Oakland Signs Loazia, 3 yrs/21MM

by salb918 on Nov 28, 2005 7:02 PM EST

Esteban Loaiza. He's not getting nearly as much respect as he should in this market. Your ESPN colleague Steve Phillips lists Loaiza as the #42 free agent available - behind the likes of Scott Elarton, Joe Randa, and Brad Ausmus. Even for Phillips, this is dumb, but it fits with the general perception that Loaiza isn't one of the better free agents. I disagree. He's very erratic, and that hurts his perception, but in the last three years he's had a good year (2005), a bad year (2004), and a year in which he was a legitimate Cy Young contender (2003). And 2003 wasn't a fluke. Flukes are years that are driven by batting average (for hitters), or batting average on balls in play (for pitchers). In 2003, Loaiza threw 226 innings, struck out 207, walked 56, and allowed 17 homers. Those are tremendous peripherals. It was completely unlike anything in his track record, but his success was attributed to a new pitch (a cut fastball) that made him a new pitcher on the mound. 2004 was a big regression, but last year he had a 3.77 ERA, had a K/BB ratio of 173/55, and allowed 18 homers in 227 innings. If anything, he was unlucky last year; he gave up 17 more hits than expected on balls in play. There's no doubt that he was helped by his home park, but with the fences out Kauffman Stadium is a bit of a pitcher's park now anyway.

Put it this way: the Nats offered him 2 years, $8 million, and Loaiza is said to be wanting 3 years, $21 million. Are you kidding me? If that's what he's asking for, I'd sign him for that in a heartbeat. That's less than Eric Milton got last year, or Jaret Wright, or Carl Pavano, and I'd rather have Loaiza now than any of those guys last year.

Loaiza signing <--> Zito on the way out of Oakland?

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |