Ted Lilly Just Made 33 Million Dollars
October 19, 2010 at 8:04 pm | Posted in Ted Lilly | 42 Comments
Earlier this evening, the Dodgers put out a press release confirming the signing of Ted Lilly, though no dollars were announced. Moments ago, Jon Heyman broke the financials in a decidedly low-key tweet – $33m over three years.
I guarantee that I’m going to be in the minority here, but I’m not thrilled with this. The casual fan is going to see this as some sort of sign that Frank McCourt is willing to spend, but there’s a big difference between spending and spending wisely, and spending big on a 35-year-old pitcher entering his decline years is not wise. Isn’t this how we ended up being stuck with Casey Blake next year?
I voiced my concerns about Lilly’s future a few weeks ago:
Lilly’s fastball, never all that noteworthy in the first place, has declined in each of the last five seasons, down over 3 MPH from 2006. He’s allowing more flyballs than he’s ever had before (hence the homers), and his K/9 has decreased for the second year in a row. The lessened velocity may not be as important for a so-called “crafty lefty” as it might be for someone who lives and dies on heat, but it’s not a good trend.
As Jon Weisman noted at Dodger Thoughts, the history of giving long-term deals to older players (he mentions Randy Wolf, Derek Lowe, and Casey Blake, though you could of course go on for hours), especially pitchers, rarely ends well. It’s not hard to think that Lilly’s going to fall squarely into that same camp.
Now, I do think Lilly can be an effective pitcher in 2011. I’m less sure about 2012, and all bets are off about 2013, when he’ll be 37 years old.
If Lilly’s coming back to the Dodgers, I want it be on a one-year deal, two at the most. Offering arbitration is the only way to make that happen, and it carries with it the benefit of draft picks should he decline. Your other choice is to not offer, and then either see him leave for nothing, or even worse, be the team that foolishly gives him a three- or four-year deal.
So sure, I’m happy to see him back in 2011, but we can’t be short-sighted about this. Remember, Lilly just finished a 4-year, $40m contract, which is an average annual value of $10m/year. Somehow, despite being 4 years older, less than a year past shoulder surgery, and on the decline, the Dodgers saw fit to give him a deal which increases that value?
I’m not arguing that he wouldn’t have found a contract like that on the market, because he would have. I would have just preferred it be some other team to make a foolish investment. Spending money does not equal spending wisely, because while Lilly’s a good pitcher, he’s hardly a difference-maker, yet he’s being paid like one. Though I’m glad he’s back for 2011, I really think we’re going to regret this deal in 2012 and 2013 – which is basically exactly what I said about Blake’s deal after 2008.
Besides, do we really think the club has another big-money contract in them? If not, then Lilly’s the grand prize of the offseason, and that means you added a #3 starter while the offense remains the same.
Update: Dylan Hernandez clarifies that Lilly’s deal will not have any deferred money, and has a full no-trade clause for the first two years.
42 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s just 33 million more reasons why we won’t sign either Lee or Crawford. I need to talk to Frank and Ned about my plan to turn base metals into gold. I just need five million as seed money.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— October 19, 2010 #
What’s the MSTI-approved plan for his rotation spot?
Comment by Rob McMillin— October 19, 2010 #
I’m not thrilled either (particularly the 3rd year) but isn’t this contract indicative of the type of free agent world we live in nowadays? I’m not saying Lilly was our only option but I don’t think he signs for 2 years unless it’s around 28-30M. If the Dodgers gave him 2 years 28M then we’d think they overpaid. I’m not rooting for Frank but I think he’s in a lose lose situation with the fans right now. If he doesn’t sign Lilly (especially after Lilly said he’d like to stay) then he looks cheap-er, if he signs him then it’s for too much and too long. We’d all like that happy medium of 2 years 20 million but I don’t think it’s happening in today’s market. Offering him arbitration wouldn’t have been bad at all but alas, lets hope Lilly stays solid throughout the 3 years. Right now I’m willing to live with Lilly @ 33M. I definitely won’t if this becomes the biggest signing of the off-season.
Comment by Ernie— October 19, 2010 #
Also, no word on if/how much deferred money is involved.
Comment by Rob McMillin— October 19, 2010 #
Dylan H says $0.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 19, 2010 #
Lily received his market value, which as is often the case for a pitcher was too much. That being said, Lily has always been a soft tossing lefty who relied on changing speeds. If anyone can pitch well into his late 30′s it would be him. He has lost some velocity over the years and will give up a ton of home runs, but he has been durable and decent, so while overpaid (not the Dodgers fault) he is still a nice addition. Also, Casey Blake was a bad move and most of us knew that, but comparing the potential declining years of these two players is not really fair.
If Kuroda can be brought back, or a solid pitcher traded for, and Lily ends up the #4 starter than I will be really happy. If this is the only spending of the off season, then we get another year of a sucky team full of scrappy vets. Please Ned, don’t turn us into the Giants of OLD.
