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

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

R.A. Dickey is feeling slighted by stalled negotiations with Mets

Dickey wants a 2y/26 million dollar extension and the Mets are offering 2y/20m. I have to say that Dickey is being more than reasonable here. 


“I feel like we’re asking for even less than what’s fair,” Dickey said Tuesday morning at a Citi Field holiday party, where he and teammate Ike Davis visited with Far Rockaway, Queens children affected by Hurricane Sandy.

“There is a surprise sometimes when things don’t get done quickly, and you already think that you’re extending the olive branch.”

He added, “When people say, ‘It’s business, it’s not personal,’ well that just means it’s not personal for them. It can be personal for me. I’m hoping that it’s going to end up in a good place, but you can’t help in the back of the mind to think that it may not.”

Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 11, 2012 at 07:21 PM | 111 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mets

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. JJ1986 Posted: December 11, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4322371)
Ryan Dempster is going to get more than 2/26. It's an incredibly small amount. Just pay Dickey.
   2. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 11, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4322379)
Jesus ####### Christ just pay the man already. I know it's not my money, but haggling over $3 million per year over 2 years, for the most likeable player on the team, if not in the game, seems very short-sighted to me.
   3. RJ in TO Posted: December 11, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4322380)
It's fun watching the Mets #### up things that should be really, really easy to not #### up.
   4. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4322405)
Dickey said Tuesday morning at a Citi Field holiday party, where he and teammate Ike Davis visited with Far Rockaway, Queens children affected by Hurricane Sandy.


Yes, the Mets are being stingy and all, but it seems to me this particular setting maybe isn't the best context to discuss gripes about whether you'll make $10 million or $13 million next year?
   5. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4322408)
Yes, the Mets are being stingy and all, but it seems to me this particular setting maybe isn't the best context to discuss gripes about whether you'll make $10 million or $13 million next year?

Fair, but it's likely that he was asked about the negotiations.

Posted without comment: Frank Francisco's 2013 salary: 6.5 million.
   6. valuearbitrageur Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4322414)
Clearly the Mets are stalling hoping a trade materializes.
   7. Spivey Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4322446)
Come on Rangers, give these clowns Olt and Perez and sign Dickey to a 3/40 extension.
   8. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4322448)
If they #### this up, I'm stabbing a Wilpon.
   9. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4322450)
If they #### this up, I'm stabbing a Wilpon.


Well done young padawan.
   10. PreservedFish Posted: December 11, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4322452)
####### Mets. Unbelievable.
   11. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4322478)
“I feel like we’re asking for even less than what’s fair,”

This is why you don't ask for fair.
   12. Srul Itza Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4322482)
####### Mets. Unbelievable.


That's the problem. It being the Mets, it is NOT Unbelievable. It is all too sadly predictable.
   13. depletion Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4322483)
They blew whatever money they had on Wright. They have added no major league players. Dickey will play out the year then sign with the Braves, Nats or Phillies and kill the Mets for another 4 or 5 years. Wilpons are the Dolans of baseball. Hell, at least the Royals are trying something.
   14. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4322484)
Aren't the Yankees paying Rivera something like this to pitch 40 Dickey-like innings?
   15. Esoteric Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4322492)
I dunno why nobody else is pointing this out, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Wilpons are simply out of cash, and they spent whatever reserves they had left on Wright. Speaking as a Nats fan (AND a Mariners fan, who enjoyed him while he was there), I look forward to the possibility of signing him to a nice two or three year deal at the end of next season, should this fall through.

EDIT: Coke to depletion.
   16. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4322495)
I've mentioned it before, but the Mets have two players under contract for 2014. Cash should not be an issue.
   17. JJ1986 Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4322496)
I've mentioned it before, but the Mets have two players under contract for 2014.


Three if you count Bobby Bonilla.
   18. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4322509)

Three if you count Bobby Bonilla.

Four if you count Jason Bay.

But the whole "Wilpons out of cash" argument doesn't really make sense if they can pay him $10 million a year but not $13 million per year.
   19. PreservedFish Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4322511)
the Mets have two players under contract for 2014. Cash should not be an issue.


Quite right. Unless the Mets are going full Astros style, they should have a ton of money to play with for 2014 and 2015.

I mean, I'm not going to rule out the possibility that Wilpon is going to try and turn the Mets into one of the welfare queen teams. But even if the payroll drops to where the A's, Royals, Padres and Astros were last year ($55-60) they will have more than enough money for RA Dickey.
   20. Bob Tufts Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4322526)
For the first time in years, the Mets' senior management has the hammer on someone or something. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that having power is not an end to itself - using power wisely is the goal and management's real role.

Dickey should take the Mets' front office approach as a sign that he should just move on in 2014. RA's agent should make an announcement in private that Dickey wants to leave, give Alderson a short window for negotiations to change his mind and limit the Mets' options. Throw it back at them!


   21. Benji Posted: December 11, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4322537)
I really can't imagine any other front office screwing the guy who was the ONLY reason to watch them the last three months of the season. That is an insulting offer for any Cy Young winner, especially a guy that captivated millions of fans with his professionalism, intelligence, baseball savvy and personality. The only silver lining is that losing him will be the beginning of the end of the Wilpons and three-headed GM joke. Big raise for F'ng Ricciardi and nickels for a 20 game winner. Bud won't be able to hold off the other owners when Citifield becomes an empty tomb and the NL lacks a thriving New York presence.
   22. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4322542)
I don't see why anyone thinks Wilpon will get ousted. I mean, Jeffrey Loria was given another team after ruining one with the express knowledge that he was a complete snake. The Mets are stuck with Wilpon until he dies.
   23. jyjjy Posted: December 11, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4322551)
Clearly the Mets are stalling hoping a trade materializes.

They are stalling signing the reigning Cy Young in hopes of trading him before giving him a reasonably lengthed extension at well below market value?
   24. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 11, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4322553)
They are stalling signing the reigning Cy Young in hopes of trading him before giving him a reasonably lengthed extension at well below market value?

You are not familiar with the Mets, are you?
   25. Esoteric Posted: December 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4322562)
They are stalling signing the reigning Cy Young in hopes of trading him before giving him a reasonably lengthed extension at well below market value?
This is actually a great point. Let's assume Dickey is extended on HIS terms: 2/26 beyond what he's owed for 2013, for a total of 3/30. That would mean he still is a pretty valuable trade chip as is, even with the concerns other clubs might have about age, knuckleballers, etc. But if he puts together a creditable half-season next year? (Wouldn't have to 2012-caliber, just 2010-2011.) Then he's IMMENSELY valuable.

I don't understand why the Mets wouldn't pounce on this. Either they're irrational, or broke, or baseball FO-types really just don't place any value and/or faith in knuckleballers.
   26. Lassus Posted: December 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4322563)
Someone needs to be kicked in the nuts or and punched in the face. That is all.
   27. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:26 AM (#4322600)
I don't understand why the Mets wouldn't pounce on this.


I think you guys are overlooking the fact that Dickey is 38 - a full 38, having just turned in October - and has never had a K rate like this before, and has never pitched this many innings before.

The Mets already have him under contract for 2013 for a song - $5 million. They're now supposed to commit $13 million to a 39 year old pitcher and $13 million to a 40 year old pitcher based on a career year at age 37? I don't know... yes, fighting over $6 million seems silly, but at the same time if Dickey has a mediocre year in 2013 - or a bad one - he's not getting $20 million. And it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility that he will regress, never having pitched this well before in his life. So he is in a bind himself, hitting free agency a year too early.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:35 AM (#4322604)
And it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility that he will regress, never having pitched this well before in his life.


If he just pitches as well and as much as he did in 2010-11, he'd still be worth 2/26, wouldn't he? It's not like his 2012 campaign came out of nowhere. He's been an effective pitcher for three straight years.

   29. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4322608)
And it's not exactly outside the realm of possibility that he will regress, never having pitched this well before in his life.
This is why no one is advocating paying Dickey $30M per season. Everyone expects him to regress, a lot.
   30. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4322610)
The K rate did come out of nowhere. So did the innings total, frankly, borne of a career best H/9 rate.

But the K rate was virtually unprecedented for him, even if we look at K% instead of K/9. He hadn't done anything even approaching that since 2003.
   31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM (#4322615)
Ray, you're not arguing anything that anyone disagrees with, and you're not making any points that are particularly relevant to the evaluation of a $13M salary against a $10M salary. You've argued cogently that the Mets shouldn't offer a 2/50 extension. We all know that RA Dickey shouldn't be paid as if he's going to repeat his 2012 season. The question is whether Dickey should be paid like a slightly below average pitcher or like a slightly above average pitcher. Dickey is asking for slightly above average money, and the Mets are countering with a slightly below average offer.
   32. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4322616)
This is why no one is advocating paying Dickey $30M per season.


No pitchers make $30 million per year, to my knowledge, so this is a bit of a strawman.

Everyone expects him to regress, a lot.


I'm not seeing this at all. The vast majority of people seem to be expecting the same performance from him. Because of the fact that he's a knuckler and the fact that he throws a unique "hard knuckler" -- even though those two are kind of in conflict because the evidence is that _pure_ knucklers can sustain some late performance, but not _hard_ knucklers, since Dickey is sui generis.
   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:52 AM (#4322619)
The question is whether Dickey should be paid like a slightly below average pitcher or like a slightly above average pitcher. Dickey is asking for slightly above average money, and the Mets are countering with a slightly below average offer.


But you're missing - I know you know this but I don't think you're properly factoring it in - that the extension wouldn't start for another year, and Dickey is in something of a bind, making "only" $5 million coming off of a Cy Young season. He's not really in the best position to leverage his 2012.
   34. Gaelan Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4322620)
When did Gary Bettman buy the Mets?
   35. Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM (#4322623)
I think you guys are overlooking the fact that Dickey is 38 - a full 38, having just turned in October - and has never had a K rate like this before, and has never pitched this many innings before.

RA Dickey started the 2010 season in the minors and pitched 60.2 IP in AAA so he threw 235 IP that season.
   36. billyshears Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:20 AM (#4322642)
I dunno why nobody else is pointing this out, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Wilpons are simply out of cash, and they spent whatever reserves they had left on Wright. Speaking as a Nats fan (AND a Mariners fan, who enjoyed him while he was there), I look forward to the possibility of signing him to a nice two or three year deal at the end of next season, should this fall through.


Nobody is pointing this out because it is stupid. Signing Dickey to an extension requires no actual cash. Signing Wright to an extension required no actual cash and they exhausted no reserves. This isn't the NFL where players get massive signing bonuses because contracts aren't guaranteed and owners have to write a giant check when the deal is signed. The Wright extension won't cost the Mets anything until 2014. The Dickey extension would cost them nothing until 2014. As I recall, the only commitments the Mets have in 2014 are Niese, Wright and change. This is about valuation and allocation of resources, but it has absolutely nothing to do with cash.

Edit: Coke to AJM. I should really read on for a post or so rather than just jumping in to correct something horribly ignorant.
   37. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:34 AM (#4322655)
Dave Cameron today on whether or not Dickey is a one year wonder:

No one ever refers to David Price as a one year wonder. But yet, when you actually look at his performance over the last three years, it’s hard to make a case that he’s been any different than Dickey. Over the total of his last three seasons, Price has an ERA- of 75, while Dickey has an ERA- of 78. The full list of pitchers with an ERA- between 75 and 80 over the last three years: David Price, Cole Hamels, CC Sabathia, Felix Hernandez, Gio Gonzalez, Matt Cain, and R.A. Dickey. That’s his group of peers, not based on one great year, but on three excellent seasons where Dickey has been one of the game’s best starters.
   38. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:35 AM (#4322656)
The Mets can't get it done at 2/26?

