Jump to content

why are people so eager to overpay manny machado?


cacavolante

Recommended Posts

It's a rule of thumb. Applicable to most. But if you want to apply Brooks' career as your rule of thumb that's up to you.

Or you could use JJ Hardy as an example of a player whose best defensive years were post mid-20's. And Cal Ripken Jr. - same thing. By that "rule of thumb," the best defensive play is left behind in the minor leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Look guys, this is pretty simple. The earlier he is signed long term, the cheaper it will be, if Machado performs about as expected. At the same time, the earlier he is signed, the more risk the team takes on, that (1) he won't perform as expected, or (2) he will get hurt and the result will be catastrophic. It's a risk/reward tradeoff and it all depends on how Machado does down the road which is the better approach.

If I could sign Machado for 10/$100 mm right now, I'd do it. If you assume that in the arb years a player gets 40%, 60% and 80% of his FMV, then Machado would need to be worth about 2.5 WAR per season over the next 10 years to be worth that contract:

2014 - $.5 mm

2015 - $.5 mm

2016 - $6 mm

2017 - $9 mm

2018 - $12 mm

2019 - $15 mm

2020 - $15 mm

2021 - $15 mm

2022 - $15 mm

2023 - $15 mm

So it's pretty simple -- do you think Machado will be worth significantly more than 25 WAR over the next 10 years?

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Machado averages 3.5 WAR during that period, and instead of extending now, we wait. How much will that cost us? If I had to guess, I'd say waiting two more years, until he is arb eligible, probably costs us $40 mm over the remaining 8 years in that scenario. We only come out ahead waiting two years if Machado has a career threatening injury in the interim, or proves to be worse than a 2.5 WAR per year player. I'll take those risks and save the $40 mm (more if he is better than 3.5 WAR per year).

I agree with you and would do the deal for Manny at those numbers (though I doubt Manny and his agent would.)

Even though I am not a stats guy, I looked at the assumptions after the 2008 season with Nick Markakis and during 2012 with extending Adam Jones. Through the 2008 season, Nick had 3 year cumulative WAR at that point (before the contract extension) of 12.5 thus averaging 4.2 WAR per year to that point. Six year deal, 66 million was signed after the 2008 season. During the five years 2009-2013 his cumulative WAR unfortunately was 7.5 with average being only 1.5 WAR per year. We bought out three years of free agency with Nick (including this, his last year).

With Adam, who signed a six year, 85.5 million extension in the middle of 2012, it was a different situation. Adam was in his last year of arbitration eligibility in 2012 and thus we bought out more years of free agency (five) and the one year of his last arbitration eligibility. For his five years prior to the contract extension, 2008-2012, Adam had total WAR of 12.5 thus averaging 2.5 WAR per year which was less than Nick had during his pre contract years. But Adam's jump in his 2012 performance was at 4.2 and last year at 4.3. So the question for the remainder of his contract will be how much WAR does he produce for the 62 million due Adam through the next five seasons ending in 2018. If he averages 3.5- 4 per year, that would be 17.5-20 cumulative WAR for the 62 million rather than the 7.5 WAR for the 48 million of Nick's five year contract (not including this year.)

It would seem that Adam at present was the better extension choice, although at the time Markakis was extended, the sentiment was that his career would go very differently. Please stat guys, let me know if this makes any sense at all!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could use JJ Hardy as an example of a player whose best defensive years were post mid-20's. And Cal Ripken Jr. - same thing. By that "rule of thumb," the best defensive play is left behind in the minor leagues.

So guys whose defense is based more on baseball acumen then physicality peak later?

And in which camp would you put Machado?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Longoria deal was team viewed as very team friendly even then and Manny has over a full season more service time then Longoria did when he signed it.

I still say the Simmons deal is the best starting off point.

I meant the 2nd deal which I think was after year three,but your point is still valid. No way that deal gets it done, but I think it is a reasonable framework to start with. Mint familiar with the Simmons deal but I'm off to look it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So guys whose defense is based more on baseball acumen then physicality peak later?

And in which camp would you put Machado?

Can I just say it coc? You will kiss the butt of a regular and attack with passive aggression someone less. You are the epitome of pathetic. Have a nice life. I'm done with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So guys whose defense is based more on baseball acumen then physicality peak later?

And in which camp would you put Machado?

I hope it is both. Hopefully he's a natural talent that is also coachable. If he and the O's are smart he should scheduled with Brooksie and Cal to get knowledge dropped on him on a regular basis. That and I hope he's watching JJ too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could use JJ Hardy as an example of a player whose best defensive years were post mid-20's. And Cal Ripken Jr. - same thing. By that "rule of thumb," the best defensive play is left behind in the minor leagues.

Perhaps it is. But it is well established that defense peaks earlier than offense, and offense peaks around 27.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a rule of thumb. Applicable to most. But if you want to apply Brooks' career as your rule of thumb that's up to you.
Since Manny's defense is the only 3B comparable to Brooks' I've ever seen, I think I will, thank you. The rule of thumb is an average from an aggregate of players. There is nothing average about Brooks or Manny. I don't see why you would expect there play to conform to the arch of an average player.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, this is why Brooks' best years with the glove were ages 30-32 because all players adhere as slavishly to this rule as you do.
How do we define Brooks' best years exactly? Generally (even for great defenders) there best years are around 24-25, maybe they can sustain their level of play for a longer period of time, but there is nothing to indicate that a player would improve defensively at that age.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is your takeaway then that you shouldn't sign players to long contracts? Do you believe the risk is so high that getting cost certainty and significant discounts in free agent and arb years isn't worth it? Have you done the math?

That's not my takeaway whatsoever. Just look at contracts like Evan Longoria's...before his 2012 $100 Million extension, he signed a 6 year/$17.5 Million contract during his rookie campaign in 2008. That was VERY risky at the time but turned out to be quite the team-friendly deal.

I'm merely stating that there IS risk involved and we have yet to see Manny really hit well enough to deserve the contract that some people are suggesting that we give him. I hear people throwing around $300 Million amounts for Trout and just think that wasn't Sizemore a similar player at one point? Hit for power, young, fast, great defense...Trout hits for a better average but still...how quickly we all forget...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is. But it is well established that defense peaks earlier than offense, and offense peaks around 27.
How many defensively talented players had their best year with the glove in their first full season of play at age 20? Just learning how to position players as he becomes more familiar with them and knows more how they react to various pitchers' pitches, should help him improve. Manny has certainly demonstrated that he is a smart player as well as physically a talented one. His defense may decline eventually, but I find it hard to believe it will begin to do so at age 21. The only way I can see that happening is if the injury truly limits his mobility. Or he goes crazy in the weight room and bulks up too much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we define Brooks' best years exactly? Generally (even for great defenders) there best years are around 24-25, maybe they can sustain their level of play for a longer period of time, but there is nothing to indicate that a player would improve defensively at that age.
I define it by the most runs saved in a year, which for Brooks was at age 31 when he had 33 RS according to TZ. Manny had a 33 RS season last year at age 20 according to TZ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is. But it is well established that defense peaks earlier than offense, and offense peaks around 27.
If we are talking about Ryan Flaherty then I would say this probably hold =s true. He most likely won't improve a lot with either bat or glove though since he has had little playing time at this age he may gain some from experience in both categories. But I see a big difference between Manny and Flaherty. On the one hand you talk about how extraordinary it is for Manny to even be playing in the ML at his age, let alone playing at h the level he has, and on the other you expect him to hold to a performance curve based on what an average player might do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define it by the most runs saved in a year, which for Brooks was at age 31 when he had 33 RS according to TZ. Manny had a 33 RS season last year at age 20 according to TZ.
Wouldn't that represent an outlier as opposed to some evidence to lead you to believe that Manny will improve at that age? Manny now even is due for some regression, even at his age i would be inclined to believe that last year was an outlier that I wouldn't expect him to improve upon, especially in his thirties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...