I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously object to this signing. Yes, I understand that we may want to put Glaus at 1B at one point, but lets not get overly nitpicky--This signing of a talented, classy player (who fits into the chemistry of the Jays}, is a bargain by any standards. Its great to see JP putting together a solid core of top notch players for years to come--

Doc--Wells--Overbay--Glaus--BJ--Hill--Rios & hopefully AJ--

(I'm aware that Hill & Rios are not signed longterm--but they're under the Jays control for a good while.)

I think this is a great signing.  With the ridiculous prices of FA's nowadays, signing a complimentary piece like Overbay for this price is excellent.   He's now also a valuable trade chip if down the road positions need to be opened up.  As for his comparables, I don't think some of them are particularly good.  Other than Matsui, all of them have had injury problems/ platoon issues over their careers. Overbay has always been quite durable.  Nothing in his playing history would show an issue of injuries. 

How anyone can find issues with this signing given the current salary climate is really grasping at straws. 

Overbay did not sign a FA contract and it should not be looked at as such.

Whether or not one agrees with the principle of signing a 30-year old first baseman to a 4-year contract when he has two years to go before free agency, one has to look at the dollars through that prism. The market, as reestablished this off-season, has no direct bearing on Overbay's value in the arbitration process, so citing the current market is not overly relevant. The rise in FA salary dollars that we've witnessed will have the indirect effect of raising the bar for arb-eligible players, but not yet.

The Jays allotted what they believed to be fair arbitration market value for the first two years of the contract and then factored in two FA years for a then 32-year old first baseman. I have no feelings one way or another as to whether this contract was a good decision. I'm just saying that people need to remember that two of the four years are pre-FA.

Several comments;

I like the deal. In case Glaus flames...has anyone ever tried him at third? How's his arm? He's the kind of team guy that would give it a go is we asked...he's obviously a GREAT guy to have around. The guys at Rotoworld like the deal, they are surprised we got this done for under $30 big ones. As someone said earlier the Jays must think Lind can play LF in the bigs. Good. Snider is "due" 2009ish so Overbay till 10 is OK 'cause if Snider kicks Lind off LF he can take over DH from Thomas in 10.

Position-wise, things are coming together nicely...now if only Santa had brought us a shortstop. Johnson for Tejada?

Conversions to third base almost never work with righthanded throwers. Asking a lefthanded Overbay to play third base would be, what, silly?

Ok, I tried to find comparables (production and service time) within MLB that signed for both arbitration years and some free agent years.  Harder than you would think:

Jay Gibbons: 4 years for 21.1 million.

Nick Johnson: 3 years for 16.5 million

I would say it's better than the Gibbons deal and on par with the Johnson deal, only because Johnson has durability issues.  But even looking at it in that light I still think it is an intelligent signing.  If Overbay performs to last year's level, and produces for 3 of the 4 years, the contract would have been very worthwhile.  Well done JP.

Regarding the Arbitration/Free agent question..

It looks to me like the first year is pretty much exactly what he would have made on a one year deal, and the second year - if judged against the nonsensical salary that Shea Hillenbrand ended up with last offseason - is at least 1.5 million less than what he could have won.

then you cator in free agency which, if you start there to make a deal it's going to be at least 3 years and average 10 per (unles there's a considerable reversal in the market over the next two years) and you come to the conclusion - or I do anyway - that we are comitting 4/24 where we could have easily - if we had wanted to resign him when he went to free agency - ended up spending 41.5 (or more) over the next 5 years.

Ever how you look at the "this isn't really a free agent deal" question the $$$ still argue in our favor.

Beyond that, My thoughts only go so far as these:

1. Yes, it means the Lind in LF experiment will go on for some time to come. My guess is that when Snyderarrives, then Lind shifts back to 1B.

2. If it's a problem that Glaus has no place togo, then it's an argument against the possibility that Thomas' 3rd year kicks in far more than it is against this deal. It seems to me that if big Frank earns his deal, that third year is going to happen and it's THAT which traps Glaus at 3B

USA Today/Sports Weekly has a very good organizational report that is a great read:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/bluejays/2007-01-04-organizational-report_x.htm

I’m a big Overbay supporter but I have mixed feelings on this extension. He was under the control of the Jay for 2 more years and he’s about to turn 30. Overbay’s getting close (if not already there) to the age where most players start to decline or stay neutral instead of improving.

The market shifts from year to year so it’s hard to tell if the Jays saved money buy buying out 2 free agent years.

On the positive side, Overbay is a professional hitter. I could see him hitting around the .285-.310 mark for the next several seasons. Boy oh boy has Uncle Ted opened up his wallet the past 18 months.

My point regarding Snyder was not to assume his success, or Lind's, though obviously that's implied.

My point was that IF one does assume their success, there's still not a real question about overcrowding (in the 1B or LF context) until Snyder arrives.

Obviously if you assume in your projection that Snyder fails it changes the dynamic...but it also makes the whole point moot.

Of course if Lind simply CAN'T play LF you have a problem...my guess is the Jays are satisfied he can if they made this deal.

I'm not making a case that we have any "log jam" and I like the deal fine. I do, however, choose to be enough of a fanboy to assume that, barring evidence to the contrary, our best prospects will succeed.

Sue me. ;)

I think the market is clearly above $7 million for a player like Overbay (2006 version).

True enough. But would the 32-year old 2008 version of Overbay command that much? I ask this rhetorically. Admittedly, even with two years of decline, it's still hard to fathom the post-2008 Overbay being less valuable than the post-2006 Hillenbrand.

But, as you pointed out in your intro, the odds are against him to remain at his age-29 level moving forward. As much as many want to believe that his career is still in ascent, the empirical evidence suggests that for that to be so, Overbay has to be the exception rather than the rule.

If it's my team, I live with two years of giving Overbay arbitration and then reevaluate in 2008. As it is, I have to hope he defies history and ages well.

People are complaining because the Jays might have too much talent three years from now?

In fairness, I think the worries are focused on a potential clumping of talent at the left end of the defensive spectrum.

Using my very simple metric...the VORP/$ likes it.

Dan, some comments (acknowledging up front that you used the adjective "very simple"):

• Overbay is not a free agent so this metric shouldn't be used when comparing him to free agents. I would imagine that on a per dollar basis, you're typically going to get far more VORP/$ value from a pre-FA than a free agent. Burnett figures to make more than 25 times more than Hill in 2007. But they're apples and oranges. One was signed as a free agent. The other is subject to salary constraints. Hill's VORP/$ will grossly exceed Burnett's. But that isn't instructive.
  
• Overbay is far more likely than not to decline from this point on in his career. His forecasted VORP would have to reflect that.
  
• The marginal value of each extra unit of additional VORP should not be costed in a linear fashion. The cost of upgrading from a VORP of 2.0 to 3.0, say, would cost X dollars. The cost of upgrading from 6.0 to 7.0, say, would cost more than X dollars. The marginal cost for each additional unit of VORP rises because the talent distribution in baseball is represented by the rightmost edge of a normal curve, i.e., not a straight line. The implicit straight-line assumption when using a metric like VORP/$ will undervalue the league's best players.

If Johnson stays at this level for a year or two he could bring back something usefull if traded a year or 2 before free agency.

I can't imagine any sober, objective forecast of Johnson's next two seasons expecting a 30-year old with a 771 career OPS to stay at an 869 level. I would be highly pleased with a 350/450 season out of him in 2007 and would be tempted to take the under on the forecast of an 800 OPS. For what it's worth, ZIPS has him at 346/423.

I agree with TA, and will add a few points.

The comparables discussed above are based on a high average, high double, modest power profile, but I don't think they work well as comparisons to Lyle.   I worry about comparing rate stats in a vacuum.

Hal Morris was highly prone to serious injuries (only exceeding 136 games once), while Overbay is very durable (perfectly healthy three years running).  Bream and Lee also suffered very serious injuries that acclerated their decline.  Mientkiewicz has, and always had, substantially less power.  I actually think Overbay has room to improve in the power department -- he hit seven home runs greater than 420 feet last season, and to me his frame is absolutely capable of 25 homers.  (The scoffing poster at BTF who used scare quotes around the word "power" for Overbay lost me then and there.)

