Anyone Following Manny? (Signs with San Diego)

[atomic]

6 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Don't forget the Rays and A's.

The A's and Ray's can't afford to add $80 million to their payroll. It is just comical how bad you guys are at math. Look at the teams that are succeeding for low payrolls.   They sign for free agents but they pay a lot less than $8 million for WAR.  

[atomic]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

They're quite clearly paid by expected value, and if teams aren't using WAR then WAR is an excellent proxy for what teams actually use. 

Your argument is that you don't like WAR because it's accurate and it's commonly used and you can't stand those type of things, so you pretend that it's not used.

Look at teams that succeed on an Orioles budget  and see how much they are actually paying for free agents per dollar.  You can use failures like the Angels for an example.  They are a failure because they way overpaid for Pujlos.  You seem to think that they are using some kind of future value chart.  But no they are borrowing from their future.  GM wants to win now and doesn't care what happens 5 years from now because he might not even have a job. Are you going to use Chris Davis in your formula of how much free agents are worth? Because some stupid owner gave him a contract that was not logical? 

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

It is time for you to shut up and stop with the personal insults.   You said there was no use arguing with you so I’m not wasting my breath.    Have a nice day.   

Well perhaps you could use independent thought for once. See how these numbers are calculated and do some research. I would say ove half the people who quote WAR all the time don't even know the calculations or even the differences between FWAR and BWAR.  

[backwardsk]

7 minutes ago, atomic said:

If they signed him for $80 million a year for 8 years they would.  Their good players would start to get arbitration.  They would have to trade them for prospects so they could pay for Trout.  

The 2018 Braves would be terrible with Trout?  The 2019 Braves would be terrible with Trout?  You are correct that they'd have to trade some guys as they go through the arbitration years.  That's how you keep a pipeline strong.  They could trade Incarte for good prospects now.  They could trade Albies for more prospects in three years.  They have a wave of pitchers coming up where their rotation can be quite good for under $20M for a long time.

But like in the Machado thread, you would view it as a failure if they went to the playoffs each of the first six years, won a Series or two, but were sub .500 in years 7 and 8.

 

[Luke-OH]

33 minutes ago, atomic said:

It is useless arguing with some people. You point is not logical.  I dont know what more I can say. Your proof to show value is overpaying teams did in free agency and you think teams go in thinking players will be bad after they sign to huge contracts and that is how you determine value. 

If you have 200 million budget you cant pay one player 80 million a year because he had 10 WAR a year the last few years.  Your team would be terrible as you would have no money for other players.

Everyone else's argument isn't logical, but you are the one person who get's it, ok.

[interloper]

13 minutes ago, atomic said:

Well perhaps you could use independent thought for once. See how these numbers are calculated and do some research. I would say ove half the people who quote WAR all the time don't even know the calculations or even the differences between FWAR and BWAR.  

We got a math genius over here!!!

[TonySoprano]

Back on topic, from @Moose Milligan's frequent lunch buddy

 

[Moose Milligan]

*sigh* @TonySoprano I've already invited you a few times, maybe it's time you put your jealousy aside and join us for lunch.  We'll be at The Palm next Wednesday.  Bring Paulie Walnuts and Big Pussy if it makes you feel more comfortable.  

[jrobb21613]

Rather than a team spending money on a large long term contract for one player, I think teams are much better off signing multiple players who they deam solid additions/nuggets to the team along with investing it in areas that will help develop and get maximum value out of the players they have. Large long term contracts have done more harm than good over the years.

[LTO's]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

You can use failures like the Angels for an example.  They are a failure because they way overpaid for Pujlos

This isn't even close to being true. The contract is bad and he's a bad player, but that contract isn't the reason they're a "failure" (they aren't a failure in the first place). The contract hasn't hampered their ability to pay good money to Trout, Simmons and Upton who are certainly worth it. Nor was it a hindrance in them paying the 20+ million dollar posting fee for Ohtani. They haven't been a WS contender because of horrible injury luck and a neglected farm system. The contract of ONE player is certainly a very convenient excuse though.

[Moose Milligan]

23 minutes ago, jrobb21613 said:

Rather than a team spending money on a large long term contract for one player, I think teams are much better off signing multiple players who they deam solid additions/nuggets to the team along with investing it in areas that will help develop and get maximum value out of the players they have. Large long term contracts have done more harm than good over the years.

Bingo.

Nats are better keeping Turner, Soto, Robles, Rendon than keeping Harper and maybe one of those players.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

Look at teams that succeed on an Orioles budget  and see how much they are actually paying for free agents per dollar.  You can use failures like the Angels for an example.  They are a failure because they way overpaid for Pujlos.  You seem to think that they are using some kind of future value chart.  But no they are borrowing from their future.  GM wants to win now and doesn't care what happens 5 years from now because he might not even have a job. Are you going to use Chris Davis in your formula of how much free agents are worth? Because some stupid owner gave him a contract that was not logical? 

What I'm taking away from this is that you believe that the entire free agent market is irrational, and not based on estimates of future value. I'm assuming that since you don't believe that teams estimate future value they're getting their initial bids from who... the player agents?  Or do they just pick the numbers out of the air?

My guess is that teams use an established value in a WAR-like production metric and combine that with historical aging patterns to predict future value.  But we often end up with very optimistic valuations that aren't met in practice because the team that is most optimistic in their assessment wins the bidding.

[weams]

On 2/13/2019 at 9:36 AM, forphase1 said:

 

5) Finally, many 'fans' don't realize how hard most of these guys really work.  We see them playing a game, and making more money in one at bat than we make in a year.  And we are working hard in our factories, mines, farms, law firms, hospitals, schools, etc...while they are playing a 'game' and making ridiculous money.  Fair or not, it's just hard to drum up sympathy for someone complaining they aren't making enough money to play a kids game.  

 

At that level, it is no longer a kid's game. They work real hard, the good ones are gifted beyond mere humanity. 

[oriole]

8 minutes ago, weams said:

At that level, it is no longer a kid's game. They work real hard, the good ones are gifted beyond mere humanity. 

It’s always a kids game no matter which way you look at it

[atomic]

19 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What I'm taking away from this is that you believe that the entire free agent market is irrational, and not based on estimates of future value. I'm assuming that since you don't believe that teams estimate future value they're getting their initial bids from who... the player agents?  Or do they just pick the numbers out of the air?

 My guess is that teams use an established value in a WAR-like production metric and combine that with historical aging patterns to predict future value.  But we often end up with very optimistic valuations that aren't met in practice because the team that is most optimistic in their assessment wins the bidding.

The assumption here (posters on this board) is that whatever a contract was signed for was a sensible rate for a free agent player. So the logic is contracts that Chris Davis and Pujlos were wise decisions by the clubs because that was the going rate for players and the market is always right.  I disagree with this assertion.  

To me the whole argument is the same argument I have with people who "invest" in the stock market who don't know the P/E to a company, their debt, their return on invested capital, free cash flow or any financial data what ever.  They say well this is a good company so I am buying their stock no matter what the price. As stock is only worth what people are willing to pay for it on the day they are buying.  

If you are going to include all the terrible long term contracts as a basis of the dollar value of WAR there is really nothing I can do to discuss this anymore.  Really I am not sure how people can think so simplistically but it is worthless arguing with people with such a mindset.