Should the Red Sox Look into Punto Pt. 2?

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Right, and that's what I was trying to say. LA's had a 7-year hammer lock on its division, but no WS trophy, and the title drought is going on 32 years. It's quite possible that LA has decided it doesn't just want a collection of good players, it wants an elite player who will help it crest the championship hump right now. In that scenario, they're willing to overpay for a prime season of Mookie. (And even to take on most of Price's deal, because he's someone they might want in their post-season rotation.)
It's possible that they do something not supported by facts. They could get stupid and make us a stupid offer. And I would love that. And hope for it. And sometimes it happens. But I wouldn't expect it, and I wouldn't start holding out for their best stud prospects in your imaginary trades. Plus roster players.
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,657
Mobile, AL
It's possible that they do something not supported by facts. They could get stupid and make us a stupid offer. And I would love that. And hope for it. And sometimes it happens. But I wouldn't expect it, and I wouldn't start holding out for their best stud prospects in your imaginary trades. Plus roster players.
Factor in an intelligent GM and front office team and the odds of them getting stupid get smaller unless there is some directive from ownership to override common sense.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Right, and that's what I was trying to say. LA's had a 7-year hammer lock on its division, but no WS trophy, and the title drought is going on 32 years. It's quite possible that LA has decided it doesn't just want a collection of good players, it wants an elite player who will help it crest the championship hump right now.
Maybe. OTOH, maybe the fact that they've been the kind of disciplined, plan-driven organization that doesn't make lopsided, future-mortgaging GFIN deals is why they've had a 7-year hammerlock on their division. Trading multiple top prospects for one expensive year of a superstar is the kind of high-stakes gamble that can screw you up for a while if it fails.

In that scenario, they're willing to overpay for a prime season of Mookie. (And even to take on most of Price's deal, because he's someone they might want in their post-season rotation.)
File under Things We Once Thought No One on SoSH Would Ever Say.

What a difference one postseason can make.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
Maybe. OTOH, maybe the fact that they've been the kind of disciplined, plan-driven organization that doesn't make lopsided, future-mortgaging GFIN deals is why they've had a 7-year hammer lock on their division. Trading multiple top prospects for one expensive year of a superstar is the kind of high-stakes gamble that can screw you up for a while if it fails.
I swear, I was right in the middle of typing out something similar.

The best way for the Dodgers to win a championship is to keep doing what they are doing and give themselves as many chances as possible to get into the playoffs for as long of a run as they can manage. Keeping young talent seems like an important part of that success. If they really like Mookie, it sure seems like they'll be able to make their pitch after this next season.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Maybe. OTOH, maybe the fact that they've been the kind of disciplined, plan-driven organization that doesn't make lopsided, future-mortgaging GFIN deals is why they've had a 7-year hammerlock on their division. Trading multiple top prospects for one expensive year of a superstar is the kind of high-stakes gamble that can screw you up for a while if it fails.



File under Things We Once Thought No One on SoSH Would Ever Say.

What a difference one postseason can make.
Of course. And, again, I have studiously avoided saying that IS what they're going to do, or even is what they SHOULD do. Just that it does seem possible, and therefore worth exploring if you're Boston. Even smart people can get impatient. It's Chaim's job to see if that's where LA is. If I had to guess, I'd say they probably aren't desperate enough to give the kind of value that most of us want to get back in any Mookie trade. And I say that because of the rumors that they do not want to give up Lux for Lindor.

As for your second point, I almost qualified my parenthetical by saying "the 2018 version of Price is someone they might want in their playoff rotation"...!
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
It's possible that they do something not supported by facts. They could get stupid and make us a stupid offer. And I would love that. And hope for it. And sometimes it happens.
As the point of going to free agency is to see what the Dodgers will pay, I'd say that the Dodgers are probably better able to work out an extension than Boston. So I don't think the rental factor is as big with LA.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The best way for the Dodgers to win a championship is to keep doing what they are doing and give themselves as many chances as possible to get into the playoffs for as long of a run as they can manage. Keeping young talent seems like an important part of that success. If they really like Mookie, it sure seems like they'll be able to make their pitch after this next season.
On the other hand there are only 26 roster spots and hoarding prospects brings diminishing returns (because sooner or later they reach the service time mark and leave your organization). Jeter Downs is a perfect example of surplus. What are they going to do with him? Seager and Lux are ahead of him for middle infield spots and the Dodgers have Omar Estevez and Michael Busch already pushing up the organization at 2B. How many utility IFs do you think LA can fit on that roster?