Comment by Lex in the SGV— October 19, 2010 #
Ok a few thoughts come to mind. Does anyone recall that the pitching plan (Neds-Torres-Franks)coming out of spring trainning last year was to go with four guys and hope that a fifth guy just stepped up or wait until July to get someone else. With Lilly signed and Padilla/Kuroda perhaps being given one year deals in time at least the Dodgers could have FIVE solid starters. I once posted that we could get Lilly back for ten million a year. I hate essentially (11) being right. Three years is a risk but one that the Dodgers had to take simply to avoid what happened to them last season coming out of the gate.
Comment by Adonis— October 19, 2010 #
What makes you think that Kuroda would take a one year deal? He could get a bigger deal than Lilly on the market.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 19, 2010 #
Pure speculation on my part about Kuroda. If reports about Kuroda wanting to go back to Japan are true then he just might sign for one more year in L.A. Question. who can we trade (bait) with Loney to get a power bat at first base? Also what kind of money do you think Juan Uribe will get this off-season and will he get the same type of money that Orlando Husdon will get?
Comment by Adonis— October 20, 2010 #
So thoughts on these comments from Ned regarding payroll:
“It’s up from a year ago, but that’s all I want to tell you.’’
“It’s a good start signing Ted, but we’re far from finished.’’
Comment by Steve— October 19, 2010 #
$200 million will be the new 2011 payroll and McCourt will appear on celeb. Rehab IV with Brett Farve. I think the payroll will actually top 110 because all those empty seats spoke to Frank and Ned at the end of last season.
Comment by Adonis— October 20, 2010 #
If he wants some credit back, he needs to sign 1 from:
Beltre, Werth, Crawford or Dunn.
Comment by DodgersKings323— October 21, 2010 #
i still dont get how they couldnt have traded for Oswalt or Halladay with all the prospects and money they have spent over the past season……
Comment by scott— October 20, 2010 #
That would assume they had a plan other than panicking at the last second.
Comment by Bill Grabarkewitz— October 20, 2010 #
Those players were not “gritty” enough for Joe Torre’s liking…….
Comment by DodgersKings323— October 21, 2010 #
I think they should sign beltre platoon blake and paul in lf try to trade for greinke
Comment by Rafael— October 20, 2010 #
Sure, that seems realistic.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 20, 2010 #
When has a platoon ever worked?
I have seen enough of Paul to know he isn’t a starter.
Comment by scott— October 20, 2010 #
Blake in LF WHaaaa? Sir get off the drugs, then post.
Comment by DodgersKings323— October 21, 2010 #
It’s not THAT ridiculous… he’s played 240 games in the outfield, and we have a hole there. The ridiculous part is signing Beltre and trading for Greinke.
Comment by Dave— October 21, 2010 #
Yeah, three years isn’t very bright, but I do take some small measure of optimism out of this deal – at least there is some money loose. Let’s just hope that wasn’t all that will be available this offseason. My only other thought here is, how much of this deal is front loaded, if any? Can baseball contracts be front loaded? I’d be more okay with a $33M deal if the bulk of it is paid in the first two years.
Comment by Steve— October 20, 2010 #
It would appear that after Lilly’s bonus, the contract is a “more-acceptable” three years/$29.5 million. As long as his last season isn’t some ridiculous unmovable number, I am good. I just hope that Ned didn’t spend all of his money in one purchase. I would feel better if our GM wasn’t channeling Ed Wade with his last few moves.
Comment by Grabarkewitz— October 20, 2010 #
Bonus, salary, what’s the difference? It’s still $33m.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 20, 2010 #
Apparently Lilly also made more in 2010 than he will in any year of this deal. I dunno, Mike, you know I’m almost always with you on this stuff, but this deal doesn’t bother. As far as I’m aware Lilly doesn’t have any serious history of injuries and he isn’t the type of thrower to blow out his shoulder. Lilly is kind of old but so is/was Kuroda when we signed him and I’ve been pleased with his output generally. Call me stubbornly optimistic, but I’m encouraged by the move. If Frank wants to increase payroll to improve his image, let him. You say this could be our big offseason acquisition but two weeks ago I didn’t think we were capable of a 3yr/33mil deal either.
Comment by Harrison— October 20, 2010 #
I guess I don’t understand the “he made more in 2010″ argument. It’s kind of irrelevant how the Cubs structured the deal, he still has a higher annual value on this new deal than his previous one.
Also: he did have shoulder surgery last offseason.
Now if this is NOT the big splash of the winter, then I’ll feel WAY better about it. My main concern is less that Lilly is or is not worth $33m, and more about how that fits into the payroll.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 20, 2010 #
Lily was going to get a similar deal from someone. He is a better pitcher than Randy Wolf and top 3 on this years off season market. So this argument about what he’s worth is irrelevant. One could argue a persons worth until the cows come home. He was paid his market value. The real issue is, as fans, we want to see a winner. If we blew our wad on Lily then its a pointless and frustrating move.
