Schmuck Chimes in on O's Offseason

[Frobby]

Well, the first sentence is accurate. But absent any substantive critique of their methodology, I think it's tough to take "your book" all that seriously. Why is the multiplier valuing too highly? Why is defense weighted incorrectly, in your estimation?

Just giving my opinion, if you don't want to accept it, fine. I don't always have the time to spend an hour writing up the definitive basis for my opinion.

But, just to give one example, Fangraphs says Albert Pujols has been worth $38 and 40 mm the last two years. Do you think if he was a free agent today, anyone would pay him that? I don't. And he is the best and most consistent player in the game today.

A-Rod is by far the highest paid player in baseball, and has been since he signed his deal with the Rangers. But Fangraphs says he has been worth $207 mm over the last 8 years, about $10 mm more than he has been paid.

Sabathia is in his prime, and was a free agent last year, and signed for $23 mm per. But fangraphs says he was worth $28.9 and $33.9 mm the two previous seasons. Well, there was plenty of bidding for Sabathia, in a free market, so why isn't someone paying him that?

All I can say is that if I were a player agent, I'd find the fangraph values to be a great negotiating tool in the majority of cases.

[Sports Guy]

You think MacPhail will be able to add all the parts we need to compete in 2011 over one offseason?

Haven't you seen the way the guy works? He took a year to address the SS situation properly after trading Tejada, for example.

He's too slow and methodical to accomplish all that needs to be done to turn us into a competitor next offseason IMO which is why he needs to start adding parts now.

Tough to say...How many parts are we going to need next offseason?

If we need several pieces, we aren't contending either way..If all we need is 1 or 2 big pieces, we can get those players next offseason or in July.

What is for certain is that we don't HAVE to get premium guys this offseason.

Now, I am not saying every player we obtain should be a stop gap..I would like to see Harden and Hardy here through at least 2011 but your assertion that we must obtain big bats and things like this offseason is just flat out wrong..not too mention a horrendous idea,..at least the players you are advocating.

[JTrea81]

Be more specific. What positions do we definitely need for 2011. What kind of pitchers do we definitely need for 2011.

We will likely still need a solution at 1B after 2010, so even though there isn't a good LT solution available via FA this offseason or next, we can add players in other areas to create depth to trade for that 1B solution.

Say we add Holliday and Lackey for instance. Now we may have not needed a TOR or a LFer in 2011, but if we need that 1B man, we now have the depth to trade a Reimold or Jones and a Tillman or Arrieta to get that 1B man. We have more options.

[Lucky Jim]

Just giving my opinion, if you don't want to accept it, fine. I don't always have the time to spend an hour writing up the definitive basis for my opinion.

But, just to give one example, Fangraphs says Albert Pujols has been worth $38 and 40 mm the last two years. Do you think if he was a free agent today, anyone would pay him that? I don't. And he is the best and most consistent player in the game today.

A-Rod is by far the highest paid player in baseball, and has been since he signed his deal with the Rangers. But Fangraphs says he has been worth $207 mm over the last 8 years, about $10 mm more than he has been paid.

Sabathia is in his prime, and was a free agent last year, and signed for $23 mm per. But fangraphs says he was worth $28.9 and $33.9 mm the two previous seasons. Well, there was plenty of bidding for Sabathia, in a free market, so why isn't someone paying him that?

All I can say is that if I were a player agent, I'd find the fangraph values to be a great negotiating tool in the majority of cases.

I think there's no question that there's a ceiling on compensation that means the very best of the very best do not get compensated to their performance level/actual value. There are resource constraints that make contracts over $25m wholly unfeasible for any team that's not the Yankees. And because no other team can reach that threshold, the Yankees don't have to go much over it.

Those are two different criticisms: you're claiming that Fangraphs value isn't a good predictor of contracts. That's not what it's doing.

I'm surprised you don't recognize this. It was common, for instance, for the Orioles - who were notoriously risk averse - to avoid individual big contracts for very good players in order to shell out a number of inflated mid-level contracts.

[Lucky Jim]

We will likely still need a solution at 1B after 2010, so even though there isn't a good LT solution available via FA this offseason or next, we can add players in other areas to create depth to trade for that 1B solution.

Say we add Holliday and Lackey for instance. Now we may have not needed a TOR or a LFer in 2011, but if we need that 1B man, we now have the depth to trade a Reimold or Jones and a Tillman or Arrieta to get that 1B man. We have more options.

I didn't ask this. I said, what do we definitely need next off-season. For someone so sure of your IMOs, you have a hard time grasping "definite".

[Hank Scorpio]

I didn't ask this. I said, what do we definitely need next off-season. For someone so sure of your IMOs, you have a hard time grasping "definite".

That's a well phrased question, and it's a difficult one to answer.

The answer is we're not going to DEFINITELY need any one position, but I'm sure 'ol Sly will find a way around it.

[Lucky Jim]

That's a well phrased question, and it's a difficult one to answer.

The answer is we're not going to DEFINITELY need any one position, but I'm sure 'ol Sly will find a way around it.

I'm not trying to pose unanswerable questions to Trea. The answer is simple: a short-stop. We have no SS for 2011. Or even a potential SS.*

I just want him to see that the elaborate machinations he's going through in order to prepare to trade for a 1B are based on the assumption that Snyder is not enough. An assumption the Orioles don't share.

Thus, adding so much in contracts, and creating redundancies where we already have strengths, to create surplus, to make a hypothetical move for a 1B would be just about the least cost-effective way to solve any possible holes the O's might have.

Information has value, Trea. And this year will provide a lot of information.

I already thoroughly refuted the cost-effectiveness of Holliday over what we have now. Though Trea didn't respond to that.

*We'll likely also need a SP.

[RShack]

We will likely still need a solution at 1B after 2010, so even though there isn't a good LT solution available via FA this offseason or next, we can add players in other areas to create depth to trade for that 1B solution.

You've decided that Snyder likely won't make it. God knows why, but you have. AM and the O's other people think otherwise. Let's see, who are people gonna trust about talent? Should folks trust some random guy in Maine who doesn't even bother to watch the ML Orioles, much less their MiL players, or the people who's job it is to evaluate these guys and show good judgment about who's coming up when?

Say we add Holliday and Lackey for instance. Now we may have not needed a TOR or a LFer in 2011, but if we need that 1B man, we now have the depth to trade a Reimold or Jones and a Tillman or Arrieta to get that 1B man. We have more options.

This is silly. You don't sign mega-expensive veteran guys because you might need to trade away young talent later.

[Frobby]

I think there's no question that there's a ceiling on compensation that means the very best of the very best do not get compensated to their performance level/actual value. There are resource constraints that make contracts over $25m wholly unfeasible for any team that's not the Yankees. And because no other team can reach that threshold, the Yankees don't have to go much over it.

Those are two different criticisms: you're claiming that Fangraphs value isn't a good predictor of contracts. That's not what it's doing.

I'm surprised you don't recognize this. It was common, for instance, for the Orioles - who were notoriously risk averse - to avoid individual big contracts for very good players in order to shell out a number of inflated mid-level contracts.

But my (admittedly rusty) recollection of fangraphs' methodology is that it looks at the total WAR in a year's free agent class, and divides it into the total dollars paid to that free agent class. So theoretically, it should be "baking in" whatever constraints there are. Somehow, though, it doesn't seem to work. At least it seems to me that many, many players are overvalued by 15-30%.

Ben Zobrist hit .297/.405/.543 with 27 HR and 91 RBI this year. He played very good defense at 2B and in the OF. Fangraphs says that's worth $38.2 mm. If I had a player guaranteed to replicate Ben Zobrist's season next year, would any team pay anything close to $38.2 mm for him?

[Lucky Jim]

But my (admittedly rusty) recollection of fangraphs' methodology is that it looks at the total WAR in a year's free agent class, and divides it into the total dollars paid to that free agent class. So theoretically, it should be "baking in" whatever constraints there are. Somehow, though, it doesn't seem to work. At least it seems to me that many, many players are overvalued by 15-30%.

Ben Zobrist hit .297/.405/.543 with 27 HR and 91 RBI this year. He played very good defense at 2B and in the OF. Fangraphs says that's worth $38.2 mm. If I had a player guaranteed to replicate Ben Zobrist's season next year, would any team pay anything close to $38.2 mm for him?

It doesn't bake in those constraints if folks are grossly overpaying for mid-level contracts, though. Or inefficiently allocating money to relief pitchers. Or on risky propositions that return no value (largely pitchers). Earlier, I used the $16m that the Orioles paid to Melvin Mora and Aubrey Huff for a negative WAR as an example. That was my point in the above post. If you look at what Fangraphs does as re-distribution of FA dollars in a more accurate fashion, then it makes more sense.

And of course they wouldn't pay Ben Zobrist $38m. But not because he wasn't worth it this year. But because the year is an incredible outlier, and shows peak value in a number of levels across the board.

Teams aren't crazy. One outlying year doesn't make a reasonable long term contract.

As Fangraphs wrote:

This was a guy who had the bat knocked out of his hands during his major league stint and someone who hit 23 minor league home runs in 1,642 plate appearances. There was absolutely no way this power surge was legitimate, right? Well, I doubted him based on this information and apparently I was quite wrong. Zobrist secured a starting spot at second base once Akinori Iwamura went down to injury and could finish with 600 plate appearances this season. He’s hit 25 homers and 25 doubles to go with his .924 OPS.

Is this his true talent level? Heavens no. His UZR at second base is 16.1 runs. Former shortstops should perform better at second base, but expecting such a performance again is a bit much. Heck, odds are his power display isn’t legitimate either. Awards aren’t given out on true talent level and expected futures though. It’s all about the actual performances and for that reason Zobrist should garner some AL MVP votes and claim the Rays team MVP award as one of the best stories and best performances of 2009.

[Hank Scorpio]

Teams aren't crazy. One outlying year doesn't make a reasonable long term contract.

The Seattle Mariners have proven themselves crazy a couple of times!!!

[Lucky Jim]

The Seattle Mariners have proven themselves crazy a couple of times!!!

Well, I should say teams aren't crazy with cash. At the high-end. Bavasi severely undervalued the long-term return on prospects for a speculative short-term gain. That's pretty irrational.

Giving Zobrist $38m for a one-year bump in production would just be insane. Which is why it's no indictment of the system. The information input in a FA contract is generally greater than a single year.

[Tx Oriole]

Read my subsequent post.

Signing 7 free agents doesn't GUARANTEE you squat, either.

Sorry Hank. And no it doesn't.

[DrungoHazewood]

Ben Zobrist hit .297/.405/.543 with 27 HR and 91 RBI this year. He played very good defense at 2B and in the OF. Fangraphs says that's worth $38.2 mm. If I had a player guaranteed to replicate Ben Zobrist's season next year, would any team pay anything close to $38.2 mm for him?

Now you're starting to zero in on the differences between value and salary. Nobody is going to pay a player on the assumption that their peak is their expected level of production over the life of the deal. You get closest to that on very short deals, like the one-year contracts that Roger Clemens signed near the end of his career. But in a huge free agent deal for many years you're trading off peak salary for a player's security, while factoring in risk of injury and decline.

If Ben Zobrist was guaranteed to give you $38M in value next year someone might get in that neighborhood on a one-year deal. But he'd rather have a 5-year deal for the overall value and security. He'd surely sign a 5-year deal at much less per annum than that.

If there was a rule that no one could sign a deal more than one year Fangraphs valuations would be much closer to deals we see for real people.

[ejf1025]

Now you're starting to zero in on the differences between value and salary. Nobody is going to pay a player on the assumption that their peak is their expected level of production over the life of the deal. You get closest to that on very short deals, like the one-year contracts that Roger Clemens signed near the end of his career. But in a huge free agent deal for many years you're trading off peak salary for a player's security, while factoring in risk of injury and decline.

If Ben Zobrist was guaranteed to give you $38M in value next year someone might get in that neighborhood on a one-year deal. But he'd rather have a 5-year deal for the overall value and security. He'd surely sign a 5-year deal at much less per annum than that.

If there was a rule that no one could sign a deal more than one year Fangraphs valuations would be much closer to deals we see for real people.

There have been several Figgins and Holliday discussions that suggest "nobody" is a bit strong...