Long Term Contracts
Since the Mariners have giant holes in their rotation going into this offseason, there has been a significant amount of talk about the M’s getting two pitchers in free agency to rebuild the rotation around. Ignoring Daisuke Matsuzaka’s situation for a minute, the prominent names mentioned are Jason Schmidt, Barry Zito, and Adam Eaton. Most fans seem to be in favor of breaking the bank and acquiring as many big name pitchers as the team can get, regardless of the years or dollars it takes to sign them.
The purpose of this post is to point out the fact that strategy is a recipe for disaster. For whatever reasons, people have not yet been convinced of the ridiculous risk that is taken when signing a free agent pitcher to a four or five year contract for large amounts of money. The dreams of having an ace dance in the heads of fans and general managers alike, but in most cases, you end up with a crippling contract. The success rate of 4+ year deals for free agent starting pitchers is, to put it bluntly, horrible.
Here’s a look at every current pitcher in MLB who signed a contract of four years or longer that bought out his free agency. Players re-signed one year before they hit the open market count for this purpose.
Bartolo Colon: 4 years, $51 million from 2004-2007.
He was lousy in 2004, good in 2005, lousy and injured in 2006, and it doesn’t look good for 2007. His velocity, and subsequently his strikeout rate, have dropped through the floor, and he’s not the same pitcher he used to be. For $51 million, the Angels got one above average season, one and a half bad years, and are on the hook for $14 million next year to a guy who is unlikely to be very effective.
A.J. Burnett: 5 years, $55 million from 2006-2010.
There’s still time for this story to be written, but after one year, it doesn’t look so hot. They got 100 solid innings out of Burnett this year, but concerns about his arm were well founded, and after several trips to the disabled list, he still doesn’t look like a guy you want to be committing long term to.
Mike Hampton: 8 years, $121 million from 2001-2008.
The contract that keeps on giving. Did you know the Braves paid Hampton $13.5 million this year, owe him $14.5 million next year, and $15 million in 2008? This is one of the worst contracts in professional sports history.
Tim Hudson: 4 years, $47 million from 2006-2009.
Hudson’s pitched better than his ERA suggests, but his peripherals have never been strong beyond his home run rate, and he’s battled injuries the past two years. He’s no longer the 240 inning horse he was in Oakland, and he looks more like a midrotation guy than a frontline starter now. Needless to say, the Braves aren’t looking forward to paying him $32 million for the next three seasons.
Derek Lowe: 4 years, $36 million from 2005-2008.
Finally, a deal that looks good right now. I hated this deal when the Dodgers signed it, but Lowe has pitched far better than I expected. He’s cut his walk rates, maintained his ridiculous groundball dominance, and generally been one of the better starting pitchers in the National League the past two seasons. Despite my initial misgivings, this looks like a bargain in retrospect.
Jason Schmidt: 4 years, $30 million from 2002-2005.
This became a 5 year, $40 million deal when the Giants picked up their option on Schmidt last winter. Despite dealing with injury problems last year, Schmidt’s contract was a steal for the Giants. He gave them three all-star caliber seasons before getting hurt, then has pitched solidly if not spectacularly the past two years. This was a great deal for San Francisco.
Jarrod Washburn: 4 years, $37.5 million from 2006-2009.
We hated this deal when the M’s signed it, and we don’t like it any more now. Washburn’s a back end starter whose only real quality is his durability. They’re paying far too much for a mediocre performer.
Pedro Martinez: 4 years, $53 million from 2005-2008.
This one is tough to evaluate. Pedro was great for the Mets last year, and he’s been solid for them this year when healthy, but long term durability was always the question. He’s only thrown 122 innings this year, and he hasn’t pitched like a frontline starter even when healthy. They got one great year from Pedro, but they’re going to be paying for that one great year for several more. Not a great deal, not a terrible deal.
Chan Ho Park: 5 years, $65 million from 2002-2006.
I don’t think I need to write much here. This contract was a debacle from day one.
Kevin Millwood: 5 years, $60 million from 2006-2010.
Millwood’s pitching almost exactly as he did last year for Cleveland, except his extraordinarily high strand rate has predictably disappeared, and his ERA has risen back into the 4.5 range. Considering the Rangers defense and their home park, that shouldn’t be a big surprise. Millwood’s a better pitcher than most people think, but he’s not a great fit for Texas. They overpaid, and there’s a good chance that they won’t be able to give his contract away by the time its over.
Javier Vazquez: 4 years, $45 million from 2004-2007.
A total failure in New York, then shipped to Arizona, where he spent a mediocre year before demanding another trade and ending up in Chicago. He’s settled in as a career underachiever who is massively overpaid. He’s a decent innings eater, but he’s not worth anything close to his contract.
Jose Contreras: 4 years, $32 million from 2003-2006.
Had half a good year with New York, then was lousy for a year with both NY and Chicago, then was good for Chicago last year, and has been decent for them this year. Not a model of consistency, but there’s been more good than bad with Contreras, and overall, the White Sox have gotten their money’s worth out of him.
Mike Mussina: 6 years, $88.5 million from 2001-2006.
Mussina hasn’t been the same guy he was in Baltimore, but he’s been one of the better, more durable pitchers in the American League, giving the Yankees three legitimately good years and three league average years for their money. He solidified a rotation spot for half a decade, and for that, he’s been worth the money. He’s been worth it.
Carl Pavano: 4 years, $40 millioon from 2005-2008.
He’s thrown 100 innings the past two seasons, angered his teammates and the front office, and is basically out of New York’s plans. Diasaster of a contract.
That’s the list, in its entirity. If we want to break it down by retrospective performance:
Bargain: Schmidt, Lowe
Worth The Money: Mussina, Contreras
Short Term Rewards, Long Term Albatross: Martinez, Colon
Useful but Overpaid: Millwood, Washburn, Vazquez, Hudson, Burnett
Disaster: Park, Hampton, Pavano
That’s 14 pitchers, and the signing team regrets 8 of those. 2 worked out really well for the club, 2 worked out as they had hoped, and 2 gave the team a short term boost, but not one that was worth the total financial payout.
If you gave the signing teams a crystal ball to know what we know now when they did the deal, I’d suggest the only players that still would have been signed would be Jason Schmidt, Derek Lowe, Mike Mussina, Jose Contreras, and Pedro Martinez. The teams would back away from the other nine.
And, keep in mind, these contracts were signed during the period of relative fiscal sanity by the ownership in reaction to the awful Hampton/Neagle deals. Major League clubs went 5 for 14 handing out these kinds of contracts when they were being extraordinarily careful about which pitchers got 4+ year deals.
It’s easy to look at what a pitcher like Barry Zito or Jason Schmidt is right now and say “do whatever it takes to sign him”, thinking you’re getting a pitcher who will anchor your rotation for years to come. We have to remember, though, that guys like Mike Hampton, Tim Hudson, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano, Chan Ho Park, and Bartolo Colon were looked at the same way. These guys were Cy Young winners, established playoff heroes, perenniel all-stars, and the best pitchers of their time.
By the years you hit free agency, however, your time is usually running short, and your best days are often behind you. Making a 4+ year commitment to a starting pitcher who has already been worked hard is rarely a good idea.
The Mariners already have one long term albatross contract on their pitching staff. We don’t need another one. There are other ways to build a pitching staff.
Comments
-
USSM uses and recommends
“There are other ways to build a pitching staff.”
Yes, but how else can a team get one in short order? I agree that next year, the Mariners aren’t close enough to contending to warrant spending big bucks, but say in 2008 the bullpen and lineup are solid?
It’s easy say “build through the farm system,” but when those arms are not forthcoming, a team at the right point in the success cycle may have to overpay to get over the hump. We’re not there yet; next year the Ms should see what the young arms can do, so we have a better picture of the situation in ‘08.
Yes, but how else can a team get one in short order?
Trades, minor league free agents, and improving the defense. Stockpile arms. Come to camp with Tim Redding (minor league FA at years end), Claudio Vargas (will be available for nothing), Cha Baek, Francisco Cruceta, Rafael Soriano, and Mark Lowe fighting for two rotation spots and two bullpen spots.
Your example makes a certain amount of sense for a team like the Mets in signing Martinez and Wagner (and Wagner has certainly been good) or even for the Blue Jays in signing Burnett and Ryan (I say this because if Burnett hadn’t been injured so much, it MIGHT have made a difference). The Mets, in signing Martinez, also moved him to an easier league - no small consideration. I also think its interesting that Dave here leaves off the question of Matsuzaka. That’s because next year, even IF the Mariners thought they were just two starting pitchers away from getting to the World Series, the pitchers (aside from Matsuzaka, who is a legitimate injury risk) that they are looking at signing are nowhere near the caliber of healthy Martinez, healthy Burnett, and the starting pitching versions of Wagner and Ryan. I mean, Adam Eaton? Even Matsuzaka assuming a large injury risk is an entirely different ballgame; sure, we’ll have to fork over a lot of money to get past the posting system, but if we win the bid (and we certainly seem to have had a good handle on such things in the past) then we get exclusive rights to negotiate with him. Which means that Scott Boras would be at least partially neutralized (I think…if I’m wrong about the posting system I take it back). I know that there have been columns about Matsuzaka in the past; I’d love to see an updated version.
We’ll do another Matsuzaka post in the not too distant future. We’re fans, and we’d love to see him in Seattle next year. His situation is just totally different than going after a guy like Schmidt or Zito, which is why I didn’t cover it in this post.
Mike Hampton, $121m… Good Lord.
So, if you are signing players and you have money to burn who would you burn it on? If you had to sign a FA pitcher who would it be?
The Mariners have the type of resources where they can afford to roll the dice. The thing is that you have to gamble on the right players, and not the Jarrod Washnburns of the world.
Dave, you read my mind. I think the rotation would be fine with Matsuzaka + a cheaper innings eater signed to a shorter deal, given that King Felix is a strong bet to improve, and there’s always SOMEONE available in February.
even IF the Mariners thought they were just two starting pitchers away from getting to the World Series,
We’re at least two starting pitchers, plus an MVP caliber hitter (Hafner, Howard, Thome etc.) away from the World Series.
What are the chances Sexson gets dealt to make room for Schmidt/Zito?
So, if you are signing players and you have money to burn who would you burn it on? If you had to sign a FA pitcher who would it be?
This is a future post, but just to clarify, I’m not against signing free agent pitchers - I’m against signing free agent pitchers to long contracts. You want pitchers on one to three year deals.
The Mariners have the type of resources where they can afford to roll the dice.
The ability to be foolish does not mean you should be foolish. Pitching is so inconsistent that no one has figured out how to win by handing out 4+ year contracts to pitchers. They’re a losing proposition.
Dave, you read my mind. I think the rotation would be fine with Matsuzaka + a cheaper innings eater signed to a shorter deal, given that King Felix is a strong bet to improve, and there’s always SOMEONE available in February.
Hey, we agree, for once.
What are the chances Sexson gets dealt to make room for Schmidt/Zito?
The M’s won’t get Zito. They don’t know what they’re doing with Sexson yet, but his second half surge is making a deal less likely.
Good post. Really the only question I have is:
Given a team with huge starting rotation holes and given the scarcity of pitchers who are much better than the replacement level arms we have in the farm system or who are available on the free agent market does that make some of the silly contracts a little less silly?
I guess what I’m trying to get at is that it seems to me the scarcity of pitching makes the value somewhat higher. I really don’t like the idea of getting stuck with another Washburn or (worse yet) a Pavano, but you know the team is going to try to do *something* to get us back in contention next year.
Is there any chance they do something that isn’t a huge blunder?
Is it maybe better to try to entice a free agent pitcher with a bigger short term contract? Like instead of 4 years and $40 Million maybe try to get them with 2 years and $25-30 million or something?
