A look at every $100 mm+ contract: the good, the bad and the ugly

[sportsfan8703]

Davis is just the worst by a mile. No injury issues. A failed drug test in his career. First baseman. No real FA bidding war. No sweetheart/nostalgia deal for winning a WS.  Not even old age. 

It’s baffling, or it’s extremely easy to figure out. Cough cough. 

[Can_of_corn]

30 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Davis is just the worst by a mile. No injury issues. A failed drug test in his career. First baseman. No real FA bidding war. No sweetheart/nostalgia deal for winning a WS.  Not even old age. 

It’s baffling, or it’s extremely easy to figure out. Cough cough. 

Multiple failed drug tests.

[DrungoHazewood]

9 hours ago, Aristotelian said:

Did not realize Pujols was that bad. Interesting how many players are on both the good and bad lists (Pujols, A Rod, Cabrera). There's a lesson in there.

By ~1985 it was pretty well documented that the average major leaguer peaks around 27 and declines to the point that even most stars aren't productive at 35.  It must be a really hard lesson.

[DrungoHazewood]

13 hours ago, weams said:

That's singing my song...

I'm skeptical of the defensive metrics that frequently don't make any sense.  Saying that Jonathan LuCroy or the Molinas' framing is worth $20M a year and nobody noticed that before is quite a claim.  Especially when teams don't pay players like that's real, and teams/pitchers don't have noticeably different outcomes with wildly different framers behind the plate.  The whole thing is like discovering plutonium by accident.

You're skeptical of all defensive metrics, even the ones that match up to subjective observation and the new tracking systems the vast majority of the time.

[MarCakes21]

This is awesome.  I'm not sure exactly what the take away is yet, but as a numbers junky, it looks like a crap shoot.  Maybe once age and some other factors are built in theres more to gleam from it?

[interloper]

My first thought is that there are a lot more bad contracts than good. The chances of success are not great, and that's why I'm glad there are data-minded folks in charge here now to maximize those chances. The players that the O's have chosen to throw big money at have almost all not worked out save a few. Would those players have been signed under this regime? Almost certainly not. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, interloper said:

My first thought is that there are a lot more bad contracts than good. The chances of success are not great, and that's why I'm glad there are data-minded folks in charge here now to maximize those chances. The players that the O's have chosen to throw big money at have almost all not worked out save a few. Would those players have been signed under this regime? Almost certainly not. 

I think the next step would be to break up the contracts not only by age at signature, but also age when contract expires.  My guess is that the best ones are relatively short and signed early.  The worst are the ones that last until a player is around 40.  I should run some data on the last two-win season for each Hall of Famer; the average is probably 34 or 35.  Most of these big, long deals are paying 36, 37, 38 year-olds for 4+ win seasons.  Before the ink is dry you know most of those contracts will fail.

[weams]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm skeptical of the defensive metrics that frequently don't make any sense.  Saying that Jonathan LuCroy or the Molinas' framing is worth $20M a year and nobody noticed that before is quite a claim.  Especially when teams don't pay players like that's real, and teams/pitchers don't have noticeably different outcomes with wildly different framers behind the plate.  The whole thing is like discovering plutonium by accident.

You're skeptical of all defensive metrics, even the ones that match up to subjective observation and the new tracking systems the vast majority of the time.

I'm getting better with the outfield ones. If they do improve the data in, I'll respect the  conclusion out. 

[weams]

6 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Multiple failed drug tests.

Multiple. 

[interloper]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think the next step would be to break up the contracts not only by age at signature, but also age when contract expires.  My guess is that the best ones are relatively short and signed early.  The worst are the ones that last until a player is around 40.  I should run some data on the last two-win season for each Hall of Famer; the average is probably 34 or 35.  Most of these big, long deals are paying 36, 37, 38 year-olds for 4+ win seasons.  Before the ink is dry you know most of those contracts will fail.

Of course, if you think the player is enough to get you over the hump for a WS win in the first couple years of the deal, you could make a case for it being worth it. But the likelihood of that happening is pretty low. 

[glenn__davis]

On 11/2/2019 at 5:27 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

Excellent work.  We need some charts and graphs.  And a clickbait headline.

You'll never believe how much money THIS major leaguer stole!

[Ohfan67]

More support for the extend young players strategy. The failure rate on these contracts is probably not significantly different than for mid range free agent contracts.  

[Barnaby Graves]

On 11/2/2019 at 5:27 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

Excellent work.  We need some charts and graphs.  And a clickbait headline.

Orioles fans HATE him!  See how one Baltimore-area first baseman wasted $161 million with one simple trick (it's genius).

edit: ah damnit glenn_davis beat me to it

[Il BuonO]

16 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Multiple failed drug tests.

Maybe he can start using again.

[Frobby]

Here are some comments on players I put in the “definite disaster” or “slight disappointment” categories, where you could debate it depending on whether you like rWAR or fWAR.

Alfonso Soriano: per fWAR, he fell only $18.5 mm shy of his $136 mm deal.    But rWAR values him at less than half what fWAR does, and he’d be $80 mm+ short by their measure.    Either way he’s short of his contract, but to me he was more of a disaster than a disappointment.   

Jayson Werth: a similar case, $21.3 short of his $126 mm contract by fWAR, but $60 mm+ short by rWAR.    What makes his case a little tough is that he did bring a certain moxie to DC, and the team did make the playoffs in 4 of his 7 seasons, even if that was sometimes in spite of him rather than because of him.   In the end, he really was only healthy and playing well in 2 of his 7 seasons in DC.    So, I put him in the disaster category but I can see some contrary arguments.

Jose Reyes: somehow by fWAR he’s only $1.3 mm short of his $105 mm contract, but by rWAR he’s about $40 mm+ short.     I really don’t see the fWAR valuation here.  He got traded twice during his contract and then released by a third team.    That’s a disaster IMO.

CC Sabathia: he’s complicated due to his opt-out clause.    By fWAR he was $5.7 mm ahead of his original $161 mm contract.   But, by leveraging his opt-out into an extension, he finished $3.2 mm behind by fWAR.    By rWAR, he was about $15 mm short on his original contract and $20 mm short by his extended contract.   So, I put him in the mild disappointment category.   But, in his first year he was the ace of the Yankees first World Championship team in 9 seasons, so you could argue the Yanks got their money’s worth.    In any event, not a disaster.    
 

Todd Helton:  by fWAR he fell $18 mm short of his $142 mm contract, but by rWAR he broke even.     His unadjusted numbers look pretty damned good thanks to the Coors effect.    I’d label him a slight disappointment but I expect Colorado fans were happy enough with his deal.

Kevin Brown:  if I’m not mistaken, his was the very first $100 mm contract, back in 1998.    By my methodology his fWAR value was $8.5 mm over his $105 mm contract.    However, that’s a little generous, because Fangraphs didn’t start calculating $ per WAR until 2002, so I just used the $4 mm 2002 figure for the early years of his deal; in reality, I expect it was less in 1998-2001.    Also, by rWAR he was about $10 mm short on his deal.   The Dodgers ended up trading him to the Yankees.   So, a mild disappointment for me.

Anyone take issue with my categorization of those contracts?