Is there something in particular that Zimmerman said that you disagree with? Since when is it wrong for a player to answer a question that is asked of him? I am as free market as anyone you will find, but baseball isn't set up like an ideal free market, and the dollars tossed around are alot bigger than you or I will ever see. It's only natural that public figures are going to be viewed under the microscope, and Strasburg is no different.

Great column, Joe.

One worry I have though, is that Boras has something of a conflict of interest here.

He is in a position to be far less risk averse with this negotiation than his client.

It could turn out to be GREAT for Boras if Strasburg turns down $20 million and goes and pitches for St. Paul, and falls to the Yankees or some other team willing to give him $35 million next year.

However should something go horribly wrong for Strasburg during his year in the wilderness, Boras can weather it. He has more money than God, benefits from a longview approach, and look, here comes Bryce Harper to try the same game next year and try to remold draft negotiations for the foreseeable future, and make his bevy of clients, collectively, a lot more money.

But Strasburg himself is screwed in this case. The first $20mm is way more important to someone in his financial situaion than the next $15mm. If a deal is presented that can make him financially comfortable for life, it would be tough for a young pitcher to risk that.

I'm not saying that Boras WOULD forsake his client's best interests in favor of the longview. And I'm not saying Strasburg would necessarily let him. But in a negotiation like this, the incentives for risk aversion are extremely unequal for Boras and Strasburg. Something to think about.

Maybe its been done and I've missed it, but I'd like to see an article on the value of these draft picks. Are most of them busts, how many fail to make it to the bigs, how many make an all-star team, is a #1 worth $10 mill, etc.?

It seems that if Strasburg refuses to sign because of a difference of $10m or less, he's making a mistake, shortening his career by a year, and therefore the opportunities to get paid. Sure, if he doesn't have a career longer than six years, holding out for the maximum possible contract makes some sense, but there is a significant financial cost to Strasburg if he fails to sign and misses a year of baseball.

The easy solution to the entire draft mess is to go to hard slotting and reduce the number of years that a player has before he goes on the 40 man (to 3 and 4 respectively), and then reduce the number of team controlled years from 6 to 5.

Because of the attrition rate of prospects in general, you can understand MLB teams wanting to limit the money spent before the player has ever reached the majors (or even the upper level of the minors), but if thats the case, and they want the player to perform before they pay up, then they should lose some of the player's long term control.

The other option, which is even more radical, is just to get rid of the draft all together and let anyone sign any player. Why not? As it stands now, the worst teams aren't getting the worst talent, so its the system that is basically already in place.

worst teams aren't getting the best talent, is what that should say. oy.

tendentious?????

My simple suggestion for the whole draft/arbitration/indentured servitude issue is: why not have arbitration start in year 1? Or year 2?

Let the player be under team control for the same number of years, but force the team to pay closer to true market value instead of a ridiculously deflated price for the first handful of years.

You're still trying to create parity by giving the worst teams the best players, and you're still allowing teams to recoup costs and risks associated with drafting and developing players, but you're giving players a fair salary.

What's not to like, other than that the owners will have to pony up more for their superstar prospects and young major leaguers, both of which seem eminently fair?

As a fan of small market team, I disagree with Joe's assertion that the draft is just there to deprive the players of money. Maybe that is what the league wants, but the system is close to being a quasi-FA system. Since the only way small market teams can compete to to build the farm, not being able to acquire the best amateur talent is further tilting the field against them. I don't like owners, but I do want competitive balance.

As Goldman points out on his articles, there should not be a question whether the Nationals would select Strasburg. He is the best talent, they were the worst team. There is a tension between allowing a quasi-FA slot system (that is how the players would maximize their bonus) and a mechanism to allow weaker franchises access to top amateur talent. Joe seems to suggest the slotting system is just a cash grab and nothing to do with competitive balance. Perhaps, but until there is something in place that allows a more equitable playing field between the teams (e.g. revenue sharing), the draft is vital for smaller payroll teams.

What Zimmerman did was no worse than what the author did, only Zimmerman was more tactful. Unlike the author Zimmerman has "skin in the game". His livelihood will be directly effected by these negotiations. The author?? Not so much.

