New York and Arizona could strike deal without a 3rd team.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think the real mystery right now is the team budget.

Most people expected the Diamondbacks to cut payroll in order to reduce the cummulated deficit, but now it seems that they are using the newly raised money to keep spending instead of payind debts. I think trading Vazquez for some cheaper but still good pitcher would make sense, and they should try to get as much cash as possible from the Dodgers if they are seriously considering Green.

But why? Arizona's payroll after this deal (even with a move for Green) is about $60 million. Then, you add in all they cash they have gotten in deals and you are back at around $50 million. Remember, Arizona has had $56 million in salaries off the books with the losses of Johnson, Sexson, Mantei, Finley, Batista, Dessens, Colbrunn, Alomar and others. Even if you add in the new $17.45 million they spent on guys like Glaus, Ortiz, Counsell and Clayton, you are still way ahead. Plus, in this Yankees deal, NY is sending $9 mil to cover almost all of Vazquez's 05 salary.

You can't look at the Arizona signings without accounting for the salary losses in guys like Sexson ($9 mil) and Mantei ($7 mil).

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think that's the part most people don't get. If not trying to contend, why bother paying so much for a mediocre Ortiz? Why taking risks on Glaus? Why bother trading for Green? Other than Glaus, there are very little chance for the other two to be on the next good Diamondback team?

Glaus is 28, Vazquez is 28, Ortiz is 30 and Green is 32. It's doubtful any of these guys will see much of a drop off over the next three seasons given their age and positions. So, I would guess the plan is to bring in this group for 05, take stock in how the team does and perhaps bring in another pitcher and hitter in 06 with an eye on the division title. Again, with a salary of about $60 mil (or less) for 05, they are in pretty good shape financially. Gonzo's deal ends after 06 as well so they could get some cash from that down the road if need be.

Even all these players get their career year next year, the team will not be much higher than .500.

Maybe not, but if you add in yet another FA or two in 06, plus advance some of their nice young talent (SS Santos, Ps Gosling and Murphy, OFs Quentin and Jackson), they could be a playoff team in 06 and none of the new guys would be over 33 - with most in the 29-30 range.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

But why? Arizona's payroll after this deal (even with a move for Green) is about $60 million. Then, you add in all they cash they have gotten in deals and you are back at around $50 million. Remember, Arizona has had $56 million in salaries off the books with the losses of Johnson, Sexson, Mantei, Finley, Batista, Dessens, Colbrunn, Alomar and others. Even if you add in the new $17.45 million they spent on guys like Glaus, Ortiz, Counsell and Clayton, you are still way ahead. Plus, in this Yankees deal, NY is sending $9 mil to cover almost all of Vazquez's 05 salary.

You can't look at the Arizona signings without accounting for the salary losses in guys like Sexson ($9 mil) and Mantei ($7 mil).

But you forgot this is the team that's supposed to be in deep financial trouble for several years. Yet the team kept pushing the debt back instead of figuring out a way to repay them. The attendence has been going downhill, and the team is spending all the new money raised on high risk players with ridiculous contracts.

You can't look at the Arizona signings without accounting for the deep debt they got, including all the deferred salaries. Take Randy Johnson for example, his 16.55mil in 2004 for example, 6 millon of that was actually deferred to 2006.

It makes more sense for the team to take a salary budget dive now, and balance the books. If they kept running a deficit with a sub .500 team, ruining the fan base on the way, how are they gonna spend when they actually rebound?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

Glaus is 28, Vazquez is 28, Ortiz is 30 and Green is 32. It's doubtful any of these guys will see much of a drop off over the next three seasons given their age and positions.

Well, all these four players saw their most productive year 3-4 years ago, and Ortiz is not a great player to start with.

I think all these players are good for rich spending teams like the Yankees or the Angels to fill out the middle of their lineups. The Yankees can afford gambling on risky players like they did with Kevin Brown.

Both Vazquez and Glaus would only worth the money if they can return to their career peaks, but Ortiz would be overpaid even with the typical 3 year 21 mil contract.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

But you forgot this is the team that's supposed to be in deep financial trouble for several years. Yet the team kept pushing the debt back instead of figuring out a way to repay them. The attendence has been going downhill, and the team is spending all the new money raised on high risk players with ridiculous contracts.

You can't look at the Arizona signings without accounting for the deep debt they got, including all the deferred salaries. Take Randy Johnson for example, his 16.55mil in 2004 for example, 6 millon of that was actually deferred to 2006.

It makes more sense for the team to take a salary budget dive now, and balance the books.

This is Arizona, not St. Louis. You can't "take a dive" for 2-3 seasons and expect to have people continue to support the team. Most people here have moved from other cities and would not pay money to see a 100-loss team for the next two seasons until you balance the budget. You do that and you can write off having any money at your disposal once you get rid of the deferred money.

Ken Kendrick has been pretty clear on his plan, and it's a good one IMO. The team can afford to comfortably spend about 90-95 million a year on salaries. For the next few seasons, that will mean spending 60-70 on "actual" players and the 25-30 million in deferred money. He thinks (and I agree) that Arizona can put a competitive team on the field for that 65 or so million - with the team having the ability to add another salary in July if need be for a playoff run.

Now, Arizona could just resolve itself to be a 100-loss team for the next 2-3 seasons and have a payroll in the $40 million range and pay off the debt a year or so earlier. But then you risk only being able to support a payroll of around $60 million (a la Tampa) and more fan apathy.

If they kept running a deficit with a sub .500 team, ruining the fan base on the way, how are they gonna spend when they actually rebound?

They will not be running a deficit in 05. As I said, the team can support a salary level of about $95 million. Right now (after the Randy trade), Arizona will be at $47 million (not counting the $9 mil in cash). Even if you add Shawn Green ($16 mil), this team will still only be at $63 mil minus the $9 they got in the Yankee deal. So, if you take that $54 mil and add in the deferred money owed in 05 of $28 million, you are at a total payroll of $81 million. And that's about $10 mil below the level Kendrick stated he could support.

The plan is to keep the actual payroll between 60 and 70 million until the deferred money leaves the books a few years down the road. At that point, the team can afford to increase the actual payroll back to a higher level.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Well, all these four players saw their most productive year 3-4 years ago, and Ortiz is not a great player to start with.

I think all these players are good for rich spending teams like the Yankees or the Angels to fill out the middle of their lineups. The Yankees can afford gambling on risky players like they did with Kevin Brown.

Both Vazquez and Glaus would only worth the money if they can return to their career peaks, but Ortiz would be overpaid even with the typical 3 year 21 mil contract.

Then who should Arizona have signed to improve their team? Spend $53 million on Pedro? $64 mil on Adrian Beltre? $55 mil on JD Drew? Maybe they should have spent $40 million on Carl Pavano? And that's assuming these guys would sign at 100-loss Arizona for the same price as playoff teams.

It takes money to improve your team in FA and you will probably have to overspend a bit to convince someone to come out and play for a 100-loss team. I'm not thrilled that Arizona is paying Ortiz $30 million over 4 years, but I don't mind the deal they made for Glaus (4-45 mil), Clayton ($1.3 mil), Counsell ($1.5 mil) or the fact that Vazquez will essentially be pitching for free in 05. And I would rather the team invest money in guys like Glaus and Ortiz than go with "the Caseys" (Fossum and Daigle) at SP again or be forced to put another soft bat at third. And the reality is that Arizona had about $40 million ($56 if you count RJ) coming off the books and some flexibility to sign some better players.