Occam's razor tells us the Wilpon's are simply ####### this up out of sheer stupidity, but they may actually believe they don't have more than $10m to pay Dickey in 2014. Still and all, if you'd ever scrape up another $3m, or offer 2/20 and then tack on a bunch of $1m per year payments, it's for a player like Dickey. Hell, they're not lowballing him because in this market 2/26 is an overpay.

On another hand, maybe this is overblown and the Mets are just being canny negotiators. Why should the Wilpons care if Dickey grumbles a bit if after grumbling he signs for 2/24?

I dunno why nobody else is pointing this out, but it seems fairly clear to me that the Wilpons are simply out of cash, and they spent whatever reserves they had left on Wright. Speaking as a Nats fan (AND a Mariners fan, who enjoyed him while he was there), I look forward to the possibility of signing him to a nice two or three year deal at the end of next season, should this fall through.
Go pick over someone else's carcass, #######.
   39. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:40 AM (#4322657)
I agree he's not a one-year wonder; he's obviously had an excellent three-year run. My issues are (1) he's 38, and will be 39 and 40 for the new deal, (2) he's never had a K rate this high in his life, (3) he's never had a hits allowed rate this low in his life. (2) and (3) are related, and both should be expected to regress going forward. And (1) will only increase with time.

He's an excellent pitcher. But he's also 38, and is rather an odd bird in that he didn't do anything before 35, posting a grand total of 0.2 WAR. We should all remember this the next time someone claims that Barry Bonds was the only one who went insane on the league at 35.
   40. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4322671)
Ray, I'm not clear what the point of your "issues" are. Do you think he doesn't deserve an extension in the 2 year, $25-30 million range? I agree he's not likely to keep winning CYAs (who is?), but the guy is obviously dynamite right now, will probably still be way above average even as his K rate declines. 2 years, $15 million seems like substantial discount, probably precisely for the reasons that you list (age, uncertainty). Shane Victorino now costs $13 per year, BJ Upton $15.
   41. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 12, 2012 at 02:32 AM (#4322681)
But the whole "Wilpons out of cash" argument doesn't really make sense if they can pay him $10 million a year but not $13 million per year.


Problem: we don't actually know if they're ready and willing to pay him $10 million. They could be lowballing him entirely for the PR benefit of his walking away, rather than being pushed out. Or a trade of some type could still be in the works.
   42. Walt Davis Posted: December 12, 2012 at 02:51 AM (#4322688)
Moore, Towers, Alderson ... Man, the GMs musta gotten really drunk at the meetings if the hangovers have lasted this long.
   43. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:52 AM (#4322705)
If the Mets can't afford 10m a year, then we're talking about a team that will have a total payroll of below 60m in 2014. The idea that the Mets can't afford the extension is ludicrous.
   44. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:41 AM (#4322719)
I've mentioned it before, but the Mets have two players under contract for 2014. Cash should not be an issue.
It is if they expect the payroll to contribute to drop. The Wilpons have given every intention of hunkering down and riding this out, even if it means playing Wright and 24 guys making the minimum.

I guess the counter to any objection to this is, 'do you believe the Wilpons wouldn't, if circumstances dictated?'

The only silver lining is that losing him will be the beginning of the end of the Wilpons and three-headed GM joke.
The Wilpons are notoriously resistant to pressure. Unless Bud has some way of lawfully forcing them out, they won't leave.

The Mets already have him under contract for 2013 for a song - $5 million. They're now supposed to commit $13 million to a 39 year old pitcher and $13 million to a 40 year old pitcher based on a career year at age 37?
You missed on the innings pitched, and you're missing on the fact that a 2/26 extension is based not on his 2012 career year, but on simply coming somewhere his 2010-11 seasons.

edit: cokes all around. Is there no thread immune to the Great Troll?

If the Mets can't afford 10m a year, then we're talking about a team that will have a total payroll of below 60m in 2014.
This would not surprise me. Nothing the Wilpons could do would surprise me. And, in fact, they may not think he's worth it. That seems insane, but it would not surprise me.

Did they really extend Ricciardi?
   45. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: December 12, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4322741)
The K rate did come out of nowhere. So did the innings total, frankly, borne of a career best H/9 rate.



Not so - Dickey pitched the same number of innings in 2010, minors included.

EDIT: Coke to Russlan
   46. Benji Posted: December 12, 2012 at 09:18 AM (#4322745)
We thought the DeRoulets and M.Donald Grant would never leave, either. But the fans' deserting them and they becoming the joke franchise of baseball led to the sale. Selig is the wild card here. His defense of Loria and the Mets are the only thing propping them up. But he won't be around forever. Meanwhile join me in e-mailing Mark Cuban and encouraging him to save us.
   47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4322801)
I agree he's not a one-year wonder; he's obviously had an excellent three-year run. My issues are (1) he's 38, and will be 39 and 40 for the new deal, (2) he's never had a K rate this high in his life, (3) he's never had a hits allowed rate this low in his life. (2) and (3) are related, and both should be expected to regress going forward. And (1) will only increase with time.

He's an excellent pitcher. But he's also 38, and is rather an odd bird in that he didn't do anything before 35, posting a grand total of 0.2 WAR. We should all remember this the next time someone claims that Barry Bonds was the only one who went insane on the league at 35.


Why does the age worry you so much? Pitchers don't age like hitters. Guys who still have good results at 37, tend to pitch well from 38-40. Look at RJ, Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Clemens, Moyer, Kenny Rogers, David Wells, etc.
   48. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4322828)
He's not really in the best position to leverage his 2012.


