Jump to content


Welcome to Unofficial Message Board of the New York Mets


Sign In  Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Create Account
Welcome to MetsParadise.com, the Unofficial Message Board of the New York Mets. Like most online communities, you must register to post in our Mets Forum. Not to worry, this is a simple and free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Join our community by signing in or creating an account. Registered users are able to:
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
;lgm;
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Brandon Crawford Deal


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 METS FANG

METS FANG

    Major League Rookie

  • Members
  • 2,991 posts

Posted 19 November 2015 - 06:10 PM

Moving that loooooooong message board post to a thread:
 

@  Canada Mets Fan : (18 Nov 2015 - 11:57)

When you put it that way, not sure I'd give a 32 year old SS that money.

@  METS FANG : (18 Nov 2015 - 10:51)

so, essentially, they agreed to give a 32 year old a 4 year 61M contract

@  METS FANG : (18 Nov 2015 - 10:46)

thing is most of those "prime years" are arbitration eligible

@  brian stark : (18 Nov 2015 - 10:43)

The Crawford deal is 6 years at 75 mil. Wonder how that affects the asking prices for Desmond and Cabrera...

 
(19 Nov 2015 - 16:28)

Canada Mets Fan : (18 Nov 2015 - 11:57)
When you put it that way, not sure I'd give a 32 year old SS that money
That decision is based on misinformation and a segmented view of the 6 yrs. 75M. First the free agent time bought out are years 31-34, not year 32-. Secondly, what needs to be considered is what Crawford 2nd year of arbitration would cost the Giants. Ian Desmond in his first year of arb. eligible parlayed a 3.4 WAR into 3.8 M. He then followed in year 1 with a 3.6 WAR which earned him a 6.5M salary in year 2. Finally in year 2 he played to a 3.9 WAR which paid him 11M in his walk year. Crawford in his final pre-arb. season posted a 3.3 WAR which garnered him a salary of 3.2M in 2015, his first arb. season. This season Crawford posted a 5.6 WAR (1st -SS), XBH (1st), RBI 1st, Hrs. (1st), Def. (3rd). In arbitration what would a 5.6 WAR from be worth if 2 years ago 3.6 was valued at 6.5M? The point being that 2 years of arbitration remaining might have cost the Giants 8.5M and 12.5 (?). Which would reduce the 4 years of FA (31-34) cost to 13.5 M. The QO has increased 1.7M in the past 2 seasons......2 years from now the Giants may be paying a top SS 4M below the QO, if their were a QO. The Giants FO doesn't make many errors, I don't think that 6 - 75 for Crawford was one of them.

 

 

I'll start by asking where is the disinformation?  that seems like an accusation of deceit , is that what you're saying? 

 

For the year, apologies, I was going off memory in a quick message chat board, I got the year wrong.  31-34, not 32-35.  Hardly misinformation, just a small error.

 

Second, you can make your guesses as to arbitration, but lets not forget ian desmond got his 11M arbitration raise only after he showed his numbers were repeatable over 3 full seasons in multiple offensive categories.  Crawford has not proven that yet with only 1 breakout season.  Usually when you guarantee money, its a gamble and you get a discount for that because it could go terribly wrong, and you're still stuck.  For instance, imagine if the Mets had come to terms for a big extension with Duda after last year's numbers.... ooops.

 

But lets make an assumption that he did follow the Ian Desmond track (1 time MVP candidate, 3 time SS winner), and gets an extra 4M for arbitration, then I'd consider the deal with it.  But that a BIG IF.  Only after he's proven that track record would I consider signing a 31 year old to a 4 year 57M deal, but, but at this point its still a hard sell for a guy whos done it once and you've now guaranteed 57M to a 31 year old.

 

You can disagree with that, but remember its an opinion based on guess work, not misinformation.



#2 Saxon

Saxon

    All-Star

  • Members
  • 8,673 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 02:30 PM

I guess that I missed most of this discussion...and reading the chat quotes, is confusing me...

 

so...let me ask...

 

who was saying that it's a good deal?

who was saying it's a bad deal?

who was saying misinformation, and who was it directed at...

 

all that I saw was Yogi's thing about misinformation, and then something about the definition of misinformation...

 

can you fill in the gaps for me, since I don't have enough information to make an informed response?



#3 METS FANG

METS FANG

    Major League Rookie

  • Members
  • 2,991 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 03:31 PM

The Cliff notes version:

 

Act 1:  The Contract

 

Stark mentioned the deal, and asked how it would affect the other SS on the market.  I added somewhat off tangent saying that the prime years are mostly covered by arbitration years, and you'd be essentially giving a 32 year old a 4 year 61M deal.  WCMF chimed in saying in that light, he doesn't like the deal other.  End Scene.  

 

Act 2 - the next day.

