Polanco a Type A

[TWolve]

MLB Free-Agent Compensation 'Elias Rankings' Released -- MLB FanHouse

Placido Polanco has been classified as a Type A free agent and Rodney and Lyon as Type B. Washburn and Huff are not classifed as either.

[JTShow]

is it just me or doesnt it seem odd that rodney is only a B?

[TWolve]

Originally Posted by JTShow

is it just me or doesnt it seem odd that rodney is only a B?

They weigh in both 2008 and 2009. Rodney's performance in 2008 wasn't nearly as good as 2009.

[JTShow]

ya i saw that but some of the other names surprised me...

wagner (barely played last year), betancourt (bad last year), gregg (bad this year)

[Glutn4Pnshmnt]

Originally Posted by TWolve

They weigh in both 2008 and 2009. Rodney's performance in 2008 wasn't nearly as good as 2009.

Which I find amusing when people claim that we can't afford to lose Rodney. Then go on to say that the main reason the tigers struggled in 08 was the bullpen. Obviously insinuating that Jones was the problem. Well look again, the bullpen began struggling when Jones got hurt and Rodney took over the closer role. Let him walk, get the pick and he can screw up someone else's payroll.

I did appreciate his contribution this year. I just don't want to gamble a multi year deal on the chance he figured things out this year.

[TWolve]

Originally Posted by JTShow

ya i saw that but some of the other names surprised me...

wagner (barely played last year), betancourt (bad last year), gregg (bad this year)

You're right, that is strange. Type A players are the top 20% at a position. So apparently someone like Wagner did just well enough and Rodney didn't.

[Edman85]

Rodney was bad last year. Wagner was carried by his rate stats and the DL adjustment.

[diaspora04]

Edman,

Are you pleased with how your analysis/predictions turned out?

Dan in Cos Cob

[BigGrandy4528]

Tigers will offer him arbitration, either way its not too bad. They either get good compensation for his loss...or he agrees to arbitration and they get him for one more year...\

I want the latter...

[4hzglory]

Originally Posted by JTShow

is it just me or doesnt it seem odd that rodney is only a B?

It's not that bad for us that Rodney is a type B as if he was a Type A he may accept arbitration and get a hefty salary with other teams not wanting to pay him and lose the pick.

Polanco I still say is different as he arbitration salary isn't that bad if he accepts and I can see teams that didn't have an 2b option (like we do with Sizemore) offering him a 2 yr $10-11 mil or 3 yr $15-16 mil contract that he would gladly accept, while still being willing to give up a pick. If he accepts, 1 year at roughly $6 mil isn't an awful pill to swallow to work Sizemore in as well as being able to backup 3b, and he could be traded at the deadline to a team in need.

[ToledoTigerFan]

A slower Polanco is still a pretty damn good 2B. You know he won't blow many routine plays and he still makes a quick turn at second. He'll probably hit .280-.290 again next year and give you 65 or so RBI out of the 2-hole. I really hope he's back next year. He would be on my personal top 50 favorite Tigers list.

[T.O. Tiger Fan]

So does Polanco being a Type A affect his marketability as a free agent?

[C03BRA]

Originally Posted by T.O. Tiger Fan

So does Polanco being a Type A affect his marketability as a free agent?

I don't know how it couldn't. That is assuming we offer arby in the 1st place.

[MotownRandy]

Given this info, I don't see how the Tigers cannot offer him arbitration. It's much more clear-cut than Renteria. Even if they might want to move on, they'd get him for a reasonable price or get the pick.

Slam dunk. Put it on the board!

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by MotownRandy

Given this info, I don't see how the Tigers cannot offer him arbitration. It's much more clear-cut than Renteria. Even if they might want to move on, they'd get him for a reasonable price or get the pick.

Slam dunk. Put it on the board!

I was thinking the same thing, but I wonder if just the opposite might be true. A team may be less likely to offer him a deal, knowing they'll have to give up a pick. Still I hope they do, `cuz even if he doesn't find another deal I'd be okay with having him back on a 1-yr deal.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by diaspora04

Edman,

Are you pleased with how your analysis/predictions turned out?

