Any chance MacPhail becomes a buyer as prices drop?

[SrMeowMeow]

Just out of curiosity, are you saying that players of similar production shouldn't be valued similarly? If the going rate for .900 ops guys is 15+ million, shouldn't one at 10 million be a steal for the market? Sure some of these guys are overpaid...hell, all of them are overpaid, but the market dictates the price here. In the market of baseball, 10 million per is cheap for a .900 ops guy, because that same market has already dictated that 15+ is the going rate. Dunn is being undervalued, and we should take advantage of that.

Again, I'm not arguing that Dunn isn't worth so and so, but according to the market and what players with similar numbers to him got, he is a steal.

By the bolded logic, every single player signed as a FA is worth exactly what they get.

[Lucky Jim]

And -0.5 for LF, right?

So if he's a -1.5 fielder in LF, he'd be equal as either a LF or DH? If he's worse defensively than that, he'd be better off as a DH?

Looked to me like fangraphs estimated him as -1.0 wins defensively, so they are saying he's more valuable as a LF than as a DH.

Yeah - I edited it to show that Tango subtracts 1.5 WAR.

And, yeah, for now - and I don't claim to be all that great with these things - his value is higher or the same in LF than at DH (I think there's wiggle). Though I'm not sure how long that lasts, given his frame.

In other words: I think he's got relatively equal value right now in LF or at DH. But I don't think that lasts: he ends up at DH.

[TJ Wrangler]

I'm just talking about risk of decline: it's something that's got to be factored into the equation of his worth.

Further, you're making a mistake, I think, if you say that Fielder and Vaughn were "above average" in their years where their OPS+ was in decline. They may have been somewhat above the league average, but they weren't positionally, and they weren't relative to their price.

You're working on inconsistent metrics. You want to say that Dunn is a steal relative to what other players like him received in pay (and I refuted this with the Taveras-Pierre example) but then you want to compare contribution by Fielder and Vaughn to some league average. What's up with the disconnect?

If you get paid for production relative to peers, you should be judged by production relative to peers.

Further, you've got a conceptual problem: Dunn's on-base skills are directly correlated to his power. His power, further, is correlated to his ability to make contact. Thus, if contact is increasingly an issue, it exacerbates Dunn's decline relative to Vaughn's, who will be falling from a greater height, so to speak.

How is it directly related to power? Guys like Millar had great batting eyes without much power or great contact ability. Is it possible that Dunn just has a great batting eye?

The Tavares/Pierre example is using one of the worst contracts in history to compare 2 not so great players. I'm comparing great players that actually produce something worthwhile to a team.

I'm not sure that there is disconnect. These were two separate points to prove that while they did decline some, they didn't fall off of the face of the earth.

Sure. And so we have folks saying they've seen Mora make great plays. You think you're taking advantage of the market, but really the market is taking advantage of you.

Defense has value that's difficult to measure. Thus it is prone to being undervalued on the market. That doesn't mean you give up on it, that means you seek out the best metrics and work off of them (UZR, +/-). It's a source of undervaluation. Retreating from it leads you to overvaluing a player.

Thus, Dunn is by all rights terrible in the field. This = -$. So you DH him. Does that absolve him of his lack of defensive value? Not at all. The loss of versatility and the need to utilize your DH position for a guy who is supposed to be in his prime means that there's a distinctive loss of value for a DH.

A DH is worth -2.0 wins. That's a lot of $$$$.

But it sure beats Kevin Millar. Regardless of the loss by DH'ing him, he's still a valuable asset to any team, as his bat is great. You can't take that away from him. What I'm arguing is that Dunn as a DH is a step in the right direction for a team that hasn't made many steps in any direction but backwards or sideways for 11 years.

Sure the market is taking advantage of everyone and yes the market is out of control, but that's baseball. Until something is done about it, the market will continue to take advantage of organizations. Until that is done, you have to do your best to take advantage of players that are undervalued.

[TJ Wrangler]

By the bolded logic, every single player signed as a FA is worth exactly what they get.

In terms of the market, yes. Sure they aren't worth it for production, but the market is inflated and will be until something is done about it. I'll be the first to admit that they are overpaid, but unfortunately, the market is the one dictating what they are worth, not some stat.

[ChaosLex]

I can't believe nobody has touched this.

By that logic, you father should excel at your grandfather's profession, and you should too. By that logic, we should be counting down the days until one of the Bush Girls becomes our next president. By that logic, the Angelos kids are the perfect choice to be our next owners, and Ripken's son is our next Iron Man.

That was an incredibly ignorant statement that not only assumed that something such as talent in a profession is automatically passed down through genetics, but it also took a shot at everyone who disagrees with you. I guess that is to be expected based off what I've seen from you recently.

Regardless, MacPhail should be jumping on deals that will better our franchise for the long term. Hell, if we can get a Dunn for a cheaper price than it would take to keep Markakis, we should be all over that. Bats like Dunn don't usually cost 10 million per in the world of baseball today. There is no excuse for MacPhail to not take advantage of the various steals, but he either won't do it or will move so slow that we'll be outbid. That is not good baseball management, no matter who your father and grandfather are.

Good post. Agreed 100%.

Rep to you!

[Lucky Jim]

How is it directly related to power? Guys like Millar had great batting eyes without much power or great contact ability. Is it possible that Dunn just has a great batting eye?

The Tavares/Pierre example is using one of the worst contracts in history to compare 2 not so great players. I'm comparing great players that actually produce something worthwhile to a team.

I'm not sure that there is disconnect. These were two separate points to prove that while they did decline some, they didn't fall off of the face of the earth.

But it sure beats Kevin Millar. Regardless of the loss by DH'ing him, he's still a valuable asset to any team, as his bat is great. You can't take that away from him. What I'm arguing is that Dunn as a DH is a step in the right direction for a team that hasn't made many steps in any direction but backwards or sideways for 11 years.

Sure the market is taking advantage of everyone and yes the market is out of control, but that's baseball. Until something is done about it, the market will continue to take advantage of organizations. Until that is done, you have to do your best to take advantage of players that are undervalued.

A player with no power will only walk to the extent that the opposing pitcher cannot throw a strike.*

*Speed is a factor that is irrelevant here.

[Lucky Jim]

In terms of the market, yes. Sure they aren't worth it for production, but the market is inflated and will be until something is done about it. I'll be the first to admit that they are overpaid, but unfortunately, the market is the one dictating what they are worth, not some stat.

How is this not a market correction? You're claiming undervaluation based on a bull market that might no longer exist.

Your method of valuation has gone awry. Seriously.

[TJ Wrangler]

Good post. Agreed 100%.

Rep to you!

Thanks. It is one thing to have an opinion and argue it, but it is another thing to sit and wait to bash people and make them eat their words just because you think they are wrong.

That said, the Dunn debate will go on for ages, and I'm glad to have such intelligent discussion on this board. I'm learning more and more just by talking with guys like Lucky Jim.

That said, I still think he's a steal and we should be all over the chance to get him at a low(er) price.

[SrMeowMeow]

In terms of the market, yes. Sure they aren't worth it for production, but the market is inflated and will be until something is done about it. I'll be the first to admit that they are overpaid, but unfortunately, the market is the one dictating what they are worth, not some stat.

Well, the argument I'd make is that this is exactly why we compare players to production, not to comparable contracts signed on the FA market, to establish real value.

[Mackus]

How is this not a market correction? You're claiming undervaluation based on a bull market that might no longer exist.

Your method of valuation has gone awry. Seriously.

But what if we can get players for $3-4M per WAR this offseason, when in a year or two we'd be having to pay $5-6M per WAR.

Like when we signed Tejada or Guerrero. By the 2nd year of their deals, $12-13M for these guys was looking like a complete bargain (Tejada's offset by his lying about the age, but if he was actually 27 when we signed him it still would've been a great deal).

If they think the economy and market are going to stay at the level it is at right now for 2-3 more offseasons, then these guys aren't considered bargains. But if spending is back up next offseason, then they will be.

I guess this is more of a question for an economist than a baseball mind, but its something to consider.

[Andy_Dufresne]

If Pat Burrell for 2/16 is out of the Orioles price range, then there will be no offensive help for the Orioles coming from free agency this year.

[TJ Wrangler]

How is this not a market correction? You're claiming undervaluation based on a bull market that might no longer exist.

Your method of valuation has gone awry. Seriously.

How so?

It is one thing to make up stats that say so and so is worth so much, but that does little to correct the market inflation and how players are getting much more than they are worth. What I said was simply the truth, the market dictates value today, not performance. My point being, until something is done to change the fundamental structure of baseball itself, the market will continue to dictate that players are worth more than their performance suggests they are worth.

[TJ Wrangler]

Well, the argument I'd make is that this is exactly why we compare players to production, not to comparable contracts signed on the FA market, to establish real value.

Well unfortunately, that isn't what the baseball market does. That won't change until the rules are adjusted to account for a runaway market.

[Lucky Jim]

But what if we can get players for $3-4M per WAR this offseason, when in a year or two we'd be having to pay $5-6M per WAR.

Like when we signed Tejada or Guerrero. By the 2nd year of their deals, $12-13M for these guys was looking like a complete bargain (Tejada's offset by his lying about the age, but if he was actually 27 when we signed him it still would've been a great deal).

If they think the economy and market are going to stay at the level it is at right now for 2-3 more offseasons, then these guys aren't considered bargains. But if spending is back up next offseason, then they will be.

I guess this is more of a question for an economist than a baseball mind, but its something to consider.

I agree 100% - that's really Geschinger's argument going way back. I'm just saying that you can't say that he's overvalued unless you consider this downturn in the market an aberration rather than a correction.

With the trend toward younger players and prospects - and toward locking them up pre-arb - and the trend away from FA, it's hard to say.

That said, if there are no FAs, then perhaps scarcity will temporarily re-inflate the market for those not locked up.

Lots of interesting questions.

[Mackus]

Well, the argument I'd make is that this is exactly why we compare players to production, not to comparable contracts signed on the FA market, to establish real value.

I like the idea of determining what a certain amount of production (WAR) would cost to replace on the FA market. Without even getting into the nitty-gritty of how to determine how much each win is worth, or how many wins each player is worth, the idea is an intriguing one.

There are 3 ways to get talent, and they all cost the same amount but of different currencies.

You can draft and develop your own talent. This costs time, patience, and long odds.

You can trade for talent. This costs losing some of your own talent.

You can sign talent. This costs money.

Money is easy to understand. The trick is determining at what point is spending time/patience/chance or talent better than spending money.