California 2038.7 - An Arrogant Jerk's Guide to Sustained Winning, Part 2

[Ted]

I wish this guy was a little more shoutey and less goofy, but whatever. Bald dude with his finger in the air on a soap box. That's me.

An Arrogant Jerk's Guide To Sustained Winning Part 2: What is this Value You Speak Of?

Last time we talked about make a big ol' pile of baseball value. So this time we ask, what is valuable to a franchise?

Our lovely shiny baseball value can be a nebulous thing. The most obvious answer to "What is value to a baseball franchise?" is good players and prospects. And that's true, with a whole slough of caveats and special cases. There is current value and future value. Current value earns wins right now. Future value MIGHT earn you wins in later. You have to have both to sustain winning. You can't sacrifice one for the other. If you have 20 Arthur Dempsters, only 15 or so of the at most can give you current value. But the others have future value. They can be moved for more value, or used to replace aging or injured Arthur Dempsters. This is again a very simple statement, but it underlines a critical point.

You MUST build your future value before focusing on your current value if you want to win for a long time. If you are constantly selling future value for current value BEFORE you are a very good team, you will never sustain winning. Current value is much easier to retain than it is to accrue future value. Let's talk more about what those things are before we look at that statement.

How are developed players valuable? The are valuable when they help you win for less than what a similar level of performance typically costs. That sounds vague, but it's critically important. Steve Nebraska would be a negative value player if you paid him your entire cap space. 100 million worth of players should get you more wins than one Steve Nebraska. I'm going to pick on Ron here, because he already knows this, but Lucas McNeil at his current salary/contract is not a very valuable player. He is a good player, but he does little to add value to Ron's treasure pile. He may even detract from it. If you always spend wisely, you should get more than 6 wins for any 30 mil spent. If you are not getting that, you are actually losing value.

This is very deliberate and obvious, but I am building to a point. Who are the most valuable players in the league? The most valuable players are guys on minimum contracts who deserve to be in the majors. A 60 grade min contract player is among the most valuable in the league. Sure, an 80 grade is better, but all of us see that guy as valuable. I think many people don't understand the value that 50/55/60 players on min contracts add. It is enormous. The reason for this is that relative to players who have made it to arbitration, or definitely players who have extensions or free agent money, the wins they provide are free. They make the minimum. Their wins added/dollar spent is literally infinite. You can't divide by zero. This is why you never see me trade guys like Luis Lucero or Darryl Pris. Next year, both will give me free wins. If you want to sustain winning, you have to have three to four of these guys playing at all times, and when they start to earn money, you need to have guys coming along to replace them. The only way I ever trade a guy like that is if I'm either getting the same level/same age/same development player in return at a position I need more, or if you give me so many prospects that I'm virtually guaranteed to get a similar guy at some point.

The second most valuable players are good players on good contracts. That can be arb, or early extensions, or free agent deals. It's usually in that order, because players become more volatile with increasing age, and that volatility usually makes them worse. Having reliable players is another type of value.

Players lose value. Most lose value the instant they start playing, because they lose team control. There are the rare late bumpers, but overwhelmingly players just get worse, and want more money. Multiple injuries decreases a player's value. With the newer injury models, this is more critical than ever.

This is why future value is harder to get. We only get so many draft picks and can only buy so many IFAs, the players that can become players who hold the most current value. It is much easier to get players making money, than players who can provide wins and are paid essentially nothing.

Now, you probably can't build a champion out of min contract 55's and 60's (Actually I bet you could), but having all these exceptionally valuable players gives you something. Financial flexibility. THAT's why they are so valuable. You can sign a free agent and plug a hole. Or extend your talented player. Or trade for a good player on a bigger deal.

Note that if adding a player that is more expensive kills your financial flexibility, you have squandered the value you earned with the min contract player. More revenue lets you have more value, but revenue is only good if it's not tied up all over the place. If you win 90 games with 150 mil in revenue and you've tied up all that revenue, you are likely no better off than the team that won 90 games with 100 mil in revenue. You may be worse if they have more financial flexibility. This is why you can't overpay. Ever. If a guy wants more than you think he's worth, you have to let him go or trade him. If you are thinking about a contract offer and it's big, and you don't think you can trade it without giving up a prospect, or giving the player away for free, you shouldn't make the deal. That is making a deal that decreases your value pile. You at that point have committed to decreasing your overall value. Period. Even using player then giving him away is bad, because all of our piles of value are constantly shrinking because our players are aging and getting hurt and wanting more money. You should instead be looking to increase your pile of value. Not let it decline in the slowest fashion.

