THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

thumbs down to KW.

Freddy Sanchez re-signed by the Giants, 2 YRs @ $6M per. 

This strikes me as a fair deal for the Giants.  They claim to have checked up on his progress after knee surgery before doing the deal.  If they’re convinced he’ll play 120+ games per season, he’s looking at 2.5 WAR total over the life of the deal.

He’s not blocking anybody of consequence either.

Fairly neutral trade between KC and Chicago, other than the money involved. Teahen is Just Another Guy (being paid at more or less his open market worth), and the two KC got back are marginal, but may have room for improvement.

And the Iwamura trade clocking in before the WS ended handed some free WAR to the Pirates. Good for Neal Huntington, he’s doing a good job with the Pirates’ moves (other than perhaps the Nyjer Morgan/Lastings Milledge trade).

Money matters though, so KC won the trade clearly as far as I’m concerned.

Troy Glaus for 1-year/$5 million to the Orioles.

According to MLBTradeRumors (link on my name), Boston has acquired Jeremy Hermida from the Marlins for two minor leaguers. Haven’t checked on the minor leaguers yet, so I don’t really know who “the winner” is yet.

Bobby Abreu back to the Angels, 2 years, 19 million.  I’m happy.

Where is Glaus to the O’s being reported?  Couldn’t find it on BTF or Trade Rumors.  Checked the MLB team site, and the lead story is the Orioles negotiating with Baez and Hendrickson.  That depresses me.

That seems like a lot for Abreu given he signed for 1 year / $5 mil for 2009.  Was he way underpaid for 2009, way overpaid for 2010-2011 or a little of both?  or neither?

He made the Glaus thing up.  Free agency doesn’t start for another two weeks.  Players can only sign with their original clubs right now.

Damn - I though the Cards were gonna get some draft picks.

By Fangraphs Bobby was worth 11 million last year, which is pretty close to his 4 year average.  He was a pretty obvious bargain last year.  9 million might not be discounting his age enough, but it seems close enough.

I just looked at the Abreu trade for BtB.  It seems a pretty even deal.  Abreu’s problem has been his bad D (sub -10 UZR for 3 of the last 4 years).  He look perfect to fit into the Angel DH spot since Vlad is gone.

Jeff, I read your piece and you didn’t seem to take aging into account.

Shouldn’t you subtract 0.5 WAR from his 2011 projection?

Also, if he’s going to DH, shouldn’t he get a penalty for that as well? The Book says it’s harder to hit as a DH, and I can’t imagine Abreu playing the field at all in 2011.

Tango, I posted a link to the Hermida trade that got hit by the spam filter.

Hara/#13: From what I can recall, the penalty for “hitting off the bench” is already built into the DH positional adjustment, so what Jeff did was right there. I think it’s something like -5 runs over the course of a season.

The DH penalty (actually bonus), is to give a player +0.5 wins to his *DH* hitting stats, in order to align him to regular players’ stats.  The DH positional value is -2.25 wins (which is equivalent to the 1B positional value of -1.25 wins and a -1 wins for being a bad fielding 1B).

So, overall, you give a pure DH -1.75 wins to his hitting value.  If it was a non-DH, and you put him at DH, you give him -2.25 wins.  That’s because his non-DH stats were as a non-DH.

***

I’m also considering what to do with catchers, given the finding I had in THT09, that a pure catcher, when moved to a non-C position will end up hitting better.  Maybe I should be giving +0.75 win for positional value and then +0.5 wins for the bonus (like the DH).  (Which of course works out to the same +1.25… maybe it should be +1.00 + 0.5.) Don’t know yet…

Positional adjustment for DH is -5 from 1B and - 10 from LF/RF.

I like the Proctor signing for the Braves.

In other words, Abreu’s value at OF and DH are the same if he’s a -15 fielder.

I’m not sure he’ll be the fulltime DH though.  I could see a lot of time for Napoli at DH and Bobby playing right.  A lot really depends on if they bring back Vlad.  Seems unlikely, but he might take a discounted one year deal and the team might show some loyalty.

Rally: right.  And that’s the basic point that once someone becomes a -15 fielding corner outfielder, he’s going to be moving DH pretty soon.

Ridiculous bit of nitpicky pedantry alert: shouldn’t this blog be titled something like “sabermetric analysis of 2010 pre-season moves”?  I don’t expect that much to happen in sabermetrics over the offseason…

Brewers send J.J. Hardy to Twins for Carlos Gomez.

Blackadder, at this point I would hope the title stays the same as in previous years.  That way you just replace 2010 with 2009 in your browser if you want to see what was said last year.

Easier than the search option, though a link to previous years at the top would be nice (hint).

That was a great finding re: the cathcher “hitting penalty,” Tango.  I always wondered why it was hard to demonstrate enough catcher defensive value to explain why they were such lousy hitters.  It’s possible that teams overvalue catcher defense, I suppose, but that large a persistent league-wide error seems very unlikely.  There are probably still things left to discover about catchers’ defensive contribution, but the catcher hitting penalty does a lot to solve that mystery.

I think the Brewers GM has been taking too many night classes with Dayton Moore.

As a Brewer fan, I initially hated this trade but now I’m more, “bleh” Hardy’s projected for maybe 3.0-3.5 WAR for 2010? He’ll get perhaps $7 mil in arbitration.  Twins get him for 2011 as well. 

Gomez is maybe 1.5 WAR and will be making league minimum for 2010 (unless he’s a super 2?) He’s also Brewers property for 4 years.

Gomez is likely a super 2.

Linked to my Beyond the Box Score quick review I wrote for the trade. 1.5 WAR for Gomez and 3.5 or so WAR for Hardy sounds about right; that is around what I got. I used the Trade Value Calculator, but estimates of Hardy’s and Gomez’s actual arbitration values would have been better, admittedly.

Gomez’s Super 2 status definitely throws a wrench in the value I outlined there. Easily knocks $4.8M from his value, putting him about even if you buy the 1.7 WAR the next few seasons.

I think a reasonable projection for both players would be 7 WAR, and about 15 mil.  I think its about a wash, unless you think that 7 WAR is more valuable in 2 seasons than in 4.  For the Twins I would think it would be, because these next two seasons are a very good chance to make the playoffs.  After that, a large percentage of their core will get more expensive, and the division will undoubtedly get better.

Jermaine Dye had his option bought out by the White Sox.  No surprise there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4629090

I still don’t understand that KC/CWS trade. If you put Mark Teahen at third (and that’s what they’ve announced they’re going to do), isn’t Teahen basically an older, more expensive, less powerful Josh Fields? Both guys are butchers with the glove over there, and while Fields has disappointed so far, he’s also a bit younger. And KC gets Getz, nobody special but a guy who might be an ok second baseman. And they save a lot of money.

Sometimes I just wonder what goes on in the White Sox front office. This probably won’t be as bad as the Swisher trade, but it’s still pretty bad.

On #13 to #19, I need to make sure I am on the same page

I just want to make sure I understand this perfectly because I keep talking myself into each variation when making WAR projections:

Batter - not previously a DH (Abreu)

RAA[not adjusted in any way] + replacement + -22.5[positional] + 0 UZR[No UZR for DH]

Batter - mainly a DH (Matsui)

RAA(adjusted up from DH numbers) + replacement + -7.5[corner OF positional] + UZR

Can someone help me with a projection for Cuddyer?  On fangraphs they used his career wOBA, which seems flawed to me.  I used ZIPS(348/475) and and his career UZR/150 in RF(-10)to get 2 WAR.  So I should assume he projects as 1.5 WAR in 2011 due to aging?  This means the twins are paying 6.75M for production and 2.75M for magic tricks, marquee value and clubhouse leadership?  Thanks.  I assumed no inflation, which may or may not be correct.

JK/41:  A .348/.475 line is probably about .350-.355 wOBA (depending on how he gets there, the league run environment, and his SB/CS numbers, but it should be around there), based on other hitters who have put up those OBP/SLG numbers this decade (click link in my name for a table of such players).  That would be roughly 14 runs above average per 700 PA.  -17.5 for fielding and 20 for replacement would put him at about 16.5 runs.  Scale back his playing time to 650 PAs, and that’s more like 15 runs.  He is probably close enough to average on the bases that it doesn’t make much difference to leave it out.  So about 1.5 WAR.

That’s 2010.  Projecting to 2011 would drop that further.  You also have to question what playing time would be appropriate to project 2 years into the future.  650 PAs might be too much to count on him for, but assuming that as a best case scenario, I think he would project to less than 1.5 wins in 2011 even with that much playing time.

Apparently I linked the wrong url in the previous post.  It worked in the post preview, but doesn’t now.  Let’s try this again.  Link in the name again.

Great quote from Brian Cashman on how postseason performance affects his player valuations:

“What they were when they went into October, that’s what they still are regardless of how well or how poorly they played in October.”

I think the Johnny Damon negotiations will be among the most fascinating this off-season.

Hardy remain 3.5 WAR in the ALCD?  I’m not so sure I buy that.

Akinori Iwamura and his $4.85m salary and bum leg to the Pirates for Jesse Chavez and his min salary then arb years (plus $.5m buyout savings).

Good luck on that one.

I’m going to move all the Wakefield comments to a new thread.

Clicking on my name gives a rough calculation of how bad the re-signing of Griffey was.

Re: Griffey.

We dont know how much extra revenue the Mariners received due to having Griffey last year, but the Mariners probably have a decent idea.  His value to the team comes in the form of ~.25 WAR plus whatever revenue he brings in via ticket sales.

So a replacement player is $400k, the .25 WAR is ~$1 Million, and the revenue we brings in probalby makes up for much of the rest of his $3.1 million or however much he made.

At worst, its a very small loss, really not a big deal. 

There is also the unquanitifiable ‘chemistry’ boost he brings.  We definitely dont know how to value that, but that doesnt mean it has zero value.  The Mariners seems to think that it does have some value, and their new management is very smart and employs a sabermetric team, so maybe they know something?

I personally look at the Griffey signing as being close to zero importance.  What he gives the Mariners is close enough to his cost that it doesnt matter.

Another move:

Mariner’s sign SS Jack Wilson for $10 million.

He is sub .300 wOBA but a +10 or so SS, bringing him to around 1.5 to 2 WAR. 

The Mariner’s got him for a few million cheaper than his projected value, so good move by them. 

Dave Cameron has analysis at ussmariner.

Alex/39 - I don’t disagree with what you said, but where does going out of your way to give a roster spot to a .25 WAR player when there certainly is better out there for the same price (or cheaper). It seems the “using a roster spot” variable hasn’t been accounted for. It STILL might be a worthwhile move, but I’m not sure about that.

I doubt the use of a roster spot is as significant as the PAs he’ll likely get in terms of costs to the Mariners.  He can probably justify taking up a roster spot with pinch hitting, clubhouse/mentoring value (if there is any), marketing value to fans, and possibly in saving a year of service time for a marginal prospect.  Regular playing time at DH and takign PAs from a better hitter would be a significant cost in terms of production, though.  I suppose it is possible that the Mariners are not valuing him entirely or even mostly by his contributions to winning games in 2010, though.

There is supposedly a “Picasso value” involved in owning a sports team, and maybe to the Mariners, bringing back a team hero and first-ballot HOFer like Griffey adds to their fulfillment and to the fulfillment of the fans.  What good is Picasso value if you run things purely from a business standpoint and don’t let yourself spend a little recklessly on that one piece you really want even if its not particularly useful?  I have no idea if there is any validity to that, but maybe this is a unique case where winning or financial efficiency are not the primary goals.

I also wonder if there could be an effect on brand management?  Reestablishing strong ties with Griffey at the end of his career and giving him a stage to exit the games on his own terms seems like it could have a positive impact as far as associating his memorable greatness with the team.  It seems like one of the big things going for teams like the Yankees and Cardinals is that they are basically the brand of baseball in large sections of the country.  So maybe the Mariners feel that strengthening this connection helps them out on that front in some way (not that it will turn them into the Yankees, just that it could strengthen the brand of the Mariners by a non-negligible amount).  I don’t really know, maybe this is way off base.  It just feels like Griffey is a unique case for some reason, and if the Mariners aren’t giving up much in the way of playoff odds, spending the money on Griffey seems ok despite the fact that it’s inefficient from a production standpoint.

Yeah, its hard to call out the Mariners at this point.  Every other move they’ve made seems sound, and its not like they are unaware of his poor production.  I very much doubt the small loss in productivity in 2010 will outweigh the benefits.  The mariners likely won’t be in the playoffs next year (though it’s possible), so giving fans a reason to come to the ball park for a small price seems reasonable.

The funny thing is, if it was the Royals doing this, we’d (I’d) probably have a different opinion.  There are a few clubs that just deserve the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

@43

I am of the opposite opinion about the Mariners.  They have done such a good job with players like Gutierrez and Aardsma that they were much less likely to waste that last roster spot than an incompetent team like the Royals.  With the Royals, I would assume they would replace Griffey with another Betancourt clone.  With the Mariners, they are costing themselves a roster spot with which they are doing a great job generating production.

Tango, MGL, or other(s):

I don’t know if you’ve posted it elsewhere, but what are your estimates for the $/WAR for FAs this offseason? Going into the last offseason I thought it was going to be ~$4.8M/WAR based on Tango’s earlier seasonal estimations, but then the market crashed and everything got thrown into turmoil (although Mark Ellis ended up looking like a genius). If it was $4.8M last season, then it would be about ~$5.3M this season, but I haven’t read anyone’s esimate. It would be nice if Colin would update his THT study…

Thoughts? Research by people much smarter than me?

