DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 186603--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: ticohans
Date: July 9, 2014, 6:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
pitcher AAV:
Kershaw: $30.7
Verlander: $25.7
Hernandez: $25
Greinke: $24.5
Sabathia: $24.4
This is what top pitchers get paid. When this is how you
compensate players who have established histories of dominance
at the highest levels, you don't commit $28 to a guy who has
never thrown a pitch in the major leagues.
#Post#: 186606--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: Chris27
Date: July 9, 2014, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Based on what the market pays free agent pitchers who are
known entities - i.e. they have years of success against major
league hitters - the Yanks DID pay too much.
--- End Quote ---
So they should've offered him less and lost him.
--- Quote ---
> This is what top pitchers get paid.
--- End Quote ---
Most of the pitchers you listed re-signed with their teams. They
didn't get those salaries on the free market. They may have
gotten more had they tested free agency.
#Post#: 186607--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: method
Date: July 9, 2014, 7:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ticohans link ---
>
> So if you have the money to spend, and you really want a car
that should cost you $50,000, but you offer the dealer $150,000
just because, it's not a bad purchase?
>
--- End Quote ---
Why would any major leaguer that has the chance of a guaranteed
contract that might make him 144 million (or more, and an
further buy himself an insurance policy that gets him 90% of
those earnings in-case of injury during his walk year) over 6
years... take a deal where he might only make 55 million or
worse... get only one good year in and 2 player options... and
only earn 55 million? i realize the teams have a lot of
incentive in this structure... but what incentive do players
have? they just need one GM/owner out of 30 that needs to spend
some money to sell tickets and the player ends up with a ton
more money with no downside....
Essentially the marginally utility of dollars 150 million to 210
million are far far lower to the player then the utility of the
dollars from 55 million to 150 million...
#Post#: 186636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: ticohans
Date: July 9, 2014, 10:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chris27 link ---
>
> So they should've offered him less and lost him.
>
--- End Quote ---
There's an assumptive leap here
--- Quote from: Chris27 link ---
>
> Most of the pitchers you listed re-signed with their teams.
They didn't get those salaries on the free market. They may have
gotten more had they tested free agency.
>
--- End Quote ---
Most is the key word here. Some did not. And they're all
clustered around the same range. Either way, a deal for a player
who has never faced major league competition should be more
discounted than a deal for the player who resigns with his team.
Given that there ARE free agent deals in that group, it suggests
that the top pitchers get paid about what they should,
regardless. In no way could Tanaka establish himself as a part
of that group before signing, and for the Yanks to assume that
risk completely upon themselves does not spread that risk
fairly.
#Post#: 186637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: ticohans
Date: July 9, 2014, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: method link ---
>
> Why would any major leaguer that has the chance of a
guaranteed contract that might make him 144 million (or more,
and an further buy himself an insurance policy that gets him 90%
of those earnings in-case of injury during his walk year) over 6
years... take a deal where he might only make 55 million or
worse... get only one good year in and 2 player options... and
only earn 55 million? i realize the teams have a lot of
incentive in this structure... but what incentive do players
have? they just need one GM/owner out of 30 that needs to spend
some money to sell tickets and the player ends up with a ton
more money with no downside....
>
> Essentially the marginally utility of dollars 150 million to
210 million are far far lower to the player then the utility of
the dollars from 55 million to 150 million...
>
--- End Quote ---
Like I said, you'd have to play with the numbers, but sooner or
later teams are going to realize that long deals with pitchers
have catastrophic failure rates, and that it would behoove them
to pay much, much more for present services in a manner that
minimizes long term risk. Where that line intersects a given
player's risk tolerance, I'm not sure, but I do believe they
intersect.
In general, free agent deals for star players are not "good
values." Players and teams understand that they are negotiating
around the terms of an individual's maximum positive outcome.
Why not take this one step further?
Perhaps you extend the player option through the life of the
contract in my given scenario. You'd probably also have to raise
the minimum and maximum payments.
#Post#: 186644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: Chris27
Date: July 9, 2014, 11:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> There's an assumptive leap here
--- End Quote ---
No more so than the one you're making, that the Yankees could've
signed Tanaka for less than what they ended up doing.
--- Quote ---
> Most is the key word here. Some did not. And they're all
clustered around the same range. Either way, a deal for a player
who has never faced major league competition should be more
discounted than a deal for the player who resigns with his team.
--- End Quote ---
Only Sabathia and Greinke were free agent deals. Sabathia's was
two years ago; the market has gotten even more ridiculous since.
Greinke's could be considered an overpay based on his track
record, but it's all subjective.