If Strasburg doesn't want to sign for the dough offered that's fine, but let's not sit on a holier-than-thou platform and whine because someone directly effected by Strasburg's decision is not happy about it.

The problem with this thinking is that it puts all of the risk on the team. If drafted players got salaries comparable to established players, a team that gets a couple of draft busts would be severely handicapped in trying to improve their team through free agency or other draft picks.

Draft players should not get paid like a top performer until they prove that they are top performers.

How about letting Boras's risk neutrality benefit his client? What if Boras in effect offers Strassburg a $2m disability insurance policy (paying him the difference if he makes less than $2m in his career, perhaps because of an injury in an independent league) in exchange for an extra 10% of any bonus he gets next year in excess of the Nationals final offer.

I think fans understand negotiating and leverage, on average maybe better than Ryan Zimmerman. What we don't understand is not signing when not signing has little chance of being better than losing the negotiation and signing for less than beyond the dreams of avarice. It's wrong to think, as many fans do, that "X million is enough, just sign," but for college juniors at least, it's demonstrably right to feel that "X million is greater than 0 million, just sign."

I think the average fan thinks your leverage as a player is two months and a midnight hammer deadline. At that point, we would figure, you've made more or less ground compared to your fellow negotiator, and you sign for the best you could do. Boras sees a bigger picture than that, which is great for him, but I don't see anything wrong with fans and even players sharing their thoughts, which are just opinions and, in a way, an X factor in negotiations, since opinions could go either way and influence either side.

I would like to know if players actually do get a bigger offer after sitting out a year when they are picked in the first round. Especially guys that are done with college and can only go play independent league ball.

Let's break it down:
"When it comes down to it, Strasburg has to think about, 'Can I go to bed if I turn down $15, 16 million dollars—whatever it is—to pass up the opportunity to play for these guys?'

This is exactly what it comes down to.

"That's a lot of money."

It is a lot of money.

"I don't understand what he thinks will be better next year."

Pretty obvious it won't be better.

"If we don't take him, who's gonna take him next year? Pittsburgh? San Diego? San Diego is not gonna pay him more."

Exactly right. They will take him expecting to pay even LESS. Although there is a chance that Joe's Mets juggernaut could be picking 2nd :).

"Absolutely his leverage will never be higher."

Check

"Everybody wants to play where they want to play; everybody wants the ideal situation, but that's not the point of the draft. You can't tell people where you want to play."

Exactly true. This is the reality.

"At some point, do it like everybody else has already done it."

If I were him I'd feel the same way.

"I agree, he's one of the better college pitchers ever to pitch, but he hasn't proven anything yet."

Also true.

So a 100 true statement draws a 1500 rant that doesn't really have anything to do with Zimmerman's points except when it agrees with him.

I've never understood the "you're not in the game, you don't understand" attitude. It's the insular, fraternal order side of baseball at work.
I also don't understand the argument that Strasburg doesn't "deserve" the money or hasn't "earned" it. This argument falls apart on anything but a humanistic level. No baseball player DESERVES $50 million when teachers and firefighters are so underpaid. But this is the price of doing business in capitalism. Supply and demand is a hard beast to tame, and the current draft isn't doing it.
And why must the MLB players continue to actively deny the rights of minor leaguers and amateur draftees? How vain must you be to fail to recognize yourself in these people? And how ethical (and legal) is it for amateur players to have no say at all in how the draft is developed. It's in the hands of those with conflicting interests. The more complicated the draft gets, the more I think that someday Scott Boras really WILL come up with the lawsuit that "breaks" the draft.

I think the point is that many people think holding out for an extra million or two tacked onto a $15 million deal is superfluous or stupid compared to getting his career started and striving for greatness. Not greatness for the sake of an even larger payday, but for the sake of the game. You may think that's dumb, but it's the reason that salary negotiations always leave a bad taste in the mouth of fans.