You are right about this. His leverage is also hurt because he hasn't made a huge fortune already in his career and so presumably the guaranteed big money would appeal to him more than the normal 30-something Cy winner. Earlier in the offseason, I thought it made sense for the Mets to neither trade nor extend Dickey, but that was before seeing the numbers being discussed (allegedly). I would have thought 2/26 sounds like the extension parameters after being suppressed by his lack of leverage. E.G. it appears that the only slightly-younger Dempster will get that deal or better after the last years ERA+ of 110, 81, 124 and "only" 173 innings in the most recent year.

The vast majority of people seem to be expecting the same performance from him.


At least on this site, I don't think a single person expects a repeat of 2012 from him.
   49. formerly dp Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4322841)
At least on this site, I don't think a single person expects a repeat of 2012 from him.
Right. Obviously, if you're a Met fan, you hope that 2012 is a new level of performance. But in terms of a realistic expectation, the past 3 years should be a good indicator of what he'll do for the next three (barring traumatic injury, of course). I mentioned this before, but Dickey's ability to strike people out remained pretty constant over the course of the season-- it isn't like he racked up a ton of K's early on and then lost the strikeout mojo on the knuckler as hitters watched some tape of how it was moving, made adjustments, whatever. That's what makes me think he'll carry some of 2012 over. But regardless, the contract he's asking for doesn't assume 2012 is his new level of performance.

This whole thing is a mess. Lassus had it right in #26.
   50. DL from MN Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4322845)
I don't get the "Mets can't afford" BS. If the owners are that strapped for cashflow that they have to suck it out of the Mets their best move is to sell the team. They must have a ton of ego tied up in the Mets to mortgage everything to run a major league baseball team on a shoestring.
   51. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4322864)
I think that's exactly right. They see the Mets as the family business and legacy, not just a fun side project.
   52. Conor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4322870)
I don't think the Mets can't afford Dickey. My guess is they see either him or Niese as their best chance to get at least one good hitter into the system and they're trying to go as far as they can shopping him.

I'm not good with the baseball reference play index; is there any way to see if there are many guys who have increased their K rates like Dickey has? He increased it so much that I'd have to think he's going to carry some of that with him next year, even if he's not going to strike out nearly a guy per inning. (Especially since you can get into the anecdotal story of a guy who hasn't been throwing the knuckleball for very long and is still toying around with it. But I'll concede I have no evidence that's why he struck out so many guys. But I do believe he was working up in the zone more with the knuckleball, which is why he allowed fewer groundballs and more HR)
   53. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4322871)
Only the Mets could find a Cy Young winner off the scrap heap and turn it into a problem. That is actually kind of impressive, but I still think they'll come to a deal in the end. Dickey isn't asking for anything outrageous so I think this gets done.

edit: And then, of course, he'll immediately begin a descent into suckitude.
   54. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4322876)
Not so - Dickey pitched the same number of innings in 2010, minors included.

EDIT: Coke to Russlan


Fair enough. I stand, for all practical purposes, corrected.
   55. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4322882)
But in terms of a realistic expectation, the past 3 years should be a good indicator of what he'll do for the next three (barring traumatic injury, of course).


And I disagree. I wouldn't realistically expect a pitcher to do from 38-40 what he did from 35-37.
   56. formerly dp Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4322886)
And I disagree. I wouldn't realistically expect a pitcher to do from 38-40 what he did from 35-37.
You also wouldn't "realistically expect" a pitcher to go from journeyman at 34 to Cy Young winner at 37. But that's what happened. Your computer program doesn't really work on Dickey. He is better at 37 than he was at 35.

But this is why there's so much uncertainty around Dickey. If this was Pedro Martinez coming off a 3-year run like Dickey just had, you're probably looking at a $20M+/yr extension. But there aren't really "similar" pitchers to model off of.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4322888)

And I disagree. I wouldn't realistically expect a pitcher to do from 38-40 what he did from 35-37.


He has very low mileage on his arm.
   58. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4322900)
It doesn't matter how unique, you don't expect an old guy to repeat. Sometimes in happens, of course. But even factoring in a decline, you want him on your team for 2014-2015.
   59. Conor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4322904)
$13 million is probably a discount anyway for what Dickey has done from 35-37.

Dickey the last 3 years has a 130 ERA+. His worst season was 208 IP at a 112 ERA+. That's gotta be worth more than $13 million, no?

I was just looking at his rate stats on BBRef, it's pretty crazy. Here are his walks per 9 the last 3 years
2.2, 2.3, 2.1

His HR per 9

0.7, 0.8, 0.9.

his Babip
276, 275, 278

But his K rate is

5.4, 5.8, 8.9

So he basically kept his walk, HR, and BABIP numbers the same, and spiked his K rate by over 3 per 9. That's gotta project pretty well for the next few years, even at his age.
   60. CrosbyBird Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4322909)
I don't know why this keeps coming back to Dickey's 2012 season. If he did nothing more than put up two seasons like 2011 (something like 200 IP, 3.25 ERA, 1.25 WHIP), $13M per would be a remarkable bargain. Bear in mind that 2011 is arguably the worst of his last three seasons.
   61. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4322912)
Of course you expect old players to decline, even knuckleballer pitchers. That's why we aren't talking about $17 million per year. The numbers here already include huge discounts for Dickey's age. If he were 10 years younger he'd be looking to beat Grienke's contract.
   62. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4322917)
Of course you expect old players to decline, even knuckleballer pitchers. That's why we aren't talking about $17 million per year.

Exactly. If he was 27, he'd be asking for Greinke money.
   63. JJ1986 Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4322919)
At this point in baseball analysis, we know how to generate a 50th percentile projection for players, and Dickey's will certainly say that he's worth more than $13m in 2014 and 2015 and will underrate him if anything (because knuckleballers are more likely to age well than regular starters). There's no reason to pretend this is about his 2012.
   64. Ravecc Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4322924)
The Wilpons are rightly getting a ton of flak for most of the Mets problems, but I think this one is on Sandy. His contortions and about- faces just this off-season has been dizzying, and from yesterday:

Alderson acknowledged the Mets may not use the available capital -- in part because the prices on the market may not be worth it.

"Again, it's hard for me to predict what exactly will happen," Alderson said. "But we're not going to spend the money in mid-December just because we have it. We may spend it in January. We may spend it at some other time. We may not spend it. But the important thing is we have the flexibility to make a baseball decision about that rather than be constrained by sort of an artificial financial limitation."


I suspect Sandy’s player valuations hasn’t adjusted to the world where Zack Greinke gets $147m.

Now, if Dickey gets Bensoned for airing out his grievances, THAT's on the Wilpons.
   65. formerly dp Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4322927)
Of course you expect old players to decline,
If you expected him to experience an age-related decline coming into 2012, you would have been gloriously wrong. That's *the* problem with Dickey-- the bar, in his case, was set when he was already "old"-- from ages 35-37. I'm not saying I know what he's going to do in 2013, but it's not like we're using ages 25-37 to predict ages 38-40. I'm not sure how different his body is going to be in the next 3 years than it was in the previous 3. We do know that his ability to get major league hitters out has improved markedly as he has aged-- from nil at age 34 to very good from ages 35-36, and then again to excellent at age 37.
   66. Conor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4322933)
I suspect Sandy’s player valuations hasn’t adjusted to the world where Zack Greinke gets $147m.


I think there is a lot of truth to this and that's what worries me a little.
   67. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4322938)
In Dickey's case, it's not some late-career fluke that he's become more effective. He made a concerted change in his pitching style, and since then has been a different pitcher. Plus, he's the Mets' second-most marketable player after Wright.
   68. PreservedFish Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4322940)
Dp - this is simple. You expect old players to decline. You just do. Dickey may be unique, he may hit his peak at 42, but you cannot expect it or plan for it.
   69. formerly dp Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4322952)
Dp - this is simple. You expect old players to decline. You just do. Dickey may be unique, he may hit his peak at 42, but you cannot expect it or plan for it.
I'm not sure why you're insisting on "decline" when we don't know where he's declining from. From 2012? I'm not expecting a repeat. But why would anyone expect Dickey to not pitch like he did from 35-37? You need more than "you just do" to convince me, especially when Dickey's career already broke your mold. When baseball players become algorithms, you can stop treating them as unique. But until then, recognize an exception when it presents itself.
   70. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4322966)
Sure, but for the amount of money we're talking about, a total 3/31m contract is eminently reasonable. I mean, he could break down and no longer be able to pitch by the time the contract starts, or he could lose it suddenly, but I don't see why he's a greater risk to do that than, say, Jon Niese or Matt Harvey or Zack Wheeler over the next 3 years. And he provides a nice transition to the future with the chance of still being a solid rotation member when the Mets are ready to compete in 2-3 years.

I think that's what's driving us on the "give him an extension already" bandwagon crazy, it's not so much money nor so many years that his failure to fit into any neat category of pitcher is a real handicap. And as stated by others above, if he were coming off his age 27 season and not his age 37 season, he'd be getting 6+ years and 150m dollars.
   71. formerly dp Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4322974)
Along the lines of what scott and Conor and Crosby and snapper and others have said: it doesn't really matter if you project Dickey to stay level at his 35-37 performance, or if you expect him to drop off slightly. Unless you think he's going to totally collapse, he'll be worth $10-13M/year from 38-40.

I can still see the case for trading him. But what they're doing now seems like a huge mistake.
   72. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4322975)
Sure, but for the amount of money we're talking about, a total 3/31m contract is eminently reasonable.


But it's not really accurate to think about it as if they are deciding on a 3/31 contract. They would be deciding on a 2/26 extension a year in advance. I still think it is eminently reasonable, but they are not deciding between 3/31 and nothing, they are deciding between 3/31 or 1/5 (or trading the 1/5).
   73. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4322983)
Sure, but for the amount of money we're talking about, a total 3/31m contract is eminently reasonable.


But, as I keep trying to point out, that's the wrong way to look at it, because you're not signing him now for 3 years. You already have him under contract at 1/5m.
   74. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4322989)
Look at it this way: The Mets have Harvey under team control for six years. Let's say he'll make $10 million over the six years. What if the Mets signed Harvey now to a 7th year for $50 million just for that one year. Would you say, hey, this is good, think of it as a 7 year, $60 million contract!

The Mets are thinking, we have Dickey for 1/5m right now, which is basically getting a Cy Young candidate for free, and rather than obligate ourselves to another $26 million for ages 39 and 40, we can just say goodbye to him after the year - or trade him - and make out better overall.
   75. formerly dp Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4322996)
They would be deciding on a 2/26 extension a year in advance. I still think it is eminently reasonable, but they are not deciding between 3/31 and nothing, they are deciding between 3/31 or 1/5 (or trading the 1/5).
Well, they're taking a risk, to be sure. But if Dickey repeats 2012, he's not signing for $13M/yr for 2014 and 2015. I thought that was already pretty well understood-- there are risks on both sides of this deal. Of course, if he continues at the level he was at in 2012, that should push his value higher at the trade deadline.
   76. JJ1986 Posted: December 12, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4323005)
another $26 million for ages 39 and 40


But this is also below market value. It's not like they're paying more than is fair to make up for the 2013 contract.
   77. depletion Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4323012)
Of course you expect old players to decline, even knuckleballer pitchers.

