Musing on Payroll

by sjohnson125 on Sep 4, 2009 9:47 PM EDT Comment 20 comments

This is my first fanpost here, and, while it may be a bit presumptuous to solicit feedback, I figured I'd throw it out there.

Something I was thinking about today: there are two types of "Conventional wisdom" floating around about the Mets and baseball. There's the one that focuses on grission and heart and being a Phillie, and then there's the other that focuses on things like performance and hitting and defense. The first worldview indicates that the Mets should trade players like Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran b/c they don't have "heart." The second finds it ludicrous that to improve a team, you would suggest trading its best players.

I don't mean to disparage, actually. I want to challenge a bit of the sabermetrics worldview's conventional wisdom.

Here's my thought exercise: pretend you're the GM of the Mets. You're having a meeting with Fred Wilpon and Jeff Wilpon, and they lay out a maximum dollar value that they are willing to spend on player personnel in 2010. The number they give you is ______.

I imagine that the number they give you could fall anywhere between $37 million (Marlins' payroll) and $136 million (Mets' current payroll). I think it is highly unlikely that they would push it as low as $37 million, but we simply do not know how much the Wilpons were hurt by the Madoff scandal (news reports are so scattered), or how much they would want to shave, or if they are interested in making the team more attractive for another buyer.

I think there is a payroll value where the sabermetrics worldview breaks down, and the grission-y worldview is right. Somewhere, there is a payroll cap where the optimal strategy to building a competitive team is to trade Beltran, and Reyes, and maybe Santana, in exchange for lower cost, less-effective players. I don't know where that limit is, but I think it exists.

Two (compound) questions:

1. What's the number where the grission-y worldview is right?

2. Let's assume that the Mets are forced to drive their payroll down to $90 million ($10 million higher than league median payroll). What do you do? Who would you deal? Who would you insist on keeping?

I'm still formulating my own answers, but I figured I'd throw it out there just as a thought exercise. Thanks!

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You seem to be missing the idea of sabermetric evaluations of players.

What we are looking at when looking at the Mets is how they actually performed on the field. That analysis leads us to believe that Reyes and Beltran are good players. If they made 1/2 of what they make currently, or if they doubled their paycheck, they would still be good baseball players. Aaron Rowand is as grissiony as players come. He gets payed alot of money, and he’s just not that good a baseball player. If he made 1/2 his current paycheck, or if he made double his current paycheck, he’d still be a not so good baseball player.

Sabermetrics and Grission have absolutely nothing to do with payroll. There are plenty of very good, very cheap players to be had. There’s also plenty of expensive, lousy, grissiony players. The issue with acquiring players who have “heart” and “grit” is that these attributes are often only mentioned as positive because of a lack of things the player actually does well. If the Mets are working on a reduced payroll, then they need to be intelligent with their pickups. Guys like Matt Murton are available for nothing, and would be an immediate upgrade to the much more expensive Francour.

You really need a better understanding of what sabermetrics are before you write a post saying that they aren’t an effective tool to utilize in fixing the Mets issues. By implying that sabermetrics or grission have anythin at all to do with payroll, you prove you really don’t have an understanding of the topic. You’re essentially suggesting that at a certain payroll level it no longer makes sense to try to get good baseball players, so you might as well bring in “gritty” players regardless of wether or not they are actually good. All that will do is create a bigger profit for the owners to see the same results we are seeing now.

"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green

by Schmidtxc on Sep 4, 2009 10:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty certain he understands what sabermetrics represents

There are useful players to be had out there on the cheap, but probably not enough to build a championship contender with (unless you happen to have some cheap superstar types like the Marlins, etc.). The fact is that sabermetrics may not have anything to do with payroll, but there are enough smart teams out there that it’s probably difficult at this point to find undervalued commodities that haven’t already been identified by the Red Sox, Rays and Mariners of the baseball world.

He’s throwing this out there as a thought exercise. Is there a point where grission becomes undervalued? So, the question is whether actively seeking out players with “positive” character traits (or whatever) is ever a reasonable approach given varying payroll constraints.

I don’t know that there is, and I’m not sure our author necessarily believes there is, but it’s not appropriate to pillory him for throwing this out there as a point to mull.

by Eric Simon on Sep 4, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've read the post several times since reading that comment, and I'd still disagree with that.

I’d argue that most readers of this site probably have some knowledge of advanced metrics. These metrics don’t apply to just high salary players like Beltran and Reyes, we also use them to determine that Ike Davis has a good chance of being a good major league ballplayer. The A’s were competitive for years by simply looking for players like Davis when they traded away their star players. At the time, these players were generally underrated and made Beane look very good. It’s not unreasonable to think we could get several good young players for guys like Santana, Reyes, or Beltran, even though the rest of the league has started to value these young players more. Settling for the Jeff Francoeurs of the world as a return for our best players is not the only alternative.

