What's Fair Market Value?

by lboros on Nov 5, 2006 8:21 AM EST in St. Louis Cardinals News

i'm posting this for erik this morning --- formatting the tables can be a nightmare in Scoop, so i offered to do it for erik and post the article. as long as i've got you: if you follow the stl rams, SB Nation's Turf Show Times will have a game thread up today, along with the usual excellent coverage. TST is written by Ryan VB of Cardinals Diaspora; stop on by, it's game day.

with that, i'll turn things over to erik:

Have you ever played around with the Fair Market Value Calculator over at The Hardball Times? It's a fun toy to play around with if you want to see how much bang a team got for the buck. The calculator considers a player's contract status, expectations of a player with that particular salary, and the player's Win Shares Above Bench, WSAB. It then spits out a dollar figure that represents the dollar value of a player's contribution, relative to expectations. Win Shares Above Bench is similar to Baseball Prospectus's Value Over Replacement Player (VORP); it measures a player's contribution above and beyond the baseline production that a typical bench player would provide. (By "typical bench player," I mean guys like Aaron Miles and So Taguchi and Skip Schumaker.) For a fuller explanation, click here.

With the Hot Stove getting ready to heat up, I thought I would look at last offseason's St. Louis pickups in terms of value. The figures aren't perfect, as the bench-player baselines are taken from the 2005 season --- but things don't change that much from year to year.

Player	WSAB	Salary	Net Value
Encarnacion	4	$3,500,000	$1,228,167
Looper	5	$3,500,000	$2,017,644
Ponson	1	$1,000,000	$374,922
Rincon	-1	$1,450,000	-$3,336,015
Spiezio	6	$327,000	$4,732,619
Miles	1	$350,000	$755,477
Bigbie	0	$900,000	$-656,745

No wonder it was called the offseason of discontent. None of these deals paid off big dividends, except for the nonroster invitee (Spiezio). Encarnacion and Looper both gave fair return on the dollar in 2006, but they were both in the first and cheapest years of their contract. Looper's salary goes up to $4.5m in '07 and $5.5m in '08. Encarnacion will make $5m in '07 and $6.5 in '08. Ponson was released after 14 starts, Rincon elected for surgery in April, Spivey was signed for $1.2m and didn't play a game in the majors, and Bigbie had a grand total of 28 plate appearances all season. That's 4.5 million bucks and nothing to show for it.

Scott Spiezio was signed to a minor league contract in spring training, and he turned out to be the bargain-basement steal of the year, with 12 total win shares, not bad at all for your utility man. I hope he can come back for next season in that role again, because if not there's gonna be a lot of red soul patches gathering lint in people's drawers.

What about the Cardinal players that have filed for free agency this year?

Player	WSAB	Salary	Net Value
Mulder	-3	$7,750,000	-$6,873,989
Marquis	-4	$5,150,000	-$8,577,177
Weaver	-2	$8,325,000	-$6,433,005
Suppan	7	$4,000,000	$3,293,560
Belliard	0	$4,000,000	$-2,232,779
Edmonds	5	$12,333,000	-$3,336,015

Other then Suppan, I believe these guys are better players than their 06 performance, but ouch. Win shares aren't really predictive, but these figures should be a huge caution sign for the Cardinals when it comes to bringing these players back.

But the coolest thing of all I get out of this? The Cardinals still managed to win a World Series with or in spite of this bunch. And you can't put a price on that.

Tweet Comment 65 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Who...

Do we think Jock will target this offseason?

by TNFan32 on Nov 5, 2006 9:59 AM EST reply actions

So according to those calculations

Marquis actually should have paid the Cardinals about 3.4M for how poorly he pitched.

That's pretty funny.

by mtalken on Nov 5, 2006 11:12 AM EST reply actions

he owes approximately

$1 to each paying customer . . . . .

by lboros on Nov 5, 2006 11:22 AM EST up reply actions

Like

the class action lawsuit in "The Jerk." If I understand law correctly -- and I don't -- I would be willing to bet that if we sued Marquis and were able to get it to court, if we had a judge who was a Cards fan, we could make that happen.

Cheers

by Alxfritz on Nov 5, 2006 11:49 AM EST up reply actions

This would be an interesting...

"incentive" on his "incentive-base contract."

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Nov 5, 2006 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

marquis

i went to seven games this year and saw him pitch 3 times. what a hunk of junk....where's my 3 dollars!?!?

by tainter on Nov 5, 2006 11:29 AM EST reply actions

Jimmy again...

If you throw in his 2005 numbers (the no concussion year) it predicts a $14MM sallary. not bad.

Dave Roberts 2005 numbers warrant a sub-$5MM sallary.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Nov 5, 2006 11:38 AM EST reply actions

This has bargin written all over it.

sammy sosa

also, call Kerry Wood.

jokes? jokes.

o8o88o888o

by ilillillli on Nov 5, 2006 12:01 PM EST reply actions

Better than Jorge i guess

It happened on a Sunday afternoon, August 22, 1982.

by Glenn Brummer stole home on Nov 5, 2006 12:48 PM EST up reply actions

That's darn interesting

It's not even high on Sup, eh?

I was a bit surprised at the Belly numbers, but I assume this uses offensive stats only.

by sdrone on Nov 5, 2006 12:02 PM EST reply actions

we forget that Supp was sporting

a 5 something ERA for the first half. He was extremely good the second half but his ERA still was around 4.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

I didn't forget, but you're right

I wonder what numbers it'd roll out for average pitchers that give you quality starts and 200 innings/year.

by sdrone on Nov 5, 2006 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

It was easy for me to forget how bad

Suppan could be earlier in the year when he ends the season with a sub-2.5 second half ERA. It's all regressing to the mean for Suppan as he will perpetually be a mid- to back-rotation starter good for league average and 200-ish IP.

Marquis on the other hand managed to maintain his awfulness for a full year which deserves some kind of special award for defying probability. He managed to get underneath his 10 percentile of PECOTA while still pitching a full season. How the Cardinals front office managed to stay comitted to him for a full year is something I will never understand.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 3:20 PM EST up reply actions

That's good stuff

You have to be careful, and you were, when using that calculator b/c the link to WSAB takes you to this stat for the '05 season. Marquis and Mulder were respectable in '05. So you have to go dig for the '06 stats on WSAB to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Good job, Erik!

by chuckb on Nov 5, 2006 12:59 PM EST reply actions

Mulder and Marquis

Mulder, when not injured, is one of the best in the game. I'd want him back.

Marquis had a better 2004 than 05 or 06. At one time in 2004, he was 13-4. I want that version of Marquis pitching, not necessarily saying that I want him back next season although it upsets me to see his pitching so badly.

Redbirds Fun
The Kentucky Democrat
2006 WS for JB and DK57

by cardsfan84 on Nov 5, 2006 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

Are you kidding me

I would never want Marquis on the Cardinals at any price again.

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

I never said I want him back

I'm just saying that he needs to get back to the 2004 version

Redbirds Fun
The Kentucky Democrat
2006 WS for JB and DK57

by cardsfan84 on Nov 5, 2006 6:46 PM EST up reply actions

Perhaps...

...Marquis could sign with an American League team and become a DH. Perhaps Ankiel could join him down the road and some team could have a unique platoon RH & LH designated hitter spot with past MLB pitching experience.

Baily

by Baily on Nov 5, 2006 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

OverPaying

I just don't see us signing Suppan. We will have to over pay for him and that is just not our style. I think we need to re-sign Weaver. He made it very clear that he wanted to stay in Saint Louis in his press conferences. Suppan didn't make a similar gesture.

We have to decide on Edmonds soon. I say we sign him for 2 years than let Rasmus replace him after that.

Belliard is a bum and say he has to go. What about Mark Loretta or Mark DeRosa?

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:00 PM EST reply actions

Loretta

I'll take Loretta if management doesn't sign Soriano.

Redbirds Fun
The Kentucky Democrat
2006 WS for JB and DK57

by cardsfan84 on Nov 5, 2006 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

DeRosa

Even though DeRosa played for Texas he hit better away.

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:27 PM EST up reply actions

I vote for Loretta

To me he seems to be taylor made for Cardinal baseball and a perfect fit. But if Cards didn't ante-up for Grudz, I have a hard time seeing how they'd pay Loretta his fair market value.

Baily

by Baily on Nov 5, 2006 9:51 PM EST up reply actions

2nd base

Biggio had an interesting quote in the New York Post about being willing to walk from Houston if their offer didn't show appreciation of what he's done for them. Here's the link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10252006/sports/it_could_be_aurilia_in_new_york_sports_joel_sherman.htm

He'd be an awesome #2 hitter, although he's obviously declined considerably.

Loretta would be another good #2 hitter, but defensively, he has pretty bad range.

