The Case Against Brett Anderson
by shudiddy on Mar 22, 2009 10:42 PM PDT
54 comments
**A number of these points were brought up in the comment from Nico’s post, but they deserve to be compiled for fair arguments sake.**
Let me start out by saying that right now Brett Anderson is absolutely one of the 5 best starting pitcher the A’s have. The same is true of Trevor Cahill. But this does not mean that either of them should break camp with the A’s.
The A’s almost never sign their homegrown players into free agency. So A’s fans can basically put a countdown on players leaving or being traded before their final year under team control. Because of this, the A’s need to put a premium on working the service time system to benefit them.
Players are eligible for free agency after they have accumulated 6 years of service time (Although 172 days in a season counts as a full year, even though there are 183 or so days). What this means is that if you wait to bring up your prospects just 12 days into the season, they will only accumulate 5.99 years of service time by the sixth season and will not be eligible for free agency.
Normally players begin arbitration in their 3rd year, but the “Super-2” rule means that the top 17% of players with between 2 and 3 years of service time are also eligible for arbitration. Thus, if you wait around two months to bring up your rookies, then they likely will not be eligible for arbitration until their fourth season.
So there are three basic strategies we can use in handling our rookies and each one affects their arbitration and free agency clocks:
1. If they break camp with the A’s and spend the entire 2009 season in the majors, they will have three pre-arb years (2009-2011), three arbitration years (2012-2014), and will hit free agency after the 2014 season.
Estimated finances: 6 years for: 3 x 400K, 4, 6, 8 = 19 million
2. If they spend just 2 weeks in AAA, they will have three pre-arb years (2009-2011), FOUR arbitration years (2012-2015), and will hit free agency after the 2015 season.
Estimated finances: 6.9 years for: 3 x 400K, 4, 6, 8, 10 = 29million
3. If they spend 2 months in AAA, they will have three and a half pre-arb years (2009-2012), three arbitration years (2013-2015) and will hit free agency after the 2015 season.
Estimated finances: 6.6 years: 3.6 (400K), 4.5, 6.5, 8.5 = 21 million
So which one would you rather have?
In a perfect world, every team would choose option 3. It clearly maximizes the service time and allows for the cheapest way to get the most out of our prospects.
But, the A’s are not in a perfect situation this year with Duke and Gio already hurt, so there is clear necessity. Despite this, the A’s should simply do without for at least the first 2 weeks of the season. But from a business decision, there is no excuse for allowing any prospect to spend their entire first full year in the majors. Now if the A’s want, they could send them down in the middle of the season, but that’s a tough sell if they are pitching well. And if they aren't, then they shouldn't have been in the majors in the first place.
And all this is not to mention the fact that these kids are 21 years old and haven’t even pitched in AAA yet.
So as exciting as this year is shaping up to be, this team has a chance to be very good for at least the next 6-7 years, and short-term gains cannot get in the way of long-term planning. And I know Billy Beane realizes that and will not let it.
0 recs |
54 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
One thing that concerns me
is the length of the Duke and Gio injuries. You always have to take injury prognosis’ from the A’s with a huge grain of salt, but there is a distinct possibility that these two will be ready to go by the end of April. I think both of these guys are still ahead of Anderson in the pecking order.
While I am starting to buy the argument that Anderson could go out and outperform EGON right away, I don’t want to burn up an option year and start messing with his service time to get three starts and then send him down when the other guys get healthy. If we are really to believe that Duke and Gio are only missing a few starts then I would use it to audition Outman and the other Gonzalez who I don’t mind shuttling around as much.
Option years
Well, if Anderson stays for the whole year, he doesn’t burn an option, right?
(Then again, if he’s good enough to stay in the rotation all year this year, we probably won’t need any more options for him.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
Yeah -- the concern would be service time OR option year ...
there’s no real scenario where both are in play …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I don't care...
five World Series years in a row from 2009 to 2014 is just as good for me as 2010 to 2015. Besides, knowing the A’s, I doubt one, let alone both Anderson and Cahill will be on this team in 2015. If they are, they’ll be signed beyond their arb years. With injuries, trades and unexpected money being thrown at these guys, it’s just foolish to flush 2009 down the toilet in the hope that they’ll be aces in 2015. Win now because you never know when you’ll get the chance again.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
five World Series years in a row from 2009 to 2014 is just as good for me as 2010 to 2015.
what
Clear its radiance shine...
oh, i meant 6...
lol
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 22, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions
We're not throwing the season away, we're just sitting them 6 weeks
We always play crap at the beginning so it really doesnt matter.
