Andy's Mistakes

[Sports Guy]

I think I agree with this, and let's follow this out to its natural conclusion:

AM is not likely to sign upper-tier FAs. Those guys are never (almost) baragins.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

I have been saying that I feel the only top tier FAs that AM will sign will be guys that end up bargains, like Miggy and Vlad were.

Now, will that happen again? Who knows...I suspect it will...But I don't think AM will sign the big money contracts...and when I say big money, i am meaning 100+ million...The Tex deal he put out there was a unique situation, as Rshack correctly pointed out but he also knew he wasn't signing that deal either.

Rshack...We generally agree on the FA stuff with AM...I just disagree that he will only do it when the team is ready...He will take a player if it is a good deal, I don't doubt that.

BTW, for the most part, AM is 1000% right about free agency.

[Sports Guy]

You kill me sometimes. He's right 1000% which is 10 times better than right but that's only "for the most part". Classic stuff. You related to Yogi Berra?

You know, you don't have to post that you are from New Jersey...Most of us could figure it out anyway.

[RShack]

Rshack...We generally agree on the FA stuff with AM...I just disagree that he will only do it when the team is ready...He will take a player if it is a good deal, I don't doubt that.

When I said that he'd want some of the kid-pitchers to be there first, and not just potentially there based on nothing but MiL performance, I was thinking about OK-value, I was not thinking about bargain value. I agree that he would go for a bargain that fit team needs.

However, I also think he's more likely to get good value if some of the kid-P's have already showed up and look good. I say this because I do not buy the claim that all FA's care about money and nothing else. I agree they care about money, it's the "nothing else" part I don't accept. I figure some do, some don't. A bunch of guys would rather take a bit less and play in October compared to taking a bit more and finishing in 3rd or 4th place all the time. I also think most FA's and their agents don't wanna hear a sales job about how the cavalry's coming. They wanna see the cavalry on TV in big league games. So, I think the likelihood of getting a FA for what AM might consider a good price will be increased if some of the cavalry has already arrived, with more of it coming over the hill. That will not only make the team look better to the FA now, it will also give credence to the "more is coming" argument compared to a situation when none of the kid-P's have done squat except in the bus leagues. I don't think in-demand FA's wanna hear about the bus leagues.

[RShack]

I just looked them up.

Healthy pudding. Soy pudding.

Now, who in the hell wants healthy soy pudding?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I just looked them up.

Healthy pudding. Soy pudding.

Now, who in the hell wants healthy soy pudding?

Sounds like an enormous mistake to me...

By the way, classic use of the Care Bear there

[RShack]

Sounds like an enormous mistake to me...

[threedaysrest]

I've mixed emotions about T-Bag. Had we initially blown away everyone, he'd (likely) be an Oriole, as he's a money-hungry, talk-out-of-both-sides-of-his-mouth frontrunner. That said, he's a talented baseball player. However, suppose he came here and put up the performance he has to date in NY. How would the hometown hero Severna Park hates be received then?

On the other hand, good riddance to T-Bag, and I hope he's miserable in NY. I'm relieved AM, et al didn't make BOS's mistake and kiss his arrogant buttocks.

I'm dismayed AM didn't pursue Pedro. Regardless of what Pedro or anyone else says, money and the desire to play Major League Baseball speak loudly. If nothing else, he'd have done at least as well as Eaton (assuming Pedro indeed has anything left--WBC = too small a sample size) and likely would have had value to a contender looking for a half-season rental. Sometimes, even though your season is looking toward developing your in-house prospects, you have to spend to maintain (and perhaps bolster) your existing club. The air leaves the field when Eaton pitches. #22 said it best: Eaton pitches without a plan and without the least desire to want to win. That, regardless of who else is on the horizon, can put a team entirely up in the air for days--hardly an environment that brings along young players.

[Jules]

I just looked them up.

Healthy pudding. Soy pudding.

Now, who in the hell wants healthy soy pudding?

My son- who cant eat wheat or dairy. I will certainly look them up.

[Mackus]

I hated not throwing a lot more money at Teixeira. I would've topped the Yankees offer and probably gone to somewhere in the $200-210M range over 9-10 years as a max offer. A ton of money, for sure, but I don't think we would've regretted very much of that deal at all.

Other than that, I've really liked just about every move, either big or small, that MacPhail has made. As poor of a move to bow out early on the Teixeira negotiations was, the Bedard trade was even better. The Tejada trade has to be considered a success as well. If he didn't trade him the exact day that he did, we never would've traded him. He was named in the Mitchell Report the next day, which would've made him untradeable until the season starter, by which time he had aged two extra years, turning him into a weak-hitting 34 y/o SS making $13M a year.

I've got a lot of confidence in MacPhail, and I think he'll continue to make smart moves.

[Lucky Jim]

First, I agree with you in that it worked out well for the Orioles that they didn't overpay for Burnett (and both the 4/60 and the 5/82.5 contracts certainly qualify), but I feel a need to call you out on this.

His FIP is now below 5.00 (I'm assuming it was above before yesterday). He has never ended a season with a 5.00+ FIP. His FIPs the last three years were 3.79, 4.33, and 3.45. Are you saying that you (or anyone else) projected him to have a 5.00+ FIP this year? Every projection on Fangraphs had him below 4.00.

Declining K-Rates. His rates the last three years were 7.83, 9.56, and 9.39. Are you saying that you projected him to have a rate of 7.44 this year? The most pessimistic projection had him at 8.28 this season. Yes, the projections were all lower than 9.39, but even an 8.28 K-Rate is pretty good - especially when coupled with the expected high GB%.

Elevated BB-Rates. His rates the last three years were 2.59, 3.59, and 3.50. I agree that he needs to improve on those (but probably isn't likely to do so). Having said that, are you saying that you projected him to have a rate of 4.33 this year? The most pessimistic projection had him at 3.54 this season. All are far below 4.33.

Low BABIP. His BABIPs the last three years were .319, .271, and .328. Only one of those can be considered to be low (and even that is borderline low). Are you saying that you projected him to have a BABIP of .283 this year? Yes, that is far below every projection, due primarily to his much higher than normal FB%. By the way, someone with his basic statistical and batted ball profile can be expected to have a BABIP of .285. So I'm not really sure there's much reason to be "concerned" about .283.

My whole point is that you wrote that line as if those were all trends coming into this season, when they clearly weren't. None of those things were projected either.

Yep his ERA is very high for what he's being paid, but it does figure to come down. If someone is looking for a reason for it being so elevated, I'd point to his career high (by a good bit) FB% and slightly elevated HR/FB%. I'd bet money that those rates will drop, and his ERA will drop along with them.

I'd also like to point out that although Toronto caught a lot of crap for giving him the deal they gave him, they made out pretty well. According to Cots he made a $6M bonus with a base of $1M his first year. According to Fangraphs he was worth $11.8M that year (IOW, +$4.8M). He made $12M in 2007 compared to a valube of $11.4M (-$0.6M). Last year he made $12M with a value of $25.5M (+$13.5M). I'll be the first to admit that I don't necessarily buy that last value, but even if you look at only the first two years he was worth $4.2M more than he was paid. Add in that last value, and the Blue Jays came out $17.7M ahead in three years.

Again, once he reportedly received the 4/60 offer from the Braves I would have back out as well. For the record, I would likely have gone 3/40 or maybe 4/48 - and would have done so knowing that those offers likely would not have been enough.

I don't think I did write it like that. And I certainly didn't mean that at all, 1970. Just referring to his mediocre-to-rough start to the year, which makes the odds of his getting close to the value of his contract for this year that much harder (note his ZIPS update - which projects him to have lower K rates, higher BB rates.) At his current level of performance, if he makes 30 starts this year (for just the fourth time in his 9 year career), then he projects - for now - to be worth just under $10m this year.

At his age, and with his spotty performance (injury-related) history, each year is likely to become more of a crap-shoot. But he very well may end up with an ERA somewhere around 4.25 as ZIPs projects now. It's possible.

In the end, while I admire your impulse to "call me out" - as some kind of statistical ombudsman for the OH board - my point was pretty clearly made in hindsight - which is why I said that it now ("in the end") looks like things worked out best for us. If I meant otherwise, I would have said, "at the time."

And, in fact, did. When I wrote this:

Yes. There's no doubt that the Orioles thought the offers were inflated before they ever made a bid.

Burnett has been worth more than $15m twice - in his walk years w/ Florida and Toronto.

Generally, he's a 3.0-3.5 WAR kind of guy. Paying him $15m a year to watch him turn 35 would have been silly.

Obviously, if I admit that he's a "3.0-3.5 WAR kind of guy" I agree that he's worth somewhere around $12-13m a year.

As it stands now, I'm suspicious that Burnett would ever give us the value of his contract - and his start to this year doesn't make it any more likely.

Now you can argue that this is a bad argument, and in retrospect, I don't like it as a some ultra-sound piece of logic. It was a throw-away point, clearly made as a snapshot of his performance this year - in hindsight.

And, yes, the numbers I used were before his start from yesterday, which apparently lowered them slightly (his FIP is now 4.94 and his K/9 up to about 8.)

I agree that in retrospect the Jays made out better than many thought they would - though I'm unsure of how much he was owed on the back end the contract. Fangraphs implies he was owed $13m over the last two years, other sources (which support your bonus/$1m first year) would suggest he was owed $12m over the last two years.

Regardless, the odds were decent that the "value" of the Jays contract was actually helped by Burnett leaving when he did - because of the back-loaded structure of the contract.

In the end, Burnett's relationship w/ the Jays was like my dating life - everyone was better off when he left.

[Lucky Jim]

I should note that I didn't take into account the fact that Burnett's splits generally point to a much better post-All Star performance than pre-. Which bodes well for his value this year.

Though it doesn't make me like the contract any better.

[Mackus]

I should note that I didn't take into account the fact that Burnett's splits generally point to a much better post-All Star performance than pre-. Which bodes well for his value this year.

Though it doesn't make me like the contract any better.

Its a fine deal for the Yankees. He's pitching for them and not for anybody else, the dollar numbers are irrelevant.

Of course, it would have been a dumb risk for us to take, which I think was your point.

[Lucky Jim]

Its a fine deal for the Yankees. He's pitching for them and not for anybody else, the dollar numbers are irrelevant.

Of course, it would have been a dumb risk for us to take, which I think was your point.

That's pretty much my point.

Though I have to think that there's a saturation point w/ the Yanks and salaries that may make it more difficult for them moving forward. We have to acknowledge that, while YES is still strong on revenue, the economy has hurt the Yanks as a luxury brand.

I don't know. I just think that it bucks economic common sense to think there are no constraints and that the Yanks will be rewarded for inefficiencies. Here's a graph of their payroll right now:

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017A-Rod	32	32	31	29	28	25	21	20	20Tex	25	20	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	 Sab.	23	23	23	23**	23**	23**	23**	 	 Burnett	16.5	16.5	16.5	16.5	16.5	 	 	 	 Cano	6	9	10	14*	15*	 	 	 	 Marte	3.75	4	4	4*	 	 	 	 	 Swish	5.3	6.75	9	10.25*	 	 	 	 	 Jorge	13.1	13.1	13.1	 	 	 	 	 	 Jeter	20	21	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Mo	15	15	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Damon	13	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Matsui	13	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Molina	1	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Wang	5	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Nady	6.55	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Melky	1.4	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Burney	1.25	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ~Total	206.35	160.35	129.1	119.25	105	70.5	66.5	42.5	20

[Fan4Life]

That's pretty much my point.

Though I have to think that there's a saturation point w/ the Yanks and salaries that may make it more difficult for them moving forward. We have to acknowledge that, while YES is still strong on revenue, the economy has hurt the Yanks as a luxury brand.

I don't know. I just think that it bucks economic common sense to think there are no constraints and that the Yanks will be rewarded for inefficiencies. Here's a graph of their payroll right now:

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017A-Rod	32	32	31	29	28	25	21	20	20Tex	25	20	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	22.5	 Sab.	23	23	23	23**	23**	23**	23**	 	 Burnett	16.5	16.5	16.5	16.5	16.5	 	 	 	 Cano	6	9	10	14*	15*	 	 	 	 Marte	3.75	4	4	4*	 	 	 	 	 Swish	5.3	6.75	9	10.25*	 	 	 	 	 Jorge	13.1	13.1	13.1	 	 	 	 	 	 Jeter	20	21	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Mo	15	15	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Damon	13	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Matsui	13	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Molina	1	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Wang	5	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Nady	6.55	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Melky	1.4	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 Burney	1.25	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 ~Total	206.35	160.35	129.1	119.25	105	70.5	66.5	42.5	20

That's scary actually. This year they improved their team and lowered their payroll. The table above shows they'll be down to $160mm after this season? Who's going to top their list this offseason?

[Lucky Jim]

That's scary actually. This year they improved their team and lowered their payroll. The table above shows they'll be down to $160mm after this season? Who's going to top their list this offseason?

They definitely lose a lot. But they have to buy all of their replacements. They don't have a whole lot to step in to replace these guys.

And Jeter poses a serious dilemma for them.