While Roy Oswalt has limited himself somewhat with his geographical requirements, the one year deal that he seems certain to sign will still be below market value for a pitcher of his quality. Oswalt isn't the only free agent who's seen his stock drop as the offseason has progressed. Ryan Madson also settled on a one year deal for only $8.5 million after seeing two pitchers of whom he's better than (Heath Bell and Jonathan Papelbon) get more years and a higher AAV. Edwin Jackson is on par with Mark Buehrle and C.J. Wilson talent wise, and saw them get four and five years deals with a 14.5 and 15.4 AAV respectively. Jackson seemed to be an afterthought though, and was forced to sign a one year deal with the Nationals.
The Ryan Madson and Edwin Jackson deals have been praised by people following the free agent market because of the low dollar amounts, and because of the lack of risk associated with a one year deal. Meanwhile, clubs like the Phillies, who spend big at the beginning of the offseason, have seemed to hamper their clubs. After guaranteeing $50 million to a closer, and a two year deal to a fourth outfielder, the Phillies seemed to try to dump a little bit of salary by trading Wilson Valdez to the Reds.
We've seen the Rockies spend money in free agency, but they spent early, had to trade away their closer to cut payroll, and before they took on Marco Scutaro, seemed to have just made their team older in the process. Their deal for Michael Cuddyer, who at this point is nothing more than a platoon corner player, is a textbook bad contract. He was never an elite player, is already showing signs of decline, and is cashing in on a past version of himself.
And let't not even get into the Dodgers handing out two year deals to bench players like it's a new market inefficiency.
So what should teams do? How should they attack free agency and play the market? Well, there's no one answer, but we can at least outline some guidelines. We can try to identify things that have held up not only this season, but in past seasons with the hope it holds up in the future.
Let's start with the top of the free agent market. If your resources allow, superstar players are the type of players that you should get. Elite players usually age better than average regulars, making them safer. But safe is a relative term, and so is superstar. For "safe," let's define it as a player who's projected to outperform his salary for most of the deal, just simply going by dollars/WAR. If he ages and declines towards the end, it can often be worth it, especially if he helps a franchise win a championship, or string together a few playoff runs. When we define a superstar player, I think of a perennial MVP candidate, and a player who has a broad array of skills. One who projects to age more gracefully than others, without a sharp drop off in his mid-thirties.
Albert Pujols, as the best player of his generation, is the perfect example. He does everything on the field well, and a drop off in any one skill wouldn't be the end of his career. It's important to look at the small things too; Pujols is an above average fielder, and an above average baserunner. Not being a liability on defense or the base paths is what gives Pujols the ceiling which is higher than a similar hitter like Prince Fielder, who is limited by both defense and speed. While Pujols' best days are probably behind him, it's not fair to profile him as being in full decline, because it would have been impossible for him to continue putting up numbers like he did the past decade.
Another reason why the top echelon of players is attractive is because of their age. Most of them break into the league in their early twenties, and a good amount of them hit free agency while they're still in their twenties. Signing them while they're still below 30 gives their new club more of their prime years and less of their decline years of the mid to late thirties. Good-but-not-great players tend to hit free agency in their early thirties, meaning that they have no prime years left, and are generally already on the downslope of their careers.
A second guideline we can establish is that relief pitchers shouldn't get big contracts, and the save statistic should be banished. I believe a kitten dies every time a relief pitcher gets $10 million in AAV or a 3+ year deal. This year, the market was flush with relief pitchers. After the Phillies went out and gave Papelbon $50 million, Heath Bell got $27, then Francisco Rodriguez filed for arbitration and got $8 million, and then finally Ryan Madson singed for $8.5 million. See a trend there? In a buyers market, like relief pitching this offseason, the first player to sign usually gets overpaid because a club wants to get "their guy." As the market thins, with suitors disappearing faster than players, their asking price goes down, and there are bargains to be had.
A third rule to follow has to do with the backend of the roster. I think that a lot of teams sign players to serve as their utility infielder, fourth outfielder, or backend starter when they have a suitable option in their organization. They sign an aging veteran though, who's "proven" at the Major League level, and pay for that piece of mind when they shouldn't.
The Dodgers have done a lot of this earlier in the offseason, giving multiyear deals to players who should spend most of the year on the bench. Although the Dodgers are counting on Mark Ellis and Juan Rivera to be starters, most respectable organizations view players of this caliber as reserves only.
When filling up the back of a roster, team's should wait until after the new year has passed, and players can be picked up on the cheap. I think that team's fall in love with a player, and go after him aggressively. This usually results in an overpay, when there are other players who are just like him on the market. Using the Dodgers as an example again, instead of committing $22 million to Chris Capuano and Aaron Harang in December, they could have gotten Jeff Francis on the cheap, and then retained Hiroki Kuroda. They would have been a better team, and saved about $10 million.
All of these strategies would help organizations spend their money more wisely. Teams playing in the market early in the offseason should be chasing the perennial all-star players, while disregarding the rest of the market. They need to analyze the players that they are getting more thoroughly, and stop seeing average players as more than they are. At the back end of the roster, they need to stop becoming attached to individual players, and see the market as having tiers. If they're looking into a tier with a lot of players, they can wait until a few suitors have been eliminated, and the players are desperate for a job. This usually comes after the new year has passed, and guy start to worry about whether or not they'll have a job next season.
Many of the big market clubs (the Yankees and Red Sox), have been standing pat, trying to actually lower their payroll to get below the luxury tax threshold before the new stipulation kicks in before the 2014 season. This hasn't been the case in recent years, but looks to be something that the big spenders will respect going forward. We could see more teams following their lead as their payrolls increase, and we approach 2014.
While I would like it if the team I rooted fro had the resources to be a bigger player in the market, I'm glad that I don't have to worry about them making any large commitments that would squeeze them in the future. They've improved the roster without spending big money. Teams like the Reds, Rays, Nationals, and Blue Jays have done this as well. While teams like the Phillies, Dodgers, and Marlins have managed to spend a lot of money, but not made their teams abundantly better.
No comments:
Post a Comment