With the draft comes never ending radio hits, many of the surprise variety when they call and want you on right then and there. When one talks about the draft on the radio with a national perspective, nearly all of the discussion revolves around Stephen Strasburg, and now that he’s been selected, all of the talk revolves around money. I’m sticking with my prediction of a $8-10 million bonus as part of a total package worth $20-30 million, and when I bring that up, hosts, listeners and others tend to just absolutely lose their mind, as if that’s the most insane thing they’ve ever heard. Yes, it’s two or three times the biggest bonus in draft history, but something changed in my mind yesterday about how much that really is, when taken into context.
Just so you know, I don’t really do other sports, especially football. I can name maybe 20 NFL players. I watch the Super Bowl, mostly for the ads, I couldn’t name the last three Super Bowl winners if my life depended on it, and I have no idea who this year’s National Champion was. But I’m watching baseball highlights on ESPN the other day and on the ticker at the bottom, it flashes that the New York Jets have signed their first-round pick to a $50 million deal, of which $28 million is guaranteed. Talking to somebody who follows the game, I learn that this guy is not the first pick in the draft, or even the first guy at his position selected this year, yet anything close to anything someone would describe as historical.
And yet, nobody blinks an eye.
Look, let’s say something weird happened over the next 72 hours, and Strasburg was found to be not a U.S. citizen but from Sweden or something, and therefore an international player and a free agent. Start the bidding . . . where do you think it ends? If you’re below $100 million, you’re nuts. What he’ll eventually sign for is a ton of money in relation to previous draft bonuses ONLY. In reality, it’s a bargain, in terms of both baseball itself and in relation to what incoming talent costs in other sports.
Something to consider... In the NFL, a top draft pick has an exceptionally high percentage of starting the year after being drafted. The NBA is a bit less so, but most are starters the season after being drafted.
Baseball is a different animal, as you well know. The jump from collegiate or pro is an exceptional reach. Some high picks never make the show.
Now, all that said, I think you can put an egg timer on when Strasburg gets called up (read: Sept.). The only way I can see him being held back is to keep him from being arb eligible as early as possible.
So, it's the mindset, not in practice with Strasburg. After all, it seems fair to say that there would be a feeding frenzy to pick him up at 6/$30M if he were on the FA market.
I did consider that, but isn't the fact the Strasburg is big league ready mack that irrelevant? Also, don't many QBs, even the really good ones, hold a clipboard for a year?
Is there an incentive for the Nationals to send Strasburg to the major leagues immediately? They just went through a GM change.. it'd make sense for him to spend a year in the minors to monitor his workload while the Nationals regroup a bit. Also, some think the Nationals should trade Strasburg to restock their farm system. He's more likely to retain his value if he spends a year in the minors.
Well, a persistent theme among the nay-sayers that I've read is that it is not clear that Strasburg IS "big-league ready." They point to guys like David Clyde and Brien Taylor as evidence that there is more to being "big-league ready" than breaking 100 on the gun. (Of course, they miss the point that there's a huge talent gap between Strasburg on the one hand, and Clyde and Taylor on the other, but at least they're consistent about it.)
Personally, I'm an agnostic on this one, although I will say that the writers who are clucking about the size of the demand generally don't seem to have done their homework (e.g. by looking at Clyde's and Taylor's "careers" before their #1 selection) to see just how special Strasburg really is. Question, Kevin, that you might already have researched: what are the relative attrition rates for #1 overall selections in MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL drafts?
What's driving me nuts about all the David Clyde comparisons is that Clyde was 18 when he jumped to the majors, Strasburg is 21 - and Clyde was going directly from high school, while Strasburg has 3 years of college under his belt.
Taylor was also a high school product and never played in the majors, so that's a really distant comparison.
My only quibble with Kevin's analysis is that it seems that NFL contracts are usually front-loaded simply because so many players have short careers in the NFL, due (I would guess )to injury.
That Jets QB he mentioned may have a 28 million guaranteed contract, yes - but that may be the only money he ever makes in the NFL.
I think, though, that abolishing the draft and letting every player name his price would have no impact on "competitive balance" or anything like that - but it would make all this draft analysis and roundtables obsolete. And where's the fun in that?
Not just starting, but being an impact starting player. I forget the bonuses given to Ryan and Flacco before last season, but given their success I don't think any fan was complaining after both QBs led their teams to playoff berths.
Even if Strasburg were to come up to the majors this year and stick there through next season, it's unlikely his presence alone would mean a playoff spot for the nationals.
There are a number of things wrong with the NFL draft and the bonuses/guaranteed money handed out to rookies, but the ability for one player to change the team is what separates it from the MLB.
Not to diminish the accomplishments of Flacco and Ryan but the Ravens had a spectacular defense while the Falcons greatly improved their skill position players (drafted Roddy White, signed Michael Turner). So I don't think you can simply say the improvement of each team was 100% correlated with the arrival of a new QB - rather, the entire *roster* got better.
If Strasburg were an international player, richer teams than the Nationals would be involved and the competition itself would drive up the price.
Also, unlike football (Tomlinson) or even basketball (LeBron James), one baseball player can not entirely turn a franchise around.
Finally, echoing what Maury said, Strasburg would begin his career in the minor leagues and might be injured (TINSTAPP) before he even gets to the majors.
An NFL running back has never entirely turned a franchise around -- Tomlinson included. The only position with enough leverage even to make this possible is quarterback.
Barry Bonds was one of the most dominating players ever yet the Giants only got to the World Series once and the Giants reached the playoffs a scant few times more.
Barry Bonds was one of the few players who really does make a franchise difference. While the Giants only reached the world series once they were nearly always in the playoff race and made the playoffs 4 times. For the crazy, monster, dominating Bonds of the 2000s the Giants usually had a team that without Bonds was below average. But with Bonds they were in the playoff hunt and/or in the playoffs.
That is team changing and that is hugely worth while.
But it takes a player of Bonds skill in baseball to do that, and you still need an around average team around them. The problem for the Nationals is they don't have an average team to add the star player to.
For perspective the Giants between 1993 and 2007 (I.e., the Bonds years) were 1253-1100 which works out to winning around 86.25 wins a year. During that same 15 year period Bonds was worth, on average, a shade over 9 WARP a year. Remove Bonds and you are looking at 77 wins a year with a replacement left fielder. And "average" left fielder instead gets you around .500. During the 15 years Bonds was on the Giants the Giants averaged missing the playoffs by less than 4 games.
I agree that Bonds was one of the few players who makes a franchise difference. I just don't know if that kind of franchise-changing talent is available in a pitcher, especially in this era of 5 man rotations and 6 inning starts. Steve Carlton comes to my mind as a dominant pitcher who didn't ensure that the Phillies were a winning team every year.
Last year the consensus two best international players (Portillo and Ynoa) signed with the Padres and A's. Those are small-market teams with small budgets. This year's comparable, Sano, will go to probably Pittsburgh or St. Louis. The Yankees have no interest.
As much as Moneyball has been misinterpreted and misunderstood, I'm loathe to say this, but my take on MB was that small-market teams have to win by being more productive around the margins - scouting diligently, signing international talent, identifying players to fill certain roles, the value of efficiency.
Of course, the Padres and A's haven't won any World Series in a long time, so maybe they're doing it wrong...
Although with baseball you can also draft a guy a lot earlier than in the NFL. Not specifically with Strasburg, but you can draft high schoolers. So while you get a guy a few years from the Majors, you get them at a younger age.
That, and I'd point out that rookie QBs often don't start right away, and when they do they don't tend to perform too well.
To be fair Goodell is pushing for a slotting system for rookies in the next collective bargaining agreement, so its not like the outcry is limited to baseball.
I like how this article harkens back to the great reasonable days of 1998 -- all I see is a decade-old draft where the guys the mention all got more that the biggest baseball draft deal ever.
I'd like to point out that baseball contracts are guaranteed, for the most part, while football contracts are not. This does dampen the enthusiasm for huge long-term contracts in general, especially for untested players.
One thing I haven't seen in all the numbers floated is how many arb years the Nats will be buying out with a $20-$30m deal. Would that cover all six years the Nats have control over him, or less than that. Seems like 6/$30m is not a completely unreasonable price, though 4/$30m + $30m more for two arb years is a bit more outrageous, though only realized if he's a pitcher who can command that kind of arbitration result.
There are no guarantees. Since he's making the news for the wrong reasons, wasn't Ryan Leaf considered the better prospect going into his draft over Peyton Manning? If I recall, San Diego gave up a lot of picks to move up one spot to guarantee themselves the rights to negotiate for his services. And then in those negotiations gave him a lot of money (I vaguely recall something about the largest signing bonus ever given to a rookie at the time).
The problem isn't the money, the problem is Bud Selig can't market his game. Rather then dwell on the enormous talent of Strasburg, he'd rather comment on how the sky is falling because he'll get so much money.
Forgive me if I'm wrong about the Manning/Leaf debate of 11 years ago, but it sounded at the time like there was no consensus on those two. There were plenty of people saying that Manning would be better and just as many saying that Leaf would be better. My "gut feeling" after watching both of them play on TV was that Leaf would be better, he seemed to be physically better than Manning. That taught me that I shouldn't listen to my gut feeling about things.
Manning had impeccable credentials, started for four years and won three bowl games. Leaf was the equivalent of a toolsy outfielder: big arm, rose quickly behind one great year but was very inaccurate.
I completely agree that it was divided and that draft taught me that I should stick to baseball.
However, the Leaf/Manning issue doesn't fall just to the amateur talent. Eric Chavez was a Proven Veteran who got himself a larger contract than what Strasburg got, was that a better guarantee of future performance?
Well, that's just hindsight and cherry-picking an example. Chavez might not have been a perfect player but he was one of the top players at third base and a Gold Glove third baseman. He did have a bit of a platoon split but looked to be as good a bet as anyone to perform up to (and beyond) his contract. The difference between someone like Chavez and Strasburg is Chavez had shown multiple years of production at the major league level and Strasburg hadn't.
If I want to cherrypick counter examples, then teams should skip the amateur draft and staff their roster off of the Rule V draft with the likes of Joakim Soria, Josh Hamilton, etc since players available in that draft would have a minor league track record to base decisions on.
Anyway, the overall point is just because some major league contracts turn out bad does not mean they are less guaranteed to work out than amateur draft contracts.
This will be a real test for the Nats brain trust. can they sign him for big bucks, then intelligently monitor his workload for 5 years or so? It's gotta be hard to be paying a guy bazillions and only pitch him 150 innings or so.
from the sound of things, it sounds like Strasberg should start the year at least in AA, if not AAA. He'll get a major league look this year. Next year he could easily start the year in the majors. That's pretty equivalent to an NFL draft pick who starts in the majors. Other than quarterbacks, most first round picks become instant starters. But those that don't are still kept on the roster, but that's more because rosters have depth in them. A major league team keeps its depth in their minor league system.
So, the equivalent is this: Majors == NFL starters. AAA = NFL backups. AA = NFL 3rd stringers and fringe, A+ = taxi squad. A and below = College ball
Basically, yeah, it's an anti-labor thing, mixed with a jealousy thing, mixed with a nostalgia thing with a side of recognizing that football players are extremely likely to have major health problems for the rest of their life while baseball players aren't.
Plus let's be clear: baseball doesn't bring in the TV ratings or ad dollars that football does.
Next time, ask your interviewer how much Bill Gates or Steve Jobs would have been worth if a computer company could have drafted them before their professional careers started.
You know what, I'd love to see this in the auto industry right now. You could have a draft of all the executives/engineers/etc from all the American car companys... but maybe Ford holds out hope, and pays a record fee for a Japanese car maker's top engineer?
I'm not sure if this would help or hurt the car industry, but it sure might be amusing to watch the talking heads collectively explode over this.
Gates and Jobs each had plenty of help, from all their workers. They just made sure they got all the $$$$$$$$$, which is much of what they're really famous for.
Microsoft was constructed in good part on the backs of the 'Perma-Temps', who were massively taken advantage of. Once the government forced Gates to treat them like the permanent workers they really were, Microsoft kept just about all of them on at their new, higher salaries. If Gates had paid them fairly from the getgo, with the result being him being only the 50th richest man in the world rather than the richest, he'd be about 1/50th as famous as he is now.
