Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
According to Richard Griffin in the Star today, "The odds of Escobar actually signing before the season ends are as slim as Keon Clark. The odds of Escobar signing with the Jays after the season ends are even slimmer."

Griffin projects Kelvim, at 27, to have 59 wins (and 58 saves) after this season, then makes some interesting comparisons:

Matt Morris, with 61 wins at age 29, earns $10.5 million. Bartolo Colon, with 85 wins at age 30, was given $8.25 million. Freddy Garcia, 60 wins at age 27, is making $6.9 million. Kevin Millwood, with 75 wins at age 29, is earning $9.9 million. Eric Milton, with 56 wins at age 28, is making $6 million. But none of them had bullpen time to cut into their W-totals.

This does support the idea that he's become too valuable on the open market for the Jays to do anything but offer him arbitration -- which he insists he won't accept -- and settle for the draft picks.


The question remains, would you give Kelvim Escobar $20 million or more for three years? Since becoming a starter again, he's been reasonably consistent and the hand numbness that plagued him after five or six innings when he was last in the rotation seems to be over. If you believe that the last three months indicates a "new and improved" pitcher whose approach is finally catching up to his stuff, you might consider him worth the investment. I'm not so easily convinced; he's teased us before with his talent, only to regress to frustrating incompetence. That kind of financial commitment is a huge gamble that only a very wealthy club can afford to take.

Griffin explains why agent Peter Greenberg is in town this week (he also has some clients on the Mariners) and puts the likelihood of a new Escobar deal into perspective. The Jays aren't just posturing; I think they are legitimately interested, on reasonable terms -- no more than $10 million over two years -- but Kelvim will turn them down.

This would not be a catastrophe. Given J.P.'s draft success, another couple of studs like Aaron Hill and Josh Banks isn't a bad return, presumably a lot more than he's been offered in previous trades. He will also have enough payroll room to trade for another #2 starter who is entering his walk year in 2004; the Curt Schilling rumours were fun, but there are many others available.

Don't forget that the Jays, plagued by the exchange rate and empty seats, are operating on a shoestring, and it's all about minimizing risk. I'd be more disappointed if they opened the vault to the wrong man than I will be about waving goodbye to Escobar.
Escobar Unlikely To Sign | 29 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Pistol - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT (#94262) #
"We had some preliminary discussions, that's all," Ricciardi said of the discussions that revolved around the Jays budget, the team's interest in Escobar and his in the team. "We never got around to length of contract or dollars. That will come in time."

Besides length and dollars what else is there to discuss that takes more than 5 minutes?

I found Griffin's article to be odd (shocking, I know). If the Jays had no interest in signing Escobar why would they even be talking with his agent in the middle of the season? If they only wanted draft picks they wouldn't do anything now and just offer him arbitration after the season and see what happens.
Craig B - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT (#94263) #
Does anyone understand how Elias ranks pitchers for the purposes of free-agent compensation? I am worried that a pitcher like Escobar who has split duties between closing and starting may not come out very well.
Craig B - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:02 AM EDT (#94264) #
Looking again at Griffin's comp list, I have to say: huh?

Career starts, ERA+ through 2002

Matt Morris 116, 131
Bartolo Colon 177, 122
Freddy Garcia 121, 117
Kevin Millwood 160, 116
Eric Milton 162, 100

Kelvim Escobar 75, 103

There is a *huge* difference between those pitchers, especially because Escobar's ERA numbers as a starter are much much worse than their overall numbers.

Escobar's list of "most comparable" pitchers at age 26:

Gene Nelson
Bob Anderson
Johnny Klippstein
Bill Greif
Jeff Russell
Neil Allen
Eduardo Rodriguez
Erv Palica
Dan Spillner
Don Carrithers

His career numbers through 2002 were similar to those of three oher active pitchers: Albie Lopez, Kent Bottenfield, and Hipolito Pichardo.

Escobar will get a good contract this offseason, but nowhere near the money that Matt Morris or Bartolo Colon or Kevin Millwood can command.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:06 AM EDT (#94265) #
http://economics.about.com
Personally, I think resigning Escobar is a bad idea. Of course, I'm the guy who said he shouldn't have been offered arbitration last year.

Still, though, would you sign Escobar for 3 years/6 mil per, when you could have Colon for 8 mil or Millwood for 10?

Or put another way: What would be the maximum amount of money you would spend on Escobar.

Going by the back of my envelope, I'd say 2 years, 4 mil per. There's no way Escobar would go for that.

Mike
_Jordan - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:20 AM EDT (#94266) #
Which, in a weirdly positive sort of way for Ricciardi, allows him to offer arbitration without fear that Escobar might actually take him up on it and win a huge settlement tying up money he could have used elsewhere, like the Leafs have suffered.

I think Griffin is right on this point, and that Escobar probably isn't going to return to Toronto next year. If Kelvim really wants a three-year deal, then I think he's gone. I could see the Jays giving him two years, but not three; there's just too much risk there. Some team is going to offer him three years at $8M per, and that'll be that. Like Craig, I'm worried that the Elias ratings might not be sophisticated enough to recognize Escobar's mid-season turnaround, but you take what you can get. Remember, back on May 1, the prospect of getting even one first-round arbitration pick for Escobar would have been remarkable.

I'm of two minds about Kelvim, which is the state he produces in everyone. It seems clear he's finally broken through and is ready to be a top-tier starter; Bartolo Colon is not a bad comp, both positively and negatively. And there's no question that this team badly, badly needs a solid #2 guy, and there are none on the immediate horizon. But you also can't ignore the history of inconsistency, the character questions, and whether this is a guy you can really count on in future. When the talking stops and the gritty details of negotiating finally get underway, the Blue Jays likely will come up short in both cash and years offered. Kelvim's evidently a bottom-line guy, and ultimately, he'll take the best deal regardless of location. To my mind, that means he's probably gone.

If it doesn't work out, it's too bad, but neither side can be held blameless. Griffin needn't ask, on Kelvim's behalf, "Where was the love?" You don't offer big money and long-term contracts for promise or potential; you offer them for performance, and Escobar has been the picture of unreliability. He won't be the first guy to finally reach his focus and potential as the big payday approaches.
Dave Till - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:32 AM EDT (#94267) #
This is Exhibit A for why you can't depend on daily baseball columnists for accurate baseball analysis.

Put yourself in Richard Griffin's shoes (don't worry - this is temporary; the effect will wear off). It's Tuesday afternoon. You're required to produce a column for next day's paper, and you're worried about rolling blackouts. You have to come up with a column idea, pronto. What to do? After some thought, the light bulb goes on (normally only allowed between 8 pm and 8 am, but whatever): let's write a column about Escobar!

Now, our sportswriter needs an entertaining premise. "Escobar might or might not sign with the Jays" won't cut it, and neither will "Jays handling the Escobar situation reasonably well" - neither of these accurate, but non-controversial, headlines will get people reading the column, and commenting on it in Web forums or on sports talk radio. God forbid, the readers might switch to the Sun!

So, it's time, once again, to stir up the pot a bit. Let's write that Escobar is being poorly treated. But it's not enough just to baldly assert this; after all, those @#$%##@ seamheads and that @#$%^$%#$@%^$@#$$%#@^$# Zombie-Like Cult have convinced Joe Fan that numbers are good. So, gotta find some numbers. ERA won't do it: Kelvim's career ERA is 4.80, and his career best is 4.47 (out of the bullpen, even). Winning percentage won't do it: his career won-lost record is 54-53. Ah, here we go: career wins. That looks superficially convincing. Whew, another column done. Pass the Heineken, willya?

The moral of the story: baseball writers have different goals than we Zombies do.
Dave Till - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:35 AM EDT (#94268) #
Just read Jordan's comments, and agree with them. I think he'll be going to Texas. If they were willing to spend zillions of dollars on Chan Ho Park, they'd be willing to toss a zillion or two at Kelvim.
_Jim - TBG - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:44 AM EDT (#94269) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
I could see Lidle money for Escobar - $5M/year over 3 years. I know that'll have some people screaming "Albatross" faster than John Cleese at the Hollywood Bowl, but he's a young pitcher with a sound arm, and a very solid resume over his last 30 starts.

I think some of the blame for Escobar's inconsistency has to be shouldered by the organization, since they've shuttled him between roles ad nauseum. He pitched well as a starter in 2001, never should have been re-assigned to the pen, and probably wouldn't have been if not for the Billy Koch trade.

Barring injury, Escobar will remain a tradable commodity, so the Jays should still be able to deal his contract if they don't perform as hoped and need to cut salary. I don't see a 3-year deal becoming a Darren Dreifort catastrophe.
_Dave Till again - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#94270) #
He pitched well as a starter in 2001, never should have been re-assigned to the pen

Don't forget the circulatory problems he was having in his forearm - people were worried that he was putting his health at risk.

This is where teams with bigger purses have an advantage: they don't have to endure the growing pains of young pitchers. They can wait until a pitcher like Escobar matures, and then scoop him up. It'll cost them megabucks, but they have megabucks to spend.
_Jim - TBG - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#94271) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
True, the numbness in his forearm was a factor, but I don't recall that he was ever diagnosed with a specific condition - as in "If this man throws over 70 pitches again, that arm's coming off!"

I thought the numbness was something of a wait-and-see mystery which has, thankfully, not resurfaced.

Had Koch not been dealt, it would have been interesting to see where they slotted Escobar last season. I suspect he would have at least been granted a trial in the rotation.

And if we're looking for teams to throw scads of money at a starting pitcher, I think Baltimore's due.
_Shane - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:50 AM EDT (#94272) #
All these comments are the correct ones, as some of us have been saying these things all along. If Escobar reaches free-agency he's gone. If he truly wants to stay he'll low-ball himself and be "happy" in terms of being where he wants to be, getting a firm contract and more security than he's had previous, while avoiding the temptations of free-agency.

But, once on the open market he's going to be woo'd, appreciated, over-hyped, and after the "big names" like Colon and Millwood sign, Escobar will slot in under their deals. He may infact sign before a lot the bigger names. A team like Atlanta for instance may say, 'Well so and so is going to get 40mil @ 5 years, so let's give Escobar 20mil @ 3 years and use the extra money to go after so and so?'

If you take Escobar's personality and a history of all his quotes into consideraton, he's probably like a child who is just looking to be 'loved'. A brand new organziation with a brand new sales pitch is going to give him the 'fresh start' and the 'peace of mind' that that fills the headlines adnauseam come the free-agent funny season.

Toronto desperatly needs pitching, and if Escobar's here fine, but if he isn't, that's fine too. Year to year, the guys been a circus, another reminder of the Blue Jays floppy 90's blueprints. All the waiting on the Carpenter's, the Cruz's, the Gonzalez's, the Escobar's. I probably like a lot of people, regardless of how good he 'might be', are burned out. Escobar somewhere else? It's probably better for everyone. I know it will be for me.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 11:56 AM EDT (#94273) #
Obviously, you need to figure out how much Halladay is worth before you can resign Escobar.

I'm guessing Halladay is in the 3 year $24 M range.

As for Escobar, I don't know. He's currently making $3.9 M this year, which is much more than any of the Oakland starters. Will he resign for less? Probably not. Is he worth $20 M over 3 years? Too many question marks for a cash-strapped club like Toronto.

If the Jays don't resign Escobar, do they need to go after a Colon or Millwood? Does it make sense to pay Halladay that much money without having another quality arm or two in the rotation, or do they take their chance that the kids will be ready by mid-2004?
_Spicol - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 12:03 PM EDT (#94274) #
Looking again at Griffin's comp list, I have to say: huh?

