How To Run A Baseball Team, Part 3
Offer Arbitration, Not Contracts
This is regarding departing free agents who have been designated as a Type A or B free agent by the Elias Sports Bureau. Also, this does not apply to established stars, because either you have the money to extend their contracts, or you don’t, and you should’ve traded them by now.
When I see a team like the Twins give a 3/24 contract to an average player like Mike Cuddyer only to buy out one year of free agency, it makes me a little sick. Michael Cuddyer is filler. Cuddyer, for whatever reason (I know, big 2006) is comfortably ranked as a Type A player. This means that if he simply maintains this level of play for two years - reasonable to expect from a 28-year-old - he has a good change of being a Type A player, and thus worth two first round picks. Even as a type B player he would be worth a first-round pick. Can you honestly say that one extra year of Michael Cuddyer is worth more than the $8.5m he will be paid in that extra year AND at least one first round pick?
Moves like this are usually fueled by a lack of talent in your organization able to replace the lost player. That is an issue. However, the way to rectify that issue is NOT to overpay for mediocrity. Then you just have two issues. If you are not going to compete, then you’re wasting money. If you do plan on competing, and your hopes rest on Michael Cuddyer, you should change those plans.
The worst thing that can happen to you is that a player can accept arbitration and you have him for one more year at a reasonable price, able to try again next year.
This is not meant to demean Michael Cuddyer or any other average baseball player; an average player is a very valuable commodity. However, a team needs to know just how valuable a player is to you, and this is an example of a team failing to do that.
Draft Talent, Not Situation
Except in rare situations, the key to every draft pick is to get the best player, period, regardless of position or even contract demands - worries that a player is determined to go back to school are completely legitimate.
The only situation in which you may target need over talent with a couple of picks is if you’re in a situation like the Brewers, who hold 7 of the top 100 picks, when it may be worthwhile to allocate a pick or two to fill a specific need. However, that’s where you get into trouble. In a given draft, how do you expect to be able to predict your needs even 2-3 down the road if you take a college player? I can’t imagine a team being foolish enough to pick a high school player for need, so I’ll leave that alone.
What if, before Carlos Pena’s breakout, the Rays reached for a college first baseman seeing that they didn’t have much in the system, and then two years later Carl Crawford blows out his knee or demands a trade? You reached for a mediocre player at a position you no longer need, while a position that has turned into a need goes unfilled. Also, even if the best available player is at a position you already have, what’s the worst that could happen? You have a talent surplus. Oh no. Just because you have a problem at a position doesn’t mean you should exacerbate it by going after lesser talent.
As for signability - if you refuse to shell out $6m for a premier prospect like Matt Wieters and then shell out tens of millions for mediocre or simply bad players such as Jason Marquis, Carlos Silva or Juan Pierre, then your priorities are simply out of whack. If a player is demanding a major league contract, like Rick Porcello did, then you can re-evaluate. Otherwise, you simply must spend a few million dollars to acquire the tremendously valuable asset that a top prospect is.
If you're new here, subscribe to my blog through RSS or Email. Thanks for visiting!
Related posts
Comments
Comments »
Subscribe
No comments yet.