Yankee blog asks: would you trade Swisher and Montero for Markakis?

[SrMeowMeow]

I have never said that I wouldn't deal Nick for Montero...I am just saying that as of right now, I am not convinced that it is a "massacre", as you put it.

I would prefer to explore other avenues for Nick though.

And where did I say that I think Nick will AVERAGE a 4 WAR going forward?

Nowhere, but if he averages 3 or fewer, he's going to be borderline overpaid at best (and therefore a worthless asset to me).

[Sports Guy]

Nowhere, but if he averages 3 or fewer, he's going to be borderline overpaid at best (and therefore a worthless asset to me).

So, then you basically think we should never sign a FA, right?

Calling him a worthless asset because some stat says he is worth 10 million instead of 14 is a very Trea-like comment.

[Frobby]

Nowhere, but if he averages 3 or fewer, he's going to be borderline overpaid at best (and therefore a worthless asset to me).

So, then you basically think we should never sign a FA, right?

Calling him a worthless asset because some stat says he is worth 10 million instead of 14 is a very Trea-like comment.

Moreover, just because you are paying a guy exactly what he is worth, or slightly more, doesn't make him a "worthless asset," in my book. Would you trade a very good player who is slightly overpaid for a mediocre player who is slightly underpaid? I don't think so.

I will say this -- if Nick doesn't average 3 WAR over the next three years, I will be very disappointed, even though he hasn't averaged 3 WAR over the last three years. I just feel that he has very little downside, and a whole lot of upside.

[DrungoHazewood]

Nowhere, but if he averages 3 or fewer, he's going to be borderline overpaid at best (and therefore a worthless asset to me).

Not to go completely over the top, but really? All players that are a little bit overpaid are worthless? I'd say 80% of free agents end up being overpaid as per a standard $4.5M per win calculation. Would you ever sign a free agent? Would you ever risk buying out a few years of a player's arb and free agency if you really believed paying someone $10M for $7M in production made him a worthless asset?

The 2010 Yankees easily had a hundred million dollars of worthless players... ARod, Tex, Rivera, Sabathia, Jeter... not a one of them was paid less than $4.5M per win.

[SrMeowMeow]

Not to go completely over the top, but really? All players that are a little bit overpaid are worthless? I'd say 80% of free agents end up being overpaid as per a standard $4.5M per win calculation. Would you ever sign a free agent? Would you ever risk buying out a few years of a player's arb and free agency if you really believed paying someone $10M for $7M in production made him a worthless asset?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the $4.5M per win calculation does not include cost-controlled players. So I would expect about 50% of free agents to be overpaid by that calculation (maybe a little higher if you think that non-FA extensions are inherently team-friendly), and 50% underpaid.

The 2010 Yankees easily had a hundred million dollars of worthless players... ARod, Tex, Rivera, Sabathia, Jeter... not a one of them was paid less than $4.5M per win.

The Yankees are a unique case as you know, and don't have the same risk profile of basically every other MLB team (to varying degrees). They're not really good evidence in any argument regarding spending because their situation is so unusual. And, for example, A-Rod provided positive value (about 23M of it) over his first contract for the Yankees. Sabathia has provided about 20M in only three seasons (partially because of backloading, but even by average annual value he's been positive value). Teixeira has been overpaid by 11M. Jeter I'm sure is overpaid but he was given a hometown overpayment and the contract was panned even at the time. Rivera was overpaid but by a surprisingly modest amount considering it's par for the course for closers. But A-Rod and Sabathia definitely have not been "worthless" by my standards. And you can make a very simple and very strong argument that the Yankees would have been a better team allocating Jeter's, Teixeira's, and even Rivera's money elsewhere.

[Frobby]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the $4.5M per win calculation does not include cost-controlled players. So I would expect about 50% of free agents to be overpaid by that calculation (maybe a little higher if you think that non-FA extensions are inherently team-friendly), and 50% underpaid.

* * *

The Yankees are a unique case as you know, and don't have the same risk profile of basically every other MLB team (to varying degrees). They're not really good evidence in any argument regarding spending because their situation is so unusual. And, for example, A-Rod provided positive value (about 23M of it) over his first contract for the Yankees. Sabathia has provided about 20M in only three seasons (partially because of backloading, but even by average annual value he's been positive value). Teixeira has been overpaid by 11M. Jeter I'm sure is overpaid but he was given a hometown overpayment and the contract was panned even at the time. Rivera was overpaid but by a surprisingly modest amount considering it's par for the course for closers. But A-Rod and Sabathia definitely have not been "worthless" by my standards. And you can make a very simple and very strong argument that the Yankees would have been a better team allocating Jeter's, Teixeira's, and even Rivera's money elsewhere.

I think you are right about the $4.5 mm per win calculation, and I agree that it should make sense that half of free agents are overpaid and half are underpaid. However, I forget what period of time fangraphs uses in looking at the WAR of the free agent class -- I think they just look at the WAR for the year that immediately precedes free agent eligibility. So, the calculation is, total $$ paid to free agents that year, divided by total fWAR for those players in the immediately preceding season. If it is the case (and it probably is) that players tend to have lower WAR's after signing their FA deals than they did in the year they were FA eligible (due to age-related decline or lack of motivation), then it would still be the case that the majority of free agents are overpaid.

I think your are right that most teams (and certainly the Orioles) cannot afford to grossly overpay many of their players. I doubt it will turn out to be the case that Nick has been grossly overpaid. If the test is, "would you give him away," the answer is, absolutely not. So, he isn't worthless.

[SrMeowMeow]

I think you are right about the $4.5 mm per win calculation, and I agree that it should make sense that half of free agents are overpaid and half are underpaid. However, I forget what period of time fangraphs uses in looking at the WAR of the free agent class -- I think they just look at the WAR for the year that immediately precedes free agent eligibility. So, the calculation is, total $$ paid to free agents that year, divided by total fWAR for those players in the immediately preceding season. If it is the case (and it probably is) that players tend to have lower WAR's after signing their FA deals than they did in the year they were FA eligible (due to age-related decline or lack of motivation), then it would still be the case that the majority of free agents are overpaid.

I think your are right that most teams (and certainly the Orioles) cannot afford to grossly overpay many of their players. I doubt it will turn out to be the case that Nick has been grossly overpaid. If the test is, "would you give him away," the answer is, absolutely not. So, he isn't worthless.

I just think that it's very believable that a rational person would project Markakis to be "overpaid" in this sense over the duration of his contract. And if that were my best estimate, yes, I would give him away on waivers for the greater good of the team. There are reasons beyond dollars and stats to keep Markakis, and they are legitimate. But if I were trying to ruthlessly build a winner, at a certain point you have to stand up, take your best shot at projecting a player, and make some hard decisions.

[Frobby]

I just think that it's very believable that a rational person would project Markakis to be "overpaid" in this sense over the duration of his contract. And if that were my best estimate, yes, I would give him away on waivers for the greater good of the team. There are reasons beyond dollars and stats to keep Markakis, and they are legitimate. But if I were trying to ruthlessly build a winner, at a certain point you have to stand up, take your best shot at projecting a player, and make some hard decisions.

Well, the real question a team has to ask itself is, "can we deploy these dollars better?" If you are confident the answer is yes, then you do it. In the case of the Orioles, I am not at all sure they could deploy Nick's $42 mm over the next three years any better, since it seems they have to overpay any half-decent free agent to convince them to come here.

[SrMeowMeow]

Well, the real question a team has to ask itself is, "can we deploy these dollars better?" If you are confident the answer is yes, then you do it. In the case of the Orioles, I am not at all sure they could deploy Nick's $42 mm over the next three years any better, since it seems they have to overpay any half-decent free agent to convince them to come here.

Yeah, but this is the argument that ends all discussion. If we're really down to "better to keep money tied up in mediocre contracts simply so the O's won't reinvest it in a horrible one," there's no point to even debating possible moves. I think to have these conversations you have to assume that you have freedom to make and implement the decisions you're suggesting.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, but this is the argument that ends all discussion. If we're really down to "better to keep money tied up in mediocre contracts simply so the O's won't reinvest it in a horrible one," there's no point to even debating possible moves. I think to have these conversations you have to assume that you have freedom to make and implement the decisions you're suggesting.

I don't think Frobby's point was exactly that. I think he was arguing that if you have a guy who's willing to buy out some free agency years to come to the O's on a contract that was pretty much market value, you have to value that more highly than some theoretical free agent who you'd have to overpay by 25% just to consider the Orioles. So you can't just say Markakis' value would be bettered by some market-value free agent. You'd have to add money on top of that guy's contract.

There is real value in finding a good player who'll actually play in Baltimore without extortion money.

[SrMeowMeow]

I don't think Frobby's point was exactly that. I think he was arguing that if you have a guy who's willing to buy out some free agency years to come to the O's on a contract that was pretty much market value, you have to value that more highly than some theoretical free agent who you'd have to overpay by 25% just to consider the Orioles. So you can't just say Markakis' value would be bettered by some market-value free agent. You'd have to add money on top of that guy's contract.

