11/05/24
August 16, 2009
Draft Pick Stephen Strasburg May Turn Down Record-Setting Contract: The Washington Nationals have until midnight Monday to sign No. 1 overall draft pick Stephen Strasburg, a San Diego State pitcher with a fastball clocked at 102 mph. They've offered the highest draft pick contract ever, beating out the $10.5 million deal Mark Prior got in 2002, but agent Scott Boras doesn't sound like it will be enough to get Strasburg's signature. Obligatory obnoxious Boras quote: "Wouldn't we all like to buy bread at a price they charged 100 years ago, a nickel a loaf, with the income we enjoy today?"
1997, J.D. Drew. 'Nuff said.
http://tinyurl.com/drew-boras
"... with the income we enjoy today?" Scottie, can you give me million or two?
posted by jjzucal at 05:40 PM on August 16, 2009
If Boras has a point, I'd love to know what it is.
Mr. Strasburg: You aren't worth what they are offering you yet. Sign the deal, prove yourself, then see if you can get more. And fire the idiot you call an agent.
posted by TheQatarian at 07:31 PM on August 16, 2009
At what point are the extra millions costing him too much in terms of his reputation? He's already got a record-breaking deal.
posted by rcade at 09:09 PM on August 16, 2009
Hopefully he becomes yet another example of a overrated, overhyped player who falls flat on his face. In this day and age, with people losing jobs and the economy in shambles, this guy who has never set foot on a major league field turns down money like this? I'd love to see him get ignored from this point forward and never get a cent unless he and his dickhead agent sign with Washington. He'll blow his arm out within a couple years anyway.
posted by dyams at 11:10 PM on August 16, 2009
Fuck you, Scott Boras. You are far more of a threat to the integrity of the game than any hand-wringing about steroids or PEDs.
On the one hand, the draft system's purpose is to prevent any one team from exploiting a financial advantage to always get first chance at all new promising talent. On the other hand, even if we disagree with it, Strasburg should have ever right to try to get the most money he can for his services. However! I think if Scott Boras wants these huge contracts, the game's rules should change to suit that. As TheQatarian notes, Strasburg hasn't thrown a single successful major league pitch, why should he get a contract that would pay him in excess of $12M up front (how much Boras is seeking isn't clear from the article), without any option by the signing team to back out of the contract if he turns out to not be worth $12M+?
I say, let him have a huge contract- but let that contract be laden with incentives and penalties that would severely punish Strasburg into virtual poverty if he doesn't live up to his promise. If anyone else in the world of business fails to meet the terms of their contract, they don't get to shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, I guess I wasn't as good as I promised". Let Strasburg take that risk, but if he's not a top-5 pitcher from day one, he should receive zero dollars, as well as he and his agent Boras being faced with punitive financial penalties in civil court for failing to keep up their end of the contract.
Because what Boras wants with these contracts is all upside, and no downside: he wants his players to get tens of millions, and even if they don't pan out the teams still have to pay. Where else in business does this happen, the signing of a contract where there's no penalty on one party to meet their end of the contract? I'd love to see the opposite: a team say to Strasburg "Eh, we'd pay you but hey attendance was down since the team didn't do well, so we can't. Tough luck... oh well, I guess we weren't as good at promoting the team as you hoped".
This isn't 1919 anymore: maybe we should bring about the return of statistic-based incentives. For those who aren't familiar, one of the suspected motivations for the Black Sox scandal in 1919 was owner Comiskey's legendary miserly treatment of his players:
Injuries reduced Cicotte to a 12-19 record in 1918, but in 1919, he rebounded to win 29 games and once again lead the league in wins, winning percentage, and innings pitched, as well as in complete games. His 1919 salary was $6,000, but he had a provision for a $10,000 bonus if he won 30 games. Legend has it that as the season drew to a close, owner Charles Comiskey ordered manager Kid Gleason to bench Cicotte, denying him a chance at a 30-win season and the bonus money.There is evidence to suggest that even if this didn't happen in 1919, it happened in 1917 when Cicotte had a similar contract and was effectively benched for two weeks when he hit 28 wins.
