Comparison Fun
You know I think the free agent market is nuts. You know I support acquiring talent via trade instead of paying these prices. You may not know that there really are good deals to be found, even in this sea of insanity. For instance, look at this comparison of left-fielders:
Player A: .287/.358/.457, 601 PA, 79 runs created, 32 years old, well above average defensively
Player B: .300/.355/.540, 624 PA, 113 runs created, 30 years old, terrible defensively
Player A is more of a line-drive gap hitter with athleticism. His defense is probably worth +5 to +10 runs a year, and even more on a team with a spacious outfield and a flyball pitching staff.
Player B is a classic slugger with power who doesn’t walk enough to be a superstar, but has enough juice in his bat to be a very effective player. His defense is a detriment, but the bat more than makes up for it.
When factoring in total value, Player B is probably 15 to 20 runs better, assuming neither undergoes drastic decline. Player B should make more money, and since he’s two years younger, should get a longer contract, but the differences shouldn’t be monumental. A few million more and an extra year, maybe two, for Player B. Given their worth relative to the ease of finding a left fielder who can hit, I’d say Player A is worth something like 2 years, $10 million and Player B is worth 3 years, $24 million. Or something like that.
Player A is Emil Brown, who the Royals can’t give away, because he’s arbitration eligible for the first time and is probably going to be awarded a salary of $3 to $4 million for 2007.
Player B is Carlos Lee, who has half the teams in baseball fighting to give him a 5 year, $75 million contract.
Major League GMs are willing to pay an extra $11 million a year for “power”, which optimistically translates to a 15-20 run advantage for Lee, and guarantee Lee all-star money through the rest of the decade. Meanwhile, Dayton Moore can’t find anyone interested in Emil Brown, who he’d like to move to create a spot for uberprospect Alex Gordon.
That doesn’t make any sense. Carlos Lee is a better player than Emil Brown, but the difference isn’t huge. The difference certainly isn’t worth an extra $11 million in 2007, much less the commitment from 2008-2011. So please, please, please stop telling us that these contracts are “market value”. They’re free agent value, but the baseball player talent industry is a much larger market than that segment of the population.
But Lee is a more proven veteran. For Bavasi and other GMs that counts for a lot. (See Carl Everett).
November 17th, 2006 at 1:44 pmHmmm. I may be speaking for myself, but I think people are using “market value” and “value on the free agent market” as interchangable terms, so you may be taking that a little folks’ comments too literally. That’s quite often what I’m talking about.
I’d take Emil Brown off the Royals’ hands for the right package. He’s an underrated player that may not have a ton of upside, but he certainly could be a very useful player. Sort of a better defensive Randy Winn.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:50 pmWhat would it take for the M’s to acquire Brown, Rob Johnson? Looks like Brown would be a good player for the M’s to add as a guy who plays 120 games or so and fills in for Broussard/Ibanez.
Let the front office make a splash by bring in some pitchers.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:51 pmHmmm. I may be speaking for myself, but I think people are using “market value” and “value on the free agent market” as interchangable terms, so you may be taking that a little folks’ comments too literally. That’s quite often what I’m talking about.
I’m sure thats what people are doing. However, this isn’t just a semantics issue - reading through comments here, at lookoutlanding, and on baseballprimer, it’s clear that intelligent people actually believe that this defintion of market value determines a player’s actual worth. And that assumption is completely wrong.
I know I’m beating a similar drum here, but the resistance to the assertion that a team can build the majority of its roster without paying free agent prices is surprising to me. People really need to get over this hangup that free agent value determines what a player is worth.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:57 pmI don’t trust Brown to be an “above average defender” after only one good defensive year. Also he made 12 errors in the OF in 2005.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:00 pmBut if he is, the gap between him and Lee (a terrible defender) is probably less than the 15-20 runs Dave quoted, maybe more like 10 runs or less.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:03 pm15-20 looks like that’s the offensive Gap, and that might still be overselling Carlos Lee.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmWell, personally, I think the problem is confusing “value as a player” with “market value.” I get the distinction that’s being made; there are several markets here that we’re dealing with: free agent market, trade market, etc. But market value is, to my mind, a useful term for what a player can command with the fewest restraints put on him, and it corresponds to what is classically taught about free market economics. I just don’t confuse market value with value as a player.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:05 pm5: That’s like calling Yuni a bad defensive shortstop. He was getting to balls that no other shortstop could get to, and then when the batter reached base because he over threw, he got an error. That doesn’t make him a bad shortstop.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pmDave, how much value ($$$) do you think it is worth to have a Slugger like Lee compared to Brown. I am curious how much better a Lee would make the guys around him? Would they see better pitches thus creating more runs or do you not believe that to be true?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:24 pmI know I’m beating a similar drum here, but the resistance to the assertion that a team can build the majority of its roster without paying free agent prices is surprising to me.
Yeah, it’s really not that hard to find examples of teams that have been pretty darned successful without blowing a lot of cash on the free agent market. For example, the 2006 Minnesota Twins won 96 games last year. Who was on their roster that they first acquired via free agency?
Mike Redmond — $900K
Dennys Reyes — $550K
Jason Tyner — $350K
Rondell White — $3.25M
Tony Batista — $1.25M
Technically, Juan Rincon and Luis Rodriguez were acquired as free agents, but they were signed as teenagers. Brad Radke might have been a free agent when he re-signed (I can’t recall the timing exactly,) but he clearly re-signed for less than the best offer on the table. Hunter and Santana would’ve been free agents by now, but the Twins signed them to extensions before they became free agents.
So there’s at least one example of how to do it. There are a few other teams who’ve constructed their roster in a reasonably similar fashion.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:28 pmPlayer A sounds like Gary Mathews Jr to me. Cheaper still.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:32 pm15-20 looks like that’s the offensive Gap, and that might still be overselling Carlos Lee.
Well, the offensive gap last year was 34 runs, if you’re going by runs created, and about 25 if you’re going with VORP. It was somewhere in that 25-35 range.
And yes, I’m being conservative with my defensive estimates. As always, I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the side I’m not on.
Dave, how much value ($$$) do you think it is worth to have a Slugger like Lee compared to Brown. I am curious how much better a Lee would make the guys around him? Would they see better pitches thus creating more runs or do you not believe that to be true?
There’s no evidence that hitters make the hitters around them better. I don’t think you can have an entire line-up of Luis Castillo types, but no one is even close to that kind of roster, so that extreme isn’t relevant. There’s not a team in baseball that should prefer Carlos Lee at 5/75 to Emil Brown at 1/4.
Player A sounds like Gary Mathews Jr to me. Cheaper still.
I almost did a Brown/Matthews comparison, but Matthews is being chased by teams who need a center fielder, which puts him in a different position bracket. But yea, as hitters, they’re very similar. And considering that Brown is a good defensive LF and Matthews is a poor defensive CF, I imagine that they’re very similar defensively as well.
I’d certainly rather have Brown than Matthews.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:36 pmI think the article at THT yesterday explains how much it costs for wins based on where a player is in their career - pre-arb, arb level, and free agent. To paraphrase - pre-arb is virtually free, arb is around 2 mil, and FA’s are 4 mil. It shows the best way to build a team is to get as many wins as possible out of your pre-arb, and arb level players.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/net-win-shares-value-2006/
November 17th, 2006 at 2:37 pmIt would be great to be able to avoid the FA market when building a team, but it seems to me that it isn’t realistic to think that it could lead to success for the Mariners. There are at least two reasons for this:
1) Limiting your team’s roster to players acquired via farm development means that you need annual good drafts, intelligent minor league scouting and instruction, and good luck with injuries and breakouts. All of that can happen (viz. Minnesota), but it can’t be the expectation.
1a) If we add in the option of trading for missing MLB roster pieces, then there is something of a zero-sum game working in which future players are exchanged for present players. And the higher up the elite talent scale you go, the more it costs to acquire. This leads to problem…
2) There’s a reason that Moore can’t give away Emil Brown. What is the point of loading up the roster via trade if all you get are Emil Browns? Using Carlos Lee as his comp doesn’t make him look any better…neither player is a difference maker. Fine, you say–but not all 25 spots need to be difference makers, right? True. When we’re done acquiring our Emil Browns, Marcus Thameses, and Brian Lawrences, (surely at the cost of some talent via trade), then how exactly will the M’s add in the elite players needed to turn a .500 ballclub into a championship team?
I’m actually not arguing that a major league GM couldn’t approach roster and organization construction with the plan of “avoid free agents,” but since ALL free agents cost to bring in is money, then even if the market seems out of bounds compared to internally developed players or even potential trade acquisitions, sometimes it makes sense to bite the bullet.
What I am suggesting is that I don’t have a great deal of faith in the ability of the current M’s regime to build a winning team without free agents. If they can, wonderful. I’m not holding my breath. Part of the above argument implies that teams avoiding free agents will have to recognize their position in the cycle of winning-rebuilding, and there too I’m persuaded that the M’s brass can’t or won’t do so effectively.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pmSo, are we going to get a revised “Dave’s Plan” at some point?
With Matsuzaka & Edmonds off the table, and Drew evidently too expensive, where would you be looking? Would you still offer up Soriano in a trade for Manny now that Lowe’s injury appears so severe? Look for a left fielder and look to move Ibañez to first after ditching Sexson? If we assume that the Mariners are not creative enough to move Ibañez to first now (with no real chance of taking it back later), does that constrain your thinking a lot? With Matsuzaka gone, do you go dumpster diving for 2 starters and plan to hand the 5th slot to one of Woods/Baek/Feirabend?
To me, it looks more than ever like Boston could use some Manny-related salary relief and that no even semi-equivalent bat is to be found elsewhere. I can’t imagine a trade for him actually happening, but it’s about the only thing I could imagine going down this offseason that would really light up my life. Do you see any real potential coups out there? Any that the Mariners might actually accomplish? Would you be pretty excited by a relatively low-cost trade for Brown, or is he here mostly as evidence for why we shouldn’t sign Lee (which I think we can all agree on)?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:43 pmLee > Emil Brown
But paying $15 million a year for Carlos Lee who may only decline as he gets older (while playing in SAFECO Field no less)?
No thank you.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:47 pmEmil Brown for LF in 2007?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:48 pmDave,
I do think market value and value on the free agent market mean the same thing in the baseball context. You seem to be talking about an “absolute value” or an actual value vs. market value. That’s a debate in economics as old as time, practically.
You are making an argument that objective worth in the form of contributions to a team (the statistics you show above) should determine market value rather than the other way around (the other way around being that the price paid for a free agent on the market somehow determines his worth).
However, economic worth, in terms of what people will pay, is a relative not an objective measure. I am all for having people determine market value based on more objective and reasonable factors, but the fact they do not doesn’t suddenly cause the amount they pay to be a non-market value (if others follow suit, of course, as market value cannot be determined in a vacuum, and shouldn’t be argued from one transaction).
Like the painting of a dot that fetches $10 mill, it is always the price that a given buyer is willing to pay that determines market value.
Am I missing something from your point?
November 17th, 2006 at 2:51 pm1) Limiting your team’s roster to players acquired via farm development means that you need annual good drafts, intelligent minor league scouting and instruction, and good luck with injuries and breakouts. All of that can happen (viz. Minnesota), but it can’t be the expectation.
Why not? If you’ve done your homework, why shouldn’t that be the expectation?
Not that every year will lead to a division winner (on the other hand, there was Atlanta), but if you’re getting consistently good drafts, and developing players, you will, more often than not, have MORE than enough players to compete.
If all your homegrown players are above average, and if most of them are cheap to reasonably priced, then THAT is the time to be thinking about pricey players to get over the hump.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:54 pmWhoops, yup looks like 25 runs or so.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:00 pm1) Limiting your team’s roster to players acquired via farm development means that you need annual good drafts, intelligent minor league scouting and instruction, and good luck with injuries and breakouts. All of that can happen (viz. Minnesota), but it can’t be the expectation.
I’m not asking the team to limit their roster to players acquired via farm development or trades. I said the “majority” of the roster should be built that way. In the past several years, I’ve lobbied for the Mariners to sign Vladimir Guerrero, Adrian Beltre, J.D. Drew, Matt Clement, Kevin Millwood, and Jacque Jones, among others. I’m not advocating a complete avoidance of the free agent market. I’m advocating a concept of roster building that is different than what the Mariners, and most fans, believe is the best way to go.
When we’re done acquiring our Emil Browns, Marcus Thameses, and Brian Lawrences, (surely at the cost of some talent via trade), then how exactly will the M’s add in the elite players needed to turn a .500 ballclub into a championship team?
They already have two elite players in Felix and Ichiro. If Putz sustains his 2006 performance, he makes three. And again, I’ve advocated trading for Manny Ramirez or signing J.D. Drew this offseason. I’m not arguing for a team full of $4 million players. I’m arguing that the $4 million players are nearly as valuable as the $10-$12 million players in this market, so the $10-$12 million players should be avoided, and teams should load up on $4 million players and $20 million players.
So, are we going to get a revised “Dave’s Plan” at some point?
Yea, I probably should put out a new plan, huh.
Am I missing something from your point?
Maybe. I’m saying that “market value” doesn’t matter, and teams shouldn’t pay “market value” for a player just because everyone else is.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pm20. …If all your homegrown players are above average, and if most of them are cheap to reasonably priced, then THAT is the time to be thinking about pricey players to get over the hump.
Further supporting my point…yes: free agents are pretty hard to simply do without.
(Oh, and I’m afraid that my lowered expectations have everything to do with being a rabid fan of the Mariners since about 1985. It’s sort of a Pavlovian reaction. Perhaps it’s not rational, but there you go.)
November 17th, 2006 at 3:04 pm22. Thanks, Dave…I wasn’t actually trying to reduce your approach to a straw man, but I see that I’ve done so. My apologies.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:05 pm2) There’s a reason that Moore can’t give away Emil Brown. What is the point of loading up the roster via trade if all you get are Emil Browns? Using Carlos Lee as his comp doesn’t make him look any better…neither player is a difference maker. Fine, you say–but not all 25 spots need to be difference makers, right? True. When we’re done acquiring our Emil Browns, Marcus Thameses, and Brian Lawrences, (surely at the cost of some talent via trade), then how exactly will the M’s add in the elite players needed to turn a .500 ballclub into a championship team?
Why do you need difference makers? If all of your position players are pretty decent offensively and well above average defensively, and your pitchers are similar in their respective contributions, you’ll be better than a .500 ballclub 90% of the time.
To get that sort of contribution for $3-4m is a very fair value. To get it at that while other teams are paying out the wazoo for similar-to-slightly-better is practically a steal.
If I could fill my 25-man for $75-$100m with 25 equal players who would help me win, I’d do so, even though it means missing out on the elites.
If I could get a truly elite player without completely breaking the bank I’d have to consider that too.
Why, though, pay $15m a year for someone in the middle just because the lower ones aren’t as flashy and the upper ones aren’t available?
November 17th, 2006 at 3:17 pmWhy do you need difference makers?
Because in any given game, you only put between 10 and 14 players on the field. If you’ve got a whole bunch of average players backed up by a whole bunch of average players, your depth will go to waste in the playoffs.
If I could fill my 25-man for $75-$100m with 25 equal players who would help me win, I’d do so, even though it means missing out on the elites.
I wouldn’t. I’d scrimp on the bench and in the bullpen and turn one or two of those $5m players into $20m players.
Why, though, pay $15m a year for someone in the middle just because the lower ones aren’t as flashy and the upper ones aren’t available?
Bingo. The middle tier is what’s killing teams. Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Manny Ramirez, these contracts are fine. It’s the Jarrod Washburn/Carl Pavano/Denny Neagle contract that cripples franchises.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pmI’ve not been hanging out here enough to get the importance of your main point, but isn’t your comparison between the two outfielders pretty misleading? If you compare them to replacement level, their relative “market values” don’t seem out of line to me, particularly if you don’t believe Lee is “terrible” defensively (which I don’t).
November 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pmIf I could fill my 25-man for $75-$100m with 25 equal players who would help me win, I’d do so, even though it means missing out on the elites.
That’s the Pat Gillick philosophy of roster construction, I believe.
And I think that’s the philosophy that the current Ms front office has bought into.
(And to go back to my comment…you can’t reliably get your farm system to crank out superstars….but I think it’s possible to crank out average to above average players. And the money saved on THEM will make it affordable to pay for a $15-20 million contract).
November 17th, 2006 at 3:41 pmBecause in any given game, you only put between 10 and 14 players on the field. If you’ve got a whole bunch of average players backed up by a whole bunch of average players, your depth will go to waste in the playoffs.
Good point.
I wouldn’t. I’d scrimp on the bench and in the bullpen and turn one or two of those $5m players into $20m players.
Thus my comment on the elites.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pmAgreed that pursuing the middle tier level players in FA is generally a bad philosophy (and certainly a bad philosophy in the current market). I’d prefer the M’s target the top tier players; whether they have the balls to deal for a guy like Manny is another question.
On a side note, its interesting that J.D. Drew is getting such reasonably priced contract offers (4 and $12mil) amongst the madness. Have the M’s shown any interest at all, or is this another oppurtunity lost?
November 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmI’d think if you had 4 players making $20m each, and the rest of the roster making say $4m each you’d probably wind up with more than a little disharmony in the clubhouse. To perpetuate that you’d have to dump pretty basically *all* of your significantly above-average talent when it became FA eligible (or trade it before then.) I think it’d be hard to keep good morale under those operating conditions.
That, and if you’re wrong on *any* of your $20m contracts, or one of your $20m players gets injured, you’re screwed.
If I were to do that, all the $20m players would be hitters. I wouldn’t want to risk that much on a pitcher, they blow up too often.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmIn regards to trading for talent vs. signing free agents: I understand that the price paid for free agents is usually exorbitant compared to their onfield contribution, but isn’t some of the excess cost of the free agent a premium you pay for NOT having to give away talent (except when the FA is offered arbitration by their current team) I’m just sort of curious if that aspect has been taken into account in some of the analyses of what a FA costs/win vs a arbitration eligible. Just so no one get’s confused, I’m not advocating signing anyone like Lee or Soriano, just curious if Dave or anyone else thinks that should be part of the equation and if so, how much?
November 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pmI’d think if you had 4 players making $20m each, and the rest of the roster making say $4m each you’d probably wind up with more than a little disharmony in the clubhouse.
If you had a $164m payroll I think the entire proposition of winning would be much easier (with wise spending)…
To perpetuate that you’d have to dump pretty basically *all* of your significantly above-average talent when it became FA eligible (or trade it before then.) I think it’d be hard to keep good morale under those operating conditions.
With the insane prices that most mid-level free agents command, that’s probably a good idea. I would imagine that’s pretty much how it happens anyway, because “most” talented free agents will end up getting a better offer from at least one of the other 29 teams. The only difference would be in voluntarily letting the rest of them go (i.e. not even trying to up any other teams’ offers, unless you really would be getting them at a fair price).
If you had someone really good on your hands, you could always shell out money for him. For Gil Meche, at al? Nah.
If I were to do that, all the $20m players would be hitters. I wouldn’t want to risk that much on a pitcher, they blow up too often.
I’m sure someone here has more info on this (I don’t), but my guess would be that pitchers also peak earlier. If they don’t reach free agency until 27, 28, or later, many of them are already heading downhill. I would think moreso for power pitchers, though. There is probably a lot of variance in peak times for pitchers, and enough noise that it’s difficult enough to figure out specifically anyway.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:05 pmI don’t know, for me it would be a little weird to have the first former Pirate of recent years to join the M’s be Emil …
November 17th, 2006 at 4:10 pmI’m not sure that accurantely describes Gillick’s teams in Toronto. There were some genuine stars on those teams.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:14 pm27 -
Yeah, Carlos Lee seems like one of those guys who’s all over the map in the defensive metrics. Looks like you’ve got him as a better defender than Brown according to fielding WS, whereas Dial has Brown as the best LF in the AL with Lee right about average (that’s where the 2000-2003 UZR data had him). I’m still suspicious about Brown’s amazing defensive ratings, given that he came up without any sort of reputation for defensive prowess.
If we assume Lee is neutral, though, and assume a $75/5 contract, what are you assuming about replacement level that would make his $15m salary as good of a bargain as Brown’s what, $3.5m? The gap in, say, eqa isn’t *that* huge.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pmmikelb420 - Check out the link I posted in post 14. They’s figured out the salary $ per win based on Free Agents, arbitration eligable, and pre-arbitration level.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#34: Why not? Are you saying Rod Scurry didn’t work out all that well?
November 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pmThat, and if you’re wrong on *any* of your $20m contracts, or one of your $20m players gets injured, you’re screwed.
Not if you have a big enough payroll. Some teams are running consistently winning ballclubs at around $60-65M a year. So if you’re running at an $85M payroll, then it would certainly seem to me that even if your $20M/year player is a complete bust, you still have enough cash around to field a competitive team.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmpoor old Rod Scurry.
I, of course, managed somehow to suppress the memory of Al Martin. I think instead of all the other recent names that got linked (or that we wanted linked) with the Ms came to mind– Kendall, Giles, Benson, Jose Guillen, Womack, Randa, Jon Leiber, Loaiza, Rincon, Van der Wal, Brandon Arroyo … and still linked, Jason Schmidt.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:33 pmIt’s true, they say so.
All hail the lesser Cora, which by default is redundant.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:56 pmThe gap in, say, eqa isn’t *that* huge.
That all depends on what you think an appropriate offensive replacement level is for a left fielder. I would think it’s pretty high, wouldn’t you? Brown created 79 runs; Lee created 113. If the replacement level is 70 runs, then Lee is almost four times better than Brown. Is it so out of place to say he’s worth four times as much money?
I’m not advocating signing Lee; just saying that I don’t think the comparison is really a good one.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:58 pmBy that thought you would also have to say that value was not only linear but additionally that replacement level cost nothing. I’m not saying it costs a lot, but it’s not fair to just take the number of runs over replacement talent and divide one player’s remainder into the other’s.
Then there’s also the defense which, even if using this method for valuation, made it essentially a 2:1 level over replacement instead of 4:1. That was being more than fair to Lee, too.
November 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pmRegardless of your opinions of the specifics of defensive statistics, I think everyone will agree that Brown >>> Lee with the glove. Even if you don’t think Lee was terrible last year (I do, but I can understand Studes disagreeing), he’s almost certainly going to be terrible in a year or two, as he gets older, fatter, and less mobile.
If we say that for 2007 Carlos Lee’s offense is worth 110 runs, and Emil Brown’s is worth 80 runs, and the defensive difference is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 20 runs, at most, you’re arguing that Lee is 25 runs better than Brown, and it could be as low as 10.
$11 million, not even accounting for the risk of the next four years, for 10 to 25 runs strikes you as a good idea? Even if we accept $4 million per win on the free agent market as the going rate, the best case scenario puts the difference right at that mark, and the worst case scenario makes this a total debacle.
If the best case scenario is that you’re simply paying market value for an overrated player, run away.
November 17th, 2006 at 6:26 pmSorry if I’m late to the party on this one but I think “market value” as a phrase really only expresses what the market will bear and not necessarily any real value (to the extent that you can accurately measure real value). What you’re arguing for is an organization with the aptitude to exploit inefficiencies in market valuation. I haven’t read the discussions on other sites but I have a hard time believing any regular reader of this site would have a problem with that, particularly with Billy Beane in our division.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:30 pmGreat job here, Dave, of illustrating the insanity of the market. The marginal utility, runs created or runs saved over lesser but effective FAs, of many top FAs just isn’t worth the extra money many of those top FAs will command on the market.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:40 pmEmil Brown is not a “34 runs worse” hitter though, he only had 601 PA this season. I’m not sure the gap was even 34 this year, I’m getting more like 25 runs using Base Runs, but assuming it was 34 runs, that would be more like 30 runs given the same PA, and if its more like 25 runs, then it’s more like 20 runs worse.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pmIn most years, I’m all for spending money on the top free agents. This particular year, though, those “top free agents” suck. I don’t remember the last time a free agent market was headlined by a bunch of 20-30 run players.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:42 pmIt’s just that this particular comparison doesn’t hold for me. Brown has never had 80 runs created in his career and he’s 32, right? Depending on which version you use, Lee has had over 100 each of the past four years, I think, and he’s only 30. I believe assuming 110 for Lee vs. 75 for Brown next year is a decent assumption. The Handbook projects Lee at 111 next year, and Brown at 67 (he carries a high injury risk).
Having watched Lee a lot here in Chicago, my opinion is that he’s better than he looks; he gets the job done. FWIW, Dewan has them just about dead even in the field. Same thing with his baserunning (The Handbook has Lee at -1, Brown at -7 for baserunning).
But my real point here is that the way the comparison was presented seems misleading to me. Instead of saying “this player did this, which seems like a such-and-such contract to me, and that player did that, which seems like another kind of contract to me,” you might be better off comparing the players vs. a baseline. Pick whatever baseline you like, but compare players to it consistently.
Replacement players can be found for pretty close to the minimum, though every team has a different set of replacements available to it. Picking a common replacement level is just something for general discussion purposes.
So if you think Brown is worth 80, and Lee is worth 100, if you use 70 as a baseline, then Lee is worth three times as much as Brown. If you think Brown is worth $4M, that makes Lee worth $12M.
And, as someone said, there is increasing value to top-tier players. The difference between the 90th run and the 100th run is worth more than the difference between the 90th run and the 80th run. There are good economic reasons for this, and the free agent market bears it out.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:44 pmHere’s the issue. You’re arguing, correctly, that there’s increasing value to the player contributes, so that the jump from 90 to 100 wins is worth more than 80 to 90, etc.
But what Dave’s point out here is that the jump from Brown to Lee isn’t anywhere near that, but will demand that kind of 90-100 jump. The difference from Brown to Lee is meh to enh, but the salary difference is going to be as if it’s a very good-to-great transition.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:48 pmNo problem disagreeing about the value of a player. I’m certainly no expert on every player (let alone any!). But I haven’t seen any discussion of what the baseline for meh to enh should be. Without it, meh to enh is a number just hanging in the air. If Brown only created 60 runs a year, then Lee would be “infinitely” more valuable even if he were only 20 runs better. Mathematically speaking, of course.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:58 pmRuns have actual, tangible value. I don’t agree that the proper way to define salary is “four times as many runs above baseline = four times as much money”. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that to be true.
If the difference was 8 runs above replacement and two runs above replacement in favor of Lee, would you still be arguing that Lee is worth four times as much? Obviously not.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:08 pmSure I would. That’s exactly what all player valuation systems do.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:09 pmOkay, so if the market establishes that a replacement level corner outfielder is worth $3 million a year (because, let’s be honest, the market sucks at correctly compensating replacement level players), and the market is paying $4 million per win, that makes a 1 win corner outfielder worth $7 million. So a 4 win corner outfielder is, in your opinion, worth $28 million?
You can’t believe that.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pmGetting back to Brown and Lee for a second…
Brown has never had 80 runs created in his career and he’s 32, right?
THT has him at 92 in 2005 and 79 in 2006. So, no, not quite right.
Depending on which version you use, Lee has had over 100 each of the past four years, I think, and he’s only 30.
This would paint his performances as much more consistent than they actually have been.
2003: .291/.331/.499
2004: .305/.366/.525
2005: .265/.324/.487
2006: .300/.355/.540
‘04 and ‘06 are fringe all-star years. ‘03 and ‘05 are clearly a step back. However, since he missed 10 games in ‘04, his RC cumulative stats fall. On an RC/G basis, the inconsistency of his star performance is clear.
I believe assuming 110 for Lee vs. 75 for Brown next year is a decent assumption.
Lee’s RC the last three years top out at 109. Why is it fair to assume he’s going to not only stave off decline, but improve? I can’t think of a projection system in the world that looks at a 30-year-old 250 lb guy and says “he’s going to get better”. So I’d put it at 100 vs 75, or something like that.
And, as someone said, there is increasing value to top-tier players. The difference between the 90th run and the 100th run is worth more than the difference between the 90th run and the 80th run. There are good economic reasons for this, and the free agent market bears it out.
I agree with all of this. I just think its pretty obvious that Carlos Lee bares little resemblance to a top tier player.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:30 pmI wrote an entire article about this this week. First, your math would make it $19 million, and I disagree that the market “sucks” at compensating replacement level players. I’d say a free agent replacement level player typically gets about $1 million, which would make the math come out to $17 million.
In actuality, the average free agent who contributed 15-20 WSAB last year made $13 million last year, so my math would be over by $4 million. That’s primarily due to injuries and other weird salary distribution issues.
But I didn’t say any of those things in this thread. I said that Lee is worth about four times as much as Brown. If you think Brown is worth $4 million (and you seemed to feel good about that figure for him) than I argued that Lee would be worth four times as much. I don’t think Brown is worth $4 million, and I don’t think Lee is worth $16 million. But I do think Lee is worth three-to-four times as much as whatever Brown is worth.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:33 pmI can’t think of a projection system in the world that looks at a 30-year-old 250 lb guy and says “he’s going to get better”. So I’d put it at 100 vs 75, or something like that.
Well, the Handbook did, but that’s okay. My bad about Brown’s 2005. I don’t even know my own website! Still, I think 100 vs. 75 is fine.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:35 pmI wrote an entire article about this this week.
I read it, enjoyed it, and disagreed with most of it.
I’d say a free agent replacement level player typically gets about $1 million, which would make the math come out to $17 million.
Really? Watch what Cliff Floyd and Luis Gonzalez get in the next few weeks. Hell, look at what Carl Everett got last winter. I strongly disagree that major league GMs are good at recognizing when formerly good players are no longer good.
In actuality, the average free agent who contributed 15-20 WSAB last year made $13 million last year, so my math would be over by $4 million. That’s primarily due to injuries and other weird salary distribution issues.
You know I love THT, but I would love it even more if you guys got away from win shares. The defensive calculations just have too many problems and there are several components with no predictive value included in the formula. For this kind of analysis, I don’t think win shares is the right tool.
But I didn’t say any of those things in this thread. I said that Lee is worth about four times as much as Brown. If you think Brown is worth $4 million (and you seemed to feel good about that figure for him) than I argued that Lee would be worth four times as much. I don’t think Brown is worth $4 million, and I don’t think Lee is worth $16 million. But I do think Lee is worth three-to-four times as much as whatever Brown is worth.
I think looking at things in terms of percentage better than = salary greater than skews the fact that we’re dealing with absolute value of runs. The difference in a projected 8 run player vs a projected 2 run player is only six runs. You don’t pay a 400% premium for a projected six run increase, especially when the error bars on projection systems swallow most of that difference.
You pay four times as much for a guy when the difference is 60 runs vs 15 runs or 80 runs vs 20 runs. Absolutely. I’ll be on your side arguing that Johan Santana’s real value is something like $30 million a year and that A-Rod’s not overpaid (well, assuming he remembers how to play defense, anyways).
But I just can’t get on board with paying massive premiums for marginal run increases. And Carlos Lee is only slightly better than a marginal run increase over Emil Brown.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pmFrank Thomas 2/$18.12M + $9.12M
November 17th, 2006 at 8:50 pmWes Helms 2/$5.45M + $500,000
Alex Gonzalez 3/$15M
Alex Cora 2/$4M
Damion Easley 1/$850,000
The Alex Gonzalez signing is a rumor. And one that, if you’re a Cincinnati Reds fan, you should be praying isn’t true.
November 17th, 2006 at 8:58 pmThe Alex Gonzalez signing is a rumor. And one that, if you’re a Cincinnati Reds fan, you should be praying isn’t true.
Yeah, they’ve got Juan Castro on board, so there’s clearly no need for a defense-first SS. (ducks)
November 17th, 2006 at 9:33 pmSaying ’screw it’ and paying Alex Gonzales 2.5 for a year of cruddy hitting with a little HR power and sterling defense was one of the best moves Boston made last year. A classic example of why not to overpay for too many years for a mid-tier free agent. You can often fill a hole for a year with something tolerable for much much less and wait for an authentic opportunity to arrive.
November 18th, 2006 at 3:22 amExcellent debates on many things.
I don’t like Lee or Mathews as ideas for acquisition(at present “market value”.)
The numbers I’m seeing seem to make Lee worth aprox. 2-3 times as much (if I were offering, making that Wishhiker Market Value.) I feel that, for my money, I should be getting more than Lee at 13.5-16 million a year that would be 4 times what Brown will likely get in arbitration. But then I’m watching Sexson and Beltre in that range, so what do I know?
I like the idea of going after a player for the OF at 1yr/1+option. Emil Brown has 3 years MLB service and isn’t a 1/1+option. After making $1.775 million in 06 he’s probably in line to get the $3.5-4 million that’s been suggested. That figure will also likely increase in 08 and 09 before he’s FA eligible. With Ichiro hopefully inked this offseason, Doyle hopefully healthy to stay and Jones hopefully developing enough to stay up by the end of ‘08 I don’t see the need for a longterm corner OF fix via FA. That is, of course, unless the FO decides to trade Ibanez while his market’s high and Doyle can DH…Ibanez is only signed through 2008 and could be traded at the point that Jones seems ready. Maybe that could be an option, but the position I’d rather see ingenuity filling this offseason is SP where there’s not much here or on the horizon. Unless something worked out on the Manny front…Not holding my breath.
I’m very afraid that if Bavasi truly is on the hot seat to bring the playoffs to Seattle in ‘07, this fanbase will be very dissapointed for the foreseeable future. Because it’s hardly possible to even improve this team that much given the present situation without trading Jones, Clement, Morrow and whoever else might bring back some value, there’s no way I see to fix the rotation enough and bring in a power bat (preferably LH.) The fact that the FO might give Bavasi one year to do so in the present market (with such a meager FA class) makes me fear for this teams chances as long as ownership remains the same. If I knew that he had through next year and could get the last couple pieces out of the next FA class, I wouldn’t be so cynical.
November 18th, 2006 at 4:43 amI want to point out my belief that if Sexson is to be traded in such a market it will probaly be after the losers have lost out on other mediocrities…
November 18th, 2006 at 4:51 amTime to move on, but let me react to a couple of things:
I strongly disagree that major league GMs are good at recognizing when formerly good players are no longer good.
