MacPhail's FA signing history with the O's

[byrdz]

Ugh, that's one putrid list, I realize what AM is trying to do but he needs to stop. The bargain basement deals that he hopes will be steals just don't work. Yeah, they haven't crippled the O's, but it's still a waste of money.

[wildcard]

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.

I would like you to step back from your analysis and look at the bigger picture. Your analysis is correct as far as it goes but you have to place it in context with the overall goal of what MacPhail is trying to achieve.

MacPhail's approach over the building years was to collect young talent (as much of it as he could get) with high ceilings. Because that talent is unproven and unestablished in the majors, the team is going to lose while those players develop and learn.

What you have just done is evaluate the other players. The fill ins, stop gaps and low cost replacement players that were used in the positions that young players were not ready to fill. So your analysis is right in the context of just looking at fill ins but it doesn't account for real goal of building with young players.

With the base of young players that the team was losing with, the O's could not attract high ceiling FAs. Those FA didn't want to play for a loser. There was only one way to get those players (if there was any chance at all). It was to greatly overspend like the Nats just did with Werth. MacPhail rejected that approach as a waste of resources because one or two players would not help the team win if the base was not solid.

The one way the O's could and can get higher ceiling talent (other than growing young players) is to trade for them. That is what you are seeing MacPhail do this off season. Reynolds, and Hardy both have some upside. MacPhail is now at a point where he feels spending money for these players will benefit the team. High profile FA still reject the O's because they are losers but players traded for can't.

MacPhail is playing the market for two FAs that he think he has a chance at - LaRoche and Gregg. It might work. I doubt MacPhail set out the off season to sign LaRoche. He is just the last first baseman with some level of talent on the market which MacPhail can buy by offering higher dollars then smaller budget teams. He kind of has painted LaRoche into a corner and hopefully will be able to sign him by offer 2/14M where others might offer 1/5.

Gregg is similar. MacPhail picked him as someone that can be attracted with dollars to a losing team. Gregg is kind of a mid talent guy. He is not as good as a Soraino who the O's probably can't sign but he is better then most of the other relievers left on the market. MacPhail saw that 2/8-10 is enough overpayment to attract him because others probably didn't value him to that level.

So I think this year, when MacPhail hopes to see the team make a jump in the win column, he is acquiring players through trade and FA that will do better in your analysis. In the big picture that is because the team is ready to win there for he is spending a little more. I think your analysis as far as it goes is correct but does not show the context of where the club was in the the development cycle. JMO

[Sports Guy]

MacPhail's approach over the building years was to collect young talent (as much of it as he could get) with high ceilings. Because that talent is unproven and unestablished in the majors, the team is going to lose while those players develop and learn.

Really? Why hasn't he dealt Scott and Guthrie when their value was high? Why didn't he spend more in amateur signings to get more young talent with high ceilings?

What you have just done is evaluate the other players. The fill ins, stop gaps and low cost replacement players that were used in the positions that young players were not ready to fill. So your analysis is right in the context of just looking at fill ins but it doesn't account for real goal of building with young players.

None of this excuses the awful signings.

With the base of young players that the team was losing with, the O's could not attract high ceiling FAs. Those FA didn't want to play for a loser. There was only one way to get those players (if there was any chance at all). It was to greatly overspend like the Nats just did with Werth. MacPhail rejected that approach as a waste of resources because one or two players would not help the team win if the base was not solid.

Then you don't spend the money..You go grab the Mark Hamiltons of the world and you sure as hell don't lose draft picks for mediocre players.

MacPhail is playing the market for two FAs that he think he has a chance at - LaRoche and Gregg. It might work. I doubt MacPhail set out the off season to sign LaRoche. He is just the last first baseman with some level of talent on the market which MacPhail can buy by offering higher dollars then smaller budget teams. He kind of has painted LaRoche into a corner and hopefully will be able to sign him by offer 2/14M where others might offer 1/5.

2 more mediocre signings that will likely end up on RVA's list of players that don't live up to their contracts.

