How Agent Gustavo Vazquez screwed Salvador Perez and why Giants brass tabled Sandoval talks

Close your eyes and imagine this for a moment. It's 2008 and Katy Perry's magical song about kissing girls is brand new. An intriguing 21 year old 3B/C named Pablo Sandoval has come out of nowhere to hit .345 in only 41 games. No one quite knows how good he can be, or that one day he'll be an All-Star or a World Series MVP. No one knows about the Panda-monium.

Perez may be smiling now, but he won't be
later when he realizes how much money
he'll be missing out on in the future.

Now, I want you to substitute Kansas City Royals catcher Salvador Perez for your vision of Sandoval. You can't picture Perez? Well, that's a shame, because he's one of the best young talents in the game that you probably haven't seen play-- unless you watched him catch Mariano Rivera in the All-Star Game last year at Citi Field in New York.

Then, Salvador Perez was a 22 year-old All-Star; a guy who was once signed by a rickety old Royals scouting program in Venezuela for a measly $65k. Probably similar to what Sandoval got from the Giants.

Like Panda, Perez was called up for the first time as a 21 year old, and promptly hit over .300, showing excellent defense and instincts. Recalled the following year in June of 2012, "Salvy" as he's known, hit over .300 again with 11 HR and a .993 fielding percentage in only 76 games.

Take this quote from Royals Scout Art Stewart:

“He’s one of the best young catchers I’ve seen. You gotta go back to Pudge (Ivan Rodriguez) and guys like that. He’s got the ability to be an All-Star for many years. As long as he stays healthy.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/11/4230813/perez-has-been-quite-a-catch-for.html#storylink=cpy

Most teams would stand pat, and enjoy the fact that they had this young talent under team control through pre-arbitration and arbitration years-- usually 6, sometimes 7 years. The Royals, sick of losing games and losing their players to richer teams, decided to be aggressive and lock him up.

Indeed it is unusual for a team to offer a multi-year deal to a player still so deep under team control. There are examples of this, but the likes of Ryan Braun and Evan Longoria are just not good comparisons. Those two were blue-chippers who've been told they're great from age 10 and have behaved accordingly. They commanded big deals in comparison (but not compared to their production on the open market), and preferred to stay in their small market havens a couple years into free agency while being able to sign an open-market deal before they turn 30.

Perez's deal is different. It's completely irresponsible.

While researching this, I came upon McCovey Chronicles' fearless leader Grant Brisbee's take on the contract via SB Nation's "Baseball Nation".

It fascinated him, he couldn't stop thinking about it. It was just plain interesting. A young, rather unproven guy still under control for years signing a seemingly creative contract that was almost a no-risk deal for KC. On the other hand, it was some guaranteed money for Perez if he couldn't hack it. A win-win it seemed.

Now it's just a win for the Royals; the type of thing Royals GM Dayton Moore thinks of when he has a bad day to cheer him up. Kansas City made out like bandits, they knew it, and Pablo Sandoval's agent Gustavo Vazquez is to blame.

Until very recently, as I detailed here, Vazquez was a member of Morgan Advisory Group (MAG), and held the title of Senior Baseball Director. He was charismatic, and was an excellent recruiter. MAG's stable of players was primarily Latin American, and mostly Venezuelan (including of course Sandoval and Perez). The players felt comfortable dealing with "one of their own", and became good friends with their representation.

Gustavo Vazquez

That's where Gustavo Vazquez's skills as an agent end.

For all his skills wooing potential clients, Vazquez lacked the shrewdness and knowledge necessary to structure contracts, and there is no better example than the Salvador Perez deal.

According to a source (and yes, a legitimate source that I'm not making up, because I take this seriously), Vazquez took liberties with the Perez-KC negotiations that culminated in Perez signing "one of the most irresponsible, team-friendly contracts in the last 20 years".

The reason it was so fascinating at the time is because it didn't make sense. What player would sign away most of his promising career for $23MM at most??

The answer? A player who became too buddy-buddy with his agent, who in turn did not follow directions from his agency.

Let me ask you this. Would Scott Boras tell Salvy Perez to sign that deal? Absolutely not. Scott Boras would laugh in the Dayton Moore's face and book a tee time on his iPhone immediately. That's how ludicrous this deal was.

According to the source, Vazquez was told not to include any free agency years or any club options in the Perez deal-- a standard thing. Of course Vazquez made sure the contract included all of that stuff and more. Name one young player that gave up free agency years in a contract extension that isn't making significant money. Think Posey, Longoria, Braun.

It simply doesn't happen-- and that's why this deal was so egregiously irresponsible.

From Cot's Contracts:

Salvador Perez c
5 years/$7M (2012-16), plus 2017-19 options

• 5 years/$7M (2012-16), plus 2017-19 club options
• signed extension with Kansas City 2/27/12
• 12:$0.75M, 13:$1M, 14:$1.5M, 15:$1.75M, 16:$2M, 17:$3.75M club option,18:$5M club option, 19:$6M club option
• award bonuses, including $50,000 for All-Star selection
• 2017-19 salaries may increase by additional $5M overall based on performance and awards in 2012-16 (earns bonuses by reaching 4 points, with 1 point each for All-Star selection, Gold Glove, Silver Slugger, top 15 in MVP vote)
• 1 year (2011)
• contract purchased by Kansas City 8/10/11
• signed by Kansas City 2006 as an amateur free agent from Venezuela

Honestly, when I first saw this, knowing how valuable Perez is, I did a triple take. Huh? 5 years, $7MM? That's barely a raise over what he'd make already-- the minimum. Then, you look at all his arbitration years ('15-'17), completely swallowed up-- years where knowing what we know now, he'd certainly eclipse those totals. On top of it, the Royals either get an out in the form of THREE club options, or can retain Perez through his 29th birthday at the rate of a backup catcher. The incentive system is childlike, absurd, and who knows if any of that will vest. I mean... a point system? My 5th grade teacher had a point system for when we got out of line. 3 points and we got sent out of the classroom.

Again, why would Perez sign this deal?

You're talking about a poor kid from Venezuela who had his mom pitch him corn kernels while he hit them with a broomstick. He was a 22 year old from from South America in the middle of Kansas City, Missouri. Most Americans at that age are naive fools as well. I don't blame him necessarily. I also don't blame the Royals. There's a reason there are agents and lawyers and a Players Union-- to protect players from being taken advantage of.

It was pure negligence on Vazquez's part-- a guy who simply signed whatever KC put in front of him and effectively signed away his client's best years for peanuts. If Perez were to become just a third of the player Buster Posey is, he'd be making $48MM over that 8 year period-- very similar to the initial 6 year deal signed by Longoria.

This contract was also an embarrassment to Morgan Advisory Group, who trusted their supposed "Senior Baseball Director" to follow directions that came from the top-- presumably, but not confirmed, Ryan Morgan himself.

And if you look at the timeline of the Perez contract, more interesting facts come to light.

The deal was made official on 2/27//12. On the surface, you'd think this is irrelevant. However, a closer look at what this date corresponded with is telling.

MAG represents a good deal of NFL players and rookies trying to get drafted. It is now the biggest part of their business after Gustavo Vazquez and Michel Velasquez stole their entire MLB Portfolio in a rogue move that I talked about yesterday.

And where do agents and players go before the NFL Draft? The NFL Combine in Indianapolis.

The Combine was held in Indy from 2/22/12 until 2/28/12, and presumably, most of MAG was either there or focusing on that while Vazquez was mortgaging away his client's future in Kansas City or at Spring Training in Arizona.

What does this have to do with the Giants?

Vazquez and his henchman Velasquez are now "representing" the maddeningly lovable Pablo Sandoval, who is set to hit the open market after this season. Brian Sabean is "at the end of his rope" and contract talks have been tabled. As I said yesterday, you cannot blame Sabean or Bobby Evans for suspending talks. You're dealing with two geniuses that are getting sued by their former employer for $5MM after stealing equipment, money, and MAG's entire MLB client list in a stupid scheme. It's like talking to a brick wall.

You're talking about a couple of guys operating on, essentially, stolen capital that is almost certainly beginning to run out. These guys want need to make a huge splash with their biggest client with their new agency. If for example, Pablo were to make the wise decision and go back to Morgan or even choose Scott Boras, who he was seen speaking to in LA, Vazquez's house of cards would collapse immediately.

These guys would likely sell their own mothers to improve their situations, and that's how they view Sandoval-- as their meal ticket.

Unless their 5 years, $90MM is met, they basically have nothing to say. No matter that comparing an injury prone 3B who has only achieved an OPS over .800 twice in 5 full seasons to a 5 tool OF that never misses a game is absurd. They want Pence money, and they want it now.

The comparison baseline doesn't even make sense.

If they want to compare him to someone and reach for the stars, why don't you start with David Wright or Evan Longoria, and work your way down to the closest comparison, Ryan Zimmerman of the Nats.

Zimmerman is almost assuredly overpaid, and has now developed an arthritic throwing shoulder in the first year of a 6yr./$100MM deal. It's a cautionary tale indeed. Now they're hoping  to move Zimm over to 1st or teach him how to throw sidearm.

So yes, the deal these clowns seek is valid when compared to Zimmerman's deal in some ways, but that is assuming that Pablo is Zimmerman's equal. He simply hasn't been. Zimmerman is a career .286 hitter with 180 career HR. Pablo has a slightly higher career average, but just doesn't have the track record.

The Nats made a mistake with that contract, and now it's the baseline for Sandoval. Isn't it great how this works?

As I've said, it's not the money factor that bugs me about this situation, or even Sandoval's on-field play. It's about two unprofessional shadesters unwilling to negotiate with an organization that is unquestionably the most loyal in baseball.

The Giants have locked up (for better or worse) every single player that has either helped them win, or is loved by fans. Aubrey Huff, Scutaro, Bumgarner, Posey, Lincecum, Vogelsong, Cain, Pence, etc., etc. They even gave Barry Zito more dignity and chances at redemption than Pope Francis would have.

They want to keep Sandoval in San Francisco, but if you're dealing with a couple of dopes that won't negotiate or be reasonable, then you face the near certainty that the player you're trying to re-sign will end up hitting the open market and a bidding war will ensue.

To be honest, that's how I see this shaking out. It has never been Vazquez's goal to get a deal done with the Giants. His goal is to have his client fought over and overpaid, and that's what we're looking at.

Whether or not you think any of this is relevant, I don't know, but it is an interesting story that directly affects the Giants, and I cannot for the life of me understand why this facet of the Sandoval negotiations has not been blown up yet. If these guys feel the heat on them, they may be more likely to cut bait with their hardball stance and sign whatever the Giants put in front of them, just like they did to Salvador Perez.

Sandoval contract talks cut off partly due to shady agents

Like you guys, I'm a bit giddy over the Giants' hot start. They're crushing the ball everywhere, and it's nice to know that it's Brandon Belt's world and that we're just living in it.

Other than some early concerns about our rotation, I'm most concerned by the Pablo Sandoval contract situation, and hope that this doesn't turn into a sour-tasting circus.

Gustavo Vazquez while still with Morgan Advisory Group.

Their website is down for construction as they lick their 

wounds and pick up the pieces.

As you know, he is in a contract year. He certainly knows it because he lost a bunch of weight, and has (mis?) placed his trust in his team of agents-- who themselves are about as shady as the absurd 5 year, $90MM contract demands they're making.

Sandoval is demanding Hunter Pence's contract as a STARTING point. Having the gall and huevos to even start there is reason for alarm-- and we're not even talking about Panda's on-field play and weight issues. Secondly, Pablo has chosen a couple of real winners to represent him, and they're out for a payday just as much as The Panda is.

Sandoval is represented by Gustavo Vazquez and Michel Velasquez, who are not exactly the type of people you work with "in good faith". Most agents are by nature, serpentine sleaze merchants and fly-by-night shadesters, but most manage to keep their back alley dealings out of the papers.

These two are not such agents.

From ESPN's Jerry Crasnick:

Gustavo Vasquez and partner Michel Velasquez are defendants in a civil action suit filed in South Florida District Court by Morgan Advisory Group of California. The suit seeks more than $5 million in damages for breach of contract and fiduciary duty and fraud, among several other allegations. 

The suit alleges that Vasquez illegally conspired to use his new company against the Morgan group by "diverting away clients, misappropriating funds, and interfering with and harming the present and future business relationships between MAG and its former and current clients." 

