Bundy Blunder?

[Cobby]

Tim Bundy is one of the best players in baseball at the moment - if not the best. During the off-season, he was just 26 years old and had put up back-to-back 10+ WAR seasons for me. But he just had one year left on his contract (at $8,656,250). Superstar quality players average $12,500,000 at the moment in my league.

So, I wanted to sign him to an extension. He demanded 10 years at $28,000,000. I tried to negotiate, but he was adamant. There was no way I was going to afford to do that with my mid-market team. So I traded him to Kansas City for a top quality, MBL-ready prospect. I figured, that was better than letting him walk at the end of the year.

But when I checked in later, I discovered that he had signed a 6-year extension with Kansas City for $14,000,000/year. Still a little bit expensive, but I think I would have agreed to that one. (he did have an off year for Kansas City - putting up a measly 8.9 WAR) (rate Stats were in line with previous years, but he missed some time due to injury)

Now, I'm not in that bad of shape over this. Juan Gutierrez, The 22-year old SS I traded for, put up 4.0 WAR in his sophomore year, is still developing, and only cost me the league minimum. Still, I do like having those superstars playing for me in their primes - both for the team and also just to watch their careers from a bit closer up.

I suspect I'm better off in the long run - but I'm curious how he went from adamantly 10yrs/$28,000,000 to settling for 6yrs/$14,000,000. I could have kept him on for that final year of the contract, and maybe ended up signing him to more favorable extension similar to what Kansas City got - or then again, maybe I would have lost him to free agency and got just 1 year of 8.9 WAR and a compensation pick. It would have been riskier, for sure.

Hm. So what do you think? Did I make a smart move, or commit a Bundy Blunder?

[ThePretender]

Depends on what your budget is, might have been smarter to keep Bundy even @ 28M a year.

[yawgmoth]

When you checked in later when was later? At what point in the year did he sign the extension might be a better question.
I have had bad experiences trying to sign extensions at the beginning of the off-season versus beginning of the season or even mid-season. I generally begin my negotiations for extensions in early May and try to have players signed/decisions made by the end of June. I haven't noticed the AI giving any less with regard to trade value if you trade someone away before the season or during that season.

[NoOne]

It's how much money you had for extensions at the time.

anyway, had you let him go to free agency, you can definitely get him cheaper than that demand (future reference), given the details you gave on your league's financial environment. the risk will be how long you wait before throwing your hat into the ring... learning curve is a bit slow due to lack of learning opportunities and length of time between them.

if it's not available money for extensions, it's budget or budget size etc.. basically they know they can demand more from a rich team without any competition setting the true market value.

fyi you definitely cannot low-ball them any more than normal in that situation either... so, don't offer 16M to a 28M demand.. may even hurt future negotiations in free agency.

[Cobby]

Originally Posted by yawgmoth

When you checked in later when was later? At what point in the year did he sign the extension might be a better question.
I have had bad experiences trying to sign extensions at the beginning of the off-season versus beginning of the season or even mid-season. I generally begin my negotiations for extensions in early May and try to have players signed/decisions made by the end of June. I haven't noticed the AI giving any less with regard to trade value if you trade someone away before the season or during that season.

Yeah, I think the timing is the key. I was trying to sign him in November at the beginning of the off-season. I was thinking that if I wasn't going to be able to sign him, at least I could free up some budget space for possibly signing a free agent.

When I checked in on him it was already October, but a look at his history shows that he signed his extension with Kansas City in March! So that was quite a difference in signability between the beginning and end of the off-season.

So, that's good to know. If there was a Bundy Blunder, it was that I didn't wait and try again in March or during the season. It looks like I might have been able to get the job done then.

$14M would have still been beyond my budget for extensions, but I probably could have created enough room by dealing a less stellar player or two and by some mild back-loading of the contract.

So why is it that there is such a difference between the beginning and end of the offseason? His initial demands created the distinct (but mistaken) impression that I wouldn't be able to sign him at all and hence the trade.

