Diamondbacks to hold press conference at 130 PT (1 Viewer)

[PatriotJohn]

The Arizona Diamondbacks have called a press conference for 1:30 PM PT to announce a player personnel decision. No details were given, but since they are calling a press conference, I have to assume it's a fairly major decision. It will even be carried on FSN Arizona. More details as they emerge

Could RJ be retiring?

 

[posty]

The Arizona Diamondbacks have called a press conference for 1:30 PM PT to announce a player personnel decision. No details were given, but since they are calling a press conference, I have to assume it's a fairly major decision. It will even be carried on FSN Arizona. More details as they emergeCould RJ be retiring?

He should...

 

[ThisGuy]

Wouldn't be shocking. Next stop, Cooperstown.

 

[posty]

Update...

According to The Arizona Republic, the press conference is to report that the Diamondbacks and outfielder Eric Byrnes have reached agreement on a three-year extension worth in the neighborhood of $30 million.

 

[ThisGuy]

Update...According to The Arizona Republic, the press conference is to report that the Diamondbacks and outfielder Eric Byrnes have reached agreement on a three-year extension worth in the neighborhood of $30 million.

Boooring.But a good move the Snakes.

 

[Keys Myaths]

But a good move the Snakes.

I disagree.He's 32, and having by far the best season of his career. His WARP-1 is a very, very good 5.4 this year. However, he's gone above 4 only two other full seasons. He'll be 35 by the time this contract is up, and will most likely severely decline for the last year and a half of it.Props to Arizona for not making this a long-term deal, but at 10 million a year, they're overpaying for someone who most likely won't have a season like this again, and who, even at career averages, isn't worth nearly 10 million a year, and who, at 33 and up, will most likely finish under those career averages for most of his contract.ETA: He's 31. My mistake. Same principles hold, just subtract a year.

 

[ThisGuy]

But a good move the Snakes.

I disagree.He's 32, and having by far the best season of his career. His WARP-1 is a very, very good 5.4 this year. However, he's gone above 4 only two other full seasons. He'll be 35 by the time this contract is up, and will most likely severely decline for the last year and a half of it.Props to Arizona for not making this a long-term deal, but at 10 million a year, they're overpaying for someone who most likely won't have a season like this again, and who, even at career averages, isn't worth nearly 10 million a year, and who, at 33 and up, will most likely finish under those career averages for most of his contract.ETA: He's 31. My mistake. Same principles hold, just subtract a year.

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive :X

 

[Keys Myaths]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

 

[ThisGuy]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

You are talking like he's 41 not 31.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

Yeah, D-backs must have not known about his age.Tell them what you know and maybe you'll get the job.

 

[MrPhoenix]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

You are talking like he's 41 not 31.

Players after they hit "the wrong side of 30" typically go into their decline years.

 

[guru_007]

You guys realize it's only $10 million/year, right?

That's really not too bad for a decent player. There is no reason at all to think he is going to go into deep decline over the next three years, he's friggin 31 years old. Sure, he may not hit .300 with 25 homers and 35 steals, with 100 runs, and 100 rbis....but if they expected him to put these numbers up every year, his contract would be more like 4 years $75 million.

In 3 years, maybe some of the snakes younger talented will have matured and flourished, and then they can dump a 35 year old on someone else. This is a fine signing, imo.

 

[JaxBill]

I'm sure Aaron Rowand's agent is taking note.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

he probably would have made more if he hit the open market.

does this impact Justin Upton for next year?

 

[posty]

he probably would have made more if he hit the open market.does this impact Justin Upton for next year?

I doubt it... Quentin will probably get traded...

 

[MrPhoenix]

You guys realize it's only $10 million/year, right?

Wow....

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

You guys realize it's only $10 million/year, right?

Wow....

No "Wow". If that's what the market is, so be it. It's all relative.

 

[Keys Myaths]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

Yeah, D-backs must have not known about his age.Tell them what you know and maybe you'll get the job.

Tell me you're not arguing that MLB teams are efficiently and well run.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

You guys realize it's only $10 million/year, right?

Wow....

No "Wow". If that's what the market is, so be it. It's all relative.

It's not really what the market is. Paul Konerko made signed a 5-year $60MM contract the year after he turned 29, when he put up an 8.0 WARP1, following it with a 6.6 in 2006 (he's compiled 3.4 this year).Byrnes is comparable, but he isn't the player Konerko is. Byrnes is a .268 lifetime hitter hitting over .300 this season. Next year, when some of those balls start getting caught, or falling just fould instead of fair, the D-Backs are going to be effectively paying $10MM a year to a guy that gives them 4 more wins a year than a $250k AAA player, or about $2.5M per incremental win.

Since he signed the biggest contract ever, even A-Rod has been paid less per incremental win.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

Yeah, D-backs must have not known about his age.Tell them what you know and maybe you'll get the job.

Tell me you're not arguing that MLB teams are efficiently and well run.

A lot of posters here will make that comment.

 

[guru_007]

You guys realize it's only $10 million/year, right?

Wow....

No "Wow". If that's what the market is, so be it. It's all relative.

It's not really what the market is. Paul Konerko made signed a 5-year $60MM contract the year after he turned 29, when he put up an 8.0 WARP1, following it with a 6.6 in 2006 (he's compiled 3.4 this year).Byrnes is comparable, but he isn't the player Konerko is. Byrnes is a .268 lifetime hitter hitting over .300 this season. Next year, when some of those balls start getting caught, or falling just fould instead of fair, the D-Backs are going to be effectively paying $10MM a year to a guy that gives them 4 more wins a year than a $250k AAA player, or about $2.5M per incremental win.

Since he signed the biggest contract ever, even A-Rod has been paid less per incremental win.

So you pick one random example and throw in one WARP stat....and all of the sudden "it's not the market"?How much did Carlos Lee get paid this offseason? What's his WARP

How much is Johnny Damon making? What's his WARP

How about Carlos Beltran? What's his WARP

(by the way, these are all outfielders.....two of whom play center field, same position as Byrnes....not first baseman)

But if you want to compare free agent signings, how about Barry Zito....what's he making?

The market is defined by what's out there, not WARP.

Plus, there are intangibles that Eric Byrnes add to this team. He would have made more money as a free agent. This was a fine signing by the team. We can bring up this discussion again in the offseason thread when stupid money is paid to free agent outfielders who are not as good or young as Byrnes.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

3 years for a guy who WANTS to be there. He will ONLY be 34 at the end of it. so what if he needs to work on his WARP-drive

Historically, he's already declining. A career year typically doesn't change that pattern.As for the nerdy statistics--basically, he's performing at an unbelievable level (for him) this year. In his absolute prime, he was slightly above-average. He should decline to about average over the span of this contract, given his age.So, if you think 3/30 is good for an average player, more power to you.

Yeah, D-backs must have not known about his age.Tell them what you know and maybe you'll get the job.

Tell me you're not arguing that MLB teams are efficiently and well run.

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

So you pick one random example and throw in one WARP stat....and all of the sudden "it's not the market"?How much did Carlos Lee get paid this offseason? What's his WARPHow much is Johnny Damon making? What's his WARPHow about Carlos Beltran? What's his WARP(by the way, these are all outfielders.....two of whom play center field, same position as Byrnes....not first baseman)But if you want to compare free agent signings, how about Barry Zito....what's he making?The market is defined by what's out there, not WARP. Plus, there are intangibles that Eric Byrnes add to this team. He would have made more money as a free agent. This was a fine signing by the team. We can bring up this discussion again in the offseason thread when stupid money is paid to free agent outfielders who are not as good or young as Byrnes.

