Westbrook signed ext

[Dozen]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... p&c_id=mlb

[swerb]

Guess how much anyone?

I'm saying 12 million per.

[Dozen]

Special thanks to Shapiro's daddy

[pup]

$10.5M.

Good bye CC

[captain_wahoo]

If this means we can't afford CC, I will be pissed.

[consigliere]

Official:

3 years, $33M

[Steve Buffum]

Official:

3 years, $33M

That's pretty good. $11M is pretty much market value, but I'm WAY more impressed by the 3 years. How the hell did we get away with THAT?

I'm pretty stoked.

[pup]

If this means we can't afford CC, I will be pissed.

I am pretty sure it means this.

I don't think we could afford him before this deal either though, and that is why it was completed.

Hope Mr. Miller is ready to ba an ace by 2009.

If so:

Miller
Sowers
Westbrook
Lee
Carmona/Lofgren/Lewis or anyone else I am forgetting.

That has a shot at being a real good rotation. Not as good as CC instead of Westbrook, but pretty good.

What I really think it means? They realize they are going to have to add a right handed power bat real soon and have decided to cut back $ in the rotation to make up for it.

$11M ain't bad for Jake.

[No Mistake]

This deal will only make me happy if they work out something with C.C. I see how Westbrook is important, but if we were able to keep Sabathia and not westbrook, we would have Sowers, Lee, Miller, C.C., and Carmona, or a different free agent pitcher. Now, who would out number 1 be... Lee? Thats quite a drop from one number 1 starter to the the next.

[consigliere]

If this means we can't afford CC, I will be pissed.

Holy fuck we have all become cynical.

Let's cross the CC bridge when we get to it, I mean, it is two years from now. Whether or not we signed Westbrook, CC was/is going to be a tough sign.

But, this deal with Westbrook for now helps build some credibility for the Dolans.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Shapiro isn't going to even address CC's extension until the offseason. My guess is he's hoping that the market declines and reduces the cost of the extension.

Westbrook's total salary is $1million less than the total Gil Meche will be getting during the same period with Meche also getting an additional $12M in 2011. Westbrook would have gotten more if he had been a free agent last season, but there's something to be said about security. That's the advantage that the Indians can provide in any extension talks. They can provide a salary guarantee before anyone else can. It won't work on everyone, but one bad season or an injury could significantly drop the amount of guaranteed money these guys make.

There is one major concern here for me. What about the kids? Miller, Lofgren, Martin, Lewis, Carmona, etc. One spot will open with Byrd going bye-bye. Is there a no-trade clause on Westbrook's deal? If not it could make him very attractive trade bait down the line.

[consigliere]

I'm not worried about the kids. Provided they stay healthy, they will provide quality depth we will need going forward, and make for good competition for the #5 spot next year. Also, they now provide us some currency to use in trades since the rotation is set for awhile. Sowers, Lee, and Wesbrook are all here through at least 2010.

[swerb]

Big, big ups to the Dolans here. I never, ever thought that they would pay Jake 10-12 million a season to stay here.

I was wrong. And the rotation becomes alot more solidified into the future.

And Mac ... too much pitching is a beautiful problem to have.

Miller replaces Byrd, and you've got this for next season ...

CC
Westbrook - signed through 2010
Lee - signed through 2011
Sowers - controlled through 2011
Miller - controlled through 2012

And you have almost two full years to figure out what to do with CC, or who you will use to replace him.

Bully for us.

[rigs]

I want my props noted!
What is up with this pessimism????
This is the greatest day under the Dolan regime to date. What a great signing, and to talk Westbrook into three years was great as well.
The Dolans have stepped out of their box, and have come through on this promise. If it means no C.C., then so be it. We can't wait around until the end of the year. I for one want to trade him at year's end. His contract could cripple the organization. Sign Hafner, and you are pretty set for five or six years with a great core.

[consigliere]

Bingo, Rich.

I always felt the Indians would step up for 1-2 of the Big Three FAs....but I always considered Westbrook the least likely. I am stunned at the Westbrook extension. One, that they actually are paying him $11M per.....and two, that they got him for ONLY THREE years. That is outstanding. I wonder if there is an option year in this deal? THat would be even sweeter? Maybe an option year or two that automatically get picked up based on IP.

[swerb]

I want my props noted!
What is up with this pessimism????
This is the greatest day under the Dolan regime to date. What a great signing, and to talk Westbrook into three years was great as well.
The Dolans have stepped out of their box, and have come through on this promise. If it means no C.C., then so be it. We can't wait around until the end of the year. I for one want to trade him at year's end. His contract could cripple the organization. Sign Hafner, and you are pretty set for five or six years with a great core.

Who are you? And what have you done with Rigs?

[rigs]

I am fair.
This is a great move. Come on Rich. What precedent has their been for this? I am ecstatic.

[Dozen]

Good sign, but by no means does this vindicate Dolan's regime..............................How about a playoff berth?

[rigs]

It is a step in the right direction. The Dolan's role in playoff berths is to spend when appropriate to field a team capable of making the playoffs.
After that, the ball is in Shapiro's court.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Big, big ups to the Dolans here. I never, ever thought that they would pay Jake 10-12 million a season to stay here.

I was wrong. And the rotation becomes alot more solidified into the future.

And Mac ... too much pitching is a beautiful problem to have.

Miller replaces Byrd, and you've got this for next season ...

CC
Westbrook - signed through 2010
Lee - signed through 2011
Sowers - controlled through 2011
Miller - controlled through 2012

And you have almost two full years to figure out what to do with CC, or who you will use to replace him.

Bully for us.

I agree Rich. I fell 500% better about pitching going forward than I ever did back in the 90s. That org produced hitters but seemed to ignore the pitchers.

Now we've got depth with quite a bit of it being left handed. We couldn't buy a left handed starter through the 90s and now we have three in the rotation and two more future potential guys in Akron.

My major concern is space on the 40-man roster so we can keep these guys when the time comes. I could see us eventually trading a MLB starter if we feel a farm hand will be an upgrade. Lofgren, for instance, could make Sowers or Lee expendable (more likely Sowers, but you never know - Buff does have a point on the lack of Ks) and allow for the trade of an established starter for prospects. Westbrook may or may not be tradeable, depending on his contract.

This is how the Indians have to move forward. Signing guys they feel are core and trading other established vets to continue to keep the farm stocked as the vets are displaceed by good, young, cheaper talent. You would certainly want to keep vets at positions that we're organizationally weak at.

What I do really like about the Westbrook deal is that it keeps to what Shapiro likes - no ultra long term deals. He'll only do those on young players to extend them past their six year free agency barrier. It's pretty clear that Shapiro doesn't like to make much more than three year commitments to veteran players, especially those near or over 30. I could see Shapiro possibly breaking that rule to sign a CC or Sizemore down the line, but few players would ever warrant him going against his principles.

This extension is a good deal when you examine that market. Worse guys than Westbrook are getting more money.

[consigliere]

Props to you Rigs.

This by no means vindicates Dolan to the DIACF crowd, but I sure as hell hope it quiets them down some. A step in the right direction if you ask me in establishing some credibility with the fans.

Man, when you think about it, look at the players signed to long term deals or extensions the last 2 years: Sabathia, Martinez, Hafner, Peralta, Sizemore, Lee, and Westbrook.

Now the next step is getting back to the playoffs. They have one appearance in the playoffs under the Dolan's, but need to get back there. Granted, getting to the playoffs is a ton tougher now than it was in the 90s.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

I am fair.
This is a great move. Come on Rich. What precedent has their been for this? I am ecstatic.

Kudos to you Rigs. You said you'd give them credit when they earned it and you have.

This is what the Indians have to do, identifying their own guys that they CAN keep and getting it done. Keep the farm stocked and plug in new guys where you can't afford to keep guys.

CC will be hard to keep, but the market may sink in the offseason and we could get lucky. With our pitching depth we do have the luxury of being able to trade him if we can't extend him, though I'm not sure if we could do it in the offseason just yet. If both Miller and Carmona prove to be legit then we may be able to and Lofgren may be ready to go early next year as well.

