Juan Rivera re-signs with Angels.
by Thundering Turtle on Dec 19, 2008 3:40 PM EST
Email
PrintFrom MLB.com: "The Angels announced Friday that they have agreed with free-agent outfielder Juan Rivera on a three-year deal worth $12.75 million."
So much for that. Reasonable price, especially in this day and age. I liked the guy and think he'll hit. Any thoughts on the terms of this deal? I thought he might have gotten a bit more elsewhere, maybe 3/$15M from someone. If not, I figured him for a one-year, prove-yourself kind of deal.
I guess now we turn our attention to Willy T., huh?
44 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If it happens, it'll happen tomorrow afternoon.
Cuz I’m driving out to Ohio for winter break, and crazy stuff always goes down when I’m on my way out of town… The Hamilton/Volquez deal being a prime example.
People Don't Kill People. Burning Couches Kill People.
crap
i didnt want the Reds to give him 3 years, but at that price i wouldnt mind it all. i guess he really likes LA, because i think he just short-sold himself. oh well, maybe Walt can wait for all these jerks to come off the market and pick up Pat Burrell on a 1 year Lohse deal.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 19, 2008 3:59 PM EST reply actions
Meh.
I’m still not convinced he’s anything special.
There are still alot of LFs out there, and I think Charlie may not be far from the truth about Burrell. Neither is really anything other than what you see (Lohse – league-average innings eater; Burrell – 120-125 OPS+, no glove LF); Lohse, I think, just had a career year (which garnered him a nice contract).
Often wrong, never uncertain.
I guess it's Burrell or Bradley then
with maybe Baldelli and Hairston. If they do that and somehow turn Homer/EdE into Beltre, we can make that work. Sounds rather pie in the sky to me now…
I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck
But no Felix Pie
little children laugh at him behind his back
I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck
by PeteyHendrix on Dec 19, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
the Reds would never sign Pat Burrell.
Because he’d demand more than he’s worth. I don’t like him either, but only because he’s a poor man’s Adam Dunn. And Adam’s the better option.
If he signs with the Cuns
I’ll…….well shit, I don’t know WHAT I’ll do.
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
Dunn will do anything to piss on the Reds.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Sir Winston Churchill
From Fay
The Reds quest for a right-handed-hitting outfielder is now centered on Jerry Hairston Jr., Rocco Baldelli and Willy Taveras.
That’s supposed to fix the offense?
We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches
Well...
Taveras should help the OF defense. Cherry would be vastly overpaid for his offense, and is defense isn’t all that. Rocco, if he could regain his form from ’06, might be interesting.
But really, ugh. This is starting to look like a 700 run offense. Again.
Often wrong, never uncertain.
its not a matter of outscoring your opponent...
…but outsmarting them. Outsmarting them to death.
by jacob brumfield on Dec 19, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions
So what do we expect the lineup to look like now, and how many runs will it produce?
LF Burrell or Bradley
CF Tavares/Baldelli/Hairston
RF Bruce
1B Votto
2B BP
SS AGON/Kepp/Hairston
3B EdE
C Ramon/Hanigan
Is that a reasonable lineup to project from this early perch?
I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck
by PeteyHendrix on Dec 19, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions
Is there any real link to Bradley?
That’s who I’m hoping for, but I feel like people are just throwing his name around because he’s a righty, an OF, and available.
I’m still in favor of the Reds signing Jose Guillen, Milton Bradley, and trading for Kyle Farnsworth, and Ron Artest.
what about Ron Artest?
Is he available?
We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches
Why would we want someone that plays defense?
by ken on Dec 20, 2008 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
rec'd
I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck
by PeteyHendrix on Dec 20, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
I'd love to see Bradley here
But it ain’t gonna happen. The Reds know that Cincinnati wouldn’t react well to an “angry black male”. I think he’s be great in a Greg Vaughn “fiery” type of way.
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
Or racist?
I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck
by PeteyHendrix on Dec 21, 2008 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Jocketty says he discussed Bradley
It doesn’t sound like the Reds are ready to enter the Milton Bradley derby. “We discussed it,” Jocketty said. “But we haven’t contacted his agent.”
I have discovered in 20 years of moving around a ballpark, that the knowledge of the game is usually in inverse proportion to the price of the seats. - Bill Veeck
by PeteyHendrix on Dec 20, 2008 6:15 PM EST up reply actions
Who is going to get on base for this team?
And then who is going to drive in the people who don’t get on base?
If the Reds aren’t pursuing Burrell, Bradley or even someone like Hermida, then things look bleak for fielding a team that will at least fool fans into thinking they’ll compete in the early going.
I got to go down to the stadium and whip batteries at the players on both teams. - Philly Boy Roy
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Dec 19, 2008 6:54 PM EST reply actions
Forget getting on base
That sounds like you’re advocating walks which are passive. They key is driving in the runners in scoring position. If at some point next year the Reds go 0-4 with RISP the key will be to chastise the players who left runners on base—not all the players who didn’t get on base.
Did Fay reallt say the Reds didn't want to give Rivera a third year?
Why the hell not? Are they afraid he’d be untradeable after two years? Would that last $5 million in 2011 be more than they can handle or more than another team would be able to pay? In 2011? Really?
But they’d give up Homer and another prospect for a $10 million one-year splurge on 35 year old Jermaine Dye.
This is a very bad sign.
Like I said
they’re just trying to put a reasonably competitive team on the field next year without signing anybody past 2010.
We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches
Why though?
Are they hoarding money to make a run at Lebron James like everyone else?
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
by jch24 on Dec 20, 2008 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
purely supposition
but I think when you have several prospects on the verge of joining the team within 2 years, the last thing you want to do is lock down positions with older, more expensive players. Why sign Rivera for 3 years when there are already questions about how the Reds are going to fit Votto, Alonso, and EdE in the same lineup in 2010? I’m sure if it was someone like Matt Holliday, the Reds would have signed him to a long term deal, but we’re talking about a major question mark in Rivera. Why would the Reds want to lock him in and then have themselves stuck with 2 potentially better hitters who are cheaper competing for one position?
Yeah, Alonso hasn’t proven anything to deserve that talk, but I’m not so sure that Rivera has proven worthy of a 3rd year from the Reds.
We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches
I hope Baldelli will take a 2 year deal
Norris Hopper is a starter right now. He should probably be playing in a Japanese league.
by Snake the Jake on Dec 20, 2008 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
i wouldnt sign Baldelli to anything more than 1 guaranteed year
he may have a more optimistic diagnosis now, but he played only 28 games last year. and 35 in ’07. and 92 in ’06. and he didnt play at all in ’05. of course we need someone better than Hopper, but at this point there isnt much saying Baldelli is that guy.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Dec 20, 2008 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
It depends on the contract
2 years isn’t that bad as long as he doesn’t cost too much. I have no idea what he will get…Juan Rivera money? I don’t know if I would pay him that much.
by Snake the Jake on Dec 20, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
If I sign Baldelli, it has to be an incentive laden
deal. That’s reasonable and even Baldelli’s agent has to recognize that. In fact, the contract can be quite lucrative, but it has to have a games played/AB clause in it. I’d expect Baldelli would favor that over a longer, guaranteed deal for far less money.
We Are ... Marshall!
by Thundering Turtle on Dec 20, 2008 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
if it's blocking a better player
then it’s a failure, even if it is a relatively small amount of money.
You don’t think that if the guy was making $5 million, he’d be given more than his fair share of shots to lose the starting spot?
We’’re in process of trying to a guy with a trade record of working with pitches
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