I would put it at the same 4.4MM for three years running.

Tim Hudson: signed for 3/28, which obviates the 1MM buyout (therefore, he signed for a 3/27 “extension").

If you are having trouble with that, his buyout for the 2010 season was (essentially) moved to the 2013 season, and he’s getting 9MM for 2010, 2011, 2012.

Presuming the FA market is static for the last 3 offseasons, and will only increase by 7% per year, he’s being paid for 2.35 WAR in 2010, with a drop of 0.5 WAR each year.

Hudson is a very good pitcher, probably around a .525-.550 pitcher.  This means he’s being paid for being a .525 pitcher with 157 IP, or a .550 pitcher with 132 IP.

Playing time is the concern.  What would be a fair expectation?  Is 132-157 fair for 2010?  And a standard drop from there?

Hudson probably gave a bit of a discount, and the Braves may be leery of a guy coming off Tommy John.

Plus we have the uncertainty of the market (is it still low, and is the rate of increase going to be lower than normal)?

If I had to guess, I’d say he gave a 10% discount.  Had he signed for 3/24, I’d have thought it low.  Had he signed for 3/36, I’d have thought it high.

Overall, pretty fair.

Thanks for the thoughts on the market, Tango. Makes sense to me.

On Hudson and pitching in general—obviously estimating playing time is more difficult with pitchers than for position players. Although one naturally wants to get an estimate specific for each player, what is a good generic one for pitchers, a la 85% (or whatever) for position players?

A simple way would be to do: 8, 12, 16, 20, 24.
8 - reliever
12 - swingman
16 - 4th/5th starter or injury history
20 - 2nd/3rd starter, and many 1st starters
24 - workhorse

Gut feels are fine.  Otherwise, wait for the Community to speak:
http://www.tangotiger.net/survey/

Fairly minor move, but the Reds re-sign Ramon Hernandez for $3M in 2010.  Option for $3.25 in 2011 if he’s a 74% playing time guy in 2010, which seems unlikely.  They also had to pay a $1M buyout to get out of his last contract, so effectively they’re paying $4M in 2010, which is worth somewhere around 0.9 wins.

Hitting: Rally has him at -9 RAA/150G, but 54% playing time.  Pro-rated, that’s -0.6 wins or so.  ZiPS is similar in both rate stats and playing time.

Fielding: Fans have him straight-up average.  Catching stat based on SB/PB/WP/E rates puts him right about average as well based on the last three years of data.  I call him average.

Position adjustment + replacement is +1.25 wins and +2.25 wins (I think Rally’s baseline is 2.25 wins across the board compared to his R150 number..?).  Prorated, that’s +1.9 wins.

So: -0.6 + 0 + 1.6 = +1-1.5 WAR in 2010.  Seems somewhere between fair and a modest bargain for the Reds.
-j

The Hernandez move is a lot worse when you realize that they have Ryan Hanigan for league minimum, who likely provides the exact same WAR, if not better, projected to playing time. (-9 R150 vs. -10 according to CHONE)

Hanigan’s also a heck of a defensive player, based on 2009, so yes, I’d rate him above Hernandez on the depth chart.

You need more than one catcher, though.  Hanigan’s a fine player, but most catchers won’t be 85% players.  I’d prefer that Hanigan play more than Hernandez, but you can do worse than a Hanigan/Hernandez tandem.
-j

More Griffey thoughts.  I started doing math, going into this with thebelief that Griffey was worth to the Mariner’s roughly what he is being paid.  After doing the math it loos to me like they are slightly overpaying:

The Mariners have already stated that signing Griffey doesnt mean they wont sign another DH.  Griffey has stated he is willing to be the team’s 25th man in order to make it on the team. 

Lets say the Mariners don’t plan to use Griffey as the usual DH, but instead use him as a super pinch hitter and backup DH.

So the Mariners go sign another DH (and a 1B, possibly Branyan). 
Lets say that Their DH plays 150 games, and Griffey plays the other 12 as DH to rest him.
Their 1B also plays 150 games, and in the other 12 their newly signed DH plays 1B, and Griffey plays DH.  So Griffey is DH 24 times to rest the 1B and DH.

In the other games, they use him to pinch hit once per game, in a late inning important situation, where they would otherwise have someone like Jack Wilson (SS), Rob Johnson (C), or Bill Hall (3B) batting.

Lets say that a situation comes up for him to be used as a PH in 90 of the games he doesnt play, (out of 138 - 65%?), and that these sitautions average to an above average leverage of 1.25.  Just to make up some numbers.  How much value does Griffey have now?  How many runs does he add by pinch hitting?

I’ll project Griffey as a .328 wOBA hitter off the bench or DHing (with the DHing penalty already included).  Thats based on Bill James 2010 projection.  I’m going to use the Bill James 2010 projection for everyone’s wOBA, for consistency, and because I dont really have anything better available right now.

1/3 of the time he comes in for Jack Wilson (.298 wOBA), and then Jack Wilson is replaced by Jack Hannahan at SS. (A small defensive loss for the rest of the game).
1/3 of the time he comes in for Bill Hall (.307 wOBA), and then Bill Hall is replaced by Jack Hannahan at 3B. (Pretty close to even on defense, Hannahan probably just a bit better).
1/3 of the time he comes in for Rob Johnson (.281 wOBA), and then Rob Johnson is replaced by Adam Moore at C.  (Even on defense?  Hard to measure catchers).

30 times, Griffey bats for Wilson, gaining .328-.298 = .03 run each time, or +.9 run. 
30 times, Griffey bats for Hall, gaining .328-.307 = .021 run each time, or +.63 run.  Defensive replacement is about even.
30 times, Griffey bats for Johnson, gaining .328-.281 = .039 run each time, or 1.17 run.

Total is 2.7.  If we manage to put him in in situations with above average leverage (LI 1.25), then its really like 3.4 runs.

Lets say Hannahan is 10 runs/season worse than Wilson at SS, at he plays 2 innings per Griffey pinch hit.  We lose .4 run here for defense.  The others have defensive replacements of about the same ability.

Total: +3 runs from Griffey Pinch Hitting.  So about +.3 WAR.

Griffey is about a .25 - .5 WAR DH over a season.
Using him as a DH for 1/6 of the games and as a pinch hitter for a bad hitter in 2/3 of games also ends up being in the area of .25 - .5 WAR. 

The value of using that bench spot on a defensive replacement such as Langerhans is in the same ballpark.  Dave Cameron estimated the loss as being about .5 win, if someone like Langerhans is cut to make room for Griffey.

Given that all these differences are on the order of fractions of a win, I think it is safe to conclude:

* Griffey as full time DH == Griffey as part time DH/frequent PH == Value of using the bench spot on a defensive replacement (that the mariners have available on their team), all give or take a quarter of a win.

Therefore it doesnt make sense for the Mariner’s to pay much more than $500,000 for Griffey.  If they didnt have available bench players who are worth .25-.5 WAR, it would make sense to pay him in the $1-2 million range.  If that was the case, then once you add a million or so in extra revenue he brings in, it justifies his salary.

However, given that the Mariners already have sufficient bench players making the league minimum available to be members of their 25 man, who can be worth .5 WAR on the bench (Langerhans, Hannahan, Moore, etc).  Because of this, the Mariner’s dont actually gain anything (in terms of tangible runs) by having Griffey on the team, that they wouldnt get by paying one of those bench players (whichever one they cut), $500,000.

So why would the Mariners make the move?
They are going to pay Griffey about $3 million, or $2.5 million above the minimum.

For that $2.5 million they dont get anything in terms of playing ability that they didnt have.  What they get is:
$X in additional revenue due to Griffey fans attending more games.
Unquantifiable Leadership/Morale bonus to the clubhouse. 
“Picasso Value” mentioned in an earlier post, of having Griffey end his career as a Mariner, and any longer term benefits that may bring to developing the Brand of the team.

To conclude everything:

* It looks to me like the Mariners arent losing wins by having Griffey as the 25th man instead of one of the other players the have available.  However, they spend an extra $2.5 million to do it.  They get back $X in extra revenue, which is probably greater than 0 but less than $2.5 million.  Thus they lose the $2.5M minus X, which couldve been spent on more free agents for an extra fraction of a win.

* They are essentially paying that $2.5-X million for leaderships and building their brand.  I dont know how to quantify the leadership.  Does it have value in making anyone play a little better?  Does it make someone want to sign with the team for slightly less money?  Maybe.  Is this money, spent as an investment in the Mariners brand, a good investment?  It probably is.  A lot of casual fans know Griffey and will pay a little more attention to the team as a result, there is some value in that.

* Overall, the sum result of Griffey vs no Griffey is the same order of magnitude of decision importance as swapping a couple players around in lineup order.  Meaning not much at all.  Which pretty much means the whole thing has generated a lot of talk, but doesnt really matter very much, and I just wasted the last hour writing this.

Alex, I think you nailed it sabermetrically.  However, if the M’s assume they won’t be in a pennant race in September and Griffey announces a firm plan to retire at the end of the season, I suspect the minor difference in dollars is made up by tickets sold to folks who will show up to see him one last time at Safeco.  That’s a business scenario, not a baseball scenario (he also generates a lot of souvenir sales).

Pedro wants to pitch for the full 2010 season:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4662808&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

What in the heck is his projection going to look like?  What do you think he’s worth?  What do you think he gets?

DBacks dealt two low prospects for Aaron Heilman.

I don’t know what your projections say, but seems to me like he’s a below average, close to replacement level reliever (0.5WAR combined the last three years), and he’ll probably make around $2 million in arbitration this year (this is a wild guess, but he made $1.2 million in ‘08 and $1.6 million in ‘09).

Looks to be a terrible deal for the DBacks, even assuming these prospects are worth nothing.

There is a quote that Toronto’s GM uses Tango as a consultant (Is that true?). Then, I would say that is huge sabr move for the Jays ^^

yeah brent, I saw that too, from Kenny Ken Ken Rosenthal - though I thought Tango was consulting for the Mariners.  Anyway, I’m a Jays fan, so hopefully it’s true.

I’m doing both, the way STATS and BIS supply their expertise to more than one MLB team.  My role is much bigger with the Mariners.

Still good news (re: the Jays thing). Can you tell us whether your role will be expanded with AA as the GM? Or perhaps his appointment is what got you started there.

Would you have to sit out if the Jays and Mariners were discussing a trade?

Cool that you’ve got both of the 77 expansion teams.

My role started with AA as the GM.  I deal directly with him.

Both sides are aware, and I respect the NDA.  So, if someone wants to propose trading Edgar Martinez for Dave Stieb, and they seek me out, then I reply, making sure not to divulge that the Jays told me that Stieb likes to breathe through his eyelids, or that the Mariners told me that Edgar insisted that he will only bat seventh in the lineup.

If it comforts any Jays fans, I am aware that AA’s contacts with Tango and others in our community go back at least a year.

Jays would be morons to trade Steib for Martinez.  He’s just a AAA hitter, has never done anything with his big league chances.

Good for Tango that he is getting work for multiple teams, and also I am happy that he is primarily working for my Mariners right now.

Good news.

Well the treat of the day seems to be the Phillies coming to terms with Juan Castro (pending physical).  Compared to Bruntlett, Castro seems like an incredibly lateral move.  Small news, but we have a little while to go before the interesting stuff starts to happen.

John Macdonald 2 years/ 3 million dollars. AA ( and I suppose those that advise him) are being eviscerated on various blogs for this signing.

Tango I imagine you can’t comment given the conflict of interest but it would be interesting to see your thoughts, I know in the past you’ve felt that someone this bad as a hitter must have some underlying defensive value to last as long as he has.

From reading The Book we know that pinch hitters face a “ severe penalty “, but what about pinch fielders and late inning defensive substitutes,and spot starters like Macdonald. How do we properly ascribe true defensive value to a guy who plays only 10-15% of his teams defensive innings on a random basis? Reviewing his career it seems the more he plays - the better his UZR.

anecdotally, it seemed that Johnny Mac had some trouble when coming in as a defensive replacement this year.  I watched most Jays games this year, and his defence seemed a little shakier in general.

That said, he seems like a good guy, is a fan favourite and even though he’s a replacement level player, I think that’s ok for a utility guy on a rebuilding team.  Veteran leadership, and all that. . .

It’s no money, so I’m not sure why people are so worked up about the deal.  Sure, the Jays didn’t sign their draft picks last year, but they’re getting them back this season - if we cheap out again, then there’ll be something to complain about.

Did anyone see this nugget from Sheehan:

“Free-agent closers tend to be pretty good values relative to other free agents, and [Jose] Valverde is unlikely to buck that trend.”

I really don’t know what to say.  Except that he’s 100% wrong about both things.

I meant to comment on that but I guess it slipped my mind by the end of the article.  I’d like to know exactly what he was referring to because the anecdotes that come immediately to mind, Lidge*, K Rod, Fuentes, etc seem to scream the opposite.

Could he have been referencing David Aardsma type players?  I’m not sure, what I do know is there is something seriously screwy with that statement.

*Lidge wasn’t technically a FA but they paid him FA dollars in return for not testing the market.

Billy Wagner to Atlanta for 1 Year/7M, with a vesting option for a second year if he plays in 50 games. 

Boston gets 2 first rounders since Wagner was a Type A Free Agent.

The New York Mets, MY TEAM, look like idiots, having traded Wagner for 2 non-prospects, while Boston has 2 valuable picks. 

Why must my team’s management suck?!

I really hope the Mets stay dumb, so that my Mariners can continue to make trades like injured JJ Putz for a ton of players + Franklin Gutierrez.

(Yes, I know that isnt a complete description of the trade).

garik16/72 - I think the deal calls for Wagner to finish 50 games, not play in 50 games.

Polanco to the Phillies for 3/18 (and rumors of a mutual option) pending physical.  An interesting move since he will be playing 3b after his gold glove season at 2nd.  I think either the money or the years are just a wee bit on the highish side for a 34 year old, but Amaro seems willing to pay a premium in order to get in and out of the FA market as quickly as possible (see Ibanez, Raul).  I thought 3/14-16 seemed like a reasonable range when it was first discussed so this isn’t too far from my expectations.

Polanco is a league average hitter and a good defender.  He has to project to be at least average over the course of the contract.  $6 mil/year for average sounds pretty good to me.

If we presume 4.4MM$ per win in 2010, 4.7 in 2011 and 5.0 in 2012…

***

Polanco: 3/18 paying for 1.8, 1.3, 0.8 wins for the next 3 years.

Seeing that Fangraphs has his WAR in the last three years (07-09) as: 5.3, 3.1, 3.1, it’s safe to say that the Phillies got themselves quite the bargain.

Tango, do you realistically estimate that the cost per win will be up to 5.0 million for 2012, or are you just being generous that it is a possibility / probable thing of happening?

Well, we know it was around 4.5 for multi-year deals in 2009 (see recent Saber Rattling thread), so I don’t see a problem calling it 4.4, 4.7, 5.0 for 2010-2012.

I was looking at his skills in the Fan Scouting Report and he scores better than the median third baseman (perhaps shouldn’t have taken median of whole group?) in just about everything except arm strength. He was quite a bit worse than the median third baseman in arm strength, but if the scores hold true it seems like he could go back to being a useful third baseman.

Keith Law on Polanco:

Cesare (Jet City, Washington) According to Fangraphs, Polanco was worth 50 million over the last three years ... does anyone seriously think their valuations have any basis in reality?

Klaw (1:33 PM)
My favorite line on those came from a GM: “Their replacement level is, like, me.”

Not that this foolishness is nothing new from a phony sabermetric writer like Law, but I wanted to point it out.

I just started a thread on this…

Apparently Scutaro’s deal is for only 5 million.  Paying for only a little above 1 WAR.  So no team thinks he’ll keep any of his increase in production from 2009.

Mariners close to signing Chone Figgins for 4 years/~$36M.  Its basically done.

Seems like another bargain, like Polanco.  They’re paying for ~2 wins a year and getting at least a 3 win player.  Even throwing out the career year in 2009, he was around 3 wins before that.

I believe in the $ per win model, at least in the sense that this is what teams SHOULD be doing.  But it seems like so far this offseason we are seeing players sign for bargains.

Provided a free agent presents an average level of risk, he should get about as many years as he’s worth in wins per year, roughly.  So, fringy 0-2 win players get 1 year deals, league average players get 2-year deals, 3-win players get 3 year deals, 4-win players get 4-year deals 5+ win players get 5+ year deals, etc… The difference in upside in adding an extra win/year into 1 roster spot is approximately worth the inherent risk of adding a year to a contract. This is very crude, of course, but it’s basically how the market behaves.  And all players have different levels of inherent risk, though.  Teams are usually more interested in giving 3-year deals to 31 year old third basemen than 36 year old power relievers.

I think we can safely estimate Figgins will be at least a 3-win player for the next 4 years, that’s a fairly universally accepted estimate.  So, you probably expect him to get a 3-year deal worth about $36 million.  Given Figgins’ skill set is one that supposedly ages well, and given how well Figgins fits with the Mariners, and given that they can reasonably expect to compete in at least 3 of the contract years, I don’t see why guaranteeing a 4th year is an atrocious offense.  Sure, 3 years would’ve probably been better, but between paying him right at market value for 3 years and paying him like a league average player for 4 years, I think the latter is the better decision.

For some players, it’s financially favorable to pay a higher average salary to avoid adding another year to the contract.  I don’t think it is in this case.

How many signings does it take for the $/WAR to stabilize?  Is this something you’d have a good estimate after 10 signings?  $100 million worth of contracts? 

It is interesting to me that we don’t actually calculate the going rate until after the offseason is over, but critiques/accolades happen in realtime.

JK: I guess 100million$ worth of contracts is about right.  That’s 10% of a typical year, though this off-season, I’d presume it’s going to be much less than that.

I think maybe one or two more signings.

So far, by my count, 9 contracts that have been signed (let me know if I’m forgetting someone), Figgins, Polanco, Wagner, Saito, Schnider, Scutaro, Zaun, Blanco, and Cora.  9 contracts, 18 guaranteed years, ~$95 million guaranteed money.

On the whole, the market is behaving a LOT like we’d expect it to.

Using my rough estimates of 2010 Win Value, the market is paying ~$2.5 million per win on the usual linear scale.  Using the 9 data points we’ve got, the equation $2.2MM*(Win Value)+$550,000 (R^2 = 0.79) is the best fit.  So far, Polanco, Schnider, and Zaun are the three best signings, based on $/win.  Wagner is the worst.

As far as guaranteed years, the best model so far is 0.94*(Win Value)+0.46 (R^2=0.81).  Again, the linear scale is the best fit.  Zaun and Saito are the best deals as far as underpayment in years, Figgins and Wagner (assuming the option vests) are the worst overpayments in years.

And total guaranteed $ follows an exponential curve.  It follows the equation $1.1M*2.78^(Win Value) (R^2=0.89).  Worst offenders are Polanco and Wagner, best is Zaun.

Considering how the market is shaping up, the Wagner signing may look a lot worse.

We don’t really have enough data to get real utility out of this kind of examination at this point, but it’s always interesting to note how the market is behaving.

Peter, can you post your 2010 Win Values?

Freddie Sanchez, 2/12
John McDonald, 2/3
Alex Gonzalez, 1/2.75
Jack Wilson, 2/10
Ken Griffey, 1/2.35
Andruw Jones, 1/.5
Tim Hudson, 3/28 (not sure of his fre-agency status)

What I used.  Spent next to zero thought on the estimations.

Chone Figgins 3.5
Billy Wagner 1.8
Takashi Saito 1.5
Placido Polanco 2.5
Gregg Zaun 1.3
Marco Scutaro 2.5
Henry Blanco 0.4
Alex Cora 0.2
Brian Schnider 1.0

Peter, I don’t think you can just look at guaranteed money

You also need to add the value lost by draft picks and account for player and team options

I assume for Marco Scutaro you put down 2/12.5

In reality he signed for 2/11 with a mutual option.

The option is confusing, but as far as I can tell the Red Sox have a $6 million option with a $1.5 million buyout.  In the case of a buyout, Scutaro can exercise a $3 million player option.

So in 24 months either

A) The Red Sox get Scutaro for 1/6 when he’s worth more than that
B) The Red Sox get Scutaro for 1/4.5 when he’s worth less than that
C) The Red Sox pay $1.5 million and get nothing.

If you plug in some guesstimates for the probabilities of A, B and C, along with the average surplus value gained or lost, I think it’s pretty clear that the mutual option has positive surplus value for the Red Sox.

So in reality Scutaro probably signed for worse (for him) than 2/11, rather than the 2/12.5 that is being reported

Signing Scutaro also cost a draft pick.  I think you should just add the surplus value of the pick to Scutaro’s salary.  There were some nice studies linked to here on this blog about valuing draft picks.

So how do you value a pitcher like Duchscherer? Very good pitcher who has a long injury history, coming off a lost season to hip surgery and mental problems, not too young (32 yo) and a soft tosser.

High risk should further discount a player beyond the median expected result, but in baseball it doesn’t seem to. I expect that he will be overpaid, but it will be one of those situations where the GM looks like a genius or a goat without much middle ground.

To Dbacks:
Edwin Jackson
Ian Kennedy

To Yankees:
Curtis Granderson

To Tigers:
Max Scherzer
Austin Jackson
Daniel Schlereth
Phil Coke

I have no idea why Arizona did this.  Isn’t Scherzer a much more valuable property than E.Jackson?

Small win for Yankees, big win for Tigers, big loss for Dbacks.

Sigh… Arizona, screwing themselves to make the Yankees even better.

The weird thing about the Granderson trade is that, when the deal looked to be dead yesterday, rumor was that the Diamondbacks were the ones pushing for it and either Detroit or NY said no. I can’t believe a trade like this was getting caught up over a guy like Mike Dunn. It had to be something else...the guy has a BB/9 of almost 6 the last two years.

RE: Scutaro
I love the mutual option for different values (see Eddie Guardado).  But with such a high buyout, I can’t see how Scutaro could exercise his option under any circumstance (barring career ending injury).  He gets $1.5 million regardless, so his player option is effectively %1.5 million to stay in Boston.

Alex Cora got 1/$2 with a $2 million vesting option.  He’s 12 days older than Scutaro.

Here’s one Tom probably won’t be able to comment on, but I wonder what everyone else thinks:

Felix Hernandez extension:  By media reports, Player looking for 6/100.  Team only wanting to go to 4/50.

Great pitcher coming off an incredible season.  Only 24, projected by me for 4.6 WAR in 2010.  He’s got two years of arbitration left, and will probably get 8 mil in 2010 and 12 in 2011 if he goes year to year.  So the team is offering 2 years and 30 million above that.  For a pitcher of his talent, that is ridiculously low.  Of course I have no idea if that’s where the team is, just a media report.

So he’s looking for 20 million a year for his first 4 free agent years, beyond the expected arbitration payout.  Could he get it?  If he were available today, I would just about guarantee it.  I have no doubt the Yankees would value him like Sabathia, the Red Sox would be interested, and probably many other teams as well.

But you’ve got to worry about the innings on his young arm.  History is filled with great young pitchers who flamed out (Prior, Gooden, Tanana).

From Felix’s point of view, the 4/50, if offered, makes no sense at all unless he’s already feeling some pain in his elbow and getting worried.  The amount his agent offers is fair to the player, he’d have no trouble at all getting that much if allowed to negotiate with other teams, even considering the discount for the last 2 arb years.  But it would be a pretty risky move for the team.

You sure he wouldn’t get more than that in arbitration? Those numbers look low to me, but I’m a Mariners fan and undoubtedly biased.

I think the numbers are just negotiating stances, but we have yet to see Jack Zduriencik go long-term on any pitchers. If we see him do that with someone, we might have a better idea about how he feels. He may judge the risk of long-term deals to pitchers to be higher than other teams do.

So Brandon Lyon to the Astros. 3 years, $15 million. Obviously one of the worst moves of this offseason. The Astros are in big trouble.

For a team that consistently makes terrible moves, the Astros haven’t been that bad.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, but maybe a dozen or so bad signings do?

Felix got 3.8 million in his first arbitration year.  My guess was 8 this year and 12 next.  Can’t think of too many pre-free agent pitchers getting more than that. 

But that could be changing, Lincecum might break some new ground this year. Papelbon got 6.25 in his first year of arbitration.  Unlike last year, Felix will be bringing the numbers to the table this time.  Maybe he could get 10 million now and 14 next year?

Any thoughts on Granderson and why he only hits .500 OPS against lefties?  Seems like an awful negative for a starting player.

#104 - There are a couple of things going on here… First, Granderson is a perennial all-star, even with a .500 OPS against lefties, assuming that’s his true talent level.
Second, he hasn’t had enough PAs against lefties to say definitively what his level is. It’s probably a lot better than the .500 OPS. If I recall correctly, it takes about 2,000 PAs vs LHP to identify a true platoon split.

If you have an all-average pitching staff and all your position players have the same amount of skill as Granderson, you will have a 100 win team. His flaw isn’t fatal, it’s just that if he was average against lefties he would be prime Carlos Beltran.

Granderson has a career .614 OPS against lefties, which is bad, but not quite so dismal as his 2009 platoon split.  Even for his career, he only has about a full season’s worth of PAs (685) against lefties, though.  Like bikozu/105 says, at that sample size, there’s going to be a lot of uncertainty about what his true platoon split is.  You would have to regress his observed split quite a bit to estimate his true split at this point in his career.

For LHH, you need 1000 PA to get his true split as halfway between the observed split and the league average split.

For RHH, it’s 2000 PA.

The “Granderson cant hit lefties” thing is very overplayed at this point.  Especially when you consider that his overall numbers are excellent.  His overall wOBA and his WAR includes the fact that he has hit worse against left handed pitchers - you shouldnt take his value which already includes that information and then go ‘oh, he cant hit lefties, so he is much worse’.  Especially when there are small sample size issues as well.

Alex/108 is 100% right.  It’s beyond silly to bring it up.  You might as well bring up the fact that Albert Pujols can’t play SS, or that Roy Halladay is a worse hitter than John McDonald.  Or that Wayne Gretzky is not a good defensive player, and that Ichiro can’t throw an 85mph changeup.

All these things are ALREADY factored in.  If someone wants to argue the fact that his big (observed) split somehow portends a worse future for him, then fine, make that unsubstantiated, though verifiable, claim.

I think your estimates are a bit low, Rally. The list of comps for where Felis is at his second arb. year is pretty short, but generally point to higher awards than 8 and 12.

Dontrelle Willis, 2006: Signed for $6.45m.  Coming off 12 win, 3.87 ERA season in 220 innings.  Had the monster 2005 season in his track record and 64 career wins, but most recent season just okay, not great.

