A farewell to the Big Unit?
Randy is forced to file for free agency and consider all opportunities to further his career. He hopes to find a team where he can continue to pitch at a high level and contribute to another world championship. Randy and his family live in Arizona and he will always be a Diamondback at heart. Most of all, Randy will miss the overwhelming support the fans have shown him throughout the years. He wishes the Diamondbacks great success in 2009 and beyond.
There is now a very real possibility that the future Hall of Famer Randy Johnson will not get to finish his career, or reach the 300-win mark with the Arizona Diamondbacks, with the news today that he has filed for free agency. While this move does not completely rule out the possibility of a return to the desert, it does appear that the sides are some way apart in their opinion of Johnson's worth. The poignant statement from his agents above does not exactly lend itself to much optimism in this matter:
Most estimates put the amount offered by Josh Byrnes at around the $3m mark; it's not quite clear what Johnson wanted, but he said, "I was willing to take a 50 percent pay cut to come back here." What that means, depends on what you take the 50% as being of, exactly. Randy's base salary in 2008 was ten million, but by the time you add in other components - part of the signing bonus, deferred salaries from his previous deal and a "personal services" contract - the total he got from the D-backs was likely north of $15m. One imagines that is likely the number he and his agents are using for their 'half-price' quotes, and hence the figure Johnson wanted was in the $7-8m area.
Though even this much wouldn't seem too much for some who pitched like a #3 starter last season - and better than that after the break - it seemed the risk of a 45-year old with a questionable back was too much for the organization to take. Don't forget, the first year here, he made only ten starts. Tracy Ringolsby reports, "One concern for the Diamondbacks was how committed Johnson would remain after he gets to 300," and that does seem a possible issue. But our siblings over at FakeTeams.com look at the evidence that this could be part of an Arizona fire-sale, perhaps tied in part to the current economic conditions. And it also goes without saying [but dammit, I'm going to say so anyway], that the $11m tied up for 2009 in our fourth outfielder would be very nice about now.
I do totally appreciate JB's position: while there are salaries coming off the books this winter [no more Russ Ortiz!], a good chunk of that is already due to be used on pay increases to existing players. Almost every regular players is scheduled for an increase in 2009, and the huge number of early picks could mean the draft ends up costing as much as $12m. It means Byrnes has only about $10-15 million to spend this winter, and that includes the money needed to find an everyday second baseman. He said, "In every negotiation, you try to have an understanding of market value and an understanding of the team context. Sometimes that helps get a deal done. Sometimes it doesn’t.” He added, "Something would have to fundamentally change in our position or their position or both in order for us to close the gap." Winning this weekend's Powerball lottery is probably the team's best hope.
In certain quarters, there appears to be anger being directed at Randy - the Republic poll at the moment is running almost 50/50 as to whether the loss of Johnson would be a bad development or not. Personally, I do feel a sense he might 'owe' the team something for taking him back after his time in New York, and his failure to live up to a very expensive contract in 2007. Dan Bickley points out that Johnson has already earned at least $167 million over the course of his career, and it would seem hard to swallow that money is the "real" issue here. If Johnson wanted to finish his career here, he could do so, and would be welcome on his own terms: this is not a Luis Gonzalez-like situation, by any means.
The Tribune speculates on where Johnson might end up, if he does go elsewhere. He probably won't want to go too far, but the Dodgers appear to be aiming their cash at Ramirez, while the Padres are in "sell" mode and neither the AL teams (Angels and A's) nor the Giants appear immediately to have much interest. Still, I imagine San Diego will be particularly happy if the Big Unit leaves the division, since he is 16-5 with a 2.45 ERA against them in his career. [The Cubs, against whom he is 13-0, must be praying he doesn't end up in the Central!]
Here's an interesting thought as a replacement. Curt Schilling? He has expressed a lot of interest in potentially coming back to Arizona for a Clemens-like partial season. He said during an interview on KTAR [MP3, about nine minutes in] on November 4 that, "
0 recs |
78 comments
|
Comments
Too bad
about Randy, but I’m not going to get too broken up about it.
Right now I’m more curious about how the economic fortunes of the various teams shake out next season. Will baseball see a downturn in ticket sales? Obviously the major teams that always draw will continue to do so, but will Joe Phoenix want to go to as many, if any at all, this coming year? Live sporting events are a bit of a luxury (though a reasonably priced one for the most part), so will more people stay home and watch on TV? And if ticket sales are down, what will teams do to counter? I imagine if things don’t look so hot on the field and in the stands in 2009 we could very well see our own version of the Fire-Sale Shuffle.
Of course, that’s all wild speculation. I’m not economist by any stretch of the imagination, so I may be not considering something or putting too much emphasis on something else.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 13, 2008 10:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It is possible that one
result could be the stabilization of free-agent salaries. While times were good, everybody had money and bid the free agent prices up. Now, only a very few teams have money for a select few roster spots, so the majority of players who are free agents now should be expecting less money than they may have gotten in previous years.
Arizona expatriate in Missouri
by Snakebitten on Nov 14, 2008 12:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's
what I’m thinking if the scenario goes through. If anything, the speculative free agent market was over-valued so I would hope for the sake of the game that salaries slow a bit.
Of course, money-machines like the Red Sox, Yankees, and other large markets will probably continue to be crazy.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 14, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think
that will happen this year? I thought overall that baseball had another good year. I was thinking it might not happen until after next season.
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
by Scrbl on Nov 14, 2008 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
An advantage
for baseball (when compared to similar entertainment options) is that you can watch a game for about $10, if we assume 5 for the base ticket and 5 for parking. You could probably do it for $5, but either option is still cheaper than most things out there. The zoo is $16, a movie is up to $9 (depending on a matinee or if you’re a senior). The various museums are generally $10 or more from what I remember, and the waterparks and theme parks are all over $10. A trade paperback book is $15 (or more!) and a CD is $10.
So in reality, if you’re willing to be frugal about certain things, such as eating at home, then baseball can be a very inexpensive entertainment option for 2 or 3 hours. The question becomes do people realize how affordable seeing a game every once and a while is, or is the perception that baseball is too expensive.
And yeah, baseball had a great year last year.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 14, 2008 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We don't
really have all that many high paid players though. I can’t see us pulling a San Diego. Maybe wishful thinking or naive on my part.
I wonder too at the current economic situation we find ourselves in right now would impact the sports market. Everyone says it’ll get a lot worse after the first of the year. I would think even the big spenders would feel some effect.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 14, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's true
that we don’t have the big contracts or even many future big contracts, so I guess even if we did see a fire sale, it would be fairly minor. Webb, Jackson, and Haren would the first to go I would assume.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 14, 2008 6:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On the mouth coming back
two words: Oy Vey!
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 14, 2008 12:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Okay, it's official: Hades just froze over
Bickley has a piece on Randy and all this too and it actually makes some sense! I don’t know if I should be scared or happy he (Bickley) finally wrote a decent piece about OUR local team….
[url=http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/DanBickley/39083]Bickley’s Take[/url]
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 14, 2008 12:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Over $100,000 per inning pitched over the last two years?
Plus the players that we gave up???
Does this go down on the plus side of JB ledger?
by foulpole on Nov 14, 2008 1:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
So true!
What a waste! We should never have to pay a hall of famer that much money!
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 14, 2008 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was HOF bound before he left for NY. The 240 innings (or so) he pitched for us over the last two years would hardly qualify anyone for HOF if that performance were stretched over a career.
How many other pitchers ( not named Ortiz) made that much money for that level of performance over the last two years?
by foulpole on Nov 14, 2008 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers like Mike Hampton ($390k per inning), Mariano Rivera ($180k per inning), or Pedro Martinez ($188K per inning). Some others in that general area would be Elmer Dessens ($89k per inning) or John Smoltz ($94k per inning).
Though they’re all bargains compared to Mark Mulder ($908k per inning), Chris Carpenter ($877k per inning) or Jason Schmidt ($1.2 million per inning).