But. Even so, I think he may have done me a favor. Yes, it's always nice to have a 10-WAR player on your team. And as ThePretender says, even 28M might have been worth it if budget isn't much of an issue. In my case though I have a mid-market team with budget and payroll that hovers around the middle of the pack year-after-year. 28M would have been almost 4 times what I was paying any other player. 14M, was probably worth it, but I'd still have to do some juggling down the line with the rest of the team to keep the finances under control.

As it is, I've got a probable 4-5 WAR player basically for free for a number of years, plus $14M of budget flexibility - that's probably good enough for two more 4-5 WAR players. I think I probably come out ahead on the deal...

[ThePretender]

You can have a small market team with a good understanding of how revenue works play like a large market team. So saying you're a mid market club isn't really a reason to avoid signing him.

[Cobby]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

You can have a small market team with a good understanding of how revenue works play like a large market team. So saying you're a mid market club isn't really a reason to avoid signing him.

I agree with that.

But, the smaller the budget, the more constraints you'll have and the more you'll have to think about value per dollar spent. I would have happily signed him for 14M. I couldn't do 28M though without getting rid of other key players to get enough money in the extension budget. So there's where the Bundy Blunder comes in. I didn't realize how much a player's demands can change over the course of the off-season.

Nevertheless, I still think I came out better by not signing him, except for a sort of sentimentality of having such a good player on your team instead of someone else's team.

One thing about this game - I mean we all realize that it's just bits rolling around in the computer - but I still found myself piqued at Bundy for asking for so much. It's like - "if you're going to be so greedy about it and refuse to work with me, then you're outta here!" And then I took a little bit of satisfaction when we won the World Series without him. "Yeah, I bet you wish you weren't so greedy now, mired on that losing Kansas City team and watching your former teammates on TV, don't you?"

Bits swirling around in the computer, indeed!

[mmarra82]

You could have tried to lock him up earlier in his career when the demands weren't quite as high, or you could have rode out free agency to see what he may have come down to. At worst you would have received some compensation, although not nearly what he was worth.

[TheMaus2]

Did you keep him until midseason/trade deadline time? I would have negotiated constantly with him before flipping him for anything.

[Drstrangelove]

Originally Posted by Cobby

Tim Bundy is one of the best players in baseball at the moment - if not the best. During the off-season, he was just 26 years old and had put up back-to-back 10+ WAR seasons for me. But he just had one year left on his contract (at $8,656,250). Superstar quality players average $12,500,000 at the moment in my league.

So, I wanted to sign him to an extension. He demanded 10 years at $28,000,000. I tried to negotiate, but he was adamant. There was no way I was going to afford to do that with my mid-market team. So I traded him to Kansas City for a top quality, MBL-ready prospect. I figured, that was better than letting him walk at the end of the year.

In MLB last year, 13 players average 7 WAR. Those would be what people call superstars. So, since we don't have the actual data, let's assume your league is similar, and your players are averaging $12.5 million for 7 WAR. That's $1.8 million per WAR.

He actually signed for $14 million after making 8.9 WAR, which is slightly under $1.8 million per WAR. Of course, he was one year older, and depending on how you set up the league, the last year might drag it down a lot. So, what he signed for might be spot-on for the league.

What did you offer him? We don't know. But he asked for $2.5 million per WAR ($28 million / 11 WAR), and you said you "think you would have agreed to $14 million" -----which was only $1.3 million per WAR ($14 million / 11 WAR)---- so it sounds like you didn't even offer him that. So who knows, maybe you offered him even less? Did you offer him like $13 million? $12 million? Did you make an offer? Again, we don't know.

Let's say you offered him $12 million, or $1.1 million per WAR. If you offer a guy 40-45% below what the market is, it's a non starter. $1.0 - $1.1 million per WAR is 40-45% below $1.8 million. I've seen players refuse to even talk to me afterwards if I low ball them like that. They are (digitally speaking) "insulted, and wish me dead."

