Free Agent Predictions

[bukie]

I don't have a problem with short-term solutions as long as they're signed to be short-term solutions, and don't get a couple years tacked on to the contract for the heck of it.

[dew1679666265]

I don't have a problem with short-term upgrades. There are only so many long-term upgrades to be had, and you won't be able to spend your money on all of them.

 

That's why I'd focus on the stars out of the gates - Prince, Pujols, Wilson, and Aramis. If those fall through, then maybe you change your strategy and grab a couple short term guys, but they shouldn't be the focus from the start of free agency. For instance, we shouldn't pursue Buerhle instead of Wilson.

 

If we can get, say, Pujols then we won't have a ton of money to spend elsewhere anyway. We can fit Wilson in the budget, but if we miss on him then I'd rather use that $16 million to get* Francis ($5 mil) and one of the lesser Japanese guys ($10 mil) than to get Buerhle ($12-15 mil) alone.

 

*purely speculative dollars on my part, use them as a guide rather than exact figures

[davearm2]

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are.

It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious.

 

The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent.

 

I'm open to being shown otherwise, though.

 

But it's not just his speed; Soriano has always been an obviously flawed, streaky player. Failing speed was hardly the only major concern, as that guys like him tend to not age well as their relatively limited skillset starts to decline.

And I'm saying that all sounds like rubbish to me.

 

A "streaky" player ages differently than a "non-streaky" player? A "flawed" player ages differently than a "non-flawed" player? (And dare I even ask how "streaky" and "flawed" are defined?)

 

Really? How so? And what is that based upon? Sounds like something you made up, rather than anything that's actually been illustrated with rigorous research.

 

Again, I'm open to being shown otherwise. There must be some article or study you're basing this upon.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

How is it not flawed? Comparing their ages and contracts is hinged on what type of players they are.

It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious.

 

The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent.

 

I'm open to being shown otherwise, though.

 

But it's not just his speed; Soriano has always been an obviously flawed, streaky player. Failing speed was hardly the only major concern, as that guys like him tend to not age well as their relatively limited skillset starts to decline.

And I'm saying that all sounds like rubbish to me.

 

A "streaky" player ages differently than a "non-streaky" player? A "flawed" player ages differently than a "non-flawed" player? (And dare I even ask how "streaky" and "flawed" are defined?)

 

Really? How so? And what is that based upon? Sounds like something you made up, rather than anything that's actually been illustrated with rigorous research.

 

Again, I'm open to being shown otherwise. There must be some article or study you're basing this upon.

It's probably based on their results for the 10 years each of them have been in the league.

[dew1679666265]

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

Ok, you've made the statement that you think Pujols' decline is likely to mirror Soriano's in terms of value - meaning you think Pujols will become a similar albatross to Soriano at around the same time that Soriano has become one (with 4 years left on his deal).

 

You're confident it's going to be late and gradual. Me, not so much.

 

Now, what you haven't said is why you think that. There are a number of guys who have similarities to Pujols (which Soriano does not) who have been highly successful into their late 30s and early 40s. Why are you so confident that Pujols will tail off similarly to what Soriano has instead of being more like Willie Mays or Frank Robinson and still having solid value into his late 30s/early 40s?

[davearm2]

It's flawed because I don't think there's a strong connection between skillset and aging curve. The notion that Soriano should be expected to decline faster than Pujols because his game is more predicated on speed seems specious.

 

The studies I remember seeing have shown the relationship to be weak or nonexistent.

 

I'm open to being shown otherwise, though.

 

But it's not just his speed; Soriano has always been an obviously flawed, streaky player. Failing speed was hardly the only major concern, as that guys like him tend to not age well as their relatively limited skillset starts to decline.

And I'm saying that all sounds like rubbish to me.

 

A "streaky" player ages differently than a "non-streaky" player? A "flawed" player ages differently than a "non-flawed" player? (And dare I even ask how "streaky" and "flawed" are defined?)

 

Really? How so? And what is that based upon? Sounds like something you made up, rather than anything that's actually been illustrated with rigorous research.

 

Again, I'm open to being shown otherwise. There must be some article or study you're basing this upon.

It's probably based on their results for the 10 years each of them have been in the league.

Go on.

 

What do the result for the 10 years each of them have been in the league tell us about how Pujols' skillset is going to impact his performance in his age 32-40 seasons?

[davearm2]

Comparing Pujols' skillset to Soriano's is flawed.

 

Comparing their ages and contracts is not flawed.

 

It's the latter we're doing here.

 

Ok, you've made the statement that you think Pujols' decline is likely to mirror Soriano's in terms of value - meaning you think Pujols will become a similar albatross to Soriano at around the same time that Soriano has become one (with 4 years left on his deal).

 

You're confident it's going to be late and gradual. Me, not so much.

 

Now, what you haven't said is why you think that. There are a number of guys who have similarities to Pujols (which Soriano does not) who have been highly successful into their late 30s and early 40s. Why are you so confident that Pujols will tail off similarly to what Soriano has instead of being more like Willie Mays or Frank Robinson and still having solid value into his late 30s/early 40s?

Just so we're clear. I don't think Pujols' decline is likely to mirror Soriano's, per se.

 

What I think is that Pujols is going to decline such that when there are still several years left on his deal, his salary is going to be several times larger than what his production is worth. That's the only point of comparison I'm making -- people hate the Soriano contract because his pay is totally out of proportion to his production. I see the same thing happening with Pujols.

[Guest]

So are you saying that Pujols' value in any given year should always be greater than or equal to his salary(or contract AAV)?

[Guest]

So are you saying that Pujols' value in any given year should always be greater than or equal to his salary(or contract AAV)?

 

 

No problem. Backload the hell out of it and then he'll for sure exceed it in every year except the last one.

[davearm2]

FWIW, this morning I dug into the numbers and came up with my own estimates of what Pujols will be worth over the next 10 seasons. I can go into more detail if anyone cares, but I based the analysis on an assumed value of $5M per WAR, and the career trajectories of the players B-R lists as most similar to Pujols (I started with the 20 names on the two lists, removed 4 actives, and removed Juan Gonzalez because he's on both lists, leaving 15 comps*).

 

What I got out is this set of annual values of Pujols' production, by age:

32 $31.9

33 $33.7

34 $30.1

35 $26.5

36 $16.8

37 $10.4

38 $6.5

39 $6.3

40 $3.8

41 $0.9

Total $166.9

 

Inherent in the above analysis is that a guy is worth $0 if he's not playing (duh).

 

So I did a second analysis that removed the retired guys in the out years, such that the values are based purely on guys that were actually playing. Here are those results:

32 $31.4

33 $33.2

34 $29.6

35 $26.1

36 $17.4

37 $14.4

38 $12.5

39 $13.7

40 $11.2

41 $4.2

Total $193.6

 

Naturally, value in the out years is much better. But by the same token, it's likely that Pujols' value is going to lag his salary by ~$10M or more as early as age 36 -- about halfway through an 8-10 year deal.

 

* The list of 15 comps is:

Larry Walker

Juan Gonzalez

Johnny Mize

Carlos Delgado

Joe DiMaggio

Duke Snider

Jimmie Foxx

Ken Griffey

Frank Robinson

Hank Aaron

Lou Gehrig

Mickey Mantle

Mel Ott

Willie Mays

Manny Ramirez

[davearm2]

So are you saying that Pujols' value in any given year should always be greater than or equal to his salary(or contract AAV)?

No.

