This is a very classy post. I certainly didn’t mean to sound negative in my original post (and pardon me if I did). Your original point was very good – the Eric Byrnes extension cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of WAR and $ per win; you have to consider the talent that was blocked and then traded away because of that extension. Quentin, Hairston, CarGo – all of them were traded away in the aftermath, as you point out. And all of them are cheaper, younger and better than Eric Byrnes. Granted, some of them were used to acquire Haren – but the extension prompted such a rapid dissipation of major league ready talent from the system that when injuries hit in 2009, the Dbacks were left with huge holes in the outfield and at first base.

Cheers,
Levski

I gave you a thumbs up, because you’re right. In 2007, I was just a simpleton plowboy from the rural part of South Carolina, equipped with only a love for Orlando Hudson and a hope (burning light, really) that the Diamondbacks were on the right track. I had no comprehension of what FanGraphs (or BP, or BBTF, or any other site) was and if you asked me who Bill James was, I would have told you he was a deacon at the First Central Baptist Church of Dovesville, SC.

I actually credit you to some extent with turning me on to sabermetrics. You and some others used to post different data from this exact site, and I had pretty much no basis for understanding it then.

Now, I’m about 7 Bill James books in, I’ve done some of my own studies, and I’m a pretty devoted member of the church of sabertology.

When I say “anyone with a pulse”, I’m most certainly not referring to myself, because I was about as fanboy as you can get. I do remember one individual who was pretty unwavering on the dynamics of the deal, though. Credit to you, friend.

Coby

What you are saying is all high and mighty… but I can’t shake this feeling that back in the day, when the extension was announced, you were firmly in the “Support the Eric Byrnes extension!” camp and were too busy telling everyone who would listen that the extension was a great move for the Dbacks and that all the naysayers didn’t know what the hell they were talking about…

Then again, there’s a slight chance I might have you confused with someone else…

1) Arizona was _not_ paying for an outlier season. As I pointed out — they were paying him for measurably less performance than he had put out in 2006 and 2007. If anything, his dreadful 2005 is the “outlier…” if that means anything…

more importantly

2) Projections take care of that “outlier” stuff, to the extend it is meaningful at all:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/outliers-breakouts-and-the-owl-of-minerva/

thanks for the comments

Replying to the general Quentin issue:

I generally agree, and the primary reason I didn’t discuss it more was because the post was already a bit long, and what was I going to do, cut out a dumb joke about Rosie O’Donell?

As I’ve said before, paying approxiamately the market rate isn’t dumb or smart, it’s average… Teams should always give priority to young, cost-controlled talent. and even without hindsight (which I think is still operating for many here), Arizona should have been more cautious.

But let me play the devil’s advocate, just to see where is takes us.

If I do _exactly_ the same combination of projecting Quentin as I did for Byrnes, I get about a 1.7 WAR with 85% playing time. That’s about a whole win. As I wrote above, Brynes had been durable through 207. However, 85% seems high for Quentin if you’re Arizona — in 2006, he played about 130 games on both levels, in 2007, he played 114. So one could see why they might only be willing to pencil Quentin in for 70% playing time… which takes him to about 1.4 WAR.

Also keep in mind that Arizona could reasonably see themselves as high up on the “win curve,” having made the won the west and the NLCS in 2007, and that might have played a factor as well.

Anyway, again, this isn’t exactly the analysis I would have done for Arizona (if they were dumb enough to hire me), I just though it was in interesting way of trying to get into their mindset.

First of all, let’s keep in mind that the primary reason the contract turnedout to be terrible was onforeseen injuries — something Byrnes had never had problems with before. Yes, his performance might have tanked if he hadn’t been hurt, but we have no way of knowing. You project and do the b

Moreover, “2.6 WAR” isn’t mediocre — it’s above average. Indeed, including Marcel makes look worse than it is — if you drop Marcel, he’s closer to a 3 WAR player. And 2.6 WAR isn’t anywhere close to replacement level. Mediocre would be 2 or below, if you ask me.

Still, they probably should have had more faith in Quentin (although given Quentin’s projected performance [see below], there’s tons of hindsight at work there). But, yes, in general, smart teams pay below market value as much as possible. My point here is simply that this wasn’t an especially dumb deal we people treat is with hindsight.

More below.

I see what you did there.