JI: This is precisely why we should not break the bank in going after Schmidt and Zito. If we deal Sexson for prospects AND spend a lot of money on Schmidt and Zito, I think that = disaster. A team like e.c. describes, Felix + Matsuzaka + Washburn + innings eater from cheap deal or inhouse/possibly an inhouse option that would actually be GOOD like Soriano + Sexson would be MUCH better than no Sexson, Felix, Matsuzaka, Schmidt/Zito. Especially if going after the pitcher(s) meant that we couldn’t trade/go after a hitter to replace Sexson.
Excellent post Dave.
With Oswalt getting $73m, the market rate is not looking promising. What types of dollars do you see, at this early point, being in our wheelhouse?
I guess my worry is that the M’s will make noise about a “front-line” starter and then find themselves swept up in the high market price.
Sigh.
I guess what I’m trying to get at is that it seems to me the scarcity of pitching makes the value somewhat higher.
The scarcity of pitching is a myth.
The ability to be foolish does not mean you should be foolish. Pitching is so inconsistent that no one has figured out how to win by handing out 4+ year contracts to pitchers. They’re a losing proposition.
Oh, I agree, but if you don’t have the resource to find the next John Patterson, I don’t see how you can sign anybody that’s any good if you give them fewer than 4 years, that’s all… Well, maybe Schmidt because he’s ancient, and subject to attrition, but I doubt it.
Actually I think we should trade Sexson regardless because of his contract, but the M’s don’t usually don’t wheel and deal if it’s not performance related.
Oh, I agree, but if you don’t have the resource to find the next John Patterson, I don’t see how you can sign anybody that’s any good if you give them fewer than 4 years, that’s all
Well, we obviously do have the resources to find the next John Patterson. And pretty much every team in baseball is finding good pitching without giving up four year contracts. It’s not that hard.
Dave,
I would love to see the M’s throw Soriano and Lowe into the mix to compete for starting positions, but I suspect they are not going to because they believe they are both too much of an injury risk to be used as starters. If that is the case, why not put Putz in the mix as well? Yes he has become a top closer, but isn’t a top starter worth more than a closer?
agree with all the post except Bartolo Colon eval. ‘good in 2005′? ‘one above average season’??
didn’t he win the cy young that year? I thought you made that sound pretty pedestrian.
As much as I don’t want to sign him, I think he had a *great* year.
Colon’s year in 2005 was far from great. He won it because of the amount of wins he had.
Rafael Palmeiro won a gold glove in a year he played 20 games in the field. Colon wasn’t anything close to the best pitcher in the AL last year, and he didn’t deserve the Cy Young any more than I did. He had a 3.48 ERA (8th in the league), 3.77 FIP (7th in the league), and a 4.15 xFIP (12th in the league). You just can’t make any kind of case that he was better than Johan Santana, John Lackey, Mark Buehrle, or Kevin Millwood. He was in that second tier of pitchers with Randy Johnson, C.C. Sabathia, Scott Kazmir, and Barry Zito.
Colon was above average last year, but he didn’t have a great year.
If the scarcity of pitching is a myth, where does that myth come from? As a casual fan and one who’s very open to statistical perspectives, it sure looks like quality starting pitching is a rare and valuable beast. In a league where Gil Meche is very nearly league-average and somebody keeps giving jobs to Russ Oritz, it seems like we do not live in a pitching-rich era.
If that is the case, why not put Putz in the mix as well? Yes he has become a top closer, but isn’t a top starter worth more than a closer?
It’s unlikely that Putz would be a top starter. He’s succeeding by going max-effort on every pitch, and as a starter, he would have to tone down the energy he was expending to create endurance. His fastball would lose significant velocity, dropping him down into the 90-94 range, most likely, and his splitter would probably drop down to the 84-86 range.
At those velocities, he’d be significantly more hittable. That’s not to say he couldn’t be effective - his command of those two pitches would still make him a useful 4th starter, in all likelyhood, but no, a #4 starter is not more valuable than a top closer.
Putz’ arsenal is perfect for the bullpen, and the team needs a relief ace. He’s tried and failed as a starter. Don’t mess with a good thing.
Soriano, however, has had a lot of success as a starter, and Lowe’s two nasty off-speed pitches would play well in the rotation.
Matsuzaka is likely the best choice because the Mariners would control him for six years and wouldn’t have to cough up a ridiculously huge chunk of payroll until he hits arbitration.
Also, I hate that House promo. Its so painfully obvious that the kid isn’t Gibson Praise.
The scarcity of pitching is a myth.
The scarcity of TOR pitching is not, which is what I think he was going for. I agree otherwise.
The Mariners stockpile seems to be full of potential starting arms and a ton of bullpen arms. Bavasi has made sure to snag guys like Baldwin and Chick through trades, and Cruceta and Woods through cheap signings just to gamble and see if something sticks. Even if they don’t pan out, they cost us nothing to try. It seems the draft class of Morrow, Tillman, and Butler is also off to a decent start, so you can make a mannequin out of spare parts until your real new dolls arrive.
Barry Zito is going to be overpaid by someone, and I will rest easy knowing it isn’t us. Jason Schmidt, if signable, hopefully wont go for more then 3 years. Beyond that, I’m not sure there’s a whole lot we could sign that might make an impact that we couldn’t provide ourselves.
If the scarcity of pitching is a myth, where does that myth come from?
Teams perpetuate this myth by believing in it, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. They pay through the nose for experience and track records, because failing with a veteran will not cost a general manager his job. It is much easier to explain away a Jarrod Washburn signing as “he didn’t live up to our expectations”, and place the blame on the pitcher, than it is to try to explain why the team “gambled” on a young pitcher without proven success in the majors.
The problem isn’t a lack of quality pitchers - the problem is that major league teams do a terrible job of evaluating pitching talent, and they significantly overvalue major league success as a precursor to future success.
There’s a pretty good chance they’re going to give Soriano a shot at the rotation next year. There are quite a few people in the organization that think it may be easier on his arm by throwing a heavier workload every 5 days rather than three out of every five days. With JJ establishing himself as the closer and Lowe’s emergence, it’s even more likely.
I’m wondering if the lower velocity we’d seen from Soriano lately was him “pacing” himself more then due to a shoulder wear or injury, just to test how good he’ll be as a starter.
Meh… considering how many innings he threw this season so soon returned from TJ surgery, it’s probably just shoulder wear.
I’m wondering if the lower velocity we’d seen from Soriano lately was him “pacing” himself more then due to a shoulder wear or injury, just to test how good he’ll be as a starter.
It was a combination of shoulder wear + him/the team being extra careful coming off the TJ surgery. While it was never thought to be serious, it was causing him enough discomfort to where he didn’t feel comfortable just ‘letting his fastball go’. I think it was kind of to be expected that he’d go through bouts of arm fatigue with the long layoff combined with the workload he had early on.
It’s time for Player A vs. Player B!
Player A - 7.4 K/G, 3.9 BB/G, 43.1% GB, 16.8% LD, 40.1% FB, 13.3% HR/FB, 71% LOB, 4.65 FIP, 4.74 xFIP
Player B - 8.0 K/G, 3.3 BB/G, 36.9% GB, 19.1% LD, 44% FB, 8.9% HR/FB, 73.3% LOB, 3.67 FIP, 4.47 xFIP
WHEE!!!
28: Hmmm, 73.3% LOB. Are you sure that’s not Bloomquist’s batting stats?
For those scrambling around to match stats, Player A is Gil Meche, Player B is Jason Schmidt. My original idea was to compare the two, but now I’m trying to figure out how Schmidt manages to post better FIP and xFIP numbers while giving up more flyballs and getting lucky on flyball homerun rate.
As an aside, is anyone else mildly disappointed in the fact that Tim Linecum has been awesome in his short time in the minors thus far while Morrow has been both injured and mediocre? I know I am.
Dave, obviously this post of your’s is pre-empting future ideas and thoughts on what the best means of shaping the M’s would be this off-season. Wanna give us any hints to whet our appetites?
For those scrambling around to match stats, Player A is Gil Meche, Player B is Jason Schmidt. My original idea was to compare the two, but now I’m trying to figure out how Schmidt manages to post better FIP and xFIP numbers while giving up more flyballs and getting lucky on flyball homerun rate.
Might be mistaken but I think the higher K and lower BB rates would help make his xFIP a tad lower. FIP would assume that the HR/FB rate is repeatable, thus explaining the much larger discrepancy.
Schmidt’s strikeouts have been down this year; a change of league is not advisable.
Soriano isn’t a good option for the rotation. At least not until he can show his arm is sound.
And if Fontaine and the other scouts are saying “Don’t start Lowe”, I can live with a reliever throwing 100 on occasion.
I agree that top starters are overpaid and not worth it. But there are more issues.
IMHO, even “good” starters, #2 and #3 material, are overpaid. If you don’t develop them (this organization?) or trade for them (not easy), how are you going to contend? If the M’s add three back-end starters to Felix and Washburn, what do we have? Maybe a .500 team?
That said, I agree with Dave that stockpiling is geberally a good strategy. Bring in a bunch of guys who have chance to come through. Even if you are a little overspendy in this area, you’re talking a fraction of the bucks you drop on a Washburn.
If I’m Bavasi and still employed this fall, I’m hoping Yamauchi-san is in a good mood and wants to spring for Daisuke Matsuzaka. Then get those guys Dave lists into camp. Schmidt, Zito, no thanks.
The main problem is that we need more pitchers who can get groundball outs, like Brandon Webb or Chien-Ming Wang.
Wang is throwing only 14 pitches per inning - very efficient - so he can pitch deep into games despite his abysmal K/BB (65/50!!). Clearly he’s pitching to contact, but with a 3.16 GB/FB ratio you can still succeed. And he’s making minimum $$$.
Felix’s GB/FB is only 2.39 this year vs 3.31 last year. Hopefully he’s learned something from his 95-pitch shutout where he got 17 GB outs and only 4 K’s. We need more of that, not just from Felix, but from the whole staff and even the whole minor-league system.
#8: Pitching is so inconsistent that no one has figured out how to win by handing out 4+ year contracts to pitchers.
I guess the exception that tests that rule would be Pedro Martinez’ 6 year deal (with one option year) with Boston. In those 7 years, the Red Sox won the World Series, made the playoffs 3 times and would have won another pennant if their manager hadn’t had the intellectual horsepower of your average village idiot.
No, I take that comment back, since I don’t want to insult your average village idiot.
Of course, pitchers like Pedro come around maybe once in a generation, but would you have given Pedro that contract if you’d been Dan Duquette? I don’t see how you’d justify it based on your comments in this post.
No you wouldn’t and 9 times out of 10 (maybe more) you’d be right not to.
You play the percentages; just because you won money in a lottery doesn’t mean that it was a sound financial decision to buy a ticket.
Of course, pitchers like Pedro come around maybe once in a generation, but would you have given Pedro that contract if you’d been Dan Duquette? I don’t see how you’d justify it based on your comments in this post.
I’m not into hard and fast rules. While I think 4+ year contracts for pitchers are generally foolish, you make exceptions for exceptional players. If Johan Santana was a free agent this winter, I’d offer him something like 5 years, $90-$100 million. I would have re-signed Randy Johnson after the 1998 season. Pedro, in his prime, qualifies.
But these guys are hall of fame, best pitcher in baseball types. They give you a huge competitive advantage. Jason Schmidt, Barry Zito… these guys aren’t those types of pitchers.
There are a handful of pitchers in baseball that are worth long term, huge money deals. None of them happen to be free agents this winter.
Just so. I was actually reflecting quite recently upon Pedro Martinez’s and Manny Ramirez’s contracts and how amazing it was that not just did neither explode in Boston’s face, but both, in fact, provided Hall of Fame level production over the length of the contract. That’s quite a stroke of luck, and Boston has clearly reaped the benefits in many ways, despite Duquette’s failure to totally maximize his good fortune.
