We’re about 12 hours from the industry-imposed deadline for players selected in the 2009 Rule 4 draft to sign with the clubs who picked them. Those players who do not reach agreements go back into the 2010 draft pool, with the clubs that failed to sign picks in the first three rounds getting a compensation pick in that draft.
Eighteen first-round selections have signed, but all anyone cares about is one who hasn’t. Stephen Strasburg, taken with the first pick by the Nationals, is in the midst of tendentious negotiations with the club, working largely through his advisor, Scott Boras. Arguably the top college pitcher since Mark Prior, Strasburg is attempting to get not just the top signing bonus in draft history, but one significantly higher than that achieved by Prior back in 2001 ($10.5 million total on a major league contract). The argument for his doing so is that he’s a comparable or even superior talent, and that we’re eight years-and aggressive attempts by the game’s administrators to control signing bonuses even above and beyond eliminating competition for the players-past Prior’s signing.
You know all this. What I find interesting about this case is how vocal at least one player has been on the issue. Over the weekend, Strasburg’s potential teammate, Ryan Zimmerman, was quoted at the Washington Post website by writer Chico Harlan:
“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?’ That’s a lot of money. I don’t understand what he thinks will be better next year. If we don’t take him, who’s gonna take him next year? Pittsburgh? San Diego? San Diego is not gonna pay him more. Absolutely his leverage will never be higher. 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. At some point, do it like everybody else has already done it. I agree, he’s one of the better college pitchers ever to pitch, but he hasn’t proven anything yet.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always found the notion of passing judgment on someone else about what they should work for as distasteful. You get what you negotiate, and it’s not up to a third party to decide what’s “a lot of money” for one of the two involved. The above quote got a lot of play, in part because Zimmerman was also a top-five draft pick just a few years ago, and so is considered to have comparable experience. He doesn’t. Coming out of college, Ryan Zimmerman was nothing like Stephen Strasburg, for one, and for two, who the hell cares what Ryan Zimmerman thinks? 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.
Zimmerman is a company man, and maybe he can be, since he signed a slot deal out of college and garnered a five-year contract this spring after not improving at all from the day he stepped into the league. People care what he thinks because he’s one of the best players on the team, and your influence in baseball is pretty strongly correlated to your OPS or ERA, rather than the caliber of your positions. Zimmerman is wrong, though. “At some point, do it like everybody else has done it” is perhaps the weakest argument-for anything-you could possibly put forth. It’s “I got mine” in more words, and it is unfortunately the argument that will probably lead to a formal slotting system in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, as the ones who got theirs trade away the negotiating leverage of unrepresented teenagers in the grand traditions set by the NFL and NBA players.
There are many misconceptions here, some of which I’ve covered in the past. The primary one is that the draft exists as a mechanism to enhance competitive balance. Even a cursory look at how it came about puts the lie to that; baseball had lousy competitive balance for most of the 20th century, and no one in the game cared. It wasn’t until competition via signing bonuses became more of a key component in the acquisition of amateur players that the leagues got together and came up with a system for ending that competition. Any effects on competitive balance were secondary, and arguably unintended. The draft was, and still is, designed only to take away the rights of amateur players to have teams compete for their services.
Couple that with the extended rights that teams have to the players they draft, from six to 11 years, depending on how much time the player spends in the minors and how their major league career is shaped, something over which the player has little control. As a result of those two factors, the time from draft day to the signing deadline is the only time for perhaps a decade-and perhaps ever-that a player has any kind of negotiating leverage. Once he signs with a team, that team owns him until he accumulates six full seasons of major league service time. How can you possibly blame a person for wanting to maximize his return on the only negotiation in which he’ll have any leverage for at least six years, possibly an entire decade, and in many cases ever?
The idea, popular among players and ex-players who seem to have no grasp of the structure under which they play, that a draftee should just sign for whatever’s available and start his career because he’ll get paid if he performs, that’s just laughable on its face. If the player survives a decade, sure, he’ll have the chance to get paid. But let’s look at… well, let’s look at Mark Prior. Less than a year after being drafted, Prior was in the majors, making 19 starts for the 2002 Cubs, striking out a ridiculous 147 men in 116
In the offseason between 2003 and 2004, Bartolo Colon signed for $12.75 million per season. Kevin Millwood got $11 million in a one-year deal. Andy Pettitte signed a back-loaded contract that averaged $10.5 million per season. Sidney Ponson, bless his heart, signed for $7.5 million a year.
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. You only get paid if you’re very good at the point where you can take your services to the open market. Do it before then, and you have no leverage. The various players who make the point that amateurs haven’t proven anything yet neglect to consider that even if the amateur plays well as a professional, there’s no guarantee at all of a big payday. They think you get paid for performance, and while that’s partially true, what you actually get paid for is being able to negotiate with multiple teams. Felix Hernandez is making $3.8 million this season; teammate Miguel Batista makes $9 million. You want to argue that performance is the determining factor in salaries?
Mark Prior never, not once, had as much leverage as he did while negotiating with Cubs, even though he was every bit the pitcher they expected him to be. Prior was worked incredibly hard in 2003 as Cubs manager Dusty Baker rode his best starter in both a pennant race and two post-season series. Baker broke him, and Prior doesn’t get to go back now and ask for more money.
Stephen Strasburg could do this. 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. The next time Strasburg will be able to do more than just ask for money, entirely at the team’s mercy to give it to him, is the winter of 2012-13. The first time he’ll be able to negotiate with more than one team is the winter of 2015-16, unless the Nationals diddle with his time on the roster, in which case it’ll be 2016-17. That’s a long time from now. That’s a lot of innings from now, and he might never get there-he might be great, like Prior, out of the box, and never get paid because that’s how the system is set up.
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. What matters is that the system is set up to deprive amateur players of any leverage, and when one stands up to that system and tries to make the best possible deal for himself, he shouldn’t be excoriated, or labeled as greedy, or derided as “unproven.” He should be regarded as a man negotiating a contract, making the same choices we all make, taking the risks involved in going right up to a deadline without blinking. It’s his livelihood and his talent on the line, and no one gets to decide for him what “enough” is, not when there may never be any chance to get back to the table and ask for more.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Amost everything Zimmerman made sense and I think Joe read into his statements a lot of things that he then takes umbrage with.
Put simply, all Zimmerman is really saying is that it would be foolish to not sign now when his leverage is highest, not that he should take a bad deal or lesser money. And, as a highlight to that point, he points out that Strasburg would probably feel worse going to bed knowing he turned down 15+ million and isn't playing at the highest level than he would leaving a little money on the table.
I love Joe and think he is a great writer and analyst, but I this does smack of screed and one that sets up false straw men to attack (whether they be guised as Zimmerman's opinions or otherwise.)
To argue that the draft's purpose is not to achieve some sort of competitive balance because back in the day it did not is tantamount to arguing that the Constitution is not intended to protect minorites because the Framers didn't set it up that way. Clearly the draft has as its purpose giving an advantage to the weaker teams. You need to look no further than the draft order (and, to some extent, FA compensation bigs (as a good player leaves the team making them weaker, they get a free pick to try to get stronger (particularly when the model is a FA that the team can't afford to resign)) to realize that this is a purpose. Yes, baseball is different than other sports, but this is a fairly universally accepted format and the intent is clear. (You can argue how successfully it's executed.) If that were not the intent, you could easily construct a bidding system (with the money to MLB) rather than a bottom team first draft to allocate the rights.
In the end, Joe had one small point (or perhaps several related points): the amateur baseball draft assigns enormously valuable rights to a team without a player's say beyond his ability to negotiate his first contract. He then poked that point and stretched it in ways that were not entirely related, accurate or fair. This was an emotional piece, not an intellectual one.
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.
When you're J.D. Drew--the most cited example of Boras' shenanigans--waiting a year and playing somewhere else might not be ideal, but there isn't a great chance your career could end via injury. Every pitch that an elite hurler throws before he signs his deal is another shot at a career-ending injury.
He'll sign. Boras just has to create the illusion that he's capable of getting his clients (even pitchers) to hold out.
This is troubling, because even though Ryan Zimmerman's interests aren't aligned with Strasburg's, at least he can't actually affect the negotiations. Boras can.
After all, maybe Strasburg really doesn't want to go to the Nationals and is making them pay some artificial premium and is hoping to go somewhere else next year.
For example, Strasburg himself stands to make more money right now because of Boras' actions with Hochevar, Drew, Scherzer, and a host of others. It's probably a primary reason Strasburg hired him.
And if Boras can make an example out of Strasburg, Bryce Harper and a hundred other clients will make a lot more money.
So it isn't about pure self-interest.
For the record, I don't think it will come to this. I think Strasburg signs, and for an awful lot of money.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana/
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.
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 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.
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.
Draft players should not get paid like a top performer until they prove that they are top performers.
Take Tim Lincecum who signed for just over $2 million in 2006. His 2009 salary is $0.650 million. By way of comparison old and broken Randy Johnson is making $8 mil and Barry Zito is making $18.5 million. Who's the most valuable?
The model of deferred compensation once hitting the open market will leave Lincecum with considerably lower compensation relative to his performance if he goes the way of Mark Prior in the next year or two. If the draft stays similar to what it is now (exclusive rights to the drafting team) then what's needed are significant salary escalators if a player exceeds expectations in the first six years.
For instance, you can index it to something like VORP and the highest salary at said position on a given team. As an example, Lincecum's VORP is currently about 3 1/2 times higher than Zito's (58.4 to 16.6), so multiply Zito's salary by 3.5 and pay Lincecum that amount (a staggering $65 mil). It'll pay the emerging young stars and hopefully lead to more prudent spending in the free agent market. A crazy idea that will never happen.
And who, exactly, is to say that every prospect would get a star-level salary? You're making a pretty big assumption. It's condescending of fans to believe that clubs need to be saved from themselves, yet that's what everyone seems to blithely believe. George Steinbrenner could not and would not sign every amateur player to a $20 million contract, and we know this because the international market is currently an open-bidding system, and the Yankees haven't monopolized that.
But that's beside the point. I still chuckle at the willingness of people to dictate to others what amounts to fair compensation, provided that compensation comes as a result of athletics (my implication being you would not open yourself to such examination personally, with respect to your professional compensation). These people aren't providing a public service, yet we seem to think we should be able to treat them as such.
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.
Hopefully Strasburg is smarter then Matt Harrington.
You can't spell MLBPA without BP.
Simply put, he is advocating for pure, free-market capitalism deciding a player's worth, not some kind of heavy-handed top-down bureaucracy, as we have now. Let the free market rule in this case, I say.
I agree that one way of dealing with the situation is to allow the trading of draft picks, but only for other players and/or draft slots (not cash). That way if the Yankees want to spend $50 mil to have a crack at Strasburg (because the Nats don't want to) they can ship over some talent in return.
"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.
"You get what you negotiate, and it’s not up to a third party to decide what’s "a lot of money" for one of the two involved. "
There are a lot of things on which reasonable minds can disagree. The notion that Strasburg has been offered "a lot of money" is not one of those things.
And though I love Joe's columns, and they are always the first thing that I go to when he's posts one on a given day, when I see him write "who the hell cares what Ryan Zimmerman thinks?", I think, if you don't then why center an entire column around his quote?
Zimmerman is just like Strasburg. He's trying to do what's best for himself - encouraging / cajoling the kid to join up with his team, raising his own image in the eyes of the fans and front office and (maybe, just maybe) giving the kid the sincere and well intended advice.
If Strasburg should be left to make his own decision (and he was), then Zimmerman has the right to speak out and say what he wants to in representing his own interests.
Love ya, Joe. With you on the draft being slanted in the owners favor. Serious overkill on Zimmerman, though.
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.
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).
No, I think it's naive. I also think if someone told you to do your job for the love of it, and disregard raises/promotions/a meaningful salary, you'd laugh in their face.
It's time for major league baseball to join the 21st century. (Fat chance with the current administration...)
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.
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.
I will say that the $400,000 figure is somewhat misleading, since he'll almost certainly get some endorsement money along the way.
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.
Dice-K got over $100 million in salary + posting fee.
Dice-K received $52 million over six years, $2 million signing bonus, $6 million next year, $8 million in each of the following three seasons and $10 million in each of the final two years. The deal includes $8 million in escalators based on awards that could mean he earns $60 million over six years. It's a lot of green, but way short of $100 million.
The Seibu Lions, his former team in Japan, received $51.11 million.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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"
And if you buy the stats/scouts on Strasburg, he is a once in a generation player. There is no way he should be assuming the majority of the risk, or, more specifically, should his agent allow him too. 25 million prorated over six years is a pittiance for even a number five starter. If your scouts say he can come up and be an effective major league pitcher, pay him as such. Or keep him for a year and flip him for established prospects at a lower cost if economics is the issue. Or, don't get a deal done and keep being the Nationals.
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 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?
"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 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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
That the deal is a major-league deal structured the way it is doesn't change the main point.
You'll note that I took no exception to your opinion.
I merely corrected a completely erroneous series of statements you misrepresented as facts in support of your opinion.
1). The players drafted in the first round of the MLB draft, with very few exceptions, do not play in the majors in the year they are drafted, nor in the 2nd year or even the 3rd. Compare that to players taken in the first round of the NFL draft. Those teams generally get a player who can help you right away. That major difference has got to enter the minds and actions of MLB negotiators and why they balk at millions of $$ in baseball draftees demands.
2). You talk about weak teams being potentially thwarted by not being able to pay for top talent in the first round. Well what's revenue sharing money for? This is exactly the kind of thing revenue sharing was intended to do.
3). $15 or $20 million is small potatoes compared to $40 million paid to a thief like the American Idle--Carl Pavano.