K Rod open to trade as a setup guy.

[Ceetar]

TransMonk wrote: I'd rather be better in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 than risk any of those seasons and come up short in 2011. Eggs in baskets got us into this payroll mess.

I'm not suggesting they trade prospects for A.J. Burnett or Vernon Wells or some such insane contract. More mundane stuff than that. or guys you actually like long term that teams aren't looking to resign. While you have names like Fielder out there, there are probably more average guys that teams are probably going to let walk away that Sandy can ask after.

You're trading a chance now for a chance later. Next year you'll flip that chance for a chance in 2013.

Is that how we got into this mess? Maybe not being aggressive at the 2007-2008 deadlines cost us playoffs, endless revenue, and got us into this mess. It's easy to point to one thing to blame, but it's rarely that simple.

[TransMonk]

It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future.

[ashie62]

TransMonk wrote: It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future.

Agreed, heartlily.

[Benjamin Grimm]

TransMonk wrote: It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future.

This makes me think of 2004, and Kris Benson and Victor Zambrano.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

TransMonk wrote: It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future.

I'm with you brother monk. I think the Mets are better served to build for the future, rather than make a desperate attempt to miraculously make the playoffs this season. If the Mets can free up some money and gain a prospect or two by trading Rodriguez to the Yankees (or another team), then I'm all for it. Rodriguez has done a good job for the Mets this year, but I would rather use money to help resign Reyes than pay Rodriquez $17.5 mill. to close games next season.

[Ceetar]

Rockin' Doc wrote: TransMonk wrote: It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future. I'm with you brother monk. I think the Mets are better served to build for the future, rather than make a desperate attempt to miraculously make the playoffs this season. If the Mets can free up some money and gain a prospect or two by trading Rodriguez to the Yankees (or another team), then I'm all for it. Rodriguez has done a good job for the Mets this year, but I would rather use money to help resign Reyes than pay Rodriquez $17.5 mill. to close games next season.

They shouldn't make a desperate attempt for a miracle, but they shouldn't get in it's way either.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Ceetar wrote: Rockin' Doc wrote: TransMonk wrote: It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future. I'm with you brother monk. I think the Mets are better served to build for the future, rather than make a desperate attempt to miraculously make the playoffs this season. If the Mets can free up some money and gain a prospect or two by trading Rodriguez to the Yankees (or another team), then I'm all for it. Rodriguez has done a good job for the Mets this year, but I would rather use money to help resign Reyes than pay Rodriquez $17.5 mill. to close games next season. They shouldn't make a desperate attempt for a miracle, but they shouldn't get in it's way either.

Don't forget about adding Santana. Now -- to make room for Santana, what about putting one of the starters in the closer's role? Or, thinking out of the box, Santana himself. Not forever, but as a solution to fill the role after trading KRod?

[Ceetar]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Ceetar wrote: Rockin' Doc wrote: TransMonk wrote: It is my opinion that the 2011 team is not a playoff contender and that there is nothing that Sandy can do that will save us money AND push us over the edge this season. I would rather see him improve the club for the next several years than take any sort of risk on this year's team at the expense of the future. I'm with you brother monk. I think the Mets are better served to build for the future, rather than make a desperate attempt to miraculously make the playoffs this season. If the Mets can free up some money and gain a prospect or two by trading Rodriguez to the Yankees (or another team), then I'm all for it. Rodriguez has done a good job for the Mets this year, but I would rather use money to help resign Reyes than pay Rodriquez $17.5 mill. to close games next season. They shouldn't make a desperate attempt for a miracle, but they shouldn't get in it's way either. Don't forget about adding Santana. Now -- to make room for Santana, what about putting one of the starters in the closer's role? Or, thinking out of the box, Santana himself. Not forever, but as a solution to fill the role after trading KRod?

me and my father were talking about that this weekend. Santana to the bullpen. He did it before, way back when, and I think he'd still be able to handle it. I'm not sure if it's better for his shoulder strength to pitch every 5-6 but throw 100, or 3-4 times in a week and possibly two days in a row? recovery time between outings? I"m no doc, but I wonder if adding him as a reliever, especially in Sept where he wouldn't take up a roster spot even if you only pitched him every 3 days, would raise the probability that we see him.

