F. McGriff-Delgado-Tex
Age/OPS+ OPS+
24 - 157 - 112 - 131
25 - 166 - 127 - 144
26 - 153 - 150 - 126
27 - 147 - 137 - 150
28 - 166 - 181 - 151
29 - 143 - 145 -
30 - 157 - 147
31 - 119 - 161
32 - 119 - 129
33 - 106 - 161
34 - 111 - 131
35 - 142 - 103
36 - 110 - 127
37 - 144 - ???

Actually, I like the McGriff comp to Tex. But this is not simply about how long a player plays, or what his peaks are -- but what is his TYPICAL production is.

McGriff continued posting OPS+ figures in the 110+ arena for a long time, yes. But I would ask this. Would spending $20 million per season on Ibanez' production for the past 3 years have sounded like a good idea?

$20 million a year is reasonable money for 150 OPS+ production, (given the current market). It is utterly ridiculous money to be paying for 120 OPS+ production.

========

As for the Braves - they BEGAN their run of success by assembling a bunch of early 20 wunderkinds, and then pluggin in holes with SHORT TERM FA pick ups. Their success ENDED when they began doling out long term FA contracts.

But, there is a MASSIVE difference between trying to KEEP a 90-win team winning 90 a year compared to taking a 60-win team and building a team that is capable of winning 90 -- or SUSTAINING that success.

=====

Now, if you would agree that - knowing what he produced the past three years -- that Seattle would've benefited from paying Ibanez $20 million a year for the past 4 seasons, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Because that is what the 20 for 8 contract for Tex is HIGHLY likely to mean for those last 4 years.

Out of the 13 post-30 seasons for McGriff and Delgado, only 5 of them were above 130, (meaning 8 were below 130). Only 2 of those seasons were above 150. My belief is that if you're paying for 150 OPS+ seasons that an expected ratio of 2 to 11 *SCREAMS* that this is a really, really, really, really, really bad gamble.

Doc...Delgado is NOTHING like Teixeira. B-Ref comps are ridiculous more often than not...you really need to quit using them like they mean anything.

But I would argue that:

Fred McGriff's value plummeted after his age 30 season...he became marginally above average.

Yr Lg Off Def Wins
1987 AL 4.04 0.24 4.28
1988 AL 10.08 1.96 12.04
1989 AL 13.79 2.03 15.82
1990 AL 12.32 2.31 14.63
1991 NL 10.19 0.74 10.93
1992 NL 9.14 0.13 9.27
1993 NL 8.94 0.86 9.80
1994 NL 8.57 0.76 9.33
1995 NL 4.82 3.00 7.82
1996 NL 5.75 1.93 7.68
1997 NL 4.48 0.81 5.29
1998 AL 4.05 0.32 4.37
1999 AL 9.91 0.31 10.22
2000 AL 5.78 -0.19 5.59
2001 AL 5.82 0.69 6.51
2001 NL 2.00 0.32 2.32
2002 NL 5.90 0.67 6.57
2003 NL 1.82 0.07 1.89

For reference, the average first baseman is supposed to get 7.5 to 8 total wins. McGriff after 1994 was below average for his position every single year except 1999.

Willie McCovey's value plummeted at a fairly young age too:[code]
Yr Lg Off Def Wins
1959 NL 4.93 0.75 5.68
1960 NL 3.62 0.42 4.04
1961 NL 3.7 1.37 5.07
1962 NL 3.79 0.55 4.34
1963 NL 9.26 0.99 10.25
1964 NL 3.2 0.51 3.71
1965 NL 8.26 1.34 9.6
1966 NL 12.92 0.85 13.77
1967 NL 8.64 0.85 9.49
1968 NL 12.81 1.55 14.36
1969 NL 16.08 0.78 16.86
1970 NL 12.18 1.01 13.19
1971 NL 5.41 0.34 5.75
1972 NL 2.64 0.18 2.82
1973 NL 8.09 0.52 8.61
1974 NL 8.21 0.42 8.63
1975 NL 4.26 0.91 5.17
1976 NL 1.07 0.39 1.46
1977 NL 5.45 0.54 5.99
1978 NL 2.16 0.54 2.70
1979 NL 2.94 0.71 3.65

His last good year was 1970 when he was 32. After that he squeezed out a couple more above average seasons but not the kind of thing you want to pay big bucks for.

For you to claim that Hrbek was unique for his aging curve is just plain old wrong. THe data doesn't support your position even one iota. Delgado and Thome had a longer shelf life than Tex, but they were also in a totally different class of hitters...they look nothing like Tex. And the ones you could reasonably comp to Tex age around 31 or 32.