Strasburg is set for life either way, even if he never signs another deal, so why should anyone, particularly a Nats fan, have sympathy for his need to squeeze out every dollar? Sure, the owners don't deserve that money any more (and perhaps less) than Strasburg does, but this is exactly why a slotting system would be better - it avoids a silly game of chicken that sometimes ends up with everyone worse off.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Zimmerman, regardless of what you think of the exact figure he named, was simply saying that Strasburg needs to sign, not that he shouldn't negotiate the best deal he can get before signing. And he's right - if Strasburg goes back in the draft, there's a very good chance he will not get as much next year as if he takes a reasonable offer from the Nats (assuming they make one).

There's an obvious "solution" albeit not a cure-all -- allow the trading of draft picks and unsigned draftees. Whether Strasburg is indeed a once-in-a-lifetime talent shouldn't be left solely to the Nationals to decide. If the Yankees, Sox, Mets, Dodgers (whomever...) believe that Strasburg's talent is indeed legendary, then allow them to trade for that potential.

It's time for major league baseball to join the 21st century. (Fat chance with the current administration...)

The draft isn't "fair" and really can't be. No one has the "right" to a fair negotiation with an organization like MLB, or the NBA or NFL. If the draft was "fair" and amateur players could negotiate with any team when the declare out of high school or college the whole system would collapse.

It's simple. The Yankees have to play someone, and that someone has to have a way to access young talent in a cost controlled manner. Is it fair? No. Does that matter at all? No. Not if the league is going to prosper. The most successful sports league in the country is the NFL and their system is probably less fair (no guaranteed contracts) than the MLB's. Everything Zimmerman says is correct, and in the end Strasburg should negotiate as best as possible until the last minute, and the sign on the dotted line.

Oh, I totally agree with rguerin that draft picks should be able to be traded. It works in the NFL and the NBA.

"Stephen Strasburg could win Rookie of the Year and finish third in the NL Cy Young Award voting in 2010, and make $400,000 in 2011"

He would only make $400,000 in SALARY, but you have to factor in the signing bonus. A $16m signing bonus at 5% annual return would be worth $21.4m over 6 years.

Beautiful job, Joe. Americans are too willing to buy the company line in general, but especially when the laborers are "playing a kid's game."

The draft mitigates a prospect's need to thrive. This is a relatively fair exchange of leverage. Sans draft, a prospect must choose a balance between dollars and prestige. The more prestigious the ballclub, the greater the risk of failure to thrive, no matter how much money is at stake.

Based on what happens in the hundreds of leagues around the world that have open markets, one would conclude there is absolutely no way Stephen Strasburg could command a fraction of $50M in an open market.

From Joe's article: "Zimmerman doesn’t give a tinker’s damn ($1, 1912) about Stephen Strasburg; he cares about not having to play third base behind crappy starters for bad teams for the rest of his life. He cares about playing a relevant baseball game in September for the first time ever. He cares, it would appear, about the profit margins of Major League Baseball."

Wow.

As for the first two sentences here, I'd hope to goodness that Zimm cares about his team's chances at winning, and if that's all he cares about with respect to the Strasburg negotiation--whether or not he really cares about Strasburg's personal well-being--I don't think that makes him such an awful person necessarily.

As for the last sentence, that's just a completely unsubstantiated shot at Zimm--one that doesn't qualify as journalism nor the type of insightful analysis that we are used to from Joe.

For me, Joe went 1-for-5 with an infield single today. Pujols has bad days too, sometimes.

This article was definitely enlightening for me. It changed my whole perspsective on the issue. I do wish there was some way to allow weaker teams an advantage in acquiring young talent. What I'm wondering is why can't young players sign incentive heavy contracts? Why can't Strasburg get a $5million bonus if he has WARP better than 6 or something like that? Do the rules prevent that? I can't blame these guys for trying to get as much as they can for signing when they have no leverage for such a long time after that.

"So it doesn’t really matter what Ryan Zimmerman thinks. It doesn’t matter what your local columnist, making $63,000 a year without a fraction of the talent that Stephen Strasburg has, thinks. It doesn’t matter what talk-radio hosts, who have the same grasp of sports economics that I do of SQL, think."

