Joey Votto

[/quote]

Appreciation is not cash flow so the ownership needs to either borrow against it or have partners cover cash flow. Money borrowed against franchise value is expensive and MLB sets limits for leverage. From my experience, getting funding from partners is like pulling teeth.

As for your Royals sale example, the day the day that deal closed, the new owners had zero franchise appreciation and if they signed a big free agent contract they would be banking on future appreciation which is not guaranteed. People say that the average age of a baseball fan is in his 50s, so there's no guarantee that even a large market team's franchise value will continue to appreciate. The good news is that I've brainwashed my 14-year old into being an MLB super fan so I will be replaced.

It takes about 50 WAR for a playoff team, so using 7.63M, the the payroll would be about $380. At $200M, one WAR would cost about $4M. The $7.63M is, of course, an incremental cost. Because of the additional revenue generated by having a playoff team, the $7.63M might make sense, but for a small market team to sign mega contracts to improve from 65 wins to 75, it doesn't.

I've heard the total contract analysis before, but ownership having that goal is how teams end up being in a financial hole. I don't know if Miguel Cabrera has "earned" his contract, but he's been killing the team during the last 3 years and he's got another 4 to go. They'll probably have to DFA him as soon as next year.[/quote]

Appreciation is all but guaranteed based upon the fact that every franchise has always appreciated in value. Is there any example to the contrary? MLB teams are extremely safe investments in large part because of the league's anti-trust exemption. Fandom may be declining, but the fact that fewer people drink Coke does not mean that Coca Cola will not continue to be a blue chip stock.

Your math is off regarding dollar per WAR. The number 7.63 is based on dollars on what the market pays. So if a team was assembled entirely through free agency, a playoff team may have a $380M payroll. Accounting for players in arbitration and pre-arb that number drops down to what payrolls look like now.

The Cabrera contract extension was panned at the time precisely because his decline was anticipated (see

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/miguel-cabreras-terrible-and-understandable-contract/

). Unfortunately for Detroit, he did not provide enough value on the front end. Everyone can agree that deal was bad even though he is a franchise icon.

Help me out here why are there six pages of threads on this dude He ain't that good.

Solid , not great ,not a Hall of famer , solid.

Thank you, LakeErie—you saved me from having to make that exact same post. The only things I have to add to your post are:

1) SDSU Aztec, you aren’t wrong that spending big money on free agents isn’t usually worth if for teams who don’t project to be strong playoff contenders, if all you consider is this season. However, if you consider that free agents signed to reasonable 1-2 year contracts can be dealt to contending teams at the deadline for prospect talent that can provide major league wins 1-3 years in the future, signing certain types of free agents (#4 starters, solid set-up men, versatile position players or guys who can be the strong half of a platoon) can make a lot of sense even for teams that don’t plan to contend this year. Also, teams projected to win around 90 games should maybe be willing to may more per win, as each marginal wins adds a lot of marginal value at that point on the win curve.

2) Billionaires can always access capital, and on more favorable terms than you or I. They may have financial or personal reasons (valid or not) for choosing not to do so, but they can. Also, MLB owners don’t need to access capital, outside of their teams’ cash flows, to make regular free agent signings—the average team has over $300 million of annual revenue.

3) Lastly, this is making this into a purely financial calculation, when I would hope that a baseball owner views it as at least part of their job to field a winning baseball team.

Changing topics, Flagpole, this McGriff fixation seems misguided to me—as close as he came, he didn’t hit 500 home runs (which isn’t a magic number anymore anyway), so even if you believe in magic numbers, he didn’t get there. And he also didn’t have an exceptionally high or long peak, or defend his position or run the bases well. It’s a tough call, but for me, I don’t think he gets in—Votto is easily more deserving to me.

And whoever brought up Andre Dawson as an edge case— nice job! All modern metrics say he has a strong case, but he doesn’t clearly pass the smell test for me, or have any of the key traditional stat milestones. Maybe I’m biased because my strongest memories of him are a couple late-career seasons he played with my Sox, but I’m not sure the Hawk belongs.

Lastly (and I say this is someone who has been labeled a “modern stats guy” in this thread), to people saying certain players only made the Hall because they played their whole career for one team, does that not matter to you? A guy being the face of the franchise for a generation matters to me, just like awards, championships, signature moments, statistical milestones (yes, I think those matter!), or single standout skills all matter to me. They won’t put an average MLBer into the Hall, but they can push a guy over the edge. (That being said, Trammel doesn’t only belong I because he was a Tiger for his whole career—he belongs in because he could really field at short, and guys who could field at his level at short didn’t hit like he when he played. 70+ WAR is a surefire HoFer, barring character issues. While I’m ranting, Biggio belongs in on merit alone, too—but if that doesn’t do it, his one-team status and his unique journey along the defensive spectrum a make him a shoe-in for me, and that’s without even taking his 3,060 hits into consideration).

I know we’ve been talking a lot about position players, but I’m curious: What does this group think of deGrom’s Hall of Fame chances (assuming he hits the 10-season minimum for consideration)?

Not An Expert wrote:

I know we’ve been talking a lot about position players, but I’m curious: What does this group think of deGrom’s Hall of Fame chances (assuming he hits the 10-season minimum for consideration)?

He won't get to 300 wins so he has no chance.

Really though, as tough as the HOF standards are for up-the-middle players (C, 2B, SS, CF), pitchers are judged the most unfairly. It is to the point where they have to win a boat load of CYAs to get consideration. How many pitchers that debuted after 2000 look HOF-bound? Verlander, Kershaw, Scherzer, maybe Greinke? It is really tough and deGrom is already 33 so he'll need to stay healthy and win some more hardware.

