Bucs Officially Sign Sanchez

by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 5, 2008 5:32 PM EST in News

And there are details. To simplify things, I'm going to include his signing bonus in his salary for the first year and his $600,000 2010 buyout in his second year (since the Bucs have to pay it whether or not the third year actually happens). With that in mind, the contract is like this:

2008 $4.3 million
2009 $6.7 million
2010 $7.4 million option

There's also $500,000 in performance bonuses. The option automatically vests if Sanchez has 635 plate appearances in 2009 or 600 plate appearances and an All-Star appearance that year. Otherwise, it's a team option.

Either way, basically, the first year is pretty cheap, and the second year is a little expensive, relative to what Freddy would've gotten in arbitration. I'm glad that the option can only automatically vest if Sanchez is healthy in 2009. There are a number of things that could go wrong with Sanchez, but health is probably the likeliest one. This contract protects the Pirates against the risk that he injures himself trying to make a double play or something. If Sanchez is healthy the whole season in 2009, he's probably worth $7.4 million in 2010. If not, the Pirates can get out from under the contract. This is a pretty good deal, I think.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

2nd year expensive?

Full disclosure: I don't follow arb cases closely. By closely, I mean at all. That said, he got $2.75M in 2007, and would have made at least 4.1M if the arbiter went with the club's fig, which I find doubtful. If he simply repeated his 2007 performance, I think he'd have made at least 6M in 2008 if he went to arbitration*. I think that's conservative actually. Obviously, I don't find 6.7M expensive "relative" to 6M.

*Wouldn't he have? I'm asking anyone in the know. If he got a 1.4M raise this year, which would be the minimum raise he would have gotten, would his arb award really flatten out next year, or raise at least that much again?

Plus, he's going to win another batting title this year.

Bottom line, I like it. I think the first two years are fair, and the third could be a bargain for us or as an incentive for someone to trade for him.

by azibuck on Feb 5, 2008 8:12 PM EST reply actions

Good deal

In some ways it's a ridiculous amount of money for a singles-doubles guy, but Freedy's in his prime and frankly it's not a bad deal with salaries where they are. A good second baseman on a contending team is going to make $8M. Plus it shows the new team is willing to pay for performance.
Let's hope they look at similar deals with the pitchers in another year or two.

by TPenaRules on Feb 5, 2008 8:38 PM EST reply actions

Yep - it's Good

It buys us a few years to build some 2basemen in the minors.
Freddy produces consistently. This protects us from having a new wheel come off while we find wheels f/the other weaknesses on the team.
I don't follow arbitration either, but the player seems to (almost) always get the better of it and the arbitrator's decision is based on quantity (i.e., number of games, IP, AB), not quality (e.g., fielding %, BA, or ERA).
Freddy seems to be a positive influence in the clubhouse & on the field.
As noted above, it shows other players that the Pirates are willing to pay well f/good players - that should nudge our ability to sign marginally better players than we usually dredge up to round out our roster.

by Trogluddite on Feb 5, 2008 9:59 PM EST reply actions

I like it

I think this is a good deal. With the way arbitration has been going, Freddie probably would have been awarded his 4.9 and with even a poor year would have gotten more the next year. With another solid year, probably 6 million. So the savings in the first year offset the slight overpayment the second year.

As for the third, it is a bit high, but in this day and age, the buyout is relatively cheap and he'll have to be healthy to guarantee it. And, if the powers that be decide to, it is also a deal that won't prohibit a trade down the line.

by Moonglum on Feb 5, 2008 10:06 PM EST reply actions