Erik Bedard, 2007: Offered $6m, filed for $8m, settled for $7m.  He was coming off a 13 win, 3.16 ERA season in 182 innings.  Had 30 career victories with a decent but not stellar track record.  Had never thrown more than 200 innings in a season. 

Assuming that arbiters are adding a degree of inflation (which history strongly suggests they are), these two deals would probably have a present value of ~$8 million or so.  And neither of them had as strong a case as Felix does this year.  More wins, lower ERA, more innings, better Cy Young finish, younger, more durable than Bedard, better competition than Willis, etc…

I’ve got him projected for about $10 million in 2010 and $15 million in 2012, though that second year assumes a bit of regression from his 2009 performance.  If he has another year like he just had, it’s probably closer to $20 million.

Wow, 20 million in an arbitration award would be quite the headline.  Though if Felix doesn’t get that, then Lincecum probably will.

If he can expect 25 million from his last 2 arb years, then offering 4/50 to buy out 2 free agent years is a joke.  In that case, he’s only asking for 4/75 for his first free agent years.  If I were the team I’d jump on that while I have the chance.

Yeah - that’s basically what I said when the report of the 4 year offer came out.  Hopefully, it never really got offered, or was quickly followed with a “just kidding, please don’t get mad at us!”

I’m guessing the natural landing spot for an extension is something between 5/80 and 6/100.  It gives the M’s enough of a discount on some free agent years to make it worth doing without crushing the franchise with a long term commitment, while Felix gets enough money guaranteed to cash in the big potential payout.

OK, points considered on Granderson, thanks.

What’s the board’s expectation of Granderson 2010 OPS in 2010 and OPS vs Lefties in 2010?

Wolf signed by Brewers for 3/$29.75 mil

CHONE projects him for 4.17 ERA in 164 IP. 2.3 RAR

Assuming 5%/year inflation and a .5 win/year drop:

$ 3.0 mil/win: $16.9 mil
$ 3.5 mil/win: $19.7 mil
$ 4.0 mil/win: $22.5 mil
$ 4.4 mil/win: $24.7 mil

It remains to be seen how bad this deal is.  As a Brewer fan, I would have preferred Harden or Penny’s contract over this, regardless.  Maybe the Suppan deal has made me jaded.

Does the -.5 win rule of thumb work on a a 33 year old starting pitcher who signs to a 3 year deal and is projected to have 164 IP next year?  How much of that drop is expected to be a result of quality of performance (ERA) and quantity of performance (IP)?

Anon, I think your question on Granderson’s split didn’t deserve the ridicule that it got.  It is a legitimate point to make, as long as you weren’t double counting his LH split, which you never did but were accused of doing.  Any player with a wide split and a rather low OPS on the low side of the split should atleast have some consideration thrown his way about sitting vs LHP (in his case).  Of course there are other things like defense to take into consideration and in Granderson’s case he is pretty good with the glove.  I really don’t think that the level of ridicule was appropriate in the response to your statement/question.  I prefer the “no question is too stupid” philosophy as long as it is a serious question and hasn’t already been beaten to death.
vr, Xei

I have no problem with the posts, but thanks for defending me.  I take it that others are responding more to the media reports/comments about Granderson than my post, so I did not take it personally.  How could I, you guys don’t even know who I am! 

I would still love to hear what others think his expected 2010 OPS as a whole as well as his expected 2010 OPS splits.

It didn’t deserve ridicule (I’m not sure it was “ridiculed"), but the criticisms are correct.

In fact, having good overall numbers with a horrible split is a POSITIVE and not a negative!  If it turns out that he is truly (true-talent wise after accounting for small sample performance) poor against LHB, then you would be able to platoon him, sit him against tough (high splits) lefties, or pinch hit for him against lefties in high leverage situations, which would provide even MORE value to his team than his overall or historical numbers would suggest!

That is an important concept.  When a player has an overall value of X, but is very weak in one particular area, you can often leverage that weakness and create MORE value to the team than X.  For example, a player like Manny or Dunn is MORE valuable than their overall numbers because they are so weak on defense - you can put in a defensive replacement in a high leverage situation late in the game.

What I’ve seen Tango do for pitchers is drop the innings by 10%, and convert the runs to a winning% - Say Wolf is a .520 pitcher or something like that, and drop the Win% by 10% per year as well.  I’m not sure how that compares to the 0.5 wins per year drop.

The process I explained above would drop Wold from 2.3 to 1.9 to 1.6 in three years, a little kinder than the 0.5 drop. 

I guess it would be most important to calculate that way for relievers, they should not be expected to lose 0.5 WAR each year because they pitch so little to start with.  The 0.5 should really only be used for fulltime players, and should be prorated for bench players/utility guys.

Tango/109: “and that Ichiro can’t throw an 85mph changeup”

Ahh, but he COULD throw an 85mph changeup....if he wanted to.  Because he is Ichiro!  Or so we are told.

Re: 115/116

Note: I wasnt directing the ‘Granderson cant hit lefties is overplayed’ post at anon, or anyone on this thread.  I was directing it at the media writers who bring this up as a way to say that he is overvalued.

"I would still love to hear what others think his expected 2010 OPS as a whole as well as his expected 2010 OPS splits.”

His career platoon split is .280 in 685 PAs.  As Tango wrote, at 1000 PAs, his projected split would be halfway between his observed split and the league average split.  That means you would add 1000 PAs of the league average to his observed split to get a regressed figure for him (if you add 1000 PAs of the average to 1000 PAs of an observed split, the projection will be exactly halfway between the two).  The average OPS platoon split for a LH hitter is about .075 points, so you would do the following:

(685*.280 + 1000*.075)/(685 + 1000)
= .158

That’s his observed split times his number of PAs against lefties, plus the average split times 1000 PAs, divided by the total number of PAs being used in the calculation (observed number of PAs plus 1000).  So his projected platoon split would be about .160.

Given that he faces about 76% rightes and 24% lefties, that would mean his projected OPS against lefties is about .120 points lower than his projected season OPS.  So basically, take whatever projection you want for him for OPS and subtract .120 for his projected OPS against lefties.

CHONE has his OPS projected for .824.  ZiPS has it at .798.  Bill James has it at .844.  The fans at FanGraphs have him at .861 (the fan projections are likely high for everyone, and Tango has talked about them being re-baselined at a lower level at some point).  I am pretty sure the ZiPS projection is with the Tigers, so it will go up when adjusted for the stadium change.  I’m not sure if the CHONE and James are still for him hitting in Detroit or if they’ve updated.

122 - thanks.  If I think his expected 2010 overall OPS is .800, then that means I should expect him to be about .680 against lefties? 

117 - “If it turns out that he is truly (true-talent wise after accounting for small sample performance) poor against LHB, then you would be able to platoon him, sit him against tough (high splits) lefties, or pinch hit for him against lefties in high leverage situations, which would provide even MORE value to his team than his overall or historical numbers would suggest! “

If that is the case, then shouldn’t the Yankees be getting a platoon-ish righty CF?  I don’t see any on their roster - Melky doesn’t seem to cut it.  Plus, re-signing Damon/Matsui wouldn’t help in that regard. 

Hmmm...maybe Cameron would fit the bill?

"I was directing it at the media writers who bring this up as a way to say that he is overvalued.”

You could direct it at Primer too, as the split has been brought up over there numerous times without much criticism.  Today they congratulated themselves as being “so far ahead of the rest of the online baseball community it isn’t funny.”

The only reasons I worry about Granderson’s platoon split:

1) I’m a worrier
2) Situational lefties in high-leverage spots.

For the most part, it doesn’t matter.  The guy is an excellent hitter and a good CFer.  I’m happy to have him.  It will help maximize his value, however, if the Yankees can find a guy for their bench to counter opposing managers when they go to the LOOGY against Granderson.  I’m not sure Hoffmann is that guy.  Melky isn’t either (career OPS vs LHP ~.680).

Puck: link please.

Granderson has a career clutch score of -0.3 wins (in 3000 PA).  That’s -0.0001 wins per PA.

I think you can forget about your worries.

I think the current closer usage patterns prevent managers from completely taking advantage of Granderson’s splits.  I was suprised to see how often(19/25)he faced RHP in LI > 3 situations.  Usually the RHP was a SP, setup man, or closer.

anon, I don’t know that the Yankees “should” be getting. There are many reasons why you don’t platoon a player who has a large platoon split:

It is an insult to a very good player
You have to use another roster spot
The player might be very good at defense
If the player is a righty, lack of playing time may reduce his numbers even against LHP

You are not going to platoon Granderson.  All you need is to have a decent RH pinch hitter available on the bench, which I assume the Yankees do or will.  But it is not like they have to specifically look for someone to fill that role, I don’t think.

My point is that if two players are otherwise equal, the one with the glaring weakness is usually the better choice, as the weakness can often be “reverse” leveraged.

” Today they congratulated themselves as being “so far ahead of the rest of the online baseball community it isn’t funny.” “

Oh come on.  Who is they? It was one guy.

Here’s the thread, courtesy of google:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/rake_blog_bpro_jumps_the_shark/#3409881

It’s two guys in that thread. But, obviously you are not going to brand 20,000 primates based on two posts, are you?

Jason Kendall 2 year $6 mill total.  What’s he project out to, like 1 WAR over that contract, paying for closer to 1.5 WAR. 

How many of the Royals regulars project to be sub 1 WAR next year?

Kendall projects at more like 0.5 WAR (according to CHONE, -25 hitting -2 defense, +12 positional adjusment), and probably less, unless he can convince his hapless employers he needs to play 140-150 games yet again next season.

More tremendous work by Dayton and his boys. You can check my thoughts by clicking the name-link, although it think it’s pretty obvious.

The Royals actually have the “horses” to not field numerous sub 1 WAR positional players next season. Unfortunately, they seem to be in denial about Jose Guillen’s sunk-costedness, the Reality of Yuniesky Betancourt, and, of course, Jason Kendall. And that’s not all… but I’m getting tired just thinking about it.

In order for someone’s value (in terms of WAR) to go up by being platooned, they would need to be below replacement level overall against LHP (for a LHB).  It is pretty unlikely that Granderson is, considering defense and SSS issues.  It obviously would add value to the TEAM if they signed someone who is more valuable than Granderson against LHP, but probably not that much.  The Yankees certainly could make their team better by signing someone like Cameron, but they have other holes to fill before they spend 8 million dollars on a platoon partner.  Not to mention the other issues that MGL brought up.
That being said, it certainly might make sense to pinch hit for him in certain situations if you have a good RHB on the bench, and to make sure his days off are against LHP.  Other than that, throw him out there every day and watch as he magically accrues 4 WAR while hitting poorly against LHPs.

I think its pretty clear that the Royals organization either doesnt understand the replacement level concept, or is completely unable to calculate it.

Some rumors on the Lee-Halladay three-way deal:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1772/power-shifting-in-al-west

Lee’s salary is $9M for 2010; Halladay’s is $15.75.  I think their surplus value for 2010 is similar, say $15M.  Aumont, I don’t know how to value.  As a 2-win closer for 6 seasons, he probably has $16-18M of surplus value, but he brings lots of injury risk to the table.  Presumably there are other players in this deal.

The trade appears to benefit Seattle at the moment, but just slightly.

Aumont is not a 2 win closer for 6 years.  Not even close.  He’s a 20 year old kid with 17 AA innings with a 5.09 ERA under his belt, shaky control, a talented arm that got him drafted in the first round, and health issues.  He might become a good pitcher, he might never make the majors.

If I could sell all my prospects in the best possible light like that, I’d have traded for Pujols and Mauer by now.

If Aumont were projected to be a 2 win reliever for 6 years of club control, this would be a huge steal for the Blue Jays.

While I don’t want to judge the trade until the details are final, the value each marginal win is bigger for the Mariners right now than most teams.  This move could very well be the difference maker on their playoff odds.  That’s huge.

Hey Rally, I noticed you’ve moved the players to their new teams pages quickly, I’ve assumed those are adjusted for league and park, is that correct?

I think projecting 2 wins per for any reliever over a 6 year period is ridiculous.

I haven’t visited the site since my last post.  I’m sorry about not answering and about the misleading post about Primer/BTF.  It was frustration, prompted more by the perception of Granderson’s splits, and I should have thought it out and left the frustration out of it.

Like I said - I don’t know how to value Aumont.  Thanks for working out what you think he’s actually worth.

We’ve (at a phillies forum) been trying to use Victor Wang’s work plus some scouting to come up with values for the parts in the Lee trade (the Halladay trade looks more or less palatable if you’re willing to place a high premium on having an ace locked up).  Wang’s numbers have Aumont and Ramirez at 7.3 mil in surplus value and Gillies at 5.5.  I have Aumont at about 7 mil, Gillies at about 5 (as a 4th OF), and Ramirez at 2. I’m considerably more doubtful about Ramirez than most people I’ve talked to.  We’ve all agreed that Lee’s surplus value is about 21-24 mil.  We have him projected out as a 6 WAR pitcher next year netting Seattle expected picks 28 and 32.

so I guess my question is, how do you guys see the Seattle package?  I’m pessimistic on all 3 players so it’s tough to tell if I’m biasing my estimates too much.

I really like the 1 year option trade - the kind that the M’s are doing with Lee and what the A’s did with Holliday. You get a high quality player for one year and can either ride them to a playoff spot and get compensation picks, or if things don’t go well, trade them again for another package of prospects when their value is very high because of the playoff impact they have for the other team.

It seemed like the A’s got back a package of prospects that was pretty equivalent to one they traded to get Holliday. So essentially they got half a year of Holliday for no loss in prospects and at a reasonable salary.