A lot of players you mentioned signed notoriously bad contracts. Outfielders are worth more than 1Bs, since essentially anyone can play 1B.Damon was a much better player than Byrnes was and signed a 4 year $52MM contract following a season where his WARP was 5.6. Since then, he has been paid approximately $22MM from the Yankees in exchange for 7.5 wins, or about $3M a win.Carlos Lee signed a 6 year $100MM contract even though he sucks.Carlos Beltran parlayed a fantastic 2004 postseasons into a seven year $119MM contract ($17MM/yr). He has since contributed 20.5 wins to the Mets at a pricetag of about $46MM, or LESS than $2.5MM per win.Barry Zito is making $18MM a year, and was a below average pitcher even before he signed the contract. The Giants are in last place for a reason. Gil Meche, whose 5 year $55MM got much more press this offseason, has been at least an above average pitcher over the past two years.Yes, the market is defined by what's out there, but owners act irrationally in signing these big name players at high costs, when they forego fewer than 4 games a season for the $10MM they're paying. The D-Backs have three young outfielders baseballprospectus rated as "excellent" prospects before the season. Since Young and Upton will put up much better numbers over the next three years than they did this year, the loss of Byrnes would have likely barely been felt in the outfield. Last, the D-Backs are wildly overperforming this year, and should come back down to earth next season. With the playoffs further out of reach next year, each incremental win is worth less and less.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

 

[MrPhoenix]

So you pick one random example and throw in one WARP stat....and all of the sudden "it's not the market"?How much did Carlos Lee get paid this offseason? What's his WARPHow much is Johnny Damon making? What's his WARPHow about Carlos Beltran? What's his WARP(by the way, these are all outfielders.....two of whom play center field, same position as Byrnes....not first baseman)But if you want to compare free agent signings, how about Barry Zito....what's he making?The market is defined by what's out there, not WARP. Plus, there are intangibles that Eric Byrnes add to this team. He would have made more money as a free agent. This was a fine signing by the team. We can bring up this discussion again in the offseason thread when stupid money is paid to free agent outfielders who are not as good or young as Byrnes.

A lot of players you mentioned signed notoriously bad contracts. Outfielders are worth more than 1Bs, since essentially anyone can play 1B.Damon was a much better player than Byrnes was and signed a 4 year $52MM contract following a season where his WARP was 5.6. Since then, he has been paid approximately $22MM from the Yankees in exchange for 7.5 wins, or about $3M a win.Carlos Lee signed a 6 year $100MM contract even though he sucks.Carlos Beltran parlayed a fantastic 2004 postseasons into a seven year $119MM contract ($17MM/yr). He has since contributed 20.5 wins to the Mets at a pricetag of about $46MM, or LESS than $2.5MM per win.Barry Zito is making $18MM a year, and was a below average pitcher even before he signed the contract. The Giants are in last place for a reason. Gil Meche, whose 5 year $55MM got much more press this offseason, has been at least an above average pitcher over the past two years.Yes, the market is defined by what's out there, but owners act irrationally in signing these big name players at high costs, when they forego fewer than 4 games a season for the $10MM they're paying. The D-Backs have three young outfielders baseballprospectus rated as "excellent" prospects before the season. Since Young and Upton will put up much better numbers over the next three years than they did this year, the loss of Byrnes would have likely barely been felt in the outfield. Last, the D-Backs are wildly overperforming this year, and should come back down to earth next season. With the playoffs further out of reach next year, each incremental win is worth less and less.

Just because it's "in market" doesn't mean that the D-Backs are getting good value for 10 mil.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

 

[MrPhoenix]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.

The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.

The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.

The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

Are you really this stupid?

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.

The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.

The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.

The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. :( The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

Are you really this stupid?

A player's market value is a different topic than your opinion of his skill set. Now, go read that again slowly.AGAIN, I don't care what you boneheads think of the contract. What I find hysterical, is that people like you take a very brief look at a deal, and immediately make some broad, sweeping judgment of whether it's good or not...

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

 

[Capella]

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

 

[MrPhoenix]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.

The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.

The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.

The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

Are you really this stupid?

A player's market value is a different topic than your opinion of his skill set. Now, go read that again slowly.AGAIN, I don't care what you boneheads think of the contract. What I find hysterical, is that people like you take a very brief look at a deal, and immediately make some broad, sweeping judgment of whether it's good or not...

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

Let me get this straight....You're saying that $10 mil per year for 3 years for a player who hasn't produced more than an average career UP TO THIS YEAR and is at an age where players typically decline (not an opinion, it's a fact) is market value. Using this logic, this automatically makes Carlos Pena worth $10 mil per year. Why not? He's having a career year after many years of mediocrity, PAY THE MAN HEEZ MONEY!

BTW, since when did stats become opinion?