I'm seeing Adam Kennedy as the likely pick. He's the youngest of the 2nd base crop that the Cards are likely to be willing to sign, he's better defensively than most of the other options, and he'll probably cost around 3 years, 8-10M. He's also a lefty. His biggest problem is a pretty poor on-base percentage of someone who might be looked at as a possible #2 hitter at only .334

by mtalken on Nov 5, 2006 1:15 PM EST reply actions

Adam Kennedy

NO!!!!!!!! Per fungoes (http://stl.sabr.org/fungoes/)

Second Baseman: Jose Lopez
The Stone Glove at 2B was a race to the bottom between laterally-challenged Adam Kennedy and the inept Jose Lopez, who turned out to be only a slightly better fielder than George Lopez. Lopez trailed all American leaguers at the keystone base with an utterly uncommendable 87 Rate2.

by Zubin on Nov 5, 2006 1:41 PM EST up reply actions

I don't like

I don't like Kennedy either.

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

well

according to The Fielding Bible by John Dewan, Kennedy is an outstanding defensive second baseman. for what it's worth.

"Go Crazy, Folks! Go Crazy!"

by erik on Nov 5, 2006 3:16 PM EST up reply actions

also

according to bp's fraa (fielding runs above average, kennedy was 11 runs above the average 2nd baseman. loretta was -9, belliard was -4 just in his time in st. louis, a -3 for the season. i dunno, defensive metrics kinda confuse me. Dewan's make the most sense to me.

"Go Crazy, Folks! Go Crazy!"

by erik on Nov 5, 2006 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

TLR's No. 2 hitters...

When projecting hitters for the No. 2 spot in the lineup, I think your forgetting TLR's over emphasis (overboard love affair?) on a hitter's "damage potential" at that spot. Low to no power potential seems to mean no chance to be written in the No. 2 spot on a regular basis under Tony's direction. I don't necessarily agree with it (I prefer a high on-base, table setter, able to bunt a runner over type of No. 2 hitter), but TLR just won a World Series, so who's to argue?

Baily

by Baily on Nov 5, 2006 9:57 PM EST up reply actions

Free Agents

Here is a list of all FA's

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:18 PM EST reply actions

On Mulder

Guess I could have made all this one post, but didn't see the post about Mulder.

Anyway, I don't see him as being one of the best in the league ever again. I think he could be a mid 3 ERA lefty if he's as healthy as can be expected, but with the degenerative hip condition and his now flawed mechanics(was it here or one of the other Cards blogs that had the post about Mulder's mechanics a couple months ago?) he's unlikely to be the guy he was in Oakland.

Having said that, if we can get him signed to a 1 or 2 year deal that's maybe 4-5M base per year tops with a couple million in incentives, I think if healthy, he's definitely a #2 or #3 guy, and that could be a good bargain.

by mtalken on Nov 5, 2006 1:18 PM EST reply actions

Hips

Since it is his hip that is hurt no way should we sign him. To reduce pain on his hip he changed his arm slot and tore it up. He is useless.

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

Has Jocketty ever

made a really strong move during the Hot Stove meetings?

I guess the Mulder deal came out of them, but IIRC it happened somewhat later.

The Rolen and Walker deals were both mid-season and below the radar. Jocketty hates publicity and he hates bidding wars.

It may be frustrating, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did virtually nothing before spring.

by Red in Chicago on Nov 5, 2006 1:27 PM EST reply actions

Trade Chips

I just don't see a trade coming or don't want one. I prefer we hold onto all our chips this year. We need to sign a lot of 2 year contracts. We have a good crop of players coming up that should be ready for 09.

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

He traded for Edmonds

during Spring Training.

by cardsrul on Nov 5, 2006 2:55 PM EST up reply actions

The J.D. Drew trade happened during the

winter meetings.

by steve in georgia on Nov 5, 2006 9:17 PM EST up reply actions

Value of Edmonds

First off, let me say that I believe financial osterity will be thrown out the window this year. The combination of teams being flush with cash and the Cards-Tigers world series will probably embolden teams to spend wildly on a weak class of free agents. So is Jim Edmonds worth 10 million? That depends on the supply and demand. The list of established CF on the market is not deep (Juan Pierre) with several older players (Kenny Lofton, Steve Finley, Dave Roberts?) and a few interesting risks (Gary Matthews, Paul Wilson). The demand for Edmonds should be limited to teams believed to be on the verge, however the Kenny Rogers phenomenon might expand that list of teams. I agree with lboros that a contract for Edmonds starts with looking at what Steve Finley got two years ago; 2 years and 14 million. Finley was older but Edmonds is injury prone. However, in this market, Edmonds contract probably starts here. Dodgers, Cubs, Rangers, and Rockies are all teams I see bidding heavily on these names. Though I can't see Edmonds in Chicago or Colorado, the Dodgers and Rangers would be interesting short term deals for Edmonds (if the Rangers can't sign Lee or Soriano). The Astros could also use some insurance on Tavaras. In short, the market is weak on outfield defense and if you need a centerfielder you will have to pay for it; even a 33 year old Gary Matthews can demand a Encarnacion/Jones sized contact (3 years and 5 mil). So, even if the Cardinals decide Jimmy isn't worth 10 mil, some team will probably give him 2 years and 16-18 million. Which would make a Dave Roberts even a Reggie Sanders-esque 2 years 10 million. Wouldn't that make Jimmy worth it?

All my friends became Cardinal fans and grew up happy and liberal. I became a Cub fan and grew up imbittered and conservative." -- George Will

by wannabeGedman on Nov 5, 2006 3:05 PM EST reply actions

Edmonds

My first choice would be to resign him to a 2 year, $12 million deal, with $5 million being paid in '07 and $7 million in '08. Edmonds would actually make $8 million in the first year of the deal because of the buyout and $7 million in the second year. But resigning him for anymore than that is not smart. I mean that poll question here mentioned a 2 year $15 million deal and that doesn't make any sense to me. Let's say it's split up equally, then Edmonds would actually make more money in 2007 than if they just picked up the option.

So if I were Walt, I'd tell Edmonds and his agent that they'll give him $12 million over 2 or they'll just pick up the option. If the incredibly overrated Torii Hunter gets paid $12 million, then Edmonds is $8-10 million easily.

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

Why on earth would he go for that?

I'm sure Edmonds could get $15M/ 2 years on the open market easy. Even if he gives us the St Louis discount, we still need to pay him $14M or so.

If the Cards want Edmonds back I think it starts at $17M/ 2 years inclusive of the buyout.

by Zubin on Nov 5, 2006 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

But what I'm saying is...

if he refuses, then we pick up his option and then revisit this problem after the 2007 season. Plus, paying him $14 million or so is dumb because they might as well just pick up his option and not be on the hook for a 38 year old OF with injury problems for the '08 season.

Even if you backload the contract, you'd be paying him, say, $8 million for the 1st year and $9 million for the second year. No thanks.

Remember that the Cards have the power here, not Edmonds. So it's a lower restructed deal or just picking up the option. Anything other than that is just silly.

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 5:32 PM EST up reply actions

Plus....

Doesn't Vernon Wells become a free agent after next season? If they're on the hook for Edmonds, then they wouldn't go for him. So maybe they'd be better off just picking up the option and letting him go after that.

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think the Cardinals have all the power

We really don't have a replacement waiting in the wings (unless you count Encarnacion and then you are looking at a dropoff). Edmonds is going to get 3 million from us this year no matter what (buyout, restructured deal, pickup the option, whatever) so anything he makes has to start from that assumption. He knows that he is the best option that the Cardinals have on the FA market both offensively and defensively.

If they buyout, he probably signs @ 2/16ish meaning he's making 10+ the first year and 7-8 the second year. Given the fact that much of Edmond's offensive woes this year were attributed to post concussion syndrome (rightfully so or not) and not a reoccurring structural problem, it's not an outrageous assumption to think his 2007 numbers will be slightly better if only in terms of time on the field.

Personally, I think the Cardinals have kinda yanked him around this year with the whole option thing. I understand their perspective w/ the decline and injuries but they haven't seemed very forthright with FA players the last few years (see Morris), imo.

If I'm Jimmy, I look for 2 years at 18 million or 2 years at 16 million with a 3rd year vesting option based on ABs/PAs.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 6:31 PM EST up reply actions

They have the power for 2007

And that's all I'm really concerned about. He'll be 38 in 2008 and while I'd love to see him back (provided he's still healthy and somewhat productive), I don't think he'll be worth $8 million or more. And who knows maybe someone will be ready by 2008 (i.e. Rasmus). I doubt it, but you never know.

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 6:48 PM EST up reply actions

Yes but what I am saying is

$5M for a 38yo Edmonds is probably what he'd comand in the open market anyway.

by Zubin on Nov 5, 2006 8:16 PM EST up reply actions

$5 million?