Charlie Hough was quite good at 38-40. He started tailing off at 41, but was still decent. Phil Neikro also (was 17-4 at 43!).Candiotti was definitely tailing off in terms of IP and ERA.
It really is uncharted waters, predicting R.A.'s next few years.
I still maintain the team just doesn't have the money, despite the lack of commitments for 2014. We know they have run the team on short term loans for parts of the last few seasons. They may have called the credit card company and gotten a polite "no" when asking for an extra $3M for 2014. Look at it this way: at least tickets will be easy to get.
   78. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4323014)
At least on this site, I don't think a single person expects a repeat of 2012 from him.

Right. Obviously, if you're a Met fan, you hope that 2012 is a new level of performance. But in terms of a realistic expectation, the past 3 years should be a good indicator of what he'll do for the next three (barring traumatic injury, of course).
I don't think this, but I seem to be pretty much on my own on this site. I expect a steep, downward trajectory from 2012 and won't be surprised at all if Dickey's out of baseball as of the end of 2015 (NRIs to 2016 ST not included).

Nonetheless, he has a good distance to fall. If his 2013 is like his 2010-2011, his 2014 ERA+ falls another 20 points, to 100, and his 2015 is 160 innings with an ERA+ of 85, he will still have been worth a 2/26 extension.

There are other reasons beyond performance that I want the Mets to extend Dickey. He's nearly as much the face of the franchise as Wright, at this point. The Mets don't have the minor league players to overcome a low payroll over the next three years. As I mentioned on another thread, something like six significant, distinct things have to go either very right or very wrong for signing Dickey to turn out to be the mistake that keeps the Mets out of the postseason. The downside to signing him is miniscule.

I looked a couple of weeks ago and noticed that even among history's top ten knuckleballers, most don't pitch well at 40 or after, for whatever that's worth, but I didn't look at them specifically in light of who was and who wasn't terrific at 37, obviously a huge factor in any projection.

That said, I fully expect the Mets to #### this up, for Dickey to go elsewhere in 2014, and for the Mets in 2014 and 2015 to piss away $13m on a variety of retreads and relievers who contribute less than a win, collectively, to the team.

Pay the man, ########.

We thought the DeRoulets and M.Donald Grant would never leave, either. But the fans' deserting them and they becoming the joke franchise of baseball led to the sale. Selig is the wild card here. His defense of Loria and the Mets are the only thing propping them up. But he won't be around forever. Meanwhile join me in e-mailing Mark Cuban and encouraging him to save us.
I appreciate the encouragement. What's the address for Cuban?

   79. Conor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4323015)
Also, maybe he was just talking, but Dickey pretty much said yesterday if he doesn't sign an extension he's leaving next winter.

Maybe he's just trying to put pressure on them to get it done now, but I dunno.
   80. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4323017)
@79: it wouldn't surprise me if he does leave. He knows the Mets are lowballing him, he knows the team isn't going anywhere, and he seems like exactly the kind of guy who would thrive in and enjoy a pennant race elsewhere.

It's sounds like a combination of honesty and leverage and anger.
   81. CrosbyBird Posted: December 12, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4323080)
That said, I fully expect the Mets to #### this up, for Dickey to go elsewhere in 2014, and for the Mets in 2014 and 2015 to piss away $13m on a variety of retreads and relievers who contribute less than a win, collectively, to the team.

That's also a big part of the problem here. The Mets aren't going to pay Wright and then 24 league-minimum players. We're going to see a bunch of $3-4M for trash deals, as usual.

It may well be that Dickey is worth $17-18M per on an extension, risk and all, but if that were Dickey's asking price, I don't think I'd criticize the Wilpons for taking a hard line. This is different, because Dickey is asking for basically market value for a league-average pitcher, for two additional years. I would be surprised (not shocked, but surprised) if Dickey ends up worse than league-average over the 2014-2015 seasons.
   82. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4323144)
@81--if a win is now worth around 6m and remains there through 2015, and fangraphs is correct, that Dickey's last three years have brought in 2.8, 2.5, and 4.6 wins, an average of 2.2 wins in 2014 and 2015 will mean the Mets are getting what they paid for.***

2.2 wins, working from Dickey's 2011 season, means around 150 innings at his 2010-2011 level. If you go by bWAR Dickey can miss even more time, and get in around 125 innings at his 2010-2011 level and still be worth the deal.



***The Mets won't contend if they're buying wins at 6m apiece, but that's another conversation.
   83. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4323156)
@81--if a win is now worth around 6m and remains there through 2015, and fangraphs is correct, that Dickey's last three years have brought in 2.8, 2.5, and 4.6 wins, an average of 2.2 wins in 2014 and 2015 will mean the Mets are getting what they paid for.***

2.2 wins, working from Dickey's 2011 season, means around 150 innings at his 2010-2011 level. If you go by bWAR Dickey can miss even more time, and get in around 125 innings at his 2010-2011 level and still be worth the deal.


You should go with bWAR. Knuckleballers have a known ability to suppress BABIP, so a FIP-based WAR sells them short.
   84. Conor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4323161)
I don't think you can use the fangraphs WAR for Dickey, it relies too heavily on FIP for a knuckleballer.

In 2011 Dickey threw 208 IP with a 112 ERA+ and Fangraphs credits him with 2.5 WAR. Daniel Hudson threw 222 IP (with a similar ratio of unearned runs allowed) and a 113 ERA+ and Fangraphs gives him credit for nearly twice as many WAR, 4.9. Baseball reference has him at 3.1 WAR, but even that seems a little low.

Edit: I guess Snapper beat me to it, but I still think 3.1 WAR for his 2011 season seems on the low side, but maybe I'm off.
   85. JE (Jason) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4323168)
You should go with bWAR. Knuckleballers have a known ability to suppress BABIP, so a FIP-based WAR sells them short.

As I understand it, the average BABIP for knuckleballers is considerably lower than other pitchers, hovering between .273 and .278. Lo and behold, Dickey's BABIP over the past three seasons were .276, .278, and .275.
   86. bunyon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4323177)
I suspect a lot of you are like me: I want Dickey to get a lot of the Wilpon's money because a) Dickey is a great story and very likeable guy and b) the Wilpons are not.