1) I brought up Andre Dawson, so of course it was a nice job. He's not deserving in my opinion, BUT, because Dawson is in along with several others who aren't as good as McGriff, that's why McGriff needs to be in if they are.

2) McGriff had 1550 RBIs and a very respectable .284 batting average for a power hitter. 493 HRs is a LOT, and there are many who are in the Hall of Fame who were considered "power hitters" with fewer HRs than McGriff.

3) Yes, he didn't quite get to 500 HRs. Had there not been a strike? But, yes, 500 HRs is still a magic number. There are no eligible or non-dopers with 500+ who aren't in. Fair to say he doesn't get the automatic entry because he didn't get to 500, but he should be in with fewer than 500 if Dawson is in, if Jim Rice is in, if Harold Baines is in.

4) Here's a thing to consider...McGriff has more HRs, more RBIs, and more HITS than Edgar Martinez...yes, more HITS than Edgar Martinez...and Martinez is in. Yes, Martinez was the best DH ever, but that's a technicality. He's also the best guy named "Edgar". Doesn't mean he needed to be enshrined...BUT, since he was, McGriff should be also.

5) From 1987-1994, his he was second in all of major league baseball in the following categories - Slugging %, OPS, OPS+. Who was he second to? Barry Steroid Bonds.

6) Want to go with a more current stat? Ok, in that same 1987-1994 time period, he was 11th in MLB in WAR behind 8 future Hall of Famers, Barry Steroid Bonds, and Will Clark.

7) From the period of 1987-2003, McGriff hit 491 home runs. In that 17-year period, only these players had more home runs: Bonds (steroids), McGwire (steroids), Sosa (steroids), Palmeiro (steroids). The person just behind him with 481? Ken Griffey, Jr.

8) deGrom's ERA is amazing, but he has too many things against him. He's only got 77 wins. He's already 33. 2 Cy Youngs, yes, but that's not enough. If he wins another Cy Young, or especially even 2 more, then he might break the mold, because his career stats (other than ERA) aren't going to be that great. Might be hard to overlook a guy with 4 Cy Youngs though, even if he doesn't get to 150 wins. If I were a betting man (I'm not), I say he doesn't get in.

de Grom's probably only chance to get to the HOF is to get to 3,000 strikeouts. Or if the Mets would win a World Series and he pitches well in it.

de Grom may have the worst luck of any pitcher in history. His teams seem to perform significantly worse at the plate when he pitches. It's almost like the other teams pitcher realizes he has to play above himself and does every time de Grom takes the hill.

1) Only the 3rd tier players will sign a 1-2 year deal. I was referring to the mega, long-term deals where rather than being able to trade the contract, the decision us whether to DFA the player.

The short-term contracts also have a lower probability of good performance. For example, the Brewers Jackie Bradley Jr to a $20/2 year deal and he's produced a negative WAR for the first year.

I did point out that a team on the cusp of making the playoffs do get more bang for the buck with big free agent deals. The downside is that they can later become hamstrung with under performing contracts and few prospects due to having late first round picks after a 3-5 year run of making the playoffs. The Dodgers are up to $270M and heading for a train wreck.

2) & 3) You're suggesting that the owner should treat the ownership as a hobby and not as investment but that's not what businessmen do and especially if individual limited partners are involved. For commercial real estate properties, projections are prepared comparing cash flows with and without a capital investment. They aren't going to rehabilitate a shopping center just because it will look nicer.

Your previous comment that appreciation is guaranteed just isn't true. Over the long-term residential properties have always appreciated but anyone that purchased a home at the peak of the sub-prime market lost their property.

I don't see how small market teams can have positive cash flow but since teams are privately owned, that information is not generally available. The players want access to that information to support their claim that they should receive larger salaries. The owners have refused and I agree with them since the players are not co-owners. Salaries should be based on supply and demand. There are some restrictions on how much money is available but if it is completely opened up, the small market teams will be barely better than a Triple A team.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement expires after this season and the likelihood of a lockout or players strike seems really high. One these days I'll do some reading to understand why the N.F.L. has hard salary caps annd guarantee only a portion of a long-term term contract.

One of the most interesting stats about Joey Votto is that he almost never pops out and I believe he's only popped out to first base one time in his whole mlb career. That is mind boggling. It has to do with his hitting mechanics, launch angle, stuff like that. The dude clearly is a model player and has an astute understanding of the game.

Steve The Addict^^^^^^^------- wrote:

One of the most interesting stats about Joey Votto is that he almost never pops out and I believe he's only popped out to first base one time in his whole mlb career. That is mind boggling. It has to do with his hitting mechanics, launch angle, stuff like that. The dude clearly is a model player and has an astute understanding of the game.

You are...CORRECT!

I don't think he should make the Hall of Fame, but I think he probably will.

Steve The Addict^^^^^^^------- wrote:

One of the most interesting stats about Joey Votto is that he almost never pops out and I believe he's only popped out to first base one time in his whole mlb career. That is mind boggling. It has to do with his hitting mechanics, launch angle, stuff like that. The dude clearly is a model player and has an astute understanding of the game.

Wade Boggs also rarely hit pop outs. He was good at working the count but when he got his pitch, he would still almost slap at it to hit a line drive. He was a strong man but he said whenever he loaded up to drive the ball, he would pop it up.