Just Say No

by JakeS on Nov 12, 2008 3:27 AM PST

So, I've been quick to come out against the notion that the Giants should make a splash in the free agent market; my belief is that winning teams are built from the bottom up and dipping into free agency for established players tends to result in overpaying for production. That's not to say that it's not without it's uses - a team might be one piece away from real contention or there may be an undervalued player on the market. I'm all for the second but I don't think anybody can honestly claim the Giants represent the first.

That said, that's just, like, my opinion man, so I decided to take a closer look at it. What I'd really like to do is see what percentage of the production on winning teams comes from free agents and compare that to the percentage on losing teams but that would be a huge project and it's already two in the morning as I write this. Instead, I'll try a somewhat simpler approach: We can all agree that the ultimate point of building a team is to win a championship. Beyond that, I think we wouldn't consider a season in which a team reached the World Series but failed to win a true failure - there's just no way to guarauntee a victory in a best of seven. So, I took the two World Series teams from every season since 1995 and identified their six most productive players by VORP. I then narrowed that list of players down to just those acquired through free agency. When we talk about the free agent market we are generally referring to the marquee players, so those players who teams took a flyer on aren't really relevant to this specific discussion (in fact, they are the kind of players I do think rebuilding teams like the Giants should target) - with that in mind I excluded those players who were signed to minor-league contracts or major-league contracts valued at less than $1 million per year.

2007 David Ortiz (Red Sox)
2007 Manny Ramirez (Red Sox)
2006 Jeff Suppan (Cardinals)
2006 Kenny Rogers (Tigers)
2005 Roger Clemens (Astros)
2005 Andy Pettite (Astros)
2004 David Ortiz (Red Sox)
2004 Manny Ramirez (Red Sox)
2004 Johnny Damon (Red Sox)
2003 Ivan Rodriguez (Marlins)
2003 Roger Clemens/David Wells (Tie) (Yankees)
2003 Jason Giambi (Yankees)
2003 Mike Mussina (Yankees)
2002 Brad Fullmer (Angels)
2002 Barry Bonds (Giants)
2001 Randy Johnson (Diamondbacks)
2001 Mark Grace (Diamondbacks)
2001 Roger Clemens (Yankees)
2001 Mike Mussina (Yankees)
2000 Roger Clemens (Yankees)
1999 David Cone (Yankees)
1999 Greg Maddux (Braves)
1998 David Cone (Yankees)
1998 David Wells (Yankees)
1998 Paul O'Neill (Yankees)
1997 Kevin Brown (Marlins)
1997 Alex Fernandez (Marlins)
1997 Moises Alou (Marlins)
1997 Bobby Bonilla (Marlins)
1997 Orel Hershiser (Indians)
1996 Kenny Rogers (Yankees)
1996 Paul O'Neill (Yankees)
1996 Greg Maddux (Braves)
1995 Greg Maddux (Braves)
1995 Orel Hershiser (Indians)
1995 Dennis Martinez (Indians)

That means that out of a total of 168 of the most valuable players on these teams, 36 were acquired as free agents, or about 20%. This would seem to support my hypothesis, it is very difficult, nearly impossible, to build a championship caliber team through free agency. This seems especially the case if you aren't a huge payroll team; of the 28 teams on my list only 10 had two or more free agents in their Top 6: the '04 and '07 Red Sox, the '96, '98, '01
and '03 Yankees, the '97 Marlins, the '05 Astros, the '95 Indians, and the '01 Diamondbacks. The only World Series team in my timeline with more than three of their top six acquired through free agency are the pre-fire-sale 1997 Florida Marlins with four. After taking into account multiple appearances only 24 different players managed to make the list.

The most telling number, to me, of the 28 World Series teams, 18 had one or fewer of their top six players acquired through free agency. 7 teams had none at all.

Now, obviously this is a limited sample and doesn't go into as much detail as I'd like to, but it does make me more confident that a closer look would also point towards free agency as an ineffective way to build a championship-caliber team. For the Giants it's a case that should be even clearer as they need look no further than Barry Zito to see the risk inherent in this method and a lot of us were saying the exact same thing back then. Hopefully it doesn't fall on deaf ears this year and the Giants just say no to free agency.

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You Missed A Few Giants

Jason Schmidt was re-signed as a free agent after the 2001 season. Reggie Sanders and Benito Santiago were free agent signings of the Giants with Benito signed prior to the 2001 season and Reggie signed prior to the 2002 season.

However, this is hardly your biggest mistake. You biggest mistake is the crazy idea that the Giants should choose to completely ignore any specific method to aquire the talent they need to rebuild. All this does is make the task harder and insure that it will take longer. The Giants need to be open to all methods of aquiring the needed talent and not close off any one of them just because you have a personal bias against that specific one.

by giantsrainman on Nov 12, 2008 5:51 AM PST 0 recs

Jason Schmidt: Flier. He was underperforming for the Pirates and took nothing to get.
Benito Santiago: Flier. His career needed resurrecting, IIRC.
Reggie Sanders: Undervalued player.

All three were relative bargains in comparison to free agent shopping along the lines of Damon, ManRam, Clemens or Randy Johnson. Or in GRM terms, overspending on A-Rod and Mike Lowell.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 12, 2008 1:31 PM PST up 0 recs

Jason Schmidt Was A Highly Saught After Free Agent In The 2001/2 Offseason

He had come of a great second half with the Giants after the trade. The Giants signed Jason to a 5 year $40.5M Free Agent Contract for 2002 thru 2006. This was not bargin shopping. It was a good deal for the Giants only in the same sense that the signing of Barry Bonds for these 5 years at $90M was a good deal. They both performed and earned their money.

With regards to Santiago and Sanders the criteria used by the author of this Fanpost was that the average annual salary be $1M or more for the free agent in question. Both Santiago and Sanders meet this criteria.

Bottom line you have failed to make your point.

by giantsrainman on Nov 12, 2008 1:49 PM PST up 0 recs

I’ll defer to Jake’s points in response to your point. However, I missed you. It’s not as much fun here without your constant “HEY! Let’s overspend on all top free agents! Hooray!” posts.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 12, 2008 2:17 PM PST up 0 recs

Hey, I didn’t really miss you and your constant insistence of “personal bias,” and I didn’t miss those players: I was referring to players who were acquired originally as free agents whereas Schmidt was re-signed and Santiago falls under the category of players who teams just took a flyer on as he was signed to a contract for well under $1 million originally. Reggie Sanders was not one of the six most valuable players on the Giants in 2002.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Nov 12, 2008 1:52 PM PST up 0 recs

Also, if you were to deign to fully read and comprehend one of my posts for once you’d see that I didn’t say the Giants should ignore free agency completely, I was referring specifically to the marquee players who tend to be overpayed for their past production and, as I think I showed, are rarely the foundation of a championship caliber team.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Nov 12, 2008 1:54 PM PST up 0 recs

Yes, Schmidt Was Re-Signed, But Not Until After He Filed And Went To Free Agency

Just like Bonds. As for your very arbitary limitiation to the top 6 in VORP this is just another example of how stats can be made to say. Bottom line the Giants don’t get to the 2002 World Series without these 4 significant free agents.

by giantsrainman on Nov 12, 2008 3:56 PM PST up 0 recs

Well of course it’s arbitrary, any number I would have chosen would have been arbitrary.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Nov 12, 2008 10:38 PM PST up 0 recs

Interesting study, but i’m not sure i can agree with your conclusions entirely as there’s other factors you’ve got to consider.

Firstly, due to the way player contracts are worked out, players in their first 6 seasons don’t reach free agency. So that’s a huge amount of players that obviously have to be discounted in this study.

Secondly, for the same reason, very few players hit free agency when they hit their prime, most players have their prime years whilst they’re still under control. If you look at the players available in free agency, most are older & on the downside of their careers & so in general you’re not going to get the best players in free agency.

Thirdly, in comparison to the amount of players playing in the majors, only a small amount reach free agency, because a lot sign extensions, etc. That’s especially true of the better players in the league, who most teams try & lock up to extensions early.

So, in other words, not many players are generally available in free agency, even fewer of the good/great players are available in free agency, and even fewer still are in their peak years when they do so. So it’s not at all surprising that most of the players in world series teams, aren’t acquired in free agency. In fact, what it does show is basically all of the teams that have got to the world series, have had at least one player obtained through free agency that has been a major player for them.

That’s not to say that we should spend loads of money on free agency, because i’m not saying we should, there are loads of pitfalls in it, but you can’t ignore it as a method of improving the team. As i mentioned last time this was discussed, you can’t simply look at financial cost when comparing free-agency to trades. You have to consider the total COST (talent + cash) when considering any deal, and whilst free agency deals are always going to be bad on the cash front, they’re great on the talent front. And equally, trades are generally more palatable on the cash front, but much worse on the talent level. The key is to weigh up the total COST & make smart moves with regards to that.

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Nov 12, 2008 6:17 AM PST 0 recs

In fact, what it does show is basically all of the teams that have got to the world series, have had at least one player obtained through free agency that has been a major player for them.

That’s how I read it too. If 20 percent of the very best players on the very best teams were acquired as free agents, then the evidence is telling you that you need an elite free agent or two to compete.

by Evan on Nov 12, 2008 7:22 AM PST up 0 recs

It’s interesting that our own recent history argues against this anti-FA line as well. In 1992 the Giants (even with Clark, Thompson, and Williams) featured an anemic offense (11th in the league in R/G, worst BA and OBP in the league, and 10th worst SLG), and thoroughly mediocre pitching staff (9th in the league in R/G, 10th in ERA+). They were coming off a 72-90 5th place season and had just fired their popular manager. And they were two seasons into a 6 year stretch that included only one .500 finish. (And of course they were facing an imminent relocation.) Should they or should they not have thrown huge money at the winter’s preeminent FA at this point?

Really with the exception of 1993, you could easily argue that signing Barry Bonds did very little for the team in the short term: one incandescent 103 win season and then an instant regression back to the .450ish ballclub they had been in 91 and 92 for the next three seasons. But in the long term, it was pretty obviously the best player acquisition in franchise history and ultimately propelled a decently sustained era of winning and competitiveness.

I’m not saying there’s anything like a comparable player out there at the moment to Barry. But I am saying closing off that avenue of making a fairly talentless club more talented would be short-sighted IMO.

Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!

by Roger on Nov 12, 2008 8:31 AM PST up 0 recs

To be fair

The post 1993 teams were greatly hampered by the big contract Robby Thompson got but underperformed and the big contract Matt Williams had but then he was out injured a significant amount of the time. Both were great detriments to the teams of that ’tween era, just like the Nen-Alfonzo-Armando-Morris bad stretch we had recently.

Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.

"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Nov 12, 2008 3:56 PM PST up 0 recs

To make it to the World Series, you probably need a really good free agent or two. But to just rebuild your team, I’d pass on free agency at the moment, in terms of the most expensive players.

"He called the sh** POOP!" -- Adam Sandler

by JRPhillips on Nov 12, 2008 1:47 PM PST up 0 recs

^^^

This is what I’m saying. Free agency makes good teams better it does not make bad teams good.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Nov 12, 2008 1:55 PM PST up 0 recs

No

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 12, 2008 7:36 AM PST 0 recs

AMIDUENITRITE?

The Basil Fawlty Moderating Strategy:
"We could run a nice blog here if we didn't have all these members getting in the way."

by WalrusMan on Nov 12, 2008 7:36 AM PST up 0 recs

Hey look, a post from 2003. I wonder what took it so long to get here.

FIRE BRIAN SABEAN

by zenbitz on Nov 12, 2008 9:14 AM PST 0 recs

Yep

Good job, Jake! I think you made your point quite well.

Giantfan, even in your refutation you concluded in your second point “…so in general you’re not going to get the best players in free agency.” I think that argues against the point you are trying to make, and for Jake’s point. As for your first point, no, those are exactly the players that need to be included in the comparison – in fact, that is the point of the comparison.

I wouldn’t say we should never sign free agents, but we have over-relied on it in the past, and that needs to stop. Even Rowand’s signing last winter was unnecessary at best.

Am I mad, in a coma, or back in time? Whatever's happened, it's like I've landed on a different planet. Now, maybe if I can work out the reason, I can get home.

by Lyle on Nov 12, 2008 9:54 AM PST 0 recs

I’m not sure how the fact that few of the best players reach free agency, means you shouldn’t go after ones that do. It means that you shouldn’t rely on them, but in fact it suggests the opposite, that due to the fact that most of the better players don’t reach free agency, taking advantage of the ones that do is important as the opportunity won’t be there very often.

I’m not sure why those players need to be included in the comparison, the general premise seems to be that good teams don’t have many free agents, so free agency is a bad way to build a good team. My point was that half (i’m not sure what the actual ratio is) of players couldn’t possibly have reached free agency as they haven’t been in the league long enough, so no team is going to have many free agents among it’s core, due to them having loads of those players, whether they’re a good team or bad team.

We perhaps have over-utilised free agency in the past, but i don’t think that’s a case of us using it because it’s better than trading as a way to obtain players. It’s more a case of us not producing players from our farm system, which leads to 2 problems. One is that we’ve needed too many external players & free agency has been a source to obtain them. The other is that due to our poor development, we’ve no had much talent to trade (far more cash than talent in terms of COST as i outlined above) which has forced us into the free agency route.

The key is to not get into the position where you’re forced to obtain talent in free agency (as we have been) and instead get into the position where you choose to use free agency as a better way of obtaining talent. Thankfully we’re in a better position to be flexible in whichever method we chose, but that doesn’t mean that we should shut off free agency as an avenue, we need to explore both & find the best overall moves we can.

Proud owner of the most boring Username! Alex Hinshaw: Now showing in a bullpen near you!

by GiantFan on Nov 12, 2008 12:31 PM PST up 0 recs

I would strongly disagree that free agency is a better method than training to obtain valuable players. In my results significantly more of those top six players were originally acquired via a trade, almost twice as many if my count is right.

Barry Zito: Mike Hampton with a guitar

by JakeS on Nov 12, 2008 2:11 PM PST up 0 recs

The key to not get into the position where you're forced to obtain talent in FA

Is to not win, plain and simple. When you win, you end up with draft picks in the 21-30 range, the last third of the first round, and good talented ballplayers normally don’t fall that far down, there is around a 10% chance of finding a good player with a pick that far back the first round. So if you are winning for 10 years, odds are that you will find only one good player among those 10 draft picks you got for winning.

In fact, being in the middle third of the first round is death as well (as the Giants learned in the 70’s and 80’s). You really need to suck badly and get a Top 5 pick and ideally a Top 2-3 pick in order to rebuild most efficiently and effectively.

That is how teams in recent times have rebuilt themselves, Braves, Yankees, Tigers, Brewers, Rays (or built), Marlins, they lose a lot in a extended period of time, at least 3-5 years, of course, have the right GM in place because even if you get a top pick, it’s still less than 50% chance you find a good player there, then add key trades and free agents to supplement, oh, and key International free agent signing.

Adoptive parental unit of Kevin " 2007's Most Spectacular Pitcher" Pucetas.

"I'm a Giant now... I like watching the ball get up there" - Wendell Fairley
"I'm really proud to be on this team." - Nate Schierholtz
"Woo hoo" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum

by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Nov 12, 2008 4:24 PM PST up 0 recs

Re; Just say no!

I wish you told Sabean that before he accepted crack.

by cheno on Nov 12, 2008 12:32 PM PST 0 recs

Wasn’t Ortiz originally acquired by the Red Sox on a nothing contract?

My current Interwebs obsession is pretty awesome. Also, my website is called ChatterBalks Dot Com. It's not being updated right now. Hope for more at your own risk.

by groug on Nov 12, 2008 12:47 PM PST 0 recs