Chuck Myron, lead writer for our sister site Hoops Rumors and occasional MLBTR contributor, has co-written an excellent book called Hits and Misses in the Baseball Draft. Authors Myron and Alan Maimon have created a must-read for any baseball fan hoping to understand why so many of the best young players fail to make meaningful contributions in The Show, and so many teams make the wrong choices on draft day. Please check out Hits and Misses in the Baseball Draft; we think you'll like it. Note, also, that if you are planning a trip to Florida for Spring Training, you can meet Chuck and Alan at either of two scheduled book signings. The authors will appear at two Barnes & Noble locations in mid-March: in Clearwater on March 14 at 7pm and in Fort Myers on March 15 at 3pm.
Moving on, here are some notes from around the league for your Thursday evening reading…
- Engel Beltre and Michael Choice will both be fighting for roster spots in Spring Training, writes Evan Grant of the Dallas Morning News, but Beltre is the favorite to stick due to the fact that he is out of options. The Rangers aren't likely to let him go, and while Choice could help as a right-handed option in a DH platoon, Texas is wary that such a limited role could hinder his development.
- In an effort to prove Mike Trout's sky-high value without relying on advanced metrics, Dave Cameron of Fangraphs adds the 2013 production of Jacoby Ellsbury and Shin-Soo Choo (using standard stats such as singles, doubles, triples, homers, steals, etc.) and subtracts Mike Trout's numbers. Cameron finds that the result is surprisingly similar to Eric Young's 2013 totals. Because Young was acquired for a replacement-level arm, Cameron suggests that acquiring a partner to match the output is nearly free. In the end, he suggests that Trout is worth more than Choo and Ellsbury combined.
- In a subscription-only piece, R.J. Anderson of Baseball Prospectus looks at how the players he ranked in his Top 50 stacked up to the expected average annual value he laid out prior to the offseason. Anderson concludes that he underestimated the market for back-end starters, setup men and veterans with perceivable upside remaining. Because of that last category, he wonders if names like Asdrubal Cabrera and Chad Billingsley could see larger paydays than many are expecting next winter.
- Sticking with Baseball Prospectus, Phil Hughes tops a free list of nine players that the minds at B-Pro expect to see show improvement in 2014. Also appearing on the list are Matt Cain, CC Sabathia and Brett Lawrie, amongst others.
- WEEI.com's Alex Speier breaks down the numerous Spring Training decisions facing the Red Sox, including homegrown prospect Jackie Bradley Jr. and reclamation project Grady Sizemore fighting for center field (Speier writes that it's Bradley's job to lose). Within the piece, Speier wonders if spring struggles from Middlebrooks would make the Red Sox reconsider their stance on Stephen Drew.
I am major Mike Trout fan, how can you not be the kid is an awesome player, but Dave Cameron consistently over values him. Adding together the bloated AAV of Choo and Ellsbury’s FA contract is not a good way to determine Mike Trout’s value. No player is worth 40-50 MM, for perspectives sake that would equal 26-33% of the Angels 2014 payroll or 17-21% of the Dodgers 2014 payroll.
I don’t buy that “No player is worth $40-50MM” when it’s based on principle alone. There was a time when fans were shocked by the idea of a player earning $1MM per season, $10MM per season and $20MM per season.
I’m not going to fight those who don’t buy into $/WAR — that’s a separate discussion. But as someone who buys into WAR, I don’t see the difference in paying Mike Trout $50MM and paying five 2-WAR player $10MM apiece.
Yes, there’s more risk in tying all of that money up in one player, because if he gets hurt, you haven’t distributed your depth/payroll appropriately and won’t recover. I will concede that I wouldn’t do $50MM on a multi-year deal, but I believe Cameron’s been arguing about a one-year deal anyhow. To agree with Dave, you have to detach yourself from the concept of paying for players and just think in terms of paying for production and wins. I know that’s not how most fans like to look at the game, but I see his logic.
In terms of the percentage of a team’s payroll, I can’t look at it that way either. Most would agree that Trout’s worth $25MM per year. That number would be about 35% of Pittsburgh’s payroll. If Trout were on the Pirates, would he not be worth $25MM because of the team payroll?
That… was a much longer reply than I was anticipating writing, haha.
Thats ok, I like a well presented argument
Steve,
I appreciate your argument. I should condition that statement that no player is worth 40-50 million in today MLB. Someday, especially if salaries continue to inflate the way they have, a player will be worth 40-50 MM a year but not today. I think you should apply a modified version of the Kimbrel rule used in MLBtr’s arbitration model. No player can exceed the highest AAV of an MLB by more than 5 MM on his new contract. By this logic, Trout maximum AAV on a contract signed today would be 37 MM (the AAV of Clayton Kershaw’s new deal + 5 MM).
Committing 40-50 MM to a single player today, even on a one year deal, would severely limit any MLB teams ability to field quality players at other positions. That would make the team excessively dependent on the performance and health of a single player, Trout. That is a risk no team would take or should take today. In the future 40-50 MM AAV may be acceptable in the MLB but not today.
EDIT: Also with regard to the % argument, clearly Pittsburgh does value players differently than say Philadelphia. The pirates were not comfortable offing AJ a 14 MM dollar QO but the Phillies offered him more money, an option year and a limited no trade clause.
5 MM is so arbitrary and completely meaningless. Trout is a far better player than Clayton Kershaw and FA years are on an open market. What if, instead of 5, you made it 10? A-Rod came close to exceeding the previous highest AAV by 10 back in 2001. In fact, I believe he upped the previous highest AAV by around 50% from 17 MM (Carlos Delgado’s 4/68, I think) to 25.2 MM, nearly 50%.
Even on raw increase, that’s still 8.2 MM..
Applying an 8.2 MM increase to Clayton Kershaw’s FA years, which are valued at 32.5 MM per, gives us 40.7….or above 40.
It was not totally arbitrary, 5 MM was the increase in AAV Kershaw achieved over A-rod this year so I figured it was a decent indicator of the max increase in AAV of the previous record AAV a player would receive today.
Uh…although it helps your point, Justin Verlander got 28 MM per year for free agent years, and I assume we are talking about only FA years for the sake of this argument. That said, I would think in this case a percentage increase would be better than a straight salary increase. Kershaw got about a 16% increase in AAV over what Verlander had gotten. 32.5 * 1.1607 is a tad under 38 MM for Trout. We’re still ignoring that Verlander wasn’t as good as Kershaw and Kershaw isn’t as good as Trout, and that A-Rod kinda lays waste to this incremental increase argument with his first mega-deal that shattered everybody’s expectations. Yknow, because mid-20s superstar players who are among the best two or so players in the game get paid handsomely and shatter AAV and total guarantee records. A-Rod did, Trout will.
Good point about Verlander, I forgot about that one. And, yes I was talking about FA years. Arbitration salaries just complicate the argument.
I agree Trout the best player in the MLB today, I just don’t see him getting 40 MM for his FA years if he signs his extension today. I don’t think it would be wise to offer him 40 MM for his FA years either.
The argument in favor of Trout is that you don’t need quality at those other positions. You need people who won’t provide negative value and maybe chip in half a win above replacement. Such players grow on trees.
Of course, it’s a risk because if Trout gets hurt, the team is sunk. That’s why a one-year deal is key. But, all teams run that risk, to an extent, with their best player. If Andrew McCutchen gets hurt, where do the Pirates recover that lost value — especially midseason when the available pool of replacement talent is at its lowest point and the cost for upgrades are at its highest?
As I said before, I can’t accept the “percentage of payroll” argument. There are teams all over the league with a player who takes up 20-25 percent of their payroll. Signing a player for $45MM+ ruffles feathers because it’d be a different approach that hasn’t been done. It’s an *extreme* version of the stars and scrubs approach. With enough homegrown talent and smart spending elsewhere, it could work, in theory. It’s radical, sure, but a lot of elements of today’s game were seen in the same light not long ago.
Fair enough. You have a valid argument. I got to run, thanks for the debate and thanks for your articles
Anytime. Thanks for reading.
For the record, I’m not saying you’re wrong or looking at the game incorrectly. Just laying out my thoughts for buying into Cameron’s concept.
In reality, it’d be incredibly difficult to give that type of money to a player, even if I think it could pay off. For that GM, it’s very likely a “This better work, or I’m fired” scenario.
But it isn’t always about finding a certain amount of doubles. A Trout double is quite a bit different than a double by Choo, just by the fact that he is a bit slower. Is Eric Young going to actually be able to move Trout over, or is it made up by the fact that Trout is expected to be on base more so when Young does get a good hit he will be more likely to be on, and thus score. Also is Trout’s battling line sustainable. There is a limit of what a player can do, and Trout can’t really get much higher.
Cameron makes a very good case. I’d be interested, but because Trout is so many standard deviations away from a normal player, is his WAR really an accurate representation? I think he made a good case that it is.
What if you account for the fact though that Ellsbury only played 134 games last year, and got 89% of the PA as trout. Also, the way Trout plays is there a significant chance for an injury?
That argument of not needing quality players at other positions doesn’t really work. If you look at teams like the Mariners or the Giants in the 90s, which had Griffey and Bonds putting up WAR similar to Trout in certain seasons, that didn’t always amount to a playoff berth. Not at all dissimilar to Trout’s Angels. Or A-Rod with Seattle or Texas.
I dislike the $/WAR argument because there’s no way to compensate for market fluctuations, service time, or potential player loyalty to a certain team. Putting eggs in one basket is never a good idea.
This is what people said about a-rods first mega deal.
And he was easily worth it.
Trout is worth well over 40 million per free agent year. Pretty easy to illustrate how and why too.
A-Rod’s production was “worth it.” However, the financial burden on the Rangers was too much for them to build a winning team around him.
Just because the rest of the lineup was formed with incompetence, doesn’t make the a-rod signing a bad one.
The Arod signing did create less margin for error with regards to incompetent formation of the remainder of the line up, so yes it did have a spill over effect on the rest of the lineup.
The big cat, caminiti, Rogers, etc in 2001 for example.
The team had the rest of their funds poorly allocated other than pudge
Even if Trout is earning $45 million/year, that should not stop the Angels from putting together a competent team around him. Looking at their projected payroll this year of 150 million, that would leave them $105 million for the rest of their roster. Last season, there were 15 teams with a payroll less than $105 million, including winning teams like the Orioles, Braves, Royals, Pirates, A’s, Indians and Rays.
Steve,
Response part 2. (sorry your made a lot of points). On paper there is no difference between paying Mike Trout $50MM and paying five 2-WAR player $10MM apiece but you do have to look at it in a real world context. Contracts are signed before the season starts not after the season. The difference between Mike Trout $50MM and paying five 2-WAR player $10MM apiece is that if invest in Mike Trout and he get injured, the team loses 10 WAR not 2 WAR. Teams are still businesses and they have to receive some type of discount for taking on the added risk of depending on one player to produce for the team.
If you have zero roster constraints, then it is better to move that risk around multiple players. However, given that only 10 guys play and you are limited to 25 total it is better to try and maximize each one of those valuable roster spots. One 10 WAR player is more valuable than three 3.5 WAR players since it opens up your roster to maximizing your WAR.
I remember when Beltre went to Texas in that Gagne deal. He was the guy the Rangers really wanted. I didn’t think Murphy would ever pan out, though he really did and it worked out.
Beltre was one of those CLASSIC guys the “buscoes” (spelling) would grab up, train to do nothing but run 60yd dashes and hit meatballs thrown up by some yo yo at a simulated tryout for general managers, FO personnel. Thank goodness they have ceased signing guys with poor attitudes like beltre, wild hacker at legit pitching like him since to exorbitant bonus money.
