Jake Peavy's Value Quantified
I've been using estimates for his value, but now that I'm done with finals, let's pull out the calculator and crunch some numbers. I've been saying the original offer was "way overpaying," but I'll try to quantify what he's worth. I'm doing this post on the spot so maybe I'll surprise myself.
First, let's assume Peavy will give you a 3.38 FIP over 200 innings. Marcel's projection system puts him at a 3.38 FIP and Bill James says 3.42. For those of you who don't know, FIP is fielding independent pitching. It's on the ERA scale and is based off his BB rate, K rate, and HR rate, so by saying Peavy is a 3.38 FIP pitcher, we’re predicting him to have a 3.38 ERA.
For a replacement level starter, I'll base it on this post about CC on fangraphs. Since we assumed Peavy will throw 200 innings instead of 210, we'll do 160 innings of replacement level starter at a 5.5 FIP and 40 innings of replacement level reliever FIP at 4.50.
To find the number of runs that's worth, you do:
(Innings * FIP)/9
Peavy, 200 innings, 3.38 FIP: 75.1 Runs
Replacement Level Starter, 160 innings, 5.5 FIP: 97.8 runs
Replacement Level Reliever, 40 innings, 4.5 FIP: 20 runs
Total Replacement Level: 117.8 runs
The difference between Peavy is 117.8 runs - 75.1 runs
That's 42.7 runs. So if we say 10 runs = 1 win that makes him 4.27 wins above replacement level (WAR). For comparison, Fangraphs said Sabathia was worth 5 WAR. They also gave CC an extra 0.5 WAR for eating some high leverage innings. I'll give Peavy the same .5 WAR bonus, making him a 4.77 WAR pitcher.
Each WAR is worth $5M-$5.5M on the free agent market this year. We'll use the low end estimate since the economy isn't great. They used the high end in calculations, but it won't make a big difference because the guy I'm comparing Peavy too will be $5M per WAR as well.
$5M * 4.77 wins = $23.85. So Peavy is worth about $23.85M a year if he was a free agent. Sounds about right for an Ace.
Now let's look at Peavy's contract. I'm going to assume his 2013 option gets picked up or that he requires the team to pick it up for him to accept the trade.
(Edit: Had the 2009 salary wrong. Thanks to Smoltz's Beard for pointing it out.)
2009: $8M $11M
2010: $15M
2011: $16M
2012: $17M
2013: $22M
Compare it to the $23.85M he's worth and you get a difference of:
2009: $15.85M $12.85M
2010: $8.85M
2011: $7.85M
2012: $6.85M
2013: $1.85M
Total Surplus Value: $41.25M $38.25M
This is of course assuming no inflation and that there's no decline his ability. I won't use inflation in the next part either so that's irrelevant for this comparison.
Now let's assume Yunel Escobar is a 3.0 WAR shortstop. This is based on last year's performance. Using $5M a year for each WAR, that's worth $15M a year on the FA market. Yunel has 5 years of service time left so I'm going to assume he goes year to year arb with the Braves and gets the same money as Orlando Hudson. This is reasonable because arbitration raises have stayed about the same over the last 10 years. That means Yunel's salary will look something like this:
2009: $0.322M
2010: $0.365M
2011: $2.3M
2012: $3.9M
2013: $6.25M
Now let's take $15M a year and find the difference.
2009: $14.678M
2010: $14.635M
2011: $12.7M
2012: $11.1M
2013: $8.75M
Total Surplus: $61.863M
******** Revised Explanation *********
So how do we make these surplus values meaningful? Do this:
Average annual surplus value for Yunel is $12.3726M or 2.4745 wins
Average annual surplus value for Peavy is $ 7.65M or 1.53 wins
Difference: $4.72M per year or 0.945 wins per year
That makes it about 4.72 wins over 5 years.
The salary difference between the two players allows the Braves to buy almost an extra win assuming two things:
1. Payroll is the same in the 2 senarios
2. Replacement level positions are replaced with FA market value ($5M per win)
In the case of the Braves, assumption 2 would be replacing LF and SP. You're replacing replacement level guys such as Anderson, BJones, Reyes, Morton, etc. with guys like Dunn, Burrell, Lowe, Sheets, etc.
Another way to look at this same senario:
Peavy makes an average of $16.2M annually and is worth 4.77 wins.
Escobar makes an average of $2.6274M annually and is worth 3 wins.
That's a salary difference of $13.573M annually which buys 2.715 wins on the FA market.
Add that win difference to Escobar's win value and you get 5.715 wins for the same $16.2M price tag. That's a net gain of 0.945 wins per year.
******** End Revision ********Peavy does have the advantage in 2009, but it's slim and it quickly shifts in favor of Yunel. These calculations were as generous as possible to Peavy. They assume zero decline and he pitches 200 innings a year over 5 years. We're also assuming that Yunel Escobar doesn't get better and duplicates his 2008 performance of 136 games.
Throw in the prospects (Gorkys, Jo-Jo, Boyer on the low end) along with Yunel, Peavy's no trade demand, and the injury risk and you can see that this is a clear win for the Padres. I understand why people think this is a good deal, because Peavy IS better than Yunel. If this is a straight WAR vs WAR trade, then Yunel + prospects for Peavy sounds about right or maybe like a lowball. The difference is salaries. Yunel makes about $70M less than Peavy over the next 5 years. Don't you think Yunel + $14M $13.57M a year is better than Peavy?
Heck, let me be as generous as possible and assume the Braves sign Furcal for $40M over 4 years and Furcal is just as good as Yunel (Furcal isn't) and doesn't get injured. That's $15M a year of value minus $10M a year over 4 years. That's $20M in surplus value. Let's add that to Peavy and we see the total surplus value is $61.25M $58.25M versus $61.863M for Yunel alone.
Trading Yunel for an ace pitcher at that price would be a mistake by the Braves. I've been going by my gut and estimates before, but I'm glad I took the time to quantify it. Don't trade Yunel!
1 recs |
92 comments
Comments
Bravo
Very interesting read.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 15, 2008 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bravo is right
I agree, great analysis here. I couldn’t agree with it more.
by Zeus12888 on Dec 15, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow!!!!
Is WAR vs. WAR the norm for trades? I knew there was a formula for trading but is this it? Excellent work and absolutely eye opening.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 2:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nah, it’s not usually straight WAR vs WAR. GMs consider everything in a trade, since you hear about them haggling over eating a few M on salary for all kinds of trades.
There’s a bunch of ways to consider different trades. This one was easy to quantify this way because it’s 5 years versus 5 years. It’s complicated when it’s 2 years vs 5 years or something, since you may be trading more WAR spread out over 5 years for more WAR in 2 years, but it ends up worth it because of increased playoff chances. And it gets even more complicated when you’re factoring in potential draft pick compensation and prospect projection.
by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 2:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So do you do this in your spare time or is something you actually study?