If Santana were a free agent this year, he’d get better than 5 / 100. Not sayin’ he’d be worth the 6 / 140 he’d get, just sayin’ he’d get it, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Yankees or Rangers or somebody offer 7 / 160. He’d be, what, 33 at the end of that monstrosity? Everybody’d be hoping to have signed the next Pedro Martinez @ Boston contract.
If Santana were a free agent this year, he’d get better than 5 / 100.
I know. MLB has not yet figured out how to correctly value pitchers, and the market for free agent pitching is a ridiculous display of ignorance outbidding ignorance.
It might be frustrating to some people who yearn for a big name signing, but the best course of action is to let the ignorant sink themselves with these awful, awful contracts.
[off topic]
It rather makes one wonder, as much as most of us disliked the Washburn signing, if his contract might not be the most defensible of the pre-’06 long-term deals. Bavasi took a lot of flak here (I know, I joined in dishing it out) for “paying for ERA” and the like, and maybe he did; but then again, given that he’d clearly determined to sign somebody who was going to command a lot of money, within the confines of that commitment, you can make the argument that he made the best decision available.
Which still leaves the point, to be sure, that that wasn’t the best move to make in trying to build a winning team; but then, building a winning team can only be Bavasi’s second priority — to do that, he has to keep his job, which requires him not only to do something, but to look like he’s doing something. That would be hard to manage without signing any significant starting pitchers. I just hope that a) Matsuzaka is posted, b) the M’s win the bidding for him, and c) that the M’s are satisfied enough with that not to make any stupid offers to Schmidt, Zito, or anyone else of that ilk (including Gil).
It rather makes one wonder, as much as most of us disliked the Washburn signing, if his contract might not be the most defensible of the pre-’06 long-term deals. Bavasi took a lot of flak here (I know, I joined in dishing it out) for “paying for ERA” and the like, and maybe he did; but then again, given that he’d clearly determined to sign somebody who was going to command a lot of money, within the confines of that commitment, you can make the argument that he made the best decision available.
No, I don’t think you can. Among pitchers signed last offseason, I’d rather have Burnett, Millwood, Loaiza, Byrd, Ramon Ortiz, Rogers, or Tomko than Washburn.
Tomko…ouch
Tomko’s basically a RH version of Washburn statistically. Walk rate is basically the same, strikes out a few more batters, gives up a few more home runs, both are flyball pitchers who rely on their defense.
Tomko will make less over two years than Washburn will this year.
One comment, then I have to work. AM glad to see this post, agree with it completely. Not going to comment on how you fix M’s pitching but have always believed that the top end free agent is the guy that completes the process, they are not part of the basic building part. Nice analysis.
This is a good post, but yet, you guys have said you want to see Matsuzaka pitch in Seattle next year, when it is very possible he could command a $10-$12 million a year salary.
So if that is the case, then how should the M’s handle this?
Because quite honestly we are going to have to break the bank in order to get an ace, top of the line starter to Seattle.
I don’t think we need to get 2 top of the line pitchers, you could always get Adam Eaton fairly cheap and have a rotation of:
Matsuzaka
Washburn
Eaton
Felix (bearing in mind that Felix would one day be the #2 pitcher behind Matsuzaka)
Woods
But ya, I definitely understand the HUGE risk that bringing in a top of the line pitcher is for a long term deal, but obviously the M’s have no choice but to get one of these top of the line pitchers next year if they want to compete in the AL West again any time soon.
So if that is the case, then how should the M’s handle this?
Matsuzaka’s a totally different animal in a totally different situation. We’ll deal with him later. In my opinion, his case is more akin to re-signing a guy like Halladay or Santana to a multiyear deal before they hit free agency. Those contracts have a much better track record than free agent signees.
Because quite honestly we are going to have to break the bank in order to get an ace, top of the line starter to Seattle.
No we aren’t. Felix will make less than a million dollars next year.
I don’t think we need to get 2 top of the line pitchers, you could always get Adam Eaton fairly cheap
Eaton’s not coming cheap. And he’s not that good.
But ya, I definitely understand the HUGE risk that bringing in a top of the line pitcher is for a long term deal, but obviously the M’s have no choice but to get one of these top of the line pitchers next year if they want to compete in the AL West again any time soon.
That’s just not true. The 2005 Tigers rotation had Jeremy Bonderman, Nate Robertson, Mike Maroth, Jason Johnson, and Fifth Starter Du Jour. They replaced Johnson with Kenny Rogers, watched Maroth get hurt, and got useful innings out of Justin Verlander and Zach Miner to fill out the rotation. And they’ve done just fine.
Meanwhile, the teams that spent ridiculous amounts of money on free agent pitchers last year got very little in return. Good teams find pitching on the cheap. Bad teams throw money after free agent starters.
According to the PI, Gil is willing to return to Seattle. And apparently during his June hot-streak the M’s tried to open contract discussions with him, but he wanted to wait until the off-season before talking about it.
#53– and I’m betting that if Eaton shows he is healthy again, Texas isn’t letting him get away. They also need pitching.
needing pitching reminds me, it will be interesting to see just what happens with pitcher contracts this offseason, as NY, NY, Boston and the Angels are all in the market for pitching…
Virtually every FA or arb-eligible player will say that he wants to return to his curent team. It makes him look like a good guy, or, more important perhaps, maked the team look bad if they don’t offer enough (should I say, overpay enough?) to get him to resign.
Bad teams throw money after free agent starters.
And the only reason the Yankees continue to be a good team is because they can spend around the mistakes. Because they’ve been lousy at selecting pitchers.
Among pitchers signed last offseason, I’d rather have Burnett, Millwood, Loaiza, Byrd, Ramon Ortiz, Rogers, or Tomko than Washburn.
You weren’t quite tracking with me. Would you rather have Burnett or Millwood and their contract than Washburn and his? Given Burnett’s injury history and the sheer size of Millwood’s contract, I think Washburn’s may come out as the least bad of the lot. Granted, I’d rather have Ortiz or Rogers and their much smaller contracts instead, but Bavasi wasn’t fishing in that end of the pool. He should have been, but he wasn’t.
Those contracts have a much better record than free agent signees.
Which is why, irksome as the numbers on Oswalt’s deal are, I can understand why Houston did it — better for them to overpay their own guy now than to overpay somebody else’s guy who isn’t as good next winter.
Well, regarding the thought that “[t]here are other ways to build a pitching staff,” I’m sure that Dan Reichert will be available during this upcoming off-season. Hell, the Nashua Pride of the Can-Am Leauge aren’t paying Reichert too much money for his awful strikeout to base-on-ball ratio.
Of course, Reichert botched his previous chance with the Seattle Mariners during Spring Training back in 2005. Yet, that notwithstanding, M’s majority owner Hiroshi Yamauchi probably has about $350,000 to waste on Reichert.
Although Reichert can induce ground balls at a high rate, he’s still not going to be the next Derek Lowe. Besides, y’all shouldn’t lie to yourselves by believing otherwise.
Yeah, I’m being a contemptuous, derisive jackass; it’s an outstanding skill of mine.
Obviously if Soriano or Lowe could pitch 80% as well as starters as they have as relievers, they’d make a huge contribution.
But the issue everyone worries about is, from what I can tell, the injury question. Especially given that Lowe is shut down now with arm trouble and participants on this board were calling for Soriano to get shut down because of his arm before he got hit in the head by Guerrero’s line drive.
Given that there are no guarantees with any pitcher, how would you assess both of their likelihood of making it through a complete season as starters without getting injured?
And would there be a way to help increase this likelihood, like strict pitch counts or skipping rotation days, although either would put more stress on the bullpen?
Thanks for the Dan Reichert update. Perhaps you can give us a Mac Suzuki update sometime.
You weren’t quite tracking with me. Would you rather have Burnett or Millwood and their contract than Washburn and his? Given Burnett’s injury history and the sheer size of Millwood’s contract, I think Washburn’s may come out as the least bad of the lot.
No, I was tracking with you. I would rather have Burnett and his contract or Millwood and his contract than Washburn and his.
Granted, I’d rather have Ortiz or Rogers and their much smaller contracts instead, but Bavasi wasn’t fishing in that end of the pool. He should have been, but he wasn’t.
Washburn wasn’t part of that end of the pool. They fished him out of the crappy end, then paid him like he came from the good end. It’s better to have a truly good starting pitcher making $11-12 million than a mediocre end-of-rotation starter making $9 million.
Your assumption, which is incorrect, is that Washburn belongs in the “four plus year contract” group. He didn’t, but the Mariners gave him one anyways. If they had given Rogers a 4 year deal instead, that wouldn’t make him the “best of that group”, because he never should have been part of that group.
Washburn was worthy of a one to two year deal. The Mariners gave him four because they misevaluated him. He’s a worse value for the money than either Millwood or Burnett, and obviously a worse value than the other one to two year deal pitchers who actually got a one to two year deal.
I think Burnett would make a really nice relief pitcher.
Which means he’s not worth $11 million, but he might be more valuable in the bullpen than the rotation. The dude throws 100 innings/year; let’s make them high-leverage innings.
No, it’s not my assumption, but it was Bavasi’s; and personally, while I’d agree that Millwood’s a better risk, contract and all, than Washburn (at least for that money), I’d rather have Washburn at this price, even as unimpressive a pitcher as he is, than be on the hook for that much for Burnett. With that injury history, I really wouldn’t want to be paying him any kind of money at all in ‘09-’10, for fear of paying him $20+ million to go to cooking school.
Dave, I think if you looked back in last year’s posts, you’d find me arguing for Byrd and Rogers as potential FA signees in various posts- so it looks like we agree even more than you think.
As for Washburn- I’m not quite as down on him as you are. I think he’s actually more in the 3-4, mid-rotation SP range than being in the back rotation at 5 (you should win a division by double digits if your 5th starter had a career ERA around 4 over 1200 IP, unless your offense was total garbage or your other division opponent is a 100+ win team itself), while still being overpaid, and he’s clearly a better P than Tomko (the key, I think, is Washburn, as a LHP, gets platoon advantage more frequently). The problem I see is that you are paying WAY too much of a premium for the difference in quality between Washburn and Tomko.
57- As for Millwood and his contract- 5/60 for him as opposed to 4/37.5 for Washburn? Hell, yes. Millwood’s clearly outpitched him in the past and this year (and thus is more worthy of the premium), and his K rates indicate to me that he’s likely to last longer than Washburn will. Burnett, not as much, because his injury history gives me serious pause- but his K rates are also much higher (even more than Millwood’s) as well.
I believe teams overpay for pitching to show the casual fan they are fielding a competitive team. I agree with Dave completely on this. When you can plug in the Cha Baeks and Jake Woods of the world, and they give you satisfactory performances while holding down the spot for a young stud, then you have a good shot to win as your budget can be applied to quality bats.
The difference between Burnett’s contract and Washburn’s contract during the four years that Jarrod Washburn is under contract is a whopping $5.5 million. From ‘06-09, the difference is $1.375 million per season. That’s pocket change. Clearly, from ‘06-’09, you’d rather have Burnett, injury risk and all.
So your point is that you’d rather have a mediocre, back end innings eater for four years than have an effective-when-healthy borderline all-star for four years just to save yourself a $12 million payout in 2010?
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t follow. The risk that Burnett blows his elbow out in 2010 and costs you $12 million for one year isn’t great enough to take a significant performance downgrade for four other seasons at essentially the same salary. It’s just not.
Dave, do you see any potential candidates for one or two year contracts who could provide near-TOR production for below average cost? The particular contract I have in mind is the one Kevin Millwood signed with Cleveland two years ago. Is there anyone out there in a similar situation to that, coming off injury and mediocre performance that could be had for a bargain?
