Re: Corpas.
1. I think the consensus is that this is a fair deal. Neither club nor pitcher got away with a steal.
2. I'd ordinarily agree with HF that it typically wouldn't be a good idea for a club to lock up a guy like this for 4 years. I agree that the upside is limited (I don't see Corpas getting much better, although I still would love to see them consider making him a starter) while the downside is much higher (injury). But JC makes a very good point: we're not concerned here with the abstract upside -- in other words, the real, statistically rigorous upside. We're concerned with the "MLB Arbitration Awards for Closers" upside. If Corpas stays healthy, and even if he's basically ordinary (Chad Cordero), he'll still get his 30 saves + per year and his arb salary will reflect that, whether that's fair or not. So the Rox did insure against that ("save-inflated closer salary") risk.
3. It's best to look at this deal -- on it's face, quite unnecessary even if it's not a bad one for the club -- in conjunction with the other long-term deals. O'Dowd (no doubt responding to ownership's directives) is trying hard to bring as much cost certainty to ownership as possible. Francis/Cook/Tulo/Corpas (and of course, Helton ... and Holliday through next season) are all part of that strategy. And overall I think it's a pretty smart strategy. A lot hinges on how the club does this year: a hot start = huge attendance = the willingness to open up the pursestrings even more. A bad start? I don't care to think about that.
|