Diamondbacks Bullpen

[levski]

I just looked up on BA:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/askba/262766.html

Both Foulke and Mulder are type B free agents. That means (if I read the new CBA correctly) that the Dbacks won't have to give up draft picks to sign them.

If that's the case, and they'll agree to give the Dbacks the hometown discount, I'm fine with signing them up. If Foulke is completely recovered from his surgeries, he'll still be an effective reliever.


from the ba link

[McCray]

i'd take a flyer on mulder, if he's cheap. but will he want to do a short contract to prove himself while pitching in coors field lite?

and foulke's stats make me wonder how recovered he is:

2006: 44g / 49.7 IP / 52 H / 24 ER / 9 HR / 7 BB / 36 K / 2 HBP / 2 WP / 4.35 ERA / 106 ERA+ / 1.19 WHIP

h/9 trend: 6.83 (04) / 10.45 (05) / 9.42 (06) (getting better, but still freaky high)
hr/9 trend: 0.87 / 1.58 / 1.63 (RED FLAG! he isn't improving here -- he's getting worse. and HRs KILL you at the bob)
bb/9 trend: 1.63 / 3.55 / 1.27 (seems to be regaining his control, so that's a plus)
k/9 trend: 8.57 / 6.70 / 6.52 (RED FLAG! is this his new level of K stats? i mean, does anyone see any reason why he'd suddenly increase them signifcantly, if he hasn't already, even though other areas of his game have improved?)
whip trend: 0.94 / 1.55 / 1.19 (hmm)

i'd take a flyer on foulke if it was CHEAP. but i don't like the idea of spending millions to get a league avg reliever with a HR problem.

he's much more hittable now than he was a few years ago, and more hittable than his career stats.

his hr rate is significantly higher than his career norm, too.

k/9 has held steady for 2 yrs, but it isn't in the same zip code as his career numbers.

i think foulke's going to be closer to avg than good for the next couple years. am i missing something in the numbers?

i'd take a flyer on him, but only for dirt cheap. and sure, it'd be nice to work near his home, but does he really want the future last big contract he gets to be decided by AZ's defense and park?
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

[levski]

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/FF566CFAB5775F508625722C0012B703?OpenDocument

[Bob A]

I guess I just don't understand why we're so strict on not giving incentive-laden contracts. On first glance it seems like a no-lose situation. We either get a guy who has a better year than expected and we pay him what he's worth, or we get a guy who has a bad year and we don't have to pay him much. I'm sure there's something I'm not seeing here but if Mulder and/or Wolf would take less money if they didn't have a good year, why not offer it to them?

[Projekt]

^ It probably has to do with the money management. If we sign Mulder to an incentive laden contract that could be worth up to 7 million (random number), but could be worth as little as 2 million, we have to assume that he will get the 7 mil. If we sign other players and go within the 5 million of fluff space the contract allows for, and he preforms well and gets 6 or 7 million, we are over the budget by a few million.


That being said, I really don't want either of these two pitchers, but I would rather trade for a pitcher with a future ahead of him.

[Bob A]

I wouldn't argue with that but if we signed Mulder and he won 20 games, it stands to reason we then would have had a good year in the standings and probably reached the playoffs. Attendance and merchandise sales would be up and I assume we could easily recoup the difference in his contract.

[tmar]

Adding to your point Bob, if he performed so well he was due incentives, they could easily trade him at the deadline and pass those expenses on to the new team <and collect prospects>.

I don't see a logical down side to incentive-laden contracts.

[Projekt]

^ I was just posting the only real downfall I could think of.

[matt]

Maybe they are just talking shit and saying that because they don't think full recovery from rotator cuff surgery is enough of a gamble. Mulder will not be able to win 20 games next season. He won't be pitching at the MLB level until June or July. Even if he has a 100% recovery (unlikely) he won't be at that level until the 2008 season. Charity for the multi-millionairs.

[EvilJuan]

If a performance-based contract is offered, the only prudent way to plan for the resulting budget is to assume that the largest amount counts against what may be expended in that year. Then, if there is a savings because not all of the incentive clauses needed to be paid, the question arises, what to do with the money that was not spent? (Almost always a happy problem to deal with...) In that case, it could either be used to retire the debt (thereby improving the long-term situation and budget for the team); or added back into what is available for the 2008 season. Thus, if a contract is offered to Mulder in the $2M-$7M range, the contract is counted against the budget for $7M.

The only other way such a contract could work in a fixed-budget situation is for the owners to agree in advance that any amount potentially over the season's budget will be covered. In this case, if the contract ranges from $2M to $7M (as above), but only $2M is counted against the $60M total budget, any amount over the $2M that may have to be paid at season's end is funded from another source.

Generally, deficit spending is not a good idea, as it only defers payment to a later date, with the pass-forward of the negative effects to that time. (SEE "Colangelo, Jerry")
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?

[tmar]

I disagree. As long as you don't give a no-trade clause then an incentive laden contract puts the ball in your court and gives the team the most flexibility. This would allow the team to decide if they are willing to pay a little extra after he has performed well or to merely trade him.

If he doesn't perform, we'd be paying him the lowest amount and then we get to decide how much of his performance we are willing to pay for up to the trade deadline.

If the difference is 5MM and we are in the playoff hunt and he's looking like he's going to be a solid #2 then we have a win-win decision to make.

[McCray]

the more we debate it here, the more certain i feel that the dbacks "no incentive contracts" rule is pure bullshit. i just can't see ANY downside. if, as EJ says, it's a 2M base and up to 7M, just count the 7M.

maybe they're thinking that mulder really wants to pitch here for his rehab, and it's just a line so they can offer the 2M flat, instead of the 2M-->7M. if he really wants to pitch here, he can for 2M. if he doesn't (and honestly, i don't see why he would want to), then it's really no great loss, and the team doesn't offend him (and by extension offend other pitchers we actually may want in the future).

did that make an iota of sense?
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

[EvilJuan]

I'm not at all opposed to offering contracts with a salary base and incentives based on performance. All I'm saying is that, if you have to be careful about contract-related expenditures in your team budget, it's prudent to charge the full amount against the budget; and so there are no yucky surprises at the end of the season.

I'd hate to see us miss an opportunity to do something creative through an incentive-based contract, simply because there is a flat policy ban to the contrary. If that's the policy JB has, I'd hope he'd change it. If it's a policy that ownership has imposed on JB, I hope they will reconsider, and allow JB to work his magic.
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet?