Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, July 18, 2014

Dave Cameron: 2014 Trade Value: The Top 10

7. Salvador Perez

If there’s one piece of feedback I got more clearly than any other last year, it was that I was too low on Salvador Perez. I had one friend in the game tell me should have been in the top five, and I had him at 36. My bad, Kansas City. Consider this a mea culpa.

Perez might not yet be the best catcher in baseball, but there are a lot of people convinced that he’s going to be in the near future. He’s basically a power spike away from being Jonathan Lucroy, only he’s four years younger than Milwaukee’s backstop, and at a point where many catchers are still honing their craft in the minors. And while framing metrics don’t love him the same way they do Lucroy, his defensive reputation is still stellar, as he shuts down the running game as well as anyone.

And then there’s the contract. Because the Royals locked up Perez after just 39 big league games, he’s set to make $2 million each of the next two years, and then they have team options for three additional years at $4 million, $5 million, and $6 million respectively. It’s $19 million over five seasons, or an average of $4 million per year. The best catcher in the American league is signed to the kind of deal you give a decent middle reliever.

Perez doesn’t even have to get any better to be one of the biggest steals in baseball. If he does improve, though, he might eventually challenge for the top spot on this list.

BUT WHO IS #6????

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 18, 2014 at 02:01 PM | 35 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: angels, dave cameron, diamondbacks, dodgers, nationals, orioles, pirates, rays, rockies, royals, trade value, white sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 18, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4753900)
I can't see anyone in their right mind not trading Salvador Perez straight up for Felix Hernandez, or Steven Strasburg.

Screw the money, I want the elite talent.
   2. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4753921)
I can't see anyone in their right mind not trading Salvador Perez straight up for Felix Hernandez, or Steven Strasburg.


Really? an all star level catcher, age 24, signed until his age 29 season at no more than 6 mil a year, for an elite level pitcher who is signed at an average of more than $25mil a year for the next six years? I think that either party could legitimately argue to be holding the stronger trade chip, but I think Salvador Perez and 19 Million free to sign another player is probably better than Felix Hernandez.
   3. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4753923)
double post because my computer sucks. (not my fault at all. :))
   4. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 18, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4753928)
Really? an all star level catcher, age 24, signed until his age 29 season at no more than 6 mil a year, for an elite level pitcher who is signed at an average of more than $25mil a year for the next six years? I think that either party could legitimately argue to be holding the stronger trade chip, but I think Salvador Perez and 19 Million free to sign another player is probably better than Felix Hernandez.

What do you think Felix Hernandez costs you on the free-market? 10/300? You're not getting Felix Hernandez for $19M p.a. You're not getting that level of pitcher, period.

You can get a reasonable facsimile of Salvador Perez. The Pirates picked up Russell Martin for 2/17, and he's better than Perez, once you account for framing.
   5. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4753943)
2/17 costs more than what Perez costs....

And never said you will get a Felix Hernandez for 19mil, Said you have locked in a 24 year all star catcher at less than 6mil a year(over the next four season) and have 19mil free to sign another player... Obviously he won't be Felix level good, but you are talking about a 4+ War player, entering the prime of his career and having another 19mil to sign another player. Kyle Lohse is a 3 war pitcher making 11 mil that was signed on the open market, Felix Hernandez is around a 7 war pitcher(bb-ref war underrates starting pitchers in my opinion, so I gave Felix a small boost)

It's hard to find what the perceived free agent value of pitchers on the open market, since they rarely make it their in their prime, but as an example, Jered Weaver got an average of 17mil a year and is about a 4 war pitcher. Wainwright is making 19.5 mil a year, etc...I fully think you can find a 4 war pitcher for 19 mil a year.

Edit: Note. I don't think any team WOULD trade Felix for Salvador Perez(except maybe the A's) simply because of the PR hit that they would take.
   6. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: July 18, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4753949)
What do you think Felix Hernandez costs you on the free-market? 10/300? You're not getting Felix Hernandez for $19M p.a.

Hm. 28 year-old Felix Hernandez finds a loophole and files for free agency this fall.... I guess I'd be surprised to find out he had signed for over like 8 year/$200MM.

Then again, we're always surprised to learn how much the superstar free agents sign for, so I'm probably lowballing it again!
   7. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: July 18, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4753952)
No Tigers in the Top 50. Probably agree for the most part, but still sort of feel like I should say "nya-nya-nya" or something when they win the division again even though they don't have anyone on the list. (EDIT - I know Tigers have made this list in the past, so it could be foreboding a Philly like future for the Tigers. Hope not.)

I'd be hesitant to rank Perez so high just because I feel like catchers are more susceptible to losing it with no real notice. (No idea if the facts back me up here.)
   8. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 18, 2014 at 07:26 PM (#4753971)
What do you think Felix Hernandez costs you on the free-market? 10/300? You're not getting Felix Hernandez for $19M p.a. You're not getting that level of pitcher, period.


It's possible Felix could get someone to pay that, but he'll never be worth that. Odds of him putting up anywhere near 50 WAR over the next 10 years are microscopic, one bout of TJ surgery and it's an 8 year deal.

There is no one way to build a championship team, and there is no single player necessary. No matter how elite the talent, overpaying for one can cripple your team far worse than signing one can help it..
   9. Walt Davis Posted: July 18, 2014 at 07:28 PM (#4753974)
Cs who debut young tend to lose it around age 30. Seems to be more about innings caught than anything magical about Cs. And of course Pudge II ended up lasting forever. (Pudge I also lasted forever but didn't catch all that many games before age 30)

Regardless, age 30 is a long way away for Perez. Glad to see folks recognize how good (and cheap/valuable) he is. I kinda got this one right.

I always find this a strange list ... it's just "who are the most valuable WAR/$ players in the game?" It's got nothing to do with trades. The only time you see players of this caliber traded are either before they hit the majors (oops) or within the last 1.5 years of FA when their trade value is quickly declining ... or maybe Beane's arb trades.

Not thinking too much about it, I don't think I'd rank Tulo and Harper quite so high. Tulo makes real money, has been fragile, is about to turn 30. Certainly valuable, a good contract, he'd make ton more if he was an FA this offseason. But then suppose he was coming off his injured age 27 instead ... would his FA value be substantially higher than 6/$120 then? Harper's sort of the same story -- fragile, I'm not certain what his arb years are gonna cost, I'm pretty sure a buyout will be quite expensive.

On McCuthen and potentially others ... I expect a "double dip" contract which will keep him a relative bargain. That's been the trend -- extend the rising star through arb and 1-2 years of FA then, about halfway through that if they've continued to perform, offer them a second extension 2-3 years early that takes them through age 35-36. You certainly end up paying real money in the second extension but it's still usually a bargain compared to waiting (at least in the short term). But, yeah, as of right now, that contract is the new Longoria. He left a ton of money on the table.

   10. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 07:44 PM (#4753984)
No matter how elite the talent, overpaying for one can cripple your team far worse than signing one can help it..


I agree with your post for the most part, but this part I think is over stated by some. There isn't a team in baseball who couldn't afford to spend 25mil on a failed signing and still be competitive within their means. They make make comments about a salary cap or whatnot, but if they were being perfectly honest, they could eat the entire contract, and still be competitive, provided all other mistakes they make were much smaller.

Even if a team over pays for a guy, as long as they jettison the guy quick enough or insist on not making the contract reason to keep playing him in prime lineup spots or everyday or whatever, and treat him as if he is just another cog in the machinery, they should be fine. It's when the team cripples itself through inaction or fear of looking bad or offending the player that is when issues arise.
   11. valuearbitrageur Posted: July 18, 2014 at 07:49 PM (#4753989)
Even if a team over pays for a guy, as long as they jettison the guy quick enough or insist on not making the contract reason to keep playing him in prime lineup spots or everyday or whatever, and treat him as if he is just another cog in the machinery, they should be fine.


Yes, but you can only do so much. If a $100M team pays $30M a year for a 5 win player and he produces 0 wins, it's hard to fill that hole with the dregs remaining of that $70M every year. And your only upside is maybe he will actually be a 7 win player for you? +2 can't help as much as -5 can hurt.
   12. puck Posted: July 18, 2014 at 07:54 PM (#4753994)
Ok, so if you're the Rockies, what would you trade Tulo for? It seems doubtful anyone would offer it enough to make it worthwhile.

