White Sox Interactive Forums
What's The Score?

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > What's The Score?
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:17 PM
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
At a 2.6 WAR and $21M per, he's about at cost, using the $8M per 1 WAR as a basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Yeah...he wasn't overpaid. And that was mostly because there wasn't a huge market.


Wheeler is worth significantly more, and is younger. And, there's a huge market. He's going to get a ton more money than Darvish.


Wheeler's fwar last year was 4.7. For relative value, that means he was worth $37.6 million last year. He's getting over $30 million per year. The question is whether it'll be enough years to break $200 million.
I understand the point, but maybe WAR alone doesn't tell the whole story. After all, Javier Vazquez was worth a total of 14.3 fWAR, an average of 4.76 per year over his 3 seasons with the White Sox.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:21 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tragg View Post
You could never field a team if you go by that. What do replacement players get you - 40 wins a season? So you need 50 WAR minimum to pay the playoffs, at $8 Mill per WAR = $400 Million for 90 wins.

WAR accelerates though: an 8 WAR player is worth a lot, lot more than 8 1-WAR players.

Well, that actually depends on the rest of your roster. If your 9 starters are an 8 WAR guy and 8 zero WAR players, that's an equal lineup to a team with 8 of 9 starters being worth 1 WAR.


You are right in that no one is going to pay $400 million. The idea is you supplement with rookie year deals. But as for paying on the open market, that is the industry's guideline of how to pay for production. More than anything, this upsets the players union. They view analytics like these as a form of collusion because the entire industry embraces them.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:27 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
I understand the point, but maybe WAR alone doesn't tell the whole story. After all, Javier Vazquez was worth a total of 14.3 fWAR, an average of 4.76 per year over his 3 seasons with the White Sox.

Well, he threw 200+ innings all three years with a 3.80 FIP. Other than 2007, he was just really unlucky. He pitched pretty decently for the era. It's no surprise that the year he left he was a much better pitcher. It probably had more to do with our defense than anything.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:27 PM
A. Cavatica A. Cavatica is offline
Chief Skeptic and 2015 Preseason Predictions Contest Winner
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kittle42 View Post
This take is certainly out on an island.
Really? Apart from not being injured last year, what does Moustakas offer that Shaw does not? Present some evidence.

They are similar defensively and have similar power.

Shaw gets on base more and is a better baserunner.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:27 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,778
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Well, that actually depends on the rest of your roster. If your 9 starters are an 8 WAR guy and 8 zero WAR players, that's an equal lineup to a team with 8 of 9 starters being worth 1 WAR.


You are right in that no one is going to pay $400 million. The idea is you supplement with rookie year deals. But as for paying on the open market, that is the industry's guideline of how to pay for production. More than anything, this upsets the players union. They view analytics like these as a form of collusion because the entire industry embraces them.
Good point. The pay scale is for FA you sign. You cannot afford to sign enough to field a contender so have to have players you develop or trade for who are cost controlled and good producers.
__________________

Riding shotgun on the Sox bandwagon since before there was an Internet...
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:32 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
It isn't admitting defeat, it's accepting inevitability and preparing for it. You are short-changing yourself every game they spend in the minors because it is a 100% certainty that after the next collective bargaining agreement, regardless of the day they're called up however many games they play will constitute year 1 of control.
Right now, there is no competitive advantage to stop doing it, regardless of whether or not the rule changes in the future. There is, however, a competitive disadvantage to stop doing it if the rule doesn’t change.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horsemaster Fred
This is the major leagues so get it how you live and let’s fight tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:36 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,228
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney
Right now, there is no competitive advantage to stop doing it, regardless of whether or not the rule changes in the future. There is, however, a competitive disadvantage to stop doing it if the rule doesn’t change.

Incorrect. It is a competitive disadvantage not to have your rookies up for 162 games. Because it is a 100% certainty that the collective bargaining agreement will include provisions to prevent service time manipulation, and it will be retroactive to players prior to the new agreement. Tony Clark has been very vocal that this is going to happen, and the players have no problem sitting until they get it. There are lots of things that will be negotiated. This is not an area. This is a 100% certainty and no deal will ever be signed without this correction to the system.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:46 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Incorrect. It is a competitive disadvantage not to have your rookies up for 162 games. Because it is a 100% certainty that the collective bargaining agreement will include provisions to prevent service time manipulation, and it will be retroactive to players prior to the new agreement. Tony Clark has been very vocal that this is going to happen, and the players have no problem sitting until they get it. There are lots of things that will be negotiated. This is not an area. This is a 100% certainty and no deal will ever be signed without this correction to the system.
I don’t believe in “100% certainties” in labor negotiations.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-03-2019, 05:55 PM
blandman blandman is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,228
Default

Denying reality is your right. But everyone knows this is going to happen. The entire process is contentious because the players view what the owners are doing as a violation of the previous agreement. Whether the loophole is legitimate or not, they are not signing anything that doesn't remove it. The only scenario that baseball continues without this being changed is if the strike ends with the MLBPA breaking off and starting their own league and the current teams hiring replacement players. Your assertion is that far into left field.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:02 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,778
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blandman View Post
Denying reality is your right. But everyone knows this is going to happen. The entire process is contentious because the players view what the owners are doing as a violation of the previous agreement. Whether the loophole is legitimate or not, they are not signing anything that doesn't remove it. The only scenario that baseball continues without this being changed is if the strike ends with the MLBPA breaking off and starting their own league and the current teams hiring replacement players. Your assertion is that far into left field.
I agree. Not sure what the compromise agreed on is in the end, but the players want this fixed, so it will be, more so as the owners offer smaller salaries, shorter contracts and less offers to older players. The players know they will need to force money into their hands at younger ages if they want to continue to get their share of the pie.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:08 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoochile View Post
I agree. Not sure what the compromise agreed on is in the end, but the players want this fixed, so it will be, more so as the owners offer smaller salaries, shorter contracts and less offers to older players. The players know they will need to force money into their hands at younger ages if they want to continue to get their share of the pie.
And what happens if the owners say “OK. We want a salary cap, and we’re not signing anything that doesn’t include one!” in response to that demand?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:13 PM
kittle42 kittle42 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lakeview
Posts: 23,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Cavatica View Post
Really? Apart from not being injured last year, what does Moustakas offer that Shaw does not? Present some evidence.

They are similar defensively and have similar power.

Shaw gets on base more and is a better baserunner.
Well...

Your premise is that all of Shaw's miserable season was the result of his injury. We'll see what Shaw's market is, but I am guessing it will not reflect agreement with that premise. Who knows, though, maybe you'll end up being right and Travis Shaw will produce a 3+ WAR season again. Projection systems don't agree, and while the are not any guarantee of results, they are likely a reflection of what the market will bear.
__________________
Ridiculousness across all sports:

(1) "You have no valid opinion because you never played the game."
(2) "Stats are irrelevant. This guy just doesn't know how to win."
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:18 PM
Mohoney Mohoney is online now
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Palos Hills, IL
Posts: 12,591
Default

The players should just insist that service time starts upon being added to the 40-man instead of the 26-man. If those minor league options don’t save any service time, then the incentive is completely flipped to get players up ASAP. The vast majority of players that service time manipulation harms are added to 40-man rosters over the winter anyway, so partial service years would become a rarity.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:46 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,778
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
And what happens if the owners say “OK. We want a salary cap, and we’re not signing anything that doesn’t include one!” in response to that demand?
Then we are going to see a LONG strike. I really don't see the owners doing that. It's not that much more money and they can afford it. They aren't going to kill the golden goose over a single season of control for what really amounts to a couple dozen players max over all the teams.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-03-2019, 06:50 PM
voodoochile's Avatar
voodoochile voodoochile is offline
Soda Jerk/U.P.W./Lester Pooh Bear
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58,778
Blog Entries: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoney View Post
The players should just insist that service time starts upon being added to the 40-man instead of the 26-man. If those minor league options don’t save any service time, then the incentive is completely flipped to get players up ASAP. The vast majority of players that service time manipulation harms are added to 40-man rosters over the winter anyway, so partial service years would become a rarity.
Isn't that how the system currently works? Players either get added to the 40-man roster when they get called up or when they reach Rule 5 eligibility and the team wants to maintain control, so they start burning options to hold onto the player in question (i,e. Basabe).

I'm obviously not an expert, but don't think either Madrigal or Robert are currently on the 40-man roster. They won't be added until they get called up will they?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.