Also, if you think your organization is smarter than the other guy’s then the more trades you make the better. This kind of setup allows for a lot of liquidity.

Wallace for Taylor.  A classic challenge trade (assuming no other players in transit).  I love these, because the valuation on both players is probably very similar.  I know there are organizational needs at play here, the valuation on both players is very similar and/or there’s an element of I-see-something-you-don’t-see (even when you consider organizational needs).

So did Tango provide consultation to both the Mariners and Blue Jays for their parts of the Lee-Halladay deal?

Eli,

Yeah I was thinking about that too.  If he did, great job, they both look like they came out ahead in this deal.

"Blicks” did a good analysis using Sky Kalkman’s trade value calculator.  It’s a fan post on beyondtheboxscore.  He has the Mariners up 6 mil, the Blue Jays up 18 mil, and the Phillies down 23 mil. 

Now, if you add in the extension, and figure he’ll be about 6 WAR per season while making 20 mil, that’s 21 mil of surplus for the Phillies, bringing them close to even.

As far as I’m concerned, it was an ok trade for the phillies, and a good trade for the blue jays and mariners.

Philly totally baffled me with these deals.

First, the good: acquiring Halladay for prospects.  Going with the values from #148, that trade had the Phillies –17 on its face but then toss in the +20 from the extension, and you have a nice little upgrade.  This is exactly the kind of trade (future value for short-term value) that a team like Philadelphia should be making.  They are at the peak of a success cycle, and Halladay is as valuable to them as to any team in baseball.

Next, the bad: dealing Lee for prospects.  The Phillies go –6 here, and it goes counter to their success cycle; this team needs to maximize its 2010-11 performance.  And don’t try to spin this as a salary dump, Lee just doesn’t make that much money.  The bottom line is that Cliff Lee was far more likely to be a 2009 difference-maker in Philly than any of those prospects are ever likely to be.

As a Mets fan, I have to say that overall the Phillies came out okay, but they blew a golden opportunity to lock up the NL East before even stepping on the field.

EDIT: above, 2009 should have been 2010.  I’m just not ready for the new decade yet.

I don’t mind the idea of trading Lee for prospects.  The Phillies are pretty much a lock to win the division, at least I think, and while an extra ace in the playoffs can improve your WS odds a lot, it’s really too crapshooty to be trying to win the WS.  Trading Lee for prospects makes the team better in the future, while they are still a juggernaut in the present. 

The problem was the haul for Cliff Lee was very underwhelming.

I wish they had done an actual 3 team trade and dealt Lee to Mariners, M’s prospects to Toronto, and Doc to Philly.

#149: The Phillies may be at the peak of a success cycle, but they had the pieces in place to almost immediately begin another cycle with some shrewd management.  Just looking at the prospects, swapping Taylor, Drabek, and D’Arnaud for Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez is a definite step back.  However, factor in the presence of Halladay for 4-6 years and it may come out as even or ahead...the big issue is the large contracts on the payroll. If they can keep making the postseason then they can keep raising the payroll.

Question re Cameron to Red Sox:

I would guess that LF in Boston is the OF spot where defense matters the least in all of MLB, because there is less ground to cover.  And so putting a guy there whose greatest strength may be his defensive range doesn’t seem like the greatest leveraging of assets.  Is there a substantial difference in the number of opportunities a Boston LF has compared to other LFs?

Of course, it’s a great contract (2yrs/$7.75 per) for Boston regardless.  Either he really wanted to play for Boston or some other teams (e.g., Braves) really screwed up by not offering him more and putting him in a position that would better leverage his defense. 

Which raises another question I have concerning position adjustments.  Given the 10 run difference between LF and CF, can I think of that in any of the following ways?  On average over the course of a season:
1. avg LF would prevent 10 fewer runs than avg CF if they both played CF
2. avg LF would prevent 10 fewer runs than avg CF if they both played LF
3. avg LF would prevent 10 fewer runs than avg CF if they had the same number of opportunities
(these 3 are not the same, given that CF has more opportunities and perhaps also marginally different run values for hits)
4. none of the above

@Hizouse/#153: I believe the adjustments could be thought of as written in #1, provided the two players received the same number of opportunities at the given position in 162 games (which is the amount of playing time for which the pos. adjustments are built). An avg. left fielder would prevent 10 fewer runs than an avg. center fielder at CF in 162 defensive games worth of opportunities.

If I misread that, please correct me.

And I also believe moving Cameron to left is a waste of his excellent defensive play. Maybe the Red Sox aren’t aware of the relative skill of Cameron/Ellsbury? I can imagine why, since Ellsbury has excellent speed, but from many accounts I hear he takes bad routes to the ball.

Although Fenway may be an exception simply because of the possibility of a reduced number of opps, there is ZERO, or at least conflicting, evidence that a large or small outfield has any asymmetrical effect on good or bad outfielders.  The conventional view that you can leverage a good outfielder in a large outfield and a poor outfielder in a small outfield is nonsense in my opinion, or at the very least we have no idea whether that is true or not, and it is by no means intuitive even though it seems to be to many people.  As far as I know, I am the only one who has ever looked into this and, as I said, I found no compelling evidence in either direction.

155 - that’s interesting, thanks.  It was intuitive to me that a good and fast OFer would be more useful in a big outfield like Coors.  If the BABIP in Coors is higher, it felt like that meant a good OFer would get to more balls (relative to a bad OFer) in a big OF than he would in a small OF.  It is always interesting when evidence doesn’t match intuition.  Do you have a write-up on this study you did .. and if so, got a link?

I have agreed here before with MGL on the topic of large/small outfields.

In the 1980’s I was the statisticain of a college summer league and had the scorers keep a detailed record of every BIP, and there was a wide variety of outfield sizes.

The conventional wisdom is that if there is more area to cover, you need a faster outfielder to cover it.

Consider hang time. The quicker the balls gets to the outfielder, the quicker he has to be to go back, or cut the ball off the the left or right so that it doesn’t get to the wall. Basically, keep the ball in front of you.

A larger outfield allows slower outfielders to play further back from home plate. This increases the amount of time they have to get to the ball, at the tradeoff of a greater chance of short flies falling in front of them.

Back to my amateur ball experience - parks with very short outfields had a decrease in singles, and increase in doubles, but very few triples. Short flies were easier to catch, but balls were more likely to get through the gaps. Even when picked up at the fence, there was usually time to get a triple. The larger outfields allowed more singles and fewer extra base hits - but a much higher percentage of the XBH went for triples.

Playing a short outfield culd be comapred to third base as the ‘hot corner’ - balls get at you quicker and require quicker fielders.

Brian,

You have to make a distinction between fast and quick. Quick players react fast and accelerate quickly while fast players have a high top speed. Of course some players are both and others are neither.

If a small outfield makes playing the infield more like being a third baseman than that would favor a quick fielder over a fast one. We already know that third basemen are usually slow runners, but have to have lightning quick reflexes since, apart from the pitcher, are usually closest to the batter.

The longer you run the more the equation tilts in favor of fast vice quick. In fact you will see scout write something like “runs well when underway” meaning a fast player who takes a while to get up to speed. A lot of big, athletic guys fit into this category. In fact, I think this is said about Mike Cameron and we know he’s a good fielder.

And to further confound things, running good routes in hugely important. Although that is something that I guess is relatively more important when the time you have to react is short since you have less time to correct your mistakes by being fast.

At some point I will plug these scenarios into my simulator and see how it plays out.

Regards,

Matt

Matt, I agree with what you say, I could have been more precise in my words.

But the point is, the closer the fielder (infield or outfield) is to the batter, the less time there is to intersect the ball before it gets past you.

In the infield, quick is all that’s needed, there’s only a second or two until the ball has passed by.

In the outfield, probably both quick and fast - get a good jump, make a good read, close on the ball before it goes to the wall.

#153,

Good question.  What my studies have shown:

1. avg LF would prevent 10 fewer runs than avg CF if they both played CF
2. avg LF would prevent 7 fewer runs than avg CF if they both played LF
3. avg LF would prevent 10 fewer runs than avg CF if they had the same number of opportunities (so long as this was the number of opportunities that a CF would expect to see)

Rally, I want to make sure I am reading you correctly

An Avg LF would be -10 in CF
An avg CF would be +7 in LF

The reason to use 7 in LF and 10 in CF is that for a given number of batters CF will on average see 10/7 or 43% more balls hit his way?

That’s it.  I think a CF gets about 30-35% more chances, the 7 is a rounded figure.

It makes the position adjustment a little complicated.  A great CF moving to left will be better per chance, but get to show that on much fewer chances.  A terrible LF will be exposed in center, costing his team far more than the standard 10 run position adjustment.

Assume LF get 300 chances for every 400 a CF gets:

A +15 CF goes to left.  He’s now a +19 LF.  Kind of a waste, isn’t it?

A -15 LF gets thrown into center.  He’s now a -30 defender.

Right, exactly.  You can see that here:
http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR9903TT.html

Mariners trade Carlos Silva and cash to the Cubs for Milton Bradley.

I think it makes sense for both teams.  Cubs save $6M.  If they werent going to use Bradley due to his clubhouse problems, this is just a net gain for them. 

Mariners essentially pay $6M for two years of Bradley.  If they can get him to cooperate, thats a very good $/win ratio.  Mariners werent going to use Silva at any time that mattered.

Probalby good for Bradley and Silva as well, thye both get another chance.

The restructured Rolen deal looks like a fair one for the Reds.

Seth/166,

I have it as somewhere around a 2 WAR surplus for the Reds over the life of the extension.
http://www.redreporter.com/2009/12/19/1209173/the-rolen-extension-by-the-numbers
Depending on what you do with fielding, this can move up or down a bit.  But I think it’s certainly no worse than market-even.
-j

Rally, what are league average wOBA, starter FIP, reliever FIP for your projections.  Thanks.

Justin - I think that, at least when evaluating deals on their own merits, you shouldn’t treat the R part of WAR as a static entity.  You know the Reds better than anyone else here - how much better does Rolen project to be over any Reds 3B prospects or other bench players?

The only internal option I see as being viably better than replacement at 3B come 2011 is Todd Frazier, and there’s a good chance that he may end up as our LF next year instead.  And even if he doesn’t, having a better-than-replacement internal option is a good thing when you’re working with an injury-prone starter like Rolen.  There will be lots of opportunities for bench players to impact games.

The other internal person that people are talking about Juan Francisco.  But a) he’s reputedly not a good defensive 3B range-wise, and b) I doubt he’ll hit in the majors.  Anyone have a good comp of a player with a 4% walk rate and a 25% K rate in the minors who went on to be a successful big league hitter?  Best I’ve found is Wily Mo Pena, and he walked 6% of the time in the minors!
-j

Justin, looking at the players you mention, I am impressed with Frazier. I project him as +27 RAR in LF, with a .344 wOBA. His defense shows slightly above average in range and hands at all infield positions. He could hit .270 with 20 HRs and league average defense at SS, which could be 4-5 wins better than someone like Janish.

Yes, those are atrocious BB/SO numbers for Francisco. Despite that, I project him with a .330 wOBA, hitting close to 30 HRs, although more HRs than BB. Even Frenchy couldn’t do that. I have him +3 plays on range (preventing hits to OF) while -11 on grounders (preventing infield hits and ROE).

Jason Marquis: 2/15, paying for 2.25 WAR at 3.5MM$ in 2010 and 1.75 WAR at 4.0MM$ in 2011.

Marquis is a .500 pitcher with 20 full games expected (180IP).  That makes him a 2.2 WAR pitcher in 2010.  A perfect signing.

***

Marquis, Pineiro and their ilk fascinate me.  They would be considered at some point in their careers as replacement-level pitchers (say close to .400 win percentage as starters).  And yet they keep finding life until they finally produce at such a high level that we can safely think of them as .500 pitchers.

It’s hope for scouting everywhere.  At the same time, I’d like to know about other reclamation projects that don’t pay off.

Javier Vasquez and Boone Logan for Melky Cabrera, Mike Dunn, Arodys Viscaino, and cash.

Someone will have to run through the numbers, but I think the best prospect in that group is Viscaino, and Melky is under control for 3 years(?).  Braves will save about 8 mil next year, enough, you’d think, to sign a league average bat.  Looks like a win-win to me, but like I said, I’d like to see someone run through the surplus value.

Pineiro had some really good seasons with Seattle in 02/03, then sucked for 5 years, and was amazing in 09 (low 3’s FIP) basically because of Dave Duncan.  Marquis has been below average all of his career, except for a decent year last year supported by a low HR/FB.  So I think that Pineiro is probably better going forward. 

Also, while the Nationals signing makes sense on a dollar/WAR assessment, I hardly think the Nationals should be paying market value for wins as a 70-75 win team in a tough division.

Mariners trade Brandon Morrow to Blue Jays for Brandon League and a prospect (Yohermyn Chavez).

Looks bad for the Mariners, tradign a starter for a reliever and not getting a significant prospect in return.

Two years of control for Melky. 2009 was his first arb-eligible year.

Melky was a Super 2 player in 2009, so he’ll have 4 years of arb-eligibility (including 2009) before he’s eligible for free agency.

Brian/171,

League-average defense at SS from Frazier might be a stretch based on scouting data: the Reds don’t seem to think that he’s a viable option at SS.  At 2B or 3B, though, I think he’s got a shot to be solid enough.  He’s also apparently fine in a corner outfield slot.  I think of him as an average fielder overall: below average at SS, average at 2B/3B, above-average at LF/RF.

