Jason asked a very interesting question on another entry ("Lowering the Boom") and it spurred me to think a bit (always dangerous)... he asked:
"Why hasn't anybody signed Ricky Henderson yet? He'll play for the minimum, still puts up a solid OBP, can still swipe a base, and his defense is still more than passable. Surely, there are a bunch of teams that could use him to help fortify their bench or to use in a platoon situation. Even if it doesnt work out, its very low risk."
There would appear to be several interrelating factors.
Let's take a look at the Run King's last four years:
Rickey still has very useful skills. In those last three years, the league-wide average OBP is .331, so he's still well above average. And he's stolen 77 bases in 318 games and only been caught 26 times, a good ratio that should boost his OPS+ figures a couple of points (SBs aren't counted) to where he is really an average offensive performer or a little better (since OBP is undervalued in that metric, as it has slightly more offensive impact than SLG).
Why no interest? Like I said, several interrelated factors...
If Rickey can help you as a starter, you're very likely a bad team, bad enough that you should be starting someone who is 22, not someone who is 44.
If Rickey sits on the bench, he is usually very unhappy about it (or has been in the past).
If Rickey's unhappy, the media have traditionally made a very big deal out of it.
If the media are making a very big deal out of Rickey being unhappy, then any leadership benefits that Rickey might have are going to be of dubious value.
Rickey's inflexibility is a major problem. He can't (or won't) play first base. He certainly can't play any other infield position. He can't play right field because his throwing is poor and he's unused to it, and last year with Boston the Red Sox weren't happy with him in center on anything other than an emergency basis, his range there isn't good enough. So he's restricted to left field, where he is still a passable defender.
Left field is where there are a lot of good hitters without jobs. Almost every team has a bat or two they could squeeze into the lineup if the left field job were open. A lot of those players can play a bit of right field as well if they can throw some, or play some first base, which means they are more flexible than Rickey.
With more teams carrying 12 pitchers, roster flexibility is much more important than ever before.
Rickey is not well suited to the AL; he's a better fit in the NL, where as a leadoff man he hits after the pitcher (low average and slugging are less of a problem there) and where they pinch-hit more (Rickey is an effective pinch-hitter, but only when leading off an inning).
Rickey apparently won't go to AAA, where he would be extremely valuable both as a mentor and more importantly as the guy to call up when a regular outfielder goes down. So he has to stick all year or he's gone... again limiting your flexibility.
He is 44, and therefore less likely to match the numbers he's put up even recently.
Finally, he has spent much of the winter lobbyibng a team (the A's) who are poorly suited to him... the A's have about five leftfield candidates who can provide the approximate equivalent of what Rickey can (Singleton, Byrnes, Johnson, Long, Piatt).
I love Rickey Henderson, and it would be great to see him play another year, preferably in Montreal where he could actually help the team. I just don't think it's likely to happen. There are too many constraints on how you have to use him, and a 44-year old headache with a .320 slugging percentage just isn't worth it in the long run, legend or not. In the perfect situation, Rickey is a valuable MLB player who can give you 200-300 quality plate appearances. (11 pitchers, running team, National League, no fifth outfielder, has a fourth outfielder who can back up in center, needs veterans, no real leadoff hitter). Beyond that, he's a player who you can do without.
"Why hasn't anybody signed Ricky Henderson yet? He'll play for the minimum, still puts up a solid OBP, can still swipe a base, and his defense is still more than passable. Surely, there are a bunch of teams that could use him to help fortify their bench or to use in a platoon situation. Even if it doesnt work out, its very low risk."
There would appear to be several interrelating factors.
Let's take a look at the Run King's last four years:
YR G AB H 2B 3B HR SB CS BB AVG OBP SLG OPS+
1999 121 438 138 30 0 12 37 14 82 .315 .423 .466 130
2000 123 420 98 14 2 4 36 11 88 .233 .368 .305 80
2001 123 379 86 17 3 8 25 7 81 .227 .366 .351 95
2002 72 179 40 6 1 5 16 8 38 .223 .369 .352 96
Rickey still has very useful skills. In those last three years, the league-wide average OBP is .331, so he's still well above average. And he's stolen 77 bases in 318 games and only been caught 26 times, a good ratio that should boost his OPS+ figures a couple of points (SBs aren't counted) to where he is really an average offensive performer or a little better (since OBP is undervalued in that metric, as it has slightly more offensive impact than SLG).
Why no interest? Like I said, several interrelated factors...
If Rickey can help you as a starter, you're very likely a bad team, bad enough that you should be starting someone who is 22, not someone who is 44.
If Rickey sits on the bench, he is usually very unhappy about it (or has been in the past).
If Rickey's unhappy, the media have traditionally made a very big deal out of it.
If the media are making a very big deal out of Rickey being unhappy, then any leadership benefits that Rickey might have are going to be of dubious value.
Rickey's inflexibility is a major problem. He can't (or won't) play first base. He certainly can't play any other infield position. He can't play right field because his throwing is poor and he's unused to it, and last year with Boston the Red Sox weren't happy with him in center on anything other than an emergency basis, his range there isn't good enough. So he's restricted to left field, where he is still a passable defender.
Left field is where there are a lot of good hitters without jobs. Almost every team has a bat or two they could squeeze into the lineup if the left field job were open. A lot of those players can play a bit of right field as well if they can throw some, or play some first base, which means they are more flexible than Rickey.
With more teams carrying 12 pitchers, roster flexibility is much more important than ever before.
Rickey is not well suited to the AL; he's a better fit in the NL, where as a leadoff man he hits after the pitcher (low average and slugging are less of a problem there) and where they pinch-hit more (Rickey is an effective pinch-hitter, but only when leading off an inning).
Rickey apparently won't go to AAA, where he would be extremely valuable both as a mentor and more importantly as the guy to call up when a regular outfielder goes down. So he has to stick all year or he's gone... again limiting your flexibility.
He is 44, and therefore less likely to match the numbers he's put up even recently.
Finally, he has spent much of the winter lobbyibng a team (the A's) who are poorly suited to him... the A's have about five leftfield candidates who can provide the approximate equivalent of what Rickey can (Singleton, Byrnes, Johnson, Long, Piatt).
I love Rickey Henderson, and it would be great to see him play another year, preferably in Montreal where he could actually help the team. I just don't think it's likely to happen. There are too many constraints on how you have to use him, and a 44-year old headache with a .320 slugging percentage just isn't worth it in the long run, legend or not. In the perfect situation, Rickey is a valuable MLB player who can give you 200-300 quality plate appearances. (11 pitchers, running team, National League, no fifth outfielder, has a fourth outfielder who can back up in center, needs veterans, no real leadoff hitter). Beyond that, he's a player who you can do without.
