Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Saturday, September 03, 2005 |
Focusing Our Hate Dep't: Neyer On Overrated Players
Sean passes along some Haloblog hate for "noted sack of crap Rob Neyer", whose principle crime, apparently, is hating on the Angels' expensive nonperformers. Wha-wha-what? Sean, are you seriously trying to argue that Erstad's earned anywhere near what his 4 year, $32M contract would imply? And what about favored whipping boy Finley? Was that a bargain? Did he suddenly start hitting the ball out of the park while I wasn't looking, or did Scioscia bench his ass for the balance of the year for a reason? Is Anderson and his but he brings such a veteran presence to the clubhouse -- and 13 HR -- really worth the eye-popping $23 million remaining on his contract? Seriously, Benjie Molina -- the catcher! -- at $3M this year is hitting for more average, has the same number of home runs, and 24 points more OBP!
I can agree, kind of, that Neyer seems to have it in for the Angels and at times seems to criticize them for reasons that go beyond the numbers -- as if the ability to make multiple contractual mistakes and win anyway were a bad thing. But -- come on -- Neyer's right. Stoneman's spent a lot of money on benchwarmers or guys who should be benchwarmers. This shouldn't even be up for discussion.
Comments:
Thanks for a voice of reason in Haloblogdom. Sometimes folks just don't get the numbers enough to spout off about the finances of the game.
Erstad, Finley, Cabrera and GA (with roughly $69 million still owed to them) are overpaid and underperforming. No ifs, ands or buts about it!
I'd like to think that the team will be better off when their contracts run out - but Stoneman will probably bring in a bunch of marginal talent to replace these guys so maybe we're better off with the known quantity....
Erstad, Finley, Cabrera and GA (with roughly $69 million still owed to them) are overpaid and underperforming. No ifs, ands or buts about it!
I'd like to think that the team will be better off when their contracts run out - but Stoneman will probably bring in a bunch of marginal talent to replace these guys so maybe we're better off with the known quantity....
But Matt, do you trust Bill Stoneman to plug those holes with anything other than marginal or declining talent? He had the money to plug holes this offseason, and he failed miserably.
And also, I think you're probably putting too much trust in Erstad's hamstrings. I don't see how he could be the same outfielder he was two years ago. An improvement over Finley or Anderson? Easy. But another Gold Glove? I'll believe it when I see it. Personally I think Figgins is as good an option as anybody on the roster.
And also, I think you're probably putting too much trust in Erstad's hamstrings. I don't see how he could be the same outfielder he was two years ago. An improvement over Finley or Anderson? Easy. But another Gold Glove? I'll believe it when I see it. Personally I think Figgins is as good an option as anybody on the roster.
I don't think Kotchman, Morales, and our middle-infield minor league gravy train are "marginal talents"; what's more, they'll be cheap as hell by the time the other contracts run out. And hopefully no one's progress will be unduly blocked by an incumbent signed to an over-long contract.
If Stoneman replaces the likes of Erstad, Cabrera, Finley et al from within, I'll be happy as pie. If he goes out spends that money on either resigning Erstad, or picking up a mediocrity instead of playing the kids then I will be upset. But I think we agree Matt, if the young players are allowed to flow into the majors I will be very happy. I'm just not sure that we are guaranteed that scenario.
He had the money to plug holes this offseason, and he failed miserably.
Exactly Richard - this is my concern as well.
the starting CF next year will either be Figgins or Erstad
I hope that is the case, but I have a weird feeling that the job is Steve Finley's to lose in ST, 2006, with Figgy being the 2nd choice and Erstad returning to 1B. This would make Kotchman the LH half of a DH platoon (probably with Rivera again).
So Stoneman doesn't have to do anything except continue not trading away prospects, and continue not signing declining veterans after their walk years.
That is a lot to ask him with so much expected of this team. I think he is likely to make a bad trade this offseason to try to make up for the bad signings this year.
If Stoneman replaces the likes of Erstad, Cabrera, Finley et al from within, I'll be happy as pie. If he goes out spends that money on either resigning Erstad, or picking up a mediocrity instead of playing the kids then I will be upset. But I think we agree Matt, if the young players are allowed to flow into the majors I will be very happy. I'm just not sure that we are guaranteed that scenario.
He had the money to plug holes this offseason, and he failed miserably.
Exactly Richard - this is my concern as well.
the starting CF next year will either be Figgins or Erstad
I hope that is the case, but I have a weird feeling that the job is Steve Finley's to lose in ST, 2006, with Figgy being the 2nd choice and Erstad returning to 1B. This would make Kotchman the LH half of a DH platoon (probably with Rivera again).
So Stoneman doesn't have to do anything except continue not trading away prospects, and continue not signing declining veterans after their walk years.
That is a lot to ask him with so much expected of this team. I think he is likely to make a bad trade this offseason to try to make up for the bad signings this year.
Matt -- IMO the solutions next year are:
1) Anderson remains in left.
2) Dallas McPherson comes up and actually has the monster season we were hoping for. Minus the hitch in his gitalong, he ought to be even better than he was in Salt Lake, Arkansas, and Rancho. (Right?)
3) Jeff Mathis comes up and we live with the offensive trouble. He probably won't be the big offensive producer we had hoped two years ago when he was at Rancho, but behind him we have Mike Napoli, and hopefully, Michael Collins, assuming the Angels can re-sign him. I think there's enough of a question as to Mathis's offense that Collins has a good chance of being a big difference-maker. (Recall that Collins has numbers similar to Mike Piazza so far.)
I blanch at the idea of going after a centerfielder, because ultimately that's where I think Wood's future is defensively. The team needs an outfielder with some pop, and he could be that guy. I don't know how good he is at short, but so far the rumblings seem to be that none of the Angels' middle infielders are that good with the glove. Those kinds of things can be corrected to some degree, but making the transition to center from short has been done before (IIRC DiMaggio did it in the minors).
1) Anderson remains in left.
2) Dallas McPherson comes up and actually has the monster season we were hoping for. Minus the hitch in his gitalong, he ought to be even better than he was in Salt Lake, Arkansas, and Rancho. (Right?)
3) Jeff Mathis comes up and we live with the offensive trouble. He probably won't be the big offensive producer we had hoped two years ago when he was at Rancho, but behind him we have Mike Napoli, and hopefully, Michael Collins, assuming the Angels can re-sign him. I think there's enough of a question as to Mathis's offense that Collins has a good chance of being a big difference-maker. (Recall that Collins has numbers similar to Mike Piazza so far.)
I blanch at the idea of going after a centerfielder, because ultimately that's where I think Wood's future is defensively. The team needs an outfielder with some pop, and he could be that guy. I don't know how good he is at short, but so far the rumblings seem to be that none of the Angels' middle infielders are that good with the glove. Those kinds of things can be corrected to some degree, but making the transition to center from short has been done before (IIRC DiMaggio did it in the minors).
Jim --
I think [Stoneman] is likely to make a bad trade this offseason to try to make up for the bad signings this year.
Bill Stoneman make a trade? When? Why?
I think [Stoneman] is likely to make a bad trade this offseason to try to make up for the bad signings this year.
Bill Stoneman make a trade? When? Why?
Funny how no one -- including Neyer -- ever mentions the $10.6 million Billy Beane is paying Jason Kendall this year.
# posted by 
: 9/03/2005 05:01:00 PM
: 9/03/2005 05:01:00 PM
Like I said, I didn't read the article, since it's behind the pay section. So I don't know who else is on the list. But is this guy?
Player X: .269/.337/.452, 24 2B, 14 HR, 100 hits, 8.0 million in 2005.
(cf. Erstad: .280/.337/.375, 28 2B, 5 HR, 144 hits, 8.25 million in 2005).
I'm guessing not, despite the fact that they're having very similar offensive seasons. Or they were, before Player X - also known as Torii Hunter - went on the DL. And Hunter's 8 million makes a much bigger impact on the Twins than Erstad's makes on the Angels.
But Hunter's a Twin, and Twins, for some reason, get a free pass from the SABR crowd. Fine. Still, if you're going to talk about who's "overpaid," it makes no sense to ignore the fact that teams have different amounts of money to play with. You can't possibly argue that Erstad's contract somehow kept the Angels from pursuing other free agents for financial reasons - they went out and got Colon and Guerrero, and I have yet to hear Stoneman or Moreno talk about anyone who was just too expensive.
So the only way Erstad is "overpaid" is if they could have gotten someone better for less or equal money. Who might that be? Keep in mind that you're limited to guys who (1) were better overall center fielders than Erstad in mid-2002, and (2) were available after the 2002 season. WAS there anyone better available? Because if not, then it doesn't matter what they paid Erstad, so long as it didn't keep them from getting someone else.
But my original point, made years ago, was that it's insanely dumb to say, as Neyer did, that EVEN IF ONE ACCEPTS THE PROPOSITION THAT ERSTAD'S CONTRACT WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE 2002 CHAMPIONSHIP, it still wasn't worth it. That's just retarded. If it won the World Series, who wouldn't hesitate to pay Neifi Perez 32 million, as long as you had 32 million to spend?
It is, of course, possible that the Angels might have been able to identify and acquire someone else after the 2002 season, and maybe nothing would have changed. Maybe the Angels would've still won their first-ever Series, and maybe they would've won their first Division Championship in 18 years in 2004, and maybe they'd be fighting to make the playoffs in back-to-back years for the first time ever in 2005. But we'll never know that. We do know that, after signing his extension, Erstad smoked a homer into right field to start the eighth inning of Game 6. We know he drove in the tying run against the A's in the clincher last year, then scored the winning run. The dude's been at the center of some of the best moments in Angel history, and that's not my idea of "overpaid."
Player X: .269/.337/.452, 24 2B, 14 HR, 100 hits, 8.0 million in 2005.
(cf. Erstad: .280/.337/.375, 28 2B, 5 HR, 144 hits, 8.25 million in 2005).
I'm guessing not, despite the fact that they're having very similar offensive seasons. Or they were, before Player X - also known as Torii Hunter - went on the DL. And Hunter's 8 million makes a much bigger impact on the Twins than Erstad's makes on the Angels.
But Hunter's a Twin, and Twins, for some reason, get a free pass from the SABR crowd. Fine. Still, if you're going to talk about who's "overpaid," it makes no sense to ignore the fact that teams have different amounts of money to play with. You can't possibly argue that Erstad's contract somehow kept the Angels from pursuing other free agents for financial reasons - they went out and got Colon and Guerrero, and I have yet to hear Stoneman or Moreno talk about anyone who was just too expensive.
So the only way Erstad is "overpaid" is if they could have gotten someone better for less or equal money. Who might that be? Keep in mind that you're limited to guys who (1) were better overall center fielders than Erstad in mid-2002, and (2) were available after the 2002 season. WAS there anyone better available? Because if not, then it doesn't matter what they paid Erstad, so long as it didn't keep them from getting someone else.
But my original point, made years ago, was that it's insanely dumb to say, as Neyer did, that EVEN IF ONE ACCEPTS THE PROPOSITION THAT ERSTAD'S CONTRACT WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE 2002 CHAMPIONSHIP, it still wasn't worth it. That's just retarded. If it won the World Series, who wouldn't hesitate to pay Neifi Perez 32 million, as long as you had 32 million to spend?
It is, of course, possible that the Angels might have been able to identify and acquire someone else after the 2002 season, and maybe nothing would have changed. Maybe the Angels would've still won their first-ever Series, and maybe they would've won their first Division Championship in 18 years in 2004, and maybe they'd be fighting to make the playoffs in back-to-back years for the first time ever in 2005. But we'll never know that. We do know that, after signing his extension, Erstad smoked a homer into right field to start the eighth inning of Game 6. We know he drove in the tying run against the A's in the clincher last year, then scored the winning run. The dude's been at the center of some of the best moments in Angel history, and that's not my idea of "overpaid."
Given that Hunter was competition for biggest suckfest at the same position, Steve Finley's nonproduction was way worse than Hunter's.
ocab, 256 avg, 669 ops, 8mil/y
eck, 281 avg, 739 ops, 3mil/y
HUMMMM... enuf said. I can't believe we gave a below-league-average player 32million dollars. Oh wait, I can believe that.. we have Stoneman as our GM. Neyer is right, as usual.
eck, 281 avg, 739 ops, 3mil/y
HUMMMM... enuf said. I can't believe we gave a below-league-average player 32million dollars. Oh wait, I can believe that.. we have Stoneman as our GM. Neyer is right, as usual.
# posted by : 9/03/2005 09:16:00 PM
: 9/03/2005 09:16:00 PM
Re Sean's comment:
"So the only way Erstad is "overpaid" is if they could have gotten someone better for less or equal money. Who might that be?"
I am certain that Rob Neyer himself said that at the time. These columns require money now to access and it's not worth it to me.
But I remember Neyer saying all the bad things about Erstad that have been talked about here, but still saying something like: crazy as it might sound, he was probably a bargain (and then went on to give more or less the reasons Sean gives).
If anyone with access to the columns can confirm (or disabuse), please do.
"So the only way Erstad is "overpaid" is if they could have gotten someone better for less or equal money. Who might that be?"
I am certain that Rob Neyer himself said that at the time. These columns require money now to access and it's not worth it to me.
But I remember Neyer saying all the bad things about Erstad that have been talked about here, but still saying something like: crazy as it might sound, he was probably a bargain (and then went on to give more or less the reasons Sean gives).
If anyone with access to the columns can confirm (or disabuse), please do.
# posted by : 9/04/2005 05:52:00 PM
: 9/04/2005 05:52:00 PM
Adam and Matthew - your memories decieve you.
From Jan., 2003:
"Fullmer's ridiculous-in-one-way deal helps compensate for Darin Erstad's ridiculous-the-other-way deal.
"I mean, I know that Erstad's great with the glove, and of course he plays baseball like he's a linebacker (even though he's actually a punter). But last year Erstad was something like the 100th best player in the majors, in a group with his teammates Scott Spiezio and Adam Kennedy. In three of the last four seasons, his hitting stats have been considerably short of impressive. And he's worth $8 million per season, while Fullmer's worth one-eighth of that?"
--The ever-prescient Rob Neyer, touting soon-to-be-out-of-baseball Brad Fullmer.
And here's what he said at the time of the signing. In addition to calling it "monumentally stupid" and "idiocy," he wrote that:
"So you've got three baseball writers, and not one of them showed the slightest understanding that Erstad isn't a good player and certainly isn't worth $8 million per season. I could not find one BBWAA member in all of Southern California, not even one, who wrote the truth. Who wrote that the Angels are wasting their money."
--Neyer, in a column in which he also said that Carlos Beltran - currently hitting .267/.330/.421 in his first year after free agency - was objectively TWICE the player Erstad is.
Both columns, of course, were more than a year before Erstad started player first base.
From Jan., 2003:
"Fullmer's ridiculous-in-one-way deal helps compensate for Darin Erstad's ridiculous-the-other-way deal.
"I mean, I know that Erstad's great with the glove, and of course he plays baseball like he's a linebacker (even though he's actually a punter). But last year Erstad was something like the 100th best player in the majors, in a group with his teammates Scott Spiezio and Adam Kennedy. In three of the last four seasons, his hitting stats have been considerably short of impressive. And he's worth $8 million per season, while Fullmer's worth one-eighth of that?"
--The ever-prescient Rob Neyer, touting soon-to-be-out-of-baseball Brad Fullmer.
And here's what he said at the time of the signing. In addition to calling it "monumentally stupid" and "idiocy," he wrote that:
"So you've got three baseball writers, and not one of them showed the slightest understanding that Erstad isn't a good player and certainly isn't worth $8 million per season. I could not find one BBWAA member in all of Southern California, not even one, who wrote the truth. Who wrote that the Angels are wasting their money."
--Neyer, in a column in which he also said that Carlos Beltran - currently hitting .267/.330/.421 in his first year after free agency - was objectively TWICE the player Erstad is.
Both columns, of course, were more than a year before Erstad started player first base.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.