Add new comment

First off, I think it reflects the point that if you are signing a 30 year old to a five year contract, present performance is not likely to be sustained for all five years.
You mean w/r/t Bay specifically?  Sure, you want to project his performance across all five years, and then NPV the dollars.  Often this seems roughly in balance, right?
.............
In the past, I think the assumption was that the value of a win had significant helium, so inflation makes sure you don't end up over paying.  Since revenue growth over the next few years is uncertain, teams are concerned about tying up too much money over too many years.
I can see how individual teams are more cautious about years. 
But has this shown up in length-of-contract signed?  Would this caution be reflected in a years-per-FA-of-Caliber-Y metric?  I doubt it, but what do you think?
..............
This is why Chone Figgins is the primary target.  If Figgins unexpectedly sustains his 2009 performance, he's a steal.  If he stabilizes at his 2007-2009 mean, he's a good deal, and if he underperforms, he's an overpriced Mark McLemore.  The chance he's a liability is absolutely minimal.
Agree again...
My question goes more to the question of an industry average.  The cyber-Seattle consensus has not been (only) that Jason Bay is a poor fit for the Mariners, but that $15m for Bay is simply out of alignment for his inherent value.
Taro qualified this w/r/t Bay and Fenway, because of the Green Monster and tiny LF.
..............
I take it, KG, that you would acknowledge that the industrywide $450,000 to $500,000 per FA run is not down much from 2007?