Soriano Contract Retrospective: A Jim Hendry Tribute

….or, the Return of the Contract Retrospective.

Jim Hendry is reportedly out as the general manager of the Cubs. I’ll leave a general summary of Hendry’s tenure to someone else. In the meantime, I thought that an appropriate tribute to Hendry’s time at the Cubs’ helm might be a retrospective look back at one of his signature moves: the eight-year, $136 million contract with Alfonso Soriano that began in 2007. The idea behind a contract retrospective is simple: it is easy enough to look at a contract and call it good or bad after the fact, but if we reconstruct what was known about the player at the time, did it make sense from that perspective? This one’s for you, Mr. Hendry.

What did the Cubs pay for, given the market at the time? Check out this salary scale from the 2007 off-season. Given the market price of $4 million per marginal win, a 10 percent annual increase in that price, and an half-win-per-season decline (Soriano was going to be 31 going into the 2007 season), $136 million over eight years meant the Cubs were paying Soriano as if he would be a five win player in 2007. That’s just in monetary terms — we’ll get to the other aspects below. What was a reasonable expectation for Soriano into 2007?

I remember always getting excited about Soriano plate appearances when he was with the Yankees: you never knew if he’d strike out swinging on a slider a foot out of the zone or launch it 400 feet. You did know that it wouldn’t take long to find out. Soriano had a couple of good-not-great seasons with the bat after being traded to the Rangers (he also mysteriously aged…), then
had a better season after getting traded to Washington prior to 2006. Let’s stick with a simple projection from prior to that season. For 2007, Marcel projected him for about a .356 wOBA, or about 15 runs above average per 700 plate appearances in that era’s run environment.

Fielding is a more complicated matter. Prior to 2006, Soriano had been a (terrible) second baseman with the Yankees and Rangers. The Nationals understandably wanted to move him to left field. Soriano didn’t want to move, and the situation looked like it might get ugly. Soriano finally relented, and had a good season in left according to UZR (+7 runs), and a great one according to DRS and TotalZone with hit location (+21 with both) as well as traditional TotalZone (+16). Soriano had always been fast, but it was still just one season of metrics with big error bars. There’s a lot of guesswork here, as numbers from second base don’t really help us. The aggregate average for his 2006 in left field was +16. Without going through a bunch of methodological stuff here, I’ll say that a reasonable projection for him given the data at the time would have been something like +8 over a full season in left field. I’ll admit that’s pretty sketchy — one could say it’s too generous from a statistical perspective, or too conservative given certain scouting reports. Objections noted, let’s move on.

For overall projected value, we have +15 offense – 7.5 positional adjustment for left field + 8 fielding + 22.5 runs replacement level, all adjusted down a bit for playing time, and we’ve go somewhere between three and 3.5 WAR projected for Soriano in 2007 given the information at the time. Let’s call it 3.5 WAR.

That is well below the five WAR the Cubs were paying him to be. According to the salary chart from above, the biggest contract a 3.5 win player like Soriano should have gotten was something like seven years and $69 million. Of course, the Cubs saw things differently, perhaps in his fielding. And, indeed, in that first season Soriano seemed to defy even that lofty expectation, putting up seven wins. He not only out-hit his Marcel projection (he had a .380 wOBA), but put up a +33 UZR in the outfield. Of course, projections aren’t put out as certainties, but as midpoints of probabilities. This is especially true in the case of defense, and the fact that DRS and TotalZone weren’t quite as high on Soriano in 2007 as in the previous season demonstrates that one has to big cautious with defensive metrics.

Nonetheless, after 2007, the Cubs could feel pretty good about the contract, they had gotten more than they paid for so far. Soriano settled down to a four-win season in 2008, but the slightly “shortfall” that season was made up for by 2007. Then Soriano bombed in 2009 to the tune of replacement level, had a okay (if insufficient to justify the money) rebound in 2010, and is currently having another miserable season. It started out well, but it doesn’t look like it will end that way. Only three more seasons, Cubs fans!

Did Hendry just get unlucky? After all, the projections had a lot of uncertainty on the defensive side, and Soriano was a monster in 2007. Moreover, the price of open market wins has not increased at the rate people expected it to back in 2007, which makes the contract look even worse. Still, we see players have big seasons late in their career all the time, and for every Jose Bautistas who maintains the new level, there are many more Brady Andersons. Soriano probably was more like a four win player, he just had a “big year” in 2007. Stuff like the generic aging curve and the projections aren’t meant to be seen as mechanical predictions, but “reasonable midpoints.” The idea that Soriano was being paid for a 5 WAR 2007, 4.5 in 2008, and so on is simply a way of expressing what is being paid for over the total life of the contract. Still, in total, Soriano hasn’t been worth the money, and there is little chance he will be as he moves into his late thirites and his salary increases.

What went wrong? The Cubs simply paid too much, straight up. Yes, there is uncertainty, but the Cubs bet on the high side on a player who was going to be 31. And that is without counting the immense long-term security they gave him, not just in years, but by giving him a no-trade clause. That the price of free agent wins stalled for a few years is just another reason why contracts of this length should be for less money per projected win — it protects against the risk one takes when signing a player for so many years. Even if Soriano had been a five win player, these factors should have meant less money.

In the end, although the beginning looked nice, the contract predictably went sour. The Cubs overestimated Soriano’s value, and overpaid for even their optimistic projection. Even without the benefit of hindsight, this retrospective shows that we shouldn’t be surprised at what an albatross the Soriano contract has become. Jim Hendry made a big bet on Soriano in 2007 and lost. It’s one reason he isn’t the Cubs general manager any more.




Print This Post



Matt Klaassen reads and writes obituaries in the Greater Toronto Area. If you can't get enough of him, follow him on Twitter.

58 Responses to “Soriano Contract Retrospective: A Jim Hendry Tribute”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. Arthur Xavier Corvelay says:

    I find the practice of signing very good, but not great, players to 6 or 7 year deals to be perplexing. Considering that he would be in his mid to late 30′s for most of the contract, the possibility of him outperforming it was very small, and even if he did it would not have been by much. The possibility of him falling off or breaking down with injuries was quite real. And there is not much of a financial incentive to motivate his performance, either (perhaps a good season will earn him more in endorsements, but the marginal dollars after $136 million are worth quite a bit less). There is just too little upside vs. a very large downside. It reminds me of the player opt-out clauses they put in the even larger contracts for true elites like A-Rod or CC, which kill a big part of the club’s upside while retaining all the risk for the full amount of the deal if the player declines / is injured.. Either the team breaks even, or loses.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • David says:

      Did we ever establish that there was a competing market for Soriano at that price? I’m sure other teams courted him. Did the Cubs pay a big price because they “won” an auction where they were simply bid up? Or did they blow away a bunch of more sane offers needlessly?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Jamie says:

        I remember the Nats offering something like 5/60, and the Angels reportedly made a 6/80 offer. $136 mm was definitely a surprise.

        There were also reports at the time (though I can’t find a reference right now) that an advertising deal with Under Armour (those logos that appeared in the Wrigley outfield in 2007) was contingent on signing Soriano, who had his own Under Armour endorsement deal. There’s no way of knowing how much that had to do with this signing without seeing the internal memos, though.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. James says:

    As someone who was just 10 in 2003, why did the Yankees trade Soriano? A guy who almost had two 40/40 seasons at the time.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • LexDiamonds says:

      Because it netted them Alex Rodriguez.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Matt C says:

      Because as good as he was he was no Alex Rodriguez.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • jacob says:

      A fraud / A roid / A whole (lot of reasons)

      -7 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Eric Feczko says:

      As someone who watched every Soriano at-bat with the yankees, I also think the yanks didn’t like Soriano’s undisciplined approach in the field and at the plate. Sure, he had power and speed, but he swung at EVERYTHING and had terrible reads as an infielder.
      Robinson Cano was a year away from the majors when the yankees traded him, and was basically a cheaper version of Soriano (albiet with reduced power) with higher upside (because he was younger).

      Smart move for them.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • NBarnes says:

        I think it was more about getting A-Rod than about clearing the way for Cano. Nobody thought that Cano would turn into the guy we know in 2011.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Alan says:

        Yep. The Yankees were willing to send Cano with Soriano to Texas, but fortunately for them the Rangers chose Joaquin Arias instead.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Garrett says:

    He was the best 9 figure signing of that offseason by a vast margin.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Eric Feczko says:

      “Vast margin” is a highly subjective term;

      Over the course of Soriano’s contract he has been worth 14.7 WAR so far, but he has three more years remaining on his deal.

      Carlos Lee has been worth about 10 WAR so far, and only has two years remaining on his deal.

      While Soriano’s deal was better than Zito’s, that isn’t saying much.

      In any case, all three signings looked ridiculous at the time, and have only gotten worse with hindsight.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Garrett says:

        Three more years is a benefit not a drawback when evaluating deals at the time of signing. We’re not evaluating the deals in their current form as that is a state which is only possibly entered by signing the original contract.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Jamie says:

    In a vacuum, it looks like a bad signing. In the context of other FA options that were available that winter, it looks worse. J.D. Drew, a much better player, signed for 5/70 that winter.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Garrett says:

      You’re completely crazy.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • patrick says:

        Why are you even on Fangraphs if you refuse to buy into any of its principles. Drew made significantly less money for essentially the same production…he got half as much guaranteed and to this point has put up 1 less win

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Garrett says:

        Please state the principles. Thank you.

        Does it include the Dave Cameron “I failed personal finance” principle?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • JamesDaBear says:

        …and Drew helped the Sox win another World Series. When you’re willing to spend to compete with the Yankees, you can sign guys like Drew and Soriano. The Cubs have never put up that kind of money, and need to focus on growing players within their franchise, when they’re not even willing to compete with the Phillies, much less the Red Sox and Yankees.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Garrett says:

        To elaborate, much of the contract analysis on FG is downright terrible. Its stupid $/WAR analysis that removes context/windowing or any idea of player utility from the equation. It also arbitrarily chooses players to laud/hate based on equally retarded criteria. Lets cover some basic shit that is done on the reg by Fangraph-o-tards:

        1) $/WAR analysis without anything else. Completely stupid.
        2) A continuing inability to understand player utility. Dave Cameron thinks that every player signing an extension through their arb years magically is an idiot. In reality he’s too stupid to understand personal finance (more like too arrogant).
        3) Not understanding the structural limitations of a roster and how buying high end marginal wins will always be poor value. (IE Buying a marginal win in the high 90s is not the same cost as a marginal win in the 60s)

        There could be really good articles written about contracts. Instead we have a bunch of sheep ranting about the same shit and a bunch of sycophant fagg0ts nutriding shitty analysis.

        -6 Vote -1 Vote +1

      • CircleChange11 says:

        @ JDB

        The CHC won the division in 2007 and 2008, swept out both times (awesome, it was outstanding to watch).

        2003 is what it is.

        You’re applying contract value to a situation based on whether the team wins the WS or not (Drew).

        Had the Cubs won in 2003, 2007, 2008 – Hendry may be regarded as the best GM in the game … for doing nothing outside of what he did for the 3 seasons that his teams collapsed in the playoffs.

        I do agree, the lack of homegrown talents is a major flaw, and it leads to overspending in the FA market. However, we also have to relieve Hendry of some of the blame for Soriano, as that decision was made to increase the value of the team forthe purpose of selling it for more money. The SI cover of Soriano and Pinella is now a sarcastic collecter’s item.

        My nightmare is that the Cubs get smart. Seriously, if they had brains to go with their fan base and financial ability … it would be over for the other teams in the Central … including StL.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Garrett says:

        Yeah, the AL East is so boring. Yankees have such a large economic lead, how can other teams compete.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Simon says:

        Wow, you’re really angry about a baseball website.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Garrett says:

        You’re confusing anger with contempt for stupidity and laziness.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Ryan says:

    When is Tony Reagins going to get fired for Vernon Wells?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • My echo and bunnymen says:

      When he can stop stealing the Dan Harens from the (past) Diamondback GMs of the world.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Nick says:

        Sorry, Dan Haren was not a steal. Skaggs is going to be a cost-controlled ace, and Corbin has a chance to make an impact in the rotation, too. Saunders has been worth a couple of wins… Diamondbacks were rebuilding and they’re already making an impact in 2011. And this is coming from a Yankees fan.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. jesse says:

    What makes you think he did?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Randy says:

    The Soriano signing was flat out brilliant by Hendry, and it’s nearly irrefutable. If he doesn’t sign Soriano, Hendry never gets extended in 2008 and is fired years ago.

    All overpriced FA signings are about GMs getting the last piece needed to get the team over the top where ownership will extend the GM’s contract. The bad parts of the contracts occur years away and are likely some other GM’s problem.

    GM’s are paid to be short term focused. Anything they can do to make the team better now at the expense of making it worse years away is always very attractive to them. That’s why I thought the Josh Byrnes super long contract with the DBacks was so correct, since you take away the perverse incentives shorter term contracts have, and the GM can actually stick to long term team building plans.

    Then of course they get in a spat, fire Byrnes, and hire the Towers on a 2 year deal, which is of course, insane by a hundred times in the other direction.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • walt526 says:

      That’s an evocative hypothesis and certainly plausible given the dynamics of the principal-agent problem that exists between GMs and their teams’ owners.

      But to play devil’s advocate for a moment, GM’s are constrained to a certain extent by the desire to make themselves marketable for a future GM gig with another team. Back in 2007 Jim Hendry was only in his early-50s, so he presumably wants to work in the industry for another 10-15 years. While you may be correct that he was more concerned with how Soriano would perform early in the contract, at some level he had to believe that his reputation would pay a steep price if the contract became an albatross.

      I think that its equally plausible that Hendry either overestimated Soriano’s production and/or overestimated the rate at which MLB salaries would increase over the life of the contract. Now if I were a prospective owner, I don’t know what’s less desirable: a GM who doesn’t understand the market or a GM who blatantly disregards the long-term consequences of his roster moves in order to secure his own contract extension.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • sbmke says:

      See: Doug Melvin, Mark Attanasio and Jeff Suppan.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Yinka Double Dare says:

    To be fair, it’s been fairly widely known (at least in Chicago) that this was similar to the Yankees brass doing things over Cashman’s objections — apparently the Soriano deal was the doing of the Tribune Company honchos and you can’t really blame Hendry for it.

    Now, the Zambrano extension could well have been his fault, and he’s the one who signed Milton Bradley instead of Adam Dunn several years ago even though Dunn was practically begging to be signed by the Cubs. Likely could have signed Dunn for what they gave to Bradley, and Dunn would have been easily worth that contract over the first two years of the deal (and who knows, maybe not cratered this year either).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Eric Feczko says:

      Except the yankees brass were, and remain, smarter (speaking as a red sox fan).

      To me, Cubs fans either a) don’t understand how to evaluate players, or more likely b) lack the passion (or are too polite) to rip their front-office, ownership, and managers for being incompetent.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • DaCoach says:

        Au contraire. In truth, it’s not the fans who didn’t know how to grade players, it was the organization. The tribune owned the Cubs at the time and knew they would be rid of ownership down the road, so back end money was insignificant to them.

        As for passion and willingness to tar and feather managers, GMs and players, let me suggest you listen to sports radio in Chicago. On the other hand, the majority of print media are more willing to pacify than crucify.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. bisonaudit says:

    Is there a place to find a current (2010) salary chart, or the information relevant to producing one? $/win, wage inflation, etc.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. William says:

    Also, BSR is not included in that WAR projection, and Soriano stole 41 sb/17 cs in 06. Perhaps Hendry also overestimated his value on the base paths. It should be noted that Soriano did have the profile that ages the best (Power, Speed, Fielding, etc.)

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • TK says:

      I’m pretty sure every profile ages best at this point…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JamesDaBear says:

      The Cubs overestimated how willing he’d be to play CF and underestimated how immature he’d be about moving out of the leadoff spot. The problem with paying for speed in players that are 30+ is what happens when leg injuries happen… and happen… and happen…

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Matt says:

      SB/CS numbers are part of wOBA and not part of Bsr, so the steals and success rate part of his running game is included in the wOBA/batting runs portion of the WAR projection. Bsr is the rest of baserunning and you’re right that it wasn’t included, though it’s usually on the order of a few runs one way or the other.

      You’re probably correct on Hendry overestimating the value of Soriano’s speed though. I don’t think he was particularly inclined to advanced stats, especially in 2006, and probably payed more attention to raw totals than success rate.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. MikeS says:

    I think It was widely agreed that the back end of this contract was troublesome right from the beginning but many felt it was worth it for the potential short term benefits. It was going to last till he was 39, speed was a big part of his game, defense never was and he couldn’t be converted to a DH. He was given a long term deal to entice him to Chicago for the short term. If the Cubs had won the World Series the contract would be more justifiable because that was the intent. I don’t even think Soriano’s agent could claim with a straight face that his performance would merit that salary for the full eight years.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Nick says:

      +1, this is exactly right. He figured he could ink a couple of superstars and make the playoffs for the first three or four years, and then worry about the ugly back loaded contracts when the time came. Problem is, he swung and missed three times: Fukedome, Zambrano, and Soriano. You can easily understand the risk, and respect (i guess) that Hendry put his name on the line. Hits a HR, brings a WS to the North Side of Chi Town? Genius. Hero. Whiffs? He gets fired years down the road anyways. He bought himself four or five years of being an executive and a possibility of being a legend.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • JamesDaBear says:

      …but to make this gamble, they needed to support Soriano’s acquisition with much, much more money spent on the team. They failed to spend the rest of their money smartly and significantly and continue to build cheap talent within.

      He put his name on the line, but his accountability came at least one year too late.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. vivalajeter says:

    Not that this would sway the contract in the Cubs’ favor, but I think you at least have to mention the Cubs’ situation at the time. Were they on the verge of being an elite team, and he put them over the top? Were they a perennial 75 team win, so Soriano would only bring them near .500? Were there any good OF prospects in their system?

    Even with equal performance, sometimes a contract makes more sense for some teams and less sense for others, depending on where the organization stands.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. CircleChange11 says:

    The Cubs really thought that Fonse and Lou were going to put them over the hump.

    You win a title for the Cubs and you’re a legend.

    Of course nothing “Cubs” ever goes as planned.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • fang2415 says:

      This is the conventional wisdom on the Soriano contract, and should really be discussed in any analysis. The Trib was willing to overpay for a talent that would win the series in 07 or 08 so that they could sell the team for a heap in 09. So they bought Fonzie on a heavily backloaded deal and had two great teams that looked dominant until they shat themselves in the playoffs.

      This contract was very much about playing the short-term against the long-term. And it darn near worked, actually; if the Cubs had won a series back then, they’d be laughing off the extra millions they’re paying Soriano now. But they came up short, and now they’re stuck holding the wrong end of a tens-of-millions-of-dollar bet.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. Richie says:

    Will everyone please reread Yinka Double Dare’s post? The Tribune people signed Soriano, not Hendry. Plenty of other stuff to blame Hendry for. But blaming him for Alphonso Soriano is like blaming Brian Cashman for Rafael Soriano.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Nick says:

      Not a bad comparison. Owners getting too involved in the teams usually doesn’t end up well, does it? They hire GM’s and Head of Baseball Operations’ so that they have talent evaluators and long term thinkers to make these decisions for them. They should provide the money, the ballpark, and the support, in the form of payroll increases or votes of confidence. But they shouldn’t fancy themselves as player evaluators. And it’s not as if either Soriano was signed to put people in the seats–Rafael is not a star and Wrigley sells out every game.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. valuearb says:

    You can’t give Hendry a pass for Soriano just because “it was known” tribune execs signed Soriano. Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan, and when bad deals are made there are always mutterings by insiders and friends of insiders that it wasn’t their fault.

    When Eric Byrnes got his awful contract from the Diamondbacks, Jeffrey Moorad, the president of the team publicly stated at the news conference that it was negotiated directly between himself and Eric without the GM being present, because Moorad thought Eric was super valuable and it was the only way to get a deal done .

    That’s clear proof that Eric Byrnes was shoved down Josh Byrnes throat.

    So far no one is giving any credible evidence that Hendry wasn’t 100% behind or on board with the Soriano signing.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. CubsCrazy says:

    I remember reading in SI around the time of the signing that it was actually a good deal, largely in part to Sori’s body type. While there was some implication that he wouldn’t ever produce on a 8/136 level, the writer felt his lean frame would result in him being highly productive even into his mid- and late-30′s. At the time, I agreed and if Sori hadn’t dealt w/ some rather serious injuries his first few years w/ the Cubs, maybe his contract wouldn’t draw the ire of so many right now. Now I’d like to examine the Dempster and Grabow contracts…

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. Hurtlocker says:

    These long term contracts for huge sums of money are always subject to debate. ARod has missed about 30 games a year in the last three years but still produces at a ggod rate. Is he worth 25 milliaon a year?? Werth will easily become the “Zito” of the future for being over paid. The point is this doesn’t seem to stop teams from doing this, there never seems to be any lesson’s learned.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Garrett says:

      Crawford is an inferior player and paid more. Please explain why?

      Why do you use Zito instead of Lee as a comparison?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. The Nicker says:

    Hurtlocker uses Zito as a comparison because Werth’s 7 year deal is a lot more similar to Zito’s 7 year deal (in fact, it’s almost the exact same) than Lee’s 5 year deal. Additionally, he clearly uses “Zito” as a comparison because he thinks the contract will be bad. Zito’s contract is universally deemed to be a bad contract. On the other hand, Lee’s current deal appears to be at least an ok deal, and it’s certainly to early to tell that it is a bad deal.

    I find it humorous that you state that “Crawford is an inferior player” with no explanation and then demand that Hurtlocker explain why Werth is worse than Crawford even though he didn’t bring Crawford or his contract into the discussion. At least, that’s what I’m pretty sure you did, but you writing in its brevity was so poor that I’m merely guessing as to your argument.

    As for the Crawford/Werth debate, it’s complicated and I don’t want to get too far off my point, which is that you are a troll/idiot/troll that needs to leave this website, but here goes. I think it’s pretty fair to say both should have been valued about equally for 2011 as about 5 WAR players, however, Crawford is three years younger.

    Back to my point, which is that you are on here basically espousing generalizations about the readership of this website. By no means do we all agree on everything. We do agree on intelligent discourse and a general lack of hostility. You are free to argue that the WAR/$ argument that Fangraphs sets forth is misguided. I’m sure there’s some good arguments. But you don’t provide good arguments. You provide nothing.

    In conclusion, you are a troll/idiot/troll. Please leave.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Garrett says:

      Wrong Lee. You’re so fucking retarded.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Garrett says:

      Lets examine what you said since I’ve got some free time in between masturbating and making pancakes: “You are free to argue that the WAR/$ argument that Fangraphs sets forth is misguided.”

      1) Where is this “set forth”? My understanding is that its just sloppy shit used to create piss poor contract articles devoid of context. Please cite where this is “set forth”, recently there was a piece that showed the value of Wainwright’s lost season. Magically it didn’t follow WAR/$. Shocking.
      2) It just as misguided as comparing player’s using non-park/league adjusted numbers. In fact it would be like skipping something like wRC+ in favor of OPS. While a big step up from the Dave Cameron level completely devoid of cognition, it is easily improved upon.
      3) Putting forth these simple arguments in every post is retarded. The problems are self-evident. Much like the flaws in stringer data and the uncertainty of certain metrics. Most of FG’s readership is rather stupid. Fuck. Half the writers make egregious errors on the reg. (Sarris’s recent shit about arbitrary was roflbad. Everyone wrting about contracts is terrible. Dave Cameron bears more in common with Glenn Beck than an actual analyst. etc.)

      Perhaps you want a site full of nut riding sycophants who eagerly gobble down the smegma-imbued dribbles of “knowledge” from the staff. I thought this was a site for discussion about baseball. Judging by the comment rankings, you’re correct.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Garrett says:

      Apparently I’m talking to myself, but I find this part quite ironic: “but you writing in its brevity was so poor that I’m merely guessing as to your argument.”

      But I writing so pour, u dun understand.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • The Nicker says:

        You try to make fun of me for missing an “r” in my sentence. That’s called a typo. Good for you. I was pointing out to you that your entire message was so convoluted that I could not figure out the meaning of what you were trying to convey. Glad my message evidently hit home with such power that you couldn’t help but stew over your inadequacy for 29 hours after your initial rebuttal before coming back with the oh so clever ironic grammar correction retort.

        You call me “fucking retarded” because I could not figure out what Lee you were talking about. I guess I should have known you were talking about Carlos Lee, who was mentioned once in this string of comments (not by you) with respect to free agent signings made concurrently with Soriano’s. I thought you were talking about Cliff Lee because you brought up another major pitcher contract: Zito. By the way, your argument is still horrible. Why would we compare Soriano’s contract to Lee’s and Lee’s only? They were both terrible. Are we supposed to view every offseason each year in a vacuum?

        Fangraphs does not have their $/WAR calculation in their glossary. That should be corrected. I actually agree with you that the $/WAR idea doesn’t work very well. Fangraphs essentially gets their $/WAR stat retrospectively by looking at the money that was paid to all free agents (only) and what they WAR’d and averaging them. Super simple actually. I don’t think it works. As you rightfully point out, not even the writers use $/WAR straight up very often so what are you really arguing against?

        Your point 1 and point 2 are one point. They should really all be under point 1. You’re just continuing your diatribe.

        The rest is really just troll baiting. Comparing Cameron to Glenn Beck? What? Smegma? “Most of FG’s readership is rather stupid. Fuck”? Have you ever argued something to a group of people before?

        Let me tell you something. Next time you have to give a presentation or a report to the department at work, don’t start powerpoint slide one with “you guys are all fucking stupid followers that think the same thing. fuck.”

        Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *