Mauer Contract 4th Worst in Baseball

[adorduan]

The Cardinals decision on Pujols and the Twins decision on Mauer are perfect examples of why the Cardinals are a successful franchise and the Twins are not.

[Taildragger8791]

The Cardinals decision on Pujols and the Twins decision on Mauer are perfect examples of why the Cardinals are a successful franchise and the Twins are not.

 

In fairness, the Twins were looking at Mauer at age 26-27 coming off an historic season for his premium defensive position, and in the beginning of his prime. Pujols was (at least) 31-32 and already showing physical decline, and received a deal well beyond what even Mauer got.

[Thrylos]

The Twins would either have to eat a lot of money or take back some equally bad contracts. No way they trade him, can't take the PR hit along with eating 20+ million.

 

OK, lets tease that out:

 

The Mauer contract ends in 2018 (his age 35 season) and is $23M per, so there is $92M remaining.

The "best" of the big Dodgers' contracts (other than Kershaw's for obvious reasons) is Kemp's, which ends in 2019 (his age 34 season) and is $20M per, so there is $100M remaining.

 

Pretty comparable $. Pretty comparable ages, Pretty comparable careers. Both had their career best MVP type seasons at age 26 and then declined. Both coming back from injuries.

 

Would you trade Mauer for Kemp as is? Would the Twins do it? Would the Dodgers do it?

 

I am not sure.

 

But what I am sure is that Kemp's contract is as bad as Mauer's and the Dodgers have at least 3 contracts (Gonzales, Crawford, Greinke) which are worse than Mauer's...

[curt1965]

I actually think there's an outside shot Mauer is dealt this offseason. To the Dodgers. Here's why:

 

Mauer is a 1B. Mauer has a down season. Mauer has no post-concussion symptoms at all. Mauer misses catching.

 

Joe talks to the Twins brass. They still don't want Mauer to catch. Too much money, too risky.

 

Dodgers miss the playoffs. Dodgers crucify, among others, AJ Ellis.

 

Dodgers call Twins, they want a catcher. They have money. "Just ask Joe, will ya?" They say.

 

Twins tell Mauer "you can catch... in LA."

 

Mauer is Lebron. He must chose - will he stay or will he go?

 

Too farfetched?

I always love Willihammer's posts! His "out of the box" thinking is consistently well thought out, reasonable, and make me always stop and think. I believe his scenerio would have a real chance of happening, if not for these:

1.) I think he is still having some effects from his concussion(like Morneau's season last year).

2.) I think he genuinly loves playing in Minnesota, and just can't fathom him playing in LA or anywhere, for that matter.

3.) I think he wants to spend time with his twin daughters.

 

Just my opinion.

[kblack1011]

OK, lets tease that out:

 

The Mauer contract ends in 2018 (his age 35 season) and is $23M per, so there is $92M remaining.

The "best" of the big Dodgers' contracts (other than Kershaw's for obvious reasons) is Kemp's, which ends in 2019 (his age 34 season) and is $20M per, so there is $100M remaining.

 

Pretty comparable $. Pretty comparable ages, Pretty comparable careers. Both had their career best MVP type seasons at age 26 and then declined. Both coming back from injuries.

 

Would you trade Mauer for Kemp as is? Would the Twins do it? Would the Dodgers do it?

 

I am not sure.

 

But what I am sure is that Kemp's contract is as bad as Mauer's and the Dodgers have at least 3 contracts (Gonzales, Crawford, Greinke) which are worse than Mauer's...

 

How is Greinke and Gonzales worst contracts than Mauer? Greinke was an All Star and Gonzales makes less money and is having a better year.

 

Kemp is a good comparison, he make less per year but has more years. Both have some injury history and are having down years. I don't see how the Twins could take the PR hit with that trade and the Dodgers don't need a first baseman. If their was any hope Mauer could catch, the Twins would move him back, but they don't even consider him a 3rd string emergency catcher. But on a pure baseball move, with the Twins roster it easier to replace the 1B and they need a CF.