So your point is that you’d rather have a mediocre, back end innings eater for four years than have an effective-when-healthy borderline all-star for four years just to save yourself a $12 million payout in 2010?
Well, actually, I said “not AS much”. I like Burnett’s K rates as an indicator of future performance/return on huge checks more than Washburn’s, just not as much as Millwood’s, because the injury history’s not as good. I suppose I should have said “my ranking of which of these contracts I’d rather have if I was pretending to be a GM would be Millwood, Burnett, Washburn”.
Dave, I think if you looked back in last year’s posts, you’d find me arguing for Byrd and Rogers as potential FA signees in various posts- so it looks like we agree even more than you think.
I don’t think Byrd and Rogers were particularly good signings either. They were just better than the Washburn signing. Major League teams really need to come to the realization that it just isn’t that hard to build a staff of 4.50-5.00 ERA guys for the league minimum, or something close to it. The Florida Marlins, anyone?
As for Washburn- I’m not quite as down on him as you are. I think he’s actually more in the 3-4, mid-rotation SP range than being in the back rotation at 5 (you should win a division by double digits if your 5th starter had a career ERA around 4 over 1200 IP, unless your offense was total garbage or your other division opponent is a 100+ win team itself), while still being overpaid, and he’s clearly a better P than Tomko (the key, I think, is Washburn, as a LHP, gets platoon advantage more frequently). The problem I see is that you are paying WAY too much of a premium for the difference in quality between Washburn and Tomko.
I’m sorry, but a 4.39 ERA in Safeco Field is just not a midrotation starter. His park-adjusted ERA would be in the 4.6 to 4.7 range. That’s a #5 starter whose durability might make him a #4 on a team that has a good enough offense and bullepn to carry him.
And yea, Washburn is probably 5% better than Tomko, or something along those lines. Given the same context, you’d probably expect Washburn to save you 5-10 more runs over the course of the year. But paying $9.5 million per year for four years, as opposed to $4 million per year for two years, for 5-10 extra runs? That’s stupidity.
The purpose of this post is to point out the fact that (that) strategy is a recipe for disaster. (sorry for nitpicking)
I propose a ‘Spahn and Sain and pray the manager will go to our outstanding and cheap bullpen in the fifth inning the rest of the time’ strategy. Felix, Matsuzake, and let the AAAA pitchers eat the rest of the innings.
My question is, money aside, is Washburn better than Beck?
And since teams will overpay for the likes of Eaton and Schmidt this year, why not trade Washburn? Many pitching-hungry GM’s will see his contract as a bargain in the market, and might include a decent ’stockpile of arms’ in addition to eating his contract.
Bavasi won´t do this, but would you?
So there are park adjustments but are there league adjustments? Given the current level of talent in the NL, Derek Lowe might look like a relative success but would probably suck if he were in the AL right now. On the other hand, Washburn would probably be having much more success in Dodger blue Mariner teal. Since both pitchers have about the same contract, they could be swapped for each other and get the same results because the AL is so much tougher than the NL (that’s the league where Aurillia, Spiezio, Olivo, etc. are all having relatively good offensive years compared to their disaster in Seattle). Factor in the NL West schedule that the Mariners skated through this year and it is almost convincing that Lowe is as good as Washburn is bad but only because of which team/league they ended up with.
No, the league adjustment isn’t that severe. MGL did a whole series on this issue this summer for the Hardball Times. The AL is certainly better, but not to the degree you’re claiming.
Would Washburn be better in the NL? Yes. Would Lowe be worse in the AL? Yes. But not to the point where they would be equals.
So the gap between Lowe/Washburn narrows… But is it still so large to call Lowe a “bargain” and Washburn “mediocre”?? But, don’t get me wrong, I hate the Washburn signing, I just wonder if we would be any better off with Lowe/36M/4Yrs (except that it expires a year earlier which would be nice). I’m inclined to agree there are so many choices for back-end starters that are cheaper and more exciting to watch develop than hoping for Washburn to keep fly balls in the park.
Major League teams really need to come to the realization that it just isn’t that hard to build a staff of 4.50-5.00 ERA guys for the league minimum, or something close to it. The Florida Marlins, anyone?
Try “2000-2001 Seattle Mariners”, while you’re at it.
Brett Tomko: 1.1 million
Joel Piñeiro: MLB minimum (call it 300K)
Paul Abbott: MLB minimum/1.1 million (they shouldn’t have bothered for 2002, though)
John Halama: 425K/1.4 million
That’s a grand total of about 5 million over TWO years for TWO rotation spots (4-5) where we collectively got decent performance for a rotation backend. We kind of got sweet on Paul Abbbot and wasted 3 million because of his flashy 17-4 2001, but really, as long as you are willing to be totally ruthless about this, you don’t have to pay big money to have a back end of a rotation for a good team.
Given the same context, you’d probably expect Washburn to save you 5-10 more runs over the course of the year. But paying $9.5 million per year for four years, as opposed to $4 million per year for two years, for 5-10 extra runs? That’s stupidity.
We’re not disagreeing, really. Washburn seems like a good comp for Aaron Sele when we signed him, actually- flyball P, losing a touch off the fastball and K rates, ERA stats that can occasionally look impressive when you give him a park and defense that helps him and some luck with strand rates and HR/FB%. (I won’t be surprised to see Washburn have another 2002 or 2005 season in Seattle- he’s in the best ballpark possible for him, and if we have an OF of Doyle/Jones/Ichiro in the near future, that should be a pretty damn good OF defense. The problem is he’ll also have 2003-2004 or 2006 seasons during his contract, too).
The difference is that Sele was a shorter sign (just short enough to get us out of Dodge before his arm went pffft)- but we did win some ballgames with Sele as the 3. So Washburn’s not a problem per se, unless aand until he blows out his arm and can’t strike anyone out any more. He’s just overpaid for what he does, and has too many years on the deal that makes the risk pretty high- the reality is he should be getting Jamie Moyer-style deals and money (Moyer and Washburn’s advanced pitching stats are also fairly comparable).
Derek Lowe’s league adjusted RA+ this season is 118, meaning he’s been 18% better than a league average pitcher. Washburn’s is 102. That’s a significant difference, even after adjusting for league. RA+ fails to separate out the pitcher’s controllable contributions, but for backwards analysis of how valuable a pitcher has been, it’s okay.
Lowe > Washburn.
And does Washburn=Beck=Blackley?
No, Washburn is better than that. Washburn is a couple of steps above replacement level. Baek is replacement level. Blackley’s not even quite that good.
I really hope the Mariners don’t fall into the Bad teams category here. It really seems like they do, and that they are going to do what they did last offseason and overpay for a name. I’m not as familiar with the situation as Dave, by any means, but I’d bet they try to get Schmidt based on his post season experience, big name and local connection.
You just have to look at the Tigers, Twins, and A’s to see that some teams do “get it” — even if it’s only because they don’t have the budget to throw away on big mistakes. And they’re all in the AL, the “harder” league. Which, btw, is another reason to stay the hell away from Schmidt: yeah, he’s been doing well against the NL West… but that’s a division this year’s M’s had no trouble with, either. Unfortunately, the M’s don’t play in the NL West and don’t get to face them next year (other than those games that continue the storied rivalry with our hated nemesis, San Diego).
Major League teams really need to come to the realization that it just isn’t that hard to build a staff of 4.50-5.00 ERA guys for the league minimum, or something close to it. The Florida Marlins, anyone?
How do those rotations fare in the postseason when they run into elite pitching (and elite lineups) on the other side of the field?
Never did get an assessment from you, Dave, if trying to use Soriano & Lowe as starters is a realistic strategy, or just a pipe dream because of the injury risk. Love to have your judgment
How do those rotations fare in the postseason when they run into elite pitching (and elite lineups) on the other side of the field?
No one is suggesting that the team field five starters of that quality. We’re suggesting that we already have Felix here, and we’re obviously in support of acquiring Matsuzaka, so the assumption is that the back end of the rotation can be filled out relatively cheaply behind those two.
Never did get an assessment from you, Dave, if trying to use Soriano & Lowe as starters is a realistic strategy, or just a pipe dream because of the injury risk. Love to have your judgment.
The M’s have talked about using Soriano as a starter in the past. I honestly don’t know if they’ll consider it for 2007. It sounds unlikely that Lowe will ever get a shot as a starting pitcher.
So, probably more pipedream than reality with the current regime in place, but that doesn’t mean it should be a pipedream.
How do those rotations fare in the postseason when they run into elite pitching (and elite lineups) on the other side of the field?
Not great (though note that Abbott and Halama outpitched Sele when all 3 made postseason starts for the M’s, in the tradition of guys like Howard Ehmke), but that’s why you want to invest big bucks on the truly elite, difference-making Ps, and skip the muddled middle of guys like Washburn. If you can get 80-90% of the performance for maybe 50-30% (or even less) of the money, and far less in downside risk in terms of years on the deal…why wouldn’t you?
The answer to that is, of course, that fans blanch when you sign this year’s Brett Tomko to a a one year $5 million deal with an option+ buyout instead of Jarrod Washburn, and think you’re not committed to winning, plus pitchers are valued in baseball based on their resume and past performance (ERA and win-loss record), as opposed to more advanced statistical analysis that adjusts for park and defense + scouting.
It’s also why the offseason scares me at the same time as I feel optimistic- because the team’s REALLY CLOSE to being in a good spot for 2007 if they make the right moves, but Bavasi’s track record in making slick GM moves is pretty scary, given the Washburn signing and some of the past history.
So, probably more pipedream than reality with the current regime in place, but that doesn’t mean it should be a pipedream.
Dave, my dim recollection is that Fontaine and the scouting staff said “don’t use Lowe as a starter”. Which is fine by me, since Bob Fontaine has forgotten more about baseball than I’ll likely ever know.
Could your sources in the organization confirm that… and if it’s confirmed, maybe explain why and if that’s a permanent recommendation or something that could be fixed? I’d rather have a good starter than a great reliever, myself… but not so much a failed starter.
Could your sources in the organization confirm that… and if it’s confirmed, maybe explain why and if that’s a permanent recommendation or something that could be fixed? I’d rather have a good starter than a great reliever, myself… but not so much a failed starter.
I’ve avoided the issue for most of the year for various reasons, but one of my hopes is that, this offseason, in some way, we’ll get to put this question to Bavasi and Fontaine and get a legitimate answer. I’m not totally sure how it’s going to work yet, but I’m holding out hope.
So we’ll see.
Why don’t more teams do the “swingman” thing, where they have a four man rotation and a couple of long relievers who trade off taking the 5th spot when they’re not bailing out a starter who doesn’t get out of the early innings? Obviously you have to have the right guys for that to work, but it would seem to be easier/cheaper to find them, inasmuch as you’re paying starter money to 4 guys vs 5, and relievers — even long relievers — are plentiful and relatively cheap. The M’s could do that with Soriano & Lowe, for example.
Dave said:
September 11th, 2006 at 8:35 am
“Matsuzaka’s a totally different animal in a totally different situation. We’ll deal with him later. In my opinion, his case is more akin to re-signing a guy like Halladay or Santana to a multiyear deal before they hit free agency. Those contracts have a much better track record than free agent signees.”
He’s a different animal? How is that besides the fact he hasn’t pitched in the Major Leagues before? Considering his potential, his agent (which I’ve heard is Scott Boras, but I don’t know that for a fact), and the teams that could get involved (Yankees, Mariners, Red Sox, etc.), he could actually command a much higher salary per year than you think, probably $10-$12 mil.
“No we aren’t. Felix will make less than a million dollars next year.”
So you are saying after Felix struggled through most of this season and believes that his fastball is his out pitch that he will instantly become the ace of this staff next year? I’d try ‘08 or ‘09 as when Felix will really become King Felix.
