Dreaming About Ben Sheets
Joey Matschulat
Pitching coach Mike Maddux (right) looks on as Ben Sheets (left) warms up in San Francisco on July 19th, 2008. - Dinur/Flickr.comAssuming that there is some degree of truth to the pair of very encouraging reports filed by Newsday's Kat O'Brien and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Tom Haudricourt in the last 24 hours, the Texas Rangers' lengthily discussed pursuit of free-agent right-hander Ben Sheets could quickly evolve from mere amicable and mutual interest between prospective employee and employer into something far more substantial.
To quote O'Brien, "If [the Yankees] fail to reach an agreement with [Andy] Pettitte, one fallback option is Sheets, though sources said that is highly unlikely at this point," presumably because of concerns over his unnerving propensity for disabled list visits over the last several seasons. Haudricourt is similarly pessimistic on Milwaukee's chances of retaining the 30-year-old rotation anchor, stating that the Brewers have "given no indication they will stop him from going elsewhere" and suggesting that one essentially has to assume that he's a "goner."
It goes without saying that the successful acquisition of Sheets would represent a rather tremendous coup for the Rangers from both a talent standpoint and a public relations standpoint, veritably solidifying the number-one rotation spot with a legitimate top-of-the-rotation talent for presumably no less than two years while generating some much-needed fan enthusiasm and fostering the goodwill that the organization so desperately needs to voraciously accumulate as more and more disposable income in the possession of North Texans begins to vanish.
Now, is sufficient payroll room present to enable the tendering of a competitive offer to Sheets and his agent, Casey Close? The answer to that question is largely dependent on what you personally deem "competitive." Team president Nolan Ryan indicated last month that the Rangers' 2009 payroll would almost certainly fall between $65-75 million, leaving at most $10 million to address other deficiencies on the major league roster after accounting for guaranteed 2009 contracts and the projected salaries of arbitration-eligible and pre-arbitration players, barring the possible trade of a payroll-consuming individual.
But might not that figure become at least slightly more negotiable if the idea of acquiring Sheets was presented to ownership -- or the man controlling the purse strings, Tom Hicks -- from the perspective of the auxiliary benefits he could provide the Rangers in terms of both enhanced fan viewership (manifested in the form of at least marginally strengthened single-game ticket and season-ticket sales and local television ratings) and overall team marketability? Furthermore, such an offer could be aggressively backloaded if upper management appraised the Rangers' evidently tenuous financial situation as being more of a one-year blip on the radar than a long-term dilemma.
Sheets's fair market value -- on an average annual basis, mind you -- is thought to be in the general vicinity of $14-15 million (the current going rate for a pitcher that projects to be worth approximately three wins more than a replacement-level pitcher), which could conceivably be docked ever so slightly if Sheets opts to grant the Rangers a minor hometown discount; however, don't count on much leeway being afforded there even if negotiations should progress to an advanced stage at some point in the next several weeks.
Assuming Sheets's desire for a two-year deal isn't a fabrication on the part of his agent or the media, Texas could structure a hypothetical deal to pay out perhaps $10 million in 2009 and $16 million in 2010 (with at least a small portion of that $26 million proposal being deferred money). It's almost certain the Rangers would then want to tack on a third-year team option with a reasonably priced buyout clause attached in the event that Sheets outperforms expectations and firmly establishes himself as a feared Junior Circuit fireballer, so for the sake of discussion we'll throw out the princely sum of $2 million for the hypothetical buyout clause and $17 million for the hypothetical third-year team option.
Thus, it becomes either a two-year, $28 million deal or a three-year, $43 million deal, depending on how the Rangers choose to approach what will be a 32-year-old Sheets after the 2010 season. Is that an unreasonable figure? I don't think so, as it locks up the end of the Metroplex resident's prime at a relatively affordable price on a relatively short-term pact that effectively neutralizes some of the risk commonly found in the four- and five-year contracts frequently doled out to primo free-agent starting pitchers. And need anybody be reminded that Kevin Millwood and Vicente Padilla, two far inferior pitchers to Sheets, will both be raking in eight-digit salaries in 2009?
Millwood and Padilla may ultimately be the X-factors in the Rangers' pursuit of Sheets, of course, and it's quite possible -- heck, even probable -- that this entire discussion will be rendered moot if general manager Jon Daniels can't find a way to offload at least one of those contracts onto an affluent playoff contender. There are, however, alternative ways to improve the 2009 major league product besides reinforcing the pitching staff, and we'll soon examine perhaps the biggest positional weakness of the projected 2009 squad, and what can be done to affordably address that weakness without impeding the absurd cache of minor league talent that relentlessly storms closer and closer to Arlington.
