The Biggest Fallacy: We Need a 1B or DH

[bluedog]

Even when I disagree with you, bluedog, I can’t help but be impressed by your generally logical approach (albeit with what I consider a few flaws here) and the eloquence of your writing. You’re a worthy debate partner.

The major flaw in your argument, IMO, is this:

“Setting the possibility of career ending injury or a horrible decline in production (both very scary, but seemingly low probability occurances) aside for a moment ….”

You didn’t set this aside for a moment. Instead, you raised the very essence of the counter-argument, and then never returned to it. You seem to be implying that the probability of a significantly bad event (and it doesn’t have to be a HORRIBLE decline for it to qualify as a significantly bad event) is so close to zero that it can safely be ignored. One doesn’t have to be an alarmist to disagree strongly with that premise. And I do disagree strongly with that premise. One can debate how high a probability should be assigned to this contingency, or what threshold to set in defining what a significantly bad event might be … but to ignore this factor means that you’re excluding the central risk factor and therefore artificially tilting the scale in favor of this signing. If I had a guarantee that Tex would perform for the next ten years at exactly the expected level of performance that many of the pro-Tex posters are projecting, then the price I’d be willing to pay for him is massively higher than the price I’d be willing to pay when I start factoring in the risk that he may be either above or below that level. Does this mean that I’m so squeamish about things that could go wrong that I never take a chance on a large contract for any player? Of course not. But risk doesn’t disappear just because we declare that we want to set it aside for a moment.

A second flaw is the idea that we can move Tex and his contract down the road if we find a need to do so. We would presumably have no interest in moving him and his contract if he meets or exceeds expectations, in terms of his health, performance on the field, clubhouse influence, and good citizenship (for lack of a better way to say it). So you’re asserting that if he falls significantly short in one or more of these areas, such that we no longer find him worth his contract, other clubs will definitely be willing to take the full contract. I don’t buy that for one second. If he’s a dud for us, he won’t be stardust for others. And no, ARod’s contract was NOT moveable. Texas had to eat a bunch to move him.

The third and final concern in your argument (I won’t go so far as to call it a flaw, as I agree with the explicit statement, but not with what it seems to imply) is the idea that we can afford this Tex contract if only we would avoid throwing out money on mediocre free agents. I agree 100% on the CONCEPT that we shouldn’t waste money on mediocre free agents. And often we KNOW at the time of a signing that a guy is a mediocre free agent whom we just signed to an excessive contract, with Baez a classic example. But sometimes we don’t know in advance. Mistakes are made. And what turns out to be mediocre when seen through the rear-view mirror didn’t necessarily look that way at the time of the signing. As a Redskins fan, I remember Vinny Cerrato claiming that the signings of Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders, et. al., weren’t going to bite the team on salary cap, as long as they made no mistakes in their other FA signings. Show me a team that makes no mistakes, and I’ll show you a team that hasn’t entered the market.

Yeah I'm enjoying our conversation (I don't consider it adversarial) as well.

The center of my argument that Tex is not an insane signing at 10 / 200 is the concept of "contract aging", which you haven't addressed. I feel there is a very very strong chance that at the mid point of his contract, 18 - 20 million a year for his level of play will be commonplace. If that's true, the contract actually gets more reasonable (much like Tejada's did) as time goes by.

Additionally, it's already clear that the very best players in the game, pitchers and hitters alike, are going to be able to command 7 - 10 year contracts. Santana's 7 year / 150 million dollar contract last year is only the beginning.

So unless the O's are comfortable with never signing a superstar caliber free agent, they will have to eventually come to terms with this type of deal.

The same realities apply to the risk of injury or performance decline. Obviously you do everything you can to mitigate those risks and you never sign a player with health or makeup questions to this kind of deal unless your stupid.

But that risk will exist for all players of this caliber, whoever they are. You either accept this type of risk for any player you pursue or you avoid playing the game at all. That's why I set aside injury / performance decline as a risk factor. You don't use risk to determine the level of offer you make to someone like Tex, you use it to determine if you can afford to play the mega free agent game in the first place.

So it all boils down to that question. Can the O's, given the risks, dollars and years involved, afford players like Pujols, Santana or ARod?

I think they can play the mega free agent game and that Tex makes the most sense for this club out of the available options.

[geschinger]

The center of my argument that Tex is not an insane signing at 10 / 200 is the concept of "contract aging", which you haven't addressed. I feel there is a very very strong chance that at the mid point of his contract, 18 - 20 million a year for his level of play will be commonplace. If that's true, the contract actually gets more reasonable (much like Tejada's did) as time goes by.

I've seen this hinted at several times and don't really understand it. $72m for an MVP caliber SS looked reasonable from day one. Especially when we were talking about a couple of years after other top SS rec'd contracts for $250 and $189m. Peaks and Valleys... The market is at (likely at the the tail end of) a peak right now. If a Teix type player is $200m in 2008 we're much more likely to see a Teix caliber player cost $125m in 2010 than we are likely to see $18-20m contracts becoming commonplace.

Additionally, it's already clear that the very best players in the game, pitchers and hitters alike, are going to be able to command 7 - 10 year contracts. Santana's 7 year / 150 million dollar contract last year is only the beginning.

Again, peaks and valleys... I'm sure there were people making this argument only with the names changed (Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton etc... - their contracts are only the begining) Turns out we went years before anyone got similar contracts. There is a lot of similarities between the market for players and other markets... There will be winners and losers. The market right now for FAs is not all that different then say the market for tech stocks in the late 90s, early 00s.

[Anonymous]

You raise interesting points here, bluedog. But I remain firmly on the gesch side of the argument. The contract aging point would perhaps be more credible if not for the current economic crisis. It’s hard for me to agree with any confidence that $200 mil contracts will be considered modestly priced for a Tex-level player any time in the next decade.

Originally Posted by bluedog

The center of my argument that Tex is not an insane signing at 10 / 200 is the concept of "contract aging", which you haven't addressed. I feel there is a very very strong chance that at the mid point of his contract, 18 - 20 million a year for his level of play will be commonplace. If that's true, the contract actually gets more reasonable (much like Tejada's did) as time goes by.

I've seen this hinted at several times and don't really understand it. $72m for an MVP caliber SS looked reasonable from day one. Especially when we were talking about a couple of years after other top SS rec'd contracts for $250 and $189m. Peaks and Valleys... The market is at (likely at the the tail end of) a peak right now. If a Teix type player is $200m in 2008 we're much more likely to see a Teix caliber player cost $125m in 2010 than we are likely to see $18-20m contracts becoming commonplace.

Originally Posted by bluedog

Additionally, it's already clear that the very best players in the game, pitchers and hitters alike, are going to be able to command 7 - 10 year contracts. Santana's 7 year / 150 million dollar contract last year is only the beginning.

Again, peaks and valleys... I'm sure there were people making this argument only with the names changed (Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton etc... - their contracts are only the begining) Turns out we went years before anyone got similar contracts. There is a lot of similarities between the market for players and other markets... There will be winners and losers. The market right now for FAs is not all that different then say the market for tech stocks in the late 90s, early 00s.

[Sports Guy]

I think a 10/200 contract is an insane contract but the idea of 20 million per season is not insane.

Gesch keeps talking about this and his argument isn't wrong in theory...Our margin for error would be less.

But it still comes back to one thing...decision making.

If good decisions are made, then you can compete if one player is making 20-ish percent of the payroll..If poor decisions are made, you can't contend like that....Of course, if poor decisions are made, we aren't winning anyway.

[Anonymous]

I think a 10/200 contract is an insane contract but the idea of 20 million per season is not insane.

Gesch keeps talking about this and his argument isn't wrong in theory...Our margin for error would be less.

But it still comes back to one thing...decision making.

If good decisions are made, then you can compete if one player is making 20-ish percent of the payroll..If poor decisions are made, you can't contend like that....Of course, if poor decisions are made, we aren't winning anyway.

I don't get it, SG. I'm pretty sure I've seen you endorse the 10/200 (a far cry from the old SG limits of 6/132 and 7/126, or whatever). So is the argument now that we should go ahead and do it anyway, even though we know it's insane?

I agree with the notion that IF all other personnel decisions are good ones, then you can probably compete if Tex is making around 20% of the payroll -- contingent on him meeting or exceeding your expectations for him THROUGHOUT the 10 years of his contract (and you've defined your OPS expectations on a few occasions, although perhaps not for the full 10 years).

