Q. Jarrod Washburn and Richie Sexson were paid stars money. Neither move worked out very well for the Mariners.
This city, over the last ten years, has conditioned us to call a signing a "big contract" in circumstances that are a little different from those that New York or Boston would call big contracts. :- )
Sexson and Beltre were more towards what I’m talking about with “Star” money, but ... Jarrod Washburn? By the time Washburn signed, a 4-year deal for $10MM per was Civic money. The Mariners chose Washburn and Silva for $10MM to $12MM apiece, as opposed to choosing a Santana type and pairing him up with a Ryan Rowland-Smith to form a $20MM All-Star / Rookie combo.
Washburn, Silva and Batista became the epitome of choosing NOT to sign stars like Mussina, Schilling, DiceK and Sabathia.
When I’m talking about giving Star money to a core group of 4-5 players, I’m, like, talking about guys who make the All-Star team. It’s a good rule of thumb. :- )
.
=== Let's Isolate the Variable Dept. ===
Richie Sexson, BTW, had two very productive seasons for the Mariners. First, a 144 OPS+, and then, a 34-homer, 107-RBI season.
It is a very open question whether Safeco grinds down and demoralizes right-hand hitters. What Richie Sexson's (or Mike Cameron's, or a lot of people's) arc would have been without Safeco is an open question.
I know that you guys can track a pattern that is as transparent as this: 144, 117, 84. And during that 3rd season, Sexson's BABIP was .217. Is this one really that tough to decipher?
Is the Grand Lesson Of Richie:
1. Never sign anybody to 4 x $14M. It's too much money, or
2. If you're going to bring hitters into Safeco for a period of years, make them left-handed, or
3. Maybe a "sample size" of one is a bit modest
I dunno. Help me out here.
..............
At the same time, if the Mariners are going to follow the blog-o-sphere's example and yell, "RICHIE SEXSON!" every time they talk about anybody better than Chris Shelton or the Indians' #4 outfielder, it's going to be a loooooong decade. :- )
How 'bout we yell "Randy Johnson!" every time the M's pass on a big contract? Will the acoustics cancel?
Kind of like that whoo---OOOP? .... WHOOO----ooop! the crowd does when a guy warms up in the pen. You guys yell Sexson, I'll yell Randy.
His first contract with the M’s, Gillick signed Bret Boone to a one- (1-) year deal for $3MM. That is almost the *quintessential* example of Gillick’s ability to get incredible value out of non-star money.
Boone then finished what, top-5 in MVP voting in the first healthy steroid year, and got a 3-, 4-year extension at 35% of ARod money, less than half of what Delgado was getting at the time, 50% of Manny’s money, etc.
............
The Mariners went after Miguel Tejada hard -- by their standards -- and when they offered him a grand total of $45MM, they proudly posted on their website that they had made "the biggest offer in team history." This was at a time when the offer was 20% of the industry-setting contract.
.
=== Tag-Team WWF Matches Dept. ===
We are definitely not communicating with respect to Stars & Scrubs roster strategy. :- )
With a "Star," we're talking about somebody picked in the first four or five rounds in a roto draft -- a player of relatively guaranteed high production. We're talking about somebody legitimately on the All-Star team, somebody who will be paired with a rookie, as a choice in lieu of two Jarrod Washburn-tier players.
Adam Dunn is not going to be a "Star," either. You can get two Adam Dunns for the price of one Mark Teixeira and Jeff Clement. That is the choice: do you want two Dunns, or one Tex and one blue-chip rookie? Seattle always chooses the two Dunns -- or the three Johjimas -- reasoning that this defers the risk.
No, it's Stars & Scrubs that defers the risk. Because you can replace the weaker half of the pair! You couldn't replace either Washburn or Silva last year: you were committed to them.
And, because a genuine star -- an Erik Bedard or a Daisuke Matsuzaka -- is not going to show you the kind of season that Miguel Batista showed you last season.
Betting into a legit All-Star, and pairing him with "The Field" of your younger players, produces many fewer Batista-Washburn-Silva scenarios than we got last year.
...............
I'm not saying that the Mariners have to set the market, but I am saying that when you are talking about your core, franchise players, you should get players who are not question marks.
Cheers,
jemanji
I am just thankful that we do not need to find a starting pitcher this winter. We have 2 stars (Felix, Bedard), 3 Civics (Washburn, Silva, and Batista), and 2 promising "rookies" (Morrow and RRS). I just wish we could offer Bedard an incentive-laden contract for 3 years. In addition, we could include language that, if traded, he would be headed toward Toronto.
If you consider the situation rationally from a market perspective, you would expect that great players -- truly great players like Albert Pujols -- would be a bargain, because a very limited number of teams have a $200M contract in them and not all of them need a 1st baseman the moment a good one comes up for bid. The problem is that they are a tremendous risk, because even the Griffey's of the world don't always work out as expected.
What I think is missed with respect to the risk, is that if a great player becomes oft injured or less productive than expected -- say Randy Johnson for much of his Yankees deal -- he is still an asset. All deals carry risk. When Randy finally aged, instead of getting a #1 starter the Yankees got a #3 starter. When Silva tanked, the M's got a AAAA starting pitcher. It's one thing to overpay and get a Civic when you thought you were buying a Lexus, but if you overpay when you thought you were buying a Civic...Now you have to deal with the ego and entitlement. I mean, Randy still deserved the ball every five days when he was healthy. Silva should have been in long relief, but that is a total mess, likely to blow up in your face in a manner that has you eating his salary, cutting his sorry behind, and then seeing him winning games for a team like Toronto.
Kelly,
The problem when you narrow the range of "star" to the inner circle HOF types like Randy Johnson or Albert Pujols is that maybe one or two of them hit the market at the same time. It is almost impossible to build a team with those players based on how rarely they become available. When expand the definition of star to include guys like Barry Zito or AJ Burnett in a world where players are signed for the better part of a decade you get your head ripped off.
Doc-
Bret Boone came in on a Civic contract but he absolutely got paid star money to stay a Mariner.
Washburn is a similar situation. When he was signed, the baseball world gasped because the Mariners paid TOR money for Washburn. Only because Washburn is a MOR talent did the pitching market go so bonkers in favor of starting pitching. The M's didn't throw chump change at Wash and as a result every agent in baseball said "If Washburn can get that kind of money my pitcher is worth at least that". It was not a situation where the Mariners paid Washburn the market rate. They set a new market, unintentionally, because they overvalued Washburn.
++ The problem when you narrow the range of “star” to the inner circle HOF types like Randy Johnson or Albert Pujols is that maybe one or two of them hit the market at the same time. ++
Inner circle HOF ?!?
How about just guys on the All-Star team. :- /
Sexson certainly meets your criteria as a "star" at the time of his acquisition.
He had been on two AS teams, finished 12th in MVP voting, and had posted 127, 128 and 140 OPS+ figures in his three full seasons prior to acquisition.
Beltre was a harder sell. He had no AS games, and just the one Silver Slugger Award (and 2nd in MVP vote) during his career year. With 3 sub-100 OPS+ years prior to his 163 his "profile" was much higher risk than Sexson.
In truth, the ONLY variable that really distinguished the two at the time of acquisition would be age. The age-25 breakout for Beltre made his career year at least somewhat plausible as a sign of things to come. But Sexson had the deeper, more productive and more consistent data pool.
In truth, from my perspective, the "successful" Stars & Scrubs teams are NOT the ones who went out and "bought" their Stars -- they are ones who developed their stars and then paid them accordingly.
The ones going the FA route to Stardom, from my review of data, seem to end up needing to buy 3 or 4 or 5 "stars" before they get over the hump. (I am excluding the teams that do the 1/2 year rental on a star - and then don't bother re-sign them).
Mo Vaughn did NOT put the Mets over the top in 2002.
Burnitz and Glavine didn't put them over in 2003.
Pedro and Beltran didn't do it in 2005.
Delgado and Wagner and Shawn Green were added in 2006 - and FINALLY they made the playoffs.
One could argue the point about stars or Civics on individual cases -- but the general pattern holds true with many different clubs. The "typical" result of star ACQUISITION is that while one star can move you in the right direction, you then need to acquire 3-4 MORE stars to get you the rest of the way. I believe that this is related to the fact that if you are BUYING stars - then you are not MAKING stars - and the ability to plug the other holes is therefore compromised.
In short - I think you CAN afford to pay stars "star" money, *IF* you developed them -- because it demonstrates a trait you already possess to develop more. If you buy one -- then you can quickly create a self-fulfilling prophecy - that they ONLY way to complete your task is to go and buy some more.
++One could argue the point about stars or Civics on individual cases — but the general pattern holds true with many different clubs. The “typical” result of star ACQUISITION is that while one star can move you in the right direction, you then need to acquire 3-4 MORE stars to get you the rest of the way. I believe that this is related to the fact that if you are BUYING stars - then you are not MAKING stars - and the ability to plug the other holes is therefore compromised.++
Yup, this is why I don't like the idea of bringing in guys like Tex or Dunn. Not that they aren't good players, but rather they aren't special enough to aquire as that second or third piece. Right now in the championship pieces department the M's have: Felix, Bedard, Beltre and two possiblys in Ichiro and Morrow. Beltre and Bedard could be gone next year so unless you feel the team has a pretty good shot at winning this year, it's probably not the time to be loading up on players who aren't cornerstones of a championship team.
As good as Dunn and Teixeira are, it is not that difficult to find production at the position they play for pretty cheap. If either player takes a step backwards (not even a huge step) they lose most of their value. It's not the time to be locking into those guys for the next 5-8 years.
++In short - I think you CAN afford to pay stars “star” money, *IF* you developed them — because it demonstrates a trait you already possess to develop more. If you buy one — then you can quickly create a self-fulfilling prophecy - that they ONLY way to complete your task is to go and buy some more.++
If you are going to the free agent to build a team, I don't think that story will end well. To find the final piece of the puzzle... well it would be foolish to not pay for those free agents. Timing is everything.
