Pitchers' value
by chuckb on Jul 22, 2010 1:24 PM EDT
Email
PrintAs we know, Oswalt is signed through next season with a team option for 2012 at $16 million ($2 million buyout). He also has a full no-trade clause that, presumably, he would leverage in order to get the Cards (or whoever he's traded to) to pick up the 2012 option. (It was reported in today's p-d that he might be willing to "restructure his option" in order to facilitate a trade to St. Louis. I, for one, don't read "restructure his option" to mean "get rid of his option" as some do. Instead, I would expect that would mean he'd be willing to consider deferring some of the money, though I think the debate on this is much ado about nothing.)
So what's Roy worth to the Cards? Over the last 2+ years, Roy has been worth 3.6, 3.1, and 2.9 wins for the Astros, according to Fangraphs. He's in the midst of a resurgent season but he's been in decline since 2005. That said, he's still an above average starting pitcher. He'll also turn 33 next month. ZIPS has him projected for a 3.53 FIP for the rest of the season which would make him worth a little more than 1.5 wins over his final 13 starts. Initially, he'd be replacing either Hawksworth or Suppan in the rotation but might replace either Penny, Lohse, or Garcia (if his innings are limited by the organization) in September. Let's call it a 1.5 win upgrade which is valued in the neighborhood of $6 million. He's owed about $5 million over the rest of the season so the team stands to gain about $1 million over the rest of 2010 if he's acquired.
An additional 1.5 wins this year would make Oswalt worth 3.6, 3.1, and 4.4 wins over his previous 3 seasons entering next year. He'd have to be projected, entering his age 34 season, to be about a 3.5 win pitcher next year. At $4.4 million per win, that makes him worth $15.4 million next year, about half a million less than the team would owe him. If we assume a decline of another half a win in Oswalt's option year and a 10% inflation rate for free agent value, Oswalt's 3 wins in 2012 are worth $14.4 million. So trading for Oswalt gains the team $1 million this year and costs the team $2.2 million over 2011 and 2012. Simply put, acquiring Oswalt is worth MINUS $1.2 million.
Some have argued that the team could work this deal so that they could decline Oswalt's 2012 option. That helps the team a lot, right? Not so much. Declining the option would cost the team $2 million but assuming the option (as you see in the paragraph above) costs the team just $1.6 million. The team is better off picking up Oswalt's option, assuming he's still projected to be a 3 win player in 2012, than it is declining the option.
This analysis has left out the possibility that the Cards might receive compensation when Oswalt becomes a free agent. This assumes that the Cards would offer a 35 year old pitcher in decline arbitration when, if he accepted it, he'd be likely to receive more than $16 million. I think, therefore, that it's unlikely that the team would make that offer but, for our purposes, we'll assume that there's a 50% likelihood that the team offers and has the offer rejected. According to Sky Kalkman's research on free agent compensation, type A free agents are worth about $7.8 million in compensation. A 50/50 chance at that $7.8 million means Oswalt is worth, at most $2.7 million to the Cardinals.
So what's Shelby Miller worth? Almost every publication pegs Miller as a top-50 prospect and Victor Wang's research on prospect valuation has top-50 ranked pitchers as worth $15.9 million. Using this as a basis, Miller, by himself, is worth more than $13 million more than Oswalt is worth. Trading Shelby Miller for Roy Oswalt would be a huge win for the Astros whether or not the Cards pick up Oswalt's 2012 option.
Some are likely to say something to the effect of, "but Miller's not guaranteed to do anything. He might flame out. He might become Anthony Reyes." This is true, of course. Sometimes top-50 pitching prospects flame out. And sometimes they become Roy Halladay. Miller's valuation is an average of the value that top-50 pitching prospects have provided over time; it's not his peak value. Pitching prospects, as we all know, are inherently risky but so is counting on 33, 34, and 35 year old pitchers to be above average producers. Miller might fade away but he also might turn into a perennial All-Star. Right now, he's worth $13 million more than Roy Oswalt.
You could do similar analysis involving Dan Haren as well. Haren stands to make about $3 million over the rest of 2010, $12.75 million over 2011 and 2012, and there's a $15.5 million option w/ a $3.5 million buyout for 2013. Haren's considerably younger than Oswalt, turning 30 in September, and has been more than a 6 win pitcher over the last 2 years. He's having a bit of a down year this year, primarily due to some bad luck w/ regard to balls in play and balls flying out of the ballpark, and is projected to be about a 4 win pitcher this year. If we project him as a 4.5 win pitcher next year, declining by half a win over 2011 through 2013, he's worth about $17 million over the next 3 years. Haren's much more valuable over the length of his contract than Oswalt is. He's younger, cheaper, and better. I don't know that the team could fit Haren's salary into the team's budget, assuming it wants to resign Pujols but, if so, he would be worth Shelby Miller. Roy Oswalt simply isn't.
134 comments
|
18 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
well that clears it up
thanks for the post! very nice analysis. I don’t think Oswalt is worth our top prospect either. and Haren is pretty much this: choose between Albert or Dan
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 22, 2010 1:35 PM EDT reply actions
not to be confused with Dan and Al
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 22, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Fantastic post
So do you think the team could make a trade for Oswalt without trading Miller then? And if so would it be worth it?
....my quick smells like french toast...
Twitter: @mstreeter06
last I heard the Astros wanted a ton of prospects for Oswalt
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 22, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah but couldn't the Cards offer a package without Miller in it?
Something like Salas/Sanchez, Craig/Jay, D Jones, and another mid level prospect?
....my quick smells like french toast...
