How John Buck’s Deal Has Held Up by Joe Pawlikowski - December 15, 2010

 

This off-season we’ve seen 13 catchers sign major league deals — 14 if we count Victor Martinez among them. For the most part these deals were modest in nature, between $3 and $5 million per season for a short span. The exception is John Buck, who signed a three-year, $18 million contract early in the free agency season. While the initial reaction pegged it as a poor deal, there was a chance that the deal could look a bit better once the rest of the off-season unfolded. A month later, it appears to be the opposite.

 

After the Marlins signed Buck, three comparable catchers also signed contracts. Rod Barajas went for a year and $3.25 million to the Dodgers, Miguel Olivo signed for two years and $7 million with the Mariners, and Yorvit Torrealba went to the Rangers for two years and $6.25 million. For a look at the quality of each catcher, we need only turn to our WAR graphs.

 

 

 

 

They all appear to be in the same range, which makes sense. They did, after all, sign somewhat similar deals. But that purple line does appear curious, though. While at the top it’s right in line with its orange, blue, and green counterparts, it dips below later. It suggests that Buck is the least of the four catchers. Yet he signed the largest deal. Might the Marlins have been better off waiting out the market and signing a catcher who could provide similar production for less money and a shorter commitment?

 

There is definitely a case there, but it’s not as concrete as the WAR graph makes it out to be — though we can take our first cue from it. Buck’s line is a bit shorter than the others, because he’s a bit younger. In fact, he’s two years younger than both Torrealba and Olivo, and he’s five years younger than Barajas. That might account for the commitment aspect. The Marlins felt they could offer him more years, because he could hold up longer than the other catchers on the market.

 

Then there’s the career year aspect to consider. Buck had the best year, at least offensively, among the four. But it was by a long shot his best season. Might the Marlins have seen something that suggests he can retain some of his power surge? Keith Law suggested this might be the case in his Top 50 free agents feature. It’s tough for us to know whether that’s the case or not. But we do know that many a free agent has fooled teams with a big walk year. There’s a better chance that Buck falls back into his regular 1 WAR range than repeat his nearly 3 WAR season.

 

The Marlins had better hope they know something that the rest of us do not. Otherwise, they just committed more years and more average annual value to a mediocre catcher than other teams did to comparable players. There was hope at the time that later developments in the free agent market would make Buck’s deal seem a bit more palatable. Unfortunately for the Marlins, it appears that just the opposite has happened.

 

 

http://www.fangraphs...al-has-held-up/

It was Buck's power that lead us to choose him over the rest, IMO. None of those players had a season near as good as Buck did last year, offensively.

It was Buck's power that lead us to choose him over the rest, IMO. None of those players had a season near as good as Buck did last year, offensively.

 

 

Except Buck's season last was way above is career averages, making it an extreme exception to his otherwise horrible track record. Like I said earlier in the thread I don't really like this deal, we're banking 3/18 (Which is a sizable contract for us) on a guy whose had an OPS under .700 as often as he's had one over .750 and he's not even that good defensively. We'll see though, I'd love to eat some crow on this contract.

It was Buck's power that lead us to choose him over the rest, IMO. None of those players had a season near as good as Buck did last year, offensively.

 

 

Except Buck's season last was way above is career averages, making it an extreme exception to his otherwise horrible track record. Like I said earlier in the thread I don't really like this deal, we're banking 3/18 (Which is a sizable contract for us) on a guy whose had an OPS under .700 as often as he's had one over .750 and he's not even that good defensively. We'll see though, I'd love to eat some crow on this contract.

 

yeah but you know what....jayson werth only figured it out two years ago and he got 126 million.

 

buck may not have always been consistent but his power potential shows in his numbers and perhaps he finally got it together because he was supposed to be the royals franchise catcher.

It was Buck's power that lead us to choose him over the rest, IMO. None of those players had a season near as good as Buck did last year, offensively.

 

 

Except Buck's season last was way above is career averages, making it an extreme exception to his otherwise horrible track record. Like I said earlier in the thread I don't really like this deal, we're banking 3/18 (Which is a sizable contract for us) on a guy whose had an OPS under .700 as often as he's had one over .750 and he's not even that good defensively. We'll see though, I'd love to eat some crow on this contract.

 

yeah but you know what....jayson werth only figured it out two years ago and he got 126 million.

 

buck may not have always been consistent but his power potential shows in his numbers and perhaps he finally got it together because he was supposed to be the royals franchise catcher.

 

 

Eh? Werth has had an OPS over .820 5 of his last 6 seasons and has had great numbers his past 4. And I agree it's possible Buck finally got it together, but I would have given him a one year deal and a promise to start to see if that is indeed the case rather then what we gave him, which for us is a hefty deal. If he replicates or comes close to last year great, but a bad John Buck, and he has been bad far more often then not, would arguably be worse then a Baker/Hayes platoon. 15 HR's isn't all that great when coupled with a .300 OBP and a sub .400 SLG.

 

As I said I'd love to eat crow here, but coming into a tough ballpark for him (Most of his HR's are between left-center and right-center), and a division and league where he'll face quality pitching on a much more frequent basis I'm really not liking the odds that I will.

That article basically only glosses over the age difference, as buck was only 29 last year.

 

I'm no fan of the buck signing (really not a fan actually) but

 

Rod Brajas basically came into the league at 25, and had a .686 OPS (72 OPS+) through his age 29 season. Buck had a .735 OPS (93 OPS+) in that time period. That's a win difference.

 

Olivo came in at 24 and also had a .686 OPS (78 OPS+) until his age 29 season

 

Torrealba came in at 23 and had a .700 OPS (79 OPS+, woo coors)) through age 29.

 

Buck has came in at age 23 and has had a .722 OPS (89 OPS+). That's a one win difference with his bat

 

Buck has also been quite a bit better since hitting his prime (age 26): .745 OPS (97 OPS+)

 

Sure, the stats do say he's the worst defensive player of the group. But if you look at average B-R WAR per 162 games in those time frames (entrance to age 29)

Buck: 2.2 WAR (-4 def per year)

Torrealba: 1.9 WAR (+6)

Olivo: 1.4 WAR (+1)

Barajas: 1.3 WAR (+5)

 

So buck has been the best. Sure, I'd personally rather have Torrealba on 2 years, 3m per rather than Buck on 3 years, 6m per. But Buck did put up a OPS north of .800 last season, something neither of the other 3 did or come close to doing. On top of which, scouting seems to like Buck's defense a lot more than the numbers do.

John Buck and Logan Morrison will be visiting the troops in Asia and Germany at the start of February