Baseball Musings: Jenkins Extension

March 03, 2004

Jenkins Extension

Joe Duellman writes:

Are you planning on commenting on the extension Geoff Jenkins signed with the Brewers today? There seem to be no shortage of Brewer jabs in the media today, but this seems to be good news in my mind. Management shows a committment to one of its best players and signs him to a pretty reasonable deal. It's interesting that he will actually earn less money in each of the three years in this extension than he does this year (8.55 million I think in 2004). He's had problems with injuries his whole career, but they always seem to be strange accidents. He broke a finger crashing into a catcher, dislocated his ankle trying to get back to third on a play, etc. When he avoids such mishaps, this guy can really hit. He's also one of the best defensive left fielders out there, although I'm not sure if you're probalistic model of range would agree. I'll have to look through your archives and check it out.

Anyways, it would be nice to see you say something nice about it - that is if you think there is something nice to say about it...

Chuck Carlson of the Oshkosh Northwestern thinks it's a good move. Looking at Jenkins' career stats, he's good but not great. And what he got was a good, but not great contract. If he plays well and doesn't get injured, it's a good deal for the Brewers. If he's injured all the time, it really isn't that much money to eat. What intrigues me is, however, is that the contract is low enough that if Jenkins plays really well, he becomes extremely tradable. So if Jenkins' numbers are similar to 2003 in July, and the Brewers are out of the race, look for the contenders to offer Milwaukee a slew of prospects for Geoff.

Posted by David Pinto at 08:51 AM | Players | TrackBack (0)

Comments

$8.5M is a good contract if he can stay healthy. If he only plays the 100 games per season that he's been averaging over the past 3 seasons (and never played more than 135 games in a season), then it's way too much. I agree that he's a good but not great player. But I'd rather have Reggie Sanders for $2M (the way he's played the past 3 seasons - averaging 130+ games/season over the past 3 years) than Geoff Jenkins and his $8.5M and 100 games/season.

Posted by: sabernar at March 3, 2004 09:22 AM

I tend to disagree with the notion of this being a good signing. Jenkins is a 29 year old left fielder with a career 865 OPS (349 OBP/516 SLG). Not sure how Mil plays as a hitters park, but Bill James notes that players generally peak 25-29 years of age. Jenkins should thus be heading into a gradual decline. Do you want to pay 8 mil for a 31 year old corner outfielder now posting, say, an 820 OPS?

Posted by: Charlie at March 3, 2004 11:04 AM

Milwaukee has alternated between a pitchers park and a hitters park the past several years. Here are the park factors - 2001: 101, 2002: 96, 2003:102

So it doesn't look like Jenkins' park affected his numbers all that much. I totally agree with Charlie above, but my main concern is paying him all that money and he's never healthy! Why not trade him and keep Sexson, who is a better player and has been much healthier. I know they were able to get more for Sexson than Jenkins, but then you'd have a better player on your team in Sexson.

I continue to be amazed by the mismanagement of the Brewers. I really feel sorry for their fans.

Posted by: sabernar at March 3, 2004 11:33 AM

It's rather simple why they kept Jenkins and let Sexson go. Sexson didn't want to stay!! Jenkins, however, did.

Posted by: Joe at March 3, 2004 01:57 PM

I guess the big question (or at least another question) is: how much do you think Jenkins would get on the free agent market? We all know the market is slumping for players. Does anyone REALLY think that Jenkins would get a 3 year deal worth $8.5/year? I find that very hard to believe. I think the Brewers overvalue him because he's the teams only decent player, but I think that's all he really is - a decent player. Definately not worth that kind of money. I'll take Mondesi at $1.75M or Sanders at $2M or Jose Cruz for whatever he ended up getting. Yeah, these guys are a bit older, but look how much money you'd save, and you're only getting a very marginally worse player by saving $6M+.

Posted by: sabernar at March 3, 2004 02:21 PM

UZR, as I manipulate it, thinks that Geoff Jenkins is one of the best fielders in the league.

Posted by: tangotiger at March 3, 2004 02:33 PM

Jenkins' Rate2 stats for the past 3 years have been 108,110,100 - pretty darn good. Reggie Sanders' have been 105,107,103 - not quite as good, but pretty darn close, and more consistent, too. I'll still take Sanders at $2M this season compared to $8.5M for Jenkins.

(Mondesi's Rate2 were 108, 90/101, 93/101 - he split his teams in 2002 & 2003, hence the split Rate2 above.)

Posted by: sabernar at March 3, 2004 03:04 PM

I wrote a little more in my blog this afternoon.

Posted by: sabernar at March 3, 2004 03:36 PM

The Crew also has Prince Fielder in the minors to play 1B. Paying Richie $10 mil per when you have the best 1B prospect in the minors has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever seen in print. Talk about knowing a fraction of the facts.

Posted by: Al at March 7, 2004 11:41 AM