The Aaron Boone Contract
December 02, 2003
Thought I’d review some recent deals and contracts, based on the Win Share/Salary discussion we’ve been having. These deals have already been reviewed expertly by folks like the Transaction Guy and baseballprimer’s Transaction Oracle. I can’t improve upon their work, but I can throw in a little bit of Win Shares data. Let’s start with Aaron Boone.
The Yankees signed Aaron Boone to a one-year deal for $5.75 million. Last year, Boone contributed 23 Win Shares to two teams at the age of 30. He was paid $3.7M for his efforts and contributed $3.8M in Net WS Value, so a two million dollar increase seems reasonable for a player who was arbitration-eligible.
Of course, this is New York, the City of the Unforgiving, and Boone did not play particularly well in New York. He created 3.9 Win Shares per 100 plate appearances for the Reds, but only 2.8 per 100 for the Yankees. That’s only slightly better than the other New York third sacker, Ty Wigginton, who made 2.4 WS per 100 PA. As a Yankee, Boone’s OBP was an anemic .302, though he fielded pretty well (over 6 fielding WS per 1000 innings).
If you pro-rate his salary between Cincinnati and New York by plate appearances, he gave the Yankees a positive WS Value of only $382,000, which is pretty close to breakeven. However, the Yankees gave Cincinnati “cash considerations” when they traded for him, so I assume he produced a negative WS value for them.
Third base is not a particularly deep position across the majors, which raises his value. Boone ranked fifth in the NL among all third basemen, even though he played only two-thirds of the season in Cincinnati.
In 2002, Boone contributed 19 Win Shares to the Cincinnati Reds. In 2001, he contributed 13 WS in 418 plate appearances (3.1 per 100 PA). It seems likely, given his age and history, that Boone will rebound and contribute around 20 Win Shares for the Yankees next year.
If he does, his $5.75M contract will be an okay deal, yielding a Win Share value of slightly under $1 million. Not a great deal for the Yankees, but not a terrible one either.
Given that the Yankees needed to have *someone* play 3B next year, I’d say they did pretty well. Short of acquiring a non-3B and shifting positions, I’m not sure what they’d have done. I’m not aware of any minor leaguers they could call up. Perhaps you could argue they should’ve pursued Ventura at a lower salary and used this money elsewhere . . . but do we really think money is keeping them from signing anyone?
Two points that I made earlier were that “projectible” players are worth more to contenders, and also that teams with big budgets should be prepared to pay above trend for WS/$. Given that the Yankees payed below trend, got a fairly predictable if not spectacular player, and really didn’t have other options, I think they made out better than most are giving them credit for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/02 at 06:14 PM
You may be right, David. By definition, I guess, teams with big budgets will pay more for players than average. But I don’t think that means, by itself, that the Yankees made out better than I’m giving them credit for. It just means they’re willing to live with less production per dollar paid.
The obvious comp is Luis Castillo, who created 23 WS in 2003 and just signed a multi-year deal for half a million less per year than Boone got, and who’s 2 and a half years younger. I hope to write him up in the next day or two. Obviously, length of contract is the key thing for Castillo.
Posted by
studes on 12/02 at 07:51 PM
Were you thinking that Castillo or Soriano could shift to third? Or perhaps one fo the two could shift to SS and Jeter could slide over?
Those sound like good ideas, but I can’t see the boss being thrilled.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/03 at 11:00 AM
I’m not passing judgement on what the Boss should have done. I’m just evaluating the contract vs. Boone’s Win Shares, in an attempt to learn more about how Win Shares can help evaluate salary decisions.
A lot of other folks are better at evaluating personnel decisions than I am.
Posted by
studes on 12/03 at 11:08 AM
Studes, great website. Real Quick, how are you calculating Net WS Value?
Posted by The Dude on 12/04 at 04:09 AM
Hi Dude. You can read about the Net WS Value, and other stuff, in the “Third Money for Nothing” article. The basic formula is $300,000 times Win Shares, minus salary.
Posted by
studes on 12/04 at 06:29 AM
Hey studes, I don’t (at *all*) want to be discouraging with my comments. $/WS is a fun metric, which is why I like reading the analyses! And while I’m sure there’s lots of others “Better” at evaluating personal decisions, I’m pretty sure I’ve not seen anyone else doing it with $/WS as a benchmark.
Cheers,
-Dave
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/04 at 10:42 AM
No problem, David. I actually really appreciate your comments. I think there’s a lot to learn here, and I appreciate your contribution. Keep coming by!
Posted by
studes on 12/04 at 11:32 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
