Dodgers to Re-Sign Casey Blake?

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 8, 2008 9:51 PM EST Comment 14 comments

Per Tony Jackson, it's a 3 year, 17 million dollars deal. The signing (or re-signing) is a bit surprising. For one, Blake is 35-years-old and the Dodgers at last check are still inthe National League, which to this point does not have the designated hitter. That means Blake will be 38 and a probable liability in the field come the end of this contract.

Blake's Marcels/Chone projections (as a third baseman) have Blake as a 2.1 WAR player next season. If you assume he loses 0.5 WAR as he ages, you have a 1.6 and 1.1 WAR third baseman in 2010 and 2011. That's a combined 4.8 WAR, and good for roughly 29 million. The salary isn't the problem here, (well, it is if you think 5.6 million signs Joe Crede) but rather the length.

Understandably, three years may have been a sticking point for Blake's camp, but does that really mean the Dodgers should've given in? A good financial deal for the Dodgers, and given the Dodgers insistence of Blake DeWitt at second along with prospect Joshua Bell's arrival dated for at least a few years away, they aren't blocking anyone of note anymore.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Fits almost perfectly

with the monkeys if you give him 75% playing time.

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 8, 2008 10:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

3 years?

RJ, I have to believe you are correct. No one was going to give Blake 3 years?
The Twins are too smart, the Indians have been through this already, who else was left?

by D Wrek on Dec 8, 2008 10:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If it were 2/17 I don't think we'd have a huge problem with the deal

So I don’t see the harm in 3/17

by JI on Dec 8, 2008 11:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't have a problem with it.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 8, 2008 11:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

first Sabean, now Colletti

the hopes of baseball cyber-nerd-fans around the world for their teams to fleece opposing GMs are slowly being crushed by a wave of competence

OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG

by devil_fingers on Dec 8, 2008 11:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

does that really mean the Dodgers should’ve given in?

I guess? If they have no other options.

by JI on Dec 9, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They could've wait him out.

It’s irrelevant in the end though.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 9, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

waited*

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 9, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What he's worth....

When you’re talking about him being worth 29 mil you’re talking about market value for WAR, right? Not the actual value of marginal wins, which is like 2.5-ish, right?

by kensai on Dec 9, 2008 7:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Correct. WAR.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 9, 2008 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nono

I mean the value of every WAR in 2008 was ~2.5 million dollars (based on marginal wins).

But you’re just referring to the market value of WAR in this off-season which is like ~5 million, right?

Just making sure, because i’m more concerned about actual value over getting a good market price. :o

by kensai on Dec 9, 2008 8:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, I misread your original comment.

Yeah, I’m referencing the market value. Sorry.

by R.J. Anderson on Dec 9, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, we tend to only use the going rate for free agents.

Built into that number is the assumption that almost all free agents are overpaid. But when you really need to fill a hole, you can do it relatively well or relatively poorly.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Dec 9, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs