Dodgers - Signed Furcal
Los Angeles Dodgers - Signed SS Rafael Furcal to a 3-year, $39 million contract.
$14 million a year is pricey, but it’s not troublesome at only 3 years and it’s not as if there were a whole bunch of terrific options at short out in the market. The main question here is what the Dodgers do when Izturis comes back, but it’s probably smart that the Dodgers move on without him and then worry about it when he’s back and healthy. You don’t want to sit on your hands, wait for Izturis to come back, and discover that 2004 didn’t come back with him. They’re talking about moving him to 2nd, but if Izturis isn’t the shortstop, he has very limited value, so the Dodgers, in that case, might be better off trying to find a trade partner that still remembers his great defense and acceptable hitting from before the injury. Furcal’s a better fit in the leadoff spot than Izturis, too.
Colletti really didn’t have much choice but to overpay Furcal. There’s no rebuilding in Los Angeles - McCourt simply doesn’t have the patience required to execute a long-term plan. The contract’s short enough that it doesn’t cripple the team if things go awry, afoul, or even askew.
2006 ZiPS Projection - Rafael Furcal
————————————————————————————-
AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
————————————————————————————-
644 105 181 28 7 15 77 59 87 26 .281 .341 .416
Dan Szymborski
Posted: December 04, 2005 at 04:38 PM |
41 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle Posted: December 04, 2005 at 05:03 PM (#1759474)$14 million a year is pricey,
Very pricey when you consider they are really paying him $13 million.
Sure. Of course, similar things are being said about virtually every free agent signing this offseason. At least the Dodgers are overpaying for quality, rather than for mediocrities - or trading multiple prospects for somebody good AND expensive.
That's because virtually every free agent signing of 2005-6, to date, has been between slightly- and absurdly-overpaid. There hasn't been a single reasonable signing this year.
That's what has been said about every major acquisition so far this offseason. Wouldn't it be a kick in the ass if when it came time for teams to start signing mediocrities, all the GMs in "Hurry up and make a move" mode had blown their wads so the mediocrities got signed at saner prices and all these early moves still turned out to be asinine?
Maybe with the increases in revenue it makes financial sense for teams to spend more on free agents.
In the Dodgers' case, they are competing for long term market share with another team - spending more than a player might be worth short term on a strictly dollar basis very well might be the long term economically savvy move, if it helps keep the Dodgers as the most popular team in southern California.
But in general, if EVERY free agent signing seems unreasonable, then it strikes me that maybe the paradigm for reasonable and unreasonable needs to be updated.
I seriously doubt that will happen. Paying much of anything for mediocrities doesn't make a lot of sense - and the mediocrities will still get their multi-million dollar contracts, with perhaps a handful coming off of injuries becoming NRIs, as happens every year.
That's the same feeling I have, but it's just that: a feeling. We won't really know the value (in terms of wins/dollar) of an impact player like Furcal until we can look back on it. If the cost of FA talent remains at this level, then he isn't overpaid. If it levels off or drops (like in the wake of 2000) then he is.
And if it does drop off, it's the big contracts that go to non-HOF talent that are going to be the clunkers, and I'd put Furcal in that category. The Dodgers have two things going for them here: Furcal's age, and the fact that it's only a three-year commitment, so it's not going to turn out like the contracts that went to Kevin Brown or Mike Hampton. If the Dodgers find themselves really needing to get out of this in the next couple of years, and considering Furcal's age and ability I don't think they will, the damage will not be huge. So it might turn out to be a clunker, but one few will really notice as that. It's the contact that Furcal signs at age 31 (probably with the Cubs!) that will be the real clunker.
When ownership is using this season's large FA contracts as propaganda in next year's coming labor war, keep this in mind.
Brian Giles begs to differ.
Brian Giles begs to differ.
Considering what he apparently turned down, I think that one gets an asterisk, and that Sam's point stands.
Having figured out he won't get his 72 virgins in the Manny trade, Darren will settle for 47 virgins for Edgar Pudgy Renteria.
