California 2039.1 - An arrogant Jerk's Guide to Sustained Winning, Appendix A

[Ted]

I can't seem to stay on task.

Someday I'll have this thing all assembled in one easy to find place. Until then, I'll keep chunking it out in pieces. Sometimes those pieces will come out of order, or not really fit in with the flow of the others. This in one of those.

An Arrogant Jerk's Guide To Sustained Winning, Appendix A, What is a Everyday Starter Worth?

I've been meaning to get to the chapter on how teams lose value and how not to do that. But I haven't. Instead, as free agency is upon us, and I'm looking to shed some cheap players in their prime, I'm motivated to selfishly write this piece. You see, I have some 24-27 year old players I'm selling. Players who I believe have significant value, and I'm not getting much interest. It's frustrating. So this is part venting, part an attempt to quantify how and why I think these players are so valuable.

Remember, the whole point is to pay players less than what other people are paying for the same amount of win generation. That's how you get an edge. When it comes down to it, it's pretty much the only way to compete with other teams that spend in a cap league. One way is to use young players who are under team control. However, you only get so many of those, and if you want to avoid any rebuilds ever, they won't be of the same caliber as some other team's young studs.

So where do you generate surplus value? You do it with under market extensions and savvy free agent deals. So now we have to get into some math. Don't worry, it's not too complex. You have 90 million in cap space to work with. You heard me right. NINETY million. Not one hundred ten. If you have your forty man roster occupied, you are paying 40 players a minimum of 500k apiece. So there goes 20 mil right off the top. Some of us tend to run more around 37 players, but the difference there isn't much, so the point stands.

Okay, so when you have a team that can't count on high draft picks to have star players, you have to get production from almost every position. That mean an acceptable starter everywhere. You don't have the talent to make up for holes in your lineup or rotation. We're going to go back to WAR, because it's easy to use. The rule of thumb is that a 2-3 win player is starter material. But realistically, you can be happy with a 2 win player (I'll explain below). So how many of these players do you need? Well, let's say 9 position players, five starting pitchers, and four relievers. That's the bulk of your PA's and IP's. So 18 players. Yes backups matter, but I'm going to use the fact that RP's have lower WAR totals to "cover" the bench guys.

So in a simple estimation, 90 mil divided by 18 players is 5 mil. If you paid 18 weak starter level players five mil, you'd end up with 36 WAR and 84 wins (48 WAR is replacement level). Note how a team with eighteen 2.5 win players would then be a 93 win team. You could win 93 games with no stars, and a bunch of solid starters and a bench of replacement level players. If you had any young cost controlled stars to go with that package, you're a 100+ win team. This is why I think the 3 WAR is a "Starter" is probably a bit much. If we used that 18 player number from before, there would be 540 "starters" in a 30 team league. And again, eighteen 2 WAR players would get you to 84 wins. You can't have thirty 84 win teams. 2 WAR is fine, it's probably even a bit high, but teams looking to win should be looking to get at least 2 WAR out of those 18 or so positions.

Now, who are those other 9 players on your roster? Well, maybe you aren't efficient and are getting your 2 WAR out of 2 players in a platoon. Some of these 9 players are min contract guys. Some of those min contract guys might be very talented, and give you the oomph to get to 90+ wins.

So what we have is that an acceptable starter, a 2 WAR player, can be paid around 5 million if you don't have any other source of cost controlled wins. Now, most of us have 5-10 cost controlled guys at any time, so we tend to pay more than 5 mil for 2 WAR players. Also, note that this isn't a typical $/WAR analysis, because as many have noted, $/WAR is not a linear relationship because there are far more 1-2 win players than 4-5 win players. Also, I'm not talking about FA prices here. This is more extension based, and what you PRAY to get players out of FA for.

The fact that $/WAR isn't linear means you will have to pay more for good players. You'd love to pay a 4 WAR player 10 mil and a 6 WAR player 15 mil. But that isn't going to happen. You'll have to pay them more, most likely. Not necessarily a ton more, but a little more. If you are paying a ton more, you will have to rely on cost controlled kids to compete. There simply is no other way to make it under the cap.

