2010 Negative Trade Value: #10 – #6
By popular demand, here’s a follow-up to the Trade Value series – the guys on the other end of the spectrum. These guys have contracts that far outstrip their actual value, and if their current organizations wanted to ship them out, they would have to pick up a significant portion of the money they’re still owed in order to facilitate a trade. They are liabilities, not assets. We’ll do the bottom five today and then the top five later this afternoon. The higher up the list a player is, the more money his franchise would have to eat in order to get rid of him.
#10 – Aaron Rowand, CF, San Francisco
Remaining commitments (2011 and beyond): 2 years, $24 million
A colossal bust since joining the Giants in 2008, Rowand’s numbers have gotten even worse this year. He has been relegated to a part-time role, and yet the Giants still owe him $12 million per year for his age 33 and 34 seasons. The Giants would have to eat at least $15 million to move him and probably a bit more than that, though he may yet have something left to offer – the only real difference between his performance this year and the last two is his BABIP. He wouldn’t be the worst change of scenery candidate ever.
#9 – Carlos Zambrano, SP, Chicago
Remaining commitments: 2 years, $36 million
Big Z can still pitch. His 4.25 xFIP is almost exactly the same as it was last year. His ability to get people out hasn’t disappeared forever, but you’re still not going to get many people lining up to pay $18 million per year to a borderline crazy guy for the next two years. Even if he was a rational human being, he wouldn’t be worth his contract – toss in his well documented emotional breakdowns, and Zambrano is a guy that would be hard to give away. I’d imagine the Cubs will find a suitor for him, but they’re going to have to pick up most of that contract in order to make a deal happen.
#8 – Todd Helton, 1B, Colorado
Remaining Commitment: 3 years, $29 million
After re-working his deal this spring, Helton’s contract is a little bit strange. The Rockies were able to get him to defer money at a 3.5% interest rate for a few years to help them put a winner on the field this year, but it came at the cost of extending him through 2013, when he’ll be 39. Given the way he’s gone into the tank this year, you’d think Colorado would like to have a mulligan on that extension. He was a good player last year, so maybe he’ll find his power again and bounce back, but I don’t see any teams going for that experiment.
#7 – Travis Hafner, DH, Cleveland
Remaining Commitment: 2 years, $29 million
Once one of the game’s premier first baseman, Hafner is now a mediocre DH. He still has a decent approach at the plate, but his power is mostly gone, and injuries have taken a toll on his body. He’s not a bad hitter, but he’s not appreciably better than what most teams could get from picking through the scraps at Triple-A, where at least they might find a guy with some upside. Hafner comes with none, but he does carry a nearly $15 million per year salary for the next two years.
#6 – Carlos Lee, OF, Houston
Remaining Commitment: 2 years, $37 million
Like Rowand, Lee isn’t as bad as his numbers suggest, as he’s being done in by a low BABIP. But you don’t exactly expect a 34-year-old, “big boned” guy to leg out many infield hits, and both his LD% and HR/FB% suggest he’s just not hitting the ball as hard as he used to. Given that he’s a bad defender, there’s not much left to like if the thump is gone for good. Hard to see any team paying more than a fraction of the $18.5 million per year he’s due over the next two years.
0
Top 5: Vernon Wells, Alfonso Soriano, Barry Zito… Derek Lowe… Kei Igawa… Fukudome?
There’s no way that #1 isn’t Ryan Howard.
Not sure I would put Derek Lowe up there in the top five. He does have 2/30 still coming to him but he posted a 4.19 xFIP last year and a 4.07 xFIP this year. He doesn’t have any of the emotional issues of Zambrano and always takes the ball every fifth day and gives you tons of quality innings.
So he makes less than Z, has better numbers, is a better teammate/person, and is healthier but he has less value?
Well, Lowe did have that domestic violence charge (and restraining order, which he violated) in Seattle. He’s no Zambrano perhaps in the nutso department, but not a totally clean slate.
Kei Igawa is owed less than $6M going forward. terrible signing, but not enough money left to be on the list.
A-Rod should be #1. Howard, Soriano, Wells, Zito.
Those are my guesses.
If Zambrano is #9, no way Lowe is in the top 5.
Fukudome only has 1 year left on his contract. I am going to guess Vernon Wells, Soriano, Zito, Howard, and Gary Mattews Jr.