If the point in question is whether or not heart and grit are undervalued, it is certainly a point for discussion. Given two players of equal (or even very similar) talent, I’d have to think any team would look at their character to determine whom to acquire. If the point in question is whether having as many high salary superstars as we do would be an effective strategy with a 90 million dollar payroll, we’d certainly have an interesting discussion. The way I’m reading the post implies that at some point financially sabermetrics “break down”. There really isn’t any reason to bring the “sabermetrics worldview” into this discussion, as the post sets up more of a debate about economics. The questions being asked are basic economic questions and have very little to do with the methods with which players on field performances are evaluated, but more to do with how those performances are valued monetarily.

I’m not trying to criticise anybody for posting here, it’s nice to see new opinions around here. I just don’t feel that the author has a good grasp of what sabermetric analysis is if they ask at what payroll value it no longer works, as pay isn’t taken into account when determining how players performed. The post suggests that sabermetric analysis wouldn’t like a team like the Phillies, which is entirely false. Whether or not the Phillies “heart” helps them, the fact remains that they’re filled with very good ballplayers.

"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green

by Schmidtxc on Sep 5, 2009 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Our author can correct me if I’m mistaken here, but he doesn’t seem to be suggesting that the Phillies only win because of grission; he is almost certainly making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the media’s love affair with the Phillies for those exact — and misguided and, as you point out, disrespectful of the Phillies’ actual impressive level of talent — reasons.

Also, and again I may be making a false assumption here, but when he says “sabermetrics breaks down” I think he means “statistical analysis breaks down”, not “seeking out undervalued commodities breaks down”. Succeeding on a tight budget will always be about targeting player attributes that other teams are overlooking (once OBP and SLG; now perhaps defense or whatever). He may just be asking whether intangibles might be undervalued enough that they become a sensible buy for a team that can’t afford to focus on those things that we actually know contribute to winning games (getting on base, hitting for power, turning batted balls into outs).

Again, I don’t have to believe that grission could be undervalued — or even very much valued, period — to consider this a worthwhile exercise. That is the author’s point, as I read it. He can chime in if he meant otherwise.

by Eric Simon on Sep 5, 2009 3:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I must not have been clear...

I definitely don’t agree with the grission mindset AT ALL. I’m just arguing that in this case (on the trading of good players), that worldview may have reached the correct conclusion, at a certain payroll threshold.

by sjohnson125 on Sep 5, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The way I read this

I think there is a payroll value where the sabermetrics worldview breaks down, and the grission-y worldview is right. Somewhere, there is a payroll cap where the optimal strategy to building a competitive team is to trade Beltran, and Reyes, and maybe Santana, in exchange for lower cost, less-effective players. I don’t know where that limit is, but I think it exists.

It seems like the concept you are talking about is less the character vs. talent debate and more the marginal value of wins concept.
If we assume that next year everyone comes back healthy and productive it’s reasonable to believe the Mets can be an 85-87 win team. That’s probably enough to be in a race but doesn’t guarantee the playoffs. If you can trade trade one of these big contracts and in return get two or three players who individually are not as good, but who combine could replace then win value of the person you trade, you do it and save the payroll. An 85-87 win team that costs $90 million is more valuable than an 85-87 win team that costs $110 million.

But if the return you get would turn you from an 85-87 win team into a 79-81 win, (the most likely scenario) there is no way I do it unless I’m going into full blown rebuilding mode. As painful as it is to watch your team fall just short of the playoffs, being in the race keeps people buying tickets, companies buying ad space, and fans tuning into SNY. If the Mets fall out of it early because they trade for character guys who are not good at baseball, fans will tune out and that will necessitate more payroll cuts. That is a vicious cycle I don’t want to explore.

by Reg Dunlop on Sep 5, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not citicizing if you did buy into the concept of Grisson.

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion. I just get the feeling from you’re post that you feel the “sabermetric worldview” isn’t willing to trade good, expensive players for cheaper players. That’s not the case. It’s targeting players on their “grit” of their talent that sabermetricians disagree with. “Gritty” players are fine, as long as they are still solid ballplayers.

"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green

by Schmidtxc on Sep 5, 2009 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not their talent

instead of “of their talent”

"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green

by Schmidtxc on Sep 5, 2009 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not really sabermetrics vs. grission.

In fact, the first user of Moneyball, Billy Beane, used advanced/undervalued statistics to evaluate players that would be undervalued and would be signable for his small market team.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Sep 4, 2009 10:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

$300 Million

1. I think the grissony world view will work as long as the payroll is over $300 million. You can probably win with that philosophy even if it leads you waste half that total.

2. It’s not so much who you deal, it’s whether you get equal value or better back for what you give up. A saber-smart move could involve dealing almost anyone, depending on what the return is. Right now, I expect most would agree with dealing Beltran at some point, just because of his age. He’s had his peak, it’s downhill from here. But, dealing him off a lost season won’t return fair value. If he comes back and has a good first half, maybe dealing him at the deadline would yield fair value.

I do think that there are maybe some sabermetrics followers who are maybe a bit too reactive. The idea shouldn’t be to just look up a number, WAR, and take that as gospel and ignore everything else. Some who do this do tend to over value recent performance, and ignore things like aging curves and future projection for young players who have yet to reach their expected peaks. But this is sort of “popular sabermetrics”, moreso than the genuine article. Truly saber-savvy analysts have always used aging curves, and know to use mulit-year data samples where possible, and also know the limitations of even the best stats, and where to begin to bring in some of the things that may not show up in those numbers, like scouting information on raw projectable tools for young players.

And saber-savvy teams have always dealt star players for less hearlded prospects, and improved depth. The Oakland A’s have done this for years, decades even. There is nothing wrong at all with dealing a Beltran, who will be 33 years old and earning $18.5M next season, and still under contract for 2011 as well. It’s maybe even debatable whether his production at this stage will be worth that. And nothing wrong with dealing Jose Reyes either, so long as you recognize that he is one of the 20 most valuable trade chips in baseball, and get suitable value back. That’s just not a guy you want to deal for heart, grit, good clubhouse presence, etc. You actually need to get someone who can play baseball in return for that, to the tune of at least $30M of excess production over salary for the next few years. Otherwise, worst case, if you don’t want to start paying Reyes $20M a year after 2011, just keep him until then and take the draft picks if he signs elsewhere.

by acerimusdux on Sep 5, 2009 4:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Reyes

Agreed on your points about Reyes. I think the main problems people have with trading Reyes are:

1. Getting equal value back after an injury-shortened season. His value is perceived to be low. If the Mets could get equal or better, preferably, back, then fine. Although this reminds me of a discussion on BtB if having one 4 WAR player is better than having two 2 WAR players.

With a 4 WAR player, assuming you could always fill in the other position with a 0 WAR player, you have 4 WAR with the possibility of upgrading the 0. However, an injury could take out the 4 WAR in one swoop.

With two 2 WAR players, it’s harder to upgrade, but it’s possible that injuries aren’t as ruinous.

2. Not trusting the front office. Even if it were possible to trade Reyes for equal or better value, I think people are wary that Omar isn’t capable of recognizing the suitable talent or understanding why Reyes is being traded. If this is just a move to shake up the “core”, I would want to see more reasoning than that.

by mnbv on Sep 5, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we were a $100 million team

Well our Opening Day salary on players was around $135 million this year, so I’d subtract

Delgado ($16 million)

Wagner ($10.5 million)

Rodriguez ($12 million, salary dump trade)

Castillo ($6 million)

Schneider ($4.9 million)

Francoeur ($3.4 million, non-tender)

Maine (not sure but around $3 million, trade for prospects)

Cora ($2 million)

Reed ($1 million)

So that makes our payroll $78 million.

I’d add Lackey for $18 million a year, followed by Murton and Blanco at bargain prices

So my team lineup would be

SS Reyes
RF Pagan
3B Wright
CF Beltran
2B Tatis
RF Murton
1B Murphy
C Blanco/Santos/Thole

Rotation:

LHP Santana
RHP Lackey
RHP Pelfrey
LHP Niese
SP Gee/Holt/whoever comes cheap

Bullpen:

CL Perez
SU Green
SU Parnell
LOOGY Misch
LOOGY Feliciano
LRP Stokes
LRP Nieve

I gotta say, while it’s not extremely attractive, I’ve seen much worse I guess.

by METSMETSMETS on Sep 6, 2009 1:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No interest in signing Lackey for whatever he demands.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Sep 6, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Question:

Who are we getting to take Castillo, and what are we getting in return?

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 6, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably very little in return

but I’m assuming at least ONE team in baseball wouldn’t mind taking a salary dump of Castillo.

by METSMETSMETS on Sep 7, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Oliver Perez is our closer next year

I quit.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Sep 7, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And also

You may have seen worse, but that’s about as bad a next year roster as I’ve seen that doesn’t having us trade Wright, Reyes or Beltran.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Sep 7, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, it's pretty bad.

I mean, with both Murton and Pagan in right, our D in left is going to be a major issue. But seriously, I think we can give up on the Murton pipe dream. Omar had his chance to get him cheap, and he passed.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 7, 2009 1:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs