O's land Danys Baez

by zknower on Nov 26, 2006 10:28 PM EST in News & Rumors

It's off the record, and pending a physical, of course.

The Orioles have struck out to this point in adding a slugger to the middle of their lineup, but they are having no such problems in overhauling their bullpen. According to club sources, the Orioles have agreed in principal to a three-year deal with Atlanta Braves free-agent reliever Danys Baez, who will join recent acquisition Jamie Walker as one of Chris Ray's primary set-up men.

Baez's deal hinges on the right-hander passing a physical, which could happen as early as Monday. Though exact terms of the deal aren't known, it is believed the Orioles will pay between $5 million and $6 million per season for the 29-year-old pitcher, who has 111 saves in six big league seasons.

Reached Sunday night, Orioles vice president Jim Duquette acknowledged that the club had made an offer to Greg Genske, Baez's agent, but wouldn't confirm that a deal had been finalized.

Baez, 5-6 last year with nine saves and a 4.53 ERA while pitching for the Braves and the Los Angeles Dodgers, was reportedly seeking an opportunity to be a closer, a role he held with the Cleveland Indians in 2003 and with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in 2004 and 2005.

UPDATE, Monday 6:50pm: It's official. Baez passed his physical this afternoon, and signed for 3 years, $19M. He's also saying all the right things:

"No. 1, I wanted to play for a team in the American League," Baez said Monday at Camden Yards. "I also wanted to be back on the East Coast. And they gave me a very good deal."

The 29-year-old Baez received $4 million last season.

Baez was an All-Star with the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in 2005, when he had 41 saves and a 2.86 ERA. Baez will be a setup man with the Orioles, who are committed to Chris Ray as their stopper.

"I want to be a closer, no question," Baez said. "But I'm very happy to be here. You go to a team, you never know what's going to happen. I just want to help them win."

....Baez certainly has the experience to pitch the ninth inning, but knows Ray does, too. Ray had 33 saves in 38 opportunities in 2006, his first full season as a closer.

"Chris Ray did a great job here and deserves to be a closer," Baez said.

Tweet Comment 75 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I guess the bullpen is a priority

Glad to see the FO is looking fix our rancid bullpen. I think Baez is getting overpaid, but it's Petey's money not mine...so it's fine with me.

www.oriolecentral.blogspot.com

by tonytarasco on Nov 26, 2006 10:39 PM EST reply actions

Not to bad of a move

If he goes back to 2005 numbers. Might be a great set-up man

All of the Mets' road wins against Los Angeles this year have been at Dodger Stadium. Ralph Kiner

by merdon1332000 on Nov 26, 2006 10:42 PM EST reply actions

overpaid

but this could be a good move. baez has been good in the past.

by exitfare on Nov 26, 2006 10:54 PM EST reply actions

I don't understand...

...why this guy is getting such a lucrative deal considering the sort of season he had this year. I know the O's want to appear as though they're doing something after being shut out of the Big Bat Outfielder Sweepstakes, but this is a little ridiculous. I know Walker was overpriced, but at least he brought a record of consistent quality, unlike this signing. Oh well, it's not my money. I just hope this guy gets back to doing what he used to.

by Jonnypops on Nov 26, 2006 10:57 PM EST reply actions

re:

It's not that lucrative.

"I don't want any credit. I'm not looking for credit. You know what? I don't want any blame if we're horse shit, either." -- Jim Leyland

by Scott Christ on Nov 26, 2006 11:31 PM EST up reply actions

$5-$6 Million per year...

...for a set-up man? That's lucrative.

by Jonnypops on Nov 26, 2006 11:37 PM EST up reply actions

Baez

$5-$6 Million per year for a set-up man? That's lucrative.

Yeah, no joke. Doesn't this deal make Baez the highest paid set up man in baseball? In any case, that's way too much money for Baez. Happy to have him though.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 12:09 AM EST up reply actions

re:

Right and if Chris Ray Gregg Olsons, Baez will close. $5-6 million for a guy who can close isn't that awful. And seriously, welcome to the 2006-07 market, where Jamie "One Batter" Walker is making 4 million bones a year and Carlos Lee is a 100 million dollar man. Not every deal can be ridiculous, at some point you have to compare them to what else is happening. This is around what I expected Baez to get at this point.

"I don't want any credit. I'm not looking for credit. You know what? I don't want any blame if we're horse shit, either." -- Jim Leyland

by Scott Christ on Nov 27, 2006 12:41 AM EST up reply actions

If...

...he hadn't bombed out last year with a Todd Williams-calibre season, what you're saying might seem reasonable. As I stated originally, Walker is overpriced, but consistently good over the past several seasons. Same can be said about Lee & Soriano.

But on the other hand, the same cannot be said about Pierre or Matthews. This doesn't make these deals any less ridiculous. Anyhow, we got a setup guy. It's a step in the right direction...albeit another overpriced one. It's just becoming so expensive to make any sort of move in baseball, whatsoever.

by Jonnypops on Nov 27, 2006 12:51 AM EST up reply actions

well, yes

And I agree completely with the last statement, which is why we might even be lucky to have signed Walker and Baez to the deals they have, because with Andruw Jones ready to embark on a $20 million/season campaign next year (and barring injury or something, he will get it), it doesn't look like this mess is going to slow down soon.

Baez's 2006 was pretty crappy, but he has been quite good in the past. I do remember when he was starting for Cleveland how many pitches he used to throw, but he won't start so that doesn't really matter. I just remember a game between the Indians and Tigers, and it was snowing and Baez threw roughly 605 pitches through four innings or something like that.

But Baez has pitched in the AL before and done well, so I like the deal. For now. Of course if he sucks, I'm going to be the first guy talking about how bad the contract is. I did the same with Mora. I'm very easily influenced by actual performance!

And for as much as I think the market should dictate opinion (to some degree, anyway), no, there is no defending the Gary Matthews contract. That "wow"ed me more than when A-Rod signed with Texas.

"I don't want any credit. I'm not looking for credit. You know what? I don't want any blame if we're horse shit, either." -- Jim Leyland

by Scott Christ on Nov 27, 2006 1:17 AM EST up reply actions

Baez

"$5-6 million for a guy who can close isn't that awful. And seriously, welcome to the 2006-07 market,"

I can move past the craziness of giving a set up man 5 to 6 million dollars, but as Johnny just pointed out, 5 to 6 million per year to Baez? If the O's gave Speier that money, fine, it's still too much but the market is crazy and thus it's just biz as usual in 2006. But Speier has been rock solid the last three seasons while Baez was kind of shaky last year. Scot Shields or Juan Rincon are two relievers I could see deserving a $5 or $6 million per year salary but it's a little ridiculous for Baez. I mean is the market now just going to reward the best player available on the market best player overall money? And what if Rincon was a free agent this offseason. What the hell would he receive? 3/7?

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 1:34 AM EST up reply actions

But

Look at the team he was on.

Did he do all that bad or was the team to blame as well for those numbers? Seems he's been OK over his career, if repeats the past look for 2 good season and a bad one after

by sweetbat on Nov 27, 2006 2:54 AM EST up reply actions

Baez

"Did he do all that bad or was the team to blame as well for those numbers?"

Huh? He pitched in the NL where AL players typically better once making the switch. I have zero clue what AMA is barking about.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 12:50 PM EST up reply actions

What the shit

I'm merely affirming the Scottsman's comment that y'all need to recognize that this is a market, and a player is worth what teams decide to pay him. It's impossible for every player to be overpaid, and that is a tired ass line of thinking and boring to read. That's what I'm "barking" about.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 27, 2006 6:47 PM EST up reply actions

Actually

"I'm merely affirming the Scottsman's comment that y'all need to recognize that this is a market, and a player is worth what teams decide to pay him. It's impossible for every player to be overpaid, and that is a tired ass line of thinking and boring to read. That's what I'm "barking" about."

Market value is determined by buyers, no arguments there. But typically, and I believe baseball FA isn't an exception, there's variation in product quality and a pay scale attached to that variation. Thus, to use beer as an example, Guinness is typically perceived as a superior beer thus it extracts a high cost than say Pabst Blue Ribbon. The same prihciple works with baseball players, good players are paid more. In the case of Baez, he's an average reliever as deemed by various statistical indicators but he's the second highest paid reliever (Kyle Farnsworth believe or not is the highest paid set up in baseball). Thus there is currently a mismatch between quality and price paid (thus to go back to the beer example, it's like paying 7 bucks for a six back of Pabst, yikes!). Now, of course, the market will adjust, so eventually this mismatch will eventually rectify itself as other free agents relievers hit the market in future years. To use the beer example again, if people start paying 7 bucks for Pabst w/o protest, then other beers will adjust their price in relation to Pabst. But this hasn't happened, thus you have an average beer, oops I mean reliever, that priced like it's top shelf quality. Sorry to be longwinded but Baez is overpaid. Your "recognize that this is a market, and a player is worth what teams decide to pay him," assessment is correct but simplistic.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 7:09 PM EST up reply actions

Kyle Farnsworth

did not sign his contract this year. Unlike the beer market, the free agent market fluctuates significantly from year to year. (Nor does beer have the option to choose to whom it is sold.) I mean, Vlad Guerrero and Tejada make signifiantly less than Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano despite being superior players. Were they available in the current market, which is the only fair market for comparison, they'd make a lot more money. It's not fair to compare Baez to Farnsworth; it's fair to compare him to relievers signed in the current market, like Jamie Walker or Justin Speier, as Scott did. Is Baez worth more than Walker? Probably. Is he worth more than Speier? Probably not. In that sense he is slightly overpaid.

Virtually every player signed this offseason has been called overpaid, and that just can't be true. Evidently with the new CBA, teams are awash in cash to spend on free agents, and that will determine the current baseline for overpaid and underpaid. Basically I'm tired of reading the same comments on every site after every single free agent signing. It's almost as if people expect every non-superstar player to sign for $5 million a year.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 27, 2006 7:59 PM EST up reply actions

market

"It's not fair to compare Baez to Farnsworth; it's fair to compare him to relievers signed in the current market, like Jamie Walker or Justin Speier, as Scott did. Is Baez worth more than Walker? Probably. Is he worth more than Speier? Probably not. In that sense he is slightly overpaid."

I agree that time is an important factor in making comparisons. For example, it doesn't make sense to compare Baez's salary to a reliever back in the 1980s to determine what's fair. But to only compare players signed with the same year to determine "fair" pay is a too restrictive. Assuming there isn't a recession, then five to seven years sound about fair. Actually, I'm not an economist but I believe the consumer price index is usually a good measure to compare dollar strength over time. So the CPI might be a better way to compare which time frames are comparables. Anyways, back to my point, to compare today's salary against salaries right after 9/11 isn't fair but the market today is returning to what it was right before 9/11. And even then 5 to 6 million dollar annual salaries for relievers were extremely rare. Steve Karsay is the only reliever that I can think of that signed a 5 million per year salary and he was coming off a much better season than Baez.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 10:30 PM EST up reply actions

If

you want to totally ignore that they just signed a new CBA and everybody on the planet has literally said "baseball is awash in money," and clearly you do want to ignore that, then ok. Compare him to whomever you want, but it will still be wrong and unfair.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 28, 2006 6:29 AM EST up reply actions

it'd be nice

since baseball is awash in money, it'd be nice if they, ya know, lowered ticket prices or concession prices. or froze them for a few years. why not pass some of that money along to the consumer/fans instead of giving it all to the players?

baseball, in the end, will not exist without its fans. if the economics of player salaries never have any kind of regulation, then cities with higher cost of living indices will always have higher payrolls, and thus will always get the better players.

ie, in new york city, the average apartment rents for $1600/month and the overall cost of living is 264% above the national average. to encourage people to live here, salaries must be commensurately higher. compare this to kansas city, where the cost of living is 21% below the national average, and the average apartment rents for $425 per month. salaries are obviously going to be lower.

running a baseball team in new york will cost slightly more than in kansas city (lease rates are probably a little higher for the stadiums, and staff/personnel payroll costs will be higher as well). but not so much so that you'd see gross discrepancies from city to city. the real differences in payroll come from player salaries.

who can afford the higher payrolls? the teams that can charge higher ticket and concession prices. those are the teams with the fans earning more money (and also those teams with larger fan bases which garner higher TV revenues...again, this will happen in more populated cities, which tend to have higher COL indices). the team executive in new york who sets a low price of $25 for a seat would kill his sales if he tried to do the same thing in kansas city.

so how can a team owner in KC reasonably be expected to compete? since he's "awash in money" i guess you're saying he should just spend that money on player salaries, but at the end of the day that will leave small market teams turning a much smaller profit or even taking a loss.

there is no end in sight to the best players in baseball migrating towards the wealthiest cities. there's also no end in sight to spiralling ticket prices.

in 2001,

Baseball's average ticket price has more than doubled in a decade, increasing 120 percent from 1991, when it was $8.64. In the same time period, the Consumer Price Index has increased 30.4 percent, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

The average salary of players, $851,492 in 1991, has more than doubled in the same time period and is expected to be more than $2.2 million when the season opens...

Five years later, in 2006, the average baseball salary was nearly $2.9M. The growth has obviously been slowed a bit by the payroll tax, but it is still way ahead of the CPI.

in the end, it's going to be bad for the game. eventually small markets will be forced to raise prices to compete for players, or have fans lose interest leading to these franchises' disapperance. and maybe a little contraction would be a good thing overall, but it would be a shame to have no more baseball in smaller-town america.

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 28, 2006 1:56 PM EST up reply actions

spending

"The growth has obviously been slowed a bit by the payroll tax, but it is still way ahead of the CPI."

Hmm... that's interesting, so basically the economic growth in baseball is far outpacing normal consumer spending growth. But I guess it isn't suprising given that the examined time frame cover the Camden Yardish remaking of the game. By that I mean team were increasingly creating new stadiums with emphasis on expensive box seats thus jacking up ticket prices while making the games less assessable to poor people.

"in the end, it's going to be bad for the game. eventually small markets will be forced to raise prices to compete for players, or have fans lose interest leading to these franchises' disapperance. and maybe a little contraction would be a good thing overall, but it would be a shame to have no more baseball in smaller-town america."

I don't know if contract is necessary but I really do like the revenue sharing program. Teams like KC and the Reds received huge chunks of money from the richer teams. Whether or not this money is put back into payroll is another question.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 28, 2006 2:13 PM EST up reply actions

What

I don't know what the fuck all that has to do with what I was saying to birdman, which is that he can't just refuse to acknowledge that it's only fair to compare players signed in this market to...players signed in this market. I didn't say dick about Kansas City or the price of apartments in New York.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 28, 2006 6:08 PM EST up reply actions

AMA

"which is that he can't just refuse to acknowledge that it's only fair to compare players signed in this market to...players signed in this market."

what i've been saying is that it makes sense to compare players signed during economic comparable times for the billionth time. Both 2000 and 2006 seem like comparable economic wealth because time periods are enormously weathy periods. But I say this with a caveat because I would like to some measures between now and 2006 which prove these are comparable economic times. Which measures? I don't know. I've suggested the CPI but I'm not even sure if that's a good measure.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 28, 2006 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

it was in response to

your remark that "baseball is awash in money" and your general point that players have a right to get that money. i was saying maybe some of it could go back to the fans.

or am i misunderstanding your general point?

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 29, 2006 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

I didn't say anything about the fans

not that I don't agree. My point only and always has been that this current free agent market is, for a variety of clear reasons, very different than even the past few years. Thus it's not fair to compare a contract signed this year to one signed even last year.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

I'm with you on that

not only because every year is different--ie, one year there may be an early splashy signing, another year there isn't; one year has a lot of FAs, another year doesn't--but also because, in baseball years, 2000 is a looong time ago.

salaries have inflated plenty since then. a $6M salary in 2000 would be comparable to a $9M or $10M salary now, if not more. in 2000 when a-rod signed his gargantuan deal, everyone thought the rangers were nuts. other owners were downright pissed off about it.

now, long-term mega contracts barely raise an eyebrow (see soriano, bj ryan, pavano, etc)

i'd have to agree that despite the notion that both years were "rich" years for baseball, the contracts coming out of those years are not really comparable.

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 29, 2006 9:32 PM EST up reply actions

scratch the pavano example

it was only four years. i'd say a four-year contract is still on the edge of reasonable, for a pitcher. but given how pitchers break down, i think 5 for ryan is risky. and 8 for soriano is a bit ludicrous.

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 29, 2006 9:34 PM EST up reply actions

money

"If you want to totally ignore that they just signed a new CBA and everybody on the planet has literally said "baseball is awash in money," and clearly you do want to ignore that, then ok."

The game was awash in money in late 1990s, 2000 but middle relievers weren't signing $6 million per contracts then. Besides, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying that you need to compares times that are comparable... I'm not sure which indicators is best shows which time frames are comparable though. In any case, like I've said before, Baez is the second highest paid reliever but I doubt he's the second best reliever among all middle reliever beyond arbitration years. Eventually (and assuming continued economic growth) other reliever will hit the market (Rincon for example is nearing FA) and his contract will fall in line with his value. But that hasn't happened yet thus he's overpaid when comparing his performance value versus his pay.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 28, 2006 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

Jesus

Have you read an article about baseball this offseason? Nearly every one mentions that the combination of massive profits for most teams and the security of the new CBA are resulting in a drastic rise in free agent salaries. And even if you haven't noticed these articles, maybe you've noticed that every single motherfucken free agent signs for more than you'd have expected as recently as last season.

For the millionth fucking time, Baez is only overpaid if you believe you could have gotten someone BETTER for less NOW. (And you could have.) He is NOT overpaid because whoever the fuck signed for less three years ago. In other words, the Orioles DID NOT HAVE THE OPTION to go out and sign, say, Arthur Rhodes of 2001. Thus comparing Baez to the contract of any reliever signed BEFORE THIS OFFSEASON, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FOR A NUMBER OF CLEAR AND CONCISE REASONS, is not accurate and a waste of time. Otherwise, you are just being willfully ignorant. Surprise.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 28, 2006 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

AMA

"Have you read an article about baseball this offseason? Nearly every one mentions that the combination of massive profits for most teams and the security of the new CBA are resulting in a drastic rise in free agent salaries."

AMA, first of all, I have said a billion times now that 2000, late 1990s was a period that was enormously rich for baseball. I'm guessing just as rich as now. Unless I see evidence otherwise (and I've already suggested measures to compare economic eras like the CPI although I'll admit I don't of a good sure fire economic measure). And second, thanks for the juvenile starky comment. Seriously man your understanding of economics is completely sophomoric sort of like your understanding of aesthetics. I'm not going to continually repeat my arguments when I have already responded to your arguments and countered with my own points. Either engage my arguments or shut the fuck up.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 28, 2006 10:06 PM EST up reply actions

Amen to that....

...particularly those last four words directed at AMA.

by Jonnypops on Nov 28, 2006 10:58 PM EST up reply actions

Your own points

totally ignore the reality that the MARKET HAS FUCKING CHANGED. You have not responded to this reality. If you want to compare the economic reality of the REAL WORLD from now to 2006, then I won't argue with you. But as far as baseball is concerned, everyone involved in the game is saying the market has changed as a result of the fucking new CBA. Now call me crazy but I think that sounds logical, and when I read, you know, experts and professionals involved in the market saying that, I tend to believe that over the half-assed opinions of douchebag Orioles fans who thought Daniel Cabrera was going to the Hall Fame.

"Everyone says we need more power, more speed, in the outfield, but no one has any names," White Sox general manager Ken Williams said Monday. "Give me someone who's not asking for a billion dollars."

..."Everybody knows how I feel about Joe Crede," Williams said. "I wish I could have him on the club the next five years. But I do not anticipate any long-term deal there. I don't see that happening under the current landscape."

Will you or will you not AT THE VERY FUCKING LEAST acknowledge that here is the major league GM, and not just any major league GM but an experienced one in a major market, saying the fucking salary landscape is significantly different this year compared to recent years? It's right in your face. I don't give a shit if you think Danys Baez is overpaid, because as I said, I THINK HE IS TOO, but it's not because of fucken Kyle Farnsworth's contract or anybody else's.

EVERYONE IS ASKING FOR A LOT OF MONEY, YOU ILLITERATE RETARD.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 6:29 AM EST up reply actions

Looks like...

...AMA is off his meds, again.

by Jonnypops on Nov 29, 2006 7:00 AM EST up reply actions

the miseducation of AMA

"totally ignore the reality that the MARKET HAS FUCKING CHANGED. "

Jesus, man, all I wanted was evidence. I'm sorry but media reports won't cut for me especially when it comes to economic reports. And note I am not contesting that baseball is awash in cash today. I will fully concede that the game is enormously rich today as your helpful newspaper clippings point out. My point has always been that you would heard the same discourse (and AMA do you understand this point because if you don't, like the movie Philadelphia, I can try to explain to you like a five year old) in 2000 right before the recesssion hit after 9/11. Thus both periods were enormously wealthy times for baseball. Again, AMA please reread that last setence. Which is more wealthy, well I don't know but your clipping don't prove that. They just show that baseball is great shape today. Thus both periods seems at least somewhat comparable economic wise, and given that, I don't remember middle relievers receiving 6 million per year even then. Seriously, man, if you want actually want to respond to my point, I would love to see an attempt. Frankly, I don't know your educational background but unless you have an advanced (or least a BA) in economics, I'm a little leary of you tackling such an issue. And I don't mean in this in a snarky way because I'm not well versed in economics in terms of its measures, how they're calculated, etc except for the very basic measures like CPI or GDP. But like said before, I want to actual evidence or else you leave yourself open to the fallacy of the received word as you have done (i.e. just accepting received wisdom w/o empirical investigation)

btw, there was this interesting report on NPR the other day about road rage. Basically this dude put up a website where you could report reckless drivers. A psych professor was the guest speaker and he basically said such websites are immature becauses it belies inability to let go of the past. AMA has been desparately trying to anything I say is wrong (well, I shouldn't just say it's me but he does have a particular fondness for me as shown above) for I don't know how long now. Like the road rage people, AMA I say let it go.

your friend, birdman

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 29, 2006 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

oh yeah

"Will you or will you not AT THE VERY FUCKING LEAST acknowledge that here is the major league GM, and not just any major league GM but an experienced one in a major market, saying the fucking salary landscape is significantly different this year compared to recent years?"

