Wolf’s Deal with LA

by
February 7, 2009

Randy Wolf had a season not unlike that of Jim Edmonds, wherein he was awful for the Padres, was traded off mid season and then blossomed into a player San Diego were hoping they might have been getting in the first place.

Edmonds remains unsigned this winter, but finally Randy Wolf has put his name to the dotted line, with Los Angeles. Does this mark the beginning of a shift away from pursuing Manny Ramirez? That will be an interesting angle to watch in the forthcoming weeks.

Moving on to Wolf himself, the contract calls for $5 million in guaranteed money and up to another $3 million in incentives. The incentives kick in at $500,000 for reaching 170, 180, 185, 190, 195 and 200 innings pitched.

The various projections range from CHONE marking Wolf down for just 122 innings at a below average FIP to Marcel at 165 innings at a slightly above average FIP. Translated to wins, it comes out to between 1.4 and 2.4 wins. Neither of those projections have Wolf earning any incentives, which means he would end up with just the $5 million paid. Given the value of those seasons ($6.3 million by CHONE, $10.8 by Marcel), this is a good to great deal for the Dodgers.

There are really two possible downsides for LA here. One is that Wolf gets hurt entirely. In that case, they’re out $5 million without much production at all. That’s not too much of a problem as long as they have adequate backups planned. The other is if Wolf is healthy but not overly effective, getting to 190 or so innings of below average pitching. In that case, the Dodgers would probably break even on value unless Wolf is really mediocre, which would seem to go against the whole pitching lots of innings assumption. This comes across as a mild-risk/medium-reward deal for the Dodgers; well done.





 

Matthew Carruth is a software engineer who has been fascinated with baseball statistics since age five. When not dissecting baseball, he is watching hockey or playing soccer.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Levski
15 years ago

I really don’t understand the inconsistencies in the analysis being offered here at Fangraphs. For example, according to David Cameron, Arizona “ruined their off season” by signing Jon Garland for 6 million with an option and a buyout.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/dbacks-sign-garland-why

But now I read according to Matthew Carruth, the Wolf deal at 5 million + innings incentives is a good deal for LA. However when I look at the projections being offered on the site, it seems the data is being applied….ahem…..unevenly to say the least.

Garland:
Chone 189 IP 4.49 FIP
Marcel 179 IP 4.43 FIP

Wolf
Chone 122 IP 4.55 FIP
Marcel 165 IP 4.29 FIP

Heading over to Chone’s site, I see he has Garland projected for 1.8 WAR and Wolf projected for 1.2 WAR.

http://baseballprojection.com/wolf-ra3450.htm

http://baseballprojection.com/garlajo2948.htm

I realize that Carruth and Cameron are two different people, however they are both posting articles under the same Fangraphs banner. If I am to take this site’s analysis and interpretation of the metrics you are presenting , seriously I am going to need to see a lot more consistency of thought and presentation and a lot less bias and hyperbole.

0
truth
15 years ago
Reply to  Levski

You need to look at the respective teams that signed them and their depth at the position… Wolf is a better signing because of the lack of quality arms slotted at the back end of LA’s rotation. Jason Schmidt? Shawn Estes? Are you kidding?

0
Levski
15 years ago
Reply to  truth

And Garland replaces Yusmeiro Petit or Juan Guttierez or Billy Buckner. How’s that not an improvement? In fact, Randy Wolf does not project to be much of an improvement over the guys who would be getting his starts in the back of LA’s rotation. Have a look for yourself

http://www.baseballprojection.com/LAN2009p.htm

Now, maybe Joe Torre won’t trust Eric Stults or James McDonald or Claudio Vargas, and maybe Jason Schmidt will never throw another inning in Dodgers uniform, but let’s not sit here and pretend that Randy Wolf represents significant improvement over what the Dodgers would’ve gotten from their internal options. He is not–yet he will cost anywhere between 5m and 8m more than either Stults or McDonald next year. In fact, if Randy Wolf may very well be the exact same pitcher he was during his last two stints in the NL West–but hey, he represents a great deal for LA.

0
truth
15 years ago
Reply to  truth

Levski… I think you are over-rating Garland tremendously… Granted, he has thrown over 190 inn. for 7 straight years, but look at his deteriorating #’s since ’05 with the Sox…

k/9, bb/9, FIP, etc…

the only thing he has going for him is he is now pitching in the NL West where he can get away with having decent stuff. Oddly enough, Randy Johnson made quite a turnaround in 07 after moving to the NL West.

0
kensai
15 years ago
Reply to  truth

Uh…James McDonald? Odalis Perez? Braden Looper? Jon Garland? Eric Stults?

Somebody? If Garland and Wolf are identical, why not just sign Garland for .75 million more and get the 200 innings he throws every year instead of taking the guy who averaged less than 100 from 2004-2007. 😮

0
Dave Cameronmember
15 years ago
Reply to  Levski

The D’Backs replaced Randy Johnson with a worse pitcher. The Dodgers did not.

0
Levski
15 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Yeah, you already wrote that. And I read it. The fact remains that you want to ignore all the circumstances surrounding Johnson’s departure from AZ, and Garland’s arrival. And I hate rehashing an old story but here are the facts:

(1) AZ made a (granted) low ball offer of around $3m, while RJ’s agents wanted at least $7.5m. At that time, $3m was all the money the Dbacks had for a starter.
(2) RJ’s agents rejected that offer outright and refused to further negotiate with the Dbacks, despite the Dbacks attempts to re-engage them in further talks.
(3) RJ’s agents took the offer from San Fran (which can be up to $13m, as it includes $5m in incentives) and never told the Dbacks about the SF offer, and never told the Dbacks that RJ was about to accept it.
(4) At about that time, the Dbacks floated a contract offer of about $6m to RJ’s agents–but it appears that they not only rejected it, but there’s rumors they never even mentioned it to RJ, and instead told him to take the SF offer.
(5) The Dbacks decided to put the $6m (which had increased from the original $3m because they shifted money originally slated for their draft budget back into the free agent budget) and get themselves the best starter they could–in this case Garland.

Again, I know that sounding holier than thou is the modus operandi around here, but you’d think people would take more time to look at each situation more carefully before throwing out things like “worst offseason ever” and passing it off as analysis.

0
Milendriel
15 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Where did Dave say anything about “worst offseason ever”?

0
Matthew Carruth
15 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Levski (and all),

if you have an issue regarding the Garland analysis, please take it there. This thread is about Randy Wolf.

0