Tiger Geist

Detroit signs former Arizona and Houston closer Jose Valverde to a two year deal, with a third year option.  Numbers are floating around… sounds like 2 years for $14 million, with a $9 million option for a third year.  Detroit forfeits its first round draft pick this summer (#19 overall).

I’m not a fan of the deal personally, but its probably a wash:  Kurt has a nice breakdown on the value of a closer like Valverde vs the value of the draft pick.  So you’re probably for it or against it, and it’ll take a few years to figure out if Detroit made the right move.  I like the idea that, if you’re giving up a draft pick, you get the third year option.  That third year seems quite high for a position Detroit seems poised to replace internally in 10 months, so I don’t understand that one at all.  It probably won’t kill them, unless John Smoltz Jr. is available at #19.

Here’s the interesting part:  The Tigers suddenly aren’t declaring chapter eleven.  Money?  Found some.  Maybe even over-paid a guy that you question if they even needed.  Did someone see Mike Ilitch in Vegas last weekend?  Maybe he bet it all on the Cardinals.

The latest move, along with some discussion that Detroit’s still looking for free agents, brings up these thoughts:

1) As fans, we might now have to come to grips about the possibility that Detroit really didn’t want Curtis Granderson around, or at least that he wasn’t worth his contract.  As of Wednesday this week, you could assume the Granderson move it was a salary dump.  Signing Valverde to a two year deal may signal otherwise.

2) Dombrowski must really have felt like he was selling high on Edwin Jackson.  Or he really likes Max Scherzer.  OR:

3) Detroit is nervous about the starting rotation.  This I can believe;  their system is NOT built around starting pitchers.  Bolstering the backend of the bullpen and the middle-relief corps could free Zach Miner to a starting spot.  I’m not convinced that anyone knows who will have the better year… Jeremy Bonderman or Eddie Bonine.  The rotation is a tossup.  Miner doesn’t do anything exceptionally well, but he does provide depth.  A good argument could be made that there are starting pitchers better then Miner available, for the same price or even cheaper then Detroit spent on Valverde.  Yes… so:

4) Dombrowski isn’t taking chances with “Glass” Joel Zumaya, green Ryan Perry, or some combo of rookies at the back end of the bullpen.  While Detroit seems to have a decent crop of relief pitchers coming up, this provides the Tigers the ability to not rush anyone.  Perry had a decent year in 2009, but you hate to see young players go up and down mid-season.

5) Detroit still has some holes to fill in their infield for 2011;  Brandon Inge’s replacement may not be in their minor league system… the jury is still out at shortstop.  Dombrowski might see some openings to trade pitching talent for some gloves.  I’m not exactly buying this one either, but I’m concerned that Detroit seems pretty well off in 2011 (for both pitching, payroll, and a top-5 talent in Miguel Cabrera) but they have a lot of holes in their farm system elsewhere.

6) I’m just going to say it now:  If Detroit can’t find the money to sign Justin Verlander to a long term deal, I’m going to be pretty pissed about this Valverde contract.  I’m ok with them waiting (long term contracts to pitchers aren’t always a good idea… right Dontrelle?) but if they end up $14 million short on a Verlander deal, there are going to be some pissed off fans.

7) What are Detroit fans going to do without the need to scream at their closer?  Valverde isn’t the best closer ever, but he should be more stable then Todd Jones or Fernando Rodney.  Say what you want about the contract and the draft pick, but as a closer, Valverde isn’t a bad option.  The Tigers have a closer… the Lions have a starting quarterback.  Joe Dumars better watch his step.

You’ll read a lot on this soon, for two reasons:  1) Roberto Alomar didn’t get voted into the hall of fame, and 2) no Tigers were voted in, and it seems increasingly less likely that Alan Trammell will get in.  (FYI:  Excellent articles by Jim Caple and Rob Neyer, which I may or may not agree on)

But why do I hate this?  Because based on the way the voter’s vote, the whole point of the hall of fame is becoming lost on me.

I understand the ’shoe-ins’ for the hall.  Greg Maddux will walk into the hall.  So will Ivan Rodriguez… etc etc.  Trust me, I understand that Alan Trammell is not Cal Ripken.  But I also understand that Jim Rice and Andre Dawson are not Willie Mays or Hank Aaron.  So this process is lost on me.

I’m also not a fan of the selection committee and voters waiting a few years and then stating “you know, even though I voted such and such an MVP, in contrast that wasn’t really that good of a year”.  That makes sense in terms of getting things right.  But in baseball, hall of fame voting is really the only time that they allow people to sit back and say “hey, did we get that call right?”  Balls vs strikes, safe vs out — will there ever be instant replay for this?  The game can be entirely decided by an umpire who has a split second to make the correct call, but the hall of fame voters get 15 years to decide on the players who lived on those split second decisions.

In the end, it is about making it right.  But here we go — before the world of instant feedback known as ‘the internet’, fans got most of their news from baseball writers.  The writers wrote about players and generated interest, and you learned about which players were good and which ones were great.  As a fan, you would go purchase a ticket.  You saw an MVP type season from the player on your team, or you went to the stadium to see another player from another team, just to say you saw that player play.  Fifteen years later, the same writers who said player X was great now says “comparitively, he was good, not great”.  The Writer gets the chance to change his mind.  The fan, however, doesn’t get a refund on their ticket.

So the fan has memories of great players, and now they’re told that they aren’t really that great by the same people who stirred up the interest in the first place.  So the writer gets it right.  In service organizations, “the customer is always right”.  Except in baseball.  The writers are always right, and they are allowed to change their mind.  You as a fan can keep the memories.

Who is right?  Whomever you think is right.  Its the Oscars vs the Golden Globes; i’m not claiming the voting is wrong.  For me, the voting process is killing my interest in the hall.  Maybe Alan Trammell or Jack Morris don’t deserve to be in the hall.  But they are the ones I have memories of.  Kirk Gibson will never sniff the hall without purchasing his own ticket, but I can’t think of a better baseball moment then his home run in the 1988 world series (of course with the Dodgers…).  Nothing Andre Dawson has done excites me, yet I still get chills and can spout off trivia while watching the Gibson vs Eckersley at-bat.  Maybe the Hall of Fame is perfectly fine; maybe it just isn’t for me.

Its very difficult to get a grasp on what happened in baseball in the last decade;  Barry Bonds & friends blew up what everyone thought they knew.  I’ve put together a few ideas on changes that I believe will happen in baseball over the next decade.

1) Overall defense will improve.  Buster Olney’s recent ESPN magazine article hits on how defensive metrics are becoming more commonplace;  teams can quantify the value of a Brandon Inge.  As being a better defender may lead to a bigger paycheck, more emphasis will be placed in this area.  Soon the idea of a 2009 Gary Sheffield playing in the national league will be obsolete.

2) New managers will bring new strategies.  In the same way the spread offense and the zone read option have fundamentally changed college football, new ideas by younger managers will be tried out in the next 5-10 years.  The old regime of baseball managers will be replaced by more stat-based managers, or guys who grew up playing video games.  What does Pittsburgh have to lose?

3) The baseball draft will be completely over-hauled.  I imagine a mix of both the NBA-style slotting system, as well as an NHL-style “draft a player and let them develop in college”.  This will include the international drafting system, or lack thereof.  Players will soon realize that the less money wasted in the draft is more money in their pockets.

4) Someone will begin to fiddle with statistics around injuries and the disabled list, and further derive the value of their potential players; the new Moneyball will be in the medical field.  There will be enough data to finally figure out the nature vs nurture.. er.. pitch count discussion.

5) Instant replay will work and work well… eventually.  Getting there will test fan’s patience for at least 5 years.

6) HDTV + ticket costs + concession costs + parking costs + the pace of the game != ticket sales.  Small market teams with new stadiums are going to struggle filling seats and selling suites…  for a while.  I’m not sure this is a merely recession issue.