07-17-2010, 06:08 PM
<!--quoteo(post=105921:date=Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Jul 16 2010, 10:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Kabes, again, I love you, but man you really tee it up for me. Scarey has ably filled in for me as I strolled the Museum of Science and Industry with the kids today. I'm glad you realized eventually that I wasn't trying to claim there has never been a good free agent signing in history. But I have to question some of your most recent arguments. First of all
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
For the subsequent problems Fangraphs presents, I have to quote you again:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Manny's 160M deal paid off, the Yanks haven't complained about Jeter's 189M deal, and A-Rod certainly had a magnificent decade after signing his 10-year deal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem 2-Manny played 7 full seasons with the Red Sox after signing that deal. How many of those seasons did he earn his salary according to fangraphs? ZERO. The only year in the past 10 in which he earned his salary was 2008, when the Red Sox dumped him. That's it. So no, the 160 million dollar deal didn't pay off. And his current deal with the Dodgers doesn't look so hot either.
Problem 3- How many years does fangraphs show Jeter earning his money? In all of the years he has the data listed? One (2006). In every other year, he was overpaid. I'm cheating a bit, because he probably earned his salary in 2009, but it's not listed. But still, Jeter hasn't come close to earning his money.
Problem 4- Arod. I suppose he's been pretty good, so you could justify the Yankees getting their money's worth after they signed ARod to that 10 year deal and...what's that? The Yankees DIDN'T sign him to that deal? Oh that's right, the Rangers signed him to that deal. And traded him. Because he was making too much money. Oh, and in order to trade him, they had to kick in SIXTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for the Yankees to take him. It was such a great deal that the Rangers had to pay him almost 70 million to NOT play for them. So I'm going to put that free agent signing into maybe the largest NEGATIVE bin I can find.
I might also add that outside of one fantastic year (2007) he has been paid about what he was worth. Some years he earned a bit more, some years he earned a bit less. The problem is he was pretty good last year, and was still overpaid by 11 million. I can't imagine he will earn 32 million this year. There are seven years left in this deal. This will not end pretty for the Yankees.
So again, I love bringing fangraphs into it, but it not only invalidates your premise (although that could admittedly change by the end of this year), but contradicts each of your examples.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I looked at fangraphs and I *think* I read that Fuk was "worth" $7 mil in 2008 and $12 mil in 2009. It's a matter of perspective but it seems much more accurate overall to average the contract over its duration and then compare instead of factoring in accounting tricks. If you do that, then Fuk's 2008 was horrible and his 2009 was just about spot on.
That being said, judging a contract in hindsight doesn't hold as much value to me. I'd like to see how Fuk was projected and how fangraphs would translate the projection into dollars. That would give a better indication of how poor the contract was.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->But if you are saying that A-Rod or Pujols haven't given a solid return on the contracts they've signed, I'd say that you might want to take a look at FanGraphs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, I wasn't aware we were allowed to use Fangraphs. Whenever I try to use them, folks around here get pretty angry. I think Butch once referred to it as "your precious Fangraphs" when arguing with me. But I am ecstatic if we are going to use it. And if we are going to use it, you have some problems.
Problem 1. So far, according to Fangraphs, Fukudome has earned every cent of his contract. That will change once 2010 is over, because Colvin is taking time from him. But if we are going by fangraphs, your initial premise is wrong.
For the subsequent problems Fangraphs presents, I have to quote you again:
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Manny's 160M deal paid off, the Yanks haven't complained about Jeter's 189M deal, and A-Rod certainly had a magnificent decade after signing his 10-year deal.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem 2-Manny played 7 full seasons with the Red Sox after signing that deal. How many of those seasons did he earn his salary according to fangraphs? ZERO. The only year in the past 10 in which he earned his salary was 2008, when the Red Sox dumped him. That's it. So no, the 160 million dollar deal didn't pay off. And his current deal with the Dodgers doesn't look so hot either.
Problem 3- How many years does fangraphs show Jeter earning his money? In all of the years he has the data listed? One (2006). In every other year, he was overpaid. I'm cheating a bit, because he probably earned his salary in 2009, but it's not listed. But still, Jeter hasn't come close to earning his money.
Problem 4- Arod. I suppose he's been pretty good, so you could justify the Yankees getting their money's worth after they signed ARod to that 10 year deal and...what's that? The Yankees DIDN'T sign him to that deal? Oh that's right, the Rangers signed him to that deal. And traded him. Because he was making too much money. Oh, and in order to trade him, they had to kick in SIXTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS for the Yankees to take him. It was such a great deal that the Rangers had to pay him almost 70 million to NOT play for them. So I'm going to put that free agent signing into maybe the largest NEGATIVE bin I can find.
I might also add that outside of one fantastic year (2007) he has been paid about what he was worth. Some years he earned a bit more, some years he earned a bit less. The problem is he was pretty good last year, and was still overpaid by 11 million. I can't imagine he will earn 32 million this year. There are seven years left in this deal. This will not end pretty for the Yankees.
So again, I love bringing fangraphs into it, but it not only invalidates your premise (although that could admittedly change by the end of this year), but contradicts each of your examples.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I looked at fangraphs and I *think* I read that Fuk was "worth" $7 mil in 2008 and $12 mil in 2009. It's a matter of perspective but it seems much more accurate overall to average the contract over its duration and then compare instead of factoring in accounting tricks. If you do that, then Fuk's 2008 was horrible and his 2009 was just about spot on.
That being said, judging a contract in hindsight doesn't hold as much value to me. I'd like to see how Fuk was projected and how fangraphs would translate the projection into dollars. That would give a better indication of how poor the contract was.