Um, Gates and Jobs took existing ideas and advertised them on a wider scale. DOS, the Windows/Macintosh interfaces etc were invented by other people but Gates and Jobs saw their potential and worked hard to push them. It's not like they were sitting around doing nothing.
Who said they were sitting around doing nothing? Gates, Jobs and plenty of additional people within Microsoft and Macintosh saw their potential and worked on them. Including all the 'Perma-Temps'. Just all those additional get no credit for their efforts. That's just life. That's how it goes. Riding high in April. In May it snows.
It's all jealousy plain and simple. People can still visualize themselves playing baseball, even as ridiculous as that may be. And it's easy to say "I love the game; I'd do it for nothing" when in fact you are a million miles away from any sort of relevant conversation about getting paid to do it.
Whereas most people simply do not visualize themselves playing professional football.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
Strasburg will be badly overpaid just as all professional athletes are badly overpaid just as all (US, at least) professional sports teams are badly overcompensated.
These are monopolies, moreover unregulated monopolies, moreover friggin' subsidized monopolies. They use their monopoly advantage to rip us off, in addition to which we subsidize them with taxpayer dollars. So my sister-in-law who couldn't care less about pro basketball still funnels some dollars over to the Milwaukee Bucks and into Herb Kohl's pockets. Of course some part of that largesse will then make its way into the employees' pockets. Such as Strasburg et.al.
You're absolutely (mostly) right... and I'm tired of having this argument with people. It just gets so old, and it's a forever losing battle when most of the talking heads in the MSM promote that same mantra.
I don't know what's worse, that in the years (and years and years) I've been reading BP, that I can't tell if they're still part of the solution, or becoming part of the problem anymore.
That's just it, it's not part of a market system. Monopolies override market mechanisms, dampen supply so as to set a price above what would otherwise be a market-clearing price.
Which is only the minor half of the battle. The primary one being my taxpaying sister-in-law financially supporting the Milwaukee Bucks despite not giving a hoot about them. GIVEN that money stolen from her, well then of course the players should share in that ill-gotten largesse. Which also still means they're badly overpaid compared to what they would get in a real, honest-to-God, nonmonopoly unsubsidized marketplace.
What would the additional revenue be for the extra fans that would go see the phenom? I do not know, but that extra revenue plus whatever PR boost is obtained is a deduct from his price. Washington needs something to pick up their mojo, this kid could be it. Pay the boy.
I'd think it'd be marginal compared to a position player. Strasburg will pitch in about 30 games a year and half of Strasburg's starts would most likely be on the road. Also, if he ends up being the "ace" of the staff, he'll face off against a lot of other #1 starters who will have better offensive support, so he might end up with a lot of losses.
It's not just about ticket sales, though. I imagine that for at least 30 games the Nats RSN (if they have one) or the company who carries their games will have ratings spikes, and that translates into real advertising or TV contract revenue. Plus, it's not far-fetched to think that Strasburg jerseys will immediately be among the highest jersey sales, and certainly the highest for the Nats. He'll have an economic impact far beyond the people who show up to his games.
The argument that NBA and NFL draftees make a smaller jump to the ceiling of their sport is a good one. But I still cant see how individual baseball players come close to individual players of other sports in terms of per-player value.
In football and baseball, the highest-paid players are at key positions, like Tom Brady or Kobe Bryant. They add value to every game because they usually play every game, and because they can be involved in a greater percentage of plays within each game. A coach can throw lots of passes, or give Kobe the ball as much as he wants it.
Starting pitchers add value roughly once every 5 games. Batters come to the plate once every 9 times. Those can't be changed. No matter how you look at it, I can't see how someone can justify a single baseball player being worth anything close to that of an NFL player, let alone an NBA player. No matter how talented a baseball player is, his talent can't be leveraged like it could be in other sports.
