MLBTR Poll: The Astros Scandal
It’s a rather ugly day for baseball, even if we saw it coming. The Astros’ video-aided sign-stealing effort had already been laid bare by video evidence. But all the underlying facts weren’t known. And it was far from clear how commissioner Rob Manfred would handle the punishment.
As it turns out, the Houston organization was hit with a $5MM fine (the maximum permissible) and the loss of four top draft choices. General manager Jeff Luhnow and manager A.J. Hinch were each suspended for a year. The team subsequently fired both men. Then-bench coach and current Red Sox manager Alex Cora also seems likely to be punished, though his precise comeuppance has yet to be determined pending an investigation into the Boston organization.
For full details on the team punishments, click here. In brief: Manfred found that a 2017 scheme to convey signs to batters in real-time “was, with the exception of Cora, player-driven and player-executed.” An ensuing effort “to decode signs using the center field camera was originated and executed by lower-level baseball operations employees working in conjunction with Astros players and Cora.” Punishing players was deemed “impractical given the large number of players involved, and the fact that many of those players now play for other Clubs.” That wasn’t the only reasoning, though. More relevant, Manfred said, was the fact that GMs and managers are made “responsible for ensuring that the players both understand the rules and adhere to them.”
So, our first poll question: was the assessment of a fine and taking of four top draft choices an appropriate punishment for the organization? Some around the game weren’t satisfied, but how do you see it? (Poll link for app users; response order randomized.)
Did Manfred Issue The Right Punishment To Astros?
-
Too light 49% (13,289)
-
On the mark 43% (11,711)
-
Too heavy 9% (2,390)
Total votes: 27,390
While he declined to pursue players — beyond the factors he noted, there’d have been major labor-relations implications and complications under the CBA — Manfred did still find that individual punishment was warranted for those in a position of added responsibility. Specifically, Luhnow and Hinch received personal punishment. (Cora, an active participant, presumably will as well.) Manfred did not find any reason to discipline or chastise Crane personally. To the contrary, he specifically cleared the owner of culpability. Evidently, the oversight responsibility concepts that undergirded the punishment of Hinch and (especially) Luhnow did not extend past the baseball operations department.
Whether there was any coordination or exchange of information between the league and the Astros regarding the firing of those two leaders is not known. But the team’s subsequent action certainly added quite some heft to the total blow that landed. For full details on the firings, click here.
Luhnow disclaimed any knowledge of the schemes, though the report indicates he likely had some level of awareness of the team’s 2018 efforts. His statement cited the report’s reference to lower-level employee and player responsibility, though he also acknowledged and accepted his own failure of oversight. Luhnow was punished because he “failed to take any adequate steps to ensure that his Club was in compliance with the rules.” Manfred also blasted the culture that Luhnow created in the baseball operations department, a characterization that Crane disputed.
Ultimately, Luhnow was suspended for one year and dismissed from his position. Fair? (Poll link for app users; response order randomized.)
Did Luhnow Get What He Deserved?
-
On the mark 54% (10,430)
-
Too light 33% (6,294)
-
Too heavy 13% (2,466)
Total votes: 19,190
As for Hinch, the circumstances were somewhat different. He was unquestionably aware that the sign-stealing efforts were ongoing and acknowledged as much in his statement. While he is said to have disagreed and at times even attempted to interfere with the stratagem, Hinch obviously did not utilize his authority or avail himself of the available means of halting the effort. In his statement after today’s outcome, he apologized for that failure.
Like the GM, Hinch received a one-year ban and ended up canned. Was this a just outcome? (Poll link for app users; response order randomized.)
Did Hinch Get What He Deserved?
-
On the mark 48% (9,744)
-
Too light 38% (7,733)
-
Too heavy 13% (2,718)
Total votes: 20,195
Context For The 2020 Arbitration Class
The just-finished flurry of arbitration news settled a bunch of price points. Some are reasonably notable; many were already largely anticipated and accounted for. More than ever before, the deals were closely fought (is it me or did they used to settle at rounder numbers?) and closely held (heaven forbid anyone learn anything any second before absolutely necessary). But at the end of the day, quite a few hit the books.
But what of the unfinished negotiations — those that did not come to resolution? I’m going to endeavor to give some context to the slate of arb-eligible players who’ve exchanged figures with their respective teams.
As you may have heard, or picked up from following along for some time, the arbitration process has evolved quite rapidly over the past several years. Once upon a time, there weren’t many hearings at all. There weren’t any in 2013 and we had only a few piddling disputes to be heard in 2014. The action picked up quite a bit in the ensuing winter, as 14 cases went to hearings — some for a decent bit of coin. But things went back on ice in 2016, when there were four hearings, none with more than $550K at stake.
Teams and players exchanged figures plenty often in those days. There were typically more than thirty unresolved cases when the mid-January deadline rolled around. And, clearly, some cases did go to hearings. But for most teams, there was a willingness to continue a dialogue well past the exchange of figures. In many situations, the exchange of figures was just a step towards a negotiated resolution.
The “file and trial” concept certainly existed in those days, but the majority of teams didn’t employ it. Now, it’s functionally universal. Many clubs will keep talking, but most will only do so if it involves future seasons beyond the one subject to the upcoming hearing.
Let’s take a closer look at the recent numbers to see this in action. After the dust settled yesterday, we were left with twenty unresolved cases — far fewer than would’ve remained un-done even a few years ago. It’s possible that all could go to hearings, Jeff Passan of ESPN.com suggests on Twitter, though surely there’ll be some kind of multi-year breakthrough in at least a few cases. That’s almost certainly what it’ll take to avoid a hearing, as we’ve seen a near-complete elimination of pure settlements after the exchange of figures.
Back in 2017, among the 29 instances of figure filing, seven were eventually tied up with single-season arb settlements. Three more involved arbitration-only extensions or option additions. There were four full-blown extensions. And just more than half of the cases went to trial, with the teams edging the players 8 to 7 in outcomes.
In the ensuing year, there was yet further creep. Among the 27 filing situations, all but five went to trial. (The players prevailed a dozen times.) One open matter was closed with a long-term extension, another was resolved by an arb-only deal, and three were settled in the traditional, one-year manner.
In 2019, there were only 14 cases in which figures were exchanged. Among them, only two were settled — both with contracts that included club options that created cost certainty in a future season. Two more involved significant, multi-year extensions. The balance went to hearings, with the players winning six of ten times.
The primary takeaway, then, is that the remaining contractual spreads are likely to go one way or the other — unless a multi-year arrangement of some kind can be arranged. That’ll actually be relatively more difficult now than before for a different reason. In 2020, six of the twenty filers are in their final season of arbitration eligibility. The prior classes had far fewer: 2 of 14, 2 of 27, and 4 of 29. Working out deals involving seasons of presumptive free agency is quite a bit more complicated.
So, is this an especially high-stakes year? In some regards, yes. It features the largest absolute case we’ve seen in some time in George Springer, whose filing figure of $22.5MM is a