Dodgers Overpay Ethier, But Will It Matter?
Late last night, word came down that the Dodgers had come to terms with Andre Ethier on a five year contract extension that will keep him out of the free agent pool this winter. The price for keeping him away from the market? $85 million guaranteed with a vesting sixth year option that could push it to $100 million total. There’s no two ways around it – this contract means that the Dodgers will be paying Ethier at a rate that he probably won’t be able to justify for very long.
If we assume that we’re going to see price inflation of 5% per win over the next few years, the Dodgers essentially just paid Ethier for something close to +15 wins from 2013 to 2017, or pretty close to exactly what he’s been worth in previous five year increments in his career.
2006-2010: +13 WAR
2007-2011: +13 WAR
2008-2012: +14 WAR (and counting – likely will end the year with +15 or +16)
There’s just one problem, of course – those five year windows covered Ethier’s 24-28, 25-29, and 26-30 timeframes, but this contract buys his age 31-35 seasons. If you have a guy who is worth about +15 WAR during his prime five years, he’s almost certainly not going to be worth +15 WAR during the first five years after he turns 30. The Dodgers essentially paid for in-his-prime Ethier and will be happy with the contract until age begins to catch up with him. Whether that happens in 2014 or 2016 remains to be seen, but it’s pretty likely that this contract is going to end with the Dodgers giving a significant amount of cash to a guy who isn’t playing well enough to justify the cost.
However, contracts should not be evaluated by how likely the player is to still be earning his keep at the end of the deal. This has become an en vogue criticism of recent long term deals – “I don’t want to pay Player X that much money when he’s 38, so this is a bad contract” – but it misses out on the fact that deals are intentionally structured to give value to teams up front and value to the player at the end. Everyone goes into the negotiations understanding that the player is looking for security (both financial and job related) at ages when he probably wouldn’t be able to command a large paycheck without the deal. Players use the leverage of their services when they’re still good to command contracts that pay them into years when they will not likely be as good. If you decide that you never want to sign a contract that has a good chance of ending with the player being overpaid, you’re just never going to sign a free agent. These deals are intentionally setup to be team friendly at the front – Ethier is clearly worth more $13.5 million for 2013 – and player friendly at the end.
So, we have to evaluate the deal as a whole, and from that standpoint, the deal is still an overpay, but probably not a significant enough one that it will cause serious harm to the Dodgers franchise. For instance, let’s take a look at the last time an aging good-but-not-great outfielder signed a similar contract to play in Los Angeles – Torii Hunter‘s five year, $90 million deal to join the Angels in 2008.
Hunter’s contract with the Angels started at age 32, so he was a year older than Ethier will be when his new contract takes effect. While they’re not exactly the same type of player, both were similarly valuable during their prime years, averaging about +3 wins per full season. Hunter, like Ethier was a productive player who became a bit overrated and got a contract that was a bit rich for what he was able to produce on the field. Over the last five years, Hunter has produced +14 WAR (and counting), so he’ll probably end up giving the Angels +15 or +16 WAR over the five years covered by the deal. However, because the price of a win was a bit lower in prior years, $90 million meant that the Angels probably needed +19 or +20 wins to justify their investment on the field. Even though he’s aged well, Hunter hasn’t played quite well enough to earn his contract.
But, here’s the rub – that overpay didn’t really hurt the Angels much at all. After they signed Hunter in 2008, they also found room in the budget for Juan Rivera, Brian Fuentes, and Darren Oliver. In 2009, they signed Bobby Abreu, Fernando Rodney, and Hideki Matsui. 2010 brought in Scott Downs, Joel Pineiro, and Hisanori Takahashi, plus absorbing nearly all of the remainder of Vernon Wells‘ contract. And then, this past winter, they splurged on Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson, while also signing LaTroy Hawkins. During this same time period, they also gave extensions to Jered Weaver, Howie Kendrick, Erick Aybar, Ervin Santana, Bobby Abreu, and Maicer Izturis.
The only notable players to leave the Angels for more money elsewhere during Hunter’s tenure were John Lackey and Chone Figgins, and in both cases, the team looks pretty astute for letting them walk. There just aren’t really examples of players that the team wanted to obtain or retain but were prevented from doing so because of the fact that they were overpaying Torii Hunter. They pursued Carl Crawford and Adrian Beltre, but in both cases, made offers below what Boston and Texas offered due to philosophical differences about value, not about financial ability to pay – the Vernon Wells acquisition clearly illustrates that they had the money to spend that winter, they just chose the wrong guy.
I’m not saying every big market team can sign whoever they want for whatever price they want and it doesn’t matter, because even teams with $200 million payrolls have constraints that they have to play within. But, in this case, Ethier is probably something like a $70 million player over the next five years, so the magnitude of the Dodgers overpay is in the $15 to $20 million range, or about $3 to $4 million per year. Perhaps losing that value will prevent the team from signing a mid-range setup guy that they would have liked to add to their bullpen, or they’ll have to save a bit of money on their bench to make up for it. Either way, this just isn’t the kind of overpay that is likely to have a big impact on the Dodgers future.
From an abstract point of view, Ethier’s not worth this contract, but when you consider the Dodgers specific financial position, the team’s attempts to rebuild credibility with an alienated fan base, and the fairly minor scope of the overpay, this just isn’t something that anyone should get all that worked up over. The Dodgers paid a nice player a little bit more than he’s worth in order to keep him, and the difference probably won’t have much of an impact on their ability to do anything else. It’s an overpay, but an irrelevant one that shouldn’t garner all that much criticism.
I am awesome!
I’m awesome, I’m drivin’ around in my mom’s ride
I’m awesome, a quarter of my life gone by
And I met all my friends online
I’m awesome, I will run away from a brawl
I’m awesome, there’s no voicemail, nobody called
I’m awesome, I can’t afford to buy eight-balls
And I talk to myself on my Facebook wall
The 10 players Andre Ethier is most similar to through age 29, according to Baseball Reference:
Dmitri Young, Richie Zisk, Rondell White, Jacque Jones, Aubrey Huff, Bobby Higginson, Corey Hart, Ellis Valentine, Jim Edmonds, and Tony Oliva.
Shouldn’t these guys should be informing our expectations for Ethier going forward more than Torii Hunter? I haven’t run the numbers, but something tells me if you did, we wouldn’t get a particularly rosy outlook…
Doesn’t mean the main point of your post is wrong, Dave; this deal may well impact the Dodgers future spending minimally. But I guess I’m just wondering why you settled on Torii Hunter and the Angels as the one, single comparison.
Did Richie Zisk suffer a career-ending injury or something? Looks like he was actually a fairly productive hitter, even through age 34, when he appeared to retire somewhat abruptly.
Similarity scores are useless.
Wouldn’t Bill James strongly beg to differ?
Seriously though– and correct me if I’m wrong, here– but don’t statistical player comparisons form the foundation of projecting future performance? Maybe you feel like PECOTA is no longer the standard bearer of projection systems, but isn’t the backbone of PECOTA comparing players with similar statistical profiles?
Bill James hasn’t used that specific similarity scores system in ages. The general concept of similarity scores is great, but that particular system is obviously outdated. So, no, Bill James wouldn’t beg to differ.
@Ferris– are you aware of an updated system that is available anywhere?
If that system is in fact dated, that’s one thing, but that doesn’t answer the question of why we should settle for cherry picking Torii Hunter’s career and calling it a day…
The idea of historical player comparisons is fine. The implementation of similarity scores is not fine.
And I wasn’t comparing Ethier to Hunter. I was using Hunter as an example of when an overpay isn’t really a practical hurdle, and why some of these deals don’t actually represent a significant opportunity cost to the franchise.
Sure, that’s why I was saying the main point of your article isn’t necessarily off the mark. In fact, I’d say I’m inclined to agree with it.
But of course, if Ethier doesn’t pan out as well as Hunter, who I think we agree really isn’t all that similar of a player, this will look like a pretty bad move in hindsight, even if it doesn’t hamper the Dodgers spending power.
Again though– the Angels are just one example. I mean, the Cubs are at least equals with the Dodgers in terms of financial flexibility, and look where overpaying for a bunch of guys got them.
Ethier is just one player, though, so on its own, his contract may not hamstring the Dodgers in the future. But considering who’s making the baseball decisions in LA, maybe we should take a wait and see approach…
@ J Nugent — PECOTA similarity rankings were completely different than the rudimentary sim scores on BB-Ref. BB-Ref just looks at basic surface statistics without any adjustment for position, era, league, etc. Although PECOTA has fallen down since the departure of Mr. Silver, the style of defining comparable players he created was much more robust, as it looked at position, physical attributes (size, weight, handedness), speed, etc. and adjusted the stats to account for the offensive environment.
“Similarity scores are useless,” but Dave Cameron’s one cherry-picked non-similar example is gold.
Similarity scores may not mean much, but neither do your hand-picked comparisons. Anyone recall Yonder Alonso = Wally Joyner prior to this season? Yonder currently sports a -0.4 WAR, has five more errors than homeruns at 1B, and leads MLB in negative BsR. All while ZIPS projects that his BABIP will be 20 points LOWER from here on out.
Of course similarity scores aren’t a great way to analyze something…but they’re a better starting point than most.
Cameron isn’t using Hunter as a means to project Ethier’s performance going forward. He’d already projected Ethier’s performance and is using Hunter as a guy who performed similar to that projection for a similar price (in the same market).
Simply looking at Hunter and saying “this is what Ethier is going to do” would be a bad idea as you guys note. But that’s not at all what Cameron did here.
I’d say Nate Silver’s PECOTA style modeling is working just fine over at ’538′ and the NY Times.
“the style of defining comparable players he created was much more robust, as it looked at position, physical attributes (size, weight, handedness), speed, etc. and adjusted the stats to account for the offensive environment.”
I read that as handsomeness the first time through.
He was using Art Howe’s scouting crew, ergo the ‘handsomeness parameter’.
What is Jim Edmonds doing in that list?
For what it’s worth, the 2012 ZiPs projections list Ethier’s three top comps as Lyle Overbay, Harold Baines, and Paul O’Neill.
But that’s under the section “Odds of Important Baseball Events”, so I’m pretty sure those aren’t meant to be taken as overall career comparisons.
I haven’t done any analysis to back this is up. But from my observation, the value per win has increased in cost over the last 2 years by a large margin. Or in particular, the cost per Free Agent win, which would be more accurate.
I don’t think the $5MM is an accurate number to use anymore.
Wait, so is the Ryan Howard contract only really bad now, not historically awful?
Or is it still historically awful?
According to the reasoning in this article, the Howard contract is good because the Phillies could afford it.
Reading comprehension is an important skill that students need to learn while in school. Sadly, it appears you did not.
in unrelated news Alex Anthopoulos just got a raise.
He does a great job finishing ahead of Baltimore every year.
Tremendous!
So if the Jays were in the AL central, and presumably leading, he would be valuable by your logic? #flawed
“So if the Jays were in the AL central, and presumably leading, he would be valuable by your logic? #flawed”
But that is your logic! Not mine!
Blue Jays fans on Fangraphs are like Yankees fans in real life.*
*not meant as a compliment
he’s good, but not good enough for a raise just yet.
On second thought, nah, he’s great.
I disagree.
I believe WAR slightly underrates Ethier.
I think he’s a little better defensively than all those – marks indicate.
That’s a fair argument to make – WAR *is* flawed, and the defensive component used therein is too – but what’s your argument based on? Another defensive metric? Eye test?
I think this is a sign that the Dodgers’ new owners aren’t going to be particularly worried about overpaying 3-4 mil per year. Ethier is probably going to be a complementary piece by 2014 anyway.
I think it’s mainly an expression of the property value at Chavez.
The key thing for dodger fans, the new owners aren’t waiting to see how much ethier can get on the open market then try and replace him cheaper. They made a 5 year commitment to an important piece of this team. For now and the future. I’d rather have ethier than Jason werth.
Dave, this analysis strikes me as at least somewhat similar to what we could say about Joe Mauer’s contract – with the notable (and important) exception that the Twins and Dodgers have completely different financial positions.
Perhaps similarly, Mauer will have a tough time “earning” every dollar of his deal (i.e. he may not prove to be worth it, per se), but for many of the reasons you stated here the deal still makes sense for the Twins. They retained a tremendous player by paying him like he’s even better than tremendous.
Would you agree?