Dan in Cos Cob

I wanted 100%, but due to some incorrect assumptions on position classification, I missed on six free agents. Hairston because he played the same amount of games at shortstop and the outfield. Vlad, Huff, and Matsui because I had four players listed as DH's who shouldn't have been. Zaun and Figgins were bumped up by some of those non-DH's being included in their position.

Aside from that, I just got my hands on in depth numbers this morning and I'll be able to check my work down to the nitty gritty, and the only thing I'm off on is injury days, but that didn't affect anybody's type.

[thewave84]

Originally Posted by MotownRandy

Given this info, I don't see how the Tigers cannot offer him arbitration. It's much more clear-cut than Renteria. Even if they might want to move on, they'd get him for a reasonable price or get the pick.

Slam dunk. Put it on the board!

What am I missing? It seems to me that this makes it less likely that another team will try to sign Polanco (since they have to give up a draft pick). This makes it more likely that Polanco will accept arbitration from the Tigers. This means that offering him arbitration with the intent of gaining draft picks is a riskier move.

I still think the Tigers should offer him arbitration, but I am less sure that they will. It just depends on whether or not they can afford him at a one-year deal.

[DaYooperASBDT]

Originally Posted by T.O. Tiger Fan

So does Polanco being a Type A affect his marketability as a free agent?

Those draft picks would be tough to give up, so I would think yes, this will greatly reduce demand for his services.

[Oblong]

I go back and forth on the draft picks affecting his demand. It depends on the team and what they truly think of their player development system. First round picks are still a risk and they have a higher cost. If an organization has enough confidence in their overall system then they may just say "It will cost us a million bucks to sign a #1 pick and he may not be ready for 2 or 3 years, even if he pans out. Or we can sign this guy and we know what he'll do for the next 2 years so let's take the sure thing." The signing team has to have somebody play 2B next year. How much would that guy cost, plus the cost of signing a #1 pick, compared to the cost of Polanco without having to sign a #1 pick?

What's a more reliable outcome? Polanco is a decent player the next 2 or 3 years or the #18 pick in the draft panning out? If the signing team does a good job developing players (Twins) then to them the first round pick isn't much of an issue.

[Los Gatos]

If a team expects to lose a Type A of its own, it could increase the chances they'll consider signing another Type A. They'd lose a pick but gain two.

Polanco's not the only FA 2B, so teams that need one will have choices. But regardless of anything, Polanco needs to be offered arbitration. As many have stated many times, it's a no lose proposition for the Tigers.

[RobSk]

Originally Posted by thewave84

What am I missing? It seems to me that this makes it less likely that another team will try to sign Polanco (since they have to give up a draft pick). This makes it more likely that Polanco will accept arbitration from the Tigers. This means that offering him arbitration with the intent of gaining draft picks is a riskier move.

I still think the Tigers should offer him arbitration, but I am less sure that they will. It just depends on whether or not they can afford him at a one-year deal.

I'm guessing it's less a question of what they can afford, and more a question of whether they would prefer Polanco or Sizemore at 2nd. To me, if you're resigning Everett, you should have Sizemore at 2nd. If you're not going to play Avila at C, you should have Sizemore at 2nd. We can't afford .720 and below hitters in 4 (C, 2b, SS, 3b) positions in 2010, especially when 2 of those are closer to .600 (Everett, Laird) than .700.

Rob

[4hzglory]

Originally Posted by RobSk

I'm guessing it's less a question of what they can afford, and more a question of whether they would prefer Polanco or Sizemore at 2nd. To me, if you're resigning Everett, you should have Sizemore at 2nd. If you're not going to play Avila at C, you should have Sizemore at 2nd. We can't afford .720 and below hitters in 4 (C, 2b, SS, 3b) positions in 2010, especially when 2 of those are closer to .600 (Everett, Laird) than .700.

