Am I missing something here?

Seems like the next logical step in the argument. I’ve been debating fanposting an argument like this, but its finals week so no headway yet. The problems are still that Bay is older and already appears to be a crappy defender, but if a case can be made that he’s more like he was a few years ago in Pitt than what he was with the Sox, and maybe even that a further defensive decline doesn’t appear on the short-term horizon for Bay, he may actually be a better value. The first premise here is a big assumption, the second I haven’t even really looked into, but its based on the first assumption to begin with, so its hard to say, but its definitely a thought worth exploring.

In response to Gina, I was more trying to just figure out why the Mets would be pursuing Bay so much harder than Holliday, not that I agree with it, just trying to decode the reasoning. I’ve said many times I would prefer Holliday even at 6/19, though I suspect he’ll either get more length or dollars, and even then I’d still probably pick him.

The other thing I’m saying is that the question isn’t who is the better player. Its whether or not the value of whatever offer it would take to get Holliday is better than the value of whatever offer it would take to get Bay. I don’t think there’s any question at all who the better player is, and I think there’s much more evidence that a larger offer to Holliday is the wiser choice even with a much larger commitment, but that second question has much more nuance to it. I think the difference is much smaller than you’re making it seem, not in terms of pure talent level but in terms of the dollar value of Bay’s production minus the dollar value of his salary during that time vs the dollar value of Holliday’s vs. his salary. Those numbers are both probably pretty close to 0 and not all that far apart.

The reason I have a problem with the analysis is because its clearly slanted towards Holliday. Not that I don’t think the conclusion that Holliday is a better player or a better contract value is incorrect, but it is incorrect to assume that and then make the gaps seem wider than they are by saying something about how Bay declining faster than Holliday in every facet of the game. Someone at fangraphs wrote an article a few weeks ago about the danger of comparing Holliday to Texiera in terms of WAR, which relatively speaking, would be prone to overvaluing Holliday because he played most of his career in the weaker league and because a much larger of his value is tied up in his high BABIP.

What I’m saying is that I expect Bay to be worth about $15 million per year for the next four or five years AND I expect Holliday to be worth about $18 million over the next 6-8 years. Neither one is any more of a bargain than the other, but Holliday is a better player and because he’s not so defensively incompotent probably has more room to be worth substantially more more than $18 mil than Bay does to be worth more than $15 mil.

I think you’re thinking of the devil_fingers article on Driveline Mechanics as something more scientific than it is. He’s giving an automatic, linear deduction to a player older than 30, which hurts Bay much more than the two year difference in age probably should. What if Holliday was 30 and Bay was 32? That extra season of under-30 level production wouldn’t be counted at all. Then you have to consider length of the deal. How much longer is Matt Holliday going to be a “true talent level” ~4 WAR player? 6 years? Because if you assume that’s what he’s going to do in 2010, he’d pretty much have to do that every year of his contract to justify a salary in the neighborhood of $20 mil per year. Is that any different from paying Bay like a 3 WAR player every year of his contract and then watching him start around 3 WAR too?

But should a team pay that? For most teams — no. A team on a budget, with a budget comparable to most of their peers, has to be getting more than the average baseball dollars worth for their money. This is what an average team will pay.

Which is pretty much exactly what I’m saying. I don’t think either deal is that far off market value. Holliday is younger, but shorter deals have less volatile projections. We can project with greater accuracy what Bay will be when he’s 35 than Holliday, since there’s opportunity for something to change in four years than in six. Again, emphasis on the fact that I’d prefer Holliday, it would not be a massive failure to sign Bay. If the money saved with Bay can be leveraged more effectively than market value wins, then Bay turns out to be the smarter bargain. The problem is identifying the market’s bargains and finding high value plugs at low costs, something the front office isn’t very good at. But it is possible to sign Bay and have a successful and productive offseason. The opportunity cost of Matt Holliday just isn’t THAT high, he’s better, but value-wise, its a much smaller difference than you’re estimating.

Cameron’s only making $5.5 per.

Holliday can

poorly.