Regarding Sexson, IMO we learned that low contact rate sluggers don't age well.
Agreed that the M's have never signed a top tier superstar asides from Beltre (who came with some question marks about his career year).
taro,
Sorry, but I don't think we learned anything from Sexson other than Sexson didn't age well.
Now, if you want to go find 9 comparable low-conact sluggers who lost 60 points of OPS at age 32, (without finding 9 who didn't), and then you might have a case for your conclusion. Me? I keep finding players who lose 25-40 points of OPS at the time, REGARDLESS of hitting style.
The bbref comps are sometimes screwy - but I find Sexson's REALLY interesting - especially the way they drift as he aged.
From 24-26 -- Albert Belle, (Belle posted a 142 OPS+ at age 32, and was done in by injury and psyche the following season, (while still posting a 109 in his final campaign).
27 - Carlos Delgado -- At age 28, Delgado COMPLETELY altered his K/BB ratio, then returned to his former profile in 2005!!! (Hey, didn't they start testing for steroids in 2004?) Has posted 131, 103, and 127 OPS+ figures from age 34-36.
28 - McGriff -- very strange comp at first blush, since thru age 28, Crime Dog was clearly a better overall hitter. But, after his 157 OPS+ age-30 season, McGriff dropped to 119s and below for most of the next 10 years. Another player who lost 40 points of OPS.
29 - Lee May -- perhaps the best Sexson comp around. Was a 130+ producer thru age 29. Then 117, 109, 111. The interesting thing to note here is that, yes - May's skills declined at age 30. But at 31, he had a MAJOR reduction in his K-rate. He managed to adjust his game and kept churning out 110 seasons until age 36, and was still playing at 39.
30 - David Ortiz -- my favorite comp. Ortiz didn't BECOME a good player until age 27. This is one of those bbref comps that just makes you want to shake your head and go "huh?" Then again, at age 32, Ortiz saw his OPS+ drop to 123. Does this mean we're gonna see an 84 out of Ortiz in 2009?
============
This is NOT about low-contact sluggers -- or high-walk speedsters -- or no-K-at-any-cost singles hitters. This is about a simple reality. After the age of 30, players decline. *ALL* players. What nobody knows, is by how much. From age 23-28, Ken Griffey Junior was lauded as the absolute LOCK to break Ruth's HR record. After posting 150-170 OPS+ figures for a decade, why shouldn't they? Then, at age 29, what happens?
139, 133, 124, 103 -- that's his OPS+ figures from age 29-32. This was a lock Hall of Fame player. Does he meet the standard of low-contact slugger? I don't know. But his OPS swooned by about 40 points from what he'd done in his 20s.
There is no magic potion (now that they actually test for it), that can prevent aging. It happens. It happens to "almost" every player. Is it possible to find examples of guys who defy the age arc? Sure. But there is only *ONE* category they fall into -- they *ADJUSTED* to the inevitable results of aging. And they often do it in different ways. Early career average and speed guys, (Aaron / Bonds) retasked themselves to focus more on HRs. Other types of guys altered their swings -- or changed their patience -- or started working out for the first time ever.
Oh, I suspect there are some genetic profiles that age slower than others. But hitter type is not JUST about genetics. It's also about mindset. It's not just what CAN you do? It's what are you WILLING to do?
Michael Jordan was not the greatest NBA player of our generation because he was the greatest athlete. He aged, just like other NBA players. But, he had an unquenchable desire to be the best -- to push HIMSELF to new heights, even as his body was winding down. After becoming the best at driving to the hoop - he started working on his 3-point shot. After getting a solid perimeter game, he bulked up to improve his rebounding - and to combat the fatigue of a long season.
Ibanez was an incredible addition for the club under Bavasi. But that does NOT tell me that we've learned the secret to successfully playing the FA market is to go and acquire journeyman OFs who didn't play full-time until they were 30. And it certainly doesn't tell me that we need to be looking for 31-year-old OFs coming off 103 OPS+ seasons is the secret "tell" of a hidden gem. It *MAY* tell me that Seattle's ability to identify potential was DRASTICALLY superior to their ability to allow a player to reach that potential. It may tell me that if the Ms want to pick up a player who can thrive, go after guys who struggled and left - and bring them back in. (Is Gil Meche REALLY the next guy to lead become the franchise player?)
Ultimately, it's incredibly dangerous to read too much into the results from ONE player. This is especially true if doing so absolves the organization of any responsibility beyond the SELECTION of said player.
Hey Sandy,
I agree, it just seems that the higher contact guys last longer.
For instance in comping Tex to Dunn, just looking at their contact rates I'd expect both of them to "start" declining at around the same age, but for Tex to maintain his value for a longer period of time, with Dunn falling off a little quicker. I don't know that for sure, but the odds seem to be with the higher contact guy.
Course its just one variable and there are tons of other things that need to be taken into consideration.