I'd argue the "solution" is one of several possibilities:
The non-guaranteed contract, where the team is free to sever it at any time but if they choose to employ the player, they must pay him the listed amount. A team would then simply sever the contract of any player who didn't live up to their promise, or declined too quickly in ability, or wasn't really as good as hoped. That player would be free to pursue opportunities with other teams, or the same team at a reduced payrate.
The statistic-based contract. Currently, the rules of baseball prohibit incentive based contracts based on on-field performance, with the exception of basic "health" contracts such as bonuses for plate appearances, or optional bonuses for All-Star or seasonal award votes. However, if a player signs a huge contract, shouldn't the team be free to say "We expect that over the lifetime of this contract, you will be healthy enough to play a minimum of 140 games a year, have an output average of no less than 35 homeruns and a .300 batting average, with no less than 100 games available to play, 25HR and a .280 batting average for any given year. Failure to meet these terms results in a pre-determined reduced payrate for limited performance, or the option of the team to unilaterally end the contract".
A pre-set percentage of total revenue devoted to the players. I believe the NBA has a similar function, where a % of the total revenue is defined as for salaries, and all teams have basically the same portion of that rate to spend on players however they see fit. Perhaps MLB can take it further: a union-agreed flat rate total salary for all players, and the union itself- the players- then decide how each player carves up that pie. For example, to Scott Boras' point of the game's revenues increasing to $6.5billion, perhaps the union and the league can agree that say 45% of revenues are to be spent on payroll. The union then defines the salary of each player for a 1, 2 or 3 year period per player, effectively letting the players and their union determine how the players are compensated. Instead of Boras arguing that Strasburg is worth $12+ million, Strasburg would have to convince the other 750 major league roster players that he is worth that much of the pie.
posted by hincandenza at 12:09 AM on August 17, 2009
Those types of changes would certainly be nice to see, but the real problem there is that the MLBPA is too strong. I think it's ridiculous to turn down that kind of money as well, but that's within the rules of the system right now. Maybe the Nationals can't/won't pay it, but Boras knows that someone will.
posted by bender at 07:52 AM on August 17, 2009
Mr. Strasburg: You aren't worth what they are offering you yet. Sign the deal, prove yourself, then see if you can get more. And fire the idiot you call an agent.
IMO, none of these players coming out of college are worth that much. They should all prove themselves in the pros before getting these kind of contracts. I wouldn't go as far as to say 'Fire your agent' since the agent is pretty much just looking out for his client. I do agree that rookies should prove their worth with a 2 year contract and then if they're worth the huge contract after their rookie contract expires, sign them to that long term deal.
posted by BornIcon at 08:37 AM on August 17, 2009
Fuck you, Scott Boras. You are far more of a threat to the integrity of the game than any hand-wringing about steroids or PEDs.
Of course, there's a certain amount of responsibility on the part of the owners, particularly in this case. One of the richest owners in baseball, got a free newly built stadium (that they even ceased paying rent on at one point), run their organization like a minor league team, have huge profits (>$40MM each of the last 2 years), failed to sign their first pick last year...
While Boras is the devil, the Lerners belong in hell with him.
posted by inigo2 at 10:31 AM on August 17, 2009
The non-guaranteed contract is the worst thing ever. I cannot stand how that operates in football. A player that is being underpaid has no recourse except sitting out. Players are never overpaid. It gives far too much power to the owners.
The statistic-based contract. I just don't see why this is a good idea. Statistics are based on lots of things. You don't want on-the-field actions to be affected by some contractual triggers. A player doesn't play because it will trigger a huge incentive if they hit against a struggling pitcher. No one wants to hit a sac fly because of their contracts. You don't want to go for a ball that you might not get because you might get an error.
Pre-set percentage of revenue is also in football. And, it doesn't work. Rookies get paid a higher percentage of that total than they actually deserve. Experienced players are undervalued so that rookies can still get obscene salaries.
