Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 |
Angels Sign Gary "Sarge" Matthews, Jr.
The Angels have signed Gary Matthews, Jr. to a $50M/5-year deal, according to Ken Rosenthal. There is simply no way to justify this absurd deal; if this is true, the stench of desperation has started to set in, and this contract will become an albatross immediately. A 32-year-old coming off a career year? Silly season has set in, and the Angels aren't about winning so much as placating the fan base.
Update: Additional reports coming from the Dallas Morning News and SportsTicker. BTF snark includes the hugely apt hed: "Rosenthal Claims Angels Give Up on Next Five Seasons":
FACT:Good God, and to think I used to have a good opinion of Bill Stoneman.
Gary Matthews, Jr. is a 32-year-old outfielder with a career OPS+ of 96 and Equivalent Average of .258—over his career he has just been below average as a hitter. Last year, his 119 OPS+ mark marked the first time he had ever exceeded 109, and only the third time he had exceeded 100 in his career.FACT:
Despite making highlight reels, Matthews’ defense last year rated mediocre or worse by both zone rating and PMR, not to mention by Davenport’s non-play-by-play defensive metric, for whatever that’s worth.FACT:
Per Rosenthal, Matthews, Jr. will be making $10M per from Arte Moreno through age 37.
Update 2: Now on the Angels website, and the Los Angeles Times, which includes this howler:
"The bottom line is everybody's pleased with the deal," said Scott Leventhal, Matthews' agent. "The fact that Gary has Los Angeles roots, to be able to play for the Angels is an absolute dream come true. He couldn't be happier."No, Mr. Leventhal, you crook, not everyone. Nobody asked me. Nobody asked them, or them. Rangers fans mock us openly, as do Mariners fans and A's fans, deservedly.
Update 3: Poster H. Vaughn at BTF observes that it's "Gotta be the best contract ever for a guy who got DFA'd THREE times: Cubs, Bucs, O's." Ouch. Also, the Chronicler says we are idiots definitely, forgetting that sportswriters should never use the first person plural when referring to the team, explicitly for cases exactly like this one.
Comments:
I agree that this deal is ridiculous, but have there been any reasonable deals this offseason? What should be done? Perhaps Stoneman is signing a few replacement parts for his trade bait for a big bat, i.e. Matthews for Figgins, Speier for Shields, Zito for Santana??? I don't think, or hope that Zito is realistic, just throwing out some crazy ideas. If this package nets a few minor upgrades, and Tejada to play third, then maybe the Angels will truly compete for a championship in '07.
Five years is certainly too many for a player that is 32 and coming off of a career year. I am not happy with the deal, but it is good to see that Stoneman is finally willing to overpay for something. I am not prepared to spend another year thinking that the Angels need another bat, but that they are justified in standing pat because nothing reasonable was available. Let's see what else is in store.
Five years is certainly too many for a player that is 32 and coming off of a career year. I am not happy with the deal, but it is good to see that Stoneman is finally willing to overpay for something. I am not prepared to spend another year thinking that the Angels need another bat, but that they are justified in standing pat because nothing reasonable was available. Let's see what else is in store.
# posted by 
: 11/22/2006 11:27:00 AM
: 11/22/2006 11:27:00 AM
The only positive about this deal is it means they pretty much have to get rid of Figgins and maybe, just maybe, they'll be able to get a real major league third baseman in a package that includes him.
Still there's no way to justify those numbers. None.
Still there's no way to justify those numbers. None.
# posted by : 11/22/2006 11:51:00 AM
: 11/22/2006 11:51:00 AM
This just makes no sense at all. The Angels had three in-house options who are all better, younger and cheaper than GMJjr., in Figgins, Willits and Murphy. Matthews isn't better than any of them at anything. They're all better hitters, fielders and baserunners.
# posted by : 11/22/2006 12:03:00 PM
: 11/22/2006 12:03:00 PM
Anyone know the details about GMJ's partial no-trade clause? I'd like to know that we can ship him out after next season, probably paying most of his contract, to open up CF for one of the GOOD CF coming on the market (Wells, Jones, Hunter).
# posted by : 11/22/2006 12:10:00 PM
: 11/22/2006 12:10:00 PM
BAD STONEMAN!!! BAD! BAD! BAD!!! I thought it before, but was almost afraid to say it. But no more: Stoneman has to go. He, along with Mike Scioscia, have absolutely no clue how to contruct a good offense. I am now convinced any good move made by Stoneman in the past was simply dumb luck. Did he learn NOTHING from the Finley fiasco? At least the 40 year old Finley had a track record of success. There is no positive spin to put on this. Ridiculous, short-sighted and down right laughable. Would JD Drew really be that bad? Considerable risk, of course, but far less risky with greater dividends then GMjr. Bad Stoneman!
# posted by : 11/22/2006 12:13:00 PM
: 11/22/2006 12:13:00 PM
Like everyone else I'm at a complete loss of words for this signing. What person in their right mind gives 50 million to Gary Matthews Jr. Did Artie Moreno force Stoneman into signing this guy? If not, then Stoneman is hands down one of the dumbest GMs in the game. Who the heck is running this organization? who is doing their scouting? do they watch the same baseball as everyone else?
# posted by : 11/22/2006 02:31:00 PM
: 11/22/2006 02:31:00 PM
50 mil for this guy? All of a sudden the Red Sox paying 51M for the signing rights doesn't seem so out of line. Funny that fellow Ranger Mark DeRosa got a mere crumb of a contract from the Cubs. Less years less money. I agree, an in house CF would have been a better cheaper solution than signing a career journeyman off a fluke year.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.