Royals *** Official 2018 Royals Offseason Repository *** - Page 49

duncan_idaho · 06:46 AM

It's the end of the world as we know it... and we feel... fine?

2018 is a season of transition for the Royals, or at least it is at this point. Dayton Moore is back. Will he swing full into THE PROCESS 2.0? Or will he try to load up again and make some reload magic happen?

Pending Free Agents:
1B | Eric Hosmer | San Diego Padres, 8 years, $144 million ($5 million signing bonus; $20 million/year in Yrs 1-5; $13 million/year in Yrs 6-8 wth player opt out)

Spoiler!

3B | Mike Moustaskas | Kansas City Royas, 1, $6.5 million

Spoiler!

CF | Lorenzo Cain | Milwaukee Brewers, 5 years, $80 million

Spoiler!

RP | Mike Minor | Texas Rangers, 3, $28 million

Spoiler!

SP | Jason Vargas | New York Mets, 2, $16 million

Spoiler!

SS | Alcides Escobar | Kansas City Royals, 1, $2.5 million

Spoiler!

2018 MLB Draft Picks
#18
#33 - Compensation (Eric Hosmer)
#34 - Compensation (Lorenzo Cain)
#40 (Competitive Balance Round A)

Comp picks explanation:

Spoiler!

2018 Draft Names to Watch

RHP Kumar Rocker, N Oconnee HS, Georgia.

Spoiler!

OF Jarred Kelenic, Waukasha West HS, WI

Spoiler!

1B Triston Casas, American Heritage HS (FL).

Spoiler!

RHP Carter Stewart, Eau de Gallie HS (Ga).

Spoiler!

ANY Any, Any (Any). Any current top projected pick who slides for injury concerns. Includes current top prospect prospect SP Brady Singer, U of Florida.

The Bunk · 01-17-2018, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

The MLBPA is the strongest players union in the world and wields a lot of power. It's in the owners' long-term interest to avoid a labor shortage.

I can't envision them (especially the smaller market teams) bending over like they did in '94. I think the players have really screwed themselves.

ChiefsCountry · 01-17-2018, 11:42 AM

Salary cap wouldn't work in baseball IMO. NFL is national tv driven revenue. NBA is national tv driven revenue. MLB is local market driven revenue.

DJ's left nut · 01-17-2018, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Because they subsist on slaves-level wages right now? And if the profit sharing for the league stays the same, the money has to go somewhere?

Typically, the MLBPA hasn't cared about minor league pay because you make it up if you make it to the bigs. But if the landscape at the major league level has shifted and only the best players are getting the big paydays in FA, they may look at this differently.

That's wildly overstating things.

If Mike Moustakas would accept a 4 year, $28 million dollar deal, literally every single team in baseball would be willing to sign him. The damn Marlins would sign on at that figure. And he'd never have to work again a day in his life.

That's absolutely a 'big payday'. But what baseball's middle class is failing to recognize is a completely new understanding of baseball's present aging curves. We see things much differently now than we used to when it comes to how players perform as they age. We used to think guys could be counted on to improve in their early 20s until they peak around 27, stay relatively stable until 31 and then decline a bit annually until around 35 when they fall off a cliff.

Recent trends (about the last 10 years or so) suggest that just isn't the case anymore. For whatever reason, players are getting to the majors far more fully formed and when they get there they don't improve substantially. Additionally, they tend to start declining sooner than we realize and with a more inexorable fall-off. Most metrics suggest that players now reach their peak levels at something like 25/26 years old and then they start to fall off a bit every year from that point forward.

Owners have come to realize this. As the article notes, it's silly to pay a 28/29 year old for what he's done when we have mountains of evidence to suggest that the guy is going to decline literally every season of that long-term contract. Obviously baseball is a game of individuals so there are exceptions and outliers, but over large numbers that's just the way things go right now.

Ballplayers and agents are clinging to this asinine '$8 million/WAR' calculus as though that's 'fair' just because that's what owners have been foolishly willing to pay. But consider a basic thought exercise - what if multi-year contracts were completely banned and every year the entirety of MLB came up as FAs? Eliminate the luxury tax as well. Anyone that spent, I dunno, 6 weeks on an MLB 40 man (not even the 25) is going to be considered a FA and can be signed for a single year.

I suspect you'd see some players like Trout get $45-$50 million deals. A guy like Correa would be able to get paid immediately what he's worth as well. But when all is said and done, what would you suspect a 'competitive' payroll in that environment would be? I think you'd be looking in the neighborhood of $150-$160 million. Some teams would go to the $220-$240 range, others would sit far far less. But I'm betting any team that was looking to actually win a championship would probably be in the $160 million or so range.

A 'replacement level' team wins 48 games. 88 makes you likely to make the post-season. So that $160 million buys you an additional 40 wins; that's the baseline for 'competitive'. The true worth of a win in a free market becomes something nearer $4 million/yr.

Now baseball can never get that bell unrung; they'll never drive it down that far again. But if the baseball world could convince the middle-class free agents to take deals that would likely pay them in the 4-5 million/WAR neighborhood for the lengths of their deals, they'd get signed. Because that's a true barometer of a player's worth rather than the artificially inflated figures that owners were foolishly operating under for years.

$8 million/WAR would never hold in a true free market - teams wouldn't pay $320 million to field a competitive ballclub in a true free for all. So we know that number is bullshit. And more and more executives and front offices are realizing that.

The MLBPA can either adjust back or continue to bitch and moan about not being able to provide summer homes for their children's children after managing to be slightly above average players for 3-4 years.

It's not collusion - it's sanity. I'm not going to cry for any of these guys and act like they just can't find work. Sure they can - they just don't want to take $30-$40 million because far dumber organizations were giving up 2 and 3 times that not terribly long ago.

**gblowfish** · 01-17-2018, 04:30 PM

Royals have hired former MLB manager Gene Lamonte as special assistant to GMDM. Wonder is they're worried about Ned making through the upcoming season?

duncan_idaho · 01-17-2018, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's wildly overstating things.

If Mike Moustakas would accept a 4 year, $28 million dollar deal, literally every single team in baseball would be willing to sign him. The damn Marlins would sign on at that figure. And he'd never have to work again a day in his life.

That's absolutely a 'big payday'. But what baseball's middle class is failing to recognize is a completely new understanding of baseball's present aging curves. We see things much differently now than we used to when it comes to how players perform as they age. We used to think guys could be counted on to improve in their early 20s until they peak around 27, stay relatively stable until 31 and then decline a bit annually until around 35 when they fall off a cliff.

Recent trends (about the last 10 years or so) suggest that just isn't the case anymore. For whatever reason, players are getting to the majors far more fully formed and when they get there they don't improve substantially. Additionally, they tend to start declining sooner than we realize and with a more inexorable fall-off. Most metrics suggest that players now reach their peak levels at something like 25/26 years old and then they start to fall off a bit every year from that point forward.

Owners have come to realize this. As the article notes, it's silly to pay a 28/29 year old for what he's done when we have mountains of evidence to suggest that the guy is going to decline literally every season of that long-term contract. Obviously baseball is a game of individuals so there are exceptions and outliers, but over large numbers that's just the way things go right now.

Ballplayers and agents are clinging to this asinine '$8 million/WAR' calculus as though that's 'fair' just because that's what owners have been foolishly willing to pay. But consider a basic thought exercise - what if multi-year contracts were completely banned and every year the entirety of MLB came up as FAs? Eliminate the luxury tax as well. Anyone that spent, I dunno, 6 weeks on an MLB 40 man (not even the 25) is going to be considered a FA and can be signed for a single year.

I suspect you'd see some players like Trout get $45-$50 million deals. A guy like Correa would be able to get paid immediately what he's worth as well. But when all is said and done, what would you suspect a 'competitive' payroll in that environment would be? I think you'd be looking in the neighborhood of $150-$160 million. Some teams would go to the $220-$240 range, others would sit far far less. But I'm betting any team that was looking to actually win a championship would probably be in the $160 million or so range.

A 'replacement level' team wins 48 games. 88 makes you likely to make the post-season. So that $160 million buys you an additional 40 wins; that's the baseline for 'competitive'. The true worth of a win in a free market becomes something nearer $4 million/yr.

Now baseball can never get that bell unrung; they'll never drive it down that far again. But if the baseball world could convince the middle-class free agents to take deals that would likely pay them in the 4-5 million/WAR neighborhood for the lengths of their deals, they'd get signed. Because that's a true barometer of a player's worth rather than the artificially inflated figures that owners were foolishly operating under for years.

$8 million/WAR would never hold in a true free market - teams wouldn't pay $320 million to field a competitive ballclub in a true free for all. So we know that number is bullshit. And more and more executives and front offices are realizing that.

The MLBPA can either adjust back or continue to bitch and moan about not being able to provide summer homes for their children's children after managing to be slightly above average players for 3-4 years.

It's not collusion - it's sanity. I'm not going to cry for any of these guys and act like they just can't find work. Sure they can - they just don't want to take $30-$40 million because far dumber organizations were giving up 2 and 3 times that not terribly long ago.

I don't disagree with you, necessarily. You make good points about teams wising up and making better long-term investments. And I don't feel sorry for Eric Hosmer that he may only get 7/140 when he thought he would get 10/230.

From a logistics standpoint, I do think it's better for all involved if team-controlled players are rewarded more for their first few years in the majors than they currently are. Especially if the outlay on players as they get older goes down that's what I was saying, really.

If this imbalance leads to players in years 1-6 being paid more closely to what they're actually worth, and minor league players getting a little more (based on the average week for a minor league player, they're paid the equivalent of about $2 an hour).

I'm not bemoaning the loss of paydays for vets as much as I'm trying to predict how the PA will respond. I think it will be by trying to balance things out more for young guys... so the overall player pay pool doesn't drop off a cliff.

DJ's left nut · 01-17-2018, 05:01 PM

There's nothing that would necessarily prevent young players from getting paid now if they were again willing to operate within a sane market.

Let's use Correa as an example. I'll presume relatively decent health and a bullish but not outlandish projection on him from now until when a 'reasonable' FA contract would take him - let's say his age 34 season. That's 4 years of team control plus an 8 year FA deal.

Let's say the Astros offered him 12/$250 right now. Would he take it? I honestly don't think he would, because again the idea of the $8 million WAR is what is drawing players to the market. But if you give Correa reasonable health and a general aging curve, you're looking at roughly 63 wins over his next 12 years through age 34. If you look at his controlled years, he could get, what, $50 million over the next 4 years? His 3 arb years and his controlled year. Seems within reason.

So you're offering him an 8/$200 million extension in guaranteed money - right at $25 million/year. And that's for ages 27-34 where again, present understanding of aging curves says he'll be worth 50/60% of his peak value by the end of it. You're looking at 43-50 wins over those 8 years. And again, that's presuming health and a 'peak' of 7-8 WAR. That's pretty damn bullish.

I bet he wouldn't take it because it's 'only' $4-4.5 million/projected win in his FA years. Carlos Correa could get PAID if he wanted to and he could do it right now. But the allure of a completely out of whack FA market is strong enough that I doubt he'd sign on. Moreover, the risk may be so far out of whack for the Astros that they might not even be willing to offer it. He's had some lower body and wrist injuries that could make him a fraction of his peak player if anything wonky happened again.

Players aren't reasonable about how they age. And they aren't actually wanting to 'get what they're worth when they're worth it' because if they were, they could get those deals signed. They're willing to take less than what they're worth when they're worth it because of the bill of goods they've been sold by the MLBPA that says they'll get far MORE than they're worth when they hit FA.

Bad news guys - there are some teams out there that just aren't willing to play that game anymore. And when a player gets a silly oversized deal we hear 'I'm worth what the market says I'm worth'. Then when the market says you aren't worth nearly what you convinced yourself of it suddenly becomes collusion.

Hosmer's gonna get 7/$140 and that contract will be stupid. Let's be bullish and say that Hosmer is a 4 WAR player right now. Give him a basic curve and you're talking 31 wins over the next 7 years. Under the inflated $8 million/win model, he's 'worth' 7/$168 and hell he might get that. But we all know that it's a bad system that created that model. In a 'true' marketplace he'd be considered around 7/$95 millionish.

So free agents are bitching because they aren't getting overpaid by enough. And again - Hosmer's children's children would never have to work a day in their lives if he signed at 7/$95 million. I am just completely unmoved.

DJ's left nut · 01-17-2018, 05:15 PM

Carlos Martinez popped to mind for no good reason other than he's the closest example of a recent young player who signed long-term prior to his 'big payday' that I could think of.

