Good News on Bedard – To Tender Or Not
The M’s announced that the surgery on Erik Bedard’s shoulder today was more minor than expected, with his labrum being essentially structurally sound. They removed the cyst, and he’ll be rehabbing for the next 6 months or so. He might be pitching on a major league mound in 7 to 9 months, depending on how rehab goes.
This makes the decision on whether to tender him an arbitration offer this winter more complex. Due to CBA rules, the absolute minimum the M’s could offer is $5.6 million, and even with the injury, it’s likely that he’d file for a raise from his $7 million that he made this year. Since arbitration awards are based on service time more than performance (a mediocre 5th year arb guy will get more than a good 3rd year arb guy), and Bedard can point to some pretty high salaries for comparable talents, we have to assume that his agent would ask for something in the $9 to $11 million range.
Most times, teams settle for something close to the midpoint between the two figures, so we’d estimate Bedard’s expected salary for 2009 to be something like $7 to $8 million for 2009. It could certainly be higher if Bedard’s agent files for a higher number and wins, but that’s less likely than the two trying to find some common ground. But again, he couldn’t possibly make less than $5.6 million, and the M’s probably wouldn’t even risk an offer that low.
So, is it worth $8 million or so to keep Bedard in the organization, pay for his rehab, and hope he returns to contribute in some meaningful way next year? There are a couple ways to look at this.
1. If your goal is to keep him around in order to get him healthy and flip him for prospects at the deadline, then no, it’s not worth it. $8 million will buy you at least 2 or 3 premium international free agents – we’re talking the absolute top tier of teenage talents. Yes, they’re further from the majors and represent more risk, but you’re not going to be able to flip Bedard for a couple of major league ready stars in waiting next summer anyway, no matter how well he pitches. There’s also the draft to consider – the M’s will have a lot of high selections next summer (especially if Ibanez leaves), and there’s always some top tier talents that fall due to their signing demands. If you allocate some of the $8 million (or so) that you’ll owe Bedard to overpaying for a draft pick or two, you’re almost certainly going to get a better prospect than if you hope he gets healthy and you try to deal him at the deadline.
Now, there’s a monkey wrench here – the M’s separate their major league payroll budget from their amateur acquisition budget, so the new GM would have to convince the ownership to transfer the savings on Bedard to another fund. The M’s clearly don’t recognize this kind of thought (thus the whole “saving $10 million by dumping Washburn doesn’t help us” mindset, ignoring the kinds of prospects they could have bought with $10 million) right now, but hopefully a new GM can convince them to change their accounting practices in order to turn the franchise around.
2. However, if you’re keeping Bedard around because you think he can help you win some games next year, it could actually be worth the $8 million investment. Even with a conservative projection of him having a repeat of his 2008 season (so, 80 decent but not amazing innings), Bedard would be worth about 1.5 wins over a replacement level pitcher. A marginal win is going for about $5 million nowadays, so 1.5 wins are worth about $7.5 million on the free market, or almost exactly what we’re projecting he’ll make next year.
If you viewed the M’s as potential contenders, keeping Bedard around for what he could add on the field actually makes some financial sense. If the goal was to add a couple position players, upgrade the defense, and see if you can turn the franchise around quickly, then tendering Bedard a contract would be a worthwhile gamble.
However, if the idea is to try to turn his rehabbed arm into prospects next summer, the team is better off just letting him go and investing the cash elsewhere. The ROI is higher in other places, and right now, the M’s absolutely need to focus on getting as much value for their buck as they can in order to speed up the rebuilding process.
Comments
37 Responses to “Good News on Bedard – To Tender Or Not”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
How close could the M’s be to contending next season?
We’d need:
1. Either a DH or 1B (assuming Clement fills the other role)
2. A defensively capable SS
3. A pair of corner outfielders
Those aren’t the toughest players to find. But that’s assuming: Ibanez/LaHair/Yuni are gone; Burke/Joh/Rob Johnson play catcher without totally sucking; Balentien is benched or back in Tacoma; Lopez re-learns defense; and Ichiro plays center.
But could we cope with a a rotation (until Bedard returns) of?:
Felix/Silva/RRS plus some combination of Feierabend(eek)/Washburn(eew)/Batista(yuk)
I’ll do a post on Monday that basically lays out the path to winning next year if they’re interested. It would be tough, but doable. This is probably the best free agent crop ever, though, so if you want to reload, this is the winter to do it.
Would it be within the rules to tell Bedard that the teams plans to non-tender him unless they can buy out 2010 as well? Say, offer a 2-year, $15-18 million contract? He wouldn’t get a ton on the market for 2009 as basically a reclamation project ($7m?), and would then have to pray he stays healthy enough to hit the market again in 2010 to top that offer.
The team gets some measure of continued value for the initial investment. Erik gets less than a real open-market deal could possibly fetch under the best circumstances, but with his history, might take the security.
Of course I’m just making up numbers, but is something along those lines even a possibility?
If he had some kind of reason to want to stay here, maybe, but considering how badly his first year in Seattle went, I imagine he’d look at early free agency as a gift, not a threat.
Keep Bedard… ditch Washburn… Bedard has more wins despite 11 fewer starts.
Should we consider draft pick compensation if we keep him for next year and then he leaves as a free agent in our equations here?
Also, latest report from Baker indicates that Bedard may be ready at the start of next season.
Now granted, coming off of shoulder surgery you have to be cautious in estimating what you’ll get out of a pitcher in his first season back, but we may be looking at more than 80 innings out of him next year.
well, more minor than he expected– the Ms seemed to have thought that he’d just have the normal wear & tear any pitcher might have …
What draft pick compensation?
The compensation picks are based on the previous two years stats (with heavy weight given to playing time). The likelihood of Bedard providing compensation picks if he leaves as a free agent after 2009 is slim to none.
Once again, we are at the mercy of Lincoln/Armstrong making a sound baseball decision. They have played along with Proud to be your Bud and not signed draftees demanding higher than position salaries. Why would they change now? This is a good example of why we need a modern front office capable of making decisions based on today’s player’s market.
What to do with Bedard seems to be a pretty good first interview question for a potential new GM.
Not that we lack any good questions in the state we’re in.
Can’t they bypass the arbitration system and sign him to a 1 year deal?
I’m thinking of a scenario where the team tells Bedard that they aren’t going to offer him arbitration, but will sign him to a market deal for a pitcher coming off of shoulder surgery. Something like $5m.
Given the relative security of rehabbing where he currently, having access to the M’s medical staff and a place to rebuild himself in time for free agency, it might be an attractive offer for Bedard.
Dave is right. I’m not sure Erik is real thrilled to stick around at this point.
Yes, but why would Bedard agree to that?
If they offer him arbitration he gets more for the same one year with the M’s; if they don’t he’s a free agent and can get a comparable or better deal with a less dysfunctional team.
Nobody can be sure – he either is the type to tuck his tail and run…. or he’s the type that wants to stand up and show everybody what he’s capable of.
Who’s to say he’s not the later?
For the record – I’m probably being overly optimistic – something I can’t seem to avoid as a Seattle Sports fan.
Dave—-
Your post certainly covers the logical but I think the best case worst case needs to be looked at as well. Worst case- The M’s waste 8 million on a pitcher(no worries can just join the Silva, Wash, Batista club). Best case Bedard returns and throws 45 lightsout innings in June/July and we trade him for a heap of prospects to a contender (we don’t have to pay the full 8 million! and get a nice return!). Or better yet, he’s a key player in our playoff run. If you let him leave the M’s get nothing. They have to tender him an offer.
They don’t get nothing by not tendering him an offer. They get the ability to spend the money elsewhere. (Using the word ability in a very loose sense.)
If they are able to take good advantage of a deep free agent pool to put together a serious contending team then they should definitely make the offer, but if the rebuild is for 2010 then there’s no sense in pouring the money down the drain and justifying it simply because they’ve already done just that with half the rotation already makes no sense.
This is not going to happen.
Nobody is going to give a “heap of prospects” for Bedard at this point, even if he comes back and returns to his 2007 form next season.
Thank God Bavasi is gone, or he’d tender Bedard to back up his decision to trade 5 guys for him.
While I hope the new GM doesn’t non-tender him just because Eric isn’t his guy, I do think that sayonara is the proper move.
