Al Yellon
Editor
Bud Selig: Athletics Could Get Approval To Move ... Out Of Bay Area - May 17
Grant Brisbee
Editor
Worst Call Of The Year? - May 18
Jeff Sullivan
Editor
The Bobby Valentine .Gif Of The Year - May 19
Rob Neyer
National Baseball Editor
Grading on the Curve - May 20
Dan Moore
Contributor
Joey Votto And The Twilight Of The Giant First Basemen - Apr 14
Jason Brannon
Hot Corner Scribe
MLB: My Favorite Illegal Cartel - May 20
Jim Baker
Contributor
eBay Item Of The Day - May 20
Marc Normandin
Contributor
Josh Reddick, And Having Patience With Prospects - May 18
Wendy Thurm
Contributor
Baseball On Par With Other Professional Sports In Dealing With Bad Umpires - May 20
Jun 30, 2011 - Ah, the subject that just keeps on giving. From Jim McCormick (via Philadelphia Sports Daily):
Ryan Howard enjoys the highest A.A.V. of any first basemen in baseball.
Huh?
The acronym stands for annual average value. Howard is set to make $25 million starting next season, and for the next five seasons. Albert Pujols might change this reality, but for now, "The Big Piece" has the biggest pact.
Those figures aren't exactly right, but they're close enough to get us started. And here's an exceptionally important fact to keep in the front of your mind, every time Howard's contract comes up ... Said contract doesn't actually begin until next year.
Granted, Howard's not exactly hurting for cash this season, in which he's paid $20 million in the last year of a three-year extension. And he actually makes "only" $20 million in both 2012 and '13, then $25 million annually from 2014 through '16. And the deal is counted as $125 million because of a 2017 option: $10 million buyout or $23 million salary. Considering the relatively small difference between the buyout and the salary, in the absence of a serious injury, a performance meltdown or a contract restructuring, Howard's going to wind up earning $138 million over six years. Which works out to $23 million per season.
Which seems like a lot, no?
Yeah. According to FanGraphs, Howard has been -- considering hitting, fielding, and baserunning -- worth $13 million per season over the last three seasons (including prorated 2011). There is, as you might have surmised already, a significant difference between $23 million and $13 million.
Here's another way to look at this ... Howard is among MLB's highest-paid first basemen. Mark Teixeira makes slightly more than Howard, and Miguel Cabrera makes the same. According to FanGraphs, Cabrera has been this season's third-best first baseman (behind Adrian Gonzalez and Prince Fielder), Texeira the fifth-best (behind Joey Votto).
Ryan Howard? Eighteenth best. Seriously.
Is there any way to defend Howard's contract? My friend Jonah Keri did:
"It's really the opposite of how we might analyze a transaction," Keri explained, "we would say ‘you don't sign someone because he's famous, you sign him because he's going to produce.' But this guy Ryan Howard, whatever you want to call it, is the heart and soul, the face of the team, and therefore he does deserve the premium.
--snip--
"I think the people that ridicule the Howard deal," Keri said, "and I confess I didn't think it was a good deal either, I think that other side of the equation that is ignored in analysis, the marketing and promotion side. I don't exactly believe in that side of the equation in player valuation, or subscribe to the idea that you should sign somebody because he's famous, but I think it's what the Phillies wanted and this is the result."
The "result" being ... what? First place? Jam-packed stands for every game?
Fair enough. But again, what's important to remember is that Howard's in his decline phase and will almost certainly get worse. That if he's the 18th best first baseman in the majors in 2011, he might well become the 24th best first baseman in the majors in 2014, when he's making $25 million.
Is there some value in his heart and his soul and his charm? Sure. Will that value, over the next six seasons, equal or exceed the difference between his salary and the value of his performance on the field?
That, my fine furry friends, seems to me exceptionally unlikely.
For much more about the Phillies, please visit The Good Phight.
13 comments
Mark Ellis Injury: Dodgers 2B Has Emergency Leg Surgery
Adam Lind Placed On Outright Waivers, According To Report
Orlando Hudson Signing With White Sox, Says Robin Ventura
Brandon McCarthy Lands On 15-Day DL With Strained Right Shoulder
Emilio Bonifacio To DL With Sprained Thumb
Lance Berkman Leaves Game With Knee Injury
Chipper Jones Likely To Miss Weekend With Leg Contusion
Danny Duffy Indeed Having Tommy John Surgery
Diamondbacks' Chris Young Comes Off Disabled List
Allen Craig, Kyle McClellan Hit DL
More News »
Comments
Wait a second
So there’s a “relatively small” difference between a $10m buyout and $23m salary, but a “significant” difference between his $13m value and $23m salary? I think Howard’s contract is laughably bad but that’s kind of an awkward juxtaposition of adjectives.
by BigFlax on Jun 30, 2011 4:35 PM EDT reply actions
He means that the difference is small relative to the amount of the entire contract, which it is. When figuring the average annual value, which is what Neyer was using to figure out his worth, the difference between the amount of the buyout and the salary doesn’t affect the annual value in a significant way. That’s much different than talking about a $10 million difference for one year, which certainly is significant.
by Buckeye Brad on Jun 30, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Not how it reads at all. Here’s what it says:
“And he actually makes “only” $20 million in both 2012 and ‘13, then $25 million annually from 2014 through ’16. And the deal is counted as $125 million because of a 2017 option: $10 million buyout or $23 million salary. Considering the relatively small difference between the buyout and the salary, in the absence of a serious injury, a performance meltdown or a contract restructuring, Howard’s going to wind up earning $138 million over six years."
What this means is that the deal is counted as $125 million factoring in the $115m between 2012-2016 (20-20-25-25-25) plus the $10m buyout since that’s the minimum he could earn. But Rob concludes that Howard will wind up with $138m, not $125m. And why? Because “the relatively small difference between the [$10m] buyout and the [$23m] salary” means that barring serious injury or an absolute cratering of performance, the Phillies will most likely decide to pick up the option rather than buy Howard out. Because they won’t view $13m as that significant an amount as long as he’s still providing some value, apparently. And that’s an amount that only counts in 2017, which last I checked is still just one year.
by BigFlax on Jun 30, 2011 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
It won't be that significant of an amount in 2017.
The Phillies could then either pay Howard $10m to do nothing or $13m more to actually play. We can’t really know what a win will be worth in 2017, but it’s highly unlikely they’ll get any cheaper. He’d have to be really, really useless by then to not be worth $13m. If the difference wasn’t “relatively small”, then we could speculate otherwise. Howard wouldn’t be a bad deal at $13m this season, and it’s almost impossible for him to not be worth that in 2017.
To put it another way… As a player worth $14m/yr in 2011-16, Howard would be a major disappointment because of the “significant difference” between his worth and his salary. If he then was worth $14m in 2017 after the Phillies exercised their option, he’d be a bargain.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 1, 2011 5:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Is this such a new concept that we have to keep mocking contracts?
If the Phillies were willing to give the man the money, who cares? No one put a gun to their head.
Ok, this year, he’s rated as the 18th best player at his position. But seriously, who should they have replaced him with? Should they have let him walk and then fielded a team with a defensive hack who can barely hit his weight (D. Barton et al.)?
And no, I don’t believe Carlos Pena, even though he’d cost less, would give them adequate production (his yearly production since 2007 has declined each season).
Maybe you say the Phillies should’ve traded him before last season, fine, but to who? Milwaukee? Um, they already had Prince Fielder, and his contract wasn’t up until this upcoming offseason, why would they want to put themselves in that situation 2 years earlier than expected?
Maybe you say he could’ve been traded to St. Louis for Albert Pujols. However, both franchises would’ve still been forced to cross the contract bridge. Should they have traded Howard to the Padres for Gonzalez? Why would the Padres do that? They like to dump big name players for picks and AAAA caliber replacements.
The bottom line, the only way the Phillies could have avoided making this contract was to just let him walk, after this year. At that point what have they gained? They lose their cleanup hitter, and reduce their chances to Win a World Series while in their WIN NOW mentality.
"The tone is business," Garrett said. "Let's get to work. The Giants are going to be at the Meadowlands on Sunday at 4:15. They're an awfully good football team. We have to get ready for them."
by Rohpuri on Jun 30, 2011 5:01 PM EDT reply actions
Those are straw man trade examples
by Shmelix Shmernandez on Jul 1, 2011 5:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Or, as an alternative
The Phillies could have waited until Howard was medicore this year, showed him this article, and offered him a contract at or slight above his current FMV, and saved over $10 million a year.
by Rudemeister on Jul 1, 2011 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Some Might Still Say....
…. that ALL major league baseball contracts are too big.
"We praise or blame as one or the other affords more opportunity for exhibiting our power of judgment." Friedrich Nietzsche, "Human,All Too Human" (1878)
by wgarrett on Jun 30, 2011 5:23 PM EDT reply actions
Prince Fielder
Prince Fielder is a free agent after this season. If Ryan Howard’s contract were expiring, the Phillies would be in prime position go spend whatever it takes to sign the present most valuable 1B in the NL, from age 28 through 32-35. Given the Mets’ and Dodgers’ financial situations, and that the Cardinals are likely to focus on Pujols, and that the Yanks and Red Sox already have 1B filled, a rich club that wants Fielder probably isn’t going to have a lot of competition in the bidding. But since they’ve already committed crazy money and the 1B spot to Howard (from age 32-36), that’s out of the question. Too bad for them.
by frightwig on Jun 30, 2011 5:43 PM EDT reply actions
1st half WAR not indicative of value
I find it hard to believe Howard’s not in the top 10 for his position. Those Fangraphs numbers take into account zone rating for defensive performance, which is highly debatable and not yet refined. I’m really only concerned with wOBA or wRC+ when comparing to alternatives (where he ranks higher at 11th or 12th). Plus, Howard’s past has indicated once July 1 hits, his slugging percentage kicks into another gear. Any really, would anyone really rather have Daniel Murphy or Mark Trumbo at 1B?
by cyhamels on Jul 1, 2011 11:23 AM EDT reply actions
You might, actually, if it saves you $22M/yr, and they aren’t a complete disaster.
Geeks of All Nations, Compile!
by AMusingFool on Jul 1, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Even the most idiotic GM...
(I’m looking at you, Hendry)
could take $20m and more than make up the difference.
--------------------------------
Just North of Wrigley Field
by jameslcrockett on Jul 1, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
he topped out at 1.3 WAR last season
and his batting line is identical to last year. so unless you think he’s gotten significant better at defense since last year, this contract is still an albatross
Tried it once and they liked it, then tried to hide it
Twitter | Google+
by prophetjohn on Jul 1, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed