Article: Kepler's Unusual Contract

[Otto von Ballpark]

You are isolating a detail of little consequence and ignoring the fact that I already acknowledged 20 million was Max's alleged value in the market. Why keep pursuing this?

You used (and are still using?) that little incorrect detail in an attempt to ridicule Fangraphs. I am not pursuing anything other than noting the correction for others.

[ewen21]

 

If you looked closer at methodology, 

 

No thank you.  Why look bother analyzing.

 

And when you say things like this:

Fangraphs has never advocated Dozier to receive anything approaching $46 mil for a single year of his services

What are you really saying about this methodology I need to look at more closely?  To what end?

If it doesn't serve too deal terms applicable to reality I cannot bother with it.

Moreover, how can you use the Michael Brantley example over and over again to give it validity when you say what is in bold above?

 

I will try to answer all your questions but you have ignored all of mine thus far

 

Have a good day.  Maybe we can pick this up next week.  I have things do as I have an extended weekend and places to go

 

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

As great as Mookie Betts was last year are we going so insane as to believe he is worth $83 million for a 1 year deal in the open market?

No. But 10.6 WAR from a single player could absolutely be worth a ton to a team. Maybe not precisely $83 mil, but it would likely blow our minds compared to the current MLB salary scale.

 

But, Betts isn't projected to produce 10.6 WAR (no one ever is), and nobody ever that good would settle for a one year deal on the open market either -- they would leverage it over many years and more money.

[PDX Twin]

 

This begs the question.....

How much longer did player salaries need to increase at ridiculous rates?  Average player salaries  increased by over 100% from 2001 to 2015.  Was this supposed to continue until the end of time?

 

Some rational economic reasoning here. Extrapolation is very risky. I recall a wonderfully humorous article on this subject in the Economist's holiday issue a decade or so ago. One of their examples was that, if one extrapolated the trend at that time, by 2100 everyone in Chicago would be murdered every year!

[Squirrel]

Some rational economic reasoning here. Extrapolation is very risky. I recall a wonderfully humorous article on this subject in the Economist's holiday issue a decade or so ago. One of their examples was that, if one extrapolated the trend at that time, by 2100 everyone in Chicago would be murdered every year!

 

Good thing I won’t be living here by then!

[Mike Sixel]

Remember when this was a thread about Kepler? Me neither.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Mike Sixel

[terrydactyls]

Would it be appropriate to ask all the Fangraph debaters to start a new thread and return this thread to the topic of Kepler and his new contract? My opinion (no absolutes, no adement declarations, just the opinion of an old fart) is that it's a good deal for both sides. Securing $35M at age 26 is a damn nice deal for Kepler. With his intellect, he is now financially secure for the rest of his life and can concentrate of becoming the best player he can. The Twins have locked up a player they obviously believe in for seven years for a reasonable amount of money. In a couple years, if he performs well, Kepler will be significantly underpaid. If not, he can become trade material. I like the deal.

[ashbury]

There’s a lot to like in his profile, and he just turned 26 years old this week, plus he’s relatively new to this baseball thing being from Germany.

 

...and he would be entering his 27-year-old season, which is still on the upswing of a baseball player’s career.

 

He’ll be able to hit free agency as a 31-year-old, which is a plenty marketable age. If he’s hitting and if salaries bump up a bit, he could be in line for a deal worth twice as much.

Great article, and in return I offer mere quibbles:

 

- Max's baseball experience in Germany is often mischaracterized like that. There is a small but strong American influence there, and he played as a young child, and attended the best baseball academy in that country. Maybe the instruction wasn't quite as good as he'd have gotten at the best places here. But it's far from him having been discovered on a Pacific atoll throwing coconuts into the ocean to conk distant dolphins, and having a tourist show him a baseball and ask, "y'ever seen one a these?"

 

- Age 27 is about when a player had better already have established what he's going to establish, and not hope for further upswing. That's about the point where further learning and experience starts to collide with Father Time eroding the physical gifts.

 

- This off-season free agent market has been a wakeup call for players in their thirties, and additionally with the CBA coming up for renegotiation it's really unclear what the market for Max will be when the time comes. Yes, he'll find employment if he's still capable, but it may turn out in retrospect that players in his age cohort had better have made the vast majority of their lifetime earnings during the period this new contract covers. The times, they are a-changing.

[Jham]

FWIW, he would likely be on the sideline with Manny and Bryce waiting to get his money. Seven years for Max Kepler after last year? The Twins clearly like him and trust him. I can't see him getting that kind of security from an organization that didn't raise him.

 

This contract is unique. We could benefit enormously from it, but I cannot agree with anyone who says he'd get 7 years in the open market. Not until these kinds of contracts for 25 year old guys who hit .224 the season prior become the norm.

I mean, you guys are both right. There's a different scale for Free Agents than extensions. There are opposite pressures. Bidding in the FA market and team control on the extension side. One pulls up, the other drags down.

 

The cost per WAR on the FA market is skewed because less valuable players drop out the bottom. The guys with positive WAR who aren't signed don't get count as zeros. Players of Kepler's production level are virtually worthless at a certain age because almost every organization has guys with upside who can do what he has done for league min. Or you can sign a retread to a minor league deal or even an ML deal which boosts the number since they're counting the guys who sign and not the ones who don't. Kepler got his money because he's youngish with upside. If his same production were available but he was 31 when most players hit FA the market for him along with the perception of him would probably be platoon or 4th outfielder. League is changing. Skewing toward super stars and rookie deals.

[puckstopper1]

My initial reaction was that the cost was a bit high and the years a bit long.  But after looking at the charts it seems like a fair deal.  It is a great contract for the Twins if Max's bat improves, and good stability for Max if he continues to meander offensively. 

 

On its own this contract should not prevent the Twins from spending more to upgrade their team in the future, but when you start adding in others (Polanco, Rosario, Buxton, etc.) that is where the length and amount become a concern.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think 2018 Kepler in 4 years, on a reasonable 1 year contract with two reasonable team option years, could absolutely still be an asset. Nothing elite, of course, but valuable enough to trade for something useful.

 

In four years Kepler will be 30 and he might not be the same defensive player he is now.  At some point during htis contract he's going to have to have enough offense to offset the fact he is getting older.

[Squirrel]

Does anyone know of any other contracts being structured this way for players at this stage in their careers? I wonder if this could be a trend. I could see this structure potentially being better from a budgetary planning standpoint.

[Mike Sixel]

I can't believe people think this price is any kind of barrier to future spending.

[Squirrel]

I can't believe people think this price is any kind of barrier to future spending.

Uh, who said that exactly?

 

I think the structure of this would allow for more flexibility, actually.

[jkcarew]

 

I can't believe people think this price is any kind of barrier to future spending.

Especially, when the deal won't be any kind of barrier for future trading. Toward the middle/end of the contract, Kepler will be, at a minimum, a solid strong-side platoon option at a corner or 1B. He would be dumpable in a heartbeat at a trade deadline with this contract....if it came to that.

 

Smart deal by Twins...slightly surprised, but not shocked, that Kepler's camp pulled the trigger on this type of deal at this point in time.

[Doomtints]

I don't know that I would give someone who profiles so closely to Dan Gladden a contract like this. I would pay him his due share through arbitration and let him go in free agency -- or sooner if an internal option looks more interesting.

 

20 dingers a year just isn't as valuable as it used to be.

[ashbury]

FWIW, in the story, I don't mention FanGraphs calculation. I haven't really studied it.

...

Would he have gotten that contract from any other team if he was on the free agent market? Undoubtedly. Would he have agreed to it? I bet not.

It was of course Seth who brought up FG, in the first reply. While well-intentioned, and casts the new contract in a favorable light, I think it is a serious misuse of the notion of dollars-per-WAR. And not for the reasons already brought up.

 

I wouldn't quibble about the exact value per win - you'll find differing values depending on which FG article you look at and which years were looked at, and whether the methodology was forward-looking or backward-looking, among other things.

 

The bigger problem is that the number pertains to free agents. The Collective Bargaining Agreement is structured a certain way. As it has evolved, the premium paid to free agents amounts to the Stupidity Tax you pay for not having developed your own, young, cheap talent, for whatever spot on the roster you have decided is below par. Every team has to pay this Stupidity Tax now and then (so I use the word Stupidity as mildly humorous); on the other hand, no team is now willing to pay also the Luxury Tax that comes on top of paying the Stupidity Tax for every player on the roster. All teams are somewhere between the extremes.

 

Max Kepler was not a free agent. Full stop. Using the free agent Stupidity Tax, as a benchmark, is what one boss of mine used to call "interesting, but not relevant."

 

The CBA makes it so that good players are vastly underpaid their first several years, and maybe marginally underpaid for the next several as well. Your (John's) charts demonstrate this quite well.

 

Any contract extension that is reached during these years of a player's career is going to be shaped partly by the years remaining under team control, partly by the years of free agency being bought out, and partly by the security it gives both player and team.

 

EVERY such contract is going to look good, compared to paying the Stupidity Tax. That doesn't mean an individual contract is good, by itself. Free agency is the wrong benchmark to use. Max Kepler wasn't a free agent. (Yes, that bears repeating.)

 

What difference does it make? None, really, to us fans.

 

But if our front office is congratulating themselves to the degree that Seth suggested, saying that the contract is a steal? Then it's a problem. If I were in Dave St Peter's or Jim Pohlad's position, I'd be very concerned about their acumen and would walk into their champagne party to tell them so. Anyone could load up on players with contract extensions like this, and still not have a very good, or particularly cost-effective, team for competing to make the post-season.

 

I'm sure FalVine are not actually breaking open a bottle of the bubbly this week. Max is entitled to - he's now set for life, as he deserves to be in this economy.

 

Like any long-term contract, Kepler's has enough uncertainty that it could turn out to be a steal for the team, or could turn out to be a bust - either outcome won't in retrospect make this any other than what it seems to be, a contract that's about market-correct. If someone with a sharper business eye than mine, or has better forecasting tools, thinks it's team-friendly, it's got to be only by a smidgen.

 

Sprinkle IMO everywhere in the above, to taste.

[Doomtints]

But if our front office is congratulating themselves to the degree that Seth suggested, saying that the contract is a steal? Then it's a problem. If I were in Dave St Peter or Jim Pohlad positions, I'd be very concerned about their acumen. Anyone could load up on players with contract extensions like this, and still not have a very good, or particularly cost-effective, team for competing to make the post-season.

 

Precisely.

[JD Green]

IMHO, Kepler seemed to do better before he started being concerned about launch angle this past year. To me, the drawback when trying to achieve launch angle is that it provides fielders more time to get under the ball for an out. 

 

Remembering the swing of Rod Carew, all he was trying to accomplish was to meet the ball with the bat. Seems like that ended up being a fairly successful approach over time. Also Tony Oliva's saying of see ball - hit ball.

 

Granted, a home run is good every once in a while, but you cant expect to hit the ball out every at bat. Crooked numbers mostly come from having runners on base.

 

Hope Max can get back to the swing and approach that used to work for him.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Uh, who said that exactly?

I think the structure of this would allow for more flexibility, actually.

 

Yeah, my skepticism only kicks in when people try to make the contract too valuable right now and going forward.  I think it can be a great value if Kepler starts to hit, but the current Kepler isn't particularly valuable at this price going forward.

 

But a handful of million should absolutely do nothing to impede spending.  That impediment starts with a P and ends with Ohlads.

[drivlikejehu]

I don't think there's any reason to suggest the front office sees the contract as anything other than a fair deal, which is exactly what it looks like to me. Agents negotiate contracts for a living and Kepler's agent got him a lot of guaranteed money relative to what he has shown to date.

 

Before making this deal, the Twins corner outfield situation was: Kepler under control through 2022, Rosario under control through 2021, with one elite corner outfield prospect who could be ready in 2020 or even earlier, one very good corner outfield prospect who could be ready in 2021 or even earlier, and several other prospects who could be in the picture over the next several years (Rooker, Baddoo, Lewis if SS doesn't work out, etc.). 

 

There's really nothing about that picture that made extending Kepler a high priority. Even if the Twins want Kepler around as CF insurance, he was under control through 2022 anyway, and beyond that he might not really be suited to center. They have some young outfield prospects who may emerge by then as well. To me this is basically a straightforward reflection of the fact that the front office is optimistic Kepler will be a productive hitter going forward.

Edited February 16, 2019 by drivlikejehu

[Jham]

My only trepidation is that to me, it seemed that his spot is maybe the most easily replaced (would Cave be a definite step down?) and more importantly one of the easiest spots to upgrade if your team tops out. This FO will not upgrade above contracts it already possesses.

[Seth Stohs]

 

It was of course Seth who brought up FG, in the first reply. While well-intentioned, and casts the new contract in a favorable light, I think it is a serious misuse of the notion of dollars-per-WAR. And not for the reasons already brought up.

 

That's why I said "If you believe in it" (or something to that intent)... Honestly, all I meant for it to say was that even if he stays at what he was in 2018 (which was like 2.8 fWAR), then $7 million is a great deal. And, has been mentioned, if he does take any sort of step forward, it's even more of a steal. 

[caninatl04]

What's the over / under on how long he'll remain a Twins. My guess is the '21 trade deadline.

 

That's assuming Bux doesn't completely flame out and they need to move Kepler to CF.

[Dman]

 

What's the over / under on how long he'll remain a Twins. My guess is the '21 trade deadline.

That's assuming Bux doesn't completely flame out and they need to move Kepler to CF.

 

If Kepler improves his batting average to say even 260 I think the Twins will be hard pressed to move him.  His defense is close to elite for a right fielder. He has enough power to stay there and K and walk percentage are decent and could get better.  He just needs to bring that average up and suddenly he is a great player.

 

Cave's K rate is not great and while his defense would play in right I'm not sure his arm does.  Cave's BABIP was also high last year while Keplers was low.  Cave is probably the closest replacement for Kepler but personally I think right now Kepler is better and if Kepler improves a little I think he is definitely the better all around player in right field.

 

Wade could probably play good defense in right and he has always had a good OBP but he lacks the power that you typically want your right fielder to have.  You could take the trade off but again if Kepler improves his BA a little he looks like the better player.

 

Kiriloff can play right and his bat would would play there but he would be at his very best an average fielder in Right.  Personally I think Kiriloff is better fit in left field or first base as he doesn't have great speed for the outfield.  He can certainly play outfield but his defense there will likely never be near elite.

 

If Kepler improves his BA,  keeps his K rate down and Walk rate up, keeps slugging 20 to 25 home runs per year then he is going to be tough to replace.  If he improves I predict he will be a Twin through the life of his contract.  I don't see anyone in the system with the number of tools he has and the ceiling he has for that position.

 

If he stays who he is then, Yes I agree with you the Twins have lots of options.  Those options all have there flaws but if he can't hit that will be a problem.

[Riverbrian]

If you believe in him... You believe in him. This contract isn't cripplin by any stretch of the imagination. 

 

If it goes bust... Oh Well... That's life. The contract isn't crippling.

 

Now...The Super Two status...  That's a little tough to swallow... .We wasted 16 days of service time in April 2016, The OF was falling apart, the team was falling apart and he got 12 AB's during this time on the bench in April. Those 16 days of bench time would have had him pretty close to the super two cutoff. 

 

I'd build a statue for Terry Ryan in his honor... but there are times like these where I would walk up to the statue and yell at it. 

 

 

[ashbury]

I would walk up to the statue and yell at it. 

You've aged a lot in recent weeks.

 

[ashbury]

That's why I said "If you believe in it" (or something to that intent)... Honestly, all I meant for it to say was that even if he stays at what he was in 2018 (which was like 2.8 fWAR), then $7 million is a great deal. And, has been mentioned, if he does take any sort of step forward, it's even more of a steal. 

I suspect you're going to be equally wowed by every contract extension of a not-yet-FA-eligible young player you read about, by any team, then.

 

The reason $7M for a good season will be a great deal is that the contract blends also all the risk of not-great outcomes into the price. You're looking at the upside but not the downside.

 

Which... is fine for our team to do. They, being the ones who sign a few dozen player contracts every year, are better placed to absorb the risk, than the player who has only one life to live and values the certainty. Kepler's now set for life - the tradeoff being that he could have bet on himself and possibly gotten more, but just as possibly ended up with almost nothing if the worst were to happen. So, good deal for both sides - just like life insurance is a good deal for those at certain times in their lives - the individual has the risk smoothed out, the big company comes out ahead on average.

 

But way short of "incredible," the term you chose, for the team.

[Seth Stohs]

 

I suspect you're going to be equally wowed by every contract extension of a not-yet-FA-eligible young player you read about, by any team, then.

 

The reason $7M for a good season will be a great deal is that the contract blends also all the risk of not-great outcomes into the price. You're looking at the upside but not the downside.

 

Which... is fine for our team to do. They, being the ones who sign a few dozen player contracts every year, are better placed to absorb the risk, than the player who has only one life to live and values the certainty. Kepler's now set for life - the tradeoff being that he could have bet on himself and possibly gotten more, but just as possibly ended up with almost nothing if the worst were to happen. So, good deal for both sides - just like life insurance is a good deal for those at certain times in their lives - the individual has the risk smoothed out, the big company comes out ahead on average.

 

But way short of "incredible," the term you chose, for the team.

 

I mean, the downside is that he doesn't every play again... And yes, this type of signing for these types of dollars involve some risk on both sides... they all do. The Twins have plenty of money available this year. They've found a way to level it out so that he never makes the real huge money in any one year. 

 

OK, maybe I'll change "incredible" to "really good" or something more appropriate. And, I will likely applaud most of these types of deals. 

[Platoon]

To me Kepler did several sensible things here. First and foremost he set himself up for life, he took the money and ran. Secondly, he seemed to view that times, they are achanging. Free agent bidding is not as robust as it had been, and there really is no way a new CBA can guarantee that. It could change the contract structuring, but the days of paying for what you used to do are over. Thirdly, he could have "bet on himself". He may have won that bet, or one of his ACL's might have lost it for him. And last(ly). There is something to be said for a 'bird in the hand is better than two in that fondly remember center field batters eye!