My three issues with this argument:

1.That's a huge contingency. I dispute the notion, implicit in your argument and that of most other pro-Texters, that it can simply be assumed away as a factor.

2. It's inconceivable that all other personnel decisions will be good ones. It never is and never shall be, even for the most model of franchises.

3. On the flip side, you should be able to concede that if indeed all other personnel decisions are good ones, then we can probably compete if instead of allocating 20% or so of payroll to Tex for the next 10 years, we use those funds for whatever SG considers their next best use. In other words, if I appointed SG today as the new Orioles GM, would you be able to assemble a competitive team? I'm guessing your answer would be yes.

[Sports Guy]

I don't get it, SG. I'm pretty sure I've seen you endorse the 10/200 (a far cry from the old SG limits of 6/132 and 7/126, or whatever). So is the argument now that we should go ahead and do it anyway, even though we know it's insane?

No you haven't.

[Anonymous]

No you haven't.

My bad then. What is your current limit?

[Sports Guy]

my bad then. What is your current limit?

8/160.......

[Anonymous]

8/160.......

So ... back to my other question for you ... I take it that if you're the new O's GM (Lord help us, but let's give it a shot), you're confident that you could make the O's a competitive team for the bulk of the next decade if we sign Tex for, let's say, 8 years, $155 mil (I'll give you credit for $5 mil due to shrewd negotiation skills).

In the event that Tex's final demand is 8 years, $165 mil, I see that you would turn him down. In this case, are you significantly less confident that you could make the O's a competitive team?

[El Gordo]

No you haven't.

So what's your cut off point for a contract for Tex? 8/160? I don't expect you to put yourself on the line and answer this.:laughlol:

[Sports Guy]

So ... back to my other question for you ... I take it that if you're the new O's GM (Lord help us, but let's give it a shot), you're confident that you could make the O's a competitive team for the bulk of the next decade if we sign Tex for, let's say, 8 years, $155 mil (I'll give you credit for $5 mil due to shrewd negotiation skills).

In the event that Tex's final demand is 8 years, $165 mil, I see that you would turn him down. In this case, are you significantly less confident that you could make the O's a competitive team?

Yes, I am confident I can do it.

As for raising my limit, I may be ok with that IF they do other smart things.

For example, if it took 8/168 for us to sign Tex and we trade Huff, I would be fine with doing that.

Oh and if I don't get Tex, I would still have a ton of confidence that I could win.

We don't need Tex to win...I have never said we do.

However, we do need top level premium talent and he is that.

[El Gordo]

Yes, I am confident I can do it.

As for raising my limit, I may be ok with that IF they do other smart things.

For example, if it took 6/168 for us to sign Tex and we trade Huff, I would be fine with doing that.

Oh and if I don't get Tex, I would still have a ton of confidence that I could win.

We don't need Tex to win...I have never said we do.

However, we do need top level premium talent and he is that.

Just curious. What other options do you have in mimd if we don't land Tex?

[geschinger]

Yes, I am confident I can do it.

As for raising my limit, I may be ok with that IF they do other smart things.

For example, if it took 6/168 for us to sign Tex and we trade Huff, I would be fine with doing that.

Oh and if I don't get Tex, I would still have a ton of confidence that I could win.

We don't need Tex to win...I have never said we do.

However, we do need top level premium talent and he is that.

Wow! If you keep raising your limit, pretty soon you'll blow past 10/200.

I believe you were at 6/132 earlier in the offseason and would not go over 7 years.. Now it's 8/160 or even gasp, 6/168? That is a monumental increase... I'm sure Boras would be salivating over a team with you at the helm.

[Sports Guy]

Wow! If you keep raising your limit, pretty soon you'll blow past 10/200.

I believe you were at 6/132 earlier in the offseason and would not go over 7 years.. Now it's 8/160 or even gasp, 6/168? That is a monumental increase... I'm sure Boras would be salivating over a team with you at the helm.

Oops...That is supposed to be 8/168, not 6/168.

[geschinger]

Oops...That is supposed to be 8/168, not 6/168.

Still too much, but better. I was worried that you were losing it if you were willing to go to 28m per year.