So he's saying a 7/$127 extension? Anyway, $18 M per year? I think Mr. Sherman is not familiar with the baseball labour marketplace.

I think that sounds like a pretty good deal for Mets.

Yes, sorry, I was suggesting that was a severe under-pricing of Wright.

It's often now I agree with this kind of anonymous quote stuff: If they can’t sign their best player after letting Jose Reyes go, what are they telling their fans? They might be damning themselves to bad crowds and bad press for quite a while but for the Mets that might be the case. They've finished fourth for the last four years, they were down to 11th in attendance last year--they were first as recently as 2008--losing their marquee name, and probably one of the few reasons people still show up...I don't know if they can handle that as a franchise right now.

Yes, sorry, I was suggesting that was a severe under-pricing of Wright.

Oh, I know what you meant, I would not be surprised if by the end of that deal $18M is less than a tenth of the Mets annual payroll either.

Though, let me play Sandy Alderson for a moment and see if this dog can walk. First, Wrights defensive ability undercuts those glittering offensive numbers and over time he will likely need to be moved, rested, etc, and they have no DH spot. David still needs to fade another seasons injury risk before he can lock in a big fair market deal. If David thought he was in line for a $150m/7 year deal after the option year, locking down a $127m/7 deal now is essentially paying a 15% ish "insurance premium" to avoid huge variance risk, and of course insure you don't have to move (assuming full NTC also in exchange for discount), and get to play for your same long time fans, Sandy, and the Wilpons for the rest of your career in the greatest city in the world.

Of course, he also might be sick and tired of the Wilpons, Sandy, and some of those "fans", and also value airy intangible things like "winning". And given the massive amounts he's already made (including option) the utility of avoiding variance on the even more massive amounts he will make is probably pretty low.

And lastly, he may also want to live closer to the worlds greatest town, Scottsdale, Arizona, and be banking on those big Kendrick dollars KT throws around like manhole covers.

Obviously you didn't watch Wright play very much this season - he was terrific on defense in 2012. Even the advanced metrics loved his work. DRS gave him a +16 and UZR gave him a +15.4

Could be nothing more than a fluke but he sure looked like a completely different guy out there in the field. Chip Hale had been their primary defensive guy but he left this year and Tim Teufel took over the role. Wright turned in a fantastic year and I think Teufel should get credit for Daniel Murphy, too. The advanced numbers don't like Murphy too much but I thought he made great strides during the year and was actually pretty good turning the DP by the end of the year.

Murphy had a lot of issues with range, which seems strange because that's always been one of his best defensive traits. At the beginning of the year, Murphy was essentially playing in right field he was so deep. But by September he was more of the edge of the infield dirt. Hopefully he'll play a normal depth next year and turn in a better season according to the advanced numbers.

over time he will likely need to be moved, rested, etc,

I've opined this many times myself but ... I'm starting to change my mind. Not on Wright specifically but 3B in general. I don't know if teams are willing to sacrifice defense there more (driving down the average) or what but Chipper managed to say there until the bitter end; ARod is still rated as average or better; ARam is still there (and was above-average this year after several years not); Youkilis didn't even really play 3B full-time in the majors until age 32 and he's been average; and the 600-pound Cabrera seems to have made the move and not been terrible. Actual good fielders like Beltre, Rolen and Polanco haven't really slacked off in their mid-30s. I've got a good bit more confidence that a 3B can last until 36-38 in today's game.

But even if Wright can't stick, unless Ike Davis turns into the player Mets fans dreamed about, they've got a spot for him over at 1B. He hasn't been quite as good with the bat as Fielder, Tex and AGon before their monster deals but Wright the 1B is probably still at least a $20 M player in today's market.

If David thought he was in line for a $150m/7 year deal after the option year, locking down a $127m/7 deal now is essentially paying a 15% ish "insurance premium" to avoid huge variance risk,

True, but one suspects that if the Mets can't extend Wright (assuming they want to), they're surely going to trade him this offseason and surely to a team that only wants Wright to extend him.

Obviously you didn't watch Wright play very much this season - he was terrific on defense in 2012. Even the advanced metrics loved his work. DRS gave him a +16 and UZR gave him a +15.4

Even after this monster year, UZR has David as slightly below average for his career. He was -40 runs over 2009-2011! That's Mark Reynolds territory.

