Furcal Not Back to Atlanta
ED: Furcal --> Dodgers
Conservatively, Furcal figures to be between a 0 < x > 5 runs defender. Add in, at worst, league average offense and in 600 plate appearances you have between a 2.5-2.7 WAR player. The return should match the investment if the Braves are paying Furcal around 36-40 million through the three guaranteed years, even if Furcal's talents erode as he nears 35. I imagine the vesting option is a typical plate appearances one, which suggests that if Furcal earns it he's been A) healthy enough to play and B) performing well enough to play. If that's the case, there should be no problem with it.
Of course, there's still an inherent injury risk with Furcal. Lower back surgery kept him out most of 2008, but prior to that, Furcal's only other DL stint with the Dodgers came in 2007, when a sprained ankle sidelined him for two weeks. Back surgery is of some concern, especially when Furcal's job description involves scooping up groundballs, but at this point I'd have to defer to medical experts on whether suffering another injury is more likely with his back than say a knee injury. The Braves, A's, Dodgers, and Jays team of medical experts apparently feel (or felt) he was worth the risk, so take that for what it's worth.
Overall, and assuming Atlanta doesn't do something insane - like pay Furcal 50 million over three years - this is a nice addition.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Comments
Furcal really didn't want to go to OAK, I guess
Rosenthal is reporting 3/30 with a vesting option.
Marcel/Rally have him at +.22 hitter, +.19 defense, +.75 position, + 2 replacement level = 3.17* 85% playing time = 2.7 WAR. Maybe more like 2.4-5 WAR if ).playing time is adjusted down. That implies 3/35.8 (43.9).
Looks like a very good deal for the Braves.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Dec 16, 2008 1:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
especially assuming either he plays SS at that level or improves proportionally in moving ot 2B
good thing shortstops don’t have to use their backs
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Dec 16, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only thing that might not translate is that Furcal's main fielding strength is his arm...
Still would only decrease his value by a few runs max.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Dec 16, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty irritating that he took a clearly inferior offer
Figures that the one time the A’s actually have the best offer on the table, they run into that vanishing rarity, a player who doesn’t care about money.
Christ, that Holliday trade looks stupid now. Jesus. Can we reverse that, please?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 16, 2008 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
he probably does care about money.
having to buy a third house in the oakland area would probably end up costing him the difference in the contract. everyobody’s gotta tighten the belt!
by larry on Dec 16, 2008 4:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guaranteeing Furcal will end his career where he made his debut nearly a decade ago.
I’m a little confused. Is that really guaranteed?
by philkid3 on Dec 16, 2008 4:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, with the team, at least.
I suppose you could make the case he might play when he’s 35/36.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 16, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the signing of Copeland
signaled that Beane knew he wasn’t going to get Furcal? Thus, he’s planning on trading Holliday? I really have no clue, but it makes me feel better since my team just got hosed by a free agent.
"I'm on hold for now"- Bobby Crosby
by DyeLongJustice on Dec 16, 2008 4:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Apparently Furcal will sign with the Dodgers if they match the offer
but based on Colletti’s comments I doubt they will, unfortunately.
Yeah, and what do you mean this guarantees Furcal will finish his career in Atlanta? He will only be 34/35 when the deal is up, and could conceivably play another 5 years or so.
by Brendan Scolari on Dec 16, 2008 4:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Johnson will play in the OF
He doesn’t have the arm to. But maybe I’m wrong.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on Dec 16, 2008 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And then had Tommy John
I always figured that was why they didn’t put him back there.
by BraveBronco0121 on Dec 16, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently, he's going for the trifecta
Three DUIs, that is. (H/t JC, who doesn’t like the deal as much as Mets and Phillies fans do.)
by klhoughton on Dec 16, 2008 7:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I have a hard time thinking Furcal would choose to move to second.
by JI on Dec 16, 2008 7:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe he'd chose less money and a move to second over Oakland.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 16, 2008 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sounds like it's just less
guaranteed money. furcal probably thinks he’s going to get to the requirements for the vesting option (or, if it’s a player option of some sort, he can get another payday after three years). i’m sure there are other considerations than just cash here, though. like how he already has a home in atlanta, is comfortable with the organization, perhaps thinks they’re more likely to be competitive, so on. you know, the same sorts of things that cause non-baseball players to choose a lower paying job over a higher paying one.
by larry on Dec 17, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 








BtB on Facebook

















