MacPhail's FA signing history with the O's

[Frobby]

I guess we will have to disagree on this one. The fact that the O's did not put the $14M back in the team and instead went with young players and low cost retreads showed the O's were in rebuilding mode and is part of the reason why the payroll dropped in addition to the trade of Miggy and Bedard.

You ignored my point about 2003-04. Do you disagree that we were not in rebuilding mode that offseason?

Look, I'm making a very simple point -- a big reduction in payroll does not necessarily mean a team is rebuilding. 2003-04 is proof of that. As to 2007-08, I agree we were in rebuilding mode, I just think the $26mm payroll reduction is a misleading measure of it. In addition to the points I made, I believe the $93 mm payroll for 2007 includes Wright's full salary although the Yankees sent us $3-4 mm in the trade that brought him here.

Anyway, my purpose in putting together the list in the OP initially was to look at the timing of when MacPhail has signed players. It was only after I had put the list together that I wa struck by how little he has spent on free agents. Of course I knew he has been relatively frugal, but once I saw the names in black and white, it was quite striking. The LaRoche contract under discussion would be the largest MacPhail has handed out in his 4 winters as GM, and that's a very middling contract.

Needless to say, MacPhail committed much bigger money to Markakis and Roberts than he has to any free agent. To me, that was the appropriate way to spend his money.

[Crazysilver03]

I might be reading what he said wrong but it looks to me he is saying that the part of the reduction that includes Benson and Wright was not due to rebuilding. If that is what he is saying I disagree. It is because they were in rebuilding that they didn't spend that money on players to improve the team immediately. Instead they went with young players and low cost retreads.

Then how do you explain the Millwood acquisition? Or the fact that MacPhail was considering picking up Eaton via trade before he was released (my god that would have been horrible).

The Orioles have constantly looked to pick up salary dumps to provide stability as inning eaters.

[Frobby]

I might be reading what he said wrong but it looks to me he is saying that the part of the reduction that includes Benson and Wright was not due to rebuilding. If that is what he is saying I disagree. It is because they were in rebuilding that they didn't spend that money on players to improve the team immediately. Instead they went with young players and low cost retreads.

Another way to look at it is that the $93 mm season was a one-time aberration, and there never was an intent to keep payroll that high unless the O's blossomed into contenders.

[wildcard]

Another way to look at it is that the $93 mm season was a one-time aberration, and there never was an intent to keep payroll that high unless the O's blossomed into contenders.

But MacPhail inherited the 93M and I am sure Flanagan and Duquette were trying to build a contender. MacPhail evaluation of the team determined rebuilding was a better way to go in his opinion thus the down turn in payroll.

[wildcard]

Then how do you explain the Millwood acquisition? Or the fact that MacPhail was considering picking up Eaton via trade before he was released (my god that would have been horrible).

The Orioles have constantly looked to pick up salary dumps to provide stability as inning eaters.

Millwood was brought in as a teacher and mentor to the young core of pitchers that the team is now counting on to raise this franchise. The 9M was for a guy who had been there, done that and was a cost the MacPhail thought was required to help out the kids. Little did he know that a bunch of injuries would submarine the season. Millwood did his job with the kids though.

I think Philly was supposed to pick up a lot of Eaton's salary if the O's had traded for him.

[wildcard]

I don't know why I am telling you two this stuff. You both know the answers as well or better then I do.

[RVAbird]

Let's assess the value of these contracts. I've added the contract, FanGraphs value (predicted on Wins Above Replacement) and the bottom line (dollars above or below contract).

Just as with the OP, this is not analysis, just data.

