Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Gosh, it's been another four days since we had a new thread? Again, apologies for our suckitude. And a lot has happened!
Question of the Day: With the latest HOF class being announced on Monday, ESPN.com has hosted recent chats debating the Hall of Fame worthiness of both Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven. I say yes to both, but I'm a "big Hall" guy. What say you?



Thoughts on the latest news? | 71 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Donkit R.K. - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 02:20 PM EST (#195483) #
Yes to Blyleven, no to Dawson. And, ultimately, yes to Smoltz. Part of that, though, may be that he is just 'one of those guys' I really like for no real reason. Without looking at his stats closely as a refresher, I also believe that they can get him in on their own (or at least create very serious discussion about his merits).
Mike Green - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 02:27 PM EST (#195484) #
Smoltz should go in easily, but it is conceivable that he gets lost in the flurry of great starting pitchers who will be eligible in the next 5-8 years.

The random BBRef page today is Dick Pole.  Do random number generators take subliminal suggestions?  The answer might very well be 42.

TamRa - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 02:41 PM EST (#195485) #
I can't believe I've actually seen Jays fans distraught that we were aced out on wasting guaranteed money on Carl Pavano! This seems to be not the Winter of Our Discontent but the Winter of Our Neurosis
92-93 - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 02:47 PM EST (#195486) #
"Smoltz should go in easily, but it is conceivable that he gets lost in the flurry of great starting pitchers who will be eligible in the next 5-8 years."

There certainly will be a flurry led by 3 of the greatest pitchers ever in Maddux, Johnson, and Martinez (Clemens?), but at some point the Hall voters will need to realize that they are letting some very good pitchers slip through their fingers. I was amazed to find out there hasn't been a SP who started his career in the last 40 years to be elected to the Hall (not counting Eckersley).
Mike Green - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 02:47 PM EST (#195487) #
Re Hoffman to the Brewers

When Hell's Bells meet Harvey's Wallbangers, mayhem may ensue.

John Northey - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 03:40 PM EST (#195490) #
Smoltz is smart to play this year if he can.  The class in 5 years will be scary for the HOF - we'll have the 'steroid era' poster children still on the ballot eating a lot of votes in Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, and Sosa, plus not yet electeds from Tim Raines to Barry Larkin (hopefully he gets in before then) to Jeff Bagwell (voters have been picky in the early years) to David Wells (230+ wins counts for a lot to these voters) and beyond.  Mix in first ballot guys like Glavine and Maddux plus guys like Mussina who will get a fair number of votes and that 2014 ballot will be jammed.  Better to hang on a year or two for Smoltz and Pedro Martinez so they can get in easily when the time is right.

As to this years ballot, I'd vote Blyleven, Raines, Trammell, Henderson, John and Dawson (old Expos fan here).  I see Dawson as borderline but any Expos we can get in is great (just 3 have a shot - Carter, Raines, Dawson).  I've always liked Tommy John even if his last name is a first name :)   Dale Murphy and Dave Parker have the same case as Jim Rice imo which is about the same as Dawsons but without the Expos connection - seems odd that Rice is getting so much consideration while Parker and Murphy are afterthoughts.  Ah well. 

Mick Doherty - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 03:46 PM EST (#195491) #
I've always liked Tommy John even if his last name is a first name :)   Dale Murphy and Dave Parker

Long-ago Cardinal righy Murphy Currie and actress Parker Posey think your followup comments are extremely ironic!
SK in NJ - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 03:52 PM EST (#195492) #

I was disgusted when I heard the Jays linked to Pavano, so I am glad he's in Cleveland. He may pan out for them, stranger things have happened, but when I saw him pitch against the Jays in September he was throwing garbage out there.

I like the Baldelli/Smoltz moves for Boston. Low risk, high reward. I still like the Rays and Red Sox more than the Yankees in 2009.

TamRa - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 04:17 PM EST (#195493) #
Prakes over at DJF points out a very interesting read by Geoff Baker

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mariners/2009/01/07/the_great_divide.html

Who knows if Baker is relaible on this (after all, he cites the mythological "five year plan") but it would certainly explain much. And it would put a whole new spin on evaluating JP's efforts as GM.

His expaination sure seems to comport with the events we saw unfold (the big cash injection after the sale, the allowing of Escobar to leave/contrasted with signing Burnett, and etc.)


SheldonL - Thursday, January 08 2009 @ 11:08 PM EST (#195498) #
There's nothing wrong with signing Pavano for $1.5 mil with bonuses up to $5 million. You've got to be creative and sign fliers every year no matter if you're the Pittsburgh Pirates(small market) or Boston Red Sox(big market), and Epstein is showing his creativity by taking fliers on Smoltz, Penny and Baldelli. Did you hear that Baldelli has up to $7 mil in bonuses alone?!
If you give a guy a carrot stick, often times he'll do his damnedest to get it.

Pavano could be this year's Cliff Lee (I'm sure he was throwing garbage a year ago when he had an ERA of 6.29. Who would have thought Ryan Dempster would have had a sub 3.00 ERA as a starter! Kyle Lohse and Todd Wellemeyer to certain degrees also came out of nowhere last year to have very solid seasons.
And Pavano's much more talented than those guys and he's shown that he can be a top pitcher in the past; it's just a matter of him regaining his touch. So yeah, I'm upset that we didn't sign him to such a deal.

PS: A lot of people posted about Pat Burrell's contract and that J.P should have pitched a competitive offer. I argue that it wouldn't have helped because Burrell signed because of T-Bays' impressive cast of players. Coming off a contract that paid him $50 million over 6 years, I don't think that money is a concern for him but winning. The Phillies endured enigmatic seasons during his entire stay there except for the last couple of seasons, and I'm sure he would have loved to stay but the writing was on the wall when Ruben Amaro chose to overpay for Raul Ibanez to replace Burrell. It's going to turn out to be a mistake but kudos to Burrell for choosing a team that has a chance to do something special the next couple of years!
TamRa - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 12:16 AM EST (#195499) #
So I assume you would argue that Matt Clement, also, might be the next Cliff Lee?

Indeed, there are at least half a dozen others still out there who would fit that description, yes?


rpriske - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 08:32 AM EST (#195500) #

Dawson and Blyleven both deserve induction.

I also would have voted for Henderson, McGwire, Murphy, Parker, Raines, Trammell and Grace.

SK in NJ - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 08:48 AM EST (#195501) #

Pavano could be this year's Cliff Lee (I'm sure he was throwing garbage a year ago when he had an ERA of 6.29. Who would have thought Ryan Dempster would have had a sub 3.00 ERA as a starter! Kyle Lohse and Todd Wellemeyer to certain degrees also came out of nowhere last year to have very solid seasons. And Pavano's much more talented than those guys and he's shown that he can be a top pitcher in the past; it's just a matter of him regaining his touch. So yeah, I'm upset that we didn't sign him to such a deal.

Pavano last year was topping out in the high-80's and his other pitches were junk. Maybe he was rusty and he'll be better in 2009, certainly possible, but if he signed with Toronto he could have realistically started against NYY, Boston, and Tampa about 10-15 times. He'd get murdered if his stuff is still on par with that I saw last year. I'm not eliminating the possibility that he has a comeback year, strangers things have happened, but he's had exactly one great year in his entire career and nothing since then. That was four seasons ago. Now he's 33 with an assortment of injuries over the last few years.

Smoltz and Penny were good moves for Boston because both guys were great in 2007 and had injury issues in 2008. The chances of them coming back strong are far greater than a guy throwing junk who hasn't been good since 2004.

Ryan Day - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 10:40 AM EST (#195506) #
Pavano's rarely been very good or very healthy - his 2004 is nice, 2003 is okay - and I really wouldn't expect much from him after three years of arm problems. I wouldn't give him guaranteed money; I'm much happier with Clement.
Newton - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 11:01 AM EST (#195508) #

I don't blame Battersbox for the lack of new posts this offseason, I attribute the lull to the sucktitude of the Toronto Blue Jays offseason.

Worst offseason ever!?

 

SheldonL - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 11:15 AM EST (#195510) #
WillRain, of course!

There are tons of guys who are pretty significant sleepers this season. Capuano is one, Clement is one, Schmidt is one too... all I'm saying is: the GM's who take these risks are thinking creatively. You don't expect your signing to succeed but you're taking a gamble that he might, and the cost is not much ($1-1.5 guaranteed money) compared to the potential gains.
Chuck - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 11:29 AM EST (#195511) #

the GM's who take these risks are thinking creatively

One man's creative is another man's desperate.

James W - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 11:30 AM EST (#195512) #

This offseason has nothing on the one 14 years ago.

Exit - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 11:32 AM EST (#195513) #
Although I agree in signing guys around 1-2 million who have some potential to contribute, I would be curious to know how many of these contracts JP has signed in his tenure, i.e. How many millions have been wasted on these projects that if combined, could probably net a significant contributer to the lineup?
John Northey - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 12:20 PM EST (#195514) #
I don't think there have been an extraordinary number of the sub $5 million contract signings done by JP. 

Low cost/potential reward ones that come to mind are ...
CA: Greg Myers, Greg Zaun, Jason Phillips, Bengie Molina ($4.5), Rod Barajas (JP lives in the cheap bin for catchers)
OF: Frank Catalanotto
DH: Shea Hillenbrand (arguable - was a trade due to arbirtration iirc)
Starters: Tanyon Sturtze, Tomokazu Okha, Victor Zambrano, a few others
Relievers: Too numerous to list all (Downs, Walker, Schoeneweis, Speier, Ligtenberg, de los Santos, Billy Koch...)

Some gems came out of that group of cheap pick ups with Hilly being the only one to shoot over the $5 million mark while a Jay (barely). He learned to cut down on the relievers though and now goes into the super bargain bin for guys like Carlson, Camp and Parrish (ML minimum types) with better results (outside of Downs who was a starter when added in). 

I used $5 million as that is 10% of the payroll JP was supposed to 'compete' at, and is just 5% of last years (or 1/20th if you prefer).  It is a bit high for the early years (Molina probably shouldn't be listed here) but before the crash this winter it would be reasonable for 2007/2008 and beyond.  It appears today the limit is $1 million.

Add the cost of all those guys who were here in any one year and I doubt you'd hit enough to pay $10-$15 million for a player, which is what it would cost for a real upgrade.  These signings tend to be well worth the risk but not for starting pitchers, only for catchers (Zaun & Myers gave far more than the $ suggest) and sometimes relievers (if you go super cheap) plus platoon players (Cat for example).  I suspect most starting pitchers who are good enough for the bigs are getting the big bucks while cheap guys tend to end up in the pen if they are effective (missing a 3rd pitch, no endurance, or something else).

The cheap bin can be useful but must be used for what it provides - role players and emergency fill-ins.  If you count on it for a chunk of your rotation (2007) or for almost your whole bullpen (pre-2007)  you pay a price.  But platoon players, backups, and loogys are plentiful.
Chuck - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 01:00 PM EST (#195516) #
Other than the financial cost, there is an opportunity cost associated with bargain bin players. If they are playing, somebody else ain't.
John Northey - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:01 PM EST (#195517) #
True enough Chuck. In 2007 it delayed getting Litsch/Marcum/McGowan in the rotation but outside of that (and I doubt Litsch was a delay in truth) who else lost playing time since 2002 who deserved it?  Lind is the only other one coming to mind who earned playing time but didn't get it (due to Shannon Stewart in large part).
Chuck - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:12 PM EST (#195518) #
I was just speaking in general. To my mind, the opportunity cost often gets forgotten when a player is acquired on the cheap. Usually such players are harmless filler, however, not blocking anyone, as you pointed out.
TamRa - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:34 PM EST (#195520) #
There are tons of guys who are pretty significant sleepers this season. Capuano is one, Clement is one, Schmidt is one too... all I'm saying is: the GM's who take these risks are thinking creatively. You don't expect your signing to succeed but you're taking a gamble that he might, and the cost is not much ($1-1.5 guaranteed money) compared to the potential gains.

I don't disagree with the logic EXCEPT in this regard:

We signed Clement to a minor league deal - the Indians guaranteed at least $1.5 million to Pavano.

WE made the better deal.

I have no problem at all lining up as many minor league signings as we can find games in the spring for them and our in house candidates to start...

But when you start guaranteeing money to them you ought to have something to base that on. I can see doing that with Colon and Martinez....not most of the rest of these guys and certainly not Pavano.

Not when there are so many alternatives.

TamRa - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 02:43 PM EST (#195521) #
Although I agree in signing guys around 1-2 million who have some potential to contribute, I would be curious to know how many of these contracts JP has signed in his tenure, i.e. How many millions have been wasted on these projects that if combined, could probably net a significant contributer to the lineup?

It's not that simple though.

Suppose you sign over the course of three years, six low cost relievers that you are gambling on. You pay them an average of $1 million each.

4 are complete failures - "wasted" money to the tune of $4 million, right?

But one of them becomes "Brian Tallet" (now actually, just a guy of that ability) and is worth (in his contributions) twice what you paid him

and one of them becomes "Scott Downs" and is worth 4 times what you paid him.

All told, you got 6 million in value for 4 million spent.

the thing is, you didn't know when you signed them which would turn out successful - so you couldn't have avoided the "wasted" money and still have reaped the reward.

Wildrose - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 03:54 PM EST (#195523) #
I'd second what Marc Hulet has to say about the value of spending time at Fangraphs as mentioned in the other thread, frankly in terms of analysis it's hard to match.

All this talk of contract value has now been quantified. Want to know how much value Rod Barajas brings to the table, click on his name and scroll down to the value portion of the grid.

Barajas made $700,000 in 2008 and provided $6.9 dollars worth of value to the Jays ( this is the amount of money he should be payed as a free agent on the open market).

Unfortunately they don't have pitching valuations up yet, but you can do basic quantification by using another source such as  Stats Corner. B.J. Ryan  was  0.7 wins above replacement , meaning he was worth $3.15 and  was paid $10 million to provide this service.

Generally, Ricciardi provides good value on the dollars spent, especially on fringe players cast off from other teams such as Scutaro, Inglett and Downs. Given the teams payroll limitations Ricciardi has to get maximum bang for the buck in almost all transactions for this team to compete, when he whiffs on a big ticket item like Ryan or Eckstein it really hurts.

Frank Markotich - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 04:13 PM EST (#195524) #

Gee, Wildrose, I know Barajas tailed off a bit there toward the end, but I would have thought he was worth more than 6.9 dollars.

Now Brad Wilkerson, on the other hand...

 

 

Wildrose - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 04:31 PM EST (#195525) #
Now Brad Wilkerson, on the other hand...

Yes, the Mariners and Toronto accountants  must rightfully cringe regarding this player. Paying $3.0  million to somebody who provided $ -3.9 million in respective value is hard to believe.  Ricciardi seems to have a penchant for falling in love with certain players despite  their obvious failings. It be interesting to see who provided the least value in all of the MLB.
Wildrose - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 04:44 PM EST (#195526) #
It be interesting to see who provided the least value in all of the MLB.

Gotta love fangraphs
John Northey - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 04:51 PM EST (#195527) #
Fun site that FanGraphs.  The values are, of course, estimates based on various assumptions but it does give an idea on value for the dollar.  A few fun names...
Joe Inglett: Cost=$400k, Value=$9.6 million
Vernon Wells: Cost=$3.7 Value=$8.2 million (he was at $5.3 last year and that was his only year below $10 outside of his rookie year)
Alex Rios: Cost=$4.8 Value=$24.9 (!), this was his 2nd year in a row over $20 million
Scott Rolen: Cost=$11.6 Value=$14.3 - can't complain
Frank Thomas: Cost $12.6 Value=$1.9 (between both the A's and Jays)
Brad Wilkerson: Cost $3.0 (Jays paid just the minimum) Value=$3.9...negative $3.9 million that is

They put a value per win of $4.5 million. 
Mike Green - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 04:56 PM EST (#195528) #
Looking at the trailers, I puzzled at Delmon Young's name second from the bottom.  According to UZR, he had a devil of a time defensively in left-field in Minnesota in 2008. I'd like to check that against other metrics.
John Northey - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 05:06 PM EST (#195529) #
Switched to all players and saw Frank Catalanotto near the bottom.  Since he left Toronto...
2007: Value: $3.1 million vs salary $3.5
2008: Value: negative $4.8 million vs salary $4.0

While a Jay $2.7 million was the most he made in a year and only once was he below $3 million in value (2004 at $1 million while making $2.3).  Now that was timing on JP's part.  If only he could get that lucky all the time.