Rob

I guess I don't see Sizemore producing a whole lot more than Polanco offensively this season. I still think the best option is for Polanco to sign elsewhere and for us to get similar production to Polanco out of Sizemore for a lot less $. However, to expect Sizemore to outperform Polanco in his rookie season is questionable at best IMO as I also think Polanco will be closer to .750 in 2010 than .720. edited to add: Polanco finished 2009 with a .727 ops and had a terrible 2006 of under.700, but still has a career OPS of .761 and those are his only 2 years under .750 since 2002 so I don't think it's unrealistic to think he will be back closer to the .750 range next season which I think will be hard for Sizemore to top as a rookie.

So even though I prefer going with Sizemore, I am not expecting it to be an upgrade in 2010 over Polanco, just a much better value. Now in 2011 and beyond I would be surprised if Sizemore does not outperform Polanco offensively and defensively at a much lower cost.

[thewave84]

How many people think that Polanco will accept arbitration? I think the odds are better than 50/50 that he will accept. There seem to be a lot of people who want to see Sizemore as the 2B next year so I am surprised that there aren't more people suggesting that the Tigers should NOT offer arbitration to Polanco.

[4hzglory]

Originally Posted by thewave84

How many people think that Polanco will accept arbitration? I think the odds are better than 50/50 that he will accept. There seem to be a lot of people who want to see Sizemore as the 2B next year so I am surprised that there aren't more people suggesting that the Tigers should NOT offer arbitration to Polanco.

I'd be surprised if he accepts and think there is only a 10-20% chance he does. I think he wants a 2-3 year deal and as I believe his demands will be reasonable ($5-6 mil per) I don't think he will have much trouble getting it even with the type A status. He knows his time here is near the end with Sizemore coming up, he isn't going to turn down a multi-year deal to stay here for 1 year at around the $6-7 mil max he would get in Arbitration.

[4hzglory]

Originally Posted by 4hzglory

I'd be surprised if he accepts and think there is only a 10-20% chance he does. I think he wants a 2-3 year deal and as I believe his demands will be reasonable ($5-6 mil per) I don't think he will have much trouble getting it even with the type A status. He knows his time here is near the end with Sizemore coming up, he isn't going to turn down a multi-year deal to stay here for 1 year at around the $6-7 mil max he would get in Arbitration.

I should add, I don't think he will have to make a decision on whether to accept or not as with his reasonable contract requests, I can easily see him as one who is signed before the decision to offer needs to be made thus we won't have to worry about whether to offer arbitration or not.

[RobSk]

Originally Posted by 4hzglory

I guess I don't see Sizemore producing a whole lot more than Polanco offensively this season. I still think the best option is for Polanco to sign elsewhere and for us to get similar production to Polanco out of Sizemore for a lot less $. However, to expect Sizemore to outperform Polanco in his rookie season is questionable at best IMO as I also think Polanco will be closer to .750 in 2010 than .720. edited to add: Polanco finished 2009 with a .727 ops and had a terrible 2006 of under.700, but still has a career OPS of .761 and those are his only 2 years under .750 since 2002 so I don't think it's unrealistic to think he will be back closer to the .750 range next season which I think will be hard for Sizemore to top as a rookie.

So even though I prefer going with Sizemore, I am not expecting it to be an upgrade in 2010 over Polanco, just a much better value. Now in 2011 and beyond I would be surprised if Sizemore does not outperform Polanco offensively and defensively at a much lower cost.

I think it's quite realistic to think Polanco could be around .750. However, I see that as closer to his ceiling than an expected level of performance, especially given that he's 34 years old.

OTOH, I think .750 is, while not a slam-dunk for Sizemore, much more in the middle to low part of the range of expected offensive performance for Sizemore in 2010.

Rob

[RobSk]

Originally Posted by 4hzglory

I'd be surprised if he accepts and think there is only a 10-20% chance he does. I think he wants a 2-3 year deal and as I believe his demands will be reasonable ($5-6 mil per) I don't think he will have much trouble getting it even with the type A status. He knows his time here is near the end with Sizemore coming up, he isn't going to turn down a multi-year deal to stay here for 1 year at around the $6-7 mil max he would get in Arbitration.

I really hope it goes like this. To get the draft picks, and get to play Sizemore at 2nd would be a really outstanding outcome here.

However, I don't think that multi-year deal materializes given that he is Type A.

Rob

[sportz4life]

Originally Posted by RobSk

I really hope it goes like this. To get the draft picks, and get to play Sizemore at 2nd would be a really outstanding outcome here.

However, I don't think that multi-year deal materializes given that he is Type A.

Rob

If it costs a team a draft choice it almost has to be a multi year deal. Polly isn't signing for a single year and the cost makes a one year deal highly unlikely..

[RobSk]

Originally Posted by sportz4life

If it costs a team a draft choice it almost has to be a multi year deal. Polly isn't signing for a single year and the cost makes a one year deal highly unlikely..

What if nobody wants to pay the draft pick price in addition to taking on the risk of signing a 34 year old guy to play a quickness based position for the next 2+ years? Personally, I wouldn't do it.

Rob

[sportz4life]

Originally Posted by RobSk

What if nobody wants to pay the draft pick price in addition to taking on the risk of signing a 34 year old guy to play a quickness based position for the next 2+ years? Personally, I wouldn't do it.

Rob

It only takes one team. 29 may agree with you. I would wager, I will.

[apabruce]

It seems like we debate this every year, and each year DD declines to offer arbitration. I'm betting Polanco will be the same.

[ballmich]

Originally Posted by thewave84

How many people think that Polanco will accept arbitration? I think the odds are better than 50/50 that he will accept. There seem to be a lot of people who want to see Sizemore as the 2B next year so I am surprised that there aren't more people suggesting that the Tigers should NOT offer arbitration to Polanco.

I think the odds are that he'd sign elsewhere, if we only offer arbitration without offering a multi-year deal. But, there are so many factors here that you have to take into account, which makes this pure guess work. Some factors that need to be accounted for:

1. What would Polly project to make through the arbitration process?
2. How many more years does he want to play?
3. Does he mind bouncing around a couple more times before the end of his career, or does he value organization stability?
4. How many teams need a 2B, and how do they rank Polly in terms of 2b free agents (or 2b available via trade)?
5. Of the teams that need a 2b, are any in the top half of the draft? Meaning they'd give up a 2nd round pick, not a 1st round pick.
6. Are any of those teams with a 2b need in a "win now" mode?
7. Of the teams that need a 2b, are they looking for improved defense or offensive production from this position?
8. How much guaranteed money is Polly looking for?
9. Does he feel he might be traded mid-2010 if he accepts arbitration, and how does he feel about that?

There's probably a lot more factors that come into play.

But what it boils down to me, is that I think there is a 2 year $12 million dollar deal out there for him, and it probably carries an option for a 3rd year. That's reasonable money for a starting 2b with good defense and a reputation for being able to "do a lot of things" with the bat. Probably worth giving up a 1st or 2nd round pick for, as most teams would consider a starting player well worth the lost pick.

In terms of whether I'd offer Polly arbitration, yeah, I would. Sizemore's injury concerns me. And I think Polly could be flipped at the trade deadline next year, if he accepts, and Sizemore might benefit from a little more seasoning. But I'd rather have him sign elsewhere and get the draft picks. Plus, if Sizemore is healthy, we need the increased offensive production in our lineup. I think we'd be okay either way so why not take the upside to get the draft picks in case he leaves?

[ballmich]

Originally Posted by apabruce

It seems like we debate this every year, and each year DD declines to offer arbitration. I'm betting Polanco will be the same.

I agree, DD is not one to take players to arbitration. The thing that may make Polanco different, is that I'm not sure we don't want him back. With the players in the past, I got the sense DD wanted them out, so he was taking no risk that the players would return.

Additionally, from a draft pick standpoint, the additional picks may not be considered a substainal gain by DD. I don't think he feels he needs the picks, because he and Chadd will go get guys they considered a high value with lower picks and pay-up for them. So in that vein, he's turning his lower round picks into the equivalent of much higher picks by virtue of spending more money to sign those guys. You pretty much can get to the same place with this strategy, I think, but you have to budget the draft dollars for it. I'm not saying I agree with this strategy, but I think there is an argument for it.

