Melky Cabrera must not think he’s a .340 hitter

31 Comments

Melky Cabrera signed a two-year, $16 million contract with the Blue Jays, which seems pretty good given that he hasn’t played since getting slapped with a 50-game PED suspension and then got kicked to the curb by the Giants when he was eligible to return in the postseason.

Still, it’s a two-year deal at a fraction of what he figured to get previously. Even if he slumped some during the final month and a half and into the postseason, he was likely looking at something in the neighborhood of $50 million for four years as a free agent this winter. A strong finish could have netted him $70 million for five years.

So why lock into that extra year? Cabrera was no second-year guy needing financial security in the form of a long-term deal; he’s already earned about $11 million in his career. He could afford to gamble if he were confident in his ability to bounce back and put together a strong 2013 season. We may never know whether the Jays would have signed him to a one-year, $8 million deal if that’s what he preferred — they may have wanted that extra upside the second year provides — but it’s hard to imagine they or someone else wouldn’t have given him at least $6 million for 2013 alone.

It suggests to me that Cabrera doesn’t see himself coming back and having another season like his 2012. Because if he did, he would have taken the one-year deal and then chased the big payday.

Maybe I’m wrong. And I don’t want this to read as a condemnation of Cabrera. But it’s intriguing to me. I think of most athletes as supremely confident in their abilities on the field (or the court, track, rink, etc.). And while Melky took his game to a whole new level in 2012, he was also something much more than an $8 million player with the Royals in 2011. If he isn’t confident he can get back to that — if he doesn’t think of himself as being worth $15 million per year or what have you — then I’m not all that sure I’d want to sign him at any price.

Zack Cozart thinks the way the Rays have been using Sergio Romo is bad for baseball

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
11 Comments

The Rays started Sergio Romo on back-to-back days and if that sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Romo, of course, was the star closer for the Giants for a while, helping them win the World Series in 2012 and ’14. He’s been a full-time reliever dating back to 2006, when he was at Single-A.

In an effort to prevent lefty Ryan Yarbrough from facing the righty-heavy top of the Angels’ lineup (Zack Cozart, Mike Trout, Justin Upton), Romo started Saturday’s game, pitching the first inning before giving way to Yarbrough in the second. Romo struck out the side, in fact. The Rays went on to win 5-3.

The Rays did it again on Sunday afternoon, starting Romo. This time, he got four outs before giving way to Matt Andriese. Romo walked two without giving up a hit while striking out three. The Angels managed to win 5-2 however.

Despite Sunday’s win, Cozart wasn’t a happy camper with the way the Rays used Romo. Via Fabian Ardaya of The Athletic, Cozart said, “It was weird … It’s bad for baseball, in my opinion … It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.”

It’s difficult to see merit in Cozart’s argument. It’s not like the Rays were making excessive amounts of pitching changes; they used five on Saturday and four on Sunday. The games lasted three hours and three hours, 15 minutes, respectively. The average game time is exactly three hours so far this season. I’m having trouble wondering how else Cozart might mean the strategy is bad for baseball.

It seems like the real issue is that Cozart is afraid of the sport changing around him. The Rays, like most small market teams, have to find their edges in slight ways. The Rays aren’t doing this blindly; the strategy makes sense based on their opponents’ starting lineup. The idea of valuing on-base percentage was scoffed at. Shifting was scoffed at and now every team employs them to some degree. Who knows if starting a reliever for the first three or four outs will become a trend, but it’s shortsighted to write it off at first glance.