Of course, if Sabathia gets the $24 million a year contract some people think he’ll get, and pitches as many innings as he did this season, he’ll be a bust, too, by foulpole’s fully arbitrary method of evaluation.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 14, 2008 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The great thing about foulpole
is when you explicitly answer his question with information he didn’t want, and he straight up ignores it. I really don’t see how this type of attitude adds value to this discussion.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's see...
Mike Hampton, Barry Zito, Jason Schmidt, Bartolo Colon, Curt Schilling, Eric Milton, Carl Pavano, Matt Morris. In about 15 seconds or research, there’s a list of eight pitchers who made more than $10 million in 2008 alone (RJ was $12 mil), most of which had expensive contracts from at least the season before, if not longer. So the answer is quite a few, and if you really boil it down to millions of dollars vs. innings pitched, I bet there are plenty of other examples.
15-13
240 2/3 IP, 1.20 WHIP, 245 K, 3.87 ERA
Those are Johnson’s numbers the past two seasons combined. Now if any of those pitchers put up numbers anywhere close to that over the past two years, I invite you to show them to me. And hell, if you projected those out through his career, he might STILL be knocking on the HoF doorstep.
Please stop your drivel. It’s embarrassing. The point about injuries and a risk of not having enough innings pitched is one thing. Claiming he’s been less than effective in the time he has pitched is nonsense.
by Azreous on Nov 14, 2008 6:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Zito only made $65k per inning!
He was obviously a superior pitcher over Randy!
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 14, 2008 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
15-13
240 2/3 IP, 1.20 WHIP, 245 K, 3.87 ERA
Those are Johnson’s numbers the past two seasons combined. …And hell, if you projected those out through his career, he might STILL be knocking on the HoF doorstep.
I have a real hard time believing that those numbers times 5 (as in a 10 year career) would get someone in the HOF.
The point about injuries and a risk of not having enough innings pitched is one thing. Claiming he’s been less than effective in the time he has pitched is nonsense.
I never said that when he did pitch that he wasn’t effective. I questioned the cost that the org paid for his performance and if this transaction should be considered a win.
Please stop your drivel. It’s embarrassing.
I really don’t see how this type of comment adds value to this discussion. Let’s try to keep it civil.
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 12:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but
You didn’t say the two years would be stretched out for a HoF comparison. You used the innings. And that requires comparing them directly to the innings he has pitched so far. That paints an entirely different picture. Of course a starter who throws 1200 innings in a 10-year career isn’t going into the hall. That doesn’t even warrant mentioning.
by Azreous on Nov 15, 2008 3:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Besides
Name any player with a ten year career who’d get into the Hall of Fame.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jackie Robinson
natch.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True
But at least part of that is based on what he did for the game. Anyone else with his numbers might not have made it in- by the Hall of Fame Standards Test Jackie Robinson is tied with the likes of Mark Grace. =)
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except
that you asked to name any player who would get in to the Hall of Fame with ten years service.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you bring facts into this!
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those two score a 38
Frank Chance is a 24 on that scale: never mind Grace, that’s below the likes of Jay Bell (26.9). There’s a good case to be made that Chance’s HoF credentials are largely based on one line of doggerel.
by Jim McLennan on Nov 15, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Chance induction was largely for his managing, too.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Though he only reached the post-season
Once outside those six years. Though I guess managing the Cubs to their last World Series for a century – and hopefully, longer! – deserves some sort of accolade. :-)
by Jim McLennan on Nov 15, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or
Roy Campanella and Ralph Kiner.
Both Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean had 12 year careers.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay
So, four players out of 228 inducted? And out of how many who have played in baseball? It’d take a very impressive run, possibly tagged with something else- breaking the racial barriers of baseball or a tragic death at a young age- and even then, you’re not looking at ten years based off the numbers put up in two injury-shortened years from a man in his forties.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just sayin'
it took me like two seconds to find all of this so it’s not out of the question for a player to be inducted after about 10 years service.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not out of the question
Just extremely unlikely. And probably getting less likely as the average career of a player gets longer.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well I get that
I just wanted an excuse to say “natch,” really.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably not as much as you'd think
It hasn’t really changed much in the past sixty years:
A rookie could expect to play 4.3 years in what the authors call the Early Era, between 1902 and 1945, 6.47 years in the Golden Age (1946-68) and 6.85 years in the Modern Era. The study does not include players whose careers began later than 1993, because many are still playing.