Li’l Sarge would only come with the cost of a minimum contract, befitting the replacement player he is. The Angels already bit the bullet on the rest of what was owed to him.
Yep I just read that, I had no idea they paid all of his contract except 2 million, lol. Okay I take off the Sarge, it must be A Rod.
By the way, I am betting 7-1 that Zambrano gets traded for 1 of the other 4 guys on this list. I dont know if Helton is top 10, for 10 million a year for a guy who was the heart and soul of your club. Hopefully the Rockies and Cubs can work that out.
oompaloompa,
The whole heart and soul thing kind of seems to fly in the face of the “trade value” aspect of this exercise. Being the heart and soul of your team doesn’t exactly make you more desirable elsewhere. That would be like saying “Jeter’s Yankee great status gives him extra trade value.”
If you don’t know that Ryan Howard is #1 then you’ve never read Fangraphs before.
Eh, I’d probably put ARod #1.
Howard brings in the fans. In an analysis that counts Z’s crazy, filling the seats should count as well.
Ditto for A-Rod, but not to the same extent. I think he’s hated more than loved.
Winning brings in the fans. Show me any evidence whatsoever that Ryan Howard, or any other individual player, has a meaningful impact on revenues for his team.
Ripken and Ryan, towards the end of their careers, certainly impacted ticket sales more than they could positively impact their teams’ chance of winning.
I figured you wouldn’t go back to read how i defended myself with the “trade buchholz for dominic brown” situation b/c it hasnt been commented on in 2 days so i copied and pasted.
in response to you saying they wouldnt trade brown as part of a package for halladay so they wouldn’t do it straight up for buchholz (this is a one for one, not a trade that includes other valuable players on top of brown) and that buchholz hasn’t done anything this year and last year to prove he’s worth being in the top 50 valuable assets.
You can’t comparewhether they would INCLUDE him in a trade for Halladay to whether they would trade Brown straight for Buchholz. He has this year shown that he has the ability to pitch well and do it for a competing team and to do it when the team needs it the most.
He’s not an ace yet; but he’s on his way in my opinion to being a great starting pitcher.
This year he has the following starts:
IP ER
5 0
6.2 3
8 1
6.1 1
8 2
6 1
7 0
9 0
7 3
5.2 3
6.2 0
12 out of 16 (75%) of his starts this year have been quality starts
before a completely freak injury running the bases in an interleage game he was in the midst of a streak where he had given up 10 ER is his last 57IP (an ERA of 1.62 in 9 starts) against opponents that included DET, TB, MIN, and the Dodgers.
last year he had the following starts:
IP ER
5.2 2
6 2
7 1
6 1
8.1 1
6 3
7 0
7 1
6 1
6.2 0
11 of his 16 starts were quality starts (70%)
you can throw out FIP and xFIP; those are fair stats, but i think you can agree that so are the ones i have listed above.
If i were a GM and someone was offering me a pitcher who has put up those numbers, has a no hitter and dates some of the hottest chicks out there (just kidding); for a guy that has a lot of potential but hasn’t had a taste of the big leagues yet. I might jsut have to say yes.
I don’t think everybody is going to agree with me; but it’s not like i’m being ridiculous here. Buchholz is a solid solid pitcher. Throw him in the NL where you face 4 hitters less per game and weaker opponents all together; and you have yourself quite a rotation in
Halladay
Hamels
Buchholz
Happ
Blanton
by far the best in their division.
I’m pretty sure almost no one here would agree that ERA and Quality Starts are better stats than FIP and xFIP. Hope that helps!
But the “Z’s Crazy” factor in this analysis factors in to his performance. If he gets unlucky in an inning – BABIP, whatever – when he’s pitching OK, he’ll blow up, smash stuff, and get tossed.
That DOES factor in to his performance and trade value.
RE: Helton and putting butts in the seats… Sure, but he’s the heart and soul of the Rockies. He can’t suddenly be anyone else’s heart and soul.
You could reasonably argue that Ichiro and Dice-K bring in extra revenue.
Ichiro maybe, but I doubt Dice-K brings in very much additional revenue. Ichiro because he might drive some additional ticket sales. I don’t see Dice-K doing that. In fact, I get the impression he’s kindof disliked by Boston fans.
There might be some additional $$ from ballpark signage, but I don’t think Fenway has a ton of Japanese signage.
All of the overseas revenue is split 30 ways.
B asked for evidence that an individual player makes a substantial revenue impact for the team. I agree with another earlier poster that Ichiro in Seattle is a great example, perhaps better than my idea: Pablo Sandoval or Tim Lincecum. Without these two, the Giants attendance the past two years would have plummeted (along with the team’s record); just look around the stands at a Giants homegame and count the Panda Hats–those stupid gimmicks aren’t free. I’d guess (expect, really) that Sandoval’s revenue value to the team far exceeds his salary; when we calculate WAR and convert it to FA $ value, as the $/win ratio changes annually based on the actual market transactions, then isn’t that somewhat reflective of a player’s prospective revenue value in the view of the club signing the player? Surely, Scott Boras would argue til we’re all asleep or dead that signing one of his ‘premier’ FA definitely adds revenue to a club. He may be a pompous windbag, but the guy in indisputably an expert in his field and has tons of research backing him up.
I suppose I’ll eagerly await part 2 where I discover for the 800th time that Soriano, Wells, Zito, and Ryan Howard have negative trade value
Or…you could not read it and/or comment on it, if it bothers you so much. Sucks being forced to read stuff.
typical response, but come on, am i wrong? I’d rather Dave spent his time on another great article that i’ve come to expect from him!
You might, but read the first 3 words of the post. Dave wrote the article b/c people here asked for it.
fair enough i guess, mind boggling though
What about Oliver Perez? $18 million over the next 2 years for a guy that only comes in as a last resort or in a blowout and won’t accept a minor league assignment.
Ollie has to be top 3. Luis Castillo and Kerry Wood are on the final year so they probably won’t make it.
Jose Guillen perhaps top 5?
No way is Ollie top 3. It’s a waste, but it’s a short-term waste. Look at the sheer amount of money and time committed to ARod, Howard, Zito, Soriano, and Wells. Each one of them is owed at least $50 million more than Perez.
Guillen’s in final year of his contract… probably not top 5.
Dave is looking at contract commitments from 2011 and beyond; in Ollie’s case, that would be 1 year and $12M.
I mean its still terrible, but I can’t imagine him cracking this list due to the contract ending after next season. Same for Luis Castillo (actually Luis is only being paid to be about ~1.5 WAR player, so his contract isn’t really as bad as its made out to be).
I assume Alex Rodriguez will make the list as well and will probably be #1. Who wants a 34 (35 in 5 days) year old 3B with a bad hip that is declining pretty steeply already. Not to mention that he is owed ~$190M through 2017 with up to $30M more in incentives. I can count 0 other teams that can afford that contract even if ARod were still winning MVPs, but now that he is just a very good player and heading into his late 30′s I would probably rather have any other contract in baseball than his.
Agreed, A-Rod has to be in there. No team in baseball would possibly agree to take on a contract that will pay $90-$100 million (depending on incentives) to a player for his age 38-41 seasons. It’s gotta be Wells, Zito, Soriano, Howard, A-Rod. And I think you could make a pretty solid case for any order among those 5.
A-Rod and Howard are worse than the rest. They’re the best two players (probably), but Howard is owed at least $155M and A-Rod at least $174M. The other three are in the $70-90M range with deals that end 3 years sooner.
Even #s 3,4, and 5 could be displaced by an early downturn or a career altering knee injury to guys like Sabathia or Holliday or Tex, but the A-Rod and Howard deals are insane.
Carlos Guillen?
Locked up this year and next, not much of a hitter anymore, constantly broken down, zero defensive value, still owed around 13 mil for 2011.
Also known as the 2010 Chicago Cubs roster.
It would be hilarious for an entire team to be #1.
Gil Meche?
owed his remaining salary for 2010 (around $6million) and another $12 million for 2011
Not to quibble, but Travis Hafner as one of the game’s premier 1B? He’s never played more than ~40 games at 1B in his career, and pretty much has always been a DH. Would be more accurate to say he was once one of the game’s best DHs and is now a mediocre DH.
It’s enough to qualify you for a Gold Glove!
The problem with tying the win value and market value of a player is the assumption that baseball markets are rational, which (even more than other markets) they aren’t. Helton’s win value may not be worth the 10 million a year he makes, but he likely contributes more than 10 million a year in revenue to the Rockies. The same goes for Howard–the revenue these players bring in tied to ticket sales, merchandise, and other promotions are likely key revenue sources that allow for the signing of other players. Chase Utley is better than Howard, but Howard likely makes more money for the Phillies. A smart front office needs to consider the potential revenue brought in by a player, which is more tied to their ‘perceived talent’ or ‘marketable skills’ (HR’s are loved by the average fan, as are fast fastballs, high batting averages, and stolen bases), along with their ‘true talent.’
