Royale: LaRoche bid made

[Arthur_Bryant]

Only the naive would not expect a player to deline as he gets older. No-one is trying to say he has a cape hidden under his jersey. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't expect him to drop off the table as it has been made to sound like he will after 2 years of a 3 year deal.

Only the naive would not expect a decline?

You need to at least keep track of what you are writing. From Post #33 in this thread:

I feel he will not decline in the life of this contract . If he were 33 and we were having this same talk, I'd agree 100%, but 33 is not over the hill in player years.

As to the question of why LaRoche can't be a star...

What says that LaRoche can't be a star is his history up to this moment--he hasn't been one yet! And if it hasn't happened by now, please... it's not going to magically develop at age 31 without the help of Barry Bonds Magic Juice.

And while I hope that he won't drop off a table, just look at the comparable players that others have posted here. Of BR's ten best comparables through age 30, at least four dropped right off a table.

I know that you are set in stone in this, and that you refuse to admit that you could be mistaken. But you are wrong.

And not just wrong, but self-contradictory.

Welcome to my Ignore list. I don't know why I waited so long.

[sangar]

it's not going to magically develop at age 31 without the help of Bobby Bonds Magic Juice.

Barry Bonds Magic Juice works better. If you're going to cheat, go all the way.

Edit: I'm surprised it took you so long too. The more you scratch a mosquito bite the more it will itch.

[Frobby]

You have to be very careful in statements about player's decline in their 30's. On average, players decline about .25-.50 WAR per year in their early 30's. But that's an average, and what happens to any individual player can vary dramatically. In that regard, I don't think BB-ref comps are too helpful, because of the way they do their comps. Basically, to BB-ref, two 30-year old players with identical career stats would have a 1000 score on their system, even if one player had had 5 near-identical seasons whereas the other player had been great at age 26 and then had 4 straight years of decline. So, BB-ref comps don't tell you much about who is more or less likely than average to decline. To me, the value of TheBorioles' post was that it shows you that the future performance of supposedlly similar players at a certain age varies a lot.

In LaRoche's case, he has a lifetime .827 OPS. I'd say the odds are high that if the Orioles sign him for three years, he will average less than that over the next three years, not just because he's aging, but because he's playing in the AL East. I'd say he'd be doing well if he averaged .775 OPS and had 65-70 homers and 225-240 RBI in that span. But he could be either better or worse than that.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Barry Bonds Magic Juice works better. If you're going to cheat, go all the way.

Aaarghhh, thanks.

I knew the dad; his name still comes most easily to mind.

[Sports Guy]

You have to be very careful in statements about player's decline in their 30's. On average, players decline about .25-.50 WAR per year in their early 30's. But that's an average, and what happens to any individual player can vary dramatically. In that regard, I don't think BB-ref comps are too helpful, because of the way they do their comps. Basically, to BB-ref, two 30-year old players with identical career stats would have a 1000 score on their system, even if one player had had 5 near-identical seasons whereas the other player had been great at age 26 and then had 4 straight years of decline. So, BB-ref comps don't tell you much about who is more or less likely than average to decline. To me, the value of TheBorioles' post was that it shows you that the future performance of supposedlly similar players at a certain age varies a lot.

In LaRoche's case, he has a lifetime .827 OPS. I'd say the odds are high that if the Orioles sign him for three years, he will average less than that over the next three years, not just because he's aging, but because he's playing in the AL East. I'd say he'd be doing well if he averaged .775 OPS and had 65-70 homers and 225-240 RBI in that span. But he could be either better or worse than that.

And that is simply not production you overpay for.

[Frobby]

And that is simply not production you overpay for.

Who says we're going to overpay for it? Fangraphs has LaRoche's 2010 season (.788 OPS) worth $8.4 MM. The kind of production I described is probably worth about what we've offered LaRoche - maybe even a bit of a bargain. Fangraphs would say that's worth $7-8 mm a year.

I really don't think the issue here will be overpaying for an average player. The issue will be that he's average, and whether we can afford to have an average guy at 1B. And that will depend, in part, on how other players do. If Reynolds and Hardy have good seasons, having an average 1B won't be bad at all. But if we have some underperformers, nobody should expect LaRoche to carry the club.

[backwardsk]

Ok defense...You have had plenty of rest.

