If Carl Crawford is a plus defensive CF playing in a corner, then he's easily worth this contract.

How?

A plus defensive CF playing in a corner is expected to be in the range of +12 to +15 in a corner. Carl Crawford with consistent defense in that range projects to produce somewhat under five wins above replacement. With some salary inflation along the way, he should be a bargain in the first years of the contract and hang on down the road.

Crawford with +15 defense projects to be only a few runs worse than Adrian Gonzalez.

Or, put in more general terms, this will not look like an overpay if the unprecedented salary stagnation of the last near-decade has come to an end, and normal inflation has returned to baseball.


Which is really scary. At what point does the salary disparity between MLB players and the general public become so ludicrous that we simply stop watching baseball?

Well I tell you what....stop watching, stop going, and stop buying. Take a stand against the skyrocketing salaries...or better yet, complain more, and let the owners pocket the money they reap from the following trend.

I dont know about anyone else, but the money these guys make has no impact whatsoever on my level of enjoyment in watching them.

These are regressed and weighted averages of Gonzalez' and Crawford's fangraphs numbers. I'm using a heavier regression factor on defense than offense.

+17.0 Off + 13.1 Def - 6.2 Pos + 20.6 Rep = 44.5 RAR (Crawford)
+34.1 Off + 1.2 Def - 12.1 Pos + 23.0 Rep = 46.1 RAR (Gonzalez)

Now, obviously, Crawford's defense might not actually be that good. But if it is, then he's very very close to Adrian Gonzalez in quality.

Which is really scary. At what point does the salary disparity between MLB players and the general public become so ludicrous that we simply stop watching baseball?

Never, obviously. The salary disparity is already almost incomprehensible. That revenue is being made, so it's better for the players to get as much of it as they can than for the owners to get almost all of it. But what do I know? A lot of the general public makes salaries that are just about incomprehensible to me. $100,000 a year just to sit in a chair and model economic ########?

If Carl Crawford is a plus defensive CF playing in a corner, then he's easily worth this contract.

How?

I'm a bit less skeptical of this deal than I would have been just a few years ago. I used to pooh-pooh the difference that a great defender can make vs. a poor one, and couldn't see how it could make all that much of a difference. While I still have quibbles about how exactly modern systems rate defenders (and overall), seeing how the tallies in the various WAR columns add (or subtract) up makes it pretty clear just how much of a difference good or bad D can make.

Throwing out the Manny vs. Carl comparison one last time (BBRef numbers), let's do Manny '05 vs. Crawford '09 (since some see his '10 as an outlier of sorts). In 2005 Manny had a pretty awesome year with the bat, tallying 42 batting runs, while Carl in '09 had a "mere" 11. Yet Crawford beats Manny 4.4 to 3.7, mainly on the difference in the glove (+12 to -18), a whopping 3 win swing. FG has it even worse of course, as 6.5 to 3.3. I know, it seems ridiculous that a guy with a 153 OPS+ loses out to one with a 116, but I think that is easily within the realm of possibility just by observing how each man fielded his position in those years. On the Therapy Thread I expressed skepticism that Crawford could catch and extra ball every 4 games that an average LF wouldn't, but an extra ball every 4 games that Manny couldn't get to? Seems like a lead pipe cinch.

Which is really scary. At what point does the salary disparity between MLB players and the general public become so ludicrous that we simply stop watching baseball?

At the same time we choose not to watch movies because of the actors' salaries?

Now, obviously, Crawford's defense might not actually be that good. But if it is, then he's very very close to Adrian Gonzalez in quality.

I'm skeptical of the defensive projection systems at this point. But even if you take away some of his defensive WAR, he would still be a good defender. Do you have an analysis that converts the RAR estimates into monetary value?

I'm more concerned about length of contract plus money per year. If Crawford gets hurt or becomes ineffective, that's a lot of money to absorb. Admittedly, he's exactly the kind of player not likely to do either of those things during the length of the contract. It just seems wasteful to me.

Well I tell you what....stop watching, stop going, and stop buying. Take a stand against the skyrocketing salaries...or better yet, complain more, and let the owners pocket the money they reap from the following trend.

I'm not complaining, just wondering when fans are going to start walking away, causing Bud or whoever is the commish to take a hard look at the economic system.

I'm glad all you Sox fans are circle-jerking over your new lineup, but I think I must be the only person who noticed that baseball tip-toed a little closer to dying last night...

I'm skeptical of the defensive projection systems at this point. But even if you take away some of his defensive WAR, he would still be a good defender. Do you have an analysis that converts the RAR estimates into monetary value?

Something like ( RAR / 10 ) * 4.5M = Salary. I think this offseason is looking like the multiplier will be closer to 5M per win.

In his analysis on ESPN insider, Szym did a seven-year projection of Crawford and found that, given normal salary inflation over the deal, Crawford projected to be worth something like $130M over the seven years. If inflation has picked up this offseason, he'd project to be worth the contract.

I'm not complaining, just wondering when fans are going to start walking away, causing Bud or whoever is the commish to take a hard look at the economic system.

The players aren't making piles of money while the owners go bankrupt. The players are making piles of money because the owners are making much larger piles of money. As teams take in greater and greater revenue, the marginal value of a win grows larger, and so owners pay their players more money. Where, exactly, is there a problem to be solved?

Are you arguing that owners should pocket a significantly higher portion of the profits? Why would that be a good thing?

I mean, I'd like it if 90% of baseball profits were sent around the world to alleviate poverty, but that's not how our economic system has ever functioned, and it's not a fair standard to hold an individual industry to.

wondering when fans are going to start walking away, causing Bud or whoever is the commish to take a hard look at the economic system.

Look at what, and do what? If fans really start to lose interest because of how much money the players are making, they'll spend less money on the sport, revenues will dip, and salaries will decrease. Obviously this is unlikely to happen to any real degree. But what would you imagine the commissioner's office would actually do about this problem, to the extent that it's perceived as a problem?

EDIT: Another Coke to MCoA.

Obviously this is unlikely to happen to any real degree.

When I was growing up the NHL was considered one of the 4 major leagues....

whose decline had nothing to do with fans losing interest because of how much $ the players were making obviously...

But the NHL experience does show 2 things
1: It is possible that sports league may, unwisely, spend too much on payroll (i.e., more than can be supported by revenue)- it takes a sizeable chunk of the ownership being stoopid and more than a couple of years...