Twitter: @mstreeter06
I mean
they wanted a like basically all those guys I think, if you look at their first expectations
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 22, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
This would have to happen for a trade to be a reality
Oswalt really seems to have complete control over where he goes, and as this analysis shows, he’s basically worthless in a trade even without all the hullabaloo about his no-trade clause. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Astros just say screw it and keep him because they can’t get any value for him.
If they really want to trade Oswalt, though, the Cardinals should have the good to make a fair trade offer without giving up Miller. The question will be if the Astro’s front office understands the concepts of value.
yeah
they want big names to drool over. my guess is they won’t accept anything less than a top prospect.
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 22, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Trading Within Your Division...
Is like kissing your sister on the lips. Some things are just WRONG.
Good stuff, ChuckB -- We miss this type of stuff on a weekly basis here! Good to see you again
This pretty much echoes what I’ve been trying to say all morning, and that’s not even really looking at the overall payroll implications for the Cardinals with respect to revenue. If you factor that in, I see no way in which we can afford to pay two pitchers making more than $11M who are not likely to live up to their contracts (Lohse, Oswalt) and another who has a pretty significant injury history (Carpenter)
I think Haren is a viable, younger, and better option, I’m just not sure he’s available, and I think the haul required to get him is something the Cardinals currently do not possess.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
i agree oswalt is not a smart move, no matter who they give up
the restructuring the option i’m sure means something like adding a year at a slightly reduced annual average. no way it goes away. at his age and his history, i don’t see adding years as smart
whoever they give up won’t be worthless by any means, so it will surely impact the ludwick situation (giving up craig or jay) as well as inhibiting apu financially
i also see apu at 30 million as a marginal value decision on the field, though his
value to the franchise as a permanent cardinal is hard to calculate
if we go after a pitcher, i prefer haren. i see no point in westbrook et al. carmona at cheap might be worth a look though
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
Why is Carmona a better option than Westbrook?
He will cost more, and he’s not as good a pitcher if you look at his peripherals.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
agreed
i want no part of carmona.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 22, 2010 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I'd be curious how much Cliff Lee would cost
Just saying. They also might take a prospect or player that isn’t Miller.
the rangers?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I would say if we had some sort of major-league ready marquee first base prospect who'd had a cup of coffee this year
plus another two B/C-level pitching prospects, and a time machine, that’d probably get it done.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 23, 2010 4:23 AM EDT up reply actions
not to mention
trading within the division means the Cards have to pay a premium in talent to the ’Stros to make it worth it for Houston.
Ever since the Calcaterra story came out I’ve been convinced it’s Houston people whispering about the Cards in order to ratchet up the pressure on Philly.
The best thing would be to get an effective version of either Penny or Lohse back already….
lets go get livan hernandez and christian guzman
its a cheap move. Both of them cost us very little in prospects. Both are upgrades over what we have now. Both can change roles if needed. Guzman can play SS/2B/3B as needed. Hernandez can move to the bullpen if penny and loshe are ever healthy again or in the playoffs.
by rumors on Jul 22, 2010 7:57 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I can't believe that Livan Hernandez is still effective and pitching
it seems like he’s been in the league forever.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Unless you like watching Aaron Miles at SS, you don't want to see Christian Guzman at SS.
He’s gone from serviceable to tremendously awful there in the span of about 3 years.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
I could get behind that
although as fourstick says, Guzman really isn’t a solution to our SS problems. I’m slightly less worried about that now that Greene is up and playing reasonably well, though, as long as his hand injury doesn’t badly affect his power (which is about his only “tool” as a hitter).
Guzman at least gives us an average-ish 2B to plug in if Floppy has to play 3B for a reasonable length of time (which is looking quite likely, tbh), and Hernandez is probably a small upgrade over Suppan. Overall, I don’t feel this trade does a lot for us, but it might add a win or so. I’d only do it if they were salary dumping, though.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 23, 2010 4:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Oswalt is not worth the cost
First, thanks to ChuckB for a quality post and analysis.
My very short two-cents: this is about choosing between the present and the future. Oswalt gives us a chance to win this year and next. Miller gives us a chance to be fiscally sound 3-6 years into the future.
I would love to have the guy on the team. But if the cost is giving up our best prospect, then I say stick with what we have. As long as the Cards reach the playoffs, we should have enough pitching. You really only need two studs at that point, with a solid third option. We’ve got that.
Mo, if you’re reading this, hold tight. We NEED to grow more pitchers, and Miller is our best chance at that. Please don’t cough him up.
oswalt himself costs nothing near miller to acquire
only if we want the bulk of oswalt’s salary paid by the stros would miller be involved – would you sell shelby for 10 mil or so? that’s what it comes down to.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
If we can get him without giving up Miller
AND we don’t have to pick up his option, then I like this deal a lot more.
I just don’t see either of those two things being realistically possible.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
he would be willing to drop the option for us i think:
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
how do you know it won't cost miller?
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 23, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
because oswalt isn't bringing back what haren would
because he’s expensive and older, and not what lee would (did) because he’s not as good and is not a rental – again, expensive going forward. he could net miller, but only if we’d rather have the salary relief than shelby.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
don't forget who we're dealing with
I just don’t see any evidence of any of this, it’s just conjecture
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 23, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
it might be conjecture, or just common sense
mo is not sending miller without salary relief – i haven’t seen any evidence that mo is an idiot. and remember, oswalt is in control because he has to ok a deal.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I just think the Astros GM is dumb enough to end up not getting the job done
and remaining with Oswalt. I think he has said as much that they would keep Oswalt over not getting what they want (which is too much). but yeah, things change and he could become a better GM
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 23, 2010 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
i'd have no problem foregoing oswalt if the demands were too high
dewitt said he’d rather spend money than talent, and the stros don’t sound like they really want to eat any of oswalt’s contract, so i just think that leaves shelby out of the deal. however, i wouldn’t mind including him for the right price (in salary relief). otherwise i like haren, but he is definitely going to cost talent. and who knows, because sometimes someone is acquired out of the blue in these situations, someone we never saw coming – there could be a luddy to san fran deal or something, with the cards sending money and maybe even an additional player. trade deadlines are kind of fun.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
the jp ricciardi tactic FTW!
"He’s in his own world out there. He says he doesn’t cuss. I disagree." - Skip Schumaker on Jason Motte
Austin Wilson, please don't be a tease!
Oswalt may well be worth more to Houston than anyone else
He’s a longtime Astro that brings people to the ballpark. Anywhere else, he’s just a near-ace to bolster the middle of a rotation.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
FWIW chuck I agree with the crux of this
i.e., if we can afford him, haren is worth shelby and oswalt isn’t. I’ve also heard a few things that seem to contradict Fourstick’s suggestion that Shelby wouldn’t be enough for Haren, in that the D’Backs are happy to sell him, and for a similar price to Oswalt. TBH, if we’ve got the money to afford him (which, tbh, i doubt). I’d happily throw in a couple of C prospects as well, say, Adam Reifer and Daryl Jones.
Still bitching to contact.
Haren
From what I’m hearing, the D-Backs want major league ready pitching (bullpen or relief) and multiple prospects for Haren.
If we had any “major league ready” pitching, we, um, wouldn’t need Dan Haren, so unless they mean guys like K-Mac, Salas, Sanchez, and Boggs I don’t think we can get that done.
If we could deal K-Mac, Lynn, Craig, and a 4th player from the low minors to them for Haren, we should do that deal right now. But I don’t think we could get him for something less than Miller, K-Mac, Sanchez/Salas, and Lynn….and I just think that’s too much unless they’re picking up salary, and they are firmly against a “salary dump” if MLBTR is to be believed.
Also, the Yankees are apparently interested, as well as the Tigers and Twins, so any package that either of those teams can offer will blow just about anything we can offer away. The chances of Dan Haren in a Cardinal uniform don’t look very good.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Apparently, the D-Backs actually want a bunch of mediocre filler and a couple of B-level prospects from the low minors.
I think Miller, straight up, is worth about what the Angels gave up for Haren.
I reckon if we’re to construct a similar deal to the Haren/Angels move, we could’ve got him for Schneider/Kelly and Hooker (the equivalent of the two A-ball prospects they got. I’d say Hooker and Corbin are pretty similar, although Skaggs is undoubtedly better than Kelly), say, Lance Lynn (who is equivalent and probably slightly better, even given his poor 2010, to Rafael Rodriguez) and maybe Mitchell Boggs (who is worth more than Joe Saunders – can probably be at least as good in the rotation and has had a strong season in the bullpen, with more years of team control). Perhaps the Angels deal is slightly stronger, and perhaps the fact they were looking for left-handed pitching (which we have more or less none of) would’ve hurt, but hey, with that deal, I’d have probably happily thrown in something else (Craig? Jay?).
If we have the appropriate payroll space, I’d have done a non-Shelby Miller deal for Haren in a second. And, frankly, I’d have dealt Miller + a couple of minor pieces for him too.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions
I think the Angels got a very good haul actually
and it’s even better of the PTBNL is Skaggs.
Saunders is a league average starter having a bad year, but I think he still has good value. The prospects are all high upside guys — very projectable at this point, but they’re hardly Derek Hooker and Joe Kelly. For one thing, they don’t have drug suspensions and injury problems, for another, they’re both left handed and throw in the mid-90’s with good secondary offerings. I’ve seen Skaggs pitch once this year (he’s playing in Cedar Rapids, which is about 90 minutes away from where I live), and he has very good stuff coupled with excellent control (9.0 K/9, 3.90 K/BB this season). Both of the low A lefties profile as mid-rotation starters, and Skaggs has shown breakout potential this season.
I have no idea what they see in Rafael Rodriguez, but someone must see something in him or he’s just a throw in with the rest of the guys in the deal. A closer who only strikes out 5.4 per 9 innings in AAA? I don’t get it.
I would say the haul they got has a lot more upside, potential, and depth than anything that we could have offered for him, since our only high upside guy is Miller, and while they didn’t get anyone as good as him, they got 2 guys who are very projectable as middle to top end starters, a big league starter, and a flier to help their bullpen.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
You're one of the only ones then
Saunders has little to no value. He’s a non-tender candidate this offseason. Only once in his career has he even been a league average starter and he stands to make near $6 million in arbitration this winter. Rodriguez is filler. They got 2 A-ball prospects, only one of whom can fairly be described as even a B prospect for Haren. They simply chose quantity over quality here and got no one the level of Miller.
What are your thoughts on Tyler Skaggs?
He is reportedly the PTBNL.
"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
Saunders isn't average
Boggs is better. A left-handed Blake Hawksworth is probably a closer comp for Saunders, though we don’t really have anyone that similar. Low K rate, a few too many walks to get by with such a poor K rate, and not really particularly a GB guy either. He’s a #5 starter and a lot of people seem to think he’s a good non-tender candidate for next year, as he’s going to be in his 2nd arby year (I think) and will be due about $6m or so, which is about what he’s worth. I appreciate he could get a bump by moving to the NL, but he’s also moving out of a decent pitchers’ park into the home-run heaven of Chase, and this is a guy who’s averaged 38% flyball rate the last three years and really doesn’t have swing-and-miss stuff.
I readily admit that the low-A guys I mentioned (Kelly, Hooker, Schneider) aren’t as good as the two in the Angels deal, especially Skaggs, but I think we have better players to offer on the “near the majors, low-ceiling” end of the deal. Rodriguez and Saunders really aren’t much more than filler, and they didn’t get a top of the rotation candidate in the other two guys. I think it’s quantity over quality, and the only thing that would stop us from swinging a similar deal would be their apparent desire for left-handed starting pitching.
