Comments on: A DC Icon in the Making

By: joser

joser — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:45:58 +0000

But it is one of the more amusing ones I’ve seen. Vince has no place in sports management, but he may have a bright future in comedy.

By: david

david — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:34:41 +0000

Not spectacular glove work? he has the most range of any 3B.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:55:41 +0000

Oops–my post above was supposed to be in reply to Vince’s post above.

My bad. ;)

By: Matthew Carruth

Matthew Carruth — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:27:36 +0000

That is not even close to the right way to evaluate contracts.

Not close at all.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:03:33 +0000

“Average MLB salary 2009: $3.26 million
Zim’s career OPS+ = 110
$ 3.26 x 110 = $ 3.586 million”

Errr….what exactly does multipling average salary by OPS+ prove again?

And the Nats got at least one free agent pitcher(Daniel Cabrera, non-tendered by regional rivals the Orioles last December) and traded for another(Scott Olsen). And it didn’t cost them very much(some cash, Emilio Bonifacio, and some other so-so prospects, and they also got Josh Willingham in the Olsen trade.)

They’ll probably get about what they paid for Olsen and Cabrera, though(which is not much.)

By: Vince

Vince — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:27:16 +0000

Average MLB salary 2009: $3.26 million
Zim’s career OPS+ = 110
$ 3.26 x 110 = $ 3.586 million

Even allowing for his above average (but not spectacular) glove work, the Nats WAAAAAAY overpaid for Zimmerman.

The real problem is that Zim looks like a talent when he’s compared to the other bums on the Nats team.

Unfortunately, merging the Nats and Orioles would STILL NOT result in a .500-level team…because there’s probably only about 5 MLB quality pitchers even on the merged team!

Spend money on pitching Nats! Why didn’t you get some free agent pitchers in the off season?!?!

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:40:04 +0000

The Mets may have gotten a bit of steal, but players don’t usually get paid market value for their arbitration years (see Cole Hamels). Zimmerman feels like a big overpay when you consider that.

I think you might be right about the Nats needing to pay a touch more than other teams, especially since the opportunity for endorsements is much less in DC, but Teixeira isn’t the right example. I’m pretty sure the Nats offered a full $20 million less than the Yanks for the same number of years.

By: Will

Will — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:54:58 +0000

I’m not sure it’s a fair comparison, because the Mets got a steal. I think there’s been a noticeable shift in teams’ value of youth in just the past year or two.
Markakis and Youkilis’ extensions are both more expensive, and they’re both comparable to Zimmerman. (Did you know Youk and Zimm have the same exact WAR since 2006?)

Also, the Nats have to pay a premium to keep any players, because they’re a really bad team. Just look at the Teixeira negotiations, they offered substantially more money, but couldn’t beat the allure of playing for the Yankees. So if it takes $1mil/year extra, so be it. It will do more benefit than harm in the long run.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:34:33 +0000

The thing is, the Nats are basically paying him what the Mets pay Wright. Anyone think they are in the same league?

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:13:15 +0000

So, if a player’s listed as worth $10 million/year, a “neutral” contract would pay out $4 million in the first arb year, $6 million in the second, and $8 million in the third, with major deviations causing it to favor either the player or the team?