The offense has no timeouts left, so if the Saints score here, you have to think we have no chance to do anything on offense.

But what if Brees finds LaRoche for a TD. He'd certainly deserve the 3 years.

[Sports Guy]

Who says we're going to overpay for it? Fangraphs has LaRoche's 2010 season (.788 OPS) worth $8.4 MM. The kind of production I described is probably worth about what we've offered LaRoche - maybe even a bit of a bargain. Fangraphs would say that's worth $7-8 mm a year.I really don't think the issue here will be overpaying for an average player. The issue will be that he's average, and whether we can afford to have an average guy at 1B. And that will depend, in part, on how other players do. If Reynolds and Hardy have good seasons, having an average 1B won't be bad at all. But if we have some underperformers, nobody should expect LaRoche to carry the club.

A lot of that has to do with his up and down defense..it was up last year.

[Sports Guy]

But what if Brees finds LaRoche for a TD. He'd certainly deserve the 3 years.

LOL...I was wondering where those posts were!

[Frobby]

A lot of that has to do with his up and down defense..it was up last year.

Fair enough point. By the way, I really question whether UZR has this one right. LaRoche made 11 errors in 2010, compared to 2 in 2009. He scooped 23 throws in 2010, compared to 34 in 2009. He had 14 more assists in 2010, but many fewer putouts. Overall it seems pretty dubious to me that he saved 5 runs in 2010 and 0 in 2009 as UZR says. That said, BB-ref also says his defense was 5 runs better in 2010.

[TheBorioles]

The original point of my suggestion to 2050 was that players usually do decline when they enter their thirties. I think most of us here know that and accept it, but he doesn't. The funny thing is that the age 33 seasons for many of these comps don't make that point very well, but the age 31 and 32 seasons do.

Tony Clark had a career year at age 33 but the three seasons preceding ranged from mediocre to brutally bad.

Tino Martinez had a decent age 33 season, but age 31 and 32 were pretty bad.

Lee May had a nice age 33 season but was mediocre at ages 31 and 32.

Geoff Jenkins just went into a nosedive after age 30.

Wally Post completely fell off the table after age 31.

There's not much in there to suggest that LaRoche at ages 31, 32, 33 will be the same player he was in his late 20s.

Joe Adcock just moved up a couple of notches in my memory-based estimation, though. Between him, Hank Aaron, Del Crandall, Warren Spahn, and Lew Burdette, the Braves had some really good players during that period.

Sorry I should have clarified. I choose only to include age 33 because I felt to primary debate was the length of the contract and whether we should give him two or three years.

I agree we should try to avoid three years if at all possible and I accept that he is going to decline, but we still don't know by how much. My point (which I'll give you was probably poorly made) is that there's a fifty-fifty chance of him remaining an average to slightly above average first baseman or dropping off the table completely. Like any FA signing, there's risk involved.

With all things being equal, I's rather they take the risk. I tend to be an optimistic person. I'm thinking that if Laroche is removed from the free swinging environment in AZ, he's going to regain a little form. His 170 something k's and drop off in walks might be more attributable to environment and coaching rather than a decline in skill. That seems to be the only disturbing trend I can see and he doesn't really have much of an injury history.

IMO he might just be the most consistent first baseman on the market and with him we're a better team than last year. If he is able to perform at his level and some of our youngsters continue to develop, we have a shot at being a .500 team next year. I became an O's fan in '98 when was six. I've never seen them field a winning team and really excited about that prospect. I might be setting my sights a little low, but I think we just need to take things one step at a time.

Also, Laroche doesn't prevent us from going after anymore bats. Left field is still a hole. We have the option of signing/trading for a left fielder, a DH (and moving Scott over), or a first baseman (and moving Scott to left and either the newbie or Laroche to DH). There are still plenty of moves the O's can make this off-season and next.

If Laroche performs like he has been, we have a shot at being a winning team. If not, he might be a 18 million dollar bust (which is miles better than a 120 million dollar bust). The third year is not ideal, but if it would only cost us $2 million more, I'd do it. At worst he's a a really expensive bench bat who still might be trade-able.

That being said, it gives me a bit of faith in Andy that he's not agreed to a third year. It's not a done deal and even if it were, it's not a crippling move and it's a risk I'd be willing to take.