Hooker’s a 21-year-old in high A who’s put up a 4:1 K/BB ratio this year and a 2.77 FIP to go with a very good groundball rate. It’s probably unfair to hold his drug suspension against him (except on a personal level) because he’s taken a big step forward this year and is age-appropriate for his level. He actually has very similar numbers to Skaggs (a bit better, in fact) but Skaggs age (19 vs 21) obviously makes him the better prospect.
Any case, we could’ve matched the Angels’ package quite easily, I think. None of those guys would be better than B+ prospects, and it’ll be interesting to see if any of them crack the BA top 100 this year. I suspect Skaggs will, but other than that, probably not.
I would say the haul they got has a lot more upside, potential, and depth than anything that we could have offered for him, since our only high upside guy is Miller, and while they didn’t get anyone as good as him, they got 2 guys who are very projectable as middle to top end starters, a big league starter, and a flier to help their bullpen.
Shelby Miller, Deryk Hooker, Blake Hawksworth and PJ Walters is better than the package the Angels offered up, if you want to go high upside. If they just want quantity over quality and don’t mind if the better pieces are low upside, high-minors guys, I reckon we could do better without even having to offer Miller.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
High upside?
Are you commenting on the upside of the prospects given up by the Angels by citing Walters and Hawksworth as having more upside than them?
"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
No, I'm trying to suggest deals of a similar value to the Halos' package.
The Miller/Hooker/Hawksworth/Walters deal would be superior, in my mind, and is “high upside” in that it contains a guy with ace upside (Miller) and a guy with mid-to-high rotation upside (Hooker), just like the Angels’ deal, plus two replacement-level major league pieces (Walters and Hawksworth, the value equivalent of Rodriguez and Saunders). FWIW, I would offer something around Miller, and I suppose losing Hooker wouldn’t be that bad, although I’d hope to get it done with more or less Miller + throw-ins (which would include the likes of PJ and Hawksworth).
An alternative “low upside” package would include a bunch of guys, none of whom will be stars but ALL of whom have potential to be average or productive major leaguers (as opposed to Hawk and PJ); something like Hooker + Joe Kelly + Lance Lynn + Fernando Salas/Eduardo Sanchez.
I would definitely have pulled the trigger on deal #2 (if the cash is there to pay Haren), and would’ve considered deal #1.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
To clarify
Hawksworth and Walters have similar upside to Saunders and Rodriguez, but obviously not to Skaggs and Corbin.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
i hope that is not true
i would have loved to have gotten haren
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
If you are Wilson, Cox, or Jenkins,
And you saw Wallace shipped out last year, and then see Miller shipped out this year,
Why on earth would you sign with the Cardinals?
You will end up playing in BFE by next season.
I would go to college/stay in school.
Play ball!
Why? I can think of a couple of million reasons why you would sign right now, actually
That cash register sound from the beginning of the Pink Floyd song “Money” is probably ringing in their ears right now.
If you’re a prospect, you’ve got a lot to prove before you have to worry about what MLB team you’re going to play for, and if you’re Austin Wilson, don’t you have to look at Colby Rasmus and Jon Jay and go “Yup, I could see myself being one of those guys”?
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
If just throwing out a big contract were likely to sign Wilson
He would not have gone in the 12th round. The Cardinals seem to be marketing themselves to him as a franchise, a premium situation to be in. Repeatedly emptying the system of all highly ranked prospects militates against that.
Cox and Jenkins have good options, too. I understand well the pull of the immediate $. But if I were in their shoes, I think I would consider how the franchise that is courting you treats its current and past top prospects.
I suppose they could look at Rasmus and say, “There is one that got through, I could too.” (I don’t recall other teams’ beating down the doors to get Jay, but perhaps I’m wrong about that.)
Play ball!
by IL and StL Fan on Jul 23, 2010 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't see too much difference
from the potential to get traded to a different org or going back in the draft and getting drafted by a different org. Either way you don’t have a ton of control.
by stevesommer05 on Jul 23, 2010 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
yep, could be the pirates or royals next time
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
OK, I don't want to oversell this point
But it could be Tampa, Colorado, or Boston, too. Teams that develop young talent instead of just shipping it off for whatever aging veteran the team seems to think it needs this year. Players like no-trade clauses for a reason.
If I were in Wilson’s situation, and I see Miller traded this year, I would assume that if I sign with the Cardinals I will be playing for the Pirates or the Royals (or someone similar) — not for a winning team, anyway — because those are the ones selling at the trade deadline.
Maybe you just want to play baseball and don’t care if you get shipped off to Yemen. Or maybe Stanford starts to look better than it did. It might not make the difference, but it really would be a factor for me.
Play ball!
by IL and StL Fan on Jul 23, 2010 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Wallace was drafted to be traded
he was a huge bat that fell in our laps, and didn’t look as if he could stay on third. We have Albert.
"He’s in his own world out there. He says he doesn’t cuss. I disagree." - Skip Schumaker on Jason Motte
Austin Wilson, please don't be a tease!
That's a good point
But Wallace wasn’t the only one traded last year. We went from the #6 farm system to next to last (or so). And who doesn’t need a pitcher like Miller could develop into? I think chuckb’s analysis paints a pretty clear picture of his value.
Again, I don’t think this should be a huge factor in whether we go after Oswalt. But, if I am in Wilson, Cox and Jenkins’ situation, and I see Miller shipped off this year, it would be a pretty clear indication to me that the organization is committed to selling off the future (me) instead of deferring gratification to develop it.
