The Official Offseason Insanity Thread

[CSM]

KRIV-TV in Houston is reporting that Carlos Lee and the Astros have agreed to terms on a six-year contract rumored to be worth 80 to 90 million.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...2006&fext=.jsp

[RMF]

ESPN just reported 6 years 100 million. Oh my, that is mammoth.

[Heltonfan]

ESPN.com says 6 years, $100 million for Lee. Ouch.

I suppose that Houston is a good fit for him; as a right-handed slugging left fielder with poor range, the Crawford Boxes should help him both offensively and defensively. But even if those factors are worth an extra 10 runs per year (a very generous estimate), they're still paying Lee $5m/win in 2007, and more than that as he declines in future years. I'd much rather have Soriano at 8/136 than Lee at 6/100 - this is the worst contract of the winter thus far.

Put another way: Lee gets 6/100, Roy Oswalt got 5/73. Oswalt's deal is pretty fair, I think... and he's twice as valuable a player as Lee is.

[GoldGlove]

$100 million for Lee? Sheesh. It's definitely looking like this is a good year to stay out of the free agent market. On the flip side, this is a great year to try to upgrade to younger, cheaper players via trades. If O'Dowd handles the Jennings situation well, we could get quite a nice deal for him, especially once the mediocre pitchers like Suppan and Padilla get their big deals.

[GoldGlove]

Apparently Hawpe has been on the Pirates' radar and they are offering Paul Maholm, but the Rockies want more in return (Tom Gorzelanny?) than that.

Also, here's an interesting snippet from the RMN and Tracy Ringolsby:

****

Let's see, Keith Law is forced out as an adviser to Toronto general manager J.P. Ricciardi, and ESPN makes him an instant celebrity in his evaluation of everything from amateur draft choices to MVP voting.

Law runs his statistical analyses and gets personal with those with whom he disagrees.

Wonder if he is using the same analysis system that helped him in Toronto when the Blue Jays signed Eric Hinske to that four-year contract and proclaimed him the foundation for the Jays' future?

Was it the same approach to evaluation that led to the Jays using back-to-back first-round picks on Russ Adams and Aaron Hill, neither of whom emerged as the needed shortstop?

****

What does Ringolsby have against Law? I don't always agree with Law, but he usually writes some pretty interesting pieces. Strange to see Ringolsby taking a shot at a fellow baseball writer like that.

[Heltonfan]

A different kind of insanity on display today... and unfortunately for us, it benefits the Diamondbacks. The trade: Doug Davis, Dana Eveland, and Dave Krynzel for Johnny Estrada, Claudio Vargas, and Greg Aquino.

Chris Snyder is every bit as good as Estrada, so the D'Backs lose nothing there. And the starting pitchers in the deal project as follows: Davis 3.89, Eveland 4.31, Vargas 4.66. It's a mind-boggling trade for the Brewers (who have no more need for Estrada than Arizona did), and an absolutely brilliant one for the D'Backs.

Davis is every bit as valuable as Jennings (identical ERC projections, both one year from FA, and Davis is actually making $2 million less than JJ in '07). And the D'Backs got him, plus addition to a young pitcher who should be a perfectly good 4th starter for the next six years, without giving up anyone who fit into their plans. That's highway robbery.

ERC projections for D'Backs rotation candidates/top prospects: Webb 3.20, Davis 3.89, Ed. Gonzalez 4.15, Eveland 4.31, Hernandez 4.35, En. Gonzalez 4.39, Owings 4.56, Nippert 4.72. That's ridiculous, Oakland-like pitching depth. Scary stuff.

[hiaspire]

Chris Snyder is every bit as good as Estrada like... I don't know... Lo Duca (.318/.355/.428) is no better than Ramon Castro (.238/.322/.389). It is a similar unfortunate miscalculation IMO.

Estrada is just one of many again being under-valued this off-season numerically. I wish he had gone to the Phillies (as rumored), because I think his capabilities would have been further optimized -- just as I thought Lo Duca was going to an ideal situation to experience a rebirth of his offensive capabilities demonstrated previously. They obviously like him in Milwaukee, though, so hopefully he's a big part of their plans -- and he will stick around longer than Davis was going to. They have done a very good job overall in terms of turning things around there and putting a nucleus together.

You must always remember that these things are also often part of a bigger overall picture setting up other maneuvers and in conjunction with other plans ahead. Trades also often happen for very specific reasons that appear nowhere in any boxscores or statistical breakdowns, but still are made for very legitimate reasons beyond numbers. It sounds like they weren't making much progress in terms of signing Davis -- who they were also somewhat disappointed in last season as his numbers declined.

I like the trade for AZ too, though. All things considered it makes sense for both IMO. Doug Davis was a good pickup in exchange for an area of organizational depth for them -- at a time when they are starting to give more of their young players greater responsibilities and it makes sense to get value for their veteran catcher in demand.

The Brewers might be gearing up to take that next step in their youthful development where they start adding established veteran leaders to their young mix. Not over-the-hill aging veterans like the Rockies sometimes mix in, but well respected all-star producing youngish talent that is under reasonable contract for years ahead and can be a big part of their present as well as the future.

[hiaspire]

I'll also take the many bets also against Carlos Lee. Houston was an excellent landing place for him, and if they can maintain the pitching that has kept them in playoff contention in recent years, I think he's a going to win an MVP award (or at least finish 2nd to Pujols a couple times) in the coming seasons and make a major impact there.

For a guy who hits with as much power as he does without piling up the strikeouts, he gets ripped far too often. I'll take his .300 ave, 37 HRs, and 19 SB again next year without as much complaint. He's a very good contributor who minimizes mistakes (low strikeouts and very rarely caught stealing). I can't find nearly as much to complain about there.

They unquestionably needed a power bat for a non-existent offense, and Lee really fits into their situation nicely. It will also be a very comfortable home for him in many ways (both on the field and off where he's actually coming home). Money is like Monopoly (especially this year) but I would certainly be more willing to invest big in Carlos Lee than some of the others FAR less proven than him this off-season.

This wouldn't be the year financially to do it, but the Rox need to find themselves a big OF bat like that sometime soon.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Nice to see everyone coming over to the new/old board. Thought I'd have some fun with the new name. Let's see who figures it out first.

I like the D'backs deal a lot Here's something I picked up on from BTF, referring to the blog of the D'backs Drew Goodman counterpart:

There are eleven pitchers in the Major Leagues who have made 100 or more starts over the last three seasons. After Saturday’s trade, three of those arms now wear D-backs uniforms. No other team has more than one of these durable pitchers on their staff

So, yeah, Livan Hernandez is one of them, too. But so is Brandon Webb. I think we saw what a durable rotation can do for you last year with our own ironmen, Jennings/Cook/Francis. So simply from that standpoint I think the Dbacks improve.

Remember when we were in the running for Estrada last year? And he was just too expensive with that arbitration salary? Well sometimes it pays to shell out a bit of money. Estrada has a career year in a great hitters' park and the Dbacks spin him into a Jennings caliber starter.

[Heltonfan]

Excellent article by David Gassko at THT, trying to make sense of these massive contracts: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...present-value/

The salary inflation factor is something that we (myself included) tend to overlook. It doesn't really change the overall outlook of any of this winter's contracts (if a contract looks bad for 2007, it's not likely to get any better as the years go by), but it does make the deals look somewhat more palatable.

David mentions the Helton contract as an example of a relatively good long-term deal, and it's tough to argue with that. The Rockies have certainly gotten their money's worth (or very close to it) over the first six years of the deal. And over the remaining five years, Helton is making $73.8 million in 2007 dollars, for a projected 20.5 wins above replacement. That's $3.6 million per win, which beats the heck out of this winter's big signings.

