Jump to content

C03BRA

Tigers in on Valverde

Recommended Posts

I just want to weigh in my opinion on this - in the Tigers' current situation, giving up a 1st round pick for Valverde would be idiocy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do this deal everything else theyve done this season to build a competitive team the right way goes to waste. If they planned to go this route why let Polanco leave? Why trade Grandy? Why not keep one of Lyon or Rodney? This is complete lunacy. Im fast losing all respect for DD's judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't panic quite yet, I'm confident that the Tigers will be outbid here.

Guessing that DD will not be willing to offer more than a one-year deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to go this route and lose a 1st round pick to sign Valverde, why not just keep Rodney? Yes, he got lucky last year, but giving up a 1st round pick to sign a closer just doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a strange move but I don't think it would be a disaster. Valverde is the type of player, who could bring back a good return at the trade deadline. It's possible DD is not impressed with this year's draft class and feels that Valverde has more value in a trade than a first round pick.

Of course, it's also possible that Illitch is getting negative PR feedback about the dealings of the off-season and wants DD to make some quick moves for 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might think that Valverde's deadline trade value will be higher than whatever he'd get with that 1st round pick, so that he can flip him like Kyle Farnsworth. With the 2 sandwich picks on board, the 1st round pick becomes more expendable.

Still, I'd rather he not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signing him with the thought trading him would be a very risky proposition. First how many teams are looking for closers at Valverde's price? It's possible a closer could get an injury and Valverde would become more valuable but I wouldn't count on it. My other concern is Valverde's K rate went down and his BB rate went up in 2009 compared to 2008. A 9.33 K rate is very good but I'd rather have the 10+ rate that has been his norm. Could this be a bad sign for an aging reliever?

If the Tigers do end up signing him I think it will be for two or three years maybe with an option thrown in to provide stability while their young pitchers mature. I don't like that idea but I think that's what their mindset would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Signing him with the thought trading him would be a very risky proposition. First how many teams are looking for closers at Valverde's price? It's possible a closer could get an injury and Valverde would become more valuable but I wouldn't count on it. My other concern is Valverde's K rate went down and his BB rate went up in 2009 compared to 2008. A 9.33 K rate is very good but I'd rather have the 10+ rate that has been his norm. Could this be a bad sign for an aging reliever?

If the Tigers do end up signing him I think it will be for two or three years maybe with an option thrown in to provide stability while their young pitchers mature. I don't like that idea but I think that's what their mindset would be.

I'm not suggesting they would sign him with the sole purpose of trading him later. The more immediate purpose would be to get a pitcher who could help them win this year. However, if DD does not like the 2010 draft prospects that much, I think he would consider surrendering a draft pick for a pitcher, who might have a lot of trade value if they fall out of the race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My other concern is Valverde's K rate went down and his BB rate went up in 2009 compared to 2008. A 9.33 K rate is very good but I'd rather have the 10+ rate that has been his norm. Could this be a bad sign for an aging reliever?

be.

This is where scouting would come into play. With that said, his K/9 ratio has dropped 3 straight years and pitchers do tend to strikeout fewer batters as they age. They also walk fewer batters to compensate for that and his BB/9 ratio was right in line with his career averages. So, I'm not too worried about his BB/9 ratio going up from 08 to 09.

He's still a high K guy, though. And, one can see why when looking at his plate discipline stats. An outside swing % of 32% is very good and a contact % of 71.8% is very low/very good to see.

Valverde is a pretty good reliever. If we didn't lose a 1st round pick for signing him, then I'd probably endorse the deal. But, I really don't see much point in signing a guy to be our closer for a year or two when we can have our first round pick for 6 years at a cost controlled rate. And, I don't think he would bring us anything back in a trade that would be of greater value than our 1st round pick. Whoever we pick at that slot should be one of our top prospects. I tend to think of it this way: would you trade one of your top 2 or 3 prospects for a pretty good, but not elite, closer? I wouldn't. And, if we sign him, that is essentially what we will be doing. On top of that, with our organizational reliever depth, blowing a 1st round pick on a reliever would be puzzling.

I doubt DD signs him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where scouting would come into play. With that said, his K/9 ratio has dropped 3 straight years and pitchers do tend to strikeout fewer batters as they age. They also walk fewer batters to compensate for that and his BB/9 ratio was right in line with his career averages. So, I'm not too worried about his BB/9 ratio going up from 08 to 09.

He's still a high K guy, though. And, one can see why when looking at his plate discipline stats. An outside swing % of 32% is very good and a contact % of 71.8% is very low/very good to see.

Valverde is a pretty good reliever. If we didn't lose a 1st round pick for signing him, then I'd probably endorse the deal. But, I really don't see much point in signing a guy to be our closer for a year or two when we can have our first round pick for 6 years at a cost controlled rate. And, I don't think he would bring us anything back in a trade that would be of greater value than our 1st round pick. Whoever we pick at that slot should be one of our top prospects. I tend to think of it this way: would you trade one of your top 2 or 3 prospects for a pretty good, but not elite, closer? I wouldn't. And, if we sign him, that is essentially what we will be doing. On top of that, with our organizational reliever depth, blowing a 1st round pick on a reliever would be puzzling.

I doubt DD signs him.

The bold above is probably what a lot of us were already saying. Simply put and bandwidth friendly.:happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they do this deal everything else theyve done this season to build a competitive team the right way goes to waste. If they planned to go this route why let Polanco leave? Why trade Grandy? Why not keep one of Lyon or Rodney? This is complete lunacy. Im fast losing all respect for DD's judgement.