I really dont see why us A’s fans want to start this kids right away. We need to be patient
Clear its radiance shine...
If Duke is pitching like a #1 during the majority of those 6 weeks...
I’m fine with Cahill in AAA. If Duke is out for those 6 weeks, I’m not. I want the 5 best starting pitchers pitching, at all times. If you or PT, or thejd, or grover or DMOAS think that Cahill is not currently better than the other 5th starter options, well, we’ll just have to wait and find out. But, I don’t think that’s your or their argument. It seems to be, we don’t care if Cahill is better. We want to extend his service time… damn the consequences in 2009.
i don’t agree.
Clowns to the left of me... Jokers to the right...
by FoolshGame22 on Mar 22, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Things I just fucking love...
People who think they know my opinion on a subject and assume they can speak for me. The old saying is true… people who assume do end up making an ass out of themselves.
I don’t think Cahill is ready at this time.
And I said that as recently as yesterday.
The monster at the end of this blog.
yes, but did you say
it today? with authority?
AN: the new twitter of sportsblogs. -Dogfather
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 23, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
That'd be prudent.
AN: the new twitter of sportsblogs. -Dogfather
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 23, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Or... and I'm just thinking outside the box here
Maybe folks should stick to expressing their own opinions and not try to speak for other posters.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I think I can speak for everybody here on this point.
Agreed!
:D
"I’m Joey Devine, I’m what Joba Chamberlain would be if he was good and nobody had ever heard of him."
[Insert angry tirade here]
[completely miss point here]
[earn CGV strike here]
[end with a conciliatory “At least grover and mikev can agree that goats are sexy” here]
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
You don't love that ...
You also changed your mind since then …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
So,
is that a statement on your relationship with devo or your marriage?
AN: the new twitter of sportsblogs. -Dogfather
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 24, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
But she loves you more ...
and that’s really what’s most important …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
The old saying says that he makes asses out of both of you.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
We don't KNOW if Cahill (same for Anderson or Mazzaro) is better ...
They may be, they may not be. They may be ready, they may not be. The other options may be good options, they may not be. There are very clear costs to bringing any of them up sooner but the benefits are much more fuzzy and are very, very unlikely to exceed one win, but much more likely to fail to even garner that much.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
You're absolutely correct
"You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."
-Charles Manson
by kaweahkaweah on Mar 24, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions
If you're punting six weeks, you might as well throw the season away in a close race.
Ask the 2005 Phillies and the 2007 Brewers about how unimportant those weeks without Ryan Howard and Ryan Braun were.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 23, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Your comparing
Two guys who have barely pitched above AA to Howard & Braun?
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Wins count the same at the beginning
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
by Helloooo 1st on Mar 23, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I've never been a big fan of this argument
losing game one of the season putting you a game back is much different than losing game 162 and being a game back. Yes they count the same, but the impact is significantly different.
In search of a new signature. Say something funny and you may see your comment here!
Lately people here are saying some ridiculous things
Like this:
Let me start out by saying that right now Brett Anderson is absolutely one of the 5 best starting pitcher the A’s have. The same is true of Trevor Cahill.
A place with as many smart people as AN should not be making such brash judgments based on a couple weeks of almost-meaningless data. They are not “absolutely” two of the five best starters the A’s have. That’s just not accurate based on anything real. It’s a possibility, but it’s not some sort of obvious, written-in-stone guarantee. People need to just calm down a little bit about a couple spring training outings.
I agree people are overvaluing the contribution these guys are likely to make this year...
but with Duke and Gio hurt, they really only have Outman and EGon to compete with. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that both Cahill and Anderson are better than both of those guys.
When you compare him to Outman and EGon
you are correct. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that and I don’t think that is a brash statement at all.
Anderson could pitch better than the above two in his sleep. We are in trouble if they are the 4th and 5th starters. Outman is better in the pen IMO and E Gonzalez is a gascan period.
And further to that
These youngster, when they do come up are going to get rocked here and there and its to be expected. Anderson has such good control and poise for a youngster, he caqnnot help but pitch better than the other two mentioned. That is just my opinion.
