Tigers sign Adam Everett
Tired of hearing the Pirates demand the moon for Jack Wilson, the Tigers turned to the free agent market and signed Adam Everett to a one year, $1 million contract for 2009.
Everett is the epitome of an all-glove, no hit player. He’s one of the worst offensive players in baseball, posting a career wOBA of .289 and racking up -6.81 WPA/LI over 2,500 PA. It’s even worse if you just look at the last three years, where he’s posted wOBAs of .276, .268, and .264. Those are brutal numbers.
However, over the last five years, Everett has also been something like the very best defensive player in baseball. His UZR/150 since 2003: +14.4, +16.9, +13.8, +24.9, +24.4, +10. Considering that his peer group have already been selected as the best defenders in the game, the fact that Everett just blew them out of the water speaks to how great he was with the glove. Even while recovering from a fractured fibula and while playing through a shoulder problem, he was still one of the best defensive shortstops in the game last year.
So, the Tigers are clearly paying for his glove, and are willing to live with the bat. How valuable is the total package?
Marcel projects Everett for a .280 wOBA in 2009. Over 600 PA, that adds up to -29 runs compared to an average hitter. I told you he was a bad hitter. His glove projects as something like +15 runs for 2009, and the position adjustment for a shortstop is currently accepted at +7.5 runs, so he gets 22.5 runs back for his defensive value. That makes him a -6.5 run player over a full season, or about 13.5 runs above a replacement level shortstop.
Maybe you think Marcel’s a little too optimistic about his offense. Maybe you think a +15 projection for his defense is too high, considering he did break his leg last year. Maybe you don’t think he can play a full season, considering he’s only played 150 games in a season twice in his career. These are all valid concerns, and so I’d feel comfortable with a projection as low as +10 runs and no higher than +15 runs.
That makes Everett about a +1 to +1.5 win player. He got $1 million, which is what teams pay for bad utility players who belong in Triple-A. This is a pretty massive steal for the Tigers, and along with the Gerald Laird trade earlier today, they’ve added something like three wins to their roster in 12 hours and spent a grand total of about $4 million to do so.
Heck of a day for Dave Dombrowski.
Print This Post
Nice analysis. Hopefully your diligent work will make some people respect the value of defense a little more. Everett is a nice gamble for a team that already has a good offense and doesn’t have to worry about the pitcher hitting.
They can always let Dontrelle Willis pinch hit for him late in the game…
Dave, any chance you can do one of these analysis for Jack Wilson? I’m curious about his actual worth versus the Pirates’ purported asking price. My back-of-the-napkin calculations tell me he’s probably worth his salary, or maybe slightly more. Also, UZR look a lot less friendly to Wilson than +/-. Is there any good resource out there that runs through the positives and negatives of all the different defensive metrics?
Bummer about Everett’s injuries. As guy who enjoys watching good defense more than good batting (not that I hate that; and it’s not because I’m a Giants fan), I wish he could still put up those +20 seasons with his glove. All good things must pass, I guess.
I agree that Everett is really undervalued and the Tigers got a deal.
The only problem with these type of deals is that you can’t be good if your whole team if full of +1 WAR players. Its fine if you are filling a huge whole in your lineup and have cheap/good players to provide the main source of production but at some point high WAR players become much more valuable if you want to make it to the playoffs.
I was hoping Jack Z. would make a run at Everett to be a stop-gap at SS for the M’s until we find something more permanent. Oh, well.
So the new bar to hurl (pun intended) is celebrate if you get a bargain when plugging a below average guy into the starting lineup??????????????/?
Steve, the Tigers already had a gaping hole at SS. Their options were:
- plug a crappy AAA guy into SS for $400K, who would be significantly below replacement level
- sign Rafael Furcal for $12MM to $15MM, which is appropriate for a 3 WAR player (just guessing)
- trade for Jack Wilson, who’s barely better than Everett, paying him $6MM and giving up prospects, and spend $6MM-9MM elsewhere
- sign Everett and spend $12MM-$15MM elsewhere (after the top few stud relievers sign, this money could buy a hell of a bullpen.)
Given the gaping hole, the Tigers did quite well for themselves.
I usually love this site’s unique perspective and analysis. I thoroughly enjoyed the post a couple days ago evaluating if Carlos Beltan is actually worth all the money the Mets are paying him. However, I see a general trend where you guys seem to think most moves teams make are bargains. This combination of run analysis and + win total seemed and still seems really cool to me, and I wouldn’tve even ever come across it if it weren’t for you guys, but I caution that I feel you guys might be overly optimistic on how good these deals are for the teams that are making them.
Plus you state the following in your post…..
” Over 600 PA, that adds up to -29 runs compared to an average hitter. I told you he was a bad hitter. His glove projects as something like +15 runs for 2009, and the position adjustment for a shortstop is currently accepted at +7.5 runs, so he gets 22.5 runs back for his defensive value. That makes him a -6.5 run player over a full season, or about 13.5 runs above a replacement level shortstop. ”
Everett’s hitting stats get him to -29 runs compared to an average hitter. Okay I’m cool with that. But if you add the 15 runs for his glove and the 7.5 runs for the SS postiion you get the 22.5 you’re talking about. –so that’s -6.5 as you said. —how do you get to 13.5 without making the error of “double-counting” one of the run totals you previously mentioned?
I’m not trying to be a stickler or heckle you, I think your posts are awesome– I’m just confused and based on what you say it seems like you’re overvaluing run total of the player, which then grossly inflates the dollar amount that you calculations say Everett is worth. No?
Thanks for any feedback you can give on the numbers.
Best,
Joe
The problem with Everett is that he can’t stay healthy… it’s nice that he’s cheap- he was cheap last year too when the Twins signed him- but how many games will he play? In the past two seasons combined, he’s played in less than 120 games. His defense wasn’t quite as good last season and he isn’t getting any younger.
There’s nothing wrong with signing him, since the money involved is minimal, but the Tigers would be wise to have a tolerable backup plan.
Joe,
-6.5 compared to average. 13.5 above replacement.
wicked cool. thanks man.
Haha, an infield of Polanco/Everett/Inge/Laird/Cabrera. Even if Cabrera plays to an MVP level, that offense is mostly garbage.
Sky,
Only an incompetent GM would be limited to those options.
Ok,
MCab, Grandy, Mags, Guillen and Polanco is a decent start to a lineup (thats over half, so you’re over estimating with “mostly”). Add a dash of pitching and a cup of defense and you’re ready to start cookin.
Just because the math shows Everett to be a bargain doesn’t mean he was a good signing. There is a flaw in the formula by FanGraphs that values all runs above replacement equally. It’s true that Everett’s defense makes him better than replacement level and that has some value (especially to the Tigers who are trying to dig themselves out of an awful hole after trading Jurrjens for Renteria), but Everett is significantly worse than the average shortstop and therefore is not a player who will help the Tigers get to the playoffs. I contend that a player’s runs above average are much more valuable than his runs above replacement level. Above average players are worth paying for while below average players can be useful stopgaps at the right price but should not be celebrated signings as they will not help their teams reach the next level.
Greg,
The reasoning behind using runs above replacement rather than runs above average is that theoretically your base team would be just a team filled with replacement players and then try build above that. The options don’t always allow a GM to get the average player at a particular position but every GM has the option to get a replacement player value.
However, i still think you point out a very interested and important point. GMs when evaluating the jobs they have done should not be patting themselves on the back for getting better than replacement level for a good price. Just getting a bargain on a below average player won’t help you much is thats all you do. Nonetheless, in this situation I think that the Tigers would helped by just doing that, getting a good bargain.
What’s the point of even spending the $1 mil when your team is obviously not going to compete? Might as well go with in-house options. I can’t see how the Tigers think that the signings of Laird or Everett help their chances of competing in any way, especially with the current condition of their pitching staff.
And looking at the Tigers payroll alone, they should be a competetive team. Why not go with the expensive option in Furcal that will actually make the team better? (I’m assuming Furcal is a better option than Everett here)
Jim,
Marginal improvements here are very important. Furcal would probably cost them at least 12-15 million a year, which I believe is the most of the budget they have available to spend this off-season. That would leave little room to improve the bullpen through free agency.
The Tigers must believe that the marginal improvement of a couple good relievers outweigh the marginal improvement Furcal would bring over Everett. For example, they could sign Wood/Fuentes, ohman, gagne, or whoever instead, and upgrade their bullpen tremendously.
Marginal improvements are “very” important?
The mystery in this is why didn’t the Tigers go after Jeff Keppinger-the most valuable player in baseball-to fill their gaping hole at SS?????????????????
To the notion that Fangraphs authors and statheads in general think every signing is a good one, that’s just laughable. The majority of free agent signings are dumb and Dave and Eric and everyone else will let you know when those happen. Just wait for when Manny signs…
*** ***
Steve, I agree there are more options. Name some that are as easy and straightforward and as effective as signing Everett? Sure, there should be some freely available replacement-talent out there for $400K, worth 0 WAR. Everett’s $600K more expensive and bring 1 to 1.5 WAR. That’s basically a win for free. How is the fact that the Tigers just acquired a free win not news to celebrate for Detroit fans?
It’s not cause for celebration for Detroit fans because Everett is very likely .5 to 1 win below average-if he manages to even play a full season.
It’s a cheap win but a hollow victory.
Greg, many many successful teams get by with one, even two, below-average players. And when they are being paid nothing, that leaves money able to be spent elsewhere to make sure you have enough above-average players.
If we call Everett a 1.25 WAR player, here are similar performances from good 2008 teams:
Boston: Varitek (1.3 WAR), Ellsbury (1.8 WAR)
White Sox: Pierzinsky (1.1 WAR), Konerko (.7 WAR), Swisher (.5 WAR)
Cubs: Lee (1.9 WAR)
Angels: Anderson (1.6), Mathis (0 WAR in half time), Matthews Jr. (-.5 WAR in half time)
Brewers: Hart (.5 WAR), Hall (.5 WAR in 2/3 time)
Phillies: Felix (0 WAR), Ruiz (0 WAR in 2/3 time)
Hey Skye,
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying that one or two marginal players will cripple a team’s chances of success. I know that sometimes a marginal player is the only available or the only affordable or the one you’re stuck with after an injury.
All I mean to say is that teams should not be congratulated for actively seeking out marginal players and committing real money to them. The first few wins that a player provides above replacement level are not nearly as valuable as the first few wins he provides above average. This is why excellent players get paid more than 5 million per win while marginal players get paid less than five million per win. It’s not because they’re bargains, it’s because their value is more easily replaceable.
One thing that has not been brought up yet is the opportunity cost in rostering any player. There are only nine lineup slots so playing Everett, Inge, and Laird takes up three of these. Those are now three spots that won’t produce at a high level. There are only 24 active roster spots and only 40 total roster spots. Acquiring Everett and Laird prevents the Tigers from staffing their roster with other players with more upside who could turn out to be the next Victorino’s and Werth’s. Good players, like Frankie Rodriguez (to name one who signed today), get paid more than 5 million per win because they pack a lot of wins into one roster spot.
Greg, the problem is that’s just not true. The top tier players don’t get more than $5 million per win. MLB teams pay on a linear scale. The facts don’t support your assertions.
And, let’s be honest, the Tigers already have the better-than-average regulars needed to contend - Granderson, Cabrera, Ordonez, Polanco, Verlander is a championship core. The 2008 Tigers weren’t sunk because they didn’t have enough stars, but because their defense was atrocious and they couldn’t cobble together enough non-terrible players.
OK, Dave. I might be wrong about the differing values of the first few wins above replacement from the last few wins above average of star players. I was going on a gut assumption based on the hugeness of certain contracts compared to the tininess of others. It just didn’t seam linear. I should not go on assumptions though. I now vow to do a comprehensive study of the size of free agent contracts graphed against the value of the player. I’ll get back to you with the answer. Let’s agree to the method first, though. Since you don’t like WARP, what stat should I use to concisely capture the value added by each player?
Why not go with the expensive option in Furcal that will actually make the team better?
Because they expect Cale Iorg to be their starting ss in ‘09 or ‘10–they were looking for a bridge to him rather than a long term commitment to a guy like Furcal..
Adam Everett is a classic case of a guy who is probably accustomed to utility-level contracts. Probably could’ve gotten $4,000,000 to be the main SS somewhere and got 1/4 that.
Nice sign by Detroit