Aaron Craft lies with Huell, NBA jersey ads, Mark Sanchez and The Killers… While We’re Waiting
March 21, 2014Could the Browns go O-Line with the No. 4 pick?
March 21, 2014It’s a popular opinion to dislike the Dolan family for their ownership of the Cleveland Indians. Ever since purchasing the team in 2000, they’ve been characterized as cheapskates unable to consistently afford to compete in the non-salary cap landscape of Major League Baseball.
Last night’s news that Justin Masterson negotiations have ended for the spring certainly didn’t help that narrative. Per the reports, the team’s ace had been eager to sign a short-term deal to stay in Cleveland after narrowly avoiding arbitration for a final time. Now, it appears he’ll at least test the open markets this winter.
Despite the popular opinions, there actually might be some logic to what the Indians might (or might not) be doing with this maneuver. There might be sound reason for hesitation with Masterson’s reported three-year $52 million offer. Let’s explore some reasons why.
***
|
Some MLB franchises have unlimited spending abilities; others do not. In an ideal world, the financial playing field would be completely even, and that includes separated massive TV dollars that are greatly benefiting teams like the Dodgers and Orioles. In such a market, a professional sports team in Cleveland will usually never be able to spend with the New Yorks and Los Angeleses. It’s not sustainable. It might not be fair, but that doesn’t make it logical to always spend more.
On Opening Day 2013, the Indians were scheduled to pay $80.6 million on player salaries, per the great Cot’s Baseball Contracts resource website. For 2014, they’re projected to spend about the exact same, albeit slightly less. Here’s a breakdown of those dollars, which should almost be 100% set:
The changes are pretty significant from last season, actually, despite the fairly similar final numbers. Gone are the $20.3M that were set to be paid to Chris Perez, Mark Reynolds (later cut) and Brett Myers (later cut). Nick Swisher and Michael Bourn alone received $10.5M in scheduled pay increases. Asdrubal Cabrera, Justin Masterson and Carlos Santana all got some pretty big raises too.
But salary dollars don’t exist in a vacuum. That’s a given. Most teams likely (should) think about payroll within three-year windows or other such rotating frames of moderate flexibility. So how does the team’s 2015 look so far? Well, we know that the $10M owed to Cabrera will be off the books. And Masterson’s $9.76M is up in the air. How about everything else?
Even with losing the nearly $20M in those two possible free agents, the team’s salary is only about $4M less. With these projections, I’m estimating about $15M in internal increases. The bulk of those increases are due to arbitration ticks for Santana, Jason Kipnis and Michael Brantley. Those are looming long-term financial topics that will continue to bump up the salary figures.
That leaves the Indians at a presumed base of about $76M for 2015. Will they be able to jump all the way up to the $92-96M range? Should they? Should just three players (Swisher, Bourn and Masterson) account for about half of the payroll? These are difficult questions to answer. To properly answer them, any organization should require teams of analysts, scouts and contract experts. Any rational owner would require crystal clear rationale for increasing payroll so drastically.
Obviously, prospect superstar Francisco Lindor should join the fold at a minimum price in 2015, taking over Cabrera’s lofty salary. A replacement will be needed for Jason Giambi’s occasional playing time. And other changes will certainly occur because roster turnover is normal.
But before even evaluating the fairness of $17M annually for Justin Masterson, can the Indians actually do such a deal? It’s likely their maximum for 2015 Opening Day player salaries will increase and be more than $86M, almost regardless. That might be inevitable. But anything much more than that could be a bit too much too soon with other increases on the long-term horizon as well.
***
Fangraphs’ Dave Cameron wrote two weeks ago about this exact topic. His article title: “Is Justin Masterson actually being benevolent?” The conclusion:
“The value to the Indians here probably isn’t the total cost, but instead, the chance to get that fourth year on a team option. Even if Masterson simply agreed to sign for 3/$45M with no option, it’s not clear that this is a large enough discount for a mid-revenue team like the Indians to take the risk of doing the deal a year ahead of time. After all, the Indians aren’t a team that can afford to buy a ton of market priced wins, and so to take on the risk of his 2014 health and performance, they should get a real discount over what Masterson would be expected to get as a free agent.”
As many have done, Cameron compared the negotiations to Cincinnati’s recent deal with Homer Bailey, who is one year younger. Bailey also was scheduled to be a free agent at the end of 2014. He received a five-year $90 million base deal with a $5M buyout or a $25M sixth year team option. But just because Masterson’s offer seems like a deal in comparison, does that necessarily make it a good one?