Gregg is similar. MacPhail picked him as someone that can be attracted with dollars to a losing team. Gregg is kind of a mid talent guy. He is not as good as a Soraino who the O's probably can't sign but he is better then most of the other relievers left on the market. MacPhail saw that 2/8-10 is enough overpayment to attract him because others probably didn't value him to that level.

And that is not a talent you pay 4-5 million a year for.

So I think this year, when MacPhail hopes to see the team make a jump in the win column, he is acquiring players through trade and FA that will do better in your analysis.

Through trade yes..Free agency? No.

[Frobby]

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.

In the three years before we signed Wigginton, he had been worth 1.6, 1.4 and 3.4 fWAR, worth $26.4 mm over those 3 years by fangraphs' reckoning. Therefore, I can't fault signing him for 2/$6 mm, no matter that he disappointed. At the time, it seemed like a very good move, since Huff and Mora were both in the last year of their contracts and possible trade bait. I don't see that move as a poor one except in hindsight.

Atkins, we've discussed to death. That was idiotic. But note, he wasn't signed as a bench player.

3rd worst on the list is Mike Gonzalez, who is only halfway through his deal and we'll see where he ends up. He was hurt for about half the season and yet still provided $2.8 mm in value. That deal probably ends up a loser, but let's not forget he was signed to be the closer, and that spot is not typically filled with a replacement player, minor league FA, etc.

4th worst is Guillermo Quiroz, who made the major league minimum. We wouldn't have saved any money with anyone else, though maybe we could have found someone better.

5th worst is Izturis, who made 2/$5mm. He was worth $4.5 mm his first year, almost double what he was paid. I don't think anyone anticipated he'd be as bad offensively as he was in 2010. In any event, he wasn't signed as a backup, and clearly we couldn't use "replacement players" at SS as we disastrously had done in 2008.

Those five players total -$24.1 mm per your list. Although there are some other players who were negative by small amounts on your list, outside of the five listed, the rest of the group as a whole is +$3.9 mm. Of these five, the only one that clearly was very poor without hindsight was the Atkins deal. One can criticize some of the others, but at least there are two sides to the debate. And the Wiggy signing, as I said, it made plenty of sense at the time.

[wildcard]

Really? Why hasn't he dealt Scott and Guthrie when their value was high? Why didn't he spend more in amateur signings to get more young talent with high ceilings?

None of this excuses the awful signings.

Then you don't spend the money..You go grab the Mark Hamiltons of the world and you sure as hell don't lose draft picks for mediocre players.

2 more mediocre signings that will likely end up on RVA's list of players that don't live up to their contracts.

And that is not a talent you pay 4-5 million a year for.

Through trade yes..Free agency? No.

You make a good point about Scott and Guthrie and it is really a Catch-22. They are probably at their peck value this off season. However, the O's need them to move up in the win column this coming season.

Middle of the order hitters are hard to attract for the O's as we have seen the O's try to acquire them over the past few months. Trading Scott just makes that worse.

For the team's development it's probably a year early to trade Guthrie. Once Tillman and Britton have more successful major league experience that might be the time to trade Guthrie. Not that I am saying he has to go.

So its a balancing act. Trying to turn the team into a winner by keeping the most productive players versus trading them an keeping the team younger and less expensive.

Both players trading time may come in the next year or if the O's make a big jump maybe they stay to continue the teams success.

[Snutchy]

That is 1/13/2009.

Letters.

[wildcard]

You and RVA have the right view IMO. Risk is a complicated concept. It isn't surprising that some folks are struggling to understand it. A bad decision is a bad decision whether it is for 10 bucks or 100 million bucks. AM reminds me of the folks who sit and play 10 cent slots all day because they don't want to lose too much while hoping they get lucky. 10 cent slots are a terrible gamble and the risk/reward is awful. pennywise and poundfoolish.

