2010-11 MLB Offseason Catch-All

[justBLAZE]

jonmorosi Jon Morosi

#Tigers don't offer arb to their FAs -- Bonderman, Seay, Laird, Ordonez, Damon. #Detroit

[LittleHurt05]

Aubrey Huff resigns with the Giants on a two-year deal. (Per Giants beat writer)

 

@extrabaggs As first reported by @jonmorosi, Huff will receive $22 million over two years, with a club option for 2013.

10 minutes ago via web

 

Edited November 23, 2010 by LittleHurt05

[Buehrlesque]

Aubrey Huff resigns with the Giants on a two-year deal. (Per Giants beat writer)

 

@extrabaggs As first reported by @jonmorosi, Huff will receive $22 million over two years, with a club option for 2013.

10 minutes ago via web

Wow, $11 mil per year for Huff. What does this do for Konerko?

[Chisoxfn]

Stupid stupid stupid move.

[balfanman]

With the deals to Buck, Huff, Benoit, and apparently Victor Martinez; it seems that G. M.'s are spending crazy money this offseason.

[Balta1701]

Stupid stupid stupid move.

Why? Last 3 seasons, he's been worth $18 million, -$6 million, and $22 million, according to Fangraphs's player values.

 

You could argue they slightly overpaid him, but he's put up $8-$10 million a year+ production, he's getting re-signed by a team that he helped win a ring, his deal is short, and they have a big, WS winning revenue boost to look at.

[witesoxfan]

Yeah I don't see anything wrong with the Huff resigning

[Chisoxfn]

I don't really like fangraph player values, in fact I downright hate them. The numbers they have mean very little and you can't just arbitrarily compare those numbers to what someone is getting paid. It is pretty impossible to be a -6 million per year player, imo.

[Balta1701]

I don't really like fangraph player values, in fact I downright hate them. The numbers they have mean very little and you can't just arbitrarily compare those numbers to what someone is getting paid. It is pretty impossible to be a -6 million per year player, imo.

There's plenty to quarrel with, I'll grant you that, but you should get the point there. In 2008 he put up a .912 OPS, in 2010 an .891 OPS. He's not awful on defense, and in fact can do sorta what we wanted Kotsay to do in playing a couple positions in a pinch. Since 2002, he has had 2 years where his OPS+ has been less than 100. His career average = .283, with a .821 OPS and a 115 OPS+.

 

You can tell me they overpaid by a couple million, but really, coming off the last few seasons, that was his value.

[witesoxfan]

I don't really like fangraph player values, in fact I downright hate them. The numbers they have mean very little and you can't just arbitrarily compare those numbers to what someone is getting paid. It is pretty impossible to be a -6 million per year player, imo.

 

How do those numbers mean very little? WAR is calculated based off of offensive and defensive ability. Their monetary values correlate with the money teams pay per win share, and I think it's generally around $4 mill or so. So, technically, if Huff produces a 6 WAR, he'll be worth his contract. The only thing I don't like about it is that UZR is incorporated into it, when I almost think they should use a 3 year UZR rating just due to the discrepancies from year to year.

 

Anyways, their monetary values are obviously not that simple (ooh, Alexei is worth $6 million and Konerko is worth $7.9, and Quentin is only worth $650K) and quite a bit more goes into the justification of a contract and whether or not it's ultimately "worth it."

 

Oh, and Aubrey Huff was worth -$6 million last year because he was absolutely horrendous offensively (.694 OPS, which is Kotsay-ian) in a year where offense was not nearly as down as it was this year, and he didn't measure well defensively. Again, it doesn't mean he was going to sign up to give $6 mill back to whatever organization he played for, but it does mean that he was a huge detriment to whatever team he did play for. I don't think you can argue with that.

[Chisoxfn]

How do those numbers mean very little? WAR is calculated based off of offensive and defensive ability. Their monetary values correlate with the money teams pay per win share, and I think it's generally around $4 mill or so. So, technically, if Huff produces a 6 WAR, he'll be worth his contract. The only thing I don't like about it is that UZR is incorporated into it, when I almost think they should use a 3 year UZR rating just due to the discrepancies from year to year.

 

Anyways, their monetary values are obviously not that simple (ooh, Alexei is worth $6 million and Konerko is worth $7.9, and Quentin is only worth $650K) and quite a bit more goes into the justification of a contract and whether or not it's ultimately "worth it."