A .250 hitter can hit .350 for 80 games, it happens with regularity in fact. That's roughly the same sample size a season of defensive data contains.

Maybe it was better positioning, maybe the Mets positioning sucked before this year. Maybe David was hurt for 3 years straight.

All I know is I will will take the under on Wright being a plus defender more than 2 out of the next 5 years, that's for sure.

A .250 hitter can hit .350 for 80 games, it happens with regularity in fact. That's roughly the same sample size a season of defensive data contains.

If .250 hitters hit .350 for 80 games with regularity, then we ought to expect them to hit .300 over a season with regularity, because we ought to expect them to hit .250 the rest of the year (they are .250 hitters, after all). But .250 hitters hit .300 for a season with regularity? That sounds obviously false.

When I check the average leaderboard, I see the lowest career batting average among anyone who hit .300 or better this year in more than 500 atbats is Dexter Fowler's .271.

Even after this monster year, UZR has David as slightly below average for his career. He was -40 runs over 2009-2011! That's Mark Reynolds territory.

Advanced Metric Fail. Seriously, he's never been a Mark Reynolds fielder, claiming that is pure mom's basement material.

I've opined this many times myself but ... I'm starting to change my mind. Not on Wright specifically but 3B in general. I don't know if teams are willing to sacrifice defense there more (driving down the average) or what but Chipper managed to say there until the bitter end; ARod is still rated as average or better; ARam is still there (and was above-average this year after several years not); Youkilis didn't even really play 3B full-time in the majors until age 32 and he's been average; and the 600-pound Cabrera seems to have made the move and not been terrible. Actual good fielders like Beltre, Rolen and Polanco haven't really slacked off in their mid-30s. I've got a good bit more confidence that a 3B can last until 36-38 in today's game.

But you've said it right there. Of those players the only one who spent an appreciable amount of time as a negative value fielder was Chipper, who was moved off of third at one point before going back and becoming basically an average defender for the rest of his career. Of all the players on your list, he's the only real comp in that he was bad at third early on, and like I said he was moved to left. (note, not counting Miggy because his time at third is more a function of the Tigers glut of players who can't field. He too was a poor defensive third baseman who was moved off and only the acquisition of a worse fielder moved him to third) So two of the players you mentioned were moved.

I think the problem is more that if your a third baseman who can't field there really aren't many places to put you. You can go to first if your range limited, or left if you have range but poor reflexes.

You know, Wright won two GGs. He looked great this year. He won't need to move off the position any time soon.

Also, I really don't get Walt's estimates on Wright's value. $20 million as a first baseman? Votto territory? I know that people keep saying that "the new TV money" will make the new contracts blow all established values out of the water ... but I don't see it, at least in this case. Wright's fallen precipitously from his established 30/110 marks. He's probably not a good bet to hit 20/90 next year. Yeah, I know, I just used HR and RBI and ignored the offensive context.

Of all the players on your list, he's the only real comp in that he was bad at third early on

Check Aramis Ramirez ... although he's young yet.

Also, I really don't get Walt's estimates on Wright's value. $20 million as a first baseman? Votto territory?

Votto's "extension" was 13 years and included 3 arb years (if I did the math right). Votto did give them a couple of cheap years in exchange for $25 M a year for eternity. The FA portion of it, 2014-23, is 10/$225 I think (Cot's agrees!) Wright's extension would kick in in 2014 as well so comparable timing.

Fielder: 9/$214, signed 2012, 143 OPS+ through 27, 155 OPS+ 2009-11
AGon: 7/$145 (plus the one cheap year), signed 2011: 141 OPS+ in SD through 28
Tex: 8/$180, signed 2009: 134 OPS+ through 28, 141 2006-8
Wright: 135 OPS+ through 29, 132 2010-12

So he's a step below those guys as a 1B (at the time of signing/extending) but those are all over $20 M per and are very long contracts. Add Pujols and that gives us 5 1B already making over $20 M per in their FA years. Oops, Ryan Howard makes it 6. Cabrera signed for 8/$152 way back in 2008 so that's close enough to 7 for me. Toss in inflation and the new TV money and that b-r doesn't show signing bonuses (I don't think) and, yeah, I think Wright the 1B gets at least $20 M per. Probably not for 10 years or anything. And remember, Wright at 1B is the downside of any offer -- i.e. if he has to move off 3B.