– Link
by Jim McLennan on Nov 15, 2008 1:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Curious
I would have expected more of a noticeable difference. Maybe more teams in the league means more players with shorter tenures? Interesting.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Starting later?
Just a thought. By the time you go through all the levels of the minors, you could be 23 before you make your debut [Snyder, Jackson and Webb were all that age]. I’m thinking the average age used to be younger; this would help counter the effect at the other end, where players can now last longer. Though it’ll be interesting to see if that continues in the (supposedly) post-steroid era: see Bonds and Clemens for details.
by Jim McLennan on Nov 15, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Multiply those numbers by 6 or 7 (as in 12 or 14 year careers) and it still doesn’t get a pitcher in the HOF.
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fascinatingly enough, though
Players are rarely evaluated for their career using the “take two years when you’re older and pretend you perform just like that for a decade” metric.
Dude was re-injured for a hefty part of his first year back. Unfortunate, but it happens. Your random method of evaluation punishes him heavily for this.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 16, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Addie Joss: nine seasons
You could also lob in Frank Chance – as in “Tinkers to Evans to Chance” – who only played 100 games or more in six seasons.
by Jim McLennan on Nov 15, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought about him too
but then got lazy after I felt my point was proved.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn’t say the two years would be stretched out for a HoF comparison.
I wrote:
Over $100,000 per inning pitched over the last two years?
by foulpole on Nov 13, 2008 11:21 PM MST
…The 240 innings (or so) he pitched for us over the last two years would hardly qualify anyone for HOF if that performance were stretched over a career.
How many other pitchers ( not named Ortiz) made that much money for that level of performance over the last two years?
by foulpole on Nov 14, 2008 2:08 PM MST
You wrote:
Those are Johnson’s numbers the past two seasons combined. … if you projected those out through his career, he might STILL be knocking on the HoF doorstep.
?
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is simple sentence structure.
“over the last two years” is neither the subject nor the object of the sentence. The sentence is talking about the 240 innings specifically. If that was not your intent, you should not word things so carelessly.
by Azreous on Nov 15, 2008 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Zing!
Tonights english lesson brought to you buy the letter M and the number 4.
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 16, 2008 2:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Note
You’re the one who made the “career = ten years” choice. Read what soco actually said:
Those are Johnson’s numbers the past two seasons combined. … if you projected those out through his career, he might STILL be knocking on the HoF doorstep.
Randy Johnson’s career, at the moment, entails 21 seasons, not the 10 you’ve arbitrarily limited him to.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 16, 2008 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey.
Don’t insult soco by calling him me.
by Azreous on Nov 16, 2008 3:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My name
isn’t even Chris.
You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.
by soco on Nov 16, 2008 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is a good thing.
You’d be invisible to yourself.
by Azreous on Nov 16, 2008 11:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
According to Cots, here is a list of the highest paid SPs.
Starting pitchers
The highest-paid starting pitchers, by average annual value:
1. Johan Santana, $22,916,667 (2008-13)
2. Carlos Zambrano, $18,300,000 (2008-12)
3. Barry Zito, $18,000,000 (2007-13)
4. Jake Peavy, $17,333,333 (2010-12)
5. Andy Pettitte, $16,000,000 (2008)
6. Jason Schmidt, $15,666,667 (2007-09)
7. Mike Hampton, $15,125,000 (2001-08)
8. Roy Oswalt, $14,600,000 (2007-11)
9. Mark Buehrle, $14,000,000 (2008-11)
John Smoltz, $14,000,000 (2008)
10. Roy Halladay, $13,333,333 (2008-10)
11. Pedro Martinez, $13,250,000 (2005-08)
12. Randy Johnson, $13,000,000 (2007-08)
13. Chris Carpenter, $12,700,000 (2008-11)
14. Bronson Arroyo, $12,500,000 (2009-10)
15. Kevin Millwood, $12,000,000 (2006-10)
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html
It’s not like there are a few dozen pitchers that made more than RJ the last two years. I can’t say that this deal worked out as a huge plus for the org the last couple seasons on a cost/performance basis.
