Ellis to sign three-year deal, $11 million deal
OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Ellis to sign three-year deal, $11 million deal
| By yc2578 on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:04 am:|
This is a bit of surprise.
I know not everyone is convinced of Wolf's intentions to stay in Oakland, but there's no doubting this group seems to be alot more willing to open up the ole pocketbook, than what Schott and company were.
Don't get me wrong we aren't going to be competing with The Yankees or The Red Sox of the world in that regard anytime soon, but it's nice to at least see 'some' money being spent here and there, to improve an already potientially great team for both the present and the future.
| By threepeat on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 03:11 pm:|
colt45- The real proof of the organization's retreat from its penny pinching ways will be the signing of a Zito extension. Until this happens, I think the jury will remain out.
| By eyleenn on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 05:29 pm:|
Three years, $11 mill is not exactly right. According to ESPN radio, it's 2 yrs, $6 mill. Here's the official press release. There's an option for a third year.
| By eyleenn on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 05:43 pm:|
Nice column by Ratto:
| By yc2578 on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 10:11 pm:|
"The real proof of the organization's retreat from its penny pinching ways will be the signing of a Zito extension. Until this happens, I think the jury will remain out."
That's overstating things just a bit. Is Zito really worth the $10-12 million/year he's likely to get in the open market? Probably not. If Blanton and Haren continue to get better this year and Harden can stay healthy, re-signing Zito at that price tag wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. The fact the A's didn't trade Zito in a salary dump (remember he makes $8.5 million this year) and would only deal him if they received an offer they couldn't refuse shows things have changed.
| By threepeat on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:35 pm:|
Yc- The season hasn't started yet. There's still time for the A'S to trade Zito. I am not so sure that they won't. They still could receive an offer they can't refuse. Also, you wouldn't pony up the $10-$12 million for Zito if you had it? I don't think the A'S will either when the time comes.
| By yc2578 on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:40 pm:|
And if they receive an offer they can't refuse, they should take it. They'd be silly not to trade Zito if a deal falls into their lap that makes them a better team this year but that's not going to happen so he's not going to be traded.
No I wouldn't pay Zito that much unless he suddenly starts pitching like a Cy Young candidate again. Starting pitching is the most overvalued position in baseball right now. If the new Big Three can continue to get better that money would be better spent elsewhere next offseason.
| By threepeat on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:52 pm:|
You can't have too much pitching. I can't imagine starting pitching being overrated. How do you win without it? That might explain why it is always overrated.
| By oaktownfan on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:53 pm:|
I think this is a solid signing after how Ellis performed at the end of last season when he was the A's best offensive bat the last two months of the season.
.316, 15 hrs, 52 RBs, .861 OPS are pretty damn good numbers for Ellis who played part time the first half of the season and who was thought to be mostly all glove and a decent bat.
I don't know if he could duplicate those #s but I'd be fine with .280, 15 hrs, 50 RBIs for an entire season is good enough for me.
I don't know what means for Cliff Pennington who was thought to be the A's future 2B when the A's drafted him but I guess this is good since it means Pennington won't be rushed up here and can stay another year or two in the minors before he's deemed ready to play up in the majors.
| By yc2578 on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:11 am:|
"You can't have too much pitching. I can't imagine starting pitching being overrated. How do you win without it? That might explain why it is always overrated."
True but you can never enough offense, defense, relief pitching, etc. Perhaps I should clarify that individual starting pitchers are currently overvalued. If you can't score runs partly because you've paid $12 million to a guy who only appears in every 5th game then maybe it's time to re-evaluate where you spend your money.
Just one example to look at from this offseason. A.J. Burnett had 11 win shares last year. Brian Giles had 32 wins shares last year. Burnett signs a deal worth $11 million/year. Giles signs a deal with $10 million/year. In fairness it did seem Giles gave the Padres a discount to re-sign but it does show how overvalued an individual starting pitcher can be. Zito is one year younger than Burnett, has had more success, and zero injury history (unlilke Burnett). If the A's can get a top flight everyday player for similar money next offseason rather than re-signing Zito, that would be the wiser move.
| By threepeat on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:42 am:|
I hope the A'S don't feel the same way about Zito that you do and let him go. The big four would certainly do more to bring a WS back to Oakland than would a "new big three". But as you point out, the A'S will probably determine that Zito costs too much and not pony up the money necessary to keep him.
| By yc2578 on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:51 am:|
And if the A's spend the same money to bring in an everyday player who would bring more value to the team, that would some how be a bad decision? Sorry I just don't see the logic.
Also going back to your original comment, let's put it this way: If Schott still owned the team Zito would have already been traded in Hudson-like deal. Just because the A's aren't spending the like the Yankees (and no team really needs to) doesn't mean things haven't changed. The A's haven't lost thru free agency or traded a single player this offseason who could have made a significant impact for the upcoming season. You could never say that during the Schott era.
| By threepeat on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 01:06 am:|
"The A'S haven't lost thru free agency or traded a single player this offseason who could have made a significant impact for the upcoming season." I'll repeat myself. The season hasn't started yet. There is still time for the A'S to trade Zito or another "impact" player.
| By oaktownfan on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 02:46 am:|
The only players I would want to see the A's trade are players like Kennedy, Saarloos, Cruz, C.Thomas, Kielty, Payton and any minor leaguer other than Barton.
| By yc2578 on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 12:22 pm:|
And I'll repeat myslef threepeat, Zito IS NOT BEING TRADED. The A's are done making moves this offseason.
| By threepeat on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 01:11 pm:|
I agree and never said that the A'S should trade Zito. But there is the possibility that they still might before the season starts or at the deadine in July. My fear is that the A'S WILL NOT sign Zito to a extension this year or make a honest effort to sign him next because, like you, they determine that he costs too much. Thus continuing their cheap pattern of allowing "impact" players walk.