That said, other than ARod, the market has never been that kind to 3B. And teams might decide that the extra step down in hitting and/or his not awesome 2011 make Wright less attractive.

Still I'll guess his extension at something like 6/$132

Single franchise Mets position players with 5 years of service:

Ed Kranepool
Ron Hodges (only 1600 PA in 12 years)
Bruce Boisclair
Ron Gardenhire

You've let Wright knock Kranepool off of most of the leaderboards Fred, do it for this one too.

And only Ron Hodges is a True Met, because Kranepool played on other affiliates in the minors (as a loan? I don't understand what I'm seeing), Boisclair went to Hanshin for one year, and Gardenhire went into the Twins organization as a player.

Minor league "loans" were pretty common back in the day, usually to address positional imbalances. Roy White played a year or two in the Dodgers system in the early 1960s, IIRC.

If .250 hitters hit .350 for 80 games with regularity, then we ought to expect them to hit .300 over a season with regularity, because we ought to expect them to hit .250 the rest of the year (they are .250 hitters, after all). But .250 hitters hit .300 for a season with regularity? That sounds obviously false.

you assume my statement only meant 80 games in the same season?

you assume "regularity" means every .250 hitter hits .350 regularly, instead of the pool of .250 hitters produces a .350 outlier over 80 games regularly?

Yes, its obviously true. The pool of .250 hitters produces at least 1 hitting .350 for an 80 game stretch regularly.

Advanced Metric Fail. Seriously, he's never been a Mark Reynolds fielder, claiming that is pure mom's basement material.

Over Mark Reynolds first 4 years, he was -24 runs at 3rd. so yea, -40 runs in three years puts David Wright on a different level than Reynolds was at.

David Wright is a lock to be a bad defensive third baseman over the duration of his next contract.

I can't look at Wright without thinking of Scott Rolen back in 2002. Wright's two years older, though, and not the elite defender that Rolen was.

Phils fans often view Rolen's departure as a bullet dodged - I'm not convinced, at least compared to how most of these long-term deals go. They're all bad when you look solely at the back end of the contract. Rolen had very good seasons in 3 of 4 years between 2003-2006 (2005 was largely lost to injury), lost much of 2007 to injury, and then was productive (though limited to about 125 games/season) from 2008-2010. That's 3 all-star years, three above-average 3B years, and two injury-plagued seasons over the life of his 8-year, $90M contract. All in all, not bad, especially when you factor inflation and ballooning payrolls into the equation. The Phils won 86, 86, 88, and 85 games in the David Bell era from 2003-06. Would Rolen have helped? You do the math.

Wright is a terrific player. The Mets won't get him for anything less than $20M/year - 8/$143M won't get it done. I'm guessing something along the lines of 7/$150M, possibly with an 8th-year vesting option and a buyout. In the last couple of years, people will call it an albatross, but odds are it will be a solid deal in retrospect.

This number sounded high, but I guess I was underestimating how good Wright's been. Sounds reasonable largely because it's so long. I could see something like 5/105 or 6/120 instead.

you assume my statement only meant 80 games in the same season?

you assume "regularity" means every .250 hitter hits .350 regularly, instead of the pool of .250 hitters produces a .350 outlier over 80 games regularly?

Yes, its obviously true. The pool of .250 hitters produces at least 1 hitting .350 for an 80 game stretch regularly.

No, I don't assume at least the second of those things. If you looked at the part of the post you didn't quote, I show some evidence that the pool of .250 hitters who play regularly did not produce a stretch of hitting .350 in the 2012 season. I understand there are a lot of stretches that don't occur entirely in one season, but I just looked at 2010 and 2011, and no hitter who qualified for the batting title in 2010-2012 and also hit .300 has a career batting average lower than Dexter Fowler's .271. If the pool of .250 hitters produced 80-game stretches of .350 hitting 'regularly' then we should

If a .250 hitter hits .350 for an 80 game stretch, we should expect that hitter to produce a batting average centered around .250 for the other 80 games that make up the season the original 80 game stretch occurs in. So we should expect roughly half of the .350 stretches (that occur entirely in one season) to produce .300 year-end lines.

