29 replies to this topic

[jsh]

I don't think he's getting 5/65. That's something Boras threw out weeks ago when the Yankees were still interested. Honestly, who is going to give Jackson that money? Reports that past few weeks were that the Red Sox didn't want to sign a pitcher on a multi-year deal. The Yankees filled their needs with Kuroda and Pineda.

Of course someone could come out and give him that 5/65 just like the Tigers gave Prince 9/214 despite there being nothing indicating their interest and nothing close saying it'd take that much to sign him.

Would I sign Jackson for 5/65? No. That's too much. Would I sign him for 4/48? Probably. Again, we're talking about a guy who has put up a WAR of 3.6, 3.8 and 3.8 the last three years. If you believe Fangraphs Dollars calculations, Jackson has been worth 15-17M each of the past 3 years. Mark Buehrle, 4 years older than Jackson, has put up WAR totals less than Jackson the past 3 years and yet he's getting 14.5M a year.

[Mike B]

If I am the Orioles I would pass on EJax if it takes 4 years. If he is willing to seign for 3 years/24 million then maybe.
He switches teams every year. There may be a reason for that so locking into a large contract may make it impossible to deal him.

[jsh]

If I am the Orioles I would pass on EJax if it takes 4 years. If he is willing to seign for 3 years/24 million then maybe.
He switches teams every year. There may be a reason for that so locking into a large contract may make it impossible to deal him.

He's received glowing reviews at every stop he's made. If he was a problem in the locker room I don't think GMs and managers would come out and talk about how great of a person he is. The most likely answer is that Jackson was maddeningly inconsistent early in his career and yet possessed great raw tools. Later in his career he just became a good arm that happened to be on bad teams so he'd get traded at the deadline.

Rosenthal's latest article says that Jackson could be looking for a one year deal. I have to think that's a bluff. It's not like Jackson is coming off of a down year. Next year's FA market is stronger than this year's and unless he were to break out I think he'd be facing the same problems as he is this year.

[Mackus]

I don't think he's getting 5/65. That's something Boras threw out weeks ago when the Yankees were still interested. Honestly, who is going to give Jackson that money? Reports that past few weeks were that the Red Sox didn't want to sign a pitcher on a multi-year deal. The Yankees filled their needs with Kuroda and Pineda.

Of course someone could come out and give him that 5/65 just like the Tigers gave Prince 9/214 despite there being nothing indicating their interest and nothing close saying it'd take that much to sign him.

Would I sign Jackson for 5/65? No. That's too much. Would I sign him for 4/48? Probably. Again, we're talking about a guy who has put up a WAR of 3.6, 3.8 and 3.8 the last three years. If you believe Fangraphs Dollars calculations, Jackson has been worth 15-17M each of the past 3 years. Mark Buehrle, 4 years older than Jackson, has put up WAR totals less than Jackson the past 3 years and yet he's getting 14.5M a year.

4/$48M is what I think someone like Boston will end up needing to give him. So to get him to Baltimore over Boston, you're starting to look at something like 5/$65M.

You'd definitely have to give him at least that 4/$48M, because otherwise he'd certainly take a 3/$33-36M deal from a contender, which is a deal I would consider reasonable for him.

I just don't see the benefit of a 4- or 5-year deal for a pitcher. The slim chance that he is still healthy and pitching well in years 3, 4 and 5 of the deal isn't nearly worth the benefit of having him on this team for years 1, 2, and 3 of the deal. If we were already a contender and had a need for another starter, then the up front benefit is worth the long term risk. But I don't wanna risk tying up $11-13M in him for 2015-2017 when maybe we actually can contend. Pitchers like him will be available down the road if we are in a position to add them, but if we add him and then he flops in a couple years like 90% of FA starters do, then we may not have enough money leftover to add the 2016 version of Edwin Jackson.

It's the same old argument, really. The Orioles aren't good enough to be at a point where it's worth it to take the risk on him. Because best case, is we then win a few more games next year and maybe, just maybe, can get to about 74 wins. That upside isn't worth the negative affects his contract would likely have on the team down the road when - if we are lucky - we actually do have a shot at competing.

The closer we get to the season, the more and more I'm moving into a full blow-it-up and rebuild mindset.

[jsh]

The thing is, no one is giving Jackson a multi-year deal. Boston only wants someone on a one year deal. NYY doesn't need him. Work your way down the list and most teams have already filled their rotation needs. Philly is full, Miami is done spending, NYM are broke, Nationals already got Gio. Cincy got Latos, STL is better off spending that money on hitting, Milwaukee can't afford him, LAA is already full, etc.

This simply is a rare opportunity where a good pitcher is undervalued by the market. The Orioles should take full advantage of this. I'm pretty confident 3/36 or 4/40 will get this done.

[Mackus]

I'd go 3 years, at $10-12M or so. But I wouldn't go any longer. I wouldn't expect him to be pitching well in the third year. Hope for it, but wouldn't expect it. And the odds go down as the years advance to 4 and 5 or whatever.

I'd still be really surprised if he signs anywhere, especially Baltimore, for something as small as 3/$33M. I still think he'll get 4 years from a contender. It's just Boras' MO. Fielder went from having nobody willing to go more than 5 years to getting 9 years and more annually than anyone was projecting. Someone is gonna decide they need some pitching for next season, and go ahead and sign him to a big deal.

[David Robinette]

Well, this thread began over a month ago with this from Chris Stoner: "Dan Connolly's latest includes his commentary that he believes the O's could be in on Edwin Jackson, and that there is sentiment within the organization that 4 years for Jackson is not much of a risk."

The Sun's Dan Connolly wrote the same story again a few days ago, in the January 26 edition: "Orioles may find fit with players represented by agent Scott Boras".If you want to read it again click here.

[Luke Jackson]

If the price to sign Jackson is like 3/35...boy, I'd be tempted. I think E-Jax gets a bad rap. The last season he had a bad walk rate was 2008, but first impressions die hard. If Gio Gonzalez puts up average walk rates for the next 2-3 years, he'll still be known as Dude Who Walks A Lot of Guys But Gets Away With It. Jackson's last three years have been very good -- however, his command (different from control) still gives me pause for an AL East team. Jackson has big velocity but likes to pitch up in the zone, so I do wonder how that would work out in a park like Camden or Fenway. Then there's the argument that, even if Jackson were to sign here for 3/35ish (still think Boras finds a better deal and situation elsewhere), that Jackson isn't good enough to justify that kind of cash for a rebuilding team inasmuch that he's just not going to change the long-term outlook of the club.

I'm sure one of the goals for Dan and Buck this offseason was to make the pitching staff not so scary, and Jackson would definitely help in that regard. Still, big picture...I don't know. If you're talking $11M-14M a year...the payroll is all the sudden in the $94-95M range for a team that, with Jackson, wouldn't be any better than 74ish win team barring any serious breakouts from Wieters, Jones, Britton or Matusz. I'm not even convinced the Orioles are one of the teams that has a multi-year offer on the table for him because I don't know if the Orioles want to go above last year's payroll of $87M.

My guess is that Jackson signs with another team for slightly more money than we'd expect and that'll be that.

[Luke Jackson]

Read this piece by Dave Cameron on Edwin Jackson and you'll be talking yourself into signing E-Jax: http://www.fangraphs... ... n-jackson/

[SportsGuy]

Jackson would essentially be what Guthrie has been for us. A durable pitcher that goes 200ish innings, gives you a 3.7-4.3 ERA and wins 7-12 games.

Jackson is the better pitcher but since Guthrie continues to outpitch his peripherals, their "actual numbers" will end up about the same.