While, in this case, I do agree that “we can assume Detroit thinks he’s worth more,” I have to dispute the logical premise on which it seems to be founded: “Detroit should not have traded anything for the right to pay him that salary.” Even if Renteria’s actual salary is commensurate with his value on the open-market, the contractual right to pay him anything is as much a commodity as the contractual right to pay him his actual salary; therefore, a third variable impinges on the equation of a player’s “current market value minus his contractual salary”: the simple property rights, which fix both the player’s salary and term of obligation (and moreover mitigate a dimension of the market’s operation on his value).

Thus, an important component of Renteria’s value to the Tigers is the fact that he doesn’t play for them, but is instead obliged to play for the Braves at a fixed price; this value is of course further informed by the player who does [project to] play for the Tigers at Renteria’s position. The fact that Renteria’s fixed price was (highly) amenable to the Tigers is not incidental, but his value to the Tigers is not solely derivative of it. Instead, more likely, it is the reason – along with the relative positional strength within their organization – why the Tigers dealt, in addition to Jurrgens, a prospect as valuable (on the trade market) as Hernandez.

What players teams are willing to trade for Renteria, however, tells us nothing about what kind of pitcher you can obtain for his salary. His trade value is his current market value minus his contractual salary (if current value isn’t higher, then he has zero value as a tradable commodity). If you’re right that Edgar is worth his current salary ($10M in 2008, $11 in 2009), then Detroit should not have traded anything for the right to pay him that salary. So we can assume Detroit thinks he’s worth more (and he clearly would get more in the FA market today).

Good question, and my mind is too soft right now to put the proper thought into it. But let me give it a shot.

I do wonder how some sports writers are allowed to be so sloppy. Moore is known for playing loose with the facts, and I am surprised he is not more careful. I mean, at least find out what Griffey is supposed to be paid if you are going to write an article about how cheep he is. My guess is that sports writers get so many complaints editors just learn to tune them all out. And I don’t blame them. When I worked for the Charlotte Observer sports page, I’d have people call up and yell at me all the time for the silliest of reasons. I was just a high school kid recording local scores, but I got the brunt of it. They would say, “are you writing this down?” I’d lie and say that I was, and then go back to reading my book while they blabbed on. Was this person’s opinion really going to affect our circulation?

On the whole, I think sports writing is about selling what sports fans want. And I think though many writers make us mad, they do a pretty good job of entertaining us. So, it fits into the Caplan “Myth” world where we get sports writers who don’t necessarily get everything right, but it’s what the public wants. It doesn’t get checked because it doesn’t really matter if we are all entertained. It’s interesting that the theory of expressive voting is often described using sports fans.

Moore is suggesting the Braves wanted a starter, so they dumped his salary on Detroit and can now sign a solid starter with what is left over. The problem is no other team thinks Edgar was worth that (otherwise Wren would have made the deal for a solid starter, right?) so the money that the Braves don’t have to pay Renteria probably won’t purchase the starter that the Braves desire.

This is definitely the question I wanted to ask you when you were here. Can economics explain the persistence of terrible sportswriting? Or should we expect someone to come out with a book called “The Myth of the Rational Sports Fan”?

The Tigers were trading for the right to pay Renteria his salary, so two prospects represents the difference between Renteria’s salary and his true value (or at least the Tigers’ perception of his true value). It doesn’t tell us anything about what kind of pitcher can be acquired for Renteria’s salary. The Yankees would gladly trade Jason Giambi and his $23M salary for a bucket of balls, but that doesn’t mean you can’t get a good pitcher for $23M.