That is what value is. That's what my dragon hoard of Brewster baseball goodness is made of. Things that let me get wins for less than what other people are paying per win. You need both a quantity of good players, but you also need the ability to remain flexible. That is accomplished by not paying much for players as a rule, with the occasional big contract as the exception. It is accomplished by demanding no less than a kings ransom for a min contract player who can contribute wins. It is accomplished by having enough revenue to play to the cap, plus some to play around in other avenues that require funds. There is no other choice in a capped league if you want to sustain winning.

A little more meat here. I hope to have more in Part 3, "So how do I start piling up value?"

[RonCo]

Yes, the McNeill contract was a mistake. It's not horrific yet, but if could well wind up being so.

[Ted]

Yes, the McNeill contract was a mistake. It's not horrific yet, but if could well wind up being so.

Yup, didn't mean to beat on you. And if I ever lose for a bit, it will be because I made a similar deal. It's hard to say goodbye to loved ones.

[RonCo]

I'm certainly not taking it as beating on you. Just confirming that was a costly contract, and a mistake on my part.

[Edward Murphy]

Lot of great information in part 1 & 2 thanks Ted

[bcslouck]

Wow. What an arrogant jerk. Good read though.

[usnspecialist]

Can't wait to read the chapter on how to beat San Fernando in the playoffs

In all seriousness, very interesting read. We do things slightly differently but both successfully. You have had a longer run than i have though.

[handaspencer]

Makes me realize how much I have a crush on Dennis French and his surplus value.

[Ted]

Can't wait to read the chapter on how to beat San Fernando in the playoffs

In all seriousness, very interesting read. We do things slightly differently but both successfully. You have had a longer run than i have though.

I tend to get overblown with "my way is the right way". But it's the only way I know. San Fernando has been a super team. super teams are hard to beat. This really isn't a "how to build a super team" guide. I'll never be quite as good as whoever is the current version of Rockville. There will always be someone. So I try to make up for it with a volume of chances.

[Spiccoli]

Ted, I could have used this thread two seasons ago... lol

I'm learning this lesson the hard way.

[RonCo]

We are all learning all the time.

[HoosierVic]

This is really good stuff. Don’t resign. Write part 3 ...

[JimBob2232]

Well done. Im not tracking on Lucero giving you free wins though. He has a negative WAR (in a VERY small sample size)

http://montybrewster.net/BBA/HTML/news/ ... 28026.html

Not trying to be argumentative...just curious on your take on that.

[Ted]

Well done. Im not tracking on Lucero giving you free wins though. He has a negative WAR (in a VERY small sample size)

http://montybrewster.net/BBA/HTML/news/ ... 28026.html

Not trying to be argumentative...just curious on your take on that.

Dammit Jim. You reeled me back in with this one. I've been trying to ignore the boards and see how "life without the Brewster is" and I can't even do that. I'm fairly confident Lucero will generate around 1.5 WAR most years, which is all I need from a platoon starter. He put up a .950 OPS in AAA and even better in a smidge of AA this year. He doesn't have any real flaws that can be exploited at the big league level. He's just kind of average to slightly above average at everything (as long as he rarely sees LHP). He may end up with plus power against RHP.

When Ron was new to the league, I recall a discussion about how everyone wanted stars, and "yellow bar guys" were vastly underrated and could be valuable if used in ways that play to their strengths. He was largely stalking about players with maybe one green bar and the rest all yellow. Well rounded guys who had maybe one minor strength, but didn't look like anything special. That resonated with me. It does even more today as relative ratings have made a LOT more yellow bars than we used to have. I think Lucero is even better than those "yellow bar guys", but he just doesn't seem special in a league so flush with over the top ratings.

[RonCo]

Lucero's 8 gap vs RHP gives him a little hidden pop. He'll never be an "impact" player, and you can't live on them alone, but if you can keep him out of certain places, he'll give you 1-2 WAR at $500K for three seasons, which is great leverage for your heavy hitters to build on.

[Ted]

Lucero's 8 gap vs RHP gives him a little hidden pop. He'll never be an "impact" player, and you can't live on them alone, but if you can keep him out of certain places, he'll give you 1-2 WAR at $500K for three seasons, which is great leverage for your heavy hitters to build on.

This. An this is really the thrust of this part. Having a true star at min salary is tremendous. But if you don't want to go full rebuild, you won't have many stars. So you have to get value from players like Lucero. That lets you pay for the big stars when you get a chance to get one. Or lets you extend the maybe one or two you have on your roster.

Deciding that rebuilding is unacceptable changes the way you have to bring in new players that can give you wins. But that's more part three, which it looks like I'm going to write after all.

[RonCo]

But that's more part three, which it looks like I'm going to write after all.

There's the money quote.

[HoosierVic]

And that money quote is excellent news. Thank you, Ted!