A lot on the line for the Panda in 2014

[tzill]

The downside is if he returns to 2010 form (no injuries, just fat) : .268 /.323 /.409 /.732, 13 HRs . That's OK for a guy earning $500K, but not for a guy earning 18-20M. You really think that an AL team will say "sure, we'll take him, you don't have to pay any part of his future salary" to a guy who hit like that? No way, José. THAT is the downside.

A player earning 18-20M/yr should have a WAR of 3 to be "average" cost/performance. Panda has had a WAR of over 3 just twice so far. (I expect that this year he will be WELL over 3.) So the downside is that the Giants will not get their money's worth, sinking money into a player who doesn't produce enough. And it's all about the fat - the years that he's been in good shape, he hits well, and his defense is better. The year's that he balloons up, he can't defend worth shit.

Signing Panda long-term (4-5 years) is a risk - a pretty big risk. Also with a pretty big jackpot if it works out. I just wouldn't sign him for 5 years. If he really isn't about money (as he has been saying) try to talk him into a short-term deal (2014-16, 12-14-18?), raising his salary this year and giving him a chance to have 2-3 seasons of great ball. Then he turns 29 when he become a FA and can sign a HUGE 5-year contract with somebody else.

Ok, let me come at it this way: Say we give him 80/5. At current market rate, he'd need to put up 13.3 WAR. With inflation, let's call it 12 WAR. He's put up 16.3 WAR over the last five years, with a) bouts of fatness and b) fracturing both hamate bones. He has no more hamates to break, and he's in great shape. Even if he fats up, it's hard to see him not putting up 12 WAR over the length of the contract. Hell, he could have two Panda years and give you the 12 WAR, suck for three and you're still coming out ahead. Moreover, if he fattens up then an AL team could move him to DH where he'd a) add WAR he couldn't in the NL since he wouldn't be a defensive liability at DH and b) not add negative dWAR as a DH. Win/win.

Bottom line: he's not going to sign for three years. If I were his agent I wouldn't let him, would you? He will get a fat (pun intended) 5 year contract this year. Either we give it to him in ST or we let him walk for the comp pick to an AL team who will pay him. I just don't see much downside here -- he's too good a natural hitter, he's got crazy trade value, and he lost weight ON HIS OWN and added 15 pounds of muscle. He was 280 last year, he's 250 now. That means he lost 45 pounds of fat.

Pay the Panda. Interesting you took his 2010 year -- his absolute nadir four years ago. He's not that player. He might not be 2011 Panda either, but a midpoint between the two returns 18 WAR over a five year contract.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Ok, let me come at it this way: Say we give him 80/5. At current market rate, he'd need to put up 13.3 WAR. With inflation, let's call it 12 WAR. He's put up 16.3 WAR over the last five years, with a) bouts of fatness and b) fracturing both hamate bones. He has no more hamates to break, and he's in great shape. Even if he fats up, it's hard to see him not putting up 12 WAR over the length of the contract. Hell, he could have two Panda years and give you the 12 WAR, suck for three and you're still coming out ahead. Moreover, if he fattens up then an AL team could move him to DH where he'd a) add WAR he couldn't in the NL since he wouldn't be a defensive liability at DH and b) not add negative dWAR as a DH. Win/win.

Bottom line: he's not going to sign for three years. If I were his agent I wouldn't let him, would you? He will get a fat (pun intended) 5 year contract this year. Either we give it to him in ST or we let him walk for the comp pick to an AL team who will pay him. I just don't see much downside here -- he's too good a natural hitter, he's got crazy trade value, and he lost weight ON HIS OWN and added 15 pounds of muscle. He was 280 last year, he's 250 now. That means he lost 45 pounds of fat.

Pay the Panda. Interesting you took his 2010 year -- his absolute nadir four years ago. He's not that player. He might not be 2011 Panda either, but a midpoint between the two returns 18 WAR over a five year contract.