Where would the $5 million come into play? You said $14 million over 2 years minimum, not including the buyout and that's only if he's taking the sweetheart deal. So you would pay Edmonds $12 million next year ($9 million in salary plus $3 million buyout) and $5 million in '08?

Why on earth would the Cards do that?

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry, that should be at least $5M

meaning he wouldn't go for it.

My whole point is

forget about the $3M... its a sunk cost
If you take whatever J'Ed commands on an open market and take off ~$2M that seems to me to be a fair deal. J'Ed gets security of a 2 year deal and the Cards get a small discount.

by Zubin on Nov 5, 2006 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

disagree

unless Soriano moves to CF who has the potential to make a bigger impact than Jimmy?

Gary Matthews? Younger, good D, but was last year a career year...

Lofton, Finley? Old and Older - Lofton aint bad but he has little power left. Finley should retire.

Darin Erstad? He played college football in Nebraska. He's gritty. He also should consider retirement.

Pierre, Roberts? Speedsters with good D. Neither has great power but SB are there.

Jimmy provides the best OPS out of the bunch in a year plagued with injuries. You can argue durability but of the group Jimmy has the highest upside in OBP, SLG and is near the top in defense.

PS - Jimmy will be 37 next June.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 9:11 PM EST up reply actions

38

He'll be 38 in 2008 though and that's what I'm talking about.

You're just assuming he'll still be performing at a high level. That's fine, but I personally think it's a bad idea to commit $9 million or so to a 38 year old based on an assumption.

Hey I'd like him back as long as he can keep playing, but the Cards don't have the money (or rather the owners don't give enough money) to take chances. And no matter how good Edmonds has been, it's a big risk committing big dollars to a 38 year old.

That's all I'm really saying.

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 9:33 PM EST up reply actions

I was merely saying that some

team WILL risk it. The notion that Jimmy is only worth 5 million on the market is preposterous. He has the best career numbers easily and a healthy Jimmy (who knows how much the shoulder surgery could help as well...or hurt) is the best CF option this offseason with the exception of perhaps Soriano.

I'm not arguing it isn't a risk but a lot of signings are risks and some team will offer him more than 5 million a year.

Acquire Jason Schmidt!

by azruavatar on Nov 5, 2006 9:52 PM EST up reply actions

Another point on Edmonds

is that if he goes to an NL team, he could wind up hurting us at some point. Gotta believe the club option should be exercised, if for no other reason than to remove another question mark from the core lineup.

by Red in Chicago on Nov 5, 2006 3:18 PM EST reply actions

Imagine

Imagine Edmonds with what he could do in the Astrodome for 82 games a year with that short porch.

by DimitroffVodka on Nov 5, 2006 3:42 PM EST reply actions

Astrodome

isn't that the home of the Bad News Bears?

by madding on Nov 5, 2006 5:52 PM EST up reply actions

You don't want to backload

a contract on a declining player. It makes it very hard to move without adding $$$ to sweeten a trade. If anything, the contract should be front-loaded to match Edmonds's expected contribution to his salary.

by Red in Chicago on Nov 5, 2006 6:20 PM EST reply actions

Edmonds is different though

because of the $3 million buyout. If it's a $14 million deal and it's frontloaded, then you'll actually be paying him more than if you just picked up the option. So a frontloaded contract doesn't make much sense in this case because of that buyout.

by themang on Nov 5, 2006 6:27 PM EST up reply actions

Just pick up the option

Is Jim Edmonds worth $7 mil? Yes? Pick it up.

by SirVLCIV on Nov 5, 2006 7:20 PM EST reply actions

I think the point of restructuring

Is to get J'Ed for two years. If J'Ed bounces back, the Cards get a deal on a productive 38yo.

by Zubin on Nov 5, 2006 8:19 PM EST up reply actions

Giants

Interested in Suppan, according to mlb trade rumors. Wow, they really admire the Cardinals.

A walk is a waste of three pitches-Bob Gibson

by orlando card on Nov 5, 2006 7:34 PM EST reply actions

If they restructure the deal

I don't think they'd have to pay the buyout.

by mtalken on Nov 5, 2006 9:14 PM EST reply actions

The question, I suppose, is not whether

Edmonds should be retained. Or even whether he is worth $10 MM a year. But rather, whether there are not alternative uses for the money that make his contract punitive to the club's future.

So who's out there that will cost $$$ that we're actually going to make a deal for? And is this person such a positive that his win shares will offset the loss of Edmonds's win shares?

by Red in Chicago on Nov 5, 2006 11:59 PM EST reply actions