Master Index of Archived Threads


Looper to St. Louis

GYC Dec 15 2005 08:58 PM

3 years, $13.5 million. Yikes. http://rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_previousnews.asp?sport=MLB&leaguenum=&id=5966 ]Dec. 15, 2005 - 8:44 pm et Cardinals signed RHP Braden Looper, who had been with the Mets, to a three-year, $13.5 million contract. A nice contract for a pitcher who just had shoulder surgery two months ago. He'll earn $3.5 million in 2006, $4.5 million in 2007 and $5.5 million in 2008. Included are up to $1 million in bonuses, some of them based on games finished in case he becomes the closer. Looper will be healthy for the start of next season, and he figures to be more durable that some of the other relievers getting three-year deals. He probably won't give the Cardinals quite what Julian Tavarez did the last two years, but he'll be decent. I thought he'd go to a team that doesn't have a concrete closer, that way he could compete for a setup/closer role and be prepared to fill in or something.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 15 2005 09:01 PM

He was the best player named Laverne that the Mets ever had.

MFS62 Dec 15 2005 09:04 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: He was the best player named Laverne that the Mets ever had. But we did draft Al Shirley. Later

Yancy Street Gang Dec 15 2005 09:07 PM

And the Mets actually got six games out of Bart Shirley

Edgy DC Dec 15 2005 09:13 PM

The B.J. Bunch grows.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 15 2005 09:16 PM

Hey! Is Anna Benson in that group!?! And that reminds me... Every day the five principals in the June 15, 1977 Tom Seaver trade get a UMDB hit from a pornographic web site. Out of curiousity (really, out of curiousity) I've visited the referring URL to see if it really has links to the pages of Seaver, Flynn, Zachry, Henderson, and Norman. And it doesn't. I wonder what's going on. For anyone who's similarly curious, I can message you the link. I really don't want to post it here.

Valadius Dec 15 2005 10:13 PM

Na na na na Na na na na Hey hey-ey Gooodbye... And yes, that was the door hitting you on the way out.

Willets Point Dec 15 2005 10:37 PM

Paula and Carole say: see ya, see ya, hope you had a good good time da dum hope you have a good good mornin' um-hmmm hope we get to see you again da dum whistling ... see ya, see ya, hope you had a good good time da dum hope you have a good good mornin' um-hmmm i hope we get to see you again da dum whistling ... see ya, see ya, glad that you could stay a while da dum glad that we could say good mornin' to you hope you have a shiny day da dum hope you have a shiny day um-hmmm hope you have a shiny day so long, bye bye now la la la la la ...

Frayed Knot Dec 15 2005 10:58 PM

I still think: a) we should have offered arbitration. and b) that I'd rather have him than Julian Tavarez If he accepted arb he'd likely get what he's getting now but only for 1 year, and if not we'd be getting draft picks out of this StL signing. And with Looper here he'd at least be on the hook for only 1 year. Omar was quoted in one of the papers today as saying that the relievers currently on the market "all want 3 years". He's weighing the options available but thinking about waiting to see what's on the non-tender market instead.

Zvon Dec 15 2005 11:04 PM

GET OUT! I am soooooo totally loving this off season so far. Bye Looper. Cya, wouldnt wanna be ya. But seriously,..I wish him good luck and hope he rights his ship... Just as long as he does it anywhere except thru trial and error on the mound for the Mets in the 9th.

Zvon Dec 15 2005 11:09 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Hey! Is Anna Benson in that group!?! And that reminds me... Every day the five principals in the June 15, 1977 Tom Seaver trade get a UMDB hit from a pornographic web site. Out of curiousity (really, out of curiousity) I've visited the referring URL to see if it really has links to the pages of Seaver, Flynn, Zachry, Henderson, and Norman. And it doesn't. I wonder what's going on. For anyone who's similarly curious, I can message you the link. I really don't want to post it here. That is wierd and could be something to be concerned about. I hope no links at the UMDB take people to unwanted places. That would be my concern.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 15 2005 11:42 PM

I don't see where booting him made a lot of sense, unless of course the Mets know more about his health than they ever let on.

Zvon Dec 15 2005 11:44 PM

There must be something more than meets the eye in this Wigginton situation. Roids? Im not sayin that, just wondering. Hope not.

Rockin' Doc Dec 16 2005 06:39 AM

If he is healthy, I still think Looper can be an effective set up guy in the pen. With Wagner slated as the closer, I still think that signing Looper to a one year deal to serve as a set up man could have been a good move. That would either free up Heilman for the rotation, should the Mets trade away a starter, or give depth in the set up role with Heilman and Looper being the bridge to get games to the ninth. Oh well, doesn't matter now. I wish him luck well in St. Louis.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 07:37 AM

I'd guess they were concerned about asking Blooper to accept a demotion, a reduction in status among his teammates, or some such nonsense. Better to fire a guy than to have him demoralizing a unit, making his teammates uncomfortable. "Brad, you (used to be) DA MAN!!!" and all that.

soupcan Dec 16 2005 09:12 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Every day the five principals in the June 15, 1977 Tom Seaver trade get a UMDB hit from a pornographic web site. Out of curiousity (really, out of curiousity) I've visited the referring URL to see if it really has links to the pages of Seaver, Flynn, Zachry, Henderson, and Norman. And it doesn't. I wonder what's going on. For anyone who's similarly curious, I can message you the link. I really don't want to post it here. Pat Zachry, Doug Flynn, Dan Norman, Steve Henderson are somehow linked to internet porn along with Tom Terrific? That's very odd. Message me the link please, I'm curious about that.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 16 2005 09:28 AM

soupcan wrote: Message me the link please, I'm curious about that. And so, on a gloomy Friday morning, the sad and sordid story of Soupy's fall from the pinnacle of the insurance game to a stretch in federal prison for trafficking in internet porn began...

OlerudOwned Dec 16 2005 09:44 AM

Zvon wrote: Bye Looper. Cya, wouldnt wanna be ya. I would. That 13.5 million over 3 years would be nice.

smg58 Dec 16 2005 09:50 AM

Righty set-up guys with a 3.98 ERA aren't worth three-year contracts. The Cards are gambling he'll get better, which I suppose is their perogative, but I'm not gonna miss the guy.

Vic Sage Dec 16 2005 11:09 AM

i think letting Looper go was a mistake. 2 years ago, he was a perfectly decent closer for the Mets. Last year, he tried to pitch through an injury and was wildly inconsistent. with the ridiculous money being thrown at middle-inning and setup guys, It seems to me that re-signing Looper for $4.5m/3yrs would've been a perfectly good way for the Mets to have a setup/backup closer type in the pen. That seems to be what those guys go for now. And, since he was willing to sign for that elsewhere, might he not have been willing to take that, or even less, to avoid having to leave? Minaya seems to be sanguine about Heilman filling that spot more cheaply. Well, maybe he can and maybe he can't. Personally, if Zeig Heilmann really has turned the corner in his career, I'd prefer him to get 200+ IP as a SP, than 60+ IP as a RP.

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 11:22 AM

Offering him arbitration would have worked well. Either they get him cheaper than he's going for now to St. Louis --- without the long-term tie-down --- or he realizes what he can get with St. Louis (or Philly), turns it down, and the Mets get comped.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 11:24 AM

The deal makes sense for the Cardinals. It's not like Izzy has been the healthiest pitcher. Plus, it gives them a cheap option at closer in 2008 after Izzy's contract runs out.

Rotblatt Dec 16 2005 11:30 AM

I'm with Vic 100% on both fronts. I'd take Loop at that deal in a heartbeat, and I'd rather see Heilman starting than relieving. Although if he IS relieving, I hope we use him exactly how we used Robo last year (well, maybe a little less frequently). And I really don't understand why we didn't offer Looper arbitration.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 11:34 AM

]why we didn't offer Looper arbitration He would have accepted and probably gotten something like $7-8 million in arbitration with the current closer market.

Rotblatt Dec 16 2005 11:56 AM

]He would have accepted and probably gotten something like $7-8 million in arbitration with the current closer market. I agree he may have accepted, although given the closer market, he may have figured he could cash in even with a poor 2005. But if we got the Looper of 2001-2004, he'd probably be worth even $8M to the Mets. He has a pretty decent track record and it seems pretty clear that his injury hurt him last year. If he sucked again, it will have been an expensive mistake, but at least it'd only be for one year. Anyway, assuming he did rebound, when we offered him arb NEXT year, he'd almost certainly refuse, landing us a draft pick . . .

sharpie Dec 16 2005 12:00 PM

I doubt if he would've accepted if he knew there was a 3-year deal somewhere out there.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 01:17 PM

I don't agree that Looper would necessarily turn down a one year deal at $7-8 million vs. 3 years for $13.5. If he stays healthy, Looper would likely make more long term by accepting the one year deal this year as a set-up man and then signing a similar three year deal after the 2006 season. Are you saying that you would have offered Looper arbitration instead of signing Wagner, or would you still do it after signing Wagner? You would be willing to spend $8 million on your second or third (after Heilman) best pitcher in the bullpen?

