Odds & Ends: Beeston, St. Claire, Bay

"He sees John Lackey getting at least five years and $100MM, and Chone Figgins landing around five years, $50MM."

That won't be from the Angels, right?

Lackey is a good pitcher, but he's not THAT good, he's only posted an xFIP below 3.99 once in his career, and that was all the way back in 2005. I could certainly see something like 5/80 coming up on the open market, but the Angels definitely shouldn't give him an offer of more than say, 4/64, and any team that gives him $100M+ will likely regret it.

And Figgins, as great as he is, probably wouldn't live up to a 5/50 contract. He's great defensively at third and his ability to get on-base is valuable, but he has zero power and he gets caught stealing fairly often.

If he's playing everyday at third, where's his defense is really, really good, then he might be worth 5/50, but is some team really going to pay this guy $10M for his age-36 season?

I think that something around 3/33 or 4/40 is more likely, although Figgins certainly is one of the biggest names on the market.

Lackey just a ok pitcher. Most starters average around 1M per win. Around 12 to 14M per year with the right team.
3 yrs at most.
Figgins = 27M 3yrs on the high side

Whoever pays Lackey $20 MM per year for 5 years is going to be disappointed over the course of that contract.

Which club is going to throw $100M at Lackey? I know he's the best guy readily available this off-season, but come on. I don't think that he'll get 5 years. Who can take on that kind of risk? In the post 'rpids era betting on a pitcher to be effective at 36-37 years old is very speculative. And this is not a dominant, sure fire Ace to begin with (has not thrown 200 innings since 2007).

Glad St. Claire is landing on his feet after the Nats scapegoated the guy and showed him the door in less than classy fashion last season.

"I see 4/60 being the most he'll get. Yanks are not hard up for pitching and the Sox probably are set as well. 4/36 for Figgins is fair as well, IMO."

Those offers are fair, but I'm pretty much positive that both guys get more.

Lackey is the only pitcher on the market that can offer upside beyond that of a solid third starter as well as durability and a track record of staying relatively healthy.

He may not deserve more than 4/56 or so, but realistically I think that he ends up getting around Burnett money, at the least.

And with Figgins, given his brilliant glovework and the monster offensive performance this season, there's no way that he settles for $9M per season, in my opinion.

My guess would be something around 5/80 for Lackey, and 4/40 for Figgins, even though neither player is particularly likely to live up to the entire contract.

I would rather go after lesser names like Piniero and Winn.

$20M a year for Lackey? Is this guy huffing fumes? Only 2 pitchers make $20M or more per year and Lackey is no where near their calibur. I can name 15-20 pitchers I'd want on the mound before Lackey and most of them aren't worth $20M a year. I'm betting he doesn't beat out Burnett's contract.

"Agreed with 92-93...and I think teams will see and pay Figgins as a 2-3 win player going forward."

Yeah, way to agree with the guy who nitpicked my comment to disagree with me, and then in the end you agree with the rest of my comment anyways.

Whether it makes sense or not, Figgins was actually worth $26.4M in 2009, and that reflects his upside, even if that level of performance is clearly unsustainable.

The dollar values on FanGraphs absolutely are legitimate, they reflect how much a player has been worth, based on WAR.

They just can't be applied to predicting the future performance of players, and that's where problems arise.

It's a good statistic, you just need to know how to use it.

"Could the Red Sox not pick up Wakefield's option and go with Lackey?"

Lackey has ranted on a few occasions how much he hates pitching in Fenway. I don't think they'll even have talks this offseason.

scribble: I agree with most of your comments but you can't possibly suggest Fangraphs values are correct, even based on WAR.

Figgins - great defensively but anyone who wants him will put him in the outfield, not at 3B. This means there are others that hit for power ahead of him(Bay, Holliday, even Abreu....) 3/30 max

Posted by: Angelsfansince79 | October 27, 2009 at 01:58 PM"

Why would anyone put him in the OF? Hes a GG caliber defender.

"scribble: I agree with most of your comments but you can't possibly suggest Fangraphs values are correct, even based on WAR."

The values are correct, you just have to understand how their application and what they actually mean.

In terms of value, assuming that a replacement player can be had for nothing ($0), the valuations are absolutely accurate.

They're merely calculations of WAR based off of an algorithm which determines how much one win above replacement is worth purely in terms of dollars.

The problem is that people see that a player's season was valued at X amount of dollars, and they assume that Player X's actual talent level is that of the valuation, so they try to apply those numbers to contractual situations.

The FanGraphs valuations are there to show you how much a player WAS worth, not how much a player can or will be worth in the future.