Reader Comments (22)
I just hope that 3 years 43 million is something that Sheets and his agent would willing to consider. The Yankees would probably offer 3 years 60 million...
Again we are Dreaming...
So if I am reading inbetween the lines correctly the Yankees could force Hicks to open his wallet earlier than expected because we haven't unloaded Millwood and/or Padilla yet? Sweet. I would like to see those 3 guys head our rotation.
The interesting team in all of this is Atlanta, who gave up on Jake Peavy, went hard after Burnett and lost to the Yankees, and now is seeing their window of opportunity to solidify their rotation closing. They may be the ones to steal Sheets away, and then again, they may also be the ones to cave in and accept an overpaid guy like Millwood. He was successful with them early in his career, and he's probably a better fit in the NL now, anyway.
I would expect that if the Rangers wanted anyone of value back for Millwood, they'd have to eat a lot of the contract, which would be pointless if you're trying to clear money off the books. If Atlanta were willing to take on say 80% of Millwood's 12 million, or whatever ludicrous amount he's getting next year, I wouldn't expect much more than a spare part in return.
Speaking of spare Atlanta parts, lefty Chuck James was non-tendered - he's still pretty young and had some success in 2007. He might be a cheap FA alternative. Just thinking.
It is reasonable to assume that the Millwood and Padilla contracts for 2009 will be viewed as "affordable" for many teams who miss out on Derek Lowe and Jake Peavy...... By signing Sheets this month, the Rangers can hasten the consideration for Millwood and Padilla. Atlanta, Milwaukee, and the Dodgers would be good fits for either.
And the Mets currently have only 3 legitimate starters,
while Baltimore has 0. (They only have-- and had-- the type we're after)
They have another, slightly more accurate version of Daniel Cabrera (whom they cut) in Liz, and 2 more interesting call-ups in Patton and Bass. But they truly have NO sure starters. (They'll surely go with Liz again, just as we'll surely give McCarthy a go, but....) they are the Rangers without as many McCarthy-Nippert types and without ANY vets in front of them... and without as many valuable extra vets to trade away... AND they have named Blalock one of their two DH choices if (WHEN) Teixeira signs elsewhere.
So (for now) the Mets , who need Byrd, and (soon) Baltimore, who also needs Blalock.
I agree with TXLlifter: "By signing Sheets this month, the Rangers can hasten the consideration for Millwood and Padilla [by] Atlanta, Milwaukee, [the Mets, the Orioles] and the Dodgers", heck, even the Yankees as their #5 (with, say, Padilla for Hughes).
Not only is signing Sheets (before trading away another vet SP) a risk worth taking,... it would decrease the size of the pool of risk!
I meant to say, "Padilla, with, say, MaxRam for Hughes." (which could only be after we sign Sheets and Petitte says no to the Yanks' $10-million offer).
MG,
I agree with you on Blalock and Baltimore. I would also like to add the Giants and Red Sox to that list because of the ability to get a pitcher out of them (Buchholz/Masterson and Sanchez). We might need to add a catcher for Boston to get serious. Once Tex signs, the picture will get much clearer.
My concern here is the Rangers will wait too long here worrying about the payroll and Sheets willl move on and sign elsewhere. The free agent signing "rush" doesn't seem to be fully underway yet, but every moment Sheets spends on the open market our chances of landing him fall just a bit.
I'd like to see the Rangers go out and get Sheets now if they can, and work on making his salary fit into the plans once they have him in the fold. It's not often a top-tier pitcher shows legitimate interest in coming to Texas, and I'd really like to see us strike while the iron is hot here lest we get into a bidding war we can't win. Maybe I'm just being overanxious, but I can't help but feel like the "biding time" strategy the Rangers seem to be employing right now in fact wasting time in this instance.
Hey Jon, Sherm, and MG,
.....would you also sign Randy Johnson for one-year at $7M immediately after inking a 2-3 year deal for Sheets?
or would you concentrate on locking up Hamilton for a muti-year contract that buys out a year or two of free agency?
I want Ben Sheets, not Randy Johnson. Johnson has said that he wants to get to 5,000 K's (211 Away), 300 wins (6 away) and go to another World Series...Realistically we can help with the first two. Again Ben Sheets actually wants to be here.
Getting Sheets would help resign Hamilton.
Agree with Nathan... RJ makes a nice fallback option if we miss out on Sheets, but I don't think we really need both. My concern is taking a rotation slot away from one of the younger guys - you've got Feldman, Hurley, Harrison, McCarthy, and eventually Hunter and maybe Holland all in the mix for at least a few starts next year. Granted, we'll have the inevitable couple of DL trips in 2009, but hopefully less than in past years - so considering we're still supposed to be grooming the young guys for a possible run in 2010, I'd like to see three rotation spots garunteed to be available for them to fight over.
