The Tigers passed on Barry Zito last year for this?

Wow.

It's kind of surprising; he's making a long term commitment to Detroit without having actually played there. He also didn't manage to top the $20M/yr AAV mark despite this taking him through more of his prime years than Jeter or Manny.

If he doesn't eat his way out of the league this looks like a good deal for the Tigers.

There seems to be some confusion about this deal. ESPN.com is saying that he is going to average 19 million from 2009-2016 (8 years).

(19*8)+ (11.3, he is owed this year)=163.3.

It could be the extension is 7/142 which would make it 8/153.3.

Either way, it's a steal for the Tigers. Just look at how much A-Rod is going to get paid for his 30-something years and what Cabrera's getting. He might double this if he waits to become a free agent.

It's kind of surprising; he's making a long term commitment to Detroit without having actually played there.

I dunno if playing time would change anything. I'm struggling to think of anyone aside from Juan Gonzales who has ever had issues with playing in Detroit for its own sake. It's a good, knowledgeable fan base. The media has never been out to get players. While the city itself is awful, players only spend a few hours there before retreating back to Grosse Pointe or wherever.

The big questions for anyone looking to sign a long term deal with the Tigers are (1) how long will this team win?; and (2) who will replace Jim Leyland one day? Unless you're the Yankees or Sox, the answer to the first question is going to be up in the air for any team. The second question is important, but the front office seems like it knows what it's doing here.

Other than the hundreds of millions of dollars in this contract, there are no guarantees in life, and Detroit looks like as good a place as any to sign this kind of deal.

He might double this if he waits to become a free agent.


Bet he's tired of holding back at the all-you-can-eat buffet.

As long as Dave Dombrowski (or someone of his ilk) is running things in Detroit, I think the Tigers will be competitive most years. The work he did over the dark years before 2007 are IMHO the textbook example for resuscitating a franchise.

Also I suspect that Cabrera was happy to agree to a deal like this, which is pretty friggin' lucrative and yet still probably leaves some $$$ on the table, just because he was thrilled to finally be dealing with a front office that wasn't nickel-and-diming him like the Marlins did. Never underestimate the personal element in these deals.

As for "eating his way out of the league," I'm eager to see how he looks this season. I've read accounts saying that he's lost some weight this year, and that the change of scenery has motivated him to shape up a little bit. If true, and if he can sustain it, the sky is literally the limit. Cabrera could conceivably end up being the greatest offensive baseball player in the history of the game. And that ought to make any baseball lover step back, suck in a breath, and go "whoaaaaa."

So, basically, they crossed out the name "Juan Gonzalez" in the deal offered to JuanGone and wrote in Miguel Cabrera.

Seems like a great deal for Detroit.

The city is not awful. The re-education campaign against industry by the "free trade" lovers continues to show its results.

The city wasn't awful, for a few years there. The housing crisis killed it, though. For all that you hear about the problems in California, those in Detroit (and Cleveland) are worse. Those cities didn't even get the run up in prices, for better or for worse.

The town does love this team, though. They love all of their sports, and every one of them except the Lions has provided rewards. I think that it's probably a very good fit for Cabrera.

pfft

when was the last time the Red Wings were any good?

Cabrera could conceivably end up being the greatest offensive baseball player in the history of the game.

What?

Not a whole lot of hitters have had a better start.

Yeah, I should have typed "one of the greatest offensive baseball players," not the absolute best ever. Pushed the hyperbole a bit too far there. But not by much.

This is a good deal for the Tigers, especially compared to the Santana contract. I would much rather have Cabrera (in the long term) than Santana.

Cabrera could conceivably end up being the greatest offensive baseball player in the history of the game.

What?

Yeah, I'm not seeing this. Cabrera is 22nd on the list of best OPS+ through age 24 (minimum 500 games). Cabrera's 143 OPS+ is way behind Ted Williams (191 OPS+) at the top spot on that list.

I think everyone acknowledges one of Ruth (207 career OPS+), Williams (191 career OPS+), and Bonds (182 career OPS+) as the greatest hitter of all time. (Bonds's argument rests on era adjustment and peak.) Those three players have the top three spots in career OPS+. Here's how each did through their age 24 seasons:

Williams 191 OPS+
Ruth 191 OPS+
Bonds 124 OPS+

This shows just how well Bonds had to play after the age of 24 to make it all the way up to third on the career OPS+ list; Bonds's 124 OPS+ was 68th on the list I presented above.

So Bonds would provide the best-case scenario for Cabrera to climb the list. But predicting any hitter -- no matter how good -- to do what Bonds did is simply not realistic; indeed, the entire exercise of predicting any young player to become the greatest X of all time is not realistic in itself.

Let's not get crazy here people.

Cabrera could conceivably end up being the greatest offensive baseball player in the history of the game. And that ought to make any baseball lover step back, suck in a breath, and go "whoaaaaa."

Makes me laugh.

Yeah, I know, you backed off on the claim but I had that snark all loaded up already ... it's bad for your health if you hold it in.

Ohhh, that's spunk.

One thing that many people mistakenly seem to think is that great players (or great young hitters) follow a typical growth curve and follow the logic to "hey if this guy puts up a 150 OPS+ at 23-24, imagine what he's gonna be like when he's in his prime." Generally speaking, he is in his prime, the question is just whether that prime will last till he's 30 or 35 or 40. Nobody here seems to be making that leap though which is heartening.

By the way, 9 of the top 50 on that list are currently active.

Most surprising name in the top 50? I'm debating between John Olerud and Richie Hebner. Both fine players but not what I think of as top 50 young players of all time. Hebner had the advantage of playing in a platoon and Olerud's totals to that point are heavily dominated by his monster age 24 season (363/473/599, 186 OPS+). Up to then and mostly after then, he was a slightly more powerful version of Mark Grace.

Using Runs Created instead.

He's in 17th. Of the guys ahead of him, 3 are active, 11 are in Cooperstown, leaving only Vada Pinson and Buddy Lewis as the others. Who the #### is Buddy Lewis?

I never knew Fred Lindstrom was that good that young. He only had two more full seasons in him.

No ####### way I'd give this guy an 8-year. Dave Dombrowski has lost his mind.

It's kind of surprising; he's making a long term commitment to Detroit without having actually played there.

When you think about it, isn't this what every free agent does?

No ####### way I'd give this guy an 8-year. Dave Dombrowski has lost his mind.

Would you have given Manny his deal? I'm curious because I think they're roughly comparable players and the deals wind up being similar; but in the long run Manny's deal was more expensive and the Sox signed him at age 29. Miggy is signed for his age 25-32 seasons (assuming that there aren't some option years we don't know about yet).

When you think about it, isn't this what every free agent does?

That's a really good point; I guess the difference is that FA's don't really have that option, but an arb-controlled player looking to sign a long term deal does have the option to "get a taste" before they decide, but that's probably a moot point.

FA's get "shown the love" in terms of $ only, but the Tigers not only showed Miggy the $, they went out and got him with a big outlay of talent.

I'm torn on this contract. Cabrera's obviously an elite hitter, and the $/year is pretty reasonable.

However, given the defense he's shown to date, he's not really an elite player. He's giving back 1.5-2 wins on defense, and I can't help but think he's a DH within 2-3 years. It's kind of like the Jeter scenario. Elite hitter who's considered to be better than he really is b/c people ignore defense.

Finally, I'd be loathe to commit for 9 years to a guy who's shown no regard for his body, in terms of conditioning.

I could easily see Cabrera as a fading DH by age 30.

I could easily see Cabrera as a fading DH by age 30.

If he winds up a DH then he's not giving back those runs on defense anymore. You could argue that such a move will actually increase his value.

If he winds up a DH then he's not giving back those runs on defense anymore.

Yeah but it diminishes his value because you lose a roster spot by having to fill it with another glove.

Snapper nails it in #26.

Yes, but then he'd gobble up your DH spot, which you could otherwise use for this year's version of Jack Cust. If Cabrera is worse than about -12 or so at third, he should be moved to 1B (assuming he can play a league average 1B). He'd have to be worse than -20 to make him more valuable as a DH than as a ghastly fielding 3B. I agree with snapper that A-Rod is far, far superior to Cabrera because of the defensive discrepancy, although I don't buy the Jeter comparison, because Jeter is not an "elite hitter." He's a very good hitter whose offense is elite for his demanding defensive position--whose defensive demands he cannot meet. A better example in my view would have been Hanley Ramírez, who would be the best player in baseball if he could play anything close to a league average shortstop.

I think the big questions are, Can a motivated Cabrera improve his D? And yes, of course, can he get and stay in shape? If so, Detroit is making out like bandits. Otherwise, I don't necessarily think this will be a Mo Vaughn-like albatross, but a substantial overpay. Are there weight clauses in the deal? If not, I'd worry that giving Cabrera all this cash takes away his incentive to ditch the burgers!

Who the #### is Buddy Lewis?

One of my favorites, if you can have a favorite who retired ten years before you were born. Lewis was a similar hitter to his teammate Cecil Travis, and like Travis lost the heart of his career to WW2. When the Senators brought Lewis up in 1936, they moved Travis from 3B to SS to accommodate him, and the two played together for several years as the left side of the Senators' infield. They were pretty VORPy at those positions, but they were both over-extended as fielders; Lewis should have been in LF and Travis at 3B.

Yeah but it diminishes his value because you lose a roster spot by having to fill it with another glove.

Maybe the Tigers should trade for Brandon Inge.

While I don't doubt he could get more on the open market, that doesn't make this a good deal. FA contracts are frequently overpays. I think 8 year deals just have far too much injury/decline risk to be good for the club. GMs make deals like that because they are amortizing costs over the next GM's tenure.

But in this case, Dombrowski already had 2 years of cheap Miggy, so this doesn't really save money until year three. Why not give him a 4 year extension at $90M? Miggy gets back on the FA market in his prime, the team takes much, much, less risk.

I wouldn't call this a steal for the Tigers. I'm pretty neutral on the deal; it's a lot of money but Cabrera is a great hitter. I view Cabrera as a likely poor 1B/DH in the near future. If Cabrera is worth much more than $20M per, what would players like Giambi or Hafner or Ortiz in their primes be worth on the open market? Cabrera's really good but he's not as good as those guys (peak performance) as a hitter.

It's a good deal if Cabrera can improve enough as a defensive player to handle 3B effectively for the life of the contract. Right now he probably shouldn't be there, but it's borderline. Once Sheffield is off the team, it will be hard to justify not moving him over unless the 3B market is really poor or he gets a lot better.

I don't know that any player in baseball is a steal at $20M per. I think the only way you have a real steal of a contract is if you lock up the player early like Wright or Sizemore, or if you sign a guy that other people think is washed up. This is still a top-of-the-market contract for Cabrera... if he's a top-of-the-market player for the life of the contract, it will work out nicely for the Tigers, because Cabrera's bat would still be great at 1B or DH even if this is his prime. I feel like best-case for the Tigers, Cabrera is a superstar for the life of the contract, and is worth around $23-24M (in 2008 dollars). I feel similarly for the Mets and Santana; best-case he is a superstar and the Mets get a hair more than what they pay him.

The Tigers and Mets can afford to overpay, of course, and probably should. With the limited number of roster spots, total talent is a lot more important than how efficiently that talent is distributed.

I think 8 year deals just have far too much injury/decline risk to be good for the club.

Normally I agree, but if you're going to sign a player long term getting the years the Tigers are getting are a pretty good bet, and if they don't offer that long I doubt he signs the deal. The flip side is that the Tigers gave up a decent amount to get him (and D-Train), and not taking advantage of the exclusivity window and signing him longterm would've hurt the logic of the trade.

Why not give him a 4 year extension at $90M? Miggy gets back on the FA market in his prime, the team takes much, much, less risk.

Because he wouldn't take that deal? Doesn't the decreased risk for the team mean an equivalent greater risk for the player? Players have really seemed to latch onto the "Bird in the hand" side of things with contracts.

It's not a steal unless the market for player comp changes significantly over the next 8 years, but I think it's a good deal. If you're going to make a big dollar, long term committment, make it to a young guy with HOF talent/performance record. It worked out with Manny and A-Rod, and it should work out here assuming Cabrera stays healthy (Insert fat guy joke here.)

It worked out with Manny and A-Rod,

First, it didn't work out for Manny and A-Rod. Both of the teams that signed those deals either were forced to dump those deals or tried for years to dump those deals. Compare Cabrera to Manny.

Player OPS+
Cabrera 159/150
Ramirez 173/186

Both players are similar train wrecks defensively, but Manny averaged almost a 180 OPS+ the two years before his contract, while Miggy averaged 155. Miggy provided roughly 55% more offense than the average player while Man Ram provided roughly 80% more.

By signing this contract the Tigers appear to be assuming that Miggy will either improve offensively or defensively. While that's a decent bet (at least offensively) it's not a sure thing. Secondly they are betting he won't have any severe injury problems over the next 8 years. Most importantly they are assuming he's not going to lose any motivation by having a huge contract, which might be their biggest risk of all. This is a guy who almost ate himself out of the infield because he didn't feel motivated playing for the Marlins.

And if in the end A-Rod and Manny's deals turned out okay, that's results oriented thinking. They dodged serious injuries so the contracts turned out as well as they could. Revenues increased but they might not forever, and subsidies might not always be available. If Miggy gets killed in an auto accident in year one, Detroit is crippled financially (you can't insure long term deals, and even short term insurance is expensive). Anyone who understands anything about financial instruments understands that eight year options have tremendous value, even if they seem unlikely to be exercised. Miggy has the "put option" here, he can force the team to pay him (short of bankruptcy) if he is hurt, dead or sucks. The team doesn't have the option to cancel.

An example of results oriented thinking. A man and his family is about to be forced from their home due to not being able to make their mortgage payments. He has just enough money, $1,000, to move his family into an affordable apartment, otherwise they'll be living on the street. So he takes the $1,000 to a casino and puts the entire amount down on a single spin of the roulette wheel. He wins $34,000. Saying it was a smart decision based on those unlikely results is being results oriented. Over 97% of the time his family would end up on the street, and roulette is a negative expectation gamble, i.e. players in aggregate lose over time. It was a bad decision that turned out okay due to pure chance, just like Manny and A-Rod's deals.

My prediction is the Yankee's don't get so lucky on A-Rod's new contract.

He can actually force the team to pay him if he's dead? That's how guaranteed an MLB contract is?

Based on the current rumoured numbers, it looks like they are valuing him at 3-3.5 wins above average.

Offensively, he as 45-50 runs above average last 3 years.

So, it depends on his D. How bad is it, and is it bad enough to force a position switch to 1b / DH? If it is really 20 runs below average bad, or switch to 1b / DH within a couple years bad, they would be paying him about what he is worth, or overpaying slightly.

Looks like a fair deal.

He can actually force the team to pay him if he's dead? That's how guaranteed an MLB contract is?

don't know, I know that the Cardinals honored Kiles contract to his wife, but I don't think it was something they had to do.

If Cabrera is worth much more than $20M per, what would players like Giambi or Hafner or Ortiz in their primes be worth on the open market?

Well, up through age 28, Giambi wasn't nearly as good a hitter as Cabrera. He had a huge year at age 29. He signed a 7/$119 contract with the Yanks. That was 6 years ago. Given revenue growth, the Cabrera deal is a MUCH, MUCH better deal for the Tigers than Giambi for the Yanks.

Really, how did you come up with those 3. Contrary to Cabrera, each of those guys took a long time to get a chance. Hafner wasn't a "full time" player until 27; Giambi not till 25 (and he wasn't good until 26); Ortiz didn't blossom until 27. I don't think Hafner will even be an FA until he's 32 ... the age Cabrera will be when this contract ends!

A better comp is Pujols who, back in 03-04, signed away his first 4-5 FA years for $70-80 M (depending on buyouts and options).

Others already mentioned Manny. But it was fairly commonplace in those days to offer $17-18 M contracts to sluggers -- Giambi (7/120), Sosa (4/72), Delgado (4/68). Big money contracts now are not greatly inflated from where they were 5-6 years ago while revenues have exploded. Poor Jim Thome became an FA after revenues flattened out for a year or two and he only got $13 M per.

Anyway, top salaries are only now passing where they were 5-6 years ago. The length of the Cabrera contract can be questioned, but the money is fine.

