Diamondbacks Sign Adam LaRoche
Dejan Kovacevic says through Twitter that Arizona have signed first baseman Adam LaRoche to a one-year contract. Jon Heyman follows up by tweeting that it's a deal worthbetween $4-5 million for LaRoche. Thanks to Elway4Prez and Dbacks fan in Taiwan for the heads-up on this. [Update] Nick Piecoro ssays, "KTAR is reporting LaRoche’s deal to be worth $4 million with an $8 million mutual option for 2011 or a $2 million buyout. So it’s either one year and $6 million or two years and $12 million."
Between Pittsburgh, Boston and Atlanta last season, Laroche hit .277/.355/.488, with 25 HR and an OPS+ of 122. In his six major-league seasons, he has yet to post an OPS+ below a hundred, with a career figure of 116. It definitely addresses the thorny issue of first-base: he is a left-handed batter, though does hang in there fairly well against left-handed pitching (his OPS splits are .857/.751) . But it seems that this probably puts an end to a) Brandon Allen seeing much playing time in 2009, and b) Conor Jackson being our full-time starter at first this year.
More details and analysis after the jump.
Averaging out the LaRoche projections from Bill James, CHONE and Marcel, we get an expected line for 2010 of .266/.341/.472, an OPS of .813, with 24 home-runs and 83 RBI. These numbers are before the signing and so do not include a park factor, but still... Compare them to the collective line posted by our first-basemen in 2009 - .228/.321/.396, a combined OPS of .717 - and it's clear that's this ia a massive upgrade for the D-backs. I have a great deal more faith in this projection (and the resulting WAR) than the one for Jeff Bailey.
In that area, our siblings at Beyond the Box Score were almost as quick off the mark as we were, with their review of the signing. They rate LaRoche at 1.6 WAR [a little higher than Bailey's CHONE-projected WAR, per paqs, of 1.4]. Assuming the contract is in the $6m mentioned by Piecoro, it would mean a cost per win of about $3.75 million, a decent discount on the generally-accepted rate of $4.5m. They point out that one-year contracts generally do come at a discount, but still call this "a solid move by the Diamondbacks." In the comments, xeifrank gives us an extra half a win as the result of the move.
What makes it particularly amusing, is that, just last weekm LaRoche turned down a two-year, $17.5 million offer from the San Francisco Giants. Indications at the time are that he was looking for a three-year deal - but if that was the case, it doesn't make much sense for him to settle for even less, barely a week later. I am inclined to think it much more likely that he just didn't want to play for the Giants, and that's a position behind which I'm sure we can all get. The signing will re-unite him and Kelly Johnson: the pair played together on the right side of the infield, for a bit in Atlanta, so there should be no confusion over pop-ups.
Defensively, Johnson has been a bit up and down, but seems workmanlike enough overall. Last year, his UZR/150 was -0.5, virtually dead in line with his three-year average of -0.6. Again, even medicority would be a signifcant upgrade for the Diamondbacks, since last year, the collective UZR/150 at first-base was -6.0. He has only just turned 30 in November, so it doesn't seem likely that his range will be falling off an age-related cliff this season.
Certainly, if you compare this to the other free-agent signings this season, it looks like a very good deal. So far, we've seen rich in potential, but injury-prone Nick Johnson go to the Yankees on a one-year deal for $5.75 million, and the less-impressive Aubrey Huff (with a lower career OPS of 113, and definitely on the downward side of the curve, three years older than LaRoche) sign a similar deal with the Giants for $3 million. Compared to those, this looks like a good way to spend the money.
Speaking of which, I'm a little surprised we found the money. It's not so long ago that Nick Piecoro, who usually has a good handle on such things, was saying that the Diamondbacks’ existing commitments "wouldn't leave them much to spend this off-season.". There was always thought to be a little wiggle-room, but the range being reported for the LaRoche signing seems a bit more than expected. It brings our total payroll up to about the $78m mark, and unless we can free up payroll (coughByrnescough), seems to nail the coffin on bringing back Valverde, and even signing Randy Winn seems unlikely. Whew.
