MLB (Non-Phils) News and Notes 2016

[flyers19rw]

One would think that the Nats would have learned from the Werth signing, that risky contracts often blow up in your face. The opt out is the problem. If he performs well over the next four seasons and thinks that he could get Price/Greinke money or better, he can pull out of the deal. If he blows out his arm, the Nats are stuck with the contract. We've seen the problems with signing pitchers, especially power arms that already have had surgery, into their mid thirties (Strasburg will be twenty-eight in July). If the Phillies had made this move, I wouldn't have been overly excited about it.

The Werth contract was a little overpriced, but it would be a mistake to term it a bad deal for the Nats. He gave them 2 legitimately great years. The first couple of years he was a little disappointing, but was still a positive WAR player. The last 2 years have seen him slip defensively but that is the price you pay for a long term deal. One could argue that he gave them credibility, filled a position of need, and that they had the money to spend on something.

Also, I have not seen much evidence that long term deals for power pitchers have fared worse than deals for guys that throw less hard. Often the power pitchers can still win if they throw 93 instead of 96. The non power guys can have trouble slipping from 92 to 89. There are lots of comps for Strasburg that work out if you look at performance in age 28-34 seasons. Sabathia and Verlander for instance look like cautionary tales now, but they would have been fine under the Strasburg contract for age 28-34. Here is the WAR by year from age 28-34:

Sabathia: 6.2, 4.6, 7.5, 3.5, 0.3, -0.6, 1.0 = 22.5 total
Verlander: 8.4, 7.8, 4.6, 1.1, 2.2, -0.1, TBD = 24.0 total so far

Each WAR is worth somewhere between $8 and $9 million today. Over the next 7 years it would be conservative to say they would average $10 million. The chances of Strasburg earning 17-18 WAR over the course of 7 years is pretty good. It does not matter if he is injured and ineffective for 2 years if he is really good for 3 or 4. And the chances of that happening from ages 28-30 are pretty good.

On Werth, '11 was a poor year; '12 he missed half of the season; '13 he missed about a quarter of the year; '14 he was healthy and had a good year; '15 and so far this year he has been poor and looks to be nearing the end of his career. His years in DC so far have given him a total WAR of 8.6. All of that for $80.5M with $42M yet to be paid. Its not Howard-esque but it still looks like a bad deal. Part of it is due to injury but that's what commonly happens when you sign players going into their mid thirties and out.

[andyb]

On Werth, '11 was a poor year; '12 he missed half of the season; '13 he missed about a quarter of the year; '14 he was healthy and had a good year; '15 and so far this year he has been poor and looks to be nearing the end of his career. His years in DC so far have given him a total WAR of 8.6. All of that for $80.5M with $42M yet to be paid. Its not Howard-esque but it still looks like a bad deal. Part of it is due to injury but that's what commonly happens when you sign players going into their mid thirties and out.

I said the Werth deal was a little overpriced. But it is not awful. The price of each WAR is approaching $10 million for he probably is going to end up earning $80 million to $100 million over the course of his contract ($126 million total I think).

The other point was this - they had the money. They might not have been able to acquire a player better than Werth. He gave them credibility and was an important piece of them becoming a contender as well as being a strong clubhouse influence.

If the Phillies choose to NOT spend money in 2017 and 2018 we would be wasting a resource. The Nats spent a resource and got better. Maybe they overpaid a little bit, but they got some benefit as well and there is no guarantee they had other options that would have helped them become a winner almost immediately. They actually got unlucky with the deal when Werth had a poor (but largely healthy) first season.

Everything in baseball is not simply a $ per WAR calculation. The Werth contract was a little overpriced, but was by no means awful. In hindsight it will most likely be viewed as an OK deal for both sides.

[mdougherty12]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[julio]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Interesting. Somehow, a $175 million contract paid over 14 years doesn't sound like much of an economic burden for the Nationals.

My guess is that Strasburg decided he wanted to stay in Washington, and wanted long-term security, and Boras did what Strasburg wanted him to do. I particularly loved this bit:

Strasburg had been set to reach the open market after the year, and there had been no hint that a deal was in the works.