Signing Kuroda and moving Loney for a guy like Gorzelany would be make for a really nice pitching staff. Or, if there is in fact more money to spend, I would love to see a package put together to bring in Grienke. Dee Gordon, De La Rosa could potentially make that happen. This is just me fantasizing now though as I know nothing of the 2011 payroll.
There are huge issues with the offense too. Signing Dunn or Pena seems like a must to me. Who plays third? Who plays 2nd? Do the Dodgers give an outfield spot to a rookie like Trayvon?
It will be an interesting off season.
It will be an interesting offseason.
Comment by Lex in the SGV— October 20, 2010 #
Where is this Grienke talk coming from? Who replaces Furcal with Gordon gone? Kuroda is expensive i think we will be lucky to get back Padilla.
Comment by DodgersKings323— October 21, 2010 #
With 33 million over three years going to Lilly, you have to wonder what Kershaw will now expect or accept. And even if they wait another year, they will then have to figure how to sign Kershaw, Kemp, Eitrher, Bills, etc
Just making the point 33 million for Lilly is more of a lon term, bigger picture mistake
Comment by scott— October 20, 2010 #
Well, not exactly. Kershaw’s not a free agent, and he’s not even into arbitration, so he doesn’t have nearly the same leverage that Lilly does.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 20, 2010 #
I meant if he was approached with an offer to buy out some of his team controlled years
Comment by scott— October 20, 2010 #
I have been a dodger fan my whole life and i think people are starting to panic ned and frank i think have done more good than bad first he signed schmidt (yeah i know it didn’t work out) but at the time he was arguably the best f/a sp remember we could have signed zito he traded for and signed manny we were a few lucky brakes away from the w/s as recently as last year and best of all he held on to the kids now the bad is signing the wrong joe 2 b manager and having a mickey mouse starting rotation (it seems for the last couple of years that we traded for a pitcher or claimed of waivers or a p who was trying to make a comeback loaiza ,wells maddux ,ortiz, etc) the point is not having 5 decent starters prob ruined our bullpen
Comment by RAfael— October 20, 2010 #
Love it, they kept they money a secret for a while and we all knew why………30, you wish! 33 son!! How do you like them apples……..*facepalm* enough of this bi-polar BS! Build on the cheap or go all out and get 2 or 3 free agents, which is it?
Comment by DodgersKings323— October 21, 2010 #
If the dodgers had to trade kemp or ethier (i hope they keep both ) what do u guys think of this possible trades kemp to yanks for pitchers aceves and hughes or ethier to boston for buchholz and ellsbury
Comment by Rafael— October 21, 2010 #
Bro….you couldn’t make those trades happen on a video game.
Comment by scott— October 21, 2010 #
Scott you have to admit they might not b able to keep both also this past year we heard some talk that they might want to b traded how about the dodgers work out a package for hughes or buchholz its possible dodgers have always won with good pitching cause even though the royals r listening to offers for greinke it might b harder to get him as for beltre he has regreted leaving l.a, we could get him at a good price
Comment by Rafael— October 21, 2010 #
Grienke owed like 30 mil.
Yankees won’t trade Hughes for anyone
Sox won’t trade Bucholz.
You are over rating Kemp and Ethier. I like both of them, but no one is going to give up a lot for two average, sometimes above average players.
And you said they can’t keep both of them, but why then trade for Grienke when he’s owed all that money? Why not put it towards Kershaw and Bills. Starting pitching was not the problem.
Comment by scott— October 22, 2010 #
Scott r u joking! ethier was the starting allstar in the of for the nl. kemp has 40+40 talent in him ,he’s a gold glove winner silver slugger winner name another of with his talent hes only 26 compare him with any other of at twenty six . If you had to trade one ho would it be and what could they get?greinke hes way younger than doc . lee or even oswalt plus he’s on sale why not even get gordon have him play third?
Comment by Rafael— October 23, 2010 #
[...] he’d be questionable for 2010, and totally undesirable in 2011. (Coincidentally, that’s very similar to how I felt about Ted Lilly‘s three-year [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2010 in Review: Third Base « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 26, 2010 #
[...] velocity, advancing age, and increasing homer rate might make a longer deal an untenable risk, as I outlined here: To sure, I’m happy to see him back in 2011, but we can’t be short-sighted about this. [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2010 in Review: Starting Pitchers, Part 2 « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— November 4, 2010 #
[...] more lousy start from getting his own post on whether I should have been harder on his contract than I already was) and an oh-fer by Matt Kemp. Without Rafael Furcal, and with Juan Uribe and James Loney sucking in [...]
Pingback by The Process Was Good, Even If the Results Weren’t « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— April 14, 2011 #
[...] I said at the time (10/19/10) I guarantee that I’m going to be in the minority here, but I’m not thrilled with this. The [...]
Pingback by 2011 Midseason Review: MSTI « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— July 13, 2011 #
[...] on, but we’ll get to that in a second. When he initially signed his 3/$33m deal last October, my reaction was less than positive: So sure, I’m happy to see him back in 2011, but we can’t be short-sighted about this. [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: Starting Pitchers, Part 3 « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— November 4, 2011 #