|
January 12, 2003 The AftermathNow that the first-ever BDBL free agent auction has come and gone, there are lots of questions to be answered. Who helped themselves the most? Who were the biggest bargains? Who were the most overpriced players of the auction? Where were the bargains found? Who struck out altogether? How much of a factor was the tie-breaker? And finally, did the auction solve all the problems for which it was created? Let's take these questions one at a time: Question: Who helped themselves the most? Logic tells us that the team with the most money to spend in this auction should have acquired the most amount of talent. That certainly seems to be the case with the South Carolina Sea Cats, who had nearly $20 million more to spend in this auction than any other team in the league. The loot collected by the Sea Cats: Vladimir Guerrero ($16m), Mark Kotsay ($6m), Herbert Perry ($2.5m), Andy Pettitte ($8.5m), Darren Holmes ($4m) and Tom Glavine ($11.5m). These six players should certainly help the Sea Cats contend this season, though they will do so at the cost of tying up $42 million next season. The Houston Heatwave finished second in the league in number of players won at the auction, with five. Those five were Jarrod Washburn ($12m), Steve Karsay ($3.5m), Kirk Rueter ($6.5m), Marquis Grissom ($4m) and Jose Mesa ($3m). Oakland was next with four players won at auction: Mike Cameron ($5.5m), Rich Aurilia ($3m), Ivan Rodriguez ($10.5m) and John Olerud ($7m). The Bear Country Jamboree walked away with the two best relievers in the auction, Octavio Dotel and Chris Hammond, at the price of $5 million each. The Atlanta Fire Ants (#2 in available auction money) secured an ace, Greg Maddux, and a middle-of-the-order hitter, Garrett Anderson, but paid a whopping $24.5 million for the pair. And Houston added two big left-handed arms to the rotation (Jarrod Washburn and Kirk Rueter) and a power arm for their bullpen (Steve Karsay). Other teams helped themselves a great deal simply by acquiring that one missing piece of the puzzle. The Marlboro Hammerheads added Sammy Sosa's big bat to the middle of their lineup. The Stamford Zoots added Jim Edmonds to replace the lost production from Magglio Ordonez. Salem added Jeff Bagwell, a much-needed right-handed power bat, to their lefty-heavy lineup, and Roger Clemens to firm a watered-down rotation. Allentown snatched up Larry Walker at the last moment, solidifying an already lethal lineup. And Akron added a third righty power bat, Ellis Burks. Who were the biggest bargains? One man's definition of a "bargain" is different from another man's, of course, but let's just use the over/under numbers from my Draft Day Preview as a starting point. (Note, however, that my over/unders did not include eight players that were added to the auction after my article was written.) Using those numbers, John Olerud was the biggest bargain of the auction, coming in at $4 million less than the $11 million I had predicted for him. Another first baseman, Jeff Bagwell, was tied for the second best bargain of the draft, at $3 million less than the $13 million over/under. It's no coincidence that two first basemen top this list of bargains. Coming into the draft, there were four teams in need of a first baseman - all contending teams with money to spend on one big player. But when the Stamford Zoots landed David Ortiz for $3.5 million in Lot #2, that all but ended the bidding war on first basemen, and caused a trickle-down effect to the rest of the first basemen in the auction. Larry Walker, at $3 million less than his over/under, was also a major bargain for the Ridgebacks, who spent all ten days of the auction searching for a bargain. The Marlboro Hammerheads landed two of the biggest bargains in the draft in Kevin Appier ($3m less than the $8m over/under) and Sammy Sosa ($2m less than the $16m over/under.) Other bargains include Luis Gonzalez ($2.5m under), Mike Sweeney ($2m), Jim Edmonds ($1.5m), Steve Karsay ($1.5m), John Burkett ($1.5m) and John Lieber ($1.5m). Who were the most overpriced players of the auction? Adrian Beltre and Ivan Rodriguez tied as the most overpriced players of the auction, both clocking in at $3.5 million above their over/unders. Greg Maddux and Mike Cameron tied for second-place at $2.5m above, and Garrett Anderson and Joe Randa both finished $2 million above. Other over-priced players include Phil Nevin ($1.5m), Shannon Stewart ($1.5m), Andy Pettitte ($1.5m), Tom Glavine ($1.5m) and Steve Trachsel ($1m). Where were the bargains found? In my Draft Day Preview, I suggested that there are three theories for where bargains can be found in an auction: at the beginning of the auction, in the middle, or at the end. The correct theory turned out to be theory #4: none of the above. In terms of bargain-hunting, there was virtually no difference whatsoever between the beginning, middle or end of the auction. Bargain-hunting was more dependent upon positional scarcity than timing. In general, third basemen, mid-level outfielders and top pitchers tended to be more overpriced than first basemen and top-tiered outfielders. Who struck out altogether? The Allentown Ridgebacks played possum for most of the auction, pretending to lose bid after bid, though in reality, they were merely content to drive up the prices on every player available. Allentown posted more bids (32) than any other team in the league except for Chicago (39) and Southern Cal (34). The Chicago Black Sox led the league in bids, but won just one player. Granted, that one player was a big one: Mike Sweeney. Southern Cal won three players: Todd Walker ($5m), Shannon Stewart ($6.5m) and Edgar Martinez ($4m). The most efficient bidders were Oakland, who won four of the nine bids they placed, and Stamford, who won three of eight. How much of a factor was the tie-breaker? I think we all know the answer to this one. The tie-breaker proved to be a HUGE factor in this auction. In general, the teams that won last year got the players they wanted, while the teams that didn't win lost out more often than not. When the poorer teams did win their bids, it was usually for far more than anyone else was willing to pay. As we witnessed this year, $500,000 goes a long way, and having that $500,000 advantage thanks to a tie-breaker was clearly beneficial. Next year, the first tie-breaker goes to the team that previously owned the player, which will make things even more interesting. Did the auction solve all the problems for which it was created? I think it's safe to say that the auction was a smashing success, and it did, in fact, solve all of the perceived problems of our old method of drafting. Primarily, we were concerned with making our system of free agent acquisition more realistic and removing the incentive for teams to lose. The auction system resulted in player salaries that were far more realistic than before, and the tie-breaker rules clearly removed the incentive for teams to lose. In conclusion, our first-ever free agent auction proved to be a great idea. It has added countless new dimensions of strategy to our game, and has made our league better in the end. Thanks to all who participated in the concept and design of this system last summer. This was truly a collaborative effort - the benefits of which we will all enjoy for years to come.
|