I would argue that some of his "worst" decisions look bad in hindsight but weren't that risky initially like Wigginton. That contract turn out worse than anyone could have reasonably expected. Wiggy was worth 4.4 million the year before we signed him and 7.1 for the previous two years so a 2/6 deal was pretty reasonable. He significantly underperformed. I'm honestly shocked he received his new 2/8 deal after his performance the last two seasons, but I agree with Frobby that he'll likely hit a ton in Colorado.

Just when I think that AM is learning how to avoid these bad risks, he goes back out and does it all over again. We all knew Atkins was an awful move last season so why didn't he know it? Resigning Izturis this year (even as a back up plan) is a good example of him still not getting it IMO. He isn't paying Izturis much (1.5 mil), but that insurance policy is very unlikely to be anything but lost money. It is just a poor use of resources IMO.

Like a lot of us, I also really don't understand his willingness to give up a draft pick for a marginal free agent like Gonzalez. That shows a complete inability to understand risk/reward IMO. When signing a player like Carl Crawford giving up a draft pick is a minor part of the equation, but it isn't for relatively minor upgrades on short term deals like Gonzalez. He just doesn't seem to get that.

AM clearly brings some good things to the table, but I'm beginning to believe that the critics are right that he'll never be able to get himself to make the big move(s) that we'll eventually need. I also agree with the "what are we building" thread in that I don't think AM is "all in" on any one philosophy. We've definitely gotten better/more talented and I think we'll continue to get better over the next two years, but I think we're destined to be a 75-85 win team going forward unless lightning strikes. We simply haven't done enough things well to be better than that and he doesn't seem capable of spending enough to bridge the remaining gaps at a level that will lead to the playoffs.

My 2 cents...

Very solid post as usual vatech.

I didn't think much of the Izturis signing until I sat down and projected playing time for each of the regulars. Its hard to project BRob with more then 500 at bats considering his back and Hardy has averaged about 440 at bats over that last three years. That means their backup get about 300 at bats or basically half time. Now I could say that is even more reason to get a more offensive backup. But I don't think that is what Buck would say. He is about run prevention and I think he pushed MacPhail for a very good defensive backup in the middle infield.

I think giving up a draft choice for what MacPhail thought was a closer shows where the O's were at the time. No FA of value would come to the O's last off season. I was against the Gonzo signing. I wanted Valverde who would have also cost a draft choice but was a better closer. However, I don't know if MacPhail could have attracted Valverde.

I think the lightening strike you referred to may be the maturing of the O's young players. I think there is a real chance that the young pitchers combined with Buck's style of motivation on defense may elevate the team to heights many do not expect. That is what happened the last two month of the 2010 season. I see the additions this off season as support players that allow the O's real talent, the young talent to drive a significant jump in the win column.

[Frobby]

Just when I think that AM is learning how to avoid these bad risks, he goes back out and does it all over again. We all knew Atkins was an awful move last season so why didn't he know it? Resigning Izturis this year (even as a back up plan) is a good example of him still not getting it IMO. He isn't paying Izturis much (1.5 mil), but that insurance policy is very unlikely to be anything but lost money. It is just a poor use of resources IMO.

On paper, I don't like the Izturis signing much at all. However, I think MacPhail's decision here was heavily influenced by the fact that Buck is a big fan of Izzy's approach to the game, and it appears that he is very popular and respected in the clubhouse. Add to that the injury risks with BRob and Hardy, and Izzy makes a little more sense that he otherwise might.

I don't think we are always privy to some of the reasoning that drives these decisions. I could make a pretty good argument that we'd be better off giving the back-up MI job to Andino and saving $1 mm. But clearly there is something about Andino that rubs people the wrong way, and something about Izzy that rubs them the right way. I'm reluctant to dismiss those things as unimportant, even though I don't really know what they are.

[El Gordo]

On paper, I don't like the Izturis signing much at all. However, I think MacPhail's decision here was heavily influenced by the fact that Buck is a big fan of Izzy's approach to the game, and it appears that he is very popular and respected in the clubhouse. Add to that the injury risks with BRob and Hardy, and Izzy makes a little more sense that he otherwise might.

I don't think we are always privy to some of the reasoning that drives these decisions. I could make a pretty good argument that we'd be better off giving the back-up MI job to Andino and saving $1 mm. But clearly there is something about Andino that rubs people the wrong way, and something about Izzy that rubs them the right way. I'm reluctant to dismiss those things as unimportant, even though I don't really know what they are.

If Buck wants Izzi so be it. I can't fault AM for getting the player the manager wants. I personally would have preferred Bill Hall.

[Sports Guy]

You make a good point about Scott and Guthrie and it is really a Catch-22. They are probably at their peck value this off season. However, the O's need them to move up in the win column this coming season.

Middle of the order hitters are hard to attract for the O's as we have seen the O's try to acquire them over the past few months. Trading Scott just makes that worse.

For the team's development it's probably a year early to trade Guthrie. Once Tillman and Britton have more successful major league experience that might be the time to trade Guthrie. Not that I am saying he has to go.

So its a balancing act. Trying to turn the team into a winner by keeping the most productive players versus trading them an keeping the team younger and less expensive.

Both players trading time may come in the next year or if the O's make a big jump maybe they stay to continue the teams success.

The problem with all of this is AM is playing for being average...He is trying to ride the fence and that is poor.

Don't get me wrong, having a winning record has a lot of value. But setting yourself up better for the long term is still more important than winning 82 games.

Let's say Guthrie is a 4.8 ERA/200IP pitcher this year and Scott is an 800 OPS hitter. At those numbers, each player still has value to a club...Guthrie as a #4 starter and Scott as a #6-ish hitter with decent power and some versatility. The problem with those years is that they will then be entering the 2012 season as easily replaceable guys who are making too much money. In that scenario, the Orioles could have traded each of these guys at peak value and signed Branyan and another Millwood type guy and pretty much won the same amount of games AND have young players for the long term.

Now, let's look at the other side...Guthrie has a sub 4 ERA over 200 IP and Scott has an 850ish OPS. But how much better would we be with those 2 putting up those numbers vs Millwood clone and Branyan putting up 4.80ish ERA/200 IP and 800 OPS numbers? How many more wins is that? 2? maybe 3?

Meanwhile, you have kept these guys and not gotten the young talent you need long term.

These 2 players are not going to be part of the next contending club in all likelihood and their production can LIKELY be replaced for a fraction of the cost.

By keeping them, you hold out hope that their peripherals and/or histories don't catch up to them as they get a little older. By trading them now, you save money and trade them when they have peak value in a market that doesn't have a lot of what these guys can offer if you believe they can be close to what they were last year.

[Sports Guy]

You and RVA have the right view IMO. Risk is a complicated concept. It isn't surprising that some folks are struggling to understand it. A bad decision is a bad decision whether it is for 10 bucks or 100 million bucks. AM reminds me of the folks who sit and play 10 cent slots all day because they don't want to lose too much while hoping they get lucky. 10 cent slots are a terrible gamble and the risk/reward is awful. pennywise and poundfoolish.

I would argue that some of his "worst" decisions look bad in hindsight but weren't that risky initially like Wigginton. That contract turn out worse than anyone could have reasonably expected. Wiggy was worth 4.4 million the year before we signed him and 7.1 for the previous two years so a 2/6 deal was pretty reasonable. He significantly underperformed. I'm honestly shocked he received his new 2/8 deal after his performance the last two seasons, but I agree with Frobby that he'll likely hit a ton in Colorado.

Just when I think that AM is learning how to avoid these bad risks, he goes back out and does it all over again. We all knew Atkins was an awful move last season so why didn't he know it? Resigning Izturis this year (even as a back up plan) is a good example of him still not getting it IMO. He isn't paying Izturis much (1.5 mil), but that insurance policy is very unlikely to be anything but lost money. It is just a poor use of resources IMO.