[metirish]

Santana in the pen has no value and I would prefer they nursed him along so he is good to go as a starter next spring.

[ashie62]

Ceetar wrote: If you wait around for the team to be the 'best on paper' and 'look like a winner' you might never get there. How long do you wait around until this team feels like a winner? Bottom line is they're playing roughly .500 baseball, and slightly better after a slow start, and will be adding David Freaking Wright mid-season. Why would the Mets decide to look in the mirror and decide to just play out the string, whatever, lets put the Bisons in? Why would the front office, with August being the make or break month in attendance, decide that it'd be better to roll the dice on next year instead of tweaking the team to be a good one? They have to think that the difference in attendance, interest and revenue for an August team sans a closer and RF slugger, etc and one where they maybe add a reliever or a bench guy and win some big games is huge.

You are joking, right?

[metsmarathon]

you probably think that frankie's been pretty good this year, and you might be right. but even so, fangraphs has him at 0.6 WAR to this point in the season, whereas baseballreference has him at 0.9. if we traded him away and did not thereby improve the on-field roster, we'd cost ourselves at most one single solitary win.

we would avoid costing ourselves 17 million dollars next year spend on a player worth, in all likelihood, less than two wins.

matt holiday is set to make 17 million next year. he's a solid 5-win player. that's about what frankie rodriguez' salary is worth.

fangraphs has danny murphy at 1.3 WAR. think about that. you'd be paying 17 million dollars for half the production of daniel murphy. his agent must be thrilled.


ok, maybe that's not fair. baseballreference thinks daniel murphy is only a 0.7 WAR player at this point in the season. doing the math... you'd be willing to pay daniel murphy 14 million dollars then. i think his agent would readily accept that.

you don't want to waste an opportunity this year, but you say that you also don;t want to jeopardize next year. the single greatest thing the mets could do at this point to jeopardize next year is to bring back frankie rodriguez at 17 million dollars. he is simply not worth it. no closer is.

the mets will have a budget next year. whether that budget is high or low is unknowable at this time. what is knowable is that they will probably spend the frankie rodriguez 17 one way or another. if they spend it on frankie, they will only be adding about two wins.

consider this. this season, they are paying r.a. dickey, chris capuano, chris young, tim byrdak, ronny paulino, and taylor buchholz a total of 7.6 million. those players are worth 3.6 WAR combined.

how much could be done with 17 million?

jason bay is crippling the team no? he's making 16 million. he's worth either 0.1 WAR or 0.5 WAR, according to fangraphs and bbref respectively. would frankie be anything other than equally crippling? he's worth about one win more than jason bay.

the mets would be paying 33 million dollars for three wins, max, unless jason bay turns things around in a big huge gigantic way.

that's half the production the yankees are getting out of arod this year. for the same money. and i think we'd all agree that he's terrifically overpaid.

[batmagadanleadoff]

you probably think that frankie's been pretty good this year, and you might be right. but even so, fangraphs has him at 0.6 WAR to this point in the season, whereas baseballreference has him at 0.9. if we traded him away and did not thereby improve the on-field roster, we'd cost ourselves at most one single solitary win. the single [worst] thing the mets could do at this point ... is to bring back frankie rodriguez at 17 million dollars. he is simply not worth it. no closer is.

K-Rod is having a good season -- for a relief pitcher. His low WAR results from, as you pointed out, the relative worth of pitchers who pitch less than 80 innings a season. A reliever's impact is exaggerated: they're not worth the mega money contracts that some of them command. I looked up some relievers before I wrote this post. Check out JJ Putz. He's back.

[Vic Sage]

stop it, marathon. No amount of factual analysis will penetrate the cotton candy world in which Ceetar lives.

When this stuff becomes religion to people, and its about faith, and miracles, and BELIEVING, then rational discourse goes out the window.

Just like the Republican party.