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 01:22 PM

What would an arbitrator be working with that he or she would conclude that Braden Looper was worth $7-8 million?:

Yancy Street Gang Dec 16 2005 01:27 PM

Looper can argue that he's 70% as good as Billy Wagner.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 01:29 PM

]What would an arbitrator be working with that he or she would conclude that Braden Looper was worth $7-8 million? Three consecutive seasons of 28-29 saves, a career full of below league average ERAs, and a ridiculous market out there for closers. He'd hold up B.J. Ryan as a comparable - someone approximately the same age, with less career saves, fewer career IP and the same career ERA. If a more "unproven" closer got $9 million a year on the open market, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that an arbitrator would be willing to give a more experienced closer a similar deal.

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 01:39 PM

Yeah, but Mets counter with the trends showing a decline in perfomance, surgery, and a displacement from the closer's role, as well as the unlikeliness that he'd find another closing opportunity on the open market. He got 4.5 mills per (on average) on the open market. I don't expect he'd get 75% more with an arbitrator, who would be looking at existing contracts, not just the ones from the last few weeks.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 02:16 PM

The role that the team envisions for Looper in the upcoming year won't be considered by the arbitrator. Here's what they consider according to the CBA: ]The criteria will be the quality of the Player’s contribution to his Club during the past season (including but not limited to his overall performance, special qualities of leadership and public appeal), the length and consistency of his career contribution, the record of the Player’s past compensation, comparative baseball salaries (see paragraph (13) below for confidential salary data), the existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player, and the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance An arbitrator has to decide between either the team or the player's offer. The Mets would come in with something in the $4-5 range, Looper in the $7-8 range. The arbitrator then determines the midpont between these two salaries. After hearing from both parties, the arbitrator decides what he thinks the market value for that player is. If it's higher than the midpoint, the player gets his money. If it's lower, the team wins. The B.J. Ryan salary will be a tough comparable for a team to overcome, especially if Looper asked for less than Ryan is making per year.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2005 02:35 PM

Fear of a big arbi number is the logical explanation of why they didn't offer him the choice of staying. They had he locked in (via an option) for $5mil and chose not to pass on that so they certainly viewed $7 or so as a ridiculous price to pay for a set-up man. Personally I'd find it hard to argue that Looper deserved a doubling of his salary (he made $3.5 in '05) coming off a bad and injured year but I guess they didn't want to leave that to chance.

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 02:46 PM

Contribution during the past season: disappointing and worsening as the season progressed. Overall performance: barely adequate for a reliever and beneath that expected of a closer for any team. Special qualities of leadership: not a factor. Public appeal: negative. The length and consistency of his career contribution: modest length and spotty consistency. The record of the Player’s past compensation: Coming off a very modest contract. Comparative baseball salaries: Bullpen salaries are rising, but the relief pitchers signed in previous seasons would also come into account. The existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player: A serious physical defect is established; I'll give him a pass on any speculations as to any mental defects. I should be so lucky. And the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance: And I think Loops should give the Mets a pass by not suggesting that attendance has improved because of him.

seawolf17 Dec 16 2005 02:54 PM

And I'll play the part of Bean Stringfellow: Contribution during the past season: 28 saves, good for tenth in the NL. Overall performance: 3.94 ERA, only a half run higher than his career average, and a .271 BAA and 1.47 WHIP, only slightly higher than his career average as well. Special qualities of leadership: Agreed, not a factor. Public appeal: What's more appealing than a closer coming in, fans on their feet, and shutting down the opposition in a big spot? The length and consistency of his career contribution: 2-0 career postseason, including one WS ring. Came off a 2004 season with the Mets that saw him post a career high 158 ERA+. The record of the Player’s past compensation: Agreed, coming off a very modest contract. Highly underpaid for a guy with almost 90 saves in the past three years. Comparative baseball salaries: Bullpen salaries are rising, but the relief pitchers signed in previous seasons would also come into account. The existence of any physical or mental defects on the part of the Player: Coming off an injury which affected his performance, but he's now completely healed. And the recent performance record of the Club including but not limited to its League standing and attendance as an indication of public acceptance: I'm not saying Looper sells tickets, but this club was very good last year, and Looper led the team in saves.

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 02:56 PM

Some highly selective data right there.

Nymr83 Dec 16 2005 03:02 PM

] 28 saves, good for tenth in the NL. thats a negative not positive, when you consider thee are 16 teams ad several who had unsettled closer situations all year that puts him into the bottom third of NL closers

Yancy Street Gang Dec 16 2005 03:03 PM

Well, he's not trying to be impartial. He's trying to win some money for his client.

Elster88 Dec 16 2005 03:15 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="soupcan"] Message me the link please, I'm curious about that. And so, on a gloomy Friday morning, the sad and sordid story of Soupy's fall from the pinnacle of the insurance game to a stretch in federal prison for trafficking in internet porn began... LOL. Dammit Bret, stick around a while this time. No more running off.

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 03:39 PM

I thuoght we were working from the arbitrator's point of view.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2005 04:31 PM

]And I'll play the part of Bean Stringfellow:

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 05:06 PM

Sure, but I was asking "What would an arbitrator be working with that he or she would conclude that Braden Looper was worth $7-8 million?" Not, what kind of flimsy case could be made. I don't think that's much of a seven million dollar argument, let alone, eight. But, of course, the Mets avoid aribitration religiously.

abogdan Dec 16 2005 09:19 PM

Simple $8 million argument: Braden Looper: Age 31; 7 major league seasons; 108 career saves, 3 consecutive 28+ save seasons, top ten in NL saves for three straight years, 3.57 career ERA, lower than league average ERA in every major league season, exceptional post season performance. Comparable player: B.J. Ryan: Age 30, 6 major league seasons, 42 career saves, only 1 year with more than 3 saves, 3.54 ERA. Salary (contract signed this offseason): $9.5 million. Only other players to have 20+ saves for last three seasons with 5 or more major league seasons of experience: Mariano Rivera, Jason Isringhausen, Billy Wagner, Jose Mesa. Average 2006 salary: $8.028 million. If you remove Mesa as an aberration because of his advanced age, the average goes to $9.87 million.

old original jb Dec 16 2005 10:04 PM Sure.

]Braden Looper: Age 31; 7 major league seasons; 108 career saves, 3 consecutive 28+ save seasons, top ten in NL saves for three straight years, 3.57 career ERA, lower than league average ERA in every major league season, exceptional post season performance Sure, but he's still...(say it with me) Looper.

smg58 Dec 16 2005 10:38 PM

Looper probably could have gotten 7 or 8 million in arbitration. The Mets also could have picked up his option (for $5M) if they really wanted to, and that would have made more sense than arbitration. But righty set-up guys who can post an ERA in the 3's aren't too difficult to find. We already have Heilman. I don't see why Padilla couldn't keep his ERA below 4 for a full season. Heath Bell has the raw skill, but needs an opportunity. If you could count on Looper pitching like he did in 04 then you could still make an argument for him, but he's only been that good once.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 16 2005 11:24 PM

Omar had commented much earlier this offseason that he felt Looper's option was inappropriate for what they wanted to pay a setterupper. I don't think he had designs to pay big for anyone but a closer this year and so far that's the case. With Padilla, Bell, Wylie, Moreno (?), Yates (?), Fortunato (?), McGinley (?), Hamulack (?), Ring (?), Perisho (?), Soler (?) & Heilman/Seo/Zambrano in camp, + whoever else shakes out of the nontenders with minor-league deals (Alfonseca, etc), I think we can cobble together another 'pen, hopefully quicker than last year.

Edgy DC Dec 17 2005 12:24 AM

The point is well taken that the Mets had a chance to re-up him at five. After they didn't, the market exploded (partially their own fault) and he became more espensive. If there was a chance that the arbitrator would award him over five (and my opponents clearly argue that there was a chance the arbitrator could have awarded him a good deal more than five, then the Mets had to pull out, I guess. Thanks for clarifying.