If we miss the playoffs this year, trade Manny and sign Schoop

[CheeryO]

By all accounts Manny had a genetic issue with his knees. One that has been fixed. While I am sure there are some long term side effects of the injury and surgeries I don't see any reason to expect a recurrence.

As for Heyward the only thing that is obvious is that he has struggled nightly with the bat this season.

He is 26 and in the first year of the deal. He put up 6 wins seasons the last two years.

I think it is premature to write him off.

I'm not writing Heyward off. I'm saying he was never worth anything close to that contract, based on his past numbers, even if he was having a decent year.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not writing Heyward off. I'm saying he was never worth anything close to that contract, based on his past numbers, even if he was having a decent year.

Back to back six win seasons. At eight million a win a six win season is worth 48 million.

That is the established market value.

[CheeryO]

Back to back six win seasons. At eight million a win a six win season is worth 48 million.

That is the established market value.

Maybe on Fantasy Island it is. What player makes $48 million a year? You mean a 6 WAR season? Heyward has never been in the Top 10 in WAR and no player has ever made $48 million a year, not even close.

[Can_of_corn]

Maybe on Fantasy Island it is. What player makes $48 million a year? You mean a 6 WAR season? Heyward has never been in the Top 10 in WAR and no player has ever made $48 million a year, not even close.

Just because the $/Win is currently breaking down in regards to high win players doesn't invalidate the overriding principle.

Given his past performance the contract was reasonable.

[CheeryO]

Just because the $/Win is currently breaking down in regards to high win players doesn't invalidate the overriding principle.

Given his past performance the contract was reasonable.

The overriding principle would only be valid if WAR/$ is calculated using a tiered scale. Just because a 1 WAR player maybe on average makes $8 million a year does not mean a 6 WAR player makes $48 million a year. All you have to do is look at what the players are actually making to understand that reasoning is only backed up on Fantasy Island.

[Can_of_corn]

The overriding principle would only be valid if WAR/$ is calculated using a tiered scale. Just because a 1 WAR player maybe on average makes $8 million a year does not mean a 6 WAR player makes $48 million a year. All you have to do is look at what the players are actually making to understand that reasoning is only backed up on Fantasy Island.

You do realize that, in reality, a six win player is significantly more than six times as valuable as a one win player right?

I do wish someone like Trout would go year to year to the highest bidder.

My guess is he could make a lot more money.

[CheeryO]

You do realize that, in reality, a six win player is significantly more than six times as valuable as a one win player right?

I do wish someone like Trout would go year to year to the highest bidder.

My guess is he could make a lot more money.

Whose reality? Your reality? If what you say is true then why aren't salaries and salary structures completely different? You do realize that you aren't arguing with me, but economics, right?

If Trout went year to year to the highest bidder -- and his salary were actually based on WAR -- then his salary could have actually fallen since 2013. It's the players and their union far more than the league that want the multi-year contracts. Most teams would love to go to year to year deals, since that would favor ownership far more than players.

If players went year to year then it's likely most salaries would fall rather than the top players' salaries significantly going up. Going year to year would likely only hurt Trout's salary since he's not number 1 in WAR every year. The idea that salaries are based on WAR is putting the cart before the horse. Salaries are based on revenue, market conditions, union and league rules, etc. WAR/$ is based on what players make, not vice-versa. Determining salary based on WAR could be used by front offices as a very loose guide only because the salaries for the 1 WAR players only sync up with the top WAR players if you apply some kind of a tiered scale.

[Can_of_corn]

Whose reality? Your reality? If what you say is true then why aren't salaries and salary structures completely different? You do realize that you aren't arguing with me, but economics, right?

If Trout went year to year to the highest bidder -- and his salary were actually based on WAR -- then his salary could have actually fallen since 2013. It's the players and their union far more than the league that want the multi-year contracts. Most teams would love to go to year to year deals, since that would favor ownership far more than players.