Chuck - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 05:48 PM EST (#195531) #

Alex Rios: Cost=$4.8 Value=$24.9 (!), this was his 2nd year in a row over $20 million

One has to wonder about the $4.5M value-per-win assumption. Inglett and his 344 AB are worth almost $10M? Rios is worth more than almost everyone in baseball is currently being paid?

I can't help but think that the sum of all their player values exceeds what was actually paid out in salaries.

brent - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 06:33 PM EST (#195533) #
Chuck, the 4.5 number is worth one war on the free agent market. They are taking the arbitration numbers out of the calculation. The best bargains are the arb years players that are already under team control.
Wildrose - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 06:49 PM EST (#195534) #

I can't help but think that the sum of all their player values exceeds what was actually paid out in salaries.


Chuck your misinterpreting the numbers. This valuation is based on what a player would get on the free agent market per marginal win, obviously nobody pays that rate ( except the Yankees perhaps) as not all players are free agents, and yes Rios is one of the most valuable properties in all of baseball.


Chuck - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 06:51 PM EST (#195535) #

Thanks for the clarification Brent.

I'd actually be much more interested in an exercise where the $X that were actually paid out in 2008 salaries got redistributed based on a performance model. That would at least compare apples to apples.

Wildrose - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 07:21 PM EST (#195537) #
I'd actually be much more interested in an exercise where the $X that were actually paid out in 2008 salaries got redistributed based on a performance model. That would at least compare apples to apples.

This might help you Chuck, Read the commentary section as well, Cameron feels that it's better to look at freely available talent , others prefer the average salary approach.

However, a huge share of those wins were created by players whose salaries were not determined by a free market system. Every player with zero to six years of service time had an artificially depressed salary due to not being able to qualify for free agency
Chuck - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 07:54 PM EST (#195538) #
Every player with zero to six years of service time had an artificially depressed salary due to not being able to qualify for free agency

While it's true that 0-6 players make less than they would were the market truly a free market, it is because these players' salaries are constrained that free agents make as much as they do. Scarcity makes talent expensive and causes a non-uniform distribution of income. A glut depresses values (just check out this year's FA market). In a truly free market, there is no way that a marginal win would cost $4.5M in the FA market.
Wildrose - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 08:32 PM EST (#195539) #
 In a truly free market, there is no way that a marginal win would cost $4.5M in the FA market.

I believe it was former Oakland owner Charlie Finley who said make every player a free agent at the end of every year and you'd destroy the union.

I can see both viewpoints ( as Tango states it's a matter of taste), but I lean towards the free agent valuation model. Take Hanley Ramirez who was probably   the most valuable commodity in baseball last year, yes you could trade for him ( given how Wayne Gretzky was even traded) but the cost in players , cash and prospects would be simply enormous. Trying to put a  correct price on a pre arbitration player of this ilk, who provided $32.7 million dollars of value for only   400, 000 K is extremely difficult. On the other hand free agents are indeed "freely" available as long as you have the requisite cash to obtain them, that's why some prefer this as a baseline.
John Northey - Friday, January 09 2009 @ 09:46 PM EST (#195540) #
In a truly free market, there is no way that a marginal win would cost $4.5M in the FA market.

Actually, in order for the assumption that a marginal win is worth more with a limited free market than in a full free market you'd have to assume that teams are willing to overpay for wins for some reason.  Free market theory says that won't happen in a rational setting (which, given how many teams are owned by public companies, should be the case - an owner who is in it for ego might go nuts but a Rogers Communications is trying to maximize profit, not wins).

Basically, if the free agent market is limited (which it is) then teams, rather than blow an extra $2 million a win for a free agent, will invest more in pre-free agent players (draft, international scouting, Japanese leagues, etc.) until those methods are costing as much as free agency is.

The Jays have gained (via fangraphs) $52.5 million over salary in Alex Rios' first 5 seasons.  That suggests the Jays would see the value in blowing $50 million in the draft to identify players like Rios over guys like, say, Augie Schmidt. 

Eckstein, on the other hand, cost $2.3 million more than he provided as a free agent - his value was just $2.2 vs $4.5 in salary.  Since 2002 though Eck was worth more than $5 mil in all but one season before 2008, and that year he was worth $4 million.  He should've been a break even salary at worst but instead flopped.

Lots of variables.  I'll have to put something together about this (or someone else will have to).  An interesting way to evaluate the value of a contract before it is signed and after.
TamRa - Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 04:19 AM EST (#195544) #
totally off topic...I was recompiling my (oddly deleted) spreadsheet of Jays transactions (as per Retrosheet) and I noticed something that HAS to be a psycological factor in the Great JP Debate - hell, this makes ME want to fire him arbittrarily.

Since acquiring Troy Glaus at the end of 2005, JP has gone over 1100 days and in that time only ONCE acquired a major name player in a trade (Glaus/Rolen). the second biggest name he's dealt for is Scutaro.

In the age of trade-obsessed fans (like me) that's criminal!

;)


Chuck - Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 08:48 AM EST (#195545) #

Lots of variables.  I'll have to put something together about this

I don't pretend to understand much about economics and am just thinking back to my Econ 101 days from a hundred years ago. I'd be very interested to hear what someone who isn't talking out of their ass (i.e., me) might have to say on the matter.