Isn’t what your talking about considered Human Capitol?
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha at human capitol. I’m not sure, I’m no economist or statistician so I just do this in my spare time. What can I say, I like baseball. If you read a lot of saber blogs (Beyond the Boxscore, Fangraphs, Sabernomics), they’ll do this kind of analysis all the time for free agents and trades. Pretty much all the calculations I did can be found on the Fangraphs link to CC Sabathia. All I really had to do was dig for the stats around Beyond the Boxscore or Fangraphs and plug it into the calculator.
by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 2:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kelly Johnson
Some people have been talking about subbing in Kelly Johnson for Escobar. Johnson was worth about 2.4 WAR in 2008 and 3.6 WAR in 2007. Let’s assume his true vale right in between that at 3 WAR. Works out to $15M a year on the FA market. There’s 3 years of arb left for KJ so let’s assume the back end of what Orlando Hudson got.
2009: $2.3M
2010: $3.9M
2011: $6.25M
That’s a difference of:
2009: $12.7M
2010: $11.1M
2011: $8.75M
Total Value: $32.55M
Must more reasonable compared to Peavy’s $41M. Throw in some prospects and it’s an even deal. Personally, I still don’t like it because I don’t like Peavy’s injury risk, but it’s certainly fair value. I doubt the Padres really want him though since there’s only 3 years of service time left. They’re better off just taking a big prospect package.
by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 2:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff Vic...
…one thing though (shouldn’t make a huge difference), but I believe Peavy’s salary for next year is increased because he won the Cy in 2007. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I agree with you 100%.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 15, 2008 3:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Whoops you're right
2009 salary increases to $9M with 600 IP in 2006-08, with 200 IP in 2008
2009 salary increases by $0.5M with each top 3 finish in Cy Young vote in 2006-08, with top salary of $11M
2009 salary increases to $11M with Cy Young during 2005-07
Thanks. I’ll go in and tweak that.
by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
VictorW
next time try to do a little research before you post, and give some numbers to back up your claims.
by Land-Man on Dec 15, 2008 3:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Three problems with this analysis:
1) Doesn’t look at potential decline or improvement. What if Escobar isn’t a three-win player? What if Kelly Johnson is better than a three-win player? There’s certainly an argument to be made that three wins is the upper bound for Escobar and the lower bound for Johnson.
2) Doesn’t account for the exponential value of extra wins. A five-win player isn’t simply worth five times as much as a one-win player (which is what this analysis assumes). Since there is a limited number of roster spots, if you can fill one spot with five wins instead of three wins, there’s an exponential difference in value there, not just a linear one.
3) Doesn’t take into account potential replacements. I’m a big fan of analyzing trades with WAR, don’t get me wrong. Yes, on paper, Jake Peavy will buy us five wins where Escobar gives three. But Cesar Izturis was a two-win shortstop last year, so effectively you could have replaced Escobar with Izturis for $2.85 million, and lost one win in the process. But five-win pitchers are scarce indeed, and Jake Peavy is pretty close to irreplaceable, no matter how much you are willing to pay. So it’s important to look at the ease of replacement, and this analysis doesn’t.
I also don’t like the assumption of a Furcal signing in this analysis, because the Peavy deal and Furcal signing are two independent events, to be evaluated separately. This analysis is a good start, and I give Victor serious credit for taking the time to put it together. However, there are several things that have to be accounted for before I will endorse his conclusion.
by tgthree on Dec 15, 2008 4:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I tried to be as generous as possible toward favoring Peavy and as conservative as possible towards Escobar. I’ve been against the trade so I didn’t want anyone to think I was fudging numbers towards Yunel so I tweaked them to favor Peavy.
If Escobar is a 3 win player while playing with a bum shoulder and only 136 games, then I’d think 3 wins is toward the lower bound for Escobar and not the upper bound. Factoring in decline and upside would only make things look worse for Peavy. I’m a big Escobar fan and I think he can be better than a 3 win player.
Johnson can certainly be better than a 3 win player (just like Yunel), but I simply averaged his 2007 and 2008 performance to show that subbing Kelly Johnson in for Escobar would be more reasonable instead of being a lowball offer that some people might believe it to be. Johnson would probably need to be 1-2 WAR above Yunel to be more valuable over the life of the contract, though you can certainly make the case that having more WAR now is better. Either way, Johnson would have to get a ton better to be more valuable than Yunel.
In the back of my head, I was essentially looking at 3 roster slots: SP, SS, LF. While Peavy is worth more than Escobar, surplus produced by Escobar would be used to improved LF and the net wins from SP + SS + LF would be greater by not trading Escobar.
I agree with you in point #3. What’s the point of saving all this money if it’s not going into suitable replacements? I don’t think the drop off between Lowe and Peavy is that great. Fangraphs estimates Lowe to be about 3.5 wins based off his Marcels projection (3.67 FIP, 185 IP), which is the same as they valued Burnett. I popped the two numbers in my calculator and they didn’t give him the 0.5 win bonus they gave CC for eating extra innings from relievers. If we give that to Lowe (I gave it to Peavy), then it’s 4 wins for Lowe (Burnett would be about the same) versus 4.77 wins for Peavy. Obviously Lowe is older, but Peavy has troublesome arm action and had arm issues last year. I agree with whoever it was that said Peavy has already peaked. Oh, and Sheets is another suitable alternative, but there’s the ridiculous injury risk.
I mentioned signing Furcal because he seems to be who most of the posters on this blog want as the replacement. It’s hard to project Furcal because of his injuries, and I was ridiculously generous to put him at 3 WAR. The point some people were making is that “Trade Escobar for Peavy, sign Furcal” would put the Braves ahead. I just wanted to show that not trading Yunel is better even if you got a miracle and the fountain of youth with your Furcal signing + Peavy trade
I agree that there’s things I could have made the analysis better and more in depth and I thank you for pointing them out. The main point I wanted to make was that the Escobar package is overpaying for Peavy. Maybe the amount overpayed can be argued, but I really don’t think the Braves are getting fair value even when you generously assume Peavy gives you 1000 IP with a 3.38 FIP in 5 years because the salary difference will make it up by signing Lowe/Sheets and Burrell/Dunn.
by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t have time for a full response here, but Frank Wren’s been pretty clear about the Braves’ stance on Derek Lowe. I’d love Derek Lowe, and I can’t really see why the Braves haven’t offered four years and $64 million yet. But they apparently have no interest. Your list of potential Peavy replacements grows thinner yet. Please don’t try pulling out the Oliver Perez card on me.
by tgthree on Dec 15, 2008 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Scott Boras told me Oliver Perez would end up like Randy Johnson!