And I guess it doesn't matter what Joe Sheehan thinks then, either.

Playing baseball is a privilege - not a right. Strasburg has every right to choose another profession if he doesn't feel he is being treated fairly by MLB.

Is it "fair" the he is forced into servitutde for 6-7 years at such horrible wages? No. But it also isn't "fair" for CEOs to take home millions despite employees losing their jobs or for rookies like Strasburg to make 10 times what a teacher makes for playing a game instead of shaping future minds. But, hey, who said life was fair?

In reality Strasburg (or any draftee) can take the millions he's been offered and enter MLB. Or not and enter another profession. Either way, he'll still be able to gripe and moan about how much more money his bosses make or his "lesser" co-workers make simply because they have more time on the job. He'll just likely do so in a nicer house and with a nicer car than most if he does so in the MLB system.

wow, what a myopic, one sided article with a lot of extreme examples used to try to influence the reader. This isn't the same market as 2003-04 anymore and Strasburg isn't a free agent. We could cite free agent contracts all day long that made younger, cost controlled players look underpaid, but there's no point to it.

As for your extreme example that "Stephen Strasburg could win Rookie of the Year and finish third in the NL Cy Young Award voting in 2010, and make $400,000 in 2011. He could be even better in '11, racking up a ton of innings as the Nationals make a wild-card push, and make $400,000 in 2012." you're conveniently forgetting the 15-20 million dollar bonus he got just for signing his name. While we're on extreme examples, he could just as easily blow out his arm/shoulder and never make the majors a la Brien Taylor and give the Nats nothing on their investment. The reality is most likely between the two.

I dont blame him for trying to get every penny he feels he's worth, but there's a difference between perception and reality in most cases. If he passes on a bonus larger than anyone in the history of the draft because he feels he's worth more then he is indeed a fool. Is the risk to go back to college or an Independent League worth a few million dollars when any chance of injury or poor performance might cost him even more money next year? Aaron Crow is finding out the hard way that even though he pitched well this year that he may not make much more than he was offered last year. A year pretty much wasted for Crow and his development. If Mr. Strasburg ever goes into Costco in Texas, perhaps he should look for Matt Harrington and ask his advice. For those of you that don't know his story, the link is below.

http://badwax.net/2009/08/01/campus-legends-matt-harrington/

I think you missed badly on this one Joe. I thought Zimm was 100% on the mark.

1. Stephen Strasburg probably has signed a "loss of talent" insurance policy with Lloyds of London, and is probably set for life even if both his arms were to fall off tomorrow. Maybe not $15 million set, but probably-retiring-very-young set.

2. An ad hominem attack on Zimmerman for not having improved is ridiculous.

3. An ad hominem attack on a newspaper writer for making as much money as he does is even moreso.

Here's a suggestion.

I'm not talking about the whole draft, not even a couple rounds, but the guys signing major league contracts (rather than minor league; going right on the 40-man, if I understand correctly) with mega-bonuses, why not heavily incentive-laden contracts?

Instead of $15 million signing bonuses or whatever, take $3 million (still no poor house) and sign a contract that starts paying you like a post-free-agency performer, if/when you perform like one. That reduces some risk for the teams, allows "small market" teams to have a chance to sign top guys they draft without leveraging the major league roster, and it would have gotten Mark Prior paid like Pettitte and Colon for his first few (productive) years. When Boras lays out his argument and says, "my guy is going to do X and Y and Z", a team can respond "and when he does, he gets his 20 mill"

If it's not a good idea to sign a free-agent coming off his only good year then why exactly is it a good idea to give a huge contract to Strasburg? Isn't Strasburg basically a guy coming off a "career year?" Granted he's young so you are hoping that this year was just the tip of the iceberg but doesn't the same principle apply?

Strasburg will be one of the most hated players in the game if he rejects that offer.

Not sure about Baker breaking Mark Prior. Sure he worked him, but that was six years ago. Prior is as fragile as 100-year-old china.