Very exciting time to be a Cleveland sports fan. The Cavs game last night got me pumped. I'm looking forward to the Browns draft with a sense of optimism. The Tribe throws out the money to secure and extension - a step in the right direction.

Now, let's kick the snot of the White Sox this evening.

[consigliere]

My major concern is space on the 40-man roster so we can keep these guys when the time comes. I could see us eventually trading a MLB starter if we feel a farm hand will be an upgrade. Lofgren, for instance, could make Sowers or Lee expendable (more likely Sowers, but you never know - Buff does have a point on the lack of Ks) and allow for the trade of an established starter for prospects. Westbrook may or may not be tradeable, depending on his contract.

This is how the Indians have to move forward. Signing guys they feel are core and trading other established vets to continue to keep the farm stocked as the vets are displaceed by good, young, cheaper talent. You would certainly want to keep vets at positions that we're organizationally weak at.

Dude, I'm a 40-man roster watchdog and always worried about who we can protect and squeeze on there at year's end....but if by re-signing Westbrook means we lose someone like say, Scott Lewis in the Rule 5 Draft...so be it.

Also, I completely disagree that going forward they will trade Sowers/Lee becoming expendable if someone like Lofgren performs. The shift now is not on replacing these players with the likes of Lofgren, but I think it is not more balanced where they just as much now look to use the top pitching prospects as currency to fill major needs (RH power bat, closer) going forward.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Dude, I'm a 40-man roster watchdog and always worried about who we can protect and squeeze on there at year's end....but if by re-signing Westbrook means we lose someone like say, Scott Lewis in the Rule 5 Draft...so be it.

Also, I completely disagree that going forward they will trade Sowers/Lee becoming expendable if someone like Lofgren performs. The shift now is not on replacing these players with the likes of Lofgren, but I think it is not more balanced where they just as much now look to use the top pitching prospects as currency to fill major needs (RH power bat, closer) going forward.

Losing Lewis is not as big of a concern to me. I also have no problem using prospects to get needed players in Cleveland but I also think that the org needs to examine whether the prospect we might consider trading would be an upgrade over someone on the MLB roster. That then must be weighed against whatever we'd gain.

Lofgren is one who could be a major upgrade on Sowers, Lee, and Westbrook when he's ready. If the org feels that than we need to examine what we can get for Lofgren versus what we can get for one of the established starters. Lofgren, however, is approaching elite prospect status if he's not already there. I'd be loathe to trade a guy like him for a RHed power bat. Statements from Shapiro I've read indicate that he's trying to avoid trading his best pitching prospects.

[swerb]

Very exciting time to be a Cleveland sports fan. The Cavs game last night got me pumped. I'm looking forward to the Browns draft with a sense of optimism.

Pumped enough to get a flight up to Cleveland for the Indians - O's game on Fri, April 27th ... and the draft bash at Panini's the next morning?

I got a ticket with your name on it ...

[swerb]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 13, 2007

MEDIA ADVISORY

SPORTSTIME OHIO TO PROVIDE LIVE COVERAGE OF
JAKE WESTBROOK PRESS CONFERENCE

WHAT: SportsTime Ohio will provide LIVE coverage of today’s Indians press conference announcing the signing of Jake Westbrook. Coverage will be within “All Bets Are Off with Bruce Drennan.”

“All Bets Are Off” begins at 3pm with coverage of the 4:30pm press conference continuing throughout the show.

WHEN: TODAY, APRIL 13 STARTING AT 3PM

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Very exciting time to be a Cleveland sports fan. The Cavs game last night got me pumped. I'm looking forward to the Browns draft with a sense of optimism.

Pumped enough to get a flight up to Cleveland for the Indians - O's game on Fri, April 27th ... and the draft bash at Panini's the next morning?

I got a ticket with your name on it ...

Id' love to, but I have to go down to Miami on business that weekend. I'd much rather be in Cleveland. Miami is a shithole.

[British_Pharaoh]

BEST NEWS FOR A WHILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my favourite Indian is here to stay

and we need him

with Miller, Carmona and Lofgren(18 months-2 years away) we can cut ties with byrd and not exercise his option and we can keep hafner and trade CC for some stellar relief pitching and prospects next season.

I love CC but a choice between him and Pronk?? I take Pronkey
only cos we have no players like him in the minors and we have Miller, Carmona and Lofgren among our extremely promising starting pitching depth.

Dolan is one signing away from destroying the notion that he is 'cheap'

slaying all the Dolan ans shapiro haters.

I notice DGen hasnt been around

[rigs]

no way, you have to exercise Byrd. That is a good value, no? Not saying you can't deal him, but I would pick it up

[Steve Buffum]

no way, you have to exercise Byrd. That is a good value, no? Not saying you can't deal him, but I would pick it up

It's not a bad idea a priori, but it seems clear that it's too early to answer that question. We don't really know:

1) How effective Byrd is going to be (ersatz no-hitter notwithstanding)
2) How healthy Byrd is going to be (it's easy to forget he's had injury troubles in the fairly recent past)
3) How "ready"/good Carmona and/or Miller are going to be
4) How Lee will recover from his injury

We have 5 starting slots, and right now I think Westbrook, Lee, and Sowers are obviously 3 through the end of the decade. Sabathia is here at least next year. That leaves one slot in 2008, and the question will be, "Is Byrd a better choice for that slot than either Carmona or Miller?" I am on record as wanting Carmona to start: Miller could absolutely be used in the Twins Plan bullpen slot (7th/8th inning power righty), but unless there are injuries or Carmona pumpkinizes, I'd rather have Camona in the rotation than Byrd.

We'll see.
.

[consigliere]

no way, you have to exercise Byrd. That is a good value, no? Not saying you can't deal him, but I would pick it up

You want that RHed bat or closer don't you?

Well, keeping Byrd next season pretty much means we have no shot at getting either. The starting staff, with Byrd, would be $35M, which would be roughly half the team payroll.

I have a feeling Byrd will become a valuable trade chip this June/July. He is a bargain at $7M per, and with a club option for 2008, he will be attractive to a team looking for a decent MOR starter to round out their staff for the stretch run. Now that Westbrook is in tow, I pawn him off and try to fill a need in the bully or middle infield either at the major league level or with a player about ready to play in the majors.

I'm more than happy with going with a rotation this year and 2008 of Sabathia, Westbrook, Lee, Sowers, and a Miller/Carmona combo.

And, no one has mentioned this yet, but with the extension of Westbrook, the only pending FA after this year is Trot Nixon, and who is worried about losing him? We control everyone else at least through 2008. Huge.

[leadpipe]

How is a poor pitcher a bargain? If he hangs a five ERA up again, any prospect you bring up that FAILS will be similiar. Paul Byrd is done, unless the new pitch he developed at the age of fifty is effective.

[paulcousineau]

And, no one has mentioned this yet, but with the extension of Westbrook, the only pending FA after this year is Trot Nixon, and who is worried about losing him? We control everyone else at least through 2008. Huge.

To me, the biggest part of the announcement.

I haven't wiped the smile off my face since I heard.

[pup]

Boy do I hate to do this:

This is a good signing, but hardly one to get everyone (me at least) off the backs of Shap/Dolan. They did exactly what they have always done, get average talent signed on to below market value deals. Westbrook is a fine middle of the rotation starter, but he is not very different from Gil Meche, other than playing for a better team. Had they signed Meche to the same deal, this board would have blown up.

This is not saying it is stupid, or a bad signing. I like Westbrook and he has a clearly defined role, which he fits well.

The sign the Dolan/Shapiro have changed is the day they announce CC or Grady Sizemore will retire as Indians.

Ready.....Go

[rigs]

consig
yes, I want a RH bat. I would rather trade Byrd at the break as well. I was responding to not picking up his option. IMO that would be a dumb move. But if you can peddle him by July of course that would work.

[swerb]

Come on Pup. Westie's had three years better than the one decent one Meche has had. You ask all 30 MLB GM's which pitcher they'd rather have, all but Allen Baird tell you Jake.

And that's been with Honny Peralta at SS the last two years. With Omar there in '04, he was an All Star with a 3.38 ERA.

If Jake would have hit the open market, a big market team with solid infield defense would have likely given him a 3-4 year deal at 13-15 million per.

I don't know how you can't give Shappie credit for inking this guy to a 3/33 extension.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Boy do I hate to do this:

This is a good signing, but hardly one to get everyone (me at least) off the backs of Shap/Dolan. They did exactly what they have always done, get average talent signed on to below market value deals. Westbrook is a fine middle of the rotation starter, but he is not very different from Gil Meche, other than playing for a better team. Had they signed Meche to the same deal, this board would have blown up.

This is not saying it is stupid, or a bad signing. I like Westbrook and he has a clearly defined role, which he fits well.

The sign the Dolan/Shapiro have changed is the day they announce CC or Grady Sizemore will retire as Indians.

Ready.....Go

I would say that Jake Westbrook is very different from Gil Meche. Meche has exactly ZERO 200+ inning seasons under his belt while Westbrook has gone over 210 innings in each of the last three seasons. Since 2002, when Westbrook only started four games, Jake has not had an ERA above 4.50. Meche, on the other hand, only has had one season where he's posted a sub 4.50 ERA - last year at 4.48.

Jakes's WHIPs are similar bet tend to be slightly lower. Meche has generally posted a Groundball:Flyball ratio that's under 1.00 except for last year when it was 1.11. Westbrook's is routinely around 3.00.

Take a look at Meche:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/s ... yerId=4105

and Westbrook:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/s ... yerId=4422

And dare tell me they're similar while keeping a straight face.

FACT is that Jake Westbrook is a much better pitcher than Meche. He's more durable, routinely allows fewer earned runs per inning, and is FAR superior at inducing batters to hit the ball on the ground.

Gil Meche is making $1million MORE than Westbrook will be making for the same period. Why don't we give credit where it's due and be IMPRESSED that Shapiro and Dolan have managed to keep a player away from the market while getting great value.

Or is my reading of your post correct, that you won't be happy until Dolan/Shapiro decide to overpay a player? That's not what we do nor what we can afford. We're not signing a Meche or a Soriano. We will keep our own guys and try to sign them long term.

But this is a $33M commitment. Hopefully it is a first step. I'm sure many will complain if CC and Hafner are both re-signed as well to sub-market deals. Dolan ponied up quite a bit of cash today and still some people can't be placated.

[pup]

I don't know how you can't give Shappie credit for inking this guy to a 3/33 extension

You are missing the point of my post. I said it was a good signing. I said I like Westbrook.

I also said this is NOT a sign the front office has changed. They signed a player to a contract that pays him below market value. I am not saying signing players to below market deals is a bad thing. There is a difference.

And that's been with Honny Peralta at SS the last two years.

OK. But I am pretty sure Peralta is going to be the SS here for the length of Jake's deal, so he is what he is. 4.0-4.5 ERA.

This is a good signing

This is not saying it is stupid, or a bad signing. I like Westbrook and he has a clearly defined role, which he fits well.

All in all:

The sign the Dolan/Shapiro have changed is the day they announce CC or Grady Sizemore will retire as Indians

[Dozen]

Boy do I hate to do this:

This is a good signing, but hardly one to get everyone (me at least) off the backs of Shap/Dolan. They did exactly what they have always done, get average talent signed on to below market value deals. Westbrook is a fine middle of the rotation starter, but he is not very different from Gil Meche, other than playing for a better team. Had they signed Meche to the same deal, this board would have blown up.

This is not saying it is stupid, or a bad signing. I like Westbrook and he has a clearly defined role, which he fits well.

The sign the Dolan/Shapiro have changed is the day they announce CC or Grady Sizemore will retire as Indians.

Ready.....Go

Rack Pup!

[pup]

I am sorry to everyone for including the Gil Meche reference.

Doesn't change my stance.

Or is my reading of your post correct, that you won't be happy until Dolan/Shapiro decide to overpay a player?

I won't be happy until:

A) The Indians win a World Series
B) Pay someone what their worth is that is not an average player at their position.
C) Make a move to improve the team, instead of maintaining the status quo.

If part A can happen without B and C, cool. I just don't think it can. I am sorry.

[consigliere]

This is a good signing, but hardly one to get everyone (me at least) off the backs of Shap/Dolan.

So in other words, no matter what they do, no one will ever be happy. That's basically what you are saying.

If I'd have told you yesterday they would give Wesbtrook $11M per, you'd have laughed in my face and said fat chance.

No one is claiming people should lay off Dolan and co....but for God sakes, this is a positive step in the right direction for once in re-establishing his credibility with the fanbase.

They did exactly what they have always done, get average talent signed on to below market value deals. Westbrook is a fine middle of the rotation starter, but he is not very different from Gil Meche, other than playing for a better team.

Average talent? Come on. You are being intellectualy dishonest here to prove a flawed point. 14+ wins three straight years....200+ innings three straight years. 4.01 ERA combined the last three years. League average ERA for starters was 4.53 the last three years.....and only a handful of pitchers have pitched 200 IP let alone double digits the last three years.

That is not league average. That is above average.

And, thankfully you already rescinded the Meche comment.

Yes, the Indians probably got Westbrook at a hometown discount because he wanted to stay, but how was it a below market value contract? Gee, you think the agent and Jake would sign a below market contract when they know they would have been the #1 FA pitcher in this upcoming market? Why would the agent allow a client to sign a below market contract? Is the agent trying to lose business? They got what they thought was a fair deal to sign now. What, did Roy Oswalt sign a "below market value" contract when he re-upped with the Stros for 5/73 when he could have gotten more in FA?

Had they signed Meche to the same deal, this board would have blown up.

Better believe it, as I'd have rather signed Jake (or CC) to that contract.

[pup]

If I'd have told you yesterday they would give Wesbtrook $11M per, you'd have laughed in my face and said fat chance.

No I wouldn't have. I would have said if he accepts that, then he is offering them a hometown disount, and that is the only way this deal gets done.

4.01 ERA combined the last three years. League average ERA for starters was 4.53 the last three years.

Last 3 years: With Omar (2004) 3.38. Without Omar (05&06) 4.32.

So which pitcher did we just sign the extension to? Because I don't think Omar is coming back anytime soon, so I would say he is closer to the 4.32 guy for the lengthof the contract.

You are forcing me to rip apart a player I like and a contract I like to prove my point.

This IS NOT some sort of signal that th Indians are spending money.

Yes, the Indians probably got Westbrook at a hometown discount because he wanted to stay, but how was it a below market value contract? Gee, you think the agent and Jake would sign a below market contract when they know they would have been the #1 FA pitcher in this upcoming market? Why would the agent allow a client to sign a below market contract? Is the agent trying to lose business? They got what they thought was a fair deal to sign now. What, did Roy Oswalt sign a "below market value" contract when he re-upped with the Stros for 5/73 when he could have gotten more in FA?

What exactly ae you saying here? Was it below market value and a hometow discount, or no? Could he have gotten more money this winter? I think so and everyone who is so happy about this deal sure thinks so. That makes it below market value. That is all. It is not surprising the Indians signed a player to a contract that is below market value. My only point.

You don't like what I am saying so you talk about how great of a contract it is, and I agree with that and you say it is not a below market value deal.

[consigliere]

Last 3 years: With Omar (2004) 3.38. Without Omar (05&06) 4.32.

So which pitcher did we just sign the extension to? Because I don't think Omar is coming back anytime soon, so I would say he is closer to the 4.32 guy for the lengthof the contract.

