The Official Offseason Insanity Thread - Page 5

Heltonfan · December 5th, 2006, 09:56 AM

Rotoworld is a great site for news, but hit-and-miss at best when it comes to analysis. Molina is a far better hitter than Matheny ever was, and he's two years younger than Matheny was when he signed; those two aren't remotely comparable.

I have Molina pegged as a 17-RAR player... at $6 million a year, that's $3.5m/win, which in this market is just fine. And again, who are the Giants' other options behind the plate? Eliezer Alfonzo, the 27-year-old with the 74/9 K/BB ratio? Justin Knoedler, the 26-year-old with the .318 OBP in the PCL? With alternatives like that, it's tough to complain about giving Molina three years; a youth movement only makes sense if the youth is remotely promising. And it's not as if the Molina contract is big enough to really limit the Giants financially, either.

Put another way, here are some of the other things one can buy for roughly the same money that Molina is getting:
- 2 years of Nomar Garciaparra
- 3 years of Danys Baez
- 4 years of Justin Speier
I'd take 3 years of Molina over any of those, and it's not a particularly difficult decision. I don't mean to portray this as a great move by Sabean, because it isn't. But it's completely unobjectionable. The notion that a relatively small deal at slightly below market value could possibly rank as "one of the worst moves of the winter" is absurd.

Roxpert · December 5th, 2006, 11:35 AM

OK, Heltonfan, that's a fine justification for the Molina signing. I guess the main point you're making is that when a team is faced with NO good internal options, signing a free agent at or below the "comparables" measured in terms of $$$/win is appropriate.

The key qualifier you made in your post, though, is "in this market", such a contract is just fine. Well, in this market, buying Disney stock today at $34 per share is also fine (which is where it is now), but I wouldn't want to saddle my investment fund with it, paying a 5-year high, for the next three years.

This is not meant as investment advice, but I think "in this market", the greater-fools are reigning. The Giants needed a solid catcher, but if it won't matter to their playoff hopes, wouldn't the team be better off keeping that $15 million in T-bills?

Heltonfan · December 5th, 2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

The key qualifier you made in your post, though, is "in this market", such a contract is just fine.

Right... but that could go either way. There could be a market correction, or things could get even crazier. Judging from the fact that salaries in MLB have continually increased throughout the years (even after teams came to regret the madness of the A-Rod/Manny/Hampton winter), and from the fact that the league is pulling in more revenue than ever before, I'd be surprised if the league-wide $/win goes down. But as you know, I'm no economics expert...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roxpert

The Giants needed a solid catcher, but if it won't matter to their playoff hopes, wouldn't the team be better off keeping that $15 million in T-bills?

Only if the money would actually be re-invested in future years, when they're more likely to contend. But as we know, teams don't usually operate that way; I'm guessing that Sabean is given an annual budget to work with. And in that case, as long as Molina doesn't preclude them from making a better addition within the next three years, his contract does them no harm.

Not to mention, by that logic, the Giants ought to have stayed away from Durham and Roberts as well. If they did that, they'd have a 69-win team. Which might be tolerable if the team was filled with talented youngsters (like in Tampa, for instance). But a 69-win team "led" by the likes of Omar Vizquel, Noah Lowry, and Todd Linden? That's just depressing, and it could very easily hurt their attendance figures.

The Giants are, in all probability, doomed until they start getting something out of their farm system. But in the meantime, they really have nothing to lose by attempting to put at least a semi-competitive team on the field. Yes, Brian Sabean is an idiot. But his mistake is not signing Molina, it's putting the team in a situation where Molina is the best available option.

Roxpert · December 5th, 2006, 03:05 PM

Right... but that could go either way. There could be a market correction, or things could get even crazier. Judging from the fact that salaries in MLB have continually increased throughout the years (even after teams came to regret the madness of the A-Rod/Manny/Hampton winter), and from the fact that the league is pulling in more revenue than ever before, I'd be surprised if the league-wide $/win goes down. But as you know, I'm no economics expert...

Well, I'm no economics expert either, but I am a professional investor. One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone wants to buy at market-tops, and you almost can't give stocks away at market bottoms. In the MLB free-agent player market this winter, it truly feels like a market top to me.

You are correct that the long-term salary trend is higher. In 1974, before free-agency, the average player salary was about $60,000 per year. In 2006, the average player salary was $2.9 million! For those who are curious, that's a compound annual salary increase of 12.9%.

In 1981, Disney's stock was $1.12 per share. Today, it closed at $34.20 per share. That's a compound annual increase of 14.7%! However, it's still over 17% below it's April-2000 all-time high of $41.37 per share. If you had bought it that day, by August of 2002, you would have been down 65% at the low of $14.38 per share. Even though Disney has been a great 25-year investment, you could lose your shirt if your timing is wrong.

While player contracts may not be as "volatile" as common stocks, I think the lesson learned from 2000/01 may be lost on a few owners this offseason. Notice that the largest spenders this offseason so far are teams with newer owners who weren't around during the last player "bull market top", namely the Angels and Dodgers. The Cubs are playing with "other people's money" as a public company that may be taken private or sold soon. Plus, their president is new and wasn't around in 2000.....so he's "like a new owner".

As for the Giants, Brian Sabean has boxed himself into corner, which is an idiotic thing to do. He MUST keep AT&T Park full or close to it, as the Giants financed the stadium and have debt service on it, and Giant fans were famously fickle in the Candlestick days. He has to "feign competitiveness" even if he doesn't really have a fighting chance. Thus, the Molina, Durham and Aurilia signings. Also, that's why they still will probably end up bringing back Barry Bonds. They have a dim future, so must try to string out this current era as long as possible and milk it for all it's worth!

If the Giants were a stock, I'd short it! (BTW, if the Rox were a stock, I'd have been short since 1999.)

BigRapidsJackass · December 5th, 2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Judging from the fact that salaries in MLB have continually increased throughout the years (even after teams came to regret the madness of the A-Rod/Manny/Hampton winter), and from the fact that the league is pulling in more revenue than ever before, I'd be surprised if the league-wide $/win goes down. But as you know, I'm no economics expert...

I think that's right. The trend is up, up, up. Not salaries increasing geometrically, but a trend line up that is only momentarily interrupted by short bouts of fiscal discipline (or are they short bouts of collusion?).

And that's why I'm such a one-note act on the Rockies cheapskate ways.

We hear over and over and over again about "not repeating the mistakes" of the Hampton/Neagle (and, what is never mentioned but should be ... Helton) years.

But as I'm sure Roxpert knows, this is starting to sound like the guy who pats himself on the back for avoiding losses because he's had all his money in CDs and cash equivalents since the 1987 stock market plunge. He never recognizes that he lost out on two of the tremendous gains in the market over the last two decades.

I'm no genius on player projections; I'm just an informed fan. But I'll use myself as an example. After the '04 season -- when the Rockies were still acting like they'd spend $50 million or so on salary -- I suggested that Jermaine Dye would've been a good/reasonably priced acquisition. The White Sox nabbed him for 2 years/$10.5 million, with an '07 option for $6.75 million.

After his last 2 years, what would his trade value be today? Or after the '05 season? If the Rox had signed him for the '05 season, they could've dealt him for the kind of player the Marlins got last year in a number of their deals. In fact, the Marlins did exactly that with Carlos Delgado: they got one good season out of him at a market rate, then with salaries continuously increasing they were able not only to get out of the rest of his contract, but also get a couple good prospects from the Mets.

So "standing pat" is not risk free. There's an opportunity cost to doing nothing. Salaries keep going up, and the Rockies annual post-season dumpster dive gets more and more expensive. Washed up relievers could be acquired for under a million bucks after the '03 season (Turk Wendell). The same crap cost $2.5 million after '05 (Jose Mesa) and $3.5 million (LaTroy Hawkins -- not quite as obviously crap, but I'm not holding out much hope) after '06. Meanwhile, the Bobby Howrys of the world are looking like bargains, and our cheapskate ownership hasn't locked any of them up.

8 year contracts for pitchers? Stupid.

Not "laddering" your contracts, and being a slave to the market for player salaries every offseason? Stupid too.

Heltonfan · December 5th, 2006, 07:39 PM

J.D. Drew to the Red Sox is a done deal. 5 years, $70 million, the best bargain of the offseason thus far. I have Drew projected at 45 RAR... the Red Sox are paying $2.9m/win for a legitimate star. Between Drew and Matsuzaka - while the Yankees sit around doing absolutely nothing (or worse, i.e. Igawa) - Theo & Co. are having quite a winter.

GerryInCS · December 5th, 2006, 09:33 PM

The BoSox just locked up Lugo to play SS. I didn't see the specifics, though

GoldGlove · December 5th, 2006, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

I have Drew projected at 45 RAR... the Red Sox are paying $2.9m/win for a legitimate star.

Still, that number could escalate if Drew gets hurt (a distinct possibility) and does not quite reach that 45 RAR level. Or does RAR somehow factor the injury risk/games played factor in?

GoldGlove · December 5th, 2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GerryInCS

The BoSox just locked up Lugo to play SS. I didn't see the specifics, though

4 years, $36 million

Heltonfan · December 5th, 2006, 10:09 PM

My projections don't consider injuries, no. But I'm not at all sold on the idea that Drew is a serious health risk. His only significant injury over the past three years was a classic fluke accident (HBP, broken wrist); I don't see any reason to think that that sort of thing has predictive value.

hoser · December 6th, 2006, 05:34 PM

Every other year of Drew's career he has missed roughly 50 to 60 games. In 2005 he missed roughly 90 games which was his worst year for games played. Following the pattern of his career this would be the year when he's due to miss another 50 to 60 games.

I think there is most definitely reason to be skeptical he'll be in the lineup all year long.

Heltonfan · December 7th, 2006, 12:00 PM

Gil Meche signs with the Royals... 5 years, $55 million. Seriously.

Here's what Meche has done over the past three years:
2004: 185 IP, 5.10 FIP, 4.68 ERC
2005: 143 IP, 4.70 FIP, 4.69 ERC
2006: 187 IP, 4.37 FIP, 4.23 ERC

Here's what Josh Fogg has done over the past three years:
2004: 178 IP, 4.32 FIP, 4.25 ERC
2005: 169 IP, 4.84 FIP, 4.91 ERC
2006: 172 IP, 4.23 FIP, 4.59 ERC

Projections: Meche 4.64, Fogg 4.66.

Meche: 5 years, $55 million.
Fogg: could be non-tendered.

Unbelievable.

wolf213 · December 7th, 2006, 12:12 PM

Funny thing is, I've liked a lot of the moves that Moore has done since he took over in KC, but this one makes me vomit.

Horrible Signing, and with it I think any hope of resigning Jennings goes out the Window also. Lets hope we get a nice return, and don't get fleeced by GM's who know we can't pay for him anyways.

Roxpert · December 7th, 2006, 01:04 PM

With the Royals making big dollar commitments to mediocre players, one wonders how the Rockies can just sit tight and do next to nothing this offseason. I suppose that would be better than throwing money at overpriced pitchers like Meche, but at some point the Rox could be near league "rock-bottom" in team payroll, even at $52 million.

One has to wonder just what is going on in the "minds" over at 20th and Blake right now.

hiaspire · December 7th, 2006, 01:30 PM

I wouldn't have signed Meche to a big deal either, but I like new GM Moore too and think he might have made a better move than given credit for in taking pitching away from contenders who were also going after him. KC isn't a popular free agent destination these days, but they have some resources to invest this season and need to turn around the fan attitudes there by making some moves and showing that things will be different. He may have some Atlanta-like intentions of focusing on a pitching staff, but Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt ain't coming to town so they have to do what they can otherwise.

Fogg and Meche may look identical on paper or by certain statistical viewpoints, but they are nothing close to that on the mound from scouting eyes.

Meche has much better stuff and much higher performance ceiling. He has suffered through some injury/confidence issues in the past, but looked like he was turning a corner last year when finally healthy. Talent doesn't always show up on paper (especially during seasons with lingering injury issues) but for those scouting him closely it does impact interest.

I know it is popular to call people in the game idiots here or pass superior judgment, but I think it would be equally foolish to equate Meche to Fogg. Meche certainly is a gamble for many reasons, but not without sufficient talent to support the large interest in him. Nobody has that same kind of interest in Fogg.

December 5th, 2006, 03:05 PM	#64 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	Right... but that could go either way. There could be a market correction, or things could get even crazier. Judging from the fact that salaries in MLB have continually increased throughout the years (even after teams came to regret the madness of the A-Rod/Manny/Hampton winter), and from the fact that the league is pulling in more revenue than ever before, I'd be surprised if the league-wide $/win goes down. But as you know, I'm no economics expert... Well, I'm no economics expert either, but I am a professional investor. One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone wants to buy at market-tops, and you almost can't give stocks away at market bottoms. In the MLB free-agent player market this winter, it truly feels like a market top to me. You are correct that the long-term salary trend is higher. In 1974, before free-agency, the average player salary was about $60,000 per year. In 2006, the average player salary was $2.9 million! For those who are curious, that's a compound annual salary increase of 12.9%. In 1981, Disney's stock was $1.12 per share. Today, it closed at $34.20 per share. That's a compound annual increase of 14.7%! However, it's still over 17% below it's April-2000 all-time high of $41.37 per share. If you had bought it that day, by August of 2002, you would have been down 65% at the low of $14.38 per share. Even though Disney has been a great 25-year investment, you could lose your shirt if your timing is wrong. While player contracts may not be as "volatile" as common stocks, I think the lesson learned from 2000/01 may be lost on a few owners this offseason. Notice that the largest spenders this offseason so far are teams with newer owners who weren't around during the last player "bull market top", namely the Angels and Dodgers. The Cubs are playing with "other people's money" as a public company that may be taken private or sold soon. Plus, their president is new and wasn't around in 2000.....so he's "like a new owner". As for the Giants, Brian Sabean has boxed himself into corner, which is an idiotic thing to do. He MUST keep AT&T Park full or close to it, as the Giants financed the stadium and have debt service on it, and Giant fans were famously fickle in the Candlestick days. He has to "feign competitiveness" even if he doesn't really have a fighting chance. Thus, the Molina, Durham and Aurilia signings. Also, that's why they still will probably end up bringing back Barry Bonds. They have a dim future, so must try to string out this current era as long as possible and milk it for all it's worth! If the Giants were a stock, I'd short it! (BTW, if the Rox were a stock, I'd have been short since 1999.) Last edited by Roxpert; December 5th, 2006 at 03:08 PM.

December 5th, 2006, 07:39 PM	#66 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Drew to Boston J.D. Drew to the Red Sox is a done deal. 5 years, $70 million, the best bargain of the offseason thus far. I have Drew projected at 45 RAR... the Red Sox are paying $2.9m/win for a legitimate star. Between Drew and Matsuzaka - while the Yankees sit around doing absolutely nothing (or worse, i.e. Igawa) - Theo & Co. are having quite a winter.

December 7th, 2006, 01:30 PM	#75 (permalink)
hiaspire Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 481	I wouldn't have signed Meche to a big deal either, but I like new GM Moore too and think he might have made a better move than given credit for in taking pitching away from contenders who were also going after him. KC isn't a popular free agent destination these days, but they have some resources to invest this season and need to turn around the fan attitudes there by making some moves and showing that things will be different. He may have some Atlanta-like intentions of focusing on a pitching staff, but Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt ain't coming to town so they have to do what they can otherwise. Fogg and Meche may look identical on paper or by certain statistical viewpoints, but they are nothing close to that on the mound from scouting eyes. Meche has much better stuff and much higher performance ceiling. He has suffered through some injury/confidence issues in the past, but looked like he was turning a corner last year when finally healthy. Talent doesn't always show up on paper (especially during seasons with lingering injury issues) but for those scouting him closely it does impact interest. I know it is popular to call people in the game idiots here or pass superior judgment, but I think it would be equally foolish to equate Meche to Fogg. Meche certainly is a gamble for many reasons, but not without sufficient talent to support the large interest in him. Nobody has that same kind of interest in Fogg. Last edited by hiaspire; December 7th, 2006 at 01:33 PM.

December 5th, 2006, 09:56 AM	#61 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Rotoworld is a great site for news, but hit-and-miss at best when it comes to analysis. Molina is a far better hitter than Matheny ever was, and he's two years younger than Matheny was when he signed; those two aren't remotely comparable. I have Molina pegged as a 17-RAR player... at $6 million a year, that's $3.5m/win, which in this market is just fine. And again, who are the Giants' other options behind the plate? Eliezer Alfonzo, the 27-year-old with the 74/9 K/BB ratio? Justin Knoedler, the 26-year-old with the .318 OBP in the PCL? With alternatives like that, it's tough to complain about giving Molina three years; a youth movement only makes sense if the youth is remotely promising. And it's not as if the Molina contract is big enough to really limit the Giants financially, either. Put another way, here are some of the other things one can buy for roughly the same money that Molina is getting: - 2 years of Nomar Garciaparra - 3 years of Danys Baez - 4 years of Justin Speier I'd take 3 years of Molina over any of those, and it's not a particularly difficult decision. I don't mean to portray this as a great move by Sabean, because it isn't. But it's completely unobjectionable. The notion that a relatively small deal at slightly below market value could possibly rank as "one of the worst moves of the winter" is absurd.

December 5th, 2006, 11:35 AM	#62 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	OK, Heltonfan, that's a fine justification for the Molina signing. I guess the main point you're making is that when a team is faced with NO good internal options, signing a free agent at or below the "comparables" measured in terms of $$$/win is appropriate. The key qualifier you made in your post, though, is "in this market", such a contract is just fine. Well, in this market, buying Disney stock today at $34 per share is also fine (which is where it is now), but I wouldn't want to saddle my investment fund with it, paying a 5-year high, for the next three years. This is not meant as investment advice, but I think "in this market", the greater-fools are reigning. The Giants needed a solid catcher, but if it won't matter to their playoff hopes, wouldn't the team be better off keeping that $15 million in T-bills?

December 5th, 2006, 09:33 PM	#67 (permalink)
GerryInCS New Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 635	The BoSox just locked up Lugo to play SS. I didn't see the specifics, though

December 5th, 2006, 10:09 PM	#70 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	My projections don't consider injuries, no. But I'm not at all sold on the idea that Drew is a serious health risk. His only significant injury over the past three years was a classic fluke accident (HBP, broken wrist); I don't see any reason to think that that sort of thing has predictive value.

December 6th, 2006, 05:34 PM	#71 (permalink)
hoser Rookie Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 13	Every other year of Drew's career he has missed roughly 50 to 60 games. In 2005 he missed roughly 90 games which was his worst year for games played. Following the pattern of his career this would be the year when he's due to miss another 50 to 60 games. I think there is most definitely reason to be skeptical he'll be in the lineup all year long.

December 7th, 2006, 12:00 PM	#72 (permalink)
Heltonfan Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Yerevan, Armenia Posts: 902	Gil Meche signs with the Royals... 5 years, $55 million. Seriously. Here's what Meche has done over the past three years: 2004: 185 IP, 5.10 FIP, 4.68 ERC 2005: 143 IP, 4.70 FIP, 4.69 ERC 2006: 187 IP, 4.37 FIP, 4.23 ERC Here's what Josh Fogg has done over the past three years: 2004: 178 IP, 4.32 FIP, 4.25 ERC 2005: 169 IP, 4.84 FIP, 4.91 ERC 2006: 172 IP, 4.23 FIP, 4.59 ERC Projections: Meche 4.64, Fogg 4.66. Meche: 5 years, $55 million. Fogg: could be non-tendered. Unbelievable.

December 7th, 2006, 12:12 PM	#73 (permalink)
wolf213 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Thornton Co Posts: 197	Funny thing is, I've liked a lot of the moves that Moore has done since he took over in KC, but this one makes me vomit. Horrible Signing, and with it I think any hope of resigning Jennings goes out the Window also. Lets hope we get a nice return, and don't get fleeced by GM's who know we can't pay for him anyways.

December 7th, 2006, 01:04 PM	#74 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,082	With the Royals making big dollar commitments to mediocre players, one wonders how the Rockies can just sit tight and do next to nothing this offseason. I suppose that would be better than throwing money at overpriced pitchers like Meche, but at some point the Rox could be near league "rock-bottom" in team payroll, even at $52 million. One has to wonder just what is going on in the "minds" over at 20th and Blake right now.