Joe,

I love how, when you have a strong opinion about something you keep pushing with it. That's what make Prospectus Today my favorite (and sometimes least favorite) article to read, but it seems as if you are using this article to springboard another ethics argument.

Whether a baseball columnist or a guy in Indiana reading him agree with the structure or not is not the point. In the real world, if he doesn't get signed it's a lose-lose situation for both parties involved and they both know it, which is why it'll probably be hammered out in the 11th hour.

I understand in a perfect world Strassberg would sign a CC like contract, but in the real world, there's a very small chance that he makes more entering next year's draft and a monumentally larger chance that his stock drops or even worse he gets hurt and has no leverage.

I've heard talks of him pitching independently if he can't reach an agreement. Wouldn't he go back to SDSU for his senior year in this case or has he stated somewhere he's done with that?

I think one theme that comes up here is whether or not normal labor and free-market "rules" should apply when talking about so many millions of dollars.

I would tend to air on the side that they don't. Joe Sheehan is spot on when he talks about the unfairness of players having no choice in what team they are assigned to for six years, etc, but I feel when we get to money issues he is off the mark.

It's important for players to have leverage, but I really can't find any tears for Stephen Strasburg and his ilk if he only manages to get 15-20 million in this draft market, as opposed to 50+ million if he were a free agent.

I also had a big issue with his Mark Prior example:

1. His injury wasn't expected. Even Dusty Baker in his stupidity wasn't trying to save the Cubs millions during Prior's two years and blow out his arm just before he would have "had" to be paid. He just wasn't thinking at all.

2. If Mark Prior never had his injury, he would have made absurd amounts of money, with the Cubs or just about anyone else, and his story wouldn't really be all that relatable to the draft.

3. The only way Joe can relate Prior's injury back to the draft is almost to suggest that 1. Prior's injury was inevitable and 2. the Cubs, or baseball's system, should have paid him like he was a free agent during the brief period when he was actually good. If this actually happened, if Prior got some kind of 6 year, 120 million deal the day he signed, the Cubs would have been completely hamstrung by the ensuing injury. Why is that any better or more fair than what actually happened to Prior?

I read this on ESPN's site a couple of minutes ago:

"SI.com reported Monday that the Nationals' offer to Strasburg was approximately $12.5 million. Mark Prior received the highest contract ever given to a draft pick when he got $10.5 million from the Cubs in 2001."

The article ran with a video in which the ESPN Reporter claimed this was going to the last minute because "that's the way Scott Boras always runs this thing ..." and repeated the team's line that this was "more than any previous draft pick has gotten."

I am always amused at how reporters are willing to adopt the company talking points and play them back in news stories.

Here's a guess -- the Nats are willing to go to $21 million in total for the first three years (bonus and salary combined) and the GM, Rizzo, has offered only a little over half of his bargaining authority to this point.

I'm not a GM, so I won't comment on what Strasburg should get, and I'm not a player, so I won't comment on Zimmerman. But I AM a reader of newspapers, and I'm very happy about Mr. Sheehan taking shots at newspaper columnists who crank out why-are-they-paid-so-much fluff garbage. We've had this Michael Crabtree thing going here, and I'm sick of columnists milking it for twenty more inches. And that's after three years of why-can-Zito-live-with-that-salary columns. Aren't there enough interesting topics in sports that columnists can come up with something that's not just another rant? Man, you can write a column each on Crabtree and Strasburg, and you'd have done half a week's worth of work in the time it takes to do two Mad Libs!

And why is it so hard for non-athletes to understand that these guys SHOULD negotiate each contract like it's the last one they'll get? You practically have to set yourself up for life every time you get ready to sign a contract. That just seems like common sense to me. So he wants twenty-something million? Maybe he wants to buy everyone his family a house and a car and still have money left over to not have to worry about going broke the rest of his life. That seems fair. Or what if he ends up having a kid with some terrible medical condition, and it requires 24-hour care by nurses for the rest of the kid's life? Wouldn't you want to be ready for something like that, financially, if you had the chance?

i usually agree with your articles, but this one seems a little over the top.

i don't disagree with anything that zimmerman said. he went through the draft as it stands and made out OK, and likely doesn't see what the problem is. are we going to hold it against him that he happened to be drafted near his home/college and signed for slot? because he has stagnated he can't want talent on his team. he has at least still proved something in the majors.

i wonder if this statement would've been fodder for this article if albert pujols, 37th odd round pick, had made the same comment.

if the system is so broken, boras should talk to his MLB players and get them to change it. otherwise it is what it is.

Hello everyone first post here, so here I go.

First question what was the reason they pushed the deadline to August 15? That seems a bit early for me, maybe it should be something like January 31 because of college seasons starting.

We need to remember here that all parties involved are men. If Lerner & Kasten are willing to spend $50 Million on Strasberg they should be able to do so. I'm sure if he busts with an injury the Nationals will have insurance on his contract, if they don't their fools. If Strasberg wants to hold out and go play for the Newark Bears next year that is his choice. Let them live with the consequences good or bad. I would personally sign $15 Million is a lot of money.

As far as the draft goes personally I would love to see it done away with entirely. I am a fan of a big market team(Mets) but that is no guarantee that all the top Amateurs in the world will go to one team or that players won't fall through the cracks. If the owners don't want to spend then don't run a Sports franchise.

As far as Free Agency goes no arbitration whatever you sign as a contract is what you start with.

It works both ways. Joe's argument is correct, but the teams involved are taking a major risk at the same time if they're paying out large signing bonuses to unproven (at least at the top level)players. Both sides have to take into context a potential injury in this situation. One side will need to worry about performance in their initial investment. If the player in question becomes a bust or disappointment - a team like the Yankees can brush it off fairly easy where a small-market, low-payroll type would get crushed.

well intended article that is lost on the public due to general inability to understand the idea that pay structures are partially the result of power/politics, or more plainly, human action under the purview of concepts such as justice and fairness. yes, strasburg is on the spot, but the general direction of the public discussion, zimmerman's comment being just an example, is that strasburg is "holding out" or holding in hostage a poor franchise. the leverage seems to be in the hands of the individual player, who after all does not own the identity of "The Nationals" under whose aegis fans align themselves. what is out of sight, and indeed out of mind, is the context under which that negotiation take place. the draft didn't descend from G_d or appear as Natural Law out of the olde country, it is the result of power play and history. the context is in other words not a given that is immune to judgment of fairness and justice. it may be the case that strasburg is being selfish, (as if he has an obligation to serve a bunch of people's devotion to a constructed entity remains a marvel of human nature) but perhaps his selfish fight for his fair value (after all, who wouldn't want to work as an indentured servant for a chance to gain the privilege of being dealt with fairly) isn't so damning in the proper historic context?

one of the more interesting things about sports is the persistent illusion of equating ownership and management with The Team, or rather, how easily the ownership and management claim The Team as a part of their rhetoric. since fans care about the team, and the front office etc are "running" the team, fans have a tendency to the team is a show, and both owners and players do play their part in driving it. nevertheless, let's take fans' interest as a given, how to assess conflicts between the two sides that impact The Team? taking this single deal in isolation, the only thing that affects the welfare of the team is the existence of conflict, that is to say, whether strasburg gets 10% of his value or 80% is irrelevant. then, to determine who fans should blame more, we'll have to rely on some notion of fair value, because the damning behavior here is one side being too cheap/too greedy, with the fair value point being the watershed standard. if the player demands more than his fair value, then he is greedy, and vice versa. it is ok if you subscribe to another school of labor ethics, like say the power-blind free market of lore thingy, but at the very least the idea of a fair field of negotiation should still be relevant. assessing the fairness of this structural set-up is the central problem of any responsible assessment of the strasburg situation, and this is sheehan's main point even if not explicitly outlined. it is however flying high above the head of many people too happy with the fairly headless sensationalisation of sporting salaries in the main stream media. the idea of the star athlete, incidentally, is another thing that must both be loathed and worshiped, by the same society.

keep up the great work.

