Baseball Toaster Dodger Thoughts
Jon Weisman's outlet
for dealing psychologically
with the Los Angeles Dodgers
and baseball.
Frozen Toast
Google Search
Dodger Thoughts

02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

12  11  10  09  08  07 
06  05  04  03  02  01 

09  08  07 
About Jon
Thank You For Not ...

1) using profanity or any euphemisms for profanity
2) personally attacking other commenters
3) baiting other commenters
4) arguing for the sake of arguing
5) discussing politics
6) using hyperbole when something less will suffice
7) using sarcasm in a way that can be misinterpreted negatively
8) making the same point over and over again
9) typing "no-hitter" or "perfect game" to describe either in progress
10) being annoyed by the existence of this list
11) commenting under the obvious influence
12) claiming your opinion isn't allowed when it's just being disagreed with

Prior Tee Evades Furcal, Dodgers
2008-12-17 16:09
by Jon Weisman
Comments (80)
Show/Hide Comments 1-50
2008-12-17 16:15:56
1.   Tripon
BTW, Prior re-signed with the Padres for 2009.
2008-12-17 16:17:53
2.   blue22
That's supposed to be an infant's shirt? Pity the poor mother that produced that child.
2008-12-17 16:18:41
3.   Jon Weisman
381, last thread - The Dodgers signed Juan Marichal. You never know.
2008-12-17 16:18:45
4.   Eric Stephen
Christmas Vacation is playing in my conference room right now.
2008-12-17 16:19:59
5.   Marty
Why would anyone name their kid Christmas Vacation?
2008-12-17 16:20:29
6.   Eric Stephen
Maybe his parents are from Chevy Chase, MD!
2008-12-17 16:23:57
7.   GMac In The 909
Also currently not available:

Ramirez 99

2008-12-17 16:24:54
8.   Jacob Burch
Jon clearly just wanted to threaten Bob's title for Pun of the day. This is an excellent candidate.
2008-12-17 16:27:31
9.   Gen3Blue
When I saw NPUT, I was sure you had confirmation that Furcal was a done deal.
It is not confirmed, and I will be in high anxiety until it is, because Torre only feels confortable with a "lead-off type"(JP), even if his OBP is about .320.
2008-12-17 16:30:34
10.   Tripon
The Braves could always sign Manny.
2008-12-17 16:30:34
11.   Tripon
The Braves could always sign Manny.
2008-12-17 16:31:51
12.   bferb
ESPN is reporting the following:

LOS ANGELES -- Rafael Furcal is staying with the Los Angeles Dodgers, reaching a preliminary agreement on a $33 million, three-year contract.

2008-12-17 16:32:33
13.   bferb
Sorry meant to include"

Furcal gets $7.5 million next season, $9.5 million in 2010 and $13 million in 2011. The deal includes a $13 million team option for 2012 with a $3 million buyout.

2008-12-17 16:34:00
14.   silverwidow
12 Rosenthal has the breakdown:

2009: $7.5M
2010: $9.5M
2011: $13M
2012: $13M option ($3M buyout)

2008-12-17 16:35:05
15.   Tripon
Whats with the Dodgers and high buyouts?
2008-12-17 16:35:44
16.   bferb
So does this make DeJesus a 2B candidate or our biggest trade chip as of right now? (Injuries aside)
2008-12-17 16:36:45
17.   Eric Stephen
Part of that is a product of the low first year salary. $7.5m is a bargain for 2009.
2008-12-17 16:37:33
18.   Tripon
16 Getting stashed at Triple-A for 2009/first infielder getting called up when somebody is injured.
2008-12-17 16:38:57
19.   berkowit28
13 Whose wish (Dodgers or Furcal's) would it be to structure the annual salary in increasing amounts (7.5, 9.5, 13)? Furcal's (agent's)? So that his final year's salary would set a high level for the next contract after this one? Because chances are for someone in their 30s that their value is more likely to peak and start decreasing rather than continually increase, irrespective of injury status.
2008-12-17 16:39:09
20.   Alex41592
No vesting option for a 4th season. The Dodgers hold the option in 2012. I think it's a very good deal.
2008-12-17 16:39:39
21.   bferb
18 That much I knew, but I meant to refer to the grander scheme of the next few years...
2008-12-17 16:39:41
22.   Eric Enders
16 I'm telling you, Furcal to CF in 2010 or '11. In nearly signing with Atlanta he's already expressed a willingness to change positions.

If DeJesus is indeed the real deal, this signing need not impact him at all.