That's a credit to the Nationals and Scott Boras - there's no reason why there should be public "hints" of private negotiations.

[flyers19rw]

On Werth, '11 was a poor year; '12 he missed half of the season; '13 he missed about a quarter of the year; '14 he was healthy and had a good year; '15 and so far this year he has been poor and looks to be nearing the end of his career. His years in DC so far have given him a total WAR of 8.6. All of that for $80.5M with $42M yet to be paid. Its not Howard-esque but it still looks like a bad deal. Part of it is due to injury but that's what commonly happens when you sign players going into their mid thirties and out.

I said the Werth deal was a little overpriced. But it is not awful. The price of each WAR is approaching $10 million for he probably is going to end up earning $80 million to $100 million over the course of his contract ($126 million total I think).

The other point was this - they had the money. They might not have been able to acquire a player better than Werth. He gave them credibility and was an important piece of them becoming a contender as well as being a strong clubhouse influence.

If the Phillies choose to NOT spend money in 2017 and 2018 we would be wasting a resource. The Nats spent a resource and got better. Maybe they overpaid a little bit, but they got some benefit as well and there is no guarantee they had other options that would have helped them become a winner almost immediately. They actually got unlucky with the deal when Werth had a poor (but largely healthy) first season.

Everything in baseball is not simply a $ per WAR calculation. The Werth contract was a little overpriced, but was by no means awful. In hindsight it will most likely be viewed as an OK deal for both sides.

I'm missing something here. You say that, "Everything in baseball is not simply a $ per WAR calculation." ( with which I am in total agreement) but precede that statement with, "The price of each WAR is approaching $10 million for he probably is going to end up earning $80 million to $100 million over the course of his contract." Are you indicating that Werth's aggregate WAR of 8.6 and going down merits a $126M contract?
There is no way that the Werth deal has proven to be a good deal for the Nats. Its not as bad as Howard, Pujols, Fielder and other deplorable ones but its a poor contract. Injuries like the ones that Werth suffered during his time in DC happen to players at the age that he was going to be in that deal. In Werth's case, he had a history of injuries in his past which made his future health precarious. It should have come as no surprise to see him break down during this contract. As for Werth giving the Nats credibility, that's' a miss. The Nats became a viable franchise when Harper fell into their lap.
I sincerely hope that the Phillies use their cash in a more judicious manner than the Nats have done in the past. Acquiring aging FAs has proven over time to be a poor usage of assets. Shrewd drafting and trading has done the Nats well. Hopefully that is what the Phillies will experience in the future.

[flyers19rw]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Interesting. Somehow, a $175 million contract paid over 14 years doesn't sound like much of an economic burden for the Nationals.

My guess is that Strasburg decided he wanted to stay in Washington, and wanted long-term security, and Boras did what Strasburg wanted him to do. I particularly loved this bit:
[quote]Strasburg had been set to reach the open market after the year, and there had been no hint that a deal was in the works. [/quote]

That's a credit to the Nationals and Scott Boras - there's no reason why there should be public "hints" of private negotiations.

The Nats now have $175M dollars in deferred payments going out to Scherzer and Strasburg.

[andyb]

I'm missing something here. You say that, "Everything in baseball is not simply a $ per WAR calculation." ( with which I am in total agreement) but precede that statement with, "The price of each WAR is approaching $10 million for he probably is going to end up earning $80 million to $100 million over the course of his contract." Are you indicating that Werth's aggregate WAR of 8.6 and going down merits a $126M contract?
There is no way that the Werth deal has proven to be a good deal for the Nats. Its not as bad as Howard, Pujols, Fielder and other deplorable ones but its a poor contract. Injuries like the ones that Werth suffered during his time in DC happen to players at the age that he was going to be in that deal. In Werth's case, he had a history of injuries in his past which made his future health precarious. It should have come as no surprise to see him break down during this contract. As for Werth giving the Nats credibility, that's' a miss. The Nats became a viable franchise when Harper fell into their lap.
I sincerely hope that the Phillies use their cash in a more judicious manner than the Nats have done in the past. Acquiring aging FAs has proven over time to be a poor usage of assets. Shrewd drafting and trading has done the Nats well. Hopefully that is what the Phillies will experience in the future.

A contract that delivers 80% of the WAR that it is supposed to is not necessarily a disaster if there were not dramatically better ways to spend the money. As I said - overpriced. But not a disaster because the Nats had the money and there may not have been dramatically better options. They could have sunk the money into international free agents but that would have been riskier.

Comparing this to the Howard contract is also simply not fair. Howard is delivering -3.6 WAR for $125 million. If Howard was delivering 8-10 WAR total over the contract it would have been an overpriced contract but decidedly not a disaster. Howard delivering 1.5 to 2.0 WAR a year would be a player with an OPS in the 775-850 range assuming he has zero defensive value. If Howard had done that we would not have speculated about whether Ruf deserved at bats the last 5 years.

[DurhamBull]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Interesting. Somehow, a $175 million contract paid over 14 years doesn't sound like much of an economic burden for the Nationals.

It also leads to the strange situation where future Nationals fans will be scratching their heads, saying "Why are will still paying Strasburg? He hasn't played for this team in 5 years!"

I like the deal for Strasburg, though. He can scrape by on that first $100m, and then the rest will come in like an allowance which removes the risk that he'll blow it all and end up broke within a few years of retirement as some sports players seem to manage to do.

[mdougherty12]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Interesting. Somehow, a $175 million contract paid over 14 years doesn't sound like much of an economic burden for the Nationals.

It also leads to the strange situation where future Nationals fans will be scratching their heads, saying "Why are will still paying Strasburg? He hasn't played for this team in 5 years!"

I like the deal for Strasburg, though. He can scrape by on that first $100m, and then the rest will come in like an allowance which removes the risk that he'll blow it all and end up broke within a few years of retirement as some sports players seem to manage to do.

Bobby Bonilla has been retired for almost 15 years, and will still be getting checks from the Mets until 2035.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[zambonir]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Interesting. Somehow, a $175 million contract paid over 14 years doesn't sound like much of an economic burden for the Nationals.

It also leads to the strange situation where future Nationals fans will be scratching their heads, saying "Why are will still paying Strasburg? He hasn't played for this team in 5 years!"

I like the deal for Strasburg, though. He can scrape by on that first $100m, and then the rest will come in like an allowance which removes the risk that he'll blow it all and end up broke within a few years of retirement as some sports players seem to manage to do.
Bobby Bonilla has been retired for almost 15 years, and will still be getting checks from the Mets until 2035.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

And it's been shown that turned out to be a great deal for the Mets.

The Werth deal was a good deal if the Nats think it was a good deal, if they could afford it, and if it didn't prevent them from improving the team otherwise. I believe that's been the case (even though they haven't had the postseason success). Injuries, subpar seasons and essentially eating the last couple of years are a given with all big multi-year contracts.

It's gonna be fun when the Phillies sign Harper

[mdougherty12]

MLB is apparently investigating whether Boston bent the rules on international signings:

baseballamerica.com/internat ... ECIY0T8.97

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

[Philsmania]

The Strasburg deal apparently includes $70 million deferred with no interest:
mlbtraderumors.com/2016/05/n ... sburg.html

Interesting. Somehow, a $175 million contract paid over 14 years doesn't sound like much of an economic burden for the Nationals.

It also leads to the strange situation where future Nationals fans will be scratching their heads, saying "Why are will still paying Strasburg? He hasn't played for this team in 5 years!"

I like the deal for Strasburg, though. He can scrape by on that first $100m, and then the rest will come in like an allowance which removes the risk that he'll blow it all and end up broke within a few years of retirement as some sports players seem to manage to do.
Bobby Bonilla has been retired for almost 15 years, and will still be getting checks from the Mets until 2035.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

And it's been shown that turned out to be a great deal for the Mets.

The Werth deal was a good deal if the Nats think it was a good deal, if they could afford it, and if it didn't prevent them from improving the team otherwise. I believe that's been the case (even though they haven't had the postseason success). Injuries, subpar seasons and essentially eating the last couple of years are a given with all big multi-year contracts.

It's gonna be fun when the Phillies sign Harper

Yeah, I think those years are accepted as a cost of doing business. I wonder if the Phillies figured as such when they extended Howard only to have his injury scotch the plan and wipe out the 2-3 decent to good years he would have had and accelerate his decline.

And, I would rather have Trout than Harper. Local guy, more likeable guy.

[donaldorc]

And, I would rather have Trout than Harper. Local guy, more likeable guy.

Couldn't agree more!

[LoneStarPhan]

And, I would rather have Trout than Harper. Local guy, more likeable guy.

Couldn't agree more!

Of course, a Trout, Herrera, Harper outfield might look good.
Spend big!

This is the delusional phan thread, right?

[Austinfan]

Most of these deals have been stupid, driven by teams flush with cash who didn't work out the consequences.
Even the Yankees eventually realized that wasn't sustainable.

The problem isn't paying top dollar for production, it's paying top dollar for non-production.
Cabrera's first deal was an underpay, his second deal will end up a disaster.
Pujols (-0.6 WAR this year, Howard territory) - 9.1 WAR for $75M from age 32-35 was reasonable, unfortunately he'll cost $25M this year at age 36 for replacment level play, and $140M from 2017-2021.

And no, WAR isn't worth $9-10M
Most of the inflation in baseball was a few franchises with big cable deals.
It remains to be seen how much money there is on the internet, ask the music business if streaming is as valuable as CDs!
And baseball has almost no international potential, there's Japan, but they have homegrown baseball with Japanese players, central American and Venezeula, loyal but poor (i.e., little economic potential) and ???
NFL Europe folded, the idea of a NFL franchise in London will be LA but far worse.

Soccer is the world game, followed by basketball.
The NFL has its NA niche, ML baseball is a little wider but ithere's no evidence that Korea or Japan are going to be significant markets.

So if you concede that last year WAR was worth $7M (but that's delivered WAR, expected WAR should be discounted for risk), and 10% inflation continues for two years, that's $8.5M a delivered WAR in 2017, then 5% inflation, you don't get to $10M a WAR until 2020 - and I think that's optimistic.

You should apply a 10% discount factor after age 30 to expected WAR when judging these contracts (about the decline modeled by Fansgraphs and other sites), not project as if their peak year WAR will continue indefinitely.

The best contracts are fora player in his mid-20s, instead of an opt-out I'd just pay more for his peak years, opt outs are foolish because they shift all the risk to the team.

If teams continue to be stupid, I'd spend my money taking bad contracts off their hands if they give me good prospects for the privilege, overpaying a 4 WAR player for the last 2-3 years of his contract can add talent and build the farm system while getting teams out of cap hell (done all the time in the NBA and NHL, with these contracts expect it to become the norm in baseball).

[Philsmania]

Most of these deals have been stupid, driven by teams flush with cash who didn't work out the consequences.
Even the Yankees eventually realized that wasn't sustainable.

The problem isn't paying top dollar for production, it's paying top dollar for non-production.
Cabrera's first deal was an underpay, his second deal will end up a disaster.
Pujols (-0.6 WAR this year, Howard territory) - 9.1 WAR for $75M from age 32-35 was reasonable, unfortunately he'll cost $25M this year at age 36 for replacment level play, and $140M from 2017-2021.

And no, WAR isn't worth $9-10M
Most of the inflation in baseball was a few franchises with big cable deals.
It remains to be seen how much money there is on the internet, ask the music business if streaming is as valuable as CDs!
And baseball has almost no international potential, there's Japan, but they have homegrown baseball with Japanese players, central American and Venezeula, loyal but poor (i.e., little economic potential) and ???
NFL Europe folded, the idea of a NFL franchise in London will be LA but far worse.

Soccer is the world game, followed by basketball.
The NFL has its NA niche, ML baseball is a little wider but ithere's no evidence that Korea or Japan are going to be significant markets.