Griffin's short-sighted remember? He's going by number of Wins by age 27. He then goes further by ridiculously asserting that Escobar should have even more wins, and by that be even more valuable to the Jays, because his bullpen time cut into his opportunities.

Griffin obviously believes in quantity over quality. He's a newspaper reporter and gets paid to churn it out, no matter what the quality of the it is.
_okbluejays - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#94275) #
A lot of very astute comments here. I have to say that I like Escobar, but despite his solid performance this year since being put in the rotation he remains a bit of a gamble heading into next season in my eyes. Would you, as a GM, really feel comfortable pegging Escobar for 15 wins next spring? The question in all of this is really who can afford the gamble that he represents. Because if he has really "figured it out" and become the pitcher that scouts thought he could be then all of the numbers being thrown about become reasonable contracts.

In the end, the Jays have to be very happy with what has transpired. Escobar's strong performance has assured them that he will not accept salary arbitration, so they can feel comfortable in offering it knowing that they will receive some nice talent in the upcoming draft.

I think a 3-year deal with Escobar at the right price is doable. To me, he's not a guy that will lead you to a championship, but he can be a good piece of the puzzle as a #2 or #3 starter. If one of Arnold/Bush/McGowan can emerge as a top of the rotation guy, and another can be a solid and inexpensive #4 guy I think a rotation with Halladay and Escobar as its anchor can be effective. Perhaps a 3-year deal averaging about 6 million, if he'd do it, with the money escalating over the years. Under no circumstances would I give him a no-trade clause.

The big piece of the puzzle has to be Halladay. Would signing Escobar enhance our ability to put Halladay's name on a long term contract? I have no idea. I suspect if the dollars are right then Halladay would sign anywhere. In my opinion, the dollars would probably have to be in the 4-year, 40 million dollar range at least. Millwood was awarded about 10 million in arbitration last year, and who would you rather have? A 4-year deal for Halladay would knock out 2 years of free agency, so the price will be high. Unfortunately, J.P. came along a bit too late to really follow the A's model with young pitchers, and he probably regrets not taking a bit of a gamble on Halladay long term before this season like he did with Wells and Hinske.
_Jacko - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 12:55 PM EDT (#94276) #
Hudson, Mulder, and Zito make for some interesting comps when it comes to seeing what Halladay will end up getting.

Halladay
1999: $200,000
2000: $383,333
2001: ???
2002: $2,583,333
2003: $3.825M

Hudson:
2001: $0.6M
2002: $0.85M
2003: $2.7M
2004: $4.55M
2005: $6.0M option exercised

Mulder:
2002: $0.95M
2003: $2.6M
2004: $4.4M
2005: $6.0M
2006: Team option $7.25M

Zito
2002: $0.9M
2003: $0.9M
2004: $2.7M
2005: $4.8M
2006: Team option $7.0M

Is Halladay free agent eligible in 2005 or 2006?. I recall reading that he has two more arbitration years left. If that's the case, then it looks like Mulder's contract in 2004/2005/2006 is a good comparison. Which would mean something like 4.5MM/6.0MM/7.5MM

On the other hand, Millwood was awarded something like 10MM for this year, and he was 1 year away from free agency. Halladay compares favourably with him as well.

Is Mulder underpaid because he signed his contract so early? The same question could be asked of Hudson and Zito.

In an ironic twist, it appears that Halladay's severe problems when he originally came up may contribute to him making far more money than comparable pitchers in Oakland in 2004-2006.

jc
_Jacko - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#94277) #
One last thing -- does age have anything to do with arbitrtation awards?

I thought it was based purely on comparisons with players who have the same amount of service time, regardless of their age.
_Sulsal - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:31 PM EDT (#94278) #
Here's what I think. Escobar has always been a risk. He has the stuff no one can deny that. And he will probably demand between $5-8 million. Can J.P meet that with a payroll of $50 million? Well that really depends on how much Halladay will want and he can easily demand $10 million. So with that kind of a contract for Halladay and with that albatross contract that Delgado has there is a lot of money tied to two players. So can JP afford to half or nearly half of his payroll into three players? You gotta think no. He is not that stupid. However if Esco can be consistent then its very possible that signing him would be good. But there are a lot of ifs. And then relying on the fact that Mcgowan or Bush will start to contribute by mid 2004 or 2005 is a big time risk. And we have already seen that Arnold has hit a big time wall in AAA. So basing on that fact alone should indicate that Arnold is not ready for the major leagues and putting expectations like that on him or any of our other big time prospects is unreasonable. So personally I really feel like JP is a bit trapped and he knows that. Do u spend that much on a pitcher that has shown inconsistency through out his career or do u let him go and hope that u can find someone else and that our prospects succeed rite away at the major league level?
_Lefty - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT (#94279) #
Realisticly BlueJays minor league pitching is for all intents and purposes two years away. Alot of comments I think have correctly pointed out that signing Doc has an impact on anEscobar signing as well.
The way I see it is if the Jays don't resign Escobar and throw wads of money at Doc instead,what have you really got for a staff at the end of the day. It is not going to wash with Jays supporters if you have a rotation of Doc and then anyone who can get a ball across the plate.
It also occurs to me that Doc is a winner. I think he's the type of guy who is going to want to see a commitment from the organisation to go for a pennant. It is really difficult to get pitching as everyone knows. I believe that their best chance is to take the gamble on Escobar as long as the sky is not his limit. Actually the Jays have been pretty good to Kelvim. He has taken a fair amount of contract so far in his career. Perhaps he will give just a bit up to stay in Toronto where he won't get creamed by fans and media.
_Rich - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:22 PM EDT (#94280) #
Very interesting discussion. Can I ask why anyone reads Griffin anymore? There's no need to list the litany of his nonsense here, but I gave up with him long ago, and it seems that the fans on here are far too intelligent to believe his crap. Just wondering...

I wouldn't give Escobar more than $5 million per based on his track record. We'll see how badly he really wants to stay...
_okbluejays - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:28 PM EDT (#94281) #
Excellent point. Halladay's problems when he was younger will end up making him more money down the road. It's a good reminder not to start the arbitration clock on a young player before you really think they're ready to contribute. That's the big blunder that the Tigers have made with Bonderman (ignoring what affect this season may have on his progression). And that's why we won't see Arnold, McGowan, or Bush as september callups.

And I agree that McGowan, Bush, and Arnold are gambles, but, these are gambles that a team like the Jays need to take. We have a good crop of minor league SP, and we have to project their performance as best we can and make solid judgments. If all our minor league SP bust then there's no amount of spending at the major league level that will be able to overcome the loss. So, we really have no choice but proceed and hope that at least one really pans out. While it's true that all young SP are gambles, I think the Jays will turn out alright in this one. I wouldn't want to bet a lot of money on any particular guy, but I won't be too surprised if one of them is a 15 game winner within 4 years.

For the record, I'd put a looney on McGowan.
_jason - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 03:54 PM EDT (#94282) #
Escobar may well end up being the second coming of Jim Clancy or Todd Stottlemeyer (sic); they show flashes of just enough brilliance to keep one interested but never fullfill their potential. These pitchers are valuable comodities on any pitching staff other than the Yankies or A's, but in this market a ".500" pitcher with great stuff is priced beyond point of "fiscal responsibility". The funny thing is that a pitcher like Hendrickson will more easily exceed expectations because he is projected as 4, 5 starter.
_Rich - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 04:52 PM EDT (#94283) #
Stottlemeyer's makes a very interesting comparison with Escobar. Both had several mediocre years with the Jays, with flashes of brilliance which could never be sustained. Interesting to note, however, that Todd did turn in some very good years once he departed.

okbluejays, i'll see your looney on McGowan and raise you one on Bush.

