Buehrle's contract apparently controversial...
Lichtman and Tango think that Buehrle's contract overpays him
Someone already mentioned the THT column which concludes Buehrle is overpaid.
On a more positive note, Chris Dial at BTF thinks the signing was a good one
I have to admit that I'm surprised that so many stats people have panned the deal. It makes me wonder if WAR for pitchers is really calibrated correctly. Perhaps it would be better to look at WAWSR (Wins Above White Sox Replacement) which clearly shows that replacement level players from the Sox system aren't nearly as good as replacement level players from other systems.
Anyway, for a team willing to carry a $100M payroll and one that wants to be good again rapidly, I have a hard time seeing it as bad.
I'd be interested in knowing what the people who post here think about the various analyses of the deal. And I'd also like to know why I didn't see a bunch of articles saying the Matsuzaka signing was a bad deal...
SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I need a subject
The other question, which no one seems to ask, is what would the fallout have been from failing to sign Buehrle to a seemingly conciliatory contract? I think I do a reasonable job of removing emotions from roster decisions -- but I don't know how the Sox could have spun the failure to sign Buehrle in any positive light -- I don't know how I could have argued that the front office was making a genuine effort to put the best team it could field in the immediate future. It would have been a bloodbath at the gates until they won 90+ games again.
On Matsuzaka, I remember repeatedly comparing him to Javier Vazquez, while other pundits were calling him a surefire ace. Check out their current lines, I don't think there's a better comp for Matsuzaka out there.
This is exactly my point earlier
On top of it to not take into account the "politics" of baseball is just goofy. It is still a business, it is still the White Sox, you do need folks to come to the park. A rejection of such an open gesture from Buerhle would have hurt.
Bottom line if in this current market place he is not worth 14 mil a year, most pitchers are not worth it either, so what's the point of the articles?
Ha!
Great contract, great pitcher.
by Stealfirstbase on Jul 12, 2007 11:57 PM CDT reply actions
You can sum it all
Buehrle
GREAT DEAL!
I should also note that the Whitesox have allowed alot of unearned runs with Buehrle on the mound over his career. Unless it's the same fielders making the mistakes every single year, you've got to attribute alot of that to him.
Unearned runs
Anyway, I liked post 34. I'm going to make that the official analysis I subscribe to about this deal.
by hitlesswonder on Jul 13, 2007 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
I am so confused
Imbeciles?
A bad deal that I called at the time was Carlos Lee. A fantastic deal was Chase Utley. Those were off by FIFTY million $. Being off by 10 million $ either way can easily be considered part of the uncertainty of whatever parametersyou chose.
There is zero justification for Carlos Lee's deal.
You're right Chase Utley was a great deal...
I agree with you that some of these deals are ridiculous but you also have to realize that baseball is an entertainment business. IT IS WHAT IT IS.
If you think there is no justification for the Lee deal then what do you think of Vernon Wells signing for 7 years/$126M. He got that deal without even touching the free agent market.
Here are some more examples that the Astros GM could use as JUSTIFICATION for the Carlos Lee signing
Aramis Ramirez 5 years/$75M 1 year less and 1 million less than Carlos. Almost identical offensive #'s
Carlos Beltran 7 years/$119M He's a center fielder but is he that much better than Carlos offensively?
J.D. Drew 5 years/$70M- Was never that good to begin with and was rarely in shape
Jason Giambi 7 years/$120M. This contract was signed WAY BACK IN 2002
Derek Jeter 10 years/$189M This contract was signed WAY BACK IN 2001. Who's better offensively Jeter or Utley?
I will say though
Utley
I did a thorough analysis of most of the free agent and arb-eligible signings on my site, with justifications for each one. The Carlos Lee deal was by far the worst.
Dial's article...
Greg Maddux
Bret Saberhagen
Fergie Jenkins
Tom Glavine
Dave Stieb
Frank Tanana
Johnny Antonelli
Mark Gubicza
Dan Petry
Alex Fernandez
Curt Simmons
Jim Kaat
Jim Abbott
Some of those make more sense than others. If you watched them pitch, you wouldn't compare Buerhle to Antonelli or Jenkins - their statistical similarity comes more from the differences in the eras they pitched in (strikeouts are a lot more common than they used to be) rather than how they compare to their peers.
