Is Mark DeRosa’s reported two year, $12 million deal with the San Francisco Giants out of line with the market? If not, why didn’t the St. Louis Cardinals jump in?
Many St. Louis Cardinals watchers are distressed to learn that free agent infielder Mark DeRosa will be signing with the San Francisco Giants for two years, $12 million.
Their concerns are in a couple of major areas:
- Is the Cardinals’ Plan “B” for 2010 slipping away? The versatile 34-year-old was considered by many to be part of St. Louis’ back up plan in case they are unable to sign Matt Holliday.
- DeRosa dropped his price to a reasonable range. The average amount of his Giants contract, $6 million per year, is in contrast to the three years, $27 million deal that DeRosa was reportedly seeking earlier in the off-season. Yet the new deal is a slight raise from his career-high $5.5 million earned in 2009.
Conclusions Cardinals fans can draw from their club’s apparent lack of action with DeRosa are one or some combination of these three:
- St. Louis either believes they are close with Holliday or have gone “all in” at least emotionally to try to outwait agent Scott Boras to get him.
- They had no serious intention of bringing DeRosa back despite offering him arbitration and a contract for an undisclosed amount and duration early in the off-season.
- DeRosa was interested in playing elsewhere.
As much as anyone, I would love to know the clear answer to the above, but we don’t.
So the area I want to investigate is whether or not it appears that DeRosa gave the Giants a sweetheart deal financially. To do that, I looked at both third basemen and second basemen that signed new contracts so far this winter.
Listed below are the players’ ages next season, their years and dollar amounts of their new deals and the average annual value (AAV). I added their OPS+ scores for the last two seasons as well as their most recent Elias scores and classification, which also cover the last two seasons.
| 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2009 | |||||
| Third basemen | Age | Years | Total | AAV | OPS+ | OPS+ | Elias | Type |
| Mark DeRosa | 35 | 2 | $12M | $6M | 99 | 117 | 70.330 | B |
| Placido Polanco | 34 | 3 | $18M | $6M | 88 | 101 | 74.286 | A |
| Chone Figgins | 32 | 4 | $36M | $9M | 108 | 82 | 73.684 | A |
| Pedro Feliz | 35 | 1 | $4.5M | $4.5M | 81 | 81 | 60.440 | NC |
| Garrett Atkins | 30 | 1 | $4.5M | $4.5M | 66 | 96 | 57.143 | NC |
| Second basemen | ||||||||
| Freddy Sanchez* | 32 | 2 | $12M | $6M | 96 | 78 | 70.046 | B |
| Marco Scutaro | 34 | 2 | $12.5M | $6.3M | 111 | 88 | 83.069 | A |
| * extension |
As the data shows, a younger Chone Figgins received the largest contract in AAV terms, despite having a lower Elias ranking than Placido Polanco. The latter received a three-year deal with the same AAV as DeRosa.
Marco Scutaro received only a slightly higher contract from Boston than DeRosa but like Figgins, also cost a first-round draft pick in compensation. Though not a free agent, Freddy Sanchez signed a two-year extension that is identical in value to his new Giants teammate DeRosa. It is also interesting that Sanchez’ Elias score is almost the same as DeRosa’s.
Two lesser third basemen, Garrett Atkins and Pedro Feliz, each settled for $4.5 million for 2010.
Further, I went back a year to last winter and pulled the same kind of data, though I could locate fewer comparable free agents in 2008-2009.
| 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2008 | |||||
| Third basemen | Age | Years | Total | AAV | OPS+ | OPS+ | Elias | Type |
| Casey Blake | 35 | 3 | $17.5M | $5.8M | 113 | 103 | 72.571 | B |
| Ty Wigginton | 31 | 2 | $6M | $3M | 128 | 106 | 55.429 | NC |
| Second basemen | ||||||||
| Orlando Hudson | 31 | 1 | $3.4M | $3.4M | 107 | 105 | 80.357 | A |
| Felipe Lopez | 29 | 1 | $3.5M | $3.5M | 93 | 75 | 50.824 | NC |
Casey Blake received three years from the Dodgers with an AAV near $6 million. His age and OPS+ numbers were comparable to DeRosa’s and his Elias ranking last year was slightly higher. Like DeRosa, Scutaro, Figgins and Polanco, Blake can play multiple positions defensively.
Other comps from last year settled for lower dollar amounts.
My conclusion from this quick review of the data is that DeRosa seems to be paid about right. He might have been able to argue for $7 million per season, but not much more, in my opinion.
At this point, one can only speculate why the Cardinals didn’t make that kind of offer or if so, why it wasn’t accepted and DeRosa is now a Giant instead.
Follow me on Twitter.
Maybe somebody will ask Mark or his agent about it after the signing is announced. Mo might be willing to say whether or not an offer was made if somebody asks him. Sooner or later it will become known for sure if he did or did not want to return. That will be interesting.
So we go back to the age old question – did the Cards “lie” (or at least intentionally mislead) the Cardinal Nation when they said they fully intended to re-sign both Holliday and Derosa? Derosa didn’t get anything out of line with what the Cards should have expected when they traded for him. Did Derosa not want to re-sign with us (a la RCWarrior’s thoughts), are the Cards so incompetent they totally misjudged what it would take to re-sign these guys, did the Cards revise their budget mid off season like last year and haven’t told anyone, or did they simply intentionally try to mislead us? Are there other possibilities?
