Another Free Agent?

[Guest USAFChief]

I don't mean this to offend - you've been vocal about not understanding/appreciating defensive metrics. UZR is not an effective tool for comparison based on one year's data. It is incredibly unreliable to the point of worthless. As evidenced by jokin rightly giving more context in the post after yours.

 

So no, one year of UZR is not valid support.

 

I agree that I don't appreciate defensive metrics...that is not the same thing as not understanding them.

 

This is all rather ironic, in that your support for Florimon is based on his defense being "much better" than Drew's, but when pointed out to you that at least one of the primary defensive metrics used (and the one used in Fangraphs WAR, which is often thrown around here as evidence) doesn't support that opinion, you then tell us that defensive metric isn't valid, but your defensive metric of choice is.

 

You have every right to think Florimon is as much better at defense as Drew is at offense. But let's not pretend either one of us can prove or disprove opinions about defense, or that defensive metrics are in any way as precise or reliable as offensive measures. For that matter, lets stop pretending we can forecast how a player that won't turn 31 for another couple months will age over the next three years.

 

For the record, my opinion is that Florimon will probably be a bit better defensively over the next three years. I also think there will be a huge gap offensively in Drew's favor. In my opinion, the gap between the two is big enough that while Drew will most likely be a major league shortstop in 2016, I will be surprised if Florimon is.

[TheLeviathan]

C'mon Levi. Is there anyone on here that has said, in any way, shape, manner or form, that Drew is somehow flawless?

 

No, but the defense of him got to the point that we were using one year of UZR to imply Drew's defense was...what? better? almost as good? Whatever you want to call what your attempt was, it was incredibly misguided.

 

You want to overpay for a year of him? Two years of him? I could probably get behind that. Anything past two years? I'm out, I'm not interested. And I, and others who share my opinion, have plenty of valid reasons to do so.

[jokin]

10th out of 17. I would call that an "ok" defender, exactly as I labeled him. Florimon, at least last year, played at a much higher than "ok" level.

 

The question is, does Drew as he ages, sink even further than "ok"? And, since trends indicate a strong likelihood he will, is that the kind of player you want to commit to? Maybe the immediate offensive boost would be sufficient for some. It's reasonable for others to conclude it's not.

 

Actually, the specific trends from Drew's recent defensive performance don't indicate anything with strong likelihood in a negative direction, certainly not an imminent cliff-like dropoff. If it should occur in year 2 of a 2 year deal, or year 3 of a 3-year deal, so what? He still brings a solid bat to his makeup against RHP, offering a nice potential Super-Util option. And again, $10M in an expiring year isn't going to cripple the franchise.

[TheLeviathan]

you then tell us that defensive metric isn't valid, but your defensive metric of choice is.

 

No, I said using one year of UZR is not valid. I read, I can't remember where, that one year of UZR is roughly equivalent to using 50 games by a hitter. It's a sample size issue that invalidates it.

 

The defensive metrics almost all show Florimon was a top five shortstop last year. Drew was in the middle. I could see how someone would be ok with that drop in order to add that much offense to the position.

 

Florimon was a great defender and an awful hitter last year. Drew was an ok fielder and a good hitter last year. I can sympathize with the reasoning to make that change. what I don't get is trying to repaint reality to make that change even more appealing.

[jokin]

No, but the defense of him got to the point that we were using one year of UZR to imply Drew's defense was...what? better? almost as good? Whatever you want to call what your attempt was, it was incredibly misguided.

 

You want to overpay for a year of him? Two years of him? I could probably get behind that. Anything past two years? I'm out, I'm not interested. And I, and others who share my opinion, have plenty of valid reasons to do so.

 

No, putting words in mouths again. And certainly not misguided. Merely pointed to a metric that suggests that Drew isn't the defender you were making him out to be. The stats in 2013 indicate a poor-man's JJ Hardy like SS, a very non-flashy, non-rangy SS who reliably makes most of the plays in front of him, and reliably turns the DP. And his career stats indicate that he has improved at what he does best, as he has aged.

 

Those of us who are terribly concerned about the offense have just as many valid reasons to try to remove yet another bat from the lineup that doesn't even qualify for Fantasy Baseball drafts.

[JP3700]

No, but the defense of him got to the point that we were using one year of UZR to imply Drew's defense was...what? better? almost as good? Whatever you want to call what your attempt was, it was incredibly misguided.

 

But it's still a vastly superior one-year measure to UZR.

 

To be fair, so was this quote.

[TheLeviathan]

Actually, the specific trends from Drew's recent defensive performance don't indicate anything with strong likelihood in a negative direction, certainly not an imminent cliff-like dropoff.

 

As jorgen's graph shows, his age is where you start to see that drop become less gradual and more percipitous. Right around 30 you see a 5% drop, then it's 7% every year from there on. Which starts to look cliff-like over a three year span.

 

It may not happen for Drew for any number of reasons. But that is a useful guide for what to expect from the position as the player ages.

 

Those of us who are terribly concerned about the offense have just as many valid reasons

 

I'm concerned about the offense too. Just not convinced this player, at his current price, is an answer to that.

 

Merely pointed to a metric that suggests that Drew isn't the defender you were making him out to be.

 

But then you posted a proper sampling of UZR and it showed exactly what I said he was - correct?

[jokin]

10th out of 17. I would call that an "ok" defender, exactly as I labeled him. Florimon, at least last year, played at a much higher than "ok" level.

 

.

 

But then you posted a proper sampling of UZR and it showed exactly what I said he was - correct?

 

 

 

 

But he still was one of only 11 SS with a positive rating from 2010 to 2013. And if you throw out the defensive stats from his first year back from his ankle surgery in 2012, when he clearly was learning how to run, stop and start again (which was -7), Drew is around the top 5 for the years 2010, 11 and 13. (3 years of UZR data are considered valid).

[jokin]

As jorgen's graph shows, his age is where you start to see that drop become less gradual and more percipitous. Right around 30 you see a 5% drop, then it's 7% every year from there on. Which starts to look cliff-like over a three year span.

 

It may not happen for Drew for any number of reasons. But that is a useful guide for what to expect from the position as the player ages.

 

 

 

I'm concerned about the offense too. Just not convinced this player, at his current price, is an answer to that.

 

I don't know about the factors considered in this study, but I would think a lot of the drop off is related to the level of athleticism. A more athletic guy who relies on more athleticism is going to skew the data when he begins his decline phase. I would question the usefulness of this study in relation to Drew, as he doesn't start from that lofty athletic "pedestal";) that many SS do.

[TheLeviathan]

But he still was one of only 11 SS with a positive rating from 2010 to 2013. And if you throw out the defensive stats from his first year back from his ankle surgery in 2012, when he clearly was learning how to run, stop and start again (which was -7), Drew is around the top 5 for the years 2010, 11 and 13. (3 years of UZR data are considered valid).

 

Now you're changing the data again, which is fine I understand your reasoning on it, but you can't do that and then apply my comments the same. The truth is, you misapplied the stat initially and your second data set supports my label.

 

It takes being an "ok" defender to last that many years as a starter at that position. Not everyone can be good, he fits well in the middle tier. (And that's being more complimentary of him than, say, defensive runs saved would be to him) Now perhaps 2012's number was out of character because of the injury. That would make sense. It's also possible that year's stats are important for the sample to be accurate. (UZR is a stat often considered to be a "more the merrier" stats)

 

I'm not sure either of us is qualified to make that distinction, no?

[jokin]

Now you're changing the data again, which is fine I understand your reasoning on it, but you can't do that and then apply my comments the same. The truth is, you misapplied the stat initially and your second data set supports my label.

 

It takes being an "ok" defender to last that many years as a starter at that position. Not everyone can be good, he fits well in the middle tier. (And that's being more complimentary of him than, say, defensive runs saved would be to him) Now perhaps 2012's number was out of character because of the injury. That would make sense. It's also possible that year's stats are important for the sample to be accurate. (UZR is a stat often considered to be a "more the merrier" stats)

 

I'm not sure either of us is qualified to make that distinction, no?

 

I was well aware of the reticence of the defensive stat guys to giving one-year data the final word on someone's performance. I merely threw that one stat in there to stop the steamrolling tide that somehow was contending that Florimon is worthy of the Simmons "pedestal" and Drew is merely just another "pedestrian" SS. (And I'd like to see the data that says single-year dWAR is X-amount more statistically valid.)

 

All of the reports on Drew from 2012 were that it was a very tough road he was on in his rehab and making it back to the majors, lots of stops and starts, he literally had to learn how to walk again (hence my double-entendred use of "pedestrian" above). [Have you seen the video of his injury? I posted it on the Drew thread. Gruesome.]

[TheLeviathan]

Florimon is worthy of the Simmons "pedestal"

 

Simmons is on his own level. But most measures I've seen had Florimon in the next tier. Drew not so much. Again, it all depends what you want to pick, but I don't think cherry picking with UZR is a fair way to argue.

 

His 2012 UZR may be an outlier, it may not be. That's speculation I don't find value in engaging to be honest - I doubt either of us are qualified to draw that conclusion.

 

The best supported argument is that we would be downgrading our defense to Drew, likely by a significant margin and likely that margin would only grow over time. We'd also almost certainly be upgrading our offense.

 

And again, if you are willing to sacrifice that in the name of offense, I could see that. I don't share the view, however. (And I've become more and more against it as my own torn feelings on him have been met with this bizarre need by some to argue away all of Drew's flaws. I was more positive about it earlier quite frankly)

[jay]

The main points in favor of signing him are:

the sorely-need bat,

a position of need that doesn't block a prospect,

and the fact that overpaying him if he turns out to be a bust in out-year #1 or #2 won't hurt the franchise's long-term goals of acquiring more talent in other sorely-needed areas.

 

Your last point is most certainly an opinion. One of which I would disagree with. Drew's contract wouldn't prevent the Twins from making any moves, but it is highly likely that $10M could be better used in 2016. I'd welcome a two-year deal if Drew would take it. A third year or more would make me wince.

 

Between the other 3 threads, I think the Drew topic has topped 500 posts. Is that a new record?

[jokin]

The Twins haven't done enough to address shortstop - I've been heavily in the camp of trying to use some of the Cuban defectors as options for this. Would be much better money spent IMO.

 

As for Hardy - he's been a significantly better fielder than Drew his entire career. He hasn't started to decline yet, that's true, but exceptions (so far) prove the rule...no?

 

Guys with similar body type and similar playing styles and similar strong comebacks from injuries, and Drew has significantly improved his defense from his early Arizona days, all of these suggest that he might qualify as another exception.

[jokin]

Your last point is most certainly an opinion. One of which I would disagree with. Drew's contract wouldn't prevent the Twins from making any moves, but it is highly likely that $10M could be better used in 2016. I'd welcome a two-year deal if Drew would take it. A third year or more would make me wince.

 

Between the other 3 threads, I think the Drew topic has topped 500 posts. Is that a new record?

 

$20-$28M is coming off the books before 2016. The Twins might use the excuse that their hands are tied by keeping Drew around in 2016, and there's a decent chance that the $10M could be better spent then, but they have numerous potential $10M piles sitting around One Twins Way, invalidating that Twins excuse- it's the cost of playing the game- and it's a cost that by management's own words, was built into building Target Field.

[jokin]

Simmons is on his own level. But most measures I've seen had Florimon in the next tier. Drew not so much. Again, it all depends what you want to pick, but I find it disingenuous to cherry pick which years you want to use for UZR.

 

His 2012 UZR may be an outlier, it may not be. That's speculation I don't find value in engaging to be honest - I doubt either of us are qualified to draw that conclusion.

 

What has been consistent is that whenever I've read about shortstop defense in 2013 - Simmons is a monsters. Florimon is in the top 5/10. Drew is not. We would be downgrading our defense to Drew, likely by a significant margin and likely that margin would only grow over time.

 

And again, if you are willing to sacrifice that in the name of offense, I could see that. I don't share the view, however.

 

There are no cherries to pick here- this isn't an apples and oranges comparison....because....There is data and press reports that says coming back from ankle surgery slowed Drew's effectiveness in 2012. Drew's 2010, 2011, and most especially 2013, defensive data supports the supposition that 2012 was a year that can be largely disregarded based on the evidence presented.

 

And you haven't as yet, presented evidence that confirms that putting Drew at SS instead of Florimon decreases the SS defense "likely by a significant margin and likely a margin that would only grow over time." A downgrade yes, no one is arguing that..... but my stats support an above-average SS played by Drew....and by the very stats you use and the BP chart you refer to, the more athletic SS, Florimon at age 27, is also entering his own decline phase, which if I'm correct in my hypothesis that more athletic players have more athleticism to lose, negates part of your supposition that the margin would grow over time.

[AHSaves]

We have to have a shortstop for 2+ years. Money isn't an issue.

 

If Florimon and Drew were both free agents, who would you take?

 

There's also no one saying you can't trade Drew after the 2nd year anyway! Or just front-load the contract.

 

The prices for contracts will only increase. $10MM to Drew now will be more expensive in two or three years for a comparable player.

 

In my opinion, the biggest hurt we will get from Stephen Drew is our lost 2nd round pick.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

It is figured out. It is called Designated Hitter. But he usual hits for the pitcher position. Doesn't have to, though...

 

I wondered about that too because that's what I thought. Because why not? But the rule is apparently restricted to the pitcher.

 

6.10

1. 
   
2. ( The Designated Hitter Rule provides as follows:
   
   

(1) A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequentpitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) inthe game.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2013/official_baseball_rules.pdf

 

The DH itself is still optional in any given game; but the position DHed for must be pitcher position. Poorly written rule, to my mind.

 

And there's no way to jigger it like having Florimon pitch to the leadoff guy and then go play short unless we wanted to do the pincher hitter in the 1st inning thing (discussed on another thread). We're stuck with Florimon's bat, like it or not. Unless we sign Drew. Hey, somebody should start a thread on that………..

[TheLeviathan]

There's also no one saying you can't trade Drew after the 2nd year anyway! Or just front-load the contract.

 

This doesn't happen. Ever. I've heard it thrown around a lot lately. It's a player driven thing, they won't negotiate that way.

 

Let's just all take that off the table.

[The Wise One]

This is not to enter into a Drew vs Florimon thing but 2 questions

 

1. What top level player without injury concerns has signed less than a 4 year contract the last couple of years? In figuring out whether or not Drew is worth a contract, I would think that it would be for 4 years.

2. What shortstops in Drew's talent range was consistently playing 120 games a year into their mid 30's. If you are going to be paying someone the kind of contract Drew is supposed to get, it would be reasonable to think that he would play in the field 3/4 of the time.

[AHSaves]

This doesn't happen. Ever. I've heard it thrown around a lot lately. It's a player driven thing, they won't negotiate that way.

 

Let's just all take that off the table.

 

on the contrary...

JAN. 10: Feldman's deal is front-loaded, tweets Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. The right-hander will earn $12MM in 2014, $10MM in 2015 and $8MM in 2016.

 

 

The Cardinals' four-year, $53MM deal with Jhonny Peralta has an interesting twist: it's frontloaded. The shortstop will earn $15.5MM in 2014, $15MM in '15, $12.5MM in '16, and $10MM in '17, tweets Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com. Here's tonight's look around the majors..

 

I mean, that's just this year... Even for a SS who will projectedly make more money. Hmph.

[JP3700]

This doesn't happen. Ever.

 

Let's just all take that off the table.

 

Completely inaccurate.

 

Off the top of my head, Jhonny Peralta's recently signed contract was front loaded. The biggest contract ever signed was front-loaded as well. Alex Rodriguez's contract with the Yankees.

 

I've heard it thrown around a lot lately. It's a player driven thing, they won't negotiate that way.

 

It's not a player driven thing, it's a team driven thing. There are three reasons why teams would rather back-load a contract.

 

• Inflation
  
• Maximizing value of the player's peak years
  
• There's a chance the team doesn't pay the entirety of the contract since you can usually trade a bad contract. (e.g., Vernon Wells)
  

 

Players prefer a front-loaded contract. Who wouldn't want their money sooner rather than later? That's why players who sign large multi-year contracts generally receive signing bonuses.