[crawjo]

In LaRoche's case, he has a lifetime .827 OPS. I'd say the odds are high that if the Orioles sign him for three years, he will average less than that over the next three years, not just because he's aging, but because he's playing in the AL East.

Not sure that moving from the NL West to the AL East would cause a decline in numbers. Over the years it has been a pretty pitching-deep division.

[maybe2050]

Originally Posted by Arthur_Bryant

The original point of my suggestion to 2050 was that players usually do decline when they enter their thirties. I think most of us here know that and accept it, but he doesn't. The funny thing is that the age 33 seasons for many of these comps don't make that point very well, but the age 31 and 32 seasons do.

Tony Clark had a career year at age 33 but the three seasons preceding ranged from mediocre to brutally bad.

Tino Martinez had a decent age 33 season, but age 31 and 32 were pretty bad.

Lee May had a nice age 33 season but was mediocre at ages 31 and 32.

Geoff Jenkins just went into a nosedive after age 30.

Wally Post completely fell off the table after age 31.

There's not much in there to suggest that LaRoche at ages 31, 32, 33 will be the same player he was in his late 20s.

Joe Adcock just moved up a couple of notches in my memory-based estimation, though. Between him, Hank Aaron, Del Crandall, Warren Spahn, and Lew Burdette, the Braves had some really good players during that period.

Then why wouldn't you advocate trading Roberts? Obviously if your theory holds water, then Roberts should surely be traded for a younger 2nd baseman, because as you say, his age being 33, he would serve no purpose being here past his point in his career. Please don't try to make this a 2050 doesn't understand, and he needs it explained to him type thing. I disagree with your theory, and all players that hit that age mark of 33 do not decline. There are exceptions to every rule. I also don't need the Weather Channel to tell me it's gonna rain if there's dark clouds in the sky. And my last question is how many players are actually as good as they were when they were in their late 20's? I've never debated that lol. What I do debate, is that just because this man is 31, his career will take a nosedive in 2 years. That is the way your statistics are presented to appear. You said it yourself. "O.k, pick out 10 players that didn't decline when they hit the 33 age level, but don't choose a good player, and don't pick them out in a period that spans 10 years". "Gee, I had alot to choose from after that limitation was put on it".

[Frobby]

Not sure that moving from the NL West to the AL East would cause a decline in numbers. Over the years it has been a pretty pitching-deep division.

Agreed on that point, but most of LaRoche's career has been in the NL East, not the NL West. His one year in the West he had a .788 OPS. I don't see that as being an off-year, I see it as the result of him moving to a division where he saw better pitching. I think AL East-NL West is a wash, more or less in terms of quality of pitching.

[GoldGlove21]

Then why wouldn't you advocate trading Roberts? Obviously if your theory holds water, then Roberts should surely be traded for a younger 2nd baseman, because as you say, his age being 33, he would serve no purpose being here past his point in his career. Please don't try to make this a 2050 doesn't understand, and he needs it explained to him type thing. I disagree with your theory, and all players that hit that age mark of 33 do not decline. There are exceptions to every rule. I also don't need the Weather Channel to tell me it's gonna rain if there's dark clouds in the sky.

I think this argument has to be tied to many things. The first would be the level a given player was at before they started their decline. A guy like Pujols could decline for 3-4 years and still play at some form of above averge state. Another aspect would have to be wear and tear on the body. LaRoche is a first baseman, he isn't a pitcher or catcher. I think the debate that LaRoche's numbers will surely decline from the age of 30-33 is an invalid argument. LaRoche's game isn't tied to speed so I am less concerned about age. We are acting like $6M per is a lot to pay for a guy like LaRoche each year for the next 3. If the Orioles get a capable first baseman then they should have no easy outs in the lineup. Not only that but we should be able to expect a spike in power numbers.

Sometimes I just think we like to debate because we fall in love with one guy or another. When that guy doesn't come here then the Orioles didn't try hard enough, offer enough money, or care about the fans. It is about people being upset that an upgrade wasn't good enough. I think to really see how the Orioles compare to other teams would be to compare players on a position by position basis.

I want this team to improve, and signing a guy like LaRoche makes us a better team moving forward. If we can win 80+ games next year then we are on our way to respectability in the game. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of room for our young guys to grow and there should also be some room for a team salary increase. We get LaRoche, Gregg, and another reliever and I am going to be pumped.