Now, Arizona could have played it cheaper and signed Vinny Castilla for $3 mil per instead of Glaus or Orlando Hernandez at $4 mil per year instead of Ortiz. But then the team wouldn't really be any better and the team would be sitting on an additional $10-$15 mil that they could have afforded to spend on upgrading the team. I would much rather prefer that Arizona go out and try to spend at the cap of what they can afford than to horde cash like a Tampa or Kansas City and put out consistent losing teams.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

The plan is to keep the actual payroll between 60 and 70 million until the deferred money leaves the books a few years down the road. At that point, the team can afford to increase the actual payroll back to a higher level.

Yeah, and I think that's the mystery part. The team already claimed to be in debt for a few years, and the attendence is declining. If they never slash payroll, how will the debt go away?

Maybe the team was exaggerating about the debts.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

Then who should Arizona have signed to improve their team? Spend $53 million on Pedro? $64 mil on Adrian Beltre? $55 mil on JD Drew? Maybe they should have spent $40 million on Carl Pavano? And that's assuming these guys would sign at 100-loss Arizona for the same price as playoff teams.

It's debatable, but according to most analysis, all the above signings would give you better value/money than Glaus and Ortiz. Even the Milton signing might end up better than the Ortiz one. ZiPS is projecting a 9-16, 4.92 year for Ortiz in 2005.


The 100-loss thing is really interesting though. A year ago, Tigers were in a similar situation and apparently the Diamondbacks will want to follow their steps. The Tigers "overpaid" for Ivan Rodriguez and Fernando Vina, and at least one of them worked. I would sure hope Glaus can bounce back, and Ortiz is probably beyond hope.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

It's debatable, but according to most analysis, all the above signings would give you better value/money than Glaus and Ortiz. Even the Milton signing might end up better than the Ortiz one. ZiPS is projecting a 9-16, 4.92 year for Ortiz in 2005.

Outside of Pedro, Ortiz was the most consistent pitcher over the past 4 seasons avaliable in FA. In all but one season he had an ERA under 4 and always threw for 33-34 starts, 200+ innings and around 17 wins. What Arizona needed was some stability in their pitching staff. You go out and sign a Milton, Pavano, Clement or Jaret Wright and you really don't know what you are getting. I'm guessing part of the reason for the significantly worse projection for Ortiz (his worse combination of stats over the past 4 seasons is 33 starts, 4.12 ERA, 14 wins) is the fact that he is on an Arizona team that lost 100 games. But they have replaced their three biggest defensive liabilities (Hairston, Hillenbrand, Cintron) with better defenders like Glaus, Clayton and Counsell. But if even that's the reason, how would an Eric Milton fare any better when you consider that he missed almost all of 2003 and had ERA bookends of 4.84 and 4.75 in 02 and 04? If Ortiz is projected to have an ERA jump of almost a full run over his worst season, why not the same for Milton in Arizona?

The 100-loss thing is really interesting though. A year ago, Tigers were in a similar situation and apparently the Diamondbacks will want to follow their steps. The Tigers "overpaid" for Ivan Rodriguez and Fernando Vina, and at least one of them worked. I would sure hope Glaus can bounce back, and Ortiz is probably beyond hope.

The Tigers were not a similar team a few years back. Remember, Arizona was one season removed from a playoff contender and stunk up the joint because half their starting hitters (Sexson, Gonzalez, Alomar, Hammock ...) and 2/3 of their staff (essentially every reliever - including three different closers - and three starters) were on the DL. The Tigers weren't killed by injuries when they lost 100 games, they just didn't have any players. If you figure just the injured guys came back, Arizona would be a better team. Then you throw in another 6-7 quality major league players that they've signed and I think it's safe to look at this Arizona team finishing around .500 for 05. And that puts them in a nice position for 06 considering their payroll will finish in the mid 50 million range (compared with an 04 starting payroll of $77 million).

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Yeah, and I think that's the mystery part. The team already claimed to be in debt for a few years, and the attendence is declining. If they never slash payroll, how will the debt go away?

Maybe the team was exaggerating about the debts.