That's a poor conclusion man. Peralta was a better defender in 2005 than Vizquel in 2004:

Vizquel 2004: .982 fielding%, 4.31 range factor, .840 zone rating
Peralta 2005: .970 fielding%, 4.53 range factor, .854 zone rating

Jake had a career year in 2004, period. He is a 14-15 win pitcher who throws 200 innings and has an ERA around 4.00. THat is very good.

What exactly ae you saying here? Was it below market value and a hometow discount, or no? Could he have gotten more money this winter? I think so and everyone who is so happy about this deal sure thinks so. That makes it below market value. That is all. It is not surprising the Indians signed a player to a contract that is below market value. My only point.

Was it a fair deal? Obviousy Jake and his agent felt so. So, that does not make it a low-ball or below market value contract to them. Other things obviously weighed into the decision besides money that provided perks to the deal which made it "fair", or what they considered good value to offset the loss of dollars.

If it was not a good deal for the player, why sign it? Especially when a huge payday awaits? Shapiro have pics of Jake doing nasty stuff with farm animals or something?

[pup]

Peralta was a better defender in 2005 than Vizquel in 2004:

Not even worth replying to a post which starts with this.

[Dozen]

Peralta was a better defender in 2005 than Vizquel in 2004:

Not even worth replying to a post which starts with this.

[leadpipe]

I'm a Bill James guy. Numbers tell you a lot in this game. But Christ you can't be serious about Peralta or Vizquel. Those range factors and zone ratings for one season can be bunched with pitchers wins and losses. One year's time doesn't necessarily reflect their total value. Surely you know this. This is a the type of statement that get's us number guys in trouble in the first place. Instead of the "numbers" on this one, I'm going with "keeping my eyes open."

[consigliere]

Peralta was a better defender in 2005 than Vizquel in 2004:

Not even worth replying to a post which starts with this.

Why? Every traditional fielding stat says so, and every saber stat as well. Peralta had a very good defensive year in 2005, which was better than Omar in 2004 who looked on the decline.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Most seem to forget that 2004 wasn't Omar's greatest season on defense. He certainly was better with the stick, but his fielding wasn't what it once was. Omar appeared to be in decline after a crummy and short 2003 season. His range was shrinking and many thought that his weak arm was finally catching up with him.

That and the $$$ is why we let him walk. Had the Indians had a crystal ball they likely would have kept him, forseeing that the 2006 Omar model was far superior to the 2006 Jhonny model.

But not everyone saw Omar doing what he did last season. I sure didn't. I think his performance last year may have solidified his campaign for Cooperstown. I heard plenty of national talk in the offseason about ranking the all-time best fielders (at least of the past 40 or so years) and many spoke of Omar above many other worthy shortstops. His offense, though not earth shattering, puts him a notch above Ozzie Smith in my book (and I loved watching Ozzie as a kid, got to see him at Busch Stadium and in spring training).

But Peralta was defensively quite good in 2005, better than Omar in 2004. Methinks it's easy to allow 2006 to overshadown Jhonny's impressive 2005.

[consigliere]

Most seem to forget that 2004 wasn't Omar's greatest season on defense. He certainly was better with the stick, but his fielding wasn't what it once was. Omar appeared to be in decline after a crummy and short 2003 season. His range was shrinking and many thought that his weak arm was finally catching up with him.

Glad someone else around here has a good memory.

Peralta is nowhere close to the defensive SS Omar was.....but Honny's 2005 compared to Omar's 2004 was better. By the eyes, and the stats. The whole point of this was that it was not correct is saying Omar had a hand in Jake's career year in 2004 and Honny had a hand in Jake's ERA slipping in 2005. Much more to it than that, especially when compared, Peralta had the better season over those two years.

[pup]

Was it a fair deal? Obviousy Jake and his agent felt so. So, that does not make it a low-ball or below market value contract to them. Other things obviously weighed into the decision besides money that provided perks to the deal which made it "fair", or what they considered good value to offset the loss of dollars.

Would Jake Westbrook have gotten more as a free agent than 3 years, $33M? Almost 100% sure he would have.

Therefore, 3 years, $33M is below market value.

Therfore, we signed him to a below market value contract.