+1
Sweet Jesus already. 21 year old stud prospects are sexy, but they’re still just prospects and until they pitch in the majors (read: meaningful games against major league players), and not a couple of innings here or there in ST or against A+ hitters, people need to realize that these kids probably aren’t the best (and definitely not the most reliable) options.
If one or all of SMAC plays this year in the MLB, they will probably do some learning and growing on the job, and the same people that are saying that “they’re the best options” now will be saying, “Should have left them in the minors a little bit longer.” Who the hell can say with absolute positivity that Cahill and Anderson will be lights out this year. THEY ARE PROSPECTS.
Hey, remember when people thought Bobby Crosby was about the surest player in all of baseball? I agree with Nico that if we have to use any of them it should probably be Anderson. I would have made a case for Simmons a couple of weeks ago but he appears to still be too hittable and while some of that may be chocked down to jitters or just small sample size, that has always been his calling card.
But please, stop pretending like Cahill and Anderson are Jesus and Superman.
Translation
With Duke out, Eveland, Braden, Gallagher, Gio?, Edgar Gonzalez??
Okay, it may not be an absolute that Anderson and Cahill are two of the best 5 starters the A’s have, but it’s at least arguable that they are better than Gio and Edgar.
It’s a pretty steep drop-off in experience in this rotation!
"To me, boxing is like a ballet, except there's no music, no choreography, and the dancers hit each other." - Jack Handey
by JJ on Mar 23, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Your calculations assume a 0% discount rate, when it should be in the 25%-35% range
Arguably 40-50. Major league rookies are a highly risky asset comparable to a venture capital investment, or at least private equity.
Success in 2009 — and the resultant increase in revenues to the team — is a lot more valuable than success n 2015. Also the player performance in 2009 is a lot more predictable than it is 7 years from now.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
I'm glad you keep bringing this up.
I know it’s kind of wonky to call it “discount rate”, and there’s lots and lots of room for argument about exactly how much it should be (and it would be different for different fans), but there’s a tendency on AN for everyone to fall in the 0% camp or the 100% camp. On the one hand you have people presuming that a win in 2015 is exactly as valuable as a win in 2009; on the other hand you have the people who care only about right now without a thought even for next year. That’s crazy. Future years do need to be discounted, but not entirely.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
What is the theory of applying a discount rate?
I would say it’s not so much wonky as wrong. There needs to be some explanation of why/how wins can appreciate. The point of discount rates is that there’s a presumed interest rate. It is not at all clear that wins now can be invested and turned into future wins, and if it isn’t that than there has to at least be some sort of analogy. If it’s a matter of uncertainty, the way to handle that is just to estimate what value the player will have taking into account his upside and chance of not being in the majors, not tackling it by applying an absurdly high discount rate. As a fan, I’m not sure why I would prefer a win this year instead of some other year… In fact I don’t.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
It's not measuring the wins per se.
It’s measuring what the wins mean to us as fans. The discount on the value of future wins is a measure of the uncertainty of them mattering to you. An A’s win in May 2009 is ~99.9% certain to make me happy. An A’s win in May 2015 is somewhat less so.
The same holds, in varying degrees, for all of us. Maybe you die in a plane crash this summer. Maybe the A’s move to Las Vegas, fire Billy Beane, and change their colors to red and black so you stop being a fan. Maybe baseball becomes so corrupt and stupid that you lose interest. Maybe there’s a global catastrophe and professional sports stop altogether. Maybe you get married and have five kids and, while you still like the A’s, you just don’t have the time and energy to care as much as you used to. Maybe they invent some new sport that is so much cooler than baseball that we all switch our attention to that instead.
I don’t agree with WC’s apparent methodology of using monetary interest rates as a measure of this — among other things, I think it leads others to interpret this as a discussion about team finances, which in mind has nothing at all to do with it — but I do think there is something to be measured. I also point out that the discount rate is different for each individual. Maybe you’re much more sure than I am of how much you’ll still care 10 or 20 years from now. We all have different time horizons for our fandom. But no one has an infinite horizon. If you could get a guarantee that giving up ten games in 2009 would result in the A’s winning the World Series in 2099, would you make that deal? That’s awfully abstract.
In addition to this, I’m not convinced that many of the analyses on AN take into account the uncertainty on the players. Like, maybe Brett Anderson gets hit by a bus tomorrow. Or (less morbidly) maybe he finds some other mission in life that is so satisfying he decides to give up baseball. Or maybe they change the rules so that his skill set matters less than it used to. In theory all of that can (and should) be built into his projection, but I’m not sure it always is.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
That may be because the "hit by bus" rate
and “God spoke to me and said I’m to be a ballerina” rate is not all that high among pitchers. Though the latter happens more when the count is 2-2.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Or when the count is $126 million?
Seriously, of all the pitchers in major league baseball, who is most plausible as a ballerina?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
Blevins?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
me and the stickman resent that.
AN: the new twitter of sportsblogs. -Dogfather
by Leopold Bloom on Mar 24, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
yeah, that makes sense; excellent post
…red and black… getting angry….
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
Reasons to apply a discount rate from the team's perspective:
1) There is a relationship between wins and revenues. You’d rather have the revenues earlier than later
2) There is less certainty in a player’s performance in 2015 as there is in 2009.
3) I’d rather win now than later
I get your point on the individual nature of discount rates, but our personal discount rates don’t matter. What does matter is the A’s discount rate. I would argue that should be whatever it needs to be to maximize franchise value. I’m estimating that to be somewhere in the 25-35 range, although I can see an argument for 40-50. I see no argument for 0%.
I’m basing this on investment discount rates because that’s my background, but you can feel free to arrive at your recommendation however you see fit. One way to look at it is how sure are you that Anderson will be a 4 WAR player in 2015. A 25% discount rate implies that we’re about 20% sure of that.
In any case the precise numbers are less important than the point that the value of Year 7 under any reasonable discount rate is very low for almost all prospects, unless their name is Matt Wieters. For that matter it’s very low for all non-HOF track players. The implication is you play to win now, or you trade your assets for prospects. I think the A’s basically follow this philosophy.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 23, 2009 7:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm, OK. I guess we're arguing concepts which are parallel
but not the same. I’m thinking strictly in terms of a win’s value to me and other fans, not to the team.
I’ll leave it to you to hash out with Paul and others about how the money works out. I don’t think I care to speculate about that. If I were to, I suppose my first question would be why the team needs wins at all. I mean, I don’t think any organization wants to lose, but there are several whose financial success doesn’t seem to require it.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers."
The discount rate is very close to zero
The actual revenues from a win are not commensurate with the price of a player on the free agent market (which is why buying free agents when you’re not a contender is foolish). They’re somewhere in the $1-2M range, and for a team with an awful fanbase/marketing/whatever like the A’s, you’re talking the bottom of that range.
If a win this year is worth $5M in free agent price, a win next year is worth about $4.8M because of foregone revenues. That’s a discount of about 4, not 25 (even assuming your 25% appreciation rate for money revenues, which I don’t really take seriously).
And I will once again register my objection to people waxing indignant about how teams should “never take service time into account,” and how it’s morally wrong, etc etc etc, and then turning around and trying to argue the case on its merits. It’s dirty debating at best.
Many years from now, when his name's recalled
Everyone will say, "He should have passed the ball"
-- Al Stewart, "Football Hero"
You're confusing the value of wins this year vs next with the value of a player this year vs next
There’s massively more uncertainty with a 2010 projected performance for a particular player than there is for 2009. There’s no way possible that this discount rate is close to zero. It’s much closer to the uncertainty in a private equity, or even venture capital investment. That’s somewhere between 25% and 35% for the former and 35-50 for the latter.
I’m not getting where you’re getting your 4% discount rate, nor the $4.8M vs $5M. What is the basis for this?
If the value of a win is only $1M to $2M then the value of a win in 2015 is about $200K. For that you’re willing to risk the division?
BTW I don’t believe this to be true for marginal wins in the 80-90 win range, when the other division contenders have similar win projections. I’m not sure where you’re getting that $1M-$2M. There’s no way that’s the marginal value of a win at this range, when the postseason is worth about $40 million.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Mar 23, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Some players have accelerated depreciation schedules
Harden’s Arm must have been at being amortized quite swiftly until the full write-off by Beane with the CHC trade… at least they got some Salvage value out of the deal.
The Stockton Ports pitching staff is better than the Orioles.
I definitely want them both in the minors.
Depending on how the big league rotation is doing…bring them up early as Super 2’s. Def the best strategy.
Rotation: Braden, Eveland, Gallagher, whoever, whoever – Id vote for Outman and Simmons, unless Gio is back, even though I acknowledge that both would get lit up probably.
Definitely worth it to retain the kids longer, especially because I think they would BENEFIT from time in AAA.
I miss Chad God
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
