Twins SPLOOGEFEST

[J. Walter Weatherman]

It's less about him being a "Clubhouse Cancer", and more about the fact that I'd be nervous paying this guy an average of $19M over seven years when he clearly doesn't take care of himself...and apparently, has some pretty shitty judgment to go along with it.   If there's anything we've learned recently from the thrilling action of Cubs baseball...it should be the damage of bad/risky contracts that you can't unload.

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.  There were 12 of them that had a qualifying number of ABs.   Cabrera was eighth on the list.

http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/sortable_player_stats.jsp?teamPosCode=3&statType=1&timeFrame=1&c_id=mlb&statSet1=2&sitSplit=&venueID=&section1=1&subScope=pos&baseballScope=mlb&timeSubFrame=2009&&sortByStat=OPS

So yea...I don't really feel like I need him for that price.

Triple Crowns basically grow on trees.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.

2016-23: $248MM

[ChuckD]

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.

2016-23: $248MM

He's great now, but ... (I guess I'll go a little LDA here) what the fuck are they thinking? He's going to make, what, $35-40MM/yr when he's 37-40?



That "big" guy curve actually fits his career arc pretty well so long as you add 4 WAR to the vertical axis. Based off the age curve and a going rate of $5MM/WAR and 3% inflation, it looks to me something like:



Keep in mind, he was already under contract for 2014-15.

There's a few ways that this makes any sense.

a) Detroit thinks he'll defy the age curve and still be the 7-8 WAR player he is now.
b) Detroit thinks we're going to see inflation of 8+% over the next 10 years and they'll essentially be getting more value from him when he's 38-40 than they are now.
c) Detroit expects that the Yankees or Dodgers are going to jump at the chance to eat the tail end of the contract (this is the most plausible).
d) Detroit thinks TV contracts will boost contract values and the $/win amount at a rate that's essentially equal to 8+% inflation.

Maybe everyone's going to get paid from TV, but this ... this seems like it's set up to cripple Detroit more than the rise of cheap Asian labor.

[ChuckD]

Also, I feel decidedly Chuck-like after that. Atonement:

[Eli]

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.

2016-23: $248MM

Shorter version of what ChuckD said: That's going to be a horrible contract pretty soon.

On the other hand, baseball doesn't give bonus points for accumulating the most surplus value. Good players cost a ton of money and this is probably what the best hitter in baseball costs at this point.

Also, Mike Trout is going to get a $500 million contract.

[Quality Start Machine]

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.

2016-23: $248MM

Shorter version of what ChuckD said: That's going to be a horrible contract pretty soon.

On the other hand, baseball doesn't give bonus points for accumulating the most surplus value. Good players cost a ton of money and this is probably what the best hitter in baseball costs at this point.

Also, Mike Trout is going to get a $500 million contract.

Cabrera will eventually ply his trade in the New York Metropolitan Area. An aging overpaid power hitter has Yankee/Met written all over it.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Keep in mind, he was already under contract for 2014-15.

This is the weirdest part, honestly.

Seems to suggest they think $31MM per through age 40 offers a discount over what Cabrera would get two years from now. Dombrowski must be terrified of the future of MLB free agency.

[Slaky]

Keep in mind, he was already under contract for 2014-15.

This is the weirdest part, honestly.

Seems to suggest they think $31MM per through age 40 offers a discount over what Cabrera would get two years from now. Dombrowski must be terrified of the future of MLB free agency.

Like Dan says, I think the alternative was getting too close to his walk year without a deal and realizing he was going to get more money from the Yankees or Angels or Dodgers, etc. My guess is the Tigers know he might damn well stink by the time he's in the final few years of this deal but to squeeze 4-5 more years like the last few out of him is worth it, to them.

I don't love the deal but the cost of having one of the top 2 hitters in the whole sport is pretty much this.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Keep in mind, he was already under contract for 2014-15.

This is the weirdest part, honestly.

Seems to suggest they think $31MM per through age 40 offers a discount over what Cabrera would get two years from now. Dombrowski must be terrified of the future of MLB free agency.

Like Dan says, I think the alternative was getting too close to his walk year without a deal and realizing he was going to get more money from the Yankees or Angels or Dodgers, etc.

Hence the $248MM/8y starting in his age 33 season being a "discount".

But Eli's point is well taken.

[ChuckD]

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.

2016-23: $248MM

Shorter version of what ChuckD said: That's going to be a horrible contract pretty soon.

On the other hand, baseball doesn't give bonus points for accumulating the most surplus value. Good players cost a ton of money and this is probably what the best hitter in baseball costs at this point.

Also, Mike Trout is going to get a $500 million contract.

Really? Because I would say they absolutely give "bonus points" to guys who've accumulated the most surplus value. It's just that the "bonus points" are legal tender and can be exchanged for goods and services.

You basically get underpaid for your first 5-7 years in the league, generating value for the team far in excess of your salary. Then you sign a massive long-term deal, (age curves be damned!) where it's almost a given that you'll be overpaid relative to your actual value.

[ChuckD]

I just realized I uploaded the wrong image. The table above is assuming there's 8+% growth due to inflation/rising contracts. Here's the same table but using 3% inflation.



Have fun with that, Tigers!

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Here's Cabrera's contract schedule:   08:$11.3M, 09:$15M, 10:$20M, 11:$20M, 12:$21M, 13:$21M, 14:$22M, 15:$22M

Sorry, you can have that.  Also, First Basemen with low .900 OPS basically grow on trees.

2016-23: $248MM

Shorter version of what ChuckD said: That's going to be a horrible contract pretty soon.

On the other hand, baseball doesn't give bonus points for accumulating the most surplus value. Good players cost a ton of money and this is probably what the best hitter in baseball costs at this point.

Also, Mike Trout is going to get a $500 million contract.

Really? Because I would say they absolutely give "bonus points" to guys who've accumulated the most surplus value. It's just that the "bonus points" are legal tender and can be exchanged for goods and services.

You basically get underpaid for your first 5-7 years in the league, generating value for the team far in excess of your salary. Then you sign a massive long-term deal, (age curves be damned!) where it's almost a given that you'll be overpaid relative to your actual value.

I think Eli meant that teams aren't directly rewarded in baseball terms for fielding value in excess of what they're paying for.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Which is to say, given the economics of baseball, overpaying for a player in absolute terms is not necessarily, in and of itself, a mortal sin.

Rather, when it comes to signing singular talents that are by definition as scarce as they are irreplaceable, overpaying is a virtual guarantee.

Some overpayments are worse than others, though.

[Eli]

I think Eli meant that teams aren't directly rewarded in baseball terms for fielding value in excess of what they're paying for.

Correct.

[Eli]

It's also been mentioned in several places that Mike Ilitch is like a thousand years old and he's pushing this. Seems like a reasonable point.