Graves signs for three years - Page 3 - RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion

cincinnati chili · 01-18-2003, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CougarQuest
I was very surprised that it was $5M for the first year.

As you can see here, his "arbitration value" is close to six million for 2003 (you can thank the contract to Billy Wagner and others for that). So there would have been no reason for Graves to agree to a LTC, unless the average was close to 6 mil/year.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/ne..._mlb&fext=.jsp

Appalachian Red · 01-18-2003, 09:21 AM

Great move to sign Danny to a LTC. Graves' stuff will be more effective as a starter than a reliever (3 pitches/ varied speed/ no overpowering fastball). I'm expecting a big year from him as a legitimate #1 or #2 starter.

RANDY IN INDY · 01-18-2003, 09:22 AM

I like the signing. In view of the market, I think it was a fair deal. I think Graves will be a good starter, and I think he is a good guy to boot. (I met him in Florida a couple of years ago, and he comes across as a regular guy) It also is a good sign about the organization to guys like Dunn and Kearns. I'm very hopeful about this season. If the guys stay healthy, I think they are going to be very competitive and might surprise. Again, a good signing, and a very positive one for the ballclub.

Falls City Beer · 01-18-2003, 10:20 AM

You can't have it both ways: you can't say, "we'll never compete because we don't dedicate ourselves to pitching" and then turn around and complain that this deal wasn't perfect. Unless your payroll exceeds 100 million, perfect deals don't fall into your lap; you make them happen. High risk; high reward.

Would you rather stick with low risk, low reward?

The optimal thing would be to produce a Roy Oswalt from your farm every year. The signing of a guy with the talent of Graves to a LTC is, IMO, the second most optimal thing.

whatafool · 01-18-2003, 10:32 AM

good move...still doesn't improves the team. But a good move nonetheless.

guernsey · 01-21-2003, 07:37 AM

More details on Danny's contract from Tony Jackson.

Quote:

Graves deal includes limited no-trade clause
By Tony Jackson
Post staff reporter

The Reds called a news conference Monday to announce the signing of Danny Graves, an announcement that considering it had been made Friday without a news conference was about as fresh as whatever is under that mysterious foil wrapper in your refrigerator.
While not part of the announcement, some details of the contract have surfaced beyond the widely reported salaries of $5 million in 2003, $6 million in 2004 and $6.25 million in 2005. The deal contains a limited no-trade clause in which Graves can "blacklist" up to four teams to which he doesn't want to be traded. If he is traded, an escalator clause would add $500,000 to his salary that year and any subsequent years remaining on the contract.

Another escalator clause based on innings pitched would apply anywhere from $100,000 to $400,000, in $100,000 increments, to the buyout of the contract's mutual option for 2006. Graves was in his final winter of arbitration eligibility and could have become a free agent after the 2003 season if he hadn't signed the three-year, $17.25 million deal.

In fact, he had no interest in becoming anything of the kind, which clearly had something to do with the fact this winter's free-agent market is the softest in years.

"There were so many factors that went into our thought process, and that would be one of them," said Alan Nero, one of Graves' agents. "There was also the idea that he is becoming a starting pitcher, and there is some risk involved in that as well. It just got to the point where this made so much sense for everyone. Danny has been very clear from the get-go that he wants to stay in Cincinnati. When your client has those feelings, you ought to get something done."

Graves is a virtual lock for the rotation, where he will join Paul Wilson, Jimmy Haynes, Ryan Dempster and whoever emerges from a spring training free-for-all for the fifth spot.

REDREAD · 01-21-2003, 09:46 AM

Wow.. I guess I was wrong about Graves wanting to leave.

Great move by the Reds. Although I have to agree with gm.. let's hope this means that Graves hangs around awhile.

Good move by the Reds.

SirFelixCat · 05-20-2003, 09:06 PM

Thought I'd bring this gem up to the front again...he's starting to make that signing REAL good

remdog · 05-20-2003, 09:41 PM

Personally, I like this move....for most of the reasons stated above.

Rem

buckeyenut · 05-21-2003, 08:33 AM

This move took a lot of guts. Not sure I would have done it if I was them. But Graves is showing signs of making it look like pure genius.

He could be a real bargain by the end of this deal.

SirFelixCat · 05-21-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by buckeyenut
This move took a lot of guts. Not sure I would have done it if I was them. But Graves is showing signs of making it look like pure genius.

He could be a real bargain by the end of this deal.

He sure is making a ton of believers nowadays.

Danny!

paulrichjr · 11-06-2003, 02:58 PM

I have read so many negative things about the Reds payroll (some posted by me) lately that I thought I would look back at this post and refresh some people's minds about what many of us wrote. Man it sure is surprising to see what bad GMs we all are. Nearly all of the posts are positive about this signing while today you can't find one this is positive. He can still go into the bullpen and be a fairly inexpensive closer compared to many of them out there.... No I don't like the signing now either. Sure is funny what a difference a year makes.

GoReds · 11-06-2003, 03:04 PM

I STILL think that Graves has the stuff to be an effective starter. Problem is, I don't think Danny believes it. His half-hearted attempt at developing a windup is evidence. Reminds me of the kid in Bad News Bears II (okay, yeah, I saw it) who couldn't figure out who he wanted to emulate.

Chip R · 11-06-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paulrichjr
ISure is funny what a difference a year makes.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Look how many folks who liked the Jr. trade want him out of town now. And all the folks who pleaded and begged Lindner not to trade Larkin were so pissed he was making that kind of money and hardly ever playing.

Red Leader · 11-06-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Red Leader
Here's the breakdown on Graves' contract.

Reds signed RHP Danny Graves to a three-year, $17.25 million contract with a mutual option for 2006.
That's a lot of money to give to someone who might be nothing more than an average starter. The contract includes base salaries of $5 million, $6 million and $6.25 million for each of the three years, with escalators that will increase his pay if he is a full-time starter. He also got a limited no-trade clause, and his salary will increase if he is traded during the contract.

I still stick with what I said back then, "That's a lot of money to give to someone who might be nothing more than an average starter."

01-18-2003, 09:21 AM	#32
Appalachian Red Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 166	Graves Great move to sign Danny to a LTC. Graves' stuff will be more effective as a starter than a reliever (3 pitches/ varied speed/ no overpowering fastball). I'm expecting a big year from him as a legitimate #1 or #2 starter.

01-18-2003, 10:32 AM	#35
whatafool Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,641	good move...still doesn't improves the team. But a good move nonetheless. __________________ It was strange...I looked to my left and I saw Dick Wagner...I looked to my right and I saw John Allen....Then all of a sudden, I was unable to distingush them from each other.

05-20-2003, 09:06 PM	#38
SirFelixCat Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,671	Thought I'd bring this gem up to the front again...he's starting to make that signing REAL good __________________ Resident Poker Pro

11-06-2003, 02:58 PM	#42
paulrichjr Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Savannah, TN Posts: 2,773	I have read so many negative things about the Reds payroll (some posted by me) lately that I thought I would look back at this post and refresh some people's minds about what many of us wrote. Man it sure is surprising to see what bad GMs we all are. Nearly all of the posts are positive about this signing while today you can't find one this is positive. He can still go into the bullpen and be a fairly inexpensive closer compared to many of them out there.... No I don't like the signing now either. Sure is funny what a difference a year makes. __________________ Tim McCarver: Baseball Quotes I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter, that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-18-2003, 09:22 AM	#33
RANDY IN INDY Matt's Dad Join Date: May 2000 Location: Brownsburg, Indiana Posts: 14,498	I like the signing. In view of the market, I think it was a fair deal. I think Graves will be a good starter, and I think he is a good guy to boot. (I met him in Florida a couple of years ago, and he comes across as a regular guy) It also is a good sign about the organization to guys like Dunn and Kearns. I'm very hopeful about this season. If the guys stay healthy, I think they are going to be very competitive and might surprise. Again, a good signing, and a very positive one for the ballclub.

01-18-2003, 10:20 AM	#34
Falls City Beer Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 24,098	You can't have it both ways: you can't say, "we'll never compete because we don't dedicate ourselves to pitching" and then turn around and complain that this deal wasn't perfect. Unless your payroll exceeds 100 million, perfect deals don't fall into your lap; you make them happen. High risk; high reward. Would you rather stick with low risk, low reward? The optimal thing would be to produce a Roy Oswalt from your farm every year. The signing of a guy with the talent of Graves to a LTC is, IMO, the second most optimal thing.

01-21-2003, 09:46 AM	#37
REDREAD Where's my chair? Join Date: Apr 2000 Posts: 19,781	Wow.. I guess I was wrong about Graves wanting to leave. Great move by the Reds. Although I have to agree with gm.. let's hope this means that Graves hangs around awhile. Good move by the Reds.

05-20-2003, 09:41 PM	#39
remdog Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Newport Beach, CA Posts: 7,941	Personally, I like this move....for most of the reasons stated above. Rem

05-21-2003, 08:33 AM	#40
buckeyenut Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 3,721	This move took a lot of guts. Not sure I would have done it if I was them. But Graves is showing signs of making it look like pure genius. He could be a real bargain by the end of this deal.

11-06-2003, 03:04 PM	#43
GoReds Cruisin' for trouble Join Date: May 2000 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 3,287	I STILL think that Graves has the stuff to be an effective starter. Problem is, I don't think Danny believes it. His half-hearted attempt at developing a windup is evidence. Reminds me of the kid in Bad News Bears II (okay, yeah, I saw it) who couldn't figure out who he wanted to emulate.