“Eaton’s not coming cheap. And he’s not that good.”
There are better options than Eaton, Jake Westbrook is the first name that pops into my head as a solid #3 starter, but you have to look at the market that might be out there for him. Yes, it’s true that teams are looking for pitching always and because, well, just about ALL the contenders this year seemed short on pitching, they will go after a guy like Eaton and his price will go up a little bit. So in a way, I agree that he may not come too cheap, but it’s tough to say that he’s not that good. We really haven’t figured it out with this guy yet.
He’s had an injury prone career and hasn’t really been given a lot of chances to play out a full season. From what I can tell in the games he’s pitched against the Mariners though, he’s kind of a ground ball pitcher, throws strikes, and keeps his team in the game. Which is just what you want out of a starter, he obviously has to work on making his fastball effective, but overall, he isn’t too bad of a pitcher and he should be considered as someone the M’s sign as a somewhat cheap (cheaper than Washburn or Matsuzaka anyways) #3 starter for the future behind Felix and Matsuzaka (assuming Matsuzaka comes to Seattle, of course, knock on wood).
“That’s just not true. The 2005 Tigers rotation had Jeremy Bonderman, Nate Robertson, Mike Maroth, Jason Johnson, and Fifth Starter Du Jour. They replaced Johnson with Kenny Rogers, watched Maroth get hurt, and got useful innings out of Justin Verlander and Zach Miner to fill out the rotation. And they’ve done just fine.
Meanwhile, the teams that spent ridiculous amounts of money on free agent pitchers last year got very little in return. Good teams find pitching on the cheap. Bad teams throw money after free agent starters.”
Very true, but you need to consider what kind of mental edge bringing in a Matsuzaka or Zito would give the Mariners mentally over some teams every fifth day.
But more importantly, it would give the Mariners some credability again, not just within their fan base, but really all around the league.
And if Felix pans out to really be King Felix, imagine what kind of 2-headed monster you would have with Matsuzaka/Zito and Felix. It would impose fear into the other team, and would give the Mariners not 1 but 2 pitchers that you could truly feel comfortable with handing the ball to for a big game.
Which is something that not even the great Mariners teams of 2000-2003 that won 91 or more games every year had.
That’s the kind of combination that can lead you to winning playoff series, and maybe even the World Series if you were lucky enough in a given year.
Obviously you can’t do what Bavasi did last year by just throwing $9 million a year towards someone like a Jarrod Washburn who just has a good name, but we tend to forget that for all the Jarrod Washburn type-free agents out there, there’s usually a Mike Mussina or Jose Contreras that’s very good and worth the money.
Which is the EXACT reason why the M’s need to stay away from Jason Schmidt this winter. All he has is a good name, he’s only going to get older, and he will be pursued by quite a few teams so his asking price will only go up. You also have to understand where Schmidt comes from, he comes from the National League with the #9 spot in the batting order is an automatic out and because the NL plays more small ball, you can just get away with locating your fastball.
Surely you saw how the M’s just smashed NL pitching with all those fastballs they saw, and you also saw how they rocked Jason Schmidt at SAFECO this year. I just do not see very many NL pitchers right now making a good transition to the AL.
The M’s do need to get an ace pitcher in the offseason (probably Matsuzaka), but like you said, they can’t go get a name, they need to pick the right guy.
He’s a different animal? How is that besides the fact he hasn’t pitched in the Major Leagues before? Considering his potential, his agent (which I’ve heard is Scott Boras, but I don’t know that for a fact), and the teams that could get involved (Yankees, Mariners, Red Sox, etc.), he could actually command a much higher salary per year than you think, probably $10-$12 mil.
Only one team will be involved - whoever wins the posting bid. His options will then be to sign with that team, or play another year in Japan. That’s nowhere close to the same kind of leverage as a free agent has. That’s a lot more like the arbitration system, and as I mentioned, locking up pitchers in their arbitrtation years has a much higher success rate.
So you are saying after Felix struggled through most of this season and believes that his fastball is his out pitch that he will instantly become the ace of this staff next year? I’d try ‘08 or ‘09 as when Felix will really become King Felix.
I’m saying that the things Felix has struggled with aren’t predictive in value, and there’s no reason to believe that he’ll continue to post a low strand rate any more so than you’d believe that any other pitcher will post a low strand rate.
There are better options than Eaton, Jake Westbrook is the first name that pops into my head as a solid #3 starter, but you have to look at the market that might be out there for him.
Westbrook isn’t a free agent.
We really haven’t figured it out with this guy yet.
Isn’t that, in and of itself, a good reason to not pay through the nose for him?
Very true, but you need to consider what kind of mental edge bringing in a Matsuzaka or Zito would give the Mariners mentally over some teams every fifth day.
Like Millwood did for Texas and Burnett did for Toronto? Until you can establish that this “mental edge” has any kind of actual effect, it’s useless.
Jesus, Tom. You had a lot on your mind…
lol, I think everyone says that about me.
No one can shut me up once I start talking.
I believe I’ve mentioned before that I’d love to see if Fontaine would come eat free pizza sometime….
Every few years since 1980, it comes into vogue to point out that the S&P 500 is trading at an all-time high P/E ratio, implying that common stocks are not a good investment. Even though the market usually corrects itself in the short term, over the last 25 years the P/E ratio has traded in a steadily increasing channel. Why, you ask? Most people point to the influx of money into tax-sheltered retirement plans – IRAs, 401(k)s and the like – and all the mutual funds that boom has spawned. There’s simply a lot of money chasing a limited supply of equities.
In a way, the market for free-agent pitching can be viewed the same way. The annual number of MLB wins is fixed at 2,430, while the total MLB revenue goes up from year to year. The market might correct itself in the short term but the channel is steadily increasing. If the Hampton/Neagle/Park deals caused a short-term correction, perhaps the next upswing is beginning.
None of this detracts from Dave’s insightful analysis. But the flip side is that if the market really does go through the roof, it’s not necessarily due to owners’ misevaluation of the talent. It might be simple economics.
And under this scenario, it’s worth noting that the relative risk of a mediocre but durable pitcher is less than a quality but injury-prone pitcher. The last two years of Washburn at $9.5 mil/year might not look nearly as bad after two years of new inflation. Two years of a finished ace will still look like a disaster.
That, I think, is one of the reasons long-term contracts aren’t as bad as they look. Sure, paying Washburn $9 million now seems silly, it may well be equivalent to paying him $6 million at the end of his contract.
That is not to say I think signing Washburn was a good idea.
it may well be equivalent to paying him $6 million at the end of his contract.
Only relative to other overpaid long-term contracts. So long as there are smart teams declning to participate in this inflated economy, a bad long-term contract will remain a bad contract.
None of this detracts from Dave’s insightful analysis. But the flip side is that if the market really does go through the roof, it’s not necessarily due to owners’ misevaluation of the talent. It might be simple economics.
Every time I have this discussion, someone brings up the inflation/free market point, with their general conclusion being “the price of pitching is going up, and you have to pay it if you want to compete.”
What this ignores, though, is that MLB talent is not anything close to an efficient free market, and inflation in free agency has very little effect on the availability and cost of most of the supply. There are something like 350 pitchers in the major leagues in any given year, and something like 40 of them are going to be free agents this winter. The other 310, plus the almost never ending supply of minor league arms who could replace a large portion of the back end of that 350, are not going to be free agents, and their price is not going to be going up according to the inflationary free agent rate.
Because of the CBA, pitchers with less than 6 years of service time are inefficiently priced, and pitchers with less than 4 years of service time are VERY inefficiently priced. This crop of pitchers is almost completely untouched by the rising costs free agency brings. The minimum salary is still $326,000, and the supply of pitchers who can produce at a replacement level for that price (or something close to it) is huge.
So, just because the spenders in the free agent market decide that 10-20 runs over replacement is worth anywhere from $7-10 million per season for a minimum of two years and up to four years does not make it so. That just means that the spenders don’t understand the actual supply, and are overcompensating a population of pitchers that could easily be replaced at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Major League general managers have created an economy where the best way to build a pitching rotation is through acquiring elite, Cy Young level talents and surrounding them with players with very little experience. The middle class of pitching - solid but unspectacular arms who are useful but have health or performance issues - is severely overpriced relative to their actual value to a baseball team. By paying through the nose for experience in free agency, MLB has made it inefficient to use free agency to build a pitching staff.
MLB is not an economic model of efficiency, or anything close to it, and inflation in the free agent market does nothing to alter the fact that free agent pitchers are vastly, vastly overpaid.
Eaton’s ERAs the last 3 years:
4.61
4.27
4.69
Eaton’s xFIPs the last 3 years:
4.51
4.25
5.31
If there’s some kind of unexploited value in there that says “hey, I’m better than my ERA shows you”, I sure can’t see it.
Eaton doesn’t stand out for me as a potential FA signee any more than Gil Meche does: he’d be OK to eat up innings on a one year deal, maybe more if you make the additional years options that are innings based, so if Eaton, Meche, or Fill In The Blank With Random Innings Eater goes down with an injury or sucks, you can yank them from the rotation and not vest their option (again, like Jamie’s deals)- or if you can flip them above their true value they have a good year and the situation’s right (think when the A’s flipped Hudson and Mulder when they had Blanton et. al waiting in the wings).
That being said…local kid blah excite the fans blah blah he’s still young blah blah. Again, this is why I’m alternately cringing and excited about the offseason. This feels very much like the 1999-2000 offseason, where the right moves turned a flawed but interesting team into a contender, except we DON’T have to replace our HOF CF… but GM’s rarely do as well as Pat Gillick did that offseason in terms of FA signings.
speaking of Jamie, there is a great article abput him and Cole Hamels on ESPN today
Hey Dave, you continually post suggestions that make more sense than what’s currently happening in the league. When is it that you’ll get a shot at being a GM? It seems like you’re already doing a lot of things that makes a GM what he is aside from not being the actual guy calling the shots?
Obviously you’re wrong about some things, but at least you’re wrong for all the right reasons in most cases.
What’s it going to take to get Bavasi fired and you hired in his stead aside from a complete re-org from the top-down of the M’s FO?
I know this subject has been beaten to death, but there was a chat on espn.com with Gary Gillette, and I was able to get in on it.
Here is the exchange:
As a beleaguered Mariner fan, please give me hope for 2007, and what’s the rumor for managerial candidates?
Gary Gillette: Frank, I can’t give you much hope if Seattle’s current GM is still in-place in December.
Just wanted to share.
Hey Dave, you continually post suggestions that make more sense than what’s currently happening in the league. When is it that you’ll get a shot at being a GM? It seems like you’re already doing a lot of things that makes a GM what he is aside from not being the actual guy calling the shots?
Thanks for the compliments, but I’d suck as a GM. The key word in the phrase General Manager is manager, and the most important job a GM has is to hire and motivate smart people to do a great job. Bob Fontaine, Greg Hunter, Jim Fitzgerald, and crew would have no desire to work for me, or anyone like me, but they’ll work their tails off for Bill Bavasi.
Paul DePodesta is way, way smarter than I am. He spent years inside the game, understanding how the business works, evaluating players, developing theory, and became a baseball guy.
Then, he got a GM job, and he sucked at it, because people hated working for the guy. He had good theory, but he had no people skills.
Bill Bavasi has fantastic people skills. And we’re working on getting him better theory.
What’s it going to take to get Bavasi fired and you hired in his stead aside from a complete re-org from the top-down of the M’s FO?
In my book, there are other people that need firing a whole lot more than Bavasi. (And I have the sense that player evaluation and development are divided, and not in a good way).
I don’t mean this to sound snarky, because it’s a serious question…
Dave, you say first that “MLB talent is not anything close to an efficient free market”, which I agree with. Then, though, you say:
So, just because the spenders in the free agent market decide that 10-20 runs over replacement is worth anywhere from $7-10 million per season for a minimum of two years and up to four years does not make it so.
If the market isn’t efficient, which it isn’t, then it seems to me that the spenders do create the market, and thus make it such as you describe in the above snip - whether they are correct in doing this or not is a separate question, right? Or am I just being pedantic?
Bill Bavasi has fantastic people skills. And we’re working on getting him better theory.
We? That’s a rather tantalizing statement, but I’d rather not read too much into it. It’s nice to know he’s willing to engage the community here at the feeds, but you seem to be implying there’s potentially more than that and hiring Mats Olkin coming down the pike.
I’d hope so- because I agree about the people skills part. And the scouting’s lightyears better than a few years ago. It the FA/25 man roster decisions in the offseason that have burned us through Bavasi’s tenure here, and if those improve, we’re in good shape.
If the market isn’t efficient, which it isn’t, then it seems to me that the spenders do create the market, and thus make it such as you describe in the above snip - whether they are correct in doing this or not is a separate question, right? Or am I just being pedantic?
The spenders create the market for a segment of the population. They establish a fair market value for something like 10% of the general population of players in any given season. And their idea of a fair market value for that 10% is not even close to what it should be, given the availability of the other 90%.
Since I love analogies, let’s try this one. Your local super market realizes that every mom in the world feeds their kids Cheerios as a snack, and they decide that Cheerios should cost more than other cereals, because they have such a strong market share. So they make Cheerios $10 per box, because, after all, you never see kids chowing down on Frosted Flakes, right?
The idiot Mom (we’ll call her Mrs. Bowden) sees that Cheerios are now $10, laments that her kid has only eaten cheerios his entire life, grabs two boxes, and then decides to make up for the deficit in the budget by not buying any meat for the rest of the family. She then calls the local paper when she gets home and complains about the price of Cheerios. All the other idiot Moms see a news story the next day about the rising price of Cheerios and decide that they better go buy a box or two for their kids before there aren’t any Cheerios left in town.
Meanwhile, the intelligent Mom goes down the aisle, sees that Cheerios are now $10 per box, and decides that her kid is now going to eat Toasted O’s for $2 per bag instead, becuase odds are that 18 month old isn’t going to know the difference, and the cost difference is just massive.
The family eating Toasted O’s might have a slightly grumpy kid for an hour, but he’ll adjust and be fine after a few days. The Cheerios families, meanwhile, have a kid who gets his preferred cereal and a bunch of angry teenagers who are now vegetarians by force.
I don’t want to be a vegetarian. Bring me Toasted O’s, please.
I don’t want to be a vegetarian. Bring me Toasted O’s, please.
When you put it in terms of meat, it all makes sense.
Thanks for the clarification.
Mmmmmm. Toasted O’s… **droool**
I’d hope so- because I agree about the people skills part. And the scouting’s lightyears better than a few years ago. It the FA/25 man roster decisions in the offseason that have burned us through Bavasi’s tenure here, and if those improve, we’re in good shape.
Hm. How much of that is strictly or mostly Bavasi’s behavior? And how much of it is influenced (or dictated) by higher ups? (We know that getting rid of Guillen was not his idea, but the return for him was mostly, though not all, his decision).
Can I try an analogy?
108 - if your wife or boss told you that you had to trade in your current car within a month, and you had only 29 car lots where you could trade it in, I wouldn’t hold you too responsible if you didn’t get the greatest deal…
Hm. How much of that is strictly or mostly Bavasi’s behavior? And how much of it is influenced (or dictated) by higher ups? (We know that getting rid of Guillen was not his idea, but the return for him was mostly, though not all, his decision).
I don’t know, but the way I see it, if you’re the GM, you accept responsility for results and roster decisions on your watch, even if it’s a case of your upper managment or your field manager pushing for something in particular. If you sign off on decisions other people on your management team suggest, then you share responsibility.
You can give him a pass on Guillen, maybe, because saying “We’re not trading him for crap just because you think he’s a party animal, unless it’s over my dead body” is pretty hard to do if you’ve just been hired, and while the Aurilia/Guillen wasn’t a good swap talent wise even before hindsight was involved, he got bit by some bad luck (no one realized how awful Aurilia was going to be)…but I’m not sure he gets the same pass on The Worst DH In Baseball and Washburn 2 years down the road. The learning curve needs to go up quite a bit this offseason.
He had good theory, but he had no people skills.
That combination isn’t necessarily going to produce a bad manager, though. I’m a manager, and I’m a really analytical guy with no people skills (I make DePo looks like Errol Flynn).
And yet, I can manage people. As long as I chose the people, and they’re ALSO people with good theory but no people skills. People who are accustomed to managers with people skills wouldn’t put up with me, so I hire social reprobates who can’t tell the difference.
Sounds like a riot. Do you work with engineers?
And yet, I can manage people. As long as I chose the people, and they’re ALSO people with good theory but no people skills. People who are accustomed to managers with people skills wouldn’t put up with me, so I hire social reprobates who can’t tell the difference.
Having met Evan, I’m not at all shocked this is true.
But good luck finding those people in baseball. There aren’t a lot of good talent scouts out there who want to work for a guy with radical theory and no people skills.
Yeah, they sound like programmers, or engineers. They definitely don’t sound like ballplayers, or really anybody in the entire M’s organization. But hey, if there’s some island in the Caribbean full of analytical guys with “good theory / no people skills” but mad baseball talent, maybe it’ll work out. And I say this as someone who would probably fit in fine on Evan’s team
Yet…. you say DePodesta “sucked”, but I had the impression that he did a decent job and got murdered by the L.A. media. I mean, few people expected them to be in the playoffs his first year there, yet when they made the playoffs all anyone wanted to talk about was DePodesta ruining the team by trading Saint LoDuca.
I’m certainly not disputing that people skills are necessary, and I believe DePodesta sucked at that if insiders say so. It’s just that my impression was that he didn’t suck overall, and if the Dodger ownership had ignored the media assassination of DePodesta, he might have done a good job.
People hated working for him. Any success he had in the short term would have been quickly undone had he stayed on as GM.
Part of the reason (or more likely almost all of the reason) the media dogged DePodesta was due to the lack of his people skills. He didn’t deal with the media very well at all. He’s probably not cut out to be a GM simply because in today’s baseball enviornment the people skills are really important. If you are a great manager of people, great at dealing with the media, and liked well enough to sell things to the ownership; you don’t have to have a lot of analytical baseball skills to succeed as a GM. You simply surround yourself with people who do have the scouting/analysis skills you lack. Besides with all the duties the GM has, he can’t possibly have time to look in depth enough or really analyze things.
The other way to view these salaries is to break them up into “payment for talent” and “payment for PR.” Because baseball teams are businesses that generally have to remain profitable in the face of regular failure (since only a minority reach the posteason, and only one wins), appearance can matter as much to the bottom line as on-field results. So, as someone said earlier, being seen to be doing something in the offseason — even if it makes no rational economic sense in on-field ROI — can be just as important (in terms of hanging onto those season ticket-holders) as actually doing something effective but with low visibility. It may be that signing a “name” for an absurdly long contract actually puts more butts in seats than signing a bunch of nobodies, at least until the fans start to give up on you. Then your revenue falls, you’re forced to bottom feed, and if you’re smart and lucky you turn into the Tigers or the Marlins. Or you sell the team (for a profit) and let somebody else go through the process all over again.
If you are a great manager of people, great at dealing with the media, and liked well enough to sell things to the ownership; you don’t have to have a lot of analytical baseball skills to succeed as a GM. You simply surround yourself with people who do have the scouting/analysis skills you lack.
Sure, you can succeed as President of the United States that way, too, as long as you are careful about how you define “success.”
I realize I’m skating on thin ice here, so I’ll go no further, but the point I want to make really is about GM’s and not politics.
Dave, when does DMZ return? I think the cheerios/meat illustration, while tantalizing, might make more sense to our readership if the analogy uses beer instead.
DMZ made an appearance in the game thread yesterday.
He made that appearance from France. I’m actually not sure when he gets back. It’s an ubervacation.
Do you work with engineers?
I wish. I’m a database architect. I’m mostly hiring users for my database, so entry-level data processing jobs. But, working in my databases requires sufficiently strong abstract reasoning skills that having common sense or people skills is actually a detriment.
Disagree. Having common sense or people skills is never a detriment. (I have both, and I’m a much-loved and highly technical DBA).
Agreed that Bavasi has good people skills. When Fontaine received the Lifetime Achievement award in scouting at this year’s SABR convention, it was pretty interesting to hear him go on and on and on about Bavasi and the respect he has for him, and how people love working for him. It reminded me of Buhner when he used to talk about Lou, and always said that he and other players would run through walls for their manager. I think the same could likely be said about those (those I’ve heard anyway) who work for Bavasi.
Now, making sure that those who work FOR Bavasi have the right skills…..we know Fontaine and Engle do, but the farther away you get from the GM, the less it matters whether he has good people skills or not, it has to all ripple down the line. The loyalty, and the consistency with regard to what you’re looking for, and how you’ll know you found it.
Having common sense or people skills is never a detriment.
Sure it is. It increases the possibility that you’ll look at a problem as something less than pure logic.
And it increases the chance they won’t enjoy working for me.
You simply surround yourself with people who do have the scouting/analysis skills you lack.
Sure, you can succeed as President of the United States that way, too, as long as you are careful about how you define “success.”
There are plenty of teams that don’t follow the Gospel According to Beane and do just fine: the Twins, the Cardinals, the Astros come to mind. The problem with the M’s is in how they execute their philosophies and some of their basic precepts- not that they have to follow a particular philosophical school.
I don’t know, but the way I see it, if you’re the GM, you accept responsility for results and roster decisions on your watch, even if it’s a case of your upper managment or your field manager pushing for something in particular. If you sign off on decisions other people on your management team suggest, then you share responsibility.
You can give him a pass on Guillen, maybe, because saying “We’re not trading him for crap just because you think he’s a party animal, unless it’s over my dead body” is pretty hard to do if you’ve just been hired, and while the Aurilia/Guillen wasn’t a good swap talent wise even before hindsight was involved, he got bit by some bad luck (no one realized how awful Aurilia was going to be)…but I’m not sure he gets the same pass on The Worst DH In Baseball and Washburn 2 years down the road. The learning curve needs to go up quite a bit this offseason.
Oh, yes….the responsibility is still yours…on the other hand, if there’s considerable amounts of office politics, there are strategies you take for the long term. Like, for example, if an opposing faction is insisting on a certain DH that you know won’t work, and they’re adamant that they want him, you may let them get that certain DH…along with all the rope they want to hang themselves with…
Now, there’s a certain amount of adeptness you need to play this game, but that’s part of the people skills that I don’t have….
#126: There are plenty of teams that don’t follow the Gospel According to Beane and do just fine: the Twins, the Cardinals, the Astros come to mind.
Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Cardinals hired mgl (creator of UZR), pissing off Tony LaRussa in the process. I’m rather happy about anything that pisses off TLR, because I think he’s one of the most overrated managers in the history of the game, but I digress.
Some years ago, there was a feeling in business that good managers could manage anything, because they were good managers. It led to stuff like Ralston Purina’s buying and operating ski resorts (!) in Colorado and I forget who’s buying Avis. I am of a different school. I think that one of the reasons that Microsoft dominated their industry in the 1980’s and 1990’s was that underlings and middle managers couldn’t BS the Big Boss: he knew software. Whether his people skills were up to snuff is another question.
It’s a similar situation being GM of a baseball team with aspirations to win a World Series or being a “successful” President (ahem). You’d better not expect to get by on people skills and charisma with the press and letting the hired help figure out the policy questions. Maybe you can BS your way through the job that way for a little while, but eventually, it’s going to catch up with you. Given time, it always does.