 

[MrPhoenix]

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

BTW, I love how I'm a "doushbag" all of the sudden for believing that a 32 year old outfielder who's having a career year is overpaid. It's people like this that made Dubya a two-term President.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Gary Matthews Jr was 33 years old (born August '74) when he signed a $50 million, 5 year deal with the Angels last year.

according to baseball reference, Matthews' career numbers are .264/.337/.423

in 2006 before signing that huge deal, he hit .313/.371/.495

this year, despite the HGH rumors and what not, he's hitting .274/.337/.451

Eric Byrnes will turn 32 years old after this season ends (born Feb '76) and he signed a 3-year, $30 million extension.

according to baseball reference, Byrnes' career numbers are .268/.329/.457

in 2007 the year before he was to become a free agent he's hitting .301/.364/.493

their career averages and contract year numbers look pretty similar to me, but Byrnes hits for more power, he's 1.5 years younger, he's a bigger threat to steal (53SB in 2006-2007 compared to just 22 for Matthews), and he's not rumored to be on HGH. I don't know how they compare defensively or whatever so maybe Matthews has an edge there.

however, given that Matthews likely set the market for a player like Byrnes, signing him to the same average but for 2 fewer years seems like a pretty good deal for the D-backs to me.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.

The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.

The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.

The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

Are you really this stupid?

A player's market value is a different topic than your opinion of his skill set. Now, go read that again slowly.AGAIN, I don't care what you boneheads think of the contract. What I find hysterical, is that people like you take a very brief look at a deal, and immediately make some broad, sweeping judgment of whether it's good or not...

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

Let me get this straight....You're saying that $10 mil per year for 3 years for a player who hasn't produced more than an average career UP TO THIS YEAR and is at an age where players typically decline (not an opinion, it's a fact) is market value. Using this logic, this automatically makes Carlos Pena worth $10 mil per year. Why not? He's having a career year after many years of mediocrity, PAY THE MAN HEEZ MONEY!

BTW, since when did stats become opinion?

No, I'm not saying that. I have never tried to break down the contract, I know better. Don't even care. What I am saying is that I believe Diamondbacks management has a keener eye on the MARKET of a player than YOU, for one...but I'm not sure if you're capable of realizing as much. Now read that again; AGAIN.But what's almost beyond belief is that you cannot discern the difference amongst topics...and you were calling me stupid. I love it.

 

[Zombie Kid]

Major flukage this year. Ridiculously high pop-up rate, line drive rate is study, GB rate is down a little, still has average HR per flyball ratio (10%).

Gets a lot of balls in the air, and they have eyes this year. Don't overpay for him next year.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

BTW, I love how I'm a "doushbag" all of the sudden for believing that a 32 year old outfielder who's having a career year is overpaid. It's people like this that made Dubya a two-term President.

Oh man! I can only imagine the awful things the right must do with you in those political threads.

 

[MrPhoenix]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.

The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.

The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.

The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

Are you really this stupid?

A player's market value is a different topic than your opinion of his skill set. Now, go read that again slowly.AGAIN, I don't care what you boneheads think of the contract. What I find hysterical, is that people like you take a very brief look at a deal, and immediately make some broad, sweeping judgment of whether it's good or not...

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

Let me get this straight....You're saying that $10 mil per year for 3 years for a player who hasn't produced more than an average career UP TO THIS YEAR and is at an age where players typically decline (not an opinion, it's a fact) is market value. Using this logic, this automatically makes Carlos Pena worth $10 mil per year. Why not? He's having a career year after many years of mediocrity, PAY THE MAN HEEZ MONEY!

BTW, since when did stats become opinion?

No, I'm not saying that. I have never tried to break down the contract, I know better. Don't even care. What I am saying is that I believe Diamondbacks management has a keener eye on the MARKET of a player than YOU, for one...but I'm not sure if you're capable of realizing as much. Now read that again; AGAIN.But what's almost beyond belief is that you cannot discern the difference amongst topics...and you were calling me stupid. I love it.

I have read your posts. Over, and over, and over again. And what I've gotten from your posts is that:1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

2. I don't have the right to play armchair GM because I'm not employed by the D-Backs.

Tell me where I'm wrong here.

