Neifi Perez signed

HoyaRoxFan · 02-26-2008, 04:08 PM

... to a minor league deal with incentives if he makes the 40-man roster.

Rockies bring back Neifi Perez on minor league contract - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

Can't contain my excitement. I'd just been thinking out loud that what this team needs is another candidate in the middle infield mix. Is this an early vote of no confidence in Barmes and Quintanilla or just a goodwill gesture as the article states? Is Neifi going to see any playing time in ST?

John Cocktoston · 02-27-2008, 12:39 AM

We tend to be a little too prone to using words like "best" or "worst" and "always" or "never" but I think a good case can be made that Neifi Perez is literally the worst offensive player in MLB.

The man has a career OPS+ of 64 in 5127 AB's that span parts of 12 big league seasons. Last year he posted an almost mind-boggling .172/.221/.266 line. From 1998 through 2000, nobody in the NL made more outs than Neifi Perez (1,526).

I don't know what the "good-will" angle is, but I can't imagine it has anything to do with him coming near the 40 man roster. I don't think this is a Steve Finley situation (which is a good thing).

John Cocktoston · 02-27-2008, 12:53 AM

Apparently good-will only goes so far:

Rockies pass on Perez reunion - The Denver Post

HoyaRoxFan · 02-27-2008, 03:42 PM

Phew... funny how hitting the big time squeezes the goodwill out of you.

Let's leave the reunion tours to mediocre teams, thanks... Avalanche, I'm looking in your direction.

BigRapidsJackass · 02-28-2008, 02:03 AM

I just noticed this one:

BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Reds - Signed Fogg, Released Wilson

Josh Fogg, one year, $1 million.

I actually feel kind of sorry for him. Every year a guy like him (or a guy like his agent) horribly miscalculates his value. Actually, I don't even really get why there was almost zero interest in him. He's a reliably crappy but significantly better than replacement level 5th starter, and most reliably crappy but significantly better than replacement level 5th starters are signing multi-year big money deals. Then again, Josh Towers was in the same boat, but he didn't carry the "dragon slayer" label.

Oh, and as for the Neifi Perez thing. Is that some kind of sick joke? Was it Monfort dealing directly with an agent, thinking "hey, wouldn't it be nice to have Neifi back" until O'Dowd fainted when he heard about it? Really, I can't imagine a player with less value than him. As JC says, he is probably the single worst offensive player in baseball over the last 5 years (o.k., Henry Blanco fans, you've got me there), he has almost no defensive value now, AND he's going to have to sit out 18 games as a TWO TIME drug offender. I would've said that this was Neifi's agent trying to pump up interest in his guy, but the Rockies seem to be admitting that they had thrown out an informal offer before suddenly coming to their senses and withdrawing it. Is Charlie drinking again?

HoyaRoxFan · 02-28-2008, 09:00 AM

I also feel bad for Josh Fogg. I mean, I didn't want him back here per se, but you look around the Majors and, despite the fact that he's clearly no better than a 5th starter, there are a lot of bad teams where he could be the third or fourth best pitcher without even throwing a pitch (I'm saying that with nothing to back it up quantitatively, btw).

I was frustrated in particular, looking at my local Nats. There were murmurs they might push for Livan Hernandez, but only wanted a free-agent pitcher for about a year or two, and Livan wanted more... and no murmurs about Fogg?

You're probably right, BRJ, that Fogg's demands for three or four years put him in this hole, but I can't also help but think he was a bit unlucky as well - waiting to see about the Bedard for a chance to go to Seattle if it fell through or Cincy if they didn't get him, the rumors had said... then waiting to see about the Santana deal, going to Minnesota if the deal was completed... both those dragged on and on longer than anybody expected, and I think Fogg was the victim.

Speaking of crazy deals, is this really necessary?

The Official Site of The Colorado Rockies: News: Rockies, Corpas agree on four-year deal

I like Corpas as much as anybody, and what's more I liked the Tulo deal, but forking over all this money for a second-year reliever??? If he struggles or loses his job in a year or two to, say, Casey Weathers, this deal looks gross.

John Cocktoston · 02-28-2008, 10:49 AM

TUCSON, Ariz. -- The Rockies and closer Manny Corpas have agreed in principle to a four-year contract that pays a base salary of $8 million, and could net him two additional years and a total of more than $22 million.

According to a baseball source, the deal has two club options. Corpas would earn more than $13 million with the first club option when exercised and more than $22 million if the second option is picked up. The sides are completing the final paperwork.

If I'm reading that correctly, he'll earn $8 million guaranteed over the 2008-2011 seasons. He just misses qualifying for "Super Two" status given his 2006 service time, so he would have been arbitration eligible after the 2009 season. That means that this deal essentially buys out two years of arbitration (and two additional years of service) for a total of $8 million.

Now, assuming he continues to develop, the first club option in 2012 would appear to pay him $5 million if exercised.

The second would presumably pay him an additional $9 million if exercised in 2013 to get him to the $22 million figure quoted in the article.

PECOTA has him pegged at $23,050,000 in marginal value above replacement player (MORP) over the next four years alone, which is when he's scheduled to make $8 million. I'd say that's a good value...

TheIncredibleRox · 02-28-2008, 11:28 AM

If they're truly club options, and the buyouts are quite low, this is a fine deal. If I'm not mistaken, he's arb eligible after '08. For a guy with no health history, it would really be something if he somehow wouldn't earn $8m thorugh his arbitration years. I'd peg that number closer to $16m than $8m.

Between Tulo, Francis, Cook, and now Corpas, I think we've picked our spots and our numbers very well with these pre-FA (or even pre-arb!) extensions. I'll credit our front office where it's due.

HoyaRoxFan · 02-28-2008, 01:16 PM

Good points, and it's certainly nothing I'd raise the pitchforks over. I guess I didn't realize arbitration was coming so quickly for him. The only point I'd continue to raise my eyebrow over is let's continue to tie this deal together with the Weathers pick last year.

Isn't the implication that he'll be the closer of the future - possibly even the near future? If so, we're now trying to tie up a young right-handed setup man for the next four to six. If not, we've spent a very high pick on a right-handed setup man. Much ado about nothing?

TheIncredibleRox · 02-28-2008, 02:45 PM

A) Weathers is far from a sure thing at this point, B) there's no harm in having four guys capable of closing, let alone two, C) both Weathers and Corpas will be extremely cheap even by setup-man standards for the next four years.

I had Corpas at 2.31/2.92 ERC/FIP last year (yeah, he was BABIP lucky). Actually, his '06 Major League FIP was 2.91... the BABIP has swung, the FIP has remained the same.

He's probably done development wise. But he could comfortably settle in as a 3.00 reliever for years to come.

Heltonfan · 02-29-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

PECOTA has him pegged at $23,050,000 in marginal value above replacement player (MORP) over the next four years alone, which is when he's scheduled to make $8 million. I'd say that's a good value...

Well, MORP is based on the free agent market and Corpas is a pre-arb guy. So of course he's a bargain by those standards.

I have Corpas's expected salary (based on service time and projected WAR) at a total of $5.25 million over the next four years. Of course, closers get overpaid in arbitration (by roughly 75% based on this year's data) - adjusting for that, I get an expected salary of $8.59 million. So we're looking at a small bargain there, and that's with my relatively pessimistic projection for Corpas.

It's not a bad deal. But it's certainly not a great one.

Quote:

If I'm not mistaken, he's arb eligible after '08.

You are mistaken. Corpas came up in mid-July '06; there's no way he'd qualify as a super-two.

Quote:

A) Weathers is far from a sure thing at this point...

Which doesn't detract from Hoya's overall point (as I understand it)... one way or another, things don't add up here. Either we've signed Corpas 2 years in advance at no real discount (in which case the contract is just a needless risk), or we've burned the #8 overall draft pick on a potential setup man.

I think the latter is the correct interpretation - I would just view the Weathers pick and the Corpas signing as unrelated events, one of which was utterly boneheaded and the other of which was perfectly okay - but either way, it's tough to dispute the claim that we've expended more resources on the bullpen than we should have. Particularly in light of the fact that Fuentes is still here, Vizcaino has been brought in, and we refused to bring in a respectable second base option.

John Cocktoston · 02-29-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

I have Corpas's expected salary (based on service time and projected WAR) at a total of $5.25 million over the next four years. Of course, closers get overpaid in arbitration (by roughly 75% based on this year's data) - adjusting for that, I get an expected salary of $8.59 million. So we're looking at a small bargain there, and that's with my relatively pessimistic projection for Corpas.

$5.25 million over four years? How do you get there?

In the first year of his arbitration eligibility, Chad Cordero just settled for $6.2 million with the Nationals. In what would have been his first year of arbitration eligibility, Corpas is now locked in at $2.75 million.

In his second year of arbitration eligibility, Jose Valverde was beaten by the Astros and will make $4.7 million after asking for $6.2 million. In what would have been his second year of arbitration eligibility, Corpas is now locked in at $3.5 million.

Brian Fuentes lost his case with the Rockies after asking for $6.5 million and was awarded $5.05 million in his third and final year of eligibility. In what would have been his third and final year of arbitration eligibility, Corpas is now locked in at $6 million (or $250,000 buyout).

And those are all 2008 figures from this winter. Corpas wouldn't even hit arbitration until 2010, by which time the market for closers presumably will have risen even further. K-Rod just pushed the ceiling for the closer market into 8 figures a year and he lost his arbitration hearing...

And it's not like they're radically overpaying him in the short term, either. Assuming the deal wasn't signed and Manny Corpas made the minimum through arbitration, per the CBA, that would be $390,000 in 2008 and $400,000 in 2009.

Under this contract, he's slated to make $575,000 in 2008 and $750,000 in 2009. That's only $535,000 more than the minimum over that two year span.

In 2013, what would be his first free agent season, the Rockies hold an $8 million option or a pretty reasonable $500,000 buyout. By that point, with 5 seasons of performance and an understanding of the market conditions at that point, that will be an easy call one way or the other.

I think that this is a very good deal for the Rockies with the potential to be a gigantic bargain if Corpas maintains his current level of performance (or even just approximates it) over the next 4-6 years.

HoyaRoxFan · 02-29-2008, 01:57 AM

That's exactly my point, HF. Looking at the money as presented here, it sounds like I can't be too critical. And in so far as it gives the Rockies financial certainty, I suppose the point is so long as we keep winning, those victories will lead to greater and greater profits for the organization, which in turn can be spent offering more attractive multi-year deals to free agents in the future to fill in the gaps (which maybe they couldn't do much of this off-season becuase they were still unsure what they'd be paying their SS, LF, rotation, et cetera). So in that sense, let's do it - lock up as many of these guys as we can.

But thinking out loud a bit further: I couldn't tell you who is more of a sure thing at this point - Corpas or Weathers - and yet by means of a multi-year deal and a first-round pick respectively, we've expressed a very real commitment to both. My understanding is Weathers could be called up by late this year, and if Corpas were to struggle, Weathers might displace his role as early as next year. In other words, we have insurance on the closer role should Corpas struggle or get hurt bad. We're unwilling to lock up Atkins via a similar commitment, in large part because we have Stewart. We are willing to lock up Tulo despite having Nelson, Herrera, et cetera, because he's just that good. Why is Corpas more Tulo than Atkins, and thus somebody you need to lock up now?

And just a question to throw out there: how rare are relievers like Mariano Rivera who can rattle off 3, 4, 5 good years in a row? Incredible suggested Corpas should settle into a 3.00 reliever for years to come, which I'm all for. But isn't it reasonably likely that he might throw a sub-par year in there at some point over the next four years (I hope he doesn't), which would give the Rockies some discount leverage in arbitration where he not locked up?

I'm not trying to be critical of the organization, just trying to follow the logic of this conservative and (thus far) successful approach. This one doesn't seem to fit it for me.

TheIncredibleRox · 02-29-2008, 03:23 AM

Look, I'll be the first to agree with anyone who argues that our funds could have been allocated differently. That wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying is the extensions/signings we've engaged in with our own players all seem like tremendous deals. It doesn't mean getting them done should have been the first priority.

Quote:

I have Corpas's expected salary (based on service time and projected WAR) at a total of $5.25 million over the next four years.

Have you checked how that holds up specifically with RPs? I mean, thats what the Geoff Geary's of the world make these days... and those are not only far inferior players, but guys a couple years 'less inflated' than his market would have been.

Hoya--sorry if I misunderstood your point with the Weathers comment. I think the broader question is this; is there ever an apropriate time to take a relief pitcher with the eighth overall pick? A: Yes; the one time every 30 years that a sure-fire Jon Papelbon with an 8-month ETA presents himself. Short of that, not really.

Of course, that doesn't make Weathers less valuable in and of himself. He's a very intriguing relief prospect whether he was taken 8th or 800th.

Quote:

Incredible suggested Corpas should settle into a 3.00 reliever for years to come, which I'm all for. But isn't it reasonably likely that he might throw a sub-par year in there at some point over the next four years (I hope he doesn't), which would give the Rockies some discount leverage in arbitration where he not locked up?

Oh, of course--especially with regard to the arbitration comment (since the sample size is so small, 8 or 9 fluky runs--bad/great defense, bad/great IR luck, bad/greatsituational luck, bad/great BABIP luck--is the diffference between perceived studliness and mediocrity).

It's tough to say if we bought low or high with Corpas-- while he was BABIP lucky and generally outperformed projections, you can expect the price tag to skyrocket with each additional save he notches.

