Randy Wolf to Sign with Brewers, 3 years plus club option/$29.75 million

[MJLiverock]

I really wish people would stop mentioning that Wolf was supposedly the second best FA pitcher. Even if it's true, it's irrelevent. I want to know projected production over the life of the contract vs. cost.

I woudn't say it is irrelevent. There is no use in going out and signing two $4MM a year pitchers and getting $4MM worth of production from each vs. paying $9MM and getting $8MM worth of production from 1 guy. This is again my problem with always trying to compare every dollar spent with a linear production line. To get that next level of production it sometiems costs a little more. I don't know if Wolf will be as good as last year but I would bet that Wolf is better than Looper or Wolf plus someone like Narveson can match or beat the production of 2 Loopers. Production/dollar doesn't necessarily equate to good prodcution and looking at the state of the Brewers rotation and what was vailable in the free agent pool Wolf was about their best bet. Harden may have been another choice but his 1 year at $7.5MM plus a club option of $11.5MM is $19MM for two or pretty similar to Wolf's contract with probably more injury risk and therefore less certainty he will be there to pitch. They mitigated it a bit with the club option for year 2 but if he was signed and hurt the team is right back to needing a pitcher in year 2. The team can't go out and signe the dregs of the league because they are cheap or their low pay matches their low production and expect to improve from one of the worst staffs in the league.

 

I don't believe production/dollar is a linear function. There are steps up in that pay for the next level of talent. I'm not saying that Wolf if elite but sometimes I see posts that imply this is a linear relationship and I believe that the truley elite and above average guys will get paid more than just straight lining their lesser counterparts production would imply. There are lots of guys who are average or below average, there are few who are elite or above average so they get paid more just be simply lower supply. Wolf is probably above average, so even if his production is only for example 1.5x better than a Looper he may get paid 2x as much because there are lots of guys who can pitch like Looper.

[RockCoCougars]

First of all I want to say that I'm not comparing Wolf to Suppan. As he stands now, Wolf is a much better pitcher than Suppan was in 2006 (though that's not saying much). That said, there are some similarities in their signings. Both are/were north of age 30 coming off arguably career seasons, and basically unwanted by their old teams. It seems in both cases, the Brewers were bidding against themselves. If Wolf was truly the "2nd best free agent pitcher", don't you think that a big market team would have pushed harder for him? I will go on record right now saying I don't like the deal. I think they overpaid by at least $5 million. As with Suppan, they seemed to focus in on one guy, ignoring potential bargains with other guys.

 

I have a feeling that this is going to be a disaster. I hope that I'm wrong, but....

[splitterpfj]

I've always been a fan of Randy Wolf, I'm glad the Brewers will have him aboard. This is absolutely the most I could imagine giving Wolf, so I congratulate the player and the agent for maximizing his strong showing over the last 1 1/2 seasons.

 

I hate using free agency to add starting pitchers, but I like Randy Wolf...so I'm glad he's here, but I hate the contract for this organization.

 

Here's to a long list of pitching prospects bursting through the Brewers' organization.

[Invader3K]

Wolf was only "unwanted by his old team", because the McCourts are going through a messy divorce and consequently the Dodgers have no money to spend. A lot of Dodgers fans are mad they didn't try to keep him or even offer arbitration.

[kramnoj]

Both are/were north of age 30 coming off arguably career seasons, and basically unwanted by their old teams.

 

Most FA are north of 30, so that isn't a meaningful distinction. As far as the Dodgers not wanting Wolf, that says more about the Dodgers and their current situation than it says about Wolf.

 

It seems in both cases, the Brewers were bidding against themselves.

 

This is true, but not extremely so. The Mets wanted Wolf, but didn't want to go to 3 years. As far as we know, the Brewers wanted the deal to be 3/$27M and no one offered more, but Wolf wouldn't sign at that price, so the deal went up a few million more.

 

If Wolf was truly the "2nd best free agent pitcher", don't you think that a big market team would have pushed harder for him?

 

How many big market teams need to spend money on pitching this year? Lackey and Halladay are going to be the targets of big market teams. The Mets have too many holes to fill, and Wolf would have eaten up a significant portion of their remaining budget.

[RockCoCougars]

Beside the Mets, who showed any interest at all in him? To me, that says a lot. The Brewers should have offered 3/$24 million take it or leave it within the next 24 hours and moved on if he said no. My guess is that would have been the best offer that he would get on this market. Like I said, it reminds me a lot of the Suppan thing. Who else was seriously pursuing him at the time... yet the Brewers felt like they needed to pull out all the stops.

[homer]

From what I've read the Brewers were aggressive from the start and Wolf pretty much knew he was going there right from the get go.

 

And the fact that the Dodgers didn't offer him arby has been a head scratcher for every one with a pen or a blog.

[kramnoj]

Beside the Mets, who showed any interest at all in him? To me, that says a lot.

 

It only takes one other bidder to drive up the price. As far as other teams, how many teams will be spending signficant money this year?

[joepepsi]

The best move the Brewers could make to improve the rotation. Hopefully they are able to trade for a young talented starter as well.

[RobertR]

How many teams are cutting payroll this year in a bad economy?

 

I'm not super excited about the signing by any means, but there aren't a lot of bidding wars going on. How many teams are actively courting Bay and Holliday? Or Lackey and Halladay? A lot of teams have interest in Counsell, reportedly, does that make Counsell more valuable because more teams are interested in his asking price?

 

The Brewers were aggressive and signed a guy while teams were still looking at Lackey and other options and filled a hole. Perhaps not optimally, perhaps optimally, but they're certainly a better team after the Wolf signing than before it. And I really don't see it being a payroll killer, not with Hall and Suppan coming off the books after 2010.

 

Robert

[Thurston Fluff]

The Twins making multiple playoffs has more to do with how terrible that division is in general than how great they are at building a team.

 

Since 02 it took a minimum of 90 wins to win the central 6 times. Over that 8 year span it was the worst division 4 times and best (or tied for the best) 3 times. It had division winners with 99 wins once, 96 twice, 94 once, 92 once and only two of the entire 8 year span won it without having at least 90 wins. Of those two times the lowest total was 87 wins. That is hardly winning by default. Minnesota has indeed built it's teams well. Better than the Cardinals if you want to go by the rationale you are using. If there is a team that had been perennial division contenders due to the division they play in it's the Cardinals.

[rluzinski]

I woudn't say it is irrelevent. There is no use in going out and signing two $4MM a year pitchers and getting $4MM worth of production from each vs. paying $9MM and getting $8MM worth of production from 1 guy. This is again my problem with always trying to compare every dollar spent with a linear production line.

 

There are/were plenty of pitchers available at or around Wolf's worth this year:

 

http://www.baseballprojection.com/2010/freeagent2010.htm

 

According to that list, Wolf isn't anything special and I happen to agree.

 

I don't believe production/dollar is a linear function. There are steps up in that pay for the next level of talent.

 

Could you provide me with the evidence that supports that argument? While I appreciate that it would make sense to pay more for better players, the contracts dished out over the last decade or so doesn't appear to support that. Most teams (liek the Brewers) are not short of positions that can be upgraded via free agency. Why should a team pay an exponentially higher salary for a 3.75 pitcher when two 4.25 ERA pitchers can be gotten for less money and give the same overall upgrade? Unless you are the Yankees, it's not an issue.

[RobertR]

I think variance in performance vs. consistency is the great valuation question. And where you are willing to assume risk.

 

I think it's clear that baseball really values guys that can potentially provide 200 IP. For a variety of reasons, bullpen strain, the difficulty in identifying replacement level vs. sub-replacement level pitchers, the ability to bypass the lesser members of bullpen, etc. I'd agree that every one of these factors are marginal in and of themselves, but you combine them all and that's where the benefit lies beyond the numbers. Even if it's just a win or two. Then again, a win or two is pretty valuable.

 

I really think that durability is a hidden value that relates to game to game consistency.

 

Robert

[sheethead]

I think variance in performance vs. consistency is the great valuation question. And where you are willing to assume risk.

 

I think this is where some of Doug Melvin's philosophies lie. He is not willing to assume a great deal of risk, mainly due to his financial and market restrictions. Bill Hall, Jeff Suppan, and David Riske (punny name) were all supposedly moderately risky deals, and he got burned on those. I doubt he is going to go after a Penney/Harden/Sheets type pitcher given the even greater propensity of getting burned at that intersection.

 

The cost of risk is different for every ball club and every GM, and it cannot be conditioned into a formula that would tell you who the better option for every given team is. Wolf isn't a bad signing, but its nothing stellar either. This fits in line with where the risk factor is at with Melvin, and with how much they were willing to spend.

[CheezWizHed]

Why should a team pay an exponentially higher salary for a 3.75 pitcher when two 4.25 ERA pitchers can be gotten for less money and give the same overall upgrade?

 

When the two 4.25 ERA pitchers don't provide an upgrade to what you currently have. Or when the 3.75 ERA pitcher will sign with you and the two 4.25 ERA guys won't.