I like how baseball works better. The simplest solution for baseball would be for teams to signal that they have difficulty working with Boras and decrease the value they place on those players based on the hassle factor of working with him. If more and more high picks are forced to sit out or fall in the draft, his ability to hold teams hostage is greatly decreased. Sitting out did not help J.D. Drew at all. He didn't get more money as a result of sitting out, so what was the point?
posted by bperk at 11:24 AM on August 17, 2009
A player that is being underpaid has no recourse except sitting out. Players are never overpaid.
A player that pretty much played for free in college shouldn't have that much power as to decide if what they're being offered by a team for being a high or number 1 draft pick, is worth signing your name on the dotted line.
Any player that's drafted should be offered a rookie minimum, and only offered more for what round they're drafted in and not for the position they play. What bothers me about the way that it's structured, a player that hasn't played a lick of pro ball can get paid more than some veteran that has already proven his mettle, just because he was a high draft pick and is speculated to be great. IMO, rookies are the ones that are overpaid for accomplishing basically nothing but getting drafted. Why would they continue to work hard when they've already been set for life?
posted by BornIcon at 12:09 PM on August 17, 2009
I think teams should be able to trade picks. That would significantly balance things out, in my opinion.
posted by inigo2 at 01:08 PM on August 17, 2009
NBA has a rookie contract system, right? I'm not that close to the league to judge but how well do the rest of you think it works? NFL does pay massively to top picks but there is somewhat of an informal system that 'slots' players based on pick number and position, with only the first three years guaranteed AFAIK.
Club soccer outside the US does not have drafts, salary caps and unproven youngsters do not get huge paydays or guaranteed contracts (not 100% sure on the last). (Of course you also have mostly the same teams at the top of the leagues year after year, changing only if rich new owners get involved.)
posted by billsaysthis at 01:47 PM on August 17, 2009
It's time to look at some numbers here. Washington's offer is for about $10.5 million per year. Since the details are unknown, let's assume this is for 5 years, or a total of $52.5 million. Let's also assume that Mr. Boras gets 10% of this up front. If the offer is rejected, and Strasburg goes back into the draft, he is immediately out $10.5 million. That also means that Mr. Boras is out $5.25 million. Boras is gambling that in a year he can get, for the sake of argument, $12.5 million per year for 5 years. This is a million dollar increase for Mr. Boras, or nearly a 20% increase in one year over what he would otherwise have gotten.
Now look at what Strasburg gets. If he waits the extra year, he winds up with $2 million more per year, but he starts over $10 million in the hole. Thus, Strasburg's ultimate payoff, in 5 years will be an increase of $10 million over what he would would have had. This is now an increase of approximately 4% per year, and is actually less than that, since Strasburg would have collected his original offer a year before the new offer runs out.
I'm sure there are some mathematicians out there who will dispute my figures, and they are probably right. I'm using assumptions and simple calculations to make my point. What I'm trying to say is that Boras, by inducing Strasburg to hold out, is not acting in the best interests of his client, but rather is acting in the best interests of Scott Boras. It is transparent to me, and should be so to anyone who can run the numbers.
The whole thing tells me that rookie salary caps need to be implemented as soon as possible in major league baseball as well as professional football. It will not be too long before veteran ball players will demand (and get) outrageously high contracts, basing their demands on what unproven draft picks receive. Only the big-market teams will be able to afford the top talent, and the small market teams will be slowly strangled. Even worse will be the effect on the moderately talented player. Because of the salary inflation for the stars, he will be forced to accept a smaller payoff. If the MLBPA is truly looking out for the interests of its members, it too will be in favor of a "slotting" method for determining rookie salaries. The situation in the NFL is worse because of the hard salary cap. Already we see teams trading out of the first round of the draft in order to take players who will be nearly as good, but will demand far less in salary. The coming labor negotiations in the NFL will be interesting, to say the least.