2: If revenues actually decline- so can/will payroll- but not without significant resistance- if revenues were actually declining do you honestly think the MLBPA we've all grown to know and love will simply take the owner's words for it? Given the current and recent relationship between ownership and MLBPA I think a sustained period of revenue contraction would likely lead to a catastrophic labor relations meltdown.

At the same time we choose not to watch movies because of the actors' salaries?

I think a lot more people know the salaries of baseball players than actors.

Never, obviously.

I'm glad all you Sox fans are circle-jerking over your new lineup, but I think I must be the only person who noticed that baseball tip-toed a little closer to dying last night...

The juxtaposition of these two comments is interesting.

In his analysis on ESPN insider, Szym did a seven-year projection of Crawford and found that, given normal salary inflation over the deal, Crawford projected to be worth something like $130M over the seven years. If inflation has picked up this offseason, he'd project to be worth the contract.

Very well, then. I feel a little better about the deal now. Hopefully I'll feel even better about it once I see him play. I'd prefer to watch players blossom from the organization, though. Yes, I know that makes me a giant, entitled, Red Sox elitist.

I'm not worried about the player/owner pay discrepancy damaging baseball, but I do believe the rich team/poor team (or committed ownership/welfare queens for YR's sake) dynamic has the ability to turn significant number of average fans off the sport.

And I know this runs counter to Mikael's view on things, but as a Red Sox fan these types of moves bore the hell out of me and I'd find it more interesting if the Sox eschewed them and built from within. I recognize all the arguments (they have to keep up with the Yanks, the fans pay the high ticket prices and the owners should plow the money back into the organization etc.), but flexing their financial muscle to a much greater degree than 28 other teams and more effectively than one doesn't strike me as a terribly impressive achievement. I usually get over by the time the season starts, but at the moment, I can't get excited about it.

The problem with the typical Fangraphs type analysis of these deals is that they almost always assume a) that the player has to be worth his deal for it to be a good signing and that b) an ideal alternative was available.

On the first point, the Sox have money to spend, piles of it. Crawford doesn't have to be worth his contract anymore than A-Rod as it will have negligible (if any) impact on their ability to sign players going forward.

On the second point, there are no ideal players (say, a 26 year old Crawford that also has the eye of Frank Thomas or Ted Williams) for teams to sign and there is always the winner's premium.

And yea, SoSH -- that's why it's hard for me to take serious the "Brian Cashman is a great GM" stuff. His margin for error is so extraordinary that he can't help but be a good GM. Just offer the best players the most money. Or, better yet, take on salary every trade deadline and rob other teams looking to get out from under contracts.

The players aren't making piles of money while the owners go bankrupt. The players are making piles of money because the owners are making much larger piles of money. As teams take in greater and greater revenue, the marginal value of a win grows larger, and so owners pay their players more money. Where, exactly, is there a problem to be solved?

The money ratio between players/owners isn't a problem. The "problem" is the huge number of people on chat boards such as ESPN who complain about the rich getting richer and skyrocketing salaries. It's an issue of perception, and an issue of economics between the game and "normal citizens". How many times have you heard someone say that the players and owners make too much money because the average citizen makes some tiny fraction of what they make? Many, many times. I'm merely curious to see when/if that turns into "I quit".

Look at what, and do what? If fans really start to lose interest because of how much money the players are making, they'll spend less money on the sport, revenues will dip, and salaries will decrease.

Right. They haven't lost interest yet, and no trend that I know of says that it's heading in that direction. I'm speculating. And I don't know what the commish would do about it.

When I was growing up the NHL was considered one of the 4 major leagues....

Yeah, but was that due to money or to ESPN anti-marketing (or something like that)?

EDIT: Never mind on the NHL, saw your update JSLF.

And I know this runs counter to Mikael's view on things, but as a Red Sox fan these types of moves bore the hell out of me and I'd find it more interesting if the Sox eschewed these types of moves and built from within.

This is all subjective, but I have to admit I'm skeptical that you'd find it more interesting to watch the Sox miss the playoffs much more often. This sort of righteous position is usually easier to take when you're not watching an overmatched Lars Anderson or Josh Reddick piss away rallies night in and night out.

I'm not worried about the player/owner pay discrepancy damaging baseball, but I do believe the rich team/poor team (or committed ownership/welfare queens for YR's sake) dynamic has the ability to turn significant number of average fans off the sport.

I believe this as well.

as a Red Sox fan these types of moves bore the hell out of me and I'd find it more interesting if the Sox eschewed them and built from within. I recognize all the arguments (they have to keep up with the Yanks, the fans pay the high ticket prices and the owners should plow the money back into the organization etc.), but flexing their financial muscle to a much greater degree than 28 other teams and more effectively than one doesn't strike me as a terribly impressive achievement. I usually get over by the time the season starts, but at the moment, I can't get excited about it.

And yea, SoSH -- that's why it's hard for me to take serious the "Brian Cashman is a great GM" stuff. His margin for error is so extraordinary that he can't help but be a good GM. Just offer the best players the most money. Or, better yet, take on salary every trade deadline and rob other teams looking to get out from under contracts.

Both of these.

This is all subjective, but I have to admit I'm skeptical that you'd find it more interesting to watch the Sox miss the playoffs much more often.

The 162 non-playoff games don't exist solely to reach the playoffs. That may be the team's goal, but a fan's goal is to enjoy the games. I love watching young players come up and excel--to the point where I'm willing to trade a few wins for it.

I'm not worried about the player/owner pay discrepancy damaging baseball, but I do believe the rich team/poor team (or committed ownership/welfare queens for YR's sake) dynamic has the ability to turn significant number of average fans off the sport.

This part is a big deal. I think that significant changes need to be made in baseball's revenue sharing / salary cap structure. Right now, it's still just way too valuable to be a team that happens to be in a huge market. Much more needs to be done to cut into the economic power of the Yankees and Red Sox, and of the Cubs, Dodgers, Angels, and Mets. I'm not sure the best method, but it's clear the current system needs to be reformed.

In this new system, though, ballplayers will still be making gazillions of dollars. Folks on the equivalent of the ESPN boards have been complaining about player salaries for the last century. I see no reason to expect fans to actually act on these complaints. They never have before.

