Jump to content
North Side Baseball
  • Replies 768
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Peralta only played 2/3 of the season and put up 3.6 fWAR. It makes plenty of sense. Because of his age, suspension and lack of rock-solid consistency it's not some slam dunk, but that's what it'll cost to get someone who is good.
Posted
Peralta only played 2/3 of the season and put up 3.6 fWAR. It makes plenty of sense. Because of his age, suspension and lack of rock-solid consistency it's not some slam dunk, but that's what it'll cost to get someone who is good.

 

Then the economics of the game have truly gotten out of control. There is about a 0% chance that contract is worth it

Posted
If a single FA WAR is moving towards 7 mill, if he averages 2 WAR per year over the 4 year deal, he'll have been worth the contract.
Posted
Peralta only played 2/3 of the season and put up 3.6 fWAR. It makes plenty of sense. Because of his age, suspension and lack of rock-solid consistency it's not some slam dunk, but that's what it'll cost to get someone who is good.

 

Then the economics of the game have truly gotten out of control. There is about a 0% chance that contract is worth it

 

He's averaged 3.7 WAR per year the last 3 years. Even starting his decline immediately and swiftly that puts him at something like 45 million in value for the life of his contract, and that's at the probably outdated price of 5 million per win.

 

There will be contracts this offseason worth wondering how someone managed to get such a silly number for their production(my current bet is Nelscon Cruz), this is not one of them.

Posted
What has the rate of inflation been for WAR over the past five seasons? Seems like it's been insane. $7 million for a win? Christ

 

 

That sort of inflation used to be normal, back in the late 1980s through the early 2000s.

Posted
Am I supposed to believe that Mike Trout is "worth" $50 million/year by himself? At what point do the laws of diminishing returns apply to baseball contracts?
Posted
Am I supposed to believe that Mike Trout is "worth" $50 million/year by himself? At what point do the laws of diminishing returns apply to baseball contracts?

 

Well, personally, I'm not a big fan of trying to measure $/WAR linearly like that. It really doesn't seem to work for really good or really bad players, no matter what David Cameron says.

 

But if someone offered me Mike Trout on a 1/$50m deal, I'd probably take it.

Posted
Yeah, $50 mil a year for Trout is perfectly acceptable. Is there a GM that would blink at that outside of the usual cheapskate teams that don't have $50 mil to spend, anyway?
Posted
Am I supposed to believe that Mike Trout is "worth" $50 million/year by himself? At what point do the laws of diminishing returns apply to baseball contracts?

 

Well, personally, I'm not a big fan of trying to measure $/WAR linearly like that. It really doesn't seem to work for really good or really bad players, no matter what David Cameron says.

 

But if someone offered me Mike Trout on a 1/$50m deal, I'd probably take it.

 

This is my biggest problems with these discussions. I mean, the average value of 1 WAR may be $5MM or whatever on the FA market, but those first 2 WAR a guy provides are typically much easier to come by than numbers 3, 4, and 5. I'd think it would need to be looked at (in this hypothetical case) as something more like 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 million for WAR 1-5.

Posted
Am I supposed to believe that Mike Trout is "worth" $50 million/year by himself? At what point do the laws of diminishing returns apply to baseball contracts?

 

Well, personally, I'm not a big fan of trying to measure $/WAR linearly like that. It really doesn't seem to work for really good or really bad players, no matter what David Cameron says.

 

But if someone offered me Mike Trout on a 1/$50m deal, I'd probably take it.

 

This is my biggest problems with these discussions. I mean, the average value of 1 WAR may be $5MM or whatever on the FA market, but those first 2 WAR a guy provides are typically much easier to come by than numbers 3, 4, and 5. I'd think it would need to be looked at (in this hypothetical case) as something more like 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 million for WAR 1-5.

 

yeah, that's a good point

Posted
Haren to Dodgers for 1/10.

That's a good addition for them for back/mid rotation help. He put up a 3.67 xFIP and posted his highest career HR/FB rate last year so moving to that park/division should help keep that a little lower. Wouldn't be surprised if he puts up a 2.5-3.5 WAR next year if he's healthy and makes +/- 30 starts.

 

I would assume this takes the Dodgers out of the running for acquiring Samardzija, not that they were ever really a great fit and/or confirmed to be interested.

Posted
Crazy money for Peralta. Makes no sense on any level

 

It makes sense if your in-house options for shortstop are Pete Kozma and Daniel Descalso. Since Descalso isn't a shortstop, your option is Kozma. All but six or seven guys (including Wigginton) are pre-arb, so overpaying for Peralta is perfectly acceptable.

Posted
Some backlash toward Peralta--and the Cardinals--regarding the contract.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2013/11/24/5140762/jhonny-peralta-cardinals-contract-mlb-free-agents-2013

 

I like that some of it's coming from players. Apparently, there are some Cardinal fans who aren't pleased, either.

He paid his debt to MLB.

Did he?

He served his suspension, did he not?

 

I don't know, did he?

Posted (edited)

He did serve his 50 game suspension. He also signed a nice contract after that suspension. I'm playing devils-advocate here, but I think the real question is this - did taking banned substances contribute to the performance that got him that contract? If so, then I would say that the system/penalties aren't effective enough and likely won't stop the next guy, one year from free agency, from doing the same thing. Under the current system, did he pay his penalty? Yes he did.

 

ed: spelling

Edited by BeerHere
Posted
Am I supposed to believe that Mike Trout is "worth" $50 million/year by himself? At what point do the laws of diminishing returns apply to baseball contracts?

 

It might not be worth it to the owners in the sense that they (they being the owners) might not be getting a good ROI on that money, but what do we care about that?

 

MLB teams are printing money and the money is there to be spent. It only makes sense for it to go up, unless you want the owners to pocket it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...