There'd be the same type of propaganda, and it would be just as false, no matter which way the free agent signings went this offseason.
The propaganda doesn't change what makes sense for the teams.
It also shows what a great deal that the Padres got in resigning Giles -- $9m a year for three years for a guy that hit 333/465/545 on the road last year.
If he'd gotten 5 years, $50 million, that would've been Furcal's last big contract, and he would only be getting the equivalent of $5.5 million/year the last two years (compared to the contract he did sign). Instead, he'll probably get to sign a 4 year/$50 million contract or something like that three years from now, and he'll look like a genius.
Well, with an argument like that, how could anybody disagree?
I'm not sure about that. 2009 and 2010 Furcal for an average of $5.5m doesn't seem too bad especially when you consider:
1. salary inflation. $5.5m in 2009 and 2010 will mean probably more like $4m million does today.
2. defered money. A 5 year deal would likely be back loaded and that would lower the NPV of the deal.
2009 and 2010 Furcal would likely be overpaid, but you'd make it back in the amount you'd underpay 2006 and 2007 Furcal and in the time value of money.
By being wrong.
The question is, how cheaply could they make up that difference elsewhere?
It's a decent signing for the Dodgers, too, because the NL West isn't very good, which makes wins worth slightly more, since fewer of them will get you closer to the division title. I haven't run any numbers, but this could be a signing that adds 5 wins to last year's Dodger team. Add 2-3 with Perez being healthy (if, of course, he is), and maybe 2-3 for Gagne being healthy as well, plus having a decent 3b (league-average, like Mueller or Randa), whoever it is, and the Dodgers suddenly are an 80-win team, which could even win the West. And, the team has a lot more upside than that. The kicker is that the deals need to be short, because there are fine 3b coming through the system.
With even two months of Bonds, the Giants will win more than 80 games, even with the assortment of sad that makes up most of the team.
If the attendance increases of the last two years brought with him a similar increase in marginal revenue, what a player is "worth" may very recently have changed.
Yes his market value is what someone will pay him but an increase in marginal revenue would likely increase what someone will pay.
The Dodgers have a cheap option at first base in Choi, but they haven't yet seemed inclined to use him. Also, the farm system is on the verge of burping up a fistful of inexpensive talent.
Are you talking about the Dodgers specifically, or overall in the MLB? In the MLB, a marginal run is worth about 330K on the free agent market, or about $3.3 million/marginal win. Using BP's RAA for fielding and batting, I get his established level of value at $10.3 million (weighting seasons 3/2/1) and I get $13.3 million combining FRAA and BRAR. Using UZR, Range, and RCAA, I got $14 million. Either way, Furcal is worth close to what he's getting, which makes it a pretty good deal.
Of course a lot of the increaased revenue isn't "marginal revenue" but rather shared revenue. New league TV deals, more international revenue, more web revenue, franchise fees (or the sale of the Nats) etc. don't depend on how many games your team wins (just ask the Royals and Marlins). No doubt having a winning team increases a team's local TV/cable deal (when it's signed) and presumably helps those with their own networks, but I suspect those revenues are stickier with regard to wins than attendance is.
As far as I know, attendance is still the biggest piece of the revenue pie, but I believe it is getting smaller in percentage terms all the time (paging Maury Brown).
So what I'm getting at is that I doubt that marginal $/win has changed substantially yet payroll is going up. It's going up because teams are not basing salaries on marginal $/win (or at least not solely) but rather are spending the extra revenue they have whether it's "marginal" revenue (or "win-dependent" revenue or whatever you want to call it) or "fixed" revenue.
Furcal is a great player, and he looks like a great businessman in this deal. Getting in and getting out quickly is a great strategy in MLB until there is another A-Rod level signing and clubs start backpedaling away from massive, long-term deals. The market value depreciation seems great on paper, but keep in mind that the players are people who do irrational things. Manny's demands for a trade every offseason remind me a little of Derek Bell and the infamous "Operation Shutdown".
Speaking of A-Rod, is there a countdown anywhere telling me how many days until he signs his next contract?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main