Theoretically, a player who has only pitched in Japan wouldn't
get a massive initial contract but we know that's not how it
works anymore.
#Post#: 186649--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: ticohans
Date: July 10, 2014, 2:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That IS how it worked before the Yanks overpaid Tanaka. Texas'
AAV outlay for Darvish is nowhere near what the Yanks paid.
Again, the crux of the matter is the upside vs downside risk.
There was no upside in this deal, only downside risk. That is
poor decision making, plain and simple. Even if you believe that
Yanks paid "market" value for Tanaka, then the market is
clueless. Would hardly be the first time the baseball market got
it wrong.
#Post#: 186650--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: JR
Date: July 10, 2014, 7:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ticohans link ---
>
> That IS how it worked before the Yanks overpaid Tanaka. Texas'
AAV outlay for Darvish is nowhere near what the Yanks paid.
>
> Again, the crux of the matter is the upside vs downside risk.
There was no upside in this deal, only downside risk. That is
poor decision making, plain and simple. Even if you believe that
Yanks paid "market" value for Tanaka, then the market is
clueless. Would hardly be the first time the baseball market got
it wrong.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think the very nature of a free agency signing is that you're
"overpaying" for that player. After all, to bring him in,
you're most likely paying more than anyone else is willing to
offer him.
And there was plenty of upside for the Yankees in this deal.
They needed a top of the rotation pitcher for the 2014 season
and for at least the next few seasons afterwards, and they felt
he would provide that to them. And up until his elbow getting
hurt, that's what they got from him.
A free agent signing like that isn't meant to be a great long
term investment. A player like Tanaka is signed for what he can
do for you in the near term, within the first handful of years
in the deal. That's where all of the upside is. The Yankees
had a near term hole to fill, and they paid the price they had
to pay to fill that near term need, which was was spread out
over seven years.
It's kind of like what the Alfonso Soriano contract was for us.
We didn't really pay "market" value for him either. We
basically paid the price we had to pay to bring him in because
we had a relatively short term, Nowacrat need to fill. He was
also an "overpay" in terms that we paid him more than anyone
else was willing to offer him at the time.
Kind of like you said, Tanaka's contract is probably more
reflective of the insanity of the baseball player market than
anything else. Baseball teams seem to have plenty of TV,
corporate, and taxpayer financed stadium cash to burn,
especially one like the Yankees. A very talented pitcher +
several teams awash with cash + several teams needing a
frontline pitcher = a very expensive and competitive market for
that pitcher.
#Post#: 186652--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: JR
Date: July 10, 2014, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Baseball free agency should be viewed like this . . .
One individually talented player + Several teams with a need +
Several teams with lots of money = Insanity
Forget about what other players are under contract for at the
time. Forget about what previous players in similar situations
signed for in the past. It's always about that one player in
that one moment in time and several teams ready to try topping
each other with bigger and bigger offers until the insanity
stops.
#Post#: 186658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Around Baseball (06/14 - 08/15)
DIR By: JR
Date: July 10, 2014, 8:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
By the way, just as an aside, a massive baseball free agent
contract like that really shouldn't be viewed as a 7 (Tanaka), 8
(Soriano), or 10 (Pujols) year investment either I don't think.
I think they should be viewed more as a near term cost spread
out over 7-10 years. I'm not sure AAV is really a great way to
evaluate a deal because the main upside in a deal or the main
reason you offer it is what the player can do for you in the
short term. For the most part, though, that short term cost is
spread out over a long period of time.
Albert Pujols, for instance, certainly wasn't signed 10 years
for what he could do for the Angels 10 years later as a 41 year
old. Pujols was brought in to fill a nearer term need for the
Angels. Unfortunately the cost of filling that near term need
was a massive contract to be spread out over 10 seasons. They
may have given him $240 million, but I think that money is spent
more for what he can do for 5-6 seasons instead of 10. It might
make his AAV look a little more "reasonable" compared to other
players in the near term when it's spread out over 10 years, but
if you really think about it and think in terms of them actually
paying him for 5-6 seasons, they're viewing him as a $40 million
per year player, with that cost spread out over 10 seasons
instead of the 5-6 seasons they're actually interested in.
It was the same for Soriano. We didn't sign him for 8 years
because of what he could do for us 8 seasons later. We gave him
8 years because that's what it took to bring him in. We
"overpaid" the rest of the market, but we had a need, we had big
market cash, and he had several other teams interested in him.
No wonder LeBron James looked at Miguel Cabrera's contract and
wished he had taken up baseball. The market for good baseball
players really can be insane.
*****************************************************
Page 14 of 341
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page