Even if there aren’t a lot of Peavy alternatives, I think it’s better than overpaying. Heck, overpaying wasn’t even good enough for Towers.
I guess Wren is just scared of old farts like Lowe cause of what happened to Smoltz and Glavine last year.
by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One other question. How do we come to a value of five WAR for Jake Peavy? I read the post on CC back when it was put up, and that all makes sense. But then I look over at Beyond the Box Score (where you pull Yunel’s WAR from). And I see that Chipper Jones is worth 81 runs total, making him an eight-win player. There’s gotta be something wrong here if Chipper is worth three more full wins than Jake Peavy (or 2.6 more wins than CC Sabathia for that matter).
I don’t know what the answer is, but something certainly seems fishy here. I’m not sure your WAR figures quite match up…
The other comment I have about your general methodology is that it doesn’t make sense on a teamwide basis. This WAR comparison would almost universally favor a team of minimum-salary players. If we take Jake Peavy’s $16 million per year average, which is consensus a “bargain” in today’s market, and you weigh that against a player making $400,000, Peavy has to be worth 3.12 extra wins just to break even. That means, if Peavy is a 4.77-win player, any minimum-salary player traded for him would have to account for less than 1.65 wins, by this formula.
To make a shortstop comparison, that means you wouldn’t trade Erick Aybar (worth 1.8 wins last year, at $400,000) for Jake Peavy (worth 4.77 wins, at $16 million). And that doesn’t even LOOK at the future. Basically, by this formula, where you look at surplus value, ONE YEAR of Erick Aybar is worth more than ONE YEAR of Jake Peavy, given their respective salaries.
So at the end of the day, you just need a $10 million payroll to pay 25 min-salary players, and you’re set. Maybe I am missing something here, but all that math looks right to me. Again, I don’t mean to say that your analysis is way out of line or wrong, but I think it’s missing some very important considerations.
by tgthree on Dec 15, 2008 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t follow WAR stats too much but how good is the back-end of the rotation. Aren’t the arms after Jurrjens/Vazquez below replacement level so wouldn’t Peavy’s value be technically higher as it moves everyone in the rotation to a spot where they’d be higher than their opposition (i.e. someone like Vazquez goes from being an average 2 to a pretty good 3). Of course this is just subjective and I don’t really know the WAR value of the Reyes/Morton/Campillo bunch, but I agree that Peavy’s value does seem undervalued according to these statistics.
by SeeingStars on Dec 16, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a valid point
That the Braves may have below replacement level pitchers, but replacement level for a starter is set a 5.5 ERA for a starter so I don’t think they’re too much below replacement level if they are.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you're saying now
With the Aybar/Peavy thing, it would be one year of Aybar and spending $15.6M on a 3 win pitcher (to replace your replacement level pitcher) for a total of 5.8 wins at $16M is better than one year of Peavy and a replacement level shortstop (0 wins) for a total of 4.77 wins at $16M. If you can make the other 2 assumptions, then I think this analysis is valid. Now I understand what you’re saying though and it makes sense. Certainly this isn’t applicable in every situation.
As for $10M on 25 min-salary players, that only works if they’re all above average players. If it’s a team of replacement level guys like Lillibridge, Anderson, BJones, Morton, etc. it’s not going to do very well. But if it’s all guys like Votto, Ethier, Aybar, Jurrjens, etc. then yea you can field a good team. Maybe we have average and replacement level mixed up or something? Normally an average player is about 2 wins above a replacement level player. I don’t know how many wins a replacement level team is supposed to have or an all average team is supposed to have so if someone could find a baseline there it might make more sense.
You’re right that I shouldn’t have mixed stats like that and that was laziness on my part. If you use Justin’s stats for pitchers, he had Halladay at about 7.4 wins last season and CC at about 7.3 wins when you combine NL and AL. Peavy was at 3 something, but obvious an off year so I wanted a more fair number. The Cy Young worthy seasons are much more comparable to Chipper’s MVP worthy season, whereas the projected season (like the one Fangraphs used) pales in comparison to Chipper’s actual season. I think Chipper’s projected season is still around 5-6 wins though.
For Yunel, if I use a method very similar to fangraph’s method and their stats, you start with wRAA and divide by 10. wRAA is above average and average is 2 wins above replacement level so add 2 wins. Then convert UZR to wins and add that and add the positional adjustment for SS. For the positional adjustment and replacement level adjustment I used Tom Tango’s here. I think it’s a little more conservative than the Fangraph stuff (0.5 wins for being a SS vs 0.75 wins).
I’ll use the 2008 wRAA of 4.2 and the 5.9 UZR for Yunel.. That’s 10.1 runs or 1 win. Then add 2 more wins for above replacement level in the NL and 0.5 wins for being a SS. Well he didn’t play a full season at SS so maybe .4 wins for that in 2008. That makes Yunel a 3.4 win player in 2008 by their method. I think Aybar scores at about 2.5 wins (I gave him a 0.33 wins for SS since it wasn’t a full season) by the same method.
If you go by FIP (2.87) and IP (233) in Peavy’s Cy Young year, he’s worth about 6.4 wins. Halladay at about 6.4 wins in 2008 (Could be higher if you’re generous and give him a bigger leverage bonus bigger than 0.5 since he ate 246 innings). Chipper Jones by the method I outlined above is at about 7.7 wins in 2008. Sabathia in 2008 by the Fangrpah method is 6.75 wins (could be more if you want to give him a bigger than 0.5 leverage bonus for pitching 253 innings).
I did that kinda fast so maybe there’s some mistakes in there, but hopefully that clears it up. What you’re saying is helping me understand this stuff better so thanks for furthering the discussion.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 6:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oops one line should be
As for $10M on 25 min-salary players, that only works if they’re all above average replacement level players.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My whole point about $10 million for a minimum-salary team is NOT that anyone should actually DO that. It’s that if you were to apply this WAR comparison methodology, you’d almost never be able to justify players making more than $400,000.
If this methodology wouldn’t trade one year of Erick Aybar for one year of Jake Peavy, straight-up, then it’s going to be pretty rare for it to EVER legitimately suggest that you should trade a $400,000 player for a player making free-agent-level salary (and that doesn’t even account for the prospects you would likely have to include). Likewise, you could never bring yourself to sign free agents. A minimum-salary player would only have to account for 0.08 wins a year to be worth more than a free agent at market value (I assume that market value means zero marginal value). And sometimes there is nothing wrong with simply paying the market value; not everyone on your team has to be a massive bargain. The money has to go somewhere.
Point is: your team would suck if you evaluated every move by this method. You’d never be able to justify spending any money, ever. I apologize for being critical without offering solutions, but I just don’t think this methodology works, for that reason.
