=== There are RLP's and then there are RLP's, Dept. ===

Mega-League20 champ Cool Papa Bell, justifably, chokes on my use of the term "replacement level player" in this fine post.

..................

1.  As Papa notes, sabermetricians "formally" use "replacement-level player" to refer to a "freely available" player -- usually a AAAA journeyman -- that we assume to be easy to quickly pick up in an emergency.

Hot debates rage about how good this player actually is!, LOL, but the consensus is usually about -20 runs worse than an MLB-average player.  -20 runs is the same as -2 wins in the standings.

.

.......................

2.  I tend to use "replacement level player" more informally.  I'll stop this.

I think of a "replacement level player" as being a GOOD Scrub that I, Cool Papa, and Billy Beane are confident that WE can find -- precisely because our rosters are agile and flexible.

Rob Johnson will probably givethe Mariners about $2-4M worth of performance this year. 

That's about $5-6M less of performance than an "average" ML catcher (who theoretically makes close to $10M in salary), but it's also about $2-3M more than what sabermetricians figure you'd usually be able to pick up on the fly.

Jason Vargas would provide about $4-5M worth of performance this year, given 20-25 starts.   He's a quality Scrub, but he's not "RLP" in the mathematical sense.  To me, he's "RLP" in the Billy Beane sense.

When I think of "replacement" players, I think of the kind of "replacements" that the Seattle Mariners will now be feeding into their starting rotation for the remainder of the Zduriencik era.  In other words, guys a lot better than -20 to league average.

Agreed 100% with CPB that my informal "Scrubby" use of "replacement level" does NOT match the formal definition of the RLP term.

Gracias CPB.

.

......................

3.  Veterans -- year 7 and beyond -- cost you $4.5M to $5.1M in salary per +10 runs added above mathematical RLP.

Club-controls players, however, cost you only $2.4M per +10 runs added (or check me if the number has changed lately).

Our original point was that, since Zduriencik is totally willing to add the costly $5M/win vet, we should pause and remember that the cheapie $2M/win young players aren't as easy to come by as we think.

.

This point stands.  Sabermetricians often seem madly in love with minor league players, believing that they will come up and add the $2M/win in smooth, seamless fashion.

But Cool Papa's point is definitely well taken.  Wilson's $10M or so in salary -- and performance -- does not recalibrate the formal RLP = $400,000 metric.

We'll use "RLP", and the entire argument, with more considered framing in the future.

Caught me by surprise that anybody was listening ;- )

.

.........................

4.  Wilson himself, the more I look at him ... well, he's a pretty fine little ballplayer.  I've been kinda treating him as a kick-around-the-league mediocrity, but the more you look the more you like.

:- )  Unless and until Safeco wipes him out -- which I don't expect it to -- I'm pulling off the entire Wilson-as-fungible theme. 

.

............................

5.  The broadest point remains.

Bill Bavasi signed Raul Ibanez?  The point of reference would be the best values on the market, the couple of players that this or that blog would have chosen as overlooked, underpaid bargains.

Jack Zduriencik obtains an $8M shortstop?  The point of reference becomes the guy currently playing the position, and performing at -34 runs below average.

Over Bavasi's term here, he took a lot of abuse for his choices *as compared to this or that bargain alternative.*

I'd have rather had Scutaro, and that's the standard that Bavasi would have been held to.  But, again, the standard that Zduriencik is being held to is the better one.  I approve of the sea change.

Cheers,

Dr D