I really don't think they want to trade him. If nothing else as we can see, the owner is all about not making any big changes and just watching the turnstiles spin. But he is also basically recognized as the new Todd Helton for the club--the best player, the center of marketing, etc.

So short of him cruising east Colfax with Denny Neagle and forcing a trade, what would you trade him for?

Seems unlikely the Rockies will produce player this good soon--look at how much of the Rockies' non-pitching WAR Tulo has produced. There's a question of how long he'll stay 5-6 win good, but it seems reasonable he has at least another few of those seasons.
   13. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 07:57 PM (#4753996)
Yes, but you can only do so much. If a $100M team pays $30M a year for a 5 win player and he produces 0 wins, it's hard to fill that hole with the dregs remaining of that $70M every year. And your only upside is maybe he will actually be a 7 win player for you? +2 can't help as much as -5 can hurt.


I agree for the most part, but one disaster signing for a smart organization is not going to hurt them, a poorly run organization, sure, but a smart organization can recover from a disaster signing, provided they recognize it and react.... that might sound simple on it's face, but if a team signs a guy for 5/100 and in his second year, he produces 1.0 war and half way through his third year he's producing at the same pace, most teams still will not call up their young triple A all star at that position, just because they feel they already made the commitment.

But from a theoretical sense, there isn't a single team out there that couldn't recover from an Albert Belle type of signing.
   14. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 08:01 PM (#4754000)
Ok, so if you're the Rockies, what would you trade Tulo for? It seems doubtful anyone would offer it enough to make it worthwhile.


Cardinal writers are arguing for Taveras/Shelby Miller(or Carlos Martinez) trade.... As a Cardinal fan I wouldn't do it, but it's just as much about us having Peralta at short...and that trade would mean moving Peralta to third, Carpenter to second and forgetting about Wong as it is about the cost and injury history of Tulowitzki.
   15. Walt Davis Posted: July 18, 2014 at 08:29 PM (#4754012)
#12 ... that's part of what I find so silly about the way Cameron labels this exercise. His writeups are simply about projected WAR/$ over the next 5 years or so. He never really discusses what their "trade value" is ... doesn't say "for example, the Cards would have to trade X and Y to get Tulo" just "it would take a lot." (Despite the fact that such trades don't often take a lot.)

Maybe in part because sabermetrics might not have prospects realistically valued. I'm thinking of Szym's article on the Braves signing of Santana. Article is Insider but the search says his conclusion was that, with the lost late 1st pick, the Braves were actually paying $33 M for Santana. If a late first pick is worth $20 M, an actual top 50 prospect must be worth at least $40 you'd think. Even if we take Tulo as projecting to be worth 6/$180, you're paying him 6/$120. If my made-up numbers are right, you trade only one top 50 prospect plus a B prospect for him to break even. Not that we need another SS but I'm pretty sure the Cubs would make that trade in a second unless it involved Bryant (or maybe Baez).

But a top 50 and a B is more like what you see traded for somebody like Tulo in the last 1-2 years of control, not for 6 years. Somebody's got something valued wrong.
   16. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: July 18, 2014 at 08:34 PM (#4754018)
I *love* me some Andrew McCutchen, but no, Dave, there is no argument that he could be considered more valuable than Mike Trout. If that trade were offered to both sides right now the Pirates would scramble to fax in the paperwork and the Angels would laugh and hang up.
   17. cardsfanboy Posted: July 18, 2014 at 08:40 PM (#4754023)
I *love* me some Andrew McCutchen, but no, Dave, there is no argument that he could be considered more valuable than Mike Trout. If that trade were offered to both sides right now the Pirates would scramble to fax in the paperwork and the Angels would laugh and hang up.


Absolutely agree with everything in this comment. McCutchen is my man crush, but no way would there be a trade of those two players.
   18. PreservedFish Posted: July 18, 2014 at 08:45 PM (#4754028)
Article is Insider but the search says his conclusion was that, with the lost late 1st pick, the Braves were actually paying $33 M for Santana. If a late first pick is worth $20 M, an actual top 50 prospect must be worth at least $40 you'd think. Even if we take Tulo as projecting to be worth 6/$180, you're paying him 6/$120.


I've said it before, I'll say it again. The free agent market is constricted and distorted. Every team knows that free agents aren't really "worth" the money that they are paid - there's a huge premium due to scarcity. There's something incorrect about applying the free agent market values across the wide spectrum of baseball players in all their different contractual situations and using it for analysis in this manner.
   19. chisoxcollector Posted: July 18, 2014 at 11:19 PM (#4754112)
Love seeing Chris Sale as the top ranked pitcher. With his contract, it's pretty much a no-brainer.

Sale at 11, Abreu at 10, and Jose Quintana at 37. This is definitely the best showing the White Sox have ever made on this list.
   20. Kurt Posted: July 18, 2014 at 11:25 PM (#4754117)
So, no Felipe Lopez?
   21. Walt Davis Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM (#4754139)
#16 ... that's what Cameron says. He even says he only entertains the option because it's so boringly obvious that Trout is #1.

   22. Walt Davis Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:47 AM (#4754161)
I'm not sure I'd say the prices are wrong, I think it's more that we need to realize they're at best a useful abstraction that have very little to do with how the baseball labor market actually works. Of course as statnerds take over front offices, maybe it will become how it works.

I'm not convinced there's much of a rarity premium. I think teams roughly figure out how much the guy will be worth over the next X years, multiply by 7 ... then you get the auction winner's curse added on of paying for an extra year. Teams know they will extract nearly all of that value over the first half of the contract but it's essentially just deferred salary after that.

But maybe that's close enough to what I think messes all of this up. Teams have constrained choices, in terms of what's on the FA market and what they've got in their system. Add in the win now or win later issue.

That is I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea that a late first round draft pick will probably be worth $20 M -- i.e. an average of 3 WAR. Or maybe it was even a bit more than that. The issue is that it's potential not realized value and it's value that won't begin to be realized for (usually) another 3-4 years and it's value that will be realized over (parts of) another 3-6 years after that.

That's not really much of an asset. What's the NPV of something that will pay out, say, $4 M per year from 2018-2022? Probably still a good chunk of money but not $20 M. Now what's the value of the Braves making the playoffs this year vs. not? How much does Santana increase those odds? What other options are there and what do they cost? (very few alternatives at that point) If the Braves don't do anything and head into the season with their #6-8 starters in the opening day rotation, what does that say to the fans and the players? If, as one might expect, those guys tank, are you going to end up paying more for your panic mid-season solution or are you going to watch the season drift away? (As I always say, it's never too early to panic -- that's the whole point of panicking.)

That might all add up to Santana still being too expensive but I can't see any omitted factors that would suggest that Dan's estimate of Santana's real cost was too low ... only things that might mean it was too high.

Santana's results have been mediocre but he has the best FIP of any starter and he's helped keep worse pitchers off the mound. On the other hand, the mysteries of baseball always operate and it turns out that Aaron Harang and Alex Wood have pitched as well, David Hale hasn't sucked (and is getting very good results), Floyd came back well before getting hurt again and only Minor has really been an issue.

Basically, if you take your chances seriously, you fix as many of your glaring problems as you can before the season starts. Quite possibly the Braves did pay too much but it was a good baseball move that cost the future Braves virtually nothing. A cost so small that it's surely well within the standard error of our projection models ... a cost so small that it's probably already been repaid by the unexpected outcome that LaStella is turning out to be a decent player.
   23. cardsfanboy Posted: July 19, 2014 at 01:05 AM (#4754166)
I'm not convinced there's much of a rarity premium. I think teams roughly figure out how much the guy will be worth over the next X years, multiply by 7 ... then you get the auction winner's curse added on of paying for an extra year. Teams know they will extract nearly all of that value over the first half of the contract but it's essentially just deferred salary after that.


I've argued that for years in any discussion that tries to argue free agents and the distribution of talent vs how major leagues pay free agents.

   24. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 19, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4754233)
In free agency the thinking is, how can I maximize my teams talent base given my budget constraints over the life of the contract. If you've ever played ootp baseball, you quickly realize GMs aren't as stupid as they seem.

