Leader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Historically, players have been willing to play at relative discounts in the first years of a deal to have longer term security. Saying teams aren't giving out the years like they used to is the same as saying teams aren't giving out money like they used to. Grandal is a 3 win catcher, who should be getting way more than $18.25MM on the open market for one year. You can knock projection systems all you want, but Donaldson is going to be a 4 or 5 win player, maybe the uncertainty knocks that payday down a little bit, but saying he got $23M on a 1 year deal like it's a boon for the players is wrong. You (and others) continually cite a single player contract standing and try to extrapolate them across the system. I dont even know the guy real well but Donaldson got 18.25M based on his individual skills / production to the entire baseball market - offset by his very real injury concerns. To imply or infer his salary was collectively held down - is entirely unprovable - and to claim a players on the field production is worth more based on an organizations gross revenues - is a false equivalency. If a team existed that assessed the risk and valued his services more - they'd have paid him more. This "3win vs 4-5win player" is entirely arbitrary. I presume you have monetary values associated with this system - again - totally arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Leader said: You (and others) continually cite a single player contract standing and try to extrapolate them across the system. I dont even know the guy real well but Donaldson got 18.25M based on his individual skills / production to the entire baseball market - offset by his very real injury concerns. To imply or infer his salary was collectively held down - is entirely unprovable - and to claim a players on the field production is worth more based on an organizations gross revenues - is a false equivalency. If a team existed that assessed the risk and valued his services more - they'd have paid him more. This "3win vs 4-5win player" is entirely arbitrary. I presume you have monetary values associated with this system - again - totally arbitrary. Again, this post makes it very very clear that you don't know what your talking about. Do some background reading, neither production in wins nor the dollar figures associated are arbitrary, I'm happy to provide other sources if you need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: A reasonable projection of their value over 10 years. Machado is likely to average about 5 WAR/year through his prime (we'll call that age 30, which is actually an early start to a decline phase compared to most players). Based on historic $/WAR prices (again, I'll make a concession here and go $9MM), without even projecting inflation, Machado would be worth the following: 2019 - 5 WAR - $45MM 2020 - 5 WAR - $45MM 2021 - 5 WAR - $45MM 2022 - 5 WAR - $45MM 2023 - 4.5 WAR - $40.5MM 2024- 4 WAR - $36MM 2025 - 3.5 WAR - $31.5MM 2026 - 3 WAR - $27MM 2027 - 2.5 WAR - $22.5MM 2028 - 2 WAR - $18MM Total - 10 years - 39.5 WAR - $355MM This is easy, back of the envelop math based on player aging and market rates for production, and I was pessimistic throughout this and still got that signing Machado to a 10 year, $300MM deal would be giving the team about a 15% discount from market price. The reality is the discount would be worth more than that, and the fact that his market may not even get there is a bad joke. Don't take this personally, but your posts make it abundantly clear that you don't understand how to evaluate players in the baseball market. I'd recommend taking a stroll through the Fangraphs glossary: https://library.fangraphs.com/misc/war/ Fine. We'll play in your ballpark. You say Machado is worth 355M over 10 years. Fine. If theres a club out there that agrees with your (or "Fangraphs") assessment - based on their economics and roster needs - then he'll get the cash. If not - they'll either not bid / compete for his services or offer him less. Simple as pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Again, this post makes it very very clear that you don't know what your talking about. Do some background reading, neither production in wins nor the dollar figures associated are arbitrary, I'm happy to provide other sources if you need them. Thanks - but not necessary. I understand market economics very well. Your application of arbitrary baseball stats isnt necessary for me. At all. Whys that you ask? Because I'm not the one setting the players value. Those competing for his services are.....well, and you...a fan - to whom the cost is entirely discretionary. And again - you're presuming the player's NOT going to be paid. As for the NYY - its not that I dont recognize the players on the field production value to the team - I simply dont want the organization to get tied into too many long term / value contracts. Been there. Done that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Leader said: Fine. We'll play in your ballpark. You say Machado is worth 355M over 10 years. Fine. If theres a club out there that agrees with your (or "Fangraphs") assessment - based on their economics and roster needs - then he'll get the cash. If not - they'll either not bid / compete for his services or offer him less. Simple as pie. No, they won't. About a 3rd of the league is ignoring free agency all together, and the big market teams are more focused on profits than winning, so they won't go here. All of this analysis is based on historical precedent, and when teams just stop signing free agents, the precedent changes and the previous market projections are going to be overestimates. Which is why every poster here is saying the owners have changed the game on the players, and the players should strike as a response. Everyone made plenty of money with the previous system that was intact for the past decade, but the owners have decided that apparently 50% wasn't enough. I'm not just talking about Manny Machado here either - MLB players are only getting about 40% of revenue, compared to about 50% for every major other sport. There is no justification for that. Full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Leader said: Thanks - but not necessary. Great, then I see no reason for myself or anyone else on this board to interact with you. Glad we got that cleared up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Great, then I see no reason for myself or anyone else on this board to interact with you. Glad we got that cleared up. LOL The limits to your intellect is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: About a 3rd of the league is ignoring free agency all together, and the big market teams are more focused on profits than winning, Top 10 payrolls in 2018: Boston - 108 wins San Francisco - 73 wins Los Angeles Dodgers - 92 wins Chicago Cubs - 95 wins Washington - 82 wins NYY - 100 wins Los Angeles Angels - 80 wins St. Louis - 88 wins Houston - 103 wins Seattle - 89 wins Toronto - 73 wins You want to apply your fangraphs wizardry and tell us which of these teams werent trying to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Prince Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I wouldnt want my team paying one player 35-45 mill a year like you suggest Machado is worth. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrubes20 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: No, they won't. About a 3rd of the league is ignoring free agency all together, and the big market teams are more focused on profits than winning, so they won't go here. All of this analysis is based on historical precedent, and when teams just stop signing free agents, the precedent changes and the previous market projections are going to be overestimates. Which is why every poster here is saying the owners have changed the game on the players, and the players should strike as a response. Everyone made plenty of money with the previous system that was intact for the past decade, but the owners have decided that apparently 50% wasn't enough. I'm not just talking about Manny Machado here either - MLB players are only getting about 40% of revenue, compared to about 50% for every major other sport. There is no justification for that. Full stop. Yeesh. Is that figure accurate? Edit: Nevermind, I used the Google machine and found it. That's freaking ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, hrubes20 said: Yeesh. Is that figure accurate? Edit: Nevermind, I used the Google machine and found it. That's freaking ridiculous. Yep. It's crazy. MLB owners have either independently or dependently decided that their TV revenue is totally inelastic to winning, and they'll make more money by systematically failing to pay players at market per win rates. The players' response to this should be obvious. Can't televise a game when no one is playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyers0909 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 I saw Pujols and Miggy referenced in this thread as examples of bad deals. If those deals ended in their age 35/36 seasons, is anyone really complaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 minutes ago, flyers0909 said: I saw Pujols and Miggy referenced in this thread as examples of bad deals. If those deals ended in their age 35/36 seasons, is anyone really complaining? Standard player decline is ~0.5WAR/year starting around Age 32. You can cherry pick either way, Pujols is the bad, someone like David Ortiz is the good. The trends within the group are that guys who play further up the defensive spectrum tend to age better, so really even using the standard is a slight to Machado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyers0909 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 51 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Standard player decline is ~0.5WAR/year starting around Age 32. You can cherry pick either way, Pujols is the bad, someone like David Ortiz is the good. The trends within the group are that guys who play further up the defensive spectrum tend to age better, so really even using the standard is a slight to Machado. My point was Pujols/Miggy/Cano/etc aren't really comparable to this year. Machado and Harper are signing these at 26, not in their early 30s. Even if they fall off a cliff in the last few years of the contract you're paying for 6-7 years of their prime before they hit that age 32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Average player salary by sport in the USA: NBA - 6.4M MLB - 4.4M NHL - 2.9M NFL - 2.5M Now...some will argue that regardless the standing of MLB players - its still not enough relative to overall gross revenues. Claiming that even the high payroll (big market) organizations arent in fact trying to win - a fact thats refuted by their record - and bypassing the fact that many of the less profitable (smaller) organizations are fielding highly competitive teams by being judicious with their expenditures (by necessity) and maximizing their player talent evaluations and coaching. It's collusion dont ya know. Well, actually its not and the data refutes the premise. Now, I dont hang out at fanboys.com - which I'm sure would come in real handy if I ever decide to get into fantasy baseball (which I wont) and needed to build my roster using all sort of new fangled analytic gibberish (which I dont). This conundrum can be explained easily enough using economic theories and data applied to an organized sport (which I have). I'm eager to see how Machado gets shafted by the MLB Owners - which he wont. He's gonna make good coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.