 

Oh, and Aubrey Huff was worth -$6 million last year because he was absolutely horrendous offensively (.694 OPS, which is Kotsay-ian) in a year where offense was not nearly as down as it was this year, and he didn't measure well defensively. Again, it doesn't mean he was going to sign up to give $6 mill back to whatever organization he played for, but it does mean that he was a huge detriment to whatever team he did play for. I don't think you can argue with that.

No one can be worth negative money. That is the point. So when you have guys in the negative, you now are ultra inflating the other parties.

[Balta1701]

No one can be worth negative money. That is the point. So when you have guys in the negative, you now are ultra inflating the other parties.

Really? You can't look at the White Sox's roster for the past 5 years and think that there are guys who it would have improved the team if they'd been replaced by random waiver wire acquisitions at the end of spring break? Andy Gonzalez, Brian Anderson, Mark Kotsay, etc.?

[witesoxfan]

No one can be worth negative money. That is the point. So when you have guys in the negative, you now are ultra inflating the other parties.

 

They aren't actually assessing a monetary value that, but instead using a monetary figure to help correlate performance on the field to how much it is worth given market conditions. They aren't suggesting that the Giants should have paid Bonds $37.8 million in 2004, but they are instead showing how good he was offensively using his WAR multiplied by the price teams pay for 1 win share. Bonds was a 12.2 WAR player in 2004 - meaning he was worth just over 12 wins all by himself - and teams paid $3.1 million per win share (price of win share, or pWS) in 2004; thus, Bonds' WAR*pWS = $37.8 mill.

 

Mark Kotsay was a bad player, and I don't think it's really debatable that his presence on the team cost the Sox wins. Thus, he has a negative WAR. Taking his WAR*pWS = some negative number. He's not actually worth negative dollars, but instead it helps compare how bad he was.

[Chisoxfn]

Really? You can't look at the White Sox's roster for the past 5 years and think that there are guys who it would have improved the team if they'd been replaced by random waiver wire acquisitions at the end of spring break? Andy Gonzalez, Brian Anderson, Mark Kotsay, etc.?

Ya, and if you replace them, that isn't negative money. It is a sunk cost and I completely disagree with the fangraphs concept when it comes to $value. Not to mention it can ignore other key factors such as certain players can't get what that money is worth regardless due to them being pre arb or early in there arbitration factors. There are just a lot of flaws to the system that make me devalue a lot of these numbers.

[Chisoxfn]

They aren't actually assessing a monetary value that, but instead using a monetary figure to help correlate performance on the field to how much it is worth given market conditions. They aren't suggesting that the Giants should have paid Bonds $37.8 million in 2004, but they are instead showing how good he was offensively using his WAR multiplied by the price teams pay for 1 win share. Bonds was a 12.2 WAR player in 2004 - meaning he was worth just over 12 wins all by himself - and teams paid $3.1 million per win share (price of win share, or pWS) in 2004; thus, Bonds' WAR*pWS = $37.8 mill.

 

Mark Kotsay was a bad player, and I don't think it's really debatable that his presence on the team cost the Sox wins. Thus, he has a negative WAR. Taking his WAR*pWS = some negative number. He's not actually worth negative dollars, but instead it helps compare how bad he was.

Exactly, which is why I said you can't compare that value to what a player is making. The only thing you can do is take those numbers and use them as just another way to evaluate a players effectiveness, but to just say, well fangraphs says he is wroth this and is getting this than the difference makes him a steal or bust, well that is ridiculous.

[Balta1701]

Exactly, which is why I said you can't compare that value to what a player is making. The only thing you can do is take those numbers and use them as just another way to evaluate a players effectiveness, but to just say, well fangraphs says he is wroth this and is getting this than the difference makes him a steal or bust, well that is ridiculous.

While you've spent time tryinga to convince me of something I already believe...that the fangraphs dollar system is complicated but still remains a useful way of looking comparitively at player value if you pay attention to the reasons why it does what it does...you still haven't argued at all about why the Huff deal is a terrible deal.

[witesoxfan]

Exactly, which is why I said you can't compare that value to what a player is making. The only thing you can do is take those numbers and use them as just another way to evaluate a players effectiveness, but to just say, well fangraphs says he is wroth this and is getting this than the difference makes him a steal or bust, well that is ridiculous.

 

I agree. It's a number that is very easily misused because it has a dollar sign in front of it, but all it's doing is serving as another was of evaluating a players season compared to what the rest of the league paid per win share. That is thrown off by teams like the Yankees (especially teams like the Yankees this year, where they'll probably get 8 WAR out of Jeter and ARod combined and they'll be paying them somewhere around $50 mill total).