The suit also seeks damages for baseball equipment, computers and other items that the defendants failed to return.

"This lawsuit is not about retribution or payback," said Darren Heitner, the lawyer for the plaintiff. "It's about seeking just relief for damages that were caused to Morgan Advisory Group. Ryan Morgan believed in these guys and pumped money into their fraudulent scheme, and the result is that he's been left without a baseball division."

 Vasquez left Morgan Advisory Group last year to form SPS Sports Group and took Sandoval, Kansas City catcher Salvador Perez, Pittsburgh pitcher Jeanmar Gomez, Atlanta reliever Luis Avilan and numerous other players with him to his new agency. 

So, essentially, these two guys decided to go out for themselves, and began an elaborate clandestine exit strategy that involved poaching every baseball client Morgan represented, equipment, contacts,  and property. Most of all, the suit alleges that these two dynamite individuals were fraudulently siphoning money to themselves in order to get their "business" up and running.

That's called embezzlement, larceny, and being total jerks.

This is what the Giants are dealing with: an immature, inconsistent player represented by scumbags. No wonder Brian Sabean said he's "at the end of his rope". Can anyone blame him? He has to talk to these guys. They're about as reasonable as a mentally ill junkie ranting and raving on a corner in the Tenderloin.

It's not even Panda's play, or talent, or anything else baseball related that's aggravating about the situation. It's more about his poor choices over the length of his still young career. Sticking with these sleazards to negotiate the first big contract of his career is going to end badly; whether it is because these guys trick him into signing away too much of his money, or him ending up on some lousy team and eating his way out of the league. They are blatantly using Sandoval to make their first big splash with their new agency, and he's their meal ticket to fancy cars and Cuban cigars.

Of course it could turn out okay, but the combination of Sandoval and these guys just seems less than ideal.

According to the Houston Chronicle, MLB puts no commission limits on player agents, and on average, MLB agents make between 4-10% of a player's contract:

An agent’s commission varies, based on the sport he represents. Generally, a sports agent earns between 4 and 10 percent of an athlete’s playing contract, though some leagues place limits on what percentage an agent can charge in commission. For example, the National Football League states that an agent can't receive more than 3 percent of player salaries. The National Basketball Association places the limit at 3 percent too. Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League don't have any limits on agent commissions, however.

Whaddayou wanna bet that the Vaz/Velas Dream Team take the full 10% commission (or more) on this $90MM Sandoval is supposedly worth. Yeah. Pretty solid bet. Then they're going to take that $9MM, buy giant houses in Miami Beach and swindle other impressionable Latin American talents into giving up too big a chunk of their salaries.

Michel "Michael" Velasquez (left).

Not to say any of this behavior is new. These guys are certainly far from the first to operate like this-- Albert Pujols's agent Dan Lozano comes to mind, the man dubbed "The King of Sleaze Mountain" in a revealing Deadspin article.

It makes me begin to think that Scott Boras isn't so bad after all. At least we know what we're dealing with when it comes to him.

I do really apologize for pissing all over our hot start parade, but there's a fire smoldering underneath the surface, and I'm just trying to put it out a little bit before it starts burning out of control. I also want you all to prepare yourselves for the possibility that this is the last year you see Panda in a Giants uniform. In the end, it's all about the money and good business. But in Sandoval's agents' case-- just about the money. Good business be damned.

Slower than molasses in wintertime...

I thought I'd fire off a quick post here, just to make sure everyone's paying attention. You awake? Okay. Good.

If only we could all purchase a Sabean scanner-- you know, like a police scanner. Some little radio that would pick up all chatter and activity coming out of his office. Honestly, if we had kind of thing, no one would work again.

If we could hear what our oft-maligned GM was doing, we'd probably be just as bored as we are now. I imagine Sabean's day to break down into the following allotments: 3 hours worth of tire kicking, 3 hours worth of "checking up" on a situation (ie. praying to God that the player's price has come down within the last week), and the rest of the day consists of power lunches, cursing Scott Boras, pouring Stoli into Jamba Juice cups, and semi-silent prayer.

The lack of production doesn't necessarily mean that he's not doing anything, because we all know that to be false. What's happening, like last season, is that the big bats have entered smaller markets for their services than they had hoped two years ago. Despite the fact that Bay and Holliday are the far-and-away best players on the wire, there are only 4 teams interested in each of them due to monetary constraints. And since the Gyros are one of those four teams, you can basically draw it down to 3 teams each.