I played ootp in the rlpa with a bunch of bbtf guys. It took me a couple seasons to realize that the then extant prospectus model of success cycles and building from within didn't work that well. The folks who were winning were more like duquette, "over" paying for assets and trying to keep a middle of the pack farm system. The dynasties were built on dealing superstars signed as free agents for premium prospects and maybe a bad contract in return. Not super realistic, but the logic is there. The overall talent base needs to remain high constantly. If that means paying tanaka $25 million when he's worth $17 in the abstract, then you do that.
   25. PreservedFish Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4754282)
I'm not convinced there's much of a rarity premium.


Imagine all players were declared free agents this winter. The $/WAR figure would drop precipitously.

To be clear, I don't know what the correct way to look at this is. But I think that just applying the free agent market's $/WAR to all players is flawed.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4754286)
Imagine all players were declared free agents this winter. The $/WAR figure would drop precipitously.

If you mean it would drop precipitously from the FA $/WAR level, then yes, certainly.

The overall $/WAR level would probably stay the same, just the guys making minimum would get much, much more, and the guys on FA contracts would get much, much less.
   27. Ron J2 Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:30 PM (#4754296)
#26 Don't see it affecting the top tier in the slightest. It's the guys who are middle tier free agents who would be the big losers.
   28. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4754298)
Ok, so if you're the Rockies, what would you trade Tulo for? It seems doubtful anyone would offer it enough to make it worthwhile.


If the Rockies (or Dave Cameron) have Tulo's trade value pegged higher than anyone on the market is willing to match, then both the Rox and Cameron are overvaluing Tulo's trade value.
   29. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 19, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4754304)
#26 Don't see it affecting the top tier in the slightest. It's the guys who are middle tier free agents who would be the big losers.

Disagree. They may get the same AAV, but they get it for 4-5 years, not 10.
   30. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: July 19, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4754340)
I played ootp in the rlpa with a bunch of bbtf guys.

I miss the heyday of the RLPA. It's hard to believe that was already about 7 years ago.
   31. McCoy Posted: July 19, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4754350)
If the Rockies (or Dave Cameron) have Tulo's trade value pegged higher than anyone on the market is willing to match, then both the Rox and Cameron are overvaluing Tulo's trade value.


Was there anything in baseball that would have equaled Babe Ruth and was it possible for one team to amass those resources so that they could give it to the Yankees? We know that the Red Sox clearly undervalued him but how could Ruth be overvalued because the Yankees don't think there is nothing out there that could equal him? Sometimes it is true.
   32. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 19, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4754360)
We know that the Red Sox clearly undervalued him but how could Ruth be overvalued because the Yankees don't think there is nothing out there that could equal him? Sometimes it is true.


The closest thing you'll find to this is Mike Trout. But the problem here is that Mike Trout, properly valued, has 0 trade value. NONE. The sheer amount of return any hypothetical trade would demand means no one will trade with the Angels. No one is going to gut their entire system for Mike Trout, at "properly valued" values, because at that point you just have Mike Trout and no system to play him in.

The entire "trade value" logic breaks with those types of players, and a better analysis would be to identify players who simply will not be traded (Jose Abreu, Mike Trout, probably Bryce Harper) and just mark them off of your fantasy games roster.

In the case of Tulowitzki, if he gets dealt I strongly suspect the Tulo fans will scream and cry about how little value they get back for him, because his actual market value is going to be much lower than his make-believe-in-a-vacuum "player value" that folks like Cameron are using. (Let's discount for the moment the fact that Tulowitzki outside of Denver isn't exactly a massive supernova of a star.)
   33. Starlin of the Slipstream (TRHN) Posted: July 19, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4754362)
I miss the heyday of the RLPA. It's hard to believe that was already about 7 years ago.


I know! Easily one of my favorite online activities ever. I remember doing the original auction back when the Iraq war was just getting started. It was a part of my life when I was working 3rd shift at Holiday Inn, moving in with my parents, working at Panera, getting in to law school, moving out of my folks house, getting engaged, getting disengaged, graduating law school, passing the bar, contemplating having to move back in with my parents, and getting a real job.

