some followup from yesterday's post about the proper way to price free-agent talent:
first item: by sheer coincidence Baseball Analysts posted a study of free-agent contracts yesterday. the study, by david regan, supports what most of us already believe -- players signed to very large free-agent contracts usually prove not to have been worth the money. it's not a perfect study and by no means the last word on the subject; the off-season just ended brought a whole slew of new data points. but i'll keep the article in mind ev'y time burnett ryan wagner washburn et al take the mound.
second item: i had a brain freeze yesterday and left matt morris off the list of "players that got away"; duh. here's the quick-dirty on him:
| player | projected marginal wins per PECOTA |
contract value | price per marginal win |
|---|---|---|---|
| morris | 9.2 | $27m | $2.9m |
half again as high as the preferred ceiling of $2m per marginal win. the cardinals' best offer was reported as being in the range of $20m for three years, which comes out (per pecota's estimate) to $2.2m per marginal win; pretty much on target. one last point about morris: pecota does like him for 2006, projecting 4.2 MW (ie marginal wins -- i'm sick of typing that out). his backloaded deal pays him just $5m this season, so he projects as an excellent buy for this year ($1.2m/MW) but a disastrous one in 07-08 ($3.8m/MW).
third item: Red in Chicago asked for a rundown on some of the other free agents from the 2005-06 class, to see which ones fell within the cards' preferred price range. before we dive in, this seems like a good point at which to reiterate some caveats. first, i remind you the pecota is slightly (ahem) less than 100 percent accurate in its forecasts; one or more of the players that are projected as lousy buys here may turn out to be good values or even outright steals. and vice versa. second, the scope of this exercise is very limited -- ie, to gauge spending discipline. it is not an attempt to determine which free agents will help their teams the most. the indians may well have overpaid for paul byrd, while the cardinals got a sweet deal in sidney ponson; it doesn't therefore follow that ponson would have delivered more marginal wins to the indians than byrd.
so let's look at some these guys, starting with the pitchers. i included ponson on the list for comparison's sake:
| player | projected marginal wins per PECOTA |
contract value | price per marginal win |
|---|---|---|---|
| ponson (stl) | 2.6 | $2.5m | $1m |
| tomko (la) | 5.6 | $8.7m | $1.6m |
| weaver (ana) | 4.6 | $8m | $1.7m |
| loaiza (oak) | 11.4 | $21m | $1.8m |
| byrd (cle) | 6.1 | $14m | $2.3m |
| millwood (tex) | 15.5 | $60m | $3.9m |
| washburn (sea) | 9.5 | $38m | $4m |
that billy beane knows what he's doing, eh?
and how about the three-year extension to which the blue jays just signed roy halladay:
| player | projected marginal wins per PECOTA |
contract value | price per marginal win |
|---|---|---|---|
| halladay (tor) | 16.6 | $39m | $2.3m |
that puts the deal in the same range as aj burnett's ($2.5/MW). comparatively speaking, neither deal projects as a terrible one as far as pecota is concerned. if burnett proves to be merely a .500 pitcher (as many people think he will) or pops his arm again, that deal will reek; ditto the halladay pact if he can't stay healthy (and he hasn't since 2003). but if both of these guys can manage to stay healthy and productive for the same season . . . . maybe it all proves to be worth it.
here are some of the hitters the cardinals might have considered this winter; again for comparison, i included encarnacion:
| player | projected marginal wins per PECOTA |
contract value | price per marginal win |
|---|---|---|---|
| p wilson (hou) | 2.7 | $4.5m | $1.7m |
| giles (sd) | 16.3 | $30m | $1.8m |
| burnitz (pit) | 3.3 | $6.7m | $2m |
| furcal (la) | 16.9 | $39m | $2.3m |
| garciaparra (la) | 2.4 | $6m | $2.5m |
| encarnacion (stl) | 5.8 | $15m | $2.6m |
| j jones (chi) | 6.2 | $16m | $2.6m |
| damon (nyy) | 16.5 | $52m | $3.1m |
leave it to steinbrenner . . . .
i could throw more of these numbers around, but this seems like enough for one morning. if anyone's interested, i can revisit this trope in the afternoon post and set an estimated price range for the cardinal free-agent class of 2006-07 -- mulder supps marquis et al. -- as well as get an early read on the cards' $10m option on edmonds for '07.