EDIT: I updated the numbers in the first post of this thread to reflect inflation and aging. $8.6 million per win? That C-Lee contract is just incomprehensibly awful.

[hiaspire]

I'd say rating a 1-year wonder like Gary Matthews Jr. higher than him would be awful.

[Heltonfan]

Nobody here is expecting Matthews to match his '06 numbers, or even come particularly close. But unlike Lee, he also has some real defensive value. And the "one-year wonder" thing is nonsense. Matthews was quite good in '04 as well.

The latest bit of madness: Danys Baez to Baltimore, for a reported 3 years, $19 million. Obviously not a big enough deal to be a real back-breaker, but over $6 million a year for a mediocre setup man? Wow.

[hiaspire]

What's nonsense is the strong skew of controversial defensive stats there and the unfair applications of those IMO. Where is the real defensive value of old man Alou's vast range, or Thomas sitting the bench while his team is in the field?

How many successful seasons has Gary Matthews Jr. spent as a full-time everyday contributor for a full season? He's been around a while, making his major league debut in 1999. 1-year wonder is hardly nonsense there. In '04 he was a part-time player with decent numbers (.275 with .350 OBP) in a limited role for 280 ABs. We've all seen the dangers of putting too much value into partial-season results. He hadn't done anything before that or since except this ONE YEAR breakout in his only successful full season on his long resume that included 8 teams in 6 years going into that '04 season.

He isn't magically now a tremendous asset to be rated as highly as you have him there IMO -- especially if you aren't counting on the same uncharacteristic offensive contribution. I wonder where you had him rated last year, because I don't think he's all that vastly different as he's suddenly become for so many mistakenly.

We've talked about over-emphasizing defensive value before when lots of fans liked Danny Ardoin here. Danny and his many good glove friends aren't getting mega deals because they flash the leather. As I said then and now that he's gone, they are dime-a-dozen role players getting minor league deals with a different team each season (not unlike Gary going into '04). Good luck with the Nationals next year Danny, and whoever else the season after that. Put up one good offensive season, though, and everything changes drastically overnight for far too many observers. Someone give a former long-time backup utility player a 5-year deal.

Every deal this year comes with a "wow", but finances in baseball are cyclical. I think there are some very foolish mistakes being made that teams will regret just like the last spending spree and the disaster it caused here. Those major mistakes are much more likely to come from giving NON-PROVEN limited success guys like Matthews big deals than it is rewarding proven all-stars IMO, but you take Matthews and I'll take Lee and we'll see how it shakes out and how you rate them next year.

It is odd, though, that we as fans gripe about the many cheap owners in the game who won't do what it takes to spend to win, but at the same time then complaining about the big contracts that result from that competitive behavior.

It is nonsense to compare different contracts that are driven by different market circumstances and environments as has been done. A team that NEEDS one missing piece to their championship puzzle today doesn't give a darn about a comparable player's contract from 3 years ago under completely different circumstances and market conditions. They just know they need a certain skill that is in limited supply and that they need to pay the current going rate in order to acquire it, or else just go without. We know all about going without here.

[Roxpert]

I like that article, Heltonfan. It's baseball's version of "DCF analysis" that we money managers often use to value a stock. The trick in doing so is to pick 1) the proper discount rate, and 2) pick the amount of unleveraged free cash flow that the business with throw off.

For MLB players, the "discount rate" is the expected salary inflation rate over the life of the contract, while the free cash flow would be marginal wins above replacement level. Viewed that way, I agree that Helton's contract is now (relatively) inexpensive compared to this offseason's free agent signings. What was once thought impossible, trading Helton's contract, is now looking more and more doable, especially if Todd has a resurgence in production in the first half of next season. Not that we'd WANT to trade such a "reasonable" contract or anything of the sort, lol!

Mr. Jackass, I'm going to guess that you are RotoRox. Did I win?

[GoldGlove]

Adam Eaton signs with Phillies...3 years, $24 million...
Randy Wolf signs with Dodgers...1 year, $8 million...