Putting aside issues of the quality of free agents signed, just look at the timing:

Quiroz 12/3/07

Contract: 1 year, 400K

FG Value: -1.3 MM

Bottom line: -1.7 MM

Moeller 12/3/09

Contract: 1 year, 800K

FG Value: 300K

Bottom Line: -.5 MM

Uehara 12/13/10

Contract: 1 year 3MM+, option year

FG Value: TBD

Bottom Line: TBD

Izturis 12/16/08

Contract: 2 years, 5 MM

FG Value: 3.4 MM

Bottom Line: -1.6 MM

Gonzalez 12/18/09

Contract: 2 years, 12 MM

FG Value year 1: 2.8 MM

Bottom Line year 1: -3.2 MM

Atkins 12/22/09

Contract: 1 year, 4.5 MM

FG Value: -4.4 MM

Bottom Line: -8.9 MM

Hendrickson 12/31/08

Contract: 1 year, 1.5 MM

FG Value: 2.6 MM

Bottom Line: + 1.1 MM

Uehara 1/13/09

Contract: 2 years, 10 MM

FG Value: 13.1 MM

Bottom Line: +3.1 MM

Cormier 1/21/08

Contract: 450 K

FG Value: 3 MM

Bottom Line: + 2.55 MM

Zaun 1/22/09

Contract: 1 year, 1.5 MM

FG Value: 1.4 MM

Bottom Line: - .1 MM

Tejada 1/23/10

Contract: 1 year, 6 MM

FG Value: 5.3 MM

Bottom Line: - .7 MM

Hendrickson 2/9/10

Contract: 1 year, 1.4 MM

FG Value: 1.8 MM

Bottom Line: + .4 MM

Ohman 2/9/10

Contract: 1 Year, 1.35 MM

FG Value: 1 MM

Bottom Line: - .35 MM

Wigginton 2/10/09

Contract: 2 Years, 6 MM

FG Value: -2.6 MM

Bottom Line: -8.6 MM

Trachsel 2/11/08

Contract: 1 Year, 3.1 MM

FG Value: 2.2 MM

Bottom Line: - .9 MM

Eaton 3/1/09

Contract: 400K

FG Value: -.4 MM

Bottom line: -.8 MM

Total Bottom Line: - 20.2 MM

[Crazysilver03]

Let's assess the value of these contracts. I've added the contract, FanGraphs value (predicted on Wins Above Replacement) and the bottom line (dollars above or below contract).

Just as with the OP, this is not analysis, just data.

Very interesting concept.

Remember that we didn't pay Tejada all $6M now Ohman all $1.35M. Those two were probably washes, if not in the positive when it was all said and done.

[RVAbird]

Very interesting concept.

Remember that we didn't pay Tejada all $6M now Ohman all $1.35M. Those two were probably washes, if not in the positive when it was all said and done.

Correct, and I was about to add a caveat -

For traded players, I did not include the players in return nor the added or subtracted value post trade. I just looked at the contract for which they were signed and the total value they provided whomever they played for in MLB for that season or those seasons.

More than anything, it's a look at the dollar value placed above the dotted line on FA contracts.

It's not perfect, but it's the best data I could provide in less than an hour with somewhat limited resources. Any more than that and I've gotta start getting paid for it or change my handle to Crazysilver03

[wildcard]

You ignored my point about 2003-04. Do you disagree that we were not in rebuilding mode that offseason?

Look, I'm making a very simple point -- a big reduction in payroll does not necessarily mean a team is rebuilding. 2003-04 is proof of that. As to 2007-08, I agree we were in rebuilding mode, I just think the $26mm payroll reduction is a misleading measure of it. In addition to the points I made, I believe the $93 mm payroll for 2007 includes Wright's full salary although the Yankees sent us $3-4 mm in the trade that brought him here.

Anyway, my purpose in putting together the list in the OP initially was to look at the timing of when MacPhail has signed players. It was only after I had put the list together that I wa struck by how little he has spent on free agents. Of course I knew he has been relatively frugal, but once I saw the names in black and white, it was quite striking. The LaRoche contract under discussion would be the largest MacPhail has handed out in his 4 winters as GM, and that's a very middling contract.

Needless to say, MacPhail committed much bigger money to Markakis and Roberts than he has to any free agent. To me, that was the appropriate way to spend his money.

I agree that there are other reasons to lower payroll than rebuilding. No argument there.

