How overrated is Bryce Harper?

[Inside Pitch]

3 hours ago, eaterfan said:

Sign or trades... I guess I should have said acquired. But in that range we've acquired Maybin, Kinsler, Cozart ($13 million, but I consider that the $10 million dollar range). 

I didn't really research this so I'm probably missing a pitcher or two. 

So a 2.5 bWAR 2B through the trade deadline, a 1.8 bWAR OF through 93 games and a guy who was injured after less than 60 games.   Two of the three guys you mentioned fit 2-3 WAR player criteria.   

Pitcher wise, I think the only one that fits the $$ talked about is Nolasco -- he followed up 74 innings of 1.4 bWAR with 180 innings of horseshit. (0.7 bWAR)

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[ettin]

There are other components to the value equation including scarcity (I believe @eaterfan mentioned that on the other page), where you are at in your perceived window of contention, and preventing a rival, particularly a Division rival, from acquiring a guy like Harper.

Case in point: The Nationals have to be thinking that if they can sign Bryce it will keep him away from the Phillies their Division rival. Not only would it weaken their opponent it would allow them to trade one of their other outfielders, like Adam Eaton, for additional pieces that can either help them now or later (prospects). There is an opportunity price/cost built into that decision. Both teams have money available (Lerner is the richest owner in baseball and the Phillies have wide open payroll space) so the finite payroll isn't much of an issue with them. It really boils down to whether or not it makes the team better over the next 5-7 years which is what you'd expect Harper to reasonably help your team.

For the Angels he isn't a do or die proposition. It seems doubtful anyone in our Division wants to spend the money for Harper. Yes he would make an impact and would allow us to move our top prospect, Adell in trade or more remotely find a taker for Upton (I am 100% against this by the way I am all-in on Jo, now). In my opinion Harper isn't a good target for us, I think Machado is more consistent despite any concerns about his attitude.

Speaking of Machado he is a better fit for us long-term if we are thinking about getting crazy (which I very seriously doubt we will do) but again no one in our Division, particularly the competing teams, need a 3B other than the Angels. The A's have Chapman, the Astros have Bregman/Correa. Manny would move the needle but at what cost in terms of payroll? This actually drives back to Doc's position on relative cost and I don't think Eppler wants to make that commitment long-term unless Arte blesses the expenditure (again very, very doubtful so i think Taylor Ward gets his chance to see if he can be that 2-3 WAR player).

There are teams out there that are much better positioned to spend serious money on a Harper or Machado. Phillies could buy both. Nationals should consider Harper to keep him from falling into an opponent's hands. The Mets have gone all in so grabbing one of them makes some sense. The Twins have nothing on their books either. The Giants apparently want Bryce and they have a serious amount of free payroll space next season. The Astros have the money and could make room for Harper. Dodgers have been closely tied to Bryce too. The Brewers could be a sneaky organization on Manny. The Cardinals have a lot of money free and they could be in on either one of them.

This brings me back to this perceived notion that Harper and Manny are not going to get paid. That list above is incomplete and that is a lot of teams that I am sure are looking in and bidding on one or both players even. They are both going to receive nice contracts. Machado may be the one who signs a shorter deal to re-enter the market on more favorable terms, potentially but I still see him going long-term as well.

[Inside Pitch]

12 minutes ago, GrittyVeterans said:

It should

It better!   Half the reason teams do what the Angels have been doing is to more easily be able to sign players at positions of need.

[Docwaukee]

10 minutes ago, ettin said:

There are other components to the value equation including scarcity (I believe @eaterfan mentioned that on the other page), where you are at in your perceived window of contention, and preventing a rival, particularly a Division rival, from acquiring a guy like Harper.

Case in point: The Nationals have to be thinking that if they can sign Bryce it will keep him away from the Phillies their Division rival. Not only would it weaken their opponent it would allow them to trade one of their other outfielders, like Adam Eaton, for additional pieces that can either help them now or later (prospects). There is an opportunity price/cost built into that decision. Both teams have money available (Lerner is the richest owner in baseball and the Phillies have wide open payroll space) so the finite payroll isn't much of an issue with them. It really boils down to whether or not it makes the team better over the next 5-7 years which is what you'd expect Harper to reasonably help your team.

For the Angels he isn't a do or die proposition. It seems doubtful anyone in our Division wants to spend the money for Harper. Yes he would make an impact and would allow us to move our top prospect, Adell in trade or more remotely find a taker for Upton (I am 100% against this by the way I am all-in on Jo, now). In my opinion Harper isn't a good target for us, I think Machado is more consistent despite any concerns about his attitude.

Speaking of Machado he is a better fit for us long-term if we are thinking about getting crazy (which I very seriously doubt we will do) but again no one in our Division, particularly the competing teams, need a 3B other than the Angels. The A's have Chapman, the Astros have Bregman/Correa. Manny would move the needle but at what cost in terms of payroll? This actually drives back to Doc's position on relative cost and I don't think Eppler wants to make that commitment long-term unless Arte blesses the expenditure (again very, very doubtful so i think Taylor Ward gets his chance to see if he can be that 2-3 WAR player).

There are teams out there that are much better positioned to spend serious money on a Harper or Machado. Phillies could buy both. Nationals should consider Harper to keep him from falling into an opponent's hands. The Mets have gone all in so grabbing one of them makes some sense. The Twins have nothing on their books either. The Giants apparently want Bryce and they have a serious amount of free payroll space next season. The Astros have the money and could make room for Harper. Dodgers have been closely tied to Bryce too. The Brewers could be a sneaky organization on Manny. The Cardinals have a lot of money free and they could be in on either one of them.

This brings me back to this perceived notion that Harper and Manny are not going to get paid. That list above is incomplete and that is a lot of teams that I am sure are looking in and bidding on one or both players even. They are both going to receive nice contracts. Machado may be the one who signs a shorter deal to re-enter the market on more favorable terms, potentially but I still see him going long-term as well.

nicely done.  

regardless of how much money teams have to spend, they're just not spending it on long term deals.  They don't care that the players are young.  They just don't want the 8-10 year commitments on their books.  So all the teams that should be vying for their services just aren't at the contract length they're looking for.  I think there will be one team to top $300m for Bryce and I think it will be Philly.  

The other thing to remember is that the true contenders like the Yanks, Dogs, Sox and Astros are either out or not going to go past a certain point.  Those are the teams that Manny and Harper want to play for.  That's why this is taking so long.  The big dogs aren't outbidding anyone.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

16 hours ago, Dochalo said:

that's not what I'm saying and of course he is.  

the point is that you don't assemble a team on one player's value when you have a finite budget.  If he's worth 9 WAR and the other 8 players around him are worth 0 and you've maxed out your budget then you are better off with 9  two WAR players on that same budget.  

if you get bryce harper and he's worth 5 WAR per year which is a 3 WAR upgrade over a league min player, and you have 2 one WAR players at other positions that you then can't afford to upgrade, aren't you better off going with the 2 WAR player in RF and spending that $35 mil to upgrade the 2 one war player to 2.5 WAR each for less than $35 mil?  

Another way to look at it is this:

Trout is worth 9 WAR but you get him for $40 mil.  

Harper is worth 4.5 WAR, but you get him for $35 mil.  

Moustakas is worth 2.5 WAR for 10mil or so.  

When we get to a point where $25 mil can't give the team a 2 WAR upgrade somewhere else, I will be all for signing Harper.  Until then, I am in the incremental upgrade boat.  

I gotta push back on this. Players are going to get roughly the same amount of money relative to their projected value. The reason we see discrepancies is because sometimes players only want to play for one team, or some times there are a lot of question marks about a players attitude or reliability or have draft compensation attached. Josh Hamilton is a great example of ownership throwing out those other issues and offering a market value contract - had another team signed him for ~$25 mil less it still would've been a shit deal. Bargains tend to be bargains for a reason.

 

[Lou]

13 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I gotta push back on this. 

anyone else?

[Angelsjunky]

46 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

of course.  but we're not there yet.  

and just a reminder.  Harper is going to get premium price but is he truly a premier player?  

also, one of those inexpensive players is going to play RF.  

also, we're not very good at four other positions and two rotation spots

also, we're at our max budget per the owner

we can grab Harper in 2 years after he opts out 

Yep. Of all the team's future and current needs, outfield is last on the list. With Trout, Upton, Calhoun, Hermosillo, Adell, Marsh, Knowles, Adams, Deveaux, A Ramirez, etc, the Angels literally don't need to look outside of the org for 10+ years. I know not all of those guys will pan out, but some will - and maybe more than the team needs.

Now if Harper was a catcher or third baseman, he might be worth the risk. I suppose he could convert to first base, but then I'd like to see more consistency before committing 10/$300M.

[ettin]

26 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

nicely done.  

regardless of how much money teams have to spend, they're just not spending it on long term deals.  They don't care that the players are young.  They just don't want the 8-10 year commitments on their books.  So all the teams that should be vying for their services just aren't at the contract length they're looking for.  I think there will be one team to top $300m for Bryce and I think it will be Philly.  

The other thing to remember is that the true contenders like the Yanks, Dogs, Sox and Astros are either out or not going to go past a certain point.  Those are the teams that Manny and Harper want to play for.  That's why this is taking so long.  The big dogs aren't outbidding anyone.  

I am not sure I agree with this.

Scott Boras has turned waiting the off-season out into an art form. He does it because he knows specifically that premium players drive the marketplace and they are highly sought after and desired. By waiting and pushing it to the end of the off-season he creates an increasing pressure on teams to up the ante/bids. He sets the marketplace rather than the teams trying to nickel and dime him and his clients.

Certainly there are teams that won't go past a certain length and price but there are still enough teams who will make the commitment because they not only have a strong need but they see the value of the additional production on their teams. Teams that see the opportunity to seriously compete in their Divisions will be a lot more serious about spending the required money that the players are asking for.

Again I could be wrong but I think a lot of people are about to get shocked and awed.

No one here has any insight into what the big dogs are doing and I am trusting that natural market demand and the desire to win a championship are going to outweigh potential collusion and/or teams being cheap on the big dog players.

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

I gotta push back on this. Players are going to get roughly the same amount of money relative to their projected value. The reason we see discrepancies is because sometimes players only want to play for one team, or some times there are a lot of question marks about a players attitude or reliability or have draft compensation attached. Josh Hamilton is a great example of ownership throwing out those other issues and offering a market value contract - had another team signed him for ~$25 mil less it still would've been a shit deal. Bargains tend to be bargains for a reason.

 

as a whole yes.  but there are plenty of guys on either side of the mean.  The market tops out for a guy like Trout.  Even though he's worth $50m per, no one is going to pay him that.  Harper has the aura of a franchise player so he'll get paid as such even though his performance doesn't justify it to date.  He's getting paid for future value ie that he'll be better than he's been.  That's a nuance not all free agents get to take advantage of.  It boils down to supply and demand.  Not just what a guys anticipated production will be and the mid tier players are the ones feeling that the most right now.  There's a value play in that mid tier right now.   And then there's also timing.  So it's not just value in and money out.  

It's up to the GM to gauge the market and make good choices.  

[hangin n wangin]

1 hour ago, Angelsjunky said:

 

Baseball Reference WAR is trash, in my opinion. Maybe not "trash," but certainly highly questionable. Case in point: Harper at 3.5 via Fangraphs, 1.3 via BR. Or does anyone actually think Aaron Nola was worth 10.5 WAR last year? That's his BR number; Fangraphs has him at 5.6. I'm not a huge fan of WAR for pitchers, but I think Fangraphs is closer to his true value than BR.

100 percent agree.

[T.G.]

Over-rated or not... he's one of the few guys I've gone out of my way to see play in person. 

[disarcina]

I think Harper is way over rated.

Until he puts together two GOOD seasons in a row, I'd be hesitant to sign him to any long term deal - let alone the stratosphere type money/ years his agent is demanding,

Harper and Machado may be sitting while players are reporting next week.

[beatlesrule]

Not sure why this topic exists. The Angels aren't tied to Harper and never have been. They haven't even met with him as far as we know. Machado is the guy they should sign and that would actually make sense. 

[Stradling]

He’s over rated by 8

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, beatlesrule said:

Not sure why this topic exists. The Angels aren't tied to Harper and never have been. They haven't even met with him as far as we know. Machado is the guy they should sign and that would actually make sense. 

