Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Bracketology 2012: Duke Finally Steps Up To The No. 1 Line

King's Ransom: Holliday & The Other Ten-Millionaire OFers

 

i have entered a shiny new realm
a very different and very spoiled world
it's with great pleasure i introduce myself
to call and thank you for such delicious pie

-- Guided by Voices, Big Boring Wedding

Seven is the new six--a serious number, especially when it is the number of years in length of a baseball contract for a player who, in one year's time, will be on the wrong side of thirty. How poetical, then, that Holliday, persumably with an eye on merchandise sales, has given the no. 15 jersey back to the nostalgia of the Aughts and placed his contract's year total on his back, so that every plate appearance, catch in left field, inning played, game won, and year completed, we as fans can constantly be reminded of the one thing many of us found wrong with the new (and, hopefully, soon-to-be-replaced) Biggest Contract In Franchise History: its length. (Take heart fellow VEBers, Mr. DeWitt is not worried about the length.)  

Much ink has been spilt over this deal with some proclaiming it one of the worst in baseball history, others--like our very own chuckb writing under the imaginative nome de plume "Chuck Brownson" (like that could be anyone's real name)--are not thrilled with it, and still more saying the contract isn't really good or bad.  What the contract has done is to raise the spectre of other players who, not so very long ago, signed expensive deals that have evolved into albatrosses for the signors. This Fanpost deals with those members of the surprisingly obscure (I only just heard about it last week), Ten-Millionaires Club and how Holliday, as a player, compares to other players who have joined this club via free agency. While Dan is arbitrarily pulling names like Alfonso Soriano and Vernon Wells out of thin air, I plucked Soriano and Carlos Lee's names arbitrarily out of the same big-contract ether earlier in the Hot Stove (funny how our rivals' prize of a Hot Stove Past immediately comes to mind when contemplating albatross contracts), purely as a "be careful what you wish for" type of warning. Deservedly, the poorness of my comparisons was pointed out to me, so I wrote a sequel which focused on those players most similar to Matt Holliday through Age 29 and then looking at their Age 30 through 37 seasons. (How prescient, eh?) The problem with that post is that most of those fellows who played in earlier eras did not have weight-lifting programs, protein shakes, and other modern amenities. So, I am going back a little over ten years, to Manny Ramirez's first monster contract, and comparing Holliday as a player to those outfielders who have signed big-dollar deals to see who he lines up with and whether we can expect him to age like a fine French wine as opposed to a Belgian/American beer.

First, let me point out a short article by Buster Olney about the present-day valuation of Matt Holliday's contract:

The details of Matt Holliday's contract with the St. Louis Cardinals have been finalized, and the present-day value has been assessed at $113,580,723 by the Major League Baseball Players Association.

Holliday will be making salaries of $17 million for seven seasons, and of that, $2 million is deferred without interest, which reduces the present-day value.

The Cardinals' present-day assessment will be less than that of the union, because it uses a higher discount rate.

I don't even know what that last sentence means, so I defer to those better versed in such matters than I. 

Now, let us sally forth to Ten-Millionaire comparisons. River Avenue Blues has posted a sign which reads, "Beward the $100 million contract," and flanked it with pikes displaying the shrunken heads of Jason Giambi, Vernon Wells, Alfonso Soriano and other dead $100-millionaire ballplayers. (Yes, a Yankees blog is warning of $100 million contracts. No, really. I'm serious. Click on the link.) The list:

1. Albert Pujols (2004-2010) 
2. Alex Rodriguez (2001-2010) 
3. Manny Ramirez (2001-2008) 
4. Derek Jeter (2001-2010) 
5. Carlos Beltran (2005-2011) 
6. Todd Helton (2003-2011) 
7. Miguel Cabrera (2008-2015) 
8. Alex Rodriguez (2008-2017) 
9. Jason Giambi (2002-2008) 
10. Mark Teixeira (2009-2016) 
11. Carlos Lee (2007-2012) 
12. Ken Griffey, Jr. (2000-2008) 
13. Alfonso Soriano (2007-2014) 
14. Vernon Wells (2008-2014) 

Obviously, we run into some comparison problems, mainly because only three of these $100MM contracts are in the rear view mirror of baseball's historical highway. The Pujols, Jeter, and A-Rod deals are basically over and done with (and so totally worth it). The Carlos Beltrain and Todd Helton contracts have two years remaining. The rest will be over with in a rather long time. Therefore, I don't really like this list for our purposes, but I thought I'd pass along the link and the list for your perusal. I have plucked a few names from this list and added a few more. My pickings: Manny, Beltran, Lee, Junior Griffey, Soriano, and Wells. My additions: Vlad, Sheffield, Jimmy Edmonds, Bernabe "Bernie" Williams, JD Drew, Bobby Abreu and Larry Walker. (I admit that I should have probably done more comparisons, but I have a job where I find myself at my office seven days a week so I only did thirteen and the list is based purely on my own curiosity.)

We will begin by looking at the OPS+ for each player by seasonal age.

Player

Age 30

Age 31

Age 32

Age 33

Age 34

Age 35

Age 36

Age 37

Mannywood

184

160

152

153

165

126

165

155

Larry Walker

178

158

163

110

160

150

121

153

Carlos Beltran

125

129

143

-

-

-

-

-

Alfonso Soriano

135

122

119

84

-

-

-

-

Carlos Lee

126

125

144

118

-

-

-

-

Junior Griffey

133

124

103

145

122

144

99

119

Vernon Wells

88

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Vladimir Guerrero

154

138

147

130

106

-

-

-

Gary Sheffield

139

176

164

138

162

141

137

107

Jimmy Edmonds

146

149

158

160

170

137

110

88

Bernabe Williams

149

140

138

141

107

108

85

96

Bobby Abreu

145

126

126

113

120

116

-

-

JD Drew

126

105

137

133

-

-

-

-

AVERAGE

141

138

141

130

139

132

120

120

First of all, there will be a down year or two or three (in the event of some sort of injury). Larry Walker had a down year. Alfonso Soriano had one last year. Junior Griffey had two. Vlad's Age 34 season was forgettable, earning him a make-good deal with the Rangers this Hot Stove. And, then there is Gary Sheffield who was consistently excellent throughout his thirties until last season's pedestrian 107 OPS+. (Looking at Manny and Sheff, is it wrong that a small part of me actually hopes that Holliday is using HGH?)

The center fielders of note seem to have followed a rather similar track. I don't count Griffey in this group because he was long ago shifted to a corner outfield position. Edmonds and Bernabe Williams* were great through their middle thirties, but then saw their decline occur rather precipitously. This is especially true for Williams.

My hope against hope is that the painful Jimmy Edmonds Experience does not repeat itself. Obviously, Matt Holliday has done nothing to endear himself to us the way that Edmonds did. Remember, Edmonds loved playing in St. Louis and instructed his agents to get an extension done, complete with pie-induced Hometown Discount. He then went out and was, essentially, a highlight reel both with the leather and the lumber, including some of the most dramatic plays of the memorable Aughts. Then, to watch this otherworldly talent decline to the point where you are counting down the days to his contract expiring, bemoaning his option year being swallowed by a two-year extension, proclaiming his trade to San Diego the best for all parties, and then to have him return in Cubbie blue...Well, it was more painful than Ole Yeller.

*If my given name was Bernabe, I would never, ever go by "Bernie," especially if I were a professional ballplayer.

Not surprisingly, the average OPS+ trends downward. A graph:

 

Quite honestly, if Matt Holliday posts an OPS+ of 120 in his Age 36 season, I will be thrilled.

Here is a chart of these players' respective salaries by seasonal age:

Player

Age 30

Age 31

Age 32

Age 33

Age 34

Age 35

Age 36

Age 37

Mannywood

15.463

20

22.5

22

18.279

17.016

18.929

23.854

Larry Walker

6.33

6.05

5.4

12.67

12.67

12.67

12.67

12.67

Carlos Beltran

13.57

18.62

19.23

20.07

20.07

-

-

-

Alfonso Soriano

10

10

14

17

19

19

19

19

Carlos Lee

8.5

11.5

12.5

19

19

19

19

-

Junior Griffey

9.33

12.5

8.56

12.5

12.5

12.5

10.46

8.45

Vernon Wells

5.14

16.14

26.64

24.64

24.64

-

-

-

Vladimir Guerrero

12.5

13.5

14.5

15.5

15

6.5

-

-

Gary Sheffield

9.96

9.92

9.92

9.92

11.42

13

13

10.76

Jimmy Edmonds

4.5

6.33

7.33

8.33

9.33

10.33

12.07

9.56

Bernabe Williams

9.86

12.36

12.36

12.36

12.36

12.36

12.36

1.5

Bobby Abreu

10.6

13.1

13.6

15

16

5

9

9

JD Drew

11.4

14

14

14

14

14

-

-

AVERAGE

10

13

14

16

16

13

14

12

 

HOLY SHIT! LOOK AT VERNON WELLS'S ANNUAL SALARIES!

Matt Holliday's annual salary, taking the deferred money into account, does not look all that bad by comparison. How anyone can call Holliday's the worst in baseball history in the wake of the Alfonso Soriano, Vernon Wells, and El Caballo deals is beyond me.  

Here's a graph of this group's average annual salary, Holliday's average annual salary according to the MLBPA's valuation, and Holliday's average annual salary according to the contract (not taking deferred money out).

The trend is for these big deals to expire before the player's Age 37 Season. Then, the players tend to get lesser deals because their production has declined with age. Bobby Abreu, for example, got a tremendously low deal from the Angels last offseason and then had a good year, so he secured a near-$10MM annual salary in his two-year contract this offseason. This happened to Vlad this offseason, as well, and may very well happen to JD Drew also.

That said, Carlos Lee and Alfonso Soriano will both be making $19MM each year over the last four years of their contracts. Comparing Holliday's to theirs, especially given the reality that Holliday is a better bet to age well than either of them and possesses a better offensive skill set, it makes me feel better about his deal.

 

When looking at these salaries, it is important to keep in mind the context of when they were signed. Jim Edmonds's deal in the Year 2000* is not a good comparison for Matt Holliday's contract nearly a decade later. If anything, the fact that the adjustment seems to have been made by clubs after the drunken free agent splurge that was the '06-'07 Hot Stove makes the Holliday deal seem more palatable, even if the Cardinals were bidding against themselves.

*God bless Conan. I know I will never watch The Tonight Show again. Well done, NBC.

