Any chance MacPhail becomes a buyer as prices drop?

[Mackus]

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.

Pat Burrell signing for 2/$16M doesn't indicate anything about what the Orioles price range might be.

Thinking it indicates anything is inherently flawed logic.

[SrMeowMeow]

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.

I don't understand what you're saying. It's possible to find bargains on the free agent market even though in general FAs are "overpaid." The reason to overpay a player via FA is that the wins you get from that player are very important to you. Going from 86 to 89 wins is so much more important (infinitely, I'd say) than going from 67 to 70, or even 77 to 80.

[TJ Wrangler]

I don't understand what you're saying. It's possible to find bargains on the free agent market even though in general FAs are "overpaid." The reason to overpay a player via FA is that the wins you get from that player are very important to you. Going from 86 to 89 wins is so much more important (infinitely, I'd say) than going from 67 to 70, or even 77 to 80.

I'm saying that the market is out of control, which is why players are making more than what they are determined to be worth. I'm also saying that this won't change because the current system won't force it to change, therefore any change would have to come from changing the system itself.

I agree with everyone who says that players are only worth so much, but my point is that until the system changes, the market is going to dictate things and players will continue to get paid more or less than what they are worth.

[SrMeowMeow]

I'm saying that the market is out of control, which is why players are making more than what they are determined to be worth. I'm also saying that this won't change because the current system won't force it to change, therefore any change would have to come from changing the system itself.

I agree with everyone who says that players are only worth so much, but my point is that until the system changes, the market is going to dictate things and players will continue to get paid more or less than what they are worth.

So you're basically saying that we should sign Dunn now because he'd be more expensive in future years, and that he's therefore a bargain relative to the market even if he's not a bargain relative to his production? I can sort of get behind that.

My problem is that for that to be worth anything, we have to be able to trade him, and that relies on the FA market booming again, which is no guarantee (and may be an improbability) over the course of any reasonable-length contract Dunn receives.

[Lucky Jim]

So you're basically saying that we should sign Dunn now because he'd be more expensive in future years, and that he's therefore a bargain relative to the market even if he's not a bargain relative to his production? I can sort of get behind that.

My problem is that for that to be worth anything, we have to be able to trade him, and that relies on the FA market booming again, which is no guarantee (and may be an improbability) over the course of any reasonable-length contract Dunn receives.

Right. The old-age skill risk comes into play here. He's not likely to drop off completely, but the risk of early decline is going to have to be accounted for in any trade value (whether by the team assuming the back end of the contract, or the O's worrying he'll fail before he can be traded - the former more likely than the latter.)

[Baltimoron]

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.

Of course players are compared based on production.

But you have to have a standard to figure out value, or the worth of that production. We could use whatever.

But there are a few reasons why free agent prices are commonly used. Free agent values are an easy benchmark, as there is lots of data that is publicized and easy to find about free agent contracts.

And all other salaries are derived from the free agent market. Arbitration awards/deals look to free agency market, as they have basically been 40/50/80 percent of free agent values over recent years (super 2s are obviously higher), and the CBA minimum salaries are derived from average salaries, which are of course driven by the free agent market. And of course the free agent market is the primary means the union evaluates its health, as the Union's goal is to max free agency deals for its members.

And free agency is a more liquid and efficient market, meaning its data more accurately reflects the current climate.

Plus its fun to second guess free agent contracts, and its nice to valuation in those dollars, epsecially for inter-year comparisons.

[TJ Wrangler]

So you're basically saying that we should sign Dunn now because he'd be more expensive in future years, and that he's therefore a bargain relative to the market even if he's not a bargain relative to his production? I can sort of get behind that.

My problem is that for that to be worth anything, we have to be able to trade him, and that relies on the FA market booming again, which is no guarantee (and may be an improbability) over the course of any reasonable-length contract Dunn receives.

Yes, I'm saying that Dunn is a bargain relative to the market. I'm also saying that players get paid based off of the market, not so much based on production. So I'm saying we should take advantage of him being a bargain in the market, because that is what dictates his price. I'm not saying I agree with that dictating his price; that is just the unfortunate truth in baseball today.

[bagman]

I find this discussion very interesting even though I don't completely understand it all. However, from my simplistic view the Os don't have a hitter in their system with Dunn's power and plate discipline and he doesn't block Wieters. So, if he can be had at a reasonable price (whatever that is), I don't see how getting him can hurt future plans given that we have room on the payroll.

Ditto for Sheets.

Getting both of these guys should improve the team short term and if AMs plan works they should contribute to the team when it is competitive or worst case we trade them for prospects.

I don't see this as spending just to spend.

[Lucky Jim]

Yes, I'm saying that Dunn is a bargain relative to the market. I'm also saying that players get paid based off of the market, not so much based on production. So I'm saying we should take advantage of him being a bargain in the market, because that is what dictates his price. I'm not saying I agree with that dictating his price; that is just the unfortunate truth in baseball today.

Except the Fangraphs article is based on FA value.

What you're saying is that there are components of wins that don't get accounted for by teams, and components of wins (HRs, RBIs for instance) that do, and we can grab Dunn at a market (but not production) undervaluation (due to the Bear market) and trade him when the market recovers.

Obviously, this happens. B-Rob probably won't get his value on the FA market, for instance. And what he does get he may receive for somewhat misguided reasons.

That said, I'm not particularly confident that the market will suddenly return to overvaluing a one-dimensional player like Dunn going forward. Especially, if on the back end there's a not-insignificant risk factor (particular to Dunn).

It seems to me that if we signed Dunn he'd be under our control for precisely the period when he'd be doing someone else the most good (and his production would be little more than noise on a bad team here), and then we'd be trying to recoup value at precisely the time his costs would drift north of his production and his risk would increase. That's a problem.

[TJ Wrangler]

I find this discussion very interesting even though I don't completely understand it all. However, from my simplistic view the Os don't have a hitter in their system with Dunn's power and plate discipline and he doesn't block Wieters. So, if he can be had at a reasonable price (whatever that is), I don't see how getting him can hurt future plans given that we have room on the payroll.

Ditto for Sheets.

Getting both of these guys should improve the team short term and if AMs plan works they should contribute to the team when it is competitive or worst case we trade them for prospects.

I don't see this as spending just to spend.

Well if you want to join in on the discussion, I'm outnumbered at the moment. :laughlol:

[TJ Wrangler]

Except the Fangraphs article is based on FA value.

What you're saying is that there are components of wins that don't get accounted for, and components of wins (HRs, RBIs for instance) that do, and we can grab Dunn at a market (but not production) undervaluation (due to the Bear market) and trade him when the market recovers.

Obviously, this happens. B-Rob probably won't get his value on the FA market, for instance. And what he does get he may receive for somewhat misguided reasons.

That said, I'm not particularly confident that the market will suddenly return to overvaluing a one-dimensional player like Dunn going forward. Especially, if on the back end there's a not-insignificant risk factor (particular to Dunn).

It seems to me that if we signed Dunn he'd be under our control for precisely the period when he'd be doing someone else the most good (and his production would be little more than noise on a bad team here), and then we'd be trying to recoup value at precisely the time his costs would drift north of his production and his risk would increase. That's a problem.

Well I didn't say it in those exact words and I didn't even get into the possibility of a trade yet, but that seems to be a fair analysis of my opinion.

The main thing about Dunn is that signing him shows we're willing to get people that will help the team now and in the future (be it production, trade value, cheap contract, or whatever).

If we were to sign guys like him, Sheets, and Kawakami, that will speed up the rebuild. Kawakami may not be around or productive in a few years, but signing him also signifies that we're in a market that was previously ignored by us.

I guess ultimately, I want these moves because it shows we are committed to winning and improving at every level and in every aspect of the game. This is the main reason why I'm against MacPhail so far. Ultimately, all I want is to see that we're still alive and making decisions to improve the team for the short and long term.

[Baltimoron]

The fangraphs article says he's worth roughly -10 runs (or -1 win) as a fielder. If he's a DH, that goes away and all you get is the offensive contribution, wouldn't that make him worth more, even taking into consideration a positional adjustment from LF to DH? In other words, isn't the amount of WAR he's losing defensively in LF bigger than the amount he'd lose from being considered a DH instead of a LF?

Yes.

Tango uses:

Catcher: +12.5 runs

Shortstop: +7.5 runs

Second Base: +2.5 runs

Third Base: +2.5 runs

Center Field: +2.5 runs

Left Field: -7.5 runs

Right Field: -7.5 runs

First Base: -12.5 runs

Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs

link

If Dunn is -10 in the field, he breaks even as compared to being a DH (but if you sign him to a multiyear deal you also want to keep him healthy, so you probably want to be more inclined to want him at DH if its close).

But look at what the Fangraphs' article's author did in coming up with -10.

Fielding Bible's +/- has him solidly at -15 for the last few years in the outfield, but last year PMR thought he was average so he calls Dunn -10.

But PMR had him well, well below average in 2007 and in 2006, and the article does not mention this. link. Nor does the article mention the PMR is only for left, so its a smaller sample size that excludes Dunn's over 300 innings (25% of his PT) in right and 1B.

And for whatever reason he doesn't talk about UZR, which is available at Fangraphs and had Dunn as horrible in left (-10), right (-10) and horrible in his small time at first as well (-28/150). Plus UZR has always regarded Dunn as horrible, with Dunn averaging -11 in the outfield/150 games. link.

So maybe that lets call him -10 may be a bit optimistic, especially when we consider that he didn't adjust for aging either. If anything, -15 is a maybe fair fielding number, but I still think it should be worse with age worked into the consideration.

So yeah, he is DH IMO.

[Lucky Jim]

Yes.

Tango uses:

Catcher: +12.5 runs

Shortstop: +7.5 runs

Second Base: +2.5 runs

Third Base: +2.5 runs

Center Field: +2.5 runs

Left Field: -7.5 runs

Right Field: -7.5 runs

First Base: -12.5 runs

Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs

link

If Dunn is -10 in the field, he breaks even as compared to being a DH (but if you sign him to a multiyear deal you also want to keep him healthy, so you probably want to be more inclined to want him at DH if its close).

But look at what the Fangraphs' article's author did in coming up with -10.

Fielding Bible's +/- has him solidly at -15 for the last few years in the outfield, but last year PMR thought he was average so he calls Dunn -10.

But PMR had him well, well below average in 2007 and in 2006, and the article does not mention this. link. Nor does the article mention the PMR is only for left, so its a smaller sample size that excludes Dunn's over 300 innings (25% of his PT) in right and 1B.

And for whatever reason he doesn't talk about UZR, which is available at Fangraphs and had Dunn as horrible in left (-10), right (-10) and horrible in his small time at first as well (-28/150). Plus UZR has always regarded Dunn as horrible, with Dunn averaging -11 in the outfield/150 games. link.

So maybe that lets call him -10 may be a bit optimistic, especially when we consider that he didn't adjust for aging either. If anything, -15 is a maybe fair fielding number, but I still think it should be worse with age worked into the consideration.

So yeah, he is DH IMO.

What he said.

[RShack]

Tango uses:

Catcher: +12.5 runs

Shortstop: +7.5 runs

Second Base: +2.5 runs

Third Base: +2.5 runs

Center Field: +2.5 runs

Left Field: -7.5 runs

Right Field: -7.5 runs

First Base: -12.5 runs

Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs

I'm surprised to see:

• Such a huge diff between CF and RF
• 3B being as much as CF (given total chances... it must be the doubles.)
• Such a big drop from SS to anybody else
• Such a large neg-value for 1B (given the times 1B touches the ball)

Not saying it's wrong, just that I'm surprised, that's all.

[ugen64]

I'm not Andy MacPhail. But if I were him, I would be looking at deals like these two:

1) Russell Branyan (1 yr / $1.5 million, Mariners). Now I've mentioned this deal many times, because I think it was an outstanding signing by the Seattle front office. His Marcel projected line is .234/.327/.465, but in reality he will play better given regular at bats - he hasn't had 300 at bats in a season since 2002. If he reaches that upside (a 900 OPS player), there will be no shortage of suitors on the trade market. If he plays badly (a 700 OPS player), you just stick him on the bench and give Oscar Salazar a chance. You might say "but he would block our prospects!" No - he would block Oscar Salazar, who isn't a prospect. He's just as old as Branyan, and the point is that you take a gamble and say Branyan is much better than Salazar, enough to make this deal.

2) Jeremy Affeldt (2 yr / $8 million, Giants). Now I'm not saying we sign relievers - our bullpen is fine, and anyway relief pitching is arguably the last priority for a rebuilding team. But look at Affeldt, and throughout his career he has been an above-average mop-up reliever. But the Giants saw the guy was better than that and signed him to be a setup man. We simply don't have the leverage to go after the true top-tier free agents, but someone like Affeldt, a "diamond in the rough" so to speak, would be an interesting signing.

So looking at the free agent market, who would I go after? I'll name 2 that come to mind immediately.

1) Joe Crede - play him at 3B, Mora at 1B, Huff at DH. This signing would massively improve our infield defense, and Crede is surprisingly young (only 30 years old). When he's healthy, he's a solid $7 million player - and we could easily get him for 1 or 2 years at $4-5 million each. Why is he undervalued? Because of his back problems, and because much of his value derives from his fielding (he's an average hitting 3B at best).

2) Mark Grudzielanek (if Roberts leaves) - The guy's a consistently average player who has been undervalued for the past 6 seasons. Yes - according to FanGraphs, he has been worth more than his salary every season since 2003. Based on his age, I would offer him a 1 year deal at $3 million - based on his stats, he should perform at a level worth more like $5 million.

I don't think we'll go after guys like Adam Dunn, Derek Lowe, etc. But below them, there's a ton of guys in the $3-7 million range that are very intriguing. If we get rid of Scott, there's a few outfielders that merit mention too - Mark Kotsay for one.