California 2038.10 - An arrogant Jerk's Guide to Sustained Winning, Part 3

[Ted]

I'm just using different names for common concepts.

An Arrogant Jerk's Guide To Sustained Winning Part 3: Growing Your Hoard

In Part 1 we talked about make a big ol' pile of baseball value. Part 2 went into what that value is made of. For Part 3, we'll talk about how to get it/grow it.


A quick aside:

So look, what I'm really talking about is surplus value, a pretty common modern baseball concept. Whether or not you believe in WAR or analytics, the following statements are undeniably true in a capped league:

1) To win more games than your competition, you have to have better players that your competition.
2) In a capped league, the talent of an individual player has to be weighed against the cost of that player when considering the value they add. This is because you a have a limited asset pool to use to acquire players, and other teams have access to the same size asset pool.
3) To have better players, you have to being paying less per "unit of player talent", however you measure it, than your competition.
4) The increased amount of winning you get out of an individual player per unit cost, compared to the average cost for that amount of winning, is surplus value.
5)The team with the most surplus value will win the most over time.

It's that simple. The hard part is measuring player talent, maintaining value, etc. But the theory and mindset is simple. The reason I talk about my pile of surplus value like a miserly, covetous Scrooge, is because if you want to sustain winning, you have to have that attitude. You can't be loose with your assets. When your assets (players) lose value so rapidly, you HAVE to be on the lookout for any "leaks" and plug them.

The other thing to point out, is that this series is a guide to winning 88-92 games indefinitely. Our league is too competitive for anyone to expect to win 95+ games indefinitely. When that happens, like it is for California right now, those extra wins are the result of getting a little lucky in the development of a player or two. If you want a superteam, this is not the model to take. If you want to make the playoffs 7-8 out of 10 years, this is how you do it.

Back to the subject at hand. How do you grow your pile of value? Or surplus value, or whatever. I prefer not to only talk about surplus value, because people tend to forget about the non player parts when you only talk about surplus value. Remember, we defined the "value" you need as players, revenue, and financial flexibility.

It All Starts With Revenue
I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face. If you want to win, make money. Fix your finances. Get a big, loyal, stable fan base so you have a steady, stable revenue stream that lets you spend to the cap. Trying to win before you do this is a bad plan. It can work. Many teams can win without doing this, but most of them will have short runs. They are much more dependent on everything coming together and luck. A couple injuries can end their run, causing them to waste their time at the bottom, and forcing them to start over.

So goal 1. Increase your revenue. There are people that understand revenue, finances, fan interest, etc. better than me, but the overall picture is pretty simple. Winning puts butts in seats and increases your revenue. Extending players and signing popular players in the offseason increase FI and sells season tickets.

If you are happy with the boom/bust pattern of sucking, drafting highly, waiting 3-5 years for those players to develop, winning for a few seasons, and then having all your players get expensive leading to a slow decline and forcing you to start over, you don't have to do this. And there's nothing wrong with that pattern. It can be a lot of fun. You can definitely get amazing teams out of it. But you can't sustain winning.

You can grow your revenue and budget by tanking until you have overwhelming talent and just win games that way. The problem is, that leads to bad habits. If you want to sustain winning, you need to understand how to add a couple wins every year, without losing financial flexibility, and with out a big influx of early draft pick talent to do it. The reason for this is that you will lose at least couple wins every year. Every year, your pile of treasure has little bits and pieces go missing. The primary thieves are aging, lumping and injury. When you have a mature team, you don't have top draft picks. You don't have increasing cap space. You're maxed out, and getting less in terms of reinforcements than everyone else.

So if you want to sustain winning, you need to get rid of the bad habits and mistakes made when you are used to high end talent or newly found revenue giving you the ability to add wins (i.e. the way most people build). You won't have those.

Why Sustained Winning Requires a Different Approach
It's a different way of operating. It mean no overpays. Ever. PERIOD. It means understanding that there is a difference between market value and the value a player has to be at to provide surplus value. It means that you should rarely pay market value. You can't afford to. Market FA value is the price people with a surplus of funds pay for a position of need. That price is NOT going to give you surplus value. It USES UP your surplus value. Those players will NOT provide cost effective wins. In the rare cases you do pay market value, it will be because you have an absolute hole AND a surplus of cap space AND you won't tie that cap space up for long. The only reason to ever pay market value in FA is to get a few specific types of extra wins.

Here's one example: I paid a truckload to Alfredo Martinez this year to get 3-4 extra wins to move from 92 ish wins to 95-96. I had the space for a year or two, but will HAVE to have it back in a couple years. So I spent for now. But Martinez will be gone next year, and I have a cheaper replacement on the way. Paying him did not tie up my money in non cost effective wins for any length of time.

Another example would be moving your team from an 80 win team to an 83 win team with the sole intent of increasing revenue that one year. NOT adding an expensive market value or higher player long term. Your cap space needs to be higher when this deal is done than when you signed ti for it to be worth it. Hopefully you signed a one year deal. No more than two. In doing so, you now have more money when that contract is off the books to leverage further.

Why You Prioritize Winning Rather Than Waiting
If you don't have much revenue (and therefore a low budget) you need to win games. That means PLAYING your young stars, even if that means they will cost more or won't be around when you're finally good. It means trading older, expensive players, even if they are the best players on your team. If they're not below market value, they are no good for you. And by older, I don't mean 35. I mean 28. I mean players who have reached FA market value. It means only signing FAs below market value. If the only FA you can get that way is at a position you already have a player at, you still do it, and trade the older player.

You have to spend to win. You can't sit on money and continue to be bad, because you NEED to have a halfway decent revenue stream by the time your young talent is at it's peak. Because you need to be able to spend in FA (still below market value) to continue winning more games and grow your revenue more. If you do this, you will slowly win more games. As you win more, you will slowly build up attendance end revenue, and you will slowly build up surplus value.

Flexibility
You MUST maintain financial flexibility while doing so. Things won't go as planned. Players will lump, suck, or get hurt. If your money is tied up in big long term contracts, your growth will ground to a halt, and likely reverse. Trade lumping players. Don't pay them. Trade guys that get hurt a lot. Don't pay them. Let them walk. Trade under performers. I'm not saying be dishonest or fleece people. I'm saying let your hopes for those damaged players go. Re-evaluate how you view them. They likely aren't worth as much as you think. Make deals accordingly. Almost anything is worth more than a damaged, lumping, overpaid player.

Do not extend or sign non star players for more than 4-5 mil. I don't care what market value is. That ties up your money in ways you can't afford. You can find 1.5 win players all over the place for 1-2 mil. So paying 7-10 million for a 2.5 to 3 win player is almost always a bad idea if you want to not run into financial issues down the road that will force you to rebuild.

Another way to maintain financial flexibility and limit costs is to not ever let anyone (except cheap relievers) arbitrate. Either buy out 2-3 years or simply submit a 1 year deal just above the projected price. They can only get paid more. You won't pay them less if you let them arb, and often signing the extension gives you small FI boost. This also keeps you from having unpleasant arbitration surprises that mess up your offseason plans.

The Draft
A very good way to grow value is to NOT let OOTP draft for you, and be very careful to not draft players with critical flaws (like corner OF's with 2 range or middle IF's with 2 error or older pitchers with stuck change ups or multiple arm injuries). You CAN out draft the game engine very easily for about 15 rounds in ANY draft pool. Even the old, thin ones we used to have.



This is an iterative process. It's not "build up a bunch of talented prospects" and explode. That's not sustainable. This is. It's slow, incremental improvement. Someone will always pay market value or above in FA. Someone will always make a "win now" trade and trade future value at a loss to you. When people do this, there have to be players available for below market value. Find those players.

Note that I'm not saying the people in a "win now" mode are stupid or wrong. Winning consistently is kind of a boring grind. Some people like the boom then bust. But that style gives people who are willing to commit to a more grinding, patient model a place to find surplus value.