In the NFL and NBA, individuals are part of a cohesive unit. The weakest link in the chain is often exposed. If a defensive lineman is too small, teams take advantage of that by running at him on every play. If a center can't guard Dwight Howard, he gets the ball down low every time. You don't have that kind of control in baseball, which means you can't tell the Red Sox to hit every ball to the left of Derek Jeter.
In the NBA in particular, with only 5 guys on the team, having just one single impact player like Kobe or Lebron is often difference enough. As Barry Bonds has shown though, there is no such mirror-equivalent for baseball. Steve Carlton was The Bomb in 1972, and the Phillies still managed to come in dead last.
NFL and NBA key-position players get more money because they're more valuable to their teams on a game-by-game basis. That doesn't mean other rookie athletes aren't overpaid or overrated, or that the NFL doesn't need a slotting system (it does), but it could explain why high-impact rookies get more $ than baseball players.
Actually the NFL and MLB drafts are more similiar than one might think. Both uses a slotting system to establish bonuses and pay scale. The numbers are just different by an order of magnitude.
The NFL players take a hit on the back end (no guaranteed contracts) while most MLB draftees defer their payday for 6 years.
In regards to the Manning/Leaf debate, they were many that believed Leaf was the “way to go,” over Manning despite Leaf having had exactly ONE decent year versus Manning having succeeded as a 3-year starter in (at the time) the toughest conference in college football.
With a large portion of the detractors coming from the San Diego area, one can only imagine the effect this type of episode could have on say, the younger sibling of the player receiving the negative attention, if he too became a viable option for that team in the future.
In regards to the Strasburg story, what I find most bothersome is the sheer ignorance on display by so many sportswriters as to why signing or drafting him at all would be such a mistake. I have also grown miserable listening to the clowns that persist in comparing Strasburg’s situation to that of Ben McDonald and Mark Prior. In short, there is none.
In terms of contract misconceptions, Alex Smith was the #1 pick in the 2005 NFL draft. Smith signed a six-year $49.5M dollar deal, with $24M in guaranteed money. He currently has a career record of 11-19 and will need to compete for his starting job in the upcoming season.
This is not an indictment on Smith, but the logic that the NFL has a better understanding of talent evaluation and that their pay scale somehow reflects this, while ignoring the work knowledgeable front office staffs put into building an entire ballclub.
The only thing more ludicrous than comparing Strasburg to past pitchers that didn’t pan out is the notion that the money spent to sign him should be spent on filling out the rotation or other roster spots.
What?
Since when is the MLB draft used in that manner and furthermore, why on earth would one utilize a player draft in a fashion to sign anything other than the best player available?
Requesting that one’s front office engages in such rampant jackassery is the type of behavior that leads you to start Austin Kearns over Elijah Dukes on the opening day roster.
I don't think drafting and signing him is a mistake, but I do think the Nationals should trade him to rebuild their farm system. It is rare that the "next big thing" ends up being "the next big thing", especially where pitching is concerned. So, I'm of the opinion that he should be stashed in the minors for a year then traded while his value is high, rather than expose him to the major leagues where he might be overworked or overexposed.
That's a fine idea, except.... MLB Teams are not allowed to trade draft picks and are also not allowed to trade drafted players for 1 year after they've been drafted. They are also not allowed to trade the rights to a draft but unsigned player.
Well, one of the reasons I love baseball so much is because we as fans are the biggest whiner babies in all professional sports. No hardcore football, hockey, or basketball fan cries as much as even the moderate baseball fan. In baseball, everyone has their opinion and everyone chimes in to pile on. I don't get it, but I love it.
How does the level of competition a typical USA high school or college draftee faces compare to similar-aged international prospects from various countries like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, etc. Do the latter often participate in the Caribbean Winter League, or maybe the Pan-Am games?
Going one step further, I'd suggest that the Nats sign him ASAP and get him into the stadium now. They might make $30 M on him this year (tix, concess, parking, march) if he's decent.
I think the relevant difference here is that the NFL has a salary cap, so the teams think they're spending less on players, and these bonuses aren't limited by the cap.
MLB holds the line on bonuses because they have other unlimited costs.
62 comments have been left for this post.
Kevin,
Something to consider... In the NFL, a top draft pick has an exceptionally high percentage of starting the year after being drafted. The NBA is a bit less so, but most are starters the season after being drafted.
Baseball is a different animal, as you well know. The jump from collegiate or pro is an exceptional reach. Some high picks never make the show.
Now, all that said, I think you can put an egg timer on when Strasburg gets called up (read: Sept.). The only way I can see him being held back is to keep him from being arb eligible as early as possible.
So, it's the mindset, not in practice with Strasburg. After all, it seems fair to say that there would be a feeding frenzy to pick him up at 6/$30M if he were on the FA market.
I did consider that, but isn't the fact the Strasburg is big league ready mack that irrelevant? Also, don't many QBs, even the really good ones, hold a clipboard for a year?
Is there an incentive for the Nationals to send Strasburg to the major leagues immediately? They just went through a GM change.. it'd make sense for him to spend a year in the minors to monitor his workload while the Nationals regroup a bit. Also, some think the Nationals should trade Strasburg to restock their farm system. He's more likely to retain his value if he spends a year in the minors.
Well, a persistent theme among the nay-sayers that I've read is that it is not clear that Strasburg IS "big-league ready." They point to guys like David Clyde and Brien Taylor as evidence that there is more to being "big-league ready" than breaking 100 on the gun. (Of course, they miss the point that there's a huge talent gap between Strasburg on the one hand, and Clyde and Taylor on the other, but at least they're consistent about it.)
Personally, I'm an agnostic on this one, although I will say that the writers who are clucking about the size of the demand generally don't seem to have done their homework (e.g. by looking at Clyde's and Taylor's "careers" before their #1 selection) to see just how special Strasburg really is. Question, Kevin, that you might already have researched: what are the relative attrition rates for #1 overall selections in MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL drafts?
Don't forget the hazards of bar fights in your analysis of Taylor. Who knows how he might've turned out ...
What's driving me nuts about all the David Clyde comparisons is that Clyde was 18 when he jumped to the majors, Strasburg is 21 - and Clyde was going directly from high school, while Strasburg has 3 years of college under his belt.
Taylor was also a high school product and never played in the majors, so that's a really distant comparison.
My only quibble with Kevin's analysis is that it seems that NFL contracts are usually front-loaded simply because so many players have short careers in the NFL, due (I would guess )to injury.
That Jets QB he mentioned may have a 28 million guaranteed contract, yes - but that may be the only money he ever makes in the NFL.
I think, though, that abolishing the draft and letting every player name his price would have no impact on "competitive balance" or anything like that - but it would make all this draft analysis and roundtables obsolete. And where's the fun in that?
Not just starting, but being an impact starting player. I forget the bonuses given to Ryan and Flacco before last season, but given their success I don't think any fan was complaining after both QBs led their teams to playoff berths.
Even if Strasburg were to come up to the majors this year and stick there through next season, it's unlikely his presence alone would mean a playoff spot for the nationals.
There are a number of things wrong with the NFL draft and the bonuses/guaranteed money handed out to rookies, but the ability for one player to change the team is what separates it from the MLB.
Not to diminish the accomplishments of Flacco and Ryan but the Ravens had a spectacular defense while the Falcons greatly improved their skill position players (drafted Roddy White, signed Michael Turner). So I don't think you can simply say the improvement of each team was 100% correlated with the arrival of a new QB - rather, the entire *roster* got better.
With the Nationals, the problem they have is that you've basically got Adam Dunn, Nick Johnson, Ryan Zimmerman, Jordan Zimmerman and Elijah Dukes on the major league roster. Albert Pujols couldn't make that team a contender.
i don't think the nationals' problem is that they have dunn, johnson, zimmerman squared, and dukes on the roster.
I think the idea was that's ALL they've got.
Roddy White was in his fourth season and had caught 83 balls for over 1200 yards in 2007.
That said, your point is perfectly reasonable, and I have no problem with people not paying much attention to football.
Most first-rounders in the NFL start, yes, but most are not really ready. Also, Strassburg is as close to MLB ready as a pick gets.
Dice-K is a good comparison money-wise. The Sox committed about $106 million (about half of which was paid to his Japanese club).