This thread is to spark conversation about Justin Verlander

[A Boy Named Seo]

Mets had a zoom call with him. Apparently kicking his high-performance, well-worn tires as an alternative to JdG, should he bolt for warmer climes.



Per https://theathletic.com/3916089/2022/11/20/mets-verlander-free-agency/Rosenthal/Athletic, "Verlander is expected to command a multi-year contract with an average salary in the range of Scherzer's record $43.3 million."



JV, turning 40 next February, makes deGrom seem "youthful" and Scherzer "spry". He also just won a Cy, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Marshmallowmilkshake]

Seems to me that it is risky to have two older pitchers at that pay range.



I'm assuming we don't even think about Verlander unless we lose de Grom.

[whippoorwill]

Good grief 40?

[A Boy Named Seo]

=whippoorwill post_id=113308 time=1669070441 user_id=79]
Good grief 40?

[Frayed Knot]

The comeback Verlander made at his age coming off TJ surgery directly to a CY award and a WS was simply remarkable.

I've always enjoyed watching him pitch and it really sucks that the Mets didn't get him the first time around when they

had the draft pick Right After Him (taking Philip Humber) when he came out of Old Dominion University.



Having said all that, I can't justify a multi-year deal for a 40 y/o -- even This 40 y/o -- and especially not when you've

already got an expensive 38 y/o on the staff and (hopefully) a super expensive 34 y/o on top of that.

I agree that he's likely a JdG fall-back option but even then I'd balk at anything above two years.

Edited November 21, 2022 by Guest

[whippoorwill]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: =whippoorwill post_id=113308 time=1669070441 user_id=79] Good grief 40?

40 is the new 20 donchaknow

[smg58]

Fangraphs pegs Verlander's 2022 as being worth $48M. So for his asking price, he's gotta come close to repeating that just for you to break even. (The Mets got $35M of value from Scherzer, which was good if you ignore the salary entirely.) I think Billy Beane would call this a market inefficiency. Pitchers just aren't worth what they're getting right now. And for a team that needs three starters and at least two relievers, that's a problem.

[Edgy MD]

No, pitchers aren't worth what they're getting right now, especially since their usage is increasingly curtailed, without (to my eyes) the hoped-for payback of fewer health outages.



deGrom, on the other hand, brings additional and ongoing brand value, and that's worth a premium. How much of one, I do not know.

[batmagadanleadoff]

So how much "extra" are pitchers getting beyond their worth? And wouldn't Fangraphs' algorithms for determining just this take into account how many innings they're pitching? I would imagine that innings pitched would be the main variable. So what does it mean that pitchers aren't pitching enough innings to jsutify their pay? Because if they pitched more innings, they'd be worth more in the first place under Fangraphs' formulas before any teams even offer them new contracts. And how much would someone like Steve Cohen be overpaying? Because Cohen overpaying by like 20 or 30 or 50 million to bring home a pennant would be like asking me if I wanna pay an extra dollar or two to have some pepperoni topping on my slice of pizza. And maybe Verlander adds the psychic value of making the Mets more enticing for other free agents. Like degrom.

[MFS62]

The incremental value of each additional inning pitched (over an average pitcher's total) is something the number crunchers working or Cohen could determine.



Brand value is more difficult.

IIRC, one of the LA pitchers tried to do it.(It may have been Fernando Valenzuela) At contract negotiation time, his agent presented the average home attendance in games he pitched VS the rest of the starters. They showed an increase in the thousands, which they translated into dollars earned by the club. I got him a healthy raise.

I'd guess modern pitchers could use that as a model if that is their negotiation approach.

Later.

[Edgy MD]

So how much "extra" are pitchers getting beyond their worth? And wouldn't Fangraphs' algorithms for determining just this take into account how many innings they're pitching? I would imagine that innings pitched would be the main variable.

Fangraphs is operating less with an algorithm than a formula, and their assigned value is based on what a season past might be worth on the open market, somehow guaranteed, compared to what peers are getting and what they are producing for their money. It does not suggest, nor mean to suggest, whether or not it is money well spent.

So what does it mean that pitchers aren't pitching enough innings to jsutify their pay?

If I'm paying $40 million for someone to pitch innings one through five, and I'm getting innings six and seven from someone I'm paying at or near minimum wage, I'm not dividing my investments most effectively.

[metsmarathon]

iirc, fangraphs isn't looking at it position-by-position, but rather in terms of a linear WAR-to-dollars ratio. i believe the WAR-to-dollars ratio is re-established each year based on some financial data relating to what teams pay for what production on the open market, but i'd need to dig it up. but to the larger point, to rack up WAR, one needs to not only have quality production but also quantity of production. you don't lose WAR for not playing, but you do lose the opportunity to accumulate more WAR when you're not playing.



so, one thing that an independent mind could do is, presuming fangraphs uses actual prior-season WAR production in their formula (as opposed to projections) is look at pitcher salaries vs prior season production and see if they overperform or underperform. and then compare that to position players.



it feels like at the top end of the market, right now, the top pitchers are being overpaid for their production, but i haven't looked at the numbers in depth. one might argue that if you consider the actual WAR-to-dollars equation to be non-linear and position dependent, then you could argue that there's benefit to having a top-flight ace pitcher that exceeds the linear value of his performance, and that would help explain the overpayment. i'm not currently in a position to do such a thing, but i'm sure there are smart people who might. and each team might come up with their own complicated multidimensional curve.



to edgy's last point, though. if your pitcher throwing innings one-through-five is suppressing runs enough, then your middle relievers should have more margin for error and overall you maybe can afford to pay them less. you may view them perhaps as a grossly interchangeable asset, too, where you can keep churning through the dreck until you hit on someone capable of the job.

[roger_that]

My subjective take is that, as a general policy, the smart move is to sign high-quality veteran free-agent pitchers for the shortest possible time you can, and pay the outrageous and inordinate salaries such pitchers get. Always have two or three such pitchers on your roster, and have the two or three best starting pitchers from your own system to fill out the starting staff. Trade these younger pitchers for hitting any time any one of them has a good season (pitchers tend to get hurt and have their careers wrecked more than hitters, though some teams can't resist the lure--take advantage of those foolish teams). Keep the line moving. If you have too many good hitters on your rosters (is this possible? Barely), consolidate them via trades. But never, never, never commit to a long-term contract for a veteran pitcher: you will get burned badly. For that matter, rarely commit to a long-term deal for a position player--sometimes this is unavoidable, andyou can get generally get more use out of a position player who fails (turn him into a part-time player, a defensive replacement, a pinch-hitter, whatever his remaining strengths are) than a pitcher with a blown out arm and 40 Mil coming to him for the next few decades.