Francisco...I’d certainly be delighted if he could be an effective player for us, but I’m extremely skeptical despite your projections.  I wonder how well a projection system can work on a player as extreme as he is.  I honestly expect MLB pitchers to exploit the heck out of his tendency to literally swing at just about anything.  As you said, even Frenchy has a higher walk rate--and Frenchy gets a lot more balls in play than Francisco ever has (~13%K rate vs. 25% k-rates if I remember right).  He’s fascinating, but I’m not banking on much coming from him.
-j

Justin/178
My minor league defensive numbers for Frazier show him 0 to +5 at either SS, 2b & 3b, no problem with range or hands. His bat would be average for a corner OF, but good at ss (or 3b). But you have Rolen for another year, barring injury. Even if his mlb defense would be below average for SS, is the alternative Janish? He’s replacement level.

Francisco, an average bat for 3b, but probably -10 with the glove. I see him similar to Encarnacion in total output, but for me that’s ‘meh’, borderline holding on to a starting job, despite some serious power numbers. Keep him in Triple-A as long as Rolen is playing.

And you guys have some great fielding outfielders (outside of Bruce), too bad none of them can hit.

Brian, given the lack of SS in the system (unless one believes in Cozart’s bat), I tend to think that Frazier would still be at SS (where he started) if the Reds thought he would be anything but a disaster over there.  He hasn’t played SS above high-A ball.  You’re using position-specific MLE’s on the fielding numbers right?

Valaika’s still at SS, for example, and few think he will be able to play there.  I think Frazier’s always been considered a poorer fielder than Valaika--or at best, they are equals.

And Bruce isn’t half bad in the field.  He’s not a CF, but he’s above average in the corner slot.  Both the Fans and UZR said so! If he ever figures out how to hit like we thought he would, he’d have a ton of value…
-j

Bruce is the OF who CAN hit! Defensively (on a 5/4/3 weighted projection) I have Stubbs +18, Heisey +16, Dickerson +12, McDonald +10.

Yes on the fielding MLEs - compared to how everyone else did in the same ballpark (plus other things like bathand, etc), adjusted to MLB, then weighted 5/4/3.

I understand your point on Frazier, if they haven’t played him at SS above A ball it’s unrealistic to expect him to get a shot there in MLB, regardless of what I think.

Followup on my post #175:

Dave Cameron is speculating that this Morrow for League deal is really an extension/part of the Cliff Lee/Roy Halladay deal - that it does a lot to even out that deal.

Do you think this is possible/reasonable?

Fernando Rodney 2 years/11 million.  Projected as replacement level reliever.

Paying infinite dollars per win above replacement.  Is this an overpay or has Bernanke finally gone Zimbabwe on us?

Wow.  I concur with Rally.  A 32-yr old pitcher facing 1500 batters, all in relief, with a career ERA of 4.28?  Average RELIEVER is around 4.10.

The only thing he can hang his hat on is that he was fantastic in the clutch last year.

Anything more than a 1yr 2MM$ deal, or 2/3MM deal is an overpay.

Is this our candidate for worst contract signing of the offseason?

But he throws hard and had a bunch of saves last year!

Tango, can you “unstick” the comments header for this thread, so that we know when a new comment is made?  I think it is always at the top of the comments section.

Unfortunately, they go together.  If I unstick the thread, then the comments will bubble as all other threads.

If I stick this thread, the comments stick to the top as well.

Personally, I try to remember the timestamp of the last comment, so I know if there’s something new here.

Rodney signing looks pretty terrible.  If he comes out to .5 WAR, that $11M for one win.

I’d say the Rodney signing is a candidate for worst of the off-season.  We’ve got a ways to go, though.

Angels fans have every right to want to throw up.  They’re watching the Rangers develop one of the best young cores in baseball and the Mariners exploit market inefficiencies as a matter of routine while their front office continues to pay for leverage rather than paying for production and leveraging it as they see fit.  They seem to be behind the curve, here.

There isn’t a whole lot in their farm--a lot of what they had got shipped to Tampa Bay for an injury-prone, inefficient pitcher who is owed $22.5 million guaranteed over the next two years.  And they haven’t shown much of a knack for making sound investments as of late.

So long as they keep winning I guess the fans can’t really complain, but at some point that’s going to stop happening without a change in leadership or a change in philosophy.

And they haven’t shown much of a knack for making sound investments as of late.

So long as they keep winning I guess the fans can’t really complain

Hmm, maybe the analysis of the moves made by the Angels FO focusing on buzzwords like inefficiency has somehow detracted from all that winning?  Otherwise, one might conclude that the Angels have been a model organization the last 8 years right there with the Red Sox as arguably the best run organization of the 2000s.

philly/189

Or maybe it’s finally going to catch up to them?  Now that the other teams in the division are attempting to win in a more efficient manner, the fact that they play in a 4-team division with a substantially larger payroll than the other 3 teams won’t obscure the fact that the moves their making leave much to be desired.

Wow, *they’re.

Or maybe it’s finally going to catch up to them?

I’m curious, what does the it actually refer to there?  Moves that you don’t like?  If so, when did they start making those moves.  The Angels have largely been under rated by the online baseball community for several years now.  Are you someone who has disliked their moves for many years?  If so, maybe we shouldn’t care.

Are their most recent moves coming from a new philosophy or a new front office and therefore should be judged without giving much credit to their more distant success?  I don’t really see that and the Angels FO has had a lot of continuity over the years.

Now that the other teams in the division are attempting to win in a more efficient manner, the fact that they play in a 4-team division with a substantially larger payroll than the other 3 teams won’t obscure the fact that the moves their making leave much to be desired.

So the A’s haven’t been attempting to win an efficient manner all of these years?  That’s news to me.  And unfortunately for Mariners fans their team payroll isn’t much lower than the Angels.

I disagree with some of the Angels recent moves and suspect that they may be due for a bit of a fall in an increasingly competitive division, but you’ve oversold their poor moves and undersold the competition that they have bene consistently beating.

I’m curious, what does the it actually refer to there?  Moves that you don’t like?  If so, when did they start making those moves.  The Angels have largely been under rated by the online baseball community for several years now.  Are you someone who has disliked their moves for many years?  If so, maybe we shouldn’t care.

First of all, how incredibly rude.

Secondly, “it” refers to giving a below-average reliever two years and $11 million or trading legitimate prospects for Scott Kazmir or giving a 31 year old Gary Matthews Jr. 5 years and $50 million or giving Brian Fuentes 2 years and $17.5 million with a vesting option from hell or failing to develop many players other than glorified utility infielders and hard-throwing relievers.

Are their most recent moves coming from a new philosophy or a new front office and therefore should be judged without giving much credit to their more distant success?

No.  Each move should be examined independently of all others.

So the A’s haven’t been attempting to win an efficient manner all of these years?  That’s news to me.

They’ve been attempting to, though it’s hard to do when your player development department is, well, name the last decent hitter the A’s have developed....

And unfortunately for Mariners fans their team payroll isn’t much lower than the Angels.

The Angels have spent $10 million more than the Mariners on average for the past 6 years.  Depends on your definition of “much”, but it’s certainly noteworthy.

I disagree with some of the Angels recent moves and suspect that they may be due for a bit of a fall in an increasingly competitive division, but you’ve oversold their poor moves and undersold the competition that they have bene consistently beating.

All I said was they seem to be behind the curve and their recent moves leave something to be desired.  Hardly overselling anything…

This has gone beyond the intent of the thread, but I’d like to make a couple points.

1.  You brought up the payroll issue and used the words “substantially larger payroll”.  Since the Angels became a top team in 2002 their payroll has been 785M to the Mariners 748M.  That’s an advantantage of 4.6M/yr or about 1 win in the FA market.  I’m sorry, but your comment was wrong.

2.  You take a shot at the Angels player development process for “failing to develop many players other than glorified utility infielders and hard-throwing relievers.”

I count 7 homegrown players on the 2009 team with at least 2 WAR and including 6 with at least 3 WAR.  None are releivers.  A couple are middle infielders, but not accurately called glorifed utility infieders.

3.  For as bad as Gary Matthews has been, the Angels have won 291 games and 3 division titles since they signed him.  It hasn’t exactly hurt them yet. 

No team is perfect and perhaps if the Angles were only developing glorified utilty infielders and releivers, than they wouldn’t have been able to overcome the Matthews mistake.

Yes, I think you’ve oversold your criticisms of the Angels player development system and their payroll advantage in comparison to the Mariners.

In fact, the Angles have been arguably the most efficient large market team in baseball during their run of success.  In my opinion, that track record deserves more consideration (and factual accuracy) than what you’ve given them.

Each move should be examined independently of all others.

I don’t want to get in the middle of this argument, but that statement is simply untrue.  Because we are somewhat uncertain regarding how good a given move is, we should give more leeway to teams that have made good moves in the past, because they are more likely to have made a good move than a bad move.  It’s just like Chris Moore’s post on Bayesian Umpires a few weeks back.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2009/12/bayesian_umpire.php

I agree with Nick and I can provide a perfect example: The Matsui signing by the Angels. He’s a good DH, yes, and the dollar amount made it a great value. But they have a guy in RF who, based on the fielding numbers of the last two years, quite possibly should be a DH.

While I do think that the Angels have made some poor decisions at points the past few years, to rip their player development when Nick Adenhart was looking like he was going to be another solid to great home grown talent before being killed is poor judgment. Along with Jered Weaver, he is proof that the team hasn’t necessarily lost it on the starting pitching development front. The statement about them developing only hard throwing relievers and glorified utility infielders seems to have been made more in frustration, than in actual analysis.

"failing to develop many players other than glorified utility infielders and hard-throwing relievers.”

Now that’s rude.  They have developed 3 middle infielders who last year provided strong defense and league average or better offense.  4 good starting pitchers who came up since 2005 (though only 3 survived the season), and power hitters at first base and catcher.  Plus a 3rd baseman who will finally get a chance to start next year after 3 years of AAA.

Last 2 years the Angels have made great moves.  Abreu was the bargain of 2009 and Hunter was expensive but worth it for 2008.  The 2007 preseason was crap - Matthews, Speier, Hillenbrand.  The 2010 one features a terrible move in Rodney, and a so-so one with Matsui.  Other than that, just decisions by the team that 2 very good players heading into their 30’s were not worth the contracts they received elsewhere, and the Angels accepting draft picks instead.  And no apparent effort to replace Lackey in the rotation.

Angels have done a lot of good recently.  I have to resist overreacting to one bad move in Rodney.  At least they didn’t give up draft picks for him (they did with Speier).

Kendry Morales is the most glorious utility infielder of all time.

Yeah, I don’t get the bad stuff on the Angels.  I like alot of their moves, especially the non-overpaying of KRod.  I loved that they went out to get Vlad.  And their W/L record speaks for itself.

I didn’t think 2/18 was bad for Fuentes last year.  The guy had a great track record coming into the season, an elite reliever.  He doesn’t look so great right now, mostly as his strikeout rate evaporated in the second half.  But as for the vesting option, it’s really simple: don’t let him finish 55 games if you don’t want him for 2011.

If he pitches poorly to start 2010 I’m sure Rodney wil close, but they could have just as easily used Jepsen or Bulger if not happy with Fuentes.

Angels have done fine except for the Rodney signing.  Letting Lackey go instead of resigning him was the right move.  Probably correct to let Chone Figgins go as well instead of offering more than the Mariners did.  They get draft picks this way.  You have to add the cost of not getting those picks to any deal they would give to the player.

DeRosa 2/12 to the Giants isn’t terrible in itself, but Kelly Johnson, a very similar player (except 7 years younger) just signed with the Dbacks. I’m sure DeRosa’s veteran experience will carry the Giants to the glory.

Then there’s the Jason Bay deal… am I missing something, or did a dude who has averaged 3 WAR/season over the past 4 seasons just get paid like a 4 WAR player going into his age 31 season? So Omar.

totally agree on Bay. Even if you assume he will be an average LF in the Mets ballpark, I dont think he is worth this. I also am hearing a lot about how back-end loaded this contract is, which at the end of the day saves you money in terms of time value, however, at 31 you would assume this 3 WAR player is going to be a 1 WAR player in the last year of the contract. Thus, a wide gap between actual dollars paid in those years in comparison to actual production.

I enjoyed MGL’s articles at the Hardball Times regarding the aging curves.  My understanding is that it only addressed offensive aging curves.  Does the 0.5 WAR aging component cover both offensive and defensive decline with age?  Should this be position specific?

It definitely only covers the offensive aspect of aging.  I think that a .2 win decrease per year in defense is a good rule of thumb.  And decline in defense probably starts at an early age. I don’t know if Tango’s .5 per year includes defense.  It probably does.

BTW, looking at the aging patterns of players who have at least 5 years and 2000 PA in MLB by the time they are 30, I get a peak age of 28, a decline after that of around 1.5 to 2 runs per year until age 33, and then 3-4 runs per year until age 38 and then 5-6 after that.  So for Bay, I think you are looking at 2-3 runs per year decline on offense, and probably another 2-3 runs per year on defense, for a total of .5 wins per year, as Tango uses.

Beltre: to Boston, 1 year/$9 mil plus player option for $5 mil.

It was funny because I thought that Beltre would be a really good and cheap stealth pickup for a smart small market team (like the A’s). Great glove coming off a bad offensive year with a good chance for a rebound.

This was the worst kept secret in all of baseball. Apparently everyone had the same idea. So Boston finally signs him for what is probably a fair deal, but no longer a bargain.

I was wondering if someone who has more contract savvy can comment on the player option. I guess if he has a bad year he can choose to return to Boston as a $5 mil bench player. Is this any different that a two year deal for $9 and $5 with a player opt out clause?