“They get the ability to spend the money elsewhere”—- ok, but spending the money elsewhere isn’t equalevlent to spending the money well, which I believe tendering Bedard does accomplish.
“This is not going to happen. Nobody is going to give a “heap of prospects†for Bedard at this point” —– You are correct Jeff it won’t happen at this point. But you don’t know whats going to happen when the trade deadline approaches in 09. Someone will overpay for starting pitching. By the way Jeff Suppan started tonight. Give yourself some options, the more options the better.
And yeah, “heap of prospects” in and of itself has little value. The value is to be determined by the level of the prospect.
So you’re willing to give the next GM the benefit of the doubt that he can trade for useful prospects but not that he can sign them? That’s pretty dumb.
And, honestly, besides the Mariners, teams have done very little overpayment for pitching the last few years. This idea that they’ll be able to turn a couple of months of Erik Bedard (who likely won’t be able to fetch the team that gives up anything for him compensation picks) for a prospect of real value is a myth.
Seriously, even if Bedard comes back 100% and pitches well, the best you’re getting for an injury prone rent-a-player who wouldn’t qualify for compensation picks is a C+ prospect or two. That’s it.
No.
I know it’s a nice fantasy, but even if Bedard were to come back and be awesome and healthy next year (which is a HUGE stretch at this point)…
There are enough questions (merited or not) about his health and competitive drive at this point that no team is going to mortgage their future for him.
He might, MIGHT get one elite prospect if all the chips fall right, but we’re not getting anything back like the Orioles got for him, because no other team in baseball is as bad at evaluating talent as the Mariners.
Dave, since you didn’t say anything about the possibility of tendering Bedard and then trying to extend or resign him for 2010+, does that mean you don’t think the M’s have any chance of keeping him long-term? Or are their chances of keeping him irrelevant because you don’t think they should try?
I don’t think there’s any chance that either the team or Bedard are interested in a multiyear deal right now.
“So you’re willing to give the next GM the benefit of the doubt that he can trade for useful prospects but not that he can sign them?”
—–He? From the latest AP reports we should probably do a he/she thing don’t ya think? Dave, you yourself said the Mariners separate payroll from amateur acquisition budget. So signing player internationally with the money they can save is a moot point.
I know it’s a nice fantasy, but even if Bedard were to come back and be awesome and healthy next year (which is a HUGE stretch at this point)…—-He’s going to have enough value for someone to sign him, why not the Mariners? Is 8 mill supposed to keep me away? F-that and hope for fantasy land shit
“And, honestly, besides the Mariners, teams have done very little overpayment for pitching the last few years”——- Barry Zito? Gagne? Suppan? Matt Morris? Dontrelle Willis? Meche? Linebrink? Eaton? Igawa? Schimdt? I’d take that statement back Dave.
Get him out of here, the sooner the better. He doesn’t want to pitch here anyway, he isn’t putting any butts in the seats, and this team needs more help on the field than he can provide, given his physical condition.
He’d be gone after 2009 anyway even if he came back healthy, made 35 starts, pitched 200 innings, and won 22 games — none of which he’ll do — so why raise false hopes?
In order to support your point that a team will give up a bunch of prospects in a trade, you note that teams have signed a bunch of free agent pitchers.
Your arguments are getting worse.
My noting the signing of a free agents pitchers is only a reponse to your claim that “teams have done very little overpayment for pitching the last few years”.
I’m not saying that Bedard is going to help the Mariners and I am certainly not saying that I think the Mariners can or ever will get something of value for Bedard. You covered the most realistic scenerios.
The context of my overpayment statement was clearly in a discussion in regards to trading and what kind of prospect haul you could expect to get for Bedard. I think most people understood that overpayment there referred to prospects given up.
I don’t think I ever said I expect a team to overpay with prospects. Did I?
I don’t think I ever said I expect a team to overpay with prospects. Did I?
(earlier)
Yes, you did.
How is my best case ( granted a fantasy land scenerio) all of a sudden being confused with what I expect?
Also:
And yet you did. Anyway, this is where it stops being worth my time to argue with a moving goalpost.
The very first thing I said was……. “Your post certainly covers the logical but I think the best case worst case needs to be looked at as well”
How did a previous MRI reveal a tear, but yet when opened up the tear was nowhere to be found?