K-Rod's Value

by Sokojoe on Nov 11, 2008 10:29 AM EST

The market for K-Rod appears to be less fruitful then he or his agent expected. The original 5 year, $75 million dollar deal he was asking for simply is not there. For their part, the Mets have been playing their cards right, looking into alternatives and stating the K-Rod is not in their offseason plans. I agree with the latter moves; however, with demand for K-Rod's services being low, it would seem to reason that he would have to lower his price. Which got me to thinking, at what lowered price would K-Rod be at fair market value as opposed to Single Season Saves Leader Value?

I just did a quick calculation using Sky Kalkman's methodology. Now, I could have vastly improved my calculation, for example I just used his ERA, not FIP or tRA (Don't stone me, I'm at work with limited resources.) In addition, I subjectively weighted K-Rod's last season (5 out of 9) more heavily than Sky's method just based on his decline the past couple of years. To cut to the chase, I valued K-Rod at WAR of about 2.56 giving him a value of $12.8 million roughly.

No one appears to want to give him the aforementioned 5/75 contract and, according to Metsblog.com, K-Rod has lowered his demand to roughly 5/65, which puts him at about proper valuation of 13 mil a season. If demand is still not there maybe a 3/39 contract gets it done. Even with his decline and injury concerns, 3/39, in this market, I would be happy with, whether K-Rod is a better pitcher than Fuentes though is another discussion.

Note: I can't wait to see Sky's valuation of the RP market.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'd go 3/45

I can’t bring myself to believe the difference between 13/year and 15/year is a huge one for the Mets (what with my tax dollars helping pay for New Shea) but I think you’re right that 3 years is what I’d be trying to talk him down to.

by JoshNY on Nov 11, 2008 11:18 AM EST reply actions

It's amazing

what around 15 million a year used to get you

by Sokojoe on Nov 11, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions

Wow

That is a great blend of quality and crap on that list.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 11, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, 2004

was the year before the owners colluded to surpress salaries, part of the reason was some of the awful deals out there.

by Sokojoe on Nov 11, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not even sure we should take him.

Even at a discounted price. I know in the short-term, he’s much less of an injury risk. But a part of me still says we should pursue Fuentes instead.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 11, 2008 2:48 PM EST reply actions

damn these owners

call me crazy guys, but im sick of this approach by the mets brass acting like they dont have the money, well i wonder how the rest of the league feels especially if they were one or two big acquisitions away from actually having a team built to win a championship, difference between us and the yankees, is the yankees would go for it, we penny pinch like were some bumbs, advice to the wilpons, it takes money to make money, so get those remaining pieces of the puzzle, im sick to my stomach people and just wanted to air it out, nobody can convince me otherwise that we have to take that bs approach, yea be smart but dont hold back those extra couple of million cus those are whats going to make the millions that ownership is so different to make, damn it!! lol

by trueblue08 on Nov 11, 2008 2:56 PM EST reply actions

I'd like to think

that the concerns stem from: (a) the desire to avoid giving a closer a five-year deal; and (b) the desire to not overpay to get a pitcher whose numbers, gaudy save total aside, are not nearly as impressive as his agent and ESPN would have us believe. I hope Omar and the Wilpons play the closer market tight and resist the urge to overpay here.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 11, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions

FYI

Salomon Torres has retired. Even though the Mets probably don’t/shouldn’t have any interest in him, this does cull the number of semi-quality relievers, which will drive up the price a tad.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 11, 2008 5:27 PM EST reply actions

There’s supposed to be a link there. Damned if I know where it went.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 11, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

sokojoe, mind sharing your inputs for the value calculation?

(4.75 – ERA) x IP / 9 x LEV

If IP is 72, ERA is 2.75, and LEV is 2.0, that’s 32 RAR, effectively. Or about $15MM. Not saying that’s set in stone, but it’s always nice to see what inputs others are using so we can disagree about THEM instead of the output.

I’m working on the FA Reliever article, but I don’t know a great way of determining leverage for each pitcher. KRod deserves full closer-leverage. But what about, say, Damaso Marte, who’s a 3.50 ERA guy? He should probably set up, with a leverage of, say, 1.25. But if he closes, he’s worth more. I’m playing around with something where leverage is a function of ERA. We’ll see.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 8:15 PM EST reply actions

My inputs were simple

I was just curious about KRod’s value with his agent being on my local sports station, so I quickly used your starter methodology. First I weighted the past 3 years 5,3,1 to come up with 68.33 innings pitched and an ERA of 2.37. I then plugged that into (5.75-2.37) x 68.33 / 9 /10 to come up with 2.56 WAR and you know the rest. I know I should have used RAR, among other things, but I didn’t want to try to tackle leverage.

I thought about just using WXRL or some variant; however, that seems to overvalue closers. In addition, I have mixed feelings about leverage while evaluating the future value of a RP. In my eyes, it tends to punish a great setup man’s value if he has a closer instilled in front of him such a Joba, Marmol, Zumaya.

For example, Marmol had a leverage of 1.37 this year, while Wood had a 1.74, if leverage was used as a multiplier [(4.75 – ERA) x IP / 9 x LEV] Wood would be $9.64 mil and Marmol would be $13.72 a difference of 30% in value, while if there is no leverage multiplier Wood is valued at $5.72, Marmol at $10.13 a difference of 44%. I would side with the larger value difference as Marmol "the closer" is the same pitcher as Marmol "the setup man" if not more valuable because, generally, setup guys pitch more innings than closers. So, I’m not sure if I agree with your statement that if "Marte closes he should be worth more."

That being said, if you can figure out a rational way of incorporating leverage into your valuation, I would not only be very interested but extremely impressed.

by Sokojoe on Nov 11, 2008 9:09 PM EST up reply actions

Ok, so you used a 2.37 ERA and 68 IP. Somewhat similar.

Leverage is an interesting topic. Looking back, it’s quite explanatory. But you’re right that the way managers divvy up leverage is rarely optimal. I wouldn’t want to use past leverage to evaluate the future value of a reliever. What I think should be done ideally is assign a LEV value based on how good a reliever is.

For example, with an ERA below 3.00, a guy should close, earning a projected LEV of 2.0 (or whatever). Between 3.00 and 3.25, he might still close, but would set up on some teams, so project him with a LEV of 1.75. Between 3.25 and 3.50, a LEV of 1.50. Yada yada. And you could smooth it out. And there should be better rationale.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 9:38 PM EST up reply actions

Interesting

I understand your rationale, linking value to optimum usage instead of historical leverage patterns; however, wouldn’t a problem arise with the plug of 4.84MM for each win? As using the latter plug would imply that the market is already properly valuing the the difference between a closer and other relievers.

I felt LEV was a indicator of value in a given season but not a basis on future valuation; however, not including LEV at all when valuing RP is flawed. I suppose ranking relievers by ERA, setting up percentiles with corresponding LEV percentiles for optimum usage is a possible way.

By the by, your posts have been my favorite baseball readings these pass couple of weeks, so thank you for that that.

by Sokojoe on Nov 11, 2008 10:02 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks for the kind words.

Join the fray over at BtB. It’s good people.

The $4.84MM number doesn’t assume anybody is properly valuing anybody. But if you add up all the money spent and all the value signed in a FA off-season, it comes out to that number. Well, less in past years, but that’s the estimate for this year with inflation. So given that teams are going to spend money on free agents, they will average $4.84MM spent per win. To beat the FA game, you have to beat that number. Of course, to beat the overall game, you want to avoid the FA market whenever possible.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Good point

I guess my thinking was that even though the market averages $4.84MM spent per win, I assume the market overpays closers per win while underpaying very good relievers per win; however, I understand your point about beating the FA game. Thanks for clearing this up.

by Sokojoe on Nov 12, 2008 9:31 AM EST up reply actions