I think the majority of the baseball market is rational. They understand the concepts Fangraphs talks about. As for the revenue part, I really, really, really don’t buy it. I’ve seen lots of evidence to suggest individual players simply are not significant drivers of revenue, and none to contradict that. If you have some, I’d love to see it. In addition to that, just logically – things like merchandise revenues are shared revenues, so the team doesn’t even benefit from that. Ultimately, winning is THE primary driver of attendance/revenue…
When you divide salaries by win value and get an average salary per win value, then claim that because players salaries are correlated to their win value, and therefore baseball markets are rational, I think that there may be a flaw in the reasoning.
Also the Mets and the Rays would like to argue the primary driver of attendance/revenue. Also the Nationals brought more in by revenue than the Rockies. Also the Astros brought in more than the Rangers.
I think the market is rational because what most teams do tends to agree with a lot of the principles used on websites like this, ones that have been shown to be good measures of what makes a team win.
“Also the Mets and the Rays would like to argue the primary driver of attendance/revenue. Also the Nationals brought more in by revenue than the Rockies. Also the Astros brought in more than the Rangers.”
What are you getting at? That different teams play in different markets? Yeah, we know that. I don’t see the relevance of it, seeing as how a team is basically stuck in their own market.
Strasburg?
The point being first you said winning is the primary driver of attendance/revenue now you say attendance/revenue is largely a result of the market teams play in. Please make up your mind.
You are also assuming that if teams are rational (which again is arguable), then the baseball market is rational. This assumes that fans are rational and understand which players are valuable and care the most about them. Yet most people aren’t rational. Wins are obviously huge for fans as well, that goes without saying, but people get excited when players hit homeruns, steal bases, and hit 100mph. And merchandise does effect the bottom line of team. Why do you think that teams are so aggressive in selling stuff in their stadiums?
Old Cal Ripken. Old Nolan Ryan.
Fill seats. Baseball fail.
BTW, is there data showing that winning correlates with attendance? Seems to me that marketing, tradition, population and stadium drive attendance and revenue far more than “winning”.
I could imagine that $5mil spent on a citywide marketing campaign or improved urban transport to a stadium might sell more seats than a 1WAR player.
To your comment looking for proof winning correlates to ticket sales… look at the Chicago White Sox. They are a prefect example of a team where the fans come out when they win, and they stay home when they lose. Same can be said for Tampa Bay. That place was empty until 2008. There are definately some teams that will draw regardless but especially in todays economy, winning drives ticket sales in baseball. Even the Cubs are showing concern that the empty paid seats showing up now will turn into empty unpaid seats next year.
@Dave: The plural of anecdote is not data. For every White Sox team, there’re are 2 teams from Florida where attendance has nothing to do with wins, and a team in Boston where attendance has nothing to do with losses.
“Old Cal Ripken. Old Nolan Ryan.”
Ryan was still a really good pitcher through his age 45 season. I’ll admit I don’t know how much he was being paid, so maybe he was overpaid anyway.
“The point being first you said winning is the primary driver of attendance/revenue now you say attendance/revenue is largely a result of the market teams play in. Please make up your mind.”
I have a very clear and consistent thought process on this subject. Maybe I just have not done a good job of expressing myself. A team has a given fanbase, which is a product of the market. That market isn’t changing, so it’s a constant. Now you have variables a team CAN control – things like winning, marketing, signing certain players, spending some amount of money, etc. Those are what we care about. Essentially you get the following equation:
$ = C + x1*winning + x2*payroll + x3*”face of the franchise” + x4….
Where C is the constant (which the market they play in is included in ), and the x1, x2, x3, etc represents how much each of the variable being multiplied matters. Turns out, winning is far and away the biggest “X” variable – the biggest thing a team can control to affect its revenues/attendance. A new stadium is also a huge variable, but that’s a one time thing and the effect goes down over time. Things like star power don’t end up being all that important. It’s about winning. I hope that clarifies what I’m saying – that we only need to worry about the stuff a team is in control of, even though there are obviously a number of other factors included in the “constant” that affect revenue/attendance.
“And merchandise does effect the bottom line of team. Why do you think that teams are so aggressive in selling stuff in their stadiums?”
Ha, funny you should bring that up. I’m almost certain the way it works in MLB is that all merchandise revenue is shared, with the exception of what a team sells within its stadium. All stadium sales go directly to the team. So that would make sense. Now the relevant questions would be – how large (or small) is that revenue, and does a player actually contribute to increasing sales (like when Howard sells a jersey in the stadium, it seems likely to me the person was going to buy a jersey no matter what, since what else would compel a person to pay stadium prices for it other than they want something now, and they just happen to choose Howard for some reason)?
“You are also assuming that if teams are rational (which again is arguable), then the baseball market is rational. This assumes that fans are rational and understand which players are valuable and care the most about them. Yet most people aren’t rational. Wins are obviously huge for fans as well, that goes without saying, but people get excited when players hit homeruns, steal bases, and hit 100mph.”
Well, in terms of teams being rational, I mean they focus on the things that will be help them wni games. Since I’ve seen much of the research done on statistics by fans who know what they’re talking about, I feel confident that, if what teams are doing matches up well with what we know to win games, than they ARE doing their best to win. That said, if you want to argue there are some inefficiencies that indicate they could do better, I’m sure you could find some legitimate arguments. After all, Ed Wade still has a job.
In terms of fans being rational, of course we aren’t rational, but the research does suggest what we react to is how well our team is playing, not only this year, but last year, as well (since season ticket holders make their commitment after the past season ended). It suggests the rest of the things aren’t things we necessarily show up for in a signfiicant way, even if they are things we want to see. I’ve linked to a couple of samples of the many, many pieces I’ve come across that support this elsewhere. I’m open to links contradicting it, if anyone has any (which I’m skeptical anyone will). Hope you find those links wherever they are in this thread, mettle!
“There are definately some teams that will draw regardless but especially in todays economy, winning drives ticket sales in baseball.”
And the relevant point is that the teams that draw regardless will see increases in ticket demand when they’re winning, and decreases when they aren’t winning. They’ll still have a huge fanbase and draw lots of fans regardless, but what we care about is how demand changes, not the total level of demand.
B,
The links are good, but none of them comes close to showing causation, just correlation.
So, you could easily say that all these data show that teams with high attendance produce winning records as opposed to what you want to show, which is that teams with winning records produce high attendance.
The former is certainly a reasonable conclusion.
I don’t know the stats of how to do it, precisely, but something like Granger causality, which is really controversial anyway, is the only way to try to show that that I’m aware of.
Pretty sure at least a couple of my links have controlled for attendance/market size/payroll, if that’s your biggest concern. I saw at least one of them, while I was skimming, directly address the “attendance causes winning v winning cause attendance” causation issue.
You know what fans love more than the long ball, fast fastballs, high batting averages and stolen bases, though? Winning. Nothing makes a team more money than winning.
Nothing besides owning their own cable network, that is…
and yet: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/33/baseball-valuations-10_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html
Somehow the Mets are second in revenue and the Rays are 28th.
Nothing makes a team more money than winning.*
* – If you are winning in a big market.
Yes, they operate in different markets. So, you control for the market they’re in (since a team is stuck in its market), and when you do that, turns out, it really comes down to winning.
B – is that actually true? Haven’t seen that data…
http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/03/what_puts_fans.php
http://umresearchboard.org/resources/davis/Baseball_Attendance_Winning.pdf
I’ve seen LOTS of research on the subject, and it all concludes winning is a huge factor. A lot of it is a lag factor, too – how you do in season N-1 has a large effect on attendance in season N (which makes sense, as season ticket holders have to decide to renew or not for season N based on season N-1 and previous seasons). I think the data strongly supports the notion that winning is, far and away, the biggest factor (you could put a new ballpark in there, too, but I’d exclude it simply because that’s a once in a 30-40+ years event). Even beyond baseball, it seems to hold true through other sports, too.
On the other hand, something like star appeal really doesn’t seem to hold any significant amount of effect, it seems, at least based on all the data I’ve looked at. This might not hold true as much in other sports (specifically, basketball), and one important point to note is if stars have a large effect on merchandise sales (they might, I have no idea), in baseball at least, those are shared revenues so it doesn’t help the team the star is on. Not sure how other sports deal with it.
Interesting link! A beta>3 is a lot stronger than I would have ever imagined. In fact, as some of the comment note, he probably did the wrong stat’l analysis meaning the results are sketchy. He also doesn’t specify his data set, though it looks like he only used 2009, which isn’t ideal. Contrary to what you said it looks like present WP is the biggest factor (at least in the first article).
Also, there may be a causality question, since he doesn’t control for population. That is, big city->high attendance->good team. This contrasts with good team->high attendance.
So, an interesting start, but anyone should be far from sold.
True, I didn’t actually look at either of those, they were just the first thing I found when I googled to give you examples. I’ve seen many, many more articles on the issue. Here’s an interesting thread (with quality comments):
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/attendance_and_winning/
http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Predicting_MLB_Attendance:_Multiple_Regression_Analysis_of_MLB_Attendance_and_Ticket_Prices
Seems to indicate All-Star are a big draw, but I don’t like the methodology since that variable will also have a lot of “winning” in it, especially lagged winning (the team was good last year because players played well and made the All-Star team, guys from good teams are more likely to be All-Stars, etc).
http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2003-08.pdf
Page 9 talks about some related stuff
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/mccracken_2002-08-19_0/
So hope those give you some more data points. Personally, if I was doing the research, I’d try to look at star players changing teams to see what, if any, effect they have on their new teams attendance/revenue, controlling for the expected number of wins (or actual wins after the fact). I’m not a huge fan of big multiple regressions for this, I think it would be hard to isolate variables without collinearity with other variables in the equation, so I think the best setup is more of a natural experimental setup where you get situations where only one variable changed and see its effect (hoping you can get a large enough sample size). The thing that convinces me the most, though, is just the sheer volume of the research I’ve seen that suggests winning is a huge driver of attendance, regardless of methodology, compared to the little to none I’ve seen in support of most other things fans/writers like to talk about.
B,
I will look at those links, too. I’m doubtful any of them show more than correlation, as opposed to causation, though.
Cool discussion either way, probably meriting its own separate post instead of where people are wanting to read about negative trade value and Barry Zito.
Is there any likelihood of guys on this list (and the one forthcoming this afternoon) being swapped for each other? You mention Rowand as a change of scenery candidate, who else can you say that about? Big Z as the 5th starter in SF? Does the reduced pressure of that role alleviate some of his emotional problems? Of course, that doesn’t address the Giants need for a bat and the Cubs don’t need Rowand.
The Giants might like to shed the Rowand contract, but they don’t need a 5th starter. Madison Bumgarner is doing quite well in that role. If the Giants did trade for anything it would be an outfield bat, or middle relief.
Even though this is the last year on the deal I’d be shocked if Mike Lowell wasn’t on here somewhere.
Only 91 plate appearances this season with a rock solid .213/.308/.350 line. Factor in that bogus defense and $12.5 million is quite a lot.
but we’re halfway through the season, so it’s only $6M. he won’t be on the list.
The Sox would steal eat all of that contract and get virtually nothing in return
Sure, but the other guys that will be ahead of him will have 10-20 x’s that amount left on their contracts.
You guys suggesting some of these other players are missing an important thing. The lowest player on this list, Rowand, is estimated to have at least $15mill in negative value. That’s the minimum to make this list, it’s about toal dollars, not ratio of dollars to shittiness. Ken Griffey Jr or your neighbors kid on a $14million deal doesn’t make this list. You’ve got to have years and big dollars to be a player in this market (or lack thereof).
I mean, I know it’s a stretch with Lowell – but he’s still a negative player right down to his roster spot. The Sox leave him on the bench when he’s healthy and he never gets playing time. No need for that.
That being said it should also be factored how much the contract is worth to that particular team. The Sox eat contracts all the time because they can afford to.
If Lowell’s contract was on the Pirates, though, $6 million would be much more expensive for them to eat.
Hey Corky(Dick) … Zito should not be on the list … he’s pitching quite well this year. Check the stats, not just what was written the last couple of years, dum-dum.
He also has like 70 million dollars left on his contract through 2013. It doesn’t matter how much he helps his team with his pitching, because the damage caused by his contact will far worse. Same with Vernon Wells.
“It doesn’t matter how much he helps his team with his pitching”
Well, yes, it does. How non-valuable he is is a product of how much more he’s getting paid than his performance warrants, so the better the performance, the less his contract hurts….
B- Well obviously. If you were paying attention to the context you would realize my point is that just because Zito has improved his performance sense his first year in SF, it would be near impossible for him to produce enough to make his contract favorable.
No need to be so dang literal.
Yes, everyone knows he is pitching well this year. Doesn’t mean another team would take on his contract.
Hey Mike, Zito’s owed $71 million over the next three and a half years, and this is the first year since he crossed the bay that he’s even been above-average. Figuring Zito to finish this year as a 4-win player, using a 4/3/2/1 to determine his true talent level, projecting a half-win decline per season going forward and assuming the $/WAR rate starts at $4.5 million with 5% inflation next year has Zito at a $40 million+ deficit over the life of his contract, dum-dum.
Normally I’d like most of your assumptions, Kevin, but I’m really not sure they are good ones for Zito. He was slightly above average last year, and is even better this year, and the reason why is simple – he changed his offseason routine and got his “stuff” back. I think the best estimate of his “true talent” is in between last year and this year – about a 4 FIP guy who’s somewhat undervalued by FIP because he’s one of the unusual pitchers who can sustain weaker than average contact (low BABIP). In addition to that, being a soft tossing lefty already might mean his decline won’t be the same as the normal pitcher. I wouldn’t be surprised to see 7.5-8 WAR out of him over the next 3 seasons. We could be looking at something more in the range of a $20-25M deficit (off the top of my head estimate).
I forgot the $7M buyout for Zito in my calc. So maybe more like $30m deficit?
Mike, I have to think your the dum dum with that statement.
I have to think you’re the dum dum with your poor grammar.
Normally I wouldn’t crap on someone’s spelling, but you kind of opened you’reself to it.
Oh, mettle….”you’reself”? really? in the SAME sentence where you are ripping the other guy’s spelling? come on people, we’re better than this.
Um, Steve, think long and hard about how likely it is that I accidentally wrote “you’reself” after correctly writing “your”‘ and “you’re” in the same post.
Dodger fan
#6 should have again been the Seattle Mariners.
*Exhausted sigh*
*Spit out my coffee* this sh!t right here never gets funny!
I must respectfully disagree with you about A-Rod. In terms of WAR/dollars over the course of the contract, yes, it might end up as one of the worst. But you must remember that A-Rod is, in part, funding part of his own contract by creating buzz in the biggest media market in the country. That’s why the Yankees can afford to overpay him, because the additional revenue he brings in will offset the costs.
The Yankees often get criticized for poor WAR/dollar contracts, but they’re in a completely different league than the rest of baseball. They can overspend and not be hurt by it because the YES Network is such a cash cow. I don’t mean this as a criticism, but honestly, it would be foolish for the Yankees to try to build the team around cost-controlled players when they have this much revenue streaming in.
Still, we’re talking trade value. How much the Yankees can afford to spend isn’t really relevant to a potential trade partner. The Yankees would have a hell of a time trading Alex Rodriguez and his contract, unless they’re willing to package the YES Network along with him.
Both disagree and agree. Start with the disagree: No chance in h*** does ARod make up for his contract in money. As someone else pointed out, merchandise sales are shared revenue. The only thing you can argue there is that ARod brings fans to the ballpark, but that’s not the case with the Yanks. If they release him tomorrow, their attendance doesn’t change one bit.
And if another team acquires him? Maybe attendance goes up a little, but most people these days post-pink shirt interview hate the guy. And regardless, outside of a market like NYC he doesn’t have the capacity to bring in the same type of revenue.
But as for his value for the Yankees? Sure. It doesn’t make a huge difference to them. They’re nowhere near the top of the league in terms of % of revenue spent on payroll, so no his contract is not a huge burden on them. But that’s not the point of this series. We’re looking at his value to the other 29 teams in baseball. And no other team in baseball would offer any asset of any value to take back a player who is owed ~$190 million for his age 35-41 seasons.
“t. But you must remember that A-Rod is, in part, funding part of his own contract by creating buzz in the biggest media market in the country. ”
He is? Most of the yankees fans I know don’t like Arod at all.I would argue he brings in very little additional revenue.
“I would argue he brings in very little additional revenue.”
And the evidence would back you up. It would also back you up regardless of what player you were talking about….
As a Jays fan I think Wells should definitely be in the top 5.
The obvious answer to trade one untradeable for another. An example being Rowand for Zambrano. That might give the Giants enought pitching support to free up someone like Sanchez to land another quality OF bat.
In short, if you’re going to be stuck with a horrible contract either way, why not swap one for a player you know you won’t use for one that you may possibly use.