With that said, these two guys are going to set the market, and it's not going to be until January at the earliest. These guys, due to their agents' hubris, believe that a bidding war will somehow ensue and they will both end up with a contract somewhere between Carlos Lee money and Mark Teixeira money.

It is because of this delay, that the rest of the action is delayed. Even guys who shouldn't be affected by an outfield market will stand pat. For example, the Mariners want to keep Adrian Beltre at 3B. However, they also want Jason Bay. If they sign Beltre (who won't sign yet because his agent is Scott Boras), then they're out of Bay stakes. Then Bay has 3 teams to choose from (if you include the Giants)... meanwhile, Beltre is out there somewhere dismissing overtures from teams for good money, even though his market just shrank with the Bay signing (by whomever).

Then of course there is the arbitration issue. The Giants are the most affected team by arbitration in the league. The Blue Bastards have their arby issues too, but who the hell cares about their problems.

For Sabean, it's a guessing game. Depending on how much Lincecum/Wilson/Sanchez get, that's how much they really have to spend. As I wrote here a couple months ago, we shouldn't expect any miracles this offseason, and that once the arby hearings go through and those guys get their raises, we'll have a real figure of $10-16MM to spend this offseason.

So, if you take the conservative look at salary availability ($10-12MM), and look at the recent 2yr./$12MM offer to Mark DeRosa, you can see that there will probably be between $4-6MM left over if DeRosa signs.

The DeRosa offer is reasonable and can definitely be filed under the category of positive action. For that I'm glad.

The only problem is, we're competing directly against the Yankees who just stole Nick Johnson away from us like some rich jock steals a prom date.

If DeRosa falls through, I don't know where the Giants turn next. But Lord knows that overpaying Adrian Beltre is not the answer. And, as we know, even if they want to overpay him, it's not happening until mid-January... so find a comfortable seat and make sure to dress warmly, because the hot stove is not nearly hot enough yet.

The system is definitely effed up

For those of us out there confused about how, exactly baseball's revenue sharing/lack of salary cap system works, you are not alone. Until this article came out about 10 days ago from ESPN's Jayson Stark, it's really never been totally spread out in front of you.

As you know, (for better or worse), MLB has no salary cap. Teams like the Yankees can spend whatever they can, and that's just fine with Bud Selig. We all complain about it-- those of us that are fans of teams not located in the Eastern time zone or Orange County, CA-- but as Stark and Scott Boras point out, we need to look at these losers with the tiny payrolls.

Yes, Florida and Pittsburgh, we're looking right at you.

These teams make excuses to their fans about small markets, weak economies, small populations, etc.

The real truth of the matter is that the system is set up in a way that truly would benefit these teams if they wanted to succeed. They choose not to. These teams collect a fat check from the rich teams, lay around in a puddle of their own Triple A filth of a roster, and cry poor.

I encourage you to read this whole article on ESPN, but I'm gonna just have to copy and paste some of it here:

"Your team (Pirates/Marlins) collected more money this season -- before it ever sold one ticket -- than it spent on its entire major league payroll. In fact, it collected more than it spent on its major league payroll and its player-development system combined."

Stark goes onto explain:

• "Central fund (includes national TV, radio, Internet, licensing, merchandising, marketing, MLB International money): Each team, from the Marlins to the Yankees, gets the same central-fund payout. And that check comes to slightly over $30 million per team if you deduct the $10 million in pension and operations fees, or just over $40 million if you don't.

• Revenue sharing: Only income-challenged teams get a revenue-sharing check. But you should never forget that those checks are a lot larger than your average rebate check from Target. This sport shared $400 million in revenue this year -- more than the gross national product of Western Samoa. Now every club's payout is different. But the five neediest teams -- which we believe to be the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Blue Jays and Royals -- averaged somewhere in the vicinity of $35 million in revenue-sharing handouts per team. And that still left over $200 million -- more than $20 million a club -- for the rest of the "payees" to divvy up.

• Local TV/radio/cable: Good luck getting these exact figures. But we know that 29 of the 30 teams make at least $15 million a year in local broadcast money, and no team rakes in under $12 million. Obviously, some clubs collect much, much more than that.