I will completely acknowledge this. After 2001, baseball along with the rest of country hit a depression. Thus the baseball landscape in 2006 is more richer than say 2002. But like I've said before, this has NOTHING to do with my point.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 29, 2006 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

evidence

"Thus comparing Baez to the contract of any reliever signed BEFORE THIS OFFSEASON, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FOR A NUMBER OF CLEAR AND CONCISE REASONS, is not accurate and a waste of time."

Just to be clear, all I'm trying to say is that I want to see evidence (e.g. CPI, team profit margins, I don't know but something). That's all. As far as I can tell, the offseason where Mike Hampton, Todd Helton, Denny Neagle, Manny Ramirez and, of course, A-Rod seemed like pretty damn prosperous time for baseball. I'm guessing just as prosoperous as now although but again I'm GUESSING. If I see good evidence otherwise then I'll be happy to change my mind. Or if you can't produce evidence, I'll be happy to look at a original research that shows evidence that 2006 and 2000 are not comparable time. Got it Mr. Awesome?

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 28, 2006 11:17 PM EST up reply actions

What the fuck

more evidence do you need? A new CBA, infinite quotes from baseball writers and executives, and, hello, THE FUCKING CONTRACTS BEING SIGNED. Open your eyes. Then keep jizzing about signing Jamie fucken Walker.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 6:31 AM EST up reply actions

Re:

Jim Salisbury of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 12

Baseball is a business, and you don't need an MBA to know its business is good.

The sport set an attendance record for the third straight year in 2006, pulling in over 76 million paid admissions. All this helped revenues top $5.2 billion. That number got the attention of those two old warring factions, the players and the owners. Neither side wanted to risk boiling the golden goose and a new labor deal was harmoniously forged two months before the old one expired.

A byproduct of this era of wealth will begin revealing itself this week as another free-agent season opens to the sound of ringing cash registers. The industry is awash in money (with revenue-sharing giving everyone a piece of the action) and owners are ready to spend, even if there's not enough talent to go around.

And from the Boston Globe:

With the industry awash in money -- Major League Baseball announced it expects a record $5.2 billion in revenues in 2006 and has struck new TV deals with Fox, ESPN, and TBS -- and labor peace maintained with an accord this week on a new collective bargaining agreement, the Sox said they made a conscious effort to hold the line on ticket prices.

RECORD PROFITS? NEW TV DEALS? LABOR PEACE? No, you're right, the market isn't significantly different.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 6:38 AM EST up reply actions

OMG

The Northwest (Chicago) Herald:

Record economic success helped produce an agreement with no public rancor. Commissioner Bud Selig said last week that he estimated the sport will produce $5.2 billion in revenue this year, up from about $3.6 billion in 2001.

The San Francisco Chronicle:

All signs continue to point to an expensive offseason, and here are three examples:

-- The labor agreement that was reached nearly two months before the deadline, proving too much money was available for owners and players to consider an industry shutdown. No reason to open your umbrella when $5.2 billion in revenue is dropping from the sky.

The free-agent market is decent, not great, but teams have money to burn so it'll be lucrative. The general manager meetings were last week, and usually that's a seed-planting exhibition for the December winter meetings and beyond. But teams seemed willing to spend earlier and further, and that will equate to a robust winter for free agents.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 8:00 AM EST up reply actions

And just to be clear again

Baseball is experiencing an enormously wealthy time. AMA, you and I have NO disagreements there.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 29, 2006 12:42 PM EST up reply actions

Holy shit

If you can agree that baseball is experiencing an enormously wealthy time, how can you deny the simple FACT that this is being reflected in salaries? Especially when it's being reported by every sports media outlet on the planet? You dismiss media reports because they disagree with you and because they're coming from me. Mike Flanagan himself was on XM this morning talking about how they are paying more for relievers this year than they would in the past because of the new market. What more could you possibly want as proof that the free agen market has significantly changed? The proof is right in front of your face. Nobody has brought up any complex fucking economics. TEAMS ARE PAYING MORE FOR PLAYERS. Admit this and move the fuck on. PERIOD.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

please understand my point

"If you can agree that baseball is experiencing an enormously wealthy time, how can you deny the simple FACT that this is being reflected in salaries? Especially when it's being reported by every sports media outlet on the planet? "

AMA, the exact same media was reporting that the game enormously wealthy in 2000. I've said this point 400 times now. Both 2006 and 2000 were enormously wealthy times. GET IT?!

"You dismiss media reports because they disagree with you and because they're coming from me. "

I'm not dismissing media reports. I've said I believe media reports that say that the game is awash in cash. They said the same thing in 2000. Make that 401 times now that I've made this point.

"What more could you possibly want as proof that the free agen market has significantly changed? "

Both 2000 and 2006 are enormously rich times for baseball (make that 402 times). Which era is richer? I don't know. They seem comparable though.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 29, 2006 1:00 PM EST up reply actions

I don't care which era is richer

nor have I ever argued that point. All I have ever said is that this year's market is very different from recent years, and thus it is unfair to compare Danys Baez's contract to a comparable set up reliever signed in the last few years. And even then, it's not fair to compare a contract signed this year to 2000, because in 2000 there were a lot more truly high-end players available, and that skews the whole market. That's it. Plain and simple.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 29, 2006 1:03 PM EST up reply actions

now we're actually talking

"All I have ever said is that this year's market is very different from recent years, and thus it is unfair to compare Danys Baez's contract to a comparable set up reliever signed in the last few years."

So basically you've been talking past me the ENTIRE time since I have referenced the year 2000 a billion times now. Thanks man.

