Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Will Rhymes 'Fine' After Being Hit By Pitch And Fainting

Casey Wants to Re-sign with Bucs; More on the Wilson Deal

Here's an article on the possibility of the Pirates re-signing Sean Casey, which - great, just what the Pirates need. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with throwing money around, but the Pirates need to throw it to good players, not aging, mediocre ones like Casey.

Speaking of long-term contracts, here's an article by the Stats Geek on Jack Wilson's contract that, in my opinion, misses the mark. The Geek suggests that Wilson is worth his contract, and he spends a lot of time comparing Wilson's contract to those of Rafael Furcal, Edgar Renteria, Orlando Cabrera, Cristian Guzman, Omar Vizquel and David Eckstein.

These comparisons miss the point for four reasons.

First, let's throw Rafael Furcal out right off the bat. He and Wilson are not comparable players. Furcal is a far better hitter. He also has plate discipline and speed, which both tend to bode well for a player's future. Wilson does not have those things. Look at Furcal's list of comparable players through age 27. It's filled with guys who were very productive after that age, because Furcal's speed/power/plate discipline skill set is one that tends to age well. Furcal's contract seems on the high side to me, but he should be making a ton more than Wilson - he's a better player, and in two years he's probably going to seem like a much better player.

Second, the Guzman, Cabrera, and Vizquel contracts are, or should be, viewed as very bad contracts. Guzman was possibly the worst regular player in baseball last season. Cabrera had yet another non-hitting season in 2005 and is currently blocking some excellent middle-infield prospects. Vizquel was and remains a billion years old. The Wilson contract can be better than those and not be good by any means.

Third, and I am surprised the Stats Geek doesn't point this out, ALL of those contracts were signed by free agents. Wilson was not a free agent. The Pirates owned his rights for two more years. So there was no reason for the Pirates to pay free-agent market value to keep him. If Wilson's contract is comparable to those of free agent shortstops, the Pirates screwed up royally. If the Pirates were going to sign Wilson, they should have paid a hometown-discount rate, because Wilson was not free to go anywhere else.

Fourth, since Wilson was already under the Pirates' control for 2006 and 2007, the reality of this contract won't really set in until 2008 and 2009, which means that the Pirates are betting on what Wilson will be doing starting two years from now, rather than in 2006. Wilson is already a mediocre hitter; gambling that he won't be even worse in two or three years seems like a very bad gamble, especially since players with his skillset don't usually age well. All the free agent contracts to which the Geek compares Wilson's contract began the season after they were signed. This one guesses that Wilson will be valuable several seasons in the future, since the contract wasn't necessary to keep him on the team for the next two years.

The Geek then gets Baseball Prospectus' Nate Silver to project a .270/.312/.377 season for Wilson, and guesses that Wilson will be worth $19.4 million over the next four years. Two problems: one, that number is (as the Geek acknowledges) well below the value of the contract, and two, the Pirates already controlled the first two years, when BP assumes he'll have the most value.

Comment 10 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

When bad is the norm
At some point, you can't just discount every contract in MLB by saying it's bad.  The Pirates have to compete in this market.  Guzman's deal was an idiotic contract given out by a GM who was desperate to make a splash in a job that might have been only a one-year gig.  The others were set by the open market.  If the Pirates are never, ever going to pay a market rate--as shocking as those rates may be to fans who're used to Wal-Mart prices (and quality)--they're never, ever going to compete.