Interesting? I found it the logical pick, since I was pointing out the downside. As I pointed out, that *wasn't* one of the years where he was injured - he just sucked. So I think that's a realistic possible downside (although not likely).

No, I don't think that he'll sign for 3 years. I also don't think he'd sign for 5/80, either. And I think 5/90 is unlikely as well - he's a better offensive threat than Pence. I think it starts at 5/95 (as a *discount*) and that 5/100 is more likely. (Unless the first year is 2014, in which case it's really a 4 -year extension.) 95-100M would require a 15-16 WAR, so that doesn't look like much of a deal (since in the last 5 years he's put up a WAR of 16). That's "getting what you pay for", not "value" or "a good deal". And if he doesn't put up 2 monster years to make up for down (fat) years, then he won't equal that. It's a risky crap shoot.

To be clear, I agree that it *could* pay off big (WAR well over 20) if he doesn't fatty up again. I just see that there IS a (non-negligible) risk, which you seem to completely discount. Also, I do think that some team will give him MORE than 5/100 after the season if he has a good season this year. But I don't view that as a reason to rush to give him 5/100 now.

 

[msgkings322]

Interesting? I found it the logical pick, since I was pointing out the downside. As I pointed out, that *wasn't* one of the years where he was injured - he just sucked. So I think that's a realistic possible downside (although not likely).

No, I don't think that he'll sign for 3 years. I also don't think he'd sign for 5/80, either. And I think 5/90 is unlikely as well - he's a better offensive threat than Pence. I think it starts at 5/95 (as a *discount*) and that 5/100 is more likely. (Unless the first year is 2014, in which case it's really a 4 -year extension.) 95-100M would require a 15-16 WAR, so that doesn't look like much of a deal (since in the last 5 years he's put up a WAR of 16). That's "getting what you pay for", not "value" or "a good deal". And if he doesn't put up 2 monster years to make up for down (fat) years, then he won't equal that. It's a risky crap shoot.

To be clear, I agree that it *could* pay off big (WAR well over 20) if he doesn't fatty up again. I just see that there IS a (non-negligible) risk, which you seem to completely discount. Also, I do think that some team will give him MORE than 5/100 after the season if he has a good season this year. But I don't view that as a reason to rush to give him 5/100 now.

I agree with tzill that it's worth the risk to try to sign Panda now for 5 years at some 16-18 mil/yr type level, but I also agree with Marco that there's no way in hell Panda signs that kind of deal before this year, and frankly he'd be foolish to. It's very obvious what he and his handlers are shooting for this year. He might re-sign with us, but it would only be for a long, expensive deal only slightly below market value. And they are counting on this year to make that market value huge. Probably too rich for us unless the brass decides they have to Dodger up a bit.

This is good news for the 2014 Giants, we should see really good numbers from Panda this year. But that would likely mean it's his last here.

 

[tzill]

Interesting? I found it the logical pick, since I was pointing out the downside. As I pointed out, that *wasn't* one of the years where he was injured - he just sucked. So I think that's a realistic possible downside (although not likely).

No, I don't think that he'll sign for 3 years. I also don't think he'd sign for 5/80, either. And I think 5/90 is unlikely as well - he's a better offensive threat than Pence. I think it starts at 5/95 (as a *discount*) and that 5/100 is more likely. (Unless the first year is 2014, in which case it's really a 4 -year extension.) 95-100M would require a 15-16 WAR, so that doesn't look like much of a deal (since in the last 5 years he's put up a WAR of 16). That's "getting what you pay for", not "value" or "a good deal". And if he doesn't put up 2 monster years to make up for down (fat) years, then he won't equal that. It's a risky crap shoot.

To be clear, I agree that it *could* pay off big (WAR well over 20) if he doesn't fatty up again. I just see that there IS a (non-negligible) risk, which you seem to completely discount. Also, I do think that some team will give him MORE than 5/100 after the season if he has a good season this year. But I don't view that as a reason to rush to give him 5/100 now.

Fair enough; I guess we'll see what the Giants and the Panda do.