[Ceetar]

how much could be done with 17 million? jason bay is crippling the team no? he's making 16 million. he's worth either 0.1 WAR or 0.5 WAR, according to fangraphs and bbref respectively. would frankie be anything other than equally crippling? he's worth about one win more than jason bay.

But this is kind of my point. Frankie is good. Jason Bay is not. Bay's 16 million is a lot more damaging to the Mets, in part because you probably expect more of a 4-5 type WAR out of a guy like that in that position. But also because for every collection of players you add up to 17 million that you point to and say "Look how much value we got for this money from these guys" I can point to another allocation of that money (Say, Jason Bay) that is getting virtually no value.

To me it makes more sense to try to replace the players providing no value, regardless of payroll. While nothing is guaranteed, you do kinda trust guys on your team to continue giving you roughly what they've been giving you. I'd expect 2 WAR from K Rod, You could reallocate that 17 million and get more, but you can also get less. If you can, if it's in the budget, if you can work around it, try to replace the 0 WAR guys, not the guys providing value, but are out of proportion to their contracts. Yes, it seems like Sandy could desperately use that 17 in better ways, but then again, he doesn't seem so worried about it either. There are at least four players that the Mets are paying a decent sum of money to that are providing little to no value, and that's not even including David Wright, who hasn't provided very much either. Of those 4, 2 won't be here next year and 1 will be providing value. well, hopefully anyway. I'm just not sure that they're up against the wall and need to get creative to find money to do what needs to be done.

I'm not against trading K-Rod, for something worthwhile, but I just don't treat it as a must-dump OMG THE OPTION MIGHT VEST situation. I trust Sandy Alderson, the guy with (hopefully) all the facts about the situation. I trust he's not listening to the fans and saying "eh, let's just mail it in this season, these guys probably aren't that good." I understand the reasoning that since they're not technically players he signed maybe he can get away with that, but he did decide to keep them too. If Frankie's 14, or 17.5, or whatever is the reason the Mets can't sign Reyes, or even the reason they can't sign say a solid RF guy or a veteran backup catcher or fulltime catcher should we decide Thole isn't good, then yeah, ditch him, but it's not a given that that's the case.

There is also no reason to do it for salary reasons this year. Trying to save a couple of bucks this year to apply to next year is very much like using one credit card to pay another. It sounds like he does want to try to get the payroll more directly proportional to revenue, and the Wilpons have stated that they do/have tried to budget seasons in that way. (failed lately, for many reasons) So it's not like the Mets are thinking, ooo, we save 4 million by trading him by the deadline.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: stop it, marathon. No amount of factual analysis will penetrate the cotton candy world in which Ceetar lives. When this stuff becomes religion to people, and its about faith, and miracles, and BELIEVING, then rational discourse goes out the window. Just like the Republican party.

And i believe i'm providing plenty of factual argument to my case. The crux of the disagreement is over opinion on how the front office is going to proceed anyway. Most of us are pretty much in line with how much value K-Rod/Closer has to the game.

Republican's helped do the right thing tonight in NY at least, some of them anyway, I'll give them a pass until morning.

[metsmarathon]

trading frankie isn't akin to mailing it in this season. it would cost us one win.

trading reyes would be mailing it in. that would cost us 4+ wins at his current rate. trading beltran would be akin to mailing it in. that would cost us 2-3 wins.

if you could trade away jason bay next year, and not get anything back, you would, right? i mean, i have to assume you would. he's only giving us one win. why would you not trade away frankie rodriguez who is brining in at most two wins?

whether you expect 2 wins out of your 17 million dollar player or 5 wins, if you only get two wins out of him, you've just wasted 17 million dollars and hurt the team. it doesn't matter if those 2 wins come from your closer, your long man, your left fielder, or your backup pinch hitter.

the current math says a 2 win player is worth $8M. if you bring in a $17M player, you better expect him to bring in at least 4 wins. know when the last time a reliever was worth 4 wins? well, interestingly enough it was frankie in 2004. if you think frankie's gonna go 86 innings with a 1.82 ERA (1.64 FIP) in 2012, i've got a nice fancy bridge and adjacent swampland i'd love to sell you.

in 2003, eric gagne went nuts to teh tune of 4.5 WAR. you then have to go back to 1996 for mariano's 4.4 WAR. then 1991 for duane ward's 4.1 WAR.

over 20 years, only 4 relievers have had seasons worth 4 WAR. that's the type of performance we'd be paying frankie for.

[metsmarathon]

mariano rivera is probably the best closer in the history of baseball, or is at least the best closer since the closer role has revolved solely around the save.

in his best years, he typically hovers between 2 and 3 WAR. unless you've absolutely got the a-number-one-best closer in the game, you shouldn't spend more than 8 million dollars on the guy whose job it is to accumulate saves. and if you do spend more than 8 million dollars, you're a fool for going above 12, because unless your guy puts in a season-for-the-ages, he's not going to be worth it.

how much do you think a good closer is worth? me, i think he's worth no more than a similarly performing guy whose job it is to collect holds. i think it's folly to give more than $8M to a reliever, because he's almost certainly not going to be worth it. i think you can find good enough relievers for much less. it happens all the time, in fact. i think that same money is better spent in other facets of the game, where the value received is much more in line with the money outlaid.

also, just to return to teh level of expectations thing. this season we're paying luis castillo 12 million dollars to sit at home and watch sny. that i expect him to not make a single positive contribution to teh team does not in any way make those 12 million dollars any less than a shameful waste which drags down the ability of teh team to better compete within this season.

it deosn't matter if the mets payroll is 20 million dollars or 300 million dollars. if they are choosing to spend 17 million dollars on a player who cannot reasonably be expected to return much more than 2 wins of value, they are wasting their money and damaging their ability to compete. they're already stuck paying jason bay 16 million dollars to maybe give tehm one win. but that was a prior regime, and an ultimately-bad decision which the current regime has inherited. it is not and should not be an incentive to repeat it.

if i just went out and spent $40k on a truly piece of shit car, does it make sense for me to go out and spend another $40k on another car that's only slightly less shitty just because i already have the one littering the driveway? or should i maybe do a better job of reading up on my consumer reports & motor trend and find a better car, regardless of whether i have $20k or $60k to spend?

[metsmarathon]

frankie is good. jason bay is not. frankie is worth one win more than jason bay. jason bay is not worth 16 million dollars a year. is frankie? he's not even close. jason bay is more damaging to the mets to the tune of one win.

look, i don;t think you're fully grasping what i'm saying here.

i'm not talking about what they save this year. i don't give a shit. if they want to save money this year, then they need to dump reyes, beltran, and frankie all three. the loss of two of those players will cost them a fair amount of wins. the other one is frankie.

lets just look at next year. if frankie is on the team, he will be making $17M and giving them $8M of production. max.

that is teh same thing as if the mets brought in another no-name yet competent reliever for $8M, and resigned luis castillo for another $9M, only to cut him in spring training.

i don't care what their budget is next year, how their p&l shapes up, how they structure the team, or what free agents are out there. it's folly. pure unadulterated folly. if there is a way the mets can avoid that folly, they should do so.

[metsmarathon]

ah hell. one last thing. unless the mets start burning money in a giant copper pot on the old shea stadium home plate, the 17 million they pay frankie will cause some amount of money to unavailable to improve the team in another area. and i contend that the amount of money that would be unavailable to improve other areas of the team will be 9 million dollars.

and the only way that having frankie on the roster next year does not end up hurting them is if they win the world series, and if they do, then it will be in spite of the extra 9 million dollars they have wasted on their closer above his actually performance level, and not because of it.

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: ah hell. one last thing. unless the mets start burning money in a giant copper pot on the old shea stadium home plate, the 17 million they pay frankie will cause some amount of money to unavailable to improve the team in another area. and i contend that the amount of money that would be unavailable to improve other areas of the team will be 9 million dollars. and the only way that having frankie on the roster next year does not end up hurting them is if they win the world series, and if they do, then it will be in spite of the extra 9 million dollars they have wasted on their closer above his actually performance level, and not because of it.

I'm grasping what you're saying. But I disagree with comparing value directly to payroll, because it's not directly proportional. First off, the regardless of budget thing, totally not true. if the Mets had money to burn, then they should keep the best possible reliever they can (really the best 7) and Frankie is probably that. This is why the overpaid Rivera (And yes, he's overpaid, as you point out above his highest value year according to WAR was actually a non-closer role and a result of pitching more innings) never hurt the Yankees.

I agree it seems likely that 17 million may cause some portion of it not being able to be reinvested that would've been needed otherwise. But I don't know that. The only person that really has any idea is the one that's pretty much allowing him to vest. (or as a plan as to why he won't) So why should I get up in arms about how the Mets _must_ construct their roster, or value a particular role?

The idea is to acquire the best players, not the most economical ones. From a purely talent standpoint, Frankie contributes more to winning than say, the next best available reliever on the market next year (Which isn't likely who would end up closing games) And he's mostly a known quantity, as far as any player can be. While I agree every year there are literally dozens of available relievers that put up good years for practically no money, even the smartest guys in the game are often unable to determine who those guys are before hand. The % chance K-Rod gives you 2 WAR is a pretty high number, but the % chance that the guys you invest in to replace him, in a bullpen sense? Buchholz, Byrdak, Carrasco, Beato, Acosta, etc? Or whatever random collection shows up next year?

Car analogy doesn't really work, i'm not sure how to compare it. But what's the ultimate purpose of the car? Let's say you use it to do your job. You've got the $40k car. It's decked out with an expensive GPS and turbo boosters or something. Help you do your job. Not much better, but they help. Should you trade that in for a 25K car? Doesn't it depend on if you need a new washer, to refinish your basement and a new roof? And the price of those? What if someone presents you a solution for your roof that's a lot cheaper than you imagined (Let's say Kirk Nieuwenhuis get's called up, and looks really solid and presents confidence that he can play RF next year. One less thing we need to buy right)

I just don't think this as black and white an issue as people are making it out to be. There are a lot of things in play. (Including that K-Rod doesn't actually want to be traded and does have a limited no-trade) renegotiations, how much Sandy values K-Rod, the closer role in general, and how much he'd spend on relievers next year to replace K-Rod. I think there are certainly scenarios where him on the Mets next year does make them a better team.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's black and white. Yes, the Mets can get less for their money. But it's unikely, and if any GM doesn't have faith that he can get more, he shouldn't be in the business.

[metsmarathon]

if the mets are unable to get more than 2 wins in return for their 17 million dollars, then it is either due to incompetence or gross misfortune. and the gross misfortune can strike either the new guy(s) or the reliever.

so really, unless they bring in a guy who then gets his self badly hurt in some unforeseeable way, the only way the mets are not better without krod is through incompetence.

you are right though. neither arod's nor mariano's salary has necessarily hurt the yankees' ability to spend their way to victory. you could make the argument that it keeps them from upgrading over swisher, or bringing in another solid starter, but lets pretend that it hasn't.

until the mets show that they are willing to take the ceiling off of their payroll, spend money like they have no actual budget and all the money in the world, then i think it's just plain silly to pretend otherwise for the sake of an argument.

i agree that the mets will make more money if they spend more money to win more games. but spending money to win less games will not have the same effect. it's not about getting the most economical players, but getting the best value. sometimes the best value is the most expensive player. never is the best value a $17M reliever. never. not when the same level of performance at the same position can be had for but a fraction of the price.

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: never is the best value a $17M reliever. never. not when the same level of performance at the same position can be had for but a fraction of the price.

I tried to make this argument a couple of weeks ago somewhere, stating that _all_ closers were overrated. including Mariano, because he's a closer. I was mostly ridiculed, but I guess it's somewhat inconsistent to claim that, and this, but I'm just not totally convinced.

No, the mets are not going to take the cap off at this point. I only mentioned it that way because you brought up the it doesn't matter if the payroll is 20 or 300. And yes, resigning Mariano and Jeter (less so A-Rod, at least originally. the opt out is where it got messy) was not the wise move, but it wasn't an economical/baseball one.