If you think having a roster of under market players is unrealistic, go look at California's salaries. Ignoring one time overpays on guys like Martinez, you could argue every non arbitration/non min salary contract I have is below market value. I didn't get lucky. This isn't a fluke. This is by design. It can be done. It just requires commitment, and financial flexibility. The flexibility is critical so I can always be talking to my players about extensions, never submitting offers until their prices are where I like them. I never spend to the cap in a way that ties me up. I almost never have the season after the current one's salaries over 100 mil (once you account for options than can be declined, etc).

So, there's nothing really amazing here about adding value. It's just drafting well, trading older/more expensive players, being cheap, and resisting the desire to win now. That's it. That's all you have to do. There are lot's of things you DON'T do that will sabotage this effort, and I think we'll make that Part 4.

[RonCo]

Another great chapter.

I still like the top-down flow of thinking about your pile of value, though, as you note, making that happen is a bit ephemeral. A lot of how you view your value horde--and growing it--depends on how you see different things. I think one of the points regarding growing your horde that you touch on but don't explore too deeply is to think about value of everything you do as it will play out over time.

For example: I understand why you say to never pay full market value for a player in Free Agency. EVER. But I think that’s not quite right. Or, at least, it’s fair to say that the full value of a Free Agent to you may or may not be the player’s current FA market value. I think the right way to look at this is to think about how you might gather value from a player throughout his stay on the team. You touch on this a bit in this chapter, but get a bit hand-wavy in places.

Example: If I’m coming up the ramp and I can get a big time FA on a short contract (let’s say a reliever for $9M for one year, which, in general, is a “bad” value this year because almost no reliever will return $9M in performance), I should certainly do that. This is because there are several ways this player can be leveraged for horde value.

• Signing him will probably bump fan interest (which you allude to)
• He will win games (which you allude to)
• Later in the year, he can be flipped to another team to build your farm system, which effectively means you’ve soaked FI value, some win value, and now long-term value in gaining a player or three who might each give you three years of minimum salary later.
• In the BBA, you might hold him and choose to get a compensation pick. If you gain nothing but a “decent player” (say 1.5 WAR) for this pick, you’ve just made a huge improvement in your organization. Say a WAR is worth $3M (which is probably about right), you’ve just added $12M in future value to your team per player you receive. Again, comp picks are a great value that every team in the league should be looking at.

So, I would not say that a team should NEVER over-pay for a Free Agent unless you add in the somewhat nuanced view that a player’s value includes not only his performance and Fan Interest, but his utility within the BBA structure, too. In this case, that $9M I spent on the 1-year FA is probably “worth” $12M-$15M in Lifetime Value, making that investment a very good deal--and that assumes a player I'd generate with this FA's acquisition is worth only 1.5 WAR. The ceiling is higher.

You could do the same with a superstar, too, though the equations you’d use are different.

Similarly, if I give a player an opt out during free agency (or any other player option), I'm thinking "here's a chance for this player to give me a decent draft pick," which, as I've noted before, if that draft pick pans out, might be worth a floor of $12M (over three future years). So in FA, if I sign a superstar to a front loaded three-year $38M deal with an opt-out after year one, that gives me the opportunity to soak his FI performance in year one, then either get a draft pick in year two, or choose to possibly trade him while his contract fades and he becomes attractive enough to contenders that they'll give me more than a supplemental draft pick in trade value. (Feel free to insert a picture of Alfredo Salazar here).

I think the main point is that you almost certainly should not plan to overpay for longer term contracts with intent to keep that player forever. This is because the value you get in that case includes only his winning and his FI, and the downside is that long-term stars can clog up your financial flexibility.

A counter-argument to that is also that when you’re a more established team and you have a pile of young cheap stars, you can, and probably should pay whatever it takes to bring Dan Cannon onto your team.

So, really, things are a little bit situational.

But, yes, another fun collection of thoughts here. Bottom line: if you're trying to build a perpetual motion machine, realize that every transaction has ramifications beyond wins and losses on the field, and so therefore every transaction should be thought through to ensure the GM isn't reducing their organization's long term value.

[Ted]

For example: I understand why you say to never pay full market value for a player in Free Agency. EVER. But I think that’s not quite right. Or, at least, it’s fair to say that the full value of a Free Agent to you may or may not be the player’s current FA market value. I think the right way to look at this is to think about how you might gather value from a player throughout his stay on the team. You touch on this a bit in this chapter, but get a bit hand-wavy in places.

Well, it's me so there's always the hypoerbole. Yes there are somewhat special cases while an overpay makes sense. But I overstate the "never" because if you're trying to learn to do this, that really has to be your mindest. Overpays have to be the rarest of the rare.

A counter-argument to that is also that when you’re a more established team and you have a pile of young cheap stars, you can, and probably should pay whatever it takes to bring Dan Cannon onto your team.

I'm not sure this applies. Aaron's build currently is not a perpetually winning team. He can convert it to one with smart moves, but he has already had to let younger players walk because of contracts like Cannon's and Dave Martin's. Those were good decisions in the short term, and probably the long term as well, but we on't know that yet. Regardless, it's outside the format of how I do things and what this series is about. He also has some players who may be more cost effective than say Cannon who he will have to not even talk to about extensions because of those deals. Whether or not they are more cost effective, he has more young talent then he could ever possibly hope to keep. This model really isn't about how to accumulate a bunch of young talent and then supplement is with pricey (if still very very good) veterans. It's about how to win without doing that, because you won't have the "bunch of young talent".

The point is, there are lots of ways to do this, but big extensions are not really part of my model because those kind of things only work when you have a multitude of young, cost controlled stars. I hardly every have that.

But, yes, another fun collection of thoughts here. Bottom line: if you're trying to build a perpetual motion machine, realize that every transaction has ramifications beyond wins and losses on the field, and so therefore every transaction should be thought through to ensure the GM isn't reducing their organization's long term value.

This is really it. Some people say, "You can't always be looking ahead. Sometimes you have to make your team better now." I counter with, "If I'm always making my team better for next year, I'll never have to worry about now. When now gets here, I'll already have addressed the problem."

[bcslouck]

So you're saying you shouldn't sign a 30+ year 3B to a long, expensive contract extension when you have, oh let's just say this guy only about a year away in your farm system?

[RonCo]

But I overstate the "never" because if you're trying to learn to do this, that really has to be your mindest. Overpays have to be the rarest of the rare.

I think the point is to always be looking for every opportunity to add to your horde. To me "overpays" as you define them are not rare. I overpaid reliever Felix Alvarado for the draft pick. I gave Jorge Rodriguez (who was really too old for the four year deal I gave him--so it was an over-pay) and opt out after a couple specifically because I figured I'd either trade him or get a draft pick at that time. I did the same with Salazar. During the early years of my build, I signed several interesting guys to shorter term "market value" deals specifically planning to trade them.

My overall point here is that (especially for bigger ticket items), players acquired via Free Agency should almost always be viewed as short-term pieces that need to be discarded relatively soon after signing them.

YMMV, of course.

I'm not sure this applies. Aaron's build currently is not a perpetually winning team. He can convert it to one with smart moves, but he has already had to let younger players walk because of contracts like Cannon's and Dave Martin's. Those were good decisions in the short term, and probably the long term as well, but we don't know that yet. Regardless, it's outside the format of how I do things and what this series is about. He also has some players who may be more cost effective than say Cannon who he will have to not even talk to about extensions because of those deals. Whether or not they are more cost effective, he has more young talent then he could ever possibly hope to keep. This model really isn't about how to accumulate a bunch of young talent and then supplement is with pricey (if still very very good) veterans. It's about how to win without doing that, because you won't have the "bunch of young talent".

You're right. Aaron is at peak Pikemen right now, and will be in transition for the next couple seasons. How he carries on will define whether he's a classic build and fall or becomes a program. That, too, is a skilset that one needs to think about. It is actually possible to build teams that win 95+ every year as long as you squint a little and allow for the occasional year where you fall off the island.

We'll see what Aaron has at his disposal.

...those kind of things [extensions] only work when you have a multitude of young, cost controlled stars. I hardly every have that.

That's not really true. Extensions at the right moment and the right price point can make for very nice stability. It all depends on the player and their loyalty/greed/performance value. Good GMs look for value, and a youngish 4WAR "star" you can tie up for $10M-$14M is a good value.

