Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
I don't disagree - it's why nobody really tries to do it.
What I'm saying is that using a bad approach to set your bar probably isn't the way to go about doing it.
Would you really be happy getting an average regular for 4 years at $18 million/season? Because that's what the $8.4/share model says is a solid return.
Another way to look at it - I'll truncate it a bit because I did this a couple seasons ago and truly don't remember exactly what the math was. I went through and looked at a fair number of baseball's above average or better teams over about a 5 year span. I took out pitcher WAR and just looked at what the position players on those teams were doing. For average to good teams, a solid threshhold for 'successful' ballclubs was that their position players were giving them about 1 WAR per 275 PAs (PAs also giving a fair proxy for defensive innings).
If you figure 4 healthy seasons yields about 2600 total plate appearances then you need about 9.5 wins over that time period for him to be considered an above average regular for a good team.
Are you content with $18 million for an above average regular on a good team? I'm not so sure I would be.
Like I said, I really think $6 million/share is what teams should be striving for. That gets you 12 WAR over his 3 years which is a pretty reasonable expectation. It also gets you a genuinely good regular over the life of the deal.
It's a far more nuanced approach to it, IMO. It tells you how a team should function if it wants to be a good team, rather than simply a team that wants to be smarter than dipshits like Arte Moreno.
|
It's dependent on the situation. Do I want to pay 8.4/WAR to go from 60 wins to 62 wins? No. I'd pay that and more to go from 87 to 89, though.