Originally Posted by guernsey
The point is that the Reds paid market value for Wilson, maybe a little less.
The next point is that of the NL FA pitchers with Win Shares equal to or greater than Wilson will all be significantly more costly than him, and quite possibly for not a lot of added production. Folks salivate over Matt Clement and his three additional Win Shares. Why is Clement worth $5M (or more) a season more than Wilson for three extra WS?
Because it's not three extra Win Shares.
(BTW, the best Pitchers are consistently worth fewer Win Shares than their offensive counterparts. Just an FYI. Win Shares, although I like THT's numbers better, are fairly nebulous when applied to pitchers. Wish we had the formula but oh well.)
Over the past three seasons, Clement is worth 18 more Earned Runs (or about 20 total Runs) than Wilson per 200 IP (as if Wilson will ever SEE 200 IP in a single season). That's just about the Run Value difference between an .750 OPS hitter and a .850 OPS hitter. Basically, that's about two standard performance deviations and the upper level is worth geometrically more than the lower.
But you're pimping the Wilson deal as being worth "market value". Problem is that you can only cite teams being stupid as the "market". Because smart teams understand that you don't pay as much for smoke and mirrors.