[4hzglory]

Originally Posted by ballmich

I think the odds are that he'd sign elsewhere, if we only offer arbitration without offering a multi-year deal. But, there are so many factors here that you have to take into account, which makes this pure guess work. Some factors that need to be accounted for:

1. What would Polly project to make through the arbitration process?
2. How many more years does he want to play?
3. Does he mind bouncing around a couple more times before the end of his career, or does he value organization stability?
4. How many teams need a 2B, and how do they rank Polly in terms of 2b free agents (or 2b available via trade)?
5. Of the teams that need a 2b, are any in the top half of the draft? Meaning they'd give up a 2nd round pick, not a 1st round pick.
6. Are any of those teams with a 2b need in a "win now" mode?
7. Of the teams that need a 2b, are they looking for improved defense or offensive production from this position?
8. How much guaranteed money is Polly looking for?
9. Does he feel he might be traded mid-2010 if he accepts arbitration, and how does he feel about that?

There's probably a lot more factors that come into play.

But what it boils down to me, is that I think there is a 2 year $12 million dollar deal out there for him, and it probably carries an option for a 3rd year. That's reasonable money for a starting 2b with good defense and a reputation for being able to "do a lot of things" with the bat. Probably worth giving up a 1st or 2nd round pick for, as most teams would consider a starting player well worth the lost pick.

In terms of whether I'd offer Polly arbitration, yeah, I would. Sizemore's injury concerns me. And I think Polly could be flipped at the trade deadline next year, if he accepts, and Sizemore might benefit from a little more seasoning. But I'd rather have him sign elsewhere and get the draft picks. Plus, if Sizemore is healthy, we need the increased offensive production in our lineup. I think we'd be okay either way so why not take the upside to get the draft picks in case he leaves?

+1

[ballmich]

Amazing. Washburn, in my recollection, was nearly a Type A FA when we traded for him. In the least he was solidly in the Type B range. And for that matter, I think Huff was right on the Type A/B line as well. Who'd have guess that these two would play so poorly for the Tigers over a two month period, as to fall out of Type A/B status all together? They really should refund their salary to us to be redistributed to the fans, as we paid the price of their inability to perform at replacement level. And that should have been the baseline level of performance expected from these guys.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by ballmich

Amazing. Washburn, in my recollection, was nearly a Type A FA when we traded for him. In the least he was solidly in the Type B range. And for that matter, I think Huff was right on the Type A/B line as well. Who'd have guess that these two would play so poorly for the Tigers over a two month period, as to fall out of Type A/B status all together? They really should refund their salary to us to be redistributed to the fans, as we paid the price of their inability to perform at replacement level. And that should have been the baseline level of performance expected from these guys.

Washburn was the fourth or fifth B from the bottom at the time of signing, and he was B until he started missing starts without going on the DL.

Huff was close to A because I was classifying DH's incorrectly. I got him wrong in the final projections. He was never as close to A as I said.

[cruzer1]

Originally Posted by Edman85

I wanted 100%, but due to some incorrect assumptions on position classification, I missed on six free agents. Hairston because he played the same amount of games at shortstop and the outfield. Vlad, Huff, and Matsui because I had four players listed as DH's who shouldn't have been. Zaun and Figgins were bumped up by some of those non-DH's being included in their position.

Aside from that, I just got my hands on in depth numbers this morning and I'll be able to check my work down to the nitty gritty, and the only thing I'm off on is injury days, but that didn't affect anybody's type.

That's pretty doggone close.

[JonBenke]

So what do all the so called experts say... Do you think DD offers arbitration or not, and if so, does another club sign him?

[Microline133]

The Tigers won't offer arbitration to Polanco.

[Shelton]

Originally Posted by Microline133

The Tigers won't offer arbitration to Polanco.

I agree 100% and couldn't be happier about it.