I looked at it this way. The owners are paying $X in total salaries. I thought it reasonable to assume that regardless of the financial structure of the game (free market vs. current system where 0-6 players are constrained), they would still pay $X. But because income would now be more evenly distributed, presumably to align with performance (no $30M for ARod and no $400K for H. Ramirez), the low end salaries would go up and the high end salaries would come down.

So two factors, intertwined, would, as I see it, conspire to bring down the marginal cost of a win. High end salaries are lower because income is more uniformly distributed. High end salaries are lower because lack of scarcity in the market has driven prices down. Thus, the continuous influx of talent in the marketplace in a free market system would mean that the marginal cost for a win would come down.

Mine is a simplistic model of a complex economic structure that ignores some truths. Certain marginal wins are, and should be more expensive, i.e., those taking a team from 88 wins, say, to 92 and getting them into the playoffs. There are 30 different franchises with their own, non-uniform cashflows. Not all 30 franchises behave like rational, public enterprises (in fact, not all are even public to begin with).

It just seemed to me that employing a $4.5M marginal win (the putative result of the current income distribution system) to a "what if" free market system seems contradictory. It's like saying it's too bad that the tobacco company, way back when, didn't produce a ton of those Honus Wagner baseball cards given how valuable they've become, ignoring that the cards are valuable specifically because they are scarce.

Gerry - Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 08:53 AM EST (#195546) #
MLB Network may come to Canada at some point in modified form.  This story is pretty short on details and long on generalities.
John Northey - Saturday, January 10 2009 @ 10:47 AM EST (#195547) #
Good question on economics.  As someone with a degree in both economics and stats I can say that it is a bit of an art mixed with science.

For free agency though we go with supply and demand with multiple possibilities. 

1) Supply of players = variable, demand = fixed (only 30 teams, 25 players per team no more than 10 playing at one time in AL, 9 in NL) thus supply determines price

2) Value to a team of a win = fixed with some variable elements (value of an extra win when you are near playoff level is higher due to playoff bonanza of cash) which dictates that a team won't pay more than that value no matter what the supply is (common sense here - if spending $10 will net you $5 of revenue you don't do it unless another factor such as ego gets mixed in)

Basically #2 dictates how high #1's line for demand goes (ie: teams will pay up to the profitable level but no higher, but if supply is sky high they'll happily pay less).  However #2 also shows a major issue.  The value of a win is different in different locations.  In the AL East you don't hit the playoff possibility until you are a 90 win level team, at that point another few wins is worth a lot as you get playoff revenue.  In the NL West last year, NL Central the year before teams were in playoff contention when they were in the high 70's for base win level (ie: add 5 more wins and you could be WS champs).  Only the AL East needed 95 wins to make the playoffs, everywhere else 90 got you in (the Angles only needed 80 wins to make it really, and given their talent level I suspect low 80's will do the trick in the AL West again in 2009).  So for the Jays they need a base of about 4-5 more wins before the 'playoff kick' comes into place thus free agents are worth more to teams who were at the 80 win mark (or even the high 70's) in any other division than they are to the Jays.  Annoying isn't it?

Also to factor in is possible revenue increases.  This the Jays have as a big plus - the Jays own their stadium and the channel that shows most of their games thus they gain revenue quickly from winning (in the Labatt days I'm sure the profits came in even quicker as Jays winning = more at bars to watch games & buy beer so they didn't even have to wait for the ratings to come in).  The Red Sox actually have a lower incentive as they have sold every last seat ahead of time and are limited in what they can do now to increase revenue further so if the Rays hadn't jumped into the mix the Sox would be cutting payroll right now big time I suspect (using attrition and saying 'youth movement' and the like) but thanks to Tampa and the Yanks being right there they have to keep spending to make the playoffs and get mega revenue from tickets during that time frame.

The marginal value per win for each team is unique.  However, a universal one is needed for analysis so I'm guessing they figure $4.5 is an average around the majors.  Getting a figure for each team would be extremely difficult if not impossible given lack of public information, plus there is always some guesswork (if a team adds 10 more wins how many more fans and tv viewers will they get).  The Jays learned they need to be at or above 500 to get good crowds and to maximize revenue, while being playoff contenders in the past filled the park and jumped tv revenue.  The Jays actually have a stronger incentive than most but the Yanks and Sox have a bigger one thus making it hard to compete.  Tampa has a much lower incentive (as does Baltimore now) thus they need to do more with less and I suspect once their players move to free agency and the old high draft picks start disappearing Tampa will too.

Now, if we assume every team with replacement players would win, say, 60 games then at $4.5 million a win you need to spend $90 million for an 80 win team and $157.5 for a 95 win team.  Given that we can safely say that the Red Sox and Yankees are just buying wins on the free market or have a much higher $/win ratio (given the kids on their teams and the like it is a safe bet) than everyone else.  The Jays, spending around that amount for a mid-80's win team suggests they also have a higher $/win figure than $4.5 as they too have kids who make less, plus mix in free agent spending like Eckstien who had a previous level of play that suggested the Jays paid dead on what should've been expected I'd say the $4.5 figure is pretty accurate for Jay fans to use.  It wouldn't work for Tampa fans, but for us it is fairly reasonable and might be a bit low.

SheldonL - Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 01:59 AM EST (#195553) #
Ok, it's official! The Red Sox are taking the AL East!

They've got Jason Bay, Youkilis, Pedroia, Ortiz and Ellsbury leading a very good OBP and slugging offense.

Then they've got a rotation headlined by Beckett, Matsuzaka, Smoltz, Lester and Penny. They've got Masterson, Buccholz and Wakefield in tow if any of the top 5 falter. They've got a top notch closer in Papelbon with top notch setup men in Delcarmen and Okajima... and now Takashi Saito!!

W O W !
TamRa - Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 02:17 AM EST (#195555) #
of course Saito is no sure thing to pitch well again, and Smoltz isn't expected to be ready til almost mid-season at best, and Penny is coming off serious injury too, though probably has the best odds and he's not as old as the other two.

Good pickups, but don't assume they'll be in peak form.

That said, I do like the Sox over the Yanks for the division


zeppelinkm - Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 08:02 AM EST (#195557) #

The Sox are looking beyond scary good. Let's not forget Baldelli, who could be the biggest sleeper of them all.

I'd put them down for 100+ wins. And this isn't the same kind of hype as the Tigers were receiving last year. This is a team that you know is good, and they've done nothing but improve this offseason. SP depth, bullpen depth, and positional depth.

Even with declines from Pedrioa and Youk, it would not be unreasonable to expect gains from Lowell and Ortiz and Ellsbury (or if Ellsbury doesn't stick as CF, Baldelli).

TamRa - Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 01:18 PM EST (#195559) #
I think the key question on how good the Sox are is whether apparent declines are real declines or aberations.  My customary assumption when making projections is that quality players will deliver quality work unless there's some known ongoing factor (like the injuries on the new guys) to downgrade expectatioons. So I take it Ortiz will be Ortiz and that Lowell will be in line with his career norms BUT

There is some level of uncertainty with them and a couple of others so IF Ortiz has turned into an ordinary player, for instance, then there are ways for them to end up not being a monster team after all.



Mike Green - Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 09:25 PM EST (#195561) #
Here's a possible poll question, arising from a thought of Bill James.  Each rookie class produces on average 2 Hall of Famers.  The reasonably conceivable candidates I can think of from the 2008 class would include Longoria, Ellsbury, Chamberlain, Soto, Votto and Bruce.  So, who?

Incidentally, the NL rookies names  "Soto, Votto and Bruce" would be perfect for a law firm.

92-93 - Sunday, January 11 2009 @ 11:33 PM EST (#195562) #
I think Longoria is the obvious choice, but the 2nd one is tough. My guess is between Bruce, Chris Davis, and Clayton Kershaw, and I'll go with the pitcher. There's supposedly no limit to his upside, he's got all the recipes for success; he's left handed, throws in the mid 90s, and has a wicked curveball.
Geoff - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 12:05 AM EST (#195566) #
Hot news out of Texas is that ol' Mike Young wants out. Yahoo!

So cue up the Jays hot stove, since a) the jays need a shortstop and b) Vernon needs a friend and c) this may otherwise go down as the lamest Jays offseason ever.

Surely there must be someone in the Jays system named Esteban that Texas could want?

And really, how many offseasons could stack up to this one? (granted management has a few more weeks yet)

92-93 - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 12:40 AM EST (#195567) #
Michael Young makes 14.9m more than Marco Scutaro, and is signed for 16m a year through 2013. Unless Texas wants to pick up a SIGNIFICANT portion of that contract, no thank you.
christaylor - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 06:52 AM EST (#195570) #
When I first read this, I thought the comparison of Scutaro/Young had no merit, but instead of spouting off I decided to look at the stats - I hadn't realized just how poorly Young hit in 2008. The comparison isn't that far off, really.

While I'd really like to see Young manning SS for the Jays, I couldn't agree more with 92-93. If the choice is Young vs. Scutaro at their salaries, for this team, Scutaro is the better fit. Young is also exactly the type of hitter that the Jays don't need, good OBP, low SLG, not because he's bad but because the team has several of that type of hitter already. I'd much rather see any money that would be spent on Young on a player how can put up a high SLG% - in a line-up like the Jays have (good OBP, low SLG) just one a player with a high SLG% can really help.

That said, the acquisition of Young would immediately turn a disappointing off-season into an interesting one... but I'd rather see the Jays give a one year (incentivized) deal to Pedro.
Chuck - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 07:35 AM EST (#195571) #

It's also worth noting the textbook shape to Young's aging curve: gradual peak to age 27, explosion at age 28, gradual descent starting at age 29. He's about to embark on his age-32 season. Some players rebound in their 30's. Most don't. Even those just a hair's breadth shy of canonization.

TamRa - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 02:09 PM EST (#195573) #
Regarding the Scutero comparison:

Michael Young dropped a weight on his hand after the June 5th game, and fractured a finger.

For the next 16 games after that, he hit like this-

66 at bats, 10 hits, 1 double, 5 walks

Take those away from his season total and you get  these averages:

.298 - .354 - .428 - .782

which would have had him the 8th best hitting SS in the majors. and for 5 more points he could have been #6

Almost 100 points higher than Scutaro

I think 2008 was likely an aberration and he's still a 107ish hitter (which is darned good for SS) - and I think his declining range could be well hidden between Rolen and Hill.

But he is paid way too much and until the Rangers realize they are dealing with a salary dump and not a valued asset, they won't be easy to deal with.

Under the right financial manipulation, I could be interested but it'd take some wrangling.