Martinez's deal will take him through age 31 if the options are picked up and presuming his 'peak' being a 3.3 win pitcher (a little bearish, IMO), he's 'worth' roughly 20 wins over the duration of that 7 year deal. That ends up being roughly 4.3 million/win. Because again - somewhere between 4 and 5 million is where teams actually value a win when they don't have a gun to their heads. That's how they behave when they act strictly rationally.

Carlos got a deal done because he wanted the security and because he was willing to operate in a sane market and not one driven by the $8 million WAR. It was a meeting of rational actors.

But agents depend on irrational actors to create their value and then get pissy when they can't find any. That's an agent problem, not a baseball problem.

**SAUTO** · 01-17-2018, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That's wildly overstating things.

If Mike Moustakas would accept a 4 year, $28 million dollar deal, literally every single team in baseball would be willing to sign him. The damn Marlins would sign on at that figure. And he'd never have to work again a day in his life.

That's absolutely a 'big payday'. But what baseball's middle class is failing to recognize is a completely new understanding of baseball's present aging curves. We see things much differently now than we used to when it comes to how players perform as they age. We used to think guys could be counted on to improve in their early 20s until they peak around 27, stay relatively stable until 31 and then decline a bit annually until around 35 when they fall off a cliff.

Recent trends (about the last 10 years or so) suggest that just isn't the case anymore. For whatever reason, players are getting to the majors far more fully formed and when they get there they don't improve substantially. Additionally, they tend to start declining sooner than we realize and with a more inexorable fall-off. Most metrics suggest that players now reach their peak levels at something like 25/26 years old and then they start to fall off a bit every year from that point forward.

Owners have come to realize this. As the article notes, it's silly to pay a 28/29 year old for what he's done when we have mountains of evidence to suggest that the guy is going to decline literally every season of that long-term contract. Obviously baseball is a game of individuals so there are exceptions and outliers, but over large numbers that's just the way things go right now.

Ballplayers and agents are clinging to this asinine '$8 million/WAR' calculus as though that's 'fair' just because that's what owners have been foolishly willing to pay. But consider a basic thought exercise - what if multi-year contracts were completely banned and every year the entirety of MLB came up as FAs? Eliminate the luxury tax as well. Anyone that spent, I dunno, 6 weeks on an MLB 40 man (not even the 25) is going to be considered a FA and can be signed for a single year.

I suspect you'd see some players like Trout get $45-$50 million deals. A guy like Correa would be able to get paid immediately what he's worth as well. But when all is said and done, what would you suspect a 'competitive' payroll in that environment would be? I think you'd be looking in the neighborhood of $150-$160 million. Some teams would go to the $220-$240 range, others would sit far far less. But I'm betting any team that was looking to actually win a championship would probably be in the $160 million or so range.

A 'replacement level' team wins 48 games. 88 makes you likely to make the post-season. So that $160 million buys you an additional 40 wins; that's the baseline for 'competitive'. The true worth of a win in a free market becomes something nearer $4 million/yr.

Now baseball can never get that bell unrung; they'll never drive it down that far again. But if the baseball world could convince the middle-class free agents to take deals that would likely pay them in the 4-5 million/WAR neighborhood for the lengths of their deals, they'd get signed. Because that's a true barometer of a player's worth rather than the artificially inflated figures that owners were foolishly operating under for years.

$8 million/WAR would never hold in a true free market - teams wouldn't pay $320 million to field a competitive ballclub in a true free for all. So we know that number is bullshit. And more and more executives and front offices are realizing that.

The MLBPA can either adjust back or continue to bitch and moan about not being able to provide summer homes for their children's children after managing to be slightly above average players for 3-4 years.

It's not collusion - it's sanity. I'm not going to cry for any of these guys and act like they just can't find work. Sure they can - they just don't want to take $30-$40 million because far dumber organizations were giving up 2 and 3 times that not terribly long ago.

Is the way you calculated that 4 million per war number taking into account the 48 win team's payroll? Replacement level isn't free.

Prison Bitch · 01-17-2018, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAUTO

Is the way you calculated that 4 million per war number taking into account the 48 win team's payroll? Replacement level isn't free.

3.8B total salaries / 1,000 avail WAR

$4M/war is correct.

**SAUTO** · 01-17-2018, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

3.8B total salaries / 1,000 avail WAR

$4M/war is correct.

Who says that's what the total salaries would be?

I think the number is lower than 4

Prison Bitch · 01-17-2018, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAUTO

Who says that's what the total salaries would be?

I think the number is lower than 4

Who says they wouldn't be higher? You're introduced no an unnecessary (and unknowable) variable. Total MLB payrolls have avg 50% of revenues for many years and fell to 40% recently as revenues spiked (salaries didn't quite keep pace, but owners still spend billions).

**SAUTO** · 01-17-2018, 05:43 PM

Its going to cost at least 40 million to field a team i would think which would bring the number to 3 million.

If average payroll was 60 and it took 160 to get there its 2.5 million per war.

**SAUTO** · 01-17-2018, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Who says they wouldn't be higher? You're introduced no an unnecessary (and unknowable) variable. Total MLB payrolls have avg 50% of revenues for many years and fell to 40% recently as revenues spiked (salaries didn't quite keep pace, but owners still spend billions).

Ok what does a replacement level team cost?

Prison Bitch · 01-17-2018, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAUTO

Its going to cost at least 40 million to field a team i would think which would bring the number to 3 million.

If average payroll was 60 and it took 160 to get there its 2.5 million per war.

No. Keep it simple: 3.8b/1000

The avg payroll is 125M

Prison Bitch · 01-17-2018, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAUTO

Ok what does a replacement level team cost?

500k min salary X 25-30 roster spots = 13M for a 48 win (aka "Allard Baird special") team

11-17-2017, 08:24 PM
duncan_idaho M-I-Z-Z-O-U Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas City Casino cash: $1780308	* Official 2018 Royals Offseason Repository * It's the end of the world as we know it... and we feel... fine? 2018 is a season of transition for the Royals, or at least it is at this point. Dayton Moore is back. Will he swing full into THE PROCESS 2.0? Or will he try to load up again and make some reload magic happen? Pending Free Agents: 1B \| Eric Hosmer \| San Diego Padres, 8 years, $144 million ($5 million signing bonus; $20 million/year in Yrs 1-5; $13 million/year in Yrs 6-8 wth player opt out) Spoiler! (DI's Guess: Texas Rangers, 6, $118 million) 3B \| Mike Moustaskas \| Kansas City Royas, 1, $6.5 million Spoiler! (DI's Guess: Los Angeles Angels, 5, $98 million) CF \| Lorenzo Cain \| Milwaukee Brewers, 5 years, $80 million Spoiler! (DI's Guess: San Francisco Giants, 4, $68 million) RP \| Mike Minor \| Texas Rangers, 3, $28 million Spoiler! (DI's Guess: Los Angeles Angels, 3, $35 million+ $12 million team option SP \| Jason Vargas \| New York Mets, 2, $16 million Spoiler! (DI's Guess: Baltimore Orioles, 2, $29 million) SS \| Alcides Escobar \| Kansas City Royals, 1, $2.5 million Spoiler! (DI's Guess: San Diego Padres, 1, $6.5 million) 2018 MLB Draft Picks #18 #33 - Compensation (Eric Hosmer) #34 - Compensation (Lorenzo Cain) #40 (Competitive Balance Round A) Comp picks explanation: Spoiler! In case I, picks would be #32, 33, and 34, if Alex Cobb of Rays signs for $50 million guaranteed. Kansas City will likely have 5 of the top 40-45 picks in the draft, and the bonus pool money should rival that of the teams drafting 1-3 in the 2017 draft. This should give KC tremendous flexibility in acquiring talent that otherwise might slip or not be "signable." 2018 Draft Names to Watch RHP Kumar Rocker, N Oconnee HS, Georgia. Spoiler! Possibly goes top 10 but is a big, physical SP with ace potential. Moore and co. will be all over him if he slips a bit and could offer top 10 money at No. 16 OF Jarred Kelenic, Waukasha West HS, WI Spoiler! Kelenic is the top prep bat, toolsy OF. Royals would be ecstatic to have shot at him. 1B Triston Casas, American Heritage HS (FL). Spoiler! Tremendous raw power, best in HS bats. Royals typically like HS arms or HS bats with "special" tools. He qualifies. RHP Carter Stewart, Eau de Gallie HS (Ga). Spoiler! Another big, physical specimen with huge upside. More likely to be available mid-first than Rocker. ANY Any, Any (Any). Any current top projected pick who slides for injury concerns. Includes current top prospect prospect SP Brady Singer, U of Florida. Last edited by duncan_idaho; 04-02-2018 at 06:46 AM..
Posts: 21,077

01-17-2018, 11:42 AM	#722
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $2348752	Salary cap wouldn't work in baseball IMO. NFL is national tv driven revenue. NBA is national tv driven revenue. MLB is local market driven revenue.
Posts: 49,572

01-17-2018, 04:30 PM	#724
gblowfish Be Kind To Your Pets Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Glorious Independence, MO Casino cash: $17686178 VARSITY	Royals have hired former MLB manager Gene Lamonte as special assistant to GMDM. Wonder is they're worried about Ned making through the upcoming season?
Posts: 40,830

01-17-2018, 05:01 PM	#726
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $3029099	There's nothing that would necessarily prevent young players from getting paid now if they were again willing to operate within a sane market. Let's use Correa as an example. I'll presume relatively decent health and a bullish but not outlandish projection on him from now until when a 'reasonable' FA contract would take him - let's say his age 34 season. That's 4 years of team control plus an 8 year FA deal. Let's say the Astros offered him 12/$250 right now. Would he take it? I honestly don't think he would, because again the idea of the $8 million WAR is what is drawing players to the market. But if you give Correa reasonable health and a general aging curve, you're looking at roughly 63 wins over his next 12 years through age 34. If you look at his controlled years, he could get, what, $50 million over the next 4 years? His 3 arb years and his controlled year. Seems within reason. So you're offering him an 8/$200 million extension in guaranteed money - right at $25 million/year. And that's for ages 27-34 where again, present understanding of aging curves says he'll be worth 50/60% of his peak value by the end of it. You're looking at 43-50 wins over those 8 years. And again, that's presuming health and a 'peak' of 7-8 WAR. That's pretty damn bullish. I bet he wouldn't take it because it's 'only' $4-4.5 million/projected win in his FA years. Carlos Correa could get PAID if he wanted to and he could do it right now. But the allure of a completely out of whack FA market is strong enough that I doubt he'd sign on. Moreover, the risk may be so far out of whack for the Astros that they might not even be willing to offer it. He's had some lower body and wrist injuries that could make him a fraction of his peak player if anything wonky happened again. Players aren't reasonable about how they age. And they aren't actually wanting to 'get what they're worth when they're worth it' because if they were, they could get those deals signed. They're willing to take less than what they're worth when they're worth it because of the bill of goods they've been sold by the MLBPA that says they'll get far MORE than they're worth when they hit FA. Bad news guys - there are some teams out there that just aren't willing to play that game anymore. And when a player gets a silly oversized deal we hear 'I'm worth what the market says I'm worth'. Then when the market says you aren't worth nearly what you convinced yourself of it suddenly becomes collusion. Hosmer's gonna get 7/$140 and that contract will be stupid. Let's be bullish and say that Hosmer is a 4 WAR player right now. Give him a basic curve and you're talking 31 wins over the next 7 years. Under the inflated $8 million/win model, he's 'worth' 7/$168 and hell he might get that. But we all know that it's a bad system that created that model. In a 'true' marketplace he'd be considered around 7/$95 millionish. So free agents are bitching because they aren't getting overpaid by enough. And again - Hosmer's children's children would never have to work a day in their lives if he signed at 7/$95 million. I am just completely unmoved. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 60,236

01-17-2018, 05:15 PM	#727
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $3029099	Carlos Martinez popped to mind for no good reason other than he's the closest example of a recent young player who signed long-term prior to his 'big payday' that I could think of. Martinez's deal will take him through age 31 if the options are picked up and presuming his 'peak' being a 3.3 win pitcher (a little bearish, IMO), he's 'worth' roughly 20 wins over the duration of that 7 year deal. That ends up being roughly 4.3 million/win. Because again - somewhere between 4 and 5 million is where teams actually value a win when they don't have a gun to their heads. That's how they behave when they act strictly rationally. Carlos got a deal done because he wanted the security and because he was willing to operate in a sane market and not one driven by the $8 million WAR. It was a meeting of rational actors. But agents depend on irrational actors to create their value and then get pissy when they can't find any. That's an agent problem, not a baseball problem. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 60,236

01-17-2018, 05:43 PM	#732
SAUTO Shit Join Date: Jun 2008 Casino cash: $10039067	Its going to cost at least 40 million to field a team i would think which would bring the number to 3 million. If average payroll was 60 and it took 160 to get there its 2.5 million per war.
Posts: 55,715