There is real value in finding a good player who'll actually play in Baltimore without extortion money.

You're right, I did mis-read Frobby's point. And I mean, yes, I guess if you factor in a possible "play-in-Baltimore" premium, market value contracts look a little better for us. But what it highlights even more is the importance of building around cost-controlled players and trades, where the player has no say in where they play. And we're not talking about market-value contracts, we're talking about what you'd do in the (very plausible, maybe real) scenario that Markakis projects to be worth less than he's paid over the length of his contract. I think that makes him worthless in that scenario. I'd rather use a different word because it sounds so negative, but I think you know what I mean.

[Frobby]

Yeah, but this is the argument that ends all discussion. If we're really down to "better to keep money tied up in mediocre contracts simply so the O's won't reinvest it in a horrible one," there's no point to even debating possible moves. I think to have these conversations you have to assume that you have freedom to make and implement the decisions you're suggesting.

Just as you suggested that the Yankees are in a position distinct from ours in certain ways, we have to look at specific limitations we have. If one concludes that we have to pay a significant premium over value to convince good free agents to come here, then paying a premium over value to keep a good player who is already here makes sense. I mean, $42 mm is exactly what we spent on Danys Baez, Chad Bradford and Jamie Walker for three years. I'd rather spend it on Markakis.

I think there is another piece to this, too -- Nick's upside, and our likely ability to retain him beyond 2014 if his performance warrants. I see Nick as a guy who could end up as a 50+ WAR player over the course of a 15-17 year career. To me, preserving the chance that he does that in an Oriole uniform is worth a certain premium. I'm not going to go too far with this, because in the end it all boils down to what you think the future holds for him. Consider me bullish on Nick Markakis, and willing to hold a long-term stock whose price has taken a hit. If I'm wearing orange-colored glasses on that one, so be it.

[JTrea81]

I don't think Frobby's point was exactly that. I think he was arguing that if you have a guy who's willing to buy out some free agency years to come to the O's on a contract that was pretty much market value, you have to value that more highly than some theoretical free agent who you'd have to overpay by 25% just to consider the Orioles. So you can't just say Markakis' value would be bettered by some market-value free agent. You'd have to add money on top of that guy's contract.

There is real value in finding a good player who'll actually play in Baltimore without extortion money.

Markakis is no longer a good player. Value wise, he's an average RFer in the AL.

If this is what to expect or worse going forward (which I think it is) better to trade him now to a team with Frobby's perspective than to keep him and watch him suck up precious payroll dollars for limited production.

For 3 million more than is guaranteed to Nick, you could sign Carlos Beltran IMO for the same amount of time.

And Beltran has a good chance of outperforming Markakis even in his mid to late 30's and missing time IMO.

[SrMeowMeow]

Just as you suggested that the Yankees are in a position distinct from ours in certain ways, we have to look at specific limitations we have. If one concludes that we have to pay a significant premium over value to convince good free agents to come here, then paying a premium over value to keep a good player who is already here makes sense. I mean, $42 mm is exactly what we spent on Danys Baez, Chad Bradford and Jamie Walker for three years. I'd rather spend it on Markakis.

I think there is another piece to this, too -- Nick's upside, and our likely ability to retain him beyond 2014 if his performance warrants. I see Nick as a guy who could end up as a 50+ WAR player over the course of a 15-17 year career. To me, preserving the chance that he does that in an Oriole uniform is worth a certain premium. I'm not going to go too far with this, because in the end it all boils down to what you think the future holds for him. Consider me bullish on Nick Markakis, and willing to hold a long-term stock whose price has taken a hit. If I'm wearing orange-colored glasses on that one, so be it.

I'm okay with most of this.

[Frobby]

Markakis is no longer a good player. Value wise, he's an average RFer in the AL.

If this is what to expect or worse going forward (which I think it is) better to trade him now to a team with Frobby's perspective than to keep him and watch him suck up precious payroll dollars for limited production.

For 3 million more than is guaranteed to Nick, you could sign Carlos Beltran IMO for the same amount of time.

And Beltran has a good chance of outperforming Markakis even in his mid to late 30's and missing time IMO.

I cannot argue with your logic, only with your assessment of these players and what the next three years likely holds for them. I have always liked Beltran, though. If he stays healthy I like his chances to be as good or better than Nick -- but his injury risk is much, much higher, and his risk of a very serious age-related drop-off is much higher than for Nick.

If one believes that WAR is a pretty good measure of value, and that Nick isn't likely to be better in 2012-14 than he was in 2009-11, then your position isn't illogical. I just don't agree with either premise.