Mauer was the face of the franchise at the time. Ethier’s not so adorable that he’s worth $15 mil. over 5 years as a public relations mascot.
LOL so the great douche cameron finally admits that not everythings about WAR and projected value. some teams just have more money and can afford to take a small hit. will he also admit the pujols contract isnt necessarily an albatross? not everyone is like the shitty ass m’s, some teams want to win and will spend money to do it
Thanks for another reference to how good AA was in unloading Vernon Wells. It’s no wonder the Blue Jays are already dominating the Red Sox and soon the Yankees. AA is just running laps around the competition right now.
Yup they’ll be dominating the AL East any day now. Any day now…
Ah, my adorable imposter. You really must have no life, but thanks for bringing light to my Jays!
Wow, now my imposter is attempting say I’m an imposter. New low, man.
Both of you need to quit trying to make me, the real everdiso, look like an idiot.
Everyone knows the real everdiso does not use a capital E. Seriously you people need to stop I’ve cultivated a reputation on this website and it’s highly upsetting to see people destroy it.
dude you shouldnt want the reputation you have
Probably too nerdy of a reference, but I feel like I’m in a Stargate SG-1 episode and I’m dealing with Bahl.
Ethier was injured for a good chunk of time during those periods of his early year “prime”. I think he is easily worth the deal, provided he can stay on the field.
But that’s exactly why it’s a bad deal. If a guy is constantly injured in his 20s, why would you expect him to stay fit and injury-free in his 30s?
The 2011 Knee injury is the only concerning spot, and I figure the Dodgers probably did their research on his knee(s) before offering the contract.
He broke his pinky finger in 2010 during BP.
Maybe I shouldn’t trust the Dodgers medical eval of him, but at least they’re not the Mets.
Gotta look at the difference between freak injuries and injuries that show someone is injury prone. Getting hit with a pitch on the pinky and breaking it isn’t something that anyone can withstand unless they have the same skeleton as Wolverine.
Not bad for a platoon hitter
I think you’re too smart for this ride sir.
“Ethier is clearly worth more $13.5 million for 2013″
According to fWAR, Ethier has been worth 13.5 million or more in exactly ONE season thus far.
fWAR isn’t without flaw.
Neither is Ethier “clearly” worth more than $13.5 million for 2013.
You’re forgetting the the value of a win has significantly increased.
I think a better way to phrase that would be that any team would be happy to pay Ethier 13.5 million next year. There are technically no guarantees anyone will be worth 13.5 million in 2013.
I think there are a few other factors that might make this a slightly worse deal than you indicate. There’s a relatively large number of outfielders available this winter, they’re already (deservedly) giving a ton of money to another outfielder, so they probably could have used a star-quality player in the infield more, and they should definitely have overpaid Kershaw before they overpaid Ethier.
Also, Ethier starts hot most years before tailing off. And, he’s an aging defender who was never very mobile, playing in a big outfield.
This deal makes the Orioles paying Jones 85 for a 6 prime years look a whole lot better, even with one of those years as an arbitration year.
As a Giants fan, I love to see the Dodgers make mistakes, though I fear that this $15-20M overpay (based on optimistic assumptions) is only the beginning of the Dodgers throwing around a lot of money that will inflate the market.
I totally disagree with Dave Cameron’s premise that relatively small overpays don’t hurt a team. One reasonably good middle reliever, utility infielder or backup catcher is still worth close to a win.
Overpays add up and shouldn’t be praised just because a team is rich enough to afford them.
As a RS fan, I can state categorically that our overpays have not hurt us.
You know, other than being in last place and stuff.
I don’t like the assumption that they could have had Ethier or an equivalent to Ethier plus a relief pitcher had they not overpaid. First, the idea that they actually did overpay is quite a bit abstract, since every single player is a unique commodity. This site’s, and Mr. Cameron’s, assertion that value is absolutely determined by fWAR is a massive oversimplification and does not describe reality. Second, players are not made in factories. You can’t just pick a model off the shelf: “I’ll have the 5 WAR model please!” Who is to say their was another option available to the Dodgers so that they could get the same outfielder plus a reliever?
Pretty sure you misread/misinterpreted Dave’s comments on value.
But this team is ballin now, it aint no thang!! Plus if Sabean can win one then anyone can.