What does this all mean? Let's look at the numbers again. Most teams will have 18 players that do the majority of the contributing. The remaining 9 will be bench guys, little used relievers, or weak sides of platoons. If you average 5 mil per each of those 18 players and each gets around 2 WAR, you will hit the cap with a just better than .500 team. Any further improvement has to be made from cost controlled young talent. The amount of that you have will determine how many more wins you can get. And we also mentioned above that most of us probably are paying more than 5 mil for 2 win players, using our cost controlled players to cover the difference. If you do have a bunch of players making 5 mil for 2 WAR, then you are likely ahead of the pack in surplus value and winning.

It means that if you can acquire a 2 win player for less than a 5 mil cap hit, you jump all over it. (Same idea for a 4 win player around or under 10, or a six win player around or under 15). It is also why paying any one player 20+ mil is a really bad idea long term. You'd either have to have a ton of cost controlled kids to make up for it, or that player has to get you 8+ wins every year.


As a final note:

This is also why it is ridiculous that so many players in the BBA are asking for/getting paid 26-30 mil in FA at times. It's a completely ridiculous amount that more or less has to be crippling in some way. If you pay a 6-7 win player (which is what most of these guys that ask for these insane amounts are) 25 mil, you then have 65 million left to find 29-30 WAR to stay on the same pace. That's 2.24 mil per WAR or about 4.5 mil each for the remaining 17 players in the above method. You've dropped the amount you can spend on every single one of those players by 10%. Overpay liek that again, say 15 mil on a 4 win player, and there goes another 5% reduction on every other contract you can offer. That won't work. Unless of course, as said many times before, you have a boatload of young cost controlled stars. Which, as I keep repeating, if you don't want to ever rebuild, you won't have.

[Ted]

Edited the last paragraph because as I was falling asleep I realized I did the math wrong. Also made some minor changes because I felt a bit more summary was needed after the maths.

[jleddy]

Fantastic breakdown!

[RonCo]

Here are a few charts that might be helpful here.

First, a breakdown in the last v19 file of WAR vs. Average salary by all pitchers by type. Note the term "Average" here should give you some pause...but in relation to not spending more than your opposing GMs, is still probably worthwhile...especially in the lower half of the charts...though I should note that this is a reflection of today, and has an aspect of looking backward (i.e. if you paid a guy $10M and he got hurt and only registered .2 WAR, that $10M isn't going to look good even if it was the right call). Note also specifically in this chart, this is ALL pitchers (specifically including those with $500K minimum salary).

Anyway...

The question Ted's dealing with in this segment isn't really "all pitchers." He's talking about how he values players on arbitration/extensions/FA contracts. So let's do the same study, but remove everyone who was on a minimum salary deal.

I think you can read these charts in several fashions..,YMMV...etc, etc. etc.

And, yes, the batters charts are different. Here's one for them, not broken down by position, but without $500K Contracts:

2038-Bat-WAR-Sal-No-500K.PNG (27.61 KiB) Viewed 1391 times

[Ted]

So, the reason I focus on two win players is that I have to fill out a team. And If I fill a team with two win players, I have a just over .500 squad. That's a good starting point. Now I just have to find a couple bargain stars and keep drafting and developing a few min contract guys and I'm in perpetual playoff land.

These charts kind of back up what I'm saying. If these are "Average", you have to beat these prices to be an above .500 team if you don't have cost controlled stars making up the difference.

Anyway, these are great to look at Ron. Thanks.

As a last note, 1.5-2.5 Win Bryan Robson at under 5 mil in center field should be looking pretty good to some people based on that last chart.

I should have gotten more for Jesus Flores than I did from Randy (a 2 win player making less than 5 mil), but he was the only person to express any interest in a shortstop and I wanted to make a move sooner rather than later.

[niles08]

This is great stuff and an excellent read.

[RonCo]

As a last note, 1.5-2.5 Win Bryan Robson at under 5 mil in center field should be looking pretty good to some people based on that last chart.

Well, yes, kind of.

Robson hasn't been a 2 win player for two seasons, and he's now getting past peak age. He's also turning into a walking injury. So there's that. There's also the fact that to get Robson as a trade, you have to give up something of value. If I personally put him on the block, I would not be expecting him to move.

I should have gotten more for Jesus Flores than I did from Randy (a 2 win player making less than 5 mil), but he was the only person to express any interest in a shortstop and I wanted to make a move sooner rather than later.