 

[MrPhoenix]

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

BTW, I love how I'm a "doushbag" all of the sudden for believing that a 32 year old outfielder who's having a career year is overpaid. It's people like this that made Dubya a two-term President.

Oh man! I can only imagine the awful things the right must do with you in those political threads.

Do you even read the political threads?

 

[Zombie Kid]

1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing, but the Zito signing this year made me realize there are some pretty significant outliers.

 

[MrPhoenix]

1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing, but the Zito signing this year made me realize there are some pretty significant outliers.

I wouldn't either. And you said the key word there: "outlier". The Byrnes signing should be considered an outlier, for instance. If a team has a $100 mil payroll, no way should you devote 10% of your payroll to a guy like Byrnes if you're a winning franchise. Then again, this is a franchise that is known for overpaying for players (see Ortiz, Russ), so I guess it's to be expected.

 

[Zombie Kid]

1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing, but the Zito signing this year made me realize there are some pretty significant outliers.

I wouldn't either. And you said the key word there: "outlier". The Byrnes signing should be considered an outlier, for instance. If a team has a $100 mil payroll, no way should you devote 10% of your payroll to a guy like Byrnes if you're a winning franchise. Then again, this is a franchise that is known for overpaying for players (see Ortiz, Russ), so I guess it's to be expected.

You'll hear no argument here. I think they should've let him go, pocketed the draft pick they would've gotten for him, and pinned their hopes on Quentin coming around. Not like they're right around the corner from a WS anyway.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

Where did I say that? Look, I don't even follow it, but they must have been in the ballpark for his market value...or are you saying that the D-Backs management is that dumb -- that they just got completely taken to the cleaners.

It's not a terrible move, but they overpaid. They have bigger issues with the team to address. (2nd worst offense in MLB, while playing in one of the best hitter's parks)

But that's a different topic, no? My only point of contention here is to say that it is highly unlikely that they are as far off the market as some here would like to think. Whether you like the decision, or wish they'd focused elsewhere, is a different topic entirely.

Horrible signing, no?Signing they'll be happy with in two years? Almost certainly not. Signing they'll be happy with next year? Probably not.

The good news: They signed their best hitter for three years.

The bad news: He's not that good, and will probably see his stats decline considerably in the future.

The ugly news: The team's best hitter isn't that good and has peaked.

Which is why they didn't give him MORE money...like they don't realize his age or weaknesses. :( The subject here was market value -- not your opinion of Byrnes.

Are you really this stupid?

A player's market value is a different topic than your opinion of his skill set. Now, go read that again slowly.AGAIN, I don't care what you boneheads think of the contract. What I find hysterical, is that people like you take a very brief look at a deal, and immediately make some broad, sweeping judgment of whether it's good or not...

But you're right, I don't know why management doesn't just start emailing all contracts to some doushbag from the internet; and let him decide.

Let me get this straight....You're saying that $10 mil per year for 3 years for a player who hasn't produced more than an average career UP TO THIS YEAR and is at an age where players typically decline (not an opinion, it's a fact) is market value. Using this logic, this automatically makes Carlos Pena worth $10 mil per year. Why not? He's having a career year after many years of mediocrity, PAY THE MAN HEEZ MONEY!

BTW, since when did stats become opinion?

No, I'm not saying that. I have never tried to break down the contract, I know better. Don't even care. What I am saying is that I believe Diamondbacks management has a keener eye on the MARKET of a player than YOU, for one...but I'm not sure if you're capable of realizing as much. Now read that again; AGAIN.But what's almost beyond belief is that you cannot discern the difference amongst topics...and you were calling me stupid. I love it.

I have read your posts. Over, and over, and over again. And what I've gotten from your posts is that:1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

2. I don't have the right to play armchair GM because I'm not employed by the D-Backs.

Tell me where I'm wrong here.

Never said either of those things. But this is great, you are cracking me up right now.

 

[Sea Leopard of Death]

1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing, but the Zito signing this year made me realize there are some pretty significant outliers.

I wouldn't either.

 

[guru_007]

I'm sure Aaron Rowand's agent is taking note.

And Torii Hunter

Gary Matthews Jr was 33 years old (born August '74) when he signed a $50 million, 5 year deal with the Angels last year.according to baseball reference, Matthews' career numbers are .264/.337/.423in 2006 before signing that huge deal, he hit .313/.371/.495this year, despite the HGH rumors and what not, he's hitting .274/.337/.451Eric Byrnes will turn 32 years old after this season ends (born Feb '76) and he signed a 3-year, $30 million extension.according to baseball reference, Byrnes' career numbers are .268/.329/.457in 2007 the year before he was to become a free agent he's hitting .301/.364/.493their career averages and contract year numbers look pretty similar to me, but Byrnes hits for more power, he's 1.5 years younger, he's a bigger threat to steal (53SB in 2006-2007 compared to just 22 for Matthews), and he's not rumored to be on HGH. I don't know how they compare defensively or whatever so maybe Matthews has an edge there.however, given that Matthews likely set the market for a player like Byrnes, signing him to the same average but for 2 fewer years seems like a pretty good deal for the D-backs to me.

Exactly. Arud comes up with a winner here.Take a look at the free agent outfielders available. That's your market. I think next year's crop are very thin and Byrnes could well of gotten a contract similar to or higher than Matthews....maybe 5 years 70 million? And I think you guys that are taking offense to SLOD's comment's are way off base. You guys think you are more intelligent than baseball GM's are kidding yourselves. You are not familiar with every team's farm system, who is going to be available via free agency or trade, who has coke problems, who is on the juice, etc....

 

[The Man from Laramie]

I'm sure Aaron Rowand's agent is taking note.

And Torii Hunter

Gary Matthews Jr was 33 years old (born August '74) when he signed a $50 million, 5 year deal with the Angels last year.according to baseball reference, Matthews' career numbers are .264/.337/.423in 2006 before signing that huge deal, he hit .313/.371/.495this year, despite the HGH rumors and what not, he's hitting .274/.337/.451Eric Byrnes will turn 32 years old after this season ends (born Feb '76) and he signed a 3-year, $30 million extension.according to baseball reference, Byrnes' career numbers are .268/.329/.457in 2007 the year before he was to become a free agent he's hitting .301/.364/.493their career averages and contract year numbers look pretty similar to me, but Byrnes hits for more power, he's 1.5 years younger, he's a bigger threat to steal (53SB in 2006-2007 compared to just 22 for Matthews), and he's not rumored to be on HGH. I don't know how they compare defensively or whatever so maybe Matthews has an edge there.however, given that Matthews likely set the market for a player like Byrnes, signing him to the same average but for 2 fewer years seems like a pretty good deal for the D-backs to me.

Exactly. Arud comes up with a winner here.Take a look at the free agent outfielders available. That's your market. I think next year's crop are very thin and Byrnes could well of gotten a contract similar to or higher than Matthews....maybe 5 years 70 million? And I think you guys that are taking offense to SLOD's comment's are way off base. You guys think you are more intelligent than baseball GM's are kidding yourselves. You are not familiar with every team's farm system, who is going to be available via free agency or trade, who has coke problems, who is on the juice, etc....

You're ignoring the availability of minor leaguers though. The market isn't only set by veterans, there are pretty much freely available guys in the system that cost less than $500k a year, and aren't drastically worse than Byrnes (or at least how reasonable statistical projections expect him to play next year).If a veteran outfielder costs $2.5MM+ per incremental win, I'm promoting some AAA guy to play in the outfield with my up-and-coming rookies.If I hadn't made it clear, I don't think a replacement level OF, and Young and Upton next year will be significantly worse than this year's outfield, but it costs about $10MM less.That's how the owner should look at it. Unless of course, the owner feels that next year is the year for the D-Backs to make their run, as the team is capable of winniong the World Series, and/or the window is closing. I think this is not the case.

 

[guru_007]

You're ignoring the availability of minor leaguers though. The market isn't only set by veterans, there are pretty much freely available guys in the system that cost less than $500k a year, and aren't drastically worse than Byrnes (or at least how reasonable statistical projections expect him to play next year).If a veteran outfielder costs $2.5MM+ per incremental win, I'm promoting some AAA guy to play in the outfield with my up-and-coming rookies.If I hadn't made it clear, I don't think a replacement level OF, and Young and Upton next year will be significantly worse than this year's outfield, but it costs about $10MM less.That's how the owner should look at it. Unless of course, the owner feels that next year is the year for the D-Backs to make their run, as the team is capable of winniong the World Series, and/or the window is closing. I think this is not the case.

