2006 Free Agent Signings
With free agency nearly over, and by popular demand, here is my list of the ten best and worst free agent signings this winter. I’ve been vocal in my criticism of some of the decisions made this offseason, and there have been some horrible contracts handed out, but there have also been some good deals signed this winter.
So, without further ado, as of 12/28, the best and worst of the offseason signings:
Best Contracts of 2006
| Rank | Player | Team | Years | Total |
| 1. | M. Mussina | New York Yankees | 2 | $23m |
| 2. | G. Maddux | San Diego Padres | 1 | $10m |
| 3. | A. Pettitte | New York Yankees | 1 | $16m |
| 4. | D. Matsuzaka | Boston Red Sox | 6 | $102m |
| 5. | R. Durham | San Francisco Giants | 2 | $15m |
| 6. | D. Dellucci | Cleveland Indians | 3 | $11.5m |
| 7. | A. Iwamura | Tampa Bay Devil Rays | 3 | $13m |
| 8. | M. Alou | New York Mets | 1 | $8.5m |
| 9. | M. DeRosa | Chicago Cubs | 3 | $13m |
| 10 | J. Valentin | New York Mets | 1 | $3.8m |
Honorable Mention: A. Kennedy, F. Thomas, J. Guillen, F. Catalanatto, R. Wolf
Worst Contracts of 2006
| Rank | Player | Team | Years | Total |
| 1. | C. Lee | Houston Astros | 6 | $100m |
| 2. | B. Zito | San Francisco Giants | 7 | $126m |
| 3. | G. Meche | Kansas City Royals | 5 | $55m |
| 4. | J. Pierre | Los Angeles Dodgers | 5 | $45m |
| 5. | G. Matthews | Anaheim Angels | 5 | $50m |
| 6. | A. Soriano | Chicago Cubs | 8 | $136m |
| 7. | J. Marquis | Chicago Cubs | 3 | $21m |
| 8. | D. Baez | Baltimore Orioles | 3 | $19m |
| 9. | S. Hillenbrand | Anaheim Angels | 1 | $6.5m |
| 10. | W. Williams | Houston Astros | 2 | $12.5m |
Dishonorable Mention: B. Molina, A. Gonzalez, J. Walker, J. Payton, M. Stanton, C. Bradford
It was a good year to sign aging all-stars to short term deals, as the top three guys on my list are all still among the better pitchers in their respective leagues, and required no long term commitment. There were quite a few good contracts signed, but the albatross deals handed out to mediocre players will be the story of the winter.
Comments
USSM uses and recommends
So I take it that the M’s free agent signings, Guillen and Batista, were not bad investments, but not as outstanding as the ones listed above.
Too bad their trades were not as shrewd.
Nice list. Was Carlos Lee an easy choice for #1 or was Meche close behind? And does the fact that the Astros are more of a contender (making it more reasonable to overpay for a few wins) factor in?
I like the Guillen signing (it’s listed as an honorable mention) and am ambivalent about the Batista signing.
Lee was an easy choice for #1 – he’s extremely overrated as a player, and with the Astros losing Pettitte and potentially Clemens, I don’t see them as a contender. They’ve had a disastrous winter.
I still can’t believe Meche “earned” 5 years, not even considering $11m for each one.
I love those short pitcher deals (though I’m not sold on Pettitte but I’m sure NY can afford him) and I love the Iwamura signing. Even if he doesn’t turn out the best, he was well worth the risk, especially when memory lapses give people like DeRosa and Molina similar contracts.
This may be selective memory, but it seems like the top five worst signings could easily be #1 in many other years. This winter was crazy.
So, say Zito gets 6/$100m, where would you put him Dave?
Dave – Maddux signed with the Padres…
It’s good to see someone who likes the DeRosa deal. He’s always been one of my favorites, though his stats always make me look crazy for talking him up – I’d sort of conceded that he might be one of those guys that looks like a lot better player than he is.
Gammons is reporting that Zito has signed with the Giants for 7 years/18 million per.
#6 — Actually, Gammons is now reporting that Zito will sign a 7 year deal with the Giants for an average of 18 million per year. I saw it on espn.com. That is one bad contract. Sabean must have been even more desperate than Bavasi.
I don’t see Woody Williams at 6.5 for 2 as all that bad, all things considering.
Also, at this point I would love to have the chance to see Adam Eaton in an M’s uni at 8 for 3 years… the guy at least has upside, unlike so many of our recent moves. To me, he is very similar to AJ Burnett last year, in being a potential top tier pitcher but injures and erratic play stand in the way.
Adam Eaton could very well turn out to be a great signing, much better than Batista, who is what he is– a slightly above starter without TOR ability.
9. If true, then WOW. I bet the second offer wasn’t even close.
My guess is that Zito’s contract now jumps into the #1 spot. $126 million? Didn’t ANYONE learn from the Mike Hampton deal?
PS: Whatever happened to John Thomson. Is he still unsigned?
The top three signings essentially limited their options to one (Mussina), two (Pettite), or three (Maddux) teams. Four and seven were results of the posting system, so they could negotiate with only one team (although every team was eligible to bid on them).
#13– I think John is still sitting by his phone, murmering to himself “but they said they’d call” ….
#11 – Batista may not have much upside, but he has little downside. Eaton’s downside, on the other hand, is a giant canyon. He is a much bigger risk than Batista, who will likely be a league average pitcher for 200+ innings.
11 – You do know that Eaton signed with Philly more than a month ago, don’t you?
In other news, Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese Forces…
$18 mil on average per year for Zito.
Gammon reports that Zito picked the Giants over the Rangers, Mets, Yankees and Mariners. This is fantastic news that we did not land him.
Bonds at 1/16 is at least an honorable mention.
So Dave, assuming that the Zito deal goes through as reported, where would it fall on your best/worst signing list?
Bonds is not technically signed yet. He has agreed to terms with SF, but the Giants, according to media reports, want an out in the contract if Bonds is indicted for perjury and subsequently suspended by MLB.
Zito has his own post now.
Dave: You have to change this posting and put the SF/Zito deal as #1 worst contract. Unreal. Bad, bad deal.
#16, Batista has “little” downside?
If you are compating his downside to that of Eaton’s….is that really a good arguement? haha
As well as being a Mariners fan, I am also a Jays fan. I can attest to Batista’s downside.
I give the Mariner’s best wishes, but you will soon feel the frustration that I felt when he was a Jay.
Thanks, Tek.
Batista’s downside is the same as any other pitcher: he gets hurt and doesn’t pitch.
Actually I take that back. Meche’s downside is bigger than that: he doesn’t get hurt and pitches.
Nice, nice. See Batista will take the mound, get shelled, hand over the ball to Grover, and then blankly walk back to the dugout like he is not even bothered. Wait for it, you will understand and your frustration will set in.
Is there a stat for not showing emotion?
Wow, atait, that was almost a brilliant zing. Good effort, your wit is extraordinary.
My thought was, “why didn’t we go after him a month ago,” and “it is interesting he isn’t on the list for either good or bad signings.”
and Tek, I understand the risk/reward– but you also closed by saying Batista “will likely be a league average pitcher.” We are a league average team, at best. When you are stuck in a position of irrelevance and insignificance, why not try something new– particularily if the risk side isn’t that huge. 8 mil a year for a potential TOR? Nope. Instead we spend 8 for a “likely league average pitcher.”
Swing for mediocrity. Good effort, M’s.
I suppose Eaton doesn’t fit in “Good” or “Bad” signings, but in “Risky, without a ton of downside.” This FO has shown a willingness to waste 4-7 million a year on ineffective DH’s, why not on potential TOR’s got on the cheap?– the only way you’ll ever get one on cheap is if there is a potential risk, after all.
Mustard, you’ve mentioned Batista’s emotionlessness more than once. I have to say, I don’t give a damn whether a pitcher looks upset or not. Of course I don’t want him to feel casual, or play inattentively, etc; but people have a lot of ways of processing emotion, and I’m not going to assume that a guy isn’t trying his best or isn’t upset or whatever because he walks off the mound with no expression. You’re basically saying you’re mad at him for not displaying the frustration you feel.
I have not seen much evidence that Eaton will be a TOR pitcher. Barring an unforseen injury, I know what Batista will be. Eaton is a giant roll of the dice, and I would rather stay safe with Batista’s contract than roll with Eaton’s. Yes, there were better deals to be had than the one the M’s signed with Batista, but there were also worse contracts, and given Eaton’s history, I consider his contract to be worse.
I’m struck by the fact that LAA and LAD, two teams that appear loaded with MLB-ready prospects, are on the list at 3 and 4. Are these PR signings? Does the relative MLB parity create pressure to “win now” and make it easier for these teams to rationalize aggressive moves? Is there an organizational philosophy at work that I’m missing? Is there a chance that parity combined with flush coffers will unnaturally delay the arrival of prospects in general? Is this something that could be exploited by a savvy team?
First, I agree with Scraps about the emotion. Some of the best basketball players I ever faced/coached/coached against were stone-cold-killers, no emotion ever showed. A great NBA example is Tim Duncan– the guy always competes, but with the exception of when he is whining at officiating, you rarely see his emotion change.
Tek, it is true he may not be a TOR level guy, but he could be.
Bastista is not, never was, and never will be.
Yeah, he is a roll of the dice, but damn, will somebody please freakin’ explain to me why we continuously “roll the dice” on low upside players instead of true upside guys? Washburn, not Burnett. Crazy Carl, not… whoever. Vidro, not… whoever.
And as far as I’m concerned, we could have signed both Eaton and Batista and not gone after Vidro, left him to rot in DC, and let Snelling/whoever fill that role.
I don’t know… just wish we could improve our ceiling instead of building a basement full of uselessness.
Following up on my earlier point (#31), the Hillenbrand deal is another head-scratcher for the Angels. How can a team with such good talent not recognize it? What am I missing?
Why Mark DeRosa? He signed a three-year deal at more than $4M per for his age 32-34 seasons. He’s only had half a good season, and only one season as a full time starter. His good numbers come from a hitter’s park, so aren’t entirely reflecting his ability. He has some positional flexibility, but I don’t really see him as an every day player. I feel like this contract is a very close approximation of the Scott Speizio deal, and awfully likely to work out the same way.
Put another way, I think the Redbirds will be happier in three years with what Adam Kennedy did for similar money.
#29– and we suffered through the other extreme, in the days when Freddy would get too upset on the mound, and start to fall apart….
Woo hoo Frank Thomas. If he stays healthy, he can slug 45 homers in hitter friendly Rogers Centre. And no mention of Wells on either list. He’ has to be the best $100 million contract this offseason. I see a pattern in your lists though. You automatically rule the long and expensive ones as bad. But the market can change drastically making it worthwhile. Look at the Burnett signing last year. I know he’s still injury prone, but everyone laughed at the deal of 5/55, and now, a literal bargain. If you look at the short term, Soriano and Lee and Zito will help there teams a lot. Who knows what the economic landscape will be like in 7 years? With that being said, the prevoius $100 million contracts had about a 50 perecnt hit rate of having good value. Roughly.
Wells wasn’t a free agent.
Where would he rank?
No mention of Suppan’s deal, Dave? His durability and ground balls are really enough to overcome his age and poor strikeout and walk rates?
I’d nominate Scott Williamson’s 1-year $.9 million as at least an honorable mention good contract. I would’ve LOVED the M’s to have signed him for that…
Can you elaborate on putting Kennedy in honorable mention, that seemed like a bad contract to me.
Also I’m surprised that you like Durham’s contract that much, he has been great offensively, but I’ve heard that he’s a huge liability defensively.
Isn’t it funny how everyone was shitting their pants about Matsuzaka’s posting fee, but in retrospect it looks like one of the best deals of the winter?
I think Igawa could definitely be a bargain. (20M / 5y) A little long but relatively cheap for a potential number #3-4 type starter who will eat up a lot of innings. Thats IF they let him start…
How can Matsuzaka’s deal be in the top ten and Zito in the bottom ten. If you include the posting fee, and you must, the Sox got Matsuzaka for 6 years ~$152m or >$25m per year. The Giants get Zito 7 years for $126m or ~$18m per year. You could argue Matsuzaka is better but since we’ve never seen the Japanese pitcher throw a pitch in a major league game you have to accept he’s a much bigger risk. Can you accept that risk and the extra $7m per year. Even if you could you can’t argue Matsuzaka is top ten and Zito is bottom ten.