An example of results oriented thinking. A man and his family is about to be forced from their home due to not being able to make their mortgage payments. He has just enough money, $1,000, to move his family into an affordable apartment, otherwise they'll be living on the street. So he takes the $1,000 to a casino and puts the entire amount down on a single spin of the roulette wheel. He wins $34,000. Saying it was a smart decision based on those unlikely results is being results oriented. Over 97% of the time his family would end up on the street, and roulette is a negative expectation gamble, i.e. players in aggregate lose over time. It was a bad decision that turned out okay due to pure chance, just like Manny and A-Rod's deals.

We know exactly what the odds on roulette are. We know it is significantly negative expectation, and we know that a single bet is highly likely to be loss. So it's dumb to put all your money on the 00.

We do not know what the odds on a long-term contract are. As such, the results of similar contracts are useful information, because we can see what happened in similar situations. This would not be the case in roulette because we'd know the odds beforehand - what we're trying to do here is precisely what is assumed away in the roulette example. The analogizing of baseball to fixed-odds casino games rarely serves any good purpose in these discussions.

A better comp is Pujols who, back in 03-04, signed away his first 4-5 FA years for $70-80 M (depending on buyouts and options).

I'd say that the disparity in on-field value between Pujols and Cabrera is at least as big an issue as the age difference between Giambi and Cabrera.

First, it didn't work out for Manny and A-Rod. Both of the teams that signed those deals either were forced to dump those deals or tried for years to dump those deals.

No. The ARod and Ramirez contracts worked out fine. Both players delivered season after season of great performances -- never once having a bad year. In 14 seasons of performance on those two contracts (I'm counting ARod's Yankees years), ARod and Ramirez delivered 13 HOF seasons and 1 merely good season. Their teams made the playoffs 8 times and won 2 world championships. If you don't think this was good enough, I'm not sure what you were expecting.

That the two teams tried to move those players does not mean that the contracts didn't work out. The Rangers in particular were flat wrong to suggest that ARod's contract was hurting the team, and were fools to allow themselves to be fleeced by the Yankees in the deal.

As for Ramirez, while he continued to play great, through no fault of his own the market shifted downward soon after he signed his deal and thus made his contract look out of place at the time of the downshift -- but as we've seen since then, the market shot back up to the point where his contract fit right in again.

That the Red Sox may have wanted to move his contract at the time -- even assuming arguendo that it was reasonable -- does not mean that we should ignore events that unfolded in the years to follow -- i.e., that the market took a turn back up, which meant in the end that his deal was just fine even in hindsight. And again, the Red Sox won two world championships with him; he paid for himself in spades.

I also note with respect to ARod's Texas contract that the Yankees thought it was so horrible after it was over that they... signed ARod -- now in his 30s and playing 3B instead of SS -- to another $300M deal.

No. The ARod and Ramirez contracts worked out fine. Both players delivered season after season of great performances -- never once having a bad year. In 14 seasons of performance on those two contracts (I'm counting ARod's Yankees years), ARod and Ramirez delivered 13 HOF seasons and 1 merely good season. Their teams made the playoffs 8 times and won 2 world championships. If you don't think this was good enough, I'm not sure what you were expecting.

You are treating those two events as if they had a zero risk of debillitating injuries, just because ARod and Manny landed in the right color roulette squares.

That the two teams tried to move those players does not mean that the contracts didn't work out. The Rangers in particular were flat wrong to suggest that ARod's contract was hurting the team, and were fools to allow themselves to be fleeced by the Yankees in the deal.

As for Ramirez, while he continued to play great, through no fault of his own the market shifted downward soon after he signed his deal and thus made his contract look out of place at the time of the downshift -- but as we've seen since then, the market shot back up to the point where his contract fit right in again.

That the Red Sox may have wanted to move his contract at the time -- even assuming arguendo that it was reasonable -- does not mean that we should ignore events that unfolded in the years to follow -- i.e., that the market took a turn back up, which meant in the end that his deal was just fine even in hindsight. And again, the Red Sox won two world championships with him; he paid for himself in spades.

For your argument to be correct, you are saying that both Theo Epstein and Texas management did not know how to gauge the value of their best players. The fact that Theo tried to dump Manny three separate years (for practically nothing) is clear evidence of the contrary. He might have made a mistake one year, but after thinking about it another year he kept going back to the well. Once again, you declaring they were good deals because they played well isn't a complete argument. You need to establish that the Rangers and Red Sox couldn't get more value spending that money on multiple other players.

I also note with respect to ARod's Texas contract that the Yankees thought it was so horrible after it was over that they... signed ARod -- now in his 30s and playing 3B instead of SS -- to another $300M deal.

Do you think Cashman wanted to do that deal? He let A-Rod walk and refused to negotiate. The fact that the Yankees have a schizophrenic management structure is certainly evidence this new deal is not a smart one. But taking on A-Rod's first contract was a good deal for the Yankees, since it had lost 3 years of risk. And given their unique financial situation, they were probably the only team that could afford to sign A-Rod, get the benefit of his increased run production at that lofty price, and still have budget to put together a complete team around him.

But now they made the mistake of giving an aging slugger a 10 year deal, and it's clear they'll regret it, probably around year five or six. But you can argue it was a canny decision by Cashman to keep his job security at the expense of future wins. If he loses A-Rod, he's defacto committing to rebuilding. Even one bad year would cost Cashman his job. Doing the middle aged elephants bidding to sign A-Rod, even though a stupid long term decision, is a great short run decision for Cashman. He keeps his bosses happy and his job for another few years. And let the next GM worry about the last five years or so of A-Rod's contract.

ARod and Ramirez delivered 13 HOF seasons and 1 merely good season.

