Tulo's extension

[John Cocktoston]

There's really no straw man. It's not a hypothetical position, or even an overstatement of anyone's position. It's a sentiment expressed with a surprising regularity in the last day or two.

This thread notwithstanding, if you haven't heard people criticizing the Rockies for this contract, you might want to head over to the Denver Post, Purple Row or any number of other sites, BRJ.

Most of the criticism centers on his home/road splits and the fact that the contract is the largest ever for a player with less than two years service time. Today I had someone tell me that it's a bad contract because it ties up money that could otherwise be used to retain Holliday at a time when Tulo would be obligated to play for the minimum anyway.

[Heltonfan]

Most of the criticism centers on his home/road splits and the fact that the contract is the largest ever for a player with less than two years service time.

It amazes me that people are stupid enough to think that extreme home-road splits make a player less valuable. Why should we care if the distribution of performance is different if the overall value is the same?

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

It amazes me that people are stupid enough to think that extreme home-road splits make a player less valuable. Why should we care if the distribution of performance is different if the overall value is the same?

Why even bother putting in your park adjustments then if it's stupid? Of couse those splits matter to a player's value. There have been Coors Field creations before, and such players should objectively be seen as less valuable than the real thing whose talent goes beyond just finding more holes in our spacious grounds at altitude.

Now maybe a temporary Coors Field creation would keep producing great in Coors Field if he stayed there forever and we shouldn't care about the split so much as mentioned, but I do think those environmentally-aided phony numbers would say a great deal about the actual TALENT of the individual. And less talented players propped up by circumstance only are more likely to hit the skids and be exposed in the future I'd argue compared to their more talented counterparts who can hit anywhere, even if the weaker hitter stayed in the same place they had some success before. It would matter to me, anyway, if I was going to assign some value to one hitter versus another and write them a check.

Those splits for our players matter for another reason. Building a team of Coors Field creations who rock at home and suck on the road has never been a great formula for legitimate success, no matter what the spreadsheets say about the distribution not mattering to overall totals. One of the reasons this current Rockies team advanced further than any other arguably was their ability to win more road games and compete in any ballpark on any day. If you can only win in Coors Field with players who only produce there, you aren't going to get terribly far with that tried and failed strategy. I don't want a team full of extreme splits that goes into losing streaks every time they get on a plane out of town.

As for our young SS and his extension, I don't think we know enough about Tulo offensively yet after a very inconsistent first season in the box. He looked fantastic at times and horrible in other stretches as rookies often do. There is some hope in his scouting evaluations and developmental production, but he still needs to prove himself at the big league level at the plate to realize his potential there.

To me, they paid him WAY too much WAY too soon if it is mostly for defense and HOPE that he'll be an excellent hitter too. The highest contract ever for a rookie can't be mostly for defense when defense is so affordable to acquire otherwise.

Tulo isn't a bad bet at all, but it is just really odd timing and something that should have been much lower on the priorities list this off-season IMO. Despite that, I'm personally glad he'll be around for a while (although he was going to be anyway) and happy the organization is taking some steps to secure the core of the team (even if somewhat unneccessary and counter-productive to their competitive window with Holliday).

[BigRapidsJackass]

Well, Aspire, I guess we've found our critic of the deal after all.

Look, they may very well let Holliday walk. But taking all that talk off the table until at least June 2009 seems pretty sensible to me.

Tulo is a tremendously valuable young player. In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that prior to this deal he was the single most valuable commodity in all of baseball: very high level of performance for 2 years of minimum salary, then 3 years under club control (using Tango's guesstimate) at roughly 40/60/80% of his market value.

This deal does nothing to change that.

Right now, the book is pretty much closed on the Rox offseason. In a nutshell:

1. Charlie and Dick definitely kept their word on opening up the pursestrings. I don't know what salary will come in at for 2008, but I can assure you the Rox will be somewhere near the median, not way below as they've been the last few years.

2. O'Dowd got the big things right: lock up Cook, take the Holliday thing off the table until free agency, continue to make longterm commitments to valuable commodities but avoid making them otherwise (Kaz Matsui).

3. O'Dowd continues to make questionable decisions on the little things. We've been through this before. Kip Wells, Luis Vizcaino, Mark Redman, Fuentes, Torrealba. None of them really bad deals in and of themselves. But nobody remotely likely to make the club better next year. It is an ultraconservative strategy; it's exactly what O'Dowd got used to doing when his job was on the line. He had to avoid a 65-win disaster to keep his job. But it was worth taking on a little risk this offseason to try to get this club over the hump again, and O'Dowd didn't do it. HF hit the nail on the head in an earlier thread: O'Dowd fell into the previous-year winner's fallacy of assuming that a 90-win club should start out (roster being roughly the same) expecting a 90-win year the next season.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

It amazes me that people are stupid enough to think that extreme home-road splits make a player less valuable. Why should we care if the distribution of performance is different if the overall value is the same?

There is another potential blunder that can come from this in the real world. If you pay your extreme-split hitter like he's "just as valuable" as a more legitimate talent that is less dependent upon the ballpark for assistance, you've vastly decrease your options there and the real asset value to your organization.

Other teams pay attention to splits for hitters in more extreme parks. The trade demand for a hitter who puts up most of his numbers in Coors and struggles on the road just isn't going to be as high, and certainly will be even less if he's over-paid for his actual objective abilities. He doesn't get to take Coors Field with him if he's traded to another team.

Demand may not show up in a numeric value of a player's worth based upon performance alone, but it certainly contributes to their real world worth and as a GM it doesn't hurt having more flexibility with more players in greater demand when trying to build up your organization through all the different avenues.

Tulo is a tremendously valuable young player. In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that prior to this deal he was the single most valuable commodity in all of baseball... This deal does nothing to change that.

That's getting carried away IMO to rank him at the very top like that with such limited experience. I don't understand the rush to such elite greatness there for a player who hasn't really hit outside of Coors and is a fantastic defensive shortstop but not vastly different from some of the other elites with the glove who aren't raved about in the least bit. I hope it all doesn't go to his head, but it certainly could.

And the deal does change things. It adds risk where none was necessary before. It also sets precident for other agents of our up-and-coming youngsters to push for premature payment. Nobody in the history of the game has received this lucrative of a contract at this level of experience. It just seem rather unusual to me and unnecessary. It's not a bad thing but would have been near the bottom of priorities for me this off-season as Tulo wasn't going anywhere and we could have used more help otherwise.

But did they make a wise investment by springing the big dollars on him now for the long-term where it would have cost them significantly more if they waited? Maybe. Time will tell, but with a historic deal larger than anyone before for this level I can't imagine there is a huge savings there even if he performs very well, and certainly more risk for us if he doesn't compared to letting the process play out as it normally would.

[bedir than average]

Other teams pay attention to splits for hitters in more extreme parks.

Who? There aren't many extreme parks - maybe Seattle, SanFran and Boston to varying degrees specifically how they effect certain handedness of hitters.

[hiaspire]

If a hitter was over .300 in Coors with most of his HRs also coming here but barely over .200 on the road with very little road punch, do we think nobody would care about that split or how his environment might be impacting his overall numbers? If that develops into a longer-term pattern does that say nothing about his abilities at the plate if our altitude and dimensions are needed to put up those numbers when struggling elsewhere?

If a left-handed hitter has pretty good power numbers but most of them are the result of the short porch in Yankee stadium where he plays all his home games, would that be of no concern either when a team in a different park wanted to acquire him?

Far too often statistical impacts get smoothed out in averages. The real difference is on the individual level IMO. Not everyone is effected the same way. Not everyone has the same home/away splits on the same team in the same park over the years. Some parks play much better for specific individuals, and not every player has the same game. We have to look deeper than just the generalized numbers for everyone.

It would be a mathematical error in judgement, for example, to brand a park neutral if it strongly aided 50% of the batters but extremely hurt the other 50% to even out for whatever configuation details. When I'm looking at those hitters, I don't care how it treats some averaged person in general. I care about whether the hitter I'm looking at was in the help or hurt group and how that impacts his personal numbers more so than whatever generic park impact is calculated for use in a one-size-fits-all formula in a world where it doesn't fit all usually.

[hiaspire]

Tulowitzki gets $750,000 in each of the next two seasons, $3.5 million in 2010, $5.5 million in 2011, $8.5 million in 2012 and $10 million in 2013. The Rockies have a $15 million option for 2014 with a $2 million buyout.

What if Tulo has a sophomore slump at the plate coming off a long season? He didn't hit very well on the road and really struggled there in the post-season when all eyes were watching. What if a down season after signing a record-breaking deal leads to increased pressure upon himself and he never quite reaches his offensive potential?

Most people don't seem to care if he progresses offensively and he'd be worth it even if he doesn't. Not just here, but in the national media discussing it also.

But is it really wise to guarantee him seasons with $8.5M and $10M down the road for someone coming off only one MLB season with inconsistent offensive production and most of that strongly aided by Coors? If he doesn't become a very good hitter and primarily gives you a great glove over much of that deal, that isn't near worth $10M a year when you could pay a fraction of that for defense in the market otherwise.

Tulo's got to hit, and not just at home. Nobody will care in the first few years under it probably if he doesn't much, but as the salaries explode as it goes along these backloaded deals for less proven players can get real risky real fast if the tide starts going in another direction.

[John Cocktoston]

I'm really struggling to get my head around the reasons why you're concerned that this is a bad contract. Is that what you're saying, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

In the abstract, I can certainly conceive of a scenario such as you describe which would make this a bad deal for the Rockies. But every contract has a risk associated with it. The question is (a) what is the reward associated with that risk and (b) does the likelihood of realizing the reward justify assuming the risk?

Given that formula, I can't see how this contract isn't a good move on the Rockies' part...

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by John Cocktoston

I'm really struggling to get my head around the reasons why you're concerned that this is a bad contract. Is that what you're saying, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

In the abstract, I can certainly conceive of a scenario such as you describe which would make this a bad deal for the Rockies. But every contract has a risk associated with it. The question is (a) what is the reward associated with that risk and (b) does the likelihood of realizing the reward justify assuming the risk?

Given that formula, I can't see how this contract isn't a good move on the Rockies' part...

Some of both probably. There is just too much celebrating over this because everyone loves Tulo, and not enough attention paid to what it could mean about our decision making now that we've got a clean slate again and are supposedly past the bad contract issues.

We don't have a strong track record in terms of contract decisions, do we? This is another example IMO. We didn't need to do this now. Tulo wasn't going anywhere, nor would he be upset if we didn't do this being a team guy.

Aren't there higher priorities right now than guaranteeing a rookie a $8.5 and $10 million season down the road and a record breaking $30M overall for little reason right now?

What if Tulo slumps and Franklin Morales or Ubaldo Jimenez or Ian Stewart or whoever else puts up even bigger numbers in their early careers? Do we only set those financial records for Tulo even if one of them surpasses his production?

It's widely celebrated, but to me seems unnecessarily risky when there was no pressing need to jump the gun here and ASSUME Tulo will be great and someday worth double-digit millions for a single season.

Compare it year-by-year to Grady Sizemore's deal that he broke and Grady's is FAR more reasonable and he's a far better bet offensively -- that's where the big money kicks in and the market doesn't require that kind of expenditure for defense. Grady never gets over $7.5M guaranteed for a season with most under $5.5M with an option that is half of Tulo's for an additional year.

It just doesn't look like as good of a decision as most seem to think with the Tulo infatuation.

[John Cocktoston]

Originally Posted by hiaspire

Some of both probably. There is just too much celebrating over this because everyone loves Tulo, and not enough attention paid to what it could mean about our decision making now that we've got a clean slate again and are supposedly past the bad contract issues.

People are clearly excited for reasons beyond the numbers alone, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing per se. Sure, you don't want to hand out contracts based upon "intangibles" or things like "clutch" or "clubhouse presence". But that doesn't mean that leadership is impossible to quantify or value. The guy is special. I'm sure the sabermetricians just threw up in their mouth when I said that, but some things can't be quantified through regression analysis.

Originally Posted by hiaspire

We don't have a strong track record in terms of contract decisions, do we? This is another example IMO. We didn't need to do this now. Tulo wasn't going anywhere, nor would he be upset if we didn't do this being a team guy.

Team guy or not, had he progressed the way many think he will, he would have gotten a lot more expensive in a hurry. They probably had one shot to do this and it was this winter. Otherwise, he likely could have gone the Holliday route and rode out arbitration while asking for the moon in an extension. Whether it was a good risk or not, it was a risk that was never going to get any cheaper to take.

Originally Posted by hiaspire

Aren't there higher priorities right now than guaranteeing a rookie a $8.5 and $10 million season down the road and a record breaking $30M overall for little reason right now?

Again, I agree that it would have been great to pay Tulo $382,000 this year and put that money elsewhere, but it was a question of timing. They were never going to have the chance to do that deal again.

Originally Posted by hiaspire

What if Tulo slumps and Franklin Morales or Ubaldo Jimenez or Ian Stewart or whoever else puts up even bigger numbers in their early careers? Do we only set those financial records for Tulo even if one of them surpasses his production?

That would be a good problem to have, actually. Far better than the alternative, which is that neither develop as hoped and Tulo rides out arbitration, then leaves. Especially if Holliday is only here for two more years. As much as I hate to say it, Boras is right that there are "franchise players" and Tulo has a chance to be one.

[hiaspire]

I'm not a stats guy and value intangibles, but I disagree there was probably only one chance we'd have to lock him up long-term reasonably. I'd also argue this isn't as reasonable as depicted for a player with some offensive questionmarks.

They didn't give Jeff Francis a huge deal after his rookie season. They waited another year and got something done relatively easily for a young ace of a staff. Tulo is also much like Francis in terms of working with the organization and being a team guy. They haven't done this for anybody else but still have signed many to multi-year deals anyway. In fact, nobody in the HISTORY of baseball has been this highly rewarded this early in their pro careers. It's just very odd that right after getting out of those speculative deals they'd jump right back in and guarantee to pay him probably 10% or more of their payroll (even if they expand into the 80-100M ranges by then) in a couple of future seasons ahead.

Will the Brewers never be able to sign Ryan Braun to a multi-year deal because they didn't do it prematurely like Tulo? I'd bet he signs one next off-season as arbitration starts nearing like you'd more normally expect. I don't think the money would be vastly different then than if they did it now unless the player's performance was significantly changed from year 1 to year 2, and in these cases we are talking about highly awarded performances anyway already with arguably a good possibility that they slip a little in the second season as the league gets more familiar with them and they have to battle high expectations that first time.

For a team with MANY young players and probably more to come in future years as they keep going down this path, the record-setting precident of paying a player prematurely doesn't seem like a good strategy either for us.

They lose very little in waiting another season, as it has applied throughout baseball history except in very extreme cases -- in which this was the most extreme in history for this type of deal.