The 162 non-playoff games don't exist solely to reach the playoffs. That may be the team's goal, but a fan's goal is to enjoy the games. I love watching young players come up and excel--to the point where I'm willing to trade a few wins for it.

I love watching young players come up and excel, too. Everyone does!

Do you really think we're missing out on "excelling"? Ryan Kalish almost certainly isn't ready to excel, and if he is, he can do it in 2012. Reddick and Anderson aren't even ready to excel in AAA. Iglesias? I mean, you can complain about trading Kelly, as we may be missing out on Kelly kicking ass in 2014 or 2015, but SoSH's complaint seemed to be about free agents moves generally.

I think we're missing out on a very marginal amount of "excelling" from young players. What we're missing out on is mediocrity and struggles - which have their own enjoyment, admittedly. I liked watching Ryan Kalish last year even though in the end he cost the team games. As an overall strategy, though, I'm skeptical it would maximize your interest and enjoyment as you say it would.

I can hardly tell you what your experience is, let alone what it would be, so this is a sort of silly debate. I just, I dunno, I think fans of winning teams tend to develop a romantic attachment losing righteously, that fans of teams that actually do lose righteously rarely share.

flexing their financial muscle to a much greater degree than 28 other teams and more effectively than one doesn't strike me as a terribly impressive achievement.

I agree with this in principle, to an extent. But it's the reality, barring substantial changes to the financial structure of the league, which I agree with all of you are necessary eventually.

But again, that's simply the reality of modern MLB. And we were born Red Sox fans, so we "live with it". It could clearly be much, much worse.

The money ratio between players/owners isn't a problem. The "problem" is the huge number of people on chat boards such as ESPN who complain about the rich getting richer and skyrocketing salaries.

Or maybe it's the huge number of people who stopped following their local team because their local team never wins anything. My brother was a diehard Royals fan during the 80s, and hung in there through the 90s, but he just got tired of trying to get psyched for even a .500 season and eventually, after over 20 years, just stopped caring. You can tell fans like him to blame ownership instead of the salary structure, but that's not going to change the reality of their situation: the vast majority of the time, their teams are no fun to watch.

This is all subjective, but I have to admit I'm skeptical that you'd find it more interesting to watch the Sox miss the playoffs much more often.

I don't know about that. They missed the playoffs for 11 straight years during my childhood and my interest never wavered. They didn't win a playoff game for another 13 years and I remained obsessed with their performance. I don't feel the playoffs are my team's birthright.

I know that, as a long-distance Sox fan, I have a slightly different persepctive. I haven't been to Fenway since I was 12 or so. It's not my money.

But as a sports fan, I find little to no creativity behind this kind of roster building. I don't blame them for pursuing this course of action - the game's structure and their position in the AL East almost demands it. I just find it uninspiring.

So maybe it's because the team has won two titles in the last 10 years and I've been spoiled by it, but yeah, I think I'd prefer to see them scale back the FA spending/Gonzo type trade-extensions and become that $100 million player development machine.

I think fans of winning teams tend to develop a romantic attachment losing righteously, that fans of teams that actually do lose righteously rarely share.

Probably true. I'm surely in the first group.

I can't speak for SOSH, but I enjoyed Darnell McDonald's struggle to do well enough to earn a future major league contract.

On the deal, I feel pretty much the same way as I think he does. Kinda ambivalent about the quality of contract, a little sad about the buying of a great player rather than the development of same, and figuring that that will fade away to being really psyched for the start of the season with what looks to be a very strong team.

I mean, you can complain about trading Kelly, as we may be missing out on Kelly kicking ass in 2014 or 2015, but SoSH's complaint seemed to be about free agents moves generally.

No, my complaint comes from the inescapable feeling that my favorite team is in a 100-yard dash with the rest of the league but it gets to start at the 30-yard mark. I know the fact that the pinstriped bastards are starting at the 40 is supposed to comfort me, but it doesn't really do the trick.

I have no problem with ballplayers getting the money instead of the owners. Or free agency. Or any of that. And I find the ballclub construction by financial bludgeoning to be pretty uncreative and uninspiring.

And as I said, once the season starts this generally begins to fade away and I get just as caught up following them as always.

Or maybe it's the huge number of people who stopped following their local team because their local team never wins anything.

While I think there's no doubt that baseball would have a broader base of support if the economic system were more equitable, and economic power didn't reside so heavily in the five largest MSAs, it should be noted that most clubs, not just those in the big MSAs, are drawing lots of fans to their ballpark and doing quite well. Baseball's economy needs reform, but baseball's doing pretty great nonetheless.

SoSHU, are you really saying that the last three days have been boring for you?

Two of the top three free agents will likely be signing with the same two teams, in the same division. Throw in the Gonzo trade for good measure. That doesn't seem problematic to anyone?

Three of the top four free agents will be signing with the same two teams, in the same division. That doesn't seem problematic to anyone?

Haven't all 29 posts above yours, if they've addressed the issue, said precisely that there is a problem with baseball's economics?

SoSHU, are you really saying that the last three days have been boring for you?

In regards to the Red Sox moves, yes pretty much.

Werth is the better hitter. There's just no question there. I'd say that Werth's 2007-2010 performances were pretty consistent. Crawford had a .718 OPS in 2008.

It doesn't matter who has been the better hitter, as much as who will be the more valuable player going forward. I think there is a genuine argument to be made that Crawford will have similar or better offensive value as Werth going forward, and that the defensive then becomes a substantial difference. The comparison points are

1) Hitting - Werth

Werth is the better hitter. Werth's OPS+ is 131 the last 4 years, while Crawfords is 115. If you discount 2008 for Crawford as a injury year, he's averaging around 122. The last two years alone, Werth has averaged 137, while Crawford is at 124, which isn't as big a difference as their raw career stats would lead you to think.

2) Baserunning - Crawford

Crawford has more value, 182/225 steals the last four years (81%), but Werth is no slouch at 60/68 (88%). But besides the raw sb stats, you should expect Crawfords wheels should lead to more advances/extra bases, etc. If I read the BP base-running stats correctly, they give Crawford about a 2 run per year edge, but it seems to be growing, about 5 runs last year.

