The Lineaments of Gratified Desire

With the big money being thrown around this winter (well, big money has been thrown around for a lot longer, but that’s another story…), the punditocracy has spent a lot of time debating whether this signing or that signing is “good” or “bad.” Most of the time, the only data affecting this decision is whether or not that pundit believes the player in question is worth the amount of money his new employer is throwing at him.

Perhaps I’m naïve, but this “analysis” struck me as slightly simplistic. There’s gotta be a better way to look at this stuff. After chatting with Jim last night, I think I’ve got an idea that may at least be considered half-baked.

If I were smart like Bill James or the guys at Baseball Prospectus, I could find a way to write a formula to get this boiled down into some easy-to-understand number. But I’m not, so bear with me.

Start with the assumption that every contract has two sides: a baseball side and an economic side. Then, ask a few simple questions about both sides of the deal.

Baseball Side:
1. Is this player an improvement over the guy he’s replacing?
2. Does this team have a need for this player?
3. What other alternatives does the team have to fill this need?

Economic Side:
4. Is this player worth the money?
5. Is this player worth the time?

Highly subjective, I admit. But I think if you ask these questions, you avoid the knee-jerk “Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! Alex Rodriguez signed a contract worth a quarter of a billion dollars!” reaction that passes as analysis nowadays.

Let’s take a look at everyone’s favorite big-money signing – Alfonso Soriano – and put these questions to his new deal. From the baseball side:

1. Yeah, I guess so. Soriano takes Pierre’s spot in the lineup. Their on-base averages are comparable, but Soriano showed a lot more power last year. If that’s a true representation of his production, the improved slugging makes it a plus for the Cubs. However, Soriano will get OJT in center field, which is not a position where you want guys getting OJT. Scouts said he handled left field OK…but center field is a different beast. Call it a fairish improvement offensively, and a definite downgrade defensively.

2. What the Cubs needed was a guy who could get on base and play center field. Soriano has yet to prove he can do either.

3. The free agent options are retreads: Kenny Lofton, Gary Matthews Jr., J.D. Drew. Cheaper, but not necessarily better. The best in-house option is Felix Pie. He might be ready this summer. Or maybe next summer. He’s looking like a Soriano-type player, too.

Economically, the answers to both questions are “Hell, no!” I don’t like contracts longer than two years, and I don’t like shelling out that much money on one guy.

Combine this mess, and you get an answer of: not really good. Maybe Soriano will do everything expected of him and lead us to a new gilded age. Right now, from where I’m looking, he’ll be OK. But he doesn’t bring to the table what we really need, and he’s pretty damned expensive, too.

Now let’s peek at Gil Meche:

1. Come on, it’s Gil Meche we’re talking about. The only what that’s an improvement over someone on your staff is if you’re the Royals. Oh…wait…

2. The Royals need good, young pitchers. Meche is neither.

3. Even the Royals should be able to scrape up somebody to give them 175 innings with a 5.00-ish ERA. That’s what the non-tendered free agent listing is for, right?

Economically, the answers are another set of “Hell, no!” Five years of Gil Meche? Oy…

This is a first draft, so I admit there’s some room for improvement. But I think answering these five questions gives you the information you need to make a proper assessment of a signing (or trade, for that matter). Strip out the emotional baggage of Proven Veterans™ and big-buck contracts and we might be able to have a rational discussion about the merits of these player moves, without worrying about whether we’re singling out certain teams.

You gotta start somewhere, right?