I never had a problem with Dombrowski cashing in prospects for talent, because frankly that's what they're there for. But they did a poor job of re-stocking the system during his tenure, and now they're paying for it.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Maybe. OTOH, maybe the fact that they've been the kind of disciplined, plan-driven organization that doesn't make lopsided, future-mortgaging GFIN deals is why they've had a 7-year hammerlock on their division. Trading multiple top prospects for one expensive year of a superstar is the kind of high-stakes gamble that can screw you up for a while if it fails.
Of course, the hammerlock didn't start until after the Punto trade. Interesting...
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
If you're gonna give up Mookie and Price while taking back Pollock, you may as well throw in someone like Brandon Workman if that's what it takes to get some combination of May + Lux or Muncy. 31 year old closers coming off career years are more of a luxury to ~84 win teams.

The Dodger bullpen is in need of reinforcements and Friedman seems connected to every reliever on the face of the earth each off-season/trade-deadline.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
The Dodgers division run has had a few phases. After the new ownership took over, they spent like drunken sailors (drunken Steinbrenners?), basically grabbing anyone and everyone they could and then giving away the ones they didn't want anymore. They won NL East titles in 2013-14 this way, but then the CBA changed and Friedman took over and they have been very hesitant to sign or trade for any big money deals since.

A Price/Betts package really swings on what the receiving team thinks of Price. As a Yankee fan it''s hard to take him seriously since he is a BP pitcher against them (over a 9 ERA in Yankee Stadium the last four seasons combined), but Friedman had him back in Tampa and knows him well presumably.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
If you're gonna give up Mookie and Price while taking back Pollock, you may as well throw in someone like Brandon Workman if that's what it takes to get some combination of May + Lux or Muncy. 31 year old closers coming off career years are more of a luxury to ~84 win teams.

The Dodger bullpen is in need of reinforcements and Friedman seems connected to every reliever on the face of the earth each off-season/trade-deadline.
Boston is essentially rebuilding around Bogaerts/Devers/E-Rod, so while losing a bullpen arm hurts in the short term, if it makes LA feel better about sending out May, Downs, and Ruiz as the price of eating Pollock's deal then you may as well.

The Dodgers division run has had a few phases. After the new ownership took over, they spent like drunken sailors (drunken Steinbrenners?), basically grabbing anyone and everyone they could and then giving away the ones they didn't want anymore. They won NL East titles in 2013-14 this way, but then the CBA changed and Friedman took over and they have been very hesitant to sign or trade for any big money deals since.
Friedman's approach has its downsides. They thought they were getting a bargain in Pollock, only to find that they'd signed a corner OF with no power and poor defense. I guess a $47 million mistake is better than a $60 million mistake, but it's a sunk cost at this point as Pollock increasingly looks like a fourth OF.

They do have DJ Peters waiting in the wings to ease that sting, but from an asset management standpoint being able to convert Pollock's dead weight and surplus prospects into Betts (and a stable starter for the middle of the rotation) gives them the luxury of sliding Peters into the fourth OF role (when he's ready) and a long term replacement for Peterson as he nears free agency.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
The Dodgers did make GFIN trades in 2017 (Darvish, probably the biggest 7/31 trade that year) and 2018 (Machado, definitely the biggest trade that year). Those were both mid-season rentals though. And only one well-regarded prospect was involved (Willie Calhoun).

I would actually go so far as to say the Pollock deal is their only real “mistake” of the Friedman era, unless you want to knock them for trading away Alvarez.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
A Price/Betts package really swings on what the receiving team thinks of Price. As a Yankee fan it''s hard to take him seriously since he is a BP pitcher against them (over a 9 ERA in Yankee Stadium the last four seasons combined), but Friedman had him back in Tampa and knows him well presumably.
Again, it’s been reported and reported that the Yankees had identified that Price was tipping pitches, and it has since been fixed. The numbers are of course etched in history (and a tendency to tip pitches is part of a hurler’s overall profile, maybe) but it seems uncharacteristically willfully dismissive of you to assert that that figure is Price’s true talent level vs. the Yankees.

And in the context of his trade value, that matters. The BaseballTradeValues app can’t detect it, but the Red Sox don’t think that he’s a >9.00 ERA pitcher against the Yankees without some massive material disadvantage, and there’s no way that Friedman believes it either.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I would actually go so far as to say the Pollock deal is their only real “mistake” of the Friedman era, unless you want to knock them for trading away Alvarez.
Right, but Price is a bargain at 3/49, adding in a top 5 player that they can probably re-sign and a bullpen arm is a pretty good haul for them. You don't get that for free.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Again, it’s been reported and reported that the Yankees had identified that Price was tipping pitches, and it has since been fixed. The numbers are of course etched in history (and a tendency to tip pitches is part of a hurler’s overall profile, maybe) but it seems uncharacteristically willfully dismissive of you to assert that that figure is Price’s true talent level vs. the Yankees.
I don't honestly care what his value is, I'm just saying that as a Yankee fan, I would rather face him than pretty much any other pitcher in baseball and I will be sad if he is no longer in the BOS rotation. Maybe he was tipping in 2018 as you say, but the results were the same in 2016 and 2017 and 2019. Was he tipping in 2015 too when he had his worst start of the year by far against NY (pitching for DET)?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET201504220.shtml
Or in 2014 when he again had by far his worst start of the year against NY?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET201408270.shtml
This happens sometimes with divisional opponents, they face the other team so much that they get familiar with their pitchers. BOS owned Chapman for 2017 and 2018 before he mostly bounced back against them last year, Tanaka had some horrendous beatings against BOS last year (although one was in London so should come with an asterisk), but the difference with Price/NY is that as he has gradually lost velocity over his career, they have increasingly put together a RHH power-hitting lineup that kills almost all lefties.
 

Teachdad46

New Member
Oct 14, 2011
128
Vermont
Mike Trout is going to be paid $37M/yr for 12 consecutive years (age 27-38). IF on Monday the Sox offered Mookie $35 for the next 12 years (age 27-38) and he took it, would I be happy? I think not. Too many eggs in one basket in my mind. I'm not sure I'd be happy to pay him $35 for the next six years, tbh. I say all this while also acknowledging that Mookie is as fun to root for as any player I've followed for the past 55 years.
I'm guessing (absolutely no basis for it) that the Chaim Gang will also be hesitant to sink so much money into that one basket, and in the end will do the best they can to wring what they can out of their one year of Mookie control. My next guess is that this means trading him at some point between now and the 26th of March.
It may be that the Chicago White Sox are setting the coming trend. They collected an impressive array of young talent, developed it, and are now extending much of that talent beyond their controllable years. If I'm a ChiSox fan, I'm feeling pretty excited about the coming years...
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
It may be that the Chicago White Sox are setting the coming trend. They collected an impressive array of young talent, developed it, and are now extending much of that talent beyond their controllable years. If I'm a ChiSox fan, I'm feeling pretty excited about the coming years...
And because of this, the White Sox can supplement that young core with a top free agent next offseason, like, say, Mookie Betts.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I'm as bearish on big contracts as anybody around here, and even I think that's going too far. The problem is that 6/$210M isn't going to get it done.
Same. If that's what he wanted, it would have already been done. If you want to trim down years, I think it would be something like 5/250.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
To add to this, Mookie has been amazing and is fun to watch in his time with the Sox, but he's going to be playing his age 27 season and player's peaks are trending younger. How transcendent a player is he if he's slugging less than .500 and his OPS is closer to .800 while making $35M/yr? I think a lot of the discussion about paying him whatever it takes is ignoring what we know about the game in favor of an (admittedly understandable) emotional attachment.

When you consider his body type, how well do we really think he's going to age? Comps are inexact to be sure, but his most comparable by ages comes out to either Duke Snider (great) or Grady Sizemore (not so much). Other names high on the list through his age 26 season are David Wright and Matt Kemp, who don't exactly inspire confidence when thinking about a long-term, record setting market rate contract.

Anthony Rendon just got $245/ 7 yrs ($35M per) on the open market; he's 2 years older than Mookie, but I think it will be harder for Mookie to lock into the crazy money of a Harper contract... then again, it only takes one owner to push all the chips in.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,713
Anthony Rendon just got $245/ 7 yrs ($35M per) on the open market; he's 2 years older than Mookie, but I think it will be harder for Mookie to lock into the crazy money of a Harper contract... then again, it only takes one owner to push all the chips in.
The CBA is a factor here too, Mookie hits FA after 2020 and then the current CBA expires one year later. If teams think that the new CBA will 'allow' much more spending by teams before penalties hit, that could help Mookie.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The CBA is a factor here too, Mookie hits FA after 2020 and then the current CBA expires one year later. If teams think that the new CBA will 'allow' much more spending by teams before penalties hit, that could help Mookie.
True, but I swore that the CBT threshold would increase by a lot the last time around ... who knew Tony Clark would screw up such a basic point impacting how teams spend? Unless Manfred really wants to offer relief to the big market teams (and I'm doubtful given how most team owners look like they would rather enforce spending limits), I think it would be very hard for a team near to the CBT threshold to count on a new CBA to rescue them.

Not sure I get this--what about his body type makes him unlikely to age well?
Primarily that he's a human being who does something physically demanding repeatedly for months on end as a core part of his job. Looking at his frame, he's on the smaller side, but I honestly don't know if that would project well (say as someone maintains a top condition through strength and flexibility) or badly (say as someone on the smaller side whose frame can't absorb the knocks inherent in the daily grind of baseball).

Consider it an honest question, but after looking at Andrew McCutchen's career, I think we have to be a lot more careful about what Mookie will really look like at the back end of a deal, as the back end could get here really quick.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Consider it an honest question, but after looking at Andrew McCutchen's career, I think we have to be a lot more careful about what Mookie will really look like at the back end of a deal, as the back end could get here really quick.
Fair enough, but if you're going to name McCutchen as a comp, then you have to give equal time to 5'10" outfielders like Willie Mays and Rickey Henderson.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm thinking about McCutchen only as a leaner player with a fantastic mix of speed and power; I think looking at optimistic physical comparisons was covered with Duke Snyder.

When Pedroia's contract was announced Joe Morgan came up as a comp, and however many short 2Bmen who's careers petered out in their early 30's didn't get mentioned, although I'm willing to wager there are far more of them. If Mookie's contract is going to require him to be an inner circle HOFer for the Sox to get value out of the deal, that's also not a bet I'd take.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
When Pedroia's contract was announced Joe Morgan came up as a comp, and however many short 2Bmen who's careers petered out in their early 30's didn't get mentioned, although I'm willing to wager there are far more of them. If Mookie's contract is going to require him to be an inner circle HOFer for the Sox to get value out of the deal, that's also not a bet I'd take.
Well, if Mookie gets 8/$300M -- and I'm guessing it's going to be somewhere in the very near vicinity of that -- he'll need to accumulate about 38 WAR worth of value between ages 28 and 35 for the signing team to break even. And that's assuming no inflation. Accumulating 38 WAR between 28 and 35 is excellent work, but not necessarily inner-circle HoF work; 65 guys have done it since 1901, and only 41 of them are in the Hall, with another four still on the ballot. It's asking a lot, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the Sox going for it, but it's not like what it's asking for is implausible.
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
he'll need to accumulate about 38 WAR worth of value between ages 28 and 35 for the signing team to break even.
How would that cumulative 38 WAR let the signing team break even? The Dodgers have already won their division the last three seasons (104, 92, 106 wins) and they have a right fielder who compares. They could move Betts to CF but do they need him? If he signed with a team like Miami that has gone 77, 63, 57, would his 38 WAR suddenly put them in contention or even get their attendance out of dead last in the NL?