by WTM on Mar 7, 2006 12:53 AM EST reply actions  

Markets
Two things:
  1. It's really hard to say that one year of stupid contracts for shortstops makes that the norm. In the middle of 2004, Carlos Guillen signed a three year, $14 million deal with Detroit. Guillen was in an arbitration situation similar to Wilson's, he was about the same age Wilson is now - and, unlike Wilson, he was having an MVP-caliber season at the time. If the market is bad for shortstops right now, that may change, and it would behoove the Pirates not to do this now, which is what I've been saying all along. There should have been no rush to pay market rate. The Pirates had time to wait.
  2. Even in the context of that crazy '04-'05 offseason, the Cardinals managed to sign a good shortstop for a reasonable amount. Well-managed organizations seem to find themselves making those sorts of deals - if they haven't managed to judge the market correctly in the first place.
The Pirates had two whole offseasons to wait for the market to improve, see how Wilson's future would play out, and so on. By the time '08 rolled around, Wilson might have played his way out of the Pirates' favor anyway. The aging patterns for guys like him are not good.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 7, 2006 4:24 AM EST up reply actions  

'Everything counts' -- Littlefield
It's really hard to say that one year of stupid contracts for shortstops makes that the norm.
If by norm you mean the average salary, then all contracts, stupid or not, would figure into the calculation of the norm for an arbitrator and for most GMs as well.

Player contracts in the aggregate; player productivity per position; player value partially disaggregated by position, age, league, etc.; and long- and short-term salary trends would figure into the calculation of the completely ordered values specific to a player's market at any given time. Given a rational assessment of these values, it may be that the Pirates should not have given Wilson his new contract. Yet that judgment could remain true about Wilson and the Pirates even though Jack Wilson might now be in line to receive money consistent with his actual and expected productivity and with his actual and expected position within the market. The two issues -- `what the Pirates ought to pay for Jack Wilson?' and `what the market identifies as Wilson's market value?' -- are distinct but related.

by steve_z on Mar 7, 2006 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Also...
If the Pirates are going to pay market rate, I'd much rather they paid it to someone like Furcal rather than someone like Wilson.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 7, 2006 4:26 AM EST up reply actions  

Another point to consider
Every contract for a starting shortstop figures into the calculations an arbitrator will make when an eligible player makes it into arbitration. So, when calculating Wilson's monetary value relative to the market for major league starting shortstops, an arbitrator would consider not only Furcal's contract, but Jeter and Arod's also. I do not believe an arbitrator would drop the maximum and minimum contracts because he thought them to be outliers. These contracts would specify the upper and lower limits to that market. They would also figure into the calculation of the average salary for a starting shortstop. Jeter made $19.6 M last year and is slated to make $21 M in 2006 (with greater salary increases to follow). Alex Rodriguez made a mere $26 M last season (this figure includes his prorated signing bonus and the incentives he earned) and stands to make $25 M in base salary in 2006. Jack Wilson made $3.4 M last season and $5.25 M in 2006 (including a $600 K signing bonus for his new contract). Rafael Furcal will make $9 M in 2006 (this includes a $5 M signing bonus); his base salary jumps to a whopping $13 M next season.

One can argue that Jack Wilson is nowhere near the player that Jeter, Arod and Furcal are. But, then again, it's very clear that, over the life of his extended contract, the Pirates will never pay Jack Wilson anything close to what the top shortstops receive. I would imagine that Jack Wilson now makes about something near the average salary paid to an arbitration or free agent eligible shortstop. If so, then he may well be underpaid given his tenure, his offensive productivity and defensive abilities. Jack Wilson could have done better, I would imagine, had he gone to arbitration next year and to the free agent market the year afterwards.

A useful salary database.

by steve_z on Mar 7, 2006 12:41 PM EST up reply actions  

I think that still kind of misses the point
I think this was a case where the Pirates needed to look for market... inefficiences (efficiencies?).  I didn't read Moneyball, but here's what I mean.

Look in your own org.  They have Wilson, Castillo, who I think most presume has SS ability.  They have Sanchez.  Furthermore, they have DeCaster and Stansberry.  (I like Stansberry, so consider that bias).

So even though the org is thin with SS, technically, if they were to move Castillo or Sanchez, they have options at 2B.  They will have a better idea of how good those options are after this year, and into 2007.

So while owning his rights for two more years, they could have, at the very least through the full 2006 season, found out the true level of play of JWils (if they honestly don't think they already know), and DeCaster and Stansberry.

