There is still the report that some team has offered Jeff Samardzija $100 million.
No pitcher of Samardzija's value has signed a $100 million contract. Jordan Zimmermann has been worth 16.7 WAR over the past four seasons -- more than double
Samardzija's 6.8 -- and just signed for five years and $110 million.
Based on a contract value of $5.7 million per WAR, Zimmermann's past value has been $95.19 million. He received a 15.5 percent premium in his new Tiger deal. This assumes that he will have the same performance going forward.
$38.76 million is the value of Samardzija's past performance, which is 40.7 percent less than Zimmerman's value. $44.77 million is 40.7 percent of Zimmermann's value.
So why is the report so off the current formula?
First, it could be that this is agent talk to goose up the player's market.
Second, it could be that the agent is looking to other factors such as durability, innings pitched and other advanced metrics to compare Samardzija to more valuable starting pitchers.
However, Zimmermann has #1 ace characteristics and is being paid at that level at $22 million AAV.
Samardzija is not a #1 starter now. He fits into a #3 or #4 starter based on last season with the White Sox.
In a market filled with quality starting pitchers, Samardzija is not expected to bring a premium value to a club's final payroll.
Well, the Giants, having lost Greinke to divisional rival Arizona, stepped up and gave the Shark 5 years/$90 million. At $18 million AAV, Samardzija actually made $5 million more than the Cubs deal he turned down 2 years ago (and having a bad season with the White Sox).
The Giants are paying the equivalent of $13.2 million/WAR for Samardzija which is a 233 percent premium over standard value.
The Shark still is a #3 pitcher in San Francisco after Bumgarner and Cain. Bumgarner will be paid this year $9.75 million for his 4.8 WAR in 2015. Cain is going to be paid $21 million for his negative 0.7 WAR in 2015.
If you think pitching valuations make no sense, then the Giants payroll is a good exhibit.
