The Dodgers re-upped with Ted Lilly, signing him to a three year deal. This news is a little bit bittersweet for me. Will Ted Lilly be good next year (definition of good being 25+ starts, about 4.00 ERA)? Yeah, probably.
But this deal immediately makes me thing of the Casey Blake deal: three years for a guy in his mid-30s who is beginning to show signs of decline. Sure, we got a decent offensive year out of Blake in 2009 (122 OPS+), but by the second year in the deal (2010, 99 OPS+), we were already starting to regret it. The third year (if Mattingly is smart) will have us paying Casey Blake $5.25 million to be a platoon(/bench?) player.
Which brings me back to Lilly. Obviously, there's no guarantee that Lilly will take the Casey Blake route of decline but it wouldn't shock me. Weird, but trends seem to show that players get worse, not better as they age.
I'm won't be surprised if we're regretting this deal by half-way through the second year.
We also don't know the monetary details of the contract yet. Ted Lilly was going to be one of the top pitchers on the free agent market this offseason. I'm worried about what the Dodgers offered him to not go into said market.
If it's too expensive, we might be looking at a guy who (in an ideal baseball world) is a 4th starter as our big free agent signing this offseason.
Still, our entire starting rotation at this point was comprised of Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley, so being able to pencil in Ted Lilly for somewhere around 30 starts and 180-200 innings of about 4.00 ERA pitching is still a plus.
Just as long as you remember that pluses come in many sizes.
UPDATE: Lilly gets 3 years and $33 million. It's a lot, or, at least, more than I'd hoped. There's a couple ways to look at this. I'm sure on the open market, Lilly gets more than that (though I'm not sure too much more, I'm thinking maybe $12 million) so the Dodgers, in a way, got Lilly for cheap.
On the other hand, flash forward to a couple years from now, when Ted Lilly is still getting paid $11 million and possibly not producing as much. Suddenly, things aren't looking so cheap anymore.
Anyway, point is, next year we'll have Lilly in our rotation and be paying him $11 million. It's more than I hoped, but still better than I expected.
... so it's a plus.
Again, size of said plus to be determined.
