Michael Young has just renewed his contract with the Rangers, signing a deal worth 80 million dollars over the next five years. The Rangers will pick up his five million dollar option, then pay him 16 million a year from 2009-2013.
I mention this because it looks like the Dodgers are going to have some middle infield issues in the coming years, and Young was the best available option. This leaves Carlos Guillen, Marcus Giles, Rafael Furcal as the only worthwhile middle infielders that will enter free agency over the next couple years.
0 recs | 8 comments
Am I missing something?
Or is this a horrible deal for the Rangers? They are paying for Young's age 32-37 seasons, he hits well for a SS outside of Texas but not HOF great, and I understand his defense is pretty bad. He's durable, sure, but this makes the Furcal signing look even better. Plus, they had him locked up through this year and next anyway? What's the rush? I can't figure this out.Alfredo Griffin - March 1, 2007
Re
Quite horrible. The guy is very batting average dependant so I don't think he's going to age too well. If this is what it would have taken to get Young then I'm all for avoiding it, but it does leave the Dodgers with very little options in the future.Andrew - March 1, 2007
Young
I thought the same thing, but kept thinking maybe it's just the market? However, I don't think, even in this market, you could give him more than 12-13 million a year, and even that's overpricing it. I'd like to know what PECOTA would project his pricetag as (OT: Andrew, how do you check this on BP? I've heard Keith Law use it before), but I couldn't see it being more than 8-10 million.Rich @ True Blue LA - March 1, 2007
Re
It's in the PECOTA cards under MORP, here's Young:21,175,000
20,950,000
19,625,000
14,825,000
14,875,000
Amazing what giving Gary Matthews 50 million can do to the market. It seems like taking those first two years, then reevaluating for there would be a much better idea then buying out those last three plus two more.
Andrew - March 1, 2007
'market' price
I'm definitely not an econ guy, so somebody tell me where I'm wrong...but how is Young 'worth' 21 million next year? Felipe Lopez is probably, what, 85% of the player Young is? It's hard to tell because there is no one reliable way to measure defense. But you would never have to pay $12-$13 million to sign Felipe Lopez--I can't imagine if he were cut right now that he would get more than Marcus Giles money. Or take CF. Jason Repko kind of sucks, but he's probably 85-90% of the player Juan Pierre is--and there's no way Repko gets more than a million or two on the market. So how does this MORP work?Alfredo Griffin - March 2, 2007
From BP:
As listed in a player's PECOTA card, a player's MORP includes the major league minimum salary of $380,000 for 2007. Further, in a player's Five-Year Forecast, we assume salary inflation of 8% per year through 2010 (EXCEPTION: a player's Peak MORP does not include the minimum salary or the inflation adjustment.)
For 2007, a player's MORP is estimated as follows:
1200000*(WARP^1.5) + 380000
There was an article in the Hardball Times Annual about how teams paid an average of four million dollars per win from a free agent last year, so 21 million for a six win player seems about right.
Andrew - March 2, 2007
I see
Thanks for showing the definition (which I was too lazy to look up.)But I guess maybe the point I was trying to make was that MORP does not say anything about whether the free agent market is a RATIONAL allocation of resources. Essentially, it's an auction; and my understanding is that people generally end up paying more during an auction than they would in a straight buy/don't buy decision.
Which is maybe a long way of saying there are inefficiencies in the player market (the main thesis of Moneyball, I suppose) and so the fact that a lot of teams would pay so much for Michael Young that he could command $20 million on the open market doesn't necessarily make him 'worth' that from either a team revenue or wins and losses standpoint.
I guess maybe the reason is one that gets bandied about: personnel decision makers (GMs) don't necessarily have the long term health of the franchise in mind when they make signings--they have their own job security in mind. When Michael Young is an albatross the team would gladly get rid of in 2010, Jon Daniels might not be around anyway. I think if I were an owner, I'd hire outside baseball consultants who have no managerial power, to give me advice on whether the GM is acting in the team's best interest or his own.
Alfredo Griffin - March 2, 2007
Well
You could always hope that one of the middle IF prospects like Hu works out well enough (say hit for a .750 ish OPS) by then so the Dodgers can focus their money on a slugger if they need one by then.you never know how things turn out. I was looking at Hu last year and while the numbers looked underwhelming it was actually league average, and he had solid periphals AND he was dead tired playing from WBC all the way to the Asian games (that's right, March to November) should suggest that he has a good chance of making a step forward with the bat this year, and a SS really don't need to hit THAT well to be useful.
RollingWave - March 3, 2007
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of True Blue LA to post a comment.