2008-12-17 16:40:51
23.   silverwidow
20 "The deal includes a $13 million team option for 2012 with a $3 million buyout, and the option could become guaranteed depending on his performance."

Sounds vestings to me...

2008-12-17 16:41:20
24.   Eric Stephen
Furcal's salary last season was $13m.

The average value of the contract is probably looked at more than anything, probably discounted to present value by each side (players and owners).

2008-12-17 16:43:17
25.   Eric Enders
19 To me, that structure reeks of McCourt's lack of liquidity.

Anyway, baseball contracts almost always increase in value in each subsequent year, even if it's expected that the player himself will not. It does seem like most deals are not quite as lopsided toward the back end as Furcal's, though.

2008-12-17 16:43:39
26.   Johnson
19 I thought the backloaded contract was a bit strange, too. I wonder if it's not structured that way to give us a bit more flexibility to go hard after Manny. Jones and Schmidt go away after this year (about $30M) but I did kind of envision that 2010-11 freed-up money going towards Martin, Ethier, Kemp, and Billingsley rather than partially going towards a raise for Furcal.

If we spread this out evenly it would cost us $3.5M extra this year but save us $2M in 2011. I don't know. Maybe it does make some sense.

2008-12-17 16:44:02
27.   Louis in SF
This was from a question in the earlier post, where someone asked why does Furcal have two agents.

An article I read earlier in the week said that Kinzer works with Art Telehm and Telehm was in LA and he was the person who was talking to the Dodgers...I can not confirm any of this but it might explain why there was a lag in Furcal confirming and why Kinzer was bactracking on Tuesday-Telehm was convincing the Dodgers and at the same time letting them know how close they were to losing him. It will be might interesting to hear the Dodgers time line if we ever see it.

2008-12-17 16:44:15
28.   bferb
25 McCourt banking on a better economy and higher ticket prices come 2011/2012 sounds about right
2008-12-17 16:45:47
29.   Eric Enders
The good news for Jon is, once the signing is official, Furcal is no longer the Dodgers' top priority.
2008-12-17 16:46:17
30.   Alex41592
23 - Ah yes I see that now. We'll see what the stipulations are for it. I like Furcal and look forward to seeing him lead off for the boys.
2008-12-17 16:46:22
31.   berkowit28
24 Maybe this (also) suits the Dodgers because it lowers their total team salary for 2009, after which they expect to lose a lot of salary for 2010 (Schmidt, Jones). This way, they can afford to pay more for pitchers, Manny, etc. this year.
2008-12-17 16:47:22
32.   mwhite06
29 Don't forget those TV revenues are going to kick in (though I'm still not sure exactly when he gets to enjoy those revenues.)
2008-12-17 16:49:09
33.   bhsportsguy
One question, does the 5/10 rules apply to Furcal, if so, in 2011, Furcal gets complete no trade rights for the last year.
2008-12-17 16:50:08
34.   Eric Enders
33 I think they apply to everybody, so, yeah.
2008-12-17 16:50:15
35.   Eric Stephen
I believe that is correct.
2008-12-17 16:50:57
36.   Bob Timmermann
I don't see why the 5/10 rules wouldn't apply. Lots of players have five straight years with a team that involves more than one contract.
2008-12-17 16:51:59
37.   Eric Enders
I wonder if that's one reason we didn't go after Lowe? After one year he would have had complete no-trade protection.
2008-12-17 16:52:59
38.   Eric Enders
Who was the last 10/5 guy the Dodgers actually had? Eric Karros?
2008-12-17 16:54:29
39.   Zak
25 To me, that structure reeks of McCourt's lack of liquidity.

Sorry, but that is false. If McCourt is so hard up for cash that $2-3 million for 2009's payroll is the difference, then he would just as easily not sign Furcal. The Dodgers have huge chunks of payroll coming off their books next year. It is completely reasonable to structure this contract from an operating net income perspective as opposed to signs that this is a liquidity concern.

Except for not bidding against the Yankees for CC, there are really no signs that the McCourts have serious liquidity issues. Again, if it was such a big problem, the Dodgers could have just not signed him.

2008-12-17 16:55:23
40.   MollyKnight
Welcome back, Raffy!!
2008-12-17 16:55:25
41.   Bob Timmermann
Shawn Green
2008-12-17 16:56:09
42.   berkowit28
38 Hmmm, how close was Olmedo Saenz when they dropped him?
2008-12-17 16:56:30
43.   Eric Enders
39 The Dodgers had a much bigger chunk of payroll coming off the books this year than they do next year.
2008-12-17 16:56:46
44.   JRSarno
Rosenthal's story is definitely one that appears written to suggest an impending dispute by the Braves over contractual offer/acceptance.
2008-12-17 16:56:54
45.   Bob Timmermann
Olmedo Saenz played four seasons for the Dodgers and only nine overall.
2008-12-17 16:57:42
46.   Johnson
32 I've heard hints here about Fox still getting a share of the TV revenues, but I can't seem to find any solid info on that. Does anybody here know exactly what the story is?
2008-12-17 16:58:19
47.   Eric Enders
41 I thought about Shawn Green. Looking him up, it seems that he was teetering very close to the edge of 10 years when LA traded him. I don't know which side of the line he was on, but I guess the news stories at the time might have mentioned it.
2008-12-17 17:01:30
48.   Jim Hitchcock
Well, so far this off season, Atlanta has lost out on Furcal, Peavy, and Burnett.

But Andruw Jones can be the consolation prize!

2008-12-17 17:02:02
49.   Zak
43 I see that you are refuting what I am saying, but I don't see how your statement contradicts what I wrote. Is more money coming off the books this year a reason to add more salary in 2008, when it can be deferred to when even more money comes off the books?
2008-12-17 17:02:36
50.   Tripon
43 Andruw Jones and Jason Schmidt would allow the Dodgers to clear 30 million in payroll by themselves.
Show/Hide Comments 51-100
2008-12-17 17:03:37
51.   Gen3Blue
26 31 This really helps with the dead weight of 30 mil that goes away next year. I think this is a really good point.

I feel much better if this is true. I am generally a terribly conservative old fogey when it comes to giving guaranteed contracts, especially to non organization products, but the apparent austerity this year had me scared. If Raffi's healthy I see play-offs and with Manny who knows.

2008-12-17 17:06:09
52.   Bob Timmermann
Green had a no-trade clause in his contract, so whether or not he was a 5/10 guy never came up.
2008-12-17 17:06:17
53.   silverwidow
Diamond says the option is triggered by Plate Appearances. No word on how many.

He also has a LONG summary of Wren's interview today.

2008-12-17 17:08:01
54.   Sean P

To me, the contract just reeks.

2008-12-17 17:08:05
55.   bhsportsguy
51 But what makes guaranteed contracts to the players you supposedly know any better?

There is a risk anytime you give a guaranteed contract, look at some of the deals that were made to young players to lock them up past their arbitration years.

Do you think the Padres now wish they might have given Jake Peavy a shorter deal for more cash and not include the no-trade clause for the hometown discount?

2008-12-17 17:11:10
56.   Gagne55
43 Yeah, but much of the payroll coming off this year is coupled with production coming off, unlike next year.
2008-12-17 17:11:27
57.   Gen3Blue
And Yes! After going through the laundry, I think I can get another season out of my Starter official Dodger ski parka.
2008-12-17 17:19:16
58.   KG16
well, looks like the infield is set for the next three years: Loney-DeWitt-Furcal-Blake. Eh, could be worse.
2008-12-17 17:21:49
59.   Gagne55
58 Except for the 200 games Furcal is on the DL.
2008-12-17 17:22:03
60.   natepurcell what now? Do we wait for Manny? Do we continue to plug other holes?

I assume next step is to put another vet into the rotation...RJ would be ideal...I don't mind Pettite though.

A wildcard here is Oliver Perez; but being a type A doesn't really appeal to me.


....I would love Pedro back though!

2008-12-17 17:23:13
61.   KG16
59 - that's where the Hu-DeJesus for Eckstien deal comes into play.

and that probably violates rule 13.

2008-12-17 17:23:14
62.   berkowit28
JD Drew would have made it if he hadn't opted out. Kent too this year if he had lasted one more year (don't worry...)
2008-12-17 17:23:20
63.   Ken Noe
Farewell Jack Wilson rumors. Adios Orlando Cabrera speculation. Probably goodbye Hu at some point too, once DeJesus is ready to slide into short. 22 makes sense, but I can also imagine by 2011 Furcal to second, DeJesus to short, and DeWitt to third, with an aging Blake filling in as needed. There certainly are options now.
2008-12-17 17:24:36
64.   CanuckDodger
I wonder if Furcal would be willing to move to CF for 2010. Have Kemp in RF and Ethier in LF, and DeJesus takes over at SS. Certainly Furcal's record of injuries makes it unlikely that the Dodgers could use DeJesus as a trade chip. Furcal is a big risk to go down at any time over the next three years.
2008-12-17 17:25:07
65.   natepurcell

I don't believe that is set in stone. Blake's salary isn't large enough to where he becomes a utility player for us if his production falls off.