Now, these are of course precisely the hitters who will have career batting averages higher than their true talent; we are selecting for that, after all. But not only are there , in 2010-2012, no such year-end lines for .250 hitters, but there are no such year-end lines for .265 hitters.

Now, of course, my evidence is not perfect. Some 80 game stretches will not be entirely in one season, and I've only looked at three years, and we should expect some of the .350 stretches to go with stretches of lower than .250, producing lower than .300 year-end lines. But it's some evidence, and 'twice a year among all of baseball' seems pretty slender to count as 'regularly'. Honestly, I'm really interested in the variance of BA; it would be a cool thing to know how often a .250 hitter will hit .350 for 80 games. Do you have evidence for how often that happens?

Wright seemed to cut down on his main problem defensively this year, wild throws on easy plays. The numbers seem to back up my observation on that, he had the fewest errors and highest fielding% of his career.

Am I the only one that thinks this sounds like a terrible idea for the Mets?

Over Mark Reynolds first 4 years, he was -24 runs at 3rd. so yea, -40 runs in three years puts David Wright on a different level than Reynolds was at.

I have never, ever had faith in advanced defensive metrics - regardless of the team or player - and the idea that Wright was a worse fielder than Reynolds at any point in his career, bad throws included, only reinforces this in my mind. YMMV

Wrong thread.

Yeah, Wright as worse than Reynolds strikes me as nuts. I'm not convinced that the numbers actually say that, though. Per BRef, Wright is +0.3 dWAR for his career, while Reynolds is -7.0. I guess Wright looks pretty bad if you only look at the years where he was pretty bad.

Am I the only one that thinks this sounds like a terrible idea for the Mets?

I don't think it's a terrible idea, I think they should try to sign him, but the contracts discussed here still make me nervous.

Am I the only one that thinks this sounds like a terrible idea for the Mets?
I don't think it's a terrible idea, I think they should try to sign him, but the contracts discussed here still make me nervous.

Me too. As with Reyes in 2011, Wright's 2012 is a bit of an outlier. Not quite as much of one, but Wright's getting old, he's had the kind of years defensively at 3B that make a move to 1B as likely at 33 as at 37, and he hasn't been the healthiest player going.

Still, keeping him around this year rather than selling low was obviously the right move and let the Mets win 74 rather than 68 or 69 games. How much was the pretense of respectability (which they'll need again next year, and in 2014) worth to ownership?

Yes, sorry, I was suggesting that was a severe under-pricing of Wright.

Severe? That suggests you think 23-24m a year is Wright's ballpark, not 18m. I'm not seeing it. Even with his excellent 2012 does anyone still see Wright as a true star?

People who distrust the Wright/Reynolds numbers, what are you basing this on? Is it based on your personal observation of these guys? And if so, how often do you watch these guys? The advanced metrics are based on the observations made by people who watch every inning each of these guys plays. Maybe they're capturing something you're not seeing?

Not quite as much of one, but Wright's getting old, he's had the kind of years defensively at 3B that make a move to 1B as likely at 33 as at 37, and he hasn't been the healthiest player going.

Is this really a fair criticism? He's been on the DL twice in his career; in 2009 he got hit in the head and still played 144 games. In 2011 he played through a broken back for a while and then went on the DL and missed 60 games total. I haven't really read anything that says that's an injury that would necessarily come back. He's been a full time player for 8 seasons and he's played 154 games or more 6 times, and in a seventh, as I mentioned, he played 144 games.

There are reasons to be wary of signing him to a 7 year contract, mainly because there are reasons to sign anyone close to the age of 30 to one, but I don't think health is one of them.

Also I feel like in order for the us to really evaluate this, we need to have some kind of idea of what the Mets finances are. In a world where the Minnesota Twins have a $94 million payroll, the Mets should pretty easily be able to be around $150 million. If the Mets have the ability to spend $150 million, or more (the Phillies and Red Sox both spent $175 million this year, for instance) than $20 million to Wright, even over 7 years, isn't that big of a deal, right?

With Wright/Reynolds, I think there's a bit of a disconnect. When Mark Reynolds first came up, he was a pretty run of the mill bad fielder. As he has aged and bulked up, he's become truly awful. Wright perhaps was like the old Reynolds, but he's not at all comparable to the present-day Reynolds.

Dumber-than-Marcel projection for Wright:

+20 Bat - 0 Run + 18 Rep + 2 Pos + 0 Def = +40 RAR

What kind of contract that projects to is sort of complicated. We can expect that free agent contracts will increase in price this offseason, but we really don't know by how much. Guessing at $5.5M per win, that puts Wright's projected contract value around 6/100. I doubt that's enough to lock him up.

You can of course quibble with any number of the assumptions or inputs of the dumber-than-marcels. They're not smart projections, just a reasonably useful baseline.

With Wright/Reynolds, I think there's a bit of a disconnect. When Mark Reynolds first came up, he was a pretty run of the mill bad fielder. As he has aged and bulked up, he's become truly awful. Wright perhaps was like the old Reynolds, but he's not at all comparable to the present-day Reynolds.

This is correct. Wright is only about six months older than Reynolds, but I think at this point it's clear that Reynolds is a 1B/DH for the rest of his career, whereas Wright can probably stick at 3B for a bit longer.

Even with his excellent 2012 does anyone still see Wright as a true star?

FanGraphs WAR season-by-season since 2007: 8.8, 7.1, 3.5, 4.0, 1.9*, 7.8
(* - missed two months due to injury)

His big WAR seasons are fueled by great fielding numbers; the low ones are pulled down by big negatives with the glove. If you figure the truth is somewhere in between, you're probably talking about a 5.5-6 WAR player who's in his prime. That's not vintage A-Rod, but it's pretty damn good.

But even if Wright can't stick, unless Ike Davis turns into the player Mets fans dreamed about, they've got a spot for him over at 1B.

I'm bullish on Ike. Colin Zarzycki's FanGraphs piece on Davis is worth a read. Ike had a horrid start, but from June 9 onward, he posted a .265/.347/.565 slash line in 383 PA (.270 BABIP). The guy's not quite that good - I don't see him sustaining a 21.1% HR/FB ratio - but he's more than capable of giving you an Adam LaRoche-like run at 1B for several years.

If the Mets have the ability to spend $150 million, or more (the Phillies and Red Sox both spent $175 million this year, for instance) than $20 million to Wright, even over 7 years, isn't that big of a deal, right?

It shouldn't be, but I'm leery of any assumptions at all about Mets' finances.

Wrt his health, I don't know that his record through age 25 is particularly meaningful. I admit to having no idea how much the health problems that limited him to 102 games in 2011 are going to affect him in the future. It's obviously a great sign that he was healthy and wonderfully productive this year. It would obviously help to know if it's the kind of injury that, when it comes back, knocks a guy out for six weeks or more. What's encoraging, though, is the way he trains. If a long, expensive contract goes sour the least likely reasons are going to be because Wright got fat or lazy.

Yes, its obviously true. The pool of .250 hitters produces at least 1 hitting .350 for an 80 game stretch regularly.

Name one, because it certainly isn't obvious..

I just looked at the guys who hit .250-.260 in 1500 PA over the past 4 years (26 players). Not 1 hit over .340 for even 60 games; only 4 hit .320 for 50 games (one was Kotchman in '11, when he hit .306 for the year).

If you figure the truth is somewhere in between, you're probably talking about a 5.5-6 WAR player who's in his prime. That's not vintage A-Rod, but it's pretty damn good.

When I wrote 'does anyone still see him as a true star' I meant the perception, which surely will affect his contract. Fangraph all you like, but BBRef has this season as Wright's first at over 3 wins since 2008. That's not a player still in his prime.

Anyway, it was great to see him play like he used to, and get the Ks under control. He also had a BABIP in 2012 not far off his career average. Maybe he's the player he was through age 25. I doubt it, but if he is that's a great player to sign for 20m a year.

The Mets aren't going anywhere any time soon, and it's not my money. I'd be happy to get Wright for any remotely reasonable deal.