PadsFS wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Jmodene1 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------



I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. A 1 WAR player generally is signed to a $5M deal.

If you take all the FA and their contracts. The average payout is 1 WAR per $5M. Some out perform that (Beltran) and some disappoint (Berkman, 2012) and it all averages out. I believe a similar formula is used to determine per arbitration values (the $0.5M-ish)

It's not rocket science.

I agree. It's kind of gotten to the point where it's a waste of time to even try and explain it. Especially since there is literally tons of information on it on the internet already. If anyone was interested in actually understanding it they'd read up on it, rather than just writing it off as BS. 

Also it's not a win that's worth $5 Million it's a win above replacement that's worth $5 Million and it changes every year based on changes in market salary. It also doesn't completely match up to reality, considering not every player on every team makes a market salary.

scadder21 wrote: Jackson has outstanding stuff so I'm guessing there is an eternal hope that he harnesses his stuff and turns into a great pitcher.

Perhaps a little (team) stability couldn't hurt.

KatieCubFan wrote:

scadder21 wrote: Jackson has outstanding stuff so I'm guessing there is an eternal hope that he harnesses his stuff and turns into a great pitcher.

Perhaps a little (team) stability couldn't hurt.

Katie-Wanting a Cubs fans thoughts on this.  Do you think that Theo is going to keep these two pitchers or will they be trade bait?

scadder21 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote:

scadder21 wrote: Jackson has outstanding stuff so I'm guessing there is an eternal hope that he harnesses his stuff and turns into a great pitcher.

Perhaps a little (team) stability couldn't hurt.

Katie-Wanting a Cubs fans thoughts on this.  Do you think that Theo is going to keep these two pitchers or will they be trade bait?

Villanueva being the other pitcher?  I think it can go either way because with no NTC's anyone can be bait.  First they have to find out how everyone's health is holding up, and if so I think it's a foregone conclusion that one of the surplus of pitchers is going to be traded, maybe even Travis Wood.  The Cubs are probably hoping that Garza shows he's healthy because he'd bring in the best return (if getting prospects and not trying for an extension is what they have in mind at that point).  Just have to wait and see how things shake out.

PadsFS wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Jmodene1 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------



I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. A 1 WAR player generally is signed to a $5M deal.

If you take all the FA and their contracts. The average payout is 1 WAR per $5M. Some out perform that (Beltran) and some disappoint (Berkman, 2012) and it all averages out. I believe a similar formula is used to determine per arbitration values (the $0.5M-ish)

It's not rocket science.

You're missing my point.  Where does the $5MM per win figure come from?  Who says a win isn't worth $500K instead?  Or $10MM?  It seems rather arbitrary.

Are they basing it on what players make nowadays?  Or does this sort of figuring come from the agent side of things?

To my way of thinking, a win is worth a win, and you can't really place a dollar figure on it.

Jmodene1 wrote:

PadsFS wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Jmodene1 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------



I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. A 1 WAR player generally is signed to a $5M deal.

If you take all the FA and their contracts. The average payout is 1 WAR per $5M. Some out perform that (Beltran) and some disappoint (Berkman, 2012) and it all averages out. I believe a similar formula is used to determine per arbitration values (the $0.5M-ish)

It's not rocket science.

You're missing my point.  Where does the $5MM per win figure come from?  Who says a win isn't worth $500K instead?  Or $10MM?  It seems rather arbitrary.

Are they basing it on what players make nowadays?  Or does this sort of figuring come from the agent side of things?

To my way of thinking, a win is worth a win, and you can't really place a dollar figure on it.

Basically, yes.  More specifically, what players make based on their WAR.  It's not so much what a win (above replacement) is worth, but what a WAR is worth in today's market.  It's actually less arbitrary to base worth on an all-encompassing stat, and the contracts players generally get based on that stat, than to base it on what you personally think a player is worth.

KatieCubFan wrote:

Jmodene1 wrote:

PadsFS wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Jmodene1 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------



I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. A 1 WAR player generally is signed to a $5M deal.

If you take all the FA and their contracts. The average payout is 1 WAR per $5M. Some out perform that (Beltran) and some disappoint (Berkman, 2012) and it all averages out. I believe a similar formula is used to determine per arbitration values (the $0.5M-ish)

It's not rocket science.

You're missing my point.  Where does the $5MM per win figure come from?  Who says a win isn't worth $500K instead?  Or $10MM?  It seems rather arbitrary.

Are they basing it on what players make nowadays?  Or does this sort of figuring come from the agent side of things?

To my way of thinking, a win is worth a win, and you can't really place a dollar figure on it.

Basically, yes.  More specifically, what players make based on their WAR.  It's not so much what a win (above replacement) is worth, but what a WAR is worth in today's market.  It's actually less arbitrary to base worth on an all-encompassing stat, and the contracts players generally get based on that stat, than to base it on what you personally think a player is worth.

Since War is an accumilation of accepted stats isn't this really redundant? Would i be wrong in assuming that this is more of a secondary thing, a way to reconcile the other numbers that have been used for decades than it is a benchmark for contracts? My belief is this is an extension of our search for more information but i wonder if this is not just another way of saying the same thing. I am with JMod on this one as far as not understanding the parameters and value of this. Maybe it is just a "old school" thing?

Jmodene1 wrote:

PadsFS wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Jmodene1 wrote:

KatieCubFan wrote: They base it on WAR (i.e., $5 million per win or whatever).  So a 3-WAR player is worth $15 million.  I get where you're coming from, this seems to be arbitrary but I think they look at what the market rate is for certain players.  Here's a fangraphs article on dollars per win to maybe give you a better idea.

www.fangraphs.com/blogs...-per-win-again/

I agree that the cost of even middling players just keeps going up, but that's how it is.  The Rangers reportedly offered $2 million less than the Cubs, and they're less desperate to inject "average" into their rotation than the Cubs are.  I think we can agree that there is good value in a #3 type pitcher than can give you 200 innings, and that's what Jackson has shown he can do.

Thanks for the explanation.  Now all we need to do is figure out how a win became worth $5MM. ;)

---------------------------------------------



I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend here. A 1 WAR player generally is signed to a $5M deal.

If you take all the FA and their contracts. The average payout is 1 WAR per $5M. Some out perform that (Beltran) and some disappoint (Berkman, 2012) and it all averages out. I believe a similar formula is used to determine per arbitration values (the $0.5M-ish)

It's not rocket science.

You're missing my point.  Where does the $5MM per win figure come from?  Who says a win isn't worth $500K instead?  Or $10MM?  It seems rather arbitrary.

Are they basing it on what players make nowadays?  Or does this sort of figuring come from the agent side of things?

To my way of thinking, a win is worth a win, and you can't really place a dollar figure on it.

It's based upon FA contracts my friend. Even the stupid ones.

Take our 2012 Cardinals, for example:

We signed these guys on FA contracts:

Beltran - $13M AAV
Berkman - $12M AAV
Holliday - $17M AAV
Furcal - $7M AAV
Carpenter - $10.5M AAV
Lohse - $10.25M AAV
Westbrook - $8.25M AAV
Schumaker - $1.5M AAV

For a total of $79.5M AAV

Those 8 players accumulated 16.25 WAR for the season.

Thus, we paid $4.89M per WAR on the FA market this year....ROUGHLY

In 2012, the value of 1 WAR on the FA market was $4.523M.

Hope that helps.

That actually does help.  I still don't like it - it seems to me that this is the sort of thing that's encouraging baseball's salaries to continue to inflate - but your explanation makes sense.

Jmodene1 wrote:

That actually does help.  I still don't like it - it seems to me that this is the sort of thing that's encouraging baseball's salaries to continue to inflate - but your explanation makes sense.

Glad to help.

I'm pretty sure the inflation is due to the $240M A YEAR TV contracts....

PadsFS wrote:

Jmodene1 wrote:

That actually does help.  I still don't like it - it seems to me that this is the sort of thing that's encouraging baseball's salaries to continue to inflate - but your explanation makes sense.

Glad to help.

I'm pretty sure the inflation is due to the $240M A YEAR TV contracts....

Great point. look at the absurd contract Greinke was given by the Dodgers. One has to think that it is a direct result of L.A new cable contract.