Agreed, anything that makes those hated Dodgers bleed is good. Go Giants!
5 straight years of decing BB/K ratio usually spells doom. 59/19 K/W is pretty poor. 1 K/GS without true power.
I think this will be a bad contract in year 1.
Leads the league in ribbies, anti Dodger fan!
Well, at first glance, this appears to be a significant overpay, but the key here, in my opinion, is that the timing couldn’t have been more perfect for Mr. Ethier and his agent. Here is a timeline that demonstrates how we got to this point, in my view:
1) Storied franchise
2) Mediocrity, mismanagement, bad ownership for the past few years = bad P.R.
3) Bad P.R. = alienated fan base
4) Through it all, Andre Ethier is a pro, a good ballplayer (although far from great)
5) Alienated fan bases tend to not give management the benefit of the doubt
6) Thus, if management were to let Ethier walk, management risks further alienating the fan base
7) New ownership group comes along, is extremely concerned about that alienated fan base
8) New ownership is also presumably thrilled that the team is playing winning baseball and cannot be expected to make the most rational decisions in the world
9) Winning baseball = less alienated fan base
10) Andre Ethier happens to be leading the league in one of its more meaningless statistics (RBI)
Thus, we have the perfect storm for Ethier and his agent, and the result is one whopper of a contract. Good for Ethier and his family.
Having said all of that, one thing that we don’t contemplate here is the value of good P.R. That is, if we could quantify the value of what an Andre Ethier “means” to this fan base and to this franchise, from a symbolic/emotional/irrational standpoint, would that impact our analysis here? Obviously it would. And isn’t there some value in having a hard-working Paul O’Neill-caliber player on your roster for 10+ years? Yes, of course. And, if it were possible to quantify these sorts of things, then maybe this Ethier extension seems pretty reasonable.
In all fairness towards the owners, at least they wrapped up Andre Ethier for a long-term contract instead of James Loney.
I imagine the price for Carlos Quentin just went up…
This is more of a gripe against the commenters – I tend to agree with this article’s outlook. That said:
Why doesn’t anyone talk about the cash value of getting to keep an Ethier banner hanging outside Dodger stadium? Of selling all those fly Ethier jerseys? He’s beloved (for some legitimate, and some less legitimate reasons) by the fanbase. There’s value in that.
I’m not one who believes that wins directly translate into money. They help, but so do merchandise and having a player to cheer for even when your team is losing. Assuming arguendo that this is an overpay by exactly how much the author says, why is that difference not made up by the cash value of having a likeable guy with a nice smile out there marketing the team?
But so what if the fans somehow think Ethier is a great baseball player? Fans are irrational and fickle. Consider this. Dodgers fans hate Billingsley. They would spit in his face if they saw him on the streets, and not a day goes by without some fan calling Billingsley a scrub. Dodgers fans love Loney. They think he has a beautiful swing and that the next year he’ll turn it around and hit 50 HRs. That’s your typical Dodgers fan, and you don’t listen to him when you make front office decisions.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair. As a Dodgers fan and avid FanGraphs, BP and saber blog reader, I think there are plenty of Dodgers fans that think like I (and others) do. I don’t know if the percentage is any higher or lower than other fan bases, but it’s certainly not zero. Fans are pretty irrational anywhere you go, I mean look at the All Star voting, Derek Jeter wins every year and every Cardinals player is in the top 5 at their position even if they’re injured for most of the season.
Anyway, with regards to this contract, it seems like a reasonable overpay. By that I mean, if we look at contracts in a vacuum, sure it’s an overpay. But we don’t live in a vacuum and MLB certainly doesn’t operate in one. Free agency has become a joke and almost every major contract will wind up being player friendly by the end of the deal. Ethier isn’t a superstar, and frustrates me to no end with his inability to take low breaking balls, but if this is a marginally player friendly deal over the course of the contract, I’ll take that over wildly overpaying Prince Fielder or Joey Votto or Joe Mauer or Albert Pujols.
Point being, while it’s not a great deal for the Dodgers, it’s also not something that should be cause for major concern (catastrophic injury aside).
One other thing, I don’t think even the traditional Dodgers fans love Loney. I’ve never heard anybody say anything remarkably positive about him, it’s usually skepticism that he’ll ever be a decent hitter. I can see it now, Ned Colletti smiling that creepy old-school baseball guy smile holding up a Dodgers Napoli jersey as Mike signs a 6 year $130 million contract.
As a Dodger fan as well, I also think the Ethier contract is a reasonably overpay. I do think he is a little overrated, but he’s still a pretty good player. We also must take into account that he is absolutely beloved by Dodger fans (in my experience at least) and was basically the face of the Dodgers franchise after Manny’s fall from grace. Considering that the team is owned by much wealthier management where money is deemed to be much less of an object, I believe that letting Andre walk would have been a PR disaster.
I’m actually surprised the contract wasn’t BIGGER, since it certainly seemed like Ethier had tons of leverage here for the above reasons.
You may have missed my point.
When people do these calculations, it is based on the notion that a win has a dollar amount. That’s true, but what I’m suggesting is that selling jerseys also has a dollar amount. And that big name players who are past their prime bring fans to the park, which has a dollar amount.
Ethier, to the Dodger organization, is not just worth the number of wins he creates. He’s worth every penny that he brings into the organization, however you value it. So, when he’s standing around before a game looking pretty and autographing balls, maybe some fans are going to remember that more than they’re going to remember his OBP. And maybe those fans will come back and buy hotdogs even if ‘Dre leaves men on base.
The point is, the management of a baseball team is clearly doing a much more complex calculation about a players worth than simply calculating how good at baseball they are. And they’re right to do it. Albert Pujols eight years from now will still sell more tickets than the no-name player with the same WAR.
Owning a baseball team is a business, and there’s more to that business than winning, whether you like it or not.
@Foils – no, I understood you the first time. It’s the old, player X brings fans to the game argument. Given the irrational and fickle nature of fans, I think it’s an awful idea to bet $85 mil. on the premise that Ethier will somehow bring, say, $30 mil. worth of extra revenue than B.J. Upton. In any case, maybe that’s an argument you make for franchise guys like Mauer or Zimmerman, but not for a 2.5 WAR player who’s also kind of a douche.
@your reply
The fact that you cite BJ Upton as the alternative still suggests that you are missing my point, somewhat (which can only be my fault at this point — genuinely not facetious). BJ Upton is a name. That you know. There’s money in that.
All signings for name players are going to involve this sort of overpayment. That’s the new market. The only way to avoid this overpayment is to roll out a new batch of youngsters every couple of years who provide the same (or better) WAR than Ethier for cheaper and ship them out once they reach free agency and demand their payday.
So, the choice is between “over”paying for a name (which pays dividends in jersey sales, IMO) or paying the right amount for no-name players (who may or may not bring in as much revenue as their WAR suggests).
When you run the numbers, the extra jersey’s with Ethier’s name don’t add up to whole lot. The revenue sharing that comes with jerseys/hats, etc makes this a less than compelling reason to overpay.
Loney is horrible, Billingsley is pretty good, and jersey sales are shared by all teams in baseball. It doesn’t matter how many Ethier jerseys sell it all goes in one pot.
Merchandise revenue is shared equally among MLB teams.
Merchandise is just short hand for all of the off-field (i.e., non–winning related) ways in which big name stars generate revenue for a team.
Names bring revenue in more ways than just wins. And I think that revenue keeps rolling well into the latter years of a name player’s decline. That’s my thesis and I’m sticking to it.
Your thesis has been disproven by so much research. Wins bring people into the ballpark. Everything else is so minor in comparison.
What Richie said above is correct, wins bring fans to Dodger games not Andre Ethier. If they’re winning maybe you can make an argument that he makes the fans shout more, burn calories, and then want a water and nachos or something. Last year when the Dodgers were out of the playoff hunt, tickets were for sale on stubhub.com for $0.50, in late August…… Winning is what sells, not EthierMania.
@Foils, let’s agree to disagree about Ethier’s marketing premium. I personally hold that the fans will forget Ethier in like two seconds if he’s let go. We are not talking about Kemp or Kershaw. I think any reasonable replacement for Ethier will slide into Ethier-role as the guy who’s not as good as Kemp but still good.