I’m not woried about plan B slipping away *yet*. There are plenty of permutations and combinations that can make up a solid plan B.
Why not say from the start we won’t be going after him? Because it would have required either saying we think he will break down, or saying we have a clubhouse problem.
As of now, it looks like the Cards made no effort to sign DeRosa. With a contract around 2/12 they would have been able to unload him to somebody later if need be without taking much of a hit. With his versatility, the Cards would be in a much better position right now on a lot of levels, 3B, LF, 2B platoon, utility, bench. There are 2 theories which make sense. One is the Cards think his health will not hold up, wrist, back, whatever. It would be sensable not to let on, allowing other teams to assess that for themselves, and enjoy the extra draft pick. The other is that RC’s info is correct, and the Cards knew he wouldn’t be back. It would be necessary not to admit that as it would bring clubhouse problem type issues into public view.
Its also possible that Westy could be right (mental image of good looking gentleman cringing and choking out the words) and one would have to pry the $6M out of BDW’s cold dead hand before he’d give it to a versatile but aging 275 hitter, when he has serviceable and cheap almost ready for prime time prospects who can most likely provide serviceable defense and hit 275.
I have no problem with them not re-signing Derosa. I do have a problem with their rhetoric about re-signing him not seemingly matching their actions (again).
To me, losing DeRosa seems more of a missed opportunity to escape Boras’ market manipulation. Many of the possible Plan B or C candidates are his clients, including Nady, Lopez and Beltre. He isn’t likely to place them with the Cardinals while he has no market for Holliday. So the waiting continues.
As I recall, the Cards did make an offer to DeRosa early on, though we don’t know how much, how long or if it was taken off the table.
Personally, I have never been a subscriber to the “ownership misled the fans” line of thinking any more or less than I am concerned about players or agents misleading people. Not trying to be insulting, but to me it seems a bit naive to think that way. In multi-million dollar negotiations where the press plays a role, people from all angles say all kinds of things to those more than eager to write about it. Assumptions change, positions change, rules change. Putting too much stock in what anyone says in contract matters will inevitably lead to disappointment. At least that is my view.
Think of a high functioning autistic, 167 IQ, wasting his day try to convince “the boys” that the dimensions of all these activities are center well outside “Cardinal ville”.
All of these issues are yesterdays news………………… Lopez is trouble……at home and on the field. His value is much higher in baseball ability than he has been paid for as yet. Boras knows, that Milwaukee knows, that the Cardinals know. He will attempt at least a 2yr deal, and get it. At least 6 or 7….
DeRosa appealed directly to the Cards a week ago. At that price.
Chicks dig the long ball – Derosa has it Lopez doesn’t. Doubt he tops Derosa.
Ah, the let’s throw my IQ out there to show how smart I am trick. Well, I am impressed, but it doesn’t give you any more or less credibility in your arguments with me. Maybe others will feel more obliged to bow down in homage.
It’s only a waste if you fail
Seems to me like the Cards could have been a bit leery of DeRosas recovery and how much his production would be affected.looks like the Cards played conseratively and decided they didn`t want to tie up the money on a rehabbing 35 year old.
Welcome, Bw52. You may have netted it out.
thanks Brian
As much as i liked DeRosa i can`t fault the Cards thinking.The money can be used on younger players if needed.
just for the info……………..Jason Bay to the Mets……..per WFAN in NY and confirmed by SI Jon Heyman………………the dominos are starting to fall.
Four years, $66 million or AAV of $16.5. Same AAV as the Red Sox supposedly offered Holliday for five, $82.5M.
So what are we left with:
Odds of signing Holliday
Cards 4:1
Red Sox 4:1
Angels 8:1
Mariners 8:1
Yankees 8:1
The rest of the field 8:1
Sound about right?
Just had another thought (didn’t hurt too much
)
Any chance that Colorado gets back in this since the price is coming back down to where they were before?
Good question about Colorado. Have bridges been burned? Would they go higher, above the Cardinals AAV? Dunno…
The recent comments from Boston seem to preclude them because of the luxury tax issue and its potential of getting in the way of them adding Adrian Gonzalez later, but with them, who knows? Unless the Yankees make a big move, do the Sox feel the need to respond?
I believed Arte Moreno when he said the Angels will not sign Holliday. They have a lot of money tied up in four outfielders already, having re-upped Abreu and signed Matsui.
The Yankees continue to be very vocal in not being interested in Holliday, but no one trusts them any more than they do Boras.
The Mariners just added Milton Bradley and have Ichiro in the other corner and Junior Griffey at DH. They also took on some salary. I would be surprised to see them bid.
Coming full circle, I like your Colorado-type dark horse kind of deal. I wonder who else, not named, could be in the weeds?
The Rockies burned their bridges with Holliday. They say they bid $107MM, but that may be cheap talk. If you know a guy is leaving, then you make a non serious high bid, because you know he is not going to take it. Its like Congressmen voting against a bill, before voting in favor of it. O’Dowd covers off all the bases by talking about how much he bravely bid, since he knew it was not going to be accepted.
I dont think there is collusion. There is a down economy and baseball is trying to reduce costs. No big bidding wars on anybody.
Boras is a tough guy. He could just sit there until April. He’s in no rush.
I am already not missing DeRosa, the master of the solo homer. We can find better ways to invest $13MM.