How Do You Solve a Problem Like the Jayson Werth-Ryan Howard Contract Situation?
by taco pal on Mar 18, 2010 4:08 PM EDT
113 comments
As I mentioned in another thread a while back, I had been working on an analysis of what we should do with Jayson Werth and Ryan Howard this offseason, but it got to be way too complicated. There are just way too many variables and moving parts to simply say Choose Door A or Choose Door B.
So instead, I'm just going to lay out in a list what I think are all of the relevant facts, followed by a few implications I draw from those facts, in haphazard, bullet-point style.
First, the facts. (This is not a quote. I just can't figure out how to indent without making the gray box.)
1. Jayson Werth's contract expires after this year.
2. Ryan Howard's contract expires after next year. He will be owed $20 million in 2011.
3. As of 2012, Werth and Howard will both have long-term deals somewhere.
4. Werth will probably get at least $16 million per year on his long-term deal.
5. As of 2012, we will not have both Werth and Howard under contract. (I'm not going to say the Phillies won't be able to afford both. But I do think they will consider it unwise to do so. And I suspect that they will be right. So it will be one or the other or neither.)
6. Both guys are about the same age, as both were born in 1979.
7. It is a somewhat better bet that Werth will age well than that Howard will age well, although this is pretty speculative.
8. Werth posted slightly more WARP in 2009, but his track record is shorter than Howard's.
9. Werth fields his position better than Howard fields his.
10. Werth bats righthanded. Howard bats lefthanded.
11. The deepest part of the Phillies' farm system is the outfield.
12. Domonic Brown is a corner outfielder who is expected to be ready in 2011.
13. Brown is lefthanded.
14. The only legitimate 1B prospect in the Phillies' farm system is 19 years old and played in the Gulf Coast League in 2009.
15. A lot of 1B are expected to be available as free agents this offseason (Dunn, Glaus, LaRoche, Derrek Lee, Carlos Pena, probably Nick Johnson, possibly Lance Berkman). None are as good as Howard, but they are all good players.
16. No matter what happens, we will not trade Howard during the 2010 season, nor will we trade him during the 2011 season. It will be during the upcoming offseason or not at all.
17. If Raul Ibañez plays well in 2010, he will be tradeable in the offseason. But we won't get much in return for him.
Next, some implications:
A. There is a reasonably strong (though not, I would say, conclusive) argument that Werth is already a better player than Howard. Plus, he will probably age better than Howard.B. Howard's trade value this offseason will probably be lower than a lot of people think. He will have only one year left on his contract, he will be owed $20 million, and there will be numerous legitimate 1B alternatives available on the 2010-11 FA market. Cliff Lee is a more valuable player than Howard who was only owed $9 million in the last year of his contract and who plays a more in-demand position, and yet, while I don't think the package of prospects we got back from Seattle was bad, nobody was blown away by it either.
C. If we let Werth walk, our consolation prize will be: two draft picks and $16 million of additional space under our budget. The good news is that, because of Domonic Brown, we will not have to use any of that $16 million on Werth's replacement. We can use it for other needs. (Pitching? Re-signing Rollins? Re-signing Howard? Extending Utley?) Brown will essentially be free in 2011.
D. If we trade Howard, we probably won't get as much back as people might be hoping (see Point B above). On the other hand, we will get $20 million of additional space under our budget. On the other other hand, we will probably have to use a good chunk of that $20 million on our replacement for Howard. We will also lose the possibility of getting any draft picks after the expiration of Howard's contract, should he choose to sign elsewhere.
E. There is a possibility that we will have good, sub-market players available to play all three outfield positions as early as 2012 or 2013. There is virtually no possibility that we will have a good, sub-market 1B during that time period.
And now, some final thoughts.
As you can probably tell from the overall tone of my post, I am leaning in the direction of concluding that we should just let Werth walk. There are too many uncertainties, though, to be definitive about it.
Letting Werth go would not necessarily mean giving Howard the extension he wants. Howard might be able to command a higher price on the open market than he is really worth (no pun intended). But if we don't extend Howard, we will have $25 million to spend elsewhere. As long as we get $25 million worth of talent for our $25 million, I don't care much if it's spent on Howard or on other players. The main thing is to *not* spend that money on a position where we have a more efficient alternative. That would be a waste.
On a related note, it's always important to keep in mind that the name of this game is not to get the best players, per se. No, the name of the game is to get the most out of your budget as you possibly can. If Joe Mauer becomes a FA this offseason and the Orioles have the money to get him (totally hypothetical), they should decline to do so because they already have Matt Wieters at $500,000/year. This is the case even though Wieters, as good of a prospect as he is, will almost certainly be far inferior to Mauer in 2011. The point is that Wieters will be a better *value*, and so the Orioles' money would be better spent elsewhere, even if on an inferior FA. By taking one inferior player, they can actually increase the overall talent level of their team.
I have seen some people advocate a sort of "triple bankshot" solution, in which we would extend Werth, trade Howard and Ibañez, acquire a 1B in one of those trades or as a FA, and promote Brown. I can understand the appeal of that solution, but the more bankshots there are in a plan, the less you can really rely on being able to pull it off. Talent is fungible to a degree, but it isn't perfectly fungible.
Finally, I understand that Werth is righthanded, and that if we just replace him with Brown, then all of our power hitters will be lefthanded. That is not ideal, but I don't think it should influence our decision-making that much. Having a balanced lineup is a good thing, but it still remains the case that (1) the vast majority of our at-bats are not going to come against situational lefties, and (2) there's only so much that teams can do to manipulate their pitching staffs to make them more lefthanded, even in the postseason. There are only so many *good* LOOGYs around. If the other team wants to load up its bullpen with crappy LOOGYs to face us, well, I'm alright with that. Obviously, it would hurt us in close games if our lineup were to become imbalanced, but it's better to have a more talented team that does worse in close games than it is to have a less talented team that does better in close games.
0 recs |
113 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Interesting
But why not the 3rd way?
Trade Howard, let Ibanez play first, bring up Dom Brown to play left, sign Werth to a long-term deal?
This way the Phillies get some prospects back to bolster the farm system, we save cap money, and Brown doesn’t rot in AAA.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Mar 18, 2010 4:23 PM EDT reply actions
That’s not a bad idea, as it would involve one less bankshot. But can Ibanez play first? I know it’s the easiest position on the diamond, but still – it’s hard to teach a 38-year-old new tricks. Plus, Ibanez’s contract will be up after 2011 and we still won’t have a sub-market 1B alternative on the horizon by then, in all probability. So we’ll still be looking at two big contracts from 2011 onward, when we could have been looking at one.
If we got a good young 1B back for Howard when we traded him, that might square the circle. But that seems unlikely. A team with a good young 1B wouldn’t have as much of an incentive to trade for Howard.
What about a team that needs a new DH (Boston, imma lookin’ at you)?
Ibanez has proven amendable to any challenge that he’s thus far faced and I have every confidence he can play 1B. According to Fangraphs he’s played a few games at first and seems to be borderline below average but then again, he is replacing Ryan Howard so it’s not as much of a downgrade as one would think.
Of course, this is all contingent on how Singleton(?) does in the minors this year. If he’s as much of a sleeper as he could be having Ibanez hold the fort for one year and getting a random dude to hold the fort the next year or two strikes me as an efficient use of somewhat stretched financial resources. Bill Baer did a good run down on trading Howard and maintaining the teams collective WAR rating at the same time.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Mar 18, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions
If Boston had two 1Bs and needed a new DH, wouldn’t they just move one of their existing 1B to DH?
I think Baer goes off the rails on two points. First, he analyzes whether it would be worthwhile to trade Howard without analyzing what Howard would be likely to bring back. Second, and more importantly, he doesn’t account for Domonic Brown – instead, he assumes that the replacement for Howard would be a free-agent IF and that the replacement for Werth would be a free-agent OF. But the replacement for Werth would almost certainly not be a free-agent OF, it would be Brown.
(If Ibanez were to move to 1B, then the replacement for Howard would be Brown too. But only for one year. In 2012, there’s a good chance that we’d again be faced with having one outfielder too many and one infielder too few.)
I think your point — that even in the “trade Howard, install Ibanez at first” scenario, we’d still need a new first baseman in 2012 — is well-taken. I guess I’m assuming that the Phillies are likely to be operating under the either/or proposition, and that: (a) Werth’s long-term deal would be for significantly less than Howard’s; and (b) it’s easier to replace Howard’s production at first base than it is to replace Werth’s in right field.
I’m actually warming up to RTP’s suggestion below. Let both guys walk, sign a free agent to take over for Howard at 1B, and then use the rest of the savings on other needs. (Extend Utley and Rollins? Upgrade 3B? New pitcher?) Of course, I think we should do this if and only if Howard demands something unreasonable. If Howard’s demands are more modest than that, then we should just go ahead and sign him.
I cite Boston mostly because of the struggles of David Ortiz and the need to keep Victor Martinez at catcher for the foreseeable future, thus leaving their DH slot open.
You raise an excellent point about what exactly would the Phillies get in prospective Ryan Howard trade, but I think that’s somewhat secondary because trading Howard should be, and is about, salary. Additionally, your criticism of Baer’s initial thoughts are accurate, and to his credit he somewhat recanted his stance into one more in line to what I am espousing here later on. The strength of what I propose is that it offers greater in-house certainty and continuity for the near-term which is what may be needed until the relative dearth of corner infield talent resolves itself.
Having one outfielder too many may bite us in the ass in 2012 (with the only possible departure being Victorino) but at the same time it becomes easier to trade outfield prospects when you know there’s going to be a backlog (with the Phillies taking the pick of the litter), but that is neither here nor there.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Mar 18, 2010 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, I see where we’re getting mixed up. I didn’t mean to question whether Boston might have interest in Howard. I’m sure there are several teams that would have at least some interest in him. The point I was trying to make was that any team with a young, major league-ready 1B probably won’t be willing to include that young 1B in a trade for Howard. And unless they do, that will leave us with a hole at 1B that will probably have to be filled with a market-price acquisition, either in 2011 or in 2012 (unlike the hole Werth would leave).
I’m less concerned about having too many outfielders than I am about having too few infielders. It’s not that I’m worried that we won’t be able to find another infielder. What concerns me is that, under these circumstances, it will be an inefficient allocation of resources to pay big bucks to an outfielder.
The one good thing is that 1B is probably the easiest infield position to fill …depth-wise and by it’s skill requirements. There has been for the last few years a good number of mid range 1st baseman who don’t light the world on fire but don’t leave a crater in your offense like replacing your power hitting 2nd basemen with a one step above ulitilty /journeyman middle infielder cause dem pickins’ for 2nd basemen are slim. (Although we have Polanco). I think Casey Kotchman type is a good stop gap for a yr. or two and might not break the bank…However your still at the mercy of the market and perhaps the well of 1B in 2011 or 2012 runneth dry leaving you with little option but to overpay some unworthy FA
The Winner!!!
Sorry it looks like I copied your post…I did not plagiarize…we just have the same thought pattern.
Nice post!
Two quicks points/questions:
1. Is your assumption that Werth will “age better” than Howard based on PECOTA projections, your gut feeling or something else? and
2. All things being equal, you seem genuinely conflicted about who we should seek to retain long term. (assuming they decide not to keep both). Is there any chance this resolves itself from their actual contract demands? What I mean is, if Werth or Howard really wants to stay and will sign for consideraly less than the other, wouldn’t that become one of the most important factors in the decision making.
1. I think it’s based on a post that someone here wrote a year or two ago, but I can’t remember what the exact reasoning of it was. (I know, very rigorous.) I don’t feel terribly strongly about this point though.
2. Only Werth and Howard know for sure, of course. But I’d suspect Werth would be disinclined to do this, since he hasn’t made a ton of money so far in his career and will already be 31 at the end of this year. Howard has made some pretty good money, but the rumblings in the press have all been pretty unanimous that he is going to go for it on the market oo.
let both go
How about letting Werth go after this year and replacing him with Brown? Is Werth going to be a type A?
Next year, let Howard play out his contract and get two picks for him. Sign a fair to middling 1b, lose a pick, and move on.
I would avoid the “Utley” to first talk that pops up from time to time, btw. Utley at 1b is average(er) and it’ll be easier to find ops from the 1b position. The advantage the phils retain in the 2b slot would remain high while not losing much at 1b in comparison to the rest of the league.
I’m not liking the idea of 36 yo Werth or Howard at 15 – 20mm, honestly (assuming a 5y deal).
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Mar 18, 2010 5:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
According to Wiki:
Type A free agents are those determined by the Elias Sports Bureau to be in the top 20% of all players based on the previous two seasons. Type B free agents are those in the next twentieth percentile. Unclassified free agents are those remaining in the bottom sixtieth percentile.
So, considering how great he was in 2009, Werth would probably have to fall out of the top third of players in 2010 to not be a Type A, which seems unlikely to me (barring injury). And he’s pretty much guaranteed to be a Type B at the very least.
Definitely agree with you on Utley.
so if we let both go we get good picks in return, and even better picks if he goes to a team that usually ends up with a bad record. I’m assuming an elite club will sign Howard, but i’m not so sure a second tier team that usually has a worse record wouldn’t be able to attract Werth with a big money contract.
Who would age better?
Athletic outfielders generally don’t fall off a cliff like fat first basemen do.
That’s the brash way to put it.
Now I realize Howard isn’t necessarily as big as he used to be, but his game is centered around drilling pitches hard to the right side of the field. He hits lots of LF flyball homers as well… but what I’m getting at is he is a very one dimensional player with minimal fielding prowess. Once he loses just a little bit of bat speed, he’s got absolutely nothing to fall back on.
Werth can cover ground, is a good defender, steals bases, etc….he’s not a 50HR guy…but he’s a 30 HR guy who puts the ball in play, and might be able to leg out a slow roller to short once in a while.
short version
It is not either/or. The choices are: one, both, neither. “Neither” should not be reflexively ignored.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Mar 18, 2010 5:29 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Bonus points for the Sound of Music reference.
Oh, and…
So instead, I’m just going to lay out in a list what I think are all of the relevant facts, followed by a few implications I draw from those facts, in haphazard, bullet-point style.…I like it!
Seriously though, you’ve done a nice job collecting all of the relevant data points and arguments involved in this situation. Personally, I’d prefer to engineer a solution that keeps Werth around, and I’m on board with Jose when he says above that he’d move Ibanez to first base.* That being said, that’s a solution that would take a fair amount of creativity, while just letting Werth walk is the simpler solution (and it’s not an obviously inferior one, either).
*Incidentally, I think Ibanez would be alright at first; he’s started 115 games there in his career, and he grades out the exact same as Howard on the Fans Scouting Report (with better footwork, for what it’s worth).
Interesting. I knew Ibanez used to be a catcher, but I didn’t know he’d played first.
But like I said above, it worries me that if we play Ibanez at first, we’re probably (obviously a lot can happen between now and then but I think this is the most likely scenario) still going to have to bring in a market-price 1B. We’ll just have to do it one year later. I don’t know if this will make us any better off than we would be if we just let Howard play out his contract and then leave.
I’m guessing we will not be offering arbitration to Ibanez, so instead of Howard for one year + two draft picks, we’ll get Howard’s trade return instead. And like I said above, Howard’s trade return might not be that high. It’s possible that it’ll even be less valuable than the picks.
Y'know...
I wish I’d read this before I offered my rebuttal, it says what I want better in so many words.
"I remember being three and I wanted to be a baseball player, that's all I ever really wanted to be. That and Spider Man." -Raul Ibanez
by Jose and the Contrarians on Mar 18, 2010 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I should probably spell out what I meant in Point E above.
2010: Ibanez, Victorino, Werth (Werth’s contract expires after the season)
2011: Ibanez, Victorino, Brown (Ibanez’s contract expires after the season)
2012: Gillies, Victorino, Brown (Victorino’s contract expires after the season)
2013: Gillies, Gose?, Brown (Brown eligible for arbitration after the season)
Victorino will make $9.5 million in 2012, which should be below market price then. So we’d be at sub-market in 2012, and really sub-market in 2013. Which means we’d be able to spend nearly the entirety of our very substantial budget on the infield and the pitching staff, which would be pretty cool.
But obviously, this is all super-speculative.
Another factor
What if any affect do you think PR or fan perception would have on the decision who to keep and who to let go? It would be a tough sell to trade Howard.
Agent Green
Just send Dallas Green to the papers and WIP to talk about Howard not being “disciplined” and “failing to develop” as a player. And also being “satisfied.” Worked with Schilling, Rolen, etc.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
If you let Werth walk
don’t you have to offer him arbitration to get the two draft picks? Chances are he declines, but it is not an automatic by any means is it? If the economy is still down, who knows maybe he accepts arb for a one year deal??
vr, Xei
Amaro is stupidly allergic to arbitration all too frequently, but in Werth’s case, if his 2010 performance resembles his 2009 performance in any way, there’s simply no way that Amaro won’t offer him arbitration. Werth is simply too good of a player for that. The “downside” of being “stuck” with him for a year is too minimal not to be offset by the upside of getting picks. Amaro will offer it to him, and if he accepts, Amaro will adjust.
ok, thanks
Just thought you may want to add that scenario to your very well documented post above.
vr, Xei
That post is already too unwieldy as is so we’ll just leave it in the comments, but it’s a good point. And it reminds me: in addition to Werth, I think Amaro is certain to offer arbitration to Howard after 2011 if he’s still here then. But he’s also pretty certain not to offer arbitration to Ibanez after 2011. So we’ll get nothing when Ibanez leaves.
As someone else brought up somewhere, Werth will likely not accept any sort of arbitration unless we pay him gobs of cash (maybe like 30 mil a year). He hasnt made too much money in his career, so he is probably really looking for that long term contract. If that means the $ per year is lower than normal, I dont think hed care.
by philiafan14364 on Mar 21, 2010 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions
I prefer keeping both Werth and Howard, and I believe that it can be done within the Phils' payroll constraints, but ...
if I had to lose Howard, I would be satisfied with the following outcome:
1. Sign Adam Dunn next off-season to replace Howard at first and in the lineup; and
2. Next off-season, trade Howard and Ruiz to the Giants in exchange for -
Matt Cain and Buster Posey.
(I assume that the Giants would be able to negotiate an extension with Howard before the trade is completed.)
The Phils would then have a strong lineup 1 through 8 and, perhaps, the best rotation in baseball (Halladay, Hamels, Cain, Blanton and Happ).
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 18, 2010 10:30 PM EDT reply actions
Next off-season, trade Howard and Ruiz to the Giants in exchange for Matt Cain and Buster Posey.
I guess if anyone’s dumb enough to pull the trigger on a deal that nets him an established veteran bat, it’s Sabean… but I don’t even think he’s capable of that. To be really honest, Buster Posey alone would be an unbelievable return on Ryan Howard.
by PhillyFriar on Mar 18, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed. I would trade Howard and Ruiz for Posey alone (maybe a throw in B prospect as well). Posey is ranked as the 19th best prospect, he plays great defense and is another possible star…on top of that he would come unbelievably cheap for the next 5 years….
It still doesn’t work out you outfield problem in 2011 however, because you still have 1 too many guys…unless Ibeanez can play 1st for a season.
by Clyde Simmons on Mar 19, 2010 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions
You may be right.
If so, what specific players might the Phils pry loose from the Giants (assuming 1] that Sabean exercises good judgment and 2] that a long-term deal with Howard is reached)? If there is a better potential deal elsewhere, what specific players from what team could the Phils get for Howard next off-season?
Who would replace Howard? What specific improvements would you make to the 2011 team, if any?
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 19, 2010 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I admit to being an Adam Dunn fanboy. Dunn gives an awful lot of what Howard does, plus he’s cheaper.
A nice post about Dunn below. His war is hurt by futile attempts to put him in lf, but if he’s at first, his war is not far off howard, plus he won’t cost 20 million+.
I think that there may be some appeal to Dunn to coming to a winner with a cozy park as opposed to losing in dc for another few years. The nats are parking a kid at Harrisburg in AA (Marrero) who looks like the 1b of the future for them. I don’t think the nats want to keep Dunn for more than a couple of years, tops. I think he leaves dc this year. Too bad it’s a year early, unless the phillies trade howard.
http://atmajors.com/2010-articles/march/should-the-nats-really-be-trying-to-lock-up-adam-dunn.html
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Mar 18, 2010 11:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I’ve been watching the Reds Minor Leagues closely the last few years as their Double A team is like 10 minutes from my house and I run into the players from time to time in town. They have a logjam at 1st, 2nd and LF and they’re only real Pitching prospect of note is Chapman (though you may argue Mike Leake, everyone else’s ceiling is pretty much 5th starter) and no real CF prospects. Depending how the season plays out, you could trade one or more of the CF or P prospects for Yonder Alonso to play 1st or for Todd Frazier to play 2nd (assuming a move of Utley to cover 1st). With Joey Votto, already with the big club, the Reds literally have no position for Alonso. Frazier isn’t blocked as badly, as they seem to think of him as a LF prospect, though his bat will play much, much better at 2nd than it ever will as a corner outfielder.
Just a thought, not really sure how realistic it is, as many of the Reds organizational holes match ours (3rd, SS, C).
Could go either way
I think for the Phillies they should and probably will let Werth walk. Brown is the heir apparent, has a cannon arm, and can hit for power and has speed, he’s 5 tool, cheap for 6 years. I know its an extreme longshot, but if the Phils were shown that Brown was MLB ready this year, they could deal Werth for a nice return of prospects or a big time need (such as bullpen help).
With Howard, I would hold onto him, but the problem is that his price tag is going to go up, and the way he has produced the last couple of years, the contract will probably be too expensive. Dont forget Prince Fielder will be available soon as well, but there will be price concerns with him as well.
Phillies have shown they arent afraid to spend money and that they arent afraid to deal for prospects for immediate needs. I wouldnt be surprised at all to see the Phils keep them both and trade Brown away. Problem with that philosophy is that if and when it catches up with you, it happens to be very swift and sudden, ala the Cubs and Giants.
howard stays,werth goes, and phils bring brown up! howard isnt going anywhere..yet. werth will not play for less for the phils and if they dont come correct with the cash he is gone. if the yanks dont get crawford,they will go after werth. this is if they want to continue winning now. do you really want to risk trades for prospects that might not pan out or do stick with proven players that have playoff experience and are winners for a little extra cash! if you’re looking for the future… you do the trades and risk blowing chances for winning a championship or multiple crowns!!
do you really want to risk trades for prospects that might not pan out or do stick with proven players that have playoff experience and are winners for a little extra cash! if you’re looking for the future… you do the trades and risk blowing chances for winning a championship or multiple crowns!!
Do you really want to risk going for short-term championship runs that might not pan out and risk blowing chances for having great players for the entire first halves of their careers or more?
How Do You Solve a Problem Like the Jayson Werth-Ryan Howard Contract Situation?
Let’s not jump the gun. Werth’s market value will depend highly on his performance this year. Rubin will make him an offer (contract extension) this season either way and Werth will probably take it. I think he likes Philly too much. Rubin will have to be competitive for Werth to accept his extension. It’s weighing the benefits of the possibility of signing with a losing team or staying in Philadelphia. Philadelphia will not lose Ryan Howard. They will pay him what he wants for sure.
The Phil’s farm system is very rich in good outfielders. Either they will trade them for a superstar or bring one or two of them up. Look forward to getting Cliff Lee back if they do not win the world series in 2010.
The best scenario would be, unfortunately, is that Werth gets hurt. I hope that does not happen but it is a possibility.
Russell Smith
http://www.landisnetusa.com
by Landisnetusa.com on Mar 19, 2010 8:46 PM EDT reply actions
The best scenario would be, unfortunately, is that Werth gets hurt.
No, that would not actually be the best scenario.
The best scenario would be, unfortunately, is that Werth gets hurt.
That was so odd I had to try to fathom the logic….here goes
he gets injured
loses value
no longer the hot commodity for other teams.
is forced to take home team discount
heals
return as Werth of ’09 or some facsimile of last year.
a bit “karmically conspiratorial” for me
Short term, that would not be the best case scenario.
Long term though, I would definatley agree with Landisnetusa, Werth getting hurt is the best case scenario.
by philiafan14364 on Mar 21, 2010 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Why not? A one-year salary dump should not be too hard since the old guy is still productive.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 22, 2010 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Matts post below basically sumed up my thoughts on the matter. We can trade him, but wed still be the ones paying him.
by philiafan14364 on Mar 22, 2010 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Werth,Howard contracts
Why wouldn’t the Phils sign Werth to a new contract,Bring up the kid form the minors.trade Howard and Raul for as much as hey can get,,,,and sign gree agent Adam Dunn to put the power back at firstbase????,,,that would give us cap room and replenish our farm system,,,,,
by Phillies Phan In Phoenix on Mar 21, 2010 11:36 PM EDT reply actions
Few thoughts
1) Moving anybody to 1B is a bad move. Players who can play other positions are almost worth less at 1B because the equivalently priced player at LF (if Ibanez) or 2B (if Utley) will be less productive than spending the money on a Free Agent 1B.
2) Trading Howard will net us basically nothing. If you tried to sign a free agent first baseman for $20MM, you don’t get much worse than what Howard will give you in 2011. Plus, it’s actually $21MM because Howard gets a $1MM bonus if traded. So you basically get a low-A pitcher with some fatal flaw that might still be, but probably won’t be, a reliever some day if he tries hard enough. That’s the market for Howard.
3) Werth will take deferred money or a back-loaded contract if you pay him enough. And if they sign Werth, they should do just that. The value of money now vs. later is higher for the Phillies than Werth. So they can fit him in for 2011.
4) They should absolutely keep Rollins, and accept the fact that he is going to get a lot more in 2012, easily twice his salary. It’s impossible to find a productive SS on the free agent market, and how many great teams survive without being markedly above average up the middle?
5) Signing Howard long-term should really depend on how well they think he can age vs. how well other teams think he can age. The Phillies know Howard’s health and his day-to-day sorenesses and aches better than anyone. Players that re-sign with their old teams age far better than players that don’t, because teams that have the inside info know whether to hold onto them.
6) Trading Ibanez is a possibility but you need to accept that you will have to eat some salary. 29 teams were unwilling to pay him $31.5MM for 2009-2011. All of those teams knew he’d be better in 2009 than 2010, and better in 2010 than 2011. That means that as of December 2008, no one in the league valued his 2011 expected production higher than $8-9MM. Now, he has injury problems. I’d expect that if you got nothing real back for Ibanez, you should pay $4-5MM of his salary.
7) The Phillies will not be competitive in 2012 unless either: (a) several players already under contract significantly outproduce their expected production (b) several players sign huge hometown discounts, or © players earning the league minimum produce notably.
The Phillies 2012 payroll will probably be about $150-160MM, and the only players who will be earning less than market value in 2012 are (a) Hamels, (b) Halladay, © Happ, (d) Utley, (e) Blanton. The amount that they spent on those guys would buy about 10 wins less on the free agent market. If you spend $160MM in 2012, get 10 wins over market value, and nothing else— you win about 75-80 games. Of course, there’s no team in baseball that won’t produce at least some talent from the minor league system in that time. The question really becomes do you think that the Phillies can get about 10-15 wins out of young players in 2012? They’d almost certainly need a couple outfielders on the cheap and a starter and a few relievers. The odds of them succeeding in 2012 and on without Domonic Brown being part of the picture are nearly impossible.
It seems like they should sign Werth, but backload it so 2011 is manageable. They do need a righty. If Brown seems ready to go, trade Ibanez and eat a few million. Put Brown in left. If Brown performs, re-sign Howard if he seems like he is healthier than people think. If Brown struggles, let him go. Let Victorino go after 2011 pretty much regardless. Sign Rollins pretty much regardless.
Ultimately, I think they are wasting resources if they try to be competitive without a RH power hitter. It lowers everyone else’s value too much. Werth is most valuable to us with LF being so easy to hit HR at CBP. Being competitive at any point in 2012-2015 probably involves keeping Rollins. Being competitive in 2012 will require Brown being at least average, if not better, and will probably require a SP from the current farm being able to produce an ERA in the low 4’s and give us 180 IP. I think it would probably also require at least a competent CF from the minors, though it can be a rascally 8-hole hitter type guy.
I’m more than happy to hear thoughts back. I liked reading through this thread, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. I really love Howard most, but I can’t see competing well in 2011 without Werth, and I can’t see being so far out of the race that they rebuild. The Phillies inside knowledge on Howard and Domonic Brown’s 2010 improvement are the keys, I think.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 22, 2010 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
victorino
oops, just remembered they signed Victorino for 2012. not sure i would have done that. i guess you’d probably want to trade him for all the same reasons.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 22, 2010 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we’re more than half in agreement here, although we disagree on Werth (tentatively, at least).
To me, the key is this: “The question really becomes do you think that the Phillies can get about 10-15 wins out of young players in 2012?”
I don’t know if we will or not, but I do know that if we don’t we’ll probably be screwed no matter what else we do — so therefore, we should act as if we’re going to get those wins from our young players. If Domonic Brown doesn’t pan out, we’re not going to stay competitive, full stop. So let’s hitch our wagon to him, roll the dice and let it ride.
More broadly, I think we also know that if the wins are going to come from young players anywhere in the lineup, they’re almost certainly going to come from the outfield, and they will almost certainly not come from 1B. So to the extent that we have to choose between the two on where to spend our market-rate resources, I think we have to choose 1B.
If we have room to pay one outfielder in addition to our 1B, then I still don’t know if extending Werth this winter is the best way to do it. While Werth is the best player among our current outfielders, I don’t know that market-rate Werth is any more valuable than [market-rate Victorino + several millions of dollars]. And if it’s really the case that we’d need to pay $4-5 million to unload Ibanez (I don’t know if I agree with that figure but will leave that for another day), then even if we were able to backload Werth, we’d still have to pay him an above-market price for 2011 including the price to unload Ibanez, plus we’d have to look forward to his backloaded years coming when he’s 35 or 36. Finally, if we sign Werth with the expectation of trading Ibanez or Victorino, we further depress Ibanez’s and Victorino’s trade value since teams will know that we have no choice but to unload them, which is another cost that has to be factored in.
Right, defniitely hitch our wagon to Brown. If the team falls flat, everyone else can be traded at market value for prospects. It would suck, but you clearly have to rebuild if you have a 75-win, $155MM team.
Assuming we are competitive, I agree we’re not going to get production at 1B from the minors. An alternative would be signing a 2-win player for $10MM instead of a 4.5-win player for $22.5MM is downgrading at market value but it doesn’t really give the savings. Who is a 2-win RH 1B, after all?
I think that we could still get fair value even if people know that we were going to trade Victorino or Ibanez. It’s basically any team with an opening in their OF or DH. There are enough bidders there that I think we’d be able to get market value. You only get screwed over in a trade if the number of bidders is too low relative to the number of sellers. We’d be flexible with the option to trade one or the other, especially since Victorino was a plus-RF.
If you have no pre-free agency talent, yes. 2/3 of all WARP come from guys with less than six years of service time. In 2012, if we’re dealing with about $6MM/WARP then and replacement level is about 40-122 according to WARP’s replacement level, we’re looking at 67-95. You pretty much need non-market (pre-free agency) guys to win. The most WARP of any team got in the last three years from guys w/ 6 years service time was the Yankees 2009 with 46.3. That’s very rare. The 2008 Cubs got 40 WARP3, but only 8 teams have even managed 30 WARP3 from market-value guys in the last three years, and 3 of those were the Yankees.
Interesting. I would have guessed mid-70s or so.
If the nightmare scenario were to come about, I’m sure the Phils would also pick up a couple of additional WAR here and there just from having some sub-market players in the bench or bullpen somewhere. but that doesn’t change the overall point, of course.
another option
Here’s what I think they should do…
Use the OF depth. Trade Victorino, and use that money (plus more, of course) to sign Werth. Do it this year if you can get a great return. Move Werth to CF, and use Brown/Mayberry/Francisco/Gload/etc. to man the third OF spot. If you push the right buttons, your production won’t fall off substantially. The Reds might be a good trading partner—would an Alonso/Victorino trade be fair?
Then let Howard walk for the draft picks. At that point, you hope Alonso is your 1B solution, and your OF is Brown/Gillies/QBerry/Werth, way above average defensively and with a lot of offensive potential. And you have freed up a LOT of money for other holes (3B?).
Agree with Matt that extending Rollins is a must. I’m worried a bit about the 34-year-old SS wall, though.
Minor league reviews at philliesphans.com. Also check out http://phillychuck.blogspot.com/ for prospect pics and analysis.
Alonso is a 3-star prospect according to Kevin Goldstein, which would mean just outside the Top 100, which usually makes him worth maybe $8MM in value. Victorino after 2011 would have one year at $9.5MM when he’s probably worth closer to $12.5MM, plus he’d net a couple picks, so that’s maybe $10-12MM in value. I think it would work. Only thing is that I don’t see the point of trading for another LH bat. We want to avoid LOOGYs in our lineup even w/o Howard there (I know Ibanez and Utley hit lefties well recently, but you need to regress the hell out of splits because of sample size). We also have a park with something like a 100 home run park factor to RF and a 120-130 home run park factor of LF. We could use something from the right side if we’re going to be trading that way.
I think your team is pretty cheap, and I assume you’d still want to spend $150MM if that’s what ownership wants to spend. Where would you put the extra money? If Victorino, Howard, and Werth are gone in 2012 and Rollins is extended at about $20MM/year, you still have about $60MM to spend. Where do you add talent?
I guess what I’m realizing is that 1B is just a good spot for the Phillies to spend money, and Howard is certainly the first name to consider.
rollins at 20 mil a year? you think? maybe if he can get his avg and OBP back up, but if he has another year like last’s he’s not going to get 20 mil.
I’d been thinking we might be able to get him for $15 per. He might actually be worth closer to $20, but this is just my gut feeling as to how things would turn out IRL.
It would be to the Phillies’ advantage to extend J-Roll sooner rather than later, since he’s under contract for such low salaries for both 2010 and 2011. They could trade a raise now for more reasonable numbers down the road, just like what they did on his current contract. I had figured that that was the whole reason why they picked up his option as early as they did, but it doesn’t look like they’ve actually started any negotiations yet.
i’d probably wait until about half way through the season this year until I finalize a contract just because his numbers were so bad this year I’d want to see some improvement to prove to me he’s even worth 15mil a year. I also think that any contract he gets should be front loaded because we all know he’s past his prime. If anything I would extend him through 2015 if at all possible
packimop, he doesn’t seem like a $15-20MM player because he plays SS. the average NL SS last year had a .723 OPS last year. rollins had a .719 OPS last year in the worst year of his career. he had a .251 BABIP but BABIP is subject to a lot of fluctuation. at the risk of teasing my for-pay articles this week at Baseball Prospectus, Rollins is about a .290 BABIP kind of guy. the average NL SS also only gets about 15 SB with 6 CS. rollins got 31 SB and 8 CS. that’s another million plus right there. he’s also ELITE defensively, worth about $5MM extra above average right there.
he was worth about 2.5 wins according to both WARP and WAR last year. that’s about $10-15MM right there of value depending on how you do it. he’s almost definitely worth more than 4 wins next year, so he really should be worth closer to $20MM.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 22, 2010 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I like Yonder (saw him 4-5 times in person last year and I like his play) and advocated trading for him above. He is as blocked organizationally as any player in baseball and the Reds badly need a leadoff hitting CF. I would be okay with this option, especially since Gillies is kid of a faster, younger version of Vic.
