I thought I'd post some recent results from Round One of thejuice's latest tournament.  Knowing that Joe Morgan is perenially cited as an underperformer, I found these interesting.

SOme background on the tournament - there were 18 leagues composed of MLB teams since 1901.  Each "team" combined 3 consecutive seasons of a real-life team (for example, the 1975-77 Reds).  Teams were allowed 1 clone and, depending on their actual 3-year winning percentage, could add 1-4 free agents from the same time period.

In this particular league, all teams came from the 1973-75 through 1978-80 time period.  There were 4 NL Reds teams: 73-75, 74-76, 75-77, 76-78.  There was no hard cap, but salaries in the league ranged from 104M to 124M.  Most teams spent far more than they needed on excess bench PA and IP, so I would guess that the league played most like a 100M cap.

There were 3 1975 Morgans and 3 1976 Morgans in the league.

1975 Morgan:
Version 1 - .275/.413/.438, 128 R, 20 HR, 86 RBI, 137 BB, 40/12 SB.
Version 2 - .306/.439/.496, 151 R, 45 2B, 19 HR, 82 RBI, 138 BB, 54/23 SB. (This Morgan finished 3rd in MVP voting)
Version 3 - .266/.372/.449, 120 R, 23 HR, 88 RBI, 94 BB, 38/11 SB

1976 Morgan:
Version 1 - .285/.402/.538, 140 R, 36 HR, 119 RBI, 111 BB, 42/16 SB
Version 2 - .320/.420/.635, 137 R, 47 2B, 40 HR, 134 RBI, 94 BB, 42/9 SB (This Morgan was league MVP)
Version 3 - .287/.410/.563, 118 R, 36 HR, 126 RBI, 120 BB, 39/12 SB (This Morgan finished 4th in MVP voting)

Focusing just on the NL teams, all six Morgans finished in the top 10 in runs scored.  They held 6 of the top 7 spots in SB.  The 3 76 Morgans finished 1, 3, 7 in OPS.  Version 2 of the '75 Morgan finished 9th in OPS. 

What I find interesting is that I really can't say that either version of Morgan underperformed what I would expect at a 100M cap.  However, the 76 version clearly outperformed the 75 version, despite being more than 1M cheaper.  The 75 Morgan is better defensively, which probably accounts for the higher salary.  But at 100M, that 76 version of Joe looks like a pretty good buy.

Morgan, and all the others people complain about all the time, only underperform in OL style leagues,   If they play in leagues with  restrictions they'll do well.

It's an "extremes" game.   Limit the data set and Joe becomes closer to the upper limit.

I've been getting a nice value for the 77 Joe Morgan ($5.5M). He's cheaper and  more consistant than the earlier versions.

Confirms my own (albeit limited) experience with Joe Morgan.  I put together an Underachievers of the World Unite team with many of the players perennially cited as underperformers  -- Joe Morgan, Willie Mays, Al Simmons, Steve Carlton, Trevor Hoffman -- and it won 92 games in an OL.  Joe Morgan `76 performed well -- definitely a better value than `75.

In a continous Progressive, I selected Joe Morgan as my #1 Pick and the League's #1 Pick  in 1965.  Entering 1968, Joe will be on the IR, along with his Teammate C Manny Sanguillen.  How much of a negative impact, do you think this has in Joe's overall evaluation?

I'm in a Prog along the same lines as yours.  We're up to 1965 and Morgan was also the #1 pick this season (ahead of Carlton and Palmer.)  Don't see how you can ever go wrong in a Prog with a player like him.  Gives you Lots of quality seasons with tons of innings per season.  IMO, it's worth losing him for one year.  You know going in that you won't have your impact guy in '68 so you plan on being less than competitive that season, maybe get lucky in the '69 draft...Can't win every year in a prog.      

He went third in my league (after Carlton and Palmer).  He's a stud in progressives...

IMO, single-season progressives are the one place you always get the true value of a player at WIS.  Obviously that's the main selling point of those leagues.