If players went year to year then it's likely most salaries would fall rather than the top players' salaries significantly going up. Going year to year would likely only hurt Trout's salary since he's not number 1 in WAR every year. The idea that salaries are based on WAR is putting the cart before the horse. Salaries are based on revenue, market conditions, union and league rules, etc. WAR/$ is based on what players make, not vice-versa. Determining salary based on WAR could be used by front offices as a very loose guide only because the salaries for the 1 WAR players only sync up with the top WAR players if you apply some kind of a tiered scale.

I'm guessing you completely missed my point.

I'll try again.

When you can amass six wins of value into a single roster spot it makes building a winning team much easier.

Therefor players of that level are extremely valuable.

On the other hand one win players tend to get non-tendered. (Pedro for example)

[FanSince88]

I'm guessing you completely missed my point.

I'll try again.

When you can amass six wins of value into a single roster spot it makes building a winning team much easier.

Therefor players of that level are extremely valuable.

On the other hand one win players tend to get non-tendered. (Pedro for example)

When you put it that way, keeping MM does seem compelling. One would assume that as long as your keep away from negative WAR players, any lineup that includes a 6 WAR guy is always going to be pretty formidable.

But it's still putting all of your eggs in one basket. Life happens. Look at what the Bucs are going through this year with McClutchen (who luckily signed a very team friendly deal). Or Albert Belle. Or Bobby Bonilla. The list goes on and on. $325-400 million is an insane amount of money to put into one guy, especially for a very demanding defensive position. I could even see Manny getting something like 14/500 if the frenzy gets hysterical enough. And that's why I doubt he will accept even a 10/300 offer right now. I'm sure he has an awesome insurance policy, why not wait at this point and see how crazy it gets?

[Filmstudy]

You do realize that, in reality, a six win player is significantly more than six times as valuable as a one win player right?

I do wish someone like Trout would go year to year to the highest bidder.

My guess is he could make a lot more money.

This.

Linear valuation of WAR ridiculous.

[CheeryO]

I'm guessing you completely missed my point.

Only because you seem to have abandoned your point that a 6 WAR player is worth $48 million.

When you can amass six wins of value into a single roster spot it makes building a winning team much easier.

Then why are the Angels terrible? If you overpay a single 6 WAR player, then it makes it very difficult to sign other high WAR players. This will be true for the Cubs when their really good young players who currently don't make much money get raises, bumping against Jason Heyward's contract that already overeats into the Cubs budget.

Therefor players of that level are extremely valuable.

Until they start to decline (Albert Belle) or likely never live up to their potential (Jason Heyward) or play on a team that can't afford more than one massive contract (Joey Votto and the Reds)

On the other hand one win players tend to get non-tendered.

Unless they go on to have fruitful careers as role players. Besides, why does your rhetoric only consist of 1 WAR and 6 WAR players? What about the vast number of players who are between 1 and 6 WAR? How many 6 WAR players did the Kansas City Royals have last year? (1, and I doubt it's the one most people think) All of which probably goes to show that, next to wins and losses, WAR is one of the most flawed stats. And a flawed stat would be the last one on which to base long term salaries.

[Can_of_corn]

Only because you seem to have abandoned your point that a 6 WAR player is worth $48 million.

Then why are the Angels terrible? If you overpay a single 6 WAR player, then it makes it very difficult to sign other high WAR players. This will be true for the Cubs when their really good young players who currently don't make much money get raises, bumping against Jason Heyward's contract that already overeats into the Cubs budget.

Until they start to decline (Albert Belle) or likely never live up to their potential (Jason Heyward) or play on a team that can't afford more than one massive contract (Joey Votto and the Reds)

Unless they go on to have fruitful careers as role players. Besides, why does your rhetoric only consist of 1 WAR and 6 WAR players? What about the vast number of players who are between 1 and 6 WAR? How many 6 WAR players did the Kansas City Royals have last year? All of which probably goes to show that, next to wins and losses, WAR is one of the most flawed stats.

No, the point that a six win season is "worth" 48 million at a 8M/Win valuation is still present.

The Angels are terrible because they did a very poor job building around Trout. They would have been a great deal worse if they didn't have Trout.

This again. How exactly is a guy putting up back to back six win seasons not living up to his potential? Do you think Heyward is an under performing nine win player?

Tend to get non-tendered. As in, during their arbitration years. Once their cost exceeds their value. Like Alvarez was, like Matusz should have been.

As for the Royals, Cain had a 7.2 rWAR/6.5 fWAR season in 2015.

[CheeryO]

No, the point that a six win season is "worth" 48 million at a 8M/Win valuation is still present.

Not in reality and definitely not when tied to compensation. For example when someone like Netflix (or any other TV station around the world) licenses Hollywood movies for broadcast, they usually determine the fee for the film based on the film's box office. But they do so on a tiered scale because customers like Netflix can't afford (or are unwilling) to pay 5x times as much for all the films that made $250 million at the box office vs. the films that made $50 million. So a tiered structure would look something like this:

Films that make up to $10 million U.S. box office = $500,000 license fee

Films that make from $10 million to $50 million = $900,000 license fee

Films that make from $50 million to $100 million = $1.5 million license fee

Films that make from $100 million to $150 million = $2 million license fee

Films that make from $150 million to $200 million = $2.4 million license fee

Films that make from $200 million to $250 million = $2.75 million license fee

Anything above $250 million = $3 million plus $.15 for each box office dollar above $250 million

This is the type of scale I've dealt with in dozens of deals I've worked with when working to design the software for the distribution group for one of the big media companies. Many scales are way more complicated than this. This is not from an actual deal but it's example of how tiered pricing works, whether it's in a contract with a TV station, or an airline's contract with a fuel supplier, or on your tax forms. Salaries in baseball can't be this neatly tiered to performance because of multi-year deals and players union demands that salaries must go up regardless of performance. But just by looking at what players actually make shows that there is a similar curve that flattens as the cost goes up.

The Angels are terrible because they did a very poor job building around Trout. They would have been a great deal worse if they didn't have Trout.

True. But they could be a great deal better if they hadn't wasted so much of their budget on Pujols' contract when it was inevitable that Pujols could never come close to being worth it.

This again. How exactly is a guy putting up back to back six win seasons not living up to his potential? Do you think Heyward is an under performing nine win player?

Why would anyone think Heyward is a 9 WAR player? Where do you come up with this stuff? You could find many examples of of guys with back to back 6 WAR seasons not making close to what Heyward makes (even after adjusting for salary inflation); and then you can probably find many others putting up only two back to back 6 WAR seasons and then regressing toward the mean of his prior seasons like Heyward. I think it's pretty clear that smart GMs think that high WAR players are especially valuable when they are young because A) their skills could diminish as they get older, especially if their performance has been choppy early on, and B) even if (and that's a pretty big "if") they get better as they get older their skills will almost never increase at the rate at which their salary increases.

Tend to get non-tendered. As in, during their arbitration years. Once their cost exceeds their value. Like Alvarez was, like Matusz should have been.

The bolded part is even more true for the expensive guys than the cheap guys -- Heyward being a great example. And most likely so will Trumbo and Wieters.

As for the Royals, Cain had a 7.2 rWAR/6.5 fWAR season in 2015.

Yeah, you're right. And I added him to my post above. The thing with Cain is that the Royals got a huge season out of him when he was young and cheap. Do you think the Royals should be paying him more than Heyward based on last year? No doubt you do.

[Can_of_corn]

I tossed nine wins out there since, despite two six win seasons, you evidently think Heyward has never lived up to expectations.

In the 2015-2016 offseason market Heyward's contract was a lot less out of line with his past history and future projections than Davis.

Heyward was entering his age 26 season on the back of two very fine seasons, keep in mind he also had a six win season in 2010 and a 5.8 win season in 2012.

So in four of his six seasons he put up at least 5.8 rWAR.

[Frobby]

Interesting discussion. It is certainly an observable fact that the top players do not get paid proportionately to their WAR (i.e., a 6 WAR player doesn't make triple what a 2 WAR player makes). The concept that a 6 WAR player is harder to find than three 2 WAR players (and is therefore more valuable than all three of the others combined) sounds good in theory, but I don't know of any team that actually pays players in accordance with that logic.