While I'm sure that Manny Ramirez will get into the Hall of Fame for creating 60 runs on offense every year and then giving 20 of those runs right back in the field, that's really not one a level of performance that justifies ranking (And paying) him among the elite players in the league and among baseball history.

You are treating those two events as if they had a zero risk of debillitating injuries, just because ARod and Manny landed in the right color roulette squares.

But you argued that their deals "didn't" work out, i.e., in hindsight. And you used ludicrous team decisions (of Texas in particular) to support that conclusion. That's what I was objecting to.

For your argument to be correct, you are saying that both Theo Epstein and Texas management did not know how to gauge the value of their best players.

We know for a fact that Texas didn't. There is no way to justify the deal they made with the Yankees; and their stated reasons for making the deal flat made no sense. ARod was worth every penny of his contract for the Rangers, and the Rangers were spending plenty of money on non-ARod players; it's just that the Rangers were incompetent in spending that non-ARod money.

The fact that Theo tried to dump Manny three separate years (for practically nothing) is clear evidence of the contrary. He might have made a mistake one year, but after thinking about it another year he kept going back to the well. Once again, you declaring they were good deals because they played well isn't a complete argument. You need to establish that the Rangers and Red Sox couldn't get more value spending that money on multiple other players.

Again, the Rangers tried; they sucked at it. And you're forgetting that multiple other players cost multiple roster spots. That's the utility in having so much value come from one roster spot.

Do you think Cashman wanted to do that deal? He let A-Rod walk and refused to negotiate. The fact that the Yankees have a schizophrenic management structure is certainly evidence this new deal is not a smart one. But taking on A-Rod's first contract was a good deal for the Yankees, since it had lost 3 years of risk.

And the Rangers were still paying money on the contract. Incredibly.

And given their unique financial situation, they were probably the only team that could afford to sign A-Rod, get the benefit of his increased run production at that lofty price, and still have budget to put together a complete team around him.

Every team can afford to sign ARod. And still have the budget -- as Texas most certainly did and tried to do -- to put a complete team around him.

But now they made the mistake of giving an aging slugger a 10 year deal, and it's clear they'll regret it, probably around year five or six. But you can argue it was a canny decision by Cashman to keep his job security at the expense of future wins. If he loses A-Rod, he's defacto committing to rebuilding.

The Yankees have, like the Braves and Red Sox, been able to avoid a straight "rebuilding" phase by developing good young talent and working it into the major league roster, so that they can compete and rebuild at the same time.

Even one bad year would cost Cashman his job. Doing the middle aged elephants bidding to sign A-Rod, even though a stupid long term decision, is a great short run decision for Cashman. He keeps his bosses happy and his job for another few years. And let the next GM worry about the last five years or so of A-Rod's contract.

I don't understand. Above you argued that Cashman didn't want to re-sign ARod. Now you argue that Cashman did want to do so.

I think the fact that MLB can bring in over 6 billion dollars in revenue... hold on, let me repeat that. 6 billion dollars. Has that sunk in yet? Good. MLB can bring in 6 billion dollars in revenue, pay less than a third of that revenue out in player salaries (which, compared to any other industry, is a ridiculously low labor cost) and people still think that it's crazy for the best players in the game to be paid in accordance with their performance. Giving Manny Ramirez 20 million dollars a year is not a bad contract, nor is it a bad risk based on his past performance. Giving Carlos Silva 10 million dollars a year is a bad investment and a monumental risk based on his past performance. As the salary of the average player rises, so too should the salary of the elite player. But we haven't seen that. Elite players have been getting between 15 and 20 million a year for nearly a decade now.

The problem with your line of thinking, ValueArb, is that it prevents you getting good players.

Big long contracts is what the elite players get*. That's their price. If the Tigers weren't willing to give Cabrera this contract (or something very like it) they couldn't have signed him. Ditto A-Rod with the Yankees. Ditto Manny with Boston. And so on. So what else are these teams supposed to do with the payroll? Where are the alternative investments for the money that will give a greater return in wins?

There are two other places to spend the money - draft bonuses, lesser free agents. But the teams we are talking about (Tigers, Yankees, Red Sox) ALREADY are the biggest spenders in the amateur draft. So they don't have much more investment opportunities there. And in addition draft bonuses are small. Even a big-spending team like these three spends far, far less on TOTAL draft bonuses in a year that Cabrera's AAV in this contract. There is absolutely no way that the amateur draft can absorb anything like an extra $153.3m from the Tigers over the next 8 years while providing any sensible return on investment in terms of turning dollars into wins.

So it comes to lesser free agents. But these players too will command long contracts (3,4,5 years), and they come with much higher risk profiles, because not being stars to begin with they frequently turn into suck. Luis Castillo got 4/25. Aaron Rowand got 5/60. Carlos Silva got 4/48. Do you really think the Tigers will get more wins for their money with a few signings like that than going for the superstar? The consensus around here is that you are much better off putting your money in the higher quality player, and I don't see any serious disagreement.

The conclusion has to be that, for a high-payroll club like the Tigers (or Yankees, or Red Sox), there is no better way to spend your money than signing a Cabrera (or A-Rod, or Ramirez). Therefore your only remaining argument is that they don't need to be spending this money at all. So please feel free to tell us how a team can be in real contention every year on a $70m budget.

* I think you overestimate that price, by the way - rather than saying that A-Rod will not be worth $30m in 2017, a better way of thinking about it is that the back-end years of the contract essentially contain deferred money. In addition, there is the expectation of (1) inflation (2) revenue growth which reduces the real-money value of far-off years.

Well, up through age 28, Giambi wasn't nearly as good a hitter as Cabrera. He had a huge year at age 29. He signed a 7/$119 contract with the Yanks. That was 6 years ago. Given revenue growth, the Cabrera deal is a MUCH, MUCH better deal for the Tigers than Giambi for the Yanks.

Giambi's age 29 and 30 seasons, or "his prime" were MUCH, MUCH better than Cabrera's offensively.

Really, how did you come up with those 3. Contrary to Cabrera, each of those guys took a long time to get a chance. Hafner wasn't a "full time" player until 27; Giambi not till 25 (and he wasn't good until 26); Ortiz didn't blossom until 27. I don't think Hafner will even be an FA until he's 32 ... the age Cabrera will be when this contract ends!

They are examples of 1B/DH types currently playing that were awesome in their prime, poor defensive players with even better bats than Cabrera. Not HOFers or the best bats in the sport either. I figured it was unfair to Cabrera to name guys like Pujols (and Pujols adds tremendous defensive value with his fielding) or Frank Thomas.

I am talking not about what actually happened. I'm saying you have a player as good as Hafner/Ortiz/Giambi in peak years. If Cabrera is a steal at $20M, what are these guys actually worth? If Cabrera is worth $20M, what is a guy like Wright (a little worse as a hitter, great defense, great base running) worth?

Or take the list of players from post #22. The original premise is that Cabrera is a steal at $20M per following his age 24 season; what's that make a fair contract worth for him? What's A-Rod after age 24 worth (as a great defensive SS)? How about Griffey?

Cabrera is a great hitter, but he better be great, because he's brutal defensively. The closest types of players to compare him to are 1B/DH types that add no value on the bases or in the field. That's actually in his favor; his defense is so poor that he'll almost certainly be better off compared to them as opposed to taking 20-something runs away from his offense for his fielding and comparing him to guys like Chipper Jones or David Wright.

Yes, Cabrera is really young, but he's put up remarkably consistent offense three years running. He's a 320-330 hitter with 30ish HR power; there just isn't very much room to expand his game to improve unless you're expecting a Bonds-like leap forward(I mean the 1992-1993 years). It's more likely that he just has an early peak than that he's suddenly going to jump to the next level.

I should note that I think the Tigers made a solid move signing Cabrera to this deal. I'm not bashing the deal at all. There is risk involved, but if you avoid every risky contract, you won't ever sign great players as free agents and it will be very hard to keep a good team together for any length of time. The Tigers have the money to improve the rest of their team with Cabrera's $20M per when they need to.

I only object to the idea that the Tigers got some spectacular deal here. They got a fair deal. It will end up being fine for them if Cabrera's value stays the same or goes up a little. If it goes up a lot, they'll have gotten great value out of that market deal; if he drops off, this contract will be a lousy value (but a hitter of Cabrera's ability has a long, long way to drop before it's an albatross).

If you add the prospects they gave up, and the long-term risk, and the questionable length of time at 3B for Cabrera, it was very costly for the Tigers. Cost they should bear, in my opinion, but certainly not some crazy discount.

The problem with your line of thinking, ValueArb, is that it prevents you getting good players.

Big long contracts is what the elite players get*. That's their price. If the Tigers weren't willing to give Cabrera this contract (or something very like it) they couldn't have signed him. Ditto A-Rod with the Yankees. Ditto Manny with Boston. And so on. So what else are these teams supposed to do with the payroll? Where are the alternative investments for the money that will give a greater return in wins?

Exactly. Long term deals are the price of having elite players. You either sack up and deal with the risks or you sign Kenny Lofton and Kyle Lohse and pray all your prospects turn into David Wright.

Ray has more than adequately explained why the A-Rod/Manny deals worked out fine.

While I'm sure that Manny Ramirez will get into the Hall of Fame for creating 60 runs on offense every year and then giving 20 of those runs right back in the field, that's really not one a level of performance that justifies ranking (And paying) him among the elite players in the league and among baseball history.

Not sure how you could possibly come up with 60 runs created on offense. From 1996-2006, Manny created no fewer than 124 runs each year, peaking at 158 in 1999 and 144 in 2000 (according to whichever formula BR.com uses). Even last year, he was at 91.

Not saying those -20 runs in the field are nothing, but you massively understate his overall contribution.

Over replacement.

The problem is that ValueArb wants to use team decisions as the evidence for whether these deals worked or not, instead of actually looking at whether they worked or not. What's more, he holds up a team decision as evidence if that decision agrees with his thesis -- but disregards the team decision when that decision doesn't so agree. Thus, he holds up the fact that Texas traded ARod to the Yankees for pennies on the dollar as supporting his view that ARod's Texas contract was bad -- but then he ignores (A) the fact that Texas signed ARod to the deal in the first place, and (B) the fact that the Yankees turned around and signed ARod to yet _another_ huge deal in the second place.

The problem is that ValueArb wants to use team decisions as the evidence for whether these deals worked or not, instead of actually looking at whether they worked or not. What's more, he holds up a team decision as evidence if that decision agrees with his thesis -- but disregards the team decision when that decision doesn't so agree. Thus, he holds up the fact that Texas traded ARod to the Yankees for pennies on the dollar as supporting his view that ARod's Texas contract was bad -- but then he ignores (A) the fact that Texas signed ARod to the deal in the first place, and (B) the fact that the Yankees turned around and signed ARod to yet _another_ huge deal in the second place.

You just assert the deals worked out without establishing any benchmark that shows they did. The teams certainly didn't think they worked out. The only team that actually wanted one of those two players was the Yankees wanting A-Rod, and then only on a 7 year, not a 10 year deal. You ignore that both deals benefited from a good amount of luck that the principles did not get seriously hurt. You ignore that Theo Epstein repeatedly tried to give away Manny for nothing, and criticize the Rangers for reclaiming a quarter of their budget by dumping A-Rod, yet their logic wasn't much different than Theo's.

And clearly Cashman didn't want to sign A-Rod to a big extension, or he would have done it before the opt out. It was the idiot Steinbrenner children who pushed him to sign A-Rod, and as I said, Cashman cleverly decided that sometimes it's better for the GM's career to make a stupid decision for the team if it extends the GM's career.

I understand the logic of the idea that the Yankees or the Red Sox, the biggest spenders, might take the risk of a long term deal because they need the elite players. But Theo Epstein clearly does not agree with that logic, he'd rather spread his budget across a group of good players than tie it all up in a few great players. He's an expert at acquiring players and signing them to reasonable length extensions (3 or 4 years). Once again, are we to believe he doesn't know what he's doing? I think he perfectly understands the tremendous risk that lies with an 8 or 10 year contract.

Over replacement.

I don't really claim to know the mathematical underpinnings of these stats, but aren't most of the defensive stats over average? Can you really add two numbers with different baselines in that way?

I am talking not about what actually happened. I'm saying you have a player as good as Hafner/Ortiz/Giambi in peak years. If Cabrera is a steal at $20M, what are these guys actually worth?

Personally, I wouldn't say Cabrera is a steal at $20M per. I think it's a reasonable contract, though I agree with those who are worried about the length.

But I think there's a flaw in the premise of your question, in that you don't get to pay for past performance, you have to pay for future expected performance. If Cabrera repeats his 2004-2007 performance each year for the next 8 years, this will be a great contract. But there are risks to that future performance--that he won't be able to stick in the field, or he'll decline, or he'll suffer injuries, or he'll just have couple bad years sprinkled in there among the good. If you knew none of those things would happen, Cabrera would probably be worth more than $20M a year.

Sure, Hafner's peak was damn good (although he missed 20+ games each year), as was Ortiz's and Giambi's. But if you were signing them to long-term deals, you'd have to price in the risk of getting a Hafner 2007, or getting a post-2003 Giambi. For what it's worth, though, didn't Giambi sign with the Yankees for 7/$120M after 2001? Not so far off from what Cabrera is getting paid, and when you consider inflation and the fact that Giambi was 31 at the beginning of the contract, I think the market did value Giambi's potential production higher than Cabrera's.

Or take the list of players from post #22. The original premise is that Cabrera is a steal at $20M per following his age 24 season; what's that make a fair contract worth for him? What's A-Rod after age 24 worth (as a great defensive SS)?

How about 10/$250? Seriously, though, even if you think that Hicks overpaid for A-Rod back then and he was only worth, say, $20M a year, with inflation that's more than Cabrera is getting here. Plus A-Rod got more years.

t was the idiot Steinbrenner children who pushed him to sign A-Rod, and as I said, Cashman cleverly decided that sometimes it's better for the GM's career to make a stupid decision for the team if it extends the GM's career.

SO, in your opinion, the Yankees should have done straight a "rebuild"? Let ARod walk, let Posada walk, let Mo walk? Nevermind ticket sales, TV revenues, franchise worth?

I just noticed that Cabrera's bb-ref page is sponsored by a weight-loss vendor.

But I think there's a flaw in the premise of your question, in that you don't get to pay for past performance, you have to pay for future expected performance. If Cabrera repeats his 2004-2007 performance each year for the next 8 years, this will be a great contract. But there are risks to that future performance--that he won't be able to stick in the field, or he'll decline, or he'll suffer injuries, or he'll just have couple bad years sprinkled in there among the good. If you knew none of those things would happen, Cabrera would probably be worth more than $20M a year.

Without a doubt. I don't think that's a flaw in my reasoning; I think that's the point. There's a lot of risk for any long-term contract, but one that goes to a guy that is already brutal defensively and struggling with weight issues is even more risky. My personal expectation is that Cabrera will remain a similar hitter for most of that contract, but he'll be doing it as a DH or below-average 1B, or playing historically poor defense at 3B (so poor that moving him would be a smarter decision). In 2013, $20M for a top 5 hitter in the AL with practically no defensive value may very well look like a bargain because of inflation. I think Cabrera in a good year just hits the top 10 in players in the league, and in a regular year, is outside looking in, and I also think that $20M is now the second tier for contracts (guys like A-Rod and Santana will get more).

I think you're reading more criticism from me than I'm trying to put out there. I think the Tigers are right to make this deal, and I think they'll be fine.

How about 10/$250? Seriously, though, even if you think that Hicks overpaid for A-Rod back then and he was only worth, say, $20M a year, with inflation that's more than Cabrera is getting here. Plus A-Rod got more years.

I think Hicks overpaid only in the sense that he was way ahead of the next closest bidder. A-Rod I, in my opinion, was a perfectly fine deal in terms of value for the dollar, and the story is very different for the Rangers if they don't make bonehead moves like signing Chan Ho Park for $13-15M per.

I also think A-Rod was not just a better player than Cabrera, but head and shoulders better. We were talking about a player, even then, who might be the greatest SS in baseball history, and if not, only second to Honus Wagner. He was the full package, coming off a year that was better than anything offensively that Cabrera has ever done, playing a much more demanding position, one year from two consecutive gold gloves, and stealing 15 bases at a pretty good success rate. Oh, and a much lower risk to decay or get injured than Cabrera too (based on defensive ability, athleticism, and weight).