Like a lot of us, I also really don't understand his willingness to give up a draft pick for a marginal free agent like Gonzalez. That shows a complete inability to understand risk/reward IMO. When signing a player like Carl Crawford giving up a draft pick is a minor part of the equation, but it isn't for relatively minor upgrades on short term deals like Gonzalez. He just doesn't seem to get that.

AM clearly brings some good things to the table, but I'm beginning to believe that the critics are right that he'll never be able to get himself to make the big move(s) that we'll eventually need. I also agree with the "what are we building" thread in that I don't think AM is "all in" on any one philosophy. We've definitely gotten better/more talented and I think we'll continue to get better over the next two years, but I think we're destined to be a 75-85 win team going forward unless lightning strikes. We simply haven't done enough things well to be better than that and he doesn't seem capable of spending enough to bridge the remaining gaps at a level that will lead to the playoffs.

My 2 cents...

Totally agree...To pat AM on the back because he hasn't signed an Aaron Rowand contract is just dumb IMO. That doesn't deserve a pat on the back. When you go to McD's and they get your order right, should you go in and congratulate them for not being idiots or should you expect them to not be morons?

One thing Drungo has always said and it seems as if he always ends up being right is that it is foolish to sign the FAs to middling contracts(ie those 3-9 million a year deals). How often do those deals turn out to be really good for the team that signs him? How often can you go out and get a Mark Hamilton for very little instead of signing a Huff or LaRoche for 7-9 million a year?

Those middling FA contracts are usually a big waste of money and RVa's excellent research pretty much backs that up.

The middling FAs are middling for a reason...They have some upside and can give you a big year but they are also on the decline of their career and could fall off the table at any moment.

[El Gordo]

The problem with all of this is AM is playing for being average...He is trying to ride the fence and that is poor.

Don't get me wrong, having a winning record has a lot of value. But setting yourself up better for the long term is still more important than winning 82 games.

Let's say Guthrie is a 4.8 ERA/200IP pitcher this year and Scott is an 800 OPS hitter. At those numbers, each player still has value to a club...Guthrie as a #4 starter and Scott as a #6-ish hitter with decent power and some versatility. The problem with those years is that they will then be entering the 2012 season as easily replaceable guys who are making too much money. In that scenario, the Orioles could have traded each of these guys at peak value and signed Branyan and another Millwood type guy and pretty much won the same amount of games AND have young players for the long term.

Now, let's look at the other side...Guthrie has a sub 4 ERA over 200 IP and Scott has an 850ish OPS. But how much better would we be with those 2 putting up those numbers vs Millwood clone and Branyan putting up 4.80ish ERA/200 IP and 800 OPS numbers? How many more wins is that? 2? maybe 3?

Meanwhile, you have kept these guys and not gotten the young talent you need long term.These 2 players are not going to be part of the next contending club in all likelihood and their production can LIKELY be replaced for a fraction of the cost.

By keeping them, you hold out hope that their peripherals and/or histories don't catch up to them as they get a little older. By trading them now, you save money and trade them when they have peak value in a market that doesn't have a lot of what these guys can offer if you believe they can be close to what they were last year.

The question is which young talent? It depends on the percieved value of the "talent", to the clubs future, as opposed to Guts' and Luke's value to the club now. At some point you keep the two, if that young talent isn't all that promising. I doubt either guy would bring back any sure thing type prospects. I'm pretty sure AM has gotten offers for both and decided it wasn't worth it. Since we don't know what those offers were, we are not in a position to judge. Unless you think you always trade a player at his peak for the best package you can get, no matter what it's value.

[wildcard]

The problem with all of this is AM is playing for being average...He is trying to ride the fence and that is poor.

Don't get me wrong, having a winning record has a lot of value. But setting yourself up better for the long term is still more important than winning 82 games.

Let's say Guthrie is a 4.8 ERA/200IP pitcher this year and Scott is an 800 OPS hitter. At those numbers, each player still has value to a club...Guthrie as a #4 starter and Scott as a #6-ish hitter with decent power and some versatility. The problem with those years is that they will then be entering the 2012 season as easily replaceable guys who are making too much money. In that scenario, the Orioles could have traded each of these guys at peak value and signed Branyan and another Millwood type guy and pretty much won the same amount of games AND have young players for the long term.

Now, let's look at the other side...Guthrie has a sub 4 ERA over 200 IP and Scott has an 850ish OPS. But how much better would we be with those 2 putting up those numbers vs Millwood clone and Branyan putting up 4.80ish ERA/200 IP and 800 OPS numbers? How many more wins is that? 2? maybe 3?

Meanwhile, you have kept these guys and not gotten the young talent you need long term.

These 2 players are not going to be part of the next contending club in all likelihood and their production can LIKELY be replaced for a fraction of the cost.

By keeping them, you hold out hope that their peripherals and/or histories don't catch up to them as they get a little older. By trading them now, you save money and trade them when they have peak value in a market that doesn't have a lot of what these guys can offer if you believe they can be close to what they were last year.

Everything you say is true, however at some point a GM has to say this is the year I am going to become a winner. I think that is what MacPhail is trying to do. Tampa will have great starters but their pen and position players will be much less than what they were last year. Toronto is not doing anything that jumps them up in the standing this off season. They have made some long term moves but overall they are close to being the same team. If the O's are better and the Jays can't beat up on them as the did last year that will even out the two teams in the standings.

It would take something exceptional for the O's be finish better than the Red Sox or Yankees. But a good year could put the O's in position to make another jump the following year.

If MacPhail is saying it is time to stop the losing and be a winning franchise with Buck at the helm, I think that is hard to argue with. It could turn around the attendance dropping and change the national perspective of the O's into an up and coming team. Wouldn't that be a major coup?

[Frobby]

The problem with all of this is AM is playing for being average...He is trying to ride the fence and that is poor.

Don't get me wrong, having a winning record has a lot of value. But setting yourself up better for the long term is still more important than winning 82 games.

Let's say Guthrie is a 4.8 ERA/200IP pitcher this year and Scott is an 800 OPS hitter. At those numbers, each player still has value to a club...Guthrie as a #4 starter and Scott as a #6-ish hitter with decent power and some versatility. The problem with those years is that they will then be entering the 2012 season as easily replaceable guys who are making too much money. In that scenario, the Orioles could have traded each of these guys at peak value and signed Branyan and another Millwood type guy and pretty much won the same amount of games AND have young players for the long term.

Now, let's look at the other side...Guthrie has a sub 4 ERA over 200 IP and Scott has an 850ish OPS. But how much better would we be with those 2 putting up those numbers vs Millwood clone and Branyan putting up 4.80ish ERA/200 IP and 800 OPS numbers? How many more wins is that? 2? maybe 3?

Meanwhile, you have kept these guys and not gotten the young talent you need long term.

These 2 players are not going to be part of the next contending club in all likelihood and their production can LIKELY be replaced for a fraction of the cost.

By keeping them, you hold out hope that their peripherals and/or histories don't catch up to them as they get a little older. By trading them now, you save money and trade them when they have peak value in a market that doesn't have a lot of what these guys can offer if you believe they can be close to what they were last year.

Of course, we don't know if either Scott or Guthrie has been shopped at various times in the past, and what has been offered for them.

In July '08, the A's traded Joe Blanton for a return of Adrian Cardenas, Matt Spencer and Josh Outman. Is that the kind of return we'd expect for Guthrie, and if so, is it worthwhile?

[Sports Guy]

The question is which young talent? It depends on the percieved value of the "talent", to the clubs future, as opposed to Guts' and Luke's value to the club now. At some point you keep the two, if that young talent isn't all that promising. I doubt either guy would bring back any sure thing type prospects. I'm pretty sure AM has gotten offers for both and decided it wasn't worth it. Since we don't know what those offers were, we are not in a position to judge. Unless you think you always trade a player at his peak for the best package you can get, no matter what it's value.

I believe AM could easily trade either player and get back a package worthy of dealing either player.

I also believe that AM totally overrates their value and would ask for way too much for each player.