That may be, but few people are. But that’s not the issue you raised. You asked about replacement-level players. Picking a few examples of guys who are aging and actually don’t play well is cherry-picking.
Over 25% of all free agents (112 in all) were paid less than $1 million. Most of those guys I would label “replacement level” were in that group. Just because there were some bad bets on older players doesn’t mean GMs don’t generally recognize what a player is worth.
You know I love THT, but I would love it even more if you guys got away from win shares. The defensive calculations just have too many problems and there are several components with no predictive value included in the formula. For this kind of analysis, I don’t think win shares is the right tool.
Again, you’re misrepresenting what I did. I didn’t predict anybody’s WSAB: I just took the run totals and runs created figures that you yourself introduced. I compared them to last year’s WSAB figures to put them in perspective, not to predict anything. I could have used any system that has an established win/dollar ratio.
I think looking at things in terms of percentage better than = salary greater than skews the fact that we’re dealing with absolute value of runs. The difference in a projected 8 run player vs a projected 2 run player is only six runs. You don’t pay a 400% premium for a projected six run increase, especially when the error bars on projection systems swallow most of that difference.
If one player is two runs above replacement, he “should” get maybe $500K above the minimum, and the other “should” get around $2M more. If you have several years worth of data properly regressed and know nothing else about the players, I don’t see how this is inappropriate or why it conflicts with the “absolute value of runs.” It’s totally in line with the absolute value of runs.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:06 am#60– sorry– meant to asterisk it.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:38 amOnly want to add about the fielding of Lee and Brown. The Fielding Bible has both around even at a bit below average. The Fans’ have them as the worst fielders on their respective teams, and both in whispering distance of the worst LF in the league:
http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/pos2006_LF.html
***
Hitting-wise, looking at it quickly, they are about a win or 1.5 wins apart, and even on fielding. That’s 2-3 million apart in reality, or 4-6 million on the FA market.
If Lee gets anything more than 4/48, the FA market is even crazier than crazy. I’d do a 3/24 deal.
November 18th, 2006 at 8:58 amThis was one of the most enjoyable threads I’ve read in a while. There’s nothing like two sabersavants goin at it.
I would like to cast my vote for “I don’t want either of these bums on my team”.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:52 amdavid
i do not understand your complaining about how much money the FA are gonna be getting. you sayin they are not “worth” it.
BUT the teams got a HUGE amount of dough rolling in so WHY shouldn’t the players get a good chunk of it?
you can’t SERIOUSLY think the owners would not keep it all to their own self, do you? you can’t SERIOUSLY really believe they would do something like lower ticket prices, cmon. that’s tooth fairy stuff.
they are not just suddenly gonna decide to give all their young players and minor leaguers, coaches or managers a raise you know.
so exactly WHAT do you think they should do with that extra 20 or more mill they pullin in?
lisa
- oh yeah - yes i do want to add my light to the “glowing firmament” of discussion. you must got stock in dictionary.com or be an english teacher in your spare time. and by the way, it is not real too sensible to ask a grrrl not to get up set if some man essentially tell her to shut up/censors her when she is sharing her deepest feelings (ask your wife you disbelieve me) so i am sorry but i just can’t lie and make no promise i KNOW i can’t keep. but i WILL do my very very best to stay in the comment guidelines.
- wait, there’s more. stop worryin bout carlos lee because that fat tub o lard gonna be an astro at 15 mill a year for the next 5 years clogging up the LF anyhow.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:59 ami forgot
i looked at tango’s fans scouting reports and agree completely with the fielding report on carlos lee. in 2 years he’ll be adam dunn
November 18th, 2006 at 11:10 amuh, wow.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:14 amLisa,
Not to put words into Dave’s mouth, but I don’t think he’s saying that they shouldn’t spend the money. I believe he’s saying that since teams set payroll budgets, they should be spending their money wisely. Right now, you’d have to sacrifice a large fraction of the budget on an only slightly above average player.
I think also that Dave is complaining about the mediocrity of the FA pool this year and how that ultimately drives prices up for players that wouldn’t normally be earning such high wages. Carlos Lee would not be entertaining the same offers were he in some FA pools of the past.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:17 amWhat pdb said.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:36 ambut i WILL do my very very best to stay in the comment guidelines.
I guess you mean after this post. And the next one.
November 18th, 2006 at 11:44 amEnter Strawman
November 18th, 2006 at 11:50 amDoug Pappas isn’t around anymore, but what is the value of a world series run to a franchise, in terms of increased ticket sales, broadcast revenue, etc? Will the Tigers earn $10m, $50m, $100m more over the long term because of this world series run? If it’s the higher of that figure, doesn’t a blockbuster contract make alot more sense?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:58 amDoug Pappas isn’t around anymore, but what is the value of a world series run to a franchise, in terms of increased ticket sales, broadcast revenue, etc? Will the Tigers earn $10m, $50m, $100m more over the long term because of this world series run? If it’s the higher of that figure, doesn’t a blockbuster contract make alot more sense?
If it’s on a player worth a blockbuster contract, and if you really believe said boost will help you into the playoffs and to succeed there. Then, why not?
If your team’s going to be pathetic anyway, you really don’t have cheap talent that you expect to breakout and you have no realistic shot at the postseason even with adding the contract, why do it? It will be wasted money at the very best, that plus lowered draft picks, less flexibility in the future, etc. at the worst.
By looking at it too simply, it’s a matter of “sign this guy and we’ll make a WS run and earn $xx million!” Obviously, that can’t be true. Even if by some chance there are 30 truly top free agents and each team signs one, only two of those teams will make it to the WS and only one will win.
If there were one or two top free agents, adding one to a good-to-great team would be a priority, since it would make the team better in the area of already being a contender. That would given the team an added advantage, especially since other teams wouldn’t be able to find said talent (and would probably pay oodles for something half as valuable thus hamstringing the budget).
Since there are no top free agents right now, but a lot of middle tier players, none of them really will be that much of a bonus to any team. The only case where it might make any sense at all is if a team had a huge glaring hole that needed to be upgraded, and for one reason or another there was no reasonable talent for cheaper, nothing available in trades, etc. That’s probably never the case, though.
In the end, why pay 75-90% of top star money to someone who is only half as valuable as a true star, especially when said player won’t even be enough of an upgrade to really further playoff hopes?
November 18th, 2006 at 12:10 pmWhich is exactly why I say don’t spend this year, instead focus on 2007’s FA class”
Especially if you’re trying to build a contending rotation…
November 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#78: Tantalizing, although I wonder how many actually make it to free agency. I don’t see teams like the Cubs and Cardinals letting guys like Zambrano and Carpenter get away.
How about we just save up and buy Venezuela?
November 18th, 2006 at 3:05 pmRE: #67. Like lisa gray was saying in #70, I browsed through tangotiger’s scouting reports, too.
I checked the SS listings for our maligned SS Yuni Betancourt — look where he’s listed!
November 18th, 2006 at 5:12 pm….and Richie Sexson is listed higher than either Eduardo Perez or Ben Broussard…
November 18th, 2006 at 5:16 pmWhat’s it all MEAN???
November 18th, 2006 at 5:17 pmok yall,
i’m looking at it like this -
whatever your payroll was last year minus anyone who left and plus anyone in arb, add 20 mill to that.
every single team out there got that much more to spend than they did last year.
2 things can happen with that EXTRA 20 MILL (added to whatever you have left over from last years payroll)
1 - the owners can put it ALL in their pocket. you can’t be telling me with any kind of straight face they just gonna keep it then spend it the next year.
2 - the owner can go out and buy whatever IS out there - FA or cash with a trade.
so which one do yall want?
what is the use of complaining how expensive the FA are who would sell for less money in some year before? the past is over and done with and the agents KNOW the teams got all them extra mill and they think the players should get a good chunk of it. a player is worth whatever a team will pay for him right NOW.
so suppose your owner decides to keep all that extra dough for himself, not spend on FA, come out and say the team is “rebuilding” and wait for the 07 FA class. so you are gambling that you won’t lose fans/money in a rebuilding year and that the media don’t notice that you kept all that 20 mill for your own self, AND that FA are not even MORE expensive next year. FA salaries are going up by, what, 10% a year, something like that?
so yall say why pay 90% of star money for someone who is not a star?
- answers
1 - because even if he is overpaid in your opinion, he is STILL bettern what you already got and the owner is spending money on the players instead of putting it in his pocket (this is assuming they are not doing the signing jim thome for 6 years instead of signing someone for 1 year when you got ryan howard who is ready to come up in a year)
2 - after having a lousy “rebuilding” team where all the agents and FA see you are getting emil brown type guys instead of FA, how much bonus money you think you gonna have to pay to top FA to come there? it’s gonna be like ivan rodroguez and detroit. no WAY is ivan rodriguez worth 10 mill a year for 4 years at his age. (and before yall think i am “happy” just remember that we are most likely gonna sign carlos “slug” lee for probably as much as lance berkman makes and yes i know that lee is worth maybe 60% of berkman on a good day and we are gonna hafta eat a lot of that when he can’t even waddle out there in left and we trade him to the AL so as he can DH - he’s gonna end up being manny money for the 2, maybe 3 years we’ll have him.)
so when you talk about future “flexibility” after the owner has lowered payroll and the attendence has gone down and the fans are losing interest, you think they won’t start talking about how they losing money and don’t have it to spend that next year?
3 - the owners kinda got to sign some name FA because if they do not sign some big FA to “show they serious about winning” they gonna lose a LOT of fans (like in houston especially since roger and andy are not coming back.)
yours truly,
um, WOW
p.s. i understand how yall mariners fans not real too happy after seeing how “good” beltre and sexon turned out to be. so i understand yall kinda snakebit about FA these days…
November 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pmI’ve never seen somebody type with an accent, but damn if you didn’t do it.
November 18th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#83. whatever your payroll was last year minus anyone who left and plus anyone in arb, add 20 mill to that.
every single team out there got that much more to spend than they did last year.
That point (which I mostly disagree with) is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand.
You are correct to say that there is no benefit to the team or its fans for the owners to pocket the excess profits. What Dave is counseling, however, is not a scheme to make M’s owners more cash. Instead, he’s suggesting that instead of paying, say, Carlos Lee the going “market” rate of the inflated market (whatever it happens to be), a savvy GM should instead focus on the strategy of paying inflated FA money ONLY for those elite talents who are worth overpaying. (In large part because of the effects on the roster in 2008, 2009, etc.)
In Seattle, we have not been blessed with a savvy GM, uh…ever. Pat Gillick? No. Woody Woodward? Please. So this entire discussion is a pipe dream. I’m more or less convinced that Bill Bavasi will, for the reasons that you suggest, go out and sign the wrong players (because they’re “bettern what you already got,” but not suitable for a contending team) to the wrong deals, preventing the useful pieces of the current team from being turned into a contender for several additional seasons.
But maybe that’s just me being a curmudgeon.
Incidentally, Lisa, I like the Astros as about my fourth-favorite team, residue of when I lived in Austin just as the beloved “Disastros” were rebuilding…it was 1990, and they had just traded Larry Andersen for Jeff Bagwell. Brilliant.
November 18th, 2006 at 6:28 pm83- your post reminds me of that Seinfeld episode, when the Astros scouts visit with George, “YOU TELL THEM YANKEES NO DAMN ASTRO WILL OVER COME TO NEW YORK!!”…or something like that.
November 18th, 2006 at 7:51 pm#83:
1) Of course they shouldn’t pocket the money (unless there is a clear plan to add it to the following years’ payrolls). But with such inflated prices, they should overpay for either elite talent(which is unavailable) or overpay for just one or two year contracts. It is stupid to tie up money in a long term deal paying mediocre players exhorbitant salaries when there will be better uses for that money in the future. If there is one roster spot, and 10 million left in the payroll, and the owners have a policy of not saving money from one year and adding it to their payroll the next year, go ahead and pay 10 million for a utility guy who will get 150 at bats (Ha! Imagine that! A Mariners utility guy who only gets 150 at bats! In our dreams!). Just do it on a one year deal. (Or, better yet, make a trade to get better talent for your remaining 10 mil).
2) As Dave has pointed out many times, there are expensive players who could be traded for who are better than the guys on the free agent market. There is no problem paying for huge contracts, but free agency is not the only way to exhaust your payroll.
3) Beltre has worked out fine. Washburn is the real doozy.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:26 pmThank you deltwelve…To Expand and Expound:
I wasn’t saying to bank the money because I don’t think any FO is willing to work like Cingular. What I was saying is not to spend money in 06 on guys who aren’t worth looking at for the money or time they’ll be given because:
A: The FA class looks horrible in comparison to next years potential class (even if you take out the top LH and RH name at every position from next years list) and is a joke in comparison to 2008’s potential FA’s.
B: The players you’re talking about signing to $10 million plus money are going to be yours for 4+ years (hamstringing your ability to acquire GOOD talent in upcoming free agent years)
C: I’d rather see a lower overall payroll than twice the money spent on the wrong people.
I have previously said that I advocate acquiring Manny Ramirez via trade if a couple other moves can be pulled off to make it work. If the M’s wouldn’t need to move payroll at that point then so be it, but the belief I’m going on is they’d haveto trade Sexson (without paying a dime) and bring in a 1B. This would be spending that “$20 million” in a way likely to be positive.
