I find that most proposals for 'change of scenery' trades are silly. Most fans of teams think that an opposing club will pay full value for their failed prospect in hopes that they may regain their former luster. Fans clamor for their General Manager to pry struggling players from opposing teams for pennies, when no such deal is on the table. (Think I'm kidding? Take a minute to google a guy like Alex Gordon and see what you come up with... here is an example of how he was hotly pursued last year: link)
However, not all proposals to get a player a change of scenery are bad ones -- in fact, there are plenty of scenarios where getting a player out of town might benefit both parties. However, the price for the team dumping the loser or receiving the once-hyped prospect will be steep.
Enough beating around the bush. My idea? The Mets trade Jason Bay to the Red Sox for Carl Crawford and a little cash.
The match could not be better, and I am amazed that it took me so long to see this. Let's start with the basics on the two players.
As you know, Jason Bay has struggled as a Met. He posted a .259 average with 6 HR and an 749 OPS in 2010, and followed that up with a .245 average, 12 HR, and a 703 OPS this year, missing time both years with injuries. Factoring in defense and baserunning, Bay was worth an astoundingly terrible 0.7 WAR this year.
Carl Crawford's welcome to Red Sox Nation may have been even worse. Crawford this year put up a .255 average and 11 HR, but drew almost nothing in the way of walks and posted an OPS of 694. Crawford made up some of the gap with superior defense, but also posted an awful 0.4 WAR.
Jason Bay is owed $16MM in 2012, $16MM in 2013, and has a vesting option for $17MM in 2014 for a total of $49MM over the next three years (or $35 over two years). Crawford is owed the outrageous sum of $122MM over the next six years. Both contracts look like horrible albatrosses.
Why would these teams make the swap?
Why The Red Sox Will Do It
1. Carl Crawford is a dead man walking in Boston. His horrible season for the Sox, combined with his horrific play on the last hit of Boston's season, seals his fate. The gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in Boston is audible all the way here in Queens.
2. Carl Crawford is not a good fit for Fenway. Why on earth did Boston sign this guy in the first place? In addition to the above, and generic concerns that he may not be cut out for a big market, the Sox took a player who derives a TON of his value from his speed and defense and put him in the smallest left field in the entire baseball universe. They added him to a lineup which already had bona-fide top of the order hitters in Ellsbury, Pedroia, and Gonzalez. Crawford is an afterthought.
3. Jason Bay has already THRIVED in Boston. Maybe Bay is a different player now, but wouldn't it be worth it for them to see if they can roll the dice and at least get some value from Bay, rather than with a guy like Crawford who has been placed in a position where he can do nothing but fail?
Why The Mets Will Do It
1. Jason Bay is a dead man walking in Queens. Back to back terrible seasons. Ending the season on the bench with a "sinus infection," in addition to huge chunks of both seasons. And now the pressure on Bay will become even worse -- all hope for a bounce back is gone, and with back to back losing seasons, the fans will begin to turn on the player with the largest contract.
2. Bay is a terrible fit for Citi Field. The spacious left field, the high fences, and the low-run scoring environment have conspired to make this the worst case scenario for Bay. Granted, Bay did not hit well on the road this season either, but the change of scenery back to Boston may help him.
3. There is HOPE for Carl Crawford, where for Bay there is little to none. As has been pointed out, Carl Crawford was bad, not terrible, for the Sox since starting the season horrendously. After beginning the start of play on May 23rd batting .215/.249/.298, Crawford hit a poor but improved .280/.313/.474 from then until the end of the season, over 352 plate appearances.
Bottom Line?
Both players have enormous contracts and have underperformed greatly. Both players are bad fits for their current clubs, and have worn out their welcomes. And it just so happens that both players play left field.
"But Brian, why would the Sox trade for a player who is older and just as horrible?" The Red Sox, as we all know, are further along on the success cycle right now. If they had Jason Bay in left field instead of Carl Crawford, they may well have won an additional game and made the postseason this year. With that in mind, taking a chance on Jason Bay, with the shorter contract, with the potential that he may regain some of his prior Boston success (where he posted OPSes of 897 and 921), makes sense. It helps, also, that Bay fits comfortably down in the order as opposed to the speedy Crawford. And remember - Bay will only be 33 next year.
"But Brian, why would the Mets take on the longer contract for the player who was worse last year?" A few reasons. As I mentioned above, there is hope that Crawford may succeed in Flushing while there is no such hope for Bay. Furthermore, Crawford is a fantastic fit for Citi Field -- he might even be able to play center field and give the Mets the answer they are looking for at that position so they can open up left field for someone like Lucas Duda, Nick Evans, or someone else. Even moreso, Crawford can hit toward the top of the Mets lineup, where his few talents would not be as wasted as they are in Boston. And he'll fit perfectly in the low scoring National League East... not to mention distract a little from the flurry of negativity that will occur when Reyes departs.
You know you've struck a good deal when people on both sides find it hard to pull the trigger. The one thing that I think the Mets would require to execute this deal is a little financial assistance in years 2014-2017 when Jason Bay's contract is expired and Crawford is still on the books.
Proposal: Mets trade Jason Bay to the Red Sox for Carl Crawford and $5MM in each of the years 2014-2017. The Mets end up with Crawford on a 6/$107MM deal and the Sox get Bay for 3/$49MM plus a future payment of $15MM.
Each team takes on some risk, each team gets an asset from the other that is more likely to succeed for them than for their current team. Neither team wants anything to do with these guys -- so why not put them in a position where they may be able to succeed.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this: Is this deal a good match? Would one team love this idea and another team hate it? Are there other factors that I haven't considered?
Showing posts with label jason bay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jason bay. Show all posts
Friday, September 30, 2011
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Mets and the Success Cycle
When you run a baseball team, the first thing that you should do (and I doubt the Mets have done this in a while) is to take a look at where you are on the success cycle. I haven't been able to find much reference online to this concept as it relates to baseball, but it's an enormously important concept in business. In business, however, it is referred to as the life cycle.
In business, products and even companies as a whole participate in some general permutation of this cycle. A business or product will debut, will grow, and will hit their initial peak. From that point, they can adapt and make changes which will bring them to a new, higher plateau, or they can be allowed to decline until they no longer exist. Where you are on that cycle determines what kinds of decisions you will make - whether to invest in R&D, whether to make capital improvements, etc.
In baseball, however, all 30 teams exist and will continue to exist regardless of their success or failure. One look at the Pirates or Royals will assure you that no matter how bad you are and for how long, you won't go out of business (contraction talk aside). What does remain true, however, is the fact that teams are better or worse equipped to "make a run" at the playoffs or to "rebuild" depending on factors as plentiful as the ages of their star players, the condition of their facilities, changes in ownership, changes in the economy of their surrounding area, and the relative strength or weakness of their farm system.
As far as the success cycle and baseball goes, it appears the most prominent article on it was written years ago by Jonah Keri over at Baseball Prospectus. Although he never explicitly defines the success cycle, he takes an in-depth look at the 2002 Pittsburgh Pirates and discusses the importance of determining your place on it:
In business, products and even companies as a whole participate in some general permutation of this cycle. A business or product will debut, will grow, and will hit their initial peak. From that point, they can adapt and make changes which will bring them to a new, higher plateau, or they can be allowed to decline until they no longer exist. Where you are on that cycle determines what kinds of decisions you will make - whether to invest in R&D, whether to make capital improvements, etc.
In baseball, however, all 30 teams exist and will continue to exist regardless of their success or failure. One look at the Pirates or Royals will assure you that no matter how bad you are and for how long, you won't go out of business (contraction talk aside). What does remain true, however, is the fact that teams are better or worse equipped to "make a run" at the playoffs or to "rebuild" depending on factors as plentiful as the ages of their star players, the condition of their facilities, changes in ownership, changes in the economy of their surrounding area, and the relative strength or weakness of their farm system.
As far as the success cycle and baseball goes, it appears the most prominent article on it was written years ago by Jonah Keri over at Baseball Prospectus. Although he never explicitly defines the success cycle, he takes an in-depth look at the 2002 Pittsburgh Pirates and discusses the importance of determining your place on it:
The cycle is a baseball continuum on which every team resides. To measure a team's place in the cycle, assess its talent in the majors and minors. Can the players in the organization, mixed with a few trade acquisitions and free agents the team could reasonably sign, yield a competitive team? More precisely, can the team expect to compete while its current core of major-league players remain productive and under contract?
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Fonzie Forever Retrospective - Jason Bay
Sometimes it sucks to be right. This is one of those times. In December of 2009, before the Mets signed Bay, I thought the question of whether Bay should be offered a big contract boiled down to one simple question:
Is this the guy we want to occupy 10% of our payroll with? Is this the kind of player we want to shape the rest of our roster around? Is he a cornerstone for the next Mets World Series team? I don't think so.The answer then, was no. The answer today is HELL no.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Move Over Karl Malone There's A New "Mailman." His Name Is Jason Bay And He Delivers...Sometimes
Game 2: Mets 6 Dodgers 1
Johan Santana vs Vincente Padilla
Larry King, Piers Morgan and (I thought I saw) George Lopez were all in attendance at Dodger Stadium for this glorious game! Well I guess they didn't enjoy it but too bad for them. And ever since I saw a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" a few years back involving Larry David, a prostitute, a car pool lane, and a Dodgers game I always look for Mr. David in the the Chavez Ravine crowd. But nope he wasn't at this game. But hey let's still watch a scene from this episode since well it's super hysterical:
Johan Santana vs Vincente Padilla
Larry King, Piers Morgan and (I thought I saw) George Lopez were all in attendance at Dodger Stadium for this glorious game! Well I guess they didn't enjoy it but too bad for them. And ever since I saw a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" a few years back involving Larry David, a prostitute, a car pool lane, and a Dodgers game I always look for Mr. David in the the Chavez Ravine crowd. But nope he wasn't at this game. But hey let's still watch a scene from this episode since well it's super hysterical:
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Most Important Thing From... Game 12, Mets v. Cardinals, April 18th
Sometimes the Most Important Thing (MIT) is a good thing. Sometimes it is not. Tonight, it is not.
Over their last 29 innings of baseball, the Mets have managed only 13 hits. If you take away the hits collected against position players, they have only 10 hits in their last 27 innings. Truly awful.
Over their last 29 innings of baseball, the Mets have managed only 13 hits. If you take away the hits collected against position players, they have only 10 hits in their last 27 innings. Truly awful.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Impressions From Game 2: Mets-Marlins
-- John Maine looked like he had nothing at all today. In 2006 and 2007 his fastball was an above-average pitch (according to fangraphs) but since he's lost some velocity it looks just like batting practice. There isn't much hope here. Even on a night when his off-speed stuff is going well, and he's throwing strikes, he's not going to get anywhere if he can't beat guys with his fastball.
-- Sean Green, despite the home run, looks a lot better now than he did in spring training. His slider is pretty great. With a slider like that complimenting a fastball which rings in around 87, you'd think that he'd be a little more effective.
-- In the seventh inning against Nolasco, Francoeur has REALLY impressed me. Laying off the 2-2 slider (which was good) was very impressive. He got a bad call on the curveball but he hung in there.
-- Hanley Ramirez has looked poor defensively all night, as GKR pointed out.
-- Even though I have been lambasting the Mets all offseason for signing Jason Bay, I acknowledged in those articles that he'd probably be good this season. That said, I didn't realize he was going to be THAT good this year.
The triple on Opening Day was very impressive. He made a great running catch tonight. I knew he'd bring leadership, and some power, and all of that - but his speed and defense has been much better than advertised this year.
