DD Curse

[cp176]

They are ... the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013 with their 3rd choice for closer, they beat a Cardinals team who won the pennant with its second choice for closer ... the Giants won 3 world series with three different closers - with their 2012 closer getting demoted in 2014.

 

Closers in baseball are the equivalent of running backs in football ... some teams want to spend a ton of money for a hoss ... great. But a lot of teams do well doing what the Patriots do putting no money into it. After all, reliever performance is so volatile that churn is built into things - and there is a bottomless pit of candidates (basically any failed starter - since that's what relievers are).

 

I agree that relief pitchers in general are in fact basically failed starters but finding and identifying one that can serve as one of the very best closers in the game is not easy to do. Finding relief pitchers in general for sure. Keep throwing them at the wall so to speak. the deal for Kimrel just looks outstanding to me at this point in time. you have a team that is struggling to score for sure. No one really knows whether they will produce runs as they have in the past regardless of what any data indicates. Having that special one at the back of the bullpen who for the most part (as in all the time this year) has made the trade of Margot and others for him seem really worth it to me. Maybe DD just got lucky but without him in that bullpen we would likely be more even more unhappy than we are right now.

[Kimmi]

The idea that closers are overvalued and that we overpaid for Kimbrel is a remnant of the failed " Moneyball " concept. Made famous by the loser known as Billy Beane. Folks , this is big business , not fantasy baseball. If you want to win a championship , a lights out closer is invaluable. What we gave up for Kimbrel was basically peanuts. Those type of prospects are plentiful , and a new supply comes through the pipeline every year.

 

As I already stated, I do not underestimate the value of a strong bullpen, including a pitcher who can close out the game. What I very much disagree with is the idea that you have to pay an arm and a leg for one like Kimbrel.

[Kimmi]

If the top guys are all paid more than Kimbrel, that is the market. Several Gms have justified paying that type of money for top relievers. And Kimbrel is the best of them at a lower cost. You really don't have a complaint.

 

Just because it's market value does not mean that they are not overpaid in terms of the Wins and the value that they add to the team.

[Kimmi]

ALL of these players are overpaid. What's the ML minimum salary now...something in the neighborhood of $1/2MM? That's a lot for playing baseball! But it is what it is.

 

But.. moving right along to the topic at hand of whether closers are overpaid....

What constitutes 'overpaid' when a good closer can mean the difference between making the playoffs and not making them, or winning the WS or not?We have to think that the FO knows the answer to those questions and they've found it in their best interest to pay for closers. For the owners it's a business, remember?

 

I have said many times that if we win the World Series, then all of Dombrowski's moves will be worth it.

 

That said, if I have that kind of money to spend and prospects to trade, I'm using those resources in another area. You will typically get more bang for the buck (and more wins) using the resources on starting pitching or position players.

[Kimmi]

They are ... the Red Sox won the World Series in 2013 with their 3rd choice for closer, they beat a Cardinals team who won the pennant with its second choice for closer ... the Giants won 3 world series with three different closers - with their 2012 closer getting demoted in 2014.

 

Closers in baseball are the equivalent of running backs in football ... some teams want to spend a ton of money for a hoss ... great. But a lot of teams do well doing what the Patriots do putting no money into it. After all, reliever performance is so volatile that churn is built into things - and there is a bottomless pit of candidates (basically any failed starter - since that's what relievers are).

 

My man.

[cp176]

i do agree with you in general that spending a lot of money and prospects as well really isn't very effective in terms of using your resources. We are seeing some of the "what can happens if you do" for sure right now. i have to say though that when it works - Kimbrel- it can look pretty good. With the way our current team is performing, he looks to be about as valuable as anyone that we have.

[a700hitter]

Just because it's market value does not mean that they are not overpaid in terms of the Wins and the value that they add to the team.

The market establishes the value of any asset.

[cp176]

The market establishes the value of any asset.

 

Aint that the truth and boy do we live in a crazzzy world.

[S5Dewey]

The market establishes the value of any asset.

 

I agree with what you say, but to carry it a bit further, society also helps to establishes the value and (IMHO) society is a little bit screwed up in their priorities. As I've said before here, if on Monday morning some research scientist announced that he had discovered a cure for cancer, any kind, any time, at any stage, this person would never make as much money in his life as David Price will make in six years.

[Kimmi]

The market establishes the value of any asset.

 

Only if you want the shiny new toy.

[cp176]

I agree with what you say, but to carry it a bit further, society also helps to establishes the value and (IMHO) society is a little bit screwed up in their priorities. As I've said before here, if on Monday morning some research scientist announced that he had discovered a cure for cancer, any kind, any time, at any stage, this person would never make as much money in his life as David Price will make in six years.

 

Absolute truth - you and I come from a state that wants to raise our minimum starting teacher's salaries to 40,000 (1/3 jump). Absolutely a good thing to do. Where is the $ going to come from?

[a700hitter]

Only if you want the shiny new toy.

Or top quality.

[Kimmi]

Or top quality.

 

No, that is not necessarily true.

 

In fact when it comes to relievers, it's often not true.

[a700hitter]

No, that is not necessarily true.

 

In fact when it comes to relievers, it's often not true.

If you want proved and known top quality, it is true.

[cp176]

No, that is not necessarily true.

 

In fact when it comes to relievers, it's often not true.

 

When it comes to the Kimbrels, I think that it is different.

[Kimmi]

If you want proved and known top quality, it is true.

 

No, it's not. There is no guarantee that you will get top quality. Was Kimbrel what we expected him to be last year?

[cp176]

No, it's not. There is no guarantee that you will get top quality. Was Kimbrel what we expected him to be last year?

 

What would we look like if we did not have him right now?

[a700hitter]

No, it's not. There is no guarantee that you will get top quality. Was Kimbrel what we expected him to be last year?

He did have knee surgery. But other than that, he has been as advertised. However, that is not the point. You can't get proved established top quality except at FMV. Anything can happen to the asset after it has been acquired. Players don't come with guarantees.

[sk7326]

No, it's not. There is no guarantee that you will get top quality. Was Kimbrel what we expected him to be last year?

 

The more interesting question is - how many relievers hold their value for more than a couple of seasons at a time? For the most part - very, very, few.

 

And the second question is - how much of an edge does that give you over "above average" work - probably not that much.

 

Now the ability to get 6 outs from time to time - that is worth paying for. But the ability to hold a lead for 3 outs with the bases empty is largely not that big a deal.

[Hugh2]

I believe that markets ultimately reflect the true value of an asset, however I also believe that markets can be irrationally exuberant. If you don't agree with that statement I have some tulip bulbs to sell you.

 

I believe we learned that the market for relievers was undervalued not long ago but I believe we've seen the pendulum swing too far in both directions. Relievers are highly overrated right now. That doesn't mean they're not very important, and that doesn't mean bullpens haven't been paramount to some World Series wins. It means just what I said, that they're over valued right now.

[a700hitter]

The more interesting question is - how many relievers hold their value for more than a couple of seasons at a time? For the most part - very, very, few.

 

And the second question is - how much of an edge does that give you over "above average" work - probably not that much.

 

Now the ability to get 6 outs from time to time - that is worth paying for. But the ability to hold a lead for 3 outs with the bases empty is largely not that big a deal.

That should get factored into determining their market value. I am sure that the numbers crunchers and FO executives take that into consideration when determining FMV.

[a700hitter]

I believe that markets ultimately reflect the true value of an asset, however I also believe that markets can be irrationally exuberant. If you don't agree with that statement I have some tulip bulbs to sell you.

 

I believe we learned that the market for relievers was undervalued not long ago but I believe we've seen the pendulum swing too far in both directions. Relievers are highly overrated right now. That doesn't mean they're not very important, and that doesn't mean bullpens haven't been paramount to some World Series wins. It means just what I said, that they're over valued right now.

Markets that are irrationally exuberant do self correct. An argument could be made that most MLB salaries are part of an irrationally exuberant market -- that is not exclusive to Closers.

[cp176]

It is a great philosophical debate for sure but being one who isn't particularly philosophical - What would the picture look like if Kimbrel was not currently on our roster? That particular one was worth it.

[Hugh2]

Markets that are irrationally exuberant do self correct. An argument could be made that most MLB salaries are part of an irrationally exuberant market -- that is not exclusive to Closers.

 

Absolutely. Salaries, revenues, and ticket sales do not seem to be in line with an increase in viewership and overall growth in the u.s and world markets.

 

I was contemplating that very thought years ago when the team adopted a philosophy that they would not offer any players long term deals. At the time I thought they might have been hedging against player inflation continuing to increase at its current pace. Now that may not have been their reasoning at all, but I do agree with the logic. One day soon we could see a decrease, or at least a pause in player salaries.

[S5Dewey]

Absolute truth - you and I come from a state that wants to raise our minimum starting teacher's salaries to 40,000 (1/3 jump). Absolutely a good thing to do. Where is the $ going to come from?

 

You know the answer to that as well as I do, if our governor and legislature allow the vote of the people to prevail!

[Hugh2]

You could also argue DD bought no where near the top.

 

I mean, just a 1.5 years later the Yankees practically rebuilt their farm system by trading two relievers. Kimberl does not look like an overpay in hindsight.

[sk7326]

That should get factored into determining their market value. I am sure that the numbers crunchers and FO executives take that into consideration when determining FMV.

 

the market is pretty crazy ... now we can argue market efficiency (giggle, giggle) but whatever. I think what DD has done on this front is not atypical. And you can't deny Kimbrel's 55% K rate. This version of him is worth the bother - last year's model less so. I am happy with the output. He is starting to live up to his deal.

[a700hitter]

Absolutely. Salaries, revenues, and ticket sales do not seem to be in line with an increase in viewership and overall growth in the u.s and world markets.

 

I was contemplating that very thought years ago when the team adopted a philosophy that they would not offer any players long term deals. At the time I thought they might have been hedging against player inflation continuing to increase at its current pace. Now that may not have been their reasoning at all, but I do agree with the logic. One day soon we could see a decrease, or at least a pause in player salaries.

There is a lot of money in the baseball industry and they are still discovering new revenue streams, so I am not holding my breath for a decrease in player salaries, even though I think it would be best for the long term health of the sport. That is just my opinion, and it is based on my belief that high ticket prices, star players changing laundry all the time, and post season games that start after bedtime combine to rob the sport of young fan recruits who want to connect with their heros by going to games. I guess that I am hopelessly old fashioned in that regard.

[cp176]

You know the answer to that as well as I do, if our governor and legislature allow the vote of the people to prevail!

 

yes I do know the answer to that - it is a rocky path that won't end well ultimately for the good middle class citizen of our state.

[S5Dewey]

That is just my opinion, and it is based on my belief that high ticket prices, star players changing laundry all the time, and post season games that start after bedtime combine to rob the sport of young fan recruits who want to connect with their heros by going to games. I guess that I am hopelessly old fashioned in that regard.

You 'n' me, pal. IMO baseball is in it's heyday right now, with people who can remember baseball in the 2000's footing the bill for all of this. I have to wonder what's going to happen when our kids and our kids kids have to start paying for all of this.