So if you concede that last year WAR was worth $7M (but that's delivered WAR, expected WAR should be discounted for risk), and 10% inflation continues for two years, that's $8.5M a delivered WAR in 2017, then 5% inflation, you don't get to $10M a WAR until 2020 - and I think that's optimistic.

You should apply a 10% discount factor after age 30 to expected WAR when judging these contracts (about the decline modeled by Fansgraphs and other sites), not project as if their peak year WAR will continue indefinitely.

The best contracts are fora player in his mid-20s, instead of an opt-out I'd just pay more for his peak years, opt outs are foolish because they shift all the risk to the team.

If teams continue to be stupid, I'd spend my money taking bad contracts off their hands if they give me good prospects for the privilege, overpaying a 4 WAR player for the last 2-3 years of his contract can add talent and build the farm system while getting teams out of cap heck (done all the time in the NBA and NHL, with these contracts expect it to become the norm in baseball).

The great grand bargain in baseball is the cause of this. The reserve clause remains in effect for a players first six years (albeit with arbitration to lessen the inequity of it). Then they become free agents when they are generally getting near or into their thirties. The end result is that they are underpaid when they are most valuable and overpaid when they are less valuable and declining. To an extent, that's only fair but it doesn't make sense. Teams are catching on to this and soon, the free agency gravy train will end. This is why the union needs to fight like a bengal tiger for free agency after three years like most other sports have.

[bkeich]

Most of these deals have been stupid, driven by teams flush with cash who didn't work out the consequences.
Even the Yankees eventually realized that wasn't sustainable.

The problem isn't paying top dollar for production, it's paying top dollar for non-production.
Cabrera's first deal was an underpay, his second deal will end up a disaster.
Pujols (-0.6 WAR this year, Howard territory) - 9.1 WAR for $75M from age 32-35 was reasonable, unfortunately he'll cost $25M this year at age 36 for replacment level play, and $140M from 2017-2021.

And no, WAR isn't worth $9-10M
Most of the inflation in baseball was a few franchises with big cable deals.
It remains to be seen how much money there is on the internet, ask the music business if streaming is as valuable as CDs!
And baseball has almost no international potential, there's Japan, but they have homegrown baseball with Japanese players, central American and Venezeula, loyal but poor (i.e., little economic potential) and ???
NFL Europe folded, the idea of a NFL franchise in London will be LA but far worse.

Soccer is the world game, followed by basketball.
The NFL has its NA niche, ML baseball is a little wider but ithere's no evidence that Korea or Japan are going to be significant markets.

So if you concede that last year WAR was worth $7M (but that's delivered WAR, expected WAR should be discounted for risk), and 10% inflation continues for two years, that's $8.5M a delivered WAR in 2017, then 5% inflation, you don't get to $10M a WAR until 2020 - and I think that's optimistic.

You should apply a 10% discount factor after age 30 to expected WAR when judging these contracts (about the decline modeled by Fansgraphs and other sites), not project as if their peak year WAR will continue indefinitely.

The best contracts are fora player in his mid-20s, instead of an opt-out I'd just pay more for his peak years, opt outs are foolish because they shift all the risk to the team.

If teams continue to be stupid, I'd spend my money taking bad contracts off their hands if they give me good prospects for the privilege, overpaying a 4 WAR player for the last 2-3 years of his contract can add talent and build the farm system while getting teams out of cap heck (done all the time in the NBA and NHL, with these contracts expect it to become the norm in baseball).

The great grand bargain in baseball is the cause of this. The reserve clause remains in effect for a players first six years (albeit with arbitration to lessen the inequity of it). Then they become free agents when they are generally getting near or into their thirties. The end result is that they are underpaid when they are most valuable and overpaid when they are less valuable and declining. To an extent, that's only fair but it doesn't make sense. Teams are catching on to this and soon, the free agency gravy train will end. This is why the union needs to fight like a bengal tiger for free agency after three years like most other sports have.

What sport is after 3 years? Basketball is 4, Football is 4 and 5. Hockey is when you are 31. I am guessing the baseball union will push to get it to 5, but really, I can't see it getting to 3 anytime soon. If it ever went to 3 in Baseball I suspect the fan base would really dwindle as most players would be perpetual free agents every season.