Are you kidding?
6y/102m is already including the posting fee!
Igawa cost the Yanks a 26M bid. Assuming the bid has to be paid in Y1, then given NPV, that’s akin to signing him to a 5Y/52M contract. For a guy who optimistically is a MOR and who has never thrown a MLB pitch before. That’s a terrible deal made mediocre by the fact that the Yanks can afford it.
FWIW, Matsuzaka’s contract under the same assumptions is equivalent to 6Y/117M
That is true, but I am talking about the contract taking into account it was the Yankees which signed him. There is all that Japan money / luxury tax issue which one should not forget.
Also, if you start talking about how one has never thrown a MLB pitch and such, the exact same thing can be said about Matsuzaka. Matsuzaka is probably the best pitcher in Japan right now, but not by far (there are other pitchers who have posted better numbers than him) and Igawa is also up there. Though scouts / players do not seem to think too high of Igawa, if I were to take the Ms as an example, I would take 2 Igawas instead of one Matsuzaka. I think it is also safe to say Igawa will post better numbers than Gil Meche
(or at least I hope >
The margin for error on short-term deals is so much wider than on long-term deals, that I think it would make more sense to break them up into: 3 years or less, and 4 years or more. So, a top 5/bottom 5 based on those parameters would be illuminating.
There’s no way I could find 5 deals of four or more years that I like. Almost all of the long term deals signed this winter were horrible, awful contracts.
I agree. My point is that the deals you don’t like may be more based because of the amount of money left on the table is compounded because of the years.
For example, let’s take Gary Matthews’ 5/50 deal. Let’s say that you think that he would have deserved a 5/34 deal instead. Those two are equivalent to a 2/24 and 2/19 deal:
http://www.tangotiger.net/salary.html
So, if he signed a 2/24 deal, you would have said “bad deal”, but not so bad to make your list because the GM didn’t compound the bad deal by added 3/26 to the deal.
If he signed 2/19, you would have said “ok deal”, and if the GM would have added 3/15 to the deal, you still would say “ok deal”.
My point is that the deals make the bad deal more because of the amount of money that the years add to the deal, rather than any poor intrinsic valuation of the player.
Sure, but in any of these contracts, you’re looking at players on the decline. Take the Matthews examples there: a 2/24 and a 2/19 deal might both be more than I would want to pay, but if you think he’s going to be a 4 win player for the next two years, it’s an overpayment of… 3 or 8 million. Over a nine-year deal, though, it’s not just that that gap grows with years, it’s also that his expected contribution drops as time goes on. You’re not going to continue to get 4 wins/year out of a player over seven years, so it’s a lot more like saying:
2/19 for the first two years, decent deal
2/19 for the next two years, less good
…
through the life of any contract.
You may not be too familiar with my chart, but I include a decline for performance, and an increase of $ per win for baseball-inflation. That’s why the chart works out the way it does.
I’d say I’m not so much unfamiliar as uncomprehending. The problem with that is that a 2-win player is not 1/2 as valuable as a 4-win player, because there are many more 2-win players. Their value as a commodity drops far more than a linear $5m/win=$value projection would indicate. If a 5-win player drops to a 1.5win player in the end of his contract, even with sustained inflation he’s not worth it.
But then, I also don’t believe a 10% annual inflation in payroll is sustainable.
You are correct that my chart is based on a linear relationship, and therefore a 2-win player will, for a single year, earn half as much as a 4-win player, who will earn, for a single year, half as much as an 8-win player.
The value in the commodity is in sustaining that ability. A 2-win player will say be 1.5 wins next year, then 1.0 wins, then 0.5 wins, then out of the league, so that over a 5-yr period, he’d be 5 wins total. A 4-win single-year player will be a 15 win player over 5 years, so he’d producing 3 times more value, rather than the initial year double the value.
I believe it is on that basis that the perceived “non-linearity” comes in.
