Poll: Which was the best offseason 100,000,000 deal?
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 15, 2010 6:27 PM EST
Email
PrintThere have been three mega-money deals signed this offseason, and we've now had a few days to digest all of them.
Carl Crawford - 7/142 - He was the youngest of the three big money signings (he turns 30 this year), but he plays the least demanding defensive position of the three. His defense is a major plus, and he's as fast as anyone in the majors.
Jayson Werth - 7/126 - He's probably more well rounded than Crawford, but has never had the elite seasons that Crawford had the last two years. He'll turn 32 early in the season.
Cliff Lee - 5/120 with a 27.5 million vesting option and a 12.5 million dollar buyout based on 200 IP in 2015 or 400 IP between 2014-2015 - He's the oldest of the three players (turns 33 in August), and is likely at the biggest risk of injury being a pitcher. He's also on the shortest contract, but at the highest AAV. The option isn't likely to vest if he's hurt at all in 2015, so there isn't much risk of him being unhealthy and on the hook for 27.5 million (ineffective is still possible).
As Mets fans, any one of these three could fill a long term need (albeit expensively), but Lee would likely fill the biggest void. I want you to ignore that for the moment. Assume positional need is currently equal for all three positions, and that we don't have any promising prospects that any of these guys are blocking. Also assume that any of these three players would accept the same offer they signed for to join the Mets (I know...unrealistic at best), and that ownership is forcing you to make a splash by adding one of these guys before the season ticket renewal deadline. Based solely on the players in question, their skillsets going forward and their likelihood of injury, which of the three would you sign to the deal they got this winter? I'd also be very interested to see in the comments section how you rank all three of these mega-deals.
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.
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
although crawford is the youngest
Lee was brilliant last year and pretty much completes one of the best rotations I’ve ever seen. plus they aren’t stuck with him for seven years, like the other two contracts.
Carl Crawford will be younger at the expiration of his contract
Than Lee will be when his contract is up.
And it’s a lower AAV.
And he’s a position player.
by Brian Mangan on Dec 15, 2010 6:47 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
In a vacuum? Lee.
In context? Lee.
Werth is good but I doubt he’ll age well and I’m suspicious of Crawford as well. Lee’s the type of pitcher who should be very serviceable by the end date
I actually think Lee is the worst of the three
It’s essentially either 6/132.5 or 6/147.5 due to that vest. I just don’t like giving that type of money to a pticher. Werth and Crawford were a pretty close call for me, as Crawford is younger but I worry about his aging just due to his reliance on a high BABIP to get on base.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 15, 2010 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
The contract is less than that though.
The $120M includes the buyout. So it’s actually 6/135 max.
None of these deals make much sense to me,
but the Werth deal is clearly insane, and Lee doesn’t have the raw stuff to hang on at a high level when the inevitable drop off comes. Crawford by default.
I disagree
I think a pitcher like Lee will age well because he has excellent control and doesn’t rely on velocity of his fastball to get outs. I think that Lee can be like Maddux and still have success late in his career if he stays healthy. I think in 5 years from now Lee may be the only one of the three still playing at a high level. Maybe crawford can keep it up but that depends on his health and speed decline.
Aging well is one thing. A "high level" is where we'll have to disagree.
Generally only HOF pitchers are still pitching at a high level by their late 30s. Given the nature of the beast, Crawford is the most likely to healthy and productive in six years. I think he’ll decline less than the other two.
Btw, I can see Lee as a middle of the rotation guy in six years, the same way that Maddux was towards the end, but to me that’s not the high level we were referring to. Fwiw, Doggie never pitched at a high level after his age 36 season.
I'd take Lee by a small margin. If he can avoid major injuries
I’ll take the soft tossing crafty left hander with good control in 2013-16. They usually are still productive barring injuries. I think Moyer or Mets Glavine are his floor.
Werth is easily the worst. I can’t see any scenario where he isn’t slightly above replacement level at the end.
Crawford will probably still be productive at the end. I just don’t like that so much of his game is tied to speed. Any decline or major leg injury and he’s a good corner OF glove who hits 280, doesn’t walk much and has a handful of homers.
Franco, darned if I can find it, but on another thread we linked to studies
showing players whose speed is a big part of their game age as well if not better than other types of players. I know that’s not particularly helpful, but if your search skills are better than mine…
The study can be found
Here. Once again, as Brooklyn pointed out the catcher aging curve is considerably different from any other position player, and when I emailed the guys at THT I was informed that catchers were indeed included in this study. Assuming that 99% of great catchers did not rely heavily on speed, that factor likely skewed the results some. With the difference being only 0.1 WAR per season, it’s reasonable to assume that gap would partially disappear when removing catchers from the data, as they tend to peak much earlier and skew the decline numbers when applied to only one of the two groups.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 15, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
Ahem
I pointed out the catcher thing on AA. It was me. Mine. All mine. No credit to anyone else. Mine.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Dec 15, 2010 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
My bad
I guess I fail out for citing sources incorrectly
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 15, 2010 10:14 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, you don't fail.
By emailing them you answered the main question I had. You get extra credit, in fact, for using primary sources to prove or refute a hypothesis. And I feel good that someone actually read that post and thought about it.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Dec 15, 2010 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
Speaking of...
I’ve seen that study cited by a few people in the past few days, including more MSM guys. I was too lazy to register on those sites and bring up the question, but each time I wanted to ask them whether they had actually read and thought about the study before citing it. I think it makes some interesting points, and is certainly interesting food for thought, but I hope the Inside the Book guys post a second study tightening it up by doing things like excluding catchers, looking at varying levels of speed WAR as opposed to the 20 (was that the number?) speed runs created over five (once again ?) years. A professor once told me that the best judge of a study is the followup data it creates through further inquiry, and this is one that gets right into that. I just don’t like the way that a few people who get paid to write about sports have used it without really looking into its components.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Dec 15, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
I've avoided bringing it up not out of laziness, but because I'm just happy they are starting to look at statistical studies like these at all.
I’ll voice my concerns at BTB or Fangraphs, but I’d rather not point out flaws in some more advanced studies when the MSM is just starting to look at them at all.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 15, 2010 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
I find it hard to disagree
But when MSM tries to co-opt something from the nerdy reaches of the universe, I thing nerddom should react and tell them what they might be missing.
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Dec 16, 2010 12:38 AM EST up reply actions
Don't overdo it, though.
The data sets are small enough that by the time you slice them that finely you wind up with sample sizes too small to be of real use. The point of this study was to create useful information. The assumption challenged by the study, and by other work of Bill James was, ‘speed guys lose it earlier than other kinds of players.’ The studies made indicated that assumption was enormously likely to be false.
Thanks for the link.
Btw, jsut off the top of my head, Kendall was very fast his first five years, and so was Ivan. So was Biggio. It’s unusual for a young catcher to have speed, but it’s not rare.
Yeah, i've read that before too. It's just hard to completely accept it.
I buy it more with a guy with a more complete game like Beltran. The only exceptional thing about Crawford is his speed which drives his defense, base stealing and high BABIP. I also hate mega contracts for corner outfielders, perhaps the easiest position to fill.
The best comp I can think of is Kenny Lofton and he was still pretty good at 40. He just had wild swings in value from year to year because his game was all about speed. Kind of similar to Crawford. He’s swung from average to good back to average and than great the last 2 years.
Still, I think Lee is a mildly bad deal and Crawford only slightly worse. Werth is just an outright bad contract that is even worse considering a sub 500 team gave it to him.
I noticed a lot of holes in that study.
Primarily that it proves that guys who are not out of shape and not catchers tend to last longer. This is akin to those studies that prove things like the highly-disputed claim that overindulgence in alcohol can lead to the symptoms of a hangover such as a headache, nausea, and sensitivity to light and sound (this was, in fact, a real study published in a real scientific journal a number of years ago).
It's a triumph of number crunching over the human spirit...aaaaaand, it’s about time. -- Play-by-Play Announcer, The Simpsons.
by MookieTheCat on Dec 15, 2010 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
Hmm.
I left out the factor of peak performance, which means a better chance of pushing a team to the postseason than more consistent, good seasons do. Guess I’ll switch my vote to Lee as being more likely to have a monster season or two that drives his team.
Crawford
Although I think I prefer the Gonzalez extension to the Crawford contract.
I was tempted to throw that in there, but without knowing the specifics of it I only have a very general sense of what it is
A Lee-like vest could make it pretty ugly as well.
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 15, 2010 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
Gonna have to vote Crawford, here.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
AA Gamethread Embiggening Record Holder- 453 posts (10/03/10)
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Dec 15, 2010 11:29 PM EST reply actions
Crawford.
He’s the youngest of the three and plays a position that his new team needed very much.
Save Jenrry Mejia!
read the paragraph above the poll
I voted for Lee but hadn’t yet read the rules (I admit.) I love the Lee deal for the Phillies, but forced to pick one of these for a Mets team that won’t peak so soon I suppose I’d choose Crawford.
by Pack Bringley on Dec 16, 2010 6:53 AM EST up reply actions
Probably Crawford's
I could live with Lee’s contract.
Werth’s contract baffles me.
Carter, hand me my thinking grenades!
For the Mets? Lee
Every point of WAR from Lee would be added to the team. Also, the contract doesn’t become regrettable until the Mets have five starting pitchers better than Lee, which is unlikely to happen.
For Crawford or Werth, their addition to the Mets is only a marginal increase over who likely be starting at those positions in 2011, and in the future. Just looking at existing Mets outfielders and prospects, how much additional WAR would Crawford and Werth provide over the worst of a best three combination of Bay, Beltran, Pagan, Duda, Ceciliani, Puello and Vaughn over the life of these contracts? Probably less than Lee at any point in the contracts.
"The Mets are gonna be amazing!" - Casey Stengel
We're meant to be dealing with this hypothetical rule, though:
Assume positional need is currently equal for all three positions
I guess you could interpret that a couple different ways, so the poll is probably somewhat wonky.
by Pack Bringley on Dec 16, 2010 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
I'd still take Lee
There is no chance that five superior starting pitchers will be acquired over the lifetime of that contract. Crawford and Werth are borderline elite who I believe will regress during their contracts to the point where superior players will be available, but their contracts will not be movable.
"The Mets are gonna be amazing!" - Casey Stengel
this was my reasoning in voting for Lee, as well
Ultimately in almost any case besides top-5-in-baseball talent, I’ll take a reasonable 5-year contract over a reasonable 7-year one.
Adrian Gonzalez is the best in my opinion.
Great D, amazing bat in PETCO that will continue to rape in Fenway…finally an answer to Teixeira.
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
it's not official yet for luxury tax purposes, but its been agreed to
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
While that may be true, we really have no accurate idea of what it involves
Hard to judge something we haven’t seen yet
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 17, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
it could be something ridiculous, thus making it the least best…
I mean most outlets reported a 7 year 154 million dollar deal, that won't be signed until mid April
but I see your point.
"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell
Three reasons
1) Officially he hasn’t extended
2) He wasn’t a free agent
3) Even if he has a handshake agreement in place, we don’t know the details to reach a judgement
by Stephen Schmidt on Dec 17, 2010 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Amazin' Avenue
Related FanShots on Amazin' Avenue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