But this is where we differ. It's not Never. And the same level of performance will not likely be obtained. Rodriguez really is a much better pitcher than the other guys the Mets have. And likely better than whoever they bring in, especially if we're talking about being economical about it and not paying for a 'name' guy. It's gotta be pretty rare that the random guy another team has given up on suddenly becomes a dominate reliever. Even if you're talking trading Frankie for a reliever that's well under control. How often do you get Heath Bell, versus getting Ambiourix Burgos?

I'm just not a GM. I don't know what the other factors are. I imagine the reasons Sandy doesn't appear real worried about it is the same reason Omar wasn't worried about giving it to him. These options, while technically illegal, are easy to work around for the team. It's a way to give an extra year without giving an extra year. The Mets released Cora last year. They can release or trade K-Rod this year. Those are the rules of baseball. And you can make a lot of money in a pennant race, so that in this case, were the Mets to start hitting the ball and be say, 5 games above .500, the revenue created via a pennant race makes the hit taken from a vesting option much easier to swallow.

I also believe there is a threshold. The Mets need to be better next year, for attendance to increase. People want to go to the games, but if the team looks like it's in a 3-year rebuilding mode, they're not going to come. If they start improving, they'll start coming, and again payroll can go back up. And a lot of season tickets are sold based on how the team finishes. If they have a fire sale, even a partial one with Beltran and K-Rod and a pitcher and end up tanking and finish down, no one will have faith for next year. Keep those guys, finish strong and suddenly it looks like the step towards a championship. '98, '85, '05 take your pick.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Rodriguez really is a much better pitcher than the other guys the Mets have.

I don't believe this. But even if I did, that betterness spread out over seventy innings --- even as 45 of them are important, amounts to far too little.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Rodriguez really is a much better pitcher than the other guys the Mets have. I don't believe this. But even if I did, that betterness spread out over seventy innings --- even as 45 of them are important, amounts to far too little.

Probably. But I'm not going to scream and yell and predict the Mets to be worse if Sandy decides 2012 is better with him than without him. Even if it's at the 17.5 rate.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

There is no such thing as a partial fire sale. Totality-- "everything must go"-- is kind of the definition of "fire sale."

If you surmise it won't make a significant difference in your standing/the money you're bringing in between Game X and the season's terminus, trading Beltran and Rodriguez before season's end for parts that will help in future seasons (even if indirectly) isn't a "partial fire sale" or any sort of surrender; if done right, it's resource-maximization. Extra immediate-future wins aren't always the wisest use of said resources.

[Guest attgig]

There is no question Rodriguez cannot get that 17mil for 2012.

Just to add to the WAR talk...
let's say we trade him away and put in Parnell in there.

last year:
krod had 1.4 WAR in 57 innings.
BP had .7 WAR in 35 innings.
If bp had pitched the innings that krod had (with similar performance of those 35 innings expanded to 57), the difference would be .1-.2 WAR.
a tenth of a win difference.

you'd have to cascade it down to who replaces bobby parnell, and then who replaces the guy who replaces parnell, but you're really looking at a difference of < 1 win.



It's just not worth keeping krod around. Just isn't. let him go to a different team, and do whatever for them. our chances of making the playoffs this year won't be drastically affected by trading krod. a difference of one game will end up being affected more by random chance than replacing krod with parnell.

[metsmarathon]

Ceetar wrote: And the same level of performance will not likely be obtained.

this year, according to fangraphs, there are 36 relief pitcher who have attained at least the same level of performance as krod, if not better. as you might expect, that list includes such luminaries as chris resop, kyle farnsworth and matt lindstrom.

according to bbref, there are 39, including kevin gregg, chad qualls and luis ayala.

i think it is not all that hard to get decent relief pitching on the cheap. again, look to the mets' own bullpen. izzy, buccholz, byrdak, beato. none of them are remotely expensive. and while none of them are quite as good as frankie, they're not enough worse than him to justify the $10M additional that frankie is paid, and they certainly are not so much worse than frankie to justify paying him $16M extra.