 

I know you are thinking that two 4.25 ERA pitchers would upgrade the Brewers (and I agree), but I'm providing an answer to the question. Plus, assuming you are talking about Wolf ($10M) vs two (lets change this to $5M) SPs. I doubt two $5 SPs will upgrade our current pitching staff. $5million per pitcher will get you Looper or Lyons (evidently).

[RobertR]

As far as it goes, I'm of the opinion that there really aren't any bargains to be signed at this time in the free agency period. I'm very much not a fan on the third year of Wolf and the second year of Hawkins, but there's not much incentive for most free agents to sign single year deals at this point. Heck, you can spin it and ask why Harden was so eager to settle for one year guaranteed this early in the process.

 

The late December / January signings are where the bargains are generally found. And I hope the Brewers are active in that period, beyond the assumption of Mulder.

 

Robert

[rluzinski]

I think this is where some of Doug Melvin's philosophies lie. He is not willing to assume a great deal of risk, mainly due to his financial and market restrictions.

 

That's funny because I see the Wolf signing as much riskier than Texas's Harden signing. Signing a 33 year old pitcher to a 3 year deal assumes a singificant risk. Hell, signing any pitcher to a 3 year deal is risky. Even knowing a pitcher's injury history, it's terribly difficult to predict future IP. And the less predictable something is, the less you should pay for it.

 

Also, tying up more value in one player increases the risk variance. Think about 5 players that are each worth 1 win above average and 1 player worth 5 runs above average. You either take the sum of 5 little risk coin flips or one big risk coin flip. Which on has more risk variance?

 

When the two 4.25 ERA pitchers don't provide an upgrade to what you currently have. Or when the 3.75 ERA pitcher will sign with you and the two 4.25 ERA guys won't.

 

My point is, most teams have the available upgrade slots. Find me all the teams that has four starting pitchers that project to have a 4.25 ERA or better. Looking really quickly, in the NL, Phillies, Atlanta (damn they have a good rotation) and Cards? Now, out of those 3 teams who couldn't mecessarily get much of an upgrade in aquiring two 4.25 ERA starting pitchers, which ones also don't have a postional spot they could easily upgrade via FA?

 

Now, I'm not trying to convince you that all players are always worth a linear salary to all teams. But generally speaking, it's the market as a whole that sets the price of FA's, not the exception to the rules.

 

And for every 500 words I write in this thread, I feel compeled to remind everyone that I don't think this is a terrible deal. I can't really have too strong of an opinion either way, until we see how much the rest of the FA's get. If you believe in the linear WAR model (and I understand and appreciate the skepticism many still have for it), teams have been paying about $3 mil for each win above scrub so far this year (compared to $4+ last year). If that holds up, this will look like a much worse deal.

[Patrick425]

Skimming through this thread, it's clear there are people on both sides of the fence in regards to their approval or non-approval of the Brewer's recent aquisitions. I guess in the 2 or 3 years we will see how this all pans out.

However, I will say that this beats the Brewers of the 90's and early 00's when the Brewers:

A) were pretty much a non-factor in the off-season
and
B) Did very little to develop or aquire talent that would help them in future years.

[RobertR]

I think this is where some of Doug Melvin's philosophies lie. He is not willing to assume a great deal of risk, mainly due to his financial and market restrictions.

 

That's funny because I see the Wolf signing as much riskier than Texas's Harden signing. Signing a 33 year old pitcher to a 3 year deal assumes a singificant risk. Hell, signing any pitcher to a 3 year deal is risky. Even knowing a pitcher's injury history, it's terribly difficult to predict future IP. And the less predictable something is, the less you should pay for it.

 

Also, tying up more value in one player increases the risk variance. Think about 5 players that are each worth 1 win above average and 1 player worth 5 runs above average. You either take the sum of 5 little risk coin flips or one big risk coin flip. Which on has more risk variance?

 

When the two 4.25 ERA pitchers don't provide an upgrade to what you currently have. Or when the 3.75 ERA pitcher will sign with you and the two 4.25 ERA guys won't.

 

My point is, most teams have the available upgrade slots. Find me all the teams that has four starting pitchers that project to have a 4.25 ERA or better. Looking really quickly, in the NL, Phillies, Atlanta (damn they have a good rotation) and Cards? Now, out of those 3 teams who couldn't mecessarily get much of an upgrade in aquiring two 4.25 ERA starting pitchers, which ones also don't have a postional spot they could easily upgrade via FA?

 

Now, I'm not trying to convince you that all players are always worth a linear salary to all teams. But generally speaking, it's the market as a whole that sets the price of FA's, not the exception to the rules.

