Kepler's Unusual Contract

In four years Kepler will be 30 and he might not be the same defensive player he is now. At some point during htis contract he's going to have to have enough offense to offset the fact he is getting older.

I think WAR aging curves suggest age 30 output may not be all that different than age 25 production overall. You're right, the shape of the production may change, but even without any kind of a breakout, Kepler could still be a 2-3 WAR player at 30 like he was at 25. And that's as far as this contract is guaranteed -- $8.5 mil at age 30, plus a $10 mil option or $1 mil buyout on his age 31 season. This contract pretty much ends before the steeper effects of aging should be expected.

I see now that I was mixing up the Kepler deal with the Polanco one upthread, though -- we only have 1 option year on Kepler, but 2 on Polanco. That tempers my enthusiasm for this deal a bit. I wouldn't call it a steal or anything at this point, but I still think I'd rather see us sign this deal than not sign it, all else being equal. (I'd rather see us add more significant external MLB talent, of course, but this deal doesn't preclude that.)

No thank you.  Why look bother analyzing.

 

And when you say things like this:

Fangraphs has never advocated Dozier to receive anything approaching $46 mil for a single year of his services

What are you really saying about this methodology I need to look at more closely?  To what end?

If it doesn't serve too deal terms applicable to reality I cannot bother with it.

Moreover, how can you use the Michael Brantley example over and over again to give it validity when you say what is in bold above?

 

I will try to answer all your questions but you have ignored all of mine thus far

 

Have a good day.  Maybe we can pick this up next week.  I have things do as I have an extended weekend and places to go

Sorry everyone for hijacking the thread, but I'd like to jump back to this. I wasn't trying to ignore any questions, but perhaps I wasn't being clear in my responses. I'll try here.

"What are you really saying about this methodology I need to look at more closely?  To what end?"

First of all, it's important to remember these Fangraphs dollar figures are just a column on their player stat tables expressing past WAR values in dollar terms. They're not saying these are contracts, or should be contracts, or you could assemble a whole team with contracts like these, etc. Looking back at any random player and season, it's just another way of saying Dozier's 2016 performance was valuable. Other ways to say it might involve his 42 HR that year as a second baseman, or his 132 wRC+, etc. But the nice thing about WAR (and by extension, WAR in dollar terms) is that it attempts to quantify these value estimates relative to league, park, and position. We know 42 HR from a 2B in 2016 is more valuable than 42 HR from a 1B in Coors Field in 2000 -- but it's also nice to estimate how much, especially when the comparisons aren't so stark.

As I said, that's all looking backward. But there is a more careful, limited use of it looking forward, if instead of past WAR you look at future projected WAR. If you see how much teams are paying in free agency (and trades) for projected future WAR, you get a dollars per WAR figure you can use as a baseline for roughly estimating FA contracts, trade returns, and such.

Like in the case of Michael Brantley. He was a FA this winter. He had 3.5 WAR last year, but at his age and health history, we won't project him to repeat that. Fangraphs has him projected at 2.4 WAR for 2019. We observe that teams recently have paid $8 mil per projected WAR in free agency and trade. So, we could estimate a potential salary of $19 mil for him on a one-year contract for 2019, or less than that on a multiyear deal where the projected WAR would gradually decline with age. And indeed, he actually signed for 2/32 -- not far off. Now there are a ton of other factors -- most obviously a team may have different projections for a player. Maybe that $ per WAR figure is going down around the league, maybe there is a lot of competition on the market at that position, maybe a team is willing to pay for upside above projected WAR, or for a steady performance floor, etc. Clearly not every team would have equal interest in signing him at that figure. But it's an easy way to get an *estimate* without having to duplicate the extensive work of an MLB front office! It's very useful, for a fan who wants to estimate what a FA might get, or quickly analyze whether a FA contract is fair (or favors the team or player).

I agree that in this thread, it's not really appropriate for judging Kepler's extension right now, because he's not a free agent or even particularly close to free agency. He was an asset already under control for sub-market prices -- something the Fangraphs figure is clearly not trying to incorporate. But that's an issue with the application of the information, not the information from Fangraphs itself. (Although it could be relevant for Kepler soon -- a team looking at Kepler as a potential trade target would be looking at the value he provides, above his salary, compared to alternatives on the open market.)