3) Strength Of Competition - Crawford

I think division opponents should account for a bit more than 40% of plate appearances, so I wanted to point out how tough the AL east pitching has been for Crawford. In 2008, the non-Tampa AL East staffs averaged a 110 ERA+. Werth wasn't facing cupcakes this year, his average NL opponent's staff average a 104 ERA+, while Crawfords AL East opponents barely averaged over 100. But previous to this year, there was a huge difference in the quality of division pitching staffs they faced on a regular basis. Werth's NL east opponent staffs have averaged about a 99 ERA+ over the last 4 years, while Crawfords AL East opponent staffs have averaged almost a 105.

Using BP's Quality of Opposition stat for both Werth and Crawford, you can actually look at the OPS given up by the pitchers they faced each year. Over the last 4 years the OPS given up by pitchers they faced is nearly identical, averaging around .725. But given the NL lineups include the pitchers spot, and the AL the DH, that directly implies that Werth faced weaker pitching (PHI's park is less favorable for opposing pitchers, but it's not a huge difference).

Lastly it's been generally assumed the last few years that the AL, esp. the AL East, has the highest level of talent, and I think it's still reasonable to believe that given relative budgets/spending.

4) Age - Crawford
Werth is at the age where performance generally declines, while Crawford still has a few years at the top of the performance curve and even when he reaches the declining portion of the curve, Werth will always be in the steeper decline area. That doesn't mean Werth can't continue to improve, he's a late bloomer coming off the best year of his career, or that Crawford can't start a sudden decline tomorrow. But on average, you should expect Werth to decline more than Crawford over the course of their contracts.

All these points are subtle, but I think in combination they are more than enough to overcome an existing edge of 10-20 points of OPS+ going forward. Imagine if the signings were reversed. Werth would have still put up good but not great numbers in the AL East, but probably would have lost 5-10% of his OPS+ from facing tougher pitching. While Crawford probably would have gone nuts against NL pitching, especially in Washington's stadium, maybe consistent 125-135 OPS+ seasons with more steals and even greater defensive value.

Or maybe it's the huge number of people who stopped following their local team because their local team never wins anything. My brother was a diehard Royals fan during the 80s, and hung in there through the 90s, but he just got tired of trying to get psyched for even a .500 season and eventually, after over 20 years, just stopped caring.

But there has only been the Royals and Pirates like that for the past 20 years. And there is always 1-2 teams going through prolonged stretches of futility no matter what the economic set-up.

4) Age - Crawford

For me this is the big deal. As I said to a friend this morning, the Sox have a reasonable chance of getting the 2-3 best years of Carl Crawford's career. That is pretty rare in free agency and particularly with the current crop.

SoSHU, are you really saying that the last three days have been boring for you?


In regards to the Red Sox moves, yes pretty much.

I have a real hard time wrapping my brain around this. To each his own, I suppose.

But there has only been the Royals and Pirates like that for the past 20 years. And there is always 1-2 teams going through prolonged stretches of futility no matter what the economic set-up.

Oh, well, I'll let him and his friends know! I'm sure that'll bring Royals fans back to the park!

Oh, well, I'll let him and his friends know! I'm sure that'll bring Royals fans back to the park!

I was just saying that a team losing fans because of 2 decades of bad play is not related to modern sports economics. I thought everyone was on that subject, what were you talking about?

Or maybe it's the huge number of people who stopped following their local team because their local team never wins anything. My brother was a diehard Royals fan during the 80s, and hung in there through the 90s, but he just got tired of trying to get psyched for even a .500 season and eventually, after over 20 years, just stopped caring.

But there has only been the Royals and Pirates like that for the past 20 years. And there is always 1-2 teams going through prolonged stretches of futility no matter what the economic set-up.

Hey the Lions were almost good this year!!!

I know you cant compare sports, but this seems like as good a time as any to mention that in the last 10 seasons, MLB has had 9 unique world series winners. The NFL with its dream structure for the Pittsburgh's of the world has had 7. And the NBA which rewards moving teams to huge markets like Oklahoma City (no offense intended) has had 5.

I was just saying that a team losing fans because of 2 decades of bad play is not related to modern sports economics. I thought everyone was on that subject, what were you talking about?

I do think there's a difference. If you know, for certain, that your team's reason for failure is because it's being mismanaged (say, the Detroit Lions for most of the past 50 years), you can hold out hope that if you finally get a non-Millenial type figure in charge, you can reverse course. Nobody, as far as I know, blames the league for the fact that Detroit sucks.

If you believe, however, that no matter what your team does, the sport's financial structure is going to doom you to failure (whether that view is entirely accurate is a separate matter), I imagine it would be easier to say, #### it.

I was just saying that a team losing fans because of 2 decades of bad play is not related to modern sports economics. I thought everyone was on that subject, what were you talking about?

Nice blow off. The point is that you can't just tell these fans, hey, it happens, and have those fan bases understand. The Royals haven't been competitive for a decade, the Pirates for nearly twice that long, and other teams will go through long stretches of non-competitiveness. People generally accept the cycles of success and rebuilding. But then there are those teams who, it seems, are now immune to the down cycles by buying up the talent from their less wealthy competitors and shrinking their competitive window. It's great for Sox fans and great for Yankee fans, but it completely sucks for everyone else.

You can say it's just "bad play" and blame management, but as someone else pointed out, Brian Cashman's margin for error is extraordinary, and Theo's is only a little bit less so — they can buy their way out of bad play basically whenever they need to. 28 other teams can't get away with that. Modern sports economics has a helluva lot to do with that.

EDIT: I've come to this point after years of thinking (and arguing) that the economics really didn't matter, that management was all that mattered. The last few years have convinced me otherwise.

EDIT: I've come to this point after years of thinking (and arguing) that the economics really didn't matter, that management was all that mattered. The last few years have convinced me otherwise.

What was it about the economics of the SF Giants that convinced you?

People generally accept the cycles of success and rebuilding. But then there are those teams who, it seems, are now immune to the down cycles by buying up the talent from their less wealthy competitors and shrinking their competitive window.

There have always been teams who seem immune to the down cycles. The Cardinals haven't had a down cycle in 40 years. Fans have always been frustrated about it.

SoSHU, are you really saying that the last three days have been boring for you?



In regards to the Red Sox moves, yes pretty much.

I don't find them boring, per se--but certainly less compelling than, say, the Red Sox announcing that the third outfield spot is for Kalish to lose.

You can say it's just "bad play" and blame management, but as someone else pointed out, Brian Cashman's margin for error is extraordinary, and Theo's is only a little bit less so — they can buy their way out of bad play basically whenever they need to. 28 other teams can't get away with that.

Thats demonstrably untrue, and a bit ridiculous coming from someone whose team was apparently going to sign Crawford if Boston didn't. Its been said a million times before, but there is no reason that a bunch of other teams can't compete with Boston for free agents.

I favor the MLB system over the NFL system, but I think that part of the reason some people seem to prefer the NFL system is that while the NFL has teams that win all the time, that group of teams includes Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Indianapolis, cities that wouldn't compete in MLB without great management and luck. It's worth pointing out, however, that those are among the highest-revenue NFL teams, and the reason they are isn't their market size, but the fact that they always win. It's the winning that creates the revenue.

Thats demonstrably untrue, and a bit ridiculous coming from someone whose team was apparently going to sign Crawford if Boston didn't. Its been said a million times before, but there is no reason that a bunch of other teams can't compete with Boston for free agents.

Is the argument here that there isn't significant inequality between MLB teams? While lower-payroll, lower-revenue, smaller-market teams can compete for individual players, overall they're going to get fewer good players and be less good. This is borne out - payroll and market-size are good predictors of wins. They're not determinative predictors of wins, but it's very clear that they matter.

To me, baseball is better when it doesn't matter if your team is based in Boston, Baltimore, or Milwaukee - that shouldn't be a major issue in terms of team quality. So, it would be better if we had means of cutting into the economic power of teams based in the biggest cities - teams like hte Red Sox, Yankees, Cubs, Angels, Dodgers, Phillies, Mets, and White Sox shouldn't have the level of economic power they have. Some combination of a salary cap and guaranteed share of revenue for players seems like the best way to get at this.

While we are on the subject, I have a few random questions:

(1) When the idea of a salary floor is brought up (usually as a companion to a salary cap), people always shoot it down because low-payroll teams would supposedly sign crappy veterans to meet the floor. And it would be counter-productive in terms of re-building, and incidences in the NHL are referenced. Why would this necessarily happen? If a re-building team thought it best to play their pre-arb kids, but faced being under the salary floor, why wouldn't they just re-negotiate the contracts of their cheap players to make them bigger instead of signing a crappier veteran? They could re-build and also young players would be paid more justly. There could be some safeguard against it affecting future arb awards.

(2) What changed in the economic landscape of baseball between 1980 and now? E.G. Why was does George Brett NOT get offered a bigger contract from a richer team, but Carlos Beltran does?

What was it about the economics of the SF Giants that convinced you?

The point — and I'm sure everyone understands this already — isn't just winning all the time, but being competitive maybe just half the time. Right now, you have a few teams who are competitive once every few years, and then you have a few teams that are guaranteed 88 wins and a shot at the playoffs nearly every single season. I'll let others have the last word. I've been on that other side of the argument, and tossed my share of snark at the people who hold the position I hold now.

EDIT: I see MCoA in 147 has made my point for me more articulately. Coke.

Despite the fact that he has signed with the Red Sox, I still have a hard time disliking Carl Crawford. Maybe I'm mellowing out as I get older.

We'll see what happens once the season begins, though.

Are you serious Sonic? If the A's pay Kei Igawa 46 million and he never pitches above their AAA team, then that is a huge hole to climb. If the Yankees do it it's water under the bridge. I don't think there can be any doubt that a higher payroll allows for Cashman, Williams, Epstein, etc to make more bad moves without it affecting their ability to build a winner.

What changed in the economic landscape of baseball between 1980 and now? E.G. Why was does George Brett NOT get offered a bigger contract from a richer team, but Carlos Beltran does?

Because Carlos Beltran isn't a crybaby who throws a hissy fit when he gets caught cheating.

Maybe I'm not mellowing out as I get older.

I would like to see a salary floor and lowering the luxury tax threshold to a percentage above the mean team salary. Of course, the players' union would never accept that.

Just had to flag this. How do you figure? Age 22-28, he put up a 113. You expect him to get slightly better in his 30s?

He had a half season where an injury affected him that kills his career ops+. If you look at his 23-28 years you get ops+ of 111, 113, 117, Injury, 116, 134. To me he clearly shows his talent level is 115(or higher if you go by weighing the most recent years), and I don't think he is going to get worse during this contract. And I qualified my statement saying most of those years.

This. There's no reason other than incompetence the Cubs, Dodgers or Mets couldn't be at the Red Sox level. The Phillies are pretty much there (though for how long one wonders).

Agree, and further, it was never predetermined that the Red Sox would have the role they do now in modern baseball. They only broke into this stratosphere earlier this decade; when they acquired Pedro, for instance, I thought of them as just another AL team. A franchise needs a couple things, a propulsive initial burst of success, and smart management to consolidate/perpetuate that success. That happened to the Red Sox after '04. Angels in '02 is a similar case - they signed Vlad the next year and are just burning out now, seemingly. (And both teams were well-run leading up to those breakout years).

OK, that's not all a team needs, or else the Rays would be on the Sox post-'04 path, instead of watching Crawford walk and selling off some of their veteran players. The enthusiasm of the fanbase is a major determining factor, but market size only accounts for part of that. Boston is not one of the nation's largest cities. It's broader regional base is fragmented by Philadelphia and two New York teams to the south. There's no reason that a team like the SF Giants can't become the Red Sox of the NL. No (non-McCourt) reason the Dodgers can't be the Yankees of the NL. The current balance of power in the league is ugly - the Yankees' 08-09 offseason and the recent Red Sox moves suggest that certain teams can just go out and get whoever they damn well want - but it is just one state in a fluid system. It's not nearly as entrenched as it feels... I hope.

But you know, to consider a completely opposite point, maybe the short period after the draft but before modern free agency was the most egalitarian relationship among franchises and this era (70's-80's, a "swoon" for the Yanks) remains as the backdrop in our minds to the new era of oligarchic franchises beginning in the 1990's.

I don't know. Take the Yankees - yes, they play in New York, but so do the Mets. The fact that the Yankees have been winning for 90 years is what allows them to lord their pocketbook so dramatically over the rest of the league. I'd be interested in learning more about how the Yankees leveraged their financial advantage/NYC base in the years before FA, and before the draft. Did they ever lose out on an amateur player they really wanted, a baseball man they wanted to hire, etc.? Is their position relative to the rest of the league the same as it has been for most of baseball history, or at least since they started racking up titles?

Boston is not one of the nation's largest cities. It's broader regional base is fragmented by Philadelphia and two New York teams to the south.

It depends on what you mean by "largest". The Boston CSA is the 5th largest in the country. It's also one of the richest - so that population has more to spend on ballgames. Further, the regional base of the Red Sox is New England, and there has long been a strong sense of shared New England identity which extends to shared sports rooting interests. These are all underlying factors, with little link to the business intelligence of ownership, that have made the Red Sox a economic powerhouse in MLB for decades.

Take the Yankees - yes, they play in New York, but so do the Mets.

Both teams are major economic powers. The Mets and Yankees are tied for the largest MSA and CSA populations covered by a team. (That is, half the NYC area is still a larger share of a population area than any other team has, and by a good margin.)

But there has only been the Royals and Pirates like that for the past 20 years. And there is always 1-2 teams going through prolonged stretches of futility no matter what the economic set-up.

Actually, there were times, when MLB had only 16 teams, and 3-4 teams were going through Pirate/Royal like stretches of futility- and attendance really sucked for those teams- and seemingly began to affect the league as a whole. Then the really bad teams tended to get new owners and moved to greener pastures and people forgot about how hard it was to root for the Boston Braves or the St Louis Browns...

I think having too many teams stuck in a perpetual losing rut (not just cycle- the Royals and Pirates have not been cycling) is bad for MLB as a whole, having 3 out of
30 teams (I would add Baltimore) isn't terrible, MLB has seen worse (as a %), but if we see 2 or 3 more teams enter the "G_Dam it I spent my entire childhood watching and waiting for these effing guys to crack .500 rut" then yes I think MLB as a whole will be affected- national attendance and TV audience will begin to be affected, that whole age cohort of baseball fans may shrink somewhat that what it would have been if all teams were competitive at least some of the time.

I think KC and Pittsburgh are in danger of wiping out literally a generation of potential baseball fans, I think Baltimore runs that risk as well (though if Wash manages to slip in a few competitive seasons that may siphon off some of that loss)

Fair points on Boston, but Boston is New England's only baseball team so I doubt the special "New England identity" is that much of a factor, anymore than "Pacific Northwest identity" adds to the Mariners fanbase.

Both teams are major economic powers. The Mets and Yankees are tied for the largest MSA and CSA populations covered by a team. (That is, half the NYC area is still a larger share of a population area than any other team has, and by a good margin.)

I understand that, but the Mets are a long way from the $200 million barrier that the Yankees blew past years ago. They are still in line with most of the other "big market" teams that aren't the Yankees/BoSox
(PS It's amazing how far and quickly the big-market Dodgers have fallen relative to this same pack, a hundred mil ain't what it used to be... I would say that salaries as a whole have grown, only top-tier player salaries seem to have stagnated until the kickstart they seem to be getting in winter '10, maybe the sheer absurdity of ARod's 25M/yr in '01 is to blame for that).

(1) When the idea of a salary floor is brought up (usually as a companion to a salary cap), people always shoot it down because low-payroll teams would supposedly sign crappy veterans to meet the floor. And it would be counter-productive in terms of re-building, and incidences in the NHL are referenced. Why would this necessarily happen? If a re-building team thought it best to play their pre-arb kids, but faced being under the salary floor, why wouldn't they just re-negotiate the contracts of their cheap players to make them bigger instead of signing a crappier veteran? They could re-build and also young players would be paid more justly. There could be some safeguard against it affecting future arb awards.

Keeping the same non-competitive roster, but paying them more, does not solve the non-competitiveness issue.

Worse, the more that is spent on the MLB roster, the less there is for signing bonuses for the top-shelf prospects such teams are supposed to be able to draft. One could argue that forcing a down team into an expense distribution weighted toward their MLB roster instead of draft / scouting / development will hurt their ability to compete in the long run.

One of the major issues is that for a down team to compete they need a lot of good players. Solving that exclusively through free agency is difficult if not impossible, because free agents want to see that you're really going to compete before they commit. That means you either need trades, or in-house developed players. Both of those require acquiring and developing the best young prospects, and not just a few. It also means that, until the team has those young prospects in place, they won't compete.

For a period, KC drafted and developed some good players - Sweeney, Tucker, Damon, Lieber, Beltran - bringing some up while others were traded well (e.g. Tucker for Dye). They just didn't do enough of this, or do it well enough. After that, they didn't draft well nor develop well, until just recently.

(2) What changed in the economic landscape of baseball between 1980 and now? E.G. Why was does George Brett NOT get offered a bigger contract from a richer team, but Carlos Beltran does?

Free agency was still relatively new in 1980. The fact that salaries grew exponentially is a sign that few teams, if any, were so financially hamstrung that they could not spend enough to keep their star players. And the Royals were a relatively richer team then.

I understand that, but the Mets are a long way from the $200 million barrier that the Yankees blew past years ago. They are still in line with most of the other "big market" teams that aren't the Yankees/BoSox
(PS It's amazing how far and quickly the big-market Dodgers have fallen relative to this same pack, a hundred mil ain't what it used to be... I would say that salaries as a whole have grown, only top-tier player salaries seem to have stagnated until the kickstart they seem to be getting in winter '10, maybe the sheer absurdity of ARod's 25M/yr in '01 is to blame for that).

but big market doesn't mean what they spend, it's about how much they could spend if they wanted too. The Yankees want to win, so they spend an obscenely large amount of money, the Red Sox have the money so spend to keep up with them, especially after the Rays started to succeed. In the NL East teams are trying to protect their profit margin so they are betting on how much they can spend to barely win the division or the wildcard instead of going all out to try and win. Both the Mets and Phillies should be able to maintain a very high payroll, but until one goes out and spends big, the other won't either.

I honestly don't think that there is one team in baseball that couldn't afford a payroll of at least 80mil, the fact that they won't is indicative of the owners and not as much about the system.