 

And for every 500 words I write in this thread, I feel compeled to remind everyone that I don't think this is a terrible deal. I can't really have too strong of an opinion either way, until we see how much the rest of the FA's get. If you believe in the linear WAR model (and I understand and appreciate the skepticism many still have for it), teams have been paying about $3 mil for each win above scrub so far this year (compared to $4+ last year). If that holds up, this will look like a much worse deal.

I think there are two types of risk here, performance risk and financial risk. I agree that Harden's deal is less likely to hurt you financially, especially long term. (Although I could see the scenario where he pitches well enough in 2010 to get his option picked up and then breaks down early in 2011.) OTOH, I think Harden's more likely to give you zero value this year, and subsequently, than Wolf.

 

I kind of think that the Brewers simply aren't willing in their business model to take a whole lot of performance risk. If the Brewers are "competitive" the fans will show up as they proved this year. But, if you are bad ala the 2002 team, fans will stay away. It certainly looks to me that the market is more conducive to a team with a win range of 80 to 90 than a win range of 70 to 100.

 

Also, fwiw, if the economy picks up next year, Wolf's deal is likely to look better as I expect free agent contracts to rebound with it. Probably with the Padres and Dodgers getting their financial situations sorted out. Given years and inflation, this is really unlikely even if things do go south to look all that bad. The only way I could really see it would be injury, and then there's the possibility of insurance. And, heck, Wolf didn't cost a draft pick which certainly adds to the value to the organization. I have to think that the compensation is something of a drag on the salaries of upper end free agents normally.

 

Robert

[endaround]

A lot of this depends upon how you view Wolf as a health risk. Most projections have him at 160 innings given his past history. If you have the medical ability to believe that he's closer to 180 threshold that changes things a lot.

[CheezWizHed]

Find me all the teams that has four starting pitchers that project to have a 4.25 ERA or better.

 

Completely agree. That's why I went from ERA to $$ figures in my example. Because in your example, I don't think you can get two 4.25ERA SPs for the same cost as one 3.75... maybe, maybe not.

 

If you look at Wolf for $10M vs two $5M pitchers SPs: I'd argue that many teams wouldn't upgrade their rotation by adding two $5M SPs. Sounds like Bush may get $5M this year in arby? Looper got $4.75M last year? RP Lyons just got $5M/yr.

[kramnoj]

Do any of the modelers really try to do accurate projections for IP, or is it just the normal calculations for the other pitching stats?

 

If a modeler really wanted to do accurate projections for IP, they would have to collect all known information about pitchers, what injuries they suffered, what treatment they went through, and then compare that to all similar pitchers who have had that in the past, and then adjust for new advancements in medicine.

 

IP in projections aren't really meaningful. Wolf should be projected to pitch based on the last two years that he has been healthy, and then throw in whatever adjustments that are needed for the random injuries that can affect a pitcher in his 30s.

[rluzinski]

Do any of the modelers really try to do accurate projections for IP, or is it just the normal calculations for the other pitching stats?

 

I don't know what goes into the CHONE IP projections. Marcel just looks at the previous two years, regresses it and adds an age adjustment. It's crude, to say the least. You would hope that a major league club could do a better job of projecting IP by considering all the available variables. It wouldn't surprise me if a healthy 33 year old ML starting pitcher does, in fact average 160 IP. The mode might be higher (more often than not, they finish with between 170-180 IP, for instance) but the 0-50 IP drags the average down? That would be my guess.

[strawbossisevil]

FWIW, I'd be shocked if Bush got 5 million in Arby. He is coming off of an injury riddled season with an ERA over 6.

[rluzinski]

IP Range		Odds	Ave IP
230	- 211	7%	220.5
210	- 191	26%	200.5
190	- 171	30%	180.5
170	- 151	12%	160.5
150	- 131	5%	140.5
130	- 111	5%	120.5
110	- 91	4%	100.5
90	- 71	3%	80.5
70	- 51	3%	60.5
50	- 31	2%	40.5
30	- 11	2%	20.5
10	- 0	1%	5
		100%	164
At least 180 IP:			63%
Less than 91 IP::			11%

If I told you Wolf had 2 in 3 odds of having 180+ IP and 1 in 10 shot at having less than 90, would you call me a lier? How about if I told you the most likely Ip range was 190-171? My assumptions above have a weighted average of 164 IP.

 

This is all made up of course. It would be interesting to look at all 30+ pitchers who accumulated at least 360 innings the previous year. What did their IP distribution look like?