For his major league career, the Jamaican/Texan actually has a perfectly average 100 ERA+. Overall, he’s been average. Of course, average is valuable. Specifically, Masterson has had two very good seasons – he produced 4.1 bWAR in 2011 and 3.4 bWAR in 2013. But in all of his other remaining career seasons (about three full starter years), he’s contributed only 3.5 bWAR. He’s a valuable pitcher, but not necessarily that valuable. He’s not really an ace, even with the arbitrary connotations of that title.
The average market value of a free agent win is about $6-8 million, based on calculations. So yes, if Masterson can produce 7.5 WAR for his age 30-32 seasons, then an overall $52M valuation seems fair per the market norms. Risk is somewhat high because he’ll be getting older, he’s been an inconsistent year-to-year performer and we don’t know what 2014 might bring. The upside isn’t necessarily that high. Overall, it’s fair.
This isn’t to say that Masterson might provide some type of marginal value for the Indians, who might need his extra 2.5 WAR annually to bridge the gap from fringe mediocrity to legitimate contender. He also might provide even more value to the team’s clubhouse than any possible replacement. This was a point that was well stated by Wahoos on First’s Ed Caroll.
But the Indians are in no set pressure to reach a deal on Masterson’s terms this spring. They control the board. They’ll try again after the season. And if the likelihood of a deal isn’t high, they’ll be able to use the team-friendly trump card: the dreaded one-year qualifying offer. Ubaldo Jimenez and Scott Kazmir likely each were worth the one-year $14.1 million offer this past season. They only offered it to Jimenez. In return, they tagged him with draft pick compensation, hurting his free market value.
The qualifying offer will likely be a tad bit more next offseason. As long as it exists within the framework of free agency, however, teams still should use it to control their own players. And the Indians would be foolish not to if negotiations are looking sour again with Justin Masterson.
***
Justin Masterson’s reported offer is fair. There’s no dancing around that fact. It’s somewhat rare for a starter in his prime to be so upfront about his desire to stay with a small-market team during his free agency seasons. Is it appreciated by the team? Maybe. The media politicking might a strategic tactic used by the player’s camp for reasons unknown. And that might be because the team has shared the deal isn’t necessarily that good.
The Indians can compete in 2014 and play this situation by ear for the next six months. If the complementary talents do not develop quick enough, it might not make as much sense to invest as heavily in Masterson’s 2015-17 seasons. But if Danny Salazar can be an actual ace, Corey Kluber can produce a full season of No. 2-caliber stuff and others thrive? Then Masterson might be more expendable than fans all first thought. And that might just be OK.
—
Photo: AP Photo/Tony Dejak
107 Comments
This is one of the crazier things you’ve said. So you’re saying the Indians need to pay any player if the announcers or team spoke highly of him?
If Masterson pitches like he did in 2012, he will have trouble finding a job at a pay rate comparable to what he is making this year. Fausto Carmona put up a ERA+ of 78 last year. Masteron’s 2012 was a 79.
C’mon man don’t make me have to take another “break” from this place you know exactly what I meant. Regardless Masterson is the Indians best pitcher and would like a raise. If the Indians can’t/don’t want to pay him that’s their choice like I said Masterson will have no problems finding another team. The more important question is who will the Indians find to replace Masterson at a Kmart salary level?
Salazar, Kluber. Bauer still has a shot.
Again, I don’t see Masterson being guaranteed work next year. No pitcher is. As for who the Indians will get to fill his spot (if it comes to that), I don’t know. If they can afford Masterson and are just refusing to pay him, they can take that $50M to get another similar pitcher at fair market value.
Yes Masterson is far from reliable kinda why I always said he wasn’t a #1. That being said it’s MLB and there are plenty of teams who will take a risk and pay him. Nature of the beast. Personally I’m hoping Clayton Kershaw self destructs the Dodgers deserve it kinda like when they thought the deal they got from the Red Sox was such a steal. It was except it for the Red Sox.
Amen on the tradeability of the contracts. That’s been my favorite part of the Swisher and Bourn deals – we can likely unload them in a hurry if necessary.
Cody Anderson too.
No, we don’t have the depth to just lose three SP in two years and plug-and-play from our minor league system. Most teams don’t (maybe STL and TB?). That’s why the front office gets paid. I’m sure they will find answers else where if they don’t sign Masterson. Seriously, Antonetti has done very well for this club since he took over. Even the much maligned Jimenez deal ended up a win for this club. Have a little faith!
Way to hedge kind of hard to debate any of it except short of blowing his arm out or completely going up in flames I say Masterson finds work next year.
It’s MLB no such thing as fair market value.
I’m just saying… a year ago at this time, none of us really wanted him. He’s a ML pitcher so yeah, he’ll be able to find some kind of deal. But it’ll be in the Fausto $5M range vs. the $50M+ he’s asking for now.
“It’s MLB no such thing as fair market value.”
For small markets, this may be the most astute point you’ve made today. But that doesn’t mean that MLB teams should have to pay the going rate.
A lot of this is moot if the young rotation continues to develop. If Salazar and Kluber end up being a legit rotation anchors, we know where we’ll need to invest future dollars (and it won’t be with Masterson). I get a lot of the worry about “letting him get away,” but people disregarding what a monumental investment this would be are ignoring the nature of this franchise – that would be more than 20% of potential payroll for the whole team.
Thanks for keeping score so what’s my +/- so far?
Anyways of course it doesn’t mean they have to pay the going rate it’s up to each individual team all I’m saying is you want to win in this era of MLB you better be willing to spend but spend wisely. Not like the teams who can throw money away but like the model franchise who should be emulated by teams like the Indians: St. Louis. They have money, they aren’t poor but they sure as heck can draft and develop players like no one else. The Indians drafting is slowly getting better but they are still haunted by all of those bad years.
People have heard this argument before – the investment part – and are tired of it. That’s why they have a hard time filling their stadium regardless.
It’s the truth though. Times we missed on major investments (Westbrook, Hafner, Sizemore) killed this franchise for years. Not liking the answer doesn’t make it any less correct.
“you better be willing to spend ”
If only we could all root for a big market team like Boston.
Yeah, I’d like to be St. Louis too in the drafting, but it’s a bit more difficult than just “draft like the Cardinals”.
Doesn’t matter if people dislike it or are tired of it, it’s practical and it’s very, very real. I know it’s fun to spend rich people’s money for them, but the fact of the matter is that there’s a budget (again, like it or not), and they need to weigh their options in a way that is deemed most appropriate.
Well that’s poor decision making not like that’s an unfamiliar story line with Cleveland sports these days. But say they don’t “invest” or pay Masterson what makes you think they will decide wisely in who/how they use his savings or that they will even spend $50M over however many years they may have paid Masterson? You want my guess. They won’t spend $50M instead they may spend $20M and spread it around for guys who are either past their prime or coming off bad years or worse injury. They’ll pocket the rest and pray that the young arms can carry them. Until those young arms want to get paid of course.
“what makes you think they will decide wisely in who/how they use his savings ”
They’re using his savings to pay Swisher, Bourn, to extend Santana, Brantley, and very likely Kipnis.
I’m fine with how they’re reallocating dollars that would go to Masterson.
No once upon a time sports fans cared about winning not how it was done or how much it cost. It’s the Cleveland syndrome where people have had it beaten into their brains largely by the Indians that you can’t win unless you spend. They use it in a way of reverse psychology. Don’t blame us we’re a small market team owned by a cost conscience family in a ballpark that is now aging in a city that has suffered an economic downturn but don’t look at our decision making, don’t look at our drafting etc etc etc. It’ll never change.
My view had nothing to do with Boston but thank you for reminding me, again.
What makes you think signing Masterson is not a poor decision? Again, TERRIBLE 2012. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn’t, but to call it a no-brainer like some people are is just wrong.
Once upon a time, people thought putting leeches on would help if you were sick. Sometimes we learn that there’s a lot more we need to figure out.
And this team is a small market, the ballpark is aging, the economy of Cleveland is in a bad spot. Those things are all true. And no one has said not to look at their drafting.
Your view looks like it’s completely covered by a big market perspective. So yes, I think it has a lot do with Boston.
I may not like the reality I live in, but accepting it and enjoying it for what it is seems like a better option than lying to myself. The Indians are poor. It sucks. We can’t retain all the guys I wish we could. C’est la vie!
Of course they should get the best deal they can but Masterson will be paid one way or the other if it’s the Indians or not. I will repeat what I’ve already said I never viewed him as an ace or #1 he just happens to be because the Indians don’t currently have an alternative. Who’s fault is that, is it Masterson’s?
Me hungry, me go eat. Ciao!
Sorry Steve your wrong. My view is about winning, period. Regardless if it means spending every dollar these millionaire and billionaire owners have who for them sports are a toy.
Well this team did give Swish and Bourn $28 million combined for the next few years. Would I have rather given $17 million of that to Masterson? Given the dearth of pitching talent in MLB and in the Indians’ farm system, absolutely.
You are one of the more honest posters no doubt.
LoL b careful where you put your leeches Steven!
I fully expect Masterson to be supplanted by Salazar as our #1. Ace is such a generic, made-up term anyway. It doesn’t mean jack except on opening day and in the playoffs. And when we did make it to the playoffs, we started Salazar (granted, JM was coming off injury). Worth noting that UJ and DS both had better ERA+ than Masterson last season.
“sports are a toy”
Unless you are the one paying the bills. Then it becomes a business.
Fair enough. I’d rather have the guys who play every day.
But like I said earlier, when we signed Swish and Bourn, we knew what we were getting with them while, at the time, Masterson looked more like a bust. It’s hindsight bias and unfair. The Indians couldn’t have known that Masterson would pitch well in 2013 and then offer them a fair market deal the following spring.
Also like I said, if we don’t have Swish and/or Bourn, we don’t make the playoffs last year. And we’re in it to win it, right?
I’d say we have more pitching than outfield bats right now.
The abusurdity is that you’re saying fans don’t want the team to win. Of course they do – it’s not a syndrome, it’s called rationality. Fans want owners to spend whatever, but it’s not exactly a newsflash to know that isn’t going to happen. So, given the reality that is presented, people try to find a way to win within that framework. It’s nice to think that if we wish really hard the owners will spend $200 million on payroll – you can live in that world I guess. But, I’m not going to sit here and pretend that it’s going to happen. I’m going to use my brain to try and see what the most logical and *realistic* path is for this franchise to succeed. In this world. The one in front of us – not the world you want it to be.
Larry Dolan was too poor to buy an NFL team. He’s only ridiculously wealthy, not uber ridiculously wealthy. Kind of wish I lived in the alternate reality where he was allowed to purchase the Browns.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/sports/baseball-a-dolan-agrees-to-purchase-the-indians-for-320-million.html
Also, sports (especially baseball) have always been about owner’s making money. Was no golden age.
“You go through The Sporting News for the last 100 years, and you will find two things are always true. You never have enough pitching, and nobody ever made money.” – Donald Fehr, executive director, MLBPA
All I’ve got is honesty.
I don’t remember ever saying the fans don’t want the team to win. Other then that you make some good points. Hope it works out for you my sports world did a year ago. Went from seeing/hearing/listening to the Red Sox being skewered for not only their play but the deal with LA to a WS trophy. The last laugh is always the best even in MY WORLD!
It’s overrated!!! 😉
“There’s a real possibility that there will be no market for the guy in 2015.”
Really? Maybe if he has TJ surgery but isn’t the much realer possibility that he signs for Bailey money or more?
Yes, that was a bit of a stretch. Barring disaster, he will get paid more in one year than I will make in my entire life.
But he has never put two quality years together. He’s one year removed from a Fausto Carmona-esque season. He is still plagued by bad LHB splits.
Personally, I don’t think either extreme ($5M/yr vs. HB deal) is likely. I think Bailey was an overpay and I also think he’s a better pitcher than Masterson.
All of which is to repeat my main thesis: Masterson may very well be excellent going forward, but to say this rumored offer is a no-brainer, slam dunk is wrong. There are very real reasons to be bearish on him.
And I should clarify – I want to see us get a deal done with Masterson and I hope he can pitch for us over the next 3-4 years (as well as he 2013 too). If we do get him at around 3yr/$50M, I’d be okay with that. But if we don’t, if the front office balks at that for reasons not apparent to me, that’s fine too. I have faith in Shapiro and Antonetti.
He made the quote about spending being linked to attendance in approximately the Jason Michaels era. I’m hardly the only one to read it and remember. I’ll try to find a link.
Unless he goes gangbusters this year, I could see Masterson in the same boat Santana/Lohse/Ubaldo found themselves in (and, I suspect THIS is why he and his agent went on the offensive with this offer).
Salazar or Kluber, at least in 2015.
You seem to be against the team, regardless of what they do or don’t do.
I’m sure he’s said something about spending being tied to revenues. That’s business 101. You can’t spend more than you make. But they’ve most certainly outlayed some extra spending when the expect to contend, and hope for bigger attendance numbers.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but, the Red Sox are something we could all hope to have – smart analytics AND money to burn. It seems we may only have one.
If our other starters step up to the plate, or I guess the rubber, consider shopping Masterson for young upsides from someone making a playoff push. I think that’s where the Indians can find their long-term value from Masterson. Imagine swapping him for 2 or 3 potential Danny Salazars, yum.