[TheLeviathan]

=Off the top of my head, Jhonny Peralta's recently signed contract was front loaded. The biggest contract ever signed was front-loaded as well. Alex Rodriguez's contract with the Yankees.

 

You noted two contracts in the last 10 years. That's pretty much all there is. It's even noted in this story how rare it is. It may not literally be "never". But, in practice, it's not far off. Exceptions, again, prove the rule.

 

Players prefer a front-loaded contract. Who wouldn't want their money sooner rather than later? That's why players who sign large multi-year contracts generally receive signing bonuses.

 

Rationally, yes it does make sense for them. But rationality rarely comes into play when ego and unions are involved. Players don't want to front-load because then by the back-end of their deal they no longer have the prestige of being a top-paid player. It also potentially alters the market for future player negotiations.

 

Basically, it helps keep the "highest paid player" in baseball lofty so that teams can't negotiate relative to back-ended salaries. Say, if Sabathia or someone else had front-loaded. When Kershaw comes to the negotiating table....they have to argue with the team that the highest paid pitcher in the league is Sabathia at 14M and therefore they aren't going to more than double that in annual salary. It may seem silly (and it largely is) but that's how they operate. Guys back-load so they are "looking out" for the next generation of player salaries.

 

So, yes, it is a player-driven phenomenon. Why Peralta accepted something otherwise is curious. (Though his PED issues may be a factor.)

[Guest USAFChief]

Mod hat: I think this has been a good debate, and I've enjoyed it. Hats off to all.

 

Carry on.

[InfraRen]

Mod hat: I think this has been a good debate, and I've enjoyed it. Hats off to all.

 

Carry on.

 

Yay!

[AHSaves]

One front loaded contract is an exception, but three could be the start of a trend, especially considering veteran's projected loss of production. I believe each person (A-Rod, Peralta, Scott Feldman) was in their 30's once they signed.

 

More interesting insight on Drew and Peralta.

 

Career

.268/.330/.425, dWar of 4.6 ---- Peralta

 

.264/.329/.435, dWar of 4.8 ---- Drew

 

Now, I don't think the Peralta contract is a good one, but if it's the price to play poker then I believe the Twins would be getting a relative good deal for 3 years, ~$10MM. Not to mention Drew is a year younger, left handed, strikes out less and can steal a few bases.

[jokin]

You noted two contracts in the last 10 years. That's pretty much all there is. It's even noted in this story how rare it is. It may not literally be "never". But, in practice, it's not far off. Exceptions, again, prove the rule.

 

 

 

Rationally, yes it does make sense for them. But rationality rarely comes into play when ego and unions are involved. Players don't want to front-load because then by the back-end of their deal they no longer have the prestige of being a top-paid player. It also potentially alters the market for future player negotiations.

 

Basically, it helps keep the "highest paid player" in baseball lofty so that teams can't negotiate relative to back-ended salaries. Say, if Sabathia or someone else had front-loaded. When Kershaw comes to the negotiating table....they have to argue with the team that the highest paid pitcher in the league is Sabathia at 14M and therefore they aren't going to more than double that in annual salary. It may seem silly (and it largely is) but that's how they operate. Guys back-load so they are "looking out" for the next generation of player salaries.

 

So, yes, it is a player-driven phenomenon. Why Peralta accepted something otherwise is curious. (Though his PED issues may be a factor.)

 

Food for thought.....If Drew were to sign a 3-year flat deal at $10M/yr., player salary inflation- with probably a low-ball estimate of around 7.5%/anum- would render the third year of his contract at slightly over $8.5M. In 2013 terms, that gives you a 36 year old Marlon Byrd...food for thought.

 

.

[JP3700]

You noted two contracts in the last 10 years.

 

 

 

 

This was your post, was it not?

 

This doesn't happen. Ever.

 

So the fact that I could even think of two contracts off the top of my head makes the post completely inaccurate. No?

 

You dismissed his post as something that doesn't happen, when it does. Just thought it would be fair to point that out.

