Manny Pina Signs With Braves

[clancyphile]

He was a very sound backup but one who you'd like to replace if he was the starter. While it would have been nice as a fan to see him back, paying that much for him would make it harder to improve the overall team.

 

I'll admit, I would have offered an extension, and yeah, I threw a 6-year/$9 million. I think ti wouls have been a bargain at three years, $9 million.

 

The fact is, Pina was a very good value, and he brought much to the table. Yes, he had a big power surge this year, but what he always brought was being that top-end backup. Will it kill the Brewers not to have Pina? Probably not. But I think it would have been much better to keep him than to have let him walk in an era with no draft-pick compensation.

[sveumrules]

I've read all I need to about $9 million/WAR. It's not going to change my mind that it's a dumb way to look at things.

 

I have my own database of free agent signings for nearly 15 years, and there has been very little change the last several years. I obviously know what a guy is going to get is based on position, age, type of player (premium, solid, mediocre) etc. But on a very simplified look at things, most guys sign for $4 to $5 million per historical WAR. If you are trying to figure out what a guy is going to sign for, that's the number to use not $8 to $10 million.

 

I've also made this point previously. A player puts up WAR of 2, 2, 2 and 2. No ceiling, high floor. What's he going to get in free agency? Something right around $10 million AAV. The next season, he's on pace to put up another 2 WAR. Suddenly people want to say he's an $18 million player with $8 million in surplus value. To me he's the $10 million player he always was with little surplus value.

 

Another reason I don't like it is this. Say you have a guy who was basically a 5 WAR player. He ends up signing for 5 years and $135 million ($27 million AAV). He then puts up a couple of roughly 3 WAR years. So to some, they'll still justify his contract using a $9 million figure. I would say since you could go out and get a likely replacement at his new level of production for much less, he's not worth it. Further, let's say after year 2, the team wants to trade him. Do we really think they could trade his 3 years and $81 million left on his deal without kicking in cash or prospects to move him? I don't think he could be moved without one or the other (or both). So if I'm right, why does it make sense to use the $9 million WAR figure to justify a player's contract?

 

So, basically, "take my word for it." If you've got some kind of data that supports your position please share it with the group so we can draw our own conclusions. I'm always open to having my mind changed if the objective information is persuasive enough.

[Simba2020]

I've read all I need to about $9 million/WAR. It's not going to change my mind that it's a dumb way to look at things.

 

I have my own database of free agent signings for nearly 15 years, and there has been very little change the last several years. I obviously know what a guy is going to get is based on position, age, type of player (premium, solid, mediocre) etc. But on a very simplified look at things, most guys sign for $4 to $5 million per historical WAR. If you are trying to figure out what a guy is going to sign for, that's the number to use not $8 to $10 million.

 

I've also made this point previously. A player puts up WAR of 2, 2, 2 and 2. No ceiling, high floor. What's he going to get in free agency? Something right around $10 million AAV. The next season, he's on pace to put up another 2 WAR. Suddenly people want to say he's an $18 million player with $8 million in surplus value. To me he's the $10 million player he always was with little surplus value.

 

Another reason I don't like it is this. Say you have a guy who was basically a 5 WAR player. He ends up signing for 5 years and $135 million ($27 million AAV). He then puts up a couple of roughly 3 WAR years. So to some, they'll still justify his contract using a $9 million figure. I would say since you could go out and get a likely replacement at his new level of production for much less, he's not worth it. Further, let's say after year 2, the team wants to trade him. Do we really think they could trade his 3 years and $81 million left on his deal without kicking in cash or prospects to move him? I don't think he could be moved without one or the other (or both). So if I'm right, why does it make sense to use the $9 million WAR figure to justify a player's contract?

 

So, basically, "take my word for it." If you've got some kind of data that supports your position please share it with the group so we can draw our own conclusions. I'm always open to having my mind changed if the objective information is persuasive enough.

I can't really share my data even if I knew how to do so. However, all you have to do is look at what players sign for and their historical WAR and it's pretty easy to tell the $9 million figure doesn't come close to a historical number, which I think you have admitted.

 

However, let's look at the last 11 "major" free agent signings made by the Brewers. By my count, those are Cain, Morrison, Grandal, Moustakas, Garcia, Smoak, Sogard, Gyorko, Holt, Wong and Bradley Jr. Collectively, those 11 players signed for an AAV of $96.5 million.

 

When looking at WAR, I prefer to use Fangraphs as there is a higher correlation of WAR to AAV than Baseball Reference. I doubt the numbers would be much different in this case but I haven't verified that. I also like to use a 3-year weighted average of WAR in my calculations. For the 11 players identified above, their weighted average fWAR was 21.9 in the 3 years preceding the signing of their contracts. Looking at just the year prior, the collective fWAR of the players was 19.5.

 

So taking the AAV by the weighted average WAR you get $4.4 million/WAR. Based on the 1 year fWAR, you get $4.95 million/WAR.

 

Again admittedly there are a number of other factors involved that can drive the value up or down but the above is a good rule of thumb. And this is only appropriate for hitters. Starting pitchers definitely get more than that and relievers even more than starters.

[Thurston Fluff]

He was a very sound backup but one who you'd like to replace if he was the starter. While it would have been nice as a fan to see him back, paying that much for him would make it harder to improve the overall team.

 

I'll admit, I would have offered an extension, and yeah, I threw a 6-year/$9 million. I think ti wouls have been a bargain at three years, $9 million.

 

The fact is, Pina was a very good value, and he brought much to the table. Yes, he had a big power surge this year, but what he always brought was being that top-end backup. Will it kill the Brewers not to have Pina? Probably not. But I think it would have been much better to keep him than to have let him walk in an era with no draft-pick compensation.

 

For me it's not about Pina's value as much as it is how that value translated to the overall team performance. For the sake of argument lets say there is room to add $10 million to the payroll. Would it be better to spend part of that money on Pina then have $7 million left for upgrading third base or use the whole $10 million for a better option at third? I wouldn't have had a problem with keeping him but that has more to do with liking Pina combined with thinking he's worth that much as a players than it does thinking it's the best way to spend limited resources for this team at this time. Key phrase being "for this team at this time."

In any event I'm glad he gets his payday and a little security for the next couple seasons. While I'm sure he'd have loved to stay here I'm glad he at least got paid and seems to be in a good position for both playing time and getting to play on a competitive team.

[markedman5]

Just read an article in the Athletic…..sources told them the Brewers did make Manny a multi year offer…..obviously wasn’t good enough.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Pedro Severino looks like he'd be an obvious Pina replacement. He hits lefties well, and is only 28 years old.

 

Uh oh ... is David Stearns starting to get predictable? I don't want him zigging when others also zig. He needs to zag.

[markedman5]

 

[Jopal78]

I'm sure the Braves could move his contract somewhere after the season, especially since d'Arnaud and Contreras have played well. In fact, Pina didn't play much for the Braves before he injured his wrist. This is likely the beginning of the end for his career.