"And even then, it's not fair to compare a contract signed this year to 2000, because in 2000 there were a lot more truly high-end players available, and that skews the whole market. "

Thanks for understanding my point. Now the convseration can actually move on. It would be nice to list of free agent middle relievers in 2000. I suspect there isn't "more truly highly end players" available in terms of relievers in 2000. And since you don't want to comment if 2000 is coparable time to 2006 (which is completely fine), my argument has always been that it is a comparable time. And given that (possibly unsafe) assumption, middle relievers were not receiving 6 million dollar contracts even then. Thus Baez is overpaid. But as I've said before, the market will correct itself as other FA middle reliever hit the market in coming years and receive more money than Baez (e.g. Rincon for example).

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 29, 2006 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

re:

Now, of course, the market will adjust, so eventually this mismatch will eventually rectify itself as other free agents relievers hit the market in future years. To use the beer example again, if people start paying 7 bucks for Pabst w/o protest, then other beers will adjust their price in relation to Pabst.

Yeah, the market will adjust; upwards. Always upwards with nothing tying it to any scale of "normalcy".

If beer doubled in price every year, eventually brewers would price themselves out of the beer drinkers' (consumers) market. So beer goes up a certain amount, but then it stays there, raising incrementally wiht the cost of living and inflation (except in airports and ballparks, where there's a tarif on it).

But in baseball, salaries escalate and escalate, and owners don't worry that they are making it impossible for the consumers (workaday fans) to attend the games regularly. As long as they can get TV revenues (which are increased by having "big name" players), they will make a profit.

A true "market" corrects itself only when there is a good supply of product. In the case of beer, the world is not going to ever run out of it, so market forces push the price up and down.

But ballplayers are a very limited commodity: they are more similar to energy sources such as oil or natural gas than they are to beer. So the prices for ballplayers will only rise; in some years they will spike, in other years it will be gradual; but they will always rise.

The only way around this would be to have a larger supply of ballplayers. It's why a team like Oakland, that is better at evaluating new talent, can compete. Because Oakland can always sign a huge amount of younger guys and have a majority of them pan out. you can argue that any team can do that, but in reality evaluating prospects is an imperfect science at best.

Of course the other way around the ever escalating salaries would be a cap: much as the government can choose to cap energy prices, MLB could choose to cap team salaries. While individual players could still make $20M a season (a grotesque number, by all accounts, I don't agree with anyone making that much money to do anything except maybe save the world), teams could not constantly hand out that amount to every player. This would bring some restraint back into spending, and make a more level playing field for all involved.

Before we start another salary cap flame war, NO: I AM NOT SAYING THIS WOULD FIX EVERYTHING. Teams with weak front offices would still suck. But at least those weak front offices would be exposed and presumably eradicated. If every team is playing with the same number of marbles, a bad GM can no longer blame the payroll structure for his crappy decisions. Which is what happens right now.

Sorry this little rant isn't better written, but I'm mundo jet-lagged right now.

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 27, 2006 8:21 PM EST up reply actions

Re:

While individual players could still make $20M a season (a grotesque number, by all accounts, I don't agree with anyone making that much money to do anything...

I don't think a salary cap will improve competitive balance, though I do agree that it will (in theory) allow more teams to compete for high-end players. (Only if the bottom-feeding teams are forced to abide by a salary floor as well.) But I do think it is inherently unfair to the players, who would be forced to be paid in an artificial market. Now, of course even the major league minimum is a shitload of money, but like Barry Bonds said, it's not his fault I can't play baseball. How can we fairly say that all great ballplayers shouldn't get their fair market value when the owners rake in money hand over fist? Or when Tom Cruise gets a zillion dollars for a job less physically-demanding and with a much longer shelf-life? I can't see the union ever going for a salary cap, nor do I think they should. The analogy to natural resources is not quite accurate because, like beer, natural resources can't choose to whom they are sold, and ballplayers aren't sold to the everyday public, they are employed by rich ass motherfers. They're more comparable to big time lawyers or movie stars or whatever.

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 27, 2006 8:54 PM EST up reply actions

All good points

let me add:

yeah, it's unfair to players, but on the scale of "life's unfairness", this is pretty low; any salary cap they agreed to would still allow enormously high salaries
i think the idea of a "salary floor" in an excellent one; this would effectively raise the minimum salary, which would be to players' benefit;
i don't particularly think tom cruise, or various lawyers or CEOs or anyone, really, deserves $20M a year. i really don't think ANYONE is so valuable to any company, entity, studio, whatever, that they're worth $20M a year. i'd probably feel better about it if the contry wasn't in the joh on so many levels. it's hard to see cruise getting enough money for one movie to feed an entire city for five years...but whatever, we're not socialists, i get it. it's jsut that once you get into the several-millions category, you're talking about more money than a person knows what to do with (other than buy a gold shower curtain for $700 à la Jeffrey Skilling); that doesn't mean these people won't get that kinda dough, ballplayers included; i just don't really feel they deserve it
i don't absolve the owners in any of this mess either. it's high time their antitrust exemption was revoked and that they became more accountable to the cities they take tax breaks from

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 27, 2006 9:58 PM EST up reply actions

money

"But I do think it is inherently unfair to the players, who would be forced to be paid in an artificial market."

"yeah, it's unfair to players, but on the scale of "life's unfairness", this is pretty low; any salary cap they agreed to would still allow enormously high salaries."

I don't know about this unfairness stuff... we all work and live in market conditions in which the government intervenes, sometimes in beneficial ways or harmful ways depending on your tax bracket. Just because ball players have to deal with it too doesn't draw any sympathy from me. I don't know, I guess this argument comes to whether you're a free market or Keynesian type of person.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 10:57 PM EST up reply actions

money

"Yeah, the market will adjust; upwards. Always upwards with nothing tying it to any scale of "normalcy"."

