Friday, December 10, 2004 |
Finley, Fine-ly
When Anaheim signed Finley to a deal Friday that guarantees him $14 million over the next two years and could be worth $20 million with a third option year, they brought in an All-Star whose athleticism belies his age.The panic has already set in. Richard is still pissed at a signing that will tell the story of how the AL West was lost. Chronicles laments "Hardy har, 40-year-old[s] that can't play defense have great track records ... also pathetically comical is the notion that this gives the Angels one of the most "formidable" outfields in the game, as though this is 1997 or something."-- John Schlegel, MLB.com
I'm not having any of it.
Yes, giving 40-year-old (as of the start of Spring Training) Steven Finley a raise to play centerfield is somewhat risky. But as I said earlier, there are risks in signing free agents, and risks in not signing them. Perhaps we haven't given Finley a fair shake.
To that end, I look at his 2004 PECOTA projection ($$$ required, tough). He was supposed to tank this year and amount to something like a 10 VORP player, or .279/.362/.456, 12 HR. Instead, he was a 38.0 VORP player with a .271/.333/.490 36 HR line, and -- let's face it -- the most important single home run for the Dodgers since Kirk Gibson's in 1988. He outperformed his wildest 90th percentile projections by almost 15 runs. But we say -- well, PECOTA is right, just a bit early in predicting his demise. Yes, but, comes my reply, the number of comparables is a scanty 26, well below the usual 50 required to make an accurate forecast. Is Fins likely to be a 38 VORP player again? It's hard to say, and even PECOTA shrugs its shoulders.
Well: defense, then. He's terrible, says UZR, and what's more, projected to decline severely. Oh really?
Year RAR2 ============ 2000 13 2001 22 2002 24 2003 15 2004 19
Look, I'm not in favor of Beltran-or-bust. In fact, even granting that Finley isn't going to play as well defensively or offensively as he has in years past, this is still a defensible signing. First, it's only two years. That by itself is huge. Say the Angels were to sign Carlos Beltran to the seven-year, $100M contract he's supposedly after. Say also that he becomes a quadriplegic after 90 days. What then? The Angels limp along for the remainder of the decade, hobbled as the Rangers were with Chan Ho Park, or the Orioles were with Albert Belle. It's a point Joe Sheehan made today in his column analyzing the trades to date:
Increasingly, I'm coming around to the idea that it's hard to make a bad free-agent signing if the commitment is for no more than two years. What kills teams is the backside of a long-term contract, when the player is three, four or more years removed from his peak, but making the highest salaries of his career. He's not producing, he's a huge part of the payroll, and he can't be traded.This, to me, was what made the Anderson signing so indefensible, despite what Bill Shaikin might think; four years is too many, and four years for a player on the wrong side of 30 is just nuts, absence of outfielders in the minors or no. Worst case, we move Figgy back to center, Fins to DH or a corner outfield position, and punt on Kendry Morales. The Angels have no more than two years to wait to get rid of Finley if he stinks, and Stoneman can look like he made a reasonable signing if it works out.
Beltran? He's somebody else's mistake waiting to happen. Ask the Yankees how much they like Jason Giambi.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.