Sunday morning things

ARod is so worth 11mm more than the Face.

1. The reason why batting averages are higher with zero strikes is because players only swing at good pitches (in general) on the first pitch. With two strikes they're forced to defend the strike zone.
2. Nobody's saying it's a good idea to watch hittable pitches go by. If you can drive it, swing. If you can't drive it (until you've got two strikes on you), don't swing.

1. Very successful baseball players might play for 15 years. In light of that, a running ten-year-window is ridiculous. Barry Bonds would continue to be paid handsomely for another five or ten years, even if he never played another game in his life, 'cause his running ten-year window, well, it's got a 73 home run season in it! Can't forget about that!
2. Context: in order for an analysis like that to make sense, you'd have to consider how much similar ballplayers were paid over their ten-year windows and the full course of their careers. I guarantee you that Michael Young will be overpaid in any analysis which contextualizes the data (barring a ridiculous late-career resurgence).

How does what a guy got paid over the last five years influence whether he's worth any present/future contract? IT FREAKING DOESN'T, that's how.

For instance: Let's say you're looking for a residence and you find a nice little townhouse with lots of potential in a neighborhood everyone is saying is and up and coming neighborhood. The only problem is the landlord wants a five year lease. You look at those nice hardwood floors, the granite counter tops in the kitchen and master bath, and all the cool little shops and restaurants going in around the place and you just can't resist, so you sign the papers and take out a 5 year lease for about 1,000 a month.

As soon as you sign the contract though, the neighborhood completely blows up. It becomes the it neighborhood for young professionals, even getting a little national coverage when it makes it on the cover of "Neighborhoods Magazine". The worth of a place like yours instantly doubles to 2,000 a month.

There's no hard feelings from your landlord (though he does drop a couple of not-so-subtle hints on a few local talk shows about how he's not getting enough rent for his nice, well-respected-around-the-neighborhood property), and he provides you with excellent all around service.

At the end of your five year lease you go to talk to him about renewing, and he says that he's amenable to that, but "since you paid about 1,000 less per month than the place was worth for 5 years, how would you feel about signing a new 5 year contract and paying 1,000 more per month than the place is worth over the next five years?"

I know comparing renting a townhouse to employing a baseball player is apples and oranges (at best), but it seems like the same basic logic to me.

If you assess the lifetime cost and value of your time in the townhouse, instead of pegging the townhouse at it's peak rent, which would be "nonsense", then that hypothetical landlords logic about that next five year contract doesn't seem that stupid. But it sure sounds stupid to me.

You have locked up a depreciating asset.

Signing Young to that contract is like buying a Bugatti Veyron.  If you have the money, what the heck.

However, since Young likely represents 15%-25% of this teams payroll over the next five years, I'm not sure we have the money to burn on a 5th-6th best guy at a position.