Play ball!
by IL and StL Fan on Jul 24, 2010 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions
albert, yadi, colby, jaime, and a few others would disagree
every team trades prospects. look at texas, atlanta, etc. we didn’t just trade prospects to drop in the farm system rankings – we graduated quite a few to the bigs.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
have the Astros revised their expectations in this trade?
initially they were asking for like 3 major league ready prospects/top prospects
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 23, 2010 12:49 PM EDT reply actions
I'm guessing that's what's going to happen
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 23, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Dan Uggla
Remaining $ owed 2010: $3M
2011 Cost: ~$12M
WAR upgrade in 2010 over Schumaker based on ZiPS®: ~1 WAR worth $4M
WAR for 2011: 3.5 WAR worth $14M
Surplus Value: ~$3M (not including potential draft picks as he departs for free agency he’s a type A in 2010)
If we’re going to add payroll, I’ll take Dan Uggla who is on a shorter contract and represents more surplus value than Roy Oswalt.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
won't it cost more in talent to acquire uggla?
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
More than what's being suggested for Oswalt?
Miller, Jay & a reliever? Maybe but the marginal increase in prospects nets a better return in the major league player.
Silly humans, this world is for robots.
What the Marlins are asking for Uggla
is ridiculous. Asking for Madison Bumgarner from the Giants emphasizes that point, as their system is totally devoid of impact talent SPs. Also, they have discussed trying to extend him (Yeah….right), but it does show how much they value the guy, and how hard it is for them to part with him.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
if miller is involved that would mean significant salary relief, imo, which would have to be factored in
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
The Marlins aren't paying salary relief to anyone.
You do not seem to be particularly acquainted with the Florida Marlins baseball franchise.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 6:43 AM EDT up reply actions
i was referring to oswalt and the stros
in response to azru’s suggestion that it would cost miller.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Ah OK
yeah I think we should get at least $10m going in the other direction (over the course of the deal) if we trade Miller & Oswalt expects his option to be picked up (even if it is somewhat restructured with deferred money).
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
If we trade for Oswalt, we still have gaping
holes at SS and 2b. Uggla would at least fill one of those.
And he can play 3b while Freese is out for the rest of the season rehabs.
Lack of production at MIF is a bigger problem than lack of SP
"They're so stunned they didn't even boo!"
John Rooney 5/3/10 referring to Philly fans on Cards 5-run 7th inning
ChuckB
Your point about shelby flaming out is answered by 33-35 year old pitchers may not be above average pitchers. Here’s a couple questions:
1. The data on existing major leaguers performance like Oswalt must have much less variance than results for Top50 prospects in Single A. It would seem to me the standard deviation on these two estimates of value are quite different. Agreed, disagreed, maybe?
2. While it is true that pitchers like Kyle Lohse may decline in their 33-35 years, I’d be much more willing to bet someone like Oswalt would age better. Don’t pitchers like Oswalt age much more gracefully (assuming no catastophic injury. I’d happily take the bet that we’ll get expected performance from Oswalt.
Finally, I think this is quite nice way of presenting the type of salary the Redbirds should be asking the Astros to pick up in the deal.
Seems to me that if the Cards got the Astros to pick up $6-10 million you’d have to take the view that this would be a very good win now trade. y question would be is this the best way to ge that value. Haren strikes me as a much better answer. If it were me, I’d be trying to upgrade 2B and maybe add a strong #4 pitcher like Ben Sheets.
Just win
by The Duke on Jul 23, 2010 10:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I mean elite pitchers
I don’t think you can look at the aggregate statistics for all pitchers and say, Oswalt is likley to decline at X rate. I could be wrong, but absent a major injury, I would assume these guys age better. That’s the question I’m asking.
Just win
nervous nelly
i’m for a second line pitcher
we went “all in” for holiday for short term goal of reaching the world series
we didn’t make it
now we send another batch of prospects for someone who might pitch in only one playoff game
if we don’t do something about the offense, …..
i’m not big on uggla, but i’d rather get drew than haren
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
i'd be down for drew
but think we should then still pick up a westbrook.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
honestly, i don't give miller up for haren either
we just don’t need them
lohse will be back in a couple of weeks and we already have a rotation strong enough to contend. if we need to trade for something, it’s a MIF bat. and i’m not sure we even need to give up talent for that. greene is looking productive, descalso should be knocking on the door sooner than later and, again, we are already about the best team in the league when the big boys are doing what they should be doing. stephen drew is not going to save this offense if holliday, rasmus, pujols and ludwick are not putting up big numbers
but, josh, what about the post season! yeah, if the fact that penny or lohse are only giving us quality starts the 2-3 times they pitch in the post season is hurting us, then we either need to have a sit down with one or both of our elite hitting and pitching tandems. does adding another elite SP like haren increase our chances of winning this post season? sure. does trading away all our top-end talent hurt our chances of contending in the future a lot more? definitely
/rant
"Moneyball: It's kind of like communism."
twatter
would you give up shelby for this guy?
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/207611-greinke-may-be-available?eref=fromSI
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
Yes, but I doubt the Royals would take Shelby straight up for Zach
by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2010 4:56 AM EDT up reply actions
i wouldn't think so
but he’d have to be included, along with who knows how many others.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I would give up the proposed Oswalt deal for that in a heartbeat
I’d even throw in another player and some pie.
Greinke is only 26 years old and signed through 2012. So we’d get 2 1/3 years of a #1 starter for a cheaper price, and he’d also be worth two draft picks when he leaves for his $200M contract with the Yankees. Oswalt probably won’t bring back any picks because we won’t offer him arbitration.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
greinke might be the rare case who wouldn't sign with new york
considering some issues he’s had. seems like a perfect fit for a st. louis or minny.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I would guess he'd end up in L.A.