The real problem with the contract, I think, is that we rode an expectations roller coaster during negotiations that were rather excruciating. I went from anticipating Holliday to sign an eight-to-ten-year deal with multiple years in which he would earn $19MM or even $20MM to, in the weeks post-Christmas, actually believing that we might sign him for five years at a salary under $18MM AAV. Well, the salary was under $18MM, which is great, but seven years? Well, that's a serious commitment. The Cardinals cannot easily absorb the loss of Matt Holliday levels of production, especially without improvement down on the farm. And, with each year committed, the likelihood that we will have to absorb average or even below average production at a $17MM price tag goes up. Hopefully the front office's bet on Number 7 proves a lucky one, giving us seven years of injury-free, above-average-to-MVP-caliber production from a player on the decline side of Age 30.

Comment 64 comments  |  9 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

excellent post, bgh!

i like this analysis a lot.

i would draw one distinction here: there are two different objections to be made to the holliday deal. one, that the contract as a whole overpays holliday for his likely value; the other, that mo likely overpaid somewhat relative to what other teams would have paid. i think the first one is very hard to gauge, though you and steve sommer have done some really good work on that issue. my initial concern was more the second question, though i admit that seven year commitments scare the crap out of me.

if you don't know what is wrong with me, then you don't know what you've missed. - macmanus

by tom s. on Jan 16, 2010 6:41 PM EST reply actions  

Agreed

I think if you look at simply the raw numbers of the deal, the dollars and the projected value that Holliday would be projected to put up, the deal actually looks pretty good. According to Steve Sommers’ projection, Holliday is about a 60% bet to give us surplus value at his price, and that’s assuming that the cost per WAR doesn’t go up drastically over the next 6 years.

I think if you’re subjectively trying to determine where the market is then you could find some criticism of the deal. In fact, I’ve seen more than a fair share of the saber blogosphere doing just that: slamming this deal as bad because of their idea of where the market is when clearly they don’t know any better than the rest of us do, and that Mo probably knows betting than all of us.

We got the best left fielder in all of baseball for basically a bit less than his market value over the next 7 years. When we’re talking about signing top 25 players (as Holliday is), I don’t think you can ever expect a ton of surplus value.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 18, 2010 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah

I’d think that most of the criticism would lie in the second of tom’s points (especially once folks get over the sticker shock part of it), and there’s no real way to know what the market outside of St. Louis looked like. If you assume that there wasn’t another true bidder then yeah we probably overpaid (from the perspective that the goal is to get WAR at below market level not at market level if possible), but it’s just that an assumption.

by stevesommer05 on Jan 18, 2010 10:33 PM EST up reply actions  

so basicially we should be happy with the deal when it comes to the money,

but unhappy with the length of the deal?

Every morning I wake up & smoke a dart. Then I eat five strips of bacon, & for lunch I eat a bacon sandwich. And for a midday snack? Bacon! A whole damn plate! And I usually drink my dinner. And I'm still here! Sometimes I wonder if God forgot about me.

by gdm426 on Jan 16, 2010 8:21 PM EST reply actions  

yes gdm, yes

I am glad you are finally coming around on this

and this fanpost has now made me wonder how many times chuckb has been called a blockhead. You know, kinda like his pops?

Lighten up, Francis - Sergeant Hulka

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jan 16, 2010 11:06 PM EST up reply actions  

i'm kind of proud i understood every thing in this fan posts, nice job bgh

and it is freaking cool we once again have the best 3-4 in the NL

all i ask from Lego now is that he starts being more touchy feely now that we’re married

Every morning I wake up & smoke a dart. Then I eat five strips of bacon, & for lunch I eat a bacon sandwich. And for a midday snack? Bacon! A whole damn plate! And I usually drink my dinner. And I'm still here! Sometimes I wonder if God forgot about me.

by gdm426 on Jan 17, 2010 12:26 AM EST up reply actions  

I got irrationally excited when I saw this years' ZiPS projections for the most runs added on offense

Pujols #1 in baseball. Holliday #5 in baseball, and ahead of anyone on the Yankees or RedSox IIRC. Pretty cool. Now, if Luddy or Colby have a considerably improved year, watch out baseball…

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Jan 17, 2010 6:37 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't think it is overly optimistic

to think that both will improve this season over last. Even if neither improves considerably, they both ought to be better than they were in 2009.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Jan 17, 2010 11:15 AM EST up reply actions  

Somewhat ironically...

Rasmus, who will hopefully be Edmonds replacement, posted an 88 OPS+ in his first year. But hey, at least he’s cheap.

by DiscoJer on Jan 17, 2010 2:39 AM EST reply actions  

and Jimmy Edmonds put up an 85 OPS+ in his first real season.

Did you actually expect Rasmus to be a star player his first season?

Lighten up, Francis - Sergeant Hulka

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jan 17, 2010 3:03 AM EST up reply actions  

After reading this,

I have decided that we need to get Rasmus a half-tee.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Jan 17, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

in many ways, Colby's first year being a bit disappointing might not be a bad thing

he’s been pretty much out of the national media spotlight, and I think it’s slightly lowered people’s expectations of the guy. Signing Holliday so he doesn’t have to spend next year batting cleanup is helpful, too. I’m expecting quite a large improvement in his hitting next year, although I don’t think his defense is as good going forward as UZR would have us believe (I think he’s a slightly above-average CF).

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Jan 17, 2010 6:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Colby has one season in the bigs,

and it was more valuable than any of the seasons the other super-hyped OF prospects (Maybin, Bruce, Adam Jones etc.).

"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus

by hazel on Jan 17, 2010 10:16 AM EST up reply actions  

yeah

I don’t get how people say he’s overrated, he only played one season so far

by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jan 17, 2010 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

I keep saying Albert Pujols runied expectations for rookies

so many people expect a badass right out of the gate anymore

Lighten up, Francis - Sergeant Hulka

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jan 17, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions  

It also comes from every person who says stuff like

“Juan Encarnacíon sucks! My favorite prospect could be better than him RIGHT NOW”

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jan 17, 2010 6:26 PM EST up reply actions  

There have been a few really awesome rookie seasons lately.

Pujols, Braun, Ramirez, Longoria, and that Gollum-looking guy on the Red Sox.

"Of course Kolby Rasmus was going deep! That’s what Kolby Rasmus does! You don’t give Kolby Rasmus second chances!" -Kolby Rasmus

by hazel on Jan 18, 2010 5:24 AM EST up reply actions  

yep, it all started with APu

and those asshats had to follow suit and ruin it for the non-superstar rookies. * *

Hell, I don’t expect Rasmus to ever be a superstar, but I am willing to give him a couple years before getting down on him as a player.

 * * I am not sure it all started with APu, but that’s my story, and I am going to stick to it.

Lighten up, Francis - Sergeant Hulka

* sarcasm might be involved in this comment

by mattyfrommo on Jan 18, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions  

That's a great point

Early on he exceeded my expectations. Then he had health issues and the final numbers look disappointing. I think we’ll probably see this in the future. He’s got star (though not super star) talent and there will be some years when his final tallies will reflect that. He does not seem, though, to be resilient to health issues such as the sinus infection that kept his AA season from being stratospheric and the issues this past year. I actually think that, if he’s totally healthy this year, his projections by everyone, including us, may be a bit low.

by easy on Jan 22, 2010 7:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Excellent post!

I was actually working on pretty much exactly the same post, trying to find any contracts of 5 years or more (not necessarily 100M) with a slightly different outlook. I may still go ahead and do my post, but I do have to say that if I get around to doing it, you’ve done a lot of the work and I’d only have a complementary post.

Very impressive post.

by mtalken on Jan 17, 2010 10:44 AM EST reply actions  

I encourage you to finish your post.

The more analysis, the better, in my opinion. Especially if you have already put in the hours.

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Jan 17, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: the contract value to the Cards

The MLBPA values the contract at 113.5MM over 7 yrs (16.2MM AAV).

The Cards value the contract at less than that because they are using a higher discount rate* in their NPV analysis. By using a higher discount rate, the money in later years is worth less (think about higher inflation makes money worth less in the future). So when the Cards add it all up in present value dollars, the deal is worth less that 113.5MM according to their numbers. The Cards could even view the deal as having an AAV value less of 15.9MM, for example.

  • A discount rate is the rate of return that could be earned on an investment with similar risk. Think of it like opportunity cost for money. Every business has a different discount rate for long-term investments (often capital projects) because it depends on their determination of what they’d do with the money if they didn’t put it into the subject investment.

by Willie McGee's Twin on Jan 17, 2010 11:48 AM EST reply actions  

Thank you

Obviously, the MLBPA has an interest in giving player contracts a higher value, but why would their valuation differ significantly from the Cardinals’?

"I'm gonna throw the nastiest curveball I have ever thrown...if he hits it, I'll tip my cap, but if not we're going to the Series."

--Adam Wainwright on the final pitch of the 2006 NLCS

by bgh on Jan 17, 2010 12:09 PM EST up reply actions  

because they are measuring it from Holliday's perspective...

… and probably taking into consideration that Holliday will get paid a lot every year for the next 20 years. that security is worth something.

the Cards are thinking of it as them getting a $2mn interest-free loan every year until 2023 (or whenever), which they can then invest and use productively. from the Cards’ perspective, that $2mn/year is probably better than free, since they probably expect to more than make that cash in the next 20 years; they’d only have to have a ~ 3.5% annual return to make money from the deferral.

the Cards are probably valuing the contract at less than $15mn/year.

by kindred on Jan 17, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions  

eh... my numbers are rough

but the bottom-line is still probably true.

by kindred on Jan 17, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions  

bottom line minimum for cards

is whatever rate they are paying on the most expensive note on the stadium

I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going

by sportsman on Jan 17, 2010 10:43 PM EST up reply actions  

a few things....

we don’t know that it differed significantly; it could only be a few tenths of a percentage point.

also, it’s common for companies (or in this case, a co. and a union) to have different discount rates because different parties assess opportunity costs differently (because, of course, they have different opportunities to invest their money).

It may very well be that the Cards used a discount rate that tracked their highest interest debt rate on the stadium (let’s guess 9% – I don’t know what it is), whereas the player’s union wouldn’t use that number. The union might use 4-5%, which would track certain relatively moderate to low risk bond offerings, etc. A difference that wide would make a huge difference in the NPVs, especially in the later years fo the contract. (I doubt the spread is that big, but you get my point)

by Willie McGee's Twin on Jan 18, 2010 12:07 AM EST up reply actions  

this is great stuff

I laughed, I cried. rec.

"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT

by Yadi2Second on Jan 17, 2010 12:56 PM EST reply actions  

The Perfect Reaction to Vernon Wells Salary

“Holy Shit”

In football, the object is for the quarterback, otherwise known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his recievers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use the shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy's defensive line.

In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)

by Taskmaster on Jan 18, 2010 1:55 PM EST reply actions  

The Vernon Wells contract

I think the important analysis of that contract is thus:

  • Be careful evaluating a player without a track record of at least 3-4 years of MLB experience.
  • Backloading a contract using the a projected inflation of MLB contracts can be dangerous business.
  • Don’t spend like a big market club when you aren’t a big market club.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 18, 2010 7:26 PM EST reply actions  

Uh, what?

IIRC, he had 5 years of full time MLB experience before the deal was signed, and had averaged 3.6 WAR. He was also entering his prime, and coming off of his best season yet. He looked like a legitimate star. I see no reason massively criticize the signing without the benefit of hindsight.

Also, isn’t backloading generally considered a good think in contracts, due to the time value of money (as well as inflation)?

by vivaelpujols on Jan 18, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Sounds like a good candidate

for a d_f style contract retrospective… I’ve been meaning to bust the sim out to do one of those. Maybe a good intermediate BtB piece while I finish up the protection stuff

by stevesommer05 on Jan 18, 2010 10:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Blah

My memory is going… must be getting old….

I remember the Gary Mathews Jr. one. Didn’t recall another one clearly. Oh well.

by stevesommer05 on Jan 19, 2010 9:07 AM EST up reply actions  

You missed the points here (and I didn't point them out very well)
  1. He hadn’t established a track record of being a top 25 caliber player, so why would you pay him like one? He had two years of OPS+ over 125 in his first 6 years as a pro. The rest of his seasons were essentially league average. His track record did not indicate that he was going to be a superstar level player.
  2. Backloading is good, backloading like they did in this contract is horrendous. They put all of the dollars on the last 4 years of the contract while guaranteeing a signing bonus paid in the first three years of the deal. Essentially, Ricciardi assumed that contracts would keep going up at 10% a year through 2014, at which time $21M for the player that he thought Wells was would be pretty cheap. Turned out that he wasn’t who J.P. thought he was, and the market for FA tanked over the last two seasons. Had they just paid him what he was worth, and spread the dollars out better year to year, they might have been able to field a competitive club the next couple of seasons — Wells’ $20M+ annually from 2011 to 2014 is going to make that very, very difficult.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 19, 2010 9:57 AM EST up reply actions  

...

1) Who cares about OPS+? He was an above average hitter, fielder and played center field. He was entering his prime. He averaged 3.6 WAR in his career before the deal was signed (as well as 5.8 WAR the year before). Take a look at the whole packaging before cherry picking stats. “League average?” C’mon man.

2) I don’t know about when it is good and bad to backload a contract. I don’t think you can say that it was a 100% bad move – it cheapens the overall deal. I’d have to hear from someone like all4tookie who knows a little more about economics.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 19, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions  

So you would have signed him to the same deal?

Because that’s what you’re sounding like. I don’t remember ANYBODY thinking that was a good contract when he signed it. It’s turned out that it might be the worst contract signed in the history of baseball…….and you’re defending it.

I read the link. Even he concludes that through 2006 the contract was too big and was a big mistake. Mike Cameron provided better value over Wells’ first five seasons in the big leagues and he’s never been given a contract that large.

OPS+ doesn’t work for you? How about wOBA? His career wOBA in 2006 was .360. Would you have given Ryan Ludwick $20M a year for 5 years after his 2008 season? That’s essentially what the Blue Jays did. Extended a guy at the very peak of his value for way too much money, then complicating factors by backloading the deal to the extreme and essentially setting up to pay him $21M+ for four years during his age 32, 33, 34, and 35 seasons, PLUS a $25M signing bonus, which is unheard of in baseball.

I can’t believe that the same guy who was bitching to anyone who would listen about the Holliday contract is defending this one.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 19, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm not saying a would sign him, I wouldn't
OPS+ doesn’t work for you? How about wOBA? His career wOBA in 2006 was .360. Would you have given Ryan Ludwick $20M a year for 5 years after his 2008 season? That’s essentially what the Blue Jays did. Extended a guy at the very peak of his value for way too much money, then complicating factors by backloading the deal to the extreme and essentially setting up to pay him $21M+ for four years during his age 32, 33, 34, and 35 seasons, PLUS a $25M signing bonus, which is unheard of in baseball.

Why the hell are you only quoting one stat for offense? Ludwick is not nearly as good as Wells was at the time, because A) he isn’t a plus fielder, and B) he doesn’t play center field. Those are MASSIVE differences.

We already have an excellent total value stat in WAR which considers ALL (okay, most) aspects of performance. Why are you cherry picking certain stats (and using Ludwick as a strawmen) to prove your point? What the fuck?

As I said, I wouldn’t have signed him to the same deal. In DF’s article, he states that Wells would need to be a 4.7 WAR player in the first year of the contract (assuming normal regression/attrition rates) to be worth he contract.


$126M falls right between 7/$117.3M for a 4.5 WAR player or 7/$138.2 for a 5.0 WAR player. Which is it? One could look at it in two different ways — either Wells accepted a slightly lower haul for long-term security, or the Jays not unreasonably thought that Wells might decline a bit more slowly than 0.5 WAR a season over the life of the contract, given that he was “only” 29 when it started. In the spirit of generosity, let’s assume that he was paid like a 4.5 WAR player, that is, 4.5 WAR starting in 2008, but it’s a bit trickier than that, since the contract was signed the year before it started, so like the Blue Jays we only have data through 2006, and have to figure in attrition. So he probably needed to project at at least 4.7 WAR at the time the contract was signed, at the very least…

http://www.drivelinemechanics.com/2009/7/2/922866/contract-retrospective-vernon

I don’t think Wells was that good at the time, but he was close. I wouldn’t have made the deal mainly due to the years and injury risk – but let’s not act like it was an abomination. Nobody had any idea Wells was gonna flop like this.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 19, 2010 1:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Also,

that deal the Mets threw at Mo Vaughn is clearly the worst deal ever.

