What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
The reason Romney only paid 13% is a completely different issue and a completely different tax. That tax has to do with capital gains (investments). Not salary. Taxes on capital gains are much much lower than taxes on salaries. You can probably argue all day about whether they SHOULD be so much less, there are solid arguments on both sides, but its totally different taxes. And IMO, the fact that the top 10% make up about 75% of the total federal income tax received shows that the rich do indeed pay their fair share. But thats an argument for a different forum ;)
"Apparently the Ranger FO sees Matt Harrison differently than the unbelievers."
As the unbeliever-in-chief, I'll point out that throughout this thread, I've maintained that Harry is a 3.8 to 4.1 ERA pitcher for the Rangers. B/c of our park, that translates into 3 to 4.5 WAR per season. And this $55 mil contract reflects that.
In 2012, Harrison posted 6.2 bWAR. If the Rangers, Harrison, and Harrison's agent believed that he could do that consistently in the future, this extension wouldn't have been signed. If you need proof, here it is:
1) Jered Weaver's extension was for $85 mil. Weaver has posted over 5 bWAR only once in his career.
2) Cole Hamels extension was for $153 mil. Hamels has posted over 5 bWAR only twice.
3) Hernandez's estension was for $78 mil. Hernandez has posted over 5 bWAR only twice.
4) Lee's contract was for $120 mil. He's posted over 5 bWAR only twice.
Harrison is is getting paid much less than these 4 pitchers even though his bWAR in 2012 was substantially better than the bWAR that these pitcher's typically post. Again, that tells me that neither the Rangers, Harrison, nor Harrison's agent believe that he will repeat his performance in 2012 in future years.
Again. Key is 2 arbitration years. Hamels, Lee, and I believe Weaver as well were FA year numbers. You dont think he would get an 80 mil contract if he was on the free agent market? Anibal Sanchez got a 5 year 80 mil contract. I have a hard time believing Harry, if on the FA market, wouldnt command the same, if not more.
It seems to be the least understood concept when talking about contracts on this site. Arbitration years are MUCH less valuable than FA years. Its a huge factor in negotiating contracts when the players are still only arbitration eligible.
NetAggie gets it...and RFan's comparisons to those other contracts...don't mean squat.
Harrison had no leverage in bringing other parties into the negotiation, thus the Rangers had all the control. Despite this control...the Rangers showed they are true believers by shelling out a ton of money for Prince Harry.
As was noted above, a great read:
A few excerpts of interest:"Harrison will well outpitch his contract. Even if his home run rates and BABIP regress to the mean — and, it should be noted, the mean pitcher does not showcase as good a fastball, sinker, nor changeup as Harrison — Harrison will still be at or near the performance called for by this pact."
ProvarMVP: 3 Plus pitches. How come this doesn't get talked about!?! Could Matt crush his contract too?
Jon Daniels and company have invested in one of the best 20 (or fewer) pitchers of the last two years with this move.
ProfarMVP: The author puts Harry in the top 20...but maybe top 10 or top 8. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Eric "Let's-Trade-Harrison-for-a-JAG-or-two" Reigning.
Despite the peripherals, Fangraph's Jack Moore uses nothing less than this phrase to describe Harrison,"A true Ace"
Where in the world did you read 3 PLUS pitches?
Also, his FA years were signed for $13 AAV. Hardly the AAV of a TORP. His contract is good for the Rangers and deserved for Harrison - it isn't validation of his ascension into TORP territory. In fact, if that were the case, he would never have signed this extension.
Great job guys, 500+ posts!
In fact, you probably need to reread that article. It points to his results being acelike; however, the author also clearly points out that his 78% LOB rate is unsustainable and we should look for the a dropoff in results. GASP! Oh, wait ..that's what we've been saying all along.
Also, the article clearly states another thing (taking into account the AAV of his FA years) - he is being paid like an above average starter. He is far from an "ace".
When someone says top 20, they don't mean top 10. Afterall, it's much easier to say top 10 than to imply it in your top 20 (which he isn't doing) , donchathink?