[davearm2]

I'm on a roll so might as well keep going :)

 

Here's what you get back if you shrink the comp list from 15 to 5, by including only the 5 guys that played into their 40s*:

32	 $32.6 
33	 $40.4 
34	 $36.4 
35	 $35.9 
36	 $15.0 
37	 $22.4 
38	 $15.0 
39	 $13.7 
40	 $10.1 
41	 $2.3 
Total	 $224.0 

* they are:

Johnny Mize

Ken Griffey

Frank Robinson

Hank Aaron

Willie Mays

[davearm2]

Here is what Pujols will be worth on 6-, 7-, 8- 9- and 10-year deals, if his career mirrors each of the individual comps:

 

	6	7	8	9	10
Larry Walker	 $153 	 $159 	 $177 	 $177 	 $177 
Juan Gonzalez	 $(5)	 $(5)	 $(5)	 $(5)	 $(5)
Johnny Mize	 $208 	 $222 	 $230 	 $233 	 $234 
Carlos Delgado	 $112 	 $112 	 $112 	 $112 	 $112 
Joe DiMaggio	 $155 	 $155 	 $155 	 $155 	 $155 
Duke Snider	 $50 	 $50 	 $50 	 $50 	 $50 
Jimmie Foxx	 $44 	 $44 	 $44 	 $44 	 $44 
Ken Griffey	 $21 	 $21 	 $19 	 $14 	 $14 
Frank Robinson	 $172 	 $196 	 $201 	 $203 	 $203 
Hank Aaron	 $222 	 $241 	 $268 	 $278 	 $278 
Lou Gehrig	 $146 	 $146 	 $146 	 $146 	 $146 
Mickey Mantle	 $81 	 $81 	 $81 	 $81 	 $81 
Mel Ott	 $142 	 $141 	 $141 	 $141 	 $141 
Willie Mays	 $253 	 $270 	 $294 	 $327 	 $335 
Manny Ramirez	 $151 	 $159 	 $157 	 $157 	 $157 

[Guest]

I like posts like that, davearm.

 

I looked up the monetary worth of a single WAR on Fangraphs, and they had the following

 

2002 – $2.6m / win

2003 – $2.8m / win

2004 – $3.1m / win

2005 – $3.4m / win

2006 – $3.7m / win

2007 – $4.1m / win

2008 – $4.5m / win

 

Perhaps there's an updated one somewhere, but I didn't find it. I'd have to guess a WAR is worth somewhere around $6M at this point. Just putting that out there.

 

Then I'd guess, we could adjust for inflation on the subsequent years as well... no?

 

 

EDIT - But then maybe the market has stalled.

 

Does anyone know if Fangraphs has a more recent number?

[davearm2]

I like posts like that, davearm.

 

I looked up the monetary worth of a single WAR on Fangraphs, and they had the following

 

2002 – $2.6m / win

2003 – $2.8m / win

2004 – $3.1m / win

2005 – $3.4m / win

2006 – $3.7m / win

2007 – $4.1m / win

2008 – $4.5m / win

 

Perhaps there's an updated one somewhere, but I didn't find it. I'd have to guess a WAR is worth somewhere around $6M at this point. Just putting that out there.

 

Then I'd guess, we could adjust for inflation on the subsequent years as well... no?

 

 

EDIT - But then maybe the market has stalled.

 

Does anyone know if Fangraphs has a more recent number?

An even larger consideration is that if wins continue to escalate in value year over year, rather than remaining constant, then the analysis would need to be updated to reflect that. I thought $5M was pretty widely accepted as a ballpark.

[KingCubsFan]

Do these WAR/dollar figures translate so that a 1 WAR player is technically worth $5 million? Because if that's the case, it's incredibly stupid.

[Guest]

Do these WAR/dollar figures translate so that a 1 WAR player is technically worth $5 million? Because if that's the case, it's incredibly stupid.

 

On the free agent market, I think.. (and yea, that would seem high).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Do these WAR/dollar figures translate so that a 1 WAR player is technically worth $5 million? Because if that's the case, it's incredibly stupid.

 

It's stupid until you need one.

 

But yeah, it's not completely linear.

[dew1679666265]

FWIW, this morning I dug into the numbers and came up with my own estimates of what Pujols will be worth over the next 10 seasons. I can go into more detail if anyone cares, but I based the analysis on an assumed value of $5M per WAR, and the career trajectories of the players B-R lists as most similar to Pujols (I started with the 20 names on the two lists, removed 4 actives, and removed Juan Gonzalez because he's on both lists, leaving 15 comps*).

 

What is your standard for acceptable decline and does it fluctuate depending on how underpaid a player is early in his career or depending on the team's payroll?

[davearm2]

FWIW, this morning I dug into the numbers and came up with my own estimates of what Pujols will be worth over the next 10 seasons. I can go into more detail if anyone cares, but I based the analysis on an assumed value of $5M per WAR, and the career trajectories of the players B-R lists as most similar to Pujols (I started with the 20 names on the two lists, removed 4 actives, and removed Juan Gonzalez because he's on both lists, leaving 15 comps*).

 

What is your standard for acceptable decline and does it fluctuate depending on how underpaid a player is early in his career or depending on the team's payroll?

Good questions. I haven't thought of it in exactly those terms, but in the Cubs' situation, I could imagine honing in on an expected value for a given contract length, and offering a "superstar" premium of perhaps 20% or 25% above that. That gets me to a number anywhere from $200M to $240M on a 10-year deal.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think it needs to be restated that the goal is not to have the most cost efficient roster, but to field the best team you can.

 

Half the benefit of having the biggest payroll is you can afford greatness at the expense of potentially overpaying down the road. The difference between what he's paid and what he's worth 7 years from now really doesn't matter. What matters is they have a great player.

[dew1679666265]

Good questions. I haven't thought of it in exactly those terms, but in the Cubs' situation, I could imagine honing in on an expected value for a given contract length, and offering a "superstar" premium of perhaps 20% or 25% above that. That gets me to a number anywhere from $200M to $240M on a 10-year deal.

 

With a guy like Pujols and a team like the Cubs, I think those are the exact questions you must answer before deciding whether you want him or not. If you have a payroll of $210 million (which the Cubs would project to if they raise payroll an average of $10 each season until Pujols is 38, which should probably be on the lower end), you can afford to have roughly 15-17% of your payroll tied up in an underproducing player, I think. Especially if you have management, as the Cubs do, very capable of producing highly productive young players.

 

In our situation, Pujols would provide the production we need over the next few years while Epstein/Hoyer/McLeod build up the farm system and then the young, cheap talent coming from the farm makes up for Pujols being a drag on the payroll later in his career. Most teams can't afford to do that, but the Cubs can and this is why I support signing Pujols even knowing he'll decline (though not sure to what extent) later in his career.

[dew1679666265]

I think it needs to be restated that the goal is not to have the most cost efficient roster, but to field the best team you can.

 

Half the benefit of having the biggest payroll is you can afford greatness at the expense of potentially overpaying down the road. The difference between what he's paid and what he's worth 7 years from now really doesn't matter. What matters is they have a great player.

 

Exactly. The Royals, Twins, Indians, Pirates, Rays, etc., need to be cost efficient. The Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Angels, etc., don't. That doesn't mean you spend wildly and wastefully, but if you have a guy who can be incredibly productive for 5+ years, you can live with having to figure out what to do with him being overpaid in the latter years.

[ConstableRabbit]

I think it needs to be restated that the goal is not to have the most cost efficient roster, but to field the best team you can.

 

Half the benefit of having the biggest payroll is you can afford greatness at the expense of potentially overpaying down the road. The difference between what he's paid and what he's worth 7 years from now really doesn't matter. What matters is they have a great player.

This.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Everyone but the Yankees needs to be cost efficient. And even they do to some degree.

 

But you also want to be roster-spot and playing-time efficient. You only get 8 lineup spots, and getting a ton of value out of 1/8th of those spots is also a form of efficiency.