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.
Hiro Nakamura tripped on into 2014 for us to check out Mark Teixeira's level of play. As you can see, Tex (pictured right) was still celebrating the occasional base knock.
............
Sez the super-dee-dooper sabr-toothed Sandy from Braves'-land, regarding the idea of signing Teixeira a year before you hope to compete:
It's simply a bad ORDER to do things. You get a David Wright and Jose Reyes and Victor Diaz ALL showing *strong* indications of stardom at age 22/23 - then, by all means, go out and sink 6-7 years in a 28-year-old star.
Well, in some ways. It certainly isn't the order in which the Braves do things. :- )
It's the way you'd do things if you're wanting a re-load as opposed to re-build, though. The Mariners aren't a small-market team. This position begs the question of whether it should BE a re-build.
.................
Sandy kinda blew me away with this one:
The first two years - HIGH probability of great numbers. The last 6 years (assuming 8 year contract), it gets a lot fuzzier. I'd say a REASONABLE expectation is 4 acceptable years, and 4 unacceptable (and declining) years.
Wellll....... :wry smile: if the 3rd year on (age 31!) looks fuzzy for THIS dude, I'd say we're not going to agree on much.
If you're scared of Teixeira at 31, obviously you're screaming bloody murder at signing him for his age-35 season.
.................
I can see the case against, but I trust also that EVERYbody understands that the consensus of baseball GM's is going to be that Mark Teixeira is a sound risk at 8 years.
..................
Here are Tex's b-ref.com comps beginning at age 33 -- that is, casting aside the next 4 years' worth of production as valueless for the sake of this discussion.
Carlos Delgado had 4 years left of 130 (All-Star) performance left -- at the END of that period. In other words, if you'd given Delgado the 8-year deal at the same age we're proposing here, then at the BACK half of that contract, you'd have had a lefty cleanup hitter.
McGriff played 8 more years, after the age of 33 (!). I trust that nobody is saying that the Crime Dog was inherently more talented than Mark Teixeira. Dog was an illustration of just what a great bet it is, when you've got a lefthanded, high-OBP power guy. Remember, he'll be getting 80% good-platoon AB's the rest of his life.
*Yeah, I know Tex is a switch. That implies he'll have less, or more, trouble getting around when he's 37?!
McCovey played 10 (!!) more years -- after age 33 -- as a star (taking the years as a block).
Thome of course has remained a franchise hitter into his late 30's.
No, I'm serious here. Show me a LH power guy with huge walks, and I'll show you a guy I'll bet on to age well.
Kent Hrbek was one of the few guys who aged early, but Kent was (1) not in these guys' class talent-wise, and (2) never accused of taking care of himself. I'll bet 95% of us would toss Hrbek out as a totally-legit comp in this group.
...................
I think that if you're going to doubt Teixeira's age 34-37 seasons, you're going to have to say he's a fundamentally less-talented hitter than McGriff, Delgado, etc.
You can say that, but GM's will not.
....................
Sometimes I suspect that the problem here is that we stare hard at that 8th season, and we go, "well, what if he's an albatross then?" Well, what if he IS? Virtually ALL GM's will tell you, hey, we knew we might be overpaying late, but we wanted to make that run. It was part of the cost associated.
Every time you sign a pitcher, EVERY time, you're taking major risks. Fans have to get the idea of guarantees out of their heads. You're just going to lose your ante all night long and never win a pot.
Ask me? As baseball risks go, Mark Teixeira ages 29-36 is a lot more comfortable than a Daisuke Matsuzaka is going to be. Or Felix for his next contract.
.................
I could be wrong, but I've got a foam-rubber bat here I'm going to just pummel you with until Tex signs with the Angels. That is: all the smartest baseball shot-callers agree with me. I might be wrong, but I can't be brainless, if Theo Epstein and all them guys agree with me. Disagree with 8 years for Tex if you like, but you dare not call it unreasonable, when all the guys smarter than us, think that it IS reasonable.
So take a hike, son. We're signing him. :- )
Cheers,
jemanji
Comments
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.