There's one other thing about hig salaries for baseball rookies, particularly pitchers, that Mr. Strasburg ought to consider. Many pitchers today are being rushed to the major leagues before they have truly learned to pitch. If you have 8-figures per year tied up in a player, you aren't about to leave him in the minors. The result is that the youngsters get into bad habits and often develop a fear of facing the top hitters because of their lack of the command that should have been developed over time in the minors. Being rushed to the majors before one's development is complete is a fast track to a short career.
posted by Howard_T at 02:45 PM on August 17, 2009
You're neglecting any future increases relative to the first contract. The waterfall affect on future salaries could be greater than the $10MM difference you mention. Also, it means he wouldn't be on the Nats.
Not disputing the rest of your post, but things are not that transparent. If they were, Boras wouldn't get the top players like he almost always does.
posted by inigo2 at 03:51 PM on August 17, 2009
An unproven rookie turning down a contract like that ?
Good advice, Borass.
Kid hasn't played a game and already has a tarnished reputation.
posted by cixelsyd at 04:50 PM on August 17, 2009
I hate young players trying to dictate what teams they play on. That contract is huge and if the kid doesn't sign it I hope he throws his arm out tossing a beer to one of buddies.
posted by dviking at 12:04 AM on August 18, 2009
Update: Strasburg signs. 15 mil over 4 seasons is a lot less than Boras' claim of getting 50 million in March.
posted by dfleming at 07:07 AM on August 18, 2009
Best thing he could have done is sign with the Nats.
Just listened to Jayson Stark on ESPN quoting one unnamed official from a major league team when he asked them what it's like to deal with Scott Boras. The source told him that when your in the middle of dealing with Boras, you get to the point you hate not only Boras but your own player, too.
Gotta love those agents!
posted by dyams at 08:35 AM on August 18, 2009
Kid hasn't played a game and already has a tarnished reputation.
How do you figure? If it turns out he sucks in the majors, then he'll be a laughingstock -- with $15MM. Better than being a has-been with a lot less cash.
15 mil over 4 seasons is a lot less than Boras' claim of getting 50 million in March.
It's more than some people expected/wanted the Nats to pay, though.
Gotta love those agents!
He signed, for more money than the original Nats offer, right? Sounds like Boras did his job. For Strasburg, and most of his other clients, too.
(I hate that I'm defending him..)
posted by inigo2 at 08:58 AM on August 18, 2009
inigo, I hate defending him as well, but I thought this piece at Fangraphs expressed the issue from a draftee's point of view quite well.
"Except the players have every right to be selfish in these cases. The ones who do make it to the pros and not many of any given draft class will are essentially entering indentured servitude for the first three years. Only after three years of service do players get a share of the money they've earned and potentially get a nice free agent contract. That's only for a small subset of these players, the rest are looking at their only real payday through baseball and have every right to try and get as much as possible."
posted by yerfatma at 10:06 AM on August 18, 2009
I don't mind draft picks going for as much money as they can. But I do wonder if there's a point at which the need to get a massive number costs an athlete more than it's worth. Strasburg now enters the league with a lot of people rooting for him to fail, and some Nats fans are probably sour on him as well. Does he still have the endorsement potential he would've had a week ago if he took $2 or $3 million less?
posted by rcade at 10:40 AM on August 18, 2009
trasburg now enters the league with a lot of people rooting for him to fail, and some Nats fans are probably sour on him as well.
What Nats fans? I would rather Strasburg have the money than the greedy Lerners anyway.
posted by bperk at 11:21 AM on August 18, 2009
But I do wonder if there's a point at which the need to get a massive number costs an athlete more than it's worth.
I agree completely and I think that's why Boras is overrated. The extra $3 million on your contract is worth it for him, but not you.
posted by yerfatma at 11:30 AM on August 18, 2009
Boras did his job? Representing the number one pick who throws the ball 102 mph pretty much assures both Strasburg and whatever suit he employs as an agent will make money. Lots of it. I'm just now sure how pissing people off and making a segment of the population hate your client before he's even walked into the team's clubhouse fits the "Doing your job" thing. Now there will be a large segment of observers (larger than usual) hoping he'll fail. It's when the mid-range prospects or free agents employ Boras that teams will take the opportunity, if it presents itself, to stick it up his (Boras') ass, basically doing the same to his client.
posted by dyams at 11:46 AM on August 18, 2009
Now there will be a large segment of observers (larger than usual) hoping he'll fail.