2008-12-17 17:25:46
66.   Icaros

I was thinking about Pedro, too. I haven't heard anything about him this off-season.

2008-12-17 17:25:53
67.   KG16
honest question, can't the Dodgers afford to lose a couple of draft picks right now? The ML roster is pretty much set for the next couple of years, losing a couple of picks this year isn't going to hurt too badly based on the overall strength of the farm system right now and the draft strategies going forward. This really seems like a spot where it would be okay to lose a pick or two for a Type-A guy that would balance out Kershaw, Billingsly, and Kuroda in the rotation.
2008-12-17 17:25:59
68.   Zak
For the 2008 cost of Furcal, the Dodgers have locked up both Furcal and Blake. Furthermore, their contracts are manageable enough, where if the Dodgers chose to, they can trade these guys for decent return (unless Furcal's injuries never go away). So far, not a bad off season for Ned. Unless the Yankees want Manny, I think Ned can get him to LA for 3/69, which would not be a bad deal at all.
2008-12-17 17:27:34
69.   KG16
66 - well, if we shave the Beard, Furcal can move to second, DeWitt to third, and which ever of Hu/DeJesus survives Thunderdome can play short.
2008-12-17 17:27:38
70.   Sam DC
Glad this is settled so I can move on to Top Chef in peace.
2008-12-17 17:28:17
71.   Ken Noe
Story's up on the official website. Gurnick: The Dodgers now figure to turn their attention to replenishing the pitching staff, with a chance that Manny Ramirez will come back to them on a short-term contract after Mark Teixeira is off the market.

2008-12-17 17:29:04
72.   Jacob Burch
67 Most draft picks take 3-4 years to develop, right when we'll likely be losing talent--either to free agency or to mediocrity. Our Farm system is notably rather thin, and it could use a re-stock I think--especially if its against the cost of Oliver Perez or some similar FA.
2008-12-17 17:30:18
73.   Zak
67 Well, it never hurts to have talent in the system and losing them for someone like Sabathia would have been preferrable rather than an Oliver Perez. Also, the Dodgers have been unlucky in that it looks like unless Lowe goes to the Red Sox, the Dodgers won't get first round picks for him.

Also, I think if Manny goes to NYY, we don't get first round picks either. And I don't see Manny anywhere but NYY, LAA or LAD.

2008-12-17 17:30:35
74.   Sean P

Exactly, I don't see how this is any less risky a deal than Jones or Schmidt.

2008-12-17 17:33:33
75.   GoBears
I expressed opposition yesterday to the Randy Johnson idea, but was persuaded that if he's cheap enough, he's a decent risk for #4/#5.

But I have nothing good to say about Pettitte. Part of it is just the NY media effect, but for me, Pettitte is the Jeter of pitchers. Good, but not nearly as good as his reputation, to the point that I prefer to think of him as awful, just to overcompensate in the other direction.

I think I need help.

2008-12-17 17:34:17
76.   Humma Kavula
74 Well, there's less money at risk, for one.
2008-12-17 17:35:29
77.   bhsportsguy
In your best eye doctor voice.

Which is better?

Choice A - A Major League source confirmed Tuesday morning that Furcal and the Braves have tentatively agreed to the terms of a three-year contract that includes a vesting option for the 2012 season. From official Braves MLB site.

Choice B - A baseball official confirmed Wednesday that Furcal has reached agreement with the Dodgers on a three-year contract with a vesting option for a fourth year. It is believed the deal is pending the passing of a physical exam. The Associated Press is reporting the deal is for $33 million.

2008-12-17 17:35:58
78.   Jon Weisman
2008-12-17 17:42:49
79.   Bob Loblaw
This whole contract saga of Furcal's reminds me of a few years ago when it was initially reported that Tim Hudson was signed by the Dodgers before he was actually signed by the Braves.

Speaking of pitching, does anyone have an idea why the secondary pitching market hasn't shaped up since Sabathia & Burnett were reeled in by the Yanks?

2008-12-17 17:43:52
80.   MSarg29
Jon, my point earlier was that there have been a lot of stories within the Furcal saga.

Did Furcal actually agree to terms? Did they ask for the offer sheet? Were Tellem and Kinzer on the same page? Did the Braves really believe there was a deal? Did Furcal agree to a physical on Wednesday?

My point is these are just some of the questions that have emerged through this saga and they weren't really addressed by the LA beat reporters.

Just because a player hasn't signed a contract doesn't mean the negotiations aren't newsworthy.

Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.