Jake Peavy's contract: Albatross or steal?

 At the time of the Peavy trade my mind wandered to John Lackey. I perceived Lackey to be a slightly less valuable/talented pitcher than Peavy and thought he would be a good test case of what it would cost to acquire a pitcher of similar value on the open market. Now that Lackey has signed for exactly what another potentially comparable player signed for last year a 3 way comparison should be insightful.

There are those out there who believe that Peavy's contract was an "ace" contract and yet he wasn't an ace. Of course at least one of those people believes that John Danks should be traded for Jose Lopez. A comparison of Peavy, Burnett and Lackey after the jump.

Peavy

Age:28

2.83 ERA, 137 ERA+, 498 IP, last 3 years, career ERA+ 120

tRA+ (last 3 years): 144,116,132

WAR (by tRA, last 3 years): 13.9

Projections:

ZIPS: 115 ERA+

Chone: 3.91 ERA, 145 IP, 35 Runs above replacement

Fans: 3.70 ERA, 174 IP

3 yr./52 million , 17.3 mill/yr.

10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$17M, 13:$22M club option ($4M buyout)

Lackey

Age: 31

3.48 ERA, 129 ERA+, 563 IP last 3 years, career 117 ERA+

tRA+ (last 3 years): 120,94,118

WAR (by tRA, last 3 years): 9.4

Projections:

ZIPS: 113 ERA+

Chone: 4.04 ERA, 185 IP, 37 Runs above replacement

Fans: 3.76 ERA, 189 IP

5 yr./ 82.5 million, 16.5 mill/yr

$3.5M signing bonus

10:$18M, 11:$15.25M, 12:$15.25M, 13:$15.25M, 14:$15.25M

Burnett

Age: 33 (32 when he started contract)

Stats

3.97 ERA, 111 ERA+, 522 IP last 3 years, career 110 ERA+

tRA+ (last 3 years): 124,115,122

WAR (by tRA, last 3 years): 11.3

Projections:

ZIPS: 102 ERA+

Chone: 4.40 ERA, 177 IP, 32 Runs above replacement

Fans: 4.08 ERA, 195 IP

5yr./82.5 million

09-13:$16.5M annually

I have purposely avoided WAR by FIP as I think it is not a good measure of value (a good metric for projection though). I have probably been affected by watching the FIP polar opposites (Buehrle and Vazquez). But they (peavy et. al.) are almost exactly equal in WAR by FIP the last 3 years. 

By pretty much every other metric you look at Peavy is better than Lackey and Burnett. The park and league adjusted metrics are particularly instructive as they peel away the PETCO effect.

The only way in which Peavy lags the other two is in projected playing time. Of course ZIPS and CHONE don't know that Peavy had only an ankle injury and a bruise and ended the year healthy. The fans have a better appreciation of this as seen in their projection. Given the additional information and Peavy's less advanced age these 3 pitchers probably have similar injury risk projections.

I would conclude based on this data that Peavy would command slightly more on the open market than Lackey and Burnett. Lackey's contract appears to be front-loaded with 21.5 mill in the first year. That makes it more valuable than a contract with evenly spread salaries. So being conservative, let's just project Peavy at 5 yrs./87 million (a little less than 1 million a year more than Burnett/Lackey). And that's assuming no one is blinded by Cy youngs and ERA titles.

So Peavy is signed for 3/52 and would command 5/87 or so on the open market. Really no difference in yearly compensation but an extra $35 million in risk. Given that the major risk in long-term pitcher contracts is in injuries that is a huge difference. 

So Peavy's contract is actually a bargain compared to what it would take to sign a similar talent on the open market. Of course KW traded prospects of value for Peavy. I won't get into valuation of those prospects. Suffice it to say that KW's track record there is good.

The idea that Peavy is some overrated creation of PETCO with a bad contract is false. Whether the prospects that KW traded are worth the $35 million dollars of risk that he avoided is subject to discussion (and time). Personally, I'll take the risk avoidance (and the money for 2013-14).