I think if all players signed for exactly one year, the linear relationship would hold (like in fantasy baseball). In any case, I think my model as I’ve presented it would probably hold if we look at it long-term.
As for 10%, this has been the case if you look at most 10-yr periods. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future it’ll be more than 10%.
Well, then, I disagree that that’s a reasonable way to look at it, or that player valuation can or should be linear, or that 10% payroll inflation is sustainable.
It’s like… say I can pick three car leases.
There’s the BMW for $1,000 a month for ten years.
Or a nice VW for $500 on a five-year deal.
Or a Civic for $300 on a three-year deal.
Further, assume that cars all degrade in value continually, quickly, and equally. And there’s no inflation. Also, no friction or gravity. At the end of the Beemer lease, you’re paying $1,000 for a crappy car that spends all its time at the dealer and they won’t give you a loaner.
You’re not better off having signed that lease because the initial quality was better. At that point, in that last year of the deal, you’re thinking “Crap, I could go rent two VWs for this money. Or three Civics. Then I could have one for me, one for the extra $100 I’m saving, and one for all the women who will want to date me for my amazing financial skills.”
Okay, so that’s not the best analogy, but I typed it out and everything so I’m not going back.
How much would you pay to each player if they were one/50th as talented as Albert Pujols? You can’t put a team together with 50 fractional Pujolses. And so on and so forth. Value can’t be linear. Teams may pay on the line, but that doesn’t mean it’s rational or a good idea.
And the economics thing – predicting even the near-term future of much larger economies is a crapshoot. I don’t know if they can sustain 10%, but I’m extremely skeptical.
I said this elsewhere, and I’ll repeat it:
=======================
Why is 10% not sustainable? Payroll has grown at a 10% clip from 1985 to 2005. Also 10% from 1990 to 2005. As high as 9% from 1996 to 2005. While 6% may seem more appropriate, I’d counter that MLBAM money will be enormous. MLBAM is already worth more than the Yankees I’d guess. And one day, possibly within the next few years, MLBAM will be worth 50% of the entire league.
Teams will have lots of money floating around, and, while spending it won’t give them a bigger share of MLBAM, they won’t be able to resist not spending it. They are going to budget spending 55% – 60% of their revenue on payroll, even if 45% makes more sense because of MLBAM-revenue sharing.
====================================
As for the non-linearity, if you play in single-year fantasy baseball, you will find that the valuations of players do follow the linear rule. I would say that if you were to construct a realistic baseball model (30 teams, average team payroll of 80 million$, with 1 SD = 15 million$), that the valuations of players would also follow a linear line.
I understand the “50 x 1/50th Pujols”, but the reality is that once a team pays for Pujols and Carpenter and Rolen, it’s tough for them to keep paying for other stars.
I know that MLBAM expects to see 20-30% revenue growth at least through five years. So 2010, they’d be taking in what, ~$800m+ in revenues. $500m more for 30 teams is $16m more a team/year, so that’s what, a 20% payroll increase, total, over those five years? That’s certainly not 10% year over year growth.
I probably just made some horrible math error: my chicken skewers are ready to come out of the oven, so I’m rushing.
Doesn’t matter. I’m skeptical of MLBAM’s ability so sustain that kind of growth that long, and baseball’s ability to sustain revenue growth over the next decade. I don’t know, certainly.
Sure, none of us knows!
Your numbers shows a 4% year over year, just based on MLBAM itself. If you can believe they would have done 6% growth, excluding MLBAM, there’s your 10% growth. Certainly teams have been spending this year like they expect 10% growth.
So, from 1985-2005, they actually have seen 10% growth. Inflation is what, 3%? MLBAM you say is 4%. If all they get is a modest 3% over and above all this on their regular product, we continue with 10%. At a pure minimum, using your numbers, it’s 7%.
The chicken skewers weren’t very good, btw, so I lose two ways.
Also don’t forget that capital appreciation of ball clubs also feeds into wages.
According to Forbes (and who knows how reliable a source it is) capital appreciation has grown in-line with wages). MLBAM also has a considerable effect of the value of the clubs as it is owner my the clubs. Add in non MLBAM appreciation too and you can start to see where a lot of the new money is coming from.