Albert Pujols was worth $38M in 2009, but you wouldn't sign him to a contract that pays him $38M per and just assume that he'll maintain that production consistently. You factor in statistically and actual regression, as well as aging, developmental, league, park, luck and other external factors.

For each player that's worth $30M in a given season, there are multiple players that were worth ($3-5M), so eventually all of the valuations that seem ludicrously high are offset by the valuations of players who were below replacement level, or players who were paid significantly more than their valuation determined that they should've been paid.

It's all about how you use the statistic, but the FanGraph valuations certainly make sense in their own right.

I personally prefer to avoid the valuations in most discussion, primarily because people struggle to comprehend how and why the statistic is used, but used in the right manner, it can be a nice tool to look back at how much value a player gave to a team.

"They're merely calculations of WAR based off of an algorithm which determines how much one win above replacement is worth purely in terms of dollars."

Exactly. This is what you are quoting as gospel. Why do you assume their algorithm is correct, that they are appropriating the right amount of dollar value per win? Albert Pujols at 38m is absurd when there's one player in baseball making over 20m.

Paul Beeston extending for 3 years as CEO is HORRIBLE news for Jays fans. He is single-handedly responsible for this mess of a season that was 2009.

For the love of all that is holy, stop with the all caps. It gives everyone headaches.

BTW, Figgins already patented the asses of Reyes, Castillo, and Hudson.

How much are the Reds asking for Arroyo? If he's easy to acquire, is he really a number 2 starter? Same questions for Harang.

Any answers?

"The FanGraphs valuations are there to show you how much a player WAS worth, not how much a player can or will be worth in the future."

precisely. and precisely why i find it ridiculous. chone figgins was worth $26M??!! that's jim hendry thinking.
perhaps, statistically it does have some truth, but it devalues its own damn self with silly numbers like that.
maybe it just needs a different way to express the point it is trying to make.

I'll say it again, y'all: WAR! what is it good for? ...

Figgins will be with the Cubs, 3/33. It will solve the 2B problem as well as providing the backup at 3D that was needed this past season. Losing Heilman, Miles, Gregg and Harden will free up enough $$$$.

"I personally prefer to avoid the valuations in most discussion, primarily because people struggle to comprehend how and why the statistic is used, but used in the right manner, it can be a nice tool to look back at how much value a player gave to a team."

"Just because you can't understand how a player's performance can exceed that of the highest paid players in the league in terms of financial value, doesn't mean that the statistic is wrong.."

Wow scribble, you really need to come down from that high horse of yours. I understand perfectly how FanGraphs arrives at their dollar values, and I have been a religious reader of the site since its inception. That doesn't mean I can't question its results, especially when so much of it is based on a very subjective defensive stat. You still haven't explained why FanGraph's algorithms and dollar values HAVE to be correct, other than saying -

"Based on the production and compensation of the league as a whole, you can generally come up with a pretty good idea of what X amount of production does cost a team."

Yes, that's exactly how I would hope it works, but one tweak in any formula could have massive repercussions to your final results. Without a full understanding of their algorithms and formulas used to derive their numbers, which I'm near certain you don't have, it's a little bit of a stretch to just assume everything there is right.

"Wow scribble, you really need to come down from that high horse of yours. I understand perfectly how FanGraphs arrives at their dollar values, and I have been a religious reader of the site since its inception. That doesn't mean I can't question its results, especially when so much of it is based on a very subjective defensive stat. You still haven't explained why FanGraph's algorithms and dollar values HAVE to be correct, other than saying -"

Actually I really agree with what you're saying, I probably came off in the wrong light. There are major flaws in the calculations for Fangraphs' valuations, just like there are in virtually every statistic that's out there today. It's merely one number and one way to look at a player's value statistically. UZR is seriously flawed in judging a player's ability from year to year, putting that much weight into a small number of games isn't particularly logical.

It's a helpful statistic when used properly, but people frequently write it off immediately without ever trying to gain a better understanding because sometimes the results that it produces can be pretty staggering.

I'm not trying to be on any "high horse", I'm just frustrated when people on this site mock the statistic as if it offers absoutely no insight into a player's value.

Of course it's not 100% accurate, not remotely, but it certainly has value.

I didn't mean to come off like I was assuming that FanGraphs' valuation system is perfect and every number it produces is completely accurate, I just mean that within a proper context, it can be a useful statistic.

I luuuuuuv one-sentence paragraphs!

scrib,
it's all good in the name of discussion. still don't think much of WAR, though.
(except the song!)