Not always, baseball like all businesses are susceptible to recessions. In winter of 2000, Tom Hicks thought $25 million per year would eventually become the normal payscale for top shelf players. And my beer example is just to illustrate that prices are usually attached to perceived quality. In the case of Baez, he's the second highest paid set up reliever but I don't think he's the second best reliever. Obviously the beer market and FA market aren't comparable in many ways. For example, beers don't have go through arbitration... although it would kind of cool if they did.

"But ballplayers are a very limited commodity: they are more similar to energy sources such as oil or natural gas than they are to beer. So the prices for ballplayers will only rise; in some years they will spike, in other years it will be gradual; but they will always rise."

Baseball salaries are no doubt more volatile. As far as a cap goes to fix this... I really don't have a clue. I haven't thought about it. Although I will say that I think inequality between market sizes (e.g. NY versus KC) tends to drive salaries upwards more so than the imperfect balance between supply and demand.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 27, 2006 10:47 PM EST up reply actions

The Market

There's an assumption being made in some of these arguments that a free market is actually at play in regards to baseball free agent signings, and this is far from the case. Baseball is made of teams spanning regional markets with vast differences in the sizes of their respective populations. It is very difficult and often impossible to introduce a team into a region which might cut into another team's market, as we saw with Washington not getting a team for years, with the Orioles blocking any moves...and as we've seen in NYC since the introduction of The Mets, despite the fact that NYC can easily support one or two more teams with it's immense size. So as is usually the case with supposedly "free markets" the fix is in, and it's very difficult to change.

I think there is a step that MLB could take to be limit these disparities though. It's not a salary cap as that is unfair to the players, they deserve what they can get. It more or less exists within the very setup of the game, but pushes the structure of teams, divisions, leagues etc into the electronic age. Here's my proposal:

The home team in any ballgame should be the sole holder of any and all rights for that game. They should have the sole right to sell advertising for the game wherever they can, both in their own home market and in the away market So when the Orioles play the Red Sox at Camden Yards, they handle the broadcasting and sell the advertising revenue in both Baltimore and New England. This would begin to approach some sort of equality in the amount of revenue various teams can take in. The larger market teams would still have an advantage in the amount of merchandise they could sell in their region. But overall this begins to address inequities which are being magnified exponentially with today's technology.

by Jonnypops on Nov 28, 2006 10:14 AM EST up reply actions

the market

"There's an assumption being made in some of these arguments that a free market is actually at play in regards to baseball free agent signings, and this is far from the case."

Johnny, you're completely right. If I come off as sounding that there is a free market for ALL baseball players, then there definitely isn't. Arbitration is hardly a free market system.

"So as is usually the case with supposedly "free markets" the fix is in, and it's very difficult to change."

I don't know if what you said before constitutes market intervention though. I agree that market sizes disparities create players with more power but players coming to the market with unequal power doesn't constitute market intervention.

And your solution sounds interesting but don't forget that MLB is already doing things to fix the inequity between baseball teams. The Yanks and RS, particularly the Yanks, have paid handsome sums in revenue sharing.

Big Bird says, "Get Pat the Bat!"

by birdman on Nov 28, 2006 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

Seriously

For God's sake

by Awesome Mike Awesome on Nov 27, 2006 6:16 AM EST up reply actions

oh fuckin' sweet, dude

$15-18 million for a guy who was slightly better than The Todd this season.

In all honesty, it could be a solid pickup.

"I don't want any credit. I'm not looking for credit. You know what? I don't want any blame if we're horse shit, either." -- Jim Leyland

by Scott Christ on Nov 26, 2006 11:31 PM EST reply actions

not only that...

...but Danny Boy was only slightly better than The Todd while pitching in the NL. Toddy had to pitch in the AL East against Papi and Giambi and shit.

Well, whatever. Pete can afford it.

by pipkin on Nov 27, 2006 12:21 AM EST up reply actions

Until last year

Baez pitched against Papi and Giambi too and he was pretty good.
It's a big contract, but if he makes our bullpen better I really don't care how much they pay him.

www.oriolecentral.blogspot.com

by tonytarasco on Nov 27, 2006 10:04 AM EST up reply actions

yeah

And I conveniently forgot that. He had a much better year ERA-wise in 05 (though that's kind of suspect, his WHIP was actually lower last year with his 4.5 ERA). I think he'll be good enough.

by pipkin on Nov 27, 2006 10:37 AM EST up reply actions

I didn't see...

the actual figures listed anywhere on here but the Orioles page on mlb.com has it listed as a 3 year, 19mil contract.

"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." Mike Royko.

by BPinOK on Nov 27, 2006 11:16 AM EST reply actions

Worth it?

Was it a good move to add Baez to our bullpen? Check out his player graph for his stats:

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=367&position=P&page=0&type=full

Highlights:

-He's 29.

-His ERA has been average or better every season of his career.

-His K/9 has been on a slow decline the last few years from 8 to 6.

-His BB/9 has been below average except in 03 and last year. However his high Ks give him an average K/BB.

-Happily for his future career in Camden Yards, his HR/9 has always been better than average and last year it was exceptional, the best of his career.

-He had a terrible LOB% last year. As this stat is often a measure of how (un)lucky a pitcher has been, perhaps Baez' 06 numbers were largely due to bad luck.

Overall, I like the deal. If we're not going to shell out huge bucks for one player, we have to spread it around among several decent players. Baez isn't Speier but he should be a reliable set-up man and would be ready to fill in for Ray if necessary. Before his signing, we couldn't say that of anyone else in the pen.