Add $30 million, plus $35 million, plus $15 million, and what do you get? That would be $80 million. At least. Before these teams spin their turnstiles once."

And as we know, there are about 12 teams last year that spent right at, or less than $80MM: Kansas City, Oakland, San Diego, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Washington, Minnesota, Cincinnati, Arizona, Cleveland, and Baltimore. For those of you keeping track at home, that's 40% of the teams in baseball that are collecting checks for intentionally being non-competitive.

Each of those teams has its issues. With the A's, it's attendance and a horrific stadium. For the Rangers, it's their owner running out of money. For the Padres, it's an impending sale after an ugly divorce. The point of this whole thing is that there are huge checks being thrown these teams' way in order to make them competitive with the New Yorks and Bostons of the the world, and rather than seize that opportunity to bring a little joy into their fans' lives, they choose to cry poor and collect checks.

I was going to make an Obama socialist joke, but I decided against it. In fact, this socialist system in MLB under Selig is such a welfare state that it makes even the Scandinavians jealous.

As for the Giants, they officially had a payroll of about $94MM last year, good for 14th highest in the league-- ostensibly "middle of the road".

As the fans'/local media personalities' drumbeat to spend more money gets louder and louder, we must ask ourselves exactly why ownership cannot or will not spend more on free agents.

An "educated rumor" that I've heard (ie. second hand information from an unnamed someone by way of another unnamed someone in the organization) is that the Gyros lost close to $30MM this season. Now, to be fair, I didn't hear it directly from anyone in the organization, and I don't know if that number was before or after different revenue streams or lack thereof were factored in.

So regardless if that large number is real or not, I believe it.

The Giants get a significant amount of money from local TV and Radio deals. They have decent attendance and solid revenue streams from stadium concessions, etc.

The only possible way I see that they could've lost that kind of sum is from the following:

-- An annual mortgage payment on AT&T Park of $20MM+
-- Little or no revenue sharing check (not including money from the "Central Fund" that Stark described above

It's kind of like the Giants are too well off for a cut of Selig's welfare check, but not well off enough to be able to afford a $110MM payroll. Kind of like that family out there trying to get Financial Aid because they actually need it, but is told they make too much money, even though they have three college aged kids and live in Marin County.

At the same time, because the Giants have a legitimate revenue stream of our own (Stadium, tickets, concessions, TV/Radio), we're somehow at a disadvantage when compared to teams that don't.

Take the Reds as an example. They spent $72MM on their payroll in 2009. What do you want to believe that they were a prime candidate for a big revenue sharing check? Here's how they work out:

-- Central Fund: $30MM (40 minus 10 for pension, etc.)
-- Revenue Sharing: $25MM (Estimate)
-- TV/Radio deals: $15MM (Est.)

That equals $70MM. What was their payroll again? Oh yeah, $72MM.

So then, you factor in Cincy's 5 year old beauty of a ballpark with its 22,000 per game attendance, $8 Miller Lites, $20 parking, $35 Bronson Arroyo T-Shirt jerseys, subtract operating cost and minor league development, and I bet they doing no worse than breaking even.

With the Giants, they're stuck. We live in a big market. We don't get that extra $25MM from sharing like 'Natti gets. That $25MM right there is a mortgage payment, and nearly the exact amount of money they'd need to spend to land a precious bat like Holliday or Bay's and have enough left over to re-sign Juan Uribe.

I'll take a line from the movie Red Dragon:

"Now do you see?"

If I sound like a raving lunatic, please let me know, because I'm not sure anymore....

Thoughts on Johnny Damon

As the irrefutable mountain of evidence piles up against the Giants possibly signing Bay or Holliday, the Gyros and us fans must shift our attention to more possible situations. Unspectacular, yet helpful names have been mentioned recently-- Mark DeRosa, Yorvit Torrealba, Nick Johnson, and yes, Johnny Damon.

At 36 Damon isn't getting any younger, but has been a consistent, useful player over the past few years in New York. Even though he'd be nearly 40 at the end of a 3 year deal, he'd be the perfect bridge-gapper that we need until guys like Thomas Neal and Roger Kieschnick are ready to play.