Where nobody gives a shit about baseball. I mean, they show up in the 3rd inning, leave in the 8th, and don’t bother to check and see who won in the paper the next day.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
hell, I'd give up Shelby for that guy
I’d probably be tempted to give up Garcia for that guy, but that’s just my crazy Greinke love talkin’
I am pleasantly pleased, thankyouverymuch
by mattyfrommo on Jul 24, 2010 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions
as someone else stated in another thread...
I don’t really care about how much they are worth because I don’t really care about how much DeWitt has to pay to win.
I know that the front office takes into account the future financial health of the organization when making choices about things like this. And I for the most part trust Mo. I’d much rather have Haren than Oswalt. And I’d much rather have an infielder who could hit than a pitcher.
But hey, I’m just a frog put here to bring misery to the human race. What do I know?
this thread is all Aaron Mile's fault.
You should care, because it's a finite amount.
And once we hit that amount, we’re no longer spending any more money to win. Period.
In fact, DeWitt could probably pay a lot less than he does and make more money because St. Louis has some of the best fans in baseball and they could count on a certain amount of attendance every season.
Ticket prices are also fairly low with respect to a lot of other competitive teams in baseball. You can get $10-$12 tickets for the Cardinals just about any game the entire year.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
shelby for stepehn drew anybody?
Idk what it would take to get him.
by rumors on Jul 24, 2010 12:31 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
By how much do you think Stephen Drew is marginally better than Tyler Greene?
I don’t think it’s all that much. I would not give up Shelby for Drew at all. The only target worth giving up Shleby for is Haren, IMO.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Jul 24, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
i'm pretty high on drew
i think he and greene are about the same age, but drew has accomplished considerably more and he’s entering his prime. i also think coming to st. louis…that change of scenery/clubhouse would be great for him. however, i wouldn’t trade miller for him because he’s on a one-year deal this year and i’m not sure if he has one or two years of arby left but the chances of getting a decent deal done to keep him around long enough and at a cost to be worth miller are probably slim – his agent is boras. if we had him for 3-4 years at 4-5 mil per then i’d do that deal.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
i am just not seeing the need for another ace.
It would be great yes. But its not needed. The need for a SS is much greater, unless greene is gonna play like he has shown the flashes of this season. But right now idk if LaRussa will give him enough playing time to make a real difference for us.
by rumors on Jul 24, 2010 1:11 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
since boog was rumored to have been offered in an oswalt deal
i’d say tony is set on playing greene at short – only the sore hand kept him out of the lineup.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
i hope you are right.
Once ludwick and freese are back I guess it won’t be as bad though.
by rumors on Jul 24, 2010 2:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
did not see this before putting up the main post.
I guess my main quibble would be that this looks exclusively at oswalt as a 3 win pitcher going forward. But he’s been worth 3 wins this season already. If he’s really a 4-4.5 win pitcher, the deal looks a lot better and gives us surplus value.
I also wonder if we really have to give up shelby if roy is going to lean on the astros as hard as he is.
"We were men - flesh and blood - and we played baseball in the sunshine. We hit doubles off the wall, slid hard into second base. We had fights, and we made love. We sang songs and prayed on Sundays. . . . We felt pain. And we felt joy. There was a lot wrong with the world. But we weren't sad, man. We had the times of our lives." Buck O'Neil, from "The Soul of Baseball: A Road Trip Through Buck O'Neil's America."
by tom s. on Jul 24, 2010 10:22 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
money-wise you are correct, but
he flopped tonight
if we pick him up, then luddy and/or apu is gone
our offense is worse than our pitching, and there is some hope on the pitching horizon, but not offensively
half the offensive problems is tinkerin tony who rarely plays the best offensive team
and half, all the guys at 50+ points below last year in obp
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
No it doesn't
it looks at him as a 3.5 win pitcher next year w/ a half win regression in 2012. He was 3.6 wins in 2008 and 3.1 in 2009. He’s projected to be around 4.3 – 4.4 at the end of this season. Expecting him to be at 4.5 next year, when he hasn’t been since 2007 is a bit unreasonable.
Right now 2011 rotation is
Carp
Waino
Garcia
Lohse
KMac/Hawksworth/FA
Besides ATL, who’s better?
This post has convinced me Mo needs to look to get MIF or 3B help for this season and possibly beyond.
Stick to your guns with HOU. Don’t offer more than Jay & Boog!
"They're so stunned they didn't even boo!"
John Rooney 5/3/10 referring to Philly fans on Cards 5-run 7th inning
No Penny?
I think Lohse still needs to prove himself, hopefully he’ll do that.
So what happens to Brad Penny…who also needs a comeback?
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
oops...
that was suppose to be a reply to gocards62.
Baseball first, teams second, players third, agents last.
by Dave Pendleton on Jul 25, 2010 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions
lohse is under contract
if healthy, he’s in the rotation. i doubt there were ever plans on bringing penny back even without the injury – he’s on a one-year deal.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I would not want to sign penny again he just seems like an injury prone guy
chief justice
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Jul 25, 2010 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
One thing that would seem to be especially useful in evaluating trade deadline deals...
that are rentals for prospects is to place a present value on marginal wins. A marginal win for the Cards this season (represented here by Oswalt over Suppan/Hawksworth/whomever), 100 games into the season and within a game of the division lead, is much more valuable than an expected marginal win 4 years from now, which could be worth nil.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Jul 25, 2010 2:40 PM EDT reply actions
Marginal win gets to heart of why you do these deals
ChuckB’s value analysis is a great starting point. The GM then has to decide how much the expected marginal win in replacing hawk/suppan is in winning the division because that’s why these trades are made. Is 1.5 to 2 wins going to do it. Maybe in combination with a Kyle Lohse return it will.
