Diamondbacks Bullpen

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

To add to my long list of stupid ideas, what about the concept of acquiring a big name position player, through either free agency or trades, with the intent of trading them next season.

I'm thinking of somebody who isn't coming off of a career year, like Soriano is, that would likely be worth equal or greater value after this year.

For instance if we acquired a LF, traded Byrnes and resign Batista. We'd have a relatively complete pitching staff, and would fill the one position in our field that we actually have a one year need in.

After next season we promote CG, if he's ready, and trade player X as part of a package for a big name pitcher in '08.

dirtygary · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:19 am Post subject:

They need somebody they can slot in the middle of the lineup that can provide a little protection.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

TAP · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 10:30 am Post subject:

tmar, I just don't see Josh going back on his word and getting rid of Eric this offseason. He's already taking tremendous heat from the Gonzo-maniacs, and then to be seen as a "liar" by trading the guy that he annointed as the new LF'er and whom Marketing has been training Gonzo-maniacs to accept as the new "face" would be pretty impossible to overcome PR-wise this year.

Maybe next year Eric can be our trade bait for pitching.
_________________
That's the true harbinger of spring, not crocuses or swallows returning to Capistrano, but the sound of a bat on a ball.
~Bill Veeck

EvilJuan · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:10 am Post subject:

Much has been made of the "fact" that the Diamondbacks cannot be players in the FA arena. The main reason for this claim is that they are a "small market" team, and lack the revenues necessary to seriously pursue free agent talent.

Some information has come my way to call this "fact" into question. Let me summarize what I've read elsewhere, and then let's re-examine the perceived inability to go after free agents.

Revenue source/amount:
MLB revenue sharing: $35M
sale of broadcast rights: $25M
ballpark advertising: $20M
ticket+concession sales: $70M*

TOTAL: $150M

* based on an attendance of 2M; with an average ticket price of $20, and an additional $20 in concessions/ticket, less a "fudge factor" of 12.5%. This does not include revenue from parking, or the sale of luxury suites or the swimming pool (which goes for $5,900/game -- just in case you didn't know!)

While I don't have details on costs apart from the payroll, reported at about $60M, it's hard to see that the claims of being "strapped for cash" can be supported when there is, apparently, some $90M after meeting the payroll to work with. Yes, there are the deferred salaries; yes, there is other debt to be resolved; yes, there are the payments to Russ Ortiz to factor in -- but do all these elements approach $90M?

If, on the other hand, that surplus meant that an additional $10M-$20M could be added to the payroll, that would change the dynamics when it comes to adding talent to the ballclub via free agency: Jason Schmidt (if that's your idea of a good time), or Alfonso Soriano (if that floats yer boat).

I'm not advocating the signing of any given free agent here; just wondering if the, "oh, we're too poor to go after a first-rate free agent" mantra is actually the reality in which the Diamondbacks find themselves...

Shocked

_________________
Is It Next Season Yet? Sad

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 560

I haven't heard the "we're too poor" line. What I have heard is that they want to be smart with their spending.

The cost of FA is normally not that bad in the first year. You should be able to get a solid player who is going to perform is you are spending big bucks.

The problem is the long term contracts. Let's say you sign Schnmidt for 3 years at 12M per. Maybe he gives a good year next season, but he breaks down for 2008 and 2009 when the kids come into their own. The money supply is not limitedless. If you sign a Schmidt, you don't have that money to get the 2008 or 2009 equivalent version of a Schmidt when he can get you to the WS.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

TAP · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: Re: Acquiring a big name

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:28 am Post subject:

Eviljuan said:

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 11:31 am Post subject: Re: Acquiring a big name

EvilJuan · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject:

McCray · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject:

the trib owns the cubs, and they've been vocal about the cubs' suckitude this year, with editorials calling for baker's and hendry's heads, even.

i don't think the problem is that the team owns the paper. i think it's that the sports writers here have no balls.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

Didn't we get Glaus through FA? From my perception of the Glaus affair, we gave him a contract, used him for 1 year and then traded him for other talent. Not a bad deal.

My only point on the big name is that if we are trading away a big name slugger in the offseason next year and looking for a strong pitcher in return, it is definitely easier than trying to do it with a Hairston/Estrada.

Plus, the big name from a business standpoint allows the team to "show" the uneducated fans that we are committed to winning. If we sign Byrnes to a 2 year deal and go out next year with the rotation we have, there will be no confusion even amongst the psuedo fans that we are not serious about winning next year.

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

On the trading Byrnes thing, it would be tricky but we could go down the "couldn't come up with a good pre-arbitration deal" road. If we traded Byrnes for a true, well known slugger the fans would easily forgive.

In my opinion the only trouble with this would be getting the right deal with the right player. That player would have to be someone who would more than likely maintain or improve their stats in 07 <ie no Soriano>.

baldmaga · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject:

EvilJuan · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject:

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

I looked it up <as my memory is almost as old as me> and we did acquire Glaus via free agency and then traded him the next year for O-Dog & Batista. I would say we were winners in that whole transaction process.

EvilJuan · Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject:

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

After looking at the FA OF for this offseason, I think this idea is officially sunk.

Their are really no "Big Name" OF's that would fit the buy me & trade me guidelines. Here's what I found:

Old & Covered with issues
Bonds
Sheffield

Old with injury concerns
Edmonds

Had career years this year <buying high>
Lee
Soriano

The only one that seemed remotely close to the mold was Torii Hunter but he's more of a defensive upgrade and if we'd be looking at LF, we'd be a bit more interested in offense <though he'd be an upgrade over Byrnes there as well>.

Bob A · MLB Rookie Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 229 Location: Tucson

Who did you have in mind Tmar?

tmar · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1184

I guess I started with the concept first and upon review of the options find that there are really no viable options.

I don't see any FA OF that would fit my idea IMHO. Got ahead of myself trying to think outside the box.