Extension Updates for Cain/Bum

[MarcoPolo]

What routinely passes itself off as journalism in the modern era is a travesty. We might as well go back to the '20s and let Hearst's descendents invent a war.

Don't you mean the 1890's ??

 

[gp956]

Shouldn't EVERY contract (beyond the "control" years) give the player a 50/50 chance of performing to the contract? If the odds were greater, the player should demand more, and if the odds were less, the team should offer less. That's what a free market is all about - in baseball contract negotiations that would be the place where the value of a player's expected performance should equal the value of the contract offer. A player's expected performance is in essence a forecast - and the actual may be less or more than forecast. In the extreme, if a player's expected performance has a 100% certainty of exceeding the offer, then the player has undervalued himself. In the other extreme, if a player has a 100% chance of underperforming (Rowand/Zito, cough cough), then the team has overpaid. It is at that 50/50 point that the parties agree.

Further, if a team DOESN'T offer enough up to that 50/50 expectation level, other teams in the market are free and obliged to do so.

So by definition, all non-control years contracts should have a 50/50 chance of performing to the contract.

I like your take. It's accuracy, though, depends on the error in performance forecasts being normally distributed. Maybe they are - that is something a market would tend to produce in the long run. It also depends on baseball being a perfectly competitive market, which it isn't (no market is). Even so, I bet your take is close to being correct.

 

[Heathbar012]

Don't you mean the 1890's ??

Of course! Lazy journalism at its finest by yours truly. I'd like to say that I did that to prove a point.

 

[msgkings322]

I like your take. It's accuracy, though, depends on the error in performance forecasts being normally distributed. Maybe they are - that is something a market would tend to produce in the long run. It also depends on baseball being a perfectly competitive market, which it isn't (no market is). Even so, I bet your take is close to being correct.

Also, there hasn't really been enough contracts to form a normal distribution. As in, too few data points?

 

[gp956]

Also, there hasn't really been enough contracts to form a normal distribution. As in, too few data points?

Well, the thing that has to be normally distributed is the performance forecasting. And that's something a market would produce in the long run - as long as all necessary information is discoverable by all participants. Is all necessary information discoverable? Jason Schmidt probably knew his shoulder was not right when he signed that Dodger contract, but short of scoping his shoulder no team was going to know he had a torn labrum. That sort of asymmetry in the possibility of knowledge will skew the distribution.

 

[filosofy29]

Dave Cameron's predictable take on the Cain signing.




It's not a crazy take at face value. But then he undermines his credibility by asserting the odds going forward of Cain performing to the contract are 50/50 and the impression that AT&T and Righetti are a factory that turn mediocre pitchers into great ones. Those are just pull-it-out-of-your-ass facts. Dave, fyi, has predicted Cains' regression towards (not to) league average every year of the last 3 or 4 years. Based mostly on the idea that pitchers have minimal control of their BABIP. Thus, according to Cameron, Cain is simply a fair coin that has, so far, happened to turn up heads six years in a row. He had some stake in Cain going to a less comfortable situation.

lol, just read some of the comments you were mentioning on fangraphs. I love how most of the posters omit or just don't know about the variables that come into play in reality with contract negotiations and free agency. This isn't a fucking video game.

brendan says:
April 2, 2012 at 5:22 pm
I’m a giants fan, and I’m w/ dave on this one. I’d have liked to see a bigger discount for the risk the giants are taking here. Cain’s contract isn’t even up yet! If he got 5/115 from the giants next offseason, fine, but he got it as an extension, w/ the chance that he gets hurt in 2012 before the new deal even kicks in. I just think it’s too rich. Much rather have CJ wilson at 5/90 or whatever he got from the angels.

Right brendan, because if Cain pitches at an All-Star level this year and doesn't show any signs of fatigue/injury, he's DEFINITELY going to accept a 5year/$115M contract from the Giants even though the Dodgers/Phillies (whoever loses out on Hamels), Yankees, and Red Sox would be in the bidding for his services......but they'd never even dream of bidding, yet alone offering more than that.....
Also, the Giants should of had enough foresight to sign CJ Wilson for only $4M per year less and have close to $75M tied up in 4 pitchers for this season.....oh wait, they should have traded Cain for the next 3 guaranteed young studs from someone.

Or this little pot of gold:

Kernel says:
April 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
As long as he pitches well, who cares? You think GIANTS fans, of all people, couldn’t stomach CJ Wilson?

The rates the Angels got Weaver and Wilson at are far better than Cain.

My problem is that a player who is known to be “good” or “great” makes FAR more than a player who is merely decent. Is the difference that great? Is Matt Cain worth $16 million more than a pitcher that makes $6 million a year?

So we're just going to assume that CJ Wilson will pitch well (but we can't assume the same of Cain) AND that Wilson was even a plausible target for the Giants this off-season (as Cain was extended, not signed). CJ wilson at $4M less per year was going to be the saving grace of the Giants!!! Go get that power bat!
Also, there are just a bunch of above average pitchers out there for $6M that the Giants could easily obtain I'm sure that are only one small notch below Matt Cain.....



I'm ok with people thinking the Giants are taking a huge risk on the Cain signing.....but please make your arguments solid.

 

[filosofy29]

lol, just read some of the comments you were mentioning on fangraphs. I love how most of the posters omit or just don't know about the variables that come into play in reality with contract negotiations and free agency. This isn't a fucking video game.



Right brendan, because if Cain pitches at an All-Star level this year and doesn't show any signs of fatigue/injury, he's DEFINITELY going to accept a 5year/$115M contract from the Giants even though the Dodgers/Phillies (whoever loses out on Hamels), Yankees, and Red Sox would be in the bidding for his services......but they'd never even dream of bidding, yet alone offering more than that.....
Also, the Giants should of had enough foresight to sign CJ Wilson for only $4M per year less and have close to $75M tied up in 4 pitchers for this season.....oh wait, they should have traded Cain for the next 3 guaranteed young studs from someone.

Or this little pot of gold:



So we're just going to assume that CJ Wilson will pitch well (but we can't assume the same of Cain) AND that Wilson was even a plausible target for the Giants this off-season (as Cain was extended, not signed). CJ wilson at $4M less per year was going to be the saving grace of the Giants!!! Go get that power bat!
Also, there are just a bunch of above average pitchers out there for $6M that the Giants could easily obtain I'm sure that are only one small notch below Matt Cain.....



I'm ok with people thinking the Giants are taking a huge risk on the Cain signing.....but please make your arguments solid.

EDIT: $4M should be $7M. I am good at the 10 key.