-- Alex Cora beaned again today - he's on pace for 162.
-- Why would the Mets have scarf day in April? Why? Only the Mets.
-- I just said to my Dad, "isn't it nice that Tatis wanted to play for the Mets?" His response? "What's that commercial? Milosch wants to play for Rome! Wants to play for Beijing!" Point taken, Dad.
-- Sean Green, despite the home run, looks a lot better now than he did in spring training. His slider is pretty great. With a slider like that complimenting a fastball which rings in around 87, you'd think that he'd be a little more effective.
-- In the seventh inning against Nolasco, Francoeur has REALLY impressed me. Laying off the 2-2 slider (which was good) was very impressive. He got a bad call on the curveball but he hung in there.
-- Hanley Ramirez has looked poor defensively all night, as GKR pointed out.
-- Even though I have been lambasting the Mets all offseason for signing Jason Bay, I acknowledged in those articles that he'd probably be good this season. That said, I didn't realize he was going to be THAT good this year.
The triple on Opening Day was very impressive. He made a great running catch tonight. I knew he'd bring leadership, and some power, and all of that - but his speed and defense has been much better than advertised this year.
-- Alex Cora beaned again today - he's on pace for 162.
-- Why would the Mets have scarf day in April? Why? Only the Mets.
-- I just said to my Dad, "isn't it nice that Tatis wanted to play for the Mets?" His response? "What's that commercial? Milosch wants to play for Rome! Wants to play for Beijing!" Point taken, Dad.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Jason Bay and The Problem With RBI's, Part 2
Earlier today, I posted a blog which discussed the uselessness of using RBI as a measure by which we should evaluate Jason Bay. Since then, I've had several people approach me and tell me that my logic is silly. I'll admit, I did not do a very good job of explaining exactly what I was trying to say in the last blog. So let me try and do so here:
Jason Bay has been a fine player throughout his career, but the idea of him being a run-producer is a totally overblown. His value, of which he has plenty, rests in the things he has been able to do well over the years - draw walks, hit for power, etc. - but evaluating his career based on his RBI totals is misleading. In the same token, evaluating his performance in 2010 based primarily on whether or not he as able to do as advertised (i.e. drive in runs) will be a mistake. He is not an "RBI guy" the same way that nobody is. RBI are primarily about opportunities.
Jason Bay, based on the work we've done here in comparing him to other players, is likely to see his skills decline soon and sharply. When that happens, his RBI totals, which will likely remain decent, will be emptier and emptier.
As a side note, I learned tonight that his full name is Jason Raymond Bay. Is there any way we can get people to start calling him Jay Ray Bay? Because I love it. Others seem to have discovered this already (like the excellent Ted Berg) but I haven't heard it catch on yet.
Baseball Reference provides us with a wonderful tool which can help take some of the mystery out of being an RBI guy. For each player, they provide their RBI total in comparison to the RBI total of the average major leaguer in the same number of at-bats. According to his Baseball Reference page, Jason did very well last year:
Bay: 119 RBI
Average major leaguer: 72 RBI
That would seem to confirm that he's a run producer, right? Well, not so fast. In addition to the total number of RBI, they provide us with the number of players that were on base for their at bats. For the average major leaguer, it was 401, but for Jason Bay, it was 445. That does not account for the disparity, but it does narrow the gap. Observe the following:
Bay's RBI Percentage: 10.98%[1]
Average ML RBI Percentage: 6.92%
Obviously, Bay had a great year for driving in runners last season - but it was his best year ever. Here are the percentages, going back in time, for Bay versus the average:
2008: 9.17%
2007: 8.05%
2006: 9.20%
ML average was 6.95%, 7.17%, and 7.30% each of those years.
So Bay has always been consistently slightly better than average at driving in runs. But that is just because he is a better than average hitter. It is not because he has some special skill for driving in runs. He bats in the middle of a lineup behind a speedy leadoff man and a two-hitter who probably bunts the runner to second or third a good percentage of the time. When you bat cleanup, the entire offense is engineered around YOU driving those runs in.
It does not stand to reason from the above numbers that someone could distinguish himself from the rest of the world of good hitters by being particularly good at driving in runs. To demonstrate this, here are the same numbers for some guys who you might not consider to be "run producers":
Carlos Lee, 2008: 11.91%
Jorge Cantu, 2009: 8.65%
Alex Rodriguez, 2004: 9.05% (in his first "super chokey" season in New York)
Bobby Abreu, 2009: 9.26%
Michael Cuddyer, 2009: 8.49%
Nick Markakis, 2009: 8.51%
Ryan Garko, 2008: 9.25%
The above list includes a lot of guys from a lot of different fields. Some are stars or near-stars, others are stable veterans. Some, however, are even KNOWN FOR their inability to drive in runs - most glaringly, Alex Rodriguez in his first season in New York.
The only thing these players have in common is that, in the year I looked at their statistics, they had good offensive seasons and hit in the middle of their batting orders. If you hit well, and if you are afforded opportunities, RBI's will come. The glorification of Jason Bay as a run producer is little more than a sportswriter's fantasy.
------------
[1] The percentage is the (number of RBI) / (the number of runners on base + plate appearances). Remember, in every at bat, you can not only drive in the runners on base, but you could also hit a home run and drive yourself in.
Jason Bay and The Problem With RBI's
Joe Posnanski published a blog yesterday in which he discussed a recent Bill James essay entitled "The Attribution Problem." The essay can be found in the Bill James Gold Mine 2010. Posnanski relays the concept of the essay:
Baseball is a truly wonderful place for us to be open-minded and critical of our thought process. Unlike life, we can reconstruct sequences and we have solid records and numbers which we can point to which tell us exactly what happened.
Posnanski's article, however, really focuses on the concept of the "RBI guy."[1] Statistically-minded writers have long been downplaying RBI's as a way to judge the value of players (and correctly so) and this article is more of the same. However, I always like reading Posnanski's take on things and here he adds an interesting tidbit to the conversation.
At the outset of the article, Posnanski asks you to choose one of two options. (1) Your team could have more hits than the opponent or (2) Your team could hit three or more home runs. Which of those two options would give you a better chance of winning? You may be surprised to learn the answer:
Teams that outhit their opponents won 80.3% of the time.
Teams that hit three-or-more homers won 78.4% of the time.[2]
The point is not that RBI on their own are good or bad, but rather, that you should be adding the best players to your team regardless of that single, ephemeral statistic. RBI are good, but hits and on-base percentage are better. RBI is useful, but defense and baserunning is, too.
Punch "Jason Bay" and "Run Producer" into Google, and you'll get thousands of hits. If you limit the search to January 1st to the present, you get 247 hits. He had 119 RBI last season, and has averaged 31 homers per year in the last four seasons. However, Jason Bay was not, and is not, the solution to our problems. As Bill James succinctly stated in his essay:
If you add a low-average power hitter to a bad team, the low average power hitter will lead the team in RBI — and the team will score fewer runs, not more.
That is what I fear with the Bay sitation. Although the Mets will find it almost impossible to be worse than last season offensively, I worry that the addition of Jason Bay will lead to gaudy but unproductive power numbers. With a lineup that is so top-heavy (with Reyes, Beltran and Wright all elite producers) Bay is going to have a ton of opportunities to drive in runs.
But with a low average (only .267 last year), Bay is a feast-or-famine hitter entering the twilight of his career. In watching the games this year, I worry that we'll see a lot of two- or three-run home runs when we do not need them, and a lot of strikeouts in games that are close. At the end of the year, Bay is going to have his 100 or 120 RBI, but I doubt that our offense will be much more productive.
---------------------------
[1]From the article:
[2] The usual caveats apply here of course. It's not a scientific study, the numbers only apply to 2009, and the "three home runs" option does not mean that your team necessarily hit more home runs than the other team.
We attribute the victory won by the team to the individual pitcher — and then conclude, based essentially on that attribution, that the pitcher is the key to victory.It is a concept that many of us are already familiar with, both in baseball and in life. We do not always give credit to the things that REALLY help us succeed - sometimes we give credit to things or people that are more obvious, and sometimes we just don't know what is responsible for our success.
That sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it? The win is all about sleight of hand. Pitchers don’t win games, and pitchers don’t lose games — that should be obvious to everyone. But people decided a long time ago just the opposite: That pitchers do win and lose games.
Baseball is a truly wonderful place for us to be open-minded and critical of our thought process. Unlike life, we can reconstruct sequences and we have solid records and numbers which we can point to which tell us exactly what happened.
Posnanski's article, however, really focuses on the concept of the "RBI guy."[1] Statistically-minded writers have long been downplaying RBI's as a way to judge the value of players (and correctly so) and this article is more of the same. However, I always like reading Posnanski's take on things and here he adds an interesting tidbit to the conversation.
At the outset of the article, Posnanski asks you to choose one of two options. (1) Your team could have more hits than the opponent or (2) Your team could hit three or more home runs. Which of those two options would give you a better chance of winning? You may be surprised to learn the answer:
Teams that outhit their opponents won 80.3% of the time.
Teams that hit three-or-more homers won 78.4% of the time.[2]
The point is not that RBI on their own are good or bad, but rather, that you should be adding the best players to your team regardless of that single, ephemeral statistic. RBI are good, but hits and on-base percentage are better. RBI is useful, but defense and baserunning is, too.
Punch "Jason Bay" and "Run Producer" into Google, and you'll get thousands of hits. If you limit the search to January 1st to the present, you get 247 hits. He had 119 RBI last season, and has averaged 31 homers per year in the last four seasons. However, Jason Bay was not, and is not, the solution to our problems. As Bill James succinctly stated in his essay:
If you add a low-average power hitter to a bad team, the low average power hitter will lead the team in RBI — and the team will score fewer runs, not more.
That is what I fear with the Bay sitation. Although the Mets will find it almost impossible to be worse than last season offensively, I worry that the addition of Jason Bay will lead to gaudy but unproductive power numbers. With a lineup that is so top-heavy (with Reyes, Beltran and Wright all elite producers) Bay is going to have a ton of opportunities to drive in runs.
But with a low average (only .267 last year), Bay is a feast-or-famine hitter entering the twilight of his career. In watching the games this year, I worry that we'll see a lot of two- or three-run home runs when we do not need them, and a lot of strikeouts in games that are close. At the end of the year, Bay is going to have his 100 or 120 RBI, but I doubt that our offense will be much more productive.
---------------------------
[1]From the article:
Teams don’t score runs because they have uniquely talented RBI men. Teams score runs because more often than their opponents, they put together a string of useful offensive plays — walks, hits, stolen bases, hit-by-pitch, beating out double play grounders, taking extra bases, advancing on throws , on and on and on. That, most of the time, is what lead to runs.* The RBI guy cannot do it himself except with solo home runs. And teams don’t win games by hitting solo home runs. No, really, they don’t.
[2] The usual caveats apply here of course. It's not a scientific study, the numbers only apply to 2009, and the "three home runs" option does not mean that your team necessarily hit more home runs than the other team.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Torrealba Signs With Padres
Per ESPN:
I didn't want Torrealba to begin with, but to say that we couldn't sign or even negotiate with a player interested in a $1.25 million dollar contract because of financial restrictions is damning.
The Mets have spent a lot of money this winter and have nearly nothing to show for it. Two million on Cora, a million on Gary Matthews Jr., almost a million on Henry Blanco, over half a million on R.A. Dickey, the same for Chris Coste, and over a million each for Kelvim Escobar and Ryota Igarashi. In a vacuum, some of these signings even seem wise (Escobar).
But what was the plan?
Did we enter the 2010 offseason with $10 million to spend? That's over $6 million spent on those players up there, plus the big ticket item - Bay. That's $12 million this year with seemingly not even an outside chance at playoff contention, PLUS a contract with Jason Bay which is backloaded to a ridiculous degree[1]. Why? What was the plan? And what do we do now?
---------------------
[1] The Mets contract commitments in 2011 are horrific:
Santana: $22.5
Beltran: $20.071
Bay: $18.125
Wright: $14.25
Perez: $12.0
K-Rod: $12.167
Reyes: $11.0 club option
I'll save you some calculator time. That is $110 MILLION committed to just seven players. Our payroll this year, altogether, appears to be somewhere around $120-$125 million. That means that we'd need to spread the remaining money over the other 18 players on the active roster in order to maintain payroll, simply because of the stupidity of the backloaded Bay contract. It is ugly.
Yorvit Torrealba, one of the few remaining free agent catchers, has agreed to a one-year, $1.25 million deal with the San Diego Padres.But here is the REAL kicker:
Torrealba will play for a $750,000 salary this season, and will receive a $500,000 buyout if the Padres and the catcher don't exercise a mutual option on him for 2011, for $3.5 million.
Torrealba recently tried to engage the New York Mets in negotiations on a one-year deal for less than $2 million, but the Mets indicated that they had no interest, given financial restrictions.Financial restrictions.
I didn't want Torrealba to begin with, but to say that we couldn't sign or even negotiate with a player interested in a $1.25 million dollar contract because of financial restrictions is damning.
The Mets have spent a lot of money this winter and have nearly nothing to show for it. Two million on Cora, a million on Gary Matthews Jr., almost a million on Henry Blanco, over half a million on R.A. Dickey, the same for Chris Coste, and over a million each for Kelvim Escobar and Ryota Igarashi. In a vacuum, some of these signings even seem wise (Escobar).
But what was the plan?
Did we enter the 2010 offseason with $10 million to spend? That's over $6 million spent on those players up there, plus the big ticket item - Bay. That's $12 million this year with seemingly not even an outside chance at playoff contention, PLUS a contract with Jason Bay which is backloaded to a ridiculous degree[1]. Why? What was the plan? And what do we do now?
---------------------
[1] The Mets contract commitments in 2011 are horrific:
Santana: $22.5
Beltran: $20.071
Bay: $18.125
Wright: $14.25
Perez: $12.0
K-Rod: $12.167
Reyes: $11.0 club option
I'll save you some calculator time. That is $110 MILLION committed to just seven players. Our payroll this year, altogether, appears to be somewhere around $120-$125 million. That means that we'd need to spread the remaining money over the other 18 players on the active roster in order to maintain payroll, simply because of the stupidity of the backloaded Bay contract. It is ugly.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Why Allowing Less Runs is Better Than Scoring More
In an interesting post to Blue and Orange, Chris Wilcox discusses the Jason Bay signing and the reaction by many Mets fans that adding a hitter did not solve "our problems." He argues:
And to an extent I agree. Any rational person should agree with that statement. The Mets were broken last year, and as Chris points out, they ranked poorly in both defense (16th in runs against) and offense (25th in runs scored). Any move which, in a vacuum, makes the Mets better than before is a good move. However, he continues on to say:
Yes, outscoring the other team is the entire point. But I think that his analysis is incomplete.
With a team like the Mets, who struggled last year, and who need improvement in all areas, pitching and defense is the most important place to begin. Yes, many teams who have middle-of-the-pack pitching will succeed behind a dominant offense. But when we are talking about the marginal value of an improvement of the team, run prevention is most important. Here is why.
Take a hypothetical .500 team. They score exactly as many runs as they allow in a season. Their average game score is 5-5. By adding offense, they improve their chances of winning. Let's say they make improvements and in the next year add one run on average to their per-game total. They average a 6-5 win. Let's call this Team Offense. This team will win more games than they lose.
Take that same team, and instead of adding offense, improve their pitching and defense. If they were to lower their opponents average score by one run, they would have the average score of their game be 5-4. Let's call this Team Pitching. This team would win more games than they lose. But they would also win more games than the team that won 6-5.
Team Offense, in a season, would score 972 runs but allow 810. Their pythagorean win total would be 94, and would win 58% of their games. Team Pitching, in a season, would score 810 and allow only 648. Their pythagorean win total would be 97, and would win 59.8% of their games.
It makes sense when you think about it. Team Offense only scored 20% more runs than their opponents, while Team Defense outscored their opponents by 25%. At a lower average score, each run was more important.
Not only does this make for a better team, but it makes for a more fun baseball game to watch. Stronger pitching preserves your bullpen over a long season. Better run prevention has, time and time again, proven to be important come playoff time.
So yes, improving your team is improving your team, and the Mets are gonna be a lot better with Jason Bay next year than without him. But not all runs are created equal.
------
Thanks to the calculator at the Replacement Level Yankee Weblog for the actual number crunching.
Anyway, the point of this is not to defend the Bay deal... It’s more to discuss this idea that the Mets need to solely concentrate on pitching this offseason, because anybody that watched last year’s team would have to see that there was a lot more wrong with the 2009 Mets than starting pitching.
And to an extent I agree. Any rational person should agree with that statement. The Mets were broken last year, and as Chris points out, they ranked poorly in both defense (16th in runs against) and offense (25th in runs scored). Any move which, in a vacuum, makes the Mets better than before is a good move. However, he continues on to say:
The Mets focus ... should be on finding the most efficient way to outscore the competition. Pitching doesn’t win championships by itself, but putting together the best combination of hitting and pitching together does. Look at the last three World Series champions ... Run prevention is obviously important, but all of these teams could score some runs, too. None finished lower than third in baseball in run differential, and that’s with the randomness of the baseball postseason working against them.
***
Adding Bay helps the Mets improve their ability to outscore the competition, at least in the short-term, and for that, the move was a decent one.
Yes, outscoring the other team is the entire point. But I think that his analysis is incomplete.
With a team like the Mets, who struggled last year, and who need improvement in all areas, pitching and defense is the most important place to begin. Yes, many teams who have middle-of-the-pack pitching will succeed behind a dominant offense. But when we are talking about the marginal value of an improvement of the team, run prevention is most important. Here is why.
Take a hypothetical .500 team. They score exactly as many runs as they allow in a season. Their average game score is 5-5. By adding offense, they improve their chances of winning. Let's say they make improvements and in the next year add one run on average to their per-game total. They average a 6-5 win. Let's call this Team Offense. This team will win more games than they lose.
Take that same team, and instead of adding offense, improve their pitching and defense. If they were to lower their opponents average score by one run, they would have the average score of their game be 5-4. Let's call this Team Pitching. This team would win more games than they lose. But they would also win more games than the team that won 6-5.
Team Offense, in a season, would score 972 runs but allow 810. Their pythagorean win total would be 94, and would win 58% of their games. Team Pitching, in a season, would score 810 and allow only 648. Their pythagorean win total would be 97, and would win 59.8% of their games.
It makes sense when you think about it. Team Offense only scored 20% more runs than their opponents, while Team Defense outscored their opponents by 25%. At a lower average score, each run was more important.
Not only does this make for a better team, but it makes for a more fun baseball game to watch. Stronger pitching preserves your bullpen over a long season. Better run prevention has, time and time again, proven to be important come playoff time.
So yes, improving your team is improving your team, and the Mets are gonna be a lot better with Jason Bay next year than without him. But not all runs are created equal.
------
Thanks to the calculator at the Replacement Level Yankee Weblog for the actual number crunching.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Matt Holliday Signs: Compared to Bay and Who Is Left
As most already know, the Cardinals have resigned Matt Holliday to a massive, seven year and $120 million deal.
On the heels of Jason Bay's five year, $83 million deal with the Mets, there are undoubtedly going to be comparisons made between the two. With Bay about 15 months older than Holliday, the Cardinals end up committed to Holliday one year deeper into his career than the Mets are to Bay. The average annual value of the Holliday deal is $17 per season, while the Bay contract averages $16.6 million per year.
Who did better - the Mets or the Cardinals - is something we won't know for a long time. What we do know is that both are paying their players contracts which are near their market value, and for many years. Matt Klaassen over at fangraphs does a good job breaking down the contract, repeats a concept which I think most baseball fans should be familiar with:
Neither team got a discount for guaranteeing many years on their contracts. Both require their players to maintain their level of performance (or close to it) throughout the life of their contracts in order to come out "even". Both will likely lose.
For what it is worth, here are Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projections for Matt Holliday for the next seven years. Once again, this is not a prediction as to EXACTLY how Holliday will perform -- rather, it is a simulation of how Holliday and players like him will age over a given period of time. A look at the progression, and how Matt Holliday is likeliest to perform in 2015 and beyond, is enlightening:
What does this all mean? Well ... for one thing, it might mean that, in a year with no marquee talent and with so much talent available in the middle tier, that it was foolish to pursue EITHER Holliday or Bay. Why pay Holliday or Bay their market value for five or seven years, exposing yourself to the risk they drop off in production or become injured, when you can get Johnny Damon or any other corner outfielder to do almost as well on a very short, safe contract?
Here are some of the remaining free agent outfielders, courtesy of Cot's Contracts:
Rick Ankiel STL
Johnny Damon NYY (A)
Jermaine Dye CWS (A)
Vladimir Guerrero LAA (B)
Reed Johnson CHC
Austin Kearns * WAS
Mark Kotsay CHW
Jason Michaels CLE
Xavier Nady NYY (B)
Gary Sheffield NYM
Fernando Tatis NYM (B)
Not that any of these players are the equal of Holliday or Bay -- but what if they provide half the production at a quarter of the cost? If Holliday is a 5-win player who costs $120 million, would Vladimir Guerrero or Jermaine Dye be a better deal as a 1 or 2-win player if we only committed $10 million to them?
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the offseason pans out, and where the many mid-level players end up -- and what they get.
-------
Other free agents of interest:
Russell Branyan SEA
Carlos Delgado NYM
Adam LaRoche ATL
Orlando Hudson LAD
Felipe Lopez MIL
Miguel Tejada HOU
Joe Crede MIN
Pedro Feliz PHI
Ryan Church ATL
Jack Cust OAK
Ryan Garko SF
On the heels of Jason Bay's five year, $83 million deal with the Mets, there are undoubtedly going to be comparisons made between the two. With Bay about 15 months older than Holliday, the Cardinals end up committed to Holliday one year deeper into his career than the Mets are to Bay. The average annual value of the Holliday deal is $17 per season, while the Bay contract averages $16.6 million per year.
Who did better - the Mets or the Cardinals - is something we won't know for a long time. What we do know is that both are paying their players contracts which are near their market value, and for many years. Matt Klaassen over at fangraphs does a good job breaking down the contract, repeats a concept which I think most baseball fans should be familiar with:
It has been said before, but it’s worth repeating: paying average market value for a win isn’t necessarily a “dumb” move, but it isn’t “smart” either. It’s “average” …on average. Moreover, straight market value isn’t the only factor to consider in this particular case. Leaving aside the possibility that the actual value of a win might actually be lower this offseason (dropping it down to $4.4 million, the market value of a 4.5 WAR player over 7 years drops to about $109 million), seven years is a long time for a corner outfielder in his thirties.
Neither team got a discount for guaranteeing many years on their contracts. Both require their players to maintain their level of performance (or close to it) throughout the life of their contracts in order to come out "even". Both will likely lose.
For what it is worth, here are Dan Szymborski's ZiPS projections for Matt Holliday for the next seven years. Once again, this is not a prediction as to EXACTLY how Holliday will perform -- rather, it is a simulation of how Holliday and players like him will age over a given period of time. A look at the progression, and how Matt Holliday is likeliest to perform in 2015 and beyond, is enlightening:
BA OBP SLG OPS+
----------------------------
2010 .308 .387 .528 143
2011 .304 .384 .517 139
2012 .302 .381 .512 137
2013 .296 .375 .504 133
2014 .290 .370 .493 129
2015 .284 .364 .472 123
2016 .280 .358 .460 118
2017 .276 .354 .451 115 (option)
What does this all mean? Well ... for one thing, it might mean that, in a year with no marquee talent and with so much talent available in the middle tier, that it was foolish to pursue EITHER Holliday or Bay. Why pay Holliday or Bay their market value for five or seven years, exposing yourself to the risk they drop off in production or become injured, when you can get Johnny Damon or any other corner outfielder to do almost as well on a very short, safe contract?
Here are some of the remaining free agent outfielders, courtesy of Cot's Contracts:
Rick Ankiel STL
Johnny Damon NYY (A)
Jermaine Dye CWS (A)
Vladimir Guerrero LAA (B)
Reed Johnson CHC
Austin Kearns * WAS
Mark Kotsay CHW
Jason Michaels CLE
Xavier Nady NYY (B)
Gary Sheffield NYM
Fernando Tatis NYM (B)
Not that any of these players are the equal of Holliday or Bay -- but what if they provide half the production at a quarter of the cost? If Holliday is a 5-win player who costs $120 million, would Vladimir Guerrero or Jermaine Dye be a better deal as a 1 or 2-win player if we only committed $10 million to them?
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the offseason pans out, and where the many mid-level players end up -- and what they get.
-------
Other free agents of interest:
Russell Branyan SEA
Carlos Delgado NYM
Adam LaRoche ATL
Orlando Hudson LAD
Felipe Lopez MIL
Miguel Tejada HOU
Joe Crede MIN
Pedro Feliz PHI
Ryan Church ATL
Jack Cust OAK
Ryan Garko SF
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Who Is Jason Bay Most Like?
This is becoming a very fun new exercise for me.
In my big review of the Bay deal, I ended up comparing him to many of the players on his baseball-reference list of comparable players. Those players are chosen by a simple computer process which pairs the player in question with other players in history who have a) played the same or similar positions and b) posted similar statistics.
Subsequently, others seem to have followed suit. An article at Dugout Central compared Jason Bay to Richie Sexson. Personally, I think that comparison was made solely for its dramatic value -- they are not very alike.
This is what we are looking at. Left fielder, statistics compiled between age 24 and age 30 seasons. Here is what Jason Bay has done in an average 162 game season:
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 108 RBI, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Now, I'm going to look at players... the majority of whom were suggested by baseball-reference, with a few others suggested by my experience or other media outlets... and group them into three general groups.
Similar To Bay
Ryan Klesko: 30 home runs, 100 RBI, 103 strikeouts, .285/.372/.528.
Bobby Bonilla: 26 home runs, 100 rbi, 74 bb, 90 strikeouts, .279/.356/.489
Danny Tartabull: 31 home runs, 90 walks, 157 strikeouts, .278/.374/.505
JD Drew: 28 home runs, 88 RBI, 92 walks, 115 strikeouts, .291/.399/.517
Jim Edmonds: 32 home runs, 99 RBI, 72 walks, 137 strikeouts, .292/.370/.515
Better Than Bay
Brian Giles: 33 home runs, 105 RBI, 98 walks, 76 strikeouts, .303/.409/.560
Tim Salmon: 34 home runs, 114 RBI, 99 walks, 139 strikeouts, .294/.395/.530
George Foster: 36 home runs, 119 RBI, 61 walks, 111 strikeouts, .298/.367/.547
Willie Stargell: 32 home runs, 104 RBI, 56 walks, 134 strikeouts, .278/.345/.510
Kevin Mitchell: 31 home runs, 100 RBI, 64 walks, 98 strikeouts, .277/.351/.508
Worse Than Bay
Geoff Jenkins: 29 home runs, 54 walks, 148 strikeouts, .279/.350/.499
Jeromy Burnitz: 30 home runs, 83 walks, 130 strikeouts, .259/.365/.498
Richard Hidalgo: 28 home runs, 60 walks, 120 strikeouts, .273/.350/.497
Bobby Higginson: 26 home runs, 89 RBI, 80 walks, 99 strikeouts, .281/.367/.482
Pat Burrell: 32 home runs, 104 RBI, 97 walks, 156 strikeouts, .258/.368/.484
Purely by accident, we ended up with five players in each group. All of these players posted statistics which were in the same ballpark as Bay, almost all of them were corner outfielders, and all of them are household names. You can draw your own conclusions from the groupings.
Now, we'll take a look at how these players did in the next five years of their careers. Although it might be too much to expect that the age 31-35 seasons of a man's career to be as good as his prime -- Jason Bay is being paid by the Mets as if they EXPECT them to be. As such, I'll loosen the standards and take a general look at how they did in the next few years and label them as hits or misses.
As far as I can tell, in the group of players marginally worse than Bay, all have flamed out. Higginson and Hidalgo fell off the map completely. Jenkins, Burnitz, and Burrell -- all sluggers who were moderately unathletic looking and with strikeout totals similar to Bay -- hung around for a while and dwindled away.
As for the group of players better than Bay, they were all clearly better than him in their careers up to this point. As pointed out in the last article, these players are not, in fact, very comparable to Bay. Brian Giles had far superior plate discipline and stats. George Foster had three top-six MVP finishes and a 54 home run season before he was 31. Willie Stargell and his superior batting line had five years with MVP votes, including a second place finish. Finally, Kevin Mitchell already had an MVP win and a career OPS+ far superior to Bay.
Most of those players were erroneously included in his list of similar players --- baseball-reference saw that they had similar batting lines (average, on-base, etc.) without factoring in that the eras they played in were very different. For instance, Jason Bay's batting line of .280/.376/.519 is superior to Kevin Mitchell's line of .277/.351/.508, but Mitchell had the VASTLY higher OPS+ because he played in a much more difficult hitting environment. Adjusted to their eras, Jason Bay's OPS+ is only 131 compared to Mitchell's 140 OPS+ and MVP win.
As for how they did, Salmon, Foster and Mitchell all had very lackluster careers from age 31 onwards. Tim Salmon had only 60 home runs after age 31, batted .262 and was out of baseball completely by 35. George Foster batted only .263/.326/.440 in the next five seasons and averaged only 26 home runs. Kevin Mitchell only had 702 at-bats over his next five seasons and only once played more than 65 games in a season.
Giles and Stargell, of course, had excellent sunsets to their careers. Stargell, who is vastly better than Bay, continued on to become one of the all-time greats while Giles had a gentle decline before his career abruptly ended.
Finally, we have the group of players similar to Bay. Of them, Edmonds was the only one to finish his career successfully. Drew is still playing, so the jury is out. As for Klesko, Bonilla, and Tartabull, the ends are not pretty.
Danny Tartabull hit .249 the rest of his career for a barely league average OPS. He averaged only 14 home runs per season and was out of baseball by the third year. Bobby Bonilla was universally reviled for his large contract, but didn't play terribly. He averaged 21 home runs over the next five years and had an OPS+ of 124.
His MOST similar player, Ryan Klesko, hit only 54 more home runs. He batted .264/.366/.432, missed his age 35 season entirely, and was out of baseball the next year.
Conclusion
Worse Than Bay: 0-for-5
Similar To Bay: 1-for-4
Better Than Bay: 2-for-5
Of the 15 players I looked at, only three could be said to have had their careers from ages 31 to 35 be considered as successful as the ones before.
In my big review of the Bay deal, I ended up comparing him to many of the players on his baseball-reference list of comparable players. Those players are chosen by a simple computer process which pairs the player in question with other players in history who have a) played the same or similar positions and b) posted similar statistics.
Subsequently, others seem to have followed suit. An article at Dugout Central compared Jason Bay to Richie Sexson. Personally, I think that comparison was made solely for its dramatic value -- they are not very alike.
This is what we are looking at. Left fielder, statistics compiled between age 24 and age 30 seasons. Here is what Jason Bay has done in an average 162 game season:
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 108 RBI, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Now, I'm going to look at players... the majority of whom were suggested by baseball-reference, with a few others suggested by my experience or other media outlets... and group them into three general groups.
Similar To Bay
Ryan Klesko: 30 home runs, 100 RBI, 103 strikeouts, .285/.372/.528.
Bobby Bonilla: 26 home runs, 100 rbi, 74 bb, 90 strikeouts, .279/.356/.489
Danny Tartabull: 31 home runs, 90 walks, 157 strikeouts, .278/.374/.505
JD Drew: 28 home runs, 88 RBI, 92 walks, 115 strikeouts, .291/.399/.517
Jim Edmonds: 32 home runs, 99 RBI, 72 walks, 137 strikeouts, .292/.370/.515
Better Than Bay
Brian Giles: 33 home runs, 105 RBI, 98 walks, 76 strikeouts, .303/.409/.560
Tim Salmon: 34 home runs, 114 RBI, 99 walks, 139 strikeouts, .294/.395/.530
George Foster: 36 home runs, 119 RBI, 61 walks, 111 strikeouts, .298/.367/.547
Willie Stargell: 32 home runs, 104 RBI, 56 walks, 134 strikeouts, .278/.345/.510
Kevin Mitchell: 31 home runs, 100 RBI, 64 walks, 98 strikeouts, .277/.351/.508
Worse Than Bay
Geoff Jenkins: 29 home runs, 54 walks, 148 strikeouts, .279/.350/.499
Jeromy Burnitz: 30 home runs, 83 walks, 130 strikeouts, .259/.365/.498
Richard Hidalgo: 28 home runs, 60 walks, 120 strikeouts, .273/.350/.497
Bobby Higginson: 26 home runs, 89 RBI, 80 walks, 99 strikeouts, .281/.367/.482
Pat Burrell: 32 home runs, 104 RBI, 97 walks, 156 strikeouts, .258/.368/.484
Purely by accident, we ended up with five players in each group. All of these players posted statistics which were in the same ballpark as Bay, almost all of them were corner outfielders, and all of them are household names. You can draw your own conclusions from the groupings.
Now, we'll take a look at how these players did in the next five years of their careers. Although it might be too much to expect that the age 31-35 seasons of a man's career to be as good as his prime -- Jason Bay is being paid by the Mets as if they EXPECT them to be. As such, I'll loosen the standards and take a general look at how they did in the next few years and label them as hits or misses.
As far as I can tell, in the group of players marginally worse than Bay, all have flamed out. Higginson and Hidalgo fell off the map completely. Jenkins, Burnitz, and Burrell -- all sluggers who were moderately unathletic looking and with strikeout totals similar to Bay -- hung around for a while and dwindled away.
As for the group of players better than Bay, they were all clearly better than him in their careers up to this point. As pointed out in the last article, these players are not, in fact, very comparable to Bay. Brian Giles had far superior plate discipline and stats. George Foster had three top-six MVP finishes and a 54 home run season before he was 31. Willie Stargell and his superior batting line had five years with MVP votes, including a second place finish. Finally, Kevin Mitchell already had an MVP win and a career OPS+ far superior to Bay.
Most of those players were erroneously included in his list of similar players --- baseball-reference saw that they had similar batting lines (average, on-base, etc.) without factoring in that the eras they played in were very different. For instance, Jason Bay's batting line of .280/.376/.519 is superior to Kevin Mitchell's line of .277/.351/.508, but Mitchell had the VASTLY higher OPS+ because he played in a much more difficult hitting environment. Adjusted to their eras, Jason Bay's OPS+ is only 131 compared to Mitchell's 140 OPS+ and MVP win.
As for how they did, Salmon, Foster and Mitchell all had very lackluster careers from age 31 onwards. Tim Salmon had only 60 home runs after age 31, batted .262 and was out of baseball completely by 35. George Foster batted only .263/.326/.440 in the next five seasons and averaged only 26 home runs. Kevin Mitchell only had 702 at-bats over his next five seasons and only once played more than 65 games in a season.
Giles and Stargell, of course, had excellent sunsets to their careers. Stargell, who is vastly better than Bay, continued on to become one of the all-time greats while Giles had a gentle decline before his career abruptly ended.
Finally, we have the group of players similar to Bay. Of them, Edmonds was the only one to finish his career successfully. Drew is still playing, so the jury is out. As for Klesko, Bonilla, and Tartabull, the ends are not pretty.
Danny Tartabull hit .249 the rest of his career for a barely league average OPS. He averaged only 14 home runs per season and was out of baseball by the third year. Bobby Bonilla was universally reviled for his large contract, but didn't play terribly. He averaged 21 home runs over the next five years and had an OPS+ of 124.
His MOST similar player, Ryan Klesko, hit only 54 more home runs. He batted .264/.366/.432, missed his age 35 season entirely, and was out of baseball the next year.
Conclusion
Worse Than Bay: 0-for-5
Similar To Bay: 1-for-4
Better Than Bay: 2-for-5
Of the 15 players I looked at, only three could be said to have had their careers from ages 31 to 35 be considered as successful as the ones before.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Jason Bay and Citi Field
Earlier this week, Jeff Pearlman of SI.com wrote an article claiming that Jason Bay would be a "big bust" in New York. In it, he compared the signing of Jason Bay to the Mets' 1982 acquisition of slugger George Foster - a trade which, in his opinion, was a huge bust. He points to certain facts to support that claim. They are both left fielders, they are both in their early 30's, and they are both well-known run producers being acquired to hit in the middle of their respective lineups.
Here, however, is where the article goes from insightful to silly. Pearlman claims that the Bay acquisition is doomed to become a bust like Foster's because, although both players were quality players, it did not address the strengths and weaknesses of the teams acquiring them. In Foster's case, Pearlman claims that "it was the club's rotten starting rotation and lowly middle infield that required the most attention." Foster's acquisition was a mix of public relations and improvements in areas that didn't need it.
Today, Pearlman suggests the acquisition of Bay is inappropriate because of the dimensions of Citi Field:
*** The Mets hit the least home runs in the major leagues last year. It was not because of Citi Field. It is because they were NOT VERY GOOD.
*** Last season, Mets hitters hit 49 home runs at home... but hit only 46 away. In fact, their 748 OPS at home was higher than their 711 OPS when away.
*** To make matters worse, Mets pitchers also allowed more home runs at Citi Field than they did while away, 81-77.
*** As a whole, the Mets were out-homered last year 158 to 95.
*** According to ESPN, although Citi Field depressed run scoring last year, it was actually MORE FAVORABLE to home runs than the average MLB ballpark. It ranked 12th in friendliness to home runs, while ranking 22nd overall in runs.
I watch the games too, and it appears that Citi Field hurts home runs a little bit -- but there is a ton of empirical evidence which would incidate otherwise. If there is an effect on home runs (and there probably is) it is probably that it depresses home runs slightly. The important point is that the effect, if any, is slight.[1] It would be reckless to change your entire strategy for acquiring players because of speculation.
Matt Pignataro over at NY Baseball Digest takes issue with the Pearlman article as well, except that he takes issue with the idea that Bay will not perform well in Queens. He concludes:
He's supposedly a brutal fielder. He's going to be playing here for his age 32 to 36 seasons. Players with his skill set tend to decline poorly (see: Danny Tartabull or Ryan Klesko). He's making way too much money (see: Bobby Bonilla).
I would be extremely shocked if he earned his contract, and I'd be surprised if he even came close. There are plenty of reasons why Jason Bay is going to be a bust in Queens. Citi Field is not one of them.
---------------
[1] To read a very thorough, perhaps definitive guide to Citi Field and it's probably current and future effect on home runs, head over to this interview over on Amazin Avenue with the guru behind Hittracker.com.
Here, however, is where the article goes from insightful to silly. Pearlman claims that the Bay acquisition is doomed to become a bust like Foster's because, although both players were quality players, it did not address the strengths and weaknesses of the teams acquiring them. In Foster's case, Pearlman claims that "it was the club's rotten starting rotation and lowly middle infield that required the most attention." Foster's acquisition was a mix of public relations and improvements in areas that didn't need it.
Today, Pearlman suggests the acquisition of Bay is inappropriate because of the dimensions of Citi Field:
When New York's brain-dead powers-that-be decided that Citi Field should feature spacious outfield grass and power alleys from here to Hagåtña, they unintentionally dictated the type of team that GM Omar Manaya is required to assemble. Namely, the modern-day Mets must replicate the '85 Cardinals, who were constructed around speed and pitching; around doubles and triples into the gaps; around shutouts and 2-1 wins. In Flushing, the signature has to be run generation -- Jose Reyes leading off with a single, stealing second, stealing third, being brought home via a sac fly. The Mets need men who take lots of pitches and work deep into counts; who can hit to the opposite field and run like Miguel Dilone.Although I agree with Pearlman that the Mets should be building around pitching and defense -- and that I think Jason Bay is going to be a big bust in Queens -- it is NOT because of the dimensions of Citi Field. Here are the facts:
*** The Mets hit the least home runs in the major leagues last year. It was not because of Citi Field. It is because they were NOT VERY GOOD.
*** Last season, Mets hitters hit 49 home runs at home... but hit only 46 away. In fact, their 748 OPS at home was higher than their 711 OPS when away.
*** To make matters worse, Mets pitchers also allowed more home runs at Citi Field than they did while away, 81-77.
*** As a whole, the Mets were out-homered last year 158 to 95.
*** According to ESPN, although Citi Field depressed run scoring last year, it was actually MORE FAVORABLE to home runs than the average MLB ballpark. It ranked 12th in friendliness to home runs, while ranking 22nd overall in runs.
I watch the games too, and it appears that Citi Field hurts home runs a little bit -- but there is a ton of empirical evidence which would incidate otherwise. If there is an effect on home runs (and there probably is) it is probably that it depresses home runs slightly. The important point is that the effect, if any, is slight.[1] It would be reckless to change your entire strategy for acquiring players because of speculation.
Matt Pignataro over at NY Baseball Digest takes issue with the Pearlman article as well, except that he takes issue with the idea that Bay will not perform well in Queens. He concludes:
To label Bay a bust at this point like Pearlman did is little unfair. I think he’s going to be a good fit on the field and off it. Bay’s a gamer, who just goes out there, plays the game, and gives what is asked of him. Jason Bay will not be a bust, he will earn every penny of that contract he just signed. I can guarantee that.Well... we've covered Bay here extensively already.
He's supposedly a brutal fielder. He's going to be playing here for his age 32 to 36 seasons. Players with his skill set tend to decline poorly (see: Danny Tartabull or Ryan Klesko). He's making way too much money (see: Bobby Bonilla).
I would be extremely shocked if he earned his contract, and I'd be surprised if he even came close. There are plenty of reasons why Jason Bay is going to be a bust in Queens. Citi Field is not one of them.
---------------
[1] To read a very thorough, perhaps definitive guide to Citi Field and it's probably current and future effect on home runs, head over to this interview over on Amazin Avenue with the guru behind Hittracker.com.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Jason Bay is a Colossal Mistake: How Bay-watch became Omar-watch
The News
The Mets signed Jason Bay to a four year, $65 million dollar contract yesterday. It has an easily-attainable option which would push the contract to a staggering five years and over $80 million dollars.
This is it - the beginning of the end for Minaya. This is EXACTLY the kind of move that ends a tenure as a GM. That, while receiving lukewarm approval from the fanbase and newspapers today, will be a complete and utter disaster by the end of the contract.
You do not sign low-average, defensively-challenged sluggers to five year contracts when they are 31.
Bay is not a terrible player. We have analyzed Bay extensively at this site, and many others have done so as well elsewhere. He's been an above average player for a number of years. He is a good complementary piece. But that is NOT the way in which mega-contracts should be evaluated. In my last post on Bay, I asked:
He's' a great hitter for the six-hole on a contending team. But he's not getting paid like that. He's getting $16.5 million dollars a year UNTIL HE IS 36. He's being given one of the largest free agent contracts ever awarded by the Mets.
The Folly of Mega-Contracts
Long-term contracts usually don't work out. By definition, signing a guy for five guaranteed years is a huge risk. Five years is a very long time to forecast ANYTHING to happen, much less that an athlete will maintain his phenomenal peak performance.
You wouldn't want to buy a stock that you couldn't sell for five years. You wouldn't want to take a girl on one date and then sign a five-year contract with her --- unless of course, she was Heidi Klum. Some singular talents are worth taking a risk for. Heidi Klum, Brooklyn Decker, Gisele Bundchen, Carlos Beltran. Risks this big should be reserved for superstars.
Cot's Contracts has a list of players, sorted by highest average annual value on their contracts. Here is the list of outfielders who have EVER averaged more than $13 million dollars a year.
Vlad Guerrero: $14M - 5 years
J.D. Drew: $14M - 5 years
Magglio Ordonez: $15M - 4 years
Carlos Lee: $16.6M - 6 years
Alfonso Soriano: $17M - 7 years
Carlos Beltran: $17M - 7 years
Vernon Wells: $18M - 6 years
Ichiro Suzuki: $18M - 5 years
Torii Hunter: $18M - 5 years
Andruw Jones: $18.1M - 2 years
Manny Ramirez: $20M, $22.5M - 7 years, 2 years
This list is occupied by one type of player -- players better than Jason Bay. Above him on the list are generational talents, the guys who we will look back at this era on and remember as superstars: Manny, Andruw, Ichiro, Beltran, Soriano.
Some of the contracts on this list worked out okay. Beltran is one. Vlad Guerrero is another. But half of them did not -- and those were for players who were better than Bay. Does anyone really think that Jason Bay belongs on this list? Should his name be in the same sentence as Vlad Guerrero, Magglio Ordonez, or Alfonso Soriano? Even the Carlos Lee signing, which was broadly dismissed as a mistake, is a better signing than this.
Jason Bay is not one of those players.
If Not a Star, Then What...?
He is a clearly second-tier talent with a profile which indicates that he is a higher than average risk of collapse. So who is Bay actually comparable to? There are some players which come to mind -- here are their stats per 162 games and through their age 31 seasons:
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Geoff Jenkins: 29 home runs, 54 walks, 148 strikeouts, .279/.350/.499
Jeromy Burnitz: 30 home runs, 83 walks, 130 strikeouts, .259/.365/.498
Richard Hidalgo: 28 home runs, 60 walks, 120 strikeouts, .273/.350/.497 (through age 30)
Jenkins was out of baseball two years later. Hidalgo was already out of baseball. I don't have to tell you what happened to Burnitz. Jenkins and Hidalgo are high up on Bay's baseball-reference.com list of similar players. Burnitz is a Mets-related example.
Another guy who he really reminds me of is Danny Tartabull.
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Tartabull: 31 home runs, 90 walks, 157 strikeouts, .278/.374/.505
His next year, with the Yankees and Oakland in 1995, he hit .236. He bounced back in 1996 to hit 27 home runs while batting only .254. The next season, he was out of baseball. Two years later.
His MOST SIMILAR player -- and this is not a joke -- is Ryan Klesko. Klesko was a legitimately good hitter. He was underrated. Through age 31, Ryan Klesko hit 30 home runs per 162 games, drove in 100 runs, struck out only 103 times, and batted a robust .285/.372/.528. Klesko and Bay had identical OPS+ marks of 131 through age 30. This would seem to be the most helpful comparison Bay could ask for.
From age 32 to 36, Klesko hit only 54 more home runs. He batted .264/.366/.432, missed his age 35 season entirely, and was out of baseball the next year.[1]
The Impact
Metsblog did a great job aggregating the reactions from around the blogosphere:
I disagree. The Mets needed to use their money wisely and did not. The Mets did not need to give Vladmir Guerrero money to the next Danny Tartabull, Bobby Higginson, or Geoff Jenkins.
Shortly after the trade, my friend texted me this: "Let me know how that expensive DH in a huge NL park experiment goes." He's right. Even setting aside all the talk about Jason Bay's defense for a moment -- Jason Bay is going to need to hit just about as well as he has for the next FIVE years in order to come anywhere close to justifying his contract. And the odds of that are enormously long.
When all is said and done, Jason Bay will own the third largest contract on the Mets.[2] I believe that Jack Moore over at fangraphs nailed it on the head in his short article about Bay:
On the field, the Mets are going to be better with Jason Bay than without him. That is not the question. The question is whether they will be more well-positioned to be successful with Bay and his contract than without him, both this year and in the future. I believe that the answer to that question is no.
Mets fans were antsy for a move and they got it. The reaction today is relief. I believe Roger also nailed it when he called his post about Bay "The Sound of Settling." But when history looks back at the Minaya regime, I believe this signing is going to be one of those OBVIOUS mistakes.
I certainly hope not. I will be rooting for Bay.
-----------------
postscript: When we acquired Bobby Bonilla, he had the exact same career OPS as Jason Bay, at 131. He averaged 21 home runs per year, and struck out only half as much. He was a superior player to Bay at the time, and younger. As a Met, he almost replicated those numbers, posting OPS+ marks of 121, 132, 128 and 160.
However, he was so grossly overpaid that the fans reviled him. In fact, the Mets had to trade him in the midst of a season he was hitting .325/.385/.599, for an OPS that would have placed him fourth in the NL ... behind only Bonds, Piazza, and Larry Walker.
Mike Vaccaro actually had an excellent article equating Bonilla and Bay over at the Post a few weeks ago. He is wrong on some of it, calling Bay "a better player than Bonilla," for one ... but generally, his premise is sound. He asks the Mets this:
Bay is going to have a huge contract to live up to, and that is going to affect the way that he is perceived.
Dan over at Amazin Avenue asks whether Jason Bay is going to be the Mets' best hitting LF of all time. He may well be. I've also heard him be compared to Cliff Floyd minus the injuries. All these sound good only until you consider the price.
In fact, Cliff Floyd from age 24-31 (the ages Bay has been in the majors) hit a robust 28 home runs per 162 games, with 115 strikeouts and a .289/.370/.515 line and identical 131 OPS+! Sounds great right? Sure ... until you consider that Floyd earned only $6.5 million a year as a Met. Even the world's strongest proponent of Bay cannot come close to justifying investing $82 million guaranteed dollars.
---------------------------
[1] For anyone who worries that I am cherry-picking, others who made his list of comparables include:
Tim Salmon - 60 home runs after age 31, batted .262, out of baseball by 35
JD Drew - In the middle of his contract now but performing well
Bobby Higginson - The poster boy for inexplicable collapses, batted .235 and was out of baseball in three years
Jim Edmonds - Who is not actually comparable to Bay at all in that he was a phenomenal athlete who played center field
George Foster - Who is also not comparable because he was a vastly better hitter than Bay, had three top-six MVP finishes and a 54 home run season before he was 31... though for what it is worth, he proves our point, batting only .258/.316/.434 from age 32 to the end of his career.
Willie Stargell - Another player a universe better than Bay, with an OPS+ of 142 entering his age 32 season and with five years with MVP votes, including a second place finish.
Kevin Mitchell - Similarly to Stargell/Foster, already had an MVP win and a career OPS+ of 142. For what it is worth, the next five years of his career he only had 702 at-bats and only once played more than 65 games in a season.
[2] When they hit free agency, Wright and Reyes will surpass him, but for now, only Johan Santana and Carlos Beltran, two of the best players in the game, were awarded larger contracts. If the contract is backloaded (as is being reported by Metsblog), when 2011 rolls around, our payroll is going to look like this:
Santana $22.5M, Beltran $20M, Bay $21M, Perez $12M, K-Rod $12.1M, Wright $14.2M, Reyes $11M ... that's $113 million committed to 7 players. That is going to be VERY ugly.
The Mets signed Jason Bay to a four year, $65 million dollar contract yesterday. It has an easily-attainable option which would push the contract to a staggering five years and over $80 million dollars.
This is it - the beginning of the end for Minaya. This is EXACTLY the kind of move that ends a tenure as a GM. That, while receiving lukewarm approval from the fanbase and newspapers today, will be a complete and utter disaster by the end of the contract.
You do not sign low-average, defensively-challenged sluggers to five year contracts when they are 31.
Bay is not a terrible player. We have analyzed Bay extensively at this site, and many others have done so as well elsewhere. He's been an above average player for a number of years. He is a good complementary piece. But that is NOT the way in which mega-contracts should be evaluated. In my last post on Bay, I asked:
Is this the guy we want to occupy 10% of our payroll with? Is this the kind of player we want to shape the rest of our roster around? Is he a cornerstone for the next Mets World Series team? I don't think so.
He's' a great hitter for the six-hole on a contending team. But he's not getting paid like that. He's getting $16.5 million dollars a year UNTIL HE IS 36. He's being given one of the largest free agent contracts ever awarded by the Mets.
The Folly of Mega-Contracts
Long-term contracts usually don't work out. By definition, signing a guy for five guaranteed years is a huge risk. Five years is a very long time to forecast ANYTHING to happen, much less that an athlete will maintain his phenomenal peak performance.
You wouldn't want to buy a stock that you couldn't sell for five years. You wouldn't want to take a girl on one date and then sign a five-year contract with her --- unless of course, she was Heidi Klum. Some singular talents are worth taking a risk for. Heidi Klum, Brooklyn Decker, Gisele Bundchen, Carlos Beltran. Risks this big should be reserved for superstars.
Cot's Contracts has a list of players, sorted by highest average annual value on their contracts. Here is the list of outfielders who have EVER averaged more than $13 million dollars a year.
Vlad Guerrero: $14M - 5 years
J.D. Drew: $14M - 5 years
Magglio Ordonez: $15M - 4 years
Carlos Lee: $16.6M - 6 years
Alfonso Soriano: $17M - 7 years
Carlos Beltran: $17M - 7 years
Vernon Wells: $18M - 6 years
Ichiro Suzuki: $18M - 5 years
Torii Hunter: $18M - 5 years
Andruw Jones: $18.1M - 2 years
Manny Ramirez: $20M, $22.5M - 7 years, 2 years
This list is occupied by one type of player -- players better than Jason Bay. Above him on the list are generational talents, the guys who we will look back at this era on and remember as superstars: Manny, Andruw, Ichiro, Beltran, Soriano.
Some of the contracts on this list worked out okay. Beltran is one. Vlad Guerrero is another. But half of them did not -- and those were for players who were better than Bay. Does anyone really think that Jason Bay belongs on this list? Should his name be in the same sentence as Vlad Guerrero, Magglio Ordonez, or Alfonso Soriano? Even the Carlos Lee signing, which was broadly dismissed as a mistake, is a better signing than this.
Jason Bay is not one of those players.
If Not a Star, Then What...?
He is a clearly second-tier talent with a profile which indicates that he is a higher than average risk of collapse. So who is Bay actually comparable to? There are some players which come to mind -- here are their stats per 162 games and through their age 31 seasons:
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Geoff Jenkins: 29 home runs, 54 walks, 148 strikeouts, .279/.350/.499
Jeromy Burnitz: 30 home runs, 83 walks, 130 strikeouts, .259/.365/.498
Richard Hidalgo: 28 home runs, 60 walks, 120 strikeouts, .273/.350/.497 (through age 30)
Jenkins was out of baseball two years later. Hidalgo was already out of baseball. I don't have to tell you what happened to Burnitz. Jenkins and Hidalgo are high up on Bay's baseball-reference.com list of similar players. Burnitz is a Mets-related example.
Another guy who he really reminds me of is Danny Tartabull.
Jason Bay: 33 home runs, 86 walks, 157 strikeouts, .280/.376/.519.
Tartabull: 31 home runs, 90 walks, 157 strikeouts, .278/.374/.505
His next year, with the Yankees and Oakland in 1995, he hit .236. He bounced back in 1996 to hit 27 home runs while batting only .254. The next season, he was out of baseball. Two years later.
His MOST SIMILAR player -- and this is not a joke -- is Ryan Klesko. Klesko was a legitimately good hitter. He was underrated. Through age 31, Ryan Klesko hit 30 home runs per 162 games, drove in 100 runs, struck out only 103 times, and batted a robust .285/.372/.528. Klesko and Bay had identical OPS+ marks of 131 through age 30. This would seem to be the most helpful comparison Bay could ask for.
From age 32 to 36, Klesko hit only 54 more home runs. He batted .264/.366/.432, missed his age 35 season entirely, and was out of baseball the next year.[1]
The Impact
Metsblog did a great job aggregating the reactions from around the blogosphere:
Ed Ryan from Mets Fever says, “Nice job, Omar.”
According to John, from Metstradamus, “This is a good move. In a vacuum, it’s a great move.”
On the other hand, while Mets Grrl likes Bay, she explains why her reaction was just, ‘ehhh.’
Mike Silva of NY Baseball Digest explains, “When it’s all said and done, the Mets needed Bay.”
I disagree. The Mets needed to use their money wisely and did not. The Mets did not need to give Vladmir Guerrero money to the next Danny Tartabull, Bobby Higginson, or Geoff Jenkins.
Shortly after the trade, my friend texted me this: "Let me know how that expensive DH in a huge NL park experiment goes." He's right. Even setting aside all the talk about Jason Bay's defense for a moment -- Jason Bay is going to need to hit just about as well as he has for the next FIVE years in order to come anywhere close to justifying his contract. And the odds of that are enormously long.
When all is said and done, Jason Bay will own the third largest contract on the Mets.[2] I believe that Jack Moore over at fangraphs nailed it on the head in his short article about Bay:
This deal definitely improves the Mets’ offense for 2010 ... Bay’s bat combined with Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, and David Wright gives the Mets a scary top of the order for opposing pitchers. That’s about where Bay’s effectiveness ends.
***
Of course, the real interesting point of the contract is the dollar value...Given the current market, $3.5M per WAR, the Mets are expecting 4.5 wins per season out of Bay. Is Jason Bay the type of tier-2 superstar that deserves this contract?
The Mets can afford to overpay given their place on both the revenue curve and the win curve... [but] this move appears to be one of the more significant overpays of the offseason, and it by no means vaults the Mets into the playoffs. Much needs to go the Mets’ way for this contract to work out as planned[.]
On the field, the Mets are going to be better with Jason Bay than without him. That is not the question. The question is whether they will be more well-positioned to be successful with Bay and his contract than without him, both this year and in the future. I believe that the answer to that question is no.
Mets fans were antsy for a move and they got it. The reaction today is relief. I believe Roger also nailed it when he called his post about Bay "The Sound of Settling." But when history looks back at the Minaya regime, I believe this signing is going to be one of those OBVIOUS mistakes.
I certainly hope not. I will be rooting for Bay.
-----------------
postscript: When we acquired Bobby Bonilla, he had the exact same career OPS as Jason Bay, at 131. He averaged 21 home runs per year, and struck out only half as much. He was a superior player to Bay at the time, and younger. As a Met, he almost replicated those numbers, posting OPS+ marks of 121, 132, 128 and 160.
However, he was so grossly overpaid that the fans reviled him. In fact, the Mets had to trade him in the midst of a season he was hitting .325/.385/.599, for an OPS that would have placed him fourth in the NL ... behind only Bonds, Piazza, and Larry Walker.
Mike Vaccaro actually had an excellent article equating Bonilla and Bay over at the Post a few weeks ago. He is wrong on some of it, calling Bay "a better player than Bonilla," for one ... but generally, his premise is sound. He asks the Mets this:
How many times do you need to have anvils fall on your head before you take a step out of the way? How many times do you have to sign Kevin Appier and Bobby Bonilla before you recognize the difference between attracting the cream of a good free-agent class (see Sabathia, CC, and Teixeira, Mark) and the prettiest homecoming queens of Homely High?
Bay is going to have a huge contract to live up to, and that is going to affect the way that he is perceived.
Dan over at Amazin Avenue asks whether Jason Bay is going to be the Mets' best hitting LF of all time. He may well be. I've also heard him be compared to Cliff Floyd minus the injuries. All these sound good only until you consider the price.
In fact, Cliff Floyd from age 24-31 (the ages Bay has been in the majors) hit a robust 28 home runs per 162 games, with 115 strikeouts and a .289/.370/.515 line and identical 131 OPS+! Sounds great right? Sure ... until you consider that Floyd earned only $6.5 million a year as a Met. Even the world's strongest proponent of Bay cannot come close to justifying investing $82 million guaranteed dollars.
---------------------------
[1] For anyone who worries that I am cherry-picking, others who made his list of comparables include:
Tim Salmon - 60 home runs after age 31, batted .262, out of baseball by 35
JD Drew - In the middle of his contract now but performing well
Bobby Higginson - The poster boy for inexplicable collapses, batted .235 and was out of baseball in three years
Jim Edmonds - Who is not actually comparable to Bay at all in that he was a phenomenal athlete who played center field
George Foster - Who is also not comparable because he was a vastly better hitter than Bay, had three top-six MVP finishes and a 54 home run season before he was 31... though for what it is worth, he proves our point, batting only .258/.316/.434 from age 32 to the end of his career.
Willie Stargell - Another player a universe better than Bay, with an OPS+ of 142 entering his age 32 season and with five years with MVP votes, including a second place finish.
Kevin Mitchell - Similarly to Stargell/Foster, already had an MVP win and a career OPS+ of 142. For what it is worth, the next five years of his career he only had 702 at-bats and only once played more than 65 games in a season.
[2] When they hit free agency, Wright and Reyes will surpass him, but for now, only Johan Santana and Carlos Beltran, two of the best players in the game, were awarded larger contracts. If the contract is backloaded (as is being reported by Metsblog), when 2011 rolls around, our payroll is going to look like this:
Santana $22.5M, Beltran $20M, Bay $21M, Perez $12M, K-Rod $12.1M, Wright $14.2M, Reyes $11M ... that's $113 million committed to 7 players. That is going to be VERY ugly.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Sound of Settling
Weeks after being offered the contract, Jason Bay has reportedly agreed to a 4-year, $66 million deal, with a vesting option for a fifth year. (Which would bump it up to 5-year, $80 million.) This was announced by Mike Francesa on his radio show at 2:05PM EST this afternoon and was immediately confirmed by Jon Heyman.
Mike Francesa? That was strange. Why have Francesa break this story? There are a few theories floating around. For one thing, there's the possibility that the Wilpons are absolutely scared to death of the prospect of Omar Minaya announcing anything anymore, following the Adam Rubin incident. For another, the Mets offices are closed this week, so they couldn't make any announcement. However, they wanted to make sure the fans got hold of this news before January 1st. Why? That's the deadline for season ticket holders from last year to renew or update their ticket plans. Oh clever clever Metsies.
My bitter cynicism aside, I kind of like this deal. I don't LOVE it on account of all I keep reading about Jason Bay's terrible defense, and I simply don't believe Bill James's prediction of 32 home runs and 102 RBI's for 2010 factored into the possibility of him playing half of his games at Citi Field, but my gut instinct tells me to look at the lineup now. I mean, look at the projected Opening Day lineup now:
1.Jose Reyes SS
2.Luis Castillo 2B
3.David Wright 3B
4.Carlos Beltran CF
5.Jason Bay LF
6.Jeff Francoeur RF
7.Daniel Murphy 1B
8.Henry Blanco C
9.Johan Santana P
Not terrible. I'm just glad to see Francoeur out of the 3-4-5 area to be honest. I do feel a little bad for Angel Pagan, who hit .306 and had 11 triples in only 88 games. Theoretically, couldn't Minaya build the Mets around pitching and speed? That would be ideal for a team playing at Citi right? It doesn't sell tickets though. And to be fair, Pagan has never stayed healthy. Nono...I like the Bay signing. I'll stop complaining. The press conference next week should be fun. I really hope Bay doesn't flat out lie and say his dream has always been to play for the Mets. That'd be kind of bad. Of course he can end up charming us all with his rye Canadian wit. You just never know.
Mike Francesa? That was strange. Why have Francesa break this story? There are a few theories floating around. For one thing, there's the possibility that the Wilpons are absolutely scared to death of the prospect of Omar Minaya announcing anything anymore, following the Adam Rubin incident. For another, the Mets offices are closed this week, so they couldn't make any announcement. However, they wanted to make sure the fans got hold of this news before January 1st. Why? That's the deadline for season ticket holders from last year to renew or update their ticket plans. Oh clever clever Metsies.
My bitter cynicism aside, I kind of like this deal. I don't LOVE it on account of all I keep reading about Jason Bay's terrible defense, and I simply don't believe Bill James's prediction of 32 home runs and 102 RBI's for 2010 factored into the possibility of him playing half of his games at Citi Field, but my gut instinct tells me to look at the lineup now. I mean, look at the projected Opening Day lineup now:
1.Jose Reyes SS
2.Luis Castillo 2B
3.David Wright 3B
4.Carlos Beltran CF
5.Jason Bay LF
6.Jeff Francoeur RF
7.Daniel Murphy 1B
8.Henry Blanco C
9.Johan Santana P
Not terrible. I'm just glad to see Francoeur out of the 3-4-5 area to be honest. I do feel a little bad for Angel Pagan, who hit .306 and had 11 triples in only 88 games. Theoretically, couldn't Minaya build the Mets around pitching and speed? That would be ideal for a team playing at Citi right? It doesn't sell tickets though. And to be fair, Pagan has never stayed healthy. Nono...I like the Bay signing. I'll stop complaining. The press conference next week should be fun. I really hope Bay doesn't flat out lie and say his dream has always been to play for the Mets. That'd be kind of bad. Of course he can end up charming us all with his rye Canadian wit. You just never know.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Outside the Box, Part 5: Dan Uggla Instead of Bay
If the Mets are really hurting for some power in the lineup, and are hell-bent on acquiring some, then they should trade for Dan Uggla instead of signing Jason Bay. And they should play Uggla in left field or outright bench Castillo.
Jason Bay and Dan Uggla have a LOT in common. Bay is the better hitter, don't get me wrong, but they are much more similar than you would think, based on how they are discussed in the media.
Here is a comparison of the two players stats over the last four years in some important categories:
Plate Appearances: Bay 2611, Uggla 2698
Home Runs: Bay 123, Uggla 121
RBI: Bay 413, Uggla 360
Strikeouts: Bay 596, Uggla 611
Batting Line: Bay .272/.371/.503, Uggla .257/.344/.482
The major difference between the two is that over that time, Uggla walked 285 times to Bay's 336. That's 50 walks over four seasons. Twelve walks a year. Less than one walk every ten games.
Both are bad defenders, but Bay is far worse in left field than Uggla is at second base. We looked at Bay last week, where we discovered that:
Over the last three years, Uggla was -11.3, -2.0, and -9.6 at second base. Not stellar, to be sure, but with his bat he was still worth an average of $12 million per year because second base is such a difficult position to play and because his hitting was so good.
The most recent rumor involving Uggla, on December 18th, had him going to the Giants for a package surrounding mercurial lefthander Jonathan Sanchez. Sanchez, of course, is like a lefthanded Oliver Perez -- he walked 4.8 batters per nine innings last season, but also threw a no-hitter. He is young and cost controlled, and would have made a good addition for the Marlins.
Could the Mets match a package like that? They would probably be hesitant to -- but since the Marlins are primarily concerned with cutting costs, they might be able to acquire Uggla for a couple of low minor leaguers and avoid trading any of their hotter prospects.
If the Mets were to trade for Uggla, they could play him in left field and he would probably not be any worse than Bay is. Or, if they were uncomfortable with that plan, they could put him at second and bench Castillo. Castillo could then continue to be floated in trade offers.
Over the last three years, Uggla has hit 31, 32, and 31 home runs. He's got real power, which would likely translate just fine to Citifield -- for his career, he has more home runs at home in spacious Dolphin Stadium than he does on the road.
If the Mets are dead-set on making an acquisition which will improve their power, Uggla is just as good as Bay. Uggla isn't the hitter that Bay is, but he plays a MUCH more difficult defensive position and can be had in a trade. Uggla is also two years younger than Bay and will not require a $65 million dollar commitment.
Jason Bay and Dan Uggla have a LOT in common. Bay is the better hitter, don't get me wrong, but they are much more similar than you would think, based on how they are discussed in the media.
Here is a comparison of the two players stats over the last four years in some important categories:
Plate Appearances: Bay 2611, Uggla 2698
Home Runs: Bay 123, Uggla 121
RBI: Bay 413, Uggla 360
Strikeouts: Bay 596, Uggla 611
Batting Line: Bay .272/.371/.503, Uggla .257/.344/.482
The major difference between the two is that over that time, Uggla walked 285 times to Bay's 336. That's 50 walks over four seasons. Twelve walks a year. Less than one walk every ten games.
Both are bad defenders, but Bay is far worse in left field than Uggla is at second base. We looked at Bay last week, where we discovered that:
Jason Bay is a horrendous defensive outfielder... 'His defense is so bad in such a non-premium defensive position that he was merely a replacement level player in 2007 when his bat disappeared.' (Fangraphs)
His fielding ratings over the last three years were -11.5, -18.4, and -13.0. Carlos Lee, a big man with a bad defensive reputation, has only posted rates of -4.4 and -5.4 the last two seasons. Bay is way worse."
Over the last three years, Uggla was -11.3, -2.0, and -9.6 at second base. Not stellar, to be sure, but with his bat he was still worth an average of $12 million per year because second base is such a difficult position to play and because his hitting was so good.
The most recent rumor involving Uggla, on December 18th, had him going to the Giants for a package surrounding mercurial lefthander Jonathan Sanchez. Sanchez, of course, is like a lefthanded Oliver Perez -- he walked 4.8 batters per nine innings last season, but also threw a no-hitter. He is young and cost controlled, and would have made a good addition for the Marlins.
Could the Mets match a package like that? They would probably be hesitant to -- but since the Marlins are primarily concerned with cutting costs, they might be able to acquire Uggla for a couple of low minor leaguers and avoid trading any of their hotter prospects.
If the Mets were to trade for Uggla, they could play him in left field and he would probably not be any worse than Bay is. Or, if they were uncomfortable with that plan, they could put him at second and bench Castillo. Castillo could then continue to be floated in trade offers.
Over the last three years, Uggla has hit 31, 32, and 31 home runs. He's got real power, which would likely translate just fine to Citifield -- for his career, he has more home runs at home in spacious Dolphin Stadium than he does on the road.
If the Mets are dead-set on making an acquisition which will improve their power, Uggla is just as good as Bay. Uggla isn't the hitter that Bay is, but he plays a MUCH more difficult defensive position and can be had in a trade. Uggla is also two years younger than Bay and will not require a $65 million dollar commitment.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Halladay/Lackey Aftermath
I, like many other of the Mets people out there, don't see this as the end of the world. I'm sure that many people are in a panic right now, and that when the papers come out tomorrow that it will be littered with columns criticizing Minaya and co. for his non-action. But that's silly. There is still a ton of offseason left to go.
More importantly, these trades and signings have drastically altered the shape of the market. Sure, some of the premiere players are gone -- but just as importantly, many of the BUYERS seem to be finished. The Sox are done, having signed Lackey and Cameron. The Yankees did not look to be active in this market after acquiring Granderson. The Phillies have already added Polanco and Halladay. The Angels are quiet now, and apparently signed Matsui today to fill their DH void. So who is left? Who is out there still buying?
I see this moment as a great opportunity for the Mets. In fact, it could be a historic opportunity. Bay and Holliday are still unsigned -- and now Bay's original team is out of the running. These two men now have a ton less leverage -- who is still in the market for a big bat right now?
The Yankees are lukewarmly interested. The Cardinals, of course, are strongly pursuing Holliday, but with Albert Pujols' contract expiring soon, they may not be able to afford him. A late-breaking story (hat tip Metsblog.com) indicates that the Cardinals have upped their offer to EIGHT YEARS for Holliday - but the average annual value is still only in the neighborhood of $16 million a year.
Either way, there exists a stronger possibility than before that the Mets could swoop in and get Holliday or Bay for less than market -- or in the alternative, could clean up on the mid-level free agent market because so many of the other buyers are out early.
With non-tenders included, the Mets could conceivably pick up a half-dozen players who could help now and in the future at reasonable rates. How would you feel if the Mets were able to do something like this?
P Ben Sheets or Erik Bedard, 2nd starter ... could come discounted with injury risk
P Jason Marquis, 4th starter ... many speculate he could be had around 2y/$16M
P Matt Capps, set-up man ... due a pay cut
P Joe Beimel, LOOGY ... earned only $2M last year
OF Marlon Byrd or Ryan Church, to battle Pagan/Francoeur to start ...earned only $3M last year
1B Ryan Garko, 1B platoon partner ... hasn't been to arbitration yet
Granted, this plan takes a chance on Sheets/Bedard and Capps, but in a buyer's market, those might be risks worth taking - particularly if the Mets don't have much of a chance to compete in 2010 without some luck. The grand total of all those signings, factoring in some raises, would be in the neighborhood of $29 million for 2010 (9+8+3+3+3+3).
I'm not saying it's a plan I've committed to, but it would:
1) Provide some organizational depth
2) Allow us to keep our minor league system intact, and allow F-Mart and Thole to begin the season in Triple-A
3) Give us a chance to be competitive in 2010, and
4) Let us see how things shake out and who may or may not contribute to the 2011 team (i.e. will Reyes be healthy, will Beltran be healthy, will Santana be healthy, will Wright hit for power...)
And now there is an opportunity to carry it out.
-------
footnote:
The Mets lineup and rotation with the above acquisitions would look like this:
SS Reyes
LF Pagan
CF Beltran
3B Wright
1B Murphy/Garko
RF Francoeur/Byrd
C Blanco/Thole
2B Castillo
p.s. did anyone realize that Francoeur hit .344/.356/.521 for an 878 OPS against lefties last year? And has an 827 OPS against them for his career? Marlon Byrd hit .300/.344/.491 for an 835 OPS against righties while Ryan Church has hit .280/.353/.460 for an 813 OPS against righties in his career... just saying.
P Santana
P Sheets
P Pelfrey
P Marquis
P Perez
(Niese, Figueroa in AAA, Mejia in AA)
P Rodriguez
P Capps
P Maine
P Feliciano
P Beimel
P Green
P Stokes/Parnell
p.s. Capps and Green will face righties, with almost identical splits. Capps has a career 777 OPS vs. lefties, 669 vs. righties; Green has a career 788 OPS vs lefties, 669 vs. righties.
More importantly, these trades and signings have drastically altered the shape of the market. Sure, some of the premiere players are gone -- but just as importantly, many of the BUYERS seem to be finished. The Sox are done, having signed Lackey and Cameron. The Yankees did not look to be active in this market after acquiring Granderson. The Phillies have already added Polanco and Halladay. The Angels are quiet now, and apparently signed Matsui today to fill their DH void. So who is left? Who is out there still buying?
I see this moment as a great opportunity for the Mets. In fact, it could be a historic opportunity. Bay and Holliday are still unsigned -- and now Bay's original team is out of the running. These two men now have a ton less leverage -- who is still in the market for a big bat right now?
The Yankees are lukewarmly interested. The Cardinals, of course, are strongly pursuing Holliday, but with Albert Pujols' contract expiring soon, they may not be able to afford him. A late-breaking story (hat tip Metsblog.com) indicates that the Cardinals have upped their offer to EIGHT YEARS for Holliday - but the average annual value is still only in the neighborhood of $16 million a year.
Either way, there exists a stronger possibility than before that the Mets could swoop in and get Holliday or Bay for less than market -- or in the alternative, could clean up on the mid-level free agent market because so many of the other buyers are out early.
With non-tenders included, the Mets could conceivably pick up a half-dozen players who could help now and in the future at reasonable rates. How would you feel if the Mets were able to do something like this?
P Ben Sheets or Erik Bedard, 2nd starter ... could come discounted with injury risk
P Jason Marquis, 4th starter ... many speculate he could be had around 2y/$16M
P Matt Capps, set-up man ... due a pay cut
P Joe Beimel, LOOGY ... earned only $2M last year
OF Marlon Byrd or Ryan Church, to battle Pagan/Francoeur to start ...earned only $3M last year
1B Ryan Garko, 1B platoon partner ... hasn't been to arbitration yet
Granted, this plan takes a chance on Sheets/Bedard and Capps, but in a buyer's market, those might be risks worth taking - particularly if the Mets don't have much of a chance to compete in 2010 without some luck. The grand total of all those signings, factoring in some raises, would be in the neighborhood of $29 million for 2010 (9+8+3+3+3+3).
I'm not saying it's a plan I've committed to, but it would:
1) Provide some organizational depth
2) Allow us to keep our minor league system intact, and allow F-Mart and Thole to begin the season in Triple-A
3) Give us a chance to be competitive in 2010, and
4) Let us see how things shake out and who may or may not contribute to the 2011 team (i.e. will Reyes be healthy, will Beltran be healthy, will Santana be healthy, will Wright hit for power...)
And now there is an opportunity to carry it out.
-------
footnote:
The Mets lineup and rotation with the above acquisitions would look like this:
SS Reyes
LF Pagan
CF Beltran
3B Wright
1B Murphy/Garko
RF Francoeur/Byrd
C Blanco/Thole
2B Castillo
p.s. did anyone realize that Francoeur hit .344/.356/.521 for an 878 OPS against lefties last year? And has an 827 OPS against them for his career? Marlon Byrd hit .300/.344/.491 for an 835 OPS against righties while Ryan Church has hit .280/.353/.460 for an 813 OPS against righties in his career... just saying.
P Santana
P Sheets
P Pelfrey
P Marquis
P Perez
(Niese, Figueroa in AAA, Mejia in AA)
P Rodriguez
P Capps
P Maine
P Feliciano
P Beimel
P Green
P Stokes/Parnell
p.s. Capps and Green will face righties, with almost identical splits. Capps has a career 777 OPS vs. lefties, 669 vs. righties; Green has a career 788 OPS vs lefties, 669 vs. righties.
Mets Offer to Bay, 4 years/65 million? No thank you.
Nothing against Jason Bay, but I think this contract offer is a mistake. It would be nice to have his bat in the lineup in 2010, but it is a terrible bet beyond that. It is a lot of money to commit to a player who is not a star.
For starters, Jason Bay is a horrendous defensive outfielder. According to Fangraphs:
I'm not a professional scout, but Bay just looks unathletic. Jason Bay is already 30 years old, though he seems younger, because he has not been in the league for long. It is unlikely that he will age gracefully.
He's a terrific hitter, but he's not without his flaws. He doesn't hit for a high batting average. Players with good isolated power and good plate discipline, but who have poor batting averages, tend to fall off more abruptly later in their careers. And he NEEDS to stay a great hitter in order to be worth a big contract because his defense is so bad.
He's already had an injury-marred season where his production fell off a cliff -- in 2007, when he batted only .247 and had an OPS of 746. At the age of 28, people wondered if he was done.
That's not the kind of player I'd like to see the Mets give a long term contract to. How will the Mets look in 2011 if we signed Bay at that price? He'll be a bad defensive left fielder, who is 34 years old, making $18 million per year at least. He'll be the third most expensive Met under contract, after Santana and K-Rod.
Is this the guy we want to occupy 10% of our payroll with? Is this the kind of player we want to shape the rest of our roster around? Is he a cornerstone for the next Mets World Series team? I don't think so.
For starters, Jason Bay is a horrendous defensive outfielder. According to Fangraphs:
Jason Bay leads off this series with his 64.9 runs below average. His defense is so bad in such a non-premium defensive position that he was merely a replacement level player in 2007 when his bat disappeared.His fielding ratings over the last three years were -11.5, -18.4, and -13.0. You can believe in the numbers or not, but for the sake of comparison? Manny Ramirez had -18.6 and -21 his last two full seasons with the Red Sox. Carlos Lee, a big man with a bad defensive reputation, has only posted rates of -4.4 and -5.4 the last two seasons. Bay is way worse.
I'm not a professional scout, but Bay just looks unathletic. Jason Bay is already 30 years old, though he seems younger, because he has not been in the league for long. It is unlikely that he will age gracefully.
He's a terrific hitter, but he's not without his flaws. He doesn't hit for a high batting average. Players with good isolated power and good plate discipline, but who have poor batting averages, tend to fall off more abruptly later in their careers. And he NEEDS to stay a great hitter in order to be worth a big contract because his defense is so bad.
He's already had an injury-marred season where his production fell off a cliff -- in 2007, when he batted only .247 and had an OPS of 746. At the age of 28, people wondered if he was done.
That's not the kind of player I'd like to see the Mets give a long term contract to. How will the Mets look in 2011 if we signed Bay at that price? He'll be a bad defensive left fielder, who is 34 years old, making $18 million per year at least. He'll be the third most expensive Met under contract, after Santana and K-Rod.
Is this the guy we want to occupy 10% of our payroll with? Is this the kind of player we want to shape the rest of our roster around? Is he a cornerstone for the next Mets World Series team? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)