Lindor offered 10yrs $325m. He says NOPE.

[Popeye_Card]

For the purposes of this discussion, though, I don't think it really matters all that much what position Lindor ends up at. If he goes to 3B or OF like A-Rod or Yount but keeps providing value, that's just as good to whoever signs him as if he provides the same value at SS or 2B.

Yeah, but that's the rub. Lindor has hit well to this point in his career for a shortstop who fields that position pretty well. If he were to drop to 3B, he's either going to have to get an offensive boost over where he's typically been, or gain a defensive boost. Not to say that can't happen - he's a talented player - but I'd be wary of making a $300+MM bet on it.

That's not really how WAR works. If he moves to 3B then theoretically he'd be a better fielding 3B and get a WAR boost there. Like Edman at 3B a couple years ago. Lindor would be around Arenado hitting wise. ~115 +/-3 wRC+ range.

In fact, Arenado and Lindor have the same career wRC+. And Lindor is a few years younger.

Except that *is* how WAR works. It is right there in the equation.

WAR = (Batting Runs + Base Running Runs +Fielding Runs + Positional Adjustment + League Adjustment +Replacement Runs) / (Runs Per Win)

Per 162 games:
Catcher: +12.5 runs
First Base: -12.5 runs
Second Base: +2.5 runs
Third Base: +2.5 runs
Shortstop: +7.5 runs
Left Field: -7.5 runs
Center Field: +2.5 runs
Right Field: -7.5 runs
Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs

So even assuming that defense capability remains constant from SS to 3B, a player is worth a half win more as a SS than a 3B.

As for a SS being able to transition to a better fielding 3B, that theory hasn't really held up in practice. A-Rod was a very good defender at SS, after one fairly good season at 3B at 28, he carried neutral to negative defensive value for most of his remaining career. Ripken was an excellent defensive SS. Switching to 3B at age 36, he had a clear drop-off in defensive value.

I've not really made the Arenado comparison yet, but since you brought him up - Arenado hasn't been a 115 +/-3 wRC+ hitter. He's only fell in that range once, in his sophomore season. He's been a 130 +/-5 hitter in 4 of the past 5 seasons if you want to look on the bright side. He has two sub-80 seasons including last year if you want to be a negative nancy. Though he carries the same career wRC+ as Lindor, in most seasons he has been a superior hitter. He's also got 3 inches and 25-30 pounds on Lindor, leading me to think his power is going to be a bit more sustainable into his 30's.

I've been on record throughout the winter as preferring Lindor to Arenado. And if you offered me both over the next 5 seasons, I'd still take Lindor. Now we know their contracts.

Lindor: 11 total seasons (2020 plus his just signed extension), $363.3MM / $33MM AAV, ages 27-38

Arenado: 6 seasons remaining, $164MM / $27.3MM AAV remaining (minus the $50MM the Rockies are kicking in), ages 30-35

Given the choice between those two options now, I'd likely take Arenado. Lindor is certainly going to give you more for the next few seasons and I understand some preferring that. But that contract is going to be tough to swallow if Lindor doesn't buck a lot of trends for middle infielders in their 30's.

[Jocephus]

Mets Ink Francisco Lindor to Ten-Year Extension
by Ben Clemens
April 1, 2021

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/mets-ink-fr ... extension/

ZiPS projects him for roughly 34 wins from 2022 to ’31:

[CardsofSTL]

https://www.mlb.com/news/francisco-lindor-mets-deal

In terms of numbers, Lindor’s deal is nearly unprecedented across the American sports landscape. The richest contract ever for a shortstop, Lindor’s deal is the third largest in Major League history behind only Mike Trout and Mookie Betts. Lindor’s $22.3 million salary for 2021 remains unchanged, making the Mets’ total commitment to him $363.3 million over 11 seasons. The contract includes a limited no-trade clause and zero opt-outs, according to a source, all but assuring Lindor will be a Met for the bulk of his career.

As Thursday's Opening Day neared, it appeared as if the agreement might never happen. Late in Spring Training, the Mets extended an offer worth around $300 million to Lindor, according to a person with knowledge of the negotiations. Lindor countered with a $385 million asking price, which Mets officials considered exorbitant. Still, over dinner in Florida last weekend, Cohen personally extended what he considered the team’s best and final offer: $325 million over 10 seasons. He then removed all deferred money from the deal, making it richer in real-world value than the 14-year, $340 million contract Fernando Tatis Jr. recently signed with the Padres.

Next came a days-long impasse in which neither side budged. With Lindor’s Opening Day deadline rapidly approaching, talks finally reopened late Wednesday.

When those discussions finished, the sides came away with a revamped deal that includes about $50 million in deferred money, according to a source. It allows Lindor to claim the richest contract in history for a shortstop, topping Tatis by $1 million.

[Big Amoco Sign]

For the purposes of this discussion, though, I don't think it really matters all that much what position Lindor ends up at. If he goes to 3B or OF like A-Rod or Yount but keeps providing value, that's just as good to whoever signs him as if he provides the same value at SS or 2B.

Yeah, but that's the rub. Lindor has hit well to this point in his career for a shortstop who fields that position pretty well. If he were to drop to 3B, he's either going to have to get an offensive boost over where he's typically been, or gain a defensive boost. Not to say that can't happen - he's a talented player - but I'd be wary of making a $300+MM bet on it.

That's not really how WAR works. If he moves to 3B then theoretically he'd be a better fielding 3B and get a WAR boost there. Like Edman at 3B a couple years ago. Lindor would be around Arenado hitting wise. ~115 +/-3 wRC+ range.

In fact, Arenado and Lindor have the same career wRC+. And Lindor is a few years younger.

Except that *is* how WAR works. It is right there in the equation.

WAR = (Batting Runs + Base Running Runs +Fielding Runs + Positional Adjustment + League Adjustment +Replacement Runs) / (Runs Per Win)

Per 162 games:
Catcher: +12.5 runs
First Base: -12.5 runs
Second Base: +2.5 runs
Third Base: +2.5 runs
Shortstop: +7.5 runs
Left Field: -7.5 runs
Center Field: +2.5 runs
Right Field: -7.5 runs
Designated Hitter: -17.5 runs

So even assuming that defense capability remains constant from SS to 3B, a player is worth a half win more as a SS than a 3B.

As for a SS being able to transition to a better fielding 3B, that theory hasn't really held up in practice. A-Rod was a very good defender at SS, after one fairly good season at 3B at 28, he carried neutral to negative defensive value for most of his remaining career. Ripken was an excellent defensive SS. Switching to 3B at age 36, he had a clear drop-off in defensive value.

I've not really made the Arenado comparison yet, but since you brought him up - Arenado hasn't been a 115 +/-3 wRC+ hitter. He's only fell in that range once, in his sophomore season. He's been a 130 +/-5 hitter in 4 of the past 5 seasons if you want to look on the bright side. He has two sub-80 seasons including last year if you want to be a negative nancy. Though he carries the same career wRC+ as Lindor, in most seasons he has been a superior hitter. He's also got 3 inches and 25-30 pounds on Lindor, leading me to think his power is going to be a bit more sustainable into his 30's.

I've been on record throughout the winter as preferring Lindor to Arenado. And if you offered me both over the next 5 seasons, I'd still take Lindor. Now we know their contracts.

Lindor: 11 total seasons (2020 plus his just signed extension), $363.3MM / $33MM AAV, ages 27-38

Arenado: 6 seasons remaining, $164MM / $27.3MM AAV remaining (minus the $50MM the Rockies are kicking in), ages 30-35

Given the choice between those two options now, I'd likely take Arenado. Lindor is certainly going to give you more for the next few seasons and I understand some preferring that. But that contract is going to be tough to swallow if Lindor doesn't buck a lot of trends for middle infielders in their 30's.

The WAR position offsets are for the purpose of normalizing positional value based on league averages.

WAR doesn’t shift much from position to position like that. Yes I know positions have offsets. That wasn’t the point on any level. But again, defense by Lindor at 3B would make up for that especially with Arenado level offense. The only time WAR really shifts position to position for a player is an OF moving to 1B like Holliday or someone trying to play catcher who can’t.

Contract wasn’t what I was talking about. Strictly comparing his offense. Lindor has been as good offensively as Arenado has been. And no doubt the glove would be as good. So WAR wouldn’t dip for Lindor if he shifted.

None of what you said about wRC matters as they both average 118 for career. Bottom line, Lindor’s plus defense at third would raise the offset of runs by the position. He would be a better defender than the average 3B.

[Popeye_Card]

Arenado is a generational defender at 3B. Lindor couldn’t move there and be just as good. And that still doesn’t change the fact that Lindor is getting a fWAR boost by being a good fielding SS.

Following your logic Kris Davis, Arenado, Lindor, Brandon Belt, Joc Pederson, Jose Martinez, and Marcell Ozuna (among others) are all equal offensive players. Come on.

[Big Amoco Sign]

Arenado is a generational defender at 3B. Lindor couldn’t move there and be just as good. And that still doesn’t change the fact that Lindor is getting a fWAR boost by being a good fielding SS.

Following your logic Kris Davis, Arenado, Lindor, Brandon Belt, Joc Pederson, Jose Martinez, and Marcell Ozuna (among others) are all equal offensive players. Come on.

What? If you mean they have the same wRC+, then yes, they do produce the same offensive output. It's silly adding Jose Martinez in there without consider similar career samples though. Hitting profiles may be different. Offensive output the same (presuming they are all ~118 wRC+ career guys or something...I am not sure what your meaning was here). WAR doesn't care about hitting profiles. It doesn't care that Joc sucks ass against lefties. It only cares about the final output.

My point on the positional sliding, take this example: Bader gets a boost for being playing CF. If Bader moved to the corner, he would still have the same WAR because his defense would be miles ahead of every corner OF, though his offense would be close to nil.

Again, when players move to similar positions OF or IF, WAR doesn't dip or fluctuate much, despite positional offsets in the calculations. That's been the whole point.

[Popeye_Card]

Arenado is a generational defender at 3B. Lindor couldn’t move there and be just as good. And that still doesn’t change the fact that Lindor is getting a fWAR boost by being a good fielding SS.

Following your logic Kris Davis, Arenado, Lindor, Brandon Belt, Joc Pederson, Jose Martinez, and Marcell Ozuna (among others) are all equal offensive players. Come on.

What? If you mean they have the same wRC+, then yes, they do produce the same offensive output. It's silly adding Jose Martinez in there without consider similar career samples though. Hitting profiles may be different. Offensive output the same (presuming they are all ~118 wRC+ career guys or something...I am not sure what your meaning was here). WAR doesn't care about hitting profiles. It doesn't care that Joc sucks ass against lefties. It only cares about the final output.

The point, in case it wasn't obvious, was how silly it is to think that approximately equal CAREER wRC+ must mean that they are equal offensive players. Arenado and Lindor are not similar offensive players in most seasons, despite having the same career wRC+. In case you want to look at the gap between them by year:

2015: Lindor +5
2016: Arenado +17
2017: Arenado +14
2018: Arenado +1
2019: Arenado +14
2020: Lindor +26

But whatever - keep using career wRC+ as your measuring stick if you wish.

My point on the positional sliding, take this example: Bader gets a boost for being playing CF. If Bader moved to the corner, he would still have the same WAR because his defense would be miles ahead of every corner OF, though his offense would be close to nil.

Again, when players move to similar positions OF or IF, WAR doesn't dip or fluctuate much, despite positional offsets in the calculations. That's been the whole point.

I know that is your whole point. You might want to consider that your point isn't a universal law of baseball, because most players cannot translate their above average skills at a higher defensive position to even better skills at lower defensive positions. Moving up the defensive spectrum is almost universally impossible. Moving down has extremely mixed results.

If you have a series of examples to support your theory, I'm willing to listen.

[Big Amoco Sign]

Lots of OF sliding examples. Trout, Heyward (when he did CF stints, his WAR didn't immediately fluctuate), Fowler, even Adam Eaton being a high defensive RF over typical power hitting RF, he only saw typical decline in WAR from age, not from position shift (post injury year in WA). Tommy Pham too...

Infield...look at Machado. Back and forth between 3B and SS throughout career. No dip in WAR because of it.

And yes wRC+ is the best measuring stick for hitting. Of course baserunning offense isn't counted but when comparing Lindor and Arenado it's not like they'd be much different there.

[Popeye_Card]

Lots of OF sliding examples. Trout, Heyward (when he did CF stints, his WAR didn't immediately fluctuate), Fowler, even Adam Eaton being a high defensive RF over typical power hitting RF, he only saw typical decline in WAR from age, not from position shift (post injury year in WA). Tommy Pham too...

Infield...look at Machado. Back and forth between 3B and SS throughout career. No dip in WAR because of it.

And yes wRC+ is the best measuring stick for hitting. Of course baserunning offense isn't counted but when comparing Lindor and Arenado it's not like they'd be much different there.

OF is different, and not really applicable here since Lindor is theoretically shifting to 3B or 2B. Machado has all of 1 season played at SS, when he was 25 years old. A bit different situation than having to move off of the position in your 30's. If you've lost defensive value at SS because you've lost range, etc. - you likely won't all-of-the-sudden gain the value back by moving to 3B. I gave you two pretty good examples of HOF caliber SS's who moved to 3B in their mid to late career in A-Rod and Ripken. Nomar became more of a utility 1B/3B/SS in his later career, but he lost all of his defensive value in his 30's. Hanley Ramirez was never a very good defender at SS, but after switching to OF and 1B in his 30's his defensive value was an anchor.

Regardless, back to the main argument - Lindor is a good defender at SS, and as long as he keeps that up will retain his defensive value. If that falters and he has to rely on his bat, it is going to have to improve for him to stay in that 4+ fWAR range. If he's only in the 1-3 fWAR range in his 30's - well, that's 8 seasons that you are paying $30+MM for just decent performance.

Good for Lindor for getting this deal. He's a great player, and from all indications a great guy. But it is an eyebrow raising deal for the Mets.

[JoeMcKim]