Tough to make this judgment of Dombrowski based on some unsubstantiated internet rumors. It would fly in the face of everything he's said and done so far this off-season. Sounds more like an agent trying to build up his player to get a better offer from someone else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urbina for Polanco

Exception and not the norm. Relievers do not have that good of trade value. Relying on a team to make a dumb deal like that again is not a good idea unless he can somehow get Dayton Moore or Omar Minaya on the phone.

Polanco was a 3+ win player when we acquired him. I would hope that GM's have evolved enough in the last 5 years to know that you should not trade a guy like that for a closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Valverde is a pretty good reliever. If we didn't lose a 1st round pick for signing him, then I'd probably endorse the deal. But, I really don't see much point in signing a guy to be our closer for a year or two when we can have our first round pick for 6 years at a cost controlled rate. And, I don't think he would bring us anything back in a trade that would be of greater value than our 1st round pick. Whoever we pick at that slot should be one of our top prospects. I tend to think of it this way: would you trade one of your top 2 or 3 prospects for a pretty good, but not elite, closer? I wouldn't. And, if we sign him, that is essentially what we will be doing. On top of that, with our organizational reliever depth, blowing a 1st round pick on a reliever would be puzzling.

I doubt DD signs him.

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally not too hung up on the draft pick...right now I would put that value around 7-9 on our current prospect list, and you could use the $2M or so later in the draft if you wanted.

That said, I think they are bargain shopping, plain and simple, and wouldn't expect an offer of anything more than 2 yrs / $10M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exception and not the norm. Relievers do not have that good of trade value. Relying on a team to make a dumb deal like that again is not a good idea unless he can somehow get Dayton Moore or Omar Minaya on the phone.

Polanco was a 3+ win player when we acquired him. I would hope that GM's have evolved enough in the last 5 years to know that you should not trade a guy like that for a closer.

Picks in the second half of the first round do not have such great value either. There's usually a couple of guys in there who do really well but there are more losers than winners. Without knowing anything, I'd rather they keep the draft pick as well, but maybe DD does not feel as if it's a particularly strong draft and wants to go another route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urbina for Polanco
Hmmm...a guy who gave us 4 1/2 years of pretty good second base and hitting, or a guy who is in prison for attacking people with a machete and trying to set them on fire. But Urbina has a lot of spirit, which is one of those intangibles that sabers seem to disparage just because it can't be quantified. This is a hard choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Picks in the second half of the first round do not have such great value either. There's usually a couple of guys in there who do really well but there are more losers than winners. Without knowing anything, I'd rather they keep the draft pick as well, but maybe DD does not feel as if it's a particularly strong draft and wants to go another route.

If we sign him and he does well and we are in contention, DD is not going to trade him. The only way we would trade him is if we were out of contention at the trade deadline. So, option A gives us a good closer for a year or two at $8 million+ a year and without a top prospect. With option B, we lose our top prospect, get little use out of him b/c our team is out of contention anyway, and we are left at the mercy of the trade market to try and recoup that 1st round pick we lost.

Personally, I don't like either option. But, signing him with the option of trading him later seems even less appealing. B/c if that happens, our team will be having a bad year and we really need to hit on that trade for that plan to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll eat my shorts if DD signs him for 2 yrs/$16M. That would be awful. But for 2 yrs/$10-12M, I think it's an OK deal....plus you have a guy who would still have trade value, you have $2M free that you're not spending on the 1st round pick....heck you could even say you would save money on arbitration from Perry or whoever *not* being the closer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that b/c he also costs a 1st round pick that it might hurt his salary demands a little bit. But, Rodney got 2 years for $11 million. Valverde is a better reliever than Rodney and will be looking for more than that. Billy Wagner got $6.75 million for 1 year and a $6.5 million club option for the following season. Wagner has been a great reliever for a long time, but he's also going to be 39, is an injury risk and has only thrown 62 combined innings the last 2 years. If we do sign him, I doubt we can get him for 2 years and $10 to $12 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I doubt we'll sign him. I'm telling you at what level it'd be worthwhile to consider it, IMO. Obviously he is looking for more, but whether or not he gets it is another thing, especially if he wants to close. He was stupid for not accepting arbitration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we sign him and he does well and we are in contention, DD is not going to trade him. The only way we would trade him is if we were out of contention at the trade deadline. So, option A gives us a good closer for a year or two at $8 million+ a year and without a top prospect. With option B, we lose our top prospect, get little use out of him b/c our team is out of contention anyway, and we are left at the mercy of the trade market to try and recoup that 1st round pick we lost.

Personally, I don't like either option. But, signing him with the option of trading him later seems even less appealing. B/c if that happens, our team will be having a bad year and we really need to hit on that trade for that plan to work.

I like the option where the Tigers are in contention. :happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Valverde is signed to a 1-year deal, there is a good chance he will retain his type A status, so the Tigers could just hang onto him if they don't get an offer they like at the deadline and get an extra first round pick the following year. Additionally, losing a first rounder this year is not as big of a deal since they have two supplemental picks and can use one of those to get a high upside signability guy. I don't understand all the negative reaction to potentially signing Valverde.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Valverde is signed to a 1-year deal, there is a good chance he will retain his type A status, so the Tigers could just hang onto him if they don't get an offer they like at the deadline and get an extra first round pick the following year.

This is a good point. I probably still wouldn't sign him, but that is a good point that you raised. How likely is it that he would stay a Type A FA?

Edited by Scottwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...