What makes Justyn-Henry Malloy a Worthy Asset?

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Teams do this all the time.

Teams are always taking risks on recovery projects, injury or otherwise.

Two things: (1) We just gave Boyd $10 mill and he only pitched 13 innings last year. Please calculate the % overpay we just did on this deal, I'll be interested in that number.

 

12 hours ago, mtutiger said:

As big a risk as they both are, they are being paid at market value. And, like Candy's deal with the Nationals, both have incentives built into their contract as well.

From a post yesterday. 

Given how overheated the market is, and with guys like Zach Eflin getting $13 million, Boyd/Lorenzen contracts look pretty reasonable IMO

Edited December 19, 2022 by mtutiger

[1984Echoes]

But it's still an overpay, based on last year's numbers.

I think the "market" may be a REASON there are overpays, but it doesn't negate the fact that an overpay is still an overpay.

Hasn't everyone already agreed that the ridiculous contracts that Rotation Starters (and the SS signings too) this year are signing are all (mostly) overpays? Market value yes, but overpays nonetheless.

[Tiger337]

2 hours ago, Longgone said:

I wouldn't put any faith in the report that the Tigers offered a lower contract. If they'd wanted to keep Candelario, they would have made it happen.

That is my guess as well.  It would be concerned if he wanted to keep him, but decided against it because of 2 million, but I don't believe that's the case.  

[Tiger337]

13 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Can't really change it because it's just the nature of fans, but the decision to tender or not tender a specific player or not to deliberately pay a player over his market value shouldn't be used as an indicator of whether a team is cheap or not.

Still think the Tigers did what most teams would have done in this situation.

I am saying hypothetically that if Harris really wanted him on the team, but failed to do so over 2 million, that would not be a good thing for fans.  I just don't think he was high enough on Candelarioto take a risk.  

[chasfh]

31 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

I contend that the MAIN reason Harris let Candy go non-tendered was that he didn't want to take the RISK that Candy could get back to 2021 numbers or not, at $7 mill (but would do so at $5 mill so I guess that is the other factor... call that "risk tolerance factor" ?), and instead decided he would take the RISK

This dovetails into the crux of where I am coming from on all this.

For Harris to make a calculation along the lines, we expect Candelario to deliver X value—let's make it easy and say 1 WAR—for which we would gladly pay $3 million, but for which would never pay $7 million, is perfectly logical business-wise. Such a fiduciary-based calculation falls squarely within his budgeting and spending responsibilities as PBO.

But for fans to say, I think Candelario will produce 1 WAR this season, and I'll be happy if the team pays only $3 million for that, but I'll be angry if the team pays $7 million instead—that's just bonkers to me. Because it's still 1 WAR either way, which would result in the same number of wins for the team, which is really all that fans care about. And since we have no way of knowing whether the other $4 million would have gone back into payroll for other, better players, I don't think we can use that as the self-evident argument to defend it, because there's no way for us to know that's what would have happened. In fact, because of the low level of money we're talking about, I believe the fairest conclusion would be that the roster would look exactly the same whether they paid Jeimer $3MM or $7MM, unless Harris were to specifically declare he took the $4MM he saved on Jeimer and got such and such another player for it, which of course he would never declare publicly.

Semi-related to this: if the Harris Analytics team projected Jeimer to be only a 1 WAR player in 2023, then I totally support showing him the door, because we need more from third base—and every position, really—than 1 WAR. BUT: if Analytics projects him to be a 3 WAR player, but we let him go because they wouldn't pay $7 million for that simply because he underperformed so poorly this past season, then that would be equally bonkers. So, giving Harris the benefit of the doubt on this, I gotta conclude that they projected him to be a lot closer to 1 WAR than 3 WAR.

[chasfh]

50 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

But it's still an overpay, based on last year's numbers.

I think the "market" may be a REASON there are overpays, but it doesn't negate the fact that an overpay is still an overpay.

Hasn't everyone already agreed that the ridiculous contracts that Rotation Starters (and the SS signings too) this year are signing are all (mostly) overpays? Market value yes, but overpays nonetheless.

The first contracts that came in like that, the Diaz and Suarez contracts, struck me that way. But the more contracts like that which get signed, the less like overpays they look and the more like it's the market shifting, taking the line of what constitutes "overpay" upward with it. I think only if the market shift back down to 2019-21 levels can all these contracts signed this offseason be considered overpays.

[mtutiger]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But for fans to say, I think Candelario will produce 1 WAR this season, and I'll be happy if the team pays only $3 million for that, but I'll be angry if the team pays $7 million instead—that's just bonkers to me. Because it's still 1 WAR either way, which would result in the same number of wins for the team, which is really all that fans care about.

I woudn't have been "angry" had it gone the other way (have stated many times that it's kind of a jump ball decision), but I think one can be a fan of the team and be a realist in understanding how the business of baseball works and that teams often focus on maximizing the value of the assets on their roster. And by doing so aren't generally in the business of overpaying players by 40% or more over what the market pegs their value at.

As a fan of the team, bringing back Jeimer if they believed him to be a 1 WAR player at $7 million is no skin off my nose because it isn't my money. But it would objectively be a dumb decision to do so if they believed that to be the case and would have no problem calling it out as such as well.

Edited December 19, 2022 by mtutiger

[gehringer_2]

28 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Semi-related to this: if the Harris Analytics team projected Jeimer to be only a 1 WAR player in 2023, then I totally support showing him the door, because we need more from third base—and every position, really—than 1 WAR. BUT: if Analytics projects him to be a 3 WAR player, but we let him go because they wouldn't pay $7 million for that simply because he underperformed so poorly this past season, then that would be equally bonkers. So, giving Harris the benefit of the doubt on this, I gotta conclude that they projected him to be a lot closer to 1 WAR than 3 WAR.

I think this is spot on. I don't think it's even a question that if they thought he would produce 3 WAR he'd have been back.

But to the first part, I agree that from the fan's view, all that matters is whether he is replaced by a better player - or at least the move somewhat directly opens to door to some combination of better players even if not specifically at 3b, rather than what the team is paying whom. If the Tigers miraculously put a winning team on the field next season I can't see very many fans who will repudiate their fanship in outrage over the fact that we will have probably the least productive player per dollar in the majors on our roster.

Edited December 19, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

55 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

As a fan of the team, bringing back Jeimer if they believed him to be a 1 WAR player at $7 million is no skin off my nose because it isn't my money. But it would objectively be a dumb decision to do so if they believed that to be the case and would have no problem calling it out as such as well.

If they believe him to be a 1 WAR player next year, then I’m glad they let him go.

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

If they believe him to be a 1 WAR player next year, then I’m glad they let him go.

You can even put that on a sliding scale:

Probability of achieving 1 WAR = 75% = Tigers very comfortable offering at least $3 mill

Probability of achieving 1-2 WAR = 50% = Tigers OK offering $5 mill

Probability of achieving 2.5 or better WAR = 20% = Tigers uncomfortable going over a $5 mill offer due to a greater probability of player being unable to achieve. There is also downside risk, and also the possibility that even in a recovery there is no trade value for player at the deadline. Too much risk.

Probability of achieving Less than 1 WAR including possible negative WAR = 40% = Cost of doing business. But cap offer at no higher than $5 mill.

If the Tigers are doing this.. then I am very comfortable with their decision making so far...

[Dan Gilmore]

What about if they assigned what they saw as probability percentages, something like 10% -1WAR, 30% 0-.5WAR, 30% .5-1.0 WAR, 20% 1-2WAR, 10% 2+ WAR. Those are all just made up numbers, but they would reflect an opinion that he was likely to produce no more than 1 WAR, probably less against a smaller likelihood that he produces more. 

[Dan Gilmore]

Was typing this as 84 was posting his similar thoughts.

[1984Echoes]

Just now, Dan Gilmore said:

What about if they assigned what they saw as probability percentages, something like 10% -1WAR, 30% 0-.5WAR, 30% .5-1.0 WAR, 20% 1-2WAR, 10% 2+ WAR. Those are all just made up numbers, but they would reflect an opinion that he was likely to produce no more than 1 WAR, probably less against a smaller likelihood that he produces more. 

That's exactly what I am getting at...

[1984Echoes]

Just now, Dan Gilmore said:

Was typing this as 84 was posting his similar thoughts.

HAH!!!

Great minds and all !!!

[Jim Cowan]

51 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

You can even put that on a sliding scale:

Probability of achieving 1 WAR = 75% = Tigers very comfortable offering at least $3 mill

Probability of achieving 1-2 WAR = 50% = Tigers OK offering $5 mill

Probability of achieving 2.5 or better WAR = 20% = Tigers uncomfortable going over a $5 mill offer due to a greater probability of player being unable to achieve. There is also downside risk, and also the possibility that even in a recovery there is no trade value for player at the deadline. Too much risk.

Probability of achieving Less than 1 WAR including possible negative WAR = 40% = Cost of doing business. But cap offer at no higher than $5 mill.

If the Tigers are doing this.. then I am very comfortable with their decision making so far...

Yes there will a logical process such as this, perhaps not WAR but some kind of an assessment that calculates his probable value.  Then you offer him what you think he is worth.  If he isn't worth $7 million, you don't offer it to him.  If he turns down your offer, that's fine.  

[mtutiger]

28 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

Yes there will a logical process such as this, perhaps not WAR but some kind of an assessment that calculates his probable value.  Then you offer him what you think he is worth.  If he isn't worth $7 million, you don't offer it to him.  If he turns down your offer, that's fine.  

This is in all likelihood what happened here, and it's a sound way to make the decision. I think where it runs up against a lot of friction / criticism is that, as sound as the business decision is or whether it is on paper the right thing to do doesn't help fill the hole that the fanbase currently sees on the roster. Certainly as evidenced by the many "what are the Tigers doing / why is it taking so long" articles written / circulated among fan sites and the beat writers in the past few weeks.

Obviously they need to fill the hole as best they can and will be judged if they don't, but they clearly didn't see Jeimer as worth the investment at the arbitration figure. And if decisions are based on logical processes or formulas, they shouldn't be arbitrarily carving out exceptions to their logical processes out of fear of the unknown.

Edited December 19, 2022 by mtutiger

[Tenacious D]

For all of our sanity  I hope that the new Mrs. Harris will let her hubby make a few calls on their honeymoon and fill the hole at 3B.

[Toddwert]

5 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

For all of our sanity  I hope that the new Mrs. Harris will let her hubby make a few calls on their honeymoon and fill the hole at 3B.

a 3B who can hit 

[chasfh]

I’m willing to give Harris some rope on the upcoming year since bad teams with bad reputations usually have a tough time getting good free agents to sign, for obvious reasons. They need to prove themselves to be serious about recasting the organization from top to bottom, even beyond announcing the right hires. That’s gonna take time, maybe even more than a year. 

[Toddwert]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m willing to give Harris some rope on the upcoming year since bad teams with bad reputations usually have a tough time getting good free agents to sign, for obvious reasons. They need to prove themselves to be serious about recasting the organization from top to bottom, even beyond announcing the right hires. That’s gonna take time, maybe even more than a year. 

thats why i think they need to make a trade

[Jim Cowan]

I think we will find out who the third baseman is at the end of March.

[Tenacious D]

29 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m willing to give Harris some rope on the upcoming year since bad teams with bad reputations usually have a tough time getting good free agents to sign, for obvious reasons. They need to prove themselves to be serious about recasting the organization from top to bottom, even beyond announcing the right hires. That’s gonna take time, maybe even more than a year. 

You keep referencing a bad reputation. What is that based on?  They’ve completely made over their front office and coaching over the last couple of years.  They’ve shown a willingness to spend—and successfully attract free agents that they targeted.

Are you basing this off of our record last season?  I think players and agents are more savvy to recognize that the team had some bad luck with injuries. 

[chasfh]

30 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

I think we will find out who the third baseman is at the end of March.

There may well be more than one, and they may also rotate to other positions. Malloy may be one, Kreidler may be another, Ibañez yet another, Schoop may get some reps there, the way people are talking. The way Harris is assembling the team for 2023, versatility may be the watchword.

[chasfh]

12 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

You keep referencing a bad reputation. What is that based on?  They’ve completely made over their front office and coaching over the last couple of years.  They’ve shown a willingness to spend—and successfully attract free agents that they targeted.

Are you basing this off of our record last season?  I think players and agents are more savvy to recognize that the team had some bad luck with injuries. 

It’s based on all the years under the prior administration, which was well-reported in the national media while being pretty much ignored by the access-dependent local guys. You might have heard about it.

Sure, the Avila people are mostly gone now, but the smell is still lingering around the organization, and the Harris front office has to work through that and establish that they are not more of the same. The changed talk and the hires are a good start, but they still have to prove themselves to complete the turnaround, which they were never going to accomplish within the first six weeks of the offseason. Once they do accomplish that, though, they should have a fair shot at getting the top guys at market value, instead of having to overpay to lure in the remaining free agents that are left, such as the Baezes and the Eduardos.

[Tenacious D]

Sorry, I don’t believe anything about the organization having a bad reputation, but would love to read about it.  Certainly didn’t stop Baez or ERod last season. 

And I don’t believe we lost out on any free agents this offseason—Harris strikes me as being more disciplined than to make 10-13 year offers.

Detroit as a market might turn off some people, mostly based on reputation, but I think the franchise is fine.  Again, based on the size of contracts being given out, the only one I feel that we missed out was Mitch Haniger.  Who knows if we even pursued him?