If Oswalt gets you to playoffs what is the marginal value of 2-6 playoff home games? I gotta think that weighs into the value equation when they decide to increase payroll.
Just win
Why would a win 4 years from now
be worth nothing?
These are “marginal wins” — Wins Above Replacement (thus the WAR). If the Cards intend to be competing 4 years from now, it has value. I’ll admit that wins between the 85th and 90th have more value than those between the 65th and 70th but if the plan is to keep Miller, extend Pujols, etc., the plan is to be an 85 – 95 win team 4 years from now as well. Even if the team isn’t an 85 win team 4 years from now, you can’t say that wins that Shelby Miller provides 4 years from now are worth nothing. It simply isn’t true.
by chuckb on Jul 25, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the argument is
DeWitt and Mo know the team is a contender this year. Who knows if they will be in four years.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
This is a good point
but the wins 4 years from now aren’t worth nothing.
Secondly, if we’re looking to upgrade our marginal wins as much as possible, then the Oswalt deal isn’t the one to do.
Trading for Dan Uggla would be worth more marginal wins to us over the rest of the season as he would be taking a replacement level position player off of the field every day.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
if freeze comes back, then lopex is at second - where does uggla play?
have we won a suppan start yet? if we win only half of oswalt’s starts – well, we’d be 3 or 4 games better off from the time soup entered the rotation till now.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
If Brad Penny and Kyle Lohse come back, why do we need $16M worth of Roy Oswalt?
I’m not sure Oswalt wins us a single start the Suppan has made actually. He’s getting the worst run support in the entire National League since coming to the Cardinals. So we lose 2-0 instead of 5-0. It’s still a loss because we can’t score any runs.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
i don't want to count on either penny or lohse
and be left high and dry.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
I'm not counting on either of them.
But I’m not counting on David Freese either, who seems to have Kevin Mitchell syndrome.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
true, freeze is troubling
i have to believe this involves the surgically-repaired ankle.
"Some days I feel like the hypotenuse in a love triangle; others as if my lucky number is pi."
moar runz more often, or we don't make it no matter who pitches
I may be in a rut, but at least I know where I'm going
I think Oswalt is worth more to us the rest of the way than Uggla
or at least as much. Sounds to me that Freese is closer to a return than Penny is. If Freese is 3B, Boog/Greene SS, then Lopez is 2B. I guess Lopez plays some SS so in that situation you’ve got a bit of Skip at 2B as well. Still, hard to see Uggla being much more than a 1-win boost the rest of the way.
Oswalt would be replacing Suppan (who I think is below replacement level) or, if/when Lohse is back, Hawk (who is probably about replacement level, maybe a tick above but not much), and I think he’s closer to a 2 win upgrade.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 6:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Very well said Mr. McGee
I really agree with this point. It is sort of a present value vs. time value of money explanation. A marginal win four years from now has less value than a marginal win today given the Cardinals’ current position in the division and league.
I didn't say it was worth nothing....I said it "could" be
Obviously you would use some sort of expected win value. Regardless, an expected win four years from now (or whenever you think the Cards will be getting the benefit of Miller’s performance) is going to be worth less than a marginal win now, when it is extremely valuable to making the playoffs, given the closeness of the current pennant race.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Jul 25, 2010 4:28 PM EDT reply actions
no it won't, Willie
salary inflation is going to push the value of a marginal win higher 4 years from now than it is right now.
And there’s no chance that a marginal win today, tomorrow, 4 years from now, or 400 years from now will be worth nothing.
you're misunderstanding my point - we're not talking about the same thing
focus back on accounting for the difference in expected marginal win value for the Cards today (given the close pennant race) and for the Cards four years from now. As it stands, your analysis does not account for this and therefore ignores the primary driver for why contending teams deal prospects for rentals every year. Conversely, this is why non-contending teams never make these trades – i.e., the value of an additional marginal win today is very low for a non-contender, but future marginal wins have real value. E.g., take the Astros — the value of a marginal win to them, as of today’s date, assymptotically approaches zero because even adding that win, it makes no difference to their chances of making the playoffs.
Perhaps accounting for this does not lead to change in your recommendation, but the way your model is set up now, you’re not accounting for the primary argument for trading prospects for Oswalt.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Jul 25, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
The question becomes what “discount rate” do you apply to the win though? I’d think for a team like the Cards it’s really really small. They’re a pretty good bet to be close to the playoff sweet spot in 3-4 yrs when those wins are important too.
by stevesommer05 on Jul 25, 2010 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with this
I think if you’re a team like the Rangers, who haven’t been in the postseason in a while, that discount rate changes. If you’re a team like the Marlins, you might go all-in when you have the goods that season, because you know you don’t have the attendance or finances to keep all those players around for a long time.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Exactly
You’re paying a “discount rate” for the uncertainty that you may/may not be in this position in X years. For a team like the Cards or Yanks that uncertainty is much lower than a team like the Marlins or insert other team that is catching lightning in a bottle
by stevesommer05 on Jul 26, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with you -
But a reasonable discount rate for expected marginal win value should still be modeled and added to the analysis (and I’d recommend the analysis is done with ranges across the board).
I agree that we might expect the discount rate to be lower for the Cards, as opposed to some other teams, but four years (to use the timeframe for my original example) is a long time, and the current expected marginal win value is probably close to a maximum value. We assume a certain level of future performance from the Cards, but how much of that assumed performance is based on having had the best player in baseball for the last decade? Whatever our feelings as fans, objectively, there is a significant chance that Pujols does not play for the Cards in four years or is in significant decline. (Pujols is just an example – other factors may be more or less important in determining an appropriate discount rate.)
Four years from now, Shelby MIller could be Matt Morris on the 1997 Cards, and that’s IF he turns out to be a 3.5 WAR pitcher (and of course, odds are he’ll not be that good).
by Willie McGee's Twin on Jul 26, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
There is also the salient financial point, however
that value, money or goods NOW are worth (all other things being equal, such as supply and demand, need, and value going forward) more than those things in future.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 6:53 AM EDT up reply actions
I've said before, and I'll continue to say
I don’t think that the time-value of goods (players) or money is really attributable in the grand scheme of things in baseball.
For instance, if we had paid Kyle Lohse’s two $12M years up front, he would be more affordable the next two and would allow us to make some moves that would help this team add marginal wins, OR he would be a more attractive trade candidate for a team looking to upgrade the middle of their rotation for a couple of years. Same with Alfonso Soriano’s deal in Chicago.
I don’t understand why team’s don’t adopt the strategy of paying people the big money when they are more likely to be worth it, then taper the contract down as they get older so that you can add in pieces around them to stay competitive. I think the first team that begins to think this way is going to be miles ahead of everyone else, honestly.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
But they can eat the money now instead
The Cardinals can make Lohse’s contract look exactly like you suggest to other teams by eating 8M of his contract. There is absolutely no flexibility added by guaranteeing money earlier in the contract. Paying 12M in year 1, then 12M in year two and trading away 7M and 9M years (assuming he’d waive the NTC) is a worse financial move for the cards than Paying 7M/9M in years one and two, then eating 8M at the end of year two, and is no worse (or slightly better) for the team receiving Lohse.
As long as players care less about NPV than franchises do, backloaded contracts are going to be preferred.
by brackenthebox on Jul 26, 2010 9:51 AM EDT up reply actions
But they still have to eat that cash, which still means they're eating dollars during that fiscal year.
Why not eat those dollars when that player is likely to be worth that amount, and then back it down as the uncertainty of that player’s value is likely to be more risky later in the contract?
If the Cardinals have to eat, say, $8M of his deal the next two years to move him, when they could have just traded him and his $8M contract for the next two seasons and not paid him anything, why is that NOT a better scenario? You can then spend that $8M in 2011 and 2012 on a player that will help your current roster, rather than paying a player who’s paying for another team. I guess I don’t understand why your scenario makes the organization better off. The player is certainly better off with the money up front, so it would also make sense to trade the money up front for the NTC that many free agents request.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
they can treat a backloaded contract like a front-loaded one internally, but they can't do the opposite
The Cardinals could have turned Lohse’s current contract into the exact scenario you describe by earmarking an additional $5M/$3M in the first two years. Had they chosen to do that, they’d now have something like $9M in the “Lohse account” that could either be used to pay him, or to offset costs of eating the contract when trading him. A backloaded contract gives the team internal options along these lines that don’t exist for a front-loaded one.
I guess I don’t understand why your scenario makes the organization better off
The scenario I outlined in my original post is superior to a front-loaded contract because of the time value of money, and nothing more. In both cases, the Cards are on the hook for $24M, but they have to pay it sooner on a front loaded contract, so it costs them more.
by brackenthebox on Jul 26, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Not only that
but they could invest the $5M in the “Lohse account” and have it be worth more than $5M when they need it.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
What I meant was
all other things being equal, 1 WAR that you can add today is worth more than 1 WAR delivered at a given period of time in future.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand why team’s don’t adopt the strategy of paying people the big money when they are more likely to be worth it, then taper the contract down as they get older so that you can add in pieces around them to stay competitive. I think the first team that begins to think this way is going to be miles ahead of everyone else, honestly.
Because it is in the interests of most GMs to add the most value to their team in the immediate future. Big, long-term contracts are nearly always signed by teams expecting to be competitive. Within reason, no GM is thinking about staying competitive in 4, 5 or 6 years, because if they haven’t done a good enough job of keeping their team competitive in the immediate future, they won’t be in charge by the time the backloaded portion becomes payable in any case. I actually think it’s good business on their part.
As you say, there might be circumstances where it would be sensible for the club’s ownership to step in and try to force the front office to structure contracts in a different way.
And, as a slightly lesser (but still, from ownership’s POV, relevant) reason is obviously that the longer they can keep that money (i.e. by not paying it to the player for as long as possible), the easier it is to use it for other things, and the more money they can make out if it. $1m today is going to be worth more to teams (in all but the most unusual of competitive circumstances) than $1m in 4 years.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Jul 26, 2010 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
The time value of money concept applies to the dollars involved
What it doesn’t apply to is the competitive aspect of the game. The value of Lohse’s contract is much, much better if you pay the big dollar years up front and decrease it, versus paying the big dollar years at the end, because it makes him more lucrative to other teams near the end of the deal and gives the Cardinals payroll flexibility to continue to add parts to the team and hedge against injuries to players with guaranteed long term deals to remain competitive over the life of the contract.
If you’re a pro sports owner, you’re much better off fielding a competitive team every year and breaking even than you are fielding a non-competitive team for years and making a little bit of money. Since 1996, the Cardinal franchise has more than doubled in value. If they were to sell it right now, they would make far more money than they ever could running the actual club at a small profit over those 15 years. You can get more money from state and local governments to pay for things that benefit your team (stadiums, ballpark village, mass transit, if they are competitive every year, which further enhances your franchise’s overall worth.
I think we’re seeing some of this with the Matt Holliday deal. They’ve deferred some of the money, but he’s getting the same AAV every year for the life of the contract. I think that’s smart. If salaries inflate, he’ll be cheaper at the end of the deal. Our payroll has been around $100M for the last decade. Backloading contracts assumes that inflation in salaries around the league will make those contracts look more attractive, but that really hasn’t happened over the last 10 years, which deflates a bit of the TVM theory I would think.
Can Colby round out our new MV3?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
