Johnny Damon signs with Yankees

[rwperu34]

[ QUOTE ]
You project him at 33.8 BRAR in 2006 at the age of 32. Let's say 31 BRAR in 2007 at 33. At age 34 project 27 and at age 35 project 23.

bernie williams

32 52 brar
33 59
34 23
35 26

so damon loses 12% of his offense from 33 -34, and williams loses over 50%.........right...................



[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to pick one player and compare Damon to him. I choose Tim Raines. He would have been projected at 35.8 going into age 32 and produced 33.5 from 32-35.

I've got a better idea. Let's figure a normal decline. There is a chance that Damon is still producing at his current level at the age of 35. There is a chance he'll be out of baseball. When I say 23 BRAR at age 35, I'm assuming a slow decline. The problem is, there is rarely a slow decline. So 23 would have to be an average of all of the possible outcomes. If you want to provide some stats on the EV of a players decline, I will listen.

[ QUOTE ]
Furcal cashes in at 2.24 expected BRAR per million, However, he plays a premium position and apprently very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Furcal is a better signing. But to defend the Furcal signing you can't say the Damon signing is:

[ QUOTE ]
awful. period.

[/ QUOTE ]


or

[ QUOTE ]
by year 3 this deal will be horrific not just bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

or

[ QUOTE ]
"3rd grade math would tell you the 'deal' is horrible"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
giles:

61.6 expected BRAR @ 10m = 6 runs per million which is a GREAT DEAL, even if you factor in his age.

the fact that you even brought his name into this discussion puzzles me. his deal is the polar opposite of damons.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's about decline. Of course if Giles continues to produce at his current level, this is a great deal for the Pads. I just don't understand how Damon can be expected to decline significantly when he will be 35 at the end of his contract yet Giles will continue to produce when he will be 35 at the begining. In my mind, Giles is a bigger risk at the end of the contract, but a better value at the begining. When you weigh everything together, you can't say the Giles signing is THAT much better. Unless of course you are in "win now" mode and discount greatly the crapiness at the end of the contract [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Jack of Arcades]

Um, no, the Giles signing is approzimately 300 million times better than Damon's.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, no, the Giles signing is approzimately 300 Billion times better than Damon's.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, no, the Giles signing is approzimately 300 million times better than Damon's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Giles was signed to too long of a contract. While the price is right, it's one year too long. Damon is the only Center Fielder available that the Yankees want, and will produce well for 2-3 seasons with a league-average fourth year. Giles will drop off immensely after 1 season.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, no, the Giles signing is approzimately 300 million times better than Damon's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Giles was signed to too long of a contract. While the price is right, it's one year too long. Damon is the only Center Fielder available that the Yankees want, and will produce well for 2-3 seasons with a league-average fourth year. Giles will drop off immensely after 1 season.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you are an idiot.

please be quiet

[pokerdirty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Um, no, the Giles signing is approzimately 300 million times better than Damon's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Giles was signed to too long of a contract. While the price is right, it's one year too long. Damon is the only Center Fielder available that the Yankees want, and will produce well for 2-3 seasons with a league-average fourth year. Giles will drop off immensely after 1 season.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you are an idiot.

please be quiet

[/ QUOTE ]

c'mon dude. if you are going to belittle someone, make sure your spelling is ok...

[jdl22]

sublime,

In this thread you have repeatedly stated or given evidence that this is a bad deal for the Yankees in terms of value per dollar. This you have done well, however you have yet to discuss why that matters.

George clearly doesn't care about value per dollar. He's getting another high profile guy that will bring in more publicity and merchandise money. Furthermore, he's getting the best available guy on the free-agent market (correct me if I'm wrong here as I could be). He's clearly more than happy to pay through the nose in luxury tax. Will this signing prevent the Yankees from getting players they need in the future? If so I could see your point but I'm not sure that's the case.

If George doesn't care about value, and the Yankees won't be prevented from getting players they need down the road then it's still a good deal even if it is atrocious in terms of value.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
sublime,

In this thread you have repeatedly stated or given evidence that this is a bad deal for the Yankees in terms of value per dollar. This you have done well, however you have yet to discuss why that matters.

George clearly doesn't care about value per dollar. He's getting another high profile guy that will bring in more publicity and merchandise money. Furthermore, he's getting the best available guy on the free-agent market (correct me if I'm wrong here as I could be). He's clearly more than happy to pay through the nose in luxury tax. Will this signing prevent the Yankees from getting players they need in the future? If so I could see your point but I'm not sure that's the case.

If George doesn't care about value, and the Yankees won't be prevented from getting players they need down the road then it's still a good deal even if it is atrocious in terms of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with everything you said, and i think my stance on these 'deal breakdowns' gets lost in translation. i love baseball, i love watching baseball, listening to baseball, and reading about baseball. however, the on the field game doesn't interest me as much as the business behind the game. when i see a deal get signed, i immediately want to see what the potential EV is on the field, and if the team made a wise investment. i do it for every player, from johnny damon to rudy seanez. this differentiates me from most *cough* fans, as they go by their perceptions of players and what they 'think' they are worth, while i try to apply math to the situation.

so when i say, johnny damon isn't worth 13m a year compared to his counterparts some people interpret that as a bashing of the player. its not.

as for the yankees, i was convinced they were finally taking a hard stance and were going to rebuld on the fly. deals like this prevent that from happening. while some can say only the yankees can afford to do deals like this, one could also counter that they are a team that CANT afford to do a deal like this. sooner or later the piper will need to be paid. you cant continue to field teams with high priced free agents and not having any homegrown/cheap talent to replace them.

[sublime]

Yes, Furcal is a better signing. But to defend the Furcal signing you can't say the Damon signing is:

ummm, i didnt defend the furcal signing.

as for giles:

he draws a lot of his offensive work from walks, which as we discussed last week have a longer shelf life in terms of offensive worth than a singles hitter.

he could lose 50% of his offensive worth next year and be a better value than damon due to being paid close to 30% less.

really, its not even remotely close.