Besides, bb-ref list 8+ WAR as MVP quality, 5+ as All-Star quality; Betts has certainly put up those type of numbers in his first 5 full seasons and he'll only be about 27.5 when he starts next season.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
How would that cumulative 38 WAR let the signing team break even? The Dodgers have already won their division the last three seasons (104, 92, 106 wins) and they have a right fielder who compares. They could move Betts to CF but do they need him? If he signed with a team like Miami that has gone 77, 63, 57, would his 38 WAR suddenly put them in contention or even get their attendance out of dead last in the NL?

Besides, bb-ref list 8+ WAR as MVP quality, 5+ as All-Star quality; Betts has certainly put up those type of numbers in his first 5 full seasons and he'll only be about 27.5 when he starts next season.
I'm having trouble understanding how any of this is an answer to what you quoted. Just because the signing team breaks even, that doesn't necessarily mean the signing was a good idea. It just means they got about the market value, in terms of on-field production, that they paid for.

As to the bolded, remember that it's the season after next when his contract will start.
 

stepson_and_toe

New Member
Aug 11, 2019
386
Just because the signing team breaks even, that doesn't necessarily mean the signing was a good idea
I wasn't commenting on whether such a signing would be a good or a bad idea' I simply was trying to point out that saying that if he didn't accumulate about 38 WAR between the ages of 28 and 35, it was ridiculous to say that a team signing him wouldn't break even.

And as for your comment, "As to the bolded, remember that it's the season after next when his contract will start," couldn't the team obtaining him in a trade re-sign him to a new contract right away?
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I wasn't commenting on whether such a signing would be a good or a bad idea' I simply was trying to point out that saying that if he didn't accumulate about 38 WAR between the ages of 28 and 35, it was ridiculous to say that a team signing him wouldn't break even.
Well, unless the market value of a win changes over that time (which of course is entirely possible, and perhaps even likely), it's true whether it's ridiculous or not--assuming an 8/$300M contract. This is just arithmetic.

I mean, yes, all extant versions of WAR have serious flaws, so maybe it's better to think of it in terms of sort of ideal/notional WAR rather than any particular formula. The point is that in order to break even on such a contract, a team will need to get production from Mookie whose value can be expressed as 37.5 WAR.

And as for your comment, "As to the bolded, remember that it's the season after next when his contract will start," couldn't the team obtaining him in a trade re-sign him to a new contract right away?
Well, no, not if his own declarations about his intentions can be trusted.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
If he signed with a team like Miami that has gone 77, 63, 57, would his 38 WAR suddenly put them in contention or even get their attendance out of dead last in the NL?
I just want to point out that a. it is silly to think that Miami would sign him, so let's stick with scenarios based on reality and b. you know the 38 WAR estimate doesn't occur all in one year, right? As an isolated move, adding Betts gets you roughly 5-8 extra wins per season over a replacement player. So...its not on its own gonna make Miami a contender or really even move the needle much on their attendance. For future comments, I would recommend avoiding using Miami as an example of a team that might go for Mookie. If they, next offseason, pony up the money to sign him next offseason, I will donate 100 to the Jimmy Fund, no preconditions/matches needed.


More to the point, I think that the entire discussion has really gotten worked up over Mookie and his future that it basically ignores the central premise behind the issue: Do the Sox think they have a reasonable chance at the title this year if they have to make cuts elsewhere? The whole trade thing is about only this year. If management looks at the roster and says "yeah, I think that this roster -heavily subsidized Price is gonna get us there" then I can understand wantng to hold onto Betts. But a lot of the posts I've been reading seem to come from the perspective that assumes 1. If we trade Betts now, he is gone forever and 2. If we keep him this year, he is ours to keep. Neither of those are true.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I just want to point out that a. it is silly to think that Miami would sign him, so let's stick with scenarios based on reality and b. you know the 38 WAR estimate doesn't occur all in one year, right? As an isolated move, adding Betts gets you roughly 5-8 extra wins per season over a replacement player. So...its not on its own gonna make Miami a contender or really even move the needle much on their attendance. For future comments, I would recommend avoiding using Miami as an example of a team that might go for Mookie. If they, next offseason, pony up the money to sign him next offseason, I will donate 100 to the Jimmy Fund, no preconditions/matches needed.


More to the point, I think that the entire discussion has really gotten worked up over Mookie and his future that it basically ignores the central premise behind the issue: Do the Sox think they have a reasonable chance at the title this year if they have to make cuts elsewhere? The whole trade thing is about only this year. If management looks at the roster and says "yeah, I think that this roster -heavily subsidized Price is gonna get us there" then I can understand wantng to hold onto Betts. But a lot of the posts I've been reading seem to come from the perspective that assumes 1. If we trade Betts now, he is gone forever and 2. If we keep him this year, he is ours to keep. Neither of those are true.
The Padres signed Manny Machado so his example isn't crazy. The point is not to say that Miami will spend money. The point is that if a team that sucks chooses to spend money and sign him then it's not all that worthwhile, by itself, which is probably right.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Well, unless the market value of a win changes over that time (which of course is entirely possible, and perhaps even likely), it's true whether it's ridiculous or not--assuming an 8/$300M contract. This is just arithmetic.

I mean, yes, all extant versions of WAR have serious flaws, so maybe it's better to think of it in terms of sort of ideal/notional WAR rather than any particular formula. The point is that in order to break even on such a contract, a team will need to get production from Mookie whose value can be expressed as 37.5 WAR.



Well, no, not if his own declarations about his intentions can be trusted.
The Fangraphs concept of assigning a dollar value to a WAR compilation, to me at least, has alway been a foolish method and has only gotten worse as the league has spread between the cheap guys and rich guys. You don’t see the mid level guys much anymore so I don’t see how you can value a win, which I think is a skewed stat to begin with but that’s a different conversation.

You pay for elite talent, accept that the back end may bite a bit and you make that up by not being the Pirates giving a Jeremy Burnitz $8M or whatever to make your fans think you’re trying.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The Fangraphs concept of assigning a dollar value to a WAR compilation, to me at least, has alway been a foolish method and has only gotten worse as the league has spread between the cheap guys and rich guys. You don’t see the mid level guys much anymore so I don’t see how you can value a win, which I think is a skewed stat to begin with but that’s a different conversation.
As I understand it, FG's method doesn't "assign" a dollar value at all. It just says "teams spent ___ on free agents and got ___ production in return; here's how much they paid per win." I'm not sure why that's foolish, though I may be working the concept a little too hard in talking about a team "breaking even" with a certain amount of production on a hypothetical contract that will play out in a market we haven't seen yet.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
As I understand it, FG's method doesn't "assign" a dollar value at all. It just says "teams spent ___ on free agents and got ___ production in return; here's how much they paid per win." I'm not sure why that's foolish, though I may be working the concept a little too hard in talking about a team "breaking even" with a certain amount of production on a hypothetical contract that will play out in a market we haven't seen yet.

It's foolish to pay $9 mil per WAR even if that is the market value for FA.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
As I understand it, FG's method doesn't "assign" a dollar value at all. It just says "teams spent ___ on free agents and got ___ production in return; here's how much they paid per win." I'm not sure why that's foolish, though I may be working the concept a little too hard in talking about a team "breaking even" with a certain amount of production on a hypothetical contract that will play out in a market we haven't seen yet.
I find it foolish because WAR isn't infallible to begin with and further, assigning dollar value per win is a) paying for past production and b) ignoring other factors, such as bidding wars, desperation, appeasing fans, market etc. It doesn't take injuries into consideration, doesn't factor in the dichotomy an inflation of salaries we've seen, nor the shift of career peaks and trajectories since PED usage has reduced and prime years are now shorter.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
I'm thinking about McCutchen only as a leaner player with a fantastic mix of speed and power;
Big signings are risky, and there's always the chance of catastrophic collapse in any player (look at Grady Sizemore, for example).

But it's worth mentioning that Betts is simply a different caliber of player than McCutchen (or Sizemore) at the same age. Take a gander.

Whatever the merits/demerits of WAR, it does provide a rough framework for understanding a player's value.

