Jose Valverde? Really?
January 13th, 2010 Posted in Jose ValverdeThe Tigers have reportedly made a two year contract offer to relief pitcher, Jose Valverde. Jason Beck of MLB.com, writes Valverde ending up in Detroit is the most likely situation for the right hander. Beck figures that the Tigers two-year offer to Valverde is probably in the $12-$14M range. In addition to this generous chunk of change, the Tigers would have to surrender their first round pick, the 19th overall selection.
I’m going to sound like a broken record here, but I just don’t see how this deal makes any sense. The Tigers have pretty big holes in the outfield and in the starting rotation, yet they are on the verge of signing a relatively high-priced closer? I don’t get it. It’s beginning to look like the Tigers didn’t unload Granderson/Jackson for monetary reasons.
If the Tigers did trade Granderson and Jackson to save money, they wouldn’t be going after Valverde and I’m not sure they would have let Fernando Rodney and Placido Polanco walk away. Did the Tigers brass just not believe in Granderson and Jackson? Did they think they could cash in on their peaks and bail before the bottom fell out? That’s what it will look like if the Tigers sign Valverde.
Also, if they are trying to save money, then why give up the 19th pick in the draft? The draft is the best place to make your team better for very little money. While the Tigers overpaid for a guy like Rick Porcello, he sure looks cheap right now.
Finally, very few people out there are picking the Tigers as contenders in 2010. One of the last things a non-contender needs is a high-priced relief pitcher. Also, it’s not like the Tigers don’t have any options? Ryan Perry could close. Ditto for Joel Zumaya or Daniel Schlereth. While all three could fall flat, they would come cheap and if the Tigers aren’t in the playoff race, who really cares? I’m of the opinion that there is no difference between a 70 win team and a 90 win team if neither team makes the postseason.
I’ve said all along that I’ll only buy the Granderson trade if the Tigers continue to cut money from their bloated payroll. Adding payroll makes that deal make less sense.
4 Responses to “Jose Valverde? Really?”
By stephen grosberg on Jan 13, 2010
To even think of spending that kind of money when you have talent to develop like the pitchers mentioned, is pure foolishness. It points up once again the fear of being wrong with a young player vs. a high priced veteran. With the exception of the Yankees, great teams that continue to perform for years, are grown not bought. Besides I want to root for a young player , like Robbie Weinhardt and Alex Avila to develop. This goes for Ryan Strieby, Ryan Raburn, Cody Satterwhite, Casper Wells, Brennan Boesch, Phil Coke, Austin Jackson, Andrew Oliver Brent Dlugach, and Adam Wilk too. I can name another 10 to 20, but that would be getting off the subject. I’m looking to save money on Ordonez next.
By Cousin Rob on Jan 13, 2010
“great teams that continue to perform for years, are grown not bought.”
This is inaccurate. To say that teams that continue to perform well are only grown or only bought are both false. It is a blend of both. You grow your system and add high level talent where you need it. If you only build through growth, then you end up like Tampa Bay…you go from 61 wins to 97 wins until the big boys (NYY, NYM, LA, LA, Chi, Bos) buy all of your talent…then TB drop off. Do I really need to make a list of big time stars, the teams that they were “grown” in and then where they are playing now?
There are exceptions to both rules. You have people like Colorado and Minn who perform consistently through growth. Then you have the LA market teams and NYY who perform through purchasing.
Assuming this is true and I am right (which, of course, it is and I am), it would seem that Detroit is stacking things up in their farm system to develop them, and then add a couple of big ticket arms or bats to complement it once they figure out exactly what they need. However, the Valverde signing doesn’t seem to go along with that strategy at all (or any strategy at all)…which is why it is easy to understand Blake’s ire.
By Blake VandeBunte on Jan 13, 2010
I’m with Stephen, I just don’t see how this move fits and more than that, I’d rather pull for a team with a young (cheap) roster than a 75 win team that has Jose Valverde as it’s closer and is short a first round draft pick.
If they could get Valverde for one year and NOT give up a pick, then maybe I’d be cool with this proposed move.
By Art Zook on Jan 17, 2010
“Did the Tigers brass just not believe in Granderson and Jackson? Did they think they could cash in on their peaks and bail before the bottom fell out?”
I think that played a large role in why they were traded. Also, it hadn’t been just Granderson’s numbers against lefties that had been slipping over the past few years but his numbers at home have declined each of the past three years as well. There’s a good possibility the Tigers see Granderson as a player becoming a worse and worse fit for their team and their ballpark.
As for Valverde, I haven’t been a big fan of the move, either. But it could also be saying a couple of other things about how the Tigers view their team and their prospects right now. First, they may see themselves as having a legit shot at the central this year. I don’t think they’ll be contending for it but I didn’t think they’d contend last year either. Second, that they don’t believe one of their young BP arms is close enough to be trusted with the job. While this could cause alarm, it could also be a smart move. Instead of throwing the kids out there this year, they have some extra time to work on their pitching and then work as a set-up guy for Valverde before taking the reins themselves.
While the signing is odd, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the kids develop a bit this year (and some bad contracts shed after the season), having valverde around to tutor Satterwhite/Weinhardt/Schlereth isn’t a bad idea, either.