Jason Werth is a journeyman player. You’re talking about a player of Ryan Howard’s caliber: superstar with a number of unprecedented accomplishments on his wall, versus a guy who had one very good season? Ridicuolus conversation. If the Phillies are gonna sign either of them it’s Howard, no question. Any conversation beyond that is a waste of time. They’ll either sign Howard or neither of them. I wouldn’t gave Werth anything more than $10M.
missed yoooo!!!!
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Mar 22, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
The line between Proven Veteran All-Star and Journeyman has gotten way, way finer with all these fancy stats & whatnot.
by Wet Luzinski on Mar 23, 2010 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
There is no such player is Jason Werth. There is a player named Jayson Werth who is an elite all-star with three straight seasons around .850-.900 OPS with above average defense and base-running. He’s worth about $15-20MM at least.
I think your first step is to do some reading on what wins baseball games. If you’re looking at AVG HR and RBI, try replacing those with SLG and OBP. The latter are better reflections of the two skills you’re looking at, which is ability to score runs (OBP is better than AVG) and ability to move runners who are already on base around (SLG is better than HR and RBI).
Also, if you think Howard is so much better than Werth, he’ll get much more money too. Remember that the goal isn’t to have the best players and run out of money. You want to have the best value given your team’s payroll.
I'm hoping for a team discount
These guys have got to love playing together and because their such a good team I wonder if Howard or Werth would sign here a little cheaper than elsewhere. Esp if we win a WS this year.
Mostly wishful thinking, but I do think there is some benefit at roster margins, where you can get guys who have limited functionality but a long career of success who just want to experience winning once before they retire. Not so much at the core, particularly if the core is getting great results. Organizations will have to pay for that because the organization is also reaping some super rewards too. Otherwise the Yankees would have great and really small payroll teams.
More to the benefit of the winning/playoff-level organization is that they can be much more ruthless with respect to loyalty, because guys will want to play here. Medium-term observers of the the Phillies’ recent ascent to playoff perennial status have noticed that the Phils haven’t had to call on the hardhat-wearing rank&file from the IBEW to nob-slobber over any potential FAs.
Then you get exceptions who prove the rules in many ways, like Chan Ho Park. He expected the reward, the Phillies were ruthless, yet the Yankees picked him up at a bargain basement price. There are really too many variables, and dollars, at work here to believe that there is much of a dynamic here, and red pinstripes, Yankees mystique, Red Sox Nation, Dodger blue is just fan blather (I’m in the midst of reading Ball Four, so ever ‘twas thus if you believe Bouton). If it works out that you you play for your childhood-idolized team, that’s wonderful, but getting to the major leagues is truly like the camel through the eye of the needle. You play where you’re planted or dealt, make as much as you can for as long as you can, and can consider yourself damn lucky if you do.
by Wet Luzinski on Mar 23, 2010 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions
btw I’m not saying that such things NEVER happen at the core (look at Halladay for instance), I’m saying that it’s more likely you reap benefits at roster spots 21-40. Or should. Interesting fodder for a post… I’ll put in my compost pile. Any other thoughts or links out there on this topic?
by Wet Luzinski on Mar 23, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Joe Mauer got me thinking about this. He signed for a home town discount, but he’s still getting ~$23M/year. I heard some statements that he could have become an FA and gotten another 50 or 60 M (which would have made him about $30M/year player). If that is the case, he’s a discount for the Twins, but he still accounts for ~25% of their payroll (assuming last year’s numbers with a slight rise). Being a mid-market team (albeit one with a beautiful new stadium), I assume their payroll will stay in the 100M range, that would leave them relying heavily on home grown, inexpensive talent .
That’s it for my incomplete thought for now. My attention span is way too short for in depth posting.
I think baseball ticket sales
actually increase during bad economic times, because there the cheapest tix out their. I’ve been to probably 100x more phillies games than Eagles, Flyers, and Sixers combined. But this might only be true in big sports towns. The twin could be trying to create the same type of dynamic we have goin on here.
Actually, people have more discretionary income when economic times are good, so they spend less on sporting events in general. Sports may seem like substitutes conditional on spending money on sports, but the effect of whether to spend on sports at all is larger. A better substitute may be how good the seats are, and whether to watch on TV.
Obvious Solution
Trade Howard…sign Werth.
Brown in left, Ibenz to first, Werth stays in right.
werth.howard situation
ok Dunn plays first,,,,victorinos contact is peanuts compared to what werth and howard are gonna get,,,,we are going on the assumption that if we pay howard what he’s gonna be asking it will mean we won’t be able to sign werth and other players we need to stay in the hunt.
by Phillies Phan In Phoenix on Mar 23, 2010 12:29 AM EDT reply actions
Keep Howard, Werth, and Rollins.
1. Sign Werth to a 3- or 4-year extension early this season at $12-14 million per (Werth has been a pro since 1997 and has not accomplished much; 2009 was his first full year as a starter; both Holliday and Bay have much better track records than Werth, and each is being paid $16 million per);
2. Dump Ibanez after 2010, and replace him with Brown;
3. Sign Howard to a 4- or 5-year extension after 2011 at $22-25 million per;
4. Let Lidge go after 2011 and replace him with Aumont;
5. Trade Victorino for a good prospect after 2011, and replace him with Gillies/Gose;
6. Sign Rollins to a 3- or 4-year extension after 2011 at $15 million per;
7. Add a prospect like May or Ramirez to the rotation in 2012, so that the rotation consists of Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, Happ and May/Ramirez;
8. Trade Polanco after 2011, and replace him with a young guy that we pick up from outside the organization (maybe in a trade for Victorino and one of the Phils’ other OF prospects);
9. Let Romero go when his $4 million contract expires;
10. Staff the bullpen from within the organization starting in 2010 with cheap guys like Bastardo, Mathieson, Schwimer, Rosenberg and others; and
11. Extend Hamels by 3 or 4 years after 2011 to a market-level contract.
I think these moves can be made with a payroll in the neighborhood of $150 million with a balance of big-ticket stars and cheap, pre-arbitration players and a lot of fresh young blood.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 24, 2010 12:20 PM EDT reply actions
you're doing the same thing
You’re failing to understand basic market value. Your solution entails a mixture of (a) signing players for less than they will be offered elsewhere, (b) trading players away at the end of contracts that they signed based on market value, and © assuming that prospects will pan out at anything position you want.
Point by point:
1) Werth will not sign at $12-14 million per unless his productive falls off or he gets hurt. Players are not paid based on “how much they’ve accomplished” on the free agent market. A repeat performance, and Werth will get probably $18 million per year if he signs a 3-year deal. He’s already a four win player, which would get him $20 million. Assume a little decline in his 30s, and he’ll get $18 million per. He’s a much better fielder than Bay, and teams now know this.
2) You can’t automatically dump Ibanez without eating salary. No one was willing to pay him as much as we were when they expected to at least get his age-37 performance. Now his salary is going up and his value is going down. Plus, he got hurt. You’d need to eat salary.
3) This may be even be on the high end of what Howard will get, certainly for a 5-year deal. I think it’s close to right, though.
4) This assumes Aumont is ready to close. If this were such a guarantee, the Mariners would never have traded him away for one year of Cliff Lee. We might not have a closer.
5) One year of Victorino at what he perceived his market rate to be is not going to get you a “good prospect”. Gillies and Gose aren’t guarnatees either. Regardless, even if one looks good, you’re going to get a guy who is borderline Top 100 for Victorino at that point, if that. That’s unless he improves, in which case he’s worth more both to other teams and us.
6) You think a 20-25 home run, 45/10 SB/CS calibur, Gold Glove shortstop is going to sign up for $15 million? You’re arbitrarily assuming he takes a huge discount. Rollins’ market rate will probably be something like 3/60, 4/75, or 5/85.
7) This again assumes that they have a prospect who will be able to do this. It’s probable that some will, but all of these guys won’t pan out. You’re taking a handful of prospects likely to have about a 25% success rate and assuming 70% of them succeed.
8) 29 teams weren’t willing to pay Polanco an average of $6MM/year for his age 34, 35, and 36 seasons. Why would anybody be willing to pay $7.25MM (2012 salary + 2013 buyout) for his age 36 season only? Anybody you get for Victorino is going to be a fringe prospect, not a guaranteed league average second baseman.
9) Of course.
10) If these guys exist, this may be smart. If they aren’t ready, you’re stuck with paying veterans or dealing with a 4.50-5.00 ERA out of your pen.
11) Good. “Market-level.” If he’s healthy and keeps putting up ERAs around the 3.60 that his peripherals suggest, he’ll take about $25 million by then with proper salary inflation. That’s +/- $5 million probably.
What you’ve done is create money by arbitrarily assuming that the other 29 teams are stupid. Here are good rules of thumb:
1) If you notice that signing a player to a contract at a given dollar value is a smart move, so do the other 29 teams. You are not smarter than the other 29 GMs. One of them will think to bid you up. Even if they don’t and you bargain early, the player’s agent is not an idiot. He knows the other 29 GMs will pay what you offer and then some.
2) Stop trading guys away who are at the end of deals that are frontloaded in production and backloaded in dollars. Those guys require you to eat salary.
3) Stop assuming prospects have a higher success rate than they do. The only prospects that you can assume will be league average players on average are very elite players. Domonic Brown. There is no one else in our system with a better than 30% chance of contributing league average production.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 24, 2010 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
1. I expect Werth to do well in 2010. For that reason, I would sign him early – before he puts up big numbers again that will enhance his bargaining position.
2. It is ridiculous to maintain that salaries are not based on past performance. Past performance and future expectations both play a part. For a 30-year old (like Werth), his 7 years of toiling in the minors, the two lost years of 2005 and 2006, and Werth’s failure to land a full-time job until last year are all reasons for Werth to settle on a $12-14 million salary with the Phils.
3. Your theory of translating wins into player salaries. How is that working out so far in the real world?
4. You are throwing around $20 million salaries like confetti. By your reckoning Werth, Rollins, and Hamels are now or soon will be $20 million + players (plus the Phils have three others who are or soon will be). There were only four $20 million + ballplayers in all of baseball in 2009. While that number is increasing, I don’t expect the salary explosion that your comments suggest. I realize that we’re just playing here, but you should be more conservative in throwing around other people’s money.
5. I’m willing to eat some of Ibanez’ salary for 2011, if necessary, because I want to keep Werth’s right-handed bat and his all-around talent, and I want to put Brown in left. I am willing to give Ibanez away for nothing. The more of his salary I pick up, the more I expect a prospect in return.
6. None of the prospects, from Brown on down, is a guaranty. If they fail, we go to Plan B.
7. I am assuming nowhere near a 70% success rate for our prospects. You pulled that number out of your ass, as you are wont to do. I said that Brown becomes a starter; I did not say a star. I said that we will replace Victorino with one of our CF prospects, of which we have several. I said that one of our pitching prospects would be in the starting rotation by 2012; I did not say he would be a star. Whoever it is, May, Ramirez, Cosart, Colvin, etc. may turn out to be Kyle Kendrick redux. Only Aumont as Lidge’s replacement in 2012 can be categorized as wishful thinking. In the bullpen, my goal would be to fill three of the last four slots with replacement level players from the minors. I am not expecting any stars; I’m just looking to save some money.
8. Regarding the trades of Ibanez, Victorino and Polanco, I am doing the best with the hand I was dealt by Ruben. If I have to eat some salary in the Ibanez and Polanco trades, so be it.
9. Since I am willing to eat salary where necessary (and never said otherwise) and since my other moves are internal, I am treating the other 29 real GMs with the utmost respect or not at all.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 24, 2010 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
1. If you expect Werth to do better this year, so does his agent.
2. Past performance is important as it affects future expectations.
3. My theory is working fucking awesome, thanks for asking. Baseball Prospectus has hired me to redo the MORP (Market Value Over Replacement Player) metric. I’m loving it. It’s mapping reality very well so far.
4. Where the hell did you get four $20 million ballplayers. Here are the current $20 million average annual value contracts out there: (1) ARod, (2) Mauer, (3) CC, (4) Johan, (5) Manny, (6) Roy. Also if you take the fact that you’re talking about salaries that are a couple years down the line, even pessimistic inflationary expectations would say you should include guys who are making $18MM more which adds on (7) Miguel Cabrera, (8) Derek Jeter, (9) Carlos Zambrano, (10) Torii Hunter, (11) Vernon Wells, (12) Ichiro, (13) Zito.
5. Good, we’re in agreement.
6. You don’t have infinite plan B’s. Your solution is to assume that we have about 10 wins worth of farm system right now available at our disposal. That’s the question, not the solution.
7. Look at your list of prospects. It’s a mixture of one name solutions and two name soutions, mixing 100% success and 50% success. So about 70%.
8. The amount of salary you’ll need to eat is going to be commensurate with the cost of the contracts minus the value.
9. You’re still assuming inefficient markets. That assumes 29 stupid GMs.
Take Econ 1. I’ve taught it at Penn before…that’s where you go, isn’t it? It’s a good program. Try it! The basic theories of efficient markets erode your whole plan. Almost each and every plan involves discovering an inefficiency that no one noticed but you.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 24, 2010 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
1. Mapping the past is one thing, but you are using your theory to predict future salaries of individual players. So, my question is how’s your theory been working out as a predictor of future salaries of individual ballplayers in the real world?
2. When we have our little dialogues, you seem to get to the point very quickly where you don’t see straight, you don’t read what I say accurately, and you ignore the facts (You might try Ritalin to correct this problem.). I said four $20 million ballplayers in 2009. Mauer just signed his new contract a couple of days ago. Roy is only making $16 million in 2010; he did not make $20 million in 2009. I do not believe that CC and Santana were paid $20 million in 2009. I think Jeter and Teixeira were, however.
3. $18 million is not $20 million, but nice try.
4. I do expect a productive farm system; that’s why we have one. I turn to Plan B when the farm system fails. Surely, you will concede that, barring injury, there is a very good chance that Brown is in the Phils’ outfield in 2011 or 2012. Surely, you don’t think it is unreasonable to look to the farm for our future third outfielder, given the abundance of outfield prospects we have. Surely, you don’t think it is unreasonable to look to the farm for one future starter, even if he is a No. 5. Surely, you don’t think it unreasonable to pick up a trio of bullpen arms from the minors, given the dozens of candidates and our limited expectations. There are no guaranties, only reasonable assumptions.
5. Obviously, we change our assumptions as events unfold. We cannot have the same confidence in our assumptions about 2012 and later seasons that we have about this season and next.
6. The only moves I make in 2010 are to sign Werth to an extension today (not after the season) and put Bastardo and one other prospect in the bullpen at some point.
7. After 2010, I dump Ibanez and eat whatever salary is necessary. I would like to start Brown in LF to begin 2011, if he’s ready. If he’s not, make due with Francisco and/or others until Brown is ready (which I assume is no later than the start of 2012). I also update my overall plan based on 2010 performances and other events previously unforeseen; that’s what good managers do in the real world.
8. Look. We have 6 minor-league affiliates and hundreds of players. Counting Brown, I am talking about having four prospects fill key positions with the big club in 2011 and 2012 and three bodies for the back of our bullpen. That’s less than a 10% success rate if you just consider A, AA, and AAA. Your 70% success rate argument is painfully weak.
9. Pray tell. What inefficient market assumptions am I making? Be specific.
10. You previously have shown an ignorance of how good ballplayers age, and you tried to bluff your way through that argument. You may have a fan club made up of one or more who post here, but as a great man once said, “Include me out.” Just keep talking, and I will occasionally pop in to point out where you fall short
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 24, 2010 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
1. I do a pretty damn good job predicting salaries. Scroll through some of my old articles.
2. Your little Ritalin joke aside, you proved my point that salaries are escalating.
3. Salaries are escalating.
4. The Phillies minor league system is currently ranked 23rd according to Kevin Goldstein. It’s not a guarantee of success. And once again, you’re assuming a solution when the problem is how many wins we can get out of our farm.
5-7. no comment. Seems like we’re seeing things similarly or you’re repeating things that you can’t assume.
8. I didn’t say 70% of all prospects. I said 70% of the ones you mentioned. Question: since you’re projecting four players to emerge and be relevant contributors to the 2012 team just two years away, tell me how many players on the Phillies 2009 team had less than two years of service time? I’ll give you a hint. It’s J.A. Happ only, unless you count Ben Francisco.
9. You’re assuming that teams will not be willing to pay Howard, Werth, and Rollins what they are worth. You’re assuming we can get good deals. You’re assuming we can trade Victorino for a good prospect with one year left, you’re assuming that we can get someone to take on more of Ibanez’s than he’s worth. I said all this already.
10. The aging argument you lost badly. You were willfully ignorant of the literature, referred to one graph on among a dozen and declared that was the one you wanted to use. I’ve personally communicated with the two major players in the aging debate, JC Bradbury and Mitchel Lichtman. They argue 29 vs. 27 as the peak. You made up the smooth 29-33 aging curve based on the graph for players who last a long time and assuming it could be predicted in advance. Lichtman’s whole argument was that other researchers were UNDERESTIMATING aging. And I’m not just known here. I write for Baseball Prospectus.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 25, 2010 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions
1. We are in accord on the current state of the Phils’ farm system.
2. Your 70% statement was first intended to make the point that I was being overly optimistic about the contributions of our farm system. Now, it turns out, your 70% statement is simply a comment made in passing and of no significance. It’s as though I talked about Heyward making the big club in Atlanta, and I talked about no other Braves’ prospects. You would then say I am assuming a 100% success rate for Braves’ prospects. What the deuce!
3. If I’m going to keep Werth, Rollins, Howard and Utley for a few more years, then I want to make an effort to fill the other positions with young players, preferably from within.
4. I don’t think we disagree on Howard’s salary. You think Rollins is a $20 million ballplayer; I think he is a $15 million ballplayer. Regarding Werth, I think the proper comparison is with Holliday and Bay, who just signed $16 million contracts. Because their offensive production to date so far exceeds that of Werth, I think you can pay Werth less than $16 million and more like $12-14 million. Signing Werth before we get too far into the 2010 season eliminates the complication of another good season enhancing his value.
5. The aging debate. Look. I recognize what the article was about, but that does not alter the fact that Lichtman did his own research about how good players (, i.e., those with 5,000 PA) age. He also divided good players into two groups: pre-1980 players and post-1980 players. Regardless of Lichtman’s disagreements with Bradbury, his chart on the aging of good players provides useful information as a stand-alone document, and it tells us, among other things, that good players since 1980 peak at age 30, maintain through age 33, and remain very productive through age 35. Take another look at the chart. Although only Rollins currently meets the criteria, Howard and Utley should soon follow. Only Werth is a number of years away from qualifying. Because the definition of good player could be improved, I suggested that you develop another chart using WAR or some other measure to identify “good players”; you declined, as I recall. An interesting point about Lichtman’s chart is that the 1980 cutoff coincides with the first million dollar salaries (Ryan and Parker). Since, I believe that money provides a major incentive for the players to stay in shape, I would like to see how good players have aged since 1992 when Sandberg was given the first $7 million contract. Until these more definitive studies are done, my position is that good players are keepers through age 35.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 25, 2010 1:34 AM EDT up reply actions
The 70% was that you listed Brown and Aumont as definite solutions and either GIllies or Gose in CF and either May or Ramirez in the rotation. You also assumed a 2B prospect in the Victorino deal would pan out. I ignored the bullpen because those were examples on your part, not four guys you were insisting on. So I called that assuming that 5 of 7 prospects would pan out, 71%. Of Brown, Aumont, Gillies, Gose, May, Ramirez, and the quality of players you could get for one year of Victorino, you’re more likely to have a 25% success rate or so.
Bay got $16.5MM AAV and Holliday got $17MM AAV. They also got deals that were longer than they would likely be productive. An extra year of salary inflation, plus the fact that Werth is a much better defender than both, I think you’re going to see him get at least as much unless you’re willing to give him a 7-year deal like Holliday. Signing Werth in advance basically assumes he will increase in value this year and doesn’t know it. It assumes a market inefficiency.
Rollins’ WARP3 has averaged 5.0 over the last four years, and his fgWAR has averaged 4.8. Assuming that he’ll get paid like a sub-3 win player after two years of salary inflation, and what both of us think will be a graceful decline is unlikely. PECOTA projects a decline from 4.2 wins in 2012 to 1.5 wins in 2015, and PECOTA is pretty bearish on aging. It might not be $20MM, but $15MM is simply assuming he gets paid as though he declined when he doesn’t.
I agree that if players get 5,000 PA, they likely held their value well. You can’t assume that necessarily before the fact. There are injuries that can randomly occur, which can depreciate value. You’re right that players are aging better with more monetary incentives and more focus on nutrition, but the effect according to both Bradbury and Lichtman is maybe one year. My focus is not aging research, so I’m leaving that to others at this stage, but there isn’t evidence that you can rely on 30-year old players to hold their value for five years. Especially if you think that they don’t know it and won’t pay for it.
1. I believe that Holliday’s contract includes deferred money of $2 million per year from 2020-2029. If you discount the deferred money and spread it over the seven years from 2010-2016, Holliday’s contract is really equivalent to $16 million per.
2. On the contrary, Lichtman looked at all ballplayers with 5,000 PA since 1980 and found that 30-year-olds hold their value for 5 years.
3. The prospect I talked about in the Victorino trade is a 3B prospect, and the trade is Victorino and another prospect from the Phillies for a 3B prospect. I am in favor of allowing trading partners to negotiate extensions with players like Victorino who are on short contracts. Despite what Keith Law or others may say, the ability to negotiate extensions is a valuable intangible asset for which teams are willing to sweeten their offers.
4. Your 70% calculation is silly and skewed in several ways. There are 5 key positions I identified to be filled by prospects: LF, CF, Closer, SP and 3B. I identified many, but not all, of the candidates to fill these positions mainly for brevity, hence the use of an “etc.” that you will find above. I am betting heavily on Brown’s becoming a starter, but that is no longer a bad gamble. I acknowledged that Aumont as closer is wishful thinking, but the Phils do have other closer candidates. I am necessarily fuzzy on the 3B prospect since he is not currently in the organization and since I don’t know which of our prospects in addition to Victorino we would be trading. I think there are at least a couple of other CF candidates besides Gillies and Gose. There are many more than two candidates for a rotation spot.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 25, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re still assuming that they got 5,000 PA. Howard has less than 3,000 PA. I’m the most prominant advocate out there for Ryan Howard aging more gracefully than others are saying, but I’m not assuming he ages well. I’m not rehasing what the graph said. They were less productive at 35.
Allowing teams to negotiate extensions with players is not going to regularly be extra valuable. Again, the player will usually want market value for those deals in which case, he’ll ask for what he would have gotten on the free agent market. There are occassional situations where these pre-negotiated extensions are useful (Halladay, Santana) and they are done in these cases, but this is the exception rather than the rule.
Regardless of the denominator part of the percentage argument, the question is the numerator. In other words, how many players do we expect to contribute in 2012 who have less than two years of service time? Of all of our starting lineup, rotation, and back of the bullpen players in 2009, we had only Happ with less than two years of service time. In 2008, we had Ruiz and Kendrick. In 2007, we had Ruiz, Kendrick, Howard, Victorino, and Hamels. Clearly it’s possible to have major contributors at a few positions, but it’s not the norm.
I’ve said it a few times in this thread in various spot, but the key to the Phillies success in 2012 and on is whether they can get 10 wins or more from their pre-arbitration talent. If they can, it’s worth spending $150-160MM on salary to make the team a competitor.
To rehash, the players that had 5,000 PA in the modern era (since 1980) were only about 5 runs less productive at age 35 than they were in their peak years of ages 30-33 or about the same level of production at age 35 that they had when age 26.5. In Howard’s case, he hit 58 that year. Those of us who have watched the game in recent years can confirm anecdotally that good players are generally keepers through age 35. Now that we are in the era when good players have eight-figure salaries, I look forward to seeing the definitive aging study that focuses on good players in the big bucks era to re-confirm our observations.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 25, 2010 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
He said 5 RUNS not HOME RUNS. He’s measuring individual RUN value using linear weights methodology. You don’t seem to understand what you’re even trying to cite at a basic level. Anecdotally isn’t a responsible way to look at things. There are plenty of players who looked great and fell off. Look through the recent HR leaders: guys like Glaus, Ortiz, Andruw Jones, Matt Williams, Juan Gonzalez just to name a few— they all fell off cliffs. There are some players who fall off cliffs and some who don’t. You remember the ones that did, but there are plenty of players that don’t.
Most people think Howard is going to be one of those guys who falls off a cliff. I’m skeptical of that actually— I think his decline will be moderate, Thome-style. If you scroll through the archives, you’ll find an article where I wrote about Howard’s oppo-HR prowess, and why that portends a more moderate decline. But how much did that brief study show? Not much. You can’t simply assume that you will value these guys correctly and the rest of the league will be willing to pay less because they undervalue them. The team that bids the most is the one that has the lowest estimate of his decline— is that team right? Or did they underestimate the decline about to happen? It’s tough to know and you’re assuming we magically are correct if we overvalue them compared to the other 29 teams.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 26, 2010 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
In the first sentence, I was talking about run value. When I mentioned Howard’s 58, I was citing a number everybody here would be familiar with in order to emphasize that, at age 35, good players can be very productive.
I read your comment, shake my head, and think surely he can do better than that.
by Derekcarstairs on Mar 26, 2010 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I greatly enjoyed that takedown, Matt, but a couple of quibbles.
Regarding Ibanez: The reason why I think it might be possible to avoid eating too much of his salary if we elect to trade him after the season (and if he performs well this year, which is certainly not a sure thing) is that his contract isn’t terribly backloaded and, at least so far, he’s outperformed it. (His per-year salary is $10.5 million and his 2011 salary is $11.5 million.) Previously, you said that if no other teams valued him higher than $8-9 million for three years, then why would they value him at $11.5 million for one year? But the going rate for one year of any player is always higher than the going rate for many years of the same player, so I don’t think that conclusion follows. In other words, one of those teams that valued him at $8-9 million over three years in 2009 may very well have been willing to pay him $11.5 million for one year in 2009. Now, obviously, it isn’t 2009 anymore and age and injuries are a factor – that’s why his performance in 2010 would be crucial. And I don’t doubt that we’d have to eat at least a piece of his salary. But if he performs well in 2010, I don’t think that piece will necessarily have to be a huge chunk. (Also, the market could be affected by improvement in the economy – it’s got nowhere to go but up, right?)
On a related note, the converse of your point that all 29 GMs aren’t going to be stupid is that all 29 GMs probably aren’t going to be smart either. Your point is very valid when it comes to underbidding a free agent. A smart GM will clearly outbid you if you try to pull that and it only takes one. But if you’re the seller and you’re looking for a buyer, then it only takes one not-so-bright GM to make your day. That GM doesn’t even need to be dumb per se. He could just be desperate based on his injury situation or what-have-you. It isn’t something to be counted on (which is why I cautioned against planning to trade Ibanez in my post), but it isn’t terribly unrealistic either.
Regarding Rollins: I don’t disagree with you that Rollins is worth closer to $20 million than $15 million right at this moment. The thing is, his contract won’t be up until after the 2011 season, and we only owe him a ridiculously low $16 million between now and then. If we renegotiated his deal now, (a) we could trade a 2011 raise for a lower per-year salary, and (b) we would benefit from a somewhat depressed price because of his off-year last year. I still don’t think that would get us all the way down to $15 million, but it could get us in the ballpark, such that a relatively modest hometeam discount could get us there. Also, even if we were to wait until mid-2011 to negotiate an extension (which I don’t think is advisable), then we’d have to pay something much closer to market-rate, but market rate would be lower because you’d be negotiating with 32½-year-old Jimmy instead of 31-year-old Jimmy. Plus, in either case, his per-year amount would presumably not equal his instantaneous value. If he’s worth $20 million now, surely he won’t be worth $20 million three years from now, so even on a three-year deal, I would think his per-year value would be below that.
All that aside, I agree with pretty much everything else you said. Committing somewhere in the neighborhood of $110 million to six players (five of whom will be 33 and up) in 2012 and 2013 is not a recipe for success.
Other related/minor points: Depending on the position, timing, and the economics of ballclubs, there are very few situations where any one GM is actively competing against all 29. The others in your division will at the very least actively try to bleed you and monitor you, as would other playoff/pennant contenders from both leagues. On average I’d guess there would be 5-10 teams actively or passive-aggressively bidding along with you in any FA situation.
Because of this, market value gets a bit distorted because of the situations at hand. If fatter-walleted teams are begging for what that player does at the right time, they’ll bid against each other, hometown discount be damned. All that said, the nightmare the Phils have is that the Red Sox and Yankees potentially have some use for either Werth or Howard. What Bilzo noted above about Werth being more versatile for more years leads me to believe that, right now, he’s the better long-term bet if all the Phils can afford is one guy long-term.
Perhaps this is truly a fantasy, but I do wonder at what point will enough will be enough and either a) the entire economics of the sport become unsustainable; or b) collective cores of players begin to realize that it’s much better to play together for as many years as possible rather than drift apart. For the vast majority of the economy, the most you’ll ever make in any year, multiplied by your entire career, will not be anywhere near $3MM.
by Wet Luzinski on Mar 24, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
The competition of 5-10 GMs is usually limited number of GMs that think bidding is worthwhile. Not everyone is going to bid on John Lackey, but the Marlins are gonna sign him if his agent calls and says 1 year, $1.5MM, what do you think?
I also don’t think the market value is distorted. The market is an auction. It’s the amount that the team with the highest value (or second highest, really) is willing to pay. That’s where market values come from.
The sport pays less salary per revenue than any other major sport now. The reserve clause and arbitration just hold salaries down too much. It creates high values for teams projected to get like 88 wins.
These are mostly valid points, but I’m not sure I agree. I’ll tell you my thinking.
As far as Raul goes, even though teams are more willing to pay for one year deals, that’s only because they anticipate decline. The question is whether teams think he’ll be better in 2011 in December 2010 than they thought he would be in 2011 as of December 2008. Even though he played well in 2009, I think his injury in 2009 is a bigger deal.
Also, I know that for luxury tax purposes, I think you’re supposed to prorate the signing bonus by year, but I’m not sure about the actual expenditure. So there may be a higher salary by $667K there, too, dependning.
Your point about only needing one smart GM to bit up for good value but needing 29 smart GMs not to overpay is true, but how many GMs are really reliably stupid? The worst seem to be guys like Ed Wade, Omar Minaya, and Dayton Moore, but even those guys make smart moves. How often do GMs reliably bite on a bad salary? I mean I think I could personally dupe one of those guys in a few years, if it was someone with deceptively good or bad SIERA or someone with a deceptively good or bad BABIP, but how many players and how many sabermetricians are there that you could reliably pull something off like this? It only really would work a couple times.
Why would you frontload Rollins’ deal though? We’re supposedly not very flexible with respect to spending right now, and it would just take one Utley injury to make us unlikely to get the playoff cash flow to pay extra salary. I think that would really tighten our budget a lot.
I’m actually totally cool with committing $110 million to six players if they are worth the same number of wins as $110 million worth of fifteen players. My research this year has showed that they are about equal in value.
The thing is, you don’t need any GM to be reliably stupid. If many GMs act stupid only periodically, then you might be able to rely on one GM acting stupid on one particular occasion. (“Stupid” being a catchall term here for all the different motivations that could cause a GM to act idiosyncratically on a given day.) Now, as a matter of fact, I don’t think we can rely on, say, a GM taking on the bulk of Ibanez’s ‘11 salary. But I don’t think it’s completely implausible either.
For the single-year vs. multi-year thing: I think there’s another reason why single-year rates are higher. Basically, the more years a team gives a player, the more risk the team takes on. Even though you’re paying less per year, you’re raising the odds that you’ll blow an entire year’s salary (or more) for nothing – if, for instance, the player suffers a major injury. Obviously, the player is taking on some risk too in that he might outplay his contract – but it’s a much smaller risk. A player might outplay a market-rate contract by a million or two, but an injury could reduce the player’s value all the way down to zero. I think this is why players always want more years in negotiations, even to the point of accepting lower per-year salaries in order to get them. If players want years, then owners should be able to pay less to give them years – and if that’s the case then the opposite should also be true.
I see your point about Rollins. I don’t think we’re necessarily that inflexible for 2011 though. It all depends, of course, on what we decide to do about the Werth/Howard situation. But if, say, we replace Werth with Brown and Moyer with Kendrick, then my back-of-the-envelope calculation is that we will have about $135 million in commitments, which would include our entire starting lineup, starting rotation, and back of the bullpen. I’m guessing our budget might go up to $150 million or so. Under those circumstances, as long as we don’t needlessly blow money on middle relief, I think we could afford to divert some money from the future to the present for Rollins’ sake. Then again, maybe we’ll have more budget space available in the future. Not sure about that.
Definitely agree we should always look for GMs acting stupidly one day. Any GM that didn’t at least inquire on Hamels to see if the Phillies had a blind spot to DIPS Theory should have been fired.
Risk is priced in to these contracts, but there is this misconception going around that risk is bad for a baseball team. Unless you have a better than 50% shot of making the playoffs, risk is a good thing. Suppose you had an 83-win team, and you think you need 90 wins to make the playoffs. Would you rather a standard deviation of 7 wins or 14 wins? The odds of getting 90 wins when you have an 83-win calibur team with a 7-win standard deivation is about 1/6. The odds of getting 90 wins when you have an 83-win calibur team with a 14-win standard deviation is about 1/3. Extreme example, but you get the point.
The Cardinals might not want to add risk in 2010 when their odds are higher, but one of those NL Central teams is likely to improve in the next couple years and overtake the Cardinals as the favorite. At that point, the Cardinals want more risk but not less. The Braves and Rockies should be clamoring for risky players right now, and paying a premium on them.
by Matt Swartz on Mar 25, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
Domonic Brown
The logic also seems very centered on Brown being a ML ready player in 2 years. Marlon Byrd anybody?
Not to worry
I still expect the market to be pretty lacking in years to come. it might not be collusion, but teams have decided that in free agency top dollars are ONLY going to the top players. Other players not exactly tops at their position just won’t get the top dollars.
Howard may be a top player today, but who know how long of a contract he wants and what dollars. With the Yankees having texeira, his price is more affordable than ever really. had the yankees not gotten tex and need a 1b when Howard hits FA, he’d be gone for sure.
Werth, to me he’s just not worth it, but if Brown is coming up we can go ahead and give him $12-15MM. We’ll drop Ibanez’s number in 2012 so only 2011 would be a big payroll hit in the outfield.
We need to get Arbuckle back to re-stock the minors. Ruben may be a good major leage GM but his ability to manage the minor league talent will never ba as good as Arbuckle’s.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
Washington Nationals
Sunday, Aug 1, 2010, 1:35 PM EDT
Nationals Park
Partly cloudy,rain. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-10 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 85.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