By the way, just so it's clear; that 3.00 I mentioned refers to ERC and/or FIP, not ERA. And based on his last two years, I think that's a pretty conservative estimate. Of course, there's always risk going forward with pitchers. But Manny is a guy with a clean health history and two years of consistent performance; I think we've hedged ourselves well with the price here.

BigRapidsJackass · 02-29-2008, 02:30 PM

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.

02-26-2008, 04:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
HoyaRoxFan Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 262	Neifi Perez signed ... to a minor league deal with incentives if he makes the 40-man roster. Rockies bring back Neifi Perez on minor league contract - MLB - Yahoo! Sports Can't contain my excitement. I'd just been thinking out loud that what this team needs is another candidate in the middle infield mix. Is this an early vote of no confidence in Barmes and Quintanilla or just a goodwill gesture as the article states? Is Neifi going to see any playing time in ST?

02-27-2008, 12:39 AM	#2 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	Neifi We tend to be a little too prone to using words like "best" or "worst" and "always" or "never" but I think a good case can be made that Neifi Perez is literally the worst offensive player in MLB. The man has a career OPS+ of 64 in 5127 AB's that span parts of 12 big league seasons. Last year he posted an almost mind-boggling .172/.221/.266 line. From 1998 through 2000, nobody in the NL made more outs than Neifi Perez (1,526). I don't know what the "good-will" angle is, but I can't imagine it has anything to do with him coming near the 40 man roster. I don't think this is a Steve Finley situation (which is a good thing).

02-28-2008, 02:03 AM	#5 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,032	I just noticed this one: BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Reds - Signed Fogg, Released Wilson Josh Fogg, one year, $1 million. I actually feel kind of sorry for him. Every year a guy like him (or a guy like his agent) horribly miscalculates his value. Actually, I don't even really get why there was almost zero interest in him. He's a reliably crappy but significantly better than replacement level 5th starter, and most reliably crappy but significantly better than replacement level 5th starters are signing multi-year big money deals. Then again, Josh Towers was in the same boat, but he didn't carry the "dragon slayer" label. Oh, and as for the Neifi Perez thing. Is that some kind of sick joke? Was it Monfort dealing directly with an agent, thinking "hey, wouldn't it be nice to have Neifi back" until O'Dowd fainted when he heard about it? Really, I can't imagine a player with less value than him. As JC says, he is probably the single worst offensive player in baseball over the last 5 years (o.k., Henry Blanco fans, you've got me there), he has almost no defensive value now, AND he's going to have to sit out 18 games as a TWO TIME drug offender. I would've said that this was Neifi's agent trying to pump up interest in his guy, but the Rockies seem to be admitting that they had thrown out an informal offer before suddenly coming to their senses and withdrawing it. Is Charlie drinking again? Last edited by BigRapidsJackass : 02-28-2008 at 02:07 AM.

02-28-2008, 02:45 PM	#10 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 216	A) Weathers is far from a sure thing at this point, B) there's no harm in having four guys capable of closing, let alone two, C) both Weathers and Corpas will be extremely cheap even by setup-man standards for the next four years. I had Corpas at 2.31/2.92 ERC/FIP last year (yeah, he was BABIP lucky). Actually, his '06 Major League FIP was 2.91... the BABIP has swung, the FIP has remained the same. He's probably done development wise. But he could comfortably settle in as a 3.00 reliever for years to come. Last edited by TheIncredibleRox : 02-28-2008 at 02:58 PM.

02-29-2008, 01:57 AM	#13 (permalink)
HoyaRoxFan Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 262	That's exactly my point, HF. Looking at the money as presented here, it sounds like I can't be too critical. And in so far as it gives the Rockies financial certainty, I suppose the point is so long as we keep winning, those victories will lead to greater and greater profits for the organization, which in turn can be spent offering more attractive multi-year deals to free agents in the future to fill in the gaps (which maybe they couldn't do much of this off-season becuase they were still unsure what they'd be paying their SS, LF, rotation, et cetera). So in that sense, let's do it - lock up as many of these guys as we can. But thinking out loud a bit further: I couldn't tell you who is more of a sure thing at this point - Corpas or Weathers - and yet by means of a multi-year deal and a first-round pick respectively, we've expressed a very real commitment to both. My understanding is Weathers could be called up by late this year, and if Corpas were to struggle, Weathers might displace his role as early as next year. In other words, we have insurance on the closer role should Corpas struggle or get hurt bad. We're unwilling to lock up Atkins via a similar commitment, in large part because we have Stewart. We are willing to lock up Tulo despite having Nelson, Herrera, et cetera, because he's just that good. Why is Corpas more Tulo than Atkins, and thus somebody you need to lock up now? And just a question to throw out there: how rare are relievers like Mariano Rivera who can rattle off 3, 4, 5 good years in a row? Incredible suggested Corpas should settle into a 3.00 reliever for years to come, which I'm all for. But isn't it reasonably likely that he might throw a sub-par year in there at some point over the next four years (I hope he doesn't), which would give the Rockies some discount leverage in arbitration where he not locked up? I'm not trying to be critical of the organization, just trying to follow the logic of this conservative and (thus far) successful approach. This one doesn't seem to fit it for me. Last edited by HoyaRoxFan : 02-29-2008 at 01:59 AM.