It’s one thing to throw away bonus cash to kids and them been legit raw talent, but Texas had another 6 years to see this guy.. He was a wild swinger, no discipline.
I am surprised they kept him this long to be honest.
I am so lost by this comment
If we ever see a 400 million or jor 40 million a year it would start at age 26 for mike trout, if i were him, just by out your time and get low money, come age 26 he’ll be rolling in money, he’d be smart to wait till free agency
That plan would be awesome if Mike Trout could guarantee a clean bill of health and zero down years between now and then, but he can’t. And when confronted with reportedly 160 million dollars plus the possibility of more around age 28 or 29 if he does stay healthy, that could be tempting.
He could also…..get better.
Which isn’t unreasonable to believe.
if he can stay healthy though. If he gets $150M he is set for life. And still enters free agency at a reasonable age. Guarantee me 150M or 90% shot of $200M($180M) and I would take the guarantee. It is enough money already where I don’t think he needs to worry about going to town.
$31.50 for a paperback?
Is Dave Cameron trying to tell me that Mets have a 10 WAR Eric Young right now? I guess that’s where Sandy got his 90 wins today from
Could Trout be the next Mattingly? I just think its unrealistic to think Trout will produce these sort of numbers for the next 10-15 years. History has shown so many players first few years being incredible then they come back to the pack with a 5-6 War, especially in this modern age. Yes he will play at an allstar level for years to come, but this 8-11 war that everyone thinks he will produce for the next 10 years is insane.
It’s not unheard of, but it’s going to be elite talents that did it and continue to do it. Bonds basically did it from ’89 to ’98, ages 24 to 33. He averaged about 8.5 WAR per season through those 10 seasons. Willie Mays, ’54 to ’66, 23 to 35, about 10 WAR per season. Pujols, ’03 to ’10, 23 to 30, around 8.5 WAR per season.
Obviously it’s still very early in his career, but Trout has the makings of a generational player. Should you expect him to continue producing at this level? Maybe not, but again, it’s not unheard of.
Trout has more WAR at 21 than Mattingly did at 25, he’s a significantly better player.
The best comparisons I can think of for “what if this is his best ball” would be Vada Pinson and Cesar Cedeno. Both were great players at age 21 and by 27 were on the decline. Trout is better than those guys of course.
There’s a decent chance that Billingsley won’t hit the open market after the season. The Dodgers hold a $14MM option on him for 2015, with a $3MM buyout. So essentially, they have to decide if he’s worth a one year, $11MM deal. Considering that they just gave Dan Haren a one year, $10MM deal to be a fourth starter, I think that if Billingsley comes back and looks good, that’s an option they will exercise.
Trout’s skyrocket value is tied directly to his low pre-arb salary. Once you pay the man 30 MM or more his value is reduced 10-20 fold. If you say he’s worth 48.5 (2 yr avg fangraphs) then that’s 48.5x ROI for 2014, in 2015 if he’s paid AVV 30 MM that’s only 1.61x ROI.
I worked with an old timer years ago who told me, “what they (management) think of you, they tell you every two weeks (paycheck)” what someone is worth is relative. in another few years, if the Dodgers and Yankees show interest in FA Trout (assuming he’s healthy and producing numbers like he has) then 400 million over 10 years is not unreasonable. Was ARod worth his record setting contract with Texas? Depends on how you define “worth.” He produced three of the greatest seasons in MLB history and that the Rangers were lousy were not his fault. But what was his fault was the fact Alex did little or nothing to market the Rangers. He rarely appeared for public/charity events and I can’t really remember him being on talk shows. Rodriguez could have been as popular as Aikman but instead, the fans had a “don’t let the door hit you in the butt” attitude when he was traded away in spite of having averaged 50 HR and 130 RBIS. Why the Yankees gave him the contract they did when he had opted out of that first contract was one of the major mysteries of the universe.
31.50 for a book!? are you out of your mind?
But you can buy it used for the low low price of $85.49! What are you waiting for?!
Sadly Trout is worth whatever he wants to be worth.