And, as you've noted in earlier chapters, probably the most undevalued pieces are not young stars so much as stables of young guys who can do a few things well. Those guys are all over the place in most decent farm systems, and if you have a bunch of them, then suddenly you can put them around a couple of extendable stars...then what that gives you (as a horder) is a half-decade or more to fall back and nurture the farm through the draft, through trade, and through IFA.

Some people say, "You can't always be looking ahead. Sometimes you have to make your team better now." I counter with, "If I'm always making my team better for next year, I'll never have to worry about now. When now gets here, I'll already have addressed the problem."

On the whole I agree, though once you have a pretty robust horde, you can suddenly afford the occasional splurge into high risk territory because you can absorb loss better than you can when you're still building.

I think that's a point you made earlier. If your organization is thin, a real loss sets you back to square one. So trying to "win all the time" too early is a mistake. If you have a robust organization, however, you can lose Crash LaLoosh, Angel De Castillo, Carlos Garcia, and Jose Souza all in one year and still win 95 the following season.

Arguably, YS9 probably would have won 85-90 games last year--and perhaps edged into the low 90s--if (1) McNeill hadn't also crashed, and (2) we hadn't suffered season ending injuries to three of our five starting pitchers. That's not because YS9 had lots of super-star kids in the wings, but because I had a half-decade or more to build/horde an organization very deep in good-not-great talent. At least, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[RonCo]

You're never going to "win" every decision you make. I think the ultimate goal (and this fits what I think you're talking about in this series) is to understand the probability fields around all the tools at your disposal, then do your best to optimize the result.

I'll add: all while having fun!

[usnspecialist]

So you're saying you shouldn't sign a 30+ year 3B to a long, expensive contract extension when you have, oh let's just say this guy only about a year away in your farm system?

That probably wasn't the best decision for you...

[HoosierVic]

Ted:
Another outstanding piece.

So, let me give you a hypothetical (for here, it’s for real in my other league). You trade three decent but decidedly excess guys for a high-priced superstar to make a stretch run for the playoffs. You make the playoffs, win a couple of rounds, but lose in the league championship series, and now your 33-year-old superstar exercises his option and decides to walk away from a $34 million a year contract. He wants $42 million per for six years.

He’s far and away the best and most popular player on your team, a 6+ WAR, 40 HR a year player, but he’s getting older.

From what you’re saying here, you never, ever sign that guy to an extension. You take the freed up cash and go looking for value elsewhere, treating him as a pricey half-year rental.

This seems like a situation that would come up with some frequency- in a sense, it’s the Pujols deal ... or the Aroldis Chapman deal.

But if you want to build a consistent winner, you can’t let yourself fall prey to the siren song of aging superstar talent, correct?

That takes real discipline!

[RonCo]

One thing to realize is that the salary cap and all the dynamics that the salary cap represents totally changes the dynamic of how to build a team. Big market teams in league with no salary cap can afford to spend wildly because they always have excess resources to burn. This is one of the reasons I came to the BBA.

[HoosierVic]

Ok, here are a couple of specific definitional questions. When you talk about “market value” free agents, what does that mean, exactly? What the player is asking? What others are willing to pay? How can you tell what a player’s market value is to determine if you’re over- or underpaying?

[RonCo]

Ok, here are a couple of specific definitional questions. When you talk about “market value” free agents, what does that mean, exactly? What the player is asking? What others are willing to pay? How can you tell what a player’s market value is to determine if you’re over- or underpaying?

I'm interested in Ted's response here because I think this is a major difference in how he and I look at building teams that can win in a sustained fashion in a BBA/salary cap style league.

----

That's the question that separates the men from the other men. It's also the question that creates friction in certain circles. If I evaluate something more or differently from another guy, there's some non-zero chance that this difference will cause a fire.

How do you think about it?

The way Ted's Guide is using it feels like Market Value = "That which you'll have to pay in Free Agency to get a player."

That works as well as anything, I suppose. But it's not really "right" either.

All I can say myself is that I personally never really think about Market Value. Instead, I think: what's the most I can pay this player and stay within my plan? (or in Ted's vernacular of value "what's the most I can pay this player before he's likely to create negative value to my franchise as it stands today?" Or: "what kind of contract do I have to give this guy to maximize overall value to my organization?"

In other words, I build a plan and I execute the plan (he says after signing Lucas McNeill to silly money). As a general rule, if I can't find a player who fits my plan, then i adjust the plan and build that way.

I find that the most valuable way to look at it, because the actual value of a player to me today is probably different than that same player might have been three years ago. I also do it this way because I, like Ted, want to create programs (though I want to create 95 win programs, not 90 win ones. ). If I was a guy who preferred "build and fall" teams, or if I saw for sure I had only a single shot left before a total tear down, my method of evaluating players would almost certainly be different.

I should note that my plan is generally about 7 years out, give or take a little.

So, yes, I'm insane.

[HoosierVic]

If you define market value as whatever it takes to sign a player, though, then by definition you pay market value for any player you sign ... and you've overpaid. Is there any kind of rule of thumb for what, say, what you should pay for a point of WAR? The concept of arriving at value is eluding me here.

Sorry, I know these are noob questions, but this seems like a foundational concept to grasp.

[RonCo]

These aren't noob questions that different people have different answers to.

Before I blab on more... what do you think?

[aaronweiner]

You'll see how I do it, but I think you all could probably guess based on what I've done so far.

[HoosierVic]

Well, my biggest rule of thumb is to avoid long-term contracts, and to try avoid tipping from the $9 million range into $10 million or beyond. That second rule I've broken several times, but I'm usually pretty good about the first. I think you can win with a team of solid mostly yellow-to-green line players, rather than superstar bright blue types.

That said, I only got over the hump into the playoffs in my other league through a deadline trade for a bright blue superstar type earning a princely salary. I tentatively decided to try to extend him, but now I'm having buyer's remorse.

Here, with a salary cap, a solid all-around team with fairly replaceable parts seems a better approach than trying to chase superstar types.

But the rub, still, is how do you decide if you're paying an appropriate price? It seems like you could easily enter the free agent market, say, and be outbid at every turn if you set that value too low. Maybe it's as simple as deciding on a realistic price range for your starters (a certain percentage of your salary cap, say) and try not to stray out of that.

Unless, of course, they're left-handed. Then, pay through the roof!

[RonCo]

Probably the most important thing Ted focuses on is the idea of essentially never giving long contracts.

On the whole, I agree with that viewpoint, though I often give fairly long extensions, whereas Ted cautions against that. In Free Agency, there are times where people do that because they feel they need the guy now, and they are willing to just deal with the issues it creates later. In that case, it’s fine. That’s your plan, do it. There are others who do it without understanding the risk they are taking. That’s different!

As far as what is too much, I suppose you can guess…I think that depends.

On the whole, I’m in the camp that, within semi-reason, there’s almost no such thing as a bad 1-season contract.

That said, here’s a base rule of thumb I start my thinking with when I think about contracts.

1) I want to win 95 games.
2) “Replacement” in my book is about 45-50 games, meaning if I field nothing but AAAA guys I’ll win 45 games. You could say it’s 50 games, or 55. Your mileage will vary, and as you’ll see, the place you start is somewhat important to this rule of thumb.
3) This means I need to find 50 wins above replacement (95-45)
4) I have whatever my budget says I have to spend (and for year 1, my cash). Remove $5M for personnel and $7-$10M (depending on where I’m drafting). Then limit by salary cap if it applies. That’s how much I can spend for players.
5) Divide 50 wins but that amount and I now know how much I can spend per WAR I project from any particular player.

So, if I have only $80M to spend (because my budget is low), I can only spend $1.6M.WAR. That’s very hard. If I have $110M to spend, I can spend $2.2M/WAR. If I consider replacement to be 50 wins, that adjusts those numbers up ($2.5M/WAR at 50 wins as replacement). Similarly, if you think 90 wins is the goal, well, you can do your own math.

Top end that seems reasonable to me is $3M. But that’s me.