Well, if people hope he fails, he probably will. I read that in The Secret.
Note: I didn't read The Secret. It's dumb. If he succeeds, people will cheer for him and he'll get paid more, and he'll get endorsements. (And frankly, in such a crappy baseball town, he'll have endorsements regardless; he didn't hurt himself in that category.) If he fails, he already got paid, and he wouldn't have gotten endorsements regardless.
I just don't understand why people are so pissed off about him squeezing another few million out of a freaking billionaire who cleared over $40 million in profit on this stupid team last year.
posted by inigo2 at 12:13 PM on August 18, 2009
My wife requested The Secret on Netflix, thinking it was a movie. We watched the first 10 minutes in the belief it was a parody of some kind that would be explained when the movie began.
Words can't express what a beating that thing is. An endless torrent of people spewing the same idea over and over again -- positive thinking makes positive things happen. They never get around to explaining the converse, which is that bad things happen to negative people who had it coming anyway.
posted by rcade at 12:23 PM on August 18, 2009
"Except the players have every right to be selfish in these cases. The ones who do make it to the pros and not many of any given draft class will are essentially entering indentured servitude for the first three years. Only after three years of service do players get a share of the money they've earned and potentially get a nice free agent contract. That's only for a small subset of these players, the rest are looking at their only real payday through baseball and have every right to try and get as much as possible."yerfatma (I know I'm not quoting you directly, but rather something you linked), I as much as anyone believes the players should get hefty signing bonuses especially based on their draft order. But we're not talking about players signing for $2,000 and a box of crackerjacks like they might have 40 years ago; it's already the case that the bonus system as it is today ensures that most players in the top rounds will get a significant enough payday that allows for their ensured comfort even if their shoulder explodes tomorrow. Here are expected payouts this year (the only place I can find with full listings of actual signing values is behind a subscription wall at baseballamerica.com), with a total of $160M in bonuses paid out in the first 10 rounds, or an average of $500k per person. And since the league minimum is $390K, a player who makes the pros for extended stints on the roster making the league minimum for those 3 years of service will be just shy of being a millionaire when he goes to salary arbitration. That's a poor situation to label "indentured servitude"!
Why should a player who's drafted very low be guaranteed anything? Why should any of them? Lots of the more talented players well-exceed the league minimum even prior to arbitration. I don't see why the system isn't already helpful for young players. Heck, guys signed in the fifth round still get bonuses of $150-200K; that's a nest egg that would be the envy of most people 10 years their senior! That can be parlayed into a modest but comfortable home, or diverse investment portfolio, that basically ensures the player he'll not be sweating bullets even if his career doesn't pan out. Pretty sweet deal for a mostly untouted player who hasn't done anything to earn it yet.
Beyond that, though... I'm with dyams and you about Boras essentially hurting his clients with these holdouts. One of the players in dfleming's link, first-rounder Levon Washington, didn't sign- Baseball America called him one of the "big losers" in the draft, since it turns out he's also not academically eligible to play in his preferred college- so he basically can't play baseball outside of junior college, and will have to hope for the best in the 2010 draft. Good work Boras- your guy could have been an instant millionaire, and instead is just some schmuck without a contract or signing bonus. If understand things that guy is not playing with any professional guarantee for a whole year. That's a whole year where he can fall on his arm, get in an accident, strain his shoulder, etc, etc, etc. And he won't have a penny to show for it.
That won't be MLB's fault- that'll be Scott Boras' fault, and ultimately, his own fault.
posted by hincandenza at 12:45 PM on August 18, 2009
Surely Levon Washington can buy an insurance policy that would pay off if something happens to him before the next draft. He's still a first-round talent.
posted by rcade at 12:49 PM on August 18, 2009
Are you nuts, rcade? Who would sell him that insurance policy? Why would they do it? And how could he afford the premiums, since he turned down millions in cash? You don't get an insurance policy against making millions of dollars without paying premiums that you'd have to be a millionaire to afford!
Matthew Purke did the same thing, although he's not a Boras client: turned down $4 million from the Rangers because he wanted $4.7 million. Now, instead of being coached by professionals, he's spending a year in school. Good luck kid- hope you don't have arm problems.
Plenty of these guys who hold out don't actually see more money the following year. In fact... do any of them? Some end up not signing at all; Aaron Crowd was drafted by the Nationals in 2008, didn't sign, was drafted by the Royals in 2009, and didn't sign. Way to miss your first two professional seasons, dude. How much are you being paid to do nothing?
posted by hincandenza at 12:58 PM on August 18, 2009
I thought The Secret was pretty good actually. I guess you weren't so positive about the movie? Maybe it worked in reverse for you?
posted by BornIcon at 01:03 PM on August 18, 2009
Who would sell him that insurance policy?
Coastal Advisors and others as well. Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart and other first-rounders had insurance before they signed their first NFL contract. "It is rare to find potential top draft picks without million-dollar policies," the company states.
Given the earning potential of first-round picks, it wouldn't be hard to structure a deal that pays out (a) only if they never pay the sport, and (b) costs more after they sign that first deal.
posted by rcade at 01:26 PM on August 18, 2009
I guess you weren't so positive about the movie?
It's not a movie, it's an infomercial. I'd rather get trepanation than sit through the whole thing.
posted by rcade at 01:28 PM on August 18, 2009
You don't get an insurance policy against making millions of dollars without paying premiums that you'd have to be a millionaire to afford!
Sure you do, if the likelihood of not earning the millions is very low. The whole point of the insurance industry (when it's working properly) is to allow people to trade lower risk for lower profits.
posted by yerfatma at 02:10 PM on August 18, 2009
Aaron Crow was drafted by the Nationals in 2008, didn't sign, was drafted by the Royals in 2009, and didn't sign
He's exempt from the deadline. He'll sign with the Royals, just give it time. (And fwiw, he's not a Boras client.)
posted by inigo2 at 02:19 PM on August 18, 2009
It's not a movie, it's an infomercial
The Secret is a movie, if it were an informercial, it would be trying to sell you something. The only thing that The Secret sold me on, was to continue thinking positive no matter the situation or outcome.
posted by BornIcon at 03:22 PM on August 18, 2009
From the Nationals to all their fans (my brother is one):
Dear Nationals Fans:
We are absolutely thrilled to announce that we have signed Major League Baseball's 2009 Number One draft choice, Stephen Strasburg to a long-term contract. Stephen, as we are sure you know, has been widely touted as one of the best big league pitching prospects to be draft eligible in years. The big, 6-4, 220-lb. right-hander, was a consensus All-American and College Player of the Year while leading San Diego State to its first NCAA Regional berth since 1992, posting a 13-1 record with a 1.32 ERA, and averaging 16.1 strikeouts per nine innings. Last summer he also pitched for Team USA in the Beijing Summer Olympics, becoming the first collegiate member of that team since professional players were permitted to participate in the games.
Stephen Strasburg is a special talent with unlimited potential. He will be joining our other MLB Top 10 draft choice for 2009, pitcher Drew Storen, as the newest member of what we believe is one of the most interesting, and deepest staffs of young pitching prospects in all of baseball. John Lannan, Jordan Zimmermann, Craig Stammen, J.D. Martin, Ross Detwiler, Garrett Mock, Collin Balester, Shairon Martis, Sean Burnett, Tyler Clippard and now Strasburg and Storen, along with a group of other young minor league talents, promise to represent an intimidating rotation for the Nationals for years to come.
We are extremely proud of the strides the Nationals have made on the field since the 2009 All-Star break and believe some of the roster moves we've made only complement the fine young talents that have been the nucleus for our team since baseball returned to the Capital City. Adam Dunn, Josh Willingham and Nyjer Morgan have brought excitement, power, veteran leadership and respected run production to a team that already offered threats like Ryan Zimmerman, Cristian Guzman, Jesus Flores and Elijah Dukes. From the top of the batting order through the eighth spot, the Nationals now have the kind of offense that is capable of scoring runs with anyone in the National League.
The signing today of Stephen Strasburg represents, we believe, another important step towards building a winning franchise in Washington DC. He represents our commitment to building a pitching staff that can become one of the best in baseball and, coupled with our offensive weapons, should make the National Pastime in the Nation's Capital the absolutely most intriguing place to watch baseball in all of America.
We all enjoyed our recent eight-game winning streak. We believe the signing today, plus the building blocks we have been steadily assembling over the last three years, promises to make that kind of winning more frequent.
There are still plenty of major league thrills left in the 2009 season at Nationals Park. Please join us as we encourage the new young stars of NatsTown as they grow into some of the brightest talents in the game. You'll want to say you were there at the beginning.
The Lerner Family and the Washington Nationals Baseball Club
posted by justgary at 03:27 PM on August 18, 2009
The first 20 minutes of The Secret are on YouTube. No matter how much I think about the film disappearing from existence, it's still there.
posted by rcade at 04:02 PM on August 18, 2009
should make the National Pastime in the Nation's Capital the absolutely most intriguing place to watch baseball in all of America.
Well, I guess the Lerners have read The Secret.
posted by inigo2 at 04:38 PM on August 18, 2009
Well, I hate to disagree with the wise minds assembled here, and sorry for being late to the party...but I think the anger directed at Boras and Strasburg in advance of this signing was completely unwarranted, even more so since Strasburg signed for much less than some speculated it would require.
Inigo2 is absolutely correct - Ted Lerner is a billionaire; since when do we start feeling sorry for him based on a $15m financial outlay? In general, I don't understand the tendency of sports fans to side with the billionaires against the millionaires. If my team drafts a player universally considered one of the finest to come out of college in decades, and the mind-bogglingly wealthy owner refuses to pay fair value for him because it would unacceptably cut into his annual profits, I know who I am going to blame in that situation.
Nor do I buy the argument that high player salaries translates to gouging the fans. Does the NFL, with extremely owner-centric salary policies, price tickets at $5 a pop? Nope, I didn't think so.
I don't agree at all with the argument that Strasburg should have to "prove himself" in the pros before earning a $15 million contract. Strasburg played his entire junior season under a microscope, with dozens of professional and amateur scouts tracking every pitch. I know I set up a Google Alert to follow his season, and I'm just a schmo. I'd say he did pretty well in that yearlong audition: 109 IP, 16ER, 195K, 19BB, .172 BAA and a no-hitter.
The fact that he was facing college hitters is irrelevant given how good those numbers are, along with best-in-a-generation scouting reports. Let's look at this in a real-world context for a moment. If you recieve a promotion, and have performed exceptionally well in the subordinate role in a manner that abundantly qualifies you for the promotion, wouldn't you expect to be paid in a manner concomitant with your new position? Or should you get paid the same salary until you "prove yourself"? Why do people have expectations of professional athletes, whose livelihood is far less stable than most other professions, that they would never impose upon themselves?
This is an excellent article that references the average value for various types of prospects, based on statistical analysis. Top 10 pitching prospects are valued by this analysis at $15.2 million. Since we know that Strasburg is considered by every knowledgeable observer to be an exceptional pitching prospect, with ridiculous stuff, control and the stats to back it up, I think it's fair to say that the payday he got was fully reasonable.
Finally, I'm sure I am alone here, but I'm going to stick up for Scott Boras. History clearly shows that when his client wants max money, he holds out for max money. When his client wants to get paid but also wants to get a deal done, he blusters and ultimately does a deal. So much was made of how Boras' influence over Strasburg, Ackley and Tate would allow him to blow up the draft for his own nefarious purposes. Instead, he got all three signed to reasonable deals that would give them financial security, even in a situation in which they had limited leverage. Scott Boras is just doing his job, and I for one have no problem with that.
posted by Venicemenace at 05:16 PM on August 18, 2009
Wow, Venice, that was a great argument for Boras. I guess I just hold a grudge because of the J.D. Drew thing, but maybe I will rethink it.
posted by bperk at 09:38 AM on August 19, 2009
As much as I hate Boras, he's kind of got a point here.