Smart Money

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 14, 2009 3:00 PM EST

The Mets have signed Alex Cora, Oliver Perez, Tim Redding, and Francisco Rodriguez to major league deals this off-season.

The Rays have signed Pat Burrell, Brian Shouse, Joe Nelson, Lance Cormier, and Gabe Kapler to major league deals this off-season.

For the Mets, that would be a utility infielder, two starting pitchers, and the best closer available on the free agent market.

For the Rays, that would be their new DH, a LOOGY, two middle relief types, and a platoon outfielder.

The Mets contracts annual averages combine for 29 mil next year.

The Rays contracts annual averages combine for 11 mil next year.

Over the last three years, the Mets players have averaged a combined 4.5 wins.

Over the last three years, the Rays players have averaged a combined 3.9 wins.

On this market, the difference between 4.5 wins and 3.9 wins should be ~3 million.

The Mets are paying quite a bit more than that, and getting slightly more production than the Rays.

For the Mets, that would be a utility infielder, two starting pitchers, and the best closer available on the free agent market.

For the Rays, that would be their new DH, a LOOGY, two middle relief types, and a platoon outfielder.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: New York Mets, Tampa Bay Rays

Comments

Here's the problem I have with this kind of analysis,

Yes, they’re paying more per win by a significant amount, but there’s always going to be teams who pay more because they can afford to. I’m not saying it’s money well spent, but I hear people saying “oh the Yankees spent 4 billion dollars for 3 more wins” (exageration obv.) but it’s because that team’s economy allows them to. If it wasn’t for big-market teams spending like that then cost per win throughout the league would decrease significantly would it not?

I could be wrong though

by staplemaniac on Feb 14, 2009 3:48 PM EST reply actions

Exactly

The Rays have to act smarter than these teams. That is the angle we have to take. These teams do not have to act smarter than the Rays. The Mets have tons of money and a new stadium. They can afford to overpay. They probably know they are overpaying. It just doesn’t matter.

by matthan on Feb 14, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions

But teams aren't overpaying this off-season.

Not even the Yankees, Red Sox, Giants ect. everyone is paying essentially what they should. Yes, the Mets can afford to, but they shouldn’t have to. Look at the Yankees contracts, each works out to ~4.5-4.8 per win.

The point wasn’t that they’re overpaying, but rather to the extent they’re overpaying for talent. Even though their payroll is ~2.5 times ours, that doesn’t mean they should be spending 17 mil than us for a half of a win.

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 14, 2009 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

Actually, the Royals are overpaying.

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 14, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions

They shouldn't be, but they are

Also it is not surprising that they overpaid for a closer. That is par for the course.

Either way big money teams overpaying just doesn’t have a real impact on the standings. What I mean is we can’t say the Mets/Yanks/etc are overpaying and we aren’t so we have some competitive advantage. We don’t. All that does it slightly level the playing field by making their massive payroll less efficient. However there really is no limit to their payroll. What really matters are the mid-level and low-level payroll teams and how they pay. If they overpay then we get a serious competitive advantage.

by matthan on Feb 14, 2009 4:23 PM EST up reply actions

Overpaying for Rodriguez was like 2 mil.

Perez and Cora were far worse.

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 14, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions

There are a limited number of players who sign for good FA deals.

They are usually 1-3 WAR guys who have skills that fly under the radar. So for a team like the Rays who can only afford low-to-medium talented players via free agency and only when they’re underrated, they’ll come out looking good. For teams with more money, they will often buy some higher-priced talent, which doesn’t come at much of a discount and thus spend more per win. Neither style team should be paying for bad deals, although maybe something like KRod is worth it since the Mets had zero bullpen and they need to appease fans.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Feb 14, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

Plus

A lot of it depends on what holes the team has and what’s available that year at that position. An economist would probably piss all over this analysis. Supply and demand needs to be a factor.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 14, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions

Although I realize part of your point is the counterpoint to that

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 14, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions

Article is messed up a little bit:

For the Mets, that would be a utility infielder, two starting pitchers, and the best closer available on the free agent market.

For the Rays, that would be their new DH, a LOOGY, two middle relief types, and a platoon outfielder.

…then, at the bottom…

For the Mets, that would be a utility infielder, two starting pitchers, and the best closer available on the free agent market.

For the Rays, that would be their new DH, a LOOGY, two middle relief types, and a platoon outfielder.

by kericr on Feb 14, 2009 4:20 PM EST reply actions

Intentional.

I was trying to show that the Mets are getting more “premium” positions, yet getting barely more value.

by R.J. Anderson on Feb 14, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions

I am not convinced the Mets spent wisely.

It seems to me that after Wright, Beltran and Reyes, the Mets offense has huge question marks. And after Santana, the rotation also has huge question marks.

For the offense, the Mets added nothing, depending on Delgado to maintain his second half surge and a lot of questionable talents like Tatis, Murphy, Evans, Schneider & Castillo to contribute significantly. Even Church seems to me as much a question as a positive.

For the rotation they added Redding, Livan & Garcia to compete to fill it out and depend on Pelfrey, Maine and/or Niese to suplement Santana and Perez, the latter also something of a question.

So the lion’s share of the improvement is in the bullpen, admittedly very much better now, but ordinarily the feature that should be the easiest to improve on the cheap. Which would be better? To add Lowe and Manny, and perhaps spreading some lesser money among the many available relievers, or to acquire the players they did? In fact, why could they have not gone the Yankee route and paid for K-Rod as well as Lowe and either Manny or one of the available LF options? If their budget really can accomodate more, why not maximize its power rather than going all in on the bullpen and then getting cheap in the rotation and offense?

In fact, if they really think Putz is ready to contribute to his capacity, why even squander so much on Rodriguez when they can reallocate that money to shore up the rotation and/or offense? I get the concern over fan reactions, but wise GMs bank on their decisions leading to winning to satisfy fans, not on high profile signings for that purpose.

by bobr on Feb 14, 2009 6:19 PM EST reply actions