However, I wouldn't give him 2/26 now, even if it came with a huge risk of losing him next off-season. As said above, it's uncharted waters in terms of what to expect. If he throws 150 IP of 70 ERA+ ball this season, you can have him for whatever you want in 2014. If he repeats, and your finances hold, you can make nice and offer a pile of cash. If he goes elsewhere, well, is the outcome of the 2014 Mets hinging on the performance of a 39 year old pitcher? Because, if it is, there are many other problems.

The only thing I don't get is the 2/20 offer. That seems to make no sense. I would have simply told him at the end of the season that we loved what he did, love having him around, can we help with his favorite charity and we look forward to negotiating next off-season.


Again, if Dickey asked me for help hacking the Wilpon's accounts and transferring all of their assets to an account of his in the Cayman's, I'd probably do it. As a fan, I want him paid and, even as a Braves fan, to stay a Met.* But it makes baseball sense to me to be cautious with a 38-year old pitcher with as little history as he has.**


* I usually root for the guy to stay put.

** IMO, though, most teams overbid for older players. It seems few take pay cuts that represent their risk and performance decline (not necessarily applicable in this case).
   87. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4323184)
If he repeats, and your finances hold, you can make nice and offer a pile of cash. If he goes elsewhere, well, is the outcome of the 2014 Mets hinging on the performance of a 39 year old pitcher? Because, if it is, there are many other problems.


I don't really understand this sentiment. The Mets will need pitching in 2014 whether or not it hinges on any individual one.
   88. thetailor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4323193)
The only way that I can make sense of this is if the Mets are hesitating to sign Dickey because they aren't sure whether the teams that are vying to trade for him would value him more as a 1year/$5M contract or 3year/$31M contract.

It's not only the Mets doing their valuation of Dickey in a vacuum (as discussed above, it's hard to imagine any scenario where he's not worth extending for 3/31 RIGHT NOW) but rather what each individual trade partner thinks about the same positions.

In that light, with 4-6 potential teams looking at Dickey, they've probably all expressed different levels of interest in Dickey either with the contract extension or not. I think the Mets are stalling.
   89. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4323194)

If he goes elsewhere, well, is the outcome of the 2014 Mets hinging on the performance of a 39 year old pitcher? Because, if it is, there are many other problems.

I don't get this argument at all. Dickey will still likely be above average, if not significantly so, in 2014.
what team can't find a use for that? Will the outcome of their season hinge on it? I don't know, but I'm constantly amazed at how blase people often are about pissing away a win or 2 or 3 here and there. The Mets missed the playoffs by 1 game in 2007. They missed again by 1 game in 2008. (They also missed by 1 game in 1998 and 3 games in 1997.) Are these things such distant memories that we can't envision a scenario where having an above average innings eater on the roster could help? And even if the Mets aren't an 89-win team in 2014-2015 (not that you have to be to have a shot at the playoffs now), is there no value at all to being 81-81 instead of 78-84, or 85-77 instead of 82-80? Fans still need a reason to come to the games and Dickey gives them that even beyond his value on the field.
   90. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4323199)
The only way that I can make sense of this is if the Mets are hesitating to sign Dickey because they aren't sure whether the teams that are vying to trade for him would value him more as a 1year/$5M contract or 3year/$31M contract...... I think the Mets are stalling.


I find this believable.
   91. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4323219)
However, I wouldn't give him 2/26 now, even if it came with a huge risk of losing him next off-season. As said above, it's uncharted waters in terms of what to expect. If he throws 150 IP of 70 ERA+ ball this season, you can have him for whatever you want in 2014. If he repeats, and your finances hold, you can make nice and offer a pile of cash. If he goes elsewhere, well, is the outcome of the 2014 Mets hinging on the performance of a 39 year old pitcher? Because, if it is, there are many other problems.

This is an argument for never giving any pitcher a decent size contract.

Every pitcher in baseball is fully capable of giving you 150 IP of 70 ERA+ next year. In fact all have a significant probably of giving you 0 IP.
   92. Ron J2 Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4323245)
This isn't the NFL where players get massive signing bonuses


Actually you'll find that a lot of contracts pay out a fair amount up front. As I understand it, it's advantageous for tax purposes. Or at least can be.

This is something that hamstrung the Expos during the Brochu years. Even though they were profitable they had real cash flow issues (since Brochu had no personal wealth and the other members of the ownership group didn't want to actually put any more money in)
   93. Ron J2 Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4323255)
And I disagree. I wouldn't realistically expect a pitcher to do from 38-40 what he did from 35-37.


I did a study quite some time ago on pitcher aging. 36 is when you see strong evidence of consistent decline.

Oh there are exceptions. Maybe Dickey is one of them. I don't think it's a smart way to bet -- at least not if you can't hedge somehow.
   94. bunyon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4323282)
If he goes elsewhere, well, is the outcome of the 2014 Mets hinging on the performance of a 39 year old pitcher? Because, if it is, there are many other problems.

I don't get this argument at all. Dickey will still likely be above average, if not significantly so, in 2014.


It isn't clear, but my point is that by extending now, you risk having a 39 year old coming off a crappy season. How much would you pay for that?

Yes, the Mets will need pitching regardless. I guess it comes down to the last quoted sentence. I think there isn't a very good chance he'll be significantly above average in 2014. You don't. Neither of us has much evidence in support. You have his last three years. I have his age.


And, yes, of course any pitcher could suck. But there is ample history that a 29 yhear old pitcher coming off three good years will continue to be good. There isn't as much for a 38 year old pitcher. IOW, I expect decline, probably significant. If it's the Wilpon's money, I hope he gets it. If it were my money, I wouldn't extend him.

I do think the Mets have handled it badly. By making an offer, you're sort of saying you'll negotiate. And I can see holding my ground on the initial offer if I'm Dickey. By making an offer an not negotiating, you irritate. I would have just not made an offer. If, come June he's still rocking, I'd make an extension offer (yes, I know, "no negotiations" in season but if you make an attractive offer, people will listen). It risks costing you a little more money but you save the chance of implosion. Either way, I don't go longer than 2 years.

I just think you guys saying he's low mileage and a knuckleballer are underestimating both his relative lack of performance history and his age.
   95. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4323313)
But it makes baseball sense to me to be cautious with a 38-year old pitcher with as little history as he has.**
Three years is enough history, though. I have no worries that 2010-2012 doesn't represent an established level of performance, and don't understand people who think it's more than a hair less meaningful than if he had pitched like that from 2003-2012.

The market, anyway, agrees with me. CJ Wilson got a juicy deal with a two year track record as a starter.

Agree w 88 and 90, btw.

And after reading bunyon in 94, I thought right away of the Reyes' "negotiations". A lowball offer everyone knew was stupid low, and it just served to make the Mets continue to look like ########. This is the same offer, v2012.

   96. Nasty Nate Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4323334)
I think there isn't a very good chance he'll be significantly above average in 2014.


Well this is the crux of it, I guess. But he wouldn't have to be that great in '14 and '15 to make $13m at least an acceptable pricetag. And of course he could be good enough to make it a great bargain.
   97. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4323352)

#94, your original point was clear. I think the response of most people here is that if there was no risk of Dickey being bad in 2014 then he'd be getting paid a lot more for a lot longer than 2/$26. 2/$26 is the price for a guy with some risk of being bad. The Mets are almost lucky that he's old and they don't have to worry about him asking for a 5+ year deal. Their track record with those (a la Pedro or Johan) is not great.
   98. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4323452)
Is there any point in doing a Marcels projection for Dickey?

I like the arguments that he's better represented by bWAR than fWAR, so, here he is, 2010 to 2012:

3.4, 3.1, 5.6

That gives him a 3 year projection (knocking off half a win a year) of:

5.1, 4.6, 4.1 = 13.8 wins * 6m per win = $82.8 million, and $52.2m of that for 2014 and 2105.

Okay, the half win a year aging curve isn't nearly enough (Dickey won't last until he's 48, I don't think), so let me reverse engineer this.

5.1, 3.6, 2.1 = 5.7 wins in 2014 and 2015, making Dickey worth $34.2m on the proposed 26m deal. That's a 3-2-1 Marcels with 1.5 wins a year lost to aging after a half win drop off in 2013.

You have to regress some and knock his 2013 down a fair bit to make this a fair deal for both sides, something like:

4.6, 3.6, 2.6 = 6.2 wins in 2014 and 2015, making Dickey worth $37.2m on the proposed 26m deal. Too much. How about

4.6, 3.1, 1.1 = 4.2 wins in 2014 and 2015. The Mets get $25.2 m out of the last two years of the deal.

That involves an accelerating aging curve, and implying Dickey is out of the league after 2015.


In sum, I have little idea, but it was interesting to me to see the kind of progression Dickey might take for a 2/26 extension to turn out okay for both sides.

.
   99. thetailor Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4323469)
@98: Jack, I think you're just making yourself crazy here for no reason. The reluctance to sign Dickey has nothing to do with his on the field performance.

If I were to put my "Wilpon Hat" on for a minute, and think about it as stupidly as possible, perhaps they are thinking that 2012 was a complete and utter fluke and that his true talent is how he pitched in 2010 and 2011.

Using a projection from that basis (of true talent around 3.2 WAR) is 2.7, 2.2, 1.7 WAR per season, 2013-2015 using the bWAR numbers you cited. That gives the Mets 3.9 wins in years 2014 and 2015 which is a value of approximately $24 million.

But more likely, I think they are just stalling like I said in #88. In the meantime, they're trashing the guy in the press. Ugh.
   100. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4323472)
@98: Jack, I think you're just making yourself crazy here for no reason.
Heh, yeah, you're right. Not the first time. Not the first time today, come to that.

But more likely, I think they are just stalling like I said in #88.
That did strike me right away as an excellent explanation for the stall.

So, the hope is that 29 GMs fail to make a decent offer for Dickey. Hooboy.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAdam Dunn, 34, calls it a career
(36 - 4:51pm, Oct 01)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(402 - 4:50pm, Oct 01)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(95 - 4:49pm, Oct 01)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogA’s wild swing of a season ends in wild-card loss to Royals
(16 - 4:49pm, Oct 01)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogNed Yost on the sixth inning and his bullpen usage: “its just one of those things” | HardballTalk
(97 - 4:47pm, Oct 01)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogFOX (Rosenthal): Kansas City Royals exorcise city’s three decades’ worth of demons
(12 - 4:45pm, Oct 01)
Last: Curse of the Andino

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Discussion
(10 - 4:44pm, Oct 01)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogNL WILD CARD 2014 OMNICHATTER
(53 - 4:44pm, Oct 01)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(479 - 4:44pm, Oct 01)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogUNR study: Temperature affects baseball scores
(5 - 4:33pm, Oct 01)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogSpector: Stats incredible! Numbers from the 2014 MLB season will amaze you
(59 - 4:29pm, Oct 01)
Last: Batman

NewsblogDog eats baseball playoff tickets
(5 - 4:28pm, Oct 01)
Last: JAHV

NewsblogNew manager should have Mauer catch again
(3 - 4:26pm, Oct 01)
Last: DavidFoss

NewsblogDayton Moore's vision for Kansas Royals validated - ESPN
(34 - 4:25pm, Oct 01)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Results
(1 - 4:22pm, Oct 01)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.9139 seconds
53 querie(s) executed