from Amazon
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The One Thing I’d Like To Know More Of Today
...Of The Ten Things [Studes] Didn’t Know Last Week
Studes talks about how much Win Shares of “cheap talent” that teams were able to get, without trading for it. What I would have liked to see is…
How much did this cheap talent cost? And how many players was this?
It is apparent to me that teams always overspend on big free agents. Teams always do it this way: what’s my most optimistic guess as to his peak? Figure out how much that is worth. Then, assume no dropoff, and a sustainable peak for 5 to 7 years. Multiply all that. That’s at the top end. Maybe at the bottom end, it’s not so bad? The total WSAB here is about 2 per team, or about 0.6 wins above bench. How much did that cost the teams? And how does that compare to the mid-level free agents, and high-level ones?
I think Studes’ weekly feature is the one sports feature I make sure to read on the web.
Thanks very much, Tango. I don’t have the time to answer all of your questions, but this data included 172 players who signed contracts totalling $173M in all. The biggest spenders were the Cubs, who spent almost $14M on “free talent” but got NEGATIVE 3 WSAB from them. The biggest culprit is Glendon Rusch, who is also under contract for next year. Others include Neifi Perez, Scott Williamson and the dearly departed Tony Womack.
Interestingly, all of the Cub deals, except for Rusch, were signed prior to the 2005 season, not 2006.
In the $3M to $6M range, teams spent $280M on 154 WSAB. In the $6M to $9M range, $325M on 84 WSAB; $9M to $12M: $316M on 96 WSAB and $12M to $15M: $327M on 158 WSAB.
The WSAB and salary figures aren’t directly comparable because these are full-season salary figures but YTD WSAB. I’ll include a more thorough salary analysis on the site and in the THT Annual when the year is over.
The data actually looks pretty similar to the stats I posted a year ago in this article:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/paying-for-the-best/