I understand that, but the Mets are a long way from the $200 million barrier that the Yankees blew past years ago. They are still in line with most of the other "big market" teams that aren't the Yankees/BoSox
(PS It's amazing how far and quickly the big-market Dodgers have fallen relative to this same pack, a hundred mil ain't what it used to be... I would say that salaries as a whole have grown, only top-tier player salaries seem to have stagnated until the kickstart they seem to be getting in winter '10, maybe the sheer absurdity of ARod's 25M/yr in '01 is to blame for that).

but big market doesn't mean what they spend, it's about how much they could spend if they wanted too. The Yankees want to win, so they spend an obscenely large amount of money, the Red Sox have the money so spend to keep up with them, especially after the Rays started to succeed. In the NL East teams are trying to protect their profit margin so they are betting on how much they can spend to barely win the division or the wildcard instead of going all out to try and win. Both the Mets and Phillies should be able to maintain a very high payroll, but until one goes out and spends big, the other won't either.

I honestly don't think that there is one team in baseball that couldn't afford a payroll of at least 80mil, the fact that they won't is indicative of the owners and not as much about the system.

Keeping the same non-competitive roster, but paying them more, does not solve the non-competitiveness issue.

Worse, the more that is spent on the MLB roster, the less there is for signing bonuses for the top-shelf prospects such teams are supposed to be able to draft. One could argue that forcing a down team into an expense distribution weighted toward their MLB roster instead of draft / scouting / development will hurt their ability to compete in the long run.

It doesn't solve the non-competitiveness issue. But it's usually brought up as something packaged with a salary cap, something to make it more palatable to the players. I was randomly wondering why people thought (in scattered old threads that somehow came to my mind) why a salary floor would motivate teams to sign mediocre veterans.

As to your expense distribution problem, draft bonuses and signing bonuses could easily be factored in as part of the salary floor.

zachtoma, the Red Sox are the only team in Massachusetts. Vermont, Maine, RI, NH don't have one. Unless the New England identity matters.

Keeping the same non-competitive roster, but paying them more, does not solve the non-competitiveness issue.

Sure, but the goal isn't to "solve" the non-competitiveness issue - or, at least, it shouldn't be. No matter what you do to the game, there will always be good and bad teams and good and bad management and good and bad owners. and and and. The NFL still has the Lions, the NBA the Clippers. But, with a more equitable economic system, these non-competitive teams should be more normally distributed about the range of market sizes, rather than located typically in the very smallest markets. Further, the route back to competitiveness for bad teams - which you correctly note will never be short, exactly - should be shorter than it is now, because they are not as disadvantaged in terms of payroll compared to the teams with larger economic bases to draw upon.

zachtoma, the Red Sox are the only team in Massachusetts. Vermont, Maine, RI, NH don't have one. Unless the New England identity matters.

Well, simply put, for decades, if you wanted to watch or hear baseball in that region, it was the Red Sox or nothing. I'm not sure identity has anything to do with it. Plenty of people in upstate New York are Sox fans because historically that's where the radio for NYC cut out and Boston still held. I doubt you will find many New Yorkers who consider themselves part of New England.

The Sox have the advantages of being really old and having a monopoly. Like Iowans being Chicago Cubs fans.

Well, simply put, for decades, if you wanted to watch or hear baseball in that region, it was the Red Sox or nothing.

Not strictly true. I grew up in Maine and often watched Expos games on TV (from the antenna, we didn't have cable). I rooted for the Expos as a distant second team, but they didn't come close to comparing to my Red Sox. This was pretty typical, even of the town I'm from which had a very large French-speaking population. (Obviously there are lots of other factors too, this is just my little anecdotal experience...) Anyway, the point is that I do think the New England identity is a factor.

I'm glad all you Sox fans are circle-jerking over your new lineup, but I think I must be the only person who noticed that baseball tip-toed a little closer to dying last night...

Yes, but the Sun won't become a red giant for another billion years.



As for the Royals failures. How can one possibly blame the Red Sox and the Yanks for that? Do you not read Poz? I guess *technically* it's the Yanks fault the Royals signed The Milkman.

Tbe New England identity DOES matter, but that's just my opinion as someone who has lived his whole life in New Hampshire.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the comments made in this topic by a couple Red Sox fans. What more do you expect them to do, young-player-wise? If a prospect is good enough, they play him. If not, they go to the FA/trade route. The past couple years have been a bit weak in terms of new farm system contributions, but of the current team's key contributors Varitek, Youkilis, Pedroia, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Bard, and Papelbon have come from within. That's a pretty good portion of the team. Of young players they've traded away, only Hanley Ramirez stands out. What is the problem here? I'm honestly curious, would you rather see Lars Anderson put up a .650 OPS in the majors than have them trade for Adrian Gonzalez?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the comments made in this topic by a couple Red Sox fans. What more do you expect them to do, young-player-wise? If a prospect is good enough, they play him. If not, they go to the FA/trade route. The past couple years have been a bit weak in terms of new farm system contributions, but of the current team's key contributors Varitek, Youkilis, Pedroia, Lowrie, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Bard, and Papelbon have come from within. That's a pretty good portion of the team. Of young players they've traded away, only Hanley Ramirez stands out. What is the problem here? I'm honestly curious, would you rather see Lars Anderson put up a .650 OPS in the majors than have them trade for Adrian Gonzalez?

At the moment, yes. When the season starts and we're three games behind the Yankees in May, then my view likely changes. But I don't expect ownership to do anything different - and don't fault them for pursuing the course of action they've taken, particularly with the presence of an ever bigger bear in the division.

But I look at this situation where we just signed away one of the best players from our division rival, a player they drafted and developed but could no longer (or choose to) afford, while all we needed to do was open our checkbook and it doesn't feel particularly satisfying. At least in the offseason, it feels like I'm rooting for ringers in a Special Olympics event.

while all we needed to do was open our checkbook

It's not that simple. YOU helped persuade John Henry to buy the team. YOUR rabid fanhood inspired John Henry to hire some of the best minds in baseball to keep the team competitive. YOUR money helped fund the payroll. YOU have given and given and given, and now you're reaping the benefits of that in spades. This is nothing at *all* like some Russian billionaire coming in, buying the Chelsea PL team and promptly finding out that Real Life actually very much is like a game of Championship Manager.

And its also the shrewdness of the Sox in getting Lester, and Pedroia, and Youkilis to sign contracts not even remotely close to what they are worth that enables them to make a move like this.

The Lester, Pedroia and Youkilis contracts were all reasonable risks for both sides. Pedroia did 6/40. Bruce just did 6/51. And in terms of shrewdness, don't neglect the other side of the ledger -- Lackey, Dice-K (all debatable, true, and no Pavanos or Igawas in the bunch).

I'm a Sox fan and completely aligned with SOSH here. When the Sox signed Manny, I was giddy as hell. When they signed Crawford, my first thought was, that beautifully constructed Rays team is coming crashing down, and now we're among the culpable. Why the change? Two rings? ... perhaps. The type of Sox fan I guess who desires to win, but with a slim allotment of mercenaries, and only with some idea of undefinable, ever-shifting moral rectitude.

I'm going to look out at Carl Crawford on Opening Day and just pretend he's Darren Lewis.

Of young players they've traded away, only Hanley Ramirez stands out.

Freddy Sanchez! David Murphy! Adam Everett! Matt Murton! Okay, maybe not.

EDIT:
I'm going to look out at Carl Crawford on Opening Day and just pretend he's Darren Lewis.

Because they both signed free agent contracts with the Sox beginning with their age-30 seasons? I don't get it.

I know you cant compare sports, but this seems like as good a time as any to mention that in the last 10 seasons, MLB has had 9 unique world series winners. The NFL with its dream structure for the Pittsburgh's of the world has had 7. And the NBA which rewards moving teams to huge markets like Oklahoma City (no offense intended) has had 5.

Do you think MLB has better competitive balance than the NFL in the past 10 years?

I know you cant compare sports, but this seems like as good a time as any to mention that in the last 10 seasons, MLB has had 9 unique world series winners. The NFL with its dream structure for the Pittsburgh's of the world has had 7. And the NBA which rewards moving teams to huge markets like Oklahoma City (no offense intended) has had 5.Do you think MLB has better competitive balance than the NFL in the past 10 years?

The only reason for this, in my mind, is the randomness of the playoffs in baseball. In basketball and football, the best team progresses in the playoffs more often than in baseball.

I know you cant compare sports, but this seems like as good a time as any to mention that in the last 10 seasons, MLB has had 9 unique world series winners. The NFL with its dream structure for the Pittsburgh's of the world has had 7. And the NBA which rewards moving teams to huge markets like Oklahoma City (no offense intended) has had 5.Do you think MLB has better competitive balance than the NFL in the past 10 years?

The only reason for this, in my mind, is the randomness of the playoffs in baseball. In basketball and football, the best team progresses in the playoffs more often than in baseball.

Since the NBA has 16 playoff spots for 30 teams, someone should imagine that baseball had 8 playoff teams in each league and see how many teams would have made it to the postseason over the past 20 years. I know that the NL has 2 more teams than the AL, but doing that little exercise would enable us to begin comparing apples to apples.

Of course the other open question is whether after a while it would make all that much difference to (say) Mariners or Marlins fans if their team made the playoffs every four years but never made it past the first or second round. I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't take too long for the message to sink in and for the thrill to wear off. Even with a team as successful as Atlanta, you could see that sort of thing taking place after 1997, when the Braves won the division for 8 straight years after that and still saw their attendance drop by about 1.1 million, going from 2nd to 10th in the NL.

that beautifully constructed Rays team is coming crashing down

If it does, it won't be because Desmond Jennings failed to adequately fill Carl Crawford's shoes. It will be because they have failed to provide enough punch in what should be their two easiest positions to do so, DH and 1B. And didn't get lucky again with middle relievers.

...maybe Zobrist regains his 2008 form which will make up the diff between Jennings and Crawford. I'd say maybe Bartlett bounces back, but they gave up on him. And perhaps rightly so, I don't really know his position.

(2) What changed in the economic landscape of baseball between 1980 and now? E.G. Why was does George Brett NOT get offered a bigger contract from a richer team, but Carlos Beltran does?

1. Cable TV
2. Public subsidized mallparks
3. Places like the Bronx no longer Fort Apache, the Bronx
4. Luxury suites
5. A much broader and closer affiliation of major deep-pocketed corporations in all aspects of the sport, from naming stadiums to buying obscenely-priced season tickets for clients/employees.

It's like the rest of society since 1980. The rich have been getting a whole lot richer, while everyone else has been fighting just to hold on. Why should the prevailing ethos of big time sports be exempt from this?

Free agency was still relatively new in 1980. The fact that salaries grew exponentially is a sign that few teams, if any, were so financially hamstrung that they could not spend enough to keep their star players. And the Royals were a relatively richer team then.

I think that this is a point that gets lost when people start wondering about salary stagnation since 2000, and expecting it to go up again. I think that a large part of why salaries expanded so quickly for 20 years was that player salaries were, in effect, much, much, much too low for decades, and it took a couple of decades for them to catch up to where they belonged. Yes, one can expect player salaries to continue to increase with inflation, and perhaps some if revenues continue to expand, but expecting things to go back to the way they were from 1977-2000 on this front strikes me as unwise. We could return to that state, but I don't see any reason why people treat it as inevitable.

I think that this is a point that gets lost when people start wondering about salary stagnation since 2000, and expecting it to go up again. I think that a large part of why salaries expanded so quickly for 20 years was that player salaries were, in effect, much, much, much too low for decades, and it took a couple of decades for them to catch up to where they belonged. Yes, one can expect player salaries to continue to increase with inflation, and perhaps some if revenues continue to expand, but expecting things to go back to the way they were from 1977-2000 on this front strikes me as unwise. We could return to that state, but I don't see any reason why people treat it as inevitable.

My memory of the early days of free agency is that teams expected a discount for a long-term contract. "We'll pay you $6M/year for two years, or $5M/year for three years. Your choice." Now the superstar players are getting top dollar and contracts that carry them into their mid and even late 30's.

I remember when the Jays lost Jimmy Key to the Yankees, because the Yankees gave him four years, and Toronto had a policy of not offering more than three years to any pitcher. (I thought they should have made an exception for a home-grown pitcher like Key, but they made the right decision.) The idea of signing a pitcher for top money for 7 years makes my head spin.

This deal is going to blow for the Sox.

We can all see the time stamp, so no points for prescience.