That said, failing to get Lee or Soriano has gotten me pretty bummed about next year. It's hard to get excited about a new season when all you've done is add a few marginally good players. I don't see the O's making any kind of impact move at this point.

by silverstadium on Nov 27, 2006 12:41 PM EST reply actions

good

I think it is good that the front office is showing that they will be active this offseason.

by westcoastOfan on Nov 27, 2006 1:02 PM EST reply actions

how????

do i get a cool pic in my post.

by westcoastOfan on Nov 27, 2006 1:05 PM EST reply actions

re:

put this line in your signature:

replace the brackets above with a URL.

(The height parameter is to keep its appearance reasonable in case it's a big pic.)

for example, I can type Floyd Rayford into Google images, and I find the following:

http://www.barstoolsports.com/_images/articles/2006/03/22/floyd_rayford.jpg

if I put that address in the code above as follows:

I get this:

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 27, 2006 4:01 PM EST up reply actions

It's hard to get excited...

Right back at ya.

I still think, or hope, that the current thinking is to stockpile some arms (average is good enough) and hope some of them work out well for a July trade. The O's are NOT going to make a splash in the big bat sweepstakes, so this strategy makes some sense. It won't mean much for 2007, which is shaping up to be year 10 of Angelosing.

So what do they have? A starting rotation of Bedard, Benson, Cabrera, Wright, Loewen(?) or Lopez. Ehh.

A bullpen with Ray, Walker, Baez, Rleal, Birkins. Hoey and Penn are lurking around and in need of more seasoning. Penn should be weaned in via the bullpen this year, and Hoey in the minors. Liz is further out. Lopez bugs the crap out of us, but I mention him because I could see him starting the season in the pen.

Somebody will be traded for a young bat. Right?

by drj on Nov 27, 2006 1:17 PM EST reply actions

based on 2nd half...

that's a pretty solid starting rotation. is hawkins an fa?

parrish is a possibility for the penn...how about rakers? noticed they let byrdak walk (nice story, but meh...same w/ todd williams, as far as i'm concerned).

by jq higgins on Nov 27, 2006 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

hawkins is a FA

and parrish and rakers will both be in the pen. parrish was just re-signed.

Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun
But mama, that's where the fun is...

by zknower on Nov 27, 2006 4:37 PM EST up reply actions

re:

Seems to me it's an iffy rotation. It's loaded with #4 starters. Hopefully Bedard will continue his emergence. Benson should be solidly average. Wright perhaps the same or worse. Cabrera and Loewen are unproven, and it is reasonable to assume they will not be the aces we'd like.

by drj on Nov 27, 2006 7:13 PM EST up reply actions

So screw it....

...let's surprise everybody (including Angelos) and go after Schmidt. We have the bullpen to back him up now and we sure as hell have the cash to land him. If we get him, we can trade away some arms for a young bat, perhaps Duncan's. If we sign Floyd as a rental, all of a sudden we might have a decent team.

by Jonnypops on Nov 27, 2006 7:31 PM EST up reply actions

re:

I'm with you. I'm not against the idea of stocking up on pitching. If Mazzone can help polish them up, they become attractive trade possibilities. Mazzone does have something to prove now (other than perhaps that Ray Miller must have been a freakin' genius).

I'd continue on and say deal with the Angels (those rumors are starting again) and get some combination of Santana/Wood/Ayabar/Adenhart (what is the deal with Kotchman?). Hell if Loewen of Cabrera pan out, maybe then the O's could go back to an Earl Weaver four man rotation and open up the bench for more possibilities. Just dreaming, but it brings back memories of a Weaver strategy.

As a side note, one of the reasons I hate the Manny talk is that it just doesn't do anything but swap a bat (probably Tejada?) or give away a piece of the future in prospects. It makes no sense at all, expect maybe to one person.

by drj on Nov 27, 2006 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

Sign a top starter

I've always favored signing one of the big bats before splurging on a Zito or Schmidt. At this point, though, we've lost the big bats. If we pick up one of those top arms, we've got lots of trade bait to solidify the lineup. I agree...that's the direction to move in.

by silverstadium on Nov 28, 2006 9:26 AM EST up reply actions

Another Positive

I haven't seen any no-trade clause news so he can be flipped, no?

And he may fetch a lot more than Danys baez is worth.

Fake Teams - a fellow SBNation blog!

by Fake Teams @ Camden Chat on Nov 27, 2006 3:15 PM EST reply actions

Or

He comes in as the closer and Ray is dealt for another need. Though that would seemingly be pointless unless the trade would really worth the while.

Of course I pee'd my pants! Everyone my age pee's their pants! It's the cooooolest!. - Billy Madison

by O face on Nov 27, 2006 5:48 PM EST up reply actions

More Good News

Eaton not coming to the O's!

All of the Mets' road wins against Los Angeles this year have been at Dodger Stadium. Ralph Kiner

by merdon1332000 on Nov 27, 2006 8:02 PM EST reply actions

People are freaking nots

I hope this is not even close to being true, but knowing the O's it might be

Also, Danys Baez looks to be headed to Baltimore. The Orioles seem to think that, whatever their problems were last year, they can be solved with a very expensive bullpen. It's a three-year deal, according to the Baltimore Sun, and I suppose it could open up the possibility that Chris Ray could be traded for something that the Orioles really need. Like, oh, I don't know, an 1B/OF/DH type who can hit above replacement level? (Otherwise known as "the Fahey line.")

By Jeff Sackmann (who's he)

All of the Mets' road wins against Los Angeles this year have been at Dodger Stadium. Ralph Kiner

by merdon1332000 on Nov 27, 2006 8:09 PM EST reply actions