Pirates Sign Freddy Sanchez to Multi-Year Deal

by Charlie on Feb 5, 2008 12:21 AM EST in News Comment 12 comments

Specific financial terms were not available last night, but Sanchez is expected to get roughly $4.5 million in base pay for the coming season and about $6 million for the second season.

For 2010, there will be a club option that would involve another raise if the Pirates exercise it, a buyout if they do not. But that comes with a large asterisk: If Sanchez performs at a certain level in the first two seasons of the contract -- believed to be based on a reasonable threshold of plate appearances -- a provision in the contract automatically triggers that option.

Hmm. The contract could be worth a total of about $19 million, Kovacevic reports. I'll have to see the breakdown before I pass judgement, but basically it sounds like the Pirates are paying about what they would've paid anyway for the first two years, and then some mysterious stuff happens in the third year. The problem I'm having is that it's pretty likely that, if the Pirates had taken Sanchez to arbitration, he wouldn't have made much more than the $11 million or so (including the 2010 buyout, which we may as well just go ahead and tack onto the first two years, since he's guaranteed to get it anyway) he'll make in the first two years of the contract. So it looks like what they're doing here is setting themselves up to tack on an extra year in 2010 at $8 million or so if Sanchez plays a lot. That wouldn't be bad if the Pirates were a contending team, but are the 2010 Pirates going to need an aging second baseman who costs $8 million.

As I said, I'll wait to pass judgment until I see the specifics. I'm somewhat pessimistic about this, but it doesn't look like the worst thing in the world by any means, and it's possible this contract could end up making Sanchez easier to trade in the long run. As someone pointed out earlier today, it also insulates the Pirates' management from criticism if they trade Jason Bay or Xavier Nady or someone like that.

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wait for full details

I agree that we should wait to full see what all of the details are. It sure does seem like a strange one. It combines two types of contracts in a strange way. A+ for creativity, but I'd like to see what that final value is exactly and what needs to be done to achieve that automatic option. My gut reaction is that may be a lot of money in 2010 as well, but I want to hear more about it first.

http://hyzduhq.blogspot.com

by hyzduhq on Feb 5, 2008 2:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That

is about $1 mil a year more than I would have wanted to see done, though it sort of parallels the deal I laid out on another blog, which was: $4 mil/$5 mil/$6 mil with incentives for games played or at-bats or something.

As I noted there. even with the batting title and the 52 doubles season and all that, Freddy's career OPS+ is 103, which coincidentally was his OPS+ last year. His SLUG% took a drop last year, and he doesn't walk much. I think we've already seen the best of Freddy offensively, and it's not that great. His glove seems good, not terrific, so his defense doesn't raise him much above mediocre. But even submediocrity gets a lot of money these days (see: Morris, Matt).

So Freddy plays hard. Whoop.

Anyway, I called him perhaps the perfect Pirate: a guy you like too much to get rid of, but who isn't really good enough to help the team much.

OTOH, who else we have to play 2B? See anybody on the horizon? At least the contract doesn't appear grossly overinflated, so we have a shot at unloading him on some contender that needs a spare bat/infielder around 7/31.

by bucdaddy on Feb 5, 2008 9:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not sure what the problem is

We are talking about a guy one year removed from the batting title. He also finished runner-up last year for the gold glove.

To me, this contract seems to show that the Pirates will spend money in order to compete, and that they believe that in a few years, they may be able to compete. Locking in our best hitter is a good thing. I think that so many of us are some accustomed to receiving bad news about the club that when good news comes along we don't know what to do with it.

Other teams make these deals all the time. This is something we need in order to compete...

So like I said...I'm not sure why anyone thinks this might be a bad contract in any way.

by Mike on Feb 5, 2008 11:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Vesting

To me, it all comes down to the set of factors that lead to vesting of the "option" year. If it's only at bats, or games played, then potentially they could end up paying guaranteed money for mediocre at bats.

If it's somehow tied to performance, then I'm 100% in favor of the deal.

In all reality, though, this is going to end up a good deal even if Freddy's performance slips a bit. Based on where contracts are today, and where they are likely to go, means to me that $8 million a year in 2010 is going to be a bargain (provided his production doesn't fall off a cliff).

by mak1277 on Feb 5, 2008 11:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Is There A No-Trade Provison

This is the critical point. If there is not a no-trade provision, I think that Freddy will be gone by July 31 or as soon as a team in contention loses their second baseman. And that is fine assuming that we can get some real prospects.

by thegunner on Feb 5, 2008 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i don't think so

there's no mention of a no-trade clause anywhere that i've seen.

the bucs seem to be in with freddy for the long haul here. between him and jack they make what is apparently a good defensive middle infield. there's no viable replacement at 2nd base anywhere in our system and since the bucs will hopefully be in a position to trade jason bay around that time, i'd look for management to hold on to one of their "stars". unless they are completely overwhelmed with an offer for freddy, i bet he's still a bucco at this time next year.

by johnnycuff on Feb 5, 2008 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually,

AP reports the package is a little closer to what I suggested: $4 mil this year (with a $300,00 signing bonus), $6.1 mil for 2009 and the option at $8 mil with a $600,000 buyout.

The option kicks in with 635 PAs in 2009, or 600 PAs and an All-Star selection.

There's a smattering of other incentives.

I'm more OK with this.

Mike: He is not our best hitter.

by bucdaddy on Feb 5, 2008 5:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Determining "best hitter"

I have no statistical basis for claiming he is the best hitter on the team aside from his batting average.
My method is as follows...if you have your choice of anyone on the team to step into the box when a hit is needed, who would it be?

For me it is Sanchez.

by Mike on Feb 5, 2008 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs