Is Renteria Really That Bad?

Jayson Stark had a interesting piece summarizing some offseason story lines by polling 15 baseball sages, as he calls them. One thing struck me about the Worst Free Agent Signings segment though:

1. Edgar Renteria, Giants (2 years, $18.5 million)
2. Kyle Farnsworth, Royals (2 years, $9.5 million)
3. Adam Dunn, Nationals (2 years, $20 million)

There was nothing -- nothing -- in this poll that our panelists agreed on more thunderously than how out of line they thought the Renteria deal was with the rest of the market. One NL exec got so worked up, he even voted for this deal twice. Why? Here's just a sampling of the vociferous opinions: "The only thing more in decline than his three-year drop in homers and RBIs is his range." … "Probably should have gotten a third of that money." … And this succinct review: "That guy's done."

The fact that Renteria is on this list doesn't necessarily surprise me, but the comments do. Is he really this bad as they say? Fangraphs valued him at $6.5m last year, $17.4m in 2007, and $13.5m in 2006. So 2 years $18.5m doesn't seem hard to achieve now does it? Just a slight improvement and $9m a year looks like a more than reasonable amount.

Well his range must be terrible, so let's look at his defense: In 2007 his UZR/150 was -4.4, last year it was -0.8. So although his range isn't great, slightly below average, the fact he was better this year than last year must mean his range can't be dropping that dramatically like they say, right?

Renteria has always been better in the NL, he was bad on the Red Sox in 2005 and had solid years on the Braves in 2006 and 2007 in the NL. Renteria has a career BABIP of .323 and last year his was .294. So if Renteria stays the same defensively, has his BABIP go back to his career normal, and goes to the league where he feels more comfortable it seems as though it will be really easy for Renteria to exceed his contract. Renteria is not a great player, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest he'll bounce back a little next year. The Giants signed Renteria where even if he doesn't improve (even though he should) they still won't get ripped off, he won't affect their long term plans, and he improves the team this year for a shot to win in a bad division.

This same poll, the one that had everyone in agreement that Renteria was the worst signing, ranked the Giants offseason as the third most successful in the National League. Jeremy Affeldt, Bob Howry, and Randy Johnson were all good signgings, but according to these baseball guys that were polled how can 2 relievers and a 45 year old starter be enough to counteract the worst free agent signing in the league (Renteria) in order to be considered a great offseason? That just doesn't make sense. If the Renteria signing was sooooo bad, wouldn't it mean the Giants have had a bad offseason, not the opposite?

The point is that the Giants actually have had a great offseason, not in spite of the Renteria signing, but because of it. He's another low risk, medium size reward (like the pitchers they have signed) that has allowed the Giants to have a chance to be successful this year while simultaneously building for the future. Sabean has not proven to be a great GM recently by allowing his team to completely rely on Bonds and get to this point, but you have to give him credit now for turning it around even if it's a little late. The other point is that you shouldn't put too much stock into these polls. They are interesting and fun but are virtually meaningless and they often contradict themselves like they did here.