I have also advocated in previous posts acquiring Bonds in a 1+option deal this offseason as a smokescreen to keep the fans occupied and beleiving in the product being put on the field, while potentially freeing up that money after the season to sign someone in thier prime who’s worth a premium (regardless what that premium may be). If Zambrano and Carpenter were both signed to extensions, you don’t like any of the other options for SP (highly unlikely IMO) and you miss out on the 2-5 (depending on your opinion) Good FA LH power hitters of 07 you could resign Bonds, save face and shuffle a few things…08 doesn’t look quite as promising as 07 SP wise, but potential FA bats are like a steakhouse menu. The All-Stars missing from this years Free Agents come up after 2007 and 2008, don’t spend those years budgets on a longterm smokescreen!
I did not mean that the team shouldn’t spend it, just that it shouldn’t spend it longterm on these FA’s. There are many possible trade scenarios that could be beneficial.
I don’t think the free agents available are worth chasing and locking into your payroll for 3,4,5 years. If the 2 SP slots are both filled via FA this offseason for 3+ years and the M’s also bring in a FA fielder signed for 3+ years out of this class, I will truly beleive that the present FO has no foresight. That belief could be changed in the future by performance of said players, but with these names I doubt it.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:13 am#83
2 things can happen with that EXTRA 20 MILL (added to whatever you have left over from last years payroll)
1 - the owners can put it ALL in their pocket. you can’t be telling me with any kind of straight face they just gonna keep it then spend it the next year.
2 - the owner can go out and buy whatever IS out there - FA or cash with a trade.
so which one do yall want?
I’d rather they spend it on JD Drew, or Matsuzaka. Honestly, if the choice was between the owner pocketing $20M and commiting that money every year for the next half decade on Carlos Lee, more power to ownerdom.
what is the use of complaining how expensive the FA are who would sell for less money in some year before? the past is over and done with and the agents KNOW the teams got all them extra mill and they think the players should get a good chunk of it. a player is worth whatever a team will pay for him right NOW.
Because they suck, and they’re not worth it. Free agency is not a vacuum, and some years are more talented than others. You’re going to have to be dealing with mistakes (hello Mr. Washburn) for years to come, which leaves you with less money to sign the actual stars when they appear. Spending money on mediocrity is why bad teams are bad.
so suppose your owner decides to keep all that extra dough for himself, not spend on FA, come out and say the team is “rebuilding” and wait for the 07 FA class. so you are gambling that you won’t lose fans/money in a rebuilding year and that the media don’t notice that you kept all that 20 mill for your own self, AND that FA are not even MORE expensive next year. FA salaries are going up by, what, 10% a year, something like that?
FA salary fluctuates. This market will crash when everyone realises that the best players are playing for major league minimums while they’re paying $9M/year for Gil Meche, and the teams that have been developing home grown talent will be laughing for at least a few dozen years. I’d also say that being consistantly bad is a better way to lose fans and such than actually making an effort to compete in the near future.
1 - because even if he is overpaid in your opinion, he is STILL bettern what you already got and the owner is spending money on the players instead of putting it in his pocket (this is assuming they are not doing the signing jim thome for 6 years instead of signing someone for 1 year when you got ryan howard who is ready to come up in a year)
No. This is a silly argument. Even if you somehow convinced me that, say, Lee > Snelling & Ibanez, you aren’t going to be able to tell me that he’s worth spending ridiculous amounts of money on for a marginal upgrade. That cash would be better off not being spent at all, or at least deployed somewhere you can do something useful with it. Free agent salaries should not be linear with actual run value, they should be based on the amount of comparable talent to that player is floating around the league. This is why A-Rod’s crazy deal wasn’t so bad at all, and why Adam Eaton’s will have me swearing for days. You pay millions to the elite and I won’t bat an eyelid. The only such player on this market is JD Drew.
Ah, and the Ryan Howard thing… people really need to give it a rest. For every Hafner there are 5 AJ Zapps.
2 - after having a lousy “rebuilding” team where all the agents and FA see you are getting emil brown type guys instead of FA, how much bonus money you think you gonna have to pay to top FA to come there? it’s gonna be like ivan rodroguez and detroit. no WAY is ivan rodriguez worth 10 mill a year for 4 years at his age. (and before yall think i am “happy” just remember that we are most likely gonna sign carlos “slug” lee for probably as much as lance berkman makes and yes i know that lee is worth maybe 60% of berkman on a good day and we are gonna hafta eat a lot of that when he can’t even waddle out there in left and we trade him to the AL so as he can DH - he’s gonna end up being manny money for the 2, maybe 3 years we’ll have him.)
We didn’t have a problem with this in 2004, when we were close to the worst team in baseball, why should the M’s (with a roster core at about .500 assuming you just throw out replacement level talent in whatever holes are on the team) be worried now?
3 - the owners kinda got to sign some name FA because if they do not sign some big FA to “show they serious about winning” they gonna lose a LOT of fans (like in houston especially since roger and andy are not coming back.)
Names just aren’t worth that kind of money and years. Sorry.
p.s. i understand how yall mariners fans not real too happy after seeing how “good” beltre and sexon turned out to be. so i understand yall kinda snakebit about FA these days…
What the heck are you talking about? If I was a GM, I sign that Beltre deal every time it comes to the table, and Sexson’s had a grand total of two bad months as a Mariner. They aren’t the problems with the franchise.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:27 amSo, can we get an offseason plan? What would your response be to signing Schmidt at 4/11per of 4/12 per?
Isn’t there a clear added benefit in doing the best that you possibly can for the following year rather than holding off. So obviously you don’t want to cripple yourself for the future, but might it not be to the teams benefit to overpay a large ammount on a player if they think that the difference that player makes will put them over the hump into playoff contention and if there aren’t any other players out there who can provide the same improvement at that price?
November 19th, 2006 at 11:37 amSo, if i’ve got a team that is 3-4 wins from contention and I have a huge hole in my rotation, I might pay a starting pitcher much more than they are worth if they are the best available option. Now, I know the Mariners aren’t any of these things and that the have several holes, and so of course it’s in their interest to not overpay in filling any one of them. That said, why isn’t it appropriate to think that the value of players could vary fairly substantially between teams based upon how much disposable cash a team has and how close they are to the playoffs?
Um, it is. And people’ve written a lot about this - Nate Silver at Baseball Prospectus could compile a book on the stuff he’s done on how the value of player to a team depends on the team’s position.
Heck, Dave did a post discussing the implications of that for the Mariners a couple days ago.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:53 amNate Silver at Baseball Prospectus could compile a book on the stuff he’s done on how the value of player to a team depends on the team’s position.
so what would the value of Soriano as a 39-year old outfielder be to the Cubs? Fox & ESPN are reporting a possible 8/$135M deal in place …
November 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pmShame they have enough of a budget to eat something like this, but wow.
You’re not supposed to say that. The Mariners still have to make their similar mistake for 3x the cash.
Clearly, ‘cuz he’s so good, everyone just has to have him.
Meh.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:54 pmI am a huge lisa gray fan, enough that I asked her to do the Adam Everett write-up: http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/scout2006_winners.html
(The only thing I changed was her upper/lower casing.)
She has a definite and distinct personality, respectful of others (whether that comes through or not); a welcome addition to any board.
November 20th, 2006 at 7:19 am