I don't think it's appropriate, in light of nutrition/training advances, to forecast steep declines for exceptionally healthy 30-year-old players today because injury-prone players a decade ago experienced them.  I'll also add that in 2010, $7 million will not be a millstone in any sense of the word.  It will be well within the range of what a competitive team will be willing to pay for even a lefty platoon player.

In other words, I agree that this would have been a rotten contract to give Hal Morris in 1997.  But here and now, I think it's a very solid buy.

People keep citing the comperables on BR but I don't like them at all in this case. Every player mentioned there is either not older than Overbay, or not remotely hitting for as much power as Overbay has (Hal MORRIS?! When did Morris ever threaten 20 HR? When he was 31. Just that once. Otherwise he wasn't close to hitting with the power Overbay has)  except  Dolph Camilli  ...in the 1940's.

That said, I would be more comfortable with 3 than with 4...but I think that in relation to what players of his ability will be making in that year, we got value forthe dollar in the first three years at least. And no one really knows if he'll be here all 4 years.

but surely there are better comparisons out there than Hal Morris. Heck I could cite Brian downing...who had single figure home runs must years until 30 and then started hitting with pop....or Edger martinez who got to the bigs as late as Overbay and went on to be a first rate hitter throughout his 30's.

Good comparisons? Probably not. But certainly as valid as Hal Morris and Ricky Jordan.

I don't think the Snow comp is very good.  Overbay has significantly outhit Snow to this point in his career as a pro.  For his full pro minor league career, Overbay was 678 for 1,985, a .342 batting average.  Snow was 588 for 2,046 minor league AB's, a .287 average (not counting a handful of rehab AB's in 2001/2004).  We're talking about a completely different calibre of hitter.  Their HR and BB numbers were similar, but Overbay hit 55 points higher.  Both had the advantage of playing in the Pacific Coast League.

In the majors, through their age 29 season, Overbay has put together a .293 average in 1,963 AB's, whereas Snow had hit just .263 in 2,306 AB's.   Snow hit more HR's, and their BB rates were similar.

Another thing to consider with regard to Snow is that he was a switch hitter who could not hit lefties.  His age 31 and 32 seasons were comparable to his age 29 and 30 seasons, but his problems really started in his age 33 season, when he lost his full time status, was platooned, and eventually tried hitting left handed against all pitchers in an attempt to regain full time status.  He actually became a decent platoon player in his age 35 season, and had his best major league season at age 36 in 2004 in terms of average, OBP and SLG, with an OPS of .958.

I think Overbay is a significantly better hitter than Snow, and see no reason to think that signing him to a contract for his age 30, 31, 32 and 33 seasons is going to be a problem.

Maybe one of our Texas residents knows.

Not for sure, but hey, it's snowing here in Texas today, so insert "hell freezes over" joke {{here}}.

O'Brien had his best season with the Rangers in, um, '88 I think, then was part of the trade that brought Julio Franco to DFW (whatever happened to that guy, anyway?) -- after one year in Cleveland, he signed a mega-deal with the Mariners ("mega" being relative to the era, of course) and had a few decent years with an OPS+ around 95 or so -- then he disappeared. He didn't have those Last Few Straggling Years many players have, but he was 35, so I always assumed he just retired into a rather luxurious lifestyle post-MLB, given all the dough the M's paid him.

This year's free agent 1B who could be counted on to produce a .800 neighborhood OPS or better:

Nomar (age 33)

After 2007:

Hillenbrand (31) (has broken .800 a single time in his career and just got a $6.5 million deal - and won that much in arbitration too)

Casey (33) .724 last year and in decline.

After 2008:

Delgado (36), Giambi (38), Nomar (35), Sexson (33)

How many of those guys will be competent defenders by then? How many still elite level hitters? And in each case, how will the team for which they now play replace them ifthey do not re-sign?

2009:

Nick Johnson (31)

Adam LaRoche (30)

So, in the three winters between now and Overbay's free agent year, there are six guys whom a given team could go out and sign who are arguably better hitters than the figures you cited, three of which almost certain to be regulated to DH duty by the time they are available.

That makes it THREE competent defenders with desireable bats. I'm no economist but scarcity of a product (i.e. an .800 hitting 1B) drives up price.

How many of us believe that if Johnson or LaRoche continue to hit as they have (and can stay healthy) that they will be paid considerably more than $7 million on the first year of their contract when they become free agents?

I know I do. If that is true, then that makes Overbay, even at .800, a marketable item. After the 2008 season, NONE of the good hitting 1B are good defenders anymore (if they even are now) and after 2009, once the other two are off the market trading for a guy like Overbay is all that's left to you.

Let's try not to be overly optimistic with Snider and Lind. I hate to be a nay-sayer, but until Snider gets to AAA and is still posting amazing numbers, then let's try projecting him into the 25 man roster. Needless to say, many 1st round picks have not panned out, Phil Nevin is one former first overall pick that comes to mind (yes, he's had some good years but at age 32, 33(?), he seems to be a shadow of his former self).

Yes, Lind has never hit under .310 and he looks like a good bet to be a good major league hitter. Given the superior defence of Wells and Rios, it would not be such a bad thing to let him learn from his struggles. Cat learned how to play the outfield and despite a weak arm, he really played tremendously well.

Thomas, hopefully, play well enough in the next 2 years but would that guarantee a then 42-year old his 3rd year? It's also likely that there will be a buyout option for Jays if Glaus must be moved to DH for the 2009 season.

As for Glaus and his potential health issues, he didn't look too good last year and I'm hoping that the Jays will play him as the DH for the days Thomas gets off. Thomas may get into 135-140 games,  which leaves Glaus with about 20 games as a DH. In the next two years, hopefully that will be enough to ensure good health for Glaus. Now, he has a player option I believe for 2009. There's no guarantee that he won't pick it up, but there's always the possibility that he may be able to the same money($12-13 mil elsewhere) if Lind appears to have the DH spot and Snider in LF. If he so chooses to stay a Jay, then perhaps we'll have to keep him at 3rd base for the 2009 season.

Ideally the DH's for the next 3 years would be Thomas, Thomas, Snider/Lind

and the LF's: Lind, Lind, Lind/Snider

and the 3B's : Glaus, Glaus, FA/Glaus

Despite my trying not to optimistic, I think you'll find lots of "hopefully" 's in this post.

A couple of points:

1. This is an unequivocally great signing. Overbay is an above-average hitter (.284 EqA last season, .283 career) and defender (has never had a year with a negative FRAA). Even at 1B, a player like that is worth far, far more than $6 million per. Great deal by JP.

2. The whole situation of having to move someone down the road is something that can always happen. Not even a consideration IMO.

3. I don't mean to be insulting here, but frankly, using those comparables lists for anything other than interest/entertainment is wicked dumb. Their value for actually analyzing a player's worth or predicting future performance is basically zilch.

Their value for actually analyzing a player's worth or predicting future performance is basically zilch.

What are you basing this assertion on?

What are you basing this assertion on?

A bunch of things. For one, based upon BR's description of how the similarity scores are calculated (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/similarity.shtml), they are come from the raw, not adjusted, stats. Comparing players across eras is tenuous at best; doing so based upon the raw stats is basically worthless. For another, the path of a player's career is affected by a huge number of things, many of them specific to the particular individual, or even a product of dumb luck. This is particularly important since the list of relatively comparable players is typically small enough that you're not dealing with a significant sample size. Like I said, such comparisons can be interesting, but to try to predict a player's future based upon what a handful of "comparables" (from a calculation which is dubious to begin with) did, does not seem to be terribly useful to my mind.

Chuckster, this is why...

Overbay and Zaun are our only lefties. Lind is our only MLB ready lefty. Ergo, he is more likely to replace Johnson, a righty, and an inferior player, SOONER rather than later. Chuck, no need to say thanks, just send a "cheque", or "check" if you're a "Merican.

So perhaps your statement should have read: 

As we are all aware, Overbay is one of just two lefties in a righty-laden lineup. That makes Lind's arrival in the Show more likely sooner rather than later, Lind is a Lefty.

It would be a cheque, not a check. That's if there were to be a cheque. There won't.

"signing bonuses are not taxed in Canada, whereas the top marginal rate on incomes is 48-51% (depending on province/city)."