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It might.
If anybody actually cared about what you posted anymore.
by Azreous on Nov 14, 2008 4:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If anybody actually cared about what you posted anymore.
I really don’t see how this comment adds any value to the discussion.
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 12:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's a discussion?
I thought that required an open forum of ideas.
by Azreous on Nov 15, 2008 3:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There we go.
Offer Schilling that same $3 million and see if he laughs it off too.
by Azreous on Nov 14, 2008 4:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'll miss Randy
although I can understand the concern over his injuries. What are the D-Backs gonna do to replace him?
Bickley’s article was a pleasant surprise. Not so much that I agreed with it. I have very little patience for writers who scold players for looking out for their own interests, especially when they applaud teams for looking out for theirs. It comes off as lazy pandering. But it was great to see him write an article that focused on the local team. Welcome to Phoenix, Mr. Bickley!
"We...probed them all the way through. They're completely meat." — Terry Bisson
by Scrbl on Nov 14, 2008 9:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Uh, what about Webb?
Frankly, I am more worried about Brandon Webb and the lack of an extension so far more than the RJ situation. The probable Yankees’ 6-year/$137 million plus offer to Sabathia is going to really make the D’backs’ FO regret not signing Webb to that extension they pulled off the table. Yikes!
by TwinnerA on Nov 14, 2008 6:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
they would have to loved to sign Webb, but at the Q&A Josh Byrnes mentioned that there were things that weren’t in the contract that the union wanted “symbolically.” I’m not entirely sure what he meant, but if the FO is balking at something minor, they need to just buck up and sign the guy. A pitcher of Webb’s caliber doesn’t come around for every team, especially when you can say you drafted the guy, developed him, brought him up, and employed him his entire career. The Diamondbacks have their first chance at a true “Franchise Player” and then need to get it done.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 14, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to see Webby playing as a Dback for the next four years but look at what MN got for Santana.
Minnesota Twins traded Johan Santana to the New York Mets for Carlos Gomez, Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra.
That seems like a pretty solid deal so far and freed up a lot of $ so they could extend their other players.
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
but look at what MN got for one year of Santana
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's always the crux, innit?
I guess if the right guys were available for a trade, but without knowing specifics I’d still rather keep Webb around. We’ll have to see how Brynes handles this type of situation.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we have Webby tied up through 2010 and if he is looking for an additional 6 year extension then we would have to pay big bucks for his age 35,36 and 37 seasons.
I wouldn’t be shocked if he were dealt after ’09. Barring a major injury and assuming that he does well next year, we should be able to bring in a decent haul.
by foulpole on Nov 15, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get you
You have a strong dislike for Conor, Upton, anyone young on the team. You are not happy with the greatest player to ever wear our uniform , saying he was not worthy (????) Now, You can’t wait to get rid of Webb. Exactly what team do you follow?
How did your favourite veteran perform this past season? Was he worth all the money we spent?
What does a mama bear on the pill have in common with the World Series? No cubs.
by unnamedDBacksfan on Nov 16, 2008 2:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t agree that the org should have the payroll maxed at $70 mil. I think that it should be closer to 80-90 range but I have no control over that. But if that is what they have decided upon I would prefer to see the money spent elsewhere.
I feel that the first two players that we should “lock up” now are Wolf and Snydes. We already have Danny Boy inked through 2013 and have drafter pitchers pretty heavily the last couple years. Isn’t Wolf only singed through ’09?
by foulpole on Nov 17, 2008 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
[The Cubs, against whom he is 13-0, must be praying he doesn’t end up in the Central!]
Looks like they might want to make certain: Cubs interested in Randy Johnson.
The guy is 4-0 at Wrigley Field, why not, right? Of course, that may be why the Dodgers (7-0 in Dodgers Stadium) should be interested, too.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 2:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Was
pitching a big question mark for them last year? I thought it wasn’t, and that their main downfall was going so cold offensively right when playoffs began.
We are gonna get drunk with Adam Dunn and we're gonna head-butt some damn kangaroos.
by soco on Nov 15, 2008 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was really both
Their offense did die a sudden death, but they also gave up 20 runs in three games against the Dodgers.
They are looking to replace Ryan Dempster in the starting rotation.
"I'm here to advise you on dispensing horror in this modern military climate. I understand you're a demigod, that's fantastic!"
by kishi on Nov 15, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some Insulting Observations
When Gonzo was shown the door in 2006, Josh Byrnes declined to present a ‘courtesy’ offer of $2-3M, because he ostensibly ‘felt it was insulting’ to the most popular player in franchise history. Apparently, that same sensitivity doesnt extend to the franchise’s greatest player :-)
I’m not saying re-signing Randy was a must do, by any means. That involves an enormous number of variables. I’m just saying the reported offer of $3M was so low as to beg a couple of questions. One, did the Dbacks decline to make Johnson a credible offer pursuant to acquiring new payroll elsewhere? And two, given that $3M represents Randy’s marginal value to this FO, then how exactly do they define “value”?
One would think, in Randy’s case, expected “value” entails winning games that his rotational substitute probably would not, along with timely and timeless brand considerations (which levski nailed as ‘legacy’ over at DBBP). I’m not asserting it’s necessarily worth $10-12M either, but the club’s position that it’s only worth $3M, may suggest a fairly radical definition of “value”. One at odds not just with Jerry Colangelo’s perspective, or valuations defined by competitive markets, but increasingly unfamiliar to core customers this FO so often purports to serve.
by Diamondhacks on Nov 15, 2008 7:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why
is their view of his value so radical?
You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.
by soco on Nov 16, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of the three salary benchmarks
mentioned (ie Colangelo, competitive market, and core fans’ expectations), it’s the bewildered reaction of enthusiastic franchise supporters (like those @ DBBP) that puts the $3M offer in ‘radical’ territory.
We know Kendrick isnt going to “pay what Jerry would”, nor is he going to pay fair market value for Johnson. And maybe he shouldnt. But many diehards scratching their heads at the $3M offer are the same people who’ve historically voiced appreciation of the new FO’s finite resources and available choices. And they, quite understandably in this division, expect to compete. Barring some blockbuster move, with funds saved from not signing RJ (or Hudson or Dunn etc etc), many of these reasonable fans are having difficulty reconciling this bottom feeding offer with an earnest commitment to win.
The winter’s still young, and we’ll see what happens, but right now invested fans appear unusually glum. Some are even starting to feel betrayed. Talk of multiple championship runs, still prevalent as recently as seven months ago, has taken a back seat to talk of ‘firesales’ and jettisoning Brandon Webb. Again, this isnt the ‘sign Randy at any cost’ crowd. These are analysts who understand the relevant tradeoffs, or who thought they did, and who are questioning not just the offer itself, but a franchise direction it may represent.
Before Jim jumps all over me about that characterization, allow me to add that any one of a number of developments could dramatically boost fan confidence. I’m just trying to capture the current mood.
by Diamondhacks on Nov 16, 2008 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't
really frequent DBBP but the opinion around here seems to be that Randy’s desire for $5 million or more is the unreasonable offer. I could be wrong, though.
You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.
by soco on Nov 16, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I certainly don't speak for everyone, but...
I’m in the $3 million is unreasonable camp.
by Azreous on Nov 16, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Claims
that Randy’s asking price is ‘unreasonable’ would seem to be grounded in something other than fairly well established labor markets. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, of course, and I’d even acknowledge that this financial impasse is uniquely complicated by age/health, economic uncertainty and a long, winding history between franchise and player. But at the end of the day, who’s more “reasonable”: the greatest player in franchise history (on the cusp of 300 wins) volunteering to take a significant pay cut after quite a good year, or a franchise eschewing what amounts to, best I can tell, a 30-50% hometown discount, insisting on a 70% paycut instead?
