Two years, four million, according to reports. I like Lincoln, and I’ll be glad to have him around next year. On the other hand, Rotoworld may have a point:

Bob Howry gets $2.75 million for one year and Lincoln gets two? The 33-year-old Lincoln was an adequate reliever for the Reds in his comeback season, finishing with a 4.48 ERA in 70 1/3 innings. Of course, it was his first major league action since 2004. Just once in his career has he thrown at least 50 innings and posted an ERA under 4.00. There’s simply no reason to be giving such a pitcher a two-year guarantee.

Good point. Then again, it’s not my money and Lincoln will probably be worth having around in 2009, at least. As long as the Reds understand the concept of sunk costs — and there is evidence that Castellini does — then I’m not going to get too worked up over this.

8 Responses

  1. NickP

    Forecasted for a 4.47 FIP next year. He’s basically replacement level. Bad use of funds, IMO.

  2. Josh

    This is going to reek of blind optimism, but I am trying to look at the good side of this signing.

    Lincoln hasn’t pitched a ton of innings in his big league career (less than 350), so perhaps even though he’s 34, he may have more life in that arm than most think he would. I also think that he may have been more effective than some give him credit for. He was adjusting to MLB pitching once again. He hadn’t for what, 4 years? For the most part his ERA was ballooned by a handful of outings where he gave up 3 or 4 runs in an inning so perhaps a year of experience under his belt will help him prevent giving up the big innings. Out of his 64 appearances he came and left without giving up earned runs in 47 of them.

    I think it’s an okay deal; nothing to get too excited about either way. What I think it does do, however, is take Weathers out of the equation.

  3. Sultan of Swaff

    I agree, bad use of $$ for a replacement level player. That said, I like the guy and his big-ass curveball, even though as a general rule I’m not a big fan of relievers whose out pitch is the curve.

  4. David

    I hate the term “bad use” of resources. We aren’t privy to the financial constraints of the team. Perhaps the ownership intends to raise player salary to a 85 million dollar level if that’s the case then the signing is fine.

  5. Mr. Redlegs

    Who was going to replace Lincoln for what amounts to the equivalent of the MLB average salary for one year spread over two years?

    I get a charge out of the notion that these relievers can be replaced so cheaply. If they are any good they sign with a contender for decent bucks. If they suck, we don’t want them. If you’re saying replace them with minor-leaguers, then you’re saying give a roster spot to someone who hasn’t earned it and might not be ready.

    What GM does that?

    So to get an experienced arm in the bullpen for $4 mil over two years is not outlandish. He should be even stronger and a little more durable from his surgeries by next season.

  6. preach

    I like Lincoln. But I like him one year at a time. Too much of a guarantee for someone who has had his history, IMO.

  7. CeeKeR

    Like the rest of this offseason, I treat the news with a collective “meh” and a yawn. It’s not a spectacular signing, nor is it a terrible signing – I guess that’s a good sign given some of the sketchier pitching signings of year’s past.

    I’m still curious what they’ll do about the outfield (Dye?) and where Dunn will end up since it seems like Arizona doesn’t want him.