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.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
When bad is the norm
Markets
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Also...
by Charlie Wilmoth on Mar 7, 2006 4:26 AM EST up reply actions
Another point to consider
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.
I think that still kind of misses the point
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.
Perhaps
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.
Again...
Charlie answered
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>"
Bias
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 