Because some of us are baseball fans in addition to being Angels fans.

[beatlesrule]

3 hours ago, Angelsjunky said:

Because some of us are baseball fans in addition to being Angels fans.

I get that. I am a baseball fan first and Angels fan second. I just don't understand why he needs his own topic. Machado is the guy that fits the Angels better.

[Lou]

3 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I get that. I am a baseball fan first and Angels fan second. I just don't understand why he needs his own topic. Machado is the guy that fits the Angels better.

probably because it's an open forum and people can start threads when they want. that's just a guess, however. 

Chuck? 

[m0nkey]

If you want to talk Angels Baseball or anything MLB related, this is the place for you! If you're new, be sure to introduce yourself to the community.

 

i assume this is MLB related. 

[Docwaukee]

21 minutes ago, beatlesrule said:

I get that. I am a baseball fan first and Angels fan second. I just don't understand why he needs his own topic. Machado is the guy that fits the Angels better.

3 pages of discussion later and you have your answer.  

[Troll Daddy]

You will never find me saying a 26-year-old with 30 career WAR and an NL MVP Award under his belt is overrated. Sorry.

Steve Adams@mlbtraderumors 

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

You will never find me saying a 26-year-old with 30 career WAR and an NL MVP Award under his belt is overrated. Sorry.

Steve Adams@mlbtraderumors 

And I disagree. That's sloppy thinking. "Overrated" is a relative not an absolute term. The question of whether Harper is overrated or not is not asking whether he is good or impressive or promising; it is whether he is as good as his reputation. And I think he is not. 

[Docwaukee]

19 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

And I disagree. That's sloppy thinking. "Overrated" is a relative not an absolute term. The question of whether Harper is overrated or not is not asking whether he is good or impressive or promising; it is whether he is as good as his reputation. And I think he is not. 

I agree with this. Many think of him as the mvp caliber player from 2015.  Yet he's really the 4 ish war guy he's been in 5 of his 7 seasons. 

He's ranked 46th, 24th and 70th in WAR the last three seasons.  He was about the 3rd best player on his own team during that stretch.  

He's basically been less valuable than Simmons.  Granted, he's a lot younger and his new contract should account for that.  

Will he have another MVP caliber season or two during that next contract?  probably, but the problem is that he could drop a couple 2 WAR seasons in there as well.  

 

[arch stanton]

Harper is left-handed power that also gets on base but plays a so-so RF with an impending move to 1B/DH. In a 10 year contract you could get 5 years of Yankee era Reggie then 5 years of Darrell Evans. It's a valuable player but is it a $300 million valuable player?

[beatlesrule]

5 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

You will never find me saying a 26-year-old with 30 career WAR and an NL MVP Award under his belt is overrated. Sorry.

Steve Adams@mlbtraderumors 

I corrected him multiple times that Harper's career WAR is actually 27.4 but he never responded.

[angelsnationtalk]

Aside from wanting $300+  million, I don't think he's overrated. Even if the Angels added him to the lineup he'd still be a way better option and risk than Pujols ever was. As much as we'd hate to say it, he is the perfect guy to hit in front of Trout. The only guy who walked more than Trout (122) was Bryce Harper (130). Harper is also a top 10 in OBP, top 30 in SLG and top 20 in RBI. Despite poor fielding metrics and non-consistent seasons, he's still a player that would make any team better. Teams should bet on him finding an above average groove during his prime because he's shown the potential.

I fully agree $300M+ is a bit much..... But if rumors about Arte Moreno are true about WILLING TO SPEND $2Billion dollars to own 4 RSN's then the money is clearly there. Maybe MLB players have a point. Are players getting too expensive or are the owners really focused of flipping profits? 

As much as I hate the Dodgers, I must thank them for spending as much as they can to put a winning team on the field. Great time to be a Dodgers fan. And by the way, the Dodgers STILL have a top 10 system despite spending money left and right. They've had a top 10 farm since 2014! So don't tell me you can't have both. I know Eppler is fixing the turd that Dipoto made, but it doesn't mean we can't flex the wallet and still build.