So, back to your league, he probably went high and expected you to make a much lower, yet legitimate counter offer, which might have been $1.7 x 11 = $18.7 million. Just sayin'. I've seen players ask for $28 mill and sign for $20 mill. Just 3 months later. But they have to agree to talk with you.

Had he signed for $20 million per year, that would have been market. ($20 million / 11 = $1.8 million per WAR.) My question would be (for myself): Why would I not pay market for a player who gives my team 11 WAR? Is it because I'd rather not have to pay for the WAR? Because basically, if that were me, I'd look at it as I have a 7 WAR hole to fill, that I just dug. I can lose huge amounts of money from the lower attendance and missing playoffs due to 7 "missing" wins.

The issue of what he really made (8.9 WAR) is irrelevant to the process, because the future isn't known to anyone until after it becomes the past.

The way I look at is, I have to have players to win. If the going rate is $1.8 million and my target is +40 WAR, then I have to have a payroll of ~$88 million. ($72 million for the 40 WAR and the rest for league minimums.) If I have 20 replacement level players making $802,000 each, then I have ~$72 million to get to +40 WAR. I don't care how I do that. If it's 4 guys each making $18 mill and each giving me 10 WAR, that's fine. Instead, if it's 10 guys each making $7.2 mill and each giving me 4 WAR, that's fine, too. Don't care. I'm buying wins. I only care when I pay more per WAR than I expect I can get back.

[Cobby]

Originally Posted by Drstrangelove

In MLB last year, 13 players average 7 WAR. Those would be what people call superstars. So, since we don't have the actual data, let's assume your league is similar, and your players are averaging $12.5 million for 7 WAR. That's $1.8 million per WAR.

He actually signed for $14 million after making 8.9 WAR, which is slightly under $1.8 million per WAR. Of course, he was one year older, and depending on how you set up the league, the last year might drag it down a lot. So, what he signed for might be spot-on for the league.

What did you offer him? We don't know. But he asked for $2.5 million per WAR ($28 million / 11 WAR), and you said you "think you would have agreed to $14 million" -----which was only $1.3 million per WAR ($14 million / 11 WAR)---- so it sounds like you didn't even offer him that. So who knows, maybe you offered him even less? Did you offer him like $13 million? $12 million? Did you make an offer? Again, we don't know.

Let's say you offered him $12 million, or $1.1 million per WAR. If you offer a guy 40-45% below what the market is, it's a non starter. $1.0 - $1.1 million per WAR is 40-45% below $1.8 million. I've seen players refuse to even talk to me afterwards if I low ball them like that. They are (digitally speaking) "insulted, and wish me dead."

So, back to your league, he probably went high and expected you to make a much lower, yet legitimate counter offer, which might have been $1.7 x 11 = $18.7 million. Just sayin'. I've seen players ask for $28 mill and sign for $20 mill. Just 3 months later. But they have to agree to talk with you.

Had he signed for $20 million per year, that would have been market. ($20 million / 11 = $1.8 million per WAR.) My question would be (for myself): Why would I not pay market for a player who gives my team 11 WAR? Is it because I'd rather not have to pay for the WAR? Because basically, if that were me, I'd look at it as I have a 7 WAR hole to fill, that I just dug. I can lose huge amounts of money from the lower attendance and missing playoffs due to 7 "missing" wins.

The issue of what he really made (8.9 WAR) is irrelevant to the process, because the future isn't known to anyone until after it becomes the past.

The way I look at is, I have to have players to win. If the going rate is $1.8 million and my target is +40 WAR, then I have to have a payroll of ~$88 million. ($72 million for the 40 WAR and the rest for league minimums.) If I have 20 replacement level players making $802,000 each, then I have ~$72 million to get to +40 WAR. I don't care how I do that. If it's 4 guys each making $18 mill and each giving me 10 WAR, that's fine. Instead, if it's 10 guys each making $7.2 mill and each giving me 4 WAR, that's fine, too. Don't care. I'm buying wins. I only care when I pay more per WAR than I expect I can get back.

