Orioles Sign Mike Gonzalez To Close
December 16th, 2009 | by Daniel Moroz |It came as quite a surprise to me that Mike Gonzalez is already 31 years old. I mostly remember him as a power closer for the Pittsburgh Pirates, but he has spent three seasons with the Braves since being traded for Adam LaRoche. Anyway, the O’s signed Gonzalez to be their new closer, at the cost of a two year year, $12 M contract* (with incentive bringing it up to a potential $16 M). My immediate reaction is “that kind of sucks, but at least it’s not Fernando Rodney.” A closer look is certainly warranted though.
* A few minutes before the details came out, I was asked on Twitter to predict the price:
- I’d guess $14 M over the two years, maybe with a bonus for saves or games finished or something like that.
- Maybe $12 M considering the O’s have to give up a second-round draft pick to sign him.
Can you say Bingo?
The lefty can certainly bring the strike-outs, posting a career mark of 10.6 K/9. He doesn’t have the best control though (4.1 BB/9 career, though a little lower recently) and has been a flyball pitcher in recent years. He throws pretty hard (around 92.5 mph) and has a really good slider, but his injury history means that the 74 innings he pitched last year were easily a career high (previous high was 54 in 2006). Gonzalez’s 2.57 career ERA certainly looks very nice – his 3.27 FIP is still shiny – but the 3.57 xFIP is merely above average.
If you project Gonzalez to pitch 60 high leverage innings with a 3.25 ERA, then he’d about a 1.3 Wins Above Replacement player, worth around $6 M. Now, I find it pretty doubtful that the Orioles will get 120+ innings out of Gonzalez over the two years, and with the incentives in the deal there’s very little chance of him over-performing and being a bargain. The Orioles will also have to give up their second round draft pick, worth around $1-2 M. That is a lot to give up for a guy to save maybe 30 games for a 70-75 win team. If they were contenders it might be a different story (though not too different), but given where the team is they should be holding on to draft picks and investing money in young players instead of 60-70 inning relievers.
I’m sort of working under the assumption that at some point Andy MacPhail will trade Gonzalez for more prospects than he’s worth, which makes me not be really against the deal. I certainly think it wasn’t a good decision – though not the worst possible one the team could have made given their interest in finding a “closer” – but taking that money ($16 M assuming incentives kick in + $2 M for the draft pick) and maybe paying Aroldis Chapman (or some international prospects) might have been the better bet for the team in the long-run.
[Edit: Unless the just rumored $30 M price-tag for Chapman is true. That's a bit high for my tastes.]
How do you all think Gonzalez and his new teammates will do next season? 2010 Projection
Tags: Mike Gonzalez, Orioles
By Andrew @ TLC on Dec 16, 2009
This: “That is a lot to give up for a guy to save maybe 30 games for a 70-75 win team.”
I hate this deal (if the parameters reported are true). I hate the idea that Andy MacPhail thinks our second-rounder is worth giving up for a closer (any closer) when we are (by my prediction) a 77 win team. I hate that a deal is defensible only by saying “flip him for prospects”. If you sign a guy with the intention of trading him, then why didn’t you go and spend that money on someone you actually want? Or someone who will contribute in a more meaningful way?
Sigh. Maybe I’m just being irrational, but I really don’t like this trade, or what it says about The Plan right now.
By Donovan on Dec 16, 2009
Ok, so it kind of hurts me that everyone is instantly up in arms at this deal. The Orioles have money to spend this offseason, and they’re doing just that to improve their team.
After the trade of Sherrill last July, the bullpen imploded. Before the lefty departed, the bullpen was actually decent. Bringing in a strong left-handed presence at the back end of the bullpen is just what it needs to pull the ‘pen back together.
Let’s be honest, Jim Johnson is an excellent reliever, but just couldn’t handle the role of closer. Slot him back into a 7-8 inning role, and he’ll become the Johnson we all knew and loved before we ended up cursing and throwing things due to his blown saves.
With Koji in the bullpen as well, our relief staff is shaping up to be formidable. All we need to do is get on resigning Hendrickson, who was GREAT out of the long-relief role, and the bullpen will collectively be a force to be reckoned with.
With Albers, Sarfate, Meredith, and Mikolio all competing for spots in the ‘pen, it should be interesting to see it shape up through Spring Training.
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 16, 2009
Donovan, JJ did fine as the closer.
http://camdencrazies.com/2009/12/14/2009-os-retrospective-jim-johnson/
Facts:
Stats in April through July: 3.16 ERA, 1.9 K/BB, 2 saves, 3 blown saves (once in the 7th inning, twice in the 8th)
Stats in August, September: 6.23 ERA, 2.2 K/BB, 8 saves, 3 blown saves (all three in the 9th)
ERA in August, September excluding an appearance against the Yankees in which he gave up 5 runs in a game the O’s were already losing (not a situation where it mattered that he was a closer): 4.15.
ERA in Aug, Sep excluding the previous appearance and another in NY in which the O’s were ahead 7-1 (non-closer situation): 3.32.
Stats in save situations throughout the year: 3.44 ERA, 3.3 K/BB
Stats in non-save situations throughout the year: 4.75 ERA, 1.6 K/BB
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 16, 2009
Bringing the team from 74 wins to 75 or (maybe) 76 wins isn’t worth paying this much money and giving up a draft pick.
If the Orioles “have” to spend money, they should sign 10 first round talents in the draft next year to over-slot deals and pick up a few international free agents.
I’d rather the money go to that, but if it’s between Mike Gonzalez’s pocket and Angelos’s, I’d certainly pick the former.
By Todd on Dec 17, 2009
I like this deal, and I wish people weren’t getting so worked up about it already. Gonzalez is a proven arm, and could be very similar to Sherill last year. Even if he comes out to be worth a little less than his deal, he is strengthening a pretty weak area for us. Begins our relationship with Boras as well, which will be necessary in the future.
By Daniel Moroz on Dec 17, 2009
He’s really not all that proven given the injuries; Sherrill cost just $2.75 M last year; and Wieters was/is a Boras client. I’m just saying. If you acknowledge that he’s really not quite worth the money, but you think it was worth overpaying, then that’s fine. It’s not my place to tell you what your opinions should be; I’m just putting out the information as I see it and giving my own opinion. I often hope to turn out wrong.