Why do you think I'm ignoring minor leaguers??You keep pounding this incremental win and WARP nonsense like it's fact. It's a measure. You cannot measure stuff like hustle, defense, leadership/clubhouse skills.There are other factors involved furthermore. Service time. Some GM's like to keep players in the minors a year longer so they will not have to offer arbitration/free agency until the player is in their late 20's. If Arizona was not playing for next year, don't you think they would keep Upton in the minors for a year instead of getting his feet wet this year? Plus, you cannot go into a season with an offense full of never proven players. Stephen Drew hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire. Chris Young got off to a pretty awful start. Both of these players are still batting less than 240. You want to go to war with Carlos Quentin as your starting right fielder? Obviously he is major league ready.A major league team needs at least a few batters that have proven they can hit. And field. And steal 25+ bases, and score runs, etc....Show me someone on the current AZ lineup that has. You have Eric Bynres. Honorable mention to Orlando Hudson and Chad Tracy. This team can afford to spend on their best offensive player and they did.

 

[MrPhoenix]

I have read your posts. Over, and over, and over again. And what I've gotten from your posts is that:1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.2. I don't have the right to play armchair GM because I'm not employed by the D-Backs.Tell me where I'm wrong here.

Never said either of those things. But this is great, you are cracking me up right now. :X

Exactly WHAT is your argument then? You seem more interested at laughing at me like some psychotic little kid who slashed the tire of a bully's bike instead of clarifying your argument.

 

[MrPhoenix]

1. Market value and player ability have ABOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other.

I wouldn't say absolutely nothing, but the Zito signing this year made me realize there are some pretty significant outliers.

I wouldn't either.

Alias check please.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Why do you think I'm ignoring minor leaguers??

You keep pounding this incremental win and WARP nonsense like it's fact. It's a measure. You cannot measure stuff like hustle, defense, leadership/clubhouse skills.

1) You can measure defense. It's noisy, but it's measurable to some degree2) leadership/clubhouse skills are very likely overrated. Plenty of teams have won that didn't even like each other

3) hustle? HUSTLE? The bit of "hustle"not reflected in stats is worth so utterly little that for a GM to take that into account for a contract is mind-boggling.

There are other factors involved furthermore. Service time. Some GM's like to keep players in the minors a year longer so they will not have to offer arbitration/free agency until the player is in their late 20's. If Arizona was not playing for next year, don't you think they would keep Upton in the minors for a year instead of getting his feet wet this year? Plus, you cannot go into a season with an offense full of never proven players.

2003 Marlins down? While service time and promoting a guy into the majors so that he's under contract for his peak is important, it's a secondary consideration. To some degree you have to worry about 6 years from now, 6 years from now, and worry about this and next season today. I'm not saying long term planning is wrong, but you have to be careful in letting it trump your existing efforts.

Stephen Drew hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire. Chris Young got off to a pretty awful start. Both of these players are still batting less than 240. You want to go to war with Carlos Quentin as your starting right fielder? Obviously he is major league ready.

Chris Young is already the 5th best hitter on the team at 23 years old. As for the other guys, they're struggling, but will their contributions [i[next year, when they've very likely improved, be worth less than having Byrnes and an extra $10MM?

A major league team needs at least a few batters that have proven they can hit. And field. And steal 25+ bases, and score runs, etc....

Show me someone on the current AZ lineup that has. You have Eric Bynres. Honorable mention to Orlando Hudson and Chad Tracy. This team can afford to spend on their best offensive player and they did.

You're killing me. BA! Hustle! Stolen Bases! You're like Bizarro Billy Beane. Chris Snyder has contributed more with his bat than Tracy or Hudson, and is in his peak years. Chad Tracy's bat has been worth approximately ONE RUN more than Chris Young's over the course of the season. The D-Backs are fairly pitiful at hitting, and I just don't see giving $10MM a year to their best player, who will likely be average at best by next season, is the way to build a foundation for a strong offense.