In a best case scenario, they have viable major leaguers (or so they feel confident) in Castillo, Sanchez, DeCaster, and Stansberry.  Four MI, whose rights they control through 2008 and beyond.  They could fill SS and 2B more cheaply than Wilson.  And it would be even better if Wilson had a great year.  Then the org would be fat with MI.

Or maybe Wilson slugs .459 again, and Stansberry is overmatched at AAA, or even AA.  So, if you want, you negotiate an extension with Wilson between 2006 and 2007, if that's the best option.

Would that cost more then?  Maybe.  Or maybe not.  If they couldn't agree, then he signs a 1-year or goes to arb for 2007 and you adjust.  You make a trade.  You sign a different FA for SS or 2B.

Paying the going rate, or even slighty to somewhat below it, does not make it a good or smart deal.

azibuck

by azibuck on Mar 7, 2006 1:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Perhaps
Yet, as I wrote in another post:
The two issues -- `what the Pirates ought to pay for Jack Wilson?' and `what the market identifies as Wilson's market value?' -- are distinct but related.
So, I believe I'm aware of the point you want to emphasize. The Pirates ought to look for market inefficiencies. They ought to look for hidden and potential value. The irony in all of this might be that the Pirates may have found this kind of value in Jack Wilson, who is a superb defensive shortstop but who suffered an injury-illness last year which reduced his position in the player's market and which obscured his offensive potential over the life of his extended contract.

Yet it remains the case that even having Jack Wilson as mild bargain vis-à-vis the market rate for starting shortstops would be too much to pay for a team like the Pirates. It's one thing to pay the market rate or nearly so for an offensive juggernaut like Giles or Bay. It's another to pay the market rate for Jack Wilson, someone who plays a premium defensive position. It's clear, I believe, the Pirates are paying Jack Wilson for his defense and to settle the position for the rest of the decade. I'd rather have Aram's offense at that price. But I believe the Wilson contract remains defensible even when taking these caveats into account.

by steve_z on Mar 7, 2006 2:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Again...
I'm still wondering how the comparable players lists are derived on B-R.  Any answers, guesses, assumptions?

by ILLZ on Mar 7, 2006 11:28 AM EST reply actions  

Charlie answered
With this link:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/similarity.shtml

Here's how it starts:

"Similarity scores are not my concept. Bill James introduced them nearly 15 years ago, and I lifted his methodology from his book The Politics of Glory (p. 86-106). To compare one player to another, start at 1000 points and then you subtract points based on the statistical differences of each player.
Batters

    * One point for each difference of 20 games played.
    * One point for each difference of 75 at bats.
    * One point for each difference of 10 runs scored.
    * One point for each difference of 15 hits.
    * One point for each difference of 5 doubles.
<snip>"

azibuck

by azibuck on Mar 7, 2006 12:56 PM EST reply actions  

Bias
We all have biases.

I know the Casey thing may just be a case of a reporter needing something to write about that day, which is why I only spent a paragraph on it and never criticized the Pirates for it. I only said it was a dumb idea, which it is.

Re: Wilson, I think they probably figure it's good for PR.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 7, 2006 2:07 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Pittsburgh Pirates.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Bloody_mary_small
Bucs / Gnats o'flow
Small
5 tool players
Espn_avatar_small
Pirates' Struggling Offense: OBP and Runs Scored
Small
Quick Fixes for the Offense
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 38: Pirates @ Nationals
Small
How much longer do we fans have to keep looking at this offense and it's lack of production!!
Small
Bucco Lineup - 5/16/2012
Insetcommodoreperry_small
Guess the Score Game 37: Pirates @ Nationals
Small
The Huntington Conundrum
Small
Oh, it's all so simple

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Charlie_small Charlie Wilmoth

Editors

18470r_small Vlad

Davidtodd_small David Todd

Authors

Img_1692_small WTM

Mark_profile_pic_small MarkInDallas