[Thrylos]

How is Greinke and Gonzales worst contracts than Mauer? Greinke was an All Star and Gonzales makes less money and is having a better year..

 

Greinke is the same age as Mauer, influences about a fifth of the games Mauer influences, has contract that ends the same time as Mauer's and is paid more than Mauer.

 

Gonzalez' contract is $2M less than Mauer's, but he is 1 year older, has declined faster than Mauer and (other than this season) has not been nearly as good as Mauer.

 

Would you trade Mauer for either Gonzalez or Greinke straight up?

There is no way I would.

[Guest USAFChief]

The Cardinals decision on Pujols and the Twins decision on Mauer are perfect examples of why the Cardinals are a successful franchise and the Twins are not.

 

Which decision by the Cards? The Cardinals' last reported offer to Pujols was 10/$220.

[kblack1011]

Greinke is the same age as Mauer, influences about a fifth of the games Mauer influences, has contract that ends the same time as Mauer's and is paid more than Mauer.

 

Gonzalez' contract is $2M less than Mauer's, but he is 1 year older, has declined faster than Mauer and (other than this season) has not been nearly as good as Mauer.

 

Would you trade Mauer for either Gonzalez or Greinke straight up?

There is no way I would.

 

I'd trade for Greinke in a second, you get a #1 starter for an extra 2.5 million per year. Gonzalez is a wash, no need to consider the trade. Gonzalez maybe a year older, but plays 160 games a year. Mauer is more likely to breakdown than Gonzalez based on history.

[adorduan]

Which decision by the Cards? The Cardinals' last reported offer to Pujols was 10/$220.

 

When another team decided to overpay for Pujols they let him walk.

[adorduan]

Greinke is the same age as Mauer, influences about a fifth of the games Mauer influences, has contract that ends the same time as Mauer's and is paid more than Mauer.

 

Gonzalez' contract is $2M less than Mauer's, but he is 1 year older, has declined faster than Mauer and (other than this season) has not been nearly as good as Mauer.

 

Would you trade Mauer for either Gonzalez or Greinke straight up?

There is no way I would.

 

Declined faster in what way? And Mauer's career OPS is .862 and Gonzalez's is .861.

[PseudoSABR]

Contracts (oh yes, foolishly) are about what you have done, and not what you will do.

 

I give you the season preceding Mauer's contract: .365/.444/.587/1.031 171 (OPS+) 7.8/6.2 (BR/FG WAR)

 

Mauer's career wOBA (.373) would be good for 23rd in the entire league this season. So just by his bat, he'd be the 23rd best DH, even including this awful year.

 

The whole trade-value series is silly in that it absolves itself of long-term commitment. Ask Dave Cameron how long he's willing to commit to any of his trade value contracts. Year to year analysis of player worth is easy and obvious; the commitment of years and dollars is tricky. Honestly, a teenager could sort player salaries by highest per annum and see players like Mauer, Prince, Verlander, Pujols, Rodriguez (Ha!) are bad value (in terms of very recent data, so recent we tend ignore sample size in such studies, well, for convenience).

 

As much as Dave Cameron would like to pretend that these players don't (or rather shouldn't) have market value, he's not only picking his prey, he's wrong. Prince netted Kinsler and cash. Mauer and Verlander and Pujols were killer studs so recent that teams will absolutely risk value. Cameron seems to eschew the necessary (even personal) risk GMs take in acquiring talent. Suddenly, two years after Pujols signs his contract, the Angels contend; part of why they can't trade him is that they need him, and they count themselves as one less destination. The whole series favors players who have zero trade value beacause it'd be absolutely foolish to trade them OR players who zero value because their value is anchored so much to their current situation. It's silly.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I actually think there's an outside shot Mauer is dealt this offseason. To the Dodgers. Here's why:

 

Mauer is a 1B. Mauer has a down season. Mauer has no post-concussion symptoms at all. Mauer misses catching.

 

Joe talks to the Twins brass. They still don't want Mauer to catch. Too much money, too risky.

 

Dodgers miss the playoffs. Dodgers crucify, among others, AJ Ellis.

 

Dodgers call Twins, they want a catcher. They have money. "Just ask Joe, will ya?" They say.

 

Twins tell Mauer "you can catch... in LA."

 

Mauer is Lebron. He must chose - will he stay or will he go?

 

Too farfetched?

Interesting scenario, i have my doubts. His contract is high, no certainty of catching, he's the hometown hero.

i would be ok with the move, but not sure the average fan at TF would be.

[kblack1011]

Contracts are not given as a reward for past performance. Past performance has to be considered as it relates to future performance, along with teams needs and marketing. In Mauer's first 5 full time years prior to his contract, he had 3 batting titles and an MVP. He was entering the prime of most players career at 27 and the Twins were just entering a new stadium. Everything fell into place for him to get a huge contract from the Twins.

 

But he's not performing anywhere near expectation for a player being paid as a top 10 player and no team would now pay him what he getting. Which is what the article is about - he has a lot of dead money on his contract.

[Beezer07]

The Cardinals decision on Pujols and the Twins decision on Mauer are perfect examples of why the Cardinals are a successful franchise and the Twins are not.

 

The situations are not at all comparable, other than the $$$. Pujols wanted a contract for years 31/32-40 and wanted to get paid like the dominant player he had been. Best case scenario, the Cardinals would have gotten 4 good years out of him. Mauer got a contract for 26/27-35. It's not crazy to believe the Twins were paying for 3-4 amazing Mauer years and 4-5 good Mauer years, with the contract ending right as he got too old.

[Beezer07]

Contracts are not given as a reward for past performance. Past performance has to be considered as it relates to future performance, along with teams needs and marketing. In Mauer's first 5 full time years prior to his contract, he had 3 batting titles and an MVP. He was entering the prime of most players career at 27 and the Twins were just entering a new stadium. Everything fell into place for him to get a huge contract from the Twins.

 

But he's not performing anywhere near expectation for a player being paid as a top 10 player and no team would now pay him what he getting. Which is what the article is about - he has a lot of dead money on his contract.

 

In pro sports, especially MLB, contracts are absolutely given for past performance. Why else does Pujols get $200mil for playing in his 30s?

[kblack1011]

In pro sports, especially MLB, contracts are absolutely given for past performance. Why else does Pujols get $200mil for playing in his 30s?

 

Pulols didn't get the contract from the Cards, why would the Angels pay for his past performance?

 

He got his contract because they thought he could lead them to the World Series in the first couple years, which would have given them huge market share and money in the LA market. They also backloaded the contract, to match their TV contract. The Twins didn't give Nolasco $12 million per year because he USED to be a good pitcher, they expected him to BE a good pitcher with the team.

[TheLeviathan]

Contract terms are based on past performance but also the team's belief that future production will match it, at least for some length of time. So it's both, give or take depending on the player.

 

I'm not sure why this is even an argument.

[PseudoSABR]

Of course a team believes a player they sign will continue to produce. That said, the exact terms of a contract are arrived through a bidding war, a bidding war that often is won through length of contract as opposed to per annum dollar amount. The value of Pujol's contract wasn't determined because of his value to his team in 2020.

 

A lot what people are calling 'dead money' is really singing bonuses that are being paid out over a series of years. The Tigers netted Kinsler because they included significant cash (the bonus money needed to be paid out); if Texas included that money in a future potential trade, his trade-value wouldn't be so diminished in Cameron's exercise. Imagine how this exercise would be different if Mauer's contract in 2010 went: (in millions, each year) 32/29/26/23/23/20/17/13 for a total of 184mil -- this exercise would determine his trade value very differently. As long as teams are willing to include cash, the guys at the bottom of Cameron's list do have trade-value.

[TheLeviathan]

Of course a team believes a player they sign will continue to produce.

 

Right, so it's based on both.

[PseudoSABR]

Right, so it's based on both.

In 2020, for these players, it's not and that's the distinction.

[TheLeviathan]

In 2020, for these players, it's not and that's the distinction.

 

Picking arbitrary dates in the middle of contracts for when they do and don't matter is meaningless. The contract is signed with two factors: the agreement by both parties that the player has produced up to X value and that the player will continue to produce close enough to X value to warrant the signing. If they didn't consider past and future production, no party would be interested in the signing.

 

And your entire point is a distinction without a difference. If you are going to claim "hey look - they have trade value" because the team will includes tens of millions of dollars you haven't changed the equation at all. These guys have less trade value precisely because you HAVE to include that kind of money to make them movable. You haven't discovered some "get out of bad value free" card here - it's still a crapload of money other players with other contracts don't need to have attached to be moved.

[PseudoSABR]

My criticism is with Cameron's notion of trade-value. The distinction is meaningful in that, the Tigers could not have simply gave Texas cash (or cash and some other player) for Kinsler. Fielder is the reason the Tigers got Kinsler, not the cash. There are far many players with less trade value then the guys in Cameron's list.

[TheLeviathan]

There are far many players with less trade value then the guys in Cameron's list.

 

Such as? I dislike the idea of discrediting someone's work because it doesn't fit an angle you are keen to rather than the merit of what it was written for.

 

Mauer's still a good player, glad we have him, but there's no doubt he'd be a massive headache to deal if we had to tomorrow.

[glunn]

Moderator note -- the last 3 posts have contained statements that are getting a little testy.

 

It's OK to disagree, but please be respectful of others who hold opposing views.

 

Examples of things NOT to say:

 

"your entire point is a distinction without a difference."

 

"It's clear you don't think I have point; you don't need to prove it to me or the board."

 

"I dislike the idea of discrediting someone's work because it doesn't fit an angle you are keen to"

 

This debate will be better if we stick to the issues and skip the barbs.

 

 

 

[PseudoSABR]

Such as? I dislike the idea of discrediting someone's work because it doesn't fit an angle you are keen to rather than the merit of what it was written for.

 

Mauer's still a good player, glad we have him, but there's no doubt he'd be a massive headache to deal if we had to tomorrow.

The reason Fielder or Mauer (etc.) is prohibitive is because of the cost of their contract, which can be handled w cash. The reason Nick Blackburn is prohibitive is because he's awful at baseball, this can't ever be fixed (the Twins tried). Teams who trade for players like Cameron's bottom 5 are taking on a similar burden as teams who signing such players to the deals in the first-place.

 

I agree, Mauer would be hard to move, but not because he has bottom-5 trade value, but because we'd never get HOF catcher value. I'm sure the Yankees would trade any number of their guys straight up.

 

I'd say Cameron's list is really a ranking of players in terms of dollars per WAR (probably with a bit of projection and pixie dust as well)--that's not the same thing as trade value.

[TheLeviathan]

Lets use a current example: if the Braves wanted to toss 22 million in with Dan Uggla they could find a trade partner, ditto even Blackburn. (Free, afterall, is a nice price) Cameron's point is just estimating how far from that magical price point any player is so naturally mega deals are the furthest away.

 

Even a guy bad at baseball like Uggla or Backburn is going to reach "tradeable" faster simply because the hill to climb is so much smaller. Mauer has unfortunately had a variety of things happen that made his hill look like a mountain and Cameron is right about it. So I'm not sure why even recharacterizing it as dollars per WAR helps.

Guys that are the most awful at that are likely to be very untradeable.

 

I'd also point out that he's making a list of guys whose market value is low due to their contracts. Blackburn and Uggla value as targets are awful primarily because they're bad at baseball. Mauer is still good at baseball but he can't be traded because of the contract attached to him.