Viscerally, I think there ARE times when you have to trade young, cheap, controllable players for more proven veteran producers. I think sometimes you do have to package a couple of three-win guys to get a five-win guy sometimes, even if the WAR doesn’t match up. Again, I think the way you get around that is to come up with an exponential WAR value, where the relationship between WAR and value isn’t linear but rather exponential. I don’t possess the math background to do it, but I’m sure it could be done. I know it’s how Baseball Prospectus converts its WAR numbers into money value (their MORP formula sucks IMO, but it is at least exponential).
But if we say that Escobar is a 3.5-win player and Peavy is a five-win player, I think this is where you ignore marginal value. You say, “hey, we have money to spend, and Peavy is a great bet at five years and $81 million.” This is one of the instances where you have to put aside the money concerns (or else you’d be back to your $10 million team). You say that the extra value of not only having Peavy, but also moving Vazquez and Jurrjens back a spot, and only having to bring up two kids instead of three is just huge. And since I don’t see the reasoning that Escobar’s going to get a whole lot better (if any better at all), this is one of those times where you ignore the cash and take the wins.
I will add at the end here that I saw you mentioned Zack Greinke, and I like him quite a bit as well. Problem is that I think this WAR methodology will veto a Greinke trade by even more, since we’d effectively be swapping five years of Escobar for two years of Greinke.
Bottom line: I don’t care what ace we get. Could be Peavy, Greinke, Lowe, hell you might even sell me on Andy Pettitte for the short-term (with the goal to remain “merely competitive” for the next two years and spend like crazy in the winter between 2010 and 2011, when all the kids are coming up). But we MUST get some kind of front-end pitcher, and I see Escobar as the most expendable piece to accomplish that (and Gorkys Hernandez, also included in the rumored Peavy deal, comes in a close second).
by tgthree on Dec 16, 2008 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“you’d almost never be able to justify players making more than $400,000.”
“You’d never be able to justify spending any money, ever.”
If you have $10M to spend and only one roster slot, you can either not spend the money and use a replacement level player (0 wins) or spend the $10M to buy a 2 WAR player. I’m not saying it’s wrong the spend money to pay FAs market value. I’m saying the money saved by not trading Escobar buys more wins than the team gains by trading for Peavy. I should probably clarify that.
“then it’s going to be pretty rare for it to EVER legitimately suggest that you should trade a $400,000 player for a player making free-agent-level salary”
Oh, okay, I see what you’re saying here. That’s what you meant with the exponential value of wins. Increased attendance revenue, increased playoff chances, etc. Sabernomics does that and I remember reading it sometimes on Hardball Times like with the CC to Brewers trade. I actually got the whole surplus value idea thing from Sabernomics, but now I see he accounts for the exponential value. But yeah, I see what you’re saying now, there needs to be a more advanced method for that situation to justify trading prospects for a player at exactly market value because those extra wins push you into contention and give you more revenue. (I guess that’s how you justify trading prospects with value for someone at exactly market value.)
However, I think we can still use the analysis in this post for Peavy/Escobar. I’m going to average out their salaries per year and you basically have Escobar + $12.4M a year or Peavy. The $12.4M a year can buy 2.5 wins a year so Escobar’s 3 wins + 2.5 wins the money buys for 5.5 wins is better than the 4.77 wins Peavy gives you. For simplicity, let’s say the remaining payroll is exactly $27.4M and we’re looking at 3 roster slots: SP, LF, SS.
Senario 1: Trade for Peavy, payroll becomes $15M, sign Dunn for $15M, get 3 wins in LF, use replacement level SS to get 0 wins (Or Sign Furcal for $10M and 2 wins in SS, sign Rivera for 1 win in LF at $5M)
Total: 7.77 wins.
Senario 2: Keep Escobar’s 3 wins, payroll is $27.4M, sign Lowe for $15M, get 3 wins, Sign Burrell for $12.4M, get 2.4 wins.
Total: 8.5 wins
This analysis only works if you’re assuming that the money is used to fix other holes in the team occupied by replacement level players that you can replace with the FA market. The point is I don’t think trading Escobar makes the Braves a better team in the short run or the long run, even with most generous case scenario (Escobar doesn’t get better, Peavy doesn’t decline). Throw in prospects and Peavy’s injury risk and I really hate the trade. I want the Braves to grab another good pitcher too, but I really, really don’t want to trade Escobar in a deal for Peavy (or Greinke).
On a side note, I should probably fix some of the stuff in the original post. Putting the value in dollars over 5 years ($61M vs $38M) is a bit unfair to Peavy.
“And since I don’t see the reasoning that Escobar’s going to get a whole lot better (if any better at all)”
What makes you think this? He’s entering his athletic prime and he played probably half of 2008 with a bum shoulder. Solid discipline (59 BB, 62 K’s last season). I think he could easily put up .290/.370/.430 in a fairly neutral park season while playing great defense. That production over 150 games should be 4+ wins as a SS. There’s a way to convert batting lines like that to runs and wins, but I’m not quite sure how to do it.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm actually trying to clarify the orginal post
And now some of the stuff I’m trying to do is damn confusing! I definitely did not do a good job explaining parts of it and it’s kinda mish mashed together. Guess that’s what I get for making on spot without a real plan or purpose! I can understand why it’d cause confusion now. It’s messy.
Another thing, the salary difference I have in the above reply is wrong. Should be precisely $13.5726M difference. If we redo the above with a $28.5727M payroll
Senario 1 = 7.77 wins
Senario 2 = 8.71452 wins
Difference = 0.945 wins by keeping Yunel
Matches the revised explanation in the original post which is basically (61.863M – 38.25M)/5 = 4.7226 wins over 5 years or 0.945 wins a year.
by VictorW on Dec 17, 2008 12:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1) You say, “If you have $10M to spend and only one roster slot, you can either not spend the money and use a replacement level player (0 wins) or spend the $10M to buy a 2 WAR player.” I agree, but your WAR methodology doesn’t take that into account. It just looks at a transaction in a vacuum, and says, “Whose marginal value is greater? Player A or Player B?” The methodology doesn’t acknowledge that sometimes money has next to zero value, because there is no added benefit to keeping it.
2) Also, you’re saying that “the money saved by not trading Escobar buys more wins than the team gains by trading for Peavy.” Again, true, but only in a vacuum. That assumes a player pool where you can buy players. But that player pool exists only imperfectly. Derek Lowe, Pat Burrell, and Adam Dunn, the three players you use in your “scenarios” are all players that the Braves have little to no interest in. Their non-interest may be irrational, but it is real nonetheless. So the money saved by not doing the Peavy deal only buys you wins if it’s actually SPENT in order to buy wins, and I just don’t see where else the Braves could spend. So your calculations are great in a calculator, but they don’t reflect the reality of the Braves’ situation.