 

The prices of players has so much to do with both micro level decisions as well as the current state of the economy that these numbers are generally meaningless. Teams aren't going to directly sign or not sign a player based on their dollar level on FanGraphs (duh), but instead will spend money on a player who rates highly because he's good at baseball. That isn't a complicated thought by any stretch of the imagination.

[Chicago White Sox]

While you've spent time tryinga to convince me of something I already believe...that the fangraphs dollar system is complicated but still remains a useful way of looking comparitively at player value if you pay attention to the reasons why it does what it does...you still haven't argued at all about why the Huff deal is a terrible deal.

I think the Huff deal is a bad move for the Giants. He's wildly inconsistent and your numbers support that to a certain extent. The Giants better hope they get two good years out of him or it will be a major overpay IMO.

 

Also, let me ask you this, what do you think Adam Dunn is going to get a year? $12 - $13 million? Wouldn't you rather pay the extra couple million a year, even if it's for two or three extra seasons, to get a pretty much guaranteed .900 OPS?

[Chisoxfn]

11 or 12 million a year per year is ridiculous when in recent years you have had guys like Vladdy, Abreu, Damon, etc signing for cheap deals that are also veterans. If you sit around and have 6 to 8 million to play with, you will be able to sign an effective offensive player.

 

Now the Giants decided they wanted to move now and I can understand that, especially since they will be gaining a lot of revenue due to there world series win (i.e., 2011 season tickets sales increase), but I think if you are going to spend that sort of money per season, there are other opportunities out there, such as signing a Adam Dunn for a little more or even a Paul Konerko.

 

Both are less streaky players in general, very effective, good clubhouse guys, etc. Now on the bright side Giants are only paying 2 years but Huff has had a very up and down career, imo. He's been effective at times, but in no way is he one of the best first baseman in baseball and giving him that sort of money over two years is paying him in a manner similar (on a per season basis) to some of the best in the game.

[Chisoxfn]

While you've spent time tryinga to convince me of something I already believe...that the fangraphs dollar system is complicated but still remains a useful way of looking comparitively at player value if you pay attention to the reasons why it does what it does...you still haven't argued at all about why the Huff deal is a terrible deal.

I am diong that because you are using fangraph $ values to show me why he is a bargain and that is plain ridiculous and isn't what those dollar values were created for. I won't argue that he wasn't effective last year, he was, very much so. I'd argue that I'd have little confidence expecting 11 to 12 M per year production out of him.

[Balta1701]

I am diong that because you are using fangraph $ values to show me why he is a bargain and that is plain ridiculous and isn't what those dollar values were created for. I won't argue that he wasn't effective last year, he was, very much so. I'd argue that I'd have little confidence expecting 11 to 12 M per year production out of him.

I wouldn't say he's a bargain and I don't think I've said that anywhere in this thread. Even when I posted the fangraphs values, in the same post, I said he was potentially slightly overpaid, but not so much that I'd think it was a terrible deal. Here's my direct quote: "You could argue they slightly overpaid him, but he's put up $8-$10 million a year+ production... "

 

Do you disagree that if you look at either his last 3 years, or if you look at his career as a whole, he's put up the type of production that you'd get from a $10 million a year player? You called this a "stupid, stupid move". To me, a stupid, stupid move is giving a guy who's worth $5 mil a year that same deal, or giving a guy worth $10 million a year a 7/$121 deal, stuff like that. I don't see how I'd call this a stupid, stupid move.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I am diong that because you are using fangraph $ values to show me why he is a bargain and that is plain ridiculous and isn't what those dollar values were created for. I won't argue that he wasn't effective last year, he was, very much so. I'd argue that I'd have little confidence expecting 11 to 12 M per year production out of him.

This.

 

This.

 

And more this.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Yankees signed (THE) Brian Anderson and Andy Sisco. So...that makes like 3 players that they have recently signed that we used to have? Cotts, Anderson, and Sisco?

[Balta1701]

Yankees signed (THE) Brian Anderson and Andy Sisco. So...that makes like 3 players that they have recently signed that we used to have? Cotts, Anderson, and Sisco?

On top of them trading for Swisher, Boooooone Logan, Javy Vazquez last year.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

On top of them trading for Swisher, Boooooone Logan, Javy Vazquez last year.

 

And they had Damaso Marte