One other point about Griffin: I sent Rob Neyer an email about one of his pieces on Griffin, and he responded saying after regularly reading most semi-major papers on the continent, Griffin is, in Rob's opinion, the single worst beat writer working in any major league market.
Pistol - Wednesday, August 20 2003 @ 05:35 PM EDT (#94284) #
So can JP afford to half or nearly half of his payroll into three players? You gotta think no. He is not that stupid.

What would have been a better investment for the Mets a couple years ago: A-Rod and a minor leaguer at $25 million or Burnitz and Mo Vaughn at $25 million?

The Jays have plenty of young players, especially position players. That gives them the room to have a few high priced players with a $50 MM payroll. How the payroll is distributed is inconsequential to me.

If you don't want a high percentage of payroll tied up in a few players the solution is easy: jack up the payroll.

The Jays will have about $10-12 million for pitching. If one stud at $8 million and scraps for the rest of the money is better than a couple Cory Lidles you should do it. If 2 $4 million pitchers are better than 1 big money pitcher you should do that. I don't think you can just blindly say 'x players can't make y% of total payroll'. The key is allocating your resources as best as you can.

I'd be willing to sign Escobar at 1 year for $7 million, or 2 for $12 or 3 for $15 million.
_R Billie - Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 03:00 AM EDT (#94285) #
I honestly don't think he's looking at more than $6 million if his goal is a long term contract. If it's three years, I'd guess $5 mil with the third year being dependent somewhat on health over the first two years.

Of course, the last time the Jays signed a pitcher with a plus arm to a mid-range two year contract after half a good season, he turned out to be Esteban Loaiza.

Now I say that with the provision that Escobar in my mind is a better bet at this point than Loaiza was two and a half years ago. They're both quite durable and if anything, the time in the bullpen probably extended Escobar's career and kept him off the disabled list. He had a lot of major league pitches thrown at age 23 and 24 as a starter.
_okbluejays - Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#94286) #
It looks like one of the questions I posed earlier now has an answer. After reading Rutsey's article in today's Toronto Sun it appears as though the Escobar situation will have no bearing on what Halladay chooses to do. Halladay may genuinely like the direction the club is taking. Alternatively, he may be all about the money/security! Of course, it could be a combination of these factors.

And on a related note, today's news that Escobar won't talk contract until the offseason indicates to me at least that his chances of re-signing just took a hit. Any other good 6-million dollar pitchers available this offseason?

If only we could afford Vazquez (in trade and in dollars)...
Pistol - Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 02:20 PM EDT (#94287) #
If only we could afford Vazquez (in trade and in dollars)...

I wouldn't touch Vazquez. He's a ticking timebomb with his workload.
_benum - Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#94288) #
They could always ask Delgado to defer $6-8 Million to keep the budget down while they sign Escobar to a 2-3 year deal and Hallday to a 3+ year deal.
_okbluejays - Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 05:50 PM EDT (#94289) #
Yeah, Vazquez is a bit of a time-bomb. Are there two managers who abuse their starters more than Baker and Robinson? I'm sure someone has looked into the topic. I only mention Vazquez because he might be available given his projected arbitration number, and he's still relatively young. Also, I read reports last year that the Jays were interested in him, though I have no idea where they stand now. Given his pitch counts, they may have soured on him as well.

On the topic of pitch counts, was anybody upset when Tosca threw Towers out for the 9th despite throwing 98 pitches? I know he doesn't have faith in his bullpen, but you'd think he'd be on strict orders to protect the young guys. Then again, you'd think he'd be on strict orders to play Phelps 6 out of 7 days...
_benum - Thursday, August 21 2003 @ 06:15 PM EDT (#94290) #
I think Towers out for the ninth was okay given that:

A) He was throwing strikes
B) His velocity was good
C) He was better as the game went along
D) He's not that young (and, in all honesty, he's not that valuable a resource to the Blue Jays)

As it turns out, he only needed something like 9 pitches to finish the 9th anyway.
Escobar Unlikely To Sign | 29 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.