Rod Barajas Turned One Good Week Into $3.8m (Updated: $3.25m)
December 3, 2010 at 5:27 pm | Posted in Rod Barajas | 78 CommentsUpdate: Hernandez clarifies that his source was mistaken and it’s actually $3.25m, not $3.8m. That’s slightly better, but still not good – and even if $3.25m was the first number reported I probably would have had the exact same reaction anyway. The original post, unedited, is below.
Today in “something I won’t believe isn’t a typo even if the contract was deposited on my desk” news, Dylan Hernandez not only confirms that Rod Barajas‘ signing is official, but fills in the financial blanks:
Barajas’ one-year deal with #Dodgers is worth $3.8 million.
There is just no way that can be accurate.
Barajas signed for $500k with the Mets last year, waiting until just before camp opened in February to even get that. He was then so bad that the woeful Mets, you know, let him go to the Dodgers on waivers for absolutely nothing. Granted, he had a great first week or so in Dodger blue – 4 homers, 1.458 OPS in his first 8 games. Yet in his remaining 17 games, he had just 1 homer and a .612 OPS, also known as “Rod Barajas being Rod Barajas“. On the season, he had a .284 OBP, which exactly matches his career mark, because he’s not very good.
Look at it this way – Barajas had never made more than $3.2m, which is what he got from Texas in 2006. He’s now five years older, coming off several lousy seasons bouncing from team to team – making less than $1m in two of them – yet somehow, coming off a year in which he was dumped on waivers and will be 35, he’s all of a sudden worth $3.8m. Seriously? In my 2011 plan, when I said he could come back I said that I thought he could be had for $800k. Is this all because of his one good week as a Dodger? I’ve had to deal with a lot of casual fans who got taken in by that, but I never expected the front office to do so.
I refuse to believe that Rod Barajas required that much money to sign. And if I’m wrong, and he did? THEN YOU MOVE ON. He’s not nearly good enough to lose any sleep over.
Beyond the initial shock of “holy crap, they paid Rod Barajas what?!”, this brings up a raft of questions. Questions like, “wait, they let Russell Martin walk over $800k but still had $3.8m for Rod F’ing Barajas?”, “hey, let’s pay Barajas, Juan Uribe, and Jon Garland $17m this year rather than give less than that to Adam Dunn,” and “the payroll’s at nearly $110m and you still don’t have a LF or a good C, and what can possibly be left?”
Remember back in July when one of the main complaints about the three awful trades was that the team gave up nearly ten prospects and got back only Ted Lilly and a pile of junk, when for that outlay (or less) you probably could have had Roy Oswalt or Dan Haren? Yeah, this is that. Again.
78 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.
My blood is boiling over this amount. Serious question. When the HELL does Ned’s contract expire??
Comment by Steve— December 3, 2010 #
He signed a long-term extension last winter. Jon Heyman reported it to be a 5-year deal. I haven’t heard from anyone else about the length.
Comment by Dustin Nosler— December 3, 2010 #
:( :(
Comment by Steve— December 3, 2010 #
If we finish below .500 in 2011, that’ll be the first time that the Dodgers have had back-to-back losing seasons since 1986-87. He’ll have to be fired then…right?
Comment by SamL— December 4, 2010 #
come on you cant honestly think that the Dodgers are worse than they were last year at the end of the season. Big Rod aside, the improved pitching staff, Uribe’s power, useless deadweight off the roster (auto out, ortizes, dotel, sherrill, theriot, etc) there not championship caliber yet, but they should be at least competitive. and Ill take competitive over the nightmare of last season any day.
Comment by format— December 4, 2010 #
In order to solve a problem long-term, you have to change the circumstances surrounding it. As long as Ned is in charge, we’re never winning a title unless we get crazy lucky. Throwing away one year to get him fired and Logan White (or anybody actually competent) hired might suck in the short term, but long-term it’ll most likely pay off greatly.
Comment by SamL— December 4, 2010 #
IF IF IF IF this is the last move to be made, we are pretty much the SAME as 2nd half 09, not all the pitching in the world can save you, not 5 Sandy Koufax’s
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 4, 2010 #
Oooooh mothherrrrr fuuuckkkk !$!($(!#$!#($!#@)^T%$#$%#@
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 4, 2010 #
Wow, this is an incredibly stupid deal for a 34 year old catcher who has only been worth two wins in a season once. NEDFAIL! He lost that negotiation just like the trade deadline deals as you say. Sure, the catching market is bad but it’s barely December and there are other catchers to be had. This deal stinks of desperation and poor valuation. This kind of stupidity can only exist under bad ownership. We know this!
Comment by Oral Kershyster— December 3, 2010 #
I feel like the Chicago Cubs right now. They have the 3rd highest payroll in baseball and I can’t think of a single game-changing player on their team. What does that make? A below .500 team. Our offense in 2011 will be worse than the one that started 2010 and our rotation will be a little better (not even more talented, just more reliable.) For what, like 25-30 million more? (I haven’t bothered to do the math.)
Comment by Bip— December 3, 2010 #
you guys are making too big of a deal over this. I agree that it is completly ridiculous to pay Big Rod 3.8 million. but its not the end of the world. so they overpaid by about 3 million for him. look at it this way if they have 3 mil to give to Barajas, then they have plenty of money to spend. lets not spend too much time complaining over 3 mill to big rod.
Comment by format— December 3, 2010 #
But couldn’t that money have been put to better use somewhere else? And if you’re paying a catcher over $3m, you’re using him as your starter – you’re not getting someone else who you’ll pay more than that. Which means Barajas is our starter, which means the Dodgers will do poorly.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 3, 2010 #
it doesnt necessarily mean he will be the starter. he could platoon with Ellis. or the Dodgers might even resign Martin. either way I dont think that Big Rod will be the starter. I think he either platoons with Ellis, or Ellis will start the majority of games. either way I see the Dodgers as already much improved. Improved pitching staff. uribe was a decent pickup. we might not agree on the terms of contracts, but regardless I see a big improvement. lets try and be more optimistic.
Comment by format— December 3, 2010 #
Minus Manny, Uribe isn’t much better than Dewitt, if at all, Barajas is worse than Martin, Casey Blake is older. All that means the offense is slightly better than the end of last season but much worse than the beginning of last season. The pitching is moderately better but not good enough to overcome our offense and get us to first place.
Comment by Bip— December 3, 2010 #
We are not the Red Sox, this team cannot afford to sit $3+ million on the bench. Barajas is the started and we are totally screwed. It is like Blake, even though Blake knows he is worthless against righthanded pitching, he will not sit because he is making too much money to sit. We need a new GM who does not waste money on shiny crap. On days like this, I miss Dan Evans.
Comment by grabarkewitz— December 4, 2010 #
Don’t you think that Ned overpaid for Uribe and a possibly-injured Garland? I’m angry because the money could be spent better and it’s another bad move by a GM. Who do you have playing left field? Name a left fielder but keep in mind that Ned said they would spend more than $95 mil (2010 budget).
I don’t know how much further they can go beyond $110 million. It’s that haphazard mentality that says “Spend whatever on whoever” without using baseball sense that guides Neds actions and your thinking apparently.
Comment by Oral Kershyster— December 3, 2010 #
Why Ned Colletti is so frustrating: It’s a decent idea to target Juan Uribe, Jon Garland, and Rod Barajas as free agents. It’s criminally insane to give them a combined $30-odd million guaranteed.
Comment by SamL— December 4, 2010 #
Barajas agent is a first ballot Hall of Famer to get him that deal. Thank the lord that it’s a one year deal. Like I said, I would have rather seen the Dodgers get Bengie Molina on a cheaper deal. Barajas will supply some needed pop out of the catcher position but his OBA is something that a mother can’t even be proud of. In fact, when Barajas was born, the doctor slapped his mother! I agree with Oral that the deal does “smack” of desperation. Barajas was coming off a good season in ’09 and still had to wait until the last minute to take a $500,000 deal with the Mets. I think that the Dodgers acted way too hastily on this. Barajas should have gone for less than half of that. The only other team that I saw that had interest was the Red Sox and they weren’t going near that price! God bless his agent.
Comment by abner Clarke— December 3, 2010 #
It is the worst way to deal, out of desperation. The only team, like you said, that had a little interest in Barajas was the Red Sox. Compared to the John Buck deal and, of course, that terrible Zach Duke deal by the D’Backs, this is a great deal. But it’s also like being the tallest midget or the heaviest jockey. You’re just not comparing it to anything. Miguel Olivo must be licking his chops right now seeing these contracts taking on a life of their own! He’s probably looking at John Buck money or at least a 2 year deal for around $12 million. Barajas is kind of a poor man’s Bengie Molina until, of course, he signed that deal getting the Dodgers signing of overweight, slow, Latin guys with poor OBP and .250 batting averages up to 2. I think the quota for the Dodgers is 3.
Comment by Pete Sweeney— December 5, 2010 #
Pete, I thought you were dead. I haven’t seen you on my site or this site for a few days. Thank God I’m not the jealous type. That whole diatribe by you reminds me of the story, what goes clip-clop, bang bang, clip-clop? Of course it’s a drive-by shooting in Amish country and on a baseball site, it’s not very funny. But in the real world and used in the right vernacular, it’s not so bad. That’s my point! If you compared Barajas’ signing to every bad contract out there, of course you’ll find nirvana. For one year and a little over $3-mil, we may even be saying in the middle of January that this was a good deal. But, in early December with frost on the pumpkin, it is a bad deal, even for one year. I agree that Miguel Olivo will get a king’s ransom, deserved or not. And that’s more of a reflection on this market than anything else. It’s definitely a seller’s market and agents and players alike are taking advantage of that fact! The only horse, in my recollection, that could hold an “obese” jockey is Mr. Ed. He was the smartest horse ever and a damned sight smarter than some of the GM’s out there! And, man he could talk a blue streak. Maybe a Dodger blue! Let me ask you one more thing, Peter. Would you consider Jon Garland a slow, overweight, Latin guy? Because, if you do, the Dodgers have their quota filled and will be ready to start the season. Except, now I read that they’ve been in contact with the representatives of Scott Podsednik. Would that be considered de ja vu all over again?
Comment by george hubschman— December 5, 2010 #
With the Podsednik announcement, I feel a little like Martin Luther King during his “I Got A Dream” speech. I would rather see a more power bat there, even a platoon of Gibbons and Matt Diaz. Podsednik is a very good guy to have on your fantasy team, as you know, in some of your championship forays. But, on a real team, he doesn’t have that same allure. Garland may as well be a slow Latin guy with a poor OBP after I read that he may be a little bit of damaged goods. I think that even on his best days, you could consider him “damaged.” But like the greats over time, like Frank Tanana, Dave Steib, and Jack Morris, Garland is in there in rain, snow, sleet , and darkness of night. That’s not always a good thing!
Comment by Pete Sweeney— December 5, 2010 #
Desperation…uh yes. Ned Colletti was quoted yesterday as saying he didn’t want to “go to bed that night without a catcher signed” I guess someone forgot to tell him its only the beginning of December. He might as well wear a dunce cap to the winter meetings next week.
Comment by Steve— December 3, 2010 #
Colletti is a complete idiot. In his head, 35-year-olds are 25, and 25-year-olds are 15.
Comment by dutchbubba— December 3, 2010 #
One person liked this
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 4, 2010 #
This just doesn’t make any sense. They didn’t go to arbitration with him, presumably fearing they’d have to pay too much for his good three weeks in a Dodger uniform. Yet, had they gone to arbitration, there’s no way they’d pay this much.
Something’s not right about this report.
Comment by Hamlet— December 3, 2010 #
Look at the bright side. I just saved a bunch of money by switching to geico…
Comment by oggy— December 3, 2010 #
There goes all the kudos Ned had for non trading Theriot. If ned’s plan is to put Russell Martin in left, I’m gonna scream!
Do all the GM’s at the Winter meetings snicker under their breath when Neddy walks in the room?
Comment by Jeff— December 3, 2010 #
**trading theriot…sorry
Comment by Jeff— December 3, 2010 #
I think you guys are blowing this out of proportion. Ned actually saved a million versus the reported base salary that was offered to martin (4.2 mil plus incentives). the catching market is THE over inflated position of 2010 offseason, and we need catching. that’s the way the cookie crumbled.
if we look at the offseason up to now, we should be happy. we have made 70% of our moves already. now if we don’t sign a LF solution (Diaz) and improve the offense (beltre, werth, or Crawford, but reports have those guys leaning elsewhere…) then I will be the first one to $hit on ned’s front porch if someone provides me with an address.
Comment by ghost of ortizii past— December 3, 2010 #
I’ll save you the suspense. I put the chances of signing a righty left fielder at very low and the chances of signing an impact offensive player at zero. Absolute zero.
Comment by Bip— December 4, 2010 #
Absolutely zero, eh? I say they fill both these needs and I wager that the loser has to use
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vMRl1Qa6oTY/TFPADne1d1I/AAAAAAAABjk/toDBAps53Ts/s640/IDEA.png
as their avatar on MSTI. Can you handle my rampant confidence, Bip?
Comment by Ghost of Ortizii Past— December 4, 2010 #
If only your rampant confidence could change the bleak reality, you’re on.
Comment by Bip— December 4, 2010 #
5%
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 4, 2010 #
The point that is being neglected is that the current market has dictated Barajas to be paid this amount of money. Everyone here is killing Ned for this deal but look at the alternative: give Martin $6m with no guarantee when or if he can catch again. He’s 34, experienced and has some pop in his bat. Sure his OBP is terrible but if the alternative is Ellis starting, I’ll take Roddy B. If the Dodgers have $3.25m to give Barajas, there is more money left to make a couple other key signings before the Spring. Bottom line is that Martin hasn’t been the same for 2.5 years. Now he has a hip fracture with no timetable on when he could resume baseball activities so what’s Ned to do? I like the signing and I like the decision to non-tender Martin
Comment by Swinginsalami— December 3, 2010 #
This is the big IF, some are jumping the gun, but i don’t blame them because who really thinks it’s going over $110? I was excited but i’m getting that feeling of doom in my gut that we had the 2nd half of the year and since the divorce. I hope you are right, but if we don’t get another 2 or 3 bats then we can all go crazy on Uncle Ned.
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 5, 2010 #
Classic overpay by at least 2mm. It seems Colletti gets more dangerous the more budget he has to play with.
Comment by tommys.belly— December 3, 2010 #
Was Barajas the best catcher on the market, probably not. Is he going to be the next mike Piazzam dont count on it. Was he the cheapest of all the options there was..??? i think so. even though they overpaid, he is still the cheapest option for the money. Olivio, no, martin wanted 6 mil, whos left…???
No i really dont think we have enough for a mega star like Beltre or Werth, but a Matt Diaz in left and some sort of corner IF utility man, i think we will be fine…
100 win season??? Probably not…Playoff team, i think so
Comment by Chris S— December 3, 2010 #
Sorry, everyone; we’re never going anywhere as long as Ned Colletti is our general manager. Until he’s fired, I won’t believe that the Dodgers can win a championship.
Comment by SamL— December 4, 2010 #
It seems like you beleive that the outcome of the world series rests entirely on who the GMs are. Too bad its obscenely more complicated than that. The only thing a GM should ensure is that his team is a perennial contender and we have been to the playoffs in 3 of his 5 years in LA. Look, I can peer through the looking glass with hindsight too and question this deal or that trade, but you can’t deny we’ve been to the playoffs AS MUCH in the last 5 seasons as we had in the preceeding 17 since we won the ’88 WS.
Comment by Ghost of Ortizii Past— December 4, 2010 #
We probably would have gone to the postseason all those years with a monkey in charge of personnel moves. Just because we made it to the playoffs with Ned in charge doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have gone there with somebody else at the helm.
Comment by SamL— December 4, 2010 #
*Cough* Logan White *cough* Dan Evans *cough* Red Sox wanting to dump Manny *cough* Once swept, once won only one game *cough* luck *cough*
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 5, 2010 #
Hey Mike,
the german guy again, you told me yesterday I’m free to ask any question.
Wy didn’t the dodgers offer Barajas arbitration? If he had accepted, woudn’t he earn less than that????
Comment by FrankTheTank— December 4, 2010 #
I think they did offer him arbitration and he declined to test the free agent market, then signed with the Dodgers, and hey it worked, he got 3.25 mil, instead of 800K.
Comment by format— December 4, 2010 #
Frank, that’s a good question. I think the answer is that they didn’t want to pay BOTH Martin and Barajas, and they still had hope of resigning Martin up until the deadline – at which point it was too late to offer Barajas arb.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 4, 2010 #
but the german guy’s question brings up another element of this deal… signing barajas means we lose (i believe) a sandwich pick.
martin, at $4.6 million or so, plus a strong pick, would be a much better deal for the dodgers than barajas at $3.25 million.
an earlier commenter said we’re all making too big a deal out of this signing. and, initially, i sort of agreed. i don’t think barajas, in a vacuum, is a horrible player. (though i do think if we pair him and uribe with any more sub-average obp guys, the dodgers will be horrible next year.)
but the more i think about it the more i think barajas is a noteworthy mistake. that tiny detail – giving away a high pick as we sign essentially a replacement player – is the kind of thing that separates good teams from bad ones.
the dodgers won’t improve until we get a GM smarter than ned.
Comment by immouch— December 5, 2010 #
“wait, they let Russell Martin walk over $800k but still had $3.8m for Rod F’ing Barajas?”
They obviously don’t think Martin will; be able to catch full time this season. Based on his injury, that is probably a decent assumption.
Comment by Steve Dimig— December 4, 2010 #
My initial reaction was the same as yours – paying way too much. Then I started looking at the market for catchers this winter. Two facts emerged. First, there really aren’t that many good catchers in baseball. (Barajas’s .731 OPS in 2010 ranked 20th among all 64 catchers with 100+ PA.) Second, even mediocre free agent catchers have been getting snapped up at shockingly high annual salaries: Buck for $6 mil, Pierzynski for $4 mil, Hernandez for $3 mil, Torrealba for $3 mil. If you look at it with that perspective, rather than only looking at Barajas’s previous salary, $3.25 million suddenly seems quite fair. You’re welcome to disagree, but I’m sticking with my opinion, based on those facts.
Comment by nsxtasy— December 4, 2010 #
How is it the redsox can get v-mart,a-gon and others with out giving up players from their big league roster?(but when l.a wants to get a doc,lee, or who ever else is out their teams want a kershaw,bills,kemp, or loney?)
Comment by Pete guerrero— December 4, 2010 #
Right, why can’t we ever do deals like this…oh wait, we have no talent in the minors…
Comment by jeff— December 4, 2010 #
It takes a lot of prospects and big money extensions. Let’s say SD would trade within the division it might take Gordon, Robinson, and Sands plus a 100 million dollar contract to land Adrian Gonzales. Is that the price your willing to pay? The Dodgers don’t seem to want to part with the long term 100 million deal. It really seems to be about the money, not the players. Any player acquired in a trade isn’t going to see a future in LA, because we won’t pay superstar level contracts. Not that I’m advocating that we should it’s just not worth losing promising players for guys we won’t retain.
Comment by Aaron— December 4, 2010 #
There had better be some money left to sign either/both Lastings Milledge and/or Matt Diaz. But, I have this scary feeling that Ned will throw a three-year deal at Matt Guerrier or Jesse Crain when bullpen help is our least need item.
Comment by grabarkewitz— December 4, 2010 #
THAT would suck.
Comment by Ghost of Ortizii Past— December 4, 2010 #
It all depends on the alternative. If this money could or would have gone to another player, then yes it is a bad deal.
If this money would have otherwise gone to Frank McCourt, via one of loans he has done for himself with team funds, then I am all for it. Give the money to a player if it keeps Frank from milking it from the organization!
Comment by Dodger Fan in Denver— December 4, 2010 #
You can make a case it would have been better for Frank to keep the money, what happens with Kershaw and co. become free agents and you deferred tons of salaries?
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 5, 2010 #
Hey MSTI, with all these backlogged contracts we’re giving out, all this money we’re spending this year, and all these players like Manny who we’re still paying even though they’re not playing for us anymore, how are we going to have any money for future seasons? Would it ever be worth it to let a few seasons go by where we don’t give out any big contracts and let the backlogged ones run out, so that we can make a fresh shot at building a good team with a lot more money available? Because I feel like what’s happening now is like what we did at the trade deadline last year: we’re making a lot of moves, but still not fully committing either way. I think this offseason we should have either made sure we could really make a great team with a piece like Adam Dunn, or we should have not bothered and let the dead money we have free itself up.
Comment by Bip— December 4, 2010 #
Enough with everyone missing dewitt geezz u people make it sound like l.a traded the second coming of cano or utley!will all the dunn fans stop crying please?man !everyone saying how l.a should have signed him instead of their current f/a signings how l.a still doesn’t have a lf.(if they would have signed him they still wouldn’t have a lf. they would have some fat ass who strikes out 3 or 4 times a game and probably cost l.a more runs with his piece of shit d )
Comment by Pete guerrero— December 4, 2010 #
And it wouldn’t matter because Dunn hit a 3 run bomb………Diaz is still attainable even when signing a big free agent.
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 5, 2010 #
Hey guys! http://www.truebluela.com has updated the dodgers payroll since like 4 days ago. You can check out the website to see the payroll for 2011-2013 , see how much we are paying these guys and see who we owe money to. The 2011 payroll currently stands at $105,122,596.
Comment by Eduardo— December 4, 2010 #
Couldn’t the Dodgers have had Lance Berkman to play LF for $8m (like he got from the Cards)? Or does he stink defensively there?
Comment by Swinginsalami— December 4, 2010 #
Actually he is able to play that position but he hasn’t seen any playing time in the OF since like 2007 I think. He is mainly a 1B man and the Dodgers are busy on talking with Russell Martin on signing a cheaper contract and changing to being a utility man
Comment by Eduardo— December 4, 2010 #
He stinks.
Comment by Jon#7#22— December 4, 2010 #
The Cardinals will have the worst fielding outfield in baseball in 2011.
Comment by Juan Pierre— December 4, 2010 #
I also forgot to point out that new pricing sections were added, that nobody talked about, the FRONT ROWS are now more expensive. Spread the word my brothers, what nerve these fat cats have! Thank You Stubhub.
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 5, 2010 #
Hey at least we didn’t sign Jayson Werth for 7 years/126 million!
Comment by Jon#7#22— December 5, 2010 #
It’s almost a shame that a major-league franchise like the Nationals have to severely overpay for a free agent of that caliber in order to get his name on the dotted line. That really will skew the market for Carl Crawford and even have an effect on whether Adrian Gonzalez can get the 8 year deal that he wants form the Red Sox! I don’t even know if that deal has been consummated. It was like when the Rangers offered Alex Rodriguez something like $250-mil years ago because it was the only way they could secure is name on the dotted line. These actually make the Barajas and Uribe deals seem tame in comparison. By the way, the 3rd highest contract ever given to an OF (tied with Vernon Wells) behind only the $160-mil given to Manny and the $136-mil to Soriano. You may be seeing Crawford’s name in that discussion.
Comment by Pete Sweeney— December 5, 2010 #
Jayson Werth to the Nationals…where in bloody hell did that come from??? Last I checked, not one person even slightly rumored him to go there lol. Like jon said, least it wasnt the Dodgers signing him to that much money. I honestly think he will flop, he is way to overrated.
Beltre neeeds a new home still… all of his suitors are backing out. Slide in Ned, but be reasonable about it. He doesant need 10 yr and 250 mil or anything near that, although, he never played for the Giants so u might snub him instead..
Comment by Chris S— December 5, 2010 #
If Werth is overrated, Beltre is?? We’d need a new word for how overrated he is
Comment by DodgersKings323— December 6, 2010 #
OMG -just heard Milwaukee rumored to be after Greinke with Ryan Braun in trade. Milwaukee reported to be in desperate need of pitching. RYAN BRAUN available ???
Los Angeles local boy, young, affordable contract, signed through 2016 “Hebrew Hammer”, AS, ROY, Silver Slugger, best LF in game, once a 3B man ( not good in field though) – AVAILABLE for pitching.
How many fannies would be in the seats for him. He would be a Hollywood Golden Boy – more popular than Manny – pay for his contract many times over.I would trade XPaul, Hu, Elbert, Withrow and any more pitching prospects the Brewers want\are you listening Ned/ Mr. McCourt?
Comment by Kirk Davenport— December 5, 2010 #
Greinke is the Kershaw of the Royals so I doubt they’ll just want prospects for Braun. Minimum Billz plus those others minus Xpaul, but more than likely they would want Kershaw for Braun, which is a big NOOO!
Comment by Jon#7#22— December 6, 2010 #
I hope the the nats signing of Werth makes dodger fans see the big picture!the nats just pissed away 100 + mill for the next 7yrs. instead of spreading that money around (helping out in other areas) and letting the young players establish themselves now they will be handcuffed by this stupid ass move.yes werth is a good player, but his also 32yrs old playing on a young team with lots of holes and also playing in the east with the braves and phils.(a perfect example of making stupid ass deals r the jays)i think the right way to go about it is bridge the gap with with vets to short term deals. Not signing vets(like dunn,werth, ect) to long term deals instead spread that money with youre young core of players(like kershaw,bills,kemp,ethier ect)
Comment by Pete guerrero— December 6, 2010 #
Yeah, I looked at the Nats roster to see if they picked any pitching before giving away 126 mil… Nope! I don’t understand what they’re thinking, their hitting hasn’t been that bad, but they’ve been the worst team in baseball lately because they have NO PITCHING. Strasburg can’t pitch 162 games, guys. Though, I wonder if Nats fans look at us and say “they just spent 50 mil on their 3, 4, and 5 starters, but isn’t their offense the reason they sucked after the all-star break?”
Comment by Bip— December 6, 2010 #
[...] while it’s no secret that I wasn’t thrilled with giving Rod Barajas $3.25m for next season, does it turn out that since his was for less money, [...]
Pingback by Did You Want A.J. Pierzynski As Your Catcher? « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— January 30, 2011 #
[...] to say that this hasn’t exactly been the brightest offseason around here. We’ve been dismayed at the seemingly excessive contracts handed out to Matt Guerrier, Rod Barajas, and Juan Uribe. [...]
Pingback by Six Reasons for Optimism in 2011 « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— February 14, 2011 #
[...] we knew this wouldn’t work. We were aghast that Barajas got over $3m based on one good week after over a decade of mediocrity. I liked the [...]
Pingback by It’s Time To Give A.J. Ellis a Chance « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— June 11, 2011 #
[...] the first to say that this hasn’t exactly been the brightest offseason around here. We’ve been dismayed at the seemingly excessive contracts handed out to Matt Guerrier, Rod Barajas, and Juan Uribe. [...]
Pingback by None of This Should Have Come As A Surprise « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— June 20, 2011 #
[...] didn’t receive a whole lot of criticism for the fact he did little in September – and it helped him get a hefty contract for 2011. In 2009, Orlando Hudson got off to a fantastic start, hitting .348/.429/.539 through the first 35 [...]
Pingback by James and the Giant Streak « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— August 30, 2011 #
[...] how we felt when the Dodgers signed Barajas last winter, or as I called it at the time, “Rod Barajas Turned One Good Week Into $3.25m“? No? Bask in it with me again: Barajas signed for $500k with the Mets last year, waiting [...]
Pingback by MSTI’s 2011 in Review: Catcher « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— October 3, 2011 #
[...] sucked in by a favorable first impression that the new aquisition was unable to maintain. (Yes, I’m looking at you, Rod [...]
Pingback by Juan Rivera Turned One Good Month Into $4.5m « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— November 3, 2011 #