Yes I think this a good way to look at it. But Kansas City actually signed him to his $14M extension *before* the season in which he made the 8.9 WAR. So I don't see a reason why he wouldn't have done so for me had I not traded him - unless of course as you pointed out - I insulted him.

Also, what you're interested in is future WAR - the projected total over the lifetime of the contract. So by the end of that 10-year contract he'd be 37 years old and not likely to be producing at the superstar level. Maybe - but just as likely he falls off the proverbial cliff and can't even make the starting lineup. Six years gets him to age 33. The chances of him still being productive at the end are much greater.

I can't remember now what I actually offered him - but it wasn't too far off from what he eventually signed for with Kansas City. It was a slightly back-loaded contract - so that I could get under my extension budget - something like $11 or $12M the first year and then more in succeeding years. I probably offered 6 or 7 years with a team option for the last year. I think it probably averaged out over $14M, but I can't be sure. His response was that this was a "disappointing" offer and he came back with his original 10 year $28M demand as his counter-offer.

That's when I concluded that I wasn't going to be able to sign him. Whether he was worth the $28M or not was basically irrelevant - I'd have to get rid of too many productive players to make it an option.

So trading him and getting what I could seemed to make sense - except for the fact that I didn't realize he'd pretty much end up accepting something close to my original offer if I had waited until the end of the offseason. That's the lesson learned here for me.

[ThePretender]

What's your budget?

[Cobby]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

What's your budget?

I'm not sure if I can answer that question meaningfully. This trade happened in Nov of 2003. Currently it's April of 2006 and a lot has changed. Both market size and fan loyalty have increased from Average to Above Average and the budget and payroll have also increased. I do a yearly CSV dump and if there's something specific you're interested in, let me know and perhaps I can find it there. The player payroll is on the team history screen, in case that's of interest. You can see that in 2004, a $28M contract would have been almost half of the entire remaining payroll. (about 1/3 of the total if you add the $28M - thereby bringing the total up to $88M or so...)

[ThePretender]

Fair enough. I'd say anything under 40% of my budget I'd have kept him. I was just curious.

[NoOne]

40% is alot to spend on one player. you can definitely apply the same strategies in a smaller market but it's just ratched down on # of retained players during any window of time. i won't spend more than ~25m on a player... top salaries reach ~30m in my league with a 250m cap. i can afford the highest salries, but if i pay them i get 1-2 less quality players starting every day... that's a losing formula. i take the deals when they are interested in taking less, and i trade for future replacements, and similar actions from "2-3" game years ago provide nearly all replacements.

no matter how small a budget 110-120wins or more average is a solid goal just about anyone can reach. no int'l singing cap or draft pick trading enabed and 140+wins is possible just like a big budget team would in that situation. stats only or low accuacy and just reduce those estimates... all same logic and skill with different resulting average wins -- equally difficult / same strategies used. different results is just asthetic in nature. what one prefers to see.

i have a large budget, but hte logic would be the same: unless incredibly amazing, if they ask for more than $X on an extension or during FA, they are no longer part of my future plans. i trade at my convenience while under club control. whehter it's after 4 years or 6years, development or the opportunity to sign a replacement is what determines teh timing of th decision. a 2-3+ year window is plenty of time to find an equivalent or better replacement. plenty of time to coordinate/predict other similar situations over the next 5-7 years.

the only difference in behaviour wil be the # you can afford at one time... this may also mean you want a lower threshold than what my situation calls for. 10-15% is probably about right for the most you want to spend, without seeing your top-20 contracts list for a better idea. it's possible that the system you have setup is causing huge extensions and small free agency contracts -- seend it before in one of my own self-inflicted mistakes. as long as things are ~normal, this should all apply, though.

You should definitely pick out some # that is too much to sign for... it is also relative to talent of player, of course. a 3m guy asking for 5m is similar mistake to signing a 15m guy for 20-25m. sometimes you just have an incredibly young team, and you can break all sorts of fiscally responsible rules that keep you safe. understand your retraints and how things evolve over the next 5-7 years and it's easy as pie to make any decision.

he has a unique financial environment. small budgets, but if the same values used for salaries in the settings as default, the ratios will remain similar. it's possible that whacky things occur too, if not default.

ie, stars will ask for x% of avergae demand/money available relative to those values in the settings.

i don't think extensions adhere to this or at the least are affected significantly less by it. if they ask for an exorbitant amount in november, they will most likely ask for an exorbitant amount at any time during calendar.

personality obviously is a major factor to consider (greedy/selfish) but good/bad results are also a factor in what they ask for.

3 years in with a solid track record if they are askin for "too much" tehy will 99% continue to ask for too much. i've seen a demand drop after a total bomb of a season, but also limited track record (may only 'look' at three years, potentially / rationally due to how coaches and gms are setup)

the Salaries page in Front office is realyl nice for understanding 'when' you need to do things. e.g. 3 years out i see my payroll ~20m withing cap (or budget restraint), i know i need to do something preferably before that year... lower than actual arb estimates and other things will likely make that ~20M right up against the cap/budget limit just a couple years out, so i make sure to trade or make additional space before i am painted into a corner... it gives more options and a larger window of time to find an answer = greater % for better answers than doing it last second.

[ThePretender]

I've spent upwards of 70M AAV on players when I have 200M budgets. I don't care what the AAV of an individual player is, it has to depend on your situation. I was winning 100-115 games a year on a 100-150M payroll and had the money lying around, so yeah, I'm throwing cash out to add an ace for free. I wouldn't limit myself to a specific $$ value. If I don't sign the guy, that cash isn't going to be any higher than max anyway, so if I'm not losing the $$, I might as well spend it.

I don't think it's difficult to build a 100-110 win team with a player making 40% of your budget. You don't have to have subpar players if you have a ton of $$ tied up into one guy.

But you have to have a plan in place, and a strong understanding of finances and how to cycle through players to pull it off.

[Cobby]

OK. Not so germane to the original discussion, but here's the rest-of-the-story, so to speak.

I did another deal with Kansas City in April 2005 - KC got Roberto Santos, a 30 year-old CF (with plus defensive abilities at both IF and OF) and a player who averaged about 8 WAR for the last 4 seasons. I also picked up the two years left on his contract, $8.2M/yr.

They also got Luis Morales Jr., an Iron Man, mid-rotation stalwart for us for a number of years, but 35 years old with one year left on his contract. I also picked up that year - $5.4M.

They also got 2 decent prospects - 19yo CF, Fujita and 18yo 1B Lopez, quality guys, but guys who were unlikely to be regulars on my team - at least for long, and of course, depending upon how they develop. Fujita looks to be developing fairly well and should have a solid career. Lopez too if his power develops, but he'll be limited to 1B only - I don't like to keep too many of those guys around for long.

And finally they got John Preston, a 32yo declining utility outfielder.

And I got Tim Bundy back, with KC picking up the rest of his contract (6 years left). So I'm now paying Bundy one dollar per year. For my first dollar, I got a 10.7 WAR season out of him. So, yeah - the best dollar I ever spent.

Plus, I still have Gutierrez - they guy I got when I traded Bundy the first time. He has developed beyond expectation - found his power stroke - and can handle CF with ease. So I moved him to CF to replace Santos and Bundy is back at SS. Gutierrez put up an 8.3 WAR season for me in '05.

So. Anyway. All's well that ends well, I suppose....

[jpeters1734]

I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't have proper logos and uniforms

[Cobby]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I'm more concerned with the fact that you don't have proper logos and uniforms

help......... me.........

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Cobby

help......... me.........

Really? I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. I’d be happy to help if you need it.