It's clear that LaRoche will be the everyday starting first-baseman for the Diamondbacks. What's less clear is what this means behind him. If Brandon Allen was a right-handed batter, then he could still have a place on the roster, but as an LHB, backing up an LHB, and who doesn't handle LHP very well, it seems more likely he'll spend the season in Reno. That's not necessarily a disaster: this is only a one-year contract, so we're not talking a Quentin-Byrnes scenario here, and Allen won't turn 24 until next month. A season spent learning how to hit southpaws is no bad thing.
It seems that, when LaRoche needs a day off - I imagine, against tough lefties like Kershaw or Happ - Conor Jackson will move to first, with someone, probably not named "Gerardo", taking up the spot in right. Eric Byrnes, if he's still with the club? Anyway, I'm now off to update the sidebar roster and first-base preview.
120 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow
Thought they were done for the off-season, this is great. 1 year commitment not too much, anything helps.
Cunfused but liking it
Kudos to the team for finally targeting one of the positions we needed to upgrade, instead of looking at more possibilities for the coveted “9th Outfielder” spot.
He’s not really the type of hitter I thought we were looking for, but if 1 year and 5M is correct, that sounds like very good value. And finally, we have a player who excells in the second half rather than fades.
by Counsellmember on Jan 14, 2010 11:03 AM EST reply actions
Jose Valverde
still hoping that we could bring him back
he is a good player… indeed
by Dbacks fan in Taiwan on Jan 14, 2010 11:09 AM EST reply actions
Valverde
As much as I think Valverde would have been a nice upgrade, I think this was a better investment of the 5M (if that is indeed the price). First base had more potential for upgrade than the bullpen.
This is just totally out of left field/1st base.
by Counsellmember on Jan 14, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed….
Surprised to see you agree, Counsell, but glad you do.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Yeah
A move like this was just never on my radar. I’d rather have had Valverde than Winn or an average first baseman except maybe Garko, but this is just too much of a deal to pass up.
by Counsellmember on Jan 14, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
I'd have rather had Garko
And none of the other guys. But I like this too. :-)
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
Nice signing offfensive wise.
He should produce some nice numbers in our favorable park to hitters.
My question is how is he defensively?
average, to slightly below
But he’s not much of a hitter for a first baseman I would pencil him in for about 1.5 WAR and I had Conor Jackson penciled in for about 2.5 WAR at 1B.
Winners in this deal (playing time wise).
1B – Adam LaRoche: Starting gig.
Losers in this deal ().
LF – G.Parra: Reduced playing time with C.Jackson move to the outfield
LF – E.Byrnes: See G.Parra
1B – Allen: Back to the minors
Nuetral in this deal
LF – Conor Jackson: Remains a starter and can still play 1B against tough lefties.
On my 2010 WAR spreadsheet this signing upticks the Diamondbacks by 0.5 WAR. I think any playing time LaRoche takes away from Parra hurts the team. Jackson gets to play a position with a slightly lower hitting penalty. This adds depth to the team, which basically pushes this signing into the positive column.
vr, Xei
Question
“I think any playing time LaRoche takes away from Parra hurts the team.”
The rest makes sense, but can you explain that one a bit more? I’ve not seen any projections that have Parra better than LaRoche. If the move took time away from Parra in CF, I could see the potential loss, but it only takes away from him in LF, and Jackson would seem a better source of production too.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
Parra
Perhaps, I am a little higher on Parra than most people. He’s good and very young imo. I think that …
(Jackson @ 1B – LaRoche @ 1B) = (Jackson @ LF – Parra @ LF)
I could be wrong, but most likely only up to a 1/2 a win or so. If Jackson is a “wiz” on defense in LF compared to his defense at 1B then that would need to be accounted for. So I guess, “hurt” may be an over-statement… should have said “doesn’t help much”.
vr, Xei
Wow. I’m very surprised by this. I completely disagree. CoJack’s defense in LF is very good while his defense at 1B is very poor. And Parra can’t hit a southpaw to save his life. Not to mention the way this substantially strengthens our bench.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
I mentioned above that it strengthened the bench and I don’t think he has proven (atleast metric wise) to definitely be a “very good” fielder in LF and a “very poor” defender at 1B. I would say 2 or 3 runs better in LF than 1B is all you could get from the metrics after adjusting for sample sizes and doing a proper regression.
vr, Xei
I disagree.
In 2006-2007 he played 1B almost exclusively. His UZR ratings in those seasons:
2006 -7.3
2007 -3.6
In 2008 he split his time evenly between 1B and LF. His UZR ratings:
1B: 2.1
LF: 6.6
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Sample size
Games Played:
LF: 103
1B: 331
UZR/150:
LF: -0.5
1B: -4.0
So, we are looking “at most” a 3.5 run difference over 150 games and with an extremely small sample size in LF and a fairly small one at 1B. After doing proper regression to the mean, I think my 2 to 3 run differential looks about right.
vr, Xei
Or perhaps the fact that he’s had limited time in LF and will likely improve. And also the time he had there last year when he was hurting and posted a low UZR (which is pulling your numbers down substantially) wasn’t indicative of his future performance.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Not going anywhere
this conversation is going down the tubes. Moving on from you john. Agree to disagree, ok?
vr, Xei
+1
Agreeing to disagree probably should happen more often on this site. And I’m probably one of the prime culprits. :-P
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
“Down the tubes” seems to indicate some sort of harsh tone or ad hominem attack. I hope you didn’t feel that. I am just indicating that I think that:
a) Jackson is clearly a better LF than 1B
b) it seems more likely that Jackson will improve in LF than digress.
On LaRoche, I admit I have a bizarre man crush on the guy. I’m teased in my fantasy league with my friends that he always ends up on my team. I have felt like he is an undervalued performer for many years, especially when one considers his substantial first half/second half splits.
Cheers.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
It's a rather bigger sample size
Than you’ve got for Parra…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
Plus
You should basically write off 2009 as any meaningful indication of Jackson’s “true” ability – with the bat or the glove, given he was playing with a fungal lung disease. Discount that, and use just his 2008 number in LF, and you have:
UZR/150:
LF: 14.0
1B: -4.0
An eighteen run difference between Jackson playing LF and 1B. Small sample size? Sure. But still more than you have for Parra…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Parra?
Not sure what sample size you are talking about for Parra. As for Jackson, if you are going to start cherry picking and throwing out bad years, even when you want to subjectively say his whole poor performance was due to not feeling well, you mind as well just throw out everything and call him a 0 defender at LF. No way you can seriously come to the conclusion that Jackson is a +14 defender in LF. Sample size and selection bias are working heavily against you.
IRMC.
vr, Xei
Defensive, much? [Hohoho]
You’re putting way too much stock in numbers posted during 19 starts in LF last season. Part of statistical analysis is knowing when you’ve got garbage data like this: if you don’t throw it out, and use it in your projections, then you know what they say..
You also might want to inform the Fielding Bible panel that Jackson can’t play LF, where – despite playing less than half a season there – he gathered enough votes in 2008 to finish only four points out of the top ten fielders at the position.
I’ll happily wager you that Jackson will not be a negative defender in LF this season, as measured by UZR/150. You on?
As for Parra, what are you basing his defensive numbers on? If it’s just the 106 career starts in the major-leagues, then you really can’t lecture anyone else about small sample size.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
I am not
saying anywhere that Parra has a large sample size. Please find where I stated that. Otherwise, strawman much. Both should be regressed properly.
vr, Xei
Up the thread
You described Jackson’s 103 games played in LF as “an extremely small sample size”. What does this make Parra’s 75 games there? Surely, even more unreliable.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't say
that CoJack is a ‘very good’ LF, but I think he has potential to grow into the position much better than he does at 1B.
At times he’s showed surprising speed and the angles he takes will only improve over time. And as has been mentioned, the strengthened bench is a good thing.
Pretty sexy
Reynolds
Upton
LaRoche
Jackson
Montero
That alone is pretty darn good, but if Drew and Johnson rebound, then the Diamondbacks have probably their best lineup in quite awhile. Imagine if Young or potential replacement Parra get going and that’s a pretty tough looking crew.
An early departure? What are the chances of that? If this was a movie, there wouldn't be an early departure.
A stab at the lineup
Drew (LH)
Jackson (RH)
Upton (RH)
Reynolds (RH)
LaRoche (LH)
Jackson (RH)
Montero (RH)
CY (RH)
Johnson (LH)
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
There’s some flexibility there, too. With a RHP you could do this:
Drew (LH)
Johnson (LH)
Jackson (RH)
Upton (RH)
LaRoche (LH)
Reynolds (RH)
Montero (RH)
CY (RH)
With a LHP you could do this:
Jackson (RH)
Upton (RH)
Reynolds (RH)
Montero (RH)
LaRoche (LH)
Roberts (RH)
CY (RH)
Ojeda (RH)
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
My Stab
Jackson – LF
Montero – C
Upton – RF
LaRoche – 1B
Reynolds – 3B
Drew – SS
Johnson – 2B
CY – CF
Pitcher
Why? Because batters 1-7 alternate righty/lefty this way, and I think the roles match nicely. I could also understand swapping KJ and Droo.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 1:21 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Shoot
If what is above my comment is right (and I believe it is), then KJ is a lefty. So put him sixth, CY seventh, Droo eighth maybe?
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 1:23 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
My lineup
Jackson
Johnson
Upton
LaRoche
Reynolds
Montero
Young
Drew
Pitcher
I remember I used to sort of prefer KJ leadoff, but one thing that I noticed was that CoJack appears much more inclined to GIDP…dunno if that will continue, but to avoid that I think I’d rather have CoJack bat leadoff and then KJ bat in the 2 hole
Regardless, I think the starting six here could be really really sick
lineup
Drew – SS
Jackson – LF
Upton – RF
Reynolds 3B 2B
LaRoche -1B
Montero -C
Young -CF
Johnson
Pitcher
It's the automatic formatting on SBN
Anything between two dashes will be crossed out, anything between two asterisks will be put in bold, etc. It’s kind of useful when you get used to it, but annoying the first time you accidentally do it. =)
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
Really?
cooooooooooool :-)
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
I spy
Three straight RHB’s at 2,3,4. Maybe I’m going over-anal about that, but it seems like a slight problem.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
Who is going to start C.Y. or Parra? This is a fine lineup. I really want Co. Jackson do get 400+ abs this year
CY in CF everyday
Jackson at LF everyday. Parra as a 4th OF.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 8:50 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's great...
We can move Connor back to LF, while getting some time in at first, but that will allow us to trade Byrnes…IF we can. Upton, Young, Parra, Jackson… I like it.
You’re right. The move is great because it’s not just a big upgrade at 1B, it’s a big upgrade in LF. CoJack heads back to his better position, and we upgrade significantly offensively and defensively at 1B.
The only down side of the move is the Allen delay. But honestly, Byrnes is aiming for the division right now, and I’m glad to see that.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
I think Jackson will be much more comfortable coming back as an everyday starter if he can be in LF. This move is as much about LF as is it is 1B.
And I think during the season if Allen is tearing up AAA, Byrnes will find a way to bring him up and make room for him. The best part of this deal is that it’s just one year.
By the way, a $4-5M one year contract seems like an outstanding value for LaRoche. It is as many of us suspected, I think… if you waited until the end of the market, you were going to get some good values.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Great signing
This looks like a solid deal.
Here’s a take from Sabernomics, who has his value at twice what the D-backs are paying.
I like LaRoche a lot
$4-5mil for one year seems like a lot, but, I really like the options he adds to the offense. Very good deal.
Things ’Skins has in common with foulpole for 400, please. -- soco
Surprised
But I agree that it’s a good signing, since Allen was a big question mark (although I like his future) this year. Does improve our lineup on the cheap, which is always good.
OK, let’s get ST started, already.
Key to the game: Score More
So
Is it Spring Training yet?
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
Is it just me...
Or does this just further emphasize the new “win-now” approach from Byrnes?
And I like it! Just don’t ask me about it in a few years when Scherzer is a mainstay in Detroit’s starting rotation.
I believe so. I think the last several moves have indicated that very thing. I think Byrnes realized that he could significantly upgrade this team through second tier, cheap veterans and he decided to go for it.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
A mainstay in Detroit's starting rotation?
You have seen him pitch, right? And you’ve heard about his Tommy John? And chronic shoulder problems?
Just checking. :-)
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm, I didn't realize how much more LaRoche had apparently been demanding
From Nick Piecoro (http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/NickPiecoro/71536):
Reports early in the off-season had LaRoche seeking a deal worth $10 million annually, and more recently he reportedly turned down a two-year, $17.5 million offer from the San Francisco Giants.
I really didn’t think he’s worth that much, but now that I see that, I’m much happier with a $5mil deal!!
Things ’Skins has in common with foulpole for 400, please. -- soco
And if you want a good laugh
Go see what Giants’ fans think of the signing. I’d get some popcorn first.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Remember
It’s only homophobia if people outside San Francisco make the jokes.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
Awesome, that means I'm safe :)
Things ’Skins has in common with foulpole for 400, please. -- soco
by snakecharmer on Jan 14, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
We'll email you all our jokes
You can be our homophobe by proxy…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
From the same story
We have heard the deal includes an option for 2011 with a buyout that would bump the guaranteed value into the $5.5 million range, but as of yet we have not been able to confirm this.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 1:57 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting. Wonder what they second year looks like.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
$8M mutual option
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
Woops,
I was too late.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions
LOVE this
Makes the lineup mesh really really well with RHB/LHB’s. Adds 25-30 HRs to the lineup. The guy can get on base sufficiently well. CHONE hates him, but that’s kind of expected. So, for a reference point, last year he was worth 2.4 WAR ($7.1M), and our other option (Jeff Bailey not included for obvious reasons… he’s Jeff Bailey), Brandon Allen, is projected for .2 WAR (also by the ever-devious CHONE, but I have nothing else, so we’ll say around a half). So an upgrade of two wins is definitely better than blowing this on Valverde’s less-than-one WAR upgrade.
Despite a hefty deal of criticism about our stinginess, Mr. Byrnes has managed to sign three pieces this off-season at bargain prices (Howry, KJ, LaRoche), and cost-efficiently add Jackson and Kennedy. Were it not for that crappy-in-retrospect Heilman trade, this would be a near-perfect off-season.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 2:33 PM EST reply actions
I agree re: our FA moves.
In terms of the Kennedy/Jackson move, I’m going to reserve judgment.
All in all, I give big kudos to Byrnes. Things look much better now than they did when we entered the off season, and that’s what the GM is supposed to do.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
We need a nickname for him
Hoffman? Anyone got anything not involving obscure Swiss pharmaceutical company references?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
Nothing good of the top of my head
The first thing that comes to mind is LaRoche Clip. It could mean we’d see a lot of hits when he faces Lincecum.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
If it helps
LaRoche is French for “the boulder” or “the rock”. Let’s just hope he doesn’t have hands of stone at first…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
Well, then, how about ‘Rocky’ or ‘The Rock.’
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
I like this idea.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm.
THE BOULDER is one of the more enjoyable references to Avatar (no, not the overhyped 3D one, the cartoon). Personally, I might be sticking with that.
by Azreous on Jan 14, 2010 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That 3D
Hurt my eyes. It was uncool.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 14, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions
More from Piecoro
KTAR is reporting LaRoche’s deal to be worth $4 million with an $8 million mutual option for 2011 or a $2 million buyout. So it’s either one year and $6 million or two years and $12 million… The Diamondbacks will need to clear room on their 40-man roster. Are they prepared to part ways with Byrnes right now? Or will they go a different direction, perhaps Jose Marte?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
Yay to getting rid of byrnes
It makes the most sense.
by C. Wesley Baier on Jan 14, 2010 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
Isn't that
A bit of a Roche to judgment?
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions
I just hope
We don’t have to give him the old ’Eve-ho.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 14, 2010 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
A couple of things on first glance
1. This has to signify the death of Eric Byrnes. There is just no spot for him anywhere on the roster right now.
2. I might be thinking too far ahead but I think a move like this says a lot about what the team is planning on doing with Brandon Webb. It shows that they are paying a nice penny for a position that was already considered covered and it shows that they are gunning for the division while they still have Brandon aboard.
Wear your own fur.
I've read through the takes here, and here's mine:
- love the move. Not as much as I’d love trading Augie for Pujols say, but I like it. :-)
- I think the LaRoche and JOhnson signings are efforts to push arbitration clocks back. This could push back Abreu, Allen AND Parra (plus the handful of other OF prospects in the system)
- another year in the minors for Allen is probably a good idea. Let him develop some more and get regular ABs against lefties
- I suspect the same can be said for Parra because. . . .
- Eric Byrnes isn’t going anywhere unless he gets bought out and if I were EB, I wouldn’t take a penny less than his contract. They certainly might just waive him. He might not have the most untradeable contract in baseball, but he can see it from where he is.
- the DBacks have to be heavy favorites to set a record for Ks unless a couple guys dial it back this year. LaRoche will fit right in with his 130-140 Ks. I’m of the opinion that Ks aren’t THAT big a deal but damn, lot of swinging and missing with this team. Pretty good chance they’ll have 6 of the 8 regulars with 100 Ks (and 7 if Montero gets 550 PAs but I’m assuming he won’t get that many starts). Will everyone look at CoJack a little funny if he only Ks 50-60 times?
MLB Network
reporting that Byrnes had to get the go-ahead to go over on the budget, so it’s good to see the ownership putting their money where their mouth is.
An early departure? What are the chances of that? If this was a movie, there wouldn't be an early departure.
by soco on Jan 14, 2010 6:36 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I love this
because of the consistency of LaRoche. We can very nearly count on .270, 20+ HRs, 75+ RBIs and average (not below is the key!) defense at first day in and day out. Solid. First base is a position I have always felt can make or break a lineup, and I think we all can all agree Allen needs more time to figure out lefties.
This makes the 3-6 in the order (some order of Upton, Reynolds, Montero, LaRoche) very solid, although not up there with the elite. If we can find two guys to get on at the top of the lineup (Drew/CoJack I’d assume, but if KJ, CY, or Abreu wants to get on base tons I’d be more than appreciative) there’s a lot of RsBI to be had.
From Nick Piecoro’s Twitter: “Once LaRoche deal is official, D-Backs will need to make a roster move. Source says they’re leaning toward releasing Eric Byrnes.”
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
That would be a huge move
I think they were trying to trade Snyder to unload salary before releasing EB (on salary), but doesn’t look like that’ll happen. This would be another big release for the dbacks…
Things ’Skins has in common with foulpole for 400, please. -- soco
by snakecharmer on Jan 14, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
Fangraphs take
This is a pretty darn good deal for the D’Backs. They get a solid first baseman for 2010 at little cost, allowing them to use Conor Jackson in left field. He adds somewhere between +1 and +2 wins to their team, and, if Arizona is not contending, should be a pretty decent trade chip at the deadline for a team that needs a low cost first baseman.
— Link
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
Doubles
Using 3 year averages, Adam LaRoche is second only to Randy Winn (!) for doubles in MLB.
Chase works out as one of the top doubles parks (#2 overall), whereas Pittsburg is one of the worst (#22).
Who’s got two thumbs and loves doubles? This guy!
Oh wow
I was terribly wrong!
Strike that whole thought, except that he is a good doubles hitter going from a bad park to a good one. I definately should have proofread that one after seging Winn!
by Counsellmember on Jan 14, 2010 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
i've probably been really slow in coming to realize this...
but this deal and the surrounding commentary has really showed me that there is a cost-effective way of using chase park to our advantage in dealing with free agents (a strategy that i suppose our FO has already been using…)
because chase park is so hitter friendly, a lot of slightly above average batters have incentive to come and hit for cheaper/shorter signings in order to inflate their stats such that once they become a FA again after a yr or two they could then negotiate for a longer and bigger contract…hence why LaRoche would turn down a 17 mil 2 yr deal with SF for a 6 mil 1 yr deal with us
the opposite is true as well…we should basically never sign a FA starting pitcher, because in coming to chase to pitch we’d pretty much have to pay an extra premium for these slightly above average pitchers…in fact, it seems that most of our pitchers have come to us either through the farm or via trade, which makes sense as those would be a lot more cost effective than signing a FA
From Steve Gilbert via twitter
1 year, $4.5 million
Mutual 2011 option worth $8 million, $1.5 million buyout
Things ’Skins has in common with foulpole for 400, please. -- soco
Clarification, please
If AZ accepts the option, and LaRoche declines, we still pay the buy out, no?
by Counsellmember on Jan 15, 2010 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Usually a mutual option means that if we accept and he declines then we don’t pay.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Very good
So then, if Chase is good to Mr. Laroche and he thinks he can make more on the open market, this deal may, in fact, be 1 year/4.5M, right?
by Counsellmember on Jan 15, 2010 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Indeed.
Score.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 15, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
Well yes
But that’s if we don’t pick up his option for next year and he does. Unless, of course, he gets the money even if he declines the option. Which would be a crappy way to structure an option… It’s still a great contract regardless of all of this.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 15, 2010 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Mutual offers
are murky.
I think he gets the buyout money regardless, since everyone reports the $6M as guaranteed.

by 