A couple of unrelated thoughts: Aside from his people skills which I know nothing about, when the dogers fired him the ownership seemed to bash his baseball skills to the media, talking about returning the organization’s winning tradition and respectability. I always thought he did fine with the rosters he put together, and injuries to the entire team did them in. I’ve disliked the Dodgers franchise since they fired him. Should I dislike them less?
Also, what are the chances Jamie is our 5th started next year?
And completely distant from any definition of relevence: What are the chances Jeter wins the MVP with inferior offensive numbers to A-Rod (right now Jeter’s 20 points ahead in OPS), and given the media/fan situation in NY, exactly how hilarious would this be?
It’s a similar situation being GM of a baseball team with aspirations to win a World Series or being a “successful” President (ahem). You’d better not expect to get by on people skills and charisma with the press and letting the hired help figure out the policy questions. Maybe you can BS your way through the job that way for a little while, but eventually, it’s going to catch up with you. Given time, it always does.
Oh, yes….but let’s not equate mastery with ability to use such disparate areas as sabremetrics. Every GM will have different mixes of skills, and we shouldn’t fool ourselves–Bavasi does have a repertoire of baseball management skills.
#130: Bavasi does have a repertoire of baseball management skills.
Maybe he does. I’d love to see him convince me. Hoisting a World Series banner over The Safe on Opening Day pretty soon would do the trick.
But my original comments were in response to #117, the gist of which was that if a GM can’t make head nor tail of all these newfangled stats, well, he can just delegate that to the Boys in the Back Room (or the Man on the Other End of a Fax Machine, in the M’s case).
If a modern GM thinks he can get away with that in the 21st century, other GMs are going to eat him for lunch. It’s another step in the evolution of the game.
But my original comments were in response to #117, the gist of which was that if a GM can’t make head nor tail of all these newfangled stats, well, he can just delegate that to the Boys in the Back Room (or the Man on the Other End of a Fax Machine, in the M’s case).
Yes, he has to understand the concepts of the stats, not necessarily have to be able to do them himself.
But he also has to sell the value of these stats to other people in the organization, both above him and below him. 21st Century or not, there are considerable number of Joe Morgan think alikes in every baseball organization—and there’s every reason to suspect that there a particularly large number of them in the Ms organization.
I also love analogies, and it seems to me that the free agent piching market is more like used cars…Cheerios don’t depreciate.
Consider a shiny new Lexus SUV…the talk of the neighborhood when it first rolls out of a garage. It is powerful, fast, handles like a sportscar, and it needs almost no maintenance. All the neighbors can’t wait until it hits the used car market, because they also want to drive something with all of that upside.
Unfortunately, the shiny Lexus SUV hits the market only after its best days are a distant fragment in the rear view mirror; it now requires very expensive and nearly constant maintenance, has less power, and a couple of the accidents it endured leave doubts about its structural integrity. After buyer number 1 overpays for the Lexus, he tells his buddies about the headache, so buyers 2 and 3 decide to look elsewhere…they buy used 4runners, which lack the proven flash and elite performance, but are an overall better decision because of their cost effectiveness and future projection.
In baseball, however, the GM’s don’t tend to learn from their mistakes. They continue to overpay for shiny used Lexus SUVs, expecting them to perform like they once did, and ignoring the costs of attrition. The market price stays foolishly high, and they continue to overpay.
Fan expectation, I think, is partially responsible. A shiny used Lexus SUV is more exciting than a 4runner, despite the higher cost and the deteriorating mechanical condition, so poor decisions are made to accomodate the “excitement factor”. (See also “local boy factor”, “veteran factor”, and “proven winner factor”)
Just curious, because so many posts talk about “replacement level”:
(1) How many games will we win (just a guess ofcourse) if all the 5 Rainers pitchers (or the 5 best pitchers from all of our minor leagues) start of us this year?
(2) how many games will we win if the entire Tacoma Rainiers (with some poor parts replaced from San Antonio) played in AL West instead of Mariners?
Based on an approximated guess like this, can teams GMs build their major league roster? Do GMs consider “replacement level” when they do their analysis and sign free agents? from what u say, I dont think many do this type of analysis at all ???
Replacement level isn’t based on players in a current organization. Baek is probably the only current replacement level starter in the organization. It is based upon a concept that the guys on the fringes of the major leagues cost essentially nothing to acquire. The M’s could probably sign Tim Redding just by giving him a guaranteed major league contract this offseason.
Anyways, there’s an old adage that says every team wins 60, every team loses 60, and its what you do with the other 42 that count. That’s not 100% accurate, but its pretty close. A team full of replacement level major leaguers would probably go something like 60-102.
And yes, a lot of teams understand the concepts of replacement level now.
How long before we have the rotation of: Felix, Morrow, Feierebend, Butler and Tillman and win 5 consecutive world series’?
#132: Of course, I’m not asking the GM to type the numbers into the spreadsheet or to write the code.
Here’s the deal: somebody has to figure out how to properly weight a cornucopia of stats and scouting reports in a shifting and inefficient market for players.
As an example relating to one of the newfangled stats, at least one of the authors here seems to be of the opinion that HR/FB naturally regresses to ~11% for MLB-quality pitchers, so Felix has just been having some bad luck with the long ball this year. Give the kid time. Nothing to see here; move right along.
But there is a school of thought advanced by one of the Boys in the Back for the Red Sox that this (and hence xFIP) is patent nonsense.
Who’s right?
The GM can’t delegate the job of figuring out who’s right, because different subordinates will have different opinions: that’s where the GM had better add some value. So he’d better have some analytical skills. If he slept through his math classes in school, don’t expect great things.
Eric Van’s assertiveness doesn’t make his analysis any better. Tango, MGL, and I had a long discussion last week about this issue, and we pretty much all agree that a pitchers HR/FB rate needs to be heavily regressed. The only real question is how heavily.
And Bavasi is a lot more understanding of sabermetrics than you probably realize.
#138: Please understand, I wasn’t saying Eric Van’s right. I don’t have the background to sort out the issue, but then again, I’m not a GM. (Thank heaven.)
I brought up the point only because it’s one real world example I am aware of where all of the stat guys don’t seem to be in agreement.
If Bavasi can sort this kind of thing, that’s a nice surprise. I thought I’d read here that he kept Mat Olkin on retainer so he could say, “Stat guy? Oh yeah, we have one of those.”
Maybe I’m overly pessimistic on Burnett, but I’ll be surprised if he makes it through ‘08, never mind ‘10.
Hudson’s pitched better than his ERA suggests, but his peripherals have never been strong beyond his home run rate,
Minor nitpicky question: isn’t HR rate one of the stats that you said is non-repeatable, and hence to be de-emphasized when projecting future performance? I.e. if Hudson does have a good home run rate, don’t you ascribe much of that to luck, and possibly ballpark effects?
In contrast, *flyball rate* is one of the stats that you said represents a repeatable skill.
Tehcnically if my memory is correct and I understand what was said, I think HR/FB% is the stat that you said was pretty much non-repeatable; HR per batter would be a mixture of non-repeatable results (ie HR/FB%), repeatable results (FB%), and results which don’t reflect on the pitcher (ballpark effects).
133. After buyer number 1 overpays for the Lexus, he tells his buddies about the headache, so buyers 2 and 3 decide to look elsewhere…they buy used 4runners, which lack the proven flash and elite performance, but are an overall better decision because of their cost effectiveness and future projection.
4Runners rule!
But I’m not 100% happy with the Cheerios or Lexus analogies; if I’m understanding Dave’s pitching model, one DOES want to have one or two all-star caliber pitchers on one’s roster, to contend for a championship. Smart cheap purchases can get one to the level of the 2006 Florida Marlins. If one hits the jackpot with those cheapo pitchers, one might end up like the A’s with Hudson, Zito et al, or the 2006 Tigers — but although playoff contenders, even those teams didn’t/haven’t made it to the World Series. A strategy more likely to lead to a championship, without totally breaking the bank, is to have a Randy Johnson/Clemens/Felix type (as long as it’s “good Felix”) and maybe a Lowe/Matsuzaka type, and fill out the rest of the rotation with the 4Runners and Toastie Os.
I bought a used Lexus SUV (hangs head in shame).
I’ve had it 3 years, and so far, it’s great, but the maintenance costs are looming. I’ll see how good a 4Runner I could get for it.
By let me point out -it IS a Japanese product, and the MAriners have done pretty good with a couple of them.
lexus is just a nice toyota. They run just as well. You should have no problems.
#138: And Bavasi is a lot more understanding of sabermetrics than you probably realize.
#139: If Bavasi can sort this kind of thing, that’s a nice surprise. I thought I’d read here that he kept Mat Olkin on retainer so he could say, “Stat guy? Oh yeah, we have one of those.”
Aha. I found it. I did read something like that here, which Dave wrote in response to a query about how the M’s could give Washburn’s the deal he got given the state of his xFIP.
Mat Olkin is essentially a consultant. He lives in New Jersey, is not part of the decision making team, and is essentially available for Bavasi to pick his brain if he wants. But if all he has is an email from Olkin saying “not a good idea”, and his entire scouting staff is sitting in his office telling him that Washburn has the kind of moxy they need, the email from Olkin is going to get crumpled up pretty quickly.
Did something change since last year? Does Bavasi now subscribe to BP, or do the USSM web logs show a steady diet of IP addresses from the M’s ISP?
Mat Olkin is essentially a consultant. He lives in New Jersey, is not part of the decision making team, and is essentially available for Bavasi to pick his brain if he wants. But if all he has is an email from Olkin saying “not a good idea”, and his entire scouting staff is sitting in his office telling him that Washburn has the kind of moxy they need, the email from Olkin is going to get crumpled up pretty quickly.
Did something change since last year? Does Bavasi now subscribe to BP, or do the USSM web logs show a steady diet of IP addresses from the M’s ISP?
Um, people skills? Being GM is not equivalent to being a dictator; if the rest of the staff doesn’t buy into these stats, then they won’t be implemented well, if at all. And I get the feeling that there’s a faction in the organization that doesn’t buy into them at all.
Dave,
I like your analysis. I think that the conclusion is generally true.
However, I think that the category you are using (free agent pitchers who signed big multi-year contracts) is a little too inclusive. You can definitely make distinctions within that group of players. Although the sample size gets smaller, I don’t think that these pitchers are all that comparable.
With that group, it is pretty easy to lump them based on their specific situations:
1: Aging elite pitchers: these are guys who were really good for a while, and signed big contracts after they were already on the wrong side of 30. This group includes Pedro Martinez and Mike Mussina.
2: Second tier pitchers: these are guys who put up good numbers, but were probably overrated even during their peak years. This group would include Mike Hampton, Bartolo Colon, Chan Ho Park, Derek Lowe, and Tim Hudson. Washburn would fit in this category as well, since we although calling him a second tier pitcher is way way too generous. These guys were all good, but not dominant elite starters. If you looked at their peripherals, there isn’t anything amazing about them.
3: Contract Year Phenoms: these are guys who had a really good year or two, and put up big numbers right before they went on the free agent market. This group would include Carl Pavano and Kevin Millwood, and to a lesser extent Contreras, Burnett, and Washburn. These guys cashed in at the right time, and teams assumed that their most recent performances would be repeatable. However, Contreras and Burnett probably fit in other categories better.
4: Upside guys: these are pitchers who had obvious tools, but hadn’t really put things together. All were guys who scouts love, and clubs looking at them in free were projecting what they might do in the future. AJ Burnett, Jason Schmidt (back in 2001), and Jose Contreras. In these cases, the clubs who were looking at them were expecting better production from the player in the future than they what they had done in the past.
Obviously, these categories aren’t mutually exclusive. Burnett, Schmidt, and Contreras could fit into multiple categories. Plus, Vazquez doesn’t fit nicely in any of them. He was a legit elite pitcher in Montreal, and he just hasn’t been the same since. But he was not old when he signed with the Yankees. He doesn’t fit in any category. Plus, Washburn doesn’t fit in any category nicely either. He isn’t really good enough to be a second tier guy, and his contract year season wasn’t really that good if you looked base the ERA. So he really could fit into his own category: the overpaid #4 starter (Russ Ortiz, Eric Milton, and guys like that would also fit in this category).
If you break it down like this, the long term deals don’t look quite so bleak. Categories 1 and 4 have been pretty good. Pedro Martinez, Mike Mussina, AJ Burnett, Jose Contreras, and Jason Schmidt have all been at least partially successful (with Burnett still very much up in the air). Not one total bust here.
The other categories have been really bleak. The second tier pitchers and the guys who had breakout seasons just before free agency did very poorly. Only Millwood and Lowe look like they were worth the investment, and the biggest busts (Park, Hampton, and perhaps Hudson) fall into these categories.
In a comment you mentioned that the guys who are worth the huge contracts are young elite starters. That is clearly true. However, the upside guys and older elite guys are also not bad investments. You will likely end up overpaying for guys like Pedro and Mussina, and they might end up losing out on the final year of the contract. But even if they are not pitching to peak form, those two have been good. On the upside guys, the risk is huge. The upside guys like Burnett don’t often get 4+ year deals, so the group we are dealing with here only includes the top guys (or the worst contracts). But those guys seem like a pretty good investment as well. The risk is big, but you have the greatest chance to get a bargain (like Schmidt).
Interestingly, I think that this year, Schmidt falls into category 1. He has performed at a near Cy-Young level for several years, but is not quite as dominant now as he used to be. I think that he is much more similar to Pedro and Mussina than the rest of these guys. Obviously, signing a guy until he is 37 is a huge risk. But these guys seem to be a better risk than second tier players.
Dave, you make some very good points about how risky this kind of contract can be. Certainly, signing a Millwood to a 5-year contract is risky… but if you get 3 plus years out of him, 2 years at a lower level can be managed (especially if you have a young talent available to get you 80% of the way). If he bombs for 3 years, it hurts more… but if that’s the only way to get a necessity in a top-level SP, you have to consider it.
Schmidt and Matsuzaka are much less risky than Millwood. I think that whomever signs these gentlemen during the offseason will likely be overpaying for their services on a price-for-performance ratio… but I also think that you have to pay a premium for premium players. It’s like the old roto catchphrase, ‘you have to give talent to get talent’. If you don’t pay the extra $1-2m/year, someone else will.
Now, for a Washburn-eque player, that’s just fine. Let Anaheim overpay. Millwood may or may not be worth the additional cost. But Schmidt? You can’t just run out to the supermarket and get a legitimate ace who can carry you on his back through the postseason. Guaranteeing a fifth year to him would be a bit scary - but if Schmidt takes us to the Series in 2007, 2008, and/or 2009… I accept the sunk cost, and ramp up the workload of Baek and Cruceta (and whomever else comes along) when necessary.
I’m sick of mediocrity. I’m sick of a team that wants to ‘compete’ instead of ‘dominate’. The M’s have room to make a couple major signings with the cheap roster spots they have covered with quality players (bullpen, Felix, MI, Snelling/Jones/Reed). If there’s not enough room for Schmidt AND Dice-K, I say get Dice-K… and then make room for Schmidt by shipping out a contract. The M’s need to shoot for 100 wins instead of 82, and if overpaying for an A-level player (instead of the usual B-level, or the usual best-available A-minus-level) is the only way to get it done… then charge me an extra $2 for my CF bleacher seats, or I’ll go buy an extra lemonade.
Schmidt and Matsuzaka are much less risky than Millwood.
Jason Schmidt, he of the recent arm surgery and declining strikeout rates while pitching in the National League, is less risky than Millwood, established healthy American League top notch pitcher?
But Schmidt? You can’t just run out to the supermarket and get a legitimate ace who can carry you on his back through the postseason.
The idea that Jason Schmidt is an ace is an interesting one. He certainly was one before he blew out his arm, but he hasn’t been that pitcher since 2004. His groundball rate has gone through the floor at the same time his strikeout rate has experienced a huge decline, and despite the decrease in velocity, his command hasn’t improved at all.
Why do we think Jason Schmidt is an ace when he hasn’t been one for the past two years and is now employing a significantly different skillset than the one he used to have? Does aceness never fade as some kind of annointed gift that is not subject to the laws of nature?
The M’s need to shoot for 100 wins instead of 82, and if overpaying for an A-level player (instead of the usual B-level, or the usual best-available A-minus-level) is the only way to get it done… then charge me an extra $2 for my CF bleacher seats, or I’ll go buy an extra lemonade.
I don’t disagree with any of this. I’m the guy who has defended the A-Rod contract since the day it was signed. You’ll see in my offseason plan that I’m completely in favor of overpaying star players.
I’m just not convinced that Jason Schmidt is worth overpaying for. In general, I think pitcher inconsistency is such an enormous problem that we haven’t been able to solve that trying to build a championship club around a starting pitcher is a great way to never win anything.
I am really looking forward to the offseason plan. I’ve been wondering about Schmidt, and how much he is really worth, and most importantly, how long of a contract he will command. I would probably pay quite a bit for him, for one of two years, but it seems like any more would be insanity.
Does aceness never fade as some kind of annointed gift that is not subject to the laws of nature?
Yes
Obviously it doesn’t make sense to spend that way from an intelligent team perspective. But for fans, bad GMs, and much of the media, they certainly think that way. It’s amazing to see to talk and contract numbers concerning Schmidt, who isn’t one of the top 25 starting pitchers, and Zito, who isn’t in the top 50. That a pitcher was great 2 (or more) years ago, seems to entitle him to a contract as if he’s likely to recapture that one time success over the next three seasons. Zito simply isn’t a good starting pitcher right now but wow, look at all the hype.
In part, Washburn was paid for his 3.20 ERA but he was also paid for his success in 2002.
#149 -
Schmidt is less risky, yes. How many starts has he missed over the past 4-5 years? None over the past 4 which I’m aware of… he’s started 29 or more for 5 years running, counting 2006. He’s also on track for over 200IP for 3 out of the last 4 years. Jason Schmidt’s arm surgery is, quite simply, not a factor! He bounced back immediately and never [i]looked[/i] back once.
I like Schmidt’s K-rate. It’s still up at over 7.5 K’s per game… I’m not complaining! What is he right now, 5th in the NL for strikeouts? He’s somewhere in that vicinity… which means I’m not going to get too concerned. To me, it looks like Schmidt is a bit overused and has adjusted well to a little tiredness and a little pain. I really like the prospect of Jason’s next 3 seasons, and I think securing them would be well worth guaranteeing a 4th and holding out a vesting option for the 5th (based on performance and reasonable IP/GS over whatever time period you prefer - perhaps years 3 and 4?). Schmidt is still definitely a legitimate ace - and imagine what Felix could learn from him! I think he may follow Schilling’s career arc, albeit a half-step lower… isn’t Schilling considered a pretty close comp?
Finally, I’m glad you agree with me on the overpaying for the right player side. I just disagree with you as far as whether going after a pitcher, inherent risks taken into account, is worth the trouble. You need guys whom you can ride into the playoffs, use to break up slumps, and generate excitement (and confidence) in the rest of the team - and you don’t get those guys without risk or for free. If a guy like Jason wants to be in Seattle as much as he’s expressed, I’m all for giving him that chance - if he has a year or two of poor performance that’s too bad, but the other years may make all the difference.
Schmidt is less risky, yes. How many starts has he missed over the past 4-5 years? None over the past 4 which I’m aware of… he’s started 29 or more for 5 years running, counting 2006.
29 starts is about 5-7 shy of a full season for a starting pitcher. 5 to 7 starts is 14-20% of a pitcher’s season. That’s equivalent to missing 25-35 games for a position player. That’s not any kind of bellweather of endurance.
Anyways, to answer your question specifically, more than you remember. He missed 14 days in of ‘05 with shoulder soreness and 15 days with a groin strain last September. He missed his opening start in 2004 with a sore shoulder, which was supposedly unrelated to the elbow surgery he had in the 2003 offseason. In a two year spain, he had problems with his shoulder, elbow, and groin. Not the picture of perfect health that you’re painting.
I like Schmidt’s K-rate. It’s still up at over 7.5 K’s per game… I’m not complaining!
He’s striking out 20% of the batters he faces, or 8 K/G when adjusted for batters faced. The NL average is 6.6 K/G, so certainly, his strikeout rate isn’t a problem in and of itself. Translated to the AL, his K/G would be 7.63 this year, or basically the same as what Gil Meche is posting.
I’m not saying Schmidt’s strikeout rate is a problem. I’m saying the drastic dropoff in his strikeout rate (and groundball rate) are both signs that his stuff has deteriorated. That’s not something we can ignore.
I really like the prospect of Jason’s next 3 seasons, and I think securing them would be well worth guaranteeing a 4th and holding out a vesting option for the 5th (based on performance and reasonable IP/GS over whatever time period you prefer - perhaps years 3 and 4?). Schmidt is still definitely a legitimate ace - and imagine what Felix could learn from him! I think he may follow Schilling’s career arc, albeit a half-step lower… isn’t Schilling considered a pretty close comp?
Okay, so you like Schmidt as an ace. Why? Because he was an ace from 2002-2004, and you’re willing to overlook the regression he’s taken the past two season and assume that he’s going to hook up to the juvenation machine and party like its 2003 all over again?
And no, Curt Schilling’s not a particularly good comparison for Jason Schmidt. For his career, Schilling has walked 5.4% of the batters he’s faced and has been a pinpoint control artist for the past decade, basically. Schmidt has walked 9% of the batters he’s faced and has struggled with his command the last three years. Since his dominant ‘03 season, Schmidt’s ability to put the ball in the strike zone has been inconsistent at best.
Or, to put it another way, Schilling’s career K/BB rate is 4.39, while Schmidt’s is 2.27. Schmidt’s had one year (2003) where his K/BB rate was even close to Schilling’s career average. In 2002, Curt Schilling walked 33 guys in 259 innings. Jason Schmidt has walked less than 70 batters in a season once in the past five years.
They have different skillsets. Schilling’s been consistently better than Schmidt his entire career. They’re both white, right-handed, and throw hard, but they’re not comparable talents. Comparing Schmidt to Schilling is like comparing Rich Aurilia to Cal Ripken Jr.
Finally, I’m glad you agree with me on the overpaying for the right player side. I just disagree with you as far as whether going after a pitcher, inherent risks taken into account, is worth the trouble. You need guys whom you can ride into the playoffs, use to break up slumps, and generate excitement (and confidence) in the rest of the team - and you don’t get those guys without risk or for free. If a guy like Jason wants to be in Seattle as much as he’s expressed, I’m all for giving him that chance - if he has a year or two of poor performance that’s too bad, but the other years may make all the difference.
Have any recent examples of a free agent pitcher carrying his team into the playoffs, breaking up slumps, and generating excitement and confidence in the rest of the team?
Seriously, any examples? At all?
I can think of one - possibly. But he only signs one-year or half-year contracts with his hometown Houston Astros. And Schmidt is no Roger Clemens…
And clearly, if the M’s were presented with the opportunity to sign Roger Clemens, I would be at the head of the class calling for his signing. His one year deals are the things my dreams are made of - superstar talent, short term commitment.
Me too - if every USSM reader chips in and gets a 2nd or 3rd mortgage, maybe we can lure him away.
But there are no other examples as far as I can see.