So if you take into account the actual reality, you’re left with only two places to acquire extra wins on the pitching staff: Jake Peavy and Zack Greinke. I think Andy Pettitte, Kenshin Kawakami and Randy Wolf are also targets, but I think we can both agree that none of them is going to provide wins on the order of Peavy or Greinke, and the staff needs a five-win pitcher, not two three-win pitchers.
3) You’re still missing the point a little bit about exponential wins. The playoff thing is part of it, but it’s more that you have a limited number of roster spots to have as many WAR as possible. Two three-win players account for the same number of wins as one six-win player, but they take up twice as many roster spots. See what I mean? So, all money aside for a moment, if a team offers to trade you two three-win players for a six-win player, your WAR analysis says the trade is even, when, in reality, it isn’t.
4) You are bringing in way too many other variables here with your scenarios. There’s a simple comparison for the Peavy deal. Would you rather have Peavy or Escobar, prospects and money? If you really want to construct this analysis properly, then you need to make a hypothetical 25-man roster before the trade, then after the trade. Then you take the difference in cost and the difference in WAR, and you calculate your surplus value. Left field is not to be evaluated here. The question is: what is the difference in WAR when you replace Assorted Fifth Starter with Jake Peavy, and you replace Yunel Escobar with Staff (I would plug Omar Infante in there myself, and replace Infante on the bench with Diory Hernandez). Those are the considerations to see if the Peavy deal makes sense or not.
Now those calculations obviously take place in a vacuum, without considering potential replacements, etc., etc. I don’t like that at all, but this WAR methodology only works in a vacuum.
5) Escobar is entering his athletic prime, but I prefer baseball players to athletes. The bum shoulder excuse is entirely invalid; if you look at his splits before and after, you’ll find no change whatsoever. Best month was September, even after getting pulled from a game on September 3 when he aggravated the injury. Hitting .290 with a .370 OBP is just a matter of an extra couple of hits on the season, but how are you figuring he’s going to slug .430, when he’s got a career minor-league SLG of .413, and a SLG of .401 last year once a bunch of fluky doubles from 2007 went away. Aside from crazy hot streaks at the beginning and the end of last season, he hit a whopping .277/.351/.363 in 2008. That split begins April 17, by the way, more than two months before he hurt his shoulder on June 25th (he hit .285/.356/.356 from 4/17 to 6/24). I’m not trying to say that he’s a .710 OPS player, but it’s important to be aware that he did a significant amount of producing in the first two weeks of April and in September. That could suggest a deviation between his true talent and his production last year. People talk about Kelly Johnson being streaky, but Escobar is little better himself…for about four-fifths of the year, he just wasn’t that special.
by tgthree on Dec 17, 2008 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1) If we’re talking about trade value, then this method is implying that players who have salaries at market value don’t have trade value during the off season when FAs are available. I think that’s true in a perfect market because you would never trade for Adam Dunn at $15M a year if you could sign Adam Dunn for $15M a year. That’s what this method is going at.
I think what you are saying is Adam Dunn at $15M a year has trade value so if a team wants to trade for Adam Dunn, they should give up something for him. I guess scarcity (if there’s no other Adam Dunns available) would be what’s driving the price up. In this case, there are no other Jake Peavys and that should drive the price up some.
What I’m saying is that there may not be other Jake Peavys available, but you can simply recuperate the wins Jake Peavy gives you though the market. I can’t care how it’s done, but in the case of the Braves, you can do it through SP or LF.
Basically, what the analysis says is the Braves are overpaying by about $23M over 5 years for Peavy, and I don’t think they should overpay by that much because there’s still options to recuperate those lost wins. If this was the middle of the season, it would be a different story. I think you are operating under the assumption that there’s no good alternatives, while I’m assuming that there’s still plenty.
2) If you’re talking the reality of the situation then the Braves made it clear a month ago that they weren’t going to re-initiate talks with the Padres over Peavy, after the first trade talks fell through. It’s been confirmed more recently here and Escobar has been taken off the table. If you believe the Braves have next to zero interest in Sheets and Lowe, then the Braves have close to zero interest in Peavy too. Likewise, Moore has also said numerous times that he’s not trading Greinke so that chance is near zero too.
3) Okay I see then. That makes sense. Every MLB team, however, still has replacement level slots. This is more about matching player slots because I think a team would trade a 6 win players for two 3.1 win players if they had a replacement level player and every team does. Even Yankees still have a replacement level CF and possibly some replacement level SPs.
I can understand that the 6 win player should have more value than the two 3 win players, but I don’t think it’s a tremendous amount. How much would you quantify it as in terms of wins? +10? +20? I think with the number of players MLB teams and the scarcity of talent above replacement level, this is not a big issue. I think you’re saying the scarcity of roster slots should drive up the price of higher win players. I don’t think there’s a huge scarcity of roster slots (or surplus of above replacement level players) in MLB for this to matter tremendously.
4) I would rather have Escobar than Peavy because the salary difference can be used to purcase more wins than Peavy would give you over Escobar. The entire point is that the salary difference makes up for it because you still can spend the money. Yes, trading Escobar for Peavy is more wins if you bank the savings and don’t sign another player, but if you simply spend the salary difference on improving the team, keeping Escobar is more wins. If you don’t buy that, then I don’t really know what to say.
I also don’t think you need to do a 25 man roster analysis when at the end of the day the situation we’re talking about has 3 potential holes: SS, SP, LF. Or maybe another SP, RP, and UTIL, but really, that’s it.
5) Escobar is a ball player. He plays good defense at a premium position and he shows solid plate discipline for his position. It’s not like he’s Delmon Young where people have to justify his usefulness with tools, youth, and potential.
The first shoulder injury occurred on June 24. He started playing again on July 2. July was his worst month of the season at .230/.296/.297 over 82 PAs. You really don’t think that the shoulder injury had anything to do with that? The September re-injury wasn’t very severe either, but it was July that hurt his line. If you recalculate his line without July (about 16% of his PAs), it’s .297/.374/.418.
The point about him entering his athletic prime is that he still has upside and it’s not unreasonable to think his power might go up. Yunel also had a significant number of AA at bats for the Pelicans and their home park suppresses power. I’d say he’s at worst a .120 ISO (his career minor ISO is .118). Based on that, if we bring the line down to .290/.370/.410, that’s still a 4+ win player as a SS.