Betts is just behind Bonds, Mays, and Musial through age 26 and a fair bit ahead of Tim Raines and Dick Allen (Sizemore and McCutchen are on the next page).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I find it foolish because WAR isn't infallible to begin with and further, assigning dollar value per win is a) paying for past production and b) ignoring other factors, such as bidding wars, desperation, appeasing fans, market etc. It doesn't take injuries into consideration, doesn't factor in the dichotomy an inflation of salaries we've seen, nor the shift of career peaks and trajectories since PED usage has reduced and prime years are now shorter.
It also assumes that WAR is linear and additive, and doesn’t account for the limitation that there can only be 9 people on the field at once, with one at each position.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
Big signings are risky, and there's always the chance of catastrophic collapse in any player (look at Grady Sizemore, for example).

But it's worth mentioning that Betts is simply a different caliber of player than McCutchen (or Sizemore) at the same age. Take a gander.

Whatever the merits/demerits of WAR, it does provide a rough framework for understanding a player's value.

Betts is just behind Bonds, Mays, and Musial through age 26 and a fair bit ahead of Tim Raines and Dick Allen (Sizemore and McCutchen are on the next page).
You're using a cumulative stat to compare players who started their careers at different times. And one that assigns value to defense with the same confidence it does offense. If you just look at offensive rate stats, Mookie is very much closer to McCutchen than he is Willie Mays.

Mookie Betts has been extremely valuable for the Red Sox so far, but 25% of that value comes from his defense. If you don't think he can keep that up (and lots of evidence on defensive aging says he can't), he's not going to be as valuable in the future.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I find it foolish because WAR isn't infallible to begin with and further, assigning dollar value per win is a) paying for past production
"Paying for past production" is something organizations do, not something a number does. Maybe they shouldn't be doing it. But saying that evaluating contracts in terms of $/win is foolish because it quantifies foolish market behavior seem like shooting the messenger.

It also assumes that WAR is linear and additive, and doesn’t account for the limitation that there can only be 9 people on the field at once, with one at each position.
How does WAR fail to account for that limitation? And why is accounting for that limitation crucial to understanding how much value each player produces?

Also, what do you mean by "linear"?
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
You're using a cumulative stat to compare players who started their careers at different times.
No kidding. And if you use WAR/game played, Betts ranks even higher. I think the cumulative number fits, because with the wartime exceptions of Williams and Musial, the best players get more opportunities at a young age. I don't think breaking into the majors at a young age should be held against Andruw Jones, for example.

And sure, there's obviously more confidence on the offensive side. But even if you decide to completely discount defensive numbers and just use wRAA (OFF), Betts is at the level of Miguel Cabrera, and still quite a ways ahead of McCutchen.

This is basically meaningless sample slicing anyways because it's pretty much indisputable that Betts has been a historically great talent. Whether he's worth $400M or whatever is a different story, but people shouldn't be making the case "against" Betts in terms of quality of play.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
"Paying for past production" is something organizations do, not something a number does. Maybe they shouldn't be doing it. But saying that evaluating contracts in terms of $/win is foolish because it quantifies foolish market behavior seem like shooting the messenger.


How does WAR fail to account for that limitation? And why is accounting for that limitation crucial to understanding how much value each player produces?

Also, what do you mean by "linear"?
WAR implies that a 8 WAR player is worth 8 times more than a 1 WAR player. But that’s not true. On the one hand, an 8 WAR player is extremely rare whereas a 1 WAR player can found under most rocks. So the 8 WAR player should get a premium. On the other hand, if a team pays $64 million a year for an 8 WAR player they’re going to blow up their budget. So, netted, the 8 WAR player actually comes at a discount to the linear average.

Likewise, suppose the Yankees really did blow up everything some year and signed players worth 100 WAR on the market. Do you think they’d really go 150-12? If not, then clearly the law of diminishing marginal returns applies to WAR, and you can’t get a team’s projected record by summing the projected WAR of the individual players.

The relationship between player salaries and WAR should be a multivariate regression that is a nonlinear function of WAR, with controls for the current composition of the roster and the overall payroll budget. It is in no way optimal for a team to use y= G * WAR, where G = Avg $ / WAR as a planning tool.
 
Last edited:

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,247
the Trout deal despite the gaudy numbers is still a bargain for him. and he clearly wanted to stay in LAA.

Mookie never has taken a bargain - even signing out of the draft, he stuck to what he wanted until the Sox gave in. sometimes it just comes down to the personality of the [superstar] player what happens. I fully believe he declined the 8/200 and I'm not sure we'll go much higher now (at least in AAV).
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
Just out of curiosity, how did you come up with that number?
It's pretty simple: Betts has long been thought of as a "5-tool" player but last season his stolen base numbers dropped to 16, so I think we can safely subtract "good baserunning" from his set of tools. As a result, he is now a 4 tool player. Defense is one of them; one divided by 4 is 25%. If he can't get his average back above .300, we'll ahev to downgrade him to a 3-tool player.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
Just out of curiosity, how did you come up with that number?
If you look at baseball reference, he has about 30 WAR from offense and ~10 war from defense. I'm guessing those are the numbers he's using. That defensive value is based on their Defensive Runs Saved stat.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
WAR implies that a 8 WAR player is worth 8 times more than a 1 WAR player. But that’s not true.
OK, I see what you're saying. It's $/WAR, not WAR itself, that implies this (all WAR says is that the 8-WAR guy's team will win 8 more games than they would if they instead used the 1-WAR guy; the relationship between additional wins and additional dollars is what the market decides). But yes, to the extent that the price of WAR is an average derived from a market that's skewed at the extremes, it's an inherently flawed lens for looking at any specific contract. Fair enough.

Likewise, suppose the Yankees really did blow up everything some year and signed players worth 100 WAR on the market. Do you think they’d really go 150-12?
Well, considering that in order to get to 100 WAR you have to fill the roster with the best players at every position (including the bench and bullpen), I don't know that I'd bet against it. I mean, I get that diminishing marginal returns are a thing, but I'm not sure how many games a team with a bench of Realmuto, Correa, Rendon and Judge, and Verlander and Sale as the 4/5 starters, would actually lose.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
It's pretty simple: Betts has long been thought of as a "5-tool" player but last season his stolen base numbers dropped to 16, so I think we can safely subtract "good baserunning" from his set of tools. As a result, he is now a 4 tool player. Defense is one of them; one divided by 4 is 25%. If he can't get his average back above .300, we'll ahev to downgrade him to a 3-tool player.
This post is amazing

WAR implies that a 8 WAR player is worth 8 times more than a 1 WAR player. But that’s not true. On the one hand, an 8 WAR player is extremely rare whereas a 1 WAR player can found under most rocks. So the 8 WAR player should get a premium. On the other hand, if a team pays $64 million a year for an 8 WAR player they’re going to blow up their budget. So, netted, the 8 WAR player actually comes at a discount to the linear average.

Likewise, suppose the Yankees really did blow up everything some year and signed players worth 100 WAR on the market. Do you think they’d really go 150-12? If not, then clearly the law of diminishing marginal returns applies to WAR, and you can’t get a team’s projected record by summing the projected WAR of the individual players.

The relationship between player salaries and WAR should be a multivariate regression that is a nonlinear function of WAR, with controls for the current composition of the roster and the overall payroll budget. It is in no way optimal for a team to use y= G * WAR, where G = Avg $ / WAR as a planning tool.
You’re right that this is how it should work. But it has been looked at several times, and it doesn’t appear to. FA contracts, the arb system, and implied trade values point towards a linear $/WAR valuation that prices wins produced by 2 WAR players roughly the same as 6 WAR players.

If anything observed market behavior suggests the opposite is true; the curve bends the other way. Mike Trout is easier to project than almost anyone; barring injury, he’ll give you 8+ WAR. Yet not only does he not earn a premium for packing all that value into a single roster spot, he doesn’t even reach the average $/WAR, which would imply an AAV of perhaps $50m, depending on how you project him to age.

(I’ve made this point before, but I’d note that the fact that these outlier players are underpaid on this basis is an argument for giving Mookie Betts $360m.)