That’s a point I can definitely agree to disagree on, because it’s obviously pretty subjective. And I’m a Dodger fan who always hated, e.g., Russell Martin, so I can admit to not necessarily being representative of your average Dodger fan. Only time will tell if (a) Ethier ends up sucking and (b) if Dodger fans turn against him for it.
Shouldn’t comparison to replacement level be a little more nuanced? For example, a team with a stud waiting in AAA would be more likely to let your everyday 3-WAR player go, because the replacement level is higher than 0. If rather, you have no notable OF prospects and the free agent pool looks thin, might your true marginal WAR increase be 3 (if we assume Ethier gets 3 WAR every year), which might be deemed a rarity in the market and something worth overpaying for?
Now, I have no clue about the Dodgers organization, their OF prospects, etc. This is just a speculative thought I had while reading.
Also, this. When the alternative is losing Ethier to the free agency market and letting Castellanos start in RF, this seems like a steal (since I think it’s going to take some time, if ever, for Castellanos or whatever other OF prospect to reach replacement level).
The alternative would’ve been signing any one of however many corner outfielders go onto the market this winter. Or just giving a shot to a guy like Reddick or Joyce who’s blocked on his current club. Who may then play well or not so well, but will do so for some $14 mill less than Ethier for next season, never mind the outlay after that.
Andre Ethier has had ONE (1) season above 3 WAR…. but for the purposes of cherrypicking a comparable for to prop up Dave’s conclusion… let’s just say he’s an “average” 3 WAR player in his prime.
Torri Hunter prior to his contract had two seasons BELOW 3WAR (or 3 if you include his rookie year) and five seasons above 3WAR…. so sure pretty much the “same” as Ethier for comparison purposes.
Dave may not have directly compared Ethier and Hunter, but he did reference Hunter as an example of a player who–according to fWAR, anyways– was slightly overpaid, which was a necessary premise of his argument that Ethier’s deal might not kill the Dodgers in the long term. The problem is, especially if his vesting option kicks in, Ethier might end up being *severely* overpaid, which is why not everyone will agree with Dave’s argument.
Regardless, the cherry-picking of examples to support a predetermined argument are getting really old in Dave’s writing.
And that said on Pence— he is a year younger and has more career fWAR at a better rate and has been more durable. If Ethier is worth 5/$85M, then Pence is probably worth 6/$120M…
…or never mind, since Tori Hunter and Hunter Pence are [obviously] different people :)
You forgot one key piece to your Angels comparison…. Mark Teixeira. And YES, the Angels wanted to resign him and YES, they did not have enough money. Hence the Arte Moreno v. Scott Boras feud begins.
It’s a bad signing by an inexperienced management team looking to bask in tomorrow morning’s sports headlines. Especially this early in the year. Ethier would certainly have signed this contract come Labor Day, and been just as overjoyed with it. The Dodgers just took on 3 extra months of risk in return for absolute squat. To finalize a contract that’s somewhere between mediocre and just plain bad.
The only comments I read are the ones with negatives or positives.
Age is only the second biggest problem with this contract. The biggest problem is that they are locking in “market rate” for expected marginal wins over a five-year period.
Regarding merchandise sales, I remember reading somewhere that teams gets to keep a larger portion of merchandise sales made within the ballpark. That would seem to support the idea of Ethier bring more revenue to the outside of wins if that is the case.
The one aspect I don’t feel is discussed enough in these type of situations is the “replacement player” idea. Not as in the idea of what a replacement player means sabermetrically, we all know that – but as in, who would play for the Dodgers in place of Ethier, and who would they spend that money on if not him?
I believe Dave did touch on this point in the Votto contract article – it’s getting harder and harder to buy talent on the open market. Teams are locking up their guys sooner than ever, and they’re harder than ever to acquire. So maybe Ethier isn’t fantastic. But he is a middle of the order quality hitter. Can they *definitely* just go sign someone else to replace him in FA? Will Pence or whoever definitely come to LA?
Other avenues are farm system and trading (which is connected, bc you usually trade your MiLB players to improve the big league club). Dodgers don’t look so hot in any of these areas. So their options are either (a) bite the bullet, overpay, and at least have a good player, or (b) take the “rationa” view, let him go, and roll the dice and maybe lose out altogether.
I’m not saying this is the best way to analyze, or that I definitely agree with it, but it’s a point worth being made IMO.