Johnson’s already done the franchise a significant favor by deferring huge amounts in order to play in Arizona. His job is to win games and achieve milestones, in exchange for something approaching a competitive salary – not keep this franchise in the black by playing for next to nothing.
by Diamondhacks on Nov 16, 2008 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Being
the greatest franchise player doesn’t mean he knows the Diamondbacks’ interests or position better than Josh Byrnes, or that he’s more reasonable. It just means he’s a damn good player.
You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.
by soco on Nov 17, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A player's greatness
doesnt make him more reasonable, but it does make him more valuable and expensive. In Randy’s case, both on (effective #3 starter) and off (300 wins, legacy) the field. Everyone (markets and fans) here accepts this, except the Diamondbacks apparently.
In terms of team “interests”, Josh Byrnes represents the interests of Ken Kendrick more than anything else – namely cost containment. However, their record of preserving team interests by way of personnel moves ( what fans care most about) is rather mixed. The point is that the $3M offer defines the club’s interests in a way that is suddenly quite different than interests as defined by core fans who’ve been on board with other moves (ie not signing Hudson, Dunn) deemed unnecessarily frugal by casual observers.
And when I say Randy’s more reasonable, it’s not in a personal sense. I just mean his asking price is more in line with markets and most analytic fans’ expectations than was the club offer.
by Diamondhacks on Nov 17, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Kendrick's interests
in regards to the club is the Diamondbacks’ interests.
Randy wanting $5 million or more might be in line with the market but that doesn’t mean it’s in line with what the Diamondbacks want to do. Spending 50-70% of the budget on a (great) pitcher (with great risk) when the club needs to focus on offense is foolhardy to me, and apparently to the Diamondbacks as well.
I’ve read the comments over at DBBP about it, though, and I can certainly see where that side is coming from, but I don’t think the Diamondbacks are being unreasonable here. Neither side owes the other anything, and everything at least seems amicable.
I do want to be clear that I admire the position of the “keep Randy” movement, but I disagree with it simply because if the Diamondbacks only have $10-15 million this offseason then I’d hope they’d try to make an upgrade of some sort on offense or even the woefully inconsistant bullpen before looking at the rotation.
You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.
by soco on Nov 17, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Kendrick’s interests in regards to the club is the Diamondbacks’ interests
Well, like I said, you’re entitled to your opinion ;-) It’s my observation that a growing number of intelligent fans, whose only real agenda is to support a competitive club, are questioning whether Earl Kendrick’s and Josh Byrnes’ interests coincide with their interests as fans – and if you’re at odds with your customers interests, then on some level, you’re at odds with the interests of your “organization”. Kinda like George Bush and Karl Rove.
Randy wanting $5 million or more might be in line with the market…
Five million is way under the line, soco. And three million is off the chart for a veteran of Johnson’s ability.
Neither side owes the other anything…
I agree, but it’s in both of their interests to win games. That’s what the customers want. That’s a substantial part of how they both make money. At this point, based on reported offers and counteroffers, I would say Randy Johnson is more interested in winning games for this organization than is the Managing Partner.
As far as upgrading the offense, you’re speaking to the choir. I’ve just seen zero evidence that making a more serious offer to Johnson is exclusive to that end.
by Diamondhacks on Nov 17, 2008 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see
so implying that I’m or anyone else agreeing with the decision isn’t an “intelligent fan.” Well, good luck with that one.
You keep on rowin', and I'll keep on smilin'.
by soco on Nov 17, 2008 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At this point
I assume you’re putting me on.
by Diamondhacks on Nov 17, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t have a problem with the org letting Gonzo go when they did or letting RJ go now if he wanted $8mil.
Players come and players go. I don’t buy jerseys with players names one them.
I’m not trying to support the org’s fugal tendencies in general but have serious doubts the RJ fits into a mid level market team that needs serious help on the offensive side and has two solid SPs tied up through 2010 right now.
The money needs to be spent on some offense, hopefully some LHBs
by foulpole on Nov 16, 2008 2:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