I'm constantly reminded of "Edwinning," whenever I watch EJax throw way worse than his peripherals.
   34. sardonic Posted: July 19, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4754400)
Haven't thought about the RLPA in years, but that was definitely a fun time of my life, even though I couldn't keep it up.
   35. Walt Davis Posted: July 19, 2014 at 07:06 PM (#4754506)
CFB, I should have given you a shout out.

On all players becoming FA ... as noted, that would drop the salaries of some, jump the salaries of others. Trout, Puig, Sale, Longoria, McCutchen and probably even somebody like Kris Bryant would be making a LOT more money than they are now; ARod a LOT less.

Remember, it's not really $/WAR, it's $/marginal WAR. The constricted labor market makes it difficult to add marginal WAR because you only have access to your 40-man roster and a few key prospects already under contract.

Maybe it's nothing more than semantics but I see "constrictions" and "rarity" as being different concepts. The draft, minor-leagues, the 6-year semi-reserve clause all serve to limit the moves that a GM can possibly make in the offseason to add marginal wins. Yes, those things combine to make Jhonny Peralta "rare" on the available labor market but not "rare" as a player ... and maybe not particularly rare in any sense by the time the 3rd or 4th year of his contract rolls around.

And I'm not entirely sure how "rare" that is. There might be only 2 average or better SS available on the FA market but there usually won't be more than 2-3 teams looking to add an average or better SS that offseason. Obviously that's not as advantageous to the teams as 3 teams looking and 14 SS available but, essentially by definition, there will always be a rough balance between the number of teams looking and the number of FA available.

So it becomes more about individual decision-making. I'm a team in win-now mode, I've decided finding a new SS is my top priority, I don't have a good prospect in my system. I can work out a trade -- difficult and risky -- or I can shop on the FA market -- easy and risky but pretty much only in a monetary sense.

In terms of everybody becoming an FA, that likely won't affect $/WAR at all as team payrolls would stay about where they are and possibly go up. The total number of WAR available is constant. It would, generally, decrease $/marginal WAR ... probably. Just like in any fantasy auction you end up with those crazy moments -- oh crap, I don't have a closer and there are only 4 left and I think 3 of them suck and I end up overpaying for Huston Street.

What would it look like? Barring massive increases in payroll, teams like the Marlins and DRays are totally ######, fielding something close to replacement level teams. Somebody like the A's probably can't buy their way to more than 75 wins. But what's the result of that? The result of that is you have a relatively small handful of teams -- say 10 -- bidding over both the big stars and the last few pieces of the puzzle left as the auction dwindles down. Voila, $/marginal WAR is gonna be going up.

How much do the Yanks want Trout over Puig? How much do the Yanks want Trout more than the Red Sox want Trout? It's really the same decision they made over Tanaka only the loser then gets to bid against the Phillies over Sale.

One could just as easily argue that teams are using the artificial labor market to keep $/marginal WAR down -- that's what all of the long-term buyouts are about, using the leverage of a few years control to reduce the cost of the early FA years; then using the first few years of FA control as leverage in winning a second buyout at lower $/marginal WAR costs.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSandy Alderson says Mets can move quickly if a shortstop becomes available - NY Daily News
(18 - 9:15am, Nov 27)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogNotable Players Available In The Rule 5 Draft - BaseballAmerica.com
(7 - 8:29am, Nov 27)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5003 - 8:03am, Nov 27)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(30 - 7:43am, Nov 27)
Last: BrianBrianson

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(1 - 7:29am, Nov 27)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1140 - 7:27am, Nov 27)
Last: GregD

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(32 - 5:30am, Nov 27)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(24 - 4:31am, Nov 27)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(9 - 2:30am, Nov 27)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(13 - 2:19am, Nov 27)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-25-2014
(9 - 1:05am, Nov 27)
Last: esseff

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(9 - 1:01am, Nov 27)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogBoston Red Sox owner John Henry hopeful on re-signing Jon Lester, says team willing to exceed luxury tax - ESPN Boston
(1 - 12:40am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogShould the Red Sox Be Afraid of Hanley Ramirez Being Hanley Ramirez? - Red Sox - Boston.com
(31 - 12:31am, Nov 27)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8707 - 11:04pm, Nov 26)
Last: Dog on the sidewalk

Page rendered in 0.3091 seconds
52 querie(s) executed