Granted, his line is inflated because he played on an all-star team in the Bronx, full of silly talent up and down. But we can't overlook what he's done. In 2009, he put up sick numbers: 24 HR, 82 RBI, with an .854 OPS-- the 24 dongs tied a career high, and the OPS figure is the best of his life! In fact, it was so solid, that it was good for 48th in all of major league baseball-- ahead of guys like Matt Kemp, David Wright, Carlos Lee, Chipper Jones, Miguel Tejada, and Jermaine Dye to name 6.

Defense and durability are big considerations that definitely dull Damon's luster as a National League left fielder.

Damon averaged 144 games a year in four seasons with the Yankees. And, yes, some of those were as a DH, especially in '08. Of course, the DH is one of the many great advantages that the AL has over NL teams... an advantage that hurts the NL constantly. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if we could sign Vlad Guerrero to hit? Or if we could've kept Barry for another year? Sigh...

Damon can still cover ground decently, but he has a noodle arm... not quite Juan Pierre or Chad Pennington bad, but it's transforming itself from rigatoni to angel hair quite quickly. There's that, and the fact that Aaron Rowand can't really play center like we all expected he could. Those two manning our big yard scares me... but again, as I used with the Jason Bay argument, Giants fans just want some friggin offense, and we'll take our chances with some gappers to left center. This of course is why we have a disgusting pitching staff.

More importantly, Damon works counts, gets on base, still has above average speed, and is a beautiful complement to those already on the team-- ahem, all-- who refuse to take pitches and get on base for the Giants.

Damon has a career .355 on base percentage-- about a half point higher than the league worst Giants had this year of .309. In '09 Damon reached base nearly 37% of the time. Someone like him on the Giants would immediately fall between the realm of godsend and and all-seeing oracle for the free-swinging simpletons Bochy has had to trot out there.

The all important Fangraphs UZR/150 metric puts Damon in some of the worst outfielding company. In 2009, he sported a -12.1 rating while playing left (again, Manny Ramirez had a -15.4 rating and Franklin Gutierrez led the league with a +27.1 rating).

Damon's fielding .978 fielding percentage was only slightly better than Alfonso Soriano's, and he was lost in the middle of the pack with 6 OF assists last year.

What all these things tell me is that Damon is an average left fielder in decline. It doesn't appear to be rapid, but it's significant enough to think about it before throwing a bunch of money at him.

Ah yes, the money part-- the most important part.

The Gyros and Johnny have mutual interest, but this is not his first choice. His first choice is to stay in New York-- and according to Jon Heyman of SI, "...(Damon) is believed badly to want to stay." and he would be a better keeper than Matsui would be for the Champs.

And here's the kung pao kicker. Damon's agent is Scott Boras.

I can here you groaning over the Chris LeDoux song I'm listening to over here. I know. I'm groaning inside too.

Boras is the slime that we all love to hate; the guy who procured Barry Zito's contract out of thin air. We all hate the guy, but loooovvves us! Which is why Sabean can always expect his Blackberry Bold to ring, regardless of real mutual interest. This one time I hope that Sabean isn't in an AT&T deadzone.

Damon is looking for a four year deal, something the Yanks are (smartly) unwilling to do. What it will come down to in the end is a third year, either fully guaranteed or something that vests automatically with attainable goals (ie. 500 plate appearances/140 games.)

The acutal money is going to be around $11MM+ per. And before you begin groaning again, let's be realistic. He deserves it. He put up great numbers, and he doesn't deserve a big paycut from the $13MM a year he got from the Yankees. In fact, he has put up nearly identical numbers in his 2009 walk year that he did in '05 when he left Boston for the Evil Empire.

Again, with our three stud pitchers (Lincey, Sanchez, Weezy) due Mark Mangino-sized arbitration raises, it'll all be a little clearer in the near future.

What I dread is Sabean getting tricked by Boras again like he did with Zeets. Boras is really thanking Satan right now that the Giants have shown interest in his client. Now he'll play the leverage-lie-deceive-postulate-lie game to drive up Damon's price.

Bottom line, I take Johnny Damon at 3yrs./$36MM, I really do. Make him earn the 3rd year, then turn him loose. This guy getting on base in front of Pablo is exactly what we need.