I guess the list does not surprise me one bit. I am kind of surprised you found it striking. To me this has been the plan since MacPhail was hired. Acquire a bunch of cheap young guys. Let them learn together. As they go from stage to stage put veterans around them to teach them. Don't spend on free agents under the pitching staff is ready to start winning.

There is no surprise to me there.

[Frobby]

Let's assess the value of these contracts. I've added the contract, FanGraphs value (predicted on Wins Above Replacement) and the bottom line (dollars above or below contract).

Just as with the OP, this is not analysis, just data.

Very interesting. Obviously the two big losers were Atkins and Wigginton, and although FG says those deals were about equally bad, to me Atkins was far, far worse. The fact that Wiggy just got 2/$8mm whereas Atkins got a minor league deal supports the feeling that Wiggy wasn't as bad as FG suggests. In any event, the Wiggy deal was good at the time MacPhail did that deal even if it didn't pan out as hoped.

[RVAbird]

Very interesting. Obviously the two big losers were Atkins and Wigginton, and although FG says those deals were about equally bad, to me Atkins was far, far worse. The fact that Wiggy just got 2/$8mm whereas Atkins got a minor league deal supports the feeling that Wiggy wasn't as bad as FG suggests. In any event, the Wiggy deal was good at the time MacPhail did that deal even if it didn't pan out as hoped.

Maybe. Wigginton provided a little value in 2010 (though he was probably overrated throughout baseball) which pushed his chances of getting a solid major league deal, but his 2009 was probably the worst single season value of any MacPhail FA. Still, I don't think anyone expected Wigginton to be as bad as he was that year.

What strikes me as immediately interesting is how MacPhail tends to lean on the FA market to acquire relief pitchers and bench players - the two components that are most easily filled by using replacement players, MiL FAs and low-profile trades. It seems counter-intuitive.

My gut feeling is that it's not a good risk assessment. Yes, there's low guaranteed dollars, but that is only one component of risk. Relief pitchers and bench players provide very low ceilings. There is only so much production they can reasonably be expected to give you, and it's not much more than any replacement or 400K player could give you. Why pay 5-10 times more than you need to in order to get a name off the free market to fill those holes?

With a sub .500 team and a low payroll it doesn't end up being a huge deal, but if this team gets competitive soon, AM can't be tying up millions on these minor players. It will be hard to excuse getting beat by a handful of millions per year for "premium" FAs when we continue to overspend tenfold on bit players.

[Sports Guy]

What an awful FA history AM has, with any club.

[hoosiers]

Nice list and discussion, Frobby.

AM has done an excellent job limiting the "mistake" contracts we see with most any other team in mlb, by giving less in $ and years to these mediocre players.

At some point though, AM will need to dip his toes in the FA pool and pull out a near-all star caliber performer.

[RVAbird]

Nice list and discussion, Frobby.

AM has done an excellent job limiting the "mistake" contracts we see with most any other team in mlb, by giving less in $ and years to these mediocre players.

At some point though, AM will need to dip his toes in the FA pool and pull out a near-all star caliber performer.

I'm going to assume you completely skipped over the data I provided, or else I'd have to ask how you could possibly say this?

Again, risk is made up of several components. Yes, AM has done a good job of avoiding catastrophic signings, simply because he's never offered a contract that had "catastrophic" as it's downside.

But he has consistently paid players with very limited upside (read: mediocre players) 5 to 10 times more than what their mid-case projection would have been worth. In many cases, this amounted to paying several millions of dollars for sub-replacement (negative value) production.

The vast majority of MacPhail's FA signings have been "mistake" signings. Very limited upside, and real downside, at inflated market values.

So, in my view, MacPhail has been totally averse to contracts that have presented both major cost and major benefit, and perfectly willing to make awful commitments to players who presented real risk (the same sub-replacement floor as big-contract players) with very, very limited reward (barely higher than the production you could get from AAAA players and MiL free agents).

I think it's time we stop substituting risk for cost. Risk is something that entails an analysis of the probabilities of cost and benefit. Just because a contract comes with great cost and great benefit doesn't necessarily make it "riskier" than a contract that comes with real cost and barely any benefit.