A-Rod II? That deal is definitely an overpay considering risk and the serious decline in A-Rod's defensive ability and his age. But it's the Yankees. The money they are spending on A-Rod isn't hampering their ability to spend elsewhere too much. There are still only 25 roster spots and money left over after you fill them doesn't do much good, so if it's in your budget, do it. If I were the Yankees I would have gone higher per year with fewer years... I like something around $210/7 a lot more than $275/10 even if it's much more per year; although to some degree the Yankees protected themselves by front-loading the deal (the last three years are $21/$20/$20).

And clearly Cashman didn't want to sign A-Rod to a big extension, or he would have done it before the opt out.

I don't buy that at all. This was a power play by Boras, and Cashman didn't want to meet that expectation.

Boras guessed that even if that market wasn't there, that A-Rod would have had a suitor from the Yankees. He was right. Cashman guessed that even if A-Rod opted out, he wouldn't be able to get a better offer from someone else. He was also right.

At the end of the day, A-Rod practically got the same contract Boras wanted, $300M/10, although part of it is in incentives. Barring disaster, A-Rod should make the incentives pretty easily; he's only 142 HR from 660 and he's entering his age 32 season.

You ignore that Theo Epstein repeatedly tried to give away Manny for nothing,

Putting Manny on waivers to see who bites (a move a lot of teams make with all sorts of players), while still possessing the rights to pull him back if the claiming team doesn't come up with a satisfactory offer != "give away Manny for nothing." It's smart business.

(If I'm misunderstanding the waiver process, then feel free to zing me and set me straight.)

I look at the Manny thing this way: Theo signed him for 8/160, got three termendous years out of him, then tried to give away the rest of his contract. If he would have succeeded, he would have in effect signed Manny for 3/60. And if he could have signed Manny for 3/60 back in 2001, he most certainly would have. The out years are the price you pay for getting the MVP-type years.

Just because the Red Sox decided a 32-year-old Manny wasn't worth 5/100 (it was actually 5/104 at that point), that doesn't make the entire contract a bad idea.

You just assert the deals worked out without establishing any benchmark that shows they did. The teams certainly didn't think they worked out. The only team that actually wanted one of those two players was the Yankees wanting A-Rod, and then only on a 7 year, not a 10 year deal. You ignore that both deals benefited from a good amount of luck that the principles did not get seriously hurt. You ignore that Theo Epstein repeatedly tried to give away Manny for nothing, and criticize the Rangers for reclaiming a quarter of their budget by dumping A-Rod, yet their logic wasn't much different than Theo's.

The Manny contract and the original ARod contract are essentially in the books. If we want to determine whether they "worked out", all we have to do is come up with a reasonable approximation of the production each player provided over the length of the contract and the dollar value of that production (of course, that is easier said than done). I'm not sure why we should consider decisions made in the past on the merits of the contracts that were based on assumptions that have not been borne out by actual results. Moreover, the value of each player over the course of their respective contacts may have been influenced by luck, but I don't think we have to consider luck when making a retrospective assessment.

For a quick and dirty approximation of each player's production, I think WARP1 is a decent place to start (granted that BP's defensive metrics are controversial, at best). Over the course of his the first seven years of his contract, Manny Ramirez produced a WARP1 of 42.2. Using a dollar value per marginal win of $3 mil (a rather middling estimate), Ramirez has been worth an average of approximately $19 mil/yr over the course of his contract. Over the course of the seven years of ARod's original contract, ARod produced a WARP1 of 63.2, or an average of approximately $28 mil/yr over the course of his contract (using the same $3 mil/marginal win). The value of each of ARod and Manny's production over the course of their contracts was commensurate with their respective salaries. Thus, I think it's fair to say that each of ARod and Manny's contract has worked out.

Of course, as another poster mentioned, these are just data points. Any prospective decision to sign another player to a similar contract has to consider the extent to which luck influenced the success (or lack thereof) of prior comparable contracts.

Note that Boston doesn't make the playoffs in 2003 and 2005 without Ramirez; the Red Sox were just 2 games ahead of the next team in line for the WC in each of those seasons.

And certainly the Yankees don't make the playoffs in 2005 without ARod; they, too, finished just 2 games in front of the WC pack.

Making the playoffs means an extra windfall in revenue.

Note that Boston doesn't make the playoffs in 2003 and 2005 without Ramirez; the Red Sox were just 2 games ahead of the next team in line for the WC in each of those seasons.

And certainly the Yankees don't make the playoffs in 2005 without ARod; they, too, finished just 2 games in front of the WC pack.

You are assuming the yankees don't make the playoffs with Soriano and an extra $20Mish a year to spend in free agency. Obv. Theo felt the sox would have been a better team spending $20M a year somewhere else instead of Manny. Maybe the Sox win three world series without him?

I look at the Manny thing this way: Theo signed him for 8/160, got three termendous years out of him, then tried to give away the rest of his contract.

Theo didn't sign Manny. As soon as Theo got in charge, he started trying to give him away because he felt he could spend $20M a year more effectively on different players.

Theo actively put together trade deals for Manny in 2005 and 2006. And the waivers he put Manny on in 2003 were irrevocable waivers, i.e. anyone could have claimed Manny just by assuming that contract and Boston would not be able to pull him back. Every MLB team passed, apparently no GM realized what a "good value" that contract was. I'm the first guy to criticize a baseball GM for a stupid decision, but when every single one, including guys you think are relatively smart, pass on Manny, doesn't that strongly imply that his contract was a bad one?