No, it’s not crazy to pay a free agent for what you think he’ll do in the future. That’s the bleedin’ point.

27 Comments

Often times free agent contracts end up working out poorly because the team evaluates the player as if they will continue to perform in the future the same way or even better than he performed in the past. Like, say, every free agent contract the Angels have handed out in recent years.

Of course predicting the future is hard and, given that it is hard and given that the market is what the market is, even teams that do their best to evaluate a player end up paying some premium based on his track record. This is especially true — and forgivable — in the case of teams seeking to retain their own free agents, as they got way more production than that for which they paid when the guy was in his pre-free agency years. Just the cost of doing business.

But really, if teams could do things ideally with free agents — if they had a crystal ball — they’d pay them for the production they actually end up getting out of them, not for past production. Indeed, that’s what the entire business of applied advanced baseball metrics is all about: trying to figure out what baseball players may do in the future and basing one’s roster decisions on those projections.

Which is why this argument from Steve Dilbeck of the Los Angeles Times against the contract the Dodgers have Brandon McCarthy is sort of loony:

Dodgers General Manager Farhan Zaidi and McCarthy argue a new conditioning program made him stronger, elevating his velocity a couple mph to 93 and enabling him to finally last the duration of a full season. Plus, it’s not like Chase Field is a pitcher’s ballpark. Clearly the Dodgers believe the way he pitched in New York is further indication his past health issues are behind him . . .They’re paying less for what he’s done that what they hope he can do. Which makes no sense. And he got four years and $48 million.

He never does explain why it “makes no sense” for a team to pay a guy based on what they think he’ll do in the future. Especially when one realizes that a player’s market is a function of what 30 teams, all using some form of advanced metrics or another, think a guy will do in the future.

Actually, I think Dilbeck does miss that little fact. That the Dodgers are not out on some crazy island in which they are the only ones thinking of players in terms of advanced metrics. He clearly believes they are, however, as he plays up more of that “Geek Squad” stuff he started a while back, painting Andrew Friedman and Farhan Zaidi as crazy people performing mathematical voodoo. Dilbeck fails to consider that, maybe, a LOT of other teams might evaluate a player in the way the Dodgers evaluated McCarthy.

New bill to build Athletics stadium on Las Vegas Strip caps Nevada’s cost at $380 million

D. Ross Cameron-USA TODAY Sports
2 Comments

CARSON CITY, Nev. — A bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature would give the Oakland Athletics up to $380 million for a potential 30,000 seat, $1.5 billion retractable roof stadium on the Las Vegas Strip.

The bulk of the public funding would come from $180 million in transferable tax credits from the state and $120 million in county bonds, which can vary based on interest rate returns. Clark County also would contribute $25 million in credit toward infrastructure costs.

The A’s have been looking for a home to replace Oakland Coliseum, where the team has played since arriving from Kansas City for the 1968 season. The team had sought to build a stadium in Fremont, San Jose and finally the Oakland waterfront, all ideas that never materialized.

The plan in the Nevada Legislature won’t directly raise taxes. It can move forward with a simply majority vote in the Senate and Assembly. Lawmakers have a little more than a week to consider the proposal before they adjourn June 5, though it could be voted on if a special session is called.

The Athletics have agreed to use land on the southern end of the Las Vegas Strip, where the Tropicana Las Vegas casino resort sits. Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao has said he is disappointed the team didn’t negotiate with Oakland as a “true partner.”

Las Vegas would be the fourth home for a franchise that started as the Philadelphia Athletics from 1901-54. It would become the smallest TV market in Major League Baseball and the smallest market to be home to three major professional sports franchises.

The team and Las Vegas are hoping to draw from the nearly 40 million tourists who visit the city annually to help fill the stadium. The 30,000-seat capacity would make it the smallest MLB stadium.

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said a vote on the Oakland Athletics’ prospective move to Las Vegas could take place when owners meet June 13-15 in New York.

The plan faces an uncertain path in the Nevada Legislature. Democratic leaders said financing bills, including for the A’s, may not go through if Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoes the five budget bills, which he has threatened to do as many of his priorities have stalled or faded in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Under the bill, the Clark County Board of Commissioners would create a homelessness prevention and assistance fund along the stadium’s area in coordination with MLB and the Nevada Resort Association. There, they would manage funds for services, including emergency rental and utility assistance, job training, rehabilitation and counseling services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

The lease agreement with the Las Vegas Stadium Authority would be up for renewal after 30 years.

Nevada’s legislative leadership is reviewing the proposal, Democratic state Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager said in a statement.

“No commitment will be made until we have both evaluated the official proposal and received input from interested parties, including impacted community members,” Yeager said.