I don’t think the streakiness is an issue when the sample size is large enough. McCann was streaky last year as well (two 1.000+ OPS months, three sub .800 OPS months, one .850 OPS month) and I don’t think that takes anything away from his hitting ability. Yunel’s showed significant improvement from his minor league stats. He’s had about 940 PAs in the minors and majors and I think the floor on his ability is .290/.360/.410. Solid hitter, great defense, and plays a premium defensive position.
by VictorW on Dec 17, 2008 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1) Nailed it. In a perfect world, we’d just SIGN Jake Peavy. But there’s a chronic scarcity of Jake Peavys on the free-agent market these days (and of course, I don’t mean Peavy specifically, but in general pitchers of his caliber). In addition, I don’t think you can simply recuperate those wins through the current free-agent market. Perhaps the Furcal signing (with LA, that is) changes your point of view, but we currently have about $35MM to spend. You could sign Adam Dunn anyway; a Peavy deal does not preclude that. That’s why I’m so adamant on you separating the left field signing and the Peavy deal: they are NOT mutually exclusive. If they were, I would say differently, but you can still do both.
Again, I’d love to see you name some good, REALISTIC alternatives (see point #2 for a further discussion of "realistic").
2) GMs posture all the time, so I’m trying to look below the surface at what possibilities might actually be “realistic” for Atlanta. To accomplish this, I’m looking at speculation from people like David O’Brien. I acknowledge that it is just that—speculation—but I assume that he’s doing informed speculation. Maybe that’s a poor assumption, but I figure he knows better than I do. And he still figures that a Peavy deal is possible, while he also believes that Zack Greinke could be traded. As for Sheets, O’Brien has confirmed several times that he does not believe the Braves have even considered pursuing him. I will say that today, for the first time, O’Brien said that “there’s a chance” the Braves could get in on Lowe, so I will back off on saying that Lowe isn’t realistic. But he still says that Sheets, as well as Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn remain firmly as non-targets.
Take that for what you will, but I figure no rumors + denial from guys like DOB (his blog can be annoying, but he does often have quality info) = no chance. I figure if DOB holds out hope, he might just have a reason for doing so. If you actually believe all the front office talk (no Lowe, no Peavy, no Greinke, no Dunn, no Burrell) then this looks to be a very bleak offseason.
3) Certainly a six-win player isn’t worth +10 wins on two three-win players (I hope you meant +10 runs), but BP’s formula, for whatever this is worth, raises WARP to the 1.5 power when calculating money value. They do this to account “for non-linearity in the market price of baseball talent (e.g. teams are willing to pay more for one 6-win player than two 3-win players).” That feels about right to me. And you have to keep in mind that roster slots are at a very big scarcity, not because teams don’t have many, but because teams invariably have most of their spots already filled by existing obligations. The Braves have a 25-man roster, but about 20 of those spots are taken. They have to get all their additional WAR out of those last five spots, so there is a scarcity indeed.
4) Again, you assume that wins can be “purchased.” I just don’t agree with you. Marquee free agents are very rare, and invariably there are big-market teams involved in the bidding for them. The Braves, no matter how much money they have free, just CAN’T bid against the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox, et al. Take the Burnett negotiations. That last $2.5 million is pocket change for the Yankees (from $80MM to $82.5MM), but for us, it’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Any bidding war that goes on, we might be maxed-out with our offer, but Boston or LA would barely be breaking a sweat. Perhaps some winters you COULD buy those wins, but you certainly can’t count on it. We’ll have a heyday with the second-tier guys; we’ll always be a top destination for them. But second-tier guys aren’t what we need, and we can’t count on always developing 100% of our first-tier needs.
I once thought as you did: we could simply purchase the players by making the highest bids. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned this winter, it’s that that line of thinking fails. Because while we might have loose cash, we always have to be mindful of where we might be a few years down the road, when Burnett’s $16 million might be totally handicapping our ability to win. So we can never offer what the big teams can offer. Might work out every once in a while, but in a lot of cases, “buying wins” is not nearly so simple.
5) Escobar is a solid hitter and a great defender. I’ll give you that. But there’s no concrete evidence that he’ll ever be a great hitter: no outstanding performance and no outstanding scouting reports. So he remains a solid hitter. Defense is less of a concern to me; by UZR, he’s saving six runs with his glove, and I think a good pitching staff in front of an average defense saves that and more. Not to mention, you can easily make up for six runs at other positions.
He does play a premium position, but I believe that pitcher is the ultimate premium position. I don’t have an objective stance here; after many years of Braves fandom, I have simply come to subscribe to the “pitching wins” philosophy. So when I have a chance to trade a top-10 ML shortstop (Esco ranked eighth last year, if you ask Beyond the Box Score), for a top-10 ML pitcher, I don’t ask questions. I do it. It’s that simple. If Peavy’s contract was a real albatross or there were stunningly obvious signs of decline, I’d reconsider, but Peavy’s contract is a bargain, and the indicators of decline are mild at best, and not worse than most pitchers of his age and caliber. Maybe even Escobar brings his bat up to Mike Aviles level, and Esco becomes a top-5 ML shortstop. He remains as a solid but not elite hitter, and I look down the list of shortstops and see guys like Marco Scutaro and Cesar Izturis producing 3.5 wins and 2 wins respectively, and I realize that it’s much easier to find an underappreciated shortstop on the FA or trade market, than an underappreciated pitcher.
That’s the thing that bothers me about this WAR analysis. Normally I like cold, hard logic, but this just doesn’t account for Peavy’s utter irreplaceability. Pitching wins, and in order to have good pitching, you have to have an ace, and in order to have an ace, it looks as though Escobar has to go. If there were any way around it, I’d listen, but I don’t see it. Unless Derek Lowe develops as a possibility (wouldn’t that be nice?) or the Braves start listening to offers for Tommy Hanson (say it ain’t so!), I think the only way to acquire our much-needed ace is to trade Yunel Escobar.
by tgthree on Dec 17, 2008 9:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess it just comes down to the assumptions
and that’s what you and me differ on. I think, and this is me personally, if there was no FA market, I’d still hate the Peavy trade because of the injury risk. I’d rather bank it and look for FAs next year.
Also if I was as optimistic on Yunel’s WAR projection as I was on Peavy, I think he’d be projected around a 4.4 win player, which is only .33 less than optimistic Peavy. The conservative approach to Peavy would probably have been a 4-4.2 win pitcher.
Wren’s been pretty deliberate this offseason and I really, really don’t think he’ll go back to trading Escobar for Peavy, but who knows. A kinds of crazy has happened this off season and the Furcal drama makes me very, very confused! I usually just go by MLB Trade Rumors for the hot stove news since it’s basically the Fark.com of the hot stove and it looks like the Japanese pitcher (and I can’t even remember his name!) is a bigger possibility than anyone in America.
I think sometimes run prevention is summed up too much as pitching when defense is a large part of the equation too. I think the effect of pitchers is a little overrated since posting good ERAs is a product of the defense and park as well.
But the idea that run prevention is what you need to build a great team around is a good idea. I think it’s been said that a run prevented is worth maybe 1.1 times as much as a run scored? In one of Baseball Prospectus’s books, I think Baseball Behind the Numbers, they were trying to figure out what had the greatest correlation between winning in the playoffs. It ended up being a big crapshoot, but there was a small correlation of about 0.20 between good SP, good run prevention (or maybe good defense based on their FRAA stat), and having a bullpen ace closing games.
by VictorW on Dec 17, 2008 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Does it really make sense to you that an optimistic Escobar is a 4.4-win player, while an optimistic Peavy is a 4.77-win player. You really think that sounds right? Basically what that’s saying is that if they were making the same amount of money, you could justify trading a year of Peavy for a year of Escobar. I did the math myself, and came out with about the same figures, but really, does that sound accurate to you? Heck, CC Sabathia came in as a 5.5-win pitcher by this analysis…is he really only worth one more win than Yunel Escobar? If hitters are really worth this much more, then I don’t see why anyone bothers to spend money on a pitching staff.
by tgthree on Dec 18, 2008 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Other odds and ends
Peavy’s contract is a bargain, but part of it is because of the no trade clause. The biggest bargains in baseball are established players that haven’t hit free agency yet, like Yunel.
Peavy’s park inflates his value some too, allowing him to put up ERAs higher than park neutral ERAs. I think a lot of people are expecting Cy Young value from him every year (2.5-2.8 ERA I think?), when a 3-3.4 ERA park neutral ERA. is more reasonable. I actually forgot Peavy had a 2.8 ERA last season because I’ve been looking at advanced stats that put him at about 3.6 for last season. I guess that was the pendulum swinging back in favor for him after he got an unlucky ERA in 2006.
Defense is undervalued in baseball too, which is why you see a lot of great defensive players sign for below market value each year. Defense can also fluctuate a lot in a year so it’s a little iffy to project and there’s just so many metrics. I can’t find a good link right now, but I think it’s something like each play is worth 0.8 runs, so if a guy saves you 12-13 plays above another player, that’s a win right there.
Predicting future upside for youngsters is tricky and I don’t really know a good method. PECOTA or CHONE maybe? Then you can certainly calculate the future based on that. Marcels does a good job of projecting established players. And for factoring in decline, I think people usually se 10% decline a year.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 8:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 15, 2008 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I love baseball. Everything is so quantifiable. Very nice work on all of this. Its too late in the night for me to critically think on this, but it looks nice at a glance.
by soup du jour on Dec 15, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well done, sir. Your post earns you another picture of Mrs. Scott Podsednik.

by coldriver10 on Dec 15, 2008 4:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Goes to work...
…on crunching Vazquez’s value.
by Rafael Belliard's SLG % on Dec 15, 2008 4:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing I love is that this was posted by a lady...
+100
by mvandonsel on Dec 15, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t even realize that, I was too busy staring.
Nice choice.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 15, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
This thread is now about Scott Podsednik’s wife.

by VictorW on Dec 15, 2008 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Moral of the story...
even a mediocre baseball player will get a waaaaaaaay hotter woman than any of us will. Sad.
by mvandonsel on Dec 15, 2008 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No my friend a big penis can get you anything. At least for one night.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i wish there was a way to flag quality posts as awesome.
by yondaime4 on Dec 15, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s called 5 recs make it green, and green = awesome
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How do you figure? Does a guy go to a bar, walk up to a girl, and say “hey there, my name’s Jim. I have a 10 inch dick?”
by coldriver10 on Dec 15, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please…the ladies can sense his grit and hustle from across the room.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 15, 2008 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't pick up girls in a bar to start. It takes no skill and you can't point out one of your top attributes.
Ladies in the Gym get to see what’s packing with the shorts. Make good non-verbal communication to determine if both parties are interested. Do this as many times as necessary and don’t single in on one. Treat each prospect with the same game. Now you wait for a non intrusive chance. It’s much easier at that point to schedule a bar, coffee shop, smoothie place, whatever….. Then this is your opportunity. You have made your attributes apparent for weeks. She has thought about you from time to time and it’s got the oven already pre-cooked. However, you must determine if you are that good or she is too into it. If it’s the latter of the two then slowly disengage because trouble is a night away.
To maximize efforts it’s smart to let her show you off to as many friends and girls as possible. Make sure your myth travels. Be respectful if you don’t have long term plans. This way your legend grows and your not an ass because you didn’t lead on to far. Just having a good time. Now the oven is pre-cooked for 50% of the friends (depending on how close friends are.) You have successfully planted seeds in the future. Do not engage but wait for circumstances.
Always wear dress slacks or khakis. These are the best pants to wear if you are blessed. No matter where you are a woman will occasionally notice what’s going on. If it’s random then nothing will come of it. However, if it’s a regular thing via work, meetings, organizational meetings, hobbies, whatever…..you are planting a seed. Even if a friend who is not available she will tell her friends if you go out in a crowd. You have planted your seeds and as long as your not a dick and wait your good.
Beach is always good especially if you wear lighter color trunks.
Now for the hotty that you might not see again. It comes down to your game and getting to a makeout session where things could arise. Remember your not wearing jeans so she knows what’s up. Dancing is a good start but don’t be that guy on the dance floor trying to make a porn. There are ways in a song to make it be known without being an ass.
it’s not a science but there are many ways to let it be known. I could go on but it really depends on the situation. I believe the bar is the worst place to go shopping. it’s like produce at the grocery store. It might look good there but if it stays around for awhile it will go bad.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
WTF???
The previous post was like a train wreck, I wanted to look away but I couldn’t because of morbid curiosity. And now I feel dirty.
by mvandonsel on Dec 15, 2008 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, cold driver asked and I let my strategy be known.
The moral of the story is to always have your myth growing. If you can’t pick up the hotty then go to one of her friends. DONT go to the least attractive of the bunch. You will mentally make the hotty look at you differently. Only way you go this route is if you are the nice guy and become a potential friend for nights out. Then you are regularly meeting and the dress slack and khakis example above comes back into play.
Repetition and constant chances/reminders of whats up will always keep your myth alive even if the girl who noticed isn’t available. See friends example in crowed outing above.
Plus now if your out and you obviously have girls checking in on you other girls will notice what there looking at. If you notice a hotty checking you out then make sure she sees you in high demand. Then when the moment presents itself." discredit the interest as simple flirtation and make a bold statement that specifically states your interest without being a perv.
The End.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually after the bold statement
present her with a big surprise later and if she’s a hotty with a brain. Fence that shit in just enough for her to still feel free. Then let other’s post about your hot wife on blogs.