John Northey - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 05:05 PM EST (#195582) #
Checking ESPN I see that Young is owed 'just' $62 million over the next 5 years, not $80 due to his signing bonus and deferred money (which the Rangers would have to pay). At $12.4 million he is a bit better. Still too high though based on FanGraphs as he has been worth that much just once in his career to date (2006). His value the past year was listed as $7.5 million while the 3 years before that were $10+ years despite a big defensive negative most years.  I'd assume JP would value him at a similar rate thus be willing to pay no more than $7-10 million a year.  However, since Young refuses to move from SS today and probably will continue that stance it could become an issue if he came here should Jackson or any other prospect come along (Jackson is probably 2-3 years away).  So you get into a situation of how much would the Jays be willing to eat to dump Young in 3 years, and how much would the Rangers be willing to eat today.  If the Rangers cut the Jays cost to $7 million or less per year I'd be all for it.  Any more than that and JP is taking a risk bigger than he should.
TamRa - Monday, January 12 2009 @ 10:38 PM EST (#195590) #
My theory is that you asked the Rangers to eat the deferred money (bringing it down to $13 per - Cotts gives me nothing about the signing bonus issue) and THEN they go ask Wells to defer $3 million a year (in '10 and '11 and also in '12 and '13 if he doesn't opt out) in order to get his BFF here. Thus bringing it down to $10 mil per...

then I insist on dealing Ryan and McDonald for him. That makes the salary bump only $1.1 this year and it's even next year and then it's $10 mil a year for the next three.

Young's poor range can be hidden between Rolen and Hill the next two years.

After 2010 (assuming you let Rolen leave which I hope we don't) you start running into problems...

Basically, I can get to a place where I like it for the next two years, but not longer unless we extend Rolen...

Still, unless the Jays think their finances will be in order by 2011 they won't make any such move.


robertdudek - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 12:22 PM EST (#195595) #
Free market theory says that won't happen in a rational setting

This is the assumption that has led you astray.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 12:53 PM EST (#195597) #
If the Rangers trade Young, there will be a massive, full-scale fan revolt, led by Jamey Newberg. He doesn't want to move to 3B? Well, then, how about CF? We'll see. But I would be shocked if the Rangers traded him, and if they do, they'd want nothing less than a #1 starter in return. Ryan and McDonald? What planet are you living on?
Chuck - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 01:17 PM EST (#195599) #

Mick, is this over-the-top Michael Young love not a textbook symptom of what causes a team to be so crummy for so long?

The organization simply refuses to assess him objectively. And why the sentimentality? Why is he the new Puckett/Ripken/Yastrzemski? The team has had exactly one winning season this millennium, which covers his career. It's not even like he's a link to better days.

I just don't get it. Are Texans just more sentimental than the rest of us?

92-93 - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 01:28 PM EST (#195601) #
"What planet are you living on?"

The one that thinks Gibbons sounds like a hick and rightfully recognizes that Michael Young has virtually no trade value with a 5/62 deal in this marketplace.

"they'd want nothing less than a #1 starter in return."

Which planet are YOU living on?!
John Northey - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 01:57 PM EST (#195602) #
Well, I'd like a #1 starter for Vernon Wells if we traded him but somehow I doubt that one is happening either.
  • Wells is entering his age 30 season coming off a 121 OPS+ year (with injuries) lifetime 109 with 3 gold gloves but none for the past 2 years, generally viewed as livable in CF but more suited to RF or LF now.  Wells is owed $117 million for the next 6 years ($8.5 comes off in March).
  • Young is entering his age 32 season coming off a 96 OPS+ year (healthy) lifetime 102 with 1 gold glove (last year) but viewed as more suitable to 3B than SS.  He is owed $62 million over 5 years (ESPN) or $80 over 5 with $15 million deferred (Cot's) depending on the source.
Neither has hit, to this point, like a corner outfielder.  Both would be (based on lifetime figures) below average at their potential future positions for offense.  Young is in the last of the traditional prime years (25-32) and showed a decline last year.  Wells has 3 years left in his prime then 3 years outside it on contract while his bat came back to life after a horrid year (85 OPS+).  Anyone who would trade a prime prospect or #1 starter for either of these guys at this stage of their careers with those contracts should be fired from their position before they get the chance to do it.

Btw, FanGraphs shows Wells with 1 $20 million season (2006), 3 other $10 million ones (2003-2005) with the past two being $5.3 and $8.2.  Young peaked at $13.5 and cracked $10 only 3 times total (2005-2007) and was at $7.5 last year.  So neither is worth their contracts over the next few years, but at least Wells has a shot with 3 prime years vs Young's 1. 

TamRa - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 02:01 PM EST (#195604) #
If the Rangers trade Young, there will be a massive, full-scale fan revolt, led by Jamey Newberg. He doesn't want to move to 3B? Well, then, how about CF? We'll see. But I would be shocked if the Rangers traded him, and if they do, they'd want nothing less than a #1 starter in return. Ryan and McDonald? What planet are you living on?

The planet where the Rangers aren't going to get what they want for him.

I don't disagree that the Rangers fans overvalue him...and I agree that the Rangers are in a lose/lose situation because they CAN'T get what the fans will expect them to get.

Young isa textbook example of a deal you DON'T want to acquire unless you have unlimited money or another bad deal to move.

I DON'T think the proposition I mentioned would be accepted and honestly, I'd be damned worried about what where we'd hide Young in the last 2-3 years of the deal.

But if the Rangers think they are going to get a #1 starter for him (or a ready to go young 3B) then you are right about one thing - they won't actually be trading him.

Joel Sherman proposed several bad-contract swaps today, most of which I don't think will work. Some, like Carlos Lee or Todd Helton - would require raising the Rangers payroll in the short term which they can't afford, others, like Zito and Soriano are just much worse deals.

But there's one he mentioned that makes some sense to me-

Young for Aaron Rowand. Rowand makes a similar amount per year (close enough the Rangers could kick in a little salary relief to balance it out) and if he came abord, the Rangers could shift Hamilton to right and have a nice defensive upgrade with no lost offense. the Giants could play Young at 2B, shift Winn to CF and make their play for Manny (or spend less and get Dunn or Abreu) and make themselves players in a weak division.