The article walks the middle line. It says his results the last 2 seasons have been acelike without actually defining him as an ace. It also says "top 20 (or better)". "Acehood" is one of those things that depends on who you talk to. To me, its 90% mental (yes, the other half is physical yogi). An ace wants the ball and can seemingly will the hitters not to be successful. They have this attitude that "I'm going to dominate you". I dont think Harry's there yet mentally. But, I think he's a helluva lot closer to it than Holland is. Just look at what theyve each said about their offseason work. Harry wants to fine-tune his slider and trust it enough to be able to use it as a backdoor pitch to righties. Holland wants to ask Nolan Ryan or Harry how to do better. It kinda illustrates the difference between the two to me on the mental side.
^not sure who this is directed towards but I don't disagree. Particularly, I don't find the Holland comp that ProfarMVP is using as relevant. I understand the manner in which you're comparing what he could possibly learn from Harrison, but talent isn't one of them. Harrison's strength is Holland's biggest weakness; however, just from the eye test - Holland possesses more "talent". Doesn't really matter though if the consistency isn't there.
Holland has a more electric fastball (even though there isnt much velocity difference). Thats his swing-and-miss pitch. I suspect it has to do with having more late life than Harry does since the velocity difference isnt that big. However, I'm not as impressed with his offspeed stuff. I think Harry has a better change and a better curve, but Holland has a better slider. The difference is commanding them. Thats what makes harry's offspeed stuff stand out more to me than Holland's. So I guess it depends on how you look at "talent". I think Holland has the best lead character, but Harrison has a better overall cast.
Holland's results (for the most part) would remain consistent regardless of the defense behind him. He generates a respectable swinging strike % and his peripherals are decent for a pitcher of his talent - his mammoth HRs allowed would still be HRs allowed regardless of the defenders his team employs. Harrison's results are a bit more defense dependent which are validated by several metrics. This team is perfectly suited for his talents (given that he is, in fact, trending nore towards being a heavy GB pitcher - which as of right now is not what he should be classified as).
That being said, Holland IMO is irrelevant as a contract comp.
Txball challenges, Where in the world did you read 3 PLUS pitches?
The writer explicitly spoke of Harrison's fastball, sinker, and change-up...being above the mean of an ML starter. I.E. 3 plus pitches.
Txball writes "....just from the eye test - Holland possesses more "talent".That was the emphatic opinion of the skeptics 18 months ago...and again 12 months ago...and the notion persisted by some even half way through this last season season. I'd suggest that two years of results are piling up. Maybe we'll see a renewed Derek Holland in 2013. Right now....Harrison is crushing that assessment.
His contract was in line with that viewpoint...superior to what Holland received.
When Holland is at his very best he features a wipe-out pitch that Harrison can't rival. But when is Derek is ever consistent? As a pitcher you are defined by your 10 or 20 worst pitches in any game....not by your 10 or 20 best pitches. Harrison has far fewer bad pitches.
All you have to do is compare the sound of the bat hitting an average Holland pitch compared to the relatively muffled sound of struck balls when Harrison is on the mound.
It's been empirically measured: Harrison has *11.5 inches of horizontal movement on his two-seamer--second to only one pitcher in MLB, namely David Price. That...and 95MPH, and command and consistency and horselike size and durability...if you don't want to call it talent...I'd argue you have a bias with the player.
SilverSlugger writes,"Great job guys, 500+ posts!"
Indeed! Everywhere Matt goes...amazing numbers follow.
Go Harry! Go Rangers!
nateaggie, I know about arb years, etc. If you haven't followed this entire thread (and I don't blame you for that!), it began with me and some others arguing that Harrison's 2012 season was a fluke and that Harrison is roughly a 4.0 ERA pitcher unless he drastically improves his K/BB rate or his GB rate. ProfarMVP said Harrison's 2012 season wasn't a fluke and he can consistently repeat his 2012 ERA or something close to it.
Harrison posted 6.2 bWAR in 2012. That's elite. If Harrison or his agent thought that he could post 6.2 bWAR on a regular basis, then Harrison wouldn't have signed a $55 mil extension. That would be crazy b/c Harrison would be among the best pitchers of his generation. A sustained 6.2 bWAR would be hall of fame level pitching. Absent dramatic improvement, Harrison is not a hall of fame pitcher, and this contract extension isn't evidence to the contrary. One year of 78% strand rate does not a HOFer make.
RFan, can you name one poster in this 515-post thread that has claimed Harrison will be a HOFer?!
I don't think you can even find a post where anyone--outside of Fangraph's Jack Moore--who used the Ace label.
I've said Harry can settle in at around 3.3-3.5 park-adjusted ERA. And I suspect he'll continue to prove durable. This combination will lead to lots of Ranger wins when he is on the mound.
Profar having 3 pitches above the mean does not mean 3 PLUS pitches.
Also, Holland isn't a relevant contract comp because the Rangers bought out 4 arb years and 1 year of FA. It's debateable as to why the Rangers chose to extend Holland before Harrison but, going strictly off of remaining arbitration years, an assumption can be made that the Rangers were cognizant of Holland's ceiling and progress and chose to lock him up before they did Harrison.
Other than that, I fail to see your point.
As usual, RFan makes great points that seem to be misconstrued. He has repeatedly stated without fail that his LOB% is unsustainable from all indications and that is where a considerable portion of bWAR credits Harrison's success. Now this isnt necessarily an indictment of Harrison - meaning he could still possibly put up a great year in terms of results - but to count on him accumulating LOB wins based on Harrys 2012 wouldn't be a smart bet.
Also, Harrison's $/WAR should be analyzed strictly for his FA years as the market rate valuation is applicable for that portion. Based on the contract parameters and not accounting for inflation, the expected production relevant to his contract would be roughly equivalent to 3 WAR ($4.5 mil/). The Rangers, of course, are expected to rack up a sizeable surplus from extended players during the arb eligible portion that has been bought out - with the expectations that the remaining FA years would yield equivalent value.
Seems to me that Texas extended the pitcher with the higher ceiling (Holland) for about half the price they extended the more consistent pitcher (Harrison). I'm fine with both deals, because I expect both pitchers to add a decent-to-abundant amount of surplus value.
I think RFan is right. Harrison's deal indicates he, his agent, and the Ranger FO does not believe he's a TORP. I consider this an indisputable notion, since the going rate of high-end pitching is about double the amount of money Harrison brought in. All you have to do is look at Prince Harry's strand rate and strikeout rate to know he's no more than a fringe-#2, solid #3.
^I co-sign the above post.
"RFan, can you name one poster in this 515-post thread that has claimed Harrison will be a HOFer?!"
If you look back at this thread, the debate began with me arguing that Harry's 2012 season was a fluke and that he couldn't sustain a 3.3 ERA while pitching for the Rangers. You repeatedly disagreed and argued that Harry could repeat 2012 in the future. Harry's bWAR in 2012 was 6.2 and he had an ERA of 3.3 in arguably the top hitters park in baseball. If he could repeat that consistently for 8 to 10 years, then he would be a sure fire HOFer.
It sounds like you're now backing off your original position. If you think Harry is a 3-4 WAR pitcher.who can consistently post a 3.8 to 4.1 ERA while pitching for the Rangers, then I agree. If you think he can consistently repeat his 2012 season (i.e., he's a future HOFer and probable Cy Young winner), then I disagree.
"As usual, RFan makes great points that seem to be misconstrued. He has repeatedly stated without fail that his LOB% is unsustainable from all indications and that is where a considerable portion of bWAR credits Harrison's success."
Yes! Thank you.
"Harrison's deal indicates he, his agent, and the Ranger FO does not believe he's a TORP. I consider this an indisputable notion, since the going rate of high-end pitching is about double the amount of money Harrison brought in."
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.