@Matt/#207 I believe there’s a $1M buyout for the option, which I guess would not be the case if it was an opt-out. Otherwise no real difference.

Also, Matt Holliday signs for 7 yrs/$120M or so. Gut feeling is that he’ll be worth the money the first three or so years, give or take a few million, then they’ll really start regretting the deal. It signs him through age 36. Also, consider that no one was really bidding on Holliday other than STL, it seems weird for them to go to 7 years.

I think nobody was bidding on Holliday once the bidding got over 5 years.  It’s not like the Cardinals could’ve waited Holliday out and signed him for a two year deal like Manny signed with for the Dodgers last year.  The Cardinals wanted Holliday badly and they had to give him what both sides thought was fair market value.

This contract will defined by how well Matt Holliday ages as a LFer.  If you set Holliday’s starting point (2010 WAR) at around 5.5, age him fairly, account for some levels of moderate salary inflation down the road, and account for a discount to the Cardinals for the security of a 7 year deal (20%?) then the contract is reasonably fair.  If you start Holliday’s WAR at a much lower level, like 4.5 WAR then the Cardinals overpaid by quite a bit imo.
vr, Xei

If we presume 3.5MM$ per win in 2010, 4.0 in 2011, and continuing the +0.5MM$ per win per season…

Holliday: paying for 5.1 wins in 2010, and 0.5 wins fewer each following season for 7 seasons.

***

If we start the $ per win at 4.0…

paying for 4.8 wins in 2010 and 0.5 wins fewer each following season

***

Offense: +4 wins above average… huge hitter
Defense: somewhere between 0 and +0.5
Replacement: +2.25

85% playing time

WAR = .85*(+4.0 +0.25 -0.75 +2.25) = 4.9

Yowza.  Bingo.

***

See, this is where I get my disagreements with the guys who are talking about 6 or 7MM$ per win.  No one is paying that, so if your research is showing that they ARE paying that, then something is wrong.

@210, does the 0.85 assume that Matt Holliday is going to average 137 (162 * 0.85) games played per season?  Seems a little low for the first half of the contract, but perhaps you are trying to figure in a possible catastrophic injury by doing that??  Just curious.
vr, Xei

$ per WAR, WAR, salary “earned”
$4.0 4.8 $19.2
$4.5 4.3 $19.4
$5.0 3.8 $19.0
$5.5 3.3 $18.2
$6.0 2.8 $16.8
$6.5 2.3 $15.0
$7.0 1.8 $12.6

That gives you 120MM$.

He starts at 85% playing time in 2010, and it goes down, as does his “rate” stats, so that overall, he loses 0.5 wins. 

ONLY for illustration, say something like this:
WAR per 162, playing time, WAR
5.65 0.85 4.80
5.20 0.81 4.21
4.75 0.77 3.66
4.30 0.73 3.14
3.85 0.69 2.66
3.40 0.65 2.21
2.95 0.61 1.80

So, in this ILLUSTRATION, he loses 0.45 WAR per 162 G per year, and he loses .04 games per team game, so that at the end, he’s a 2.95 WAR player, who plays 61% of the time, and he’s a 1.80 WAR player.

FOR INSTANCE.

Where does the +$0.5M per win factor come from?  Is it just a shorthand guess, or is it based on historical data?  At first glance 10%-15% inflation per year seems a little high, especially with the market changes the last couple years.

In 2007 I was using 4.0, and in 2008 I was using 4.4.  In 2009, I was going to use 4.84.  Then the market correction happened, with 1-yr deals being severely devalued.  For 2010, the market correction still exists, again mostly for the short-term deals.

So, for now, I’ve been using a severe discount for 2010 earnings, and the 2011 earnings are being valued based on 2008 dollars.  And in 2012, I let the 10% take over (which is basically, at that point, just adding 0.5MM$).

Bos sends Kotchman to Sea for Bill Hall + $7.15M (which comes from the Brewers).  Hall costs the Red Sox $1.25M.  Kotchman doesn’t have a contract yet.

Basically Seattle picked up Kotchman for nothing.  Projections have him $5.5-$7M.  A lot of that is defense.  I don’t think he can get $5M in arbitration, so it’s a slight win for Seattle, plus it gives them a 1B.  BP put his 75th percentile around $12M last year, so there’s still some upside there.

Mark Klaassen is not the only who thinks that GMs sometimes have contests of unskill.  Is Brian Sabean upset that Moore, Minaya, Hendry, and Wade are stealing all the “bad GM” press?  The only rationale to signing Aubrey Huff is that he wants to get in on the game.

I’m interested in folks’ perceptions on the Aroldis Chapman signing.  It’s been hard to get a clear breakdown on the contract, but I THINK it’s a for 5 yrs/$25M with a 6th yr/$5 M option.  And there are also reports that there are numerous incentives to bring it even higher.  Furthermore, at least some parts of the contract will be deferred as far back as 2020.

A lot may have to do with how well he ranks as a prospect.  Top-10?  Top-5?  Top-2?
-j

Kevin Goldstein mentioned in a chat that Chapman will be in the single digits for him.  Callis has been much more cautious suggesting that Chapman might only be in the 20s overall.

I haven’t seen anybody else mention an oveall ranking for him.  I’d guess a range of #7-25 is about right.

Goldstein also mentions in his Rangers reply section that Chapman instantly becomes the best LHP prospect in baseball.

Cuban stats

Year Age  G GS  ERA  W  L    IP   H HR  BB  SO WP
2005  17 15 15 4.33  3  5  54.0  48  5  54  56  3
2006  18 23 12 2.77  4  3  81.1  59  4  50 100  5
2007  19 16 16 3.89  6  7  74.0  55  3  37  79  1
2008  20 22 20 4.03 11  4 118.1 109  7  62 130 14

Doesn’t look like he was overused in league play, apparently not a lot of HR. Walks came down in 2007 but still high in a league that ranges in talent from the equivalent of college to mlb. Will have missed all of 2009.

Bengie Molina re-signs with the Giants 1yr/$4.5M.

This strikes me as an overpay.  The Giants should want Buster Posey to play a significant number of games.  So Molina’s playing time should be cut.  He can’t hit and he can’t throw anymore, so if he plays 80 games, he’s worth maybe $3M.  If he plays more than 80 games, the Giants are holding up Posey’s career.

You forgot the 50% clean-up bonus.

Is holding up Posey’s career a bad thing?  He’s 23.  Maybe it’s wiser to have his age 24-29 seasons under team control instead of 23-28.  And they can still do that and get half a season of his age 23 season, like the Orioles with Wieters last year.

I suspect they’ll be able to deal Molina around the break if Posey proves ready for the job, some team will have an injured catcher and need a stopgap for the stretch run.

"Felix Hernandez extension:  By media reports, Player looking for 6/100.  Team only wanting to go to 4/50.”

From back in December.  The eventual extension of 5/78 is pretty much right in the middle of those figures, though a little closer to Felix’s wish.

I had guessed 8 and 12 million for the arbitration years, he’ll actually get 6.5 and 10, but also a 3.5 million signing bonus so my guess was right for the first 2 years.  Then about 19 million a year for what would have been his free agent seasons.

Joe Blanton filed for 10.25 million, Phillies offer 7.5.  Unless this goes to the hearing and Phillies win, he almost certainly will make more than the 8 million Cliff Lee will make.  Why not just salary dump Blanton?  Or if his value doesn’t match the possible award, nontender him?

This burns me that Amaro punted on the chance for greatness, having Lee and Halladay form the greatest 1-2 punch since Johnson/Schilling.

Rally, it looks like the Phillies are trying to maximize their ability to win over several years, not just next season. However, they clearly didn’t want to pay for two top dollar Aces. If Cliff Lee had signed a long term deal like they wanted, they would not have traded for Halladay.

They wouldn’t have to pay top dollar for Lee, just pay about what they’ll wind up paying Blanton.  I just don’t think the prospects they got back are worth giving up this chance for greatness - having one year to pitch Halladay/Lee back to back.  From what I’ve read, these are not can’t miss prospects, the kind that can step right in and have a chance for future stardom like an Adam Jones.  They are more the generic prospects who might pan out and might do nothing.

Rally,

The Giants don’t have a very good track record at developing position players, and they always blink and bring in a sub-standard veteran when they’re planning to play a young guy.  They said they were going to play to Posey, but they changed their mind.

I have no faith in the Giants dealing at the deadline to their benefit.  They never sold high on Winn.

Rally/227:  I completely agree.  As a Mets fan, I do not understand how the Phillies could blow such an obvious chance to run away with the National League this season.

Of course, they might have realized that Omar would be incapable of building a decent team so they are virtually guaranteed a division title, and the playoffs are a crapshoot anyway, but still.  Halladay/Lee would be terrifying, especially with that lineup behind it.

I haven’t run the team projections yet, but I don’t think the Mets are the biggest threats to the Phillies.  The Braves have an excellent rotation once again, and a pretty good lineup.  I like the cheap signing of Glaus to play first - his injury last year was a shoulder.  He may not be able to throw anymore but he doesn’t have to, and should hit a lot of homers.  Phillies are the front-runners, but not to the extent they could have been.

Angels sign Joel Pineiro for 2/16.  Looks pretty good from where I’m standing.  That essentially pays him like a 2 WAR player.  Marcels has him at around 3 WAR next year, and given his drastic change in approach last year (added a sinker, attacked the bottom of the strikezone, allowed more contact and many more groundballs), his 2009 season should probably be weighed higher than in Marcels.

Pineiro: 2/16.

If we presume 3.5MM$ for a win in 2010, and 4.0MM$ in 2011, and a drop of 0.5 wins in performance between the two years, then they are paying for: 2.4 wins in 2010, and 1.9 in 2011.

You can make a reasonable case for Pineiro to be 2.5-3.0 wins, and so a slight bargain for the Angels, but otherwise, pretty much a fair deal.

Blanton was resigned by the phils.

3/24

2010 salary is 7m and the rest are 8.5m.

seems like a fair deal to me.

Blanton: 3/24.  He was going to get either 7.5 or 10.25 in his last year, so he really signed a 2/13.75 or 2/16.5 extension.

Valuing his 2011 season at 1.88 WAR and his 2012 at 1.38 WAR gets him to 2/13.74.  (Implies a 2.38 WAR in 2010)

Valuing at 2.21 and 1.71 gets him to 2/16.5.  (Implies a 2.71 WAR in 2010.)

I think it’s fair to say that Blanton’s forecast for 2010 is somewhere between 2.4 and 2.7.  So, a perfectly fair and reasonable deal.

re: Blanton
This is one of those deals that makes sense according to the numbers (a la Tango/234) but puzzles me nonetheless. If I’m Blanton, I’m seeing Wolf sign for 3/30, Pineiro for 2/16, and Marquis for 2/15, and there’s no way I’m giving up free agency at 30 years old for a 2/16 extension.

Indeed, if you run the numbers with a $4.5M/WAR assumption for this season (roughly what Wolf, Pineiro, and Marquis are getting) and increasing by 500K annually, a 2/16 extension starting in 2011 values Blanton at 1.7 WAR for this season, about a win less than his projection. Again, if I’m Blanton, I’m not looking at the overall market for free agents this offseason to determine my price; I’m looking at the market for average-ish innings-eaters. Maybe his arm’s bothering him or something.

Khalil Greene signs with the Rangers for 1 YR/$750k.  If KG has any juice left, this deal is an automatic win.  I’d give him 50/50 odds to hit .190 in 200 plate appearances with bad defense.

e poc, my assumptions were that players are getting 3.5MM$ per win in 2010, and 0.5MM$ per win more each year afterwards.

On that basis, the data I show in my Blanton post is accurate.

Tango/237:
Yes, sorry to be unclear. I agree that your post 234 is correct. My point is that the most similar players to Blanton are getting more than 3.5MM$ per win this offseason, and if I were Blanton I would value myself according to what those players are getting rather than what the overall market rate seems to be. I agree that the deal seems perfectly fair based on current market rates overall, but there’s no way I’d take it if I were Blanton. I think I’d be justified in believing I’d be worth more than Wolf, Pineiro, and Marquis on the open market, even in a more impressive free agent class next year.

My point is that the most similar players to Blanton are getting more than 3.5MM$ per win this offseason,

Right, that’s your presumption.  My presumption is that players are getting 3.5MM$ per win for 2010, even for above-average players.

So, I’m rejecting the assumption as being unfounded.  Indeed, given that Pineiro got a 2/16 deal, I think the Blanton extension makes even more sense.

Victorino signs for 3/22.

this also seems to be a fair deal.  for the past 2 eyars he’s been a 4 win and a 3.5 win player.  although he’s still arb ellgible for 2 years and then a FA in the final year of the deal.

Victorino: 3/22.

He’s a 4+ player, meaning two years of arb bought out, and one year of FA.

In 2010, he offered 5.8 and was demanded by the team for 4.75.  That makes this a 2/17.25 to 2/16.2 extension.

Presuming that
- his 2011 season is at 80% of the free agent value,
- the 2011 season has a 4.0MM$ per free agent win (meaning 3.2 for the arb player) and 2012 has a 4.5MM$ per win,
- and he loses 0.5 wins each year
then he’s being paid as either 2.9 WAR for 2010 or 3.0

I have him as being 3.1 WAR for 2010.

Once again, a perfectly sensible deal.

Like others have said, the Phillies should’ve kept Lee and traded Blanton if they felt the need to save some sallary but being a Mariners supporter, I don’t mind.

Tango/241:

just curious, why do you have him projected as a 3.1 win player?  he went from 4.1 to 3.4(mostly becuase of UZR).  you expect him to fall even more.  since he’s in the ‘prime’ of his career, i would think he would be back closer to his 4 win stage with a solid UZR.  this was his first year with a bad fielding metric. 

the fans have him as a 3.9 win player.  i think that seems fairly accurate(only thing changing for the fans is his better UZR)

Generally speaking, take 75% of the unadjusted Fan WAR to get him to a real WAR.  If the Fans have him at 3.9, then that’s 2.9.  (This is just a useful quick shortcut.)

As for Victorino, I have him as a bit above average hitter, a bit above average fielder at a bit above average fielding position, who’s going to play full time.

Gary Matthews and $23M to the Mets.  Good move by the Angels; should have made it before they ever signed him.  For free, this is a worthwhile pickup for the Mets.  Matthews brings a small amount of value to the table.  Hopefully Beltran is back soon.

Rick Ankiel to the Royals for $2.75M/1YR.  Ankiel could beat that pretty easily.

Not that I pay attention to the Royals, but what an ugly team: Ankiel in CF, Podsednik in LF, Guillen DH, Jason Kendall catching.  Given the choice of that, or having my team contracted, I’d choose the latter.

Sweet!

Great deal for the Angels.  Who’d they get?

No mention of the Angels actually getting anything.  PTBNL?

I think Ankiel would be in RF and either Dejesus or Podsednik in CF.  DeJesus preferably.

***

I have Matthews as a 0 WAR player.  That’s based on him being a horrible CF, which seems pretty hard to believe.  If we make him an average-fielding LF, then he’s a 0.5 WAR player.  That’s pretty much as good as it gets.  That means he only has one year of value left.  Maybe 1.0 WAR left for 2 years?  At best?

The Angels should have sent all the money to cover the contract, or at the least all the money minus 4MM$.

The Angels received Brian Stokes, a reliever for the Mets.

Basically a null-trade all round for both sides.

Tango:
Your 239 is unfair. My “assumptions” are neither assumptions nor unfounded. Pitchers who are under 35 and have pitched 500+ innings over the last three seasons are averaging 4.6MM$/win this offseason. If you include Pineiro (who missed 500 IP by ~50), that average drops to 4.4.

I am not making the claim that this invalidates your presumption of 3.5MM$/win, nor am I arguing that your assessment of the Blanton deal as fair is incorrect. I was merely pointing out that the players most similar to Blanton are getting above-market rates and arguing that signing a market-rate extension this offseason does not best serve Blanton’s financial interests. You can argue with that, certainly, but doing so on the basis of my assumptions being unfounded is unfair and inaccurate.

e poc: then I will have to verify your claim.

Tejada to the O’s for 1 YR/$6M.  Possible +$1M in playing time incentives.  Supposedly bumps Garrett Atkins to 1st.  Overall, this is market value for the Orioles.  I guess it hardly matters if you’re guaranteed to finish 5th.

Also, Matt Stairs signed a minor-league deal with the Padres.  He’s apparently on Nutri-System and has lost 31 pounds so far this off-season.

Carlos Ruiz Re-Signs with the Phillies.  3yrs/8.85m with a 500k buyout and a 5m option.

so this should be his 4th/5th/6th arb years.  with his first year of FA being either 5m or 500k buyout. 

since we don’t have a solid catching statistic yet its hard to rate the deal.  but by all accounts +fielder being top5 to top10.

What’s wrong with this catcher defense stat?
http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/r/ruizc001.htm

Ruiz projects a bit above average defensively, looking at sb/cs/wp/pb/err vs league average.  I look at totals separately for lefty and righty pitchers caught.  A more comprehensive way to do it would be to look at each pitcher separately, a with/without you analysis, like Tango did in one of the THT annuals.  But I’ve found that my way, a bit of a shortcut, closely approximates the ratings. 

The only thing not considered is handling pitchers, but so far nobody has ever shown that catchers have a predictable effect here.

Ruiz:

2010: offered to team 2.5MM, demanded by team 1.7MM
2011-12: 6.85-7.65

I broke it up this way because the current arbitration year is what it is.  The rest of the contract is an extension, including the buyout.

He’s a 3+ player meaning all his arb years are being bought out.

If we assume
- he’s getting 4.0MM$ per win in 2011 and 4.5MM$ in 2012, and
- he loses 0.5 wins each season, and
- he gets 60% of his FA value in 2011 and 80% in 2012
then he’s being paid for between 1.9 and 2.1 wins in 2010.

So, is he a 2~ win-ish player?  It’s hard to get to that level when his career high in PA is 429 (his rookie year in 2007), and he’s 31 years old.

But, let’s roll with it, and give him 70% playing time. 

He’s a career .312 wOBA, but last year he hit well, so again, let’s roll with it, and instead of making him a -1 win hitter, we’ll make him league average.

He’s not a great fielder, but he’s better than average.  So, let’s go with +0.5 wins.

fairly optimistic WAR = .7 * (+0.0 +0.5 +1.25 +2.0) = 2.6
slightly pessimistic WAR = .6 * (-1.0 +0.0 +1.25 +2.0) = 1.3

***

His 2010 arb numbers points to his WAR being between 1.2 and 1.8 WAR. 

One would think therefore that his 2011 arb numbers would have been 2.5 - 4.0 MM$ (if he’s even offered).

And in 2012, probably 4.0 - 5.0MM$ (if he’s even offered).

So, year-to-year, his 2011-12 extension would be a total 2yr deal of 6.5 - 9.0MM (IF he’s offered arb every year).

This seems to match to the 6.85-7.65 that he actually signed (a bit of discount for security, insurance).

***

Overall, seems like a fair deal, if not a bit favorable to Ruiz.  Hard to believe that a 31-yr old catcher is arb eligible for the first time.

What a horrible system MLBPA has for non-veterans.  They really don’t care about the older non-veteran players, not negotiating any kind of free agency based on age.  Ruiz is FA eligible for the 2013 season… when he’ll be 34 years old.

Shame on you MLBPA.

Ben Sheets signs with Oakland 1YR/$10M.  The guy has made 94 starts in 5 seasons, worth about $11M per season.  If this is who they were looking for, why trade Rich Harden?!

Re: 256. Because Sheets is actually more durable than Harden. Harden is basically a 5-inning pitcher even when healthy. Sheets is not. Aside from “both guys have been hurt” I don’t think they’re very similar.

And the A’s traded Harden a year and a half ago. The Sheets deal looks a lot more like a calculated risk that will, if nothing else, keep guys like Cahill who aren’t ready for wasting more service time with bad MLB performance.

Hard to believe that a 31-yr old catcher is arb eligible for the first time.

What a horrible system MLBPA has for non-veterans.  They really don’t care about the older non-veteran players, not negotiating any kind of free agency based on age.  Ruiz is FA eligible for the 2013 season… when he’ll be 34 years old.

Shame on you MLBPA.

Ruiz is really the perfect storm in terms of long delayed free agency.

He was signed in 1998 at age 19 which is relatively old for an international free agent. That initial contract, for which he received a 10k bonus, signed away his rights to the Phillies for 6 additional years after 1998.  That covered the years 1998-2004.

Now it is true that after the 2001 season he was eligible for the rule 5 draft and as a result his performance could have forced the Phillies to add him to their 40 man roster.  He was a very late bloomer though and was never likely to be taken by another team in those years.  He finally was added to the 40 man roster in 2005 before he ever had a chance to explore minor league free agency.

He spent all of 2005 in the minors on hist first option.  He spent most of 2006 in the minors on his second option until a Sept callup.

His first full year of service time was in 2007 at the age of 28.  He’ll become a free agent after the 2012 season, his age 33 season.

That’s a total of 15 years of team control after he signed that original contract for 10k. Not a bad deal for the Phillies at all.

And actually it could have been a little worse as he only spent 2 years in the minors under option instead of 3.

So the real perfect storm is 7 years in the minors before hitting minor league free agency or forcing a spot on the 40 man roster + 3 years mostly in the minors under option + 6 years in the majors for a total of 16 years. 

I guess in theory a 22 yr old college senior sign could follow that path and not ever get free agency rights until he was 37/38.

Some kind of age based free agency for those players and a major league minimum raised to 1M or something like that would be broadly beneficial to the great majority of players who never reap post MLB free agency riches.

I’m not sure the talent pool is strong enough to justify a raise of the league minimum to 1 mil (emphasis on not sure...it might be).  Further, raising the minimum only stings the smaller market teams. 

It seems entirely fair to have free agency automatically activate after a player’s age 31 or 32 season under most conditions.  Normatively speaking, players should be allowed the luxury of exploring free agency while they are still somewhere near their prime.  Most players would see their service time barely altered, but it puts a kind of incentive on the club to promote guys around 25-26 rather than letting them sit in the minors for more “seasoning”

Randy Winn is rumored to be signing with the Yankees.  FanGraphs says that in 2009, winn was worth:

-13.4 Batting runs
16.5 Fielding runs
-5.8 Position Adjustment

Essentially Winn was a replacement LF/RF in 2009.

BUT, FG says that Winn actually was worth 19.9 Replacement Runs because he had a ton of ABs.  Therefore, FG says that Winn was a 1.7 Win player in 2009, and could justify spending 7.7M on Winn.

But is that really true?  Why do we give Winn credit for playing time?

If you played the equal of Randy Winn at all 8 positions, you’d have a replacement level team, but you would have spent 61.6M for the pleasure of doing so.

What am I missing here?

Chris - the Batting Runs, Fielding Runs and Positional Adjustment are all compared against average.  So Winn, according to FanGraphs, was worth -2.7 runs below average.  A replacement level player is going to be worth about -20 runs below average given Winn’s playing time, so you add 19.9 runs to his total runs above average to get RAR.  Divide by 10 to get WAR.

@Nick-

A-ha.  That’s it.  I was assuming replacement, whne I should have been using “average”.

Much thanks.

I had discussed with a front office friend “What is the maximum number of years a team can control a plyer on his first contract?” and the answer was 15...looks like Ruiz made it this far on that track.

Years 1-6 on a minor league contract, after which one can become a minor league free agent if left off the 40.

Years 7-9 optioned to minors after being added to the 40.

Years 10-15 on 25 man roster before getting MLB service time for free agency.

Twins sign Thome for 1.5 mil with 750k incentives.  This looks like a steal to me.  On the surface, it seems weird for them to bring in a lefty who doesn’t play defense, but this allows them to sit Delmon against righties and put Kubel in Left.  As far as pinch hitting, the only guys he would pinch hit for (Hardy, Punto, Tolbert Casilla, Young, Morales, Crede?) are all right handed or switch hitters, so it makes more sense to bring in a lefty. 

Ideally, they would have found a 5th outfielder who could back up centerfield and be a legitimate bench bat, but those types of players get large, multiyear contracts, not 1.5 mil + incentives.

My hope is that if Delmon doesn’t have a breakout, above replacement level season, that he only starts against lefties, allowing the twins to have possibly the best lineup against a RHP in the league.

Winn’s fielding in RF, for whatever reason, is vastly overrated by fangraphs.  $2M was perfectly reasonably for a guy who’s a replacement hitter or worse but can provide 0.5-1 win with the glove.

Huston Street signs with the Rockies for 3Yrs/$22.5M, which buys out his arb year.  This seems like a slight overpay for Street, particularly given the arb buyout - I’d be surprised if he’s worth 5 wins over three years. But that’s because I remember the pitcher with poor control in Oakland.

Contreras signs with the Phillies for 1.5m.  1 year contract. 

i think the phils said he’ll be a starter in ST and then moved to the bullpen for the year. 

optimistic about his potential performance.

Mariners pick up Eric Byrnes.  Marriage made in heaven; he needed a place to land and the Mariners needed a righthanded option for left field.  Low risk move for both the Mariners and Byrnes.

According to the AP, the Tigers locked up Justin Verlander to a 5 year, $80 million deal.  Basically, its roughly the same deal that Felix Hernandez got from the Mariners.

Ideally, they would have found a 5th outfielder who could back up centerfield and be a legitimate bench bat, but those types of players get large, multiyear contracts, not 1.5 mil + incentives.

“5th ourfielder who could back up centerfield and be a leigtimate bench bat” sounds like Gabe Gross, who just signed for 750K + 250K incentives.

I really have no idea where to put this, but I have to tell SOMEONE.  WPA is currently being discussed on MLB Tonight.

I… wow!  Just, wow!  I can barely believe I’m seeing this.

And Verducci sounds like he actually understands it…

This may need its own thread: Lincecum signs with the Giants, 2 years, $23M.

Pat/270: really?  Wonderful stuff!

Here’s the link Tango.

http://mlbnetwork.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=7165649

I don’t think you’ll like what you’ll see.

I started a thread on it.  I LOVE it!

Sticky has been removed.

What is the summary then?  That the signings have been almost completely rational?  Basically, the one place where there are oversignings is with relievers? 

Is it safe to say that this season shows the impact that sabermetrics has had on valuation of players?  Or, is it simply the economic plight that forced teams to act rationally?

Is it safe to say that this season shows the impact that sabermetrics has had on valuation of players?  Or, is it simply the economic plight that forced teams to act rationally?

I think it is a combination of the two.  If roughly ten teams are disciplined because of improved information, and roughly ten teams are financially hamstrung, that would be plenty to depress the free agent market.  Given how specialized player roles are and how few potential landing spots there are for many players, it is no wonder that free agents were unable to drum up the bidding wars of years past.