Same kind of thing here, though...except Flores is less risky, and the almost guaranteed bonus of $3M makes him an $8M player overall. Given that most teams in the league had Budgets at $120M or less, that can actually make a difference. So Flores's market was actually pretty small.

[RonCo]

Looking at Flores's particulars, there were only 8 or 9 teams in the league for whom he was a viable option (without making other changes). Most of those teams are already in the upper ranges of their payroll. So, that's probably the main reason you had limited interest expressed from other teams. Randy (at a high $80s payroll and $150M budget) and New Orleans were probably the only two teams in the league that had a risk profile that made any real sense to add Flores.

[RonCo]

I find it more interesting to see slow reactions of the league to 1-2 WAR min-salary players, who are almost literally worth their weight in gold in the right situations.

[RonCo]

Edited my post about Robson to say I would NOT be expecting him to move (I left that key word out!).

[sjshaw]

High quality content in this thread

[RonCo]

When you say...

... That won't work. Unless of course, as said many times before, you have a boatload of young cost controlled stars. Which, as I keep repeating, if you don't want to ever rebuild, you won't have.

I get it, but I think that's over-playing the hand a bit. I love your basic view of hording talent over the years. If you do that well, though (and especially if others don't!), you'll almost always have waves of these 1.5-2.5 WAR players at minimum salary to plug in wherever you don't have a superstar. So you never have to pay "market value" for these guys. In other words, if _everyone_ hordes well, there will no longer be much of a market for these 1.5-2 WAR veterans (sounds like MLB, eh?)?

Once you get to that stage of operation, if you don't have to pay real money for your 1.5-2,5 WAR guys, who do you spend that cash on?

[RonCo]

For example...it's probably not going to work out (because plans never do), but the YS9 operating plan has us winning 90+ (95!) games with a payroll of about $80M in 2041 and 2042. This assumes McNeill is still playing with us. If he crashes, we'll have about $55M hanging around to replace him with, or blow on the next Dan Cannon, or whatever. All while never drafting under #25 or whatever we drafted last year.

[Ted]

Edited my post about Robson to say I would NOT be expecting him to move (I left that key word out!).

Yeah, I just had a nice discussion with another GM about Robson that pointed out most of those things. I think my initial eval of Robson was similar to yours, except that I think I can move him. I probably have been expecting a bit much in return. I think not getting as much has I wanted for Flores has nudged me into wanting more for my other guys.

As for your comments in a later post about bring up 1.5-2.5 min salary gusy from the minors, I can manage about one player per season. Sometimes two, but say that's only every 3-4 years. And I think I develop pretty well, AND I don't trade prospects. I agree that's where your surplus value that lets you sign older guys to more expensive deals comes from, but I think too many teams in the league either A) trade these guys all the time or B) still spend too much on FAs and extensions to win consistently.

Another thing that gets left out is that every batter that leaves CAl will hit more. Period. Even the lefties. We're still a big time pitcher's park.

That's why I think guys like Flores and a non injury prone Robson would be so valuable. They are priced about where the bottom of where they could be for a non min contract guy that is useful.

The point you've hammered home is that the min salary 1.5-2.5 win guys are really worth their weight in gold.

[RonCo]

As for your comments in a later post about bring up 1.5-2.5 min salary gusy from the minors, I can manage about one player per season. Sometimes two, but say that's only every 3-4 years.

Part of the challenge with hording this way is dealing with staging. This is tied in to my view that (within reason) we in Yellow Springs draft to position rather than "best available athlete." Without doing the study itself, I'd say I yield 1-3 per year these days (less at the beginning, of course). If I average two per year, that means that in six seasons I've got 12 guys on my major league team who are on min-sal or arbitration controlled contracts. Maybe another six or so are extensions I've given (and _should_ be at market value or below). So there's your 18 key players.

Of course, the plan never really works out like you plan it...

I think too many teams in the league either A) trade these guys all the time or B) still spend too much on FAs and extensions to win consistently.

Perhaps that's true. But that only means that they are playing with a different strategy than us. Which, again, is fine.

Another thing that gets left out is that every batter that leaves CAl will hit more. Period. Even the lefties. We're still a big time pitcher's park.

One of the values of WAR is that (assuming you trust OOTP to do it right), the stat is ballpark adjusted.

That's why I think guys like Flores and a non injury prone Robson would be so valuable. They are priced about where the bottom of where they could be for a non min contract guy that is useful.

The other way of saying "a 2-win player is worth $5M per," is "if I give a guy $5M he has to get me two wins." I expect Flores will get Randy 2 wins (but, again, Flores is an $8M player...he needs to get me 3 wins in overall value, though that's a more complex conversation...that $3M bonus comes out of a different resource). I could well be wrong, but I would not bet a ham sandwich that Robson will get me 2 wins. So, for me personally (and me alone), if I needed a center fielder I'd figure your benefit was that you'd have $4.8M to spend somewhere else, and I'd take Robson on if you gave me something else along with him to account for the risk. But that's my view of things.

[RonCo]

Just because you made me interested...here's a screenshot of my 2039 YS9 master plan.

- Osaragi came as a trade from SFB
- Blues was bought from Des Moines
- Ginn came in a trade from Des Moines/Louisville
- Sullivan is a Free Agent acquisition in 2038 ($3.2M)
- Thum is a IFA who actually panned out

The other 22+ players are home grown (which I include a few guys we traded for in the minors and brought up through the ranks) without a top 20 pick in the last decade (McNeill was 2024, before my time).

[Ted]

Regarding your statement about Flores making more 8 mil, it's not really relevant to this discussion as we are talking about cap dollars, and he's only making 5 mil of those. Your point about the bonus money making it so only a limited number of teams can work in a player like that is however true.

Robson has been "wrecked" for three or four years. I'm not as concerned as you are, and I feel I'm fairly injury adverse. The idea of having to add to Robson to move him, I think is a bit overstated. If he was under contract longer, I'd agree. But he's only 4.3 mil for ages 28 and 29, and that's just not that risky.

[RonCo]

Note the guys in brown are all capable of stepping in right this minute and giving me replacement level kind of quality, or maybe a bit better (?) at minimum salary.

[RonCo]

Regarding your statement about Flores making more 8 mil, it's not really relevant to this discussion as we are talking about cap dollars, and he's only making 5 mil of those. Your point about the bonus money making it so only a limited number of teams can work in a player like that is however true.

Those conversations are connected. If your budget is under cap (which many bottom-dwelling teams are), then this is a hidden bomb. But, yes, that aspect of the conversation is more complex. If your budget is, say, $120M, then you still have to pay for your draft picks and staff and IFA and miscellaneous expenses out of that (plus your cash). So an extra $3M is a game theory problem that depends on other factors. If your budget is $150M, you don't really need to think about it a lot. (It's still a little risk, especially if you get three or four guys with that kind of bonus...but it's generally in the noise).

Robson has been "wrecked" for three or four years. I'm not as concerned as you are, and I feel I'm fairly injury adverse. The idea of having to add to Robson to move him, I think is a bit overstated. If he was under contract longer, I'd agree. But he's only 4.3 mil for ages 28 and 29, and that's just not that risky.

I'm only speaking for me...but, yes, this is public, so I understand how that plays. Sorry.

If I were running a team that needed a CF I'd not be worried about his "wrecked" status so much as the fact that he hasn't been able to stay on the field long enough to make 2 WAR for the last two seasons, and that he'll be 28 next year. I agree he's not a huge risk because you can generally eat a $5M loss. But like I said before, I'd say "I have $5M to invest in a guy. I want to optimize my chances of getting at least 2 WAR. Is Robson such a good bet that I'm willing to give away additional value to make it happen?" Different people will have different answers. Mine would be to find a $500K guy buried in my (or someone else's) minors if I couldn't find a FA at that level who I wouldn't need to give up value for.

[RonCo]

If I were running a team that needed a CF I'd not be worried about his "wrecked" status so much as the fact that he hasn't been able to stay on the field long enough to make 2 WAR for the last two seasons, and that he'll be 28 next year. I agree he's not a huge risk because you can generally eat a $5M loss. But like I said before, I'd say "I have $5M to invest in a guy. I want to optimize my chances of getting at least 2 WAR. Is Robson such a good bet that I'm willing to give away additional value to make it happen?" Different people will have different answers. Mine would be to find a $500K guy buried in my (or someone else's) minors if I couldn't find a FA at that level who I wouldn't need to give up value for.

Quoting myself here...

For me, this also gets into your conversation about hording. Why give up value from my horde to add a guy if I can add someone similar without giving up anything but future revenue?