They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...

by Valatan on Jan 19, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

For Pete's sake
Why the hell are you only quoting one stat for offense?

Do you want me to quote all the other stats that show him to be average, slightly above average, or solidly above average for his position? He has never been an elite offensive player in his career. Ever. At the time of the deal, he wasn’t even a top 4 CF in the MLB by WAR (Beltran, Sizemore, Andruw Jones, and David Dejesus were all better by WAR), yet he was PAID like a top 10 position player. That doesn’t make any sense — he wasn’t Carlos Beltran…he wasn’t even CLOSE to that good yet he was paid MORE over the same number of years just one year later. I compared him to Ludwick because we’re talking about similar offensive values from one season, while having no other seasons in which he approached those numbers. This is true of Wells’ 2006 season and Ludwick’s 2008 season. You could do the same with BJ Upton — would you have given BJ Upton that contract after 2007 if he was 29 years old and didn’t steal bases?

You couldn’t have predicted that his defense would decline, but if you’re looking at his batted ball info, it’s pretty easy to see that he’s not a really good offensive player. His two best season coincided with above average BABIP’s, when his below average seasons coincided with below average BABIP’s. His line drive percentage is consistently below 20%, and he puts a lot of balls in play on the ground. Those two stats alone should tell you that:

  1. He doesn’t walk much, which is true (career BB% 6.8%)
  2. He gets a lot of base hits on ground balls, and if more of those get turned into outs, he’s going to struggle.
  3. His offensive skillset, due to the fact that he doesn’t have great speed, isn’t going to age well.

You don’t pay non-elite offensive players $130M. You just don’t. The contract was an extreme miscalculation on his value as a player and his offensive ability.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 19, 2010 2:09 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

My lord Fourstick

I’m not saying that Wells is an elite offensive player. I am saying, simply quoting his offense stats underrate him because he is an above average fielding center fielder. So when you compare his wOBA to Ludwick’s that’s a strawman, because Ludwick isn’t an above average centerfielder – he’s an average corner outfielder.

You don’t pay non-elite offensive players $130M. You just don’t. The contract was an extreme miscalculation on his value as a player and his offensive ability.

You don’t pay non-elite offensive players 130 million? So defense and positional value don’t matter?

I’m not saying that Wells was worth his contract. I’ve already said in my post above that I don’t think he was worth it. I’m trying to understand why you are so obsessed with offense – like it’s the only think that matters.

So let me phrase my question for you very simple:

If you have a 5 WAR player who is an average hitter and a + defender, is he as good as a 5 WAR player who is a + hitter and an average defender?

by vivaelpujols on Jan 19, 2010 6:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Your question implies a different line of questioning entirely
If you have a 5 WAR player who is an average hitter and a + defender, is he as good as a 5 WAR player who is a + hitter and an average defender?

They have equal value, but who do you PAY more? THAT’S the question that you conveniently have avoided the entire time. I don’t give a shit how good of a defender he is, if he can’t be a consistently above average hitter then he isn’t worth $130M. Period. You only pay franchise players that kind of money, AND HE’S NOT A FRANCHISE PLAYER. He never has been.

Here’s the problem with your analysis, and with the analysis of so many other saberists like Dave Cameron: You conveniently misrepresent the MARKET for players as a determining factor in how they will be paid. A win is a win to saberists, and while that works out mathematically (and is done using defensive metrics that still have some issues), that’s not how the market works. Great offensive players will always be paid more than great defensive players. That is reality. You can make the case that the market undervalues certain traits, but if they’re undervalued, shouldn’t you pay LESS for those characteristics? Instead, you’re arguing that they should be paying market value for his defense when nobody else would pay market value for defense. It’s a shitty effing contract, admit it!

Mike Cameron is by far the best comparison to Vernon Wells that is out there. He was a consistent 4 win player, slightly above average offense, great defense in CF, from 2000 – 2006. Here’s his career contract history. Now, if you’re right, and teams should be paying $127M for Vernon Wells, then why hasn’t Mike Cameron ever made more than $10M in a single year? Would you rather have signed Cameron to a 3Y$20M contract in 2006 or Vernon Wells to 7Y$126M? That’s pretty much a no-brainer isn’t it?

It comes down to lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can twist this any way you want to statistically, but the bottom line is that Wells was a significant bet to underperform this contract’s value when it was signed, and that he’s not in the class of the other players who have received this kind of money (Beltran, Griffey, etc.). That makes it a bad contract, no matter how you value it. If you could get a similar player for 3Y$30M or 2Y$38M (Andruw Jones) why would pay $127M?

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 20, 2010 9:24 AM EST up reply actions  

Also

I’d like to see what Wells’ CHONE projections were for 2007, 2008, and 2009. I would guess that they were significantly lower than you’re giving him credit for. If Matt Holliday, who is a much better player than Wells and always has been despite playing a less desirable position, projects as a 4.6 win player after putting up 3 straight seasons of 5.7 WAR or better (including one 8 win season), I find it really hard to believe that Wells, who put up 5+ WAR once in his career, would have been projected to put up even 4 WAR in 2007. I would guess more like 3.5 WAR, with it getting progressively worse the last two seasons.

So because Wells plays CF, I should immediately give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to projecting him? I think you’re entire argument goes against your principles as you seem to be arguing the best case scenario for Wells while arguing the worst case scenario for Holliday, who is clearly a better offensive player and thus worth more money.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 20, 2010 9:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Also

Please back this up:

His offensive skillset, due to the fact that he doesn’t have great speed, isn’t going to age well.

Please.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 19, 2010 6:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Your turn

Show me a player with a career LD% below 20% and a walk rate below 7% who doesn’t have better than average speed and who has been better than league average past the age of 32.

You won’t find very many, if any at all.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 20, 2010 8:59 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm not the one making the claim

It’s up to you to prove that players like Wells age poorer than others.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 20, 2010 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Here's one...

Vernon Wells. :-)

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 20, 2010 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Others:

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 20, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions  

That's just off the top of my head

If I had a huge database of statistics I could query, I’m sure I could come up with a ton more.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 20, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions  

I'm sorry but that's far from exhaustive

You also didn’t include players like Wells who aged well – only those who aged poorly.

I realize that you are not interested in starting a whole research campaign, but try not to make unbacked statements.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 20, 2010 7:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Well no shit

Not that it would matter anyway. You’d just find another reason that I’m wrong.

I hope you’re keeping track of your positions here, because I don’t want to see you using anything you refute to make a the case for something else.

It’s far from and “unbacked statement”. Bill James has done research on this and concluded that players with poor walk rates and below average line drive rates tend to age poorly unless they have really good speed. But he probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about either…

Why do I even bother anymore……

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 21, 2010 8:10 AM EST up reply actions  

I have never once said that the Wells contract was a good signing

Never, please point me to where I said that.

The only thing I objected to was you comparing him to Ludwick, or only quoting his offensive stats in your support.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 21, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions  

Right

I also compared him to other players at his position making over $90M on a contract, claiming he wasn’t as good as any of those guys either. I compared him to Mike Cameron. I’ve stated my position pretty clearly — you just choose to nitpick and be condescending because I didn’t link you a giant database with that implicitly proves my point with regressed data and error bars.

Sheesh — if this is what we have to do to make a judgment on a player, contract, or trade, then I think a lot of people here are just going to be turned off on analysis. Asking everyone to put 12 hours of research in to make an comment about why one of the shittiest contracts in history is shitty in hindsight and was shitty based on foresight and projected value is just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

You don’t disagree with me, you just disagree with all the points I made, even though they are all arguably true and evidence was provided. How has any of this conversation been at all productive. A simple “You’re right, it was a bad signing and I certainly wouldn’t do that deal for a player of this caliber” would have sufficed.

We all know you’re smart — there is no need to flex your statistical superiority all of the time every chance you get.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 21, 2010 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

...
A simple "You’re right, it was a bad signing and I certainly wouldn’t do that deal for a player of this caliber" would have sufficed.

I’ve said several times it was an overpay.

I’m not saying a would sign him, I wouldn’t
As I said, I wouldn’t have signed him to the same deal.
I wouldn’t have made the deal mainly due to the years and injury risk – but let’s not act like it was an abomination.
I’m not saying that Wells was worth his contract. I’ve already said in my post above that I don’t think he was worth it

I don’t know how you can possible say that I didn’t agree with you on that matter. It boggles the mind.

He was my problem with your arguments. You didn’t mention WAR or an actual value stat until halfway through the argument. You mentioned his OPS+ or his wOBA, and then asked “he had the same wOBA as Ludwick, would you pay Ludwick 130 million?”

I don’t care about his offensive value . I care about his overall value, which includes his position and defensive ability. If he’s paid like a 5 WAR player and projects to be 5 WAR (not saying this about Wells), than I would consider that a fair deal no matter how he derives his value.

I said from the start that Wells wasn’t worth his contract. I then used WAR, which is a total value stat, to show that it wasn’t a terrible deal (actually, I quoted devil fingers’ article, which used WAR). You then used offensive stats to say it was a terrible deal. If you are going to privilege offensive production over defensive production when making valuations, I will argue with you till the death.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 21, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Right -- which is why this debate is so fucking stupid

Did you really think that if his bat regressed to his career average that he would be capable of being a 5 WAR player? It’s not like his defense is suddenly going to be worth 3 wins (or double it’s career seasonal value) to make up the difference. Hence, for the FIFTH time in this thread, if you don’t project him as a 3.5 WAR hitter, then its really fucking stupid to sign him to that contract, because he’s never going to be a 4 WAR defender, ever. Not in a million years.

Wait, hold on, let me summarize again in bold print:

His overall value is linked to his offensive value, and his offensive value will generally be worth more wins per season, at least for an elite player. Wells is not an elite player because his offense is not elite, even if his defense were elite, which it is not. So when you’re arguing about measuring his total value you’re measuring his offensive value too. YOU HAVE TO CARE ABOUT HIS OFFENSIVE VALUE IF YOU CARE ABOUT HIS TOTAL VALUE. He currently would not be worth his contract even if he was the same defender he was in 2005 and 2006. THIS HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG.

I would not pay him $96M either as the linked post comes up with Or $80M. Maybe $50M for 5 years. If someone wants to pay him more, GREAT!!!! I’ll take the draft picks and move on instead of undermining my entire effing franchise by giving a 3-4 WAR player a 9 figure contract.

That’s why the Cameron comparison is apt. He’s an above average hitter that’s never been great that plays very good defense in CF when healthy. The difference is that Cameron takes a lot of walks and doesn’t hit for a high average while Wells is the opposite, and that Wells has a $127M contract and Cameron will earn about half of that for his entire career. If Cameron all of the sudden became a 1 win hitter, he still has value because of his positional adjustment and his great defense, but he certainly won’t be able to offset the loss of 1.5 wins on offense by getting 1.5 wins MORE on defense. The inverse is also true, but and average hitter could have a really good year offensively and double his wins on offense, but an elite defender isn’t going to magically double his wins on defense to make up for a shitty offensive year.

Your entire argument is splitting hairs. It would have been easier to just agree that the contract was overvalued instead of nitpicking minor points forever and ever and ever and ever when we essentially agree on the basis that HE WAS NOT WORTH THE CONTRACT THAT HE SIGNED.

When you are a mid-market team like Toronto and you play the Red Sox and Yankees in your division, you cannot make a $30M overpay on a player and expect to contend. In fact, I’d posit that you can’t make a $10M overpay on a player and expect to contend. So, I’m sorry, his contract IS an abomination and the fact that it’s backloaded to the degree that it is makes it MORE of an abomination because you might be able to deal a 3 WAR player making $12-$14M a season by including a good prospect, player, or something, but nobody in their right mind is going trade for that same player if he’s making $20M+ per season.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 21, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions  

They paid him like a 6 WAR player when he was a 4 WAR player

and he hasn’t approached 2 WAR since the deal was signed in 2007.

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 19, 2010 10:00 AM EST up reply actions  

also, OT

surprised you haven’t weighed in much on the fangraphs discussion on relievers’ WAR. I think you and I are in the same camp on this one (i.e. they’re doing it wrong!). It would be nice to see any of your thoughts on this. Goes for any of the other sabr-inclined posters, too…

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Jan 19, 2010 11:13 AM EST up reply actions  

I'm not really sure actually

I’m still unsure how I feel about relievers.

by vivaelpujols on Jan 19, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions  

aroused.

You feel aroused.

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Jan 19, 2010 6:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Um,

Yes they did. 1 WAR on the market in 2006 was worth about $4M. So if you’re signing him to a deal that’s going to pay him $21M+ for four straight years at the end of the deal, you’re either betting that he’s a 5.5-6 WAR player at that time, or you’re hoping that he, um, jumps off a bridge or does something to void that contract. Otherwise, you’re paying a 4 WAR player 6 WAR money — which is no way to run a baseball club.

The linked article? Perhaps you should read it again. It posits his projected value to be around $96.5M instead of $127M. That’s a $30M difference over 7 years, or about $4.2M per season, or 1 WAR per season. You add 1 WAR to 4 WAR (his projected take) and you get 5 WAR, meaning that you’d need him to be a 5.5-6 WAR player over the course of the entire deal to make the contract undervalued significantly They paid him $30M more than his market value. How is that not a horrible job of valuing a player?

Can Colby round out our new MV3?

by fourstick on Jan 19, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions  

IIRC, he had 5 years of full time MLB experience before the deal was signed, and had averaged 3.6 WAR. He was also entering his prime, and coming off of his best season yet. He looked like a legitimate star. I see no reason massively criticize the signing without the benefit of hindsight.

To some extent I agree, however, there were a few reasons that the contract looked a bit high even when it was signed. Firstly, he was a guy who’s never walked very much and who’d just come off a year (admittedly a very good one) where his BABIP and HR/FB were both somewhat above his career norms, despite being mostly a contact hitter (like Holliday) but with lower contact rates and less power. And guaranteeing a roughly $20m AAV (I think it’s a little less, but not much) to a guy who’s just had a career year apparently SLIGHTLY elevated by luck, which probably profiles as a ~4WAR season otherwise, seems excessive. Not absolutely abysmal, but excessive.

We’re paying Holliday, who’s been a pretty consistent 5-6 WAR guy, less money than that, despite the fact that free agent values have increased since Wells signed. Wells was a guy who’d had a potentially slightly fortunate 5 WAR year with mostly 3 and 4-WAR years before that, who maybe profiled as a 4 WAR guy going forward.

RELEASE THE CENTIQUID!!!!

by Felonius_Monk on Jan 19, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Internet's #1 St. Louis Cardinals blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinal Managers EVER!
Hahaha_small
These were a few of my favorite things (fink reminisces about the 2011 regular season)
N1046613005_8392_small
Our 2010-2011 strays
649494__1__small
Hall of WAR: Part 2

Recent FanPosts

Dsc01844_small
Cardinals take the Governor's Joplin Challenge, will help build 35 homes for torando victims
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Relief Pitching Edition
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals of All-Time - Starting Pitching Edition
Small
Two Trades That Set the Cards Back in the 70s
Nyc_small
Cardinals Offense vs. Reds Offense - 2012
Nyc_small
Cardinals Rotation vs. Reds Rotation - 2012
St-louis-cardinals-script_small
Best Cardinals by Position - Center Fielders

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Jack_benny__1__small DanUpBaby

Editors

Bendermad_small azruavatar

Trigun_001_small the red baron

Images_small tom s.

Authors

1989_bgh_cropped_small bgh

Valverde_medium_small vivaelpujols