The Risk of a Justin Turner Deal

While Yoenis Cespedes appears headed for the biggest free-agent contract this winter, he doesn’t enter the offseason with the distinction of having recorded the best 2016 campaign of all the market’s remaining free agents. That would be Justin Turner, actually, with a 5.6 WAR. In terms of probable outcomes for next season, Turner has Cespedes beat there, too, with a 3.6 projected WAR for next year (to Cespedes’ 3.0).

So Turner, despite having produced the better 2016 season and despite possessing the better 2017 projection, is likely to receive less money than Cespedes. Turner’s a year older, which might account for some of the difference, but age is also baked into the aforementioned projections. Ultimately, Turner could be a bargain. Even with bargains, though, there remains some risk.

Dave Cameron, in his annual Free Agent Bargains piece, makes the case for Turner:

Turner looks like this year’s Ben Zobrist; a good player who will get underpriced because he doesn’t feel as good as he actually is. At $70 or $80 million, Turner still isn’t getting priced like a star; that’s Mike Leake money these days. And Turner is pretty clearly better than a pitch-to-contact starting pitcher. So for a team that wants an impact player at a price that doesn’t reflect the kind of value they’re likely to get, Turner is probably the best bet on the market.

The evidence backs Cameron’s assertion. The crowd pegged Turner for a $70 million contract over four years, while Cameron went a bit higher at $80 million. Using Turner’s 3.6 projection for next season, a value of $8.5 million per WAR and the standard aging curve, we arrive the following projected values.

With those figures, Turner is likely to be a major bargain. But beginning with Turner’s 2017 projection is only one means to estimate his future production. We can also use some comps.

Turner has had an unusual run to his current role as “prime free agent,” going from replacement-level player through age 28 to one of the better players in baseball over the past three years. He’s not the first player to make this type of transition, but his unusual trajectory makes it difficult to find historical precedent.

To start, I looked at non-catchers who, from age 29 through 31, (a) recorded a WAR between 10.4 and 15.4 (Turner produced 12.9 WAR), (b) recorded a wRC+ between 128 and 148 (Turner put up a 138 wRC+), and (c) had accumulated a plate-appearance total within 20% of Turner’s 1,383. Of this group, Turner had the fewest plate appearances by 100, lending further evidence to Turner’s uniqueness. Only seven players come up:

We see a pretty good group here. In their age-31 seasons, the group averaged 3.6 WAR collectively, right in line with Turner’s projection. Here’s how those same players fared from age 32 through age 36.

Five of seven players played well over the five years Turner is a candidate to receive — with the average helped a bit by Jim Edmonds, who had one of the 10 greatest age-32 through -36 stretches in the past 50 years. Injuries hurt Thompson’s career and Dysktra played less than a full season at age 31, so it might make sense actually to exclude him. In all, we have a very small list, which isn’t extremely helpful, but the results nevertheless resemble Turner’s projections and lend further support to the notion that Turner is going to be a bargain this winter.

Since the previous group wasn’t entirely satisfying, I tried one more time. Instead of focusing on three years, this next group is non-catchers who, at ages 30 and 31, (a) recorded a WAR figure within two wins of Turner’s 9.6 mark, (b) produced a wRC+ within 10 points of Turner’s 131, and (c) finished within 20% of Turner’s 1061 plate appearances — and also recorded full seasons with at least 3.0 WAR at age 31. This criteria yielded 18 players, and many of those players were very good. Here is how those players performed from age 32 through 36.

We seee a bit more risk with this group of players. Ten of the 18 players failed to crack eight wins above replacement, which is the break-even point for the crowd’s $70 million estimate. Seven of the players would have paid off handsomely: we see Hall of Famers in Eddie Murray and Barry Larkin, and two players who were pretty close in Jeff Kent and Bobby Grich. As mentioned, every player above had at least 3.0 WAR at age 31. Of note, only half the players reached three wins above replacement the following season. Seven players didn’t even put up a WAR greater than 1.0, and none of those seven recovered in following seasons.

The average from the latter group comes out right around 10 WAR over five years. Here is what that contract looks like:

Even here, Turner looks to provide good value on an expected contract. That could make him a bargain this winter, but Turner’s unusual career and lower amount of playing time does add some risk. Players don’t play as well into their 30s, and whoever ends up with Turner is going to end up with some down seasons. If he can avoid a big dropoff, he will be a steal for whichever team that signs him, but there’s some precedent for a scenario in which his production falls well short of the money he’d receive from a potential contract.