 

Rationally, yes it does make sense for them. But rationality rarely comes into play when ego and unions are involved. Players don't want to front-load because then by the back-end of their deal they no longer have the prestige of being a top-paid player. It also potentially alters the market for future player negotiations.

 

Basically, it helps keep the "highest paid player" in baseball lofty so that teams can't negotiate relative to back-ended salaries. Say, if Sabathia or someone else had front-loaded. When Kershaw comes to the negotiating table....they have to argue with the team that the highest paid pitcher in the league is Sabathia at 14M and therefore they aren't going to more than double that in annual salary. It may seem silly (and it largely is) but that's how they operate. Guys back-load so they are "looking out" for the next generation of player salaries.

 

So, yes, it is a player-driven phenomenon. Why Peralta accepted something otherwise is curious. (Though his PED issues may be a factor.)

 

Other than your thoughts and opinions, do you have anything else that supports the notion that players drive back-loaded deals? Cause I can do a simple google search and find dozens of articles on why it favors the team and not the player.

 

Every discussion I've heard regarding "highest paid player" involves the total value or the AAV of the contract. It would seem logical that teams, players and agents are intelligent enough to use total value and AAV when discussing contracts.

 

So when a team goes: "Sabathia is only making $14M this year".

 

The agent says: "Yeah, but his AAV is $24M".

 

or vica versa

 

Agent: "Sabathia is making $34M this year"

 

Team: "Yeah, but his AAV is $24M"

[TheLeviathan]

So the fact that I could even think of two contracts off the top of my head makes the post completely inaccurate. No?

 

It doesn't happen with any regularity. It's a rarity. I overspoke in a literal sense with "ever" but the fact remains: it isn't a viable method. You're welcome to show how many actually happen, I believe you've pointed out the only two in recent memory, but maybe there is this long list of them that shows it is viable. By all means.

 

Cause I can do a simple google search and find dozens of articles on why it favors the team and not the player.

 

Considering the power players have in negotiating....if they wanted it....wouldn't it happen more often? They negotiate all sorts of comical, ridiculous, brazen things into contracts but front-loading is extremely rare. If it makes so much sense, why aren't some of the top-end FAs demanding it? Surely some team (like Seattle for Cano - someone always ponies up if you're talented enough, no matter how huge your demands) would give in. The simpler explanation isn't that all the teams have unified as one to deny this to players (when does that ever happen when it comes to these things?) but that the actual union is the one keeping it off the table?

 

In fact, even A-rod, who you cited before - had in his contract that if any player was paid more than him the team could pay him 1M more and avoid the contract being voided. Ensuring his deal was backloaded or voided so he could re-negotiate.

 

I don't deny it's speculative and all the articles I'm sure you googled thought (as you did) that it was a team driven phenomenon. Very few people seem to approach it from the opposite perspective.

 

I'll simplify:front-loaded contracts ultimately hurt bargaining position as well. With free agency so important, that's clearly going to be a heavy pressure to give in to and the union (directly and indirectly) puts a lot of pressure on players to operate not only on their best interests or wishes, but for the betterment of others now and in the future. The teams don't typically care how much they operate in the best interest of each other. That makes the simpler explanation that the players are driving it.

 

The contrary thing to believe would be your position. That every team in the league has joined together in stupidity, solidarity, or something to not front-load deals. Even though all of us could come up with situations in which it would be a brilliant move by teams to engage in. With so many savvy front office people, surely some of these situations would be more recognized and taken advantage of. But they don't. Not small markets, not big markets, not mid-markets. No one does it with any regularity. Or even with semi-randomness. It's rare.

 

So what's simpler to explain? How a unionized force is acting in a way to increase their bargaining position or that 30 teams of very smart people are intentionally or unintentionally overlooking more ideal ways of offering contracts?

[johnnydakota]

Just read the latest headlines in MLBR and I got excited, it read...

Garza...Twins,Indians. wow yiipppiiieeeee

 

then it went on to say that the Brewers and Garza were still talking .

The Twins had a piece about Colabellos decision not to chase money

and kubel being set for a corner outfield position and DH