Johnny Damon signs with Yankees

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

jaque jones at 3/16 would have been a much better move.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir are an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO!

you have no idea what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

sublime, I don't disagree with you much on sports, but why is signing a guy like jacque, who is honestly rather terrible at everything, for $5mil a year better than getting damon at this price? I don't think this is a good signing, but the jacque signing splattered vomit all over my shoes. You can put your response in the fire jim hendry plz thread if you'd like.

I think the yankees are doing well signing guys instead of trading stuff from what little is left on the farm for the improvements. They better hope foreign scouting gets another good import soon, probably in the otsuka mold.

[sublime]

sublime, I don't disagree with you much on sports, but why is signing a guy like jacque, who is honestly rather terrible at everything, for $5mil a year better than getting damon at this price?

hey bug-

here is how i view the situation before i break it down into stats. damon plays in boston and has this huge persona, and jones played in minny and well....plays in minny

now the stats and money:

defense: i dont have much to work with here, but from what i do have at my disposal jones is damons equal here at this time, not counting the fact that damon has the worst outfield arm in baseball. i would think jones gets the edge here.

offense: break out the eric van inspired BRAR/$$$ formula. for those who don't know, here is how BP calculates BRAR

[ QUOTE ]
Batting Runs Above Replacement. The number of runs better than a hitter with a .230 EQA and the same number of outs; EQR - 5 * OUT * .230^2.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically, its a pure offensive value stat. doesn't have any biases or anything like that, just spits out a number of runs a player is worth above average.

the weighting i use is this (3 seasons ago gets 1 weight, 2 gets 2 weight, last season gets 3 weight) this is a crude way to estimate next years production, without accounting for age perfectly.

anyways, on to jones and damon.

jones

03 23
04 9
05 17

damon

03 22
04 38
05 35

jones expects to spit out 15.5 BRAR @ 5.3m per year (his deal is actually structured in 4/5/5.5 format, which is good, but whatever)

so you are getting 2.92 BRAR for every million spent on jones (not counting defense, which i think we all agree he will be better than damon overall)

damon

projects to produce about 33.8 BRAR next season at 13m which equates to 2.6 BRAR per million

so on that level, jones provides more value for the dollar spent. now, some will say you pay a premium for those extra runs because they are worth it. i say, [censored] and teams prove it every single freaking year.

anyways, onto more info.

age/decline rate/contract length:

jones is one year younger than damon and his contract is one year shorter. so the cubs get to cut ties with him after age 33, while the yankees have damon till hes 35.

as for the rate of decline, one thing i like to look at is how often a guy walks. the ability to control the strike zone seems to be something that will prolong a players worth when other things fail.

johhny damon has gotten on base 2419 times in his career (includes all hits and BB+HBP) 630 times was the result of either being hit by a pitch or being walked. so 26% of his value so to speak is tied up in walks.

jones has reached base 1233 times with 259 times being the result of a walk. so 21% of his value is tied up in walks.

i would guess that negates the fact that jones is a year younger. seems like a fair trade off, although the yankees are still on the hook for an extra year.

so, IMO jones at that price is a better acquisition.

[kenberman]

Sublime,
You did a good job here valuing each deal. However, this type of analysis works best in a salary cap environment, where every team only has x number of dollars to spend in order to achieve maximum production.

clearly, this isn't the case in baseball, or with the NYY.

which is why paying a premium for potentially extra production makes sense for them.

And, why having a potentially bad 4th year to deal with isn't a disaster, since they can probably eat some of the contract in a trade, or afford to have a $13M guy as 4th outfielder.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
Sublime,
You did a good job here valuing each deal. However, this type of analysis works best in a salary cap environment, where every team only has x number of dollars to spend in order to achieve maximum production.

clearly, this isn't the case in baseball, or with the NYY.

which is why paying a premium for potentially extra production makes sense for them.

