The San Francisco Giants Set An Example
In December 2007, Brian Sabean handed Aaron Rowand a piece of paper that said "sixty million dollars," and Rowand signed it because he didn't know what else to do. Five years, and $60 million. Rowand had just posted a 124 OPS+ the season before as a center fielder, but he had a career OPS+ of 106 and was entering his 30s. It was a hefty and risky investment.
And, unsurprisingly, it didn't work out. It almost immediately didn't work out, as Rowand wasn't very good in 2008. He wasn't very good in 2009, either, and then he got way worse in 2010. He didn't pick things up at all this year, so, finally, just a short while ago, the Giants designated Rowand for assignment.
By performance, it was an obvious move. Since the start of last season, Rowand's been as good a hitter as Orlando Cabrera and Jayson Nix, which is to say he hasn't been good at all, and he no longer had anywhere to play. What makes this a bigger deal is that Rowand was DFAd with a full year left on his contract, meaning the Giants just ate about $14 million to make him disappear. You don't see teams do that very often.
Which brings us to the Mariners, and Chone Figgins. Figgins is due $9 million in 2012, and $8 million in 2013. Here's a Figgins fun fact for you:
wOBA, 2010 - present:
Rowand: .279
Figgins: .276
Through the first two years of his contract, Figgins hasn't hit, and though he's been amenable to moving around the infield a little, he hasn't played great defense at either second or third. He's shown no signs that he's about to get better, and he no longer has a regular job. Also he's 33.
So what should the Mariners do with him? The argument against dropping him outright is that the Mariners still owe him those $17 million after this year. That's a lot of money to drop in a Honey Bucket. But then, so what? That money's already committed regardless. The important question is, can Figgins be of some positive use to this team in the future? And me, I don't see how. Or rather, I can see how, but I don't think it's very likely. I don't think Chone Figgins is a decent ballplayer anymore, and I'm also skeptical that Figgins would handle a bench role particularly well.
I don't think Chone Figgins' contract is a contract worth trying to salvage, and though dropping him would require that the Mariners eat a lot of money, the Giants just ate nearly that much with their own disappointment. Not that the Mariners should necessarily be taking their roster management cues from Brian Sabean, but I don't see anything to argue with here.
Sabean isn't the first guy to eat a bunch of money, either. I can't find a historical list of players who had their expensive contracts bought out, but in 2006 the Diamondbacks designated Russ Ortiz for assignment with $22 million and 2.5 years left on his deal. Ortiz was a special brand of terrible, one of the very worst pitchers in recent baseball history, but what matters is that the money was eaten. The front office decided they could do more without the player than with the player.
If the Mariners see something in Figgins that I don't, then that's great. If they believe strongly that he could bounce back, then it's their call. But Figgins' contract isn't reason enough for keeping him on the team. Figgins' contract is bad, but Figgins as a player is worse, and it seems to me it's just about time for the team to move on.
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If Figgens is replaced with a rookie, say Seager, the money stays about the same
to man 3rd base. I can see Figgens returning to his roots as a super-utility bencher if he shows some hint of life in Spring Training. Figgens should still be useful as a pinch-runner if nothing else. And if he shows a decent spring, who knows, someone may want to take a chance and take on some of his contract.
Somehow, even with how horrible he has looked, I wouldn’t quite give up on Figgens yet. Please, no rotten tomatoes.
This is off topic, but who recs this stuff?
Recs in my opinion are reserved for thought comments or if someone makes a point that you agree with. To rec a spelling correction seems weird.
Just an unintended consequence of the "no +1" rule
We’re told not to post a comment that consists of nothing but “+1” with the admonishment “that’s what the rec button is for.” Now, this may not be worthy of a rec, but if you are one of those people who obsessively corrects the spelling of others, you’re already down the “+1” road. So when someone beats you to the correction, you’re left with the rec button to scratch that itch.
At least, that’s my guess.
(And no, I’m not any of those people. In fact I didn’t even notice it had been rec’d)
Recommended?
But the way “rec” is used around here, it’s becoming a noun/verb in its own right and not the abbreviation of anything else. At that point the rules of English (such as they are) take hold and I suppose you’d end up at “recced,” Which looks stupid (though it’s common usage in some military circles where it began life as an abbreviation of "reconnoitered " and the noun form has become “recce”). Personally, I’m happy with “rec’d” as it is (it’s one letter shorter, for one thing).
When you make a super loony argument and are incapable of spelling the name of a major league baseball player who has been around a while and is on your team,
the person who points out that spelling mistake as a means of pointing out loony argument may get recs.
That makes no sense at all
Pointing out a spelling mistake means you’re really pointing out a loony argument? That some kind of passive/aggressive thing or something? If you want to call somebody out on whatever point they’re trying to make, then do so.
That is loony.
by nathaniel dawson on Aug 31, 2011 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't really see his argument as being silly either, so I'm left confused to how he got four more recs.
I guess it’s a good thing Jeff upped the rec amount to make stuff green.
It's only 2 at HalosHeaven!
Leader of Drew Vettleson fanclub
by Marinerfanjake on Aug 31, 2011 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions
DFA.
Nothing against Figgins as a person, I know nothing about that. But he obviously has no place on this team going forward, and isn’t capable of playing the kind of defense he needs to to be a contributor even if he hits like he did in his “prime”. We have plenty of younger players who can do what we expected him to do when we signed him.
There’s no reason to even try to keep him around, unless they think they can get some sort of trade value out of him if he has a good finish to the year, or a strong spring next year.
Sober and happy!
This is simply a factually incorrect statement
[Figgins] isn’t capable of playing the kind of defense he needs to to be a contributor even if he hits like he did in his "prime".
Figgins defense at 3B has looked fine this year. If Figgins hit .330/.393/.432 (2007) or .298/.395/.393 and was average defensively at 3B he’d be worth every penny he’s paid with a little extra value on top. Even if he’s a bit below average going forward, he’s still be a contributor if he hit like he did in his prime.
Perhaps I could have phrased that differently.
But in my opinion, I never saw anything from him at 2nd or 3rd that made me think he was capable of playing the kind of defense I want to see from those spots.
Sober and happy!
I totally agree on 2B. He was awful there both by eye test and defensive metrics.
I know my recollection of him in Anaheim was as a Willie Boom-Boom type defender who was decent everywhere, but when you look at his advanced Defensive Metrics, he’s been below average at 2B, LF, CF, and RF and the only place he has been “good” to “great” is at 3B. I’m not sure if it small samples at the other positions or what, but there is a fairly large sample size for total production in the OF and it isn’t good.
Which means he’s pretty much only good as a 3B. I had hoped that the team could put him into a Mark McLemore role, but I don’t think he can hack it in the field.
But with the team so close to the end of the season, I'm not sure what DFA'ing him now versus Spring Training does unless 40 man spots get tight
You may as well carry him to next year, see if anyone calls in the off-season (unlikely) or see if he can come back and look like a productive hitter again in the Spring (unlikely). If neither happen or if the team needs a 40 man spot for someone they deem more important, then you DFA him.
Yeah, I don't think the M's need to DFA Figgins this instant
But come winter time, I’d have an itchy trigger finger.
by Jeff Sullivan on Aug 31, 2011 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
He's no Beltre, that's for sure.
Sober and happy!
by Thingray on Aug 31, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's kind of an unrealistic standard
I mean, Seager is no Beltre either. Of course, Seager is lot cheaper than Figgins. But FIggins is cheaper than Beltre.
There is also this
from Drayer. If Figgins is at the point where he isn’t producing enough to make up for the opportunity cost of his roster spot, they should cut him.
Thoughts.
Naturally, the main reason for keeping Chone Figgins is to see if he can bounce back and become useful enough to help this team or at least help another team down the road via trade to recoup some of the costs.
However, as we’ve seen throughout this season, the team has transitioned to the point where it’s no longer relying on stopgaps as a means of propping the team up. The team is now trying to figure out which of the young players that they have are going to stick around for the future.
On that front, Chone Figgins suddenly looks really out-of-place. Playing Figgins now means cutting into playing time for Kyle Seager and other potential options (i.e. Alex Liddi). Figgins could become an expensive utility player at this point but that’s not really interesting to other teams and would otherwise be a potential waste of bench space.
It’s looking more and more like cutting Chone Figgins is the way to go. My guess, baring a trade over the off-season he makes it to spring training next year (similar to how Milton Bradley did this year). If Seager ends up looking lost in spring training for some reason, Figgins could still make the team. If not, he could very well be cut by the end of sping training. This organization is big on having players compete for positions that aren’t nailed down.
I just love the fact that I've been able to completely forget he's even on the team for the last month or so.
As Wedge said, those hip flexors caaannnn be tricky!
by sanford_and_son on Aug 31, 2011 1:29 PM PDT via iPhone app reply actions 1 recs
Another factor
Would be Figgins space on the 25 and 40 man rosters.
The Mariners are finally approaching a point where they have enough talent in the minors that protecting players could be an issue again.
Figgins upside of approaching something of his Angels years is too long a shot to risk losing more valuable younger players simply to try and recoup some spent money.
I think the bigger question is at what point do you DFA him? Right now? This winter? After a bad spring training? Mid-season?
No real need to DFA him this winter, I think, since there are a bunch of expendable guys on the 40 man
- Jamey Wright
- Josh Bard or Chris Gimenez
- Adam Kennedy
- Jack Wilson
- Matt Tuiasosopo
- Wily Mo Pena
- Mike Wilson
that alone should get us some roster breathing room to add guys like Paxton and acquire a few others
by seattlebruin on Aug 31, 2011 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
Are you sure we want to be dropping catchers right now?
Sober and happy!
Dropping players who were NRIs shouldn't cause problems
Make them NRI’s again this winter or get new NRIs.
This is pretty much how I felt about Milton Bradley at the start of this season.
Figgins isn’t really worth the roster spot and the upside is minimal. Even if the team were to try and showcase Figgins, it would mean taking away playing time from another player and I doubt a handful of ABs is going to convince a team to give up something good for him.
Might as well wait till early next season
See what he can do in spring training maybe even up to the trade deadline and hope that somebody might be interested in a trade. He seems ok with his bench role and diminished playing time now that he has sucked for two solid years. Or just cut him, it isn’t my money.
It isn't anyone's money anymore.
Keep him or cut him the money is spent.
Sober and happy!
Somehow they're never as fun as advertised.
"Lee pitches...Renteria hits a high drive, deep left-center field, David Murphy going back, he's on the warning track—it is...go-one!"
There's also the vesting option for the 5th year.
Even if they expect him to bounce back to being an average player, they would either have to assume his playing time will be cut in 2013 or that he’ll still be a productive player in 2014.
...and now I'm here
Not to undercut this very good point by Jeff, but I would almost argue the vesting option is the main reason to cut him.
If you can’t let him get to 600 plate appearances in 2013, even as an average player his value is worse than his contract.
...and now I'm here
He isn't gonna get 600 PA when he is a #9 hitter
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 31, 2011 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions
But they have to limit his plate appearances to make sure of that, even by making him number 9.
Projected wins are based on about 600 plate appearances. If you assume (rightfully) that the best Figgins can bounce back to is a 2 win average player, you then need to adjust for the fact that there is no way in hell they’re going to let him smell 600 plate appearances. You’re looking at like 500 at the most just to make sure that if he has to play in the event of an injury he can’t reach that milestone. So that’s no longer a 2 win player, and thus he would be less valuable than the average player. If you can’t even play him when he’s good-ish in 2013 then that’s another mark against keeping him on the team.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Sep 1, 2011 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If Figgins is playing well enough to get 600 PA, that's a good problem to have
I am very doubtful it will happen, but if he’s playing well enough to get to 600 PAs the team can cross that bridge later.
If he’s only playing “OK” then Seager or someone else is going to get time at 3B in the name of keeping Figgins “fresh” and “well rested” and he won’t sniff 600 PA.
This is about foresight.
If you may also have to limit his plate appearances, he has even less value to the team, ergo dropping him now makes even more sense. The insignificant chance he hits well enough to be even 2 wins is even less valuable because you may not be able to let him get to 600 PAs. So he’d have to be even better than that to be valuable, which then decreases the chance he’s worth keeping even further. This has nothing to do with whether we should be glad he manages to be a 2 win player.
...and now I'm here
I think he'll play in April and will be cut soon after.
Unless he plays amazing. Which I’m not counting on. But it would be the grandest foot in the mouth miracle.
by sea-townie on Aug 31, 2011 4:14 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I've said it before.
I hope they bench him the rest of the year, use him as a super util if at all, and give him another crack in ST/start of the regular season. If he’s not hitting then, then kick him. But hopefully he can bounce back and either provide value to the team or at least enough that we can flip him somewhere for something.

by 



