02-27-2008, 12:53 AM	#3 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	Apparently good-will only goes so far: Rockies pass on Perez reunion - The Denver Post

02-27-2008, 03:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
HoyaRoxFan Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 262	Phew... funny how hitting the big time squeezes the goodwill out of you. Let's leave the reunion tours to mediocre teams, thanks... Avalanche, I'm looking in your direction.

02-28-2008, 09:00 AM	#6 (permalink)
HoyaRoxFan Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 262	I also feel bad for Josh Fogg. I mean, I didn't want him back here per se, but you look around the Majors and, despite the fact that he's clearly no better than a 5th starter, there are a lot of bad teams where he could be the third or fourth best pitcher without even throwing a pitch (I'm saying that with nothing to back it up quantitatively, btw). I was frustrated in particular, looking at my local Nats. There were murmurs they might push for Livan Hernandez, but only wanted a free-agent pitcher for about a year or two, and Livan wanted more... and no murmurs about Fogg? You're probably right, BRJ, that Fogg's demands for three or four years put him in this hole, but I can't also help but think he was a bit unlucky as well - waiting to see about the Bedard for a chance to go to Seattle if it fell through or Cincy if they didn't get him, the rumors had said... then waiting to see about the Santana deal, going to Minnesota if the deal was completed... both those dragged on and on longer than anybody expected, and I think Fogg was the victim. Speaking of crazy deals, is this really necessary? The Official Site of The Colorado Rockies: News: Rockies, Corpas agree on four-year deal I like Corpas as much as anybody, and what's more I liked the Tulo deal, but forking over all this money for a second-year reliever??? If he struggles or loses his job in a year or two to, say, Casey Weathers, this deal looks gross.

02-28-2008, 10:49 AM	#7 (permalink)
John Cocktoston Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 375	TUCSON, Ariz. -- The Rockies and closer Manny Corpas have agreed in principle to a four-year contract that pays a base salary of $8 million, and could net him two additional years and a total of more than $22 million. According to a baseball source, the deal has two club options. Corpas would earn more than $13 million with the first club option when exercised and more than $22 million if the second option is picked up. The sides are completing the final paperwork. If I'm reading that correctly, he'll earn $8 million guaranteed over the 2008-2011 seasons. He just misses qualifying for "Super Two" status given his 2006 service time, so he would have been arbitration eligible after the 2009 season. That means that this deal essentially buys out two years of arbitration (and two additional years of service) for a total of $8 million. Now, assuming he continues to develop, the first club option in 2012 would appear to pay him $5 million if exercised. The second would presumably pay him an additional $9 million if exercised in 2013 to get him to the $22 million figure quoted in the article. PECOTA has him pegged at $23,050,000 in marginal value above replacement player (MORP) over the next four years alone, which is when he's scheduled to make $8 million. I'd say that's a good value...

02-28-2008, 11:28 AM	#8 (permalink)
TheIncredibleRox Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 216	If they're truly club options, and the buyouts are quite low, this is a fine deal. If I'm not mistaken, he's arb eligible after '08. For a guy with no health history, it would really be something if he somehow wouldn't earn $8m thorugh his arbitration years. I'd peg that number closer to $16m than $8m. Between Tulo, Francis, Cook, and now Corpas, I think we've picked our spots and our numbers very well with these pre-FA (or even pre-arb!) extensions. I'll credit our front office where it's due.

02-28-2008, 01:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
HoyaRoxFan Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 262	Good points, and it's certainly nothing I'd raise the pitchforks over. I guess I didn't realize arbitration was coming so quickly for him. The only point I'd continue to raise my eyebrow over is let's continue to tie this deal together with the Weathers pick last year. Isn't the implication that he'll be the closer of the future - possibly even the near future? If so, we're now trying to tie up a young right-handed setup man for the next four to six. If not, we've spent a very high pick on a right-handed setup man. Much ado about nothing?

02-29-2008, 02:30 PM	#15 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,032	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.