He's certainly nothing like Bret Saberhagen, who was alternately brilliant and mediocre, or Frank Tanana, who was a fireballer early in his career and crafted a second career as a crafty junkballer.
It's tough; there aren't many pitchers who have been able to acheive sustained success despite a low strikeout rate, like Buehrle, in the modern era. I'd like to think of him as sort of a Tommy John for the modern age, and if so, that would be wonderful.
I think he's past the point where we need to worry about a DIPS blowback, like BPro seems to be continually convinced will happen.
I also think that we're past the point where we need to worry about some sort of mechanical issue causing injury problems, like Mark Mulder. He's never had any indication of that.
The main worry is that he'll start to simply break down under the weight of all those innings, and it's pretty rare that that happens before one age-32 season. I think that will be a concern once he gets to be 34-35-36, but not during this contract.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 13, 2007 11:13 AM CDT reply actions
to rehash from another thread
at any rate, it certainly is amazing to see the disconnect between baseball numbers guys and the mainstream media/fans. you probably can't get a bigger divide than on this one.
i'm reticent to fully endorse the deal as a slam dunk for the sox, for a lot of the reasons cited. however, this was a deal the sox basically had to make and one that i would have made. even if it does turn real bad real quick, i don't see it as paralyzing the sox.
I don't even know...
I think the main problem that some stats guys have with Buehrle is that he's been successful without striking a lot of guys out. I think that when people think of top-flight pitchers, the guys you want to lock down for a long time, they think of guys like Roger Clemens or Johan Santana or Randy Johnson, guys who will go up there and blow opposing hitters away.
Buerhle allows a lot of balls in play, and there aren't many guys who have sustained success despite that. The few who do (Jim Palmer, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine) are Hall-of-Famers, and there's an understandable reluctance to group Buehrle with those guys, because he's a step or three down from those guys.
Buehrle is a hard one to peg. Like I said above, I would be ecstatic if his career ended up looking like Tommy John's (with an appropriate adjustment for the era he's pitching in), and I think that's very doable.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 13, 2007 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions
"Buehrle is a hard one to peg"
Who is to say if he pitched in Oakland or San Diego what his stats would look like? I know we adjust for these but damn he would be ridiculous in 1 of those parks. Until his dreadful 2nd half Buerhle ranked higher than Santana in some of the lists( I understand Johan was and would have passed him easily in time.) I just point it out because people seem to forget exactly how good this guy was.
I don't normally buy into the east coast mumble jumble but I have to admit, when Boston spends 1 trillion dollars on dice K and I see articles from the stat community justifying it........ what gives??? These guys can take the time to research money factors for them but can't for a team in a 2 club city in which they are 2nd tier?
Hogwash.
Again...
To put it another way, you can watch Matsuzaka and see how he's successful. On the other hand, while Buehrle clearly gets the job done, it's harder to see exactly how, and that makes some people less excited about his future prospects.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 13, 2007 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe
I think...
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 13, 2007 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Jerry
Matsuzaka
Obviously, Boston has money to burn and has to compete with NYY so there are circumstances definitely influence the relative merits of the deal for the Red Sox. But so are there for the White Sox and Buehrle. I guess it really does come down to Ks, but I do wonder if the relative standing of the 2 organizations in the stats community doesn't influence the analysis a little.
by hitlesswonder on Jul 13, 2007 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't mean to hijack the thread
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/mlb_experts/post/Five-and-Fly-Apocalypse-prediction?urn=mlb,39045
Yeah...
If I had a dollar for everything that was going to "destroy baseball", I'd be able to get a pretty nice dinner for myself and my fiancee.
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jul 13, 2007 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Last word
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/buehrle#36
Great stuff tango
A series of "hey what if I think about this another way". Maybe as x person says we really shouldn't be comparing Buerhle to guys that pitched in the '70's. Maybe he is better than the 2.5 WAR player that he was projected as coming into the season etc., etc.

by 















