Francisco's Folly: Why Signing Closers To Huge Contracts Is Generally a Bad Idea

The New York Mets recently signed the best free agent closer on the market and the recent setter of a single season record for saves, Francisco "K-Rod" Rodriguez, to a 3 year deal worth 36 million dollars, immediately upgrading their horrid bullpen and momentarily satisfying the bloodlust of the rabid weasel that is the New York press. This move seems to make a lot of sense, but upon further review, it becomes apparent it may not have been such a tremendously great move. There are two types of issues with this signing. The problems with Mr. K-Rod himself, and the issues with closers in general. First, K-Rod himself. K-Rod is quite simply, overrated. "But Mr. Blogger Person! Didn't this man just set the record for saves in a season? Does that not count for anything?". No, it does not. K-Rod did not set the record for saves because he was particuraly good. He set said record because he also had a record number of save opprotunities, on a team which provided plenty of them. In the handy Bill James 2009 Handbook I recently bought, it says that of K-Rod's record 62 saves, 39 were "easy saves", which came up by 3 with the bases empty. Only one save out of those 62 was a "tough save" where the tying runner was in scoring position. K-Rod was not a great closer. He merely was on the right team in the right place in the right time. Furthermore, his skills have actually been degrading. In the past 3 years, his walk rate has gone up along with his ERA, while his K rate has sloped downward, a couple of trends Met fans better pray don't continue. On top of all that, he may not be healthy much longer, considering his mechanics. Watch him pitch. You wince just watching that.
But assuming he is that good, and assuming he will stay healthy for the duration of his contract, is he, or any other closer, worth 36 million dollars of a teams money, money that could be used elsewhere to get hitters and starters and such? Think about it. K-Rod's new Mets teammate, Johan Santana, is paid approximately (all the figures below are approximate, just to make it easier on everyone) 18 million dollars. That means, at his 2008 stats, (234 Innings Pitched, 964 Batters faced) Johan Santana, one of the best starting pitchers in baseball, was paod approximately $77,000 pr inning, and $19,000 per batter. To poor folks like me and you, that does seem like a lot. However, take K-Rod's new salary, and apply it to his 2008 stats (68 Innings pitched, and 288 Batters faced0 you come out with approximately $176,000 per inning(!) and $41,000 per batter faced. Essentially, Johan Santana, one of the best starting pitchers in baseball, is being paid less for the work he does then K-Rod is. I dont care how good of a closer you are, a good closer does not equal a good starter, who is way more valuable. Why, then is K-Rod paid as much as he is. "Fine. A little overpaid. But you need a proven closer, and you gotta spend to get a good closer!" you might say. But, while this is the conventional wisdom, recent evidence suggests otherwise. Many teams have found thier closer not by signing a free agent proven closer, but by taking a raw young fireballing starter and letting him close, or by taking an injury prone starting pitcher and letting him close. Trevor Hoffman? Failed starter. Mariano Rivera? Failed starter. Bobby Jenks? Failed starter, picked up off waivers. Kerry Wood? Injured starter. John Smoltz? Injured starter. I can go on and on, but the point is, there are plenty of ways to find yourself a closer by acting intelligently and creatively, rather than spending 36 million dollars. People, for whatever reason, like to attach mystical qualities to the closer, but at its core its a relatively simple job. Pitch one inning. Dont Screw Up. There are plenty of raw young fireballers who can do that but never get that chance because thier team is too busy wasting money and talent trying to sign that "proven closer" (like K-Rod's former team, the angels, now chasing free agent Brian Funetes, even though they have plenty of capable young guys like Jose Arredono) so he could be that mythical stopper the press all loves. Take the ongoing drama with Joba Chamberlain. Closer? Starter? Starter? Closer? It seems clear to me that Joba can be a dominating closer. However, it also appears to me that he can be a dominating starter, which is a more valuable role. Wasting that talent on one inning a night, while paying 160 million for a guy to fill that rotation spot, is a cryin' shame, plain and simple, when there's dozens of other guys who can fill that particular role. The moment David Price saved Game 7 for the Rays in the ALCS, i remarked sardonically, "if he was on the Yankees, everyone would be clamoring to keep him at closer". Unfortunately for the human race in general, I was right. The next day, a local sports columnist advocated keeping Price at closer because "while statistical analysts may say Price would be more valuable as a starter, there's no way to quantify the edge a team has by knowing they have a shutdown closer". Putting aside the slap at science and reason, putting aside the pseudo-mystical qualities he assigns the "shutdown closer", there are 50 other guys who can do the same thing who are not the number one frickin prospect in baseball!!!!!!!!! You say David Price has the right attitude, the right demeanor to close? Well one of those 5o probably does too. One of those 50 will become a Trevor Hoffman, a Bobby Jenks, a Brad Ziegler, etc etc.
In sum, the Mets signing of K-Rod was a no-brainer in all senses of the word. It was an obvious solution to an obvious problem, but a solution that lacked in thought or creativity. The problems is solved, essentially, but it could have been solved cheaper and better if Omar Minaya had ignored the press and thought a little out of the box.

I wish I wrote this

A facebook note i shamelessly ripped off from one Benjy Tocker, I wish I had written this, but I didn't so I shall post it now and claim it my own. Take that, copyright laws!
and here it is...

I HATE "EDWARD CULLEN"
by Benjy Tocker

I HATE "EDWARD CULLEN"

Share

Today at 2:05pm

k so i just finished watching a video called "7 things men can learn from edward cullen" {link is on the bottom} and I'd like to respond to what this creepy lady (and any obsessed twilight fan) has to say.

SHHHHUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTT UUUPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edward Cullen is not real. He is merely ink on a paper. E.D.W.A.R.D.C.U.L.L.E.N.
There you go. Edward Cullen is in this note right now. Say hi to him.
Not only is he a fictional character, he is also created by a woman. So, this woman was merely projecting her own feelings of emptiness and lust and longing for a man. She wants a decent man in her life. I bet you that Stephenie Meyers just wanted a decent man in her life so she just created one. Now who is she to tell us men how to act around women.
This video repeatedly tells us to "be man enough" to do this, or "man up" and do this. My answer? You are a girl. Do not tell me how to be a man. When you grow male genitalia, let me know how it feels to be a man, and then maybe you may tell me how to be a man. Being the type of man that twilight suggests will actually guarantee you not to girls. Why, you ask? Because none of the girls i am pursuing is a fictional character named Bella. If by some chance i were to be pursuing a fictional girl named Bella, I would no doubt succeed, she could join me in late night conversations in the psych ward, and possibly even help me take my pills. I would show her off to all of the doctors and nurses and see their stunned reactions to how unbelievably good looking my imaginary girlfriend is. But I will never get Bella, because I am not Edward Cullen.

I digress:
Edward Cullen is not even that great of a character. The dude is '17' but he can live forever, and his random spewing of sentiment like your 80 year old grandfather is supposed to be appealing???!!!
All he does is spew platitudes in his icy vampire tone. At least Barak Obama delivers his worthless platitudes with warmth. The way he shows his love for Bella by telling her how perfect she is just emasculating himself. And I'm being told to "be a man" just like him?!! No thanks, I'd like to keep my genitals. This is what I found on askyahoo: Every sentence describing him features the words "perfect," "flawless," "beautiful," "astonishing," and/or "breath-taking." (Here's a fun game: take a drink every time Meyer uses some elaborate adjective to describe him. You'll be in the hospital by chapter seven.)

I wholeheartedly agree. She overemphasizes his beauty to the point where it is impossible for some naive teen not to fall in love with him. My point is, Edward Cullen is merely a figment of some girls Utopian imagination, projecting her feelings for the flaws of the male gender by creating one man gay enough to sacrifice his manhood for some chick.

Now, for Bella: You are an idiot. A naive little teenage girl. You obviously have some weird desire to snuggle against a cold marble slab named Edward Cullen. The good part of this is that he will live forever, and you will not. You will die, and in a few hundred years he will have had millions of other girls who are better looking than you snuggle up against his icy marbleness and listen to his platitudes. Do you honestly think that everything he says about you being the most beautiful looking girl he has ever seen in his entire (unknown amount of year) existence is true? Good thing you're only ink on paper, otherwise I'd say that you're an idiot.

Edward Cullen is abusive and a stalker. Girls only like him because he is good looking.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6d5YLGgYtM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7q3-tqxkBY&annotation_id=annotation_134044&feature=iv