Isn't Joe just saying that no one should judge Strausburg for doing whatever he ends up doing in his pursuit of wanting to get as much money as he can? If he wants to pass on the Nationals' offer, that's his choice. History will tell us whether or not he makes the right choice tonight.

"At some point, do it like everybody else has already done it." I have a problem with this line from Zimmerman. Just because other players have done it like everyone else should have no bearing on what Strausburg does.

Do I think he's playing with fire, both professionally and popularly? Yes, big time. If he doesn't sign, look out for the war of words between Boras and the Nationals as to who was at fault. Neither party will come out well. Of course, if the Nats sign him for some ungodly amount, the same could happen in the court of public opinion. This is shaping up to be a no-win situation.

"In 2004, Prior’s salary was $2.1 million, and while we didn’t know it then, his career was over. Even though Prior had been one of the very best pitchers in baseball in his first two seasons in the majors, he didn’t get paid like it, because the rules aren’t set up that way."

The rules are also setup so that players get paid like stars if they're one of the very *worst* players in baseball. Baseball players get guaranteed contracts, unlike other sports like the NFL. Players who can hit the market are almost always overpaid the minute they sign, from the first day of their contract to the last.

If we want a process in place that pays players for what they're worth, then ok. But the players can't (shouldn't) have it both ways. If we want to talk about young players being "abused" by the system because they're underpaid compared to their current value, then we have to do something about players who abuse the system by getting paid a price that doesn't match their production.

The system that "deprives amateur players of any leverage" is the same one who's giving all the guaranteed money to their professional brethren. I'm all for changing a system that gets rid of guaranteed contracts so that the players who produce will reap the financial benefits.

An ideal system would be no draft and no arbitration or free agency years. When you sign a contract as an amateur that is where your contract starts and from there your performance dicates whether you get a deal or not. Want to get real idealistic how about baseball set up like Europe with relegation. Never happen but it would be interesting to see all the best players in one 8-10 team league.

In the end, Zimmerman's logic prevailed. A pitcher who misses a year of development is crazy and Strasburg is no dummy like Aaron Crow, Harrington, et al. Even a hitter is likely a fool as well given the time value of money, chance of injury (small but not non-zero), and leverage just goes down over time. The big one though is delaying one's arb clock and free-agency in this day and age where 28 is much more likely to be at peak than say 30. The draft might have its inherent problems but Zimmerman really just stated the current reality and he also has a vested interest in getting Strasburg to come, which he is. And to say a high draft pick "will never get paid" in this current climate rubs me the wrong way. Where else can a guy not have a college degree and be $5-10 million richer overnight? The system is flawed but that's a different topic.

Zimmerman signed his contract without having improved since the day he set foot in the league?

It's hyperbole like this - and a general unwillingness to make well-researched value judgments of players - that keeps Sheehan from being the best commentator on the baseball player market around.

By FanGraphs' measurement, Zimmerman was worth about 4 wins in 2006, his first full season in the league. He was 22. The next season, he was worth about 5 wins. In 2008, he was injured for nearly 40% of the season, but was still worth 2.2 wins. He signed his contract after the 2008 season. Pretty clearly, he had improved.

Sheehan likes the triple-slash line a lot and it's difficult to see this improvement if one cares primarily about batting average and OPS. But Zimmerman turned himself into an elite defender. That's primarily responsible for the increased win value. Let's not ignore it.

"Stephen Strasburg could win Rookie of the Year and finish third in the NL Cy Young Award voting in 2010, and make $400,000 in 2011. He could be even better in '11, racking up a ton of innings as the Nationals make a wild-card push, and make $400,000 in 2012"

Tim Lemke of the Washington Times is reporting the following guaranteed salaries:

2010: $2m
2011: $2.5m
2012: $3m

Plus the following schedule of signing bonus payments:

2010: $2.5m
2011: $2.5m

So Stasburg's minimum annual compensation in 2010, 2011, and 2012 will not be, as posited in Mr. Sheehan's article, $400k, $400k, and $400k, but rather:

2010: $4.5m
2011: $5m
2012: $3m

This excludes any additional performance bonuses he might achieve for performance at the level Mr. Sheehan projects.