These are good questions, and not much of this has been picked up by the national media. Arizona did have lower attendance last season than the two years following their World Series, but I think this was overblown as well. Despite losing 100 games, Arizona still finished 15th in attendance at 31,105 a game (ahead of the Braves, Mets, Twins and As - to name a few).

The main problem was that Colangelo was continuing to spend 90-100 million in actual salaries in 2002 and 2003 when the team couldn't afford it because of the additional deferred money coming due. I think their "total" 2003 payroll was something like $120 million when you add in all the deferred money. This put the team in a pretty big bind. Then, Jerry was forced to sell the team to Kendrick and he started to clean things up. The first thing he did was raise another $300 million in outside investment to help protect the team's solvency. Then, this offseason, he has currently cut the non-deferred payroll from $77 million (start of 04) to a real dollar amount of about $38.5 million when you add in the Johnson deal and $9 million in cash received. So even if the team brings in Green at $16 million and signs another $2 mil player, this team will be in the mid-50s going into opening day in real money leaving for actual salaries.

They were in trouble when they made the Schilling deal going into 04, but right now the team seems to be righting the ship and because of Kendrick's more aggressive payment of deferred money, the team will be out from under that cloud completely in another five seasons.

The only thing that could hurt this process is if the team continues to stink and attendance drops into the low 20s, merchandising decreases and they lose TV revenue. That's why Kendrick is overpaying a little for guys like Glaus and Ortiz, to try and stop the bleeding and get this team back to .500 for 05.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

I'm guessing part of the reason for the significantly worse projection for Ortiz (his worse combination of stats over the past 4 seasons is 33 starts, 4.12 ERA, 14 wins) is the fact that he is on an Arizona team that lost 100 games.

It is generally DIPS related.

Ortiz had a 4.95 FIP ERA (without park adjustments) in 2004. He projects to a 4.81 for 2005; park adjusted (roughly) to a 4.97.

He projects to have a 7:5 SO:BB ratio.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

It is generally DIPS related.

Ortiz had a 4.95 FIP ERA (without park adjustments) in 2004. He projects to a 4.81 for 2005; park adjusted (roughly) to a 4.97.

He projects to have a 7:5 SO:BB ratio.

OK, but that's what makes me wonder. Atlanta is not exactly a pitcher's park and the Braves were 21st in the league in fielding, yet Ortiz had a 4.13 ERA in 04 (a far cry from the 4.95 number listed there). I know about the DIPS calculation, but I think it doesn't take into account a guy like Ortiz's ability to pitch out of tough situations. He gave up 197 hits, 112 BBs and struck out only 143 batters. He had a WHIP of 1.58 - yet his ERA was just 4.13. The same pattern holds for his 03 season when he gave up 180 hits, had a 149-102 K/BB ration and had an ERA of 3.82. If you watch Ortiz pitch, you'll see a lot of 7-8 innings, 5-6 hits, 4-5 walks, but only 2-3 ER. This goes back to San Francisco and he's never really had a great defense behind him.

You don't do that over 3-4 seasons out of "luck". Ortiz has numbers that make people cringe (and look ugly on DIPS) but he has always gotten the job done because he knows how to pitch out of trouble. And, until that stops, I see no reason to expect that Ortiz will suddenly become a 5-ERA guy with a sub-500 record. According to DIPS, he probably should have had a 4.8 to 5 ERA every season, yet it never happens.

[heavyhitter41]

It seems as if Russ Ortiz has a strange knack for controlling hits. His H/9 rates the last 3 years have been 7.7, 7.0, and 7.9. His BABIP the past 3 years have been .291, .255, and and .275. These stats have stayed consistent with his BB, K, and HR stats. I'm not saying he's worth the money, but it does appear that he has shown a strange ability to control his hit rate.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by Arlie Rahn