Now The End.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it seems to me the moral of the story is…
the trick is u gotta plant the seeds, then u let the seeds grow into a plant… then u fuck the plant
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Dec 15, 2008 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes!!!!!! You passed
What did you get………
D+……
Fucking outstanding!!!!!!! Now you get +1 if you can tell me what that’s from?
by Charmin519 on Dec 16, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the trick is u gotta plant the seeds, then u let the seeds grow into a plant… then u fuck the plant
Ummmmm, definitely, 40 Year Old Virgin.
by mvandonsel on Dec 16, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
maybe he’s talking about the “fucking outstanding”.
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps.
Or I guess he could be talking about the “You passed with a D+,” then he would be talking about Tommy Boy.
by mvandonsel on Dec 16, 2008 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+2
Tommy Boy and Tenacious D both quoted d+. That’s what I was talking about.
by Charmin519 on Dec 16, 2008 8:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it’s just me, but if I can tell a guy is packing heat through his gym shorts, they’re WAY too tight. You might as well lay by the swimming pool in a banana hammock and let all the ladies who are interested in a one night stand with well-endowed and secure man come to you. You may be waiting a while, but come they will.
by coldriver10 on Dec 15, 2008 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's sad that I looked this up but it proves my point. I would have done some sweat pants or something but it started to weird me and my wife out.

by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
haha and what point did that picture prove? He’s clearly packing, but on my list of people I wouldn’t sleep with, he’s somewhere between John Madden and Tony Siragusa.
by coldriver10 on Dec 15, 2008 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is if your looking you will see what's going on. Not what you intend to do. Next time your at the gym check out any guy in sweat pants or mesh shorts. You'll see. Not saying that's it your gonna go running but if he's attractive
then you’ll also know what’s up and you might not say no when he ask you on a date. My wife agrees with you that it’s not that important but she says it doesnt hurt your chances at all.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah I getcha. It’s true, I did notice, and I notice at the gym too. It’s just that I don’t think you can necessarily tell the SIZE specifically. But it’s always a bit of a reassurance when you can say “hey, that cute guy on the lat bar has a penis.”
by coldriver10 on Dec 15, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thats why I also said One night at least. Cause Madden and Siragusa aren't going to get one chance. Borat, in a weak moment, might not be so bad.
Alright I’m done. I’ve been told to stop.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 8:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love how the most thought out, intricate post from you on this site is about this subject and not about baseball.
Classic.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 15, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I apologize
I made one comment with no intentions of this and it just manifested to this horrible thing. I blame yondaime4 for telling me I’m awesome. It went to my head. I digres.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. I think it’s just funny as hell.
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 15, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know but I do feel bad because it really was a good post that I thought was quite impressive.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 8:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
I also love how the top half of the thread’s discussion is entirely different from the bottom half’s discussion which is separated by Mrs. Podsednik.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha…
I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.
by Smoltz's Beard on Dec 16, 2008 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, that was my fault. I swear my intentions were good! :(
by coldriver10 on Dec 16, 2008 8:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus Tree Guy
Is not necessarily pulling a big joe/Dr. Doom deal but he is discrediting the post even though Vic Wang made it clear that his scenario was not exact. He was just trying to quantify Peavy’s value for uneducated folks like myself. I understand that many other considerations go into the analysis but I think Vic W did a good job of painting a general picture.
I’m sure Tree just see’s an equal and is challenging Vic W to see what he’s made of. Thus the crazy talk began.
by Charmin519 on Dec 15, 2008 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny thing is to me
I wasn’t involved in this topic the least bit.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 8:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The worst part is, not only is he a mediocre baseball player, he’s also a dick. There’s no justice in the world….
by cbwilk on Dec 15, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great stuff Victor. I just wanted to add what Chris O’Leary thinks about Peavy’s mechanics and how he is certain to have TJ surgery soon. Fun read:
http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/ProfessionalPitcherAnalyses/JakePeavy.html
by BravesFan on Dec 15, 2008 7:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I love that site!
I actually linked that under the “injury risk” thing. Studying mechanics is pretty complex and I like how he explains it in a way that I can understand and all the examples he gives makes me believe him.
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is what happens when i go off to study for finals? god i hate you all
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 15, 2008 8:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
“study for finals”
i call bullshit on this one. You were watching data again, don’t even try and lie to us.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 8:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
nah man, i had to highlight like 3 chapters for MIS, which i am sitting in now, posting on TC instead of scanning the chapter powerpoints to cram (considering i can’t read the book, cuz i sold it this morning)
BIG JOE SUCK ONE
by bigjoe on Dec 16, 2008 12:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The size doesn't matter
Why do they call Randy Johnson the Big Unit? That is an epic nickname.
Back to Mrs. Podsednik plz. Corky Miller can have sex with a goat.
by TradeAndruw on Dec 15, 2008 9:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Really? No one’s gonna do it? Over 50 posts and nobody’s made a joke about an Asian kid with a calculator? Am I the only one that insensitive?
by cbwilk on Dec 16, 2008 1:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Because that’s about as funny as CC Sabathia needing to be on the Braves because he’s black AND a lefty.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Dec 16, 2008 8:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hah
I’m Asian, and made a joke about a calculator. Does that count?
by jc25 on Dec 16, 2008 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A request...
How does the value for Grienke come out? Assume we trade Escobar and change for him.
by someguy917 on Dec 16, 2008 1:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Greinke
Not really sure what to put his salary at. Bedard got $7M for year 2 of arb. Zambrano got $6M or so for year 2 and $12M for year 3. I’ll assume a salary of $6M and then $11M for 2009 and 2010.
The Marcels projection has him at 187 innings and a 3.67 FIP. If we bump the IP to 200, then he’s about a 3.67 win pitcher and if you give him the 0.5 win bonus for eating high leverage innings from the crappier relievers, that’s a 4.15 win player which is worth $20.15M a year. Subtract the salaries and you get $14.15M of surplus value in 2009 and then $9.15M of surplus value in 2010. That’s about $23.3M in surplus. Greinke is a legit ace in my mind. He’s very good, though I guess he’s kind of a headcase (that’s why he missed basically a full season).
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t call Greinke a “headache” exactly. He was diagnosed with a legitimate clinical psychological disorder, and had to miss a year. I respect that sort of thing as a medical issue and not merely a “headache.” He’s pitched fine since his return, so I’m not worried about it being an issue in the future.
by tgthree on Dec 16, 2008 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
headcase
I guess it’s a little mean to use that word for someone who actually has psychological disorders and that’s laziness on my part. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the guy or it’ll get in the way either. I think he’ll have a great career (and hopefully as a Brave when he gets signed for 2011!)
by VictorW on Dec 16, 2008 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

















