Posts: 1,238
Threads: 11
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105845:date=Jul 16 2010, 02:30 PM:name=Rappster)-->QUOTE (Rappster @ Jul 16 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105834:date=Jul 16 2010, 01:36 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jul 16 2010, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, it seems that you and BT are taking the stance (correct me if I'm wrong) that no free agent ever lives up to his contract (and, thus, we shouldn't be pissed that Fuk isn't living up to his contract).
I'm sure that you're a big enough fan of MLB history to know that's plain incorrect, but since Steinbrenner has been in the news, let's look at his most iconic move, signing Reggie Jackson. He may not have put up huge numbers like he did in Oakland, but to say George didn't get his money's worth is downright false.
This is just one of hundreds and hundreds of guys who outdid their FA contracts (DeRosa? Lilly?).
Any time a player wants to renegotiate in the midst of a long-term deal, you can rest assured that he's far outplayed the money he got.
Fuk was a bad signing. Plain and simple. It was bad to target him. It was bad to vastly overpay him.
Bad signing.
This isn't to rag on Jim; I just used Lilly as an example of a good signing, and Jim's fingerprints are all over that deal.
I can admit that Lilly was a good deal. Why can't you guys admit that Fuk was a bad one?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is every argument piece-mealed? Would any of us have given that contract, in retrospect? No.
You're acting like it's some humbling admission to say that Lilly was a good signing.
Body of work...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rapp, don't take this the wrong way, but did you fail the reading comprehension part of the SAT? The point that people are making is that the contract isn't just bad in retrospect, but that even if Fuk performed up to the best case expectations, it still would have not been a good contract.
Frankly, I would not be upset if Hendry were back. As long as Lou is gone.
Posts: 14,066
Threads: 89
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
I still wouldn't bitch if Hendry were let go, BUT hiring a true VP or Director of Baseball Operations to look over his shoulder and keeping Wilken around would please me too.
Posts: 301
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105822:date=Jul 16 2010, 12:53 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Jul 16 2010, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm quite sure kb knew all of that. He's not a dolt.
What kb is saying is that $12 mil for a guy projected to hit 15 home runs and take some walks is too much. I agree with him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd have to assume they projected him higher, because if not it's obvious that it's an atrocious contract. No matter how many people were bidding for him. A GM with good FA acquisition skills would recognize that a player has massively exceeded his value and go out and find an alternative.
Posts: 3,011
Threads: 81
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Kabes, again, I love you, but man you really tee it up for me. Scarey has ably filled in for me as I strolled the Museum of Science and Industry with the kids today. I'm glad you realized eventually that I wasn't trying to claim there has never been a good free agent signing in history. But I have to question some of your most recent arguments. First of all
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
For the subsequent problems Fangraphs presents, I have to quote you again:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Manny's 160M deal paid off, the Yanks haven't complained about Jeter's 189M deal, and A-Rod certainly had a magnificent decade after signing his 10-year deal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem 2-Manny played 7 full seasons with the Red Sox after signing that deal. How many of those seasons did he earn his salary according to fangraphs? ZERO. The only year in the past 10 in which he earned his salary was 2008, when the Red Sox dumped him. That's it. So no, the 160 million dollar deal didn't pay off. And his current deal with the Dodgers doesn't look so hot either.
Problem 3- How many years does fangraphs show Jeter earning his money? In all of the years he has the data listed? One (2006). In every other year, he was overpaid. I'm cheating a bit, because he probably earned his salary in 2009, but it's not listed. But still, Jeter hasn't come close to earning his money.
Problem 4- Arod. I suppose he's been pretty good, so you could justify the Yankees getting their money's worth after they signed ARod to that 10 year deal and...what's that? The Yankees DIDN'T sign him to that deal? Oh that's right, the Rangers signed him to that deal. And traded him. Because he was making too much money. Oh, and in order to trade him, they had to kick in SIXTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for the Yankees to take him. It was such a great deal that the Rangers had to pay him almost 70 million to NOT play for them. So I'm going to put that free agent signing into maybe the largest NEGATIVE bin I can find.
I might also add that outside of one fantastic year (2007) he has been paid about what he was worth. Some years he earned a bit more, some years he earned a bit less. The problem is he was pretty good last year, and was still overpaid by 11 million. I can't imagine he will earn 32 million this year. There are seven years left in this deal. This will not end pretty for the Yankees.
So again, I love bringing fangraphs into it, but it not only invalidates your premise (although that could admittedly change by the end of this year), but contradicts each of your examples.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.
Posts: 1,440
Threads: 63
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105874:date=Jul 16 2010, 04:08 PM:name=dk123)-->QUOTE (dk123 @ Jul 16 2010, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105845:date=Jul 16 2010, 02:30 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ Jul 16 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105834:date=Jul 16 2010, 01:36 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ Jul 16 2010, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Scarey, it seems that you and BT are taking the stance (correct me if I'm wrong) that no free agent ever lives up to his contract (and, thus, we shouldn't be pissed that Fuk isn't living up to his contract).
I'm sure that you're a big enough fan of MLB history to know that's plain incorrect, but since Steinbrenner has been in the news, let's look at his most iconic move, signing Reggie Jackson. He may not have put up huge numbers like he did in Oakland, but to say George didn't get his money's worth is downright false.
This is just one of hundreds and hundreds of guys who outdid their FA contracts (DeRosa? Lilly?).
Any time a player wants to renegotiate in the midst of a long-term deal, you can rest assured that he's far outplayed the money he got.
Fuk was a bad signing. Plain and simple. It was bad to target him. It was bad to vastly overpay him.
Bad signing.
This isn't to rag on Jim; I just used Lilly as an example of a good signing, and Jim's fingerprints are all over that deal.
I can admit that Lilly was a good deal. Why can't you guys admit that Fuk was a bad one?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is every argument piece-mealed? Would any of us have given that contract, in retrospect? No.
You're acting like it's some humbling admission to say that Lilly was a good signing.
Body of work...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rapp, don't take this the wrong way, but did you fail the reading comprehension part of the SAT? The point that people are making is that the contract isn't just bad in retrospect, but that even if Fuk performed up to the best case expectations, it still would have not been a good contract.
Frankly, I would not be upset if Hendry were back. As long as Lou is gone.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comprehension?
Who's expectations? There were all kinds of numbers being thrown around when he was signed, and I'm not sure I ever truly knew what to expect.
He was billed as the best left-handed FA available during that off-season.
So...I guess I don't comprehend your quip regarding comprehension. To me...it turned out to be a lousy contract, and I remember some happy people around here, but I'm not sure any of us ever knew where the dart was going to land.
Posts: 4,684
Threads: 78
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Signing Fuk was a bad idea. Not in retrospect, but before the fact. It's called 1st guessing. It was a gamble, similar to Bradley, and it didn't pay off, similar to Bradley.
Wang.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105921:date=Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Kabes, again, I love you, but man you really tee it up for me. Scarey has ably filled in for me as I strolled the Museum of Science and Industry with the kids today. I'm glad you realized eventually that I wasn't trying to claim there has never been a good free agent signing in history. But I have to question some of your most recent arguments. First of all
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you didn't initially bring up Fangraphs, but the problem I have with their player values is that it doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2002 it says that Neifi Perez should have made $8.2, but he made $4.1 while sporting a glorious WAR of -3.2. How is that possible?
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 2,696
Threads: 47
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=106010:date=Jul 17 2010, 03:37 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Jul 17 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105921:date=Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Kabes, again, I love you, but man you really tee it up for me. Scarey has ably filled in for me as I strolled the Museum of Science and Industry with the kids today. I'm glad you realized eventually that I wasn't trying to claim there has never been a good free agent signing in history. But I have to question some of your most recent arguments. First of all
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you didn't initially bring up Fangraphs, but the problem I have with their player values is that it doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2002 it says that Neifi Perez should have made $8.2, but he made $4.1 while sporting a glorious WAR of -3.2. How is that possible?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, it's based on win shares. Here's an explanation.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=106011:date=Jul 17 2010, 03:50 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Jul 17 2010, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=106010:date=Jul 17 2010, 03:37 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jul 17 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=105921:date=Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Kabes, again, I love you, but man you really tee it up for me. Scarey has ably filled in for me as I strolled the Museum of Science and Industry with the kids today. I'm glad you realized eventually that I wasn't trying to claim there has never been a good free agent signing in history. But I have to question some of your most recent arguments. First of all
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know you didn't initially bring up Fangraphs, but the problem I have with their player values is that it doesn't seem to make much sense. In 2002 it says that Neifi Perez should have made $8.2, but he made $4.1 while sporting a glorious WAR of -3.2. How is that possible?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, it's based on win shares. Here's an explanation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AHHhhhhhhhhhhh...when a "dollars" value is in parenthesis it means that it is a negative number. So Neifi was actually worth -$8.2 but he made $4.1. That is awful.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 301
Threads: 3
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=105921:date=Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Kabes, again, I love you, but man you really tee it up for me. Scarey has ably filled in for me as I strolled the Museum of Science and Industry with the kids today. I'm glad you realized eventually that I wasn't trying to claim there has never been a good free agent signing in history. But I have to question some of your most recent arguments. First of all
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
For the subsequent problems Fangraphs presents, I have to quote you again:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Manny's 160M deal paid off, the Yanks haven't complained about Jeter's 189M deal, and A-Rod certainly had a magnificent decade after signing his 10-year deal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem 2-Manny played 7 full seasons with the Red Sox after signing that deal. How many of those seasons did he earn his salary according to fangraphs? ZERO. The only year in the past 10 in which he earned his salary was 2008, when the Red Sox dumped him. That's it. So no, the 160 million dollar deal didn't pay off. And his current deal with the Dodgers doesn't look so hot either.
Problem 3- How many years does fangraphs show Jeter earning his money? In all of the years he has the data listed? One (2006). In every other year, he was overpaid. I'm cheating a bit, because he probably earned his salary in 2009, but it's not listed. But still, Jeter hasn't come close to earning his money.
Problem 4- Arod. I suppose he's been pretty good, so you could justify the Yankees getting their money's worth after they signed ARod to that 10 year deal and...what's that? The Yankees DIDN'T sign him to that deal? Oh that's right, the Rangers signed him to that deal. And traded him. Because he was making too much money. Oh, and in order to trade him, they had to kick in SIXTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for the Yankees to take him. It was such a great deal that the Rangers had to pay him almost 70 million to NOT play for them. So I'm going to put that free agent signing into maybe the largest NEGATIVE bin I can find.
I might also add that outside of one fantastic year (2007) he has been paid about what he was worth. Some years he earned a bit more, some years he earned a bit less. The problem is he was pretty good last year, and was still overpaid by 11 million. I can't imagine he will earn 32 million this year. There are seven years left in this deal. This will not end pretty for the Yankees.
So again, I love bringing fangraphs into it, but it not only invalidates your premise (although that could admittedly change by the end of this year), but contradicts each of your examples.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I looked at fangraphs and I *think* I read that Fuk was "worth" $7 mil in 2008 and $12 mil in 2009. It's a matter of perspective but it seems much more accurate overall to average the contract over its duration and then compare instead of factoring in accounting tricks. If you do that, then Fuk's 2008 was horrible and his 2009 was just about spot on.
That being said, judging a contract in hindsight doesn't hold as much value to me. I'd like to see how Fuk was projected and how fangraphs would translate the projection into dollars. That would give a better indication of how poor the contract was.
|
