Comments on: Teixeira’s Progress and Helton’s Value

By: Streamyx Soh

Streamyx Soh — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:20:51 +0000

Great blog, helpful advice .Thanks with regard to this good post – I will be sure to checkout your weblog more frequently.

By: Nicholson J.

Nicholson J. — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:25:51 +0000

This is standard in terms of SEO. Nothing looks to rag upon it than that!Ironically, this is exactly what was worried about ten years prior at the big internet about search engines in 1993!

By: Maureen

Maureen — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:27:19 +0000

Thanks, I enjoyed reading your post. I am new to seo, trying to visit more seo blogs for guides and tips. You can be friends with me. Check out my blog at http://touristguides.angelfire.com/blog/
Thanks.

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:13:08 +0000

With this talk about the Sox and the Nats offering pretty much the same 8 year, $160-$170 million contract I can’t help but think that 4-5 additional wins for the Nats means so much less than it does for the Sox. 5 wins to go from 60 wins to 65 is worth so much less than the 5 additional wins that push you into the playoffs.

By: WY

WY — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:51:01 +0000

I agree with RollingWave. In a vacuum (or with the Yankees or Red Sox), his contract might not be an anchor, but for a team such as Colorado (or about 2/3 of the other teams in baseball) it is.

I think the fundamental flaw with so many of the contract evaluations done on this site is that they assume a flat rate per win. But most teams simply cannot and will not pay players this so-called “market value.” Who says every team values wins-above-replacement at $5,000,000, or that they even should all value them at the same rate?

I think the assumption that a win is a win is a win (and costs 5 million bucks) is what leads to so many of the bloated signings and contract offers being considered good deals on this site. A good signing for a Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/LA team is not necessarily a good signing for the Rays, Rockies, Cardinals, D’Backs, Indians, etc.

By: b_rider

b_rider — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:02:28 +0000

My sense is that the inflation of sports salaries in the last ten-fifteen years is not something that can be projected into the future. At some point, teams and leagues are going to be unable to generate new revenue streams. That’s not to say that average salaries will drop significantly, but it doesn’t seem reasonable to expect the same annual growth rates in the future.

I wonder if sports salaries are experiencing a bubble like the housing market. A couple of years ago, people would have told you that, since housing prices have been rising by whatever percent every year, we can expect that they will continue to do so. It turns out they were wrong, and housing prices had become inflated beyond sustainable levels.

By: qqqqqqqq

qqqqqqqq — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:51:26 +0000

I know this has been said before, but I think it applies aptly with Teixeira. The money per win should be on an exponential scale, not a linear scale, because players like Teixeira are pretty rare. When’s the next time you think you’ll see a player of Teixeira’s caliber in free agency?

By: Scappy

Scappy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:31:11 +0000

Allegedly the Sox had offered 8/184 for Tex. They claim they are taking there offer and going home though. We shall see, I mean look what happened with Furcal.

By: RollingWave

RollingWave — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:58:50 +0000

I think your overlooking some points though. the problem with the Helton contract isn’t Helton himself, it’s Colordo’s payroll limits, if the Helton contract was on a highpayroll team or (espically) the Yankees then it was well worth it during the span, but since Colordo essentially devoted anywhere from 1/5 to 1/4 their team salary to one guy that was a disastor. as they were unable to field a serious support cast when he was good (with one rare exception in 07) and now he’s declining the weight of the albatross is a abosalute killer.

looking at the Teixiera situation doesn’t fit unless he really ends up a O’s or Nats. which seems unlikely at this point, if he ends up with the 3 most likely team to shell out the crazy money (Angels/ Red Sox / Yankees) then he is far more likely to be worth it.

it is also worth noting that given Teixiera’s trend and age there’s a reasonable chance that he’s only at the begining of his peak and not the middle. in that we might see some 5.5-6 win seasons out of him in the next two year to four years, given the context of his skillset and how they’ve been trending that seems like a realistic possibiltiy.

Helton’s contract isn’t up yet anyway so we still have awhiles to go before we can truely judge how it went, if he bounce back in the next three season and stay within the confines of 05-07 then it’s quiet worthwhile in the context of the entire contract.

I think the easy “is he worth a long contract” test can be done by simply looking at a guys’ BR page and check his similar age comps, if you see several HOFers comming back, then the answer is probably yes.

Teix’s comps actually aren’t quiet as impressive as Heltons. well I guess it’s a though call between Frank Thomas / Joe D and Johnny Mize s Willy McCovey and Jim Thome. but the bad players on Helton’s list come up better than the onces on Teixiera’s

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:54:16 +0000

I think your two points are contradicting. Sure, paying Teixeira more than $23 million per year is overpaying now and he’s certain to decline between now and year 8, but by then who knows how much teams will be willing to pay per win. If he’s a 2 win player in 2017 and by then teams are valuing wins at $15 million each, then $23 million per year would be a steal.

This is exactly what happened with Helton. Compared to how much a win was “worth” when that contract was inked, Colorado’s getting the short end of the stick these days. But as the value of a win has gone up, Helton’s contract doesn’t look so bad any more.