OK, but that's what makes me wonder. Atlanta is not exactly a pitcher's park and the Braves were 21st in the league in fielding, yet Ortiz had a 4.13 ERA in 04 (a far cry from the 4.95 number listed there). I know about the DIPS calculation, but I think it doesn't take into account a guy like Ortiz's ability to pitch out of tough situations. He gave up 197 hits, 112 BBs and struck out only 143 batters. He had a WHIP of 1.58 - yet his ERA was just 4.13. The same pattern holds for his 03 season when he gave up 180 hits, had a 149-102 K/BB ration and had an ERA of 3.82. If you watch Ortiz pitch, you'll see a lot of 7-8 innings, 5-6 hits, 4-5 walks, but only 2-3 ER. This goes back to San Francisco and he's never really had a great defense behind him.

You don't do that over 3-4 seasons out of "luck". Ortiz has numbers that make people cringe (and look ugly on DIPS) but he has always gotten the job done because he knows how to pitch out of trouble. And, until that stops, I see no reason to expect that Ortiz will suddenly become a 5-ERA guy with a sub-500 record. According to DIPS, he probably should have had a 4.8 to 5 ERA every season, yet it never happens.

His FIP era was pretty close to 4 a few years ago, and 4.2 a few years later. SF was a pitchers park, so that depressed his ERA. Atlanta plays neutral.

Last year was his biggest odd ball DIPS season. Generally, he trended to a 4, 4.2, 4.9, and now projects to a 4.8 with a neutral defense and nuetral stadium.

[Arlie Rahn]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

His FIP era was pretty close to 4 a few years ago, and 4.2 a few years later. SF was a pitchers park, so that depressed his ERA. Atlanta plays neutral.

Last year was his biggest odd ball DIPS season. Generally, he trended to a 4, 4.2, 4.9, and now projects to a 4.8 with a neutral defense and nuetral stadium.

Yes, but according to those same projections he should have had a 4.95 ERA in a neutral situation (ie, Atlanta) in 04. Yet, he finished with a 4.13 ERA. Again, I wouldn't be surprise to see the "projections" be 4.80 again for Ortiz in Arizona but for him to have an actual ERA in the 4.10 to 4.20 range.

[Skipaway]

And all these talk reminds me of the discussion about Leo Mazzone's ability awhile ago. It seems Mazzone is the only one that would make pitchers significantly different, both before and after being coached by him.

Maybe we should adjust Jaret Wright and Russ Ortiz's numbers down for that?

And what exactly is this "controling hit rate" thing about? .291, .255, and .275 weren't consistent.

[heavyhitter41]

Skipaway, they were consistently below league average.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by heavyhitter41

Skipaway, they were consistently below league average.

A pitcher with .291 BABIP is very close to league average, while a .255 means very lucky. There was no consistency in Russ Ortiz's BABIP. Barry Zito's number from 2001-2003 was .288, .251, and .244, but that didn't stop him from getting a .299 in 2004. I don't know why Russ Ortiz will be a special pitcher that knows how to control BABIP.

Glendon Rusch was considered a consistent above league average BABIP pitcher until last year, when he suddenly became average.

Don't bet on BABIPs.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Don't bet on BABIPs.

This is a question I've had since learning about BABIP (I stumbled across it when I was trying to figure out why Derek Lowe wasn't performing in 2003). Is there any evidence that points to any kind of pitcher that can have a direct effect on this? Or is it basically random... or a function of the defense behind the pitcher?

[Joshv02]

L_R: This is DIPS.

There is some evidence that pitchers control Line Drive % to some extent. LDs are turned into outs less often than other batted balls. Same for GB/FO. The Hardbaltimes's book lists pitchers 2004 LD%, but mine is at work.

You can't take a 3 yr sample and say "see, ability." You also can't compare player to lg avg; you need to park adjust and team adjust. For examples, the 2003 Braves looked to be a very good defensive team, though 2004 not so much.

In any event, Russ Ortiz's numbers were always close to his FIP, park adjusted, until last year. Lets say the over/under on his ERA for next year is 4.6: any takers on the under? I'll take the over.