And, why having a potentially bad 4th year to deal with isn't a disaster, since they can probably eat some of the contract in a trade, or afford to have a $13M guy as 4th outfielder.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs created, or prevention of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

there is no premium for runs 25-30. they are worth the same as runs as 20-25.

another rant-

this moronic argment that damon is worth more money because the yankees are in the 'win now' more. LMFAO! they have a payroll that will lekely never go under 200m again, every single season is a win now for them!

the deal SUCKS. its bearable for year 1, tolerable for year 2, awful for year 3, and putrid for year 4. i have shown with MATH that the deal is bad for even 2006 and yet people will say its an ok deal. amazing.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not talking about the NYY going bankrupt. i am talking about *this* deal they signed johnny damon to. its a bad deal, just like the rich neigbor paying more for the same product as you, despite having more money than you.

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not talking about the NYY going bankrupt. i am talking about *this* deal they signed johnny damon to. its a bad deal, just like the rich neigbor paying more for the same product as you, despite having more money than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it's probably a bad deal, in strict value terms.

but I don't think that that really matters - that's where we disagree I guess.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
thats the issue though. i dont give the yankees more leeway because they have more money, its a poor way to evaluate the deals they make. they need to be held to the same grading system as the red sox, and as the san diego padres. a good deal (giles) is a good deal and a bad deal (wagner, damon) is a bad deal.

look at it this way. lets assume your neighbor makes twice as much money as you. you both go out and buy the same car, and while conversing about your purchaces, you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you? of course not! you both entered the same market place and got the same product, yet mr jones paid more money because he went to the fancy dealership which is in place to fleece guys like mr jones.

baseball is a marketplace, and the product that is being sold (either runs, or prenetion of them) have a fair market value. those that pay less than the market value are schrewd and those that pay more are suckers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I agree with all of this. However, whether or not your neighbor is a sucker really doesn't matter. he has the same car, and paid more, but he has more money, so so what?

The real life affect (or downside) to being a sucker in this case is pretty negligable, or non-existent.

as long as your neighbor - or in this case, the NYY - continues to have more money than you, then the amount they overpsend simply becomes an academic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not talking about the NYY going bankrupt. i am talking about *this* deal they signed johnny damon to. its a bad deal, just like the rich neigbor paying more for the same product as you, despite having more money than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

....looking at it in the narrow focus that you've presented, you are correct IMO.

However, the other mitigating conditions for all 3 parties (Yankees, Sox & Damon) make it a correct decision for ALL of them. (I'm not saying that I agree with it; simply that I understand the prevelant perspective of the 3 parties involved).

In pure baseball terms......The Yanks got stronger & the Sox got weaker for 2006.....net = a 2fer for Georgie & the Boys from the Bronx.

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
you find out he paid 35k, while you paid 29k for the same exact product. are you not going to assume hes a sucker, just because he makes more money than you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if Mr. Jones lives in New York and I live in San Diego.

[ QUOTE ]
there is no premium for runs 25-30. they are worth the same as runs as 20-25.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say, if there were a salary cap, there would be even more of a superstar premium.

[ QUOTE ]
this moronic argment that damon is worth more money because the yankees are in the 'win now' more. LMFAO! they have a payroll that will lekely never go under 200m again, every single season is a win now for them!


[/ QUOTE ]

Exatamundo!

[ QUOTE ]
i have shown with MATH that the deal is bad for even 2006 and yet people will say its an ok deal. amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately for the math wizzes, the best team isn't who gets the most wins per dollar spent. It's who gets the most wins.

Any time a team gets close, they should go for it. If that means taking the risk of being stuck with Johnny Damon at the whopping age of 35, then so be it. And when I say any time a team is close, I mean the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Phillies, the Giants, the A's, the Blue Jays (ala '92-'93), the Braves. Any time you get close* as a team.....GO FOR IT!!!!

* By close, genrally I mean if you are already a playoff caliber team you should try and push yourself over the championchip hump. The exeption to the rule could be a team like the Milwaukee Brewers in 2006. This will be thier best chance to make the playoffs for ten years, so they should GO FOR IT!!!!

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately for the math wizzes, the best team isn't who gets the most wins per dollar spent. It's who gets the most wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

just say this and you will have made your point very well. the rest is kind of irrelevant/borderline wrong.