I would not be upset if they ended up paying Sheets a bit more than the $43M you propose. I'd say year 1 $12Million, year two $15-16M and the option year at least $18M. I think it might take that much.
I'm not sure I would totally mind possibly dealing Millwood and Padilla and signing both Sheets and Johnson. There's got to be a ton of money in Johnson's 300 win through attendence and merchandise. That has to be attractive to Hicks. With one year on either Millwood's and Padilla's contract (assuming Millwood doesn't hit his innings mark), they should both be attractive options for a team that thinks it's close to contending. Texaslifter named a few great fits for both players. Granted the most "value" for them would be keeping them this season, offering them abritration and trying to recoup the draft picks for them next season assuming they're type A or B, but since our projected time of contention is 2010, I would think dealing them now would help add players necessary to help us win in 2010, then further stocking an absolutely CRAMMED lower farm system. We ideally need to sprinkle some more talent at the top of our farm system (another starting pitcher prospect, third base perhaps, and corner outfield)
Robert may have the outta-the-blue idea that JD always seems to come up with. Flip Milly & Padzilla, then bring in Sheets & RJ. The salaries would be a wash, and RJ would surely up the attendance...of course, Sheets would too.
That would give JD & Co more time to properly evaluate the catchers. It would also tell BOS to eff off, which I think would be great.
I wouldn't either, t ball, and it's quite possible it realistically takes something like two years and $30 million or three years and $47 million (the exact amount Jason Schmidt netted from the Dodgers) to get Sheets here, assuming that the Braves or another team don't come out of nowhere and blow the field away.
Something else that occurs to me is that the Rangers could make that hypothetical third-year option a vesting option (similar to Millwood's contract) based on the number of innings pitched in 2009 & 2010 or just 2010, though that may not appeal to Sheets...would the 180-inning threshold be a reasonable figure?
If Sheets wants to come here - and this is proven in the media with actual, documented testimony - and Hicks doesn't sign him because he's trying to make a buck - damn. That will NOT go over well with the ever-dwindling faithful, and will result in a major box office regression. How could it not? People are already pissed at him, they don't even need this further reason to go away and never come back.
On the other hand, signing Sheets could be a huge olive branch of peace to the fans.
tlifter,
I want it all. I think Hicks is snowballing us on this. Open up you pocket book and expand the Rangers budget to $100,000,000. We have done it before.
Tom Hicks bought the Rangers for $250M in 1998.
Forbes magazine valued the club at $412M in April, 2008.
Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
2008: $ 67,712,326
2007: $ 68,318,675
2006: $ 68,228,662
2005: $ 55,849,000
2004: $ 55,050,417
2003: $103,491,667
2002: $105,726,122
2001: $ 47,735,167
2000: $ 70,900,000
I would like to keep the pitchers we have and add Ben Sheets, Randy Johnson, and Eddie Guardado. That would cost us about $23 million. Right? OK, That would take us to $90 Million for the total payroll.
I want Josh Hamilton to finish his career in a Rangers uniform. He would probably get Evan Longoria money so lets just say $42 million for 7 years. That is another $6 million. Bring us to a total of $96 million.
What would I do with the last 4 million? Give Trevor Hoffman $4 for 1 year. $100,000,000 and we have a team that legitimately compete for the AL West title.
That is what I think.
BTW- If Hicks can piss away $15 million on Sean Avery why can't he open the checkbook for the Rangers?
Sherm
I think the one thing we all agree on is signing Sheets ASAP. I'm with Jon thereafter: we have to make room for exercising the plan, so we have to trade at least Padilla, and then Millwood if we are getting RJ. Even more important than the monetary space is the space in our starting rotation, or at least our practice rotation (i.e. 5/8 of our bullpen).
But yes, we have this tiny window of opportunity to negotiate with Sheets without the Yankees messing it up, because their hands are tied while they await Petitte's answer on their offer.
To trade Padilla or Millwood well, we may need to pair him with Blalock, which means waiting for Tex to get crossed off of all the other Tex-suitors' lists.
But we must not postpone our offer to Sheets until then, or we're tying our own hands rather than thanking the Yanks for having let Petitte tie theirs!
Agreed MG.
Has anyone else seen the Ranger Olé???
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bush
"Ranger Olé???"
Sherm,
Is this meant (totally OT) to be foreshadowing of the rational and meaningful discussion with new trade partners to which our President Elect is opening our country's doors?
Or (in relation to OUR trade discussion), is this how you mean for John, Jason or Joey to respond when Boston's President tries to convince the media in front of a gagged JD that we have just traded MaxRam for Bard?
Per an anonymous baseball official quoted by Anthony McCarron of the NY Daily News, Sheets is not on the Mets' radar.
Hooray?