SB Nation User Blog: nycbirdo

Marlins. Salary. Amazed.

nycbirdo — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:03:47 -0000

I'm braving the diary semi-embargo to post what I think are some pretty amazing bits of information I've uncovered after reading about the Marlins/Tigers trade. To celebrate the occasion, I will use capital letters.

Lots of thanks to Cot's, by the way. That really is a fantastic site.

First of all, with Miggy and Dontrelle gone, the Marlins' team payroll for 2008 has been estimated at about $10 million. In fact, it's my understanding that it would only be that high if they (as expected) put recent acquisition Andrew Miller in their starting rotation, rather than in the minor leagues, which would cause him to be paid $1M+ because he signed a major-league contract when he was drafted. (Bonus amazing fact before I get to the main amazing fact section: at $1M+, Miller, who was pitching for his college team less than two years ago, would be the highest paid player on their team; in fact, I believe his salary would be more than double the second-highest.)

So. A team playing for $10M. Here come the amazing facts:

Here is the complete list of MLB teams that will NOT pay at least $10M to ONE PLAYER in 2008: Marlins (obviously), Nats, Rays, Pirates. That's it. That's the list. Also, the Pirates barely make it, as they're paying $9.5M to Matty Mo. The Twins would be added if they traded Santana.
Here is a list of just some of the players who will be taking home more than $10M in 2008, which, I'll reiterate in complete shock, is MORE THAN THE ENTIRE MARLINS TEAM: Mike Hampton ($15M), Carl Pavano ($11M), Richie Sexson ($14M), Billy Wagner ($10.5M), Pat Burrell ($14M), J.D. Drew ($14.5M), Jose Contreras ($10M), Pudge Rodriguez ($13M). Julio Lugo just misses, at $9M.
The Yankees could field almost an entire team with players each making $10M. Here's the list of their everyday players who don't make $10M: Robby Cano and whoever takes the 1b/dh spot Giambi isn't filling. They also have three SPs and a closer making $10M+. So, in a game in an NL park, the Yanks could start Pettitte, play Pavano at 2b (because they might as well get something out of him), use Mussina in middle relief, and have Rivera close, and they wouldn't play a single guy making less than eight figures.
Although I don't have (read: Cot's doesn't have) the exact year-by-year breakdown of Alex Rodriguez's new contract, the 10-year, $275 million deal means that, on average, and on a game-by-game basis, A-Rod will have made more than $10M by the end of the 59th game of the season, which typically falls in early June.

mazzone

nycbirdo — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:48:02 -0000

the orioles announced today that leo mazzone won't be back as their pitching coach next year.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071012&content_id=2262669&vkey=news_mlb&fext=. jsp&c_id=mlb

mazzone is better known as the guy who handled the maddux-glavine-smoltz rotation in atlanta from 1990 through 2005 - all those division titles, and three likely HOF pitchers.

if duncan's gone (likely if tlr goes, unlikely if tlr stays), how do we feel about whoever the manager is going after mazzone?

terry ryan?

nycbirdo — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:03:01 -0000

just saw on sportscenter that twins gm terry ryan is stepping down. if jocketty leaves at the end of the season, should the cards try to get ryan?

from the report, it sounds like ryan doesn't want to get out of baseball, necessarily; he specifically, for whatever reason, wanted out of minnesota. i consider minnesota as one of the teams, along with the a's and marlins, to have had the most success with the least money over the past several years. the cards aren't in the same bad situation as the twins are, monetarily, but dewitt does seem to have a pretty solid limit on the money the cards can spend.

it's my opinion that, if lajocketty leaves, ryan would be a great new gm and would further the cards' move toward a focus on scouting and player development, which, given the limit on salary expenditures, is what they need to do. what say you?

FREE BP

nycbirdo — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:01:11 -0000

i'm not sure if this has been posted somewhere else already, but baseball prospectus's entire site is free for this week. normally, most of their (excellent, imho) content is behind the subscription wall; subscriptions run about $5/month. one article that's up today is "future shock," a regular feature on the minor leagues, and today's gives an overview of the state of the nl systems. says nice things about ankiel and mather, and wonders if chris perez is ready right now. in addition, will carroll has been providing regular updates on chris carpenter in his fantastic "under the knife" injury column.

anyway, i don't have any connection to bp other than as a happy subscriber, but i'd encourage any/all of you to check it out.

thoughts on today's post

nycbirdo — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:26:46 -0000

good first post, houstoncardinal. congrats and thanks.
your analysis is interesting, but oversimplified, and therefore flawed, in more than one respect.

to begin with, there's the marginal wins issue. even paying basically nothing but minimum salaries, a la the marlins last year, you're still going to end up winning some minimum number of games - 40-50 or so. starting from league-minimum salaries, you don't have to go from 0-95 wins; you just have to get 50 or so.

in addition, this ignores the distinction between "controlled" (pre-arb/arb) players and players available post-free agency. this distinction is huge, because, at least among players who perform above replacement, only post-FA players will get market salaries. the reason duncan, yadi, molina, and thompson are cheap is that they're not being paid at market rates.

the free agent market is what it is. the cards aren't the only buyers, and thus they can't set rates. saying the cards should only go after free agents who project to deliver a win for every $1.1 million is really looking at the whole thing backwards - because there's no way that's going to work out consistently. the market is just too high.

just as an example, mark buehrle projects (via bp) to just over 3 WARP per year over the next four years. anyone who thinks a stl "hometown discount" for buehrle would involve an annual salary of $4 million, please raise your hand - and with the other hand, punch yourself in the face. ted lilly, who everyone seems to think is working out pretty well for the cubs so far, is projected to have a lower WARP - at $10m/year. johan santana's projected WARP over the next four years is about 6/year; on the open market, despite the fact that people now think the zito contract was stupid, johan still gets zito money.

rather than looking at the payroll of the roster as a whole, it makes a lot more sense to look first at the price of players on the free agent market, relative to wins added, whether it's $2m/win, $3m/win, whatever. then, commit to not signing anyone projected to be worse than that. THEN, figure out how many wins you need, how many FA players you can afford to sign and carry on the team at once - and, therefore, how many below-market players you need to have in order to get the required number of wins from the rest of the roster without breaking the bank.

i think i did a diary on this awhile back; if not, it was just an annoyingly long post somewhere. but the idea is, you can look at two things, basically. one is, are the studs (the highly paid, highly performing guys, of which most teams can only afford a handful - pujols, rolen, edmonds, carp, izzy) performing at a level that matches their salaries? and second, what is the ratio of quality "controlled" players to the rest of the roster?

i think the conclusions i drew were a) the studs were not coming close to carrying their end of the deal (this was earlier this year; they're better now, but edmonds still looks bad); b) the cards spend too much money on lower-level guys (kennedy, eck) who aren't providing that much more than replacement level - those spots should be several million dollars cheaper, because that level of production should be coming from pre-arb, minimum salary farm system guys.

the cards have holes to fill. assuming they're not going to dramatically increase spending, it may mean 2008 isn't realistic as far as making a real run. but to have a shot, the best thing to do would almost certainly not be to limit free agent acquisitions to those meeting the $1.1m/win threshold you've suggested. rather, it would be to fill as many of the gaps as possible from within - e.g., ankiel takes over after edmonds is asked politely to retire; maybe brendan ryan for eckstein or kennedy; dove/cate/keisler as pitchers - and then pay what is required for another stud in FA - buehrle, zambrano, arod, like that.

hancock family lawsuit

nycbirdo — Thu, 24 May 2007 21:26:40 -0000

as discussed in the game thread, josh hancock's family has sued mike shannon's, the manager at shannon's, the towing company, the tow truck driver, and the driver of the car the tow truck had stopped to help.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/B30B1CD42616DCDC862572E5005F04FC?OpenDocument

i'm not entirely clear on the facts, but it would seem like the family's claim against the tow truck and the driver of the car are pretty baseless - the lights were flashing; cars do break down on the road sometimes, even absent negligence; how was the broken-down car supposed to get off the road without a tow truck? etc.

negligence on the part of the car's driver could exist if something out of the ordinary happened - like, he knew the oil hadn't been changed for 20,000 miles, or a mechanic had told him a week before that the car was likely to break down or something. but it would have to be a situation like that, where the driver was careless.

for the tow truck driver (and the company, who would be liable to the extent the driver was), it's about how much warning was provided. flashing lights seems pretty reasonable, but if the industry standard is to do extra things - flares, road cones, whatever - and this particular driver didn't, that could lead to negligence, i guess.

in either case, car or truck driver, even if there were negligence, a judge/jury would have to find that that negligence was a proximate cause of josh's accident, rather than (or in addition to) the fact that josh was drunk, may have been on the phone, speeding, whatever else was going on.

the claims against shannon's and the manager, as discussed in the thread as well, are based on "dram shop" liability - the concept that a business that sells alcohol to someone who is visibly intoxicated is responsible for injuries later caused by that person.

the missouri dram shop statute is available here:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5370000053.HTM

as houstoncardinal mentioned in the thread, the missouri version of the law (dram shop laws vary a bit by state) only calls for liability in three situations:

1. the person served was under 21;
2. the person suing is a third party, not the drinker;
3. potentially, if the person was involuntarily intoxicated.

that third one is just a guess (i haven't looked at the whole area of MO law) based on the statute's specific bar to liability based on a person's own voluntary intoxication. what it means is, the fact pattern "hancock visibly drunk + shannon's keeps serving him + hancock dies" isn't enough to create liability. but the statute says nothing about involuntary. that's probably why the hancock family is claiming that "The intoxication of Joshua Morgan Hancock on said occasion was involuntary."

involuntary intoxication basically happens in one of two situations: either the guy was slipped something (ex: ghb), or the guy was forced to drink (ex: hazing). if either of those things happened to josh that night, it certainly hasn't been reported previously.

at this point, i'm honestly not sure what to even hope for here.

stat of the day

nycbirdo — Fri, 11 May 2007 19:04:39 -0000

According to BP, the Cardinals lead the NL in percentage of plate appearances by players performing below replacement level.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6216

The league median is 19 percent of plate appearances.

The Cardinals have done this 55.5 percent of the time.

Poll

What is most disturbing about this statistic?

The Cardinals lead the NL in this statistic.

7 votes

The Cardinals have allowed negative-VORP players to take more than HALF of their plate appearances.

4 votes

The Cardinals have allowed negative-VORP players to take plate appearances at nearly triple the median rate for NL teams.

1 votes

That list of negative-VORP Cardinal players includes Edmonds, Rolen, and all three middle infielders.

16 votes

28 votes | Poll has closed

first diary - next year

nycbirdo — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:25:39 -0000

I originally wrote this as a post in a gameday thread; for everyone else in that thread, sorry about that (it's a bit long). It's my first diary ever, other than the one I was forced to keep for like two weeks in fifth grade and didn't put much effort into because, as it turns out, that's really a stupid thing to make a fifth-grade boy do.

I tend to write my online prose in lboros/e e cummings format, but it seems I shifted back and forth a bit here and I'm too lazy to go back and change it. Hope it's legible.

being competitive - or, rather, winning, as that's what we want and what we've done in the recent past - is not really about "breaking the bank." the cards are not the sox/angels/(apparently) cubs/(apparently not?) yanks. they can't just buy a proven vet at every position.

luckily, they don't have to be marlins/twins either - i.e., have to do things on the cheap, keep getting incredibly lucky with young guys, and just pray that all the chips fall right every 6 years so you can catch lightning in a bottle before everyone hits their eligibility and you lose them all because you can't afford them.

what the cards have to do is be middle of the road - pay for a few pricey studs to carry the team; fill in with a few proven quantities of moderate ability at moderate salary (see: encarnacion, j.); and have enough cheap young talent come up the pipe to fill in the rest of the roster while easing the pressure on the payroll for the high-priced guys. then just a few basically league-minimum vets to provide some performance above replacement where the cheap young talent can't fill in.

we also get a bonus in one area: dave duncan. he's like game genie for pitching staffs. guys like kip wells and braden looper are able to do decent work (yes, i think at the end of the season, "decent work" will describe the output of both of those guys) at a much lower cost than other teams. even given their respective april 2007s, i'd MUCH rather have wells/looper at their salaries than, say, suppan/marquis. or, say, zito/weaver.

so, taking stock (and, really, i think this could be done a lot better by one of the front-page writers; might be a good distraction, given the current doldrums of this team both on and off the field?):

Studs (as defined mostly by salary, but also by expectations): Pujols, Carpenter, Rolen, Edmonds, Isringhausen

Moderate Vets (range differs by position, but I'll cut off at Springer for $1.75m): Encarnacion, Eckstein, Mulder, Wells, Looper, Eckstein, Kennedy, Spiezio, Springer, Flores

Cheap Young Guys: Yadi, WW, Reyes, Duncan, Thompson, TJ, Skip

Low-Income Vets: Franklin, Miles, Taguchi, Wilson, Bennett

Looking at it this way, here are the problems I see:

Actually, I was going to do a list, but there's really just a few minor things, and one really big one. The big one is:

1. The studs are too hurt/old. Carp has been out this year, and Jed and Rolen might as well have been. Pujols is the only one with an OPS over .800 - or even above .660 (yikes). I'm also not a big believer in giving $8 million to a closer in the first place. So, basically, the studs aren't carrying the team. This is really the major issue. Of the Cards' $90 million 2007 payroll, these five guys eat more than $52 million of it (not counting Jed's $3 million deferral). And they're not exactly doing 5/9 of the work.

That's really the major, major issue. The other three are: 1) right field (basically have three cheap fourth-outfielder types filling in as starters, with a moderate guy hurt); 2) the middle infield (giving up outs in the lineup by going with moderately priced, basically glove-only vets - the farm system has consistently, consistently failed to develop middle infielders, and until they do this is going to be a major, growing problem for the roster as a whole); 3) the cheap young rotation guys, ww and reyes, haven't performed very well yet (if they can be league average at the end of the year, this team will be better).

the pitching market is out of control, and the cards have really young, cheap guys there right now other than carp. see what kind of discount buehrle will give; other than that, though, based on what i've seen at this point i'd be in favor of keeping wells and looper and calling it a day.

the trouble is, i'm not sure where you can drastically improve. jed could retire, i guess, which would open cf and salary for an andruw jones type. kennedy's salary is stuck at 2b, even if he's not. they could let eck go, but short of signing frickin arod, the ss free agent market next year looks godawful.

izzy's contract comes off next year, and they're still at just $90 million; so i guess they could just eat instant breakfast's salary as a bench guy or ship him somewhere for a resin bag, and then bring in the best stud rf free agent bat they can find. some of that $ is probably just going to get eaten up with small increases across the board though.

i don't really have a conclusion. i was never big on them. i do know i am depressed, and also that i should get back to work.

thanks to mlbcontracts.blogspot.com for the assist.