 

Yogi copied WCMF quote and responded that WCMF decision to agree was based on misinformation on two points 1) he'll be 31 not 32, and that the 2) the arbitration would likely have been higher than the 6/8.5 he'll be the next two years (which is the bottom most quote listed above).

 

Act 3 - The Thread

 

I responded to long/confusing message board post here thinking it would be easier/interesting to open a conversation on Crawford's worth, but the thread had no traction and has laid dormant.

 

Act 4 - The Message Board Revival

 

Yogi responded today in the message board instead of here.  I took offense to the repeated use of the word "misinformation" due to negative connotations of deceit, hence the definition.

 

Curtain Falls - Now you're all caught up.  



#4 Saxon

Saxon

    All-Star

  • Members
  • 8,673 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 04:03 PM

well based on his name, I'm guessing that he's going to be overpaid vs his performance...Carl Crawford, huge contract, not much production...based on that presendence alone, he's not worth it since Crawfords typically get paid more than they are worth



#5 Saxon

Saxon

    All-Star

  • Members
  • 8,673 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 04:08 PM

but seriously...

 

There is a good chance that he got rewarded by a single "career" year...however, his WAR was trending upwards prior to his 2015 season, but he had his best year for slugging at the same time that he had his best year for defense (eventhough, IMO, he should have been the 3rd best choice for the Gold Glove, not the first choice...but that award is usually based on who put up the best offensive numbers anyhow)...

 

he is 31, when the $15 Mil per season kicks in, so it's not really a reach for him to still be productive for the majority of the contract...and it's an overpay, for his pre-2015 seasons, but still not an elite salary for a top shortstop...it's certainly less than Hanley/Tulo/Reyes/Jeter/ARod got for being a shortstop, but still pretty high based on his pre-2015 numbers



#6 METS FANG

METS FANG

    Major League Rookie

  • Members
  • 2,991 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 04:09 PM

I don't know.  That Corey Crawford guy is pretty good (sorry, I know you're not an NHL guy)



#7 METS FANG

METS FANG

    Major League Rookie

  • Members
  • 2,991 posts

Posted 20 November 2015 - 07:03 PM

 

but seriously...

 

There is a good chance that he got rewarded by a single "career" year...however, his WAR was trending upwards prior to his 2015 season, but he had his best year for slugging at the same time that he had his best year for defense (eventhough, IMO, he should have been the 3rd best choice for the Gold Glove, not the first choice...but that award is usually based on who put up the best offensive numbers anyhow)...

 

he is 31, when the $15 Mil per season kicks in, so it's not really a reach for him to still be productive for the majority of the contract...and it's an overpay, for his pre-2015 seasons, but still not an elite salary for a top shortstop...it's certainly less than Hanley/Tulo/Reyes/Jeter/ARod got for being a shortstop, but still pretty high based on his pre-2015 numbers

It absolutely could be a steal.  If he continues to trend upwards, it will be an amazing contract.

 

But there is the flip side, he could regress back to what he's been at 26-27.  A .250 hitter with some, but not an amazing amount of power.  In addition to that, SS and CF defense starts to decline faster than other positions, at 31-34, how many starting SS are over the age of 31+ years old? (Aybar, Peralta, Rollins, Reyes, Tulo, Hardy)  Does he have the offensive skill to be valuable at 2B?  If he regresses, is a .250 hitter with 10-15 HR power at 2B worth 15M? 

 

Ian Desmond, to continue Yogi's example, had 3 years of elevated stats before he saw his salary increase to 11M in arbitration, Crawford has one.  IF he can repeat, it may be a steal, but I like to make moved based on proven track records.  So far, his has potential, but its far from a proven constant.

 



#8 Saxon

Saxon

    All-Star

  • Members
  • 8,673 posts

Posted 21 November 2015 - 11:51 AM

Ian Desmond could have been a good signing IF (and only IF):

a) he didn't get a Qualifying Offer;

b) Scott Borras wasn't his agent;

Desmond has talent, but not consistency of play...if those 2 conditions that I mentioned were different, you might have been able to get a shorter "rebound" contract out of him..

 

Just as Crawford likely isn't as good as his 2015 suggests; Desmond likely.isn't as bad as his 2015 numbers suggest (particularly, his pre-allstar game numbers)...



#9 Canada Mets Fan

Canada Mets Fan

    Mets AAA Ball Player

  • Members
  • 586 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 21 November 2015 - 06:26 PM

yogi, originally the deal for Crawford sounded a little rich to me as I've never thought of him as an upper tier player. When I saw Fang's comment in the Shoutbox a few days back I expressed a thought based on what Fang had highlighted. Later on I did look at Crawford closely and my opinion is that aside from the 2015 season, he has been a .high 240s hitter, and his slugging has been in the high .300s. His OBP, even in his breakout year has never been above .324. Is 2015 an outlier or a sign of things to come? I obviously don't have that answer.

 

He could certainly continue on an upward trend and make the deal a steal for the Giants but in my opinion right now, I think it's a little rich. Then again, maybe my view of $75M contracts is out of touch with the current state of the game. In my life I've always heard the best deals are the ones where both sides give a little so maybe here the Giants are buying high while Crawford foregoes some potential FA years.

 

Again, this is my opinion of the deal based on what I have always viewed Crawford as in a middle infielder, and the total dollar value of the deal. I have been wrong many times in my life and I guarantee it'll happen again.



#10 yogib8

yogib8

    Starter

  • Members
  • 4,358 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 05:07 PM

Just came across this thread, didn't know it had been shifted from the chat room.   

 

FANG, my use of the word misinformation was not intended to portray deceit, just an error.   I have posted on the same forum as you for 8 years and don't believe that deceit has ever been your intent.

 

The Giants bought out Crawford's remaining 2  years of arb. for 7 M @ which is likely less than what continued performance at that level would have cost them.  

 

While the season is still early Crawford while not at the same levels of last year is at Fangraphs value of 6.9M, which his standing compared to his peers (30 SS with 70 PA) supports.  

 

Offensively his WAR is 3rd ( 0.9),  tied for 5th with 4 other with 5 Hrs,  his comparison slash line of 14-10-8  ranks him 1th in OPS.

 

Defensively he is tied for 2nd in dWAR,  tied with 3 others for 1st with a DRS of 6,  1st in UZR.

 

WAR is roughly measurable in $,  and is driven, as is the QO, by player salaries.   Several years ago a WAR of one was valued at 5.5-6 M, now that value is 7.5 to 8. 

 

Clubs don't expect that a contract run in the black each in every season, but a good contract should be a plus value for the team at the end.  That 75M contract will need, spread across 6 seasons an average of 1.7 WAR.   Crawford has skills on both side of the ball and will be 34 when he plays his last game under this deal, I expect when time comes and  the Giants audit their books they won't have any reason to regret the signing.  



#11 METS FANG

METS FANG

    Major League Rookie

  • Members
  • 2,991 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 08:28 AM

water under the bridge buddy.

 

Crawford, good start to the season, but lets be honest, he'd be a Giant either way (arbitration years).  Its the 60M owed during his 31-34 seasons that would have me worried.



#12 yogib8

yogib8

    Starter

  • Members
  • 4,358 posts

Posted 04 May 2016 - 11:47 AM

water under the bridge buddy.

 

Crawford, good start to the season, but lets be honest, he'd be a Giant either way (arbitration years).  Its the 60M owed during his 31-34 seasons that would have me worried.

 

Looking back at some SS that put up numbers in the past 15 seasons, I discarded A-Rod, Jeter and M Tejada who actually had 4 superior years (31-34) than his earlier 8 seasons.   

 

.........................Pre 31 BA & OPS..............WAR .......dWAR.......Seasons

R Furcal ..............286.........764...................29.9...........11.9............9

E Renteria............291.........757...................31.1.............7.7...........12

J Rollins...............274.........768...................34.8...........13.1............10

 

.......................Age 31-34 BA & OPS..........WAR........dWAR

R Furcal...............267.........713....................9.3.............2.5

E Renteria............261.........672....................0.9.............0.3

J Rollins...............254.........712....................7.3............-0.3

 

I also looked at JJ Hardy who has only fulfilled 2 of his post age 30 seasons, one good and one not.  But in the those two seasons he has more than covered the 18.5 M salary with equity going forward.   Going forward the next two seasons will pay him 26.5M  which will be very reachable in value.   

 

Rollins just about covered his 44M in salary with a 6M per WAR totaling 43.8M

 

Furcal didn't have a large regression when he passed though ages 31-34, unlike Renteria who figuratively fell off the face of the earth.   Rollins defensive regression was protected by the slower decline of the offensive skills.

 

Crawford has a long way to go, but with above average offensive and defensive skills he is a safer bet to continue to perform at a level that will need about a 2.0 WAR average to meet his value.


  • Canada Mets Fan likes this

#13 Canada Mets Fan

Canada Mets Fan

    Mets AAA Ball Player

  • Members
  • 586 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 05 May 2016 - 08:13 AM

Wow, yogi, very detailed analysis. This is the kind of stuff that scratches me where I itch. Thanks for taking the time.



#14 yogib8

yogib8

    Starter

  • Members
  • 4,358 posts

Posted 05 May 2016 - 11:30 AM

Wow, yogi, very detailed analysis. This is the kind of stuff that scratches me where I itch. Thanks for taking the time.

 

Baseball is great in that there are so many stats to use to formulate a reason for past performance and as a guide to probable future performance.  

Retirement gives me the time.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users