Agreed. Trades like this are a blast.
The last one we saw was Milton Bradley for Carlos Silva. How did that one work out?
1. Arod
2. Ryan Howard
3. Alfonso Soriano
4. Barry Zito
5. Vernon Wells
Move Wells to #3 and Soriano and Zito back 1 and I think you got it.
Arod, Howard, Wells, Soriano, Zito.
Burnett’s deal might actually be worse than Zito’s. Zito has $74 million left vs. $50 million for Burnett, but the latter may well and truly be done. Zito on the other hand looks quite serviceable.
I find it hard to believe that most big-market clubs wouldn’t pay up for Ryan Howard, even if $25 mil per year is egregious.
1. Zambrano
2. Wells
3. Burnett
4. Fukudome
5. Zito
Zambrano is making 17-19 mil each of the next three seasons, and he’s not even a serviceable long reliever. He wouldn’t be in the Majors at this point if not for his contract.
You may have a point about Howard in one sense. Despite the fact that the sabermetrics crowd doesn’t really view him as the elite player that his contract compensates, there are GMs out there that view him as such anyways. Perception is an important aspect.
He’s 29 and has a career 125 ERA+, he most certainly would be in the major leagues
Well, make the case a big market team would want to trade for Ryan Howard? He turns 31 later this year, he’s not an elite player, he plays the easiest position on the diamond to replace, and not having him under contract means you can go spend that money in another way. He’s owed $145M over the next 6 years (or $158M over the next 7). With that kind of cash on the FA market, you can do better than Ryan Howard. For instance, trade for Adrian Gonzalez, who’s 2 and a half years younger, better than Howard right now, and throw that cash at him to keep him in town. Even if a team can afford it, it doesn’t mean it’s the best option. Opportunity cost applies to every team.
Donbedouin, I really don’t know if he would. He’s a hothead who doesn’t get along with anybody and has serious attitude issues. If not for a few good seasons that earned him a fat deal, he’d be out of baseball. You see where the Cubs have him now? They’d have cut ties altogether if he wasn’t getting paid so much, and you know it.
The Cubs might have cut ties with him. But there would be teams lining up to take him if he was cheap. You don’t have to look any farther than Jason Stark’s column from today, “it’s fascinating how many people think the Cubs will have little trouble dealing him as long as they’re willing to pay down a hefty chunk of the contract”.
I’d take Zambrano right now for ollie and Castillo
I was thinking the same thing…
Bobby Bonilla’s contract is tough to trade right now.
Dice-K is making 8 mil this year to pitch like a fourth starter. Not Zambrano bad, pretty lousy. I guess he just missed the list altogether?
If you factored in his 50MM posting fee, he should definitely be on this list. But Boston already paid that fee, so the posting fee has nothing to do with his trade value.
Wow 8 mil for a guy with a 4.29 ERA in the AL East. I can think of far more deserving pitchers to be on this list than him. Plus he has a nice 2.89 ERA his last 9 starts so it isn’t like he is dead weight. Fans just dislike him because of the hype.
Michael Young has 3yrs/48 million and 10 and 5 rights kicking in. I believe his stupid face belongs in the discussion.
#1 Howard
#2 ARod
#3 Wells
#4 Soriano
#5 Zito
How close was Mark Texiera to making this list? He has a ton of dollars/years on his contract and at least this year isn’t really producing enough to justify it…
I think his struggles have to happen in more than one season imo
The salary commitments are very similar between Howard and Tex. Both are effectively same age. I think Tex’s best year in 2008 was also helped quite a bit by a fielding score that was somewhat out of line with his other years. All in all I think Tex is a slightly better player but probably only 1 win better a year than Howard.
I wouldn’t want to pay Tex 6 years of $22.5mm a year. I think his contract is worse than a bunch of guys on this list because of the duration of the contract.
Hey – how come I’m not on here? I’m owed 3/50 after this year. Is anyone going to take that on for less cash than the Rowand deal?
What about braves Derek lowe I’d much rather have Barry zito for the next few years than Derek lowe for a few million less a year
You mean for 10 million more per year? (Lowe has two years 30 mill left, Zito has 3 years 70 mill)
You don’t put CC Sabathia in this group?
A capable but overweight pitcher who will have trouble playing years 5-7?
There is an option to end it after year 4 but it is a PLAYER’s option.