So if a guy is 5 WAR player, all other things being equal, he’s “worth” $15M per season. Or less. You have to make that call, of course.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. And, to be clear, I break those thoughts all the time if it fits my plan.

[Ted]

Ted:
Another outstanding piece.

So, let me give you a hypothetical (for here, it’s for real in my other league). You trade three decent but decidedly excess guys for a high-priced superstar to make a stretch run for the playoffs. You make the playoffs, win a couple of rounds, but lose in the league championship series, and now your 33-year-old superstar exercises his option and decides to walk away from a $34 million a year contract. He wants $42 million per for six years.

He’s far and away the best and most popular player on your team, a 6+ WAR, 40 HR a year player, but he’s getting older.

From what you’re saying here, you never, ever sign that guy to an extension. You take the freed up cash and go looking for value elsewhere, treating him as a pricey half-year rental.

This seems like a situation that would come up with some frequency- in a sense, it’s the Pujols deal ... or the Aroldis Chapman deal.

But if you want to build a consistent winner, you can’t let yourself fall prey to the siren song of aging superstar talent, correct?

That takes real discipline!

Yes with a caveat. I'd never have traded for the high priced guy to make the playoffs. I'd have found a long term asset instead. I never make moves to "make the playoffs" this year. Let's say it's mid season. If you acquire a 6 win player midseason, you get three extra wins. How often does that get you in the playoffs? The answer is less often than you think. So you traded three excess assets for 3 wins. That's a bad move. Instead, you could have gotten some 20-21 year olds who might combined get you 6-7 wins over a few seasons and make the minimum while they do it. We're getting into part 4. But a big part of the strategy is don't rent players.

[Ted]

Sorry, was out watching my favorite hockey team be my favorite hockey team. *sigh*

I define market value as what most teams will pay for a player. The "going free agent rate" as it were. Note that when I'm talking about market value I mean free agent market value. I actually don't break it down into how much WAR I need for a number of wins like Ron does. I just think that most people talk themselves into believe that the prices places ask for is reasonable. It's not. Those numbers are inflated by desire.

Also, I sign lots of long contracts, but they are all extension of players 28 or younger. I rarely sign long FA deals. For bigger extensions, I only do them when they are well below free agent prices and when I believe that even if the play lumps at the end, he'll at worst be getting paid free agent prices.

Vic has hit on something here. In my model, you don't really play in FA much. Because he's right in that if you got if from FA, it kind of is the market price by definition. Free agency is where you get bargain backups and minor pieces on the cheap.

These numbers fluctuate, but here's my thought on FA market value in AAV:

1-2 starter 20-22 mil
top bat 18-20 mi
bad 2 to strong 3 starter 15 mil
all star but not top bat 15 mil
3-4 starter 10-12 mil
good lineup bat, but not all sat 10-12 mil
5th starter 8-10 mil
marginal starter bat 4-5 mil
Top RP 8-11 mil
good rp 6 mil
fungbile arm 2 mil

Here are my rough estimates of what I'll pay:
1-2 starter 15-20 mil
top bat 17-20 mil, but only on a short deal <--- i draft pitching, so I HAVE to pay for these when I need them from FA
weak 2 to strong 3 starter 12-13 mil
all star but not top bat 11 mil
3-4 starter 8 mil
good lineup bat, but not all sat 7-8 mil
5th starter 2-3 mil
marginal starter bat 1-2 mil
Top RP DON'T PAY FOR IT
good rp 2.5 mil
fungbile arm 1.5 mil or less

[Ted]

The other thing to add is that those are my FA estimates. I actually try to extend my own players for less. If you had every player on your team making the amounts in the second list about, you'd be up against the cap and not very good. You can't win without min contract and early arb talent, and every player you pay FA market value or more means you basically have to have another young cheap player to compensate. When you don't have good draft position, it's that much tougher.

Another point is that those prices I said I'd pay would onyl be for contracts that are reasonably safe, ending before a player is 33, or very very short on older players. So you can see why FA is not a big part of how I build a team.

[bcslouck]

That probably wasn't the best decision for you...

Thanks for the news flash bud.