I could maybe see doing something with Boston for Mike Lowell too but it'd be more complicated because they'd both want to work in the catcher trade they've talked about for a while.

something like Lowell and Masterson for Young and Teagarden...but I'm not sure that Epstien isn't too smart to take on Young.

There's a comment on Sherman's blog that makes some sense though. The Rangers could ask KINSLER to move to 3B and let Young go back to 2B and maybe solve their problem.

Although I have no clue how well Kinsler can field 3B

Mike Green - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 02:20 PM EST (#195605) #
There's no need for harsh words.  If the Rangers think that Michael Young is a great bargain with his contract, there is no match with the needs and financial means of the Jays. 

I had a thought that maybe the Jays would send Ryan and $$ to the Cubs for Pie.  The remaining $$ of Ryan's salary could go into the "buy a 1 year starter" fund.  Who's left, anyway?

Alex Obal - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 02:38 PM EST (#195608) #
Who's left? I dunno, but I think I'd only be looking at rentapitchers who are willing to accept a dirt cheap team option for 2010. (There can be major incentive clauses in both years.) Whether the pitcher in question contributes to the juggernaut 2009 Blue Jays' playoff run doesn't really interest me much. Especially if he doesn't have a team option and he's holding down a spot in the rotation all year at the expense of an unknown quantity who is under control dirt cheap in 2010.
TamRa - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 07:42 PM EST (#195612) #
FA starting pitchers still unsigned:

(in rough order of quality)
Astrick for health concerns.

Ben Sheets
Oliver Perez
Andy Petitte
Jon Garland
Randy Wolf
Tom Glavine*
Bart Colon*
Freddy Garcia*
Braden Looper
Paul Byrd
Pedro Martinez*
Mark Mulder*
Kenny Rogers
Jon Lieber
Orlando Hernandez*
John Parrish << we could do worse than just bringing him back...below this point I'd as soon see Bryan Bullington (to say nothing of the prospects) given a shot as sign one of these guys (I'd prefer Bullington to Maroth too, for that matter)
Jason Jennings*
Livan Hernandez
Kris Benson*
Eric Milton*
Josh Fogg
Chuck James*
Kip Wells
Mark Redman
Jeff Weaver
ictor Zambrano
Josh Towers
Kirk Sarloos
Mike Green - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 09:14 PM EST (#195613) #
Ictor Zambrano

It's true.  V is for Victory. I is for Ick.
Mick Doherty - Tuesday, January 13 2009 @ 09:44 PM EST (#195614) #
"they'd want nothing less than a #1 starter in return."

Which planet are YOU living on?!

Please note, that I did not in any way mean to suggest that they would -- or should -- get that sort of return.

As I have said many times here, I live in Texas but am not a Texan. I can see the Rangers' ballpark from my office window but am not a Rangers fan, either. I don't think Young is worth a #1 starter. I just think that's what the Texas starting asking price would be.

Texans aren't necessarily more sentimental than the rest of the world, but where pro athletes are concerned, Young is to the Rangers what Nowitzki, Modano and Romo are to the Mavs, Stars and Cowboys. And that's the face of the franchise. Trading him would be the kind of PR blunder locally that a Halladay-for-kids deal would be in Toronto.

John Northey - Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 09:47 AM EST (#195615) #
The good news is that if Texas feels that way about Young (nothing less than a #1 starter in return) then at least it means one less team to fight for the wild card with as that type of thinking will hamstring a team for years.

As to Halladay, emotionally I want him to stay a Jay until the end of his career.  However, if I was GM and someone came to me with an offer of 2 or 3 A prospects (plus a couple of B or C's to fill in holes in the system) I'd have to take it as he is entering his age 32 season, is signed for just 2 more years, and will probably cost $20 mil a year after that to keep.  Don't like it, but logically if you want to win long term it would make sense.
TamRa - Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 02:54 PM EST (#195619) #
My take on the Doc deal is that unless the team is going back to the days of 40 and 50 million payrolls, you do your best to sign him....he's not just our Michael Young, he's our George Brett./Tony Gwynn/Robin Yount/Cal Ripkin

That said, if you DO have to trade him, I say you get young ESTABLISED players, not prospects (anyone else see Keith Law's assertion that the jays could have had Foppert AND Williams for Doc back when both were top 5 prospects?)

To use a current example, the oft cited Kershaw and Kemp/either combo or some such.At least, I'd work every angle I could on that before settling for prospects.

As much as I think Doc should stay a jay for life - if ownership was adamant they couldn't spend $20 million a year on him and/or insistant that the total budget wouldn't be adjusted for him then yeah, next winter I'd resign myself to it and market him...you can't just let him walk away and have nothing.

But as far as I'm concerned, if you can't sign Doc, then screw the pretense you are a team with money and become the A's East and always be feilding a team of players who haven't passed their second turn at arbitration. At least be real about what you are.


John Northey - Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 04:03 PM EST (#195621) #
Good point WillRain.  Doc is the big guy here right now, and his leaving would be like Roberto Alomar being shown the door in 1995.  Once Alomar was gone you knew the glory years were done.  Of course, Dave Stieb and George Bell were the key guys of the first big run (82-90) and dumping them didn't hurt.

In the end the key is what is ownership willing to spend and how best to use those resources.  One hopes they keep Doc with Wells/Rios/Hill and the kids but as I said, if someone comes up with a great offer (and I agree that guys already in the majors is much better than minor leaguers as a rule) it would be hard to resist.

Thoughts on the latest news? | 71 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.