[julio]

Indentured servitude is necessary to maintain fan interest!

If there were no reserve clause remaining - none - than all clubs would need to do would be to offer multi-year contracts. Players routinely choose multi-year contracts over year-to-year free agency now; what makes you think younger players would not make the same choices? The major difference is that players would be more likely to be paid for anticipated performance than for past performance.

[bkeich]

Indentured servitude is necessary to maintain fan interest!

If there were no reserve clause remaining - none - than all clubs would need to do would be to offer multi-year contracts. Players routinely choose multi-year contracts over year-to-year free agency now; what makes you think younger players would not make the same choices? The major difference is that players would be more likely to be paid for anticipated performance than for past performance.

But wouldnt younger players also chose to NOT put themselves on the longer term contracts in order to get the signing bonus more often? That is exactly what happens in the NFL. You assume that the system would stay stagnant, I assume that what would now happen is that there would be contracts structured like the NFL ones where it would be a portion in signing bonus (significant) and a portion in annual salary. Therefore, players, like in the NFL, when they are younger would want to hit the signing bonus lottery as often as possible.

That to me is where fan interest would have issues. When you are signing players on constant short contracts, much less likely to follow guys when you know they are likely to be gone in a year or two. That said, I am not a college sports fan for much of that same reason, so maybe it is just personal preference.

Additionally, in baseball why would any team spend 4-5 years apprenticing a player if he is only going to stay for say 2 years after he makes it to the majors. There has to be a reward to the club to compensate for the "apprenticeship". That is what the reserve clause does, and if it is only 2-3 years, then really they arent getting much of a reward, so why not just let other teams have a minor league and pick off the 24-26 year olds that are entering their prime?

And to be fair, it isnt indentured servitude any more than many professional jobs that have you sign a contract that if you leave in less than X years there is a penalty (only partial 401K contributions, payback of moving expenses, possible other financial penalties, etc.). Indentured Servitude was "no choice but run for the hills and hope not to get arrested", this is very different. If I would have left my current job in the first year I would have suffered significant financial penalties, there is some difference, but my current employer also didnt spend 4-6 years training me on their dime.

[julio]

And to be fair, it isnt indentured servitude any more than many professional jobs that have you sign a contract that if you leave in less than X years there is a penalty (only partial 401K contributions, payback of moving expenses, possible other financial penalties, etc.). Indentured Servitude was "no choice but run for the hills and hope not to get arrested", this is very different. If I would have left my current job in the first year I would have suffered significant financial penalties, there is some difference, but my current employer also didnt spend 4-6 years training me on their dime.

There certainly is "some difference." For starters, if you leave (and take a penalty), you can take a job with another employer in the same industry. Darin Ruf cannot do that. He works for the club that holds hos contract, or he's shut out of the industry. He has, and had, zero ability to negotiate any limits in his contract - he was bound for seven years by the standard minor league contract, and he's bound for six under the major-league contract. Unlike you, he cannot leave for a better job, and take a financial penalty. He cannot leave, period. I'll also wager that your contract didn't allow your employer to sell your contract to a competitor, and direct you to relocate at the drop of a hat, under penalty of being shut out of the industry.

Secondly, your argument that young players are "trained on the major leagues' dime" is ignorant of the history of minor league baseball. There was a time when the minors were independent - when major leagues payed nothing toward the development of minor league players. That system went away - because the major leagues captured the players, and created farm systems. You cannot argue that independent minor leagues, with "almost major league" talent, could not function economically today; there are two kinds of obvious refutations of that - one is the crowds that attend minor league games, notwithstanding that the teams they're watching often are deliberately handicapped by the major league organizations; the second is that, even without near-major-league talent, the independent minors are holding their own.

The current system is monopolistic - both horizontally, across the major leagues, and vertically, with major league control of most of the minor leagues. Players are treated as property - without the freedom of movement (with or without financial penalties due to contract restrictions) that the rest of us take for granted.

And as fans, because we benefit from the current system...we tend to look the other way, don't we? It's easy to just assume the status quo must be OK, or it wouldn't be the status quo. But...