What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
Per ESPN. 4 years/$56 million with 5th year option for $14 million which will "easily vest".
I'd link the article but I'm on my phone at the moment.
Way too much.for Swisher...but show were the market is going. What is a premium SS like Elvis worth on the open market in a couple years?
so trade him, trade for player under LT control....that should be the model
$13 million AAV for a perennial 3.5-4.0 WAR player who consistently posts 120+ wRC+. Excellent deal for Cleveland.
Walks a lot, doesn't ground into too many DPs. Never seems to get injured and will blast you about 25 home runs. And, he can switch hit (a power lefty we need in the lineup.)
The only negative is that he is 32, but is at a position where the loss of speed is not as consequential.
I'm with Eric, this looks to be an excellent deal for Cleveland.
OK, if some of you are going to glorify Swishers numbers/stats, then look at his playoff stats also.It's not a small sample either. Balanced? No, Swisher fails to deliver in a true crunch scenario.TERRIBLE!
Sorry, another FA missed? Nope, no thanks. Time to move on & forward. No 4year albatross here.NEXT?
@ericFirst, I do not understand WAR, biut I know what it stands for. That being said, how can it be said that Swisher is a 3.5 or 4.0 WAR? My question is, is he a 3.5 or 4.0 WAR on any team he signs with or just Cleveland? In Texas, Swisher would play RF and I do not see where he is a 3.5 or 4.0 WAR better than Cruz? Both have very similar numbers. Cruz more doubles and Swisher more walks.
Whether you agree or not (I know a lot of people dislike Swisher), the playoffs are a small sample. Last year, this year, every year. To first get postseason at bats, one must help their team reach the tournament.
To put it simply, yes, Swisher is a 3.5-4.0 win player regardless of where he's at. Sabermetrics have a lot of park-adjusted stats, but it's fair to say if Nick Swisher was replacing Nelson Cruz's at bats in 2013, he'd generate more WAR.
I know Nelson Cruz has the legitimate raw power to hit 40 home runs in a season. I truly believe that. But while he and Swisher post pretty comparable home run and double's numbers -- along with high strikeout rates -- the difference between them lies in their ability to get on base. Cruz's lifetime OBP sits at .328; Swisher's is at .361.
It might seem like a small difference, 30 points, but over 162 games that disparity creates several more scoring opportunities. One single base Swisher draws on a walk is more impressive than the potential ability Nelson Cruz has of bopping a 450-foot home run.
With the current roster intact, and with Swisher signing elsewhere on the cheap, it's guys like him that we need in our lineup. Without a lot of slug, the more scoring opportunities the better.
I'm beginning to think we just don't have very much money to spend.
@ericNo, I don't agree. Small sample? 11 series/46 games/181 PA, to wit. I wonder what % of MLB Playersget that many *opportunies, much less the % of HOF players? I DO admit, it IS a unique conundrum, butI personally DO value that part of a players overall value. With all the *opportunities, Swisher has notcome close to even a short burst or moment, as a Bucky Dent, per se. Not to compare, but some do "show up", at crunch time. It was THE ringing moment for HOF Mazeroski, a very good defensive 2B.
I always "expected" Swisher to be "that kind" of player, but the short sample as you say, shows the opposite.It's semantics of sort and certainly arguable. I've always liked Swisher, but never saw him as a Texas Ranger.At his contract level, he'd basically be a core player. The Rangers passed correctly on a Swish commitment.
Giving what sounds like a 5 year deal to someone who is already in their thirties is a bad deal. Just like it was for Josh, though I do expect Swisher to age a little better, but he has a lower starting point. Cleveland also has the advantage of not giving up the 1st round pick, or more importantly the dollars that pick gives to the draft pool.
So you're saying you would rather have a lesser overall player who does well in "crunch time" than a more established player who's had a bad time in 181 plate appearances? 181 PA's is a small sample, no matter how you cut the pie.
You could list off any number of players who've gotten a big hit. Small samples should not be the difference between paying someone $56 million over 4 years or paying them $80 million over the same frame. Raul Ibanez got a few big hits last postseason, but that doesn't make him any more valuable.
The law of averages suggests that, the better hitter you are (which Swisher is), these types of things regress to the mean. Do I really need to get into a discussion about how the term "clutch" as it relates to baseball is a fallacy? C'mon guys, you're better than this.
@ericGoing by that theory, Shin Shoo Choo has a higher OBP than Swisher. How can Swisher generate 3.5 - 4.0 WAR over Choo?
@ericBeing of SABR mind, I enjoy your passion. Being of "like Joey's Dad...", I can *also live "in the moment" and within the time frame Baseball brings to me, as a spectator. Clutch? Implied possibly, but I would burn saying such, within the same breath as saying: "SABR Rules, Dude!" It's subjective talk, as stated. The pinnacle for players are playoffs & rings. It may all be moot... Swisher may never get another chance, by signing with Cleveland. Unfortunately, he'll always have to answer for what seems, stats set in history. Intangibles aren't ghost veiled in fog either. Maybe hiddenall in our helical DNA structure? I see a Nobel, in the future, for finally finding a "clutch gene".Yeah right, and Joe Jackson will make it into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Cobb called Joe,"Mr. Clutch". Ooops, Old School.
Eric, you WIN, if that is the line of importance, I acquiesce. My acumen remains eyes wide open.Always
"Flying into Cleveland last night, I though about life in this great American city and decided that if you were going to crash on a Cleveland flight, it would be better if it was an inbound flight."
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.