latest instances of which is the signing of Glaus. You claim that a new, more competent front office has taken over that's committed to winning and has a strategy, yet whine when I mention some of their other moves that are clearly poorly-conceived: Ortiz, Clayton, and (if it goes through) Johnson for Green.

I'm a D-backs fan, adn I absolutely agree with this statement. The team that won the 2001 WS was Buck Showalter's team. When Buck was hired to be the manager, he was given a lot of freedom to assemble the team. Buck has a knack for evaluating talent that is beyond the abilities of Joe Jr and Colangelo. All the "successful" trades and free agent acquisitions happened under Buck's reign. Buck was telling Joe Jr. which players he wanted, and Joe Jr. was getting him those players.

By the time Buck was fired, he had a team in place that was good enough and talented enough and deep enough to make a run for the division and deep in the playoffs. Brenly didn't do #### his first year; all he did was let the players play. And he almost cost the D-backs the WS with his asinine management. The D-backs won despite Brenly, not because of him. But Brenly couldn't see true talent if it hit him in the freaking nuts.

Once Joe Jr. was asked to evaluate talent, he flopped. The post-Showalter trades and signings were a disaster. Joe Jr. and Colangelo couldn't get good talent so they kept on throwing more money after bad money. And they sunk the ship. Sadly, Moorad doesn't appear any better. He seems to be crazy about getting as many of his ex-clients (Matt Williams, Will Clark, now Shawn Green and Brad Penny) in the desert as possible. This absolutely stinks.

6-4-3, I'm betting on an MVP like year by Glaus. We'll see.

# 6-4-3, I'm betting on an MVP like year by Glaus. We'll see.

And that's the great thing about baseball: we can argue all we want about what we expect players to do, but ultimately they determine what predictions are right or not.

There's obviously tremendous upside with Glaus, but I view him as a tremendous risk. And given where the D-Backs are in both talent and market potential, it's a strategic risk that I would not take at this time if I were Moorad. The upgrade that Glaus offers over Hillenbrand in 2005 is not enough to make them strong contenders, especially with the apparent loss of Johnson. In terms of building a sustainable success, they would have been better served waiting a year or two, seeing what their actual needs were by allowing their hitting prospects to mature, and then committing money to a star, even someone whose performance was as uncertain as Glaus.

Committing big money to Glaus and Ortiz now while trading Johnson for Green (or, at the very least, wanting to) demonstrates a total lack of a coherent strategy.

In terms of building a sustainable success, they would have been better served waiting a year or two, seeing what their actual needs were by allowing their hitting prospects to mature, and then committing money to a star, even someone whose performance was as uncertain as Glaus.

That's what I'd have done too. Keep Shea for another year at 1B (why not) and Tracy at 3B. If you're not happy about your middle infield, sign Counsell for SS, move Cintron to 2B, and play Hairston in RF and Terrero in CF. Sign a versatily OF player or two for the three positions. Then trade RJ for the most young cheap talent you can get (starting pitching, really), maybe sign a stop gap here and there, and wait for the good talent from AA to come up. But that's not how they want to do it; they want to "reload" not "rebuild." That'll keep the team buried in mediocrity for a long time.

well, 6-4-3, in point 36 I stated that

A.) Sexson was a bigger risk than Glaus

B.) People were not being objective in their evaluation of the Glaus signing because of the D Backs other mistakes.

You have done nothing to prove me wrong about point A, and have proved me completely correct about point B. (at least in your case, obviously you don't speak for all posters)

Funny how when you are proven wrong about one of the few FACTS you actually try to argue, (the origin of Glaus's injury) you are completely silent on that point.

As far as Marketing, you clearly have no understanding of demographics, and how they shape and affect the FUTURE.

You cited a study saying Arizona was small market. It turns out the study was out of date, and Arizona had already moved into the "mid market" range, albeit at the lower end of that range. Does it occur to you that with most likely over 20% population growth over the next 10 years, they will probably move up to at least the middle or upper portion of mid market?

Probably not. You are too busy mocking because they happen to pass up Denver, Miami and Cleveland.

You claim not to be biased, yet thats all you show. Nothing concrete here from you at all to show me why Sexson is less of a Risk than Glaus, other than to say that Seattle has a bigger market, and therefore can afford the risk more.

What a disapointment you turned out to be. I really expected more.