in a desert of fantasy and oversimplification. Those that are choosing to deal in reality instead of fantasy are acknowledging that barring a strong countermove, which they do NOT recommend, the M's now must bide their time for ANOTHER three to five years and wait until the rust starts to attack this monstrous gambit by the competition.
As if the Mariners' fans, the 60% of them or so that are left, have an inexhaustable supply of patience, and adding another three to five years to the eight rebuilding years we've already experienced is not THAT big a deal.
So they protect themselves from total surrender by fantasizing that if we just keep extending the amount of time the M's have for their plan to reach fruition the some day they will succeed and become an annual threat. It was CCR that sang the song, "Some Day Never Comes."
You're competition just slapped you upside the head with a severe reality check. Uh, Howard, Chuck, are you in the game? The real game? Or are you still living in the fantasy world you've constructed where you can play with the big boys without paying the entry fee?
............
The above is from Tom Tango's fine site. Before proceeding further ... amigos might want to take a look at this chart and this chart.
Look at how MANY of those teams are right on the correlation line. The Yankees (far right) are almost purely a function of salaries paid. They have done slightly worse than they should have, for the dollars.
People want to look at the Twins and say, "money's not such a big deal." You might as well look at the A's and say, "offense isn't such a big deal. They do okay with better-than-average pitching." That shouldn't distract us from the fact that as a team scores more runs, it wins more games.
...........
As you note, G, people want to look at one poor team that defied gravity -- by piling up a decade's worth of 1-1 picks. Why not consider the Pirates, Royals, and everybody else trying to do the same thing and failing?
There have been 4-5 teams that have won six or eight games, per season, more than their payroll suggested. And another 4-5 teams that have lost six or eight more per season than their payroll suggested. But they also are tethered to the correlation line.
The Mariners, by the way, are the #4 worst team on that graph, after the Mets, Orioles, and Royals. They should have been around .500 the last decade, but have been, what, 50 or so games below that? (Check me on that.)
..........
High salaries produce wins -- and then those wins produce high income. Round and round we go, if you're the LA Angels.
.
=== New CBA = Belly Flop into the Jell-O Pool ===
Haven't seen mentioned, in Seattle, the fact that the new 5-year CBA has given the owners cost certainty.
Teams like the Angels and Rangers have been waiting only for this airhorn call, and now they are acting like they realize "You spend money to make money."
Teams' values do go up as they win, and go up as they acquire iconic players. You saw Hicks buy ARod for 3 years so that he could score his TV deal and then sell at a big capital gain.
Even the Mariners are talking Teixeira money for Prince Fielder. They've got cost certainty and they know that a contending team, with Fielder on the commercials, is going to jack up the value of the franchise. Big time.
Geoff Baker had another interesting article today; there was only one thing he said that I'd quibble with. He noted that the White Sox' franchise value had gone from $248M to $526M in seven years but "can't just sell shares to turn paper value into real money."
An MLB team certainly can turn paper value into real money: it's called a credit line from the bank. If the White Sox "borrowed" $100M -- simply writing checks or, more precisely, approving electronic transfers, then its liabilities go from $248* to $348M. Five years on, when they sell their franchise, that $348 is simply deducted from the $600M sale price. It's like a HELOC on your house - you never pay it back if you are in a strong equity position. (True, you service the debt with monthly payments.)
Again, rather than assuming that rich men like Arte Moreno don't know what they're doing, the saberdudes might want to consider whether an Albert Pujols or Prince Fielder is part of a broader business plan. Boeing does not create its 10-year business plans armed with nothing more than a $/Passenger spreadsheet.
I'm sorry that a $/WAR calculation is a bit too simplistic to "solve" baseball. It makes for a great clipboard by which to sit, as a professor would, and grade the owners as though they were our students ina college class.
But you'll notice that, as it pertains to the franchise players, the owners aren't handcuffed to the data that we 'net rats possess.
BABVA,
Jeff
Comments
You would think that you would want to deploy your funds into areas you do not currently have covered in the minors. No sense signing an expensive 2B for 2011 if you have Dustin Ackley in AAA, right?
So using funds on positions of need while stuffing the roster with cheap pre-arb players at positions of farm strength seems like a decent way to deploy ALL your resources. So shall we talk about what we can reasonably expect to surface through the minors for the next 3 years?
2013 Options
Nick Franklin
SS
Vinnie Catricala
3B/LF
Stephen Pryor
RP
Erasmo Ramirez
SP/RP
Andy Carraway
SP/RP
James Paxton
SP
Danny Hultzen
SP
Alex Liddi
3B/LF
Mauricio Robles
SP/RP
2014 options
Francisco Martinez
3B
Chih-Hsien Chiang
OF
Brad Miller
SS/2B/3B
Tyler Burgoon
RP
Matt Bischoff
RP
Wily Kesler
RP
Taijuan Walker
SP
Brandon Maurer
RP
2015 options
Cam Hobson
RP
Matt Capps
SP/RP
Jose Campos
SP
Jonathan Arias
RP
Jack Marder
C
Castillo
OF
G. Pimentel
OF
E. Peguero
SS/2B/3B
Mike McGee
CF
Steve Proscia
3B
John Hicks
C
Positions listed
C
2
CF
1
Corner OF
3 to 5
1B
0
2B
2
SS
1-3
3B
3-6
Relief pitcher
9 to 13
Starting pitcher
4 to 8
Positions taken, first 20 rounds, 2011 draft
C
5
CF
4
1B
0 (signed)
If I WANTED to sign a free agent to a long-term deal without blocking anyone currently in my system, the position I would sign would be 1B.
The next add would be CF, since only Mike McGee is listed and we took a lot of high school kids in the recent draft for that position.
Then would be catcher.
Which is why my offseason plan has been Fielder for first base, and find a way to ditch Guti in CF (for Span, perhaps) and adding a catcher (done, with Jaso here).
I don't have much for those positions in the next 3 years being made available through the system.
I don't want to route for a valuable team, I want to root for a winning team.
But, the inherent chicken v. egg question presents itself here. Do you need to spend money to win? Or do winning teams spend money? Winning leads to revenue leads to increased payroll? Or increased payroll leads to winning leads to revenue? Or revenue leads to increased payroll leads to winning? Not sure what the proper order is.
Though the inherent relationship between winning and revenue will once again make me reiterate that past performance is by far the best predictor for future success when it comes to baseball.
The M's cannot afford not to win.
- Ben.
G,
Nice list.
I would have listed Vinnie as a possible 1B, and the same with Liddi, but...
By the way, what happened to Choi? I know his back was giving him fits, so maybe he's a 1B as well.
This may not be the place, but since this is about payroll...
The M's payroll has been steady to going down gradually for the past 7 years.
The m's used to be in the top 10 of payroll, and this year we are projected to be in the bottom 12 payrolls for all of baseball. Worse yet, the Angels, Rangers and even Astros with their new owner and "big talk of money" look like they will be having payrolls in the $125M + areas, so the M's are really falling behind.
It is one thing for Z to say that the money will be there if he needs it this year or next Versus having a payroll that is competitive in our own division.
I do not care if we get Prince or Upton or any big bat... if it costs us Felix or Pineda or Ackley four years from now because our payroll is still 25% less than our division, we will never compete.
Then we are the Orioles or the Pirates.
I'm pretty sure the Mariners already have the money. Baker has done a great job explaining this many times and both of his last posts went through the reasoning. He may be wrong, but he sure writes a compelling case. The M's probably can afford a Texiera-level contract for Fielder.
I think the question is, are the Mariners owners in it like the Angels and the Rangers owners? Or are they in it like a higher payroll version of the Athletics? The M's and the A's have smart GMs bringing in good, young, inexpensive talent. The M's can afford to sign Felix and Ichiro, but the A's can't even do that.
Do the M's want to play in between in the middle of the division and hope for years where everything goes right and get to the playoffs? Or do they play for the playoffs every year?
I think signing Fielder would make 2012 a year where if everything goes right, the M's can contend for the playoffs. I can see how Fielder and a trade for a second impact player could make the M's almost to the level of the Angels and Rangers. I can see how Fielder, Darvish, and a trade for an impact OF, SS, or 3B could make the AL West a monster division.
I don't know how far the M's payroll can go or if they view Fielder the same way I do, but I'd at least like to see the M's go for the top of the division instead of the middle.
The two biggest obstacles in front of the Mariners' hopes of contention both got massively huge TV contracts, affording them some room to add massive salaries when needed. Anaheim has started spending that cash, and Texas will too.
Not only was the Pujols signing a massive shot across the bow of the good ship Mariner (subtle entendre intended ;-) it was also simultaneously a blow across the even larger U.S.S. Texas Ranger. Add the addition-by-subtraction move for CJ Wilson for the LALAs (I refuse to call them anything else) over the Rangers, and that makes the Rangers all the more attentive and ready to pounce.
It may seem logical that Texas in their lack of pitching would be all-in on Darvish -- and with all the posturing, etc., that goes on this time of year, it's hard to use anything but logic to determine what the other teams will do. But several people have considered Texas the dark horse candidate in on Fielder.
That could be the nail in the coffin for the Mariners hopes of contention in the next 4-5 years. IMHO, THAT is the move that forces us to auction off Felix to the highest bidder, and leaves the Mariners to collapse the direction of the Cleveland Indians. Not only would that move subtract a potential massive, quick improvement for the Mariners, it would be compounded by adding more of a challenge to the M's directly in the division.
With the starting pitching market being extremely soft, and really Darvish being the only potential high-upside pitcher that Texas might acquire (especially now with both Buehrle and Wilson off the market), and the extreme cost of GOOD starting pitching via trade (though Texas does have a very solid farm system), I can see Texas passing on pitching right now and going cheap on it -- overloading an already high-powered offense by adding Fielder.
Now, you could argue that they don't have room for Prince, but I'd say that none of Napoli, Morrison or Young are really elite enough for Texas to be too concerned about 'blocking' them. There really are only 4 teams that don't have room for Fielder: Yankees, Philly, Boston and now the LALAs. Pretty much every other team has room for Fielder.
Certainly there's a metric ton of risk signing Fielder to a Bora$$$$$$ contract (a la T-Rex as an example). But the M's are in as good of shape to absorb that risk long-term as any team in the league, considering the system, team needs, future payroll committments, etc.
Just do it, Jack. A HUGE part of me would like to see Zduriencik give the Seattle-area saberdudes a big middle finger and throw a T-Rex type contract at Fielder. It's probably what it would take to get it done here in Seattle. Texas may only be willing to go 6 years max, considering the future payroll committments they'll have soon (with the players who will be FA eligible in the next few years), as will other teams I'm sure. Given a market of 6/$150 give or take 20 million and/or a 7th year, there would I'm sure be 4-5 teams interested - even if Seattle were one of those teams, I'd be highly skeptical if he chose Seattle over one of those other teams, especially if one of them is Texas.
The price of not landing Fielder may be much, much greater than the potential albatross in the later years of the deal...
A thought that crossed my mind as I read PositivePauly's take above, and his thoughts on whether having Texas sign Fielder may force us ultimately to trade Felix away...
IF Texas (specifically Texas) were to nab Fielder, thereby rendering our choice of upgrade paths to be middling at best, then the best thing for the M's may be to trade Felix - after going all-in to acquire Darvish.
Let's assume that the M's are in fact interested in picking up Fielder. They have $$ to spend...but Fielder ultimately jumps to Texas for whatever reason.
M's then take the boatload of money they were going to offer Fielder, and throw a metric tonne of it at Darvish and his posting fee. Sign Darvish, then...
Trade Felix for the piece or pieces that we are missing, presuming once again that we're talking about MLB proven players. No rebuild, just retool. Yes, you're trading away the face of the franchise, but bringing in a possible new one. No towel throwing-in...
but to echo the point about the Angels' big move being a shot across the bow of not the Mariners but the Rangers.
Yesterday the MLB network had CJ Wilson on their set at the hotel where the GM meetings were being staged. They were asking him all sorts of questions about the Angels' big moves. Now remember, he plays in the division. Has for years. He knows everybody well.
When asked about the division going forward, he focuses on the Angels now manning up to challenge Texas in the division. He also mentions the A's as someone to bear in mind. He completely ignores the Mariners. Doesn't even mention them. That ought to tell us something as to how the M's are viewed by other teams in the West. Irrelevant. No serious challenge to be faced from them.
I was struck by that.
You're right, I absolutely could have listed them there. I think Liddi has developed enough glove to stick at 3B though, so I don't think it's necessary to move him to 1B. I could also list Carp there. So our 1B depth chart currently goes:
Now - 1) Smoak, 2) Carp
In the next year or so - 3) Catricala, 4) Liddi
But Carp, Vinnie and Liddie can all play other positions. Smoak is a true 1B. I was just looking at people who would be mostly-to-completely blocked if we got a 1B in here. Smoak has to move to DH - or to another team. Vinnie can work on his D and play 3B, or LF, or DH...
More options.
As for Choi, he had fractures in his vertebrae last year which is what kept him out (or so I heard). I dunno what his future holds. Still want to see him, but I dunno where they'll play him - if he can play.
~G
Wait 3-4 years to contend and you'll be waiting 4+ years more after that.
The Ms can't renegotiate their TV deal until 2020. By 2015, Texas, Anaheim, and Oakland are going to be reeling in $40mil+ more than the Ms per year in TV revenue alone.
That $40mil per year doesn't count all the revenue teams will be raking during the years when they'd be kicking the Ms' butts (which will be much larger).
Rebuilding at this point is not a realistic game plan. Perhaps 2012 if the Ms whiff this offseason, but anything beyond that is really pushing it. The Ms need to start making some bold trades/signing and drastically raising payroll, or its a done deal 'till the next decade.
Usually its Doc and G-Money banging the payroll drum, (I'd include myself, if I posted more often) but I love seeing you joining the fight, Taro. I agree in total. We ARE at a cross-roads, the sky is truly falling. Buck up or shut up M's brass.
Great post, Paul.
Especially this:
"The price of not landing Fielder may be much, much greater than the potential albatross in the later years of the deal..."
It bears repeating and it's one of the mantras of SSI, and why I've been reading Jeff's writing for 15 years now (remember the STATs boards Jeff? Justin?)
Business context matters. An added note of context - how do we suppose the LA area demographics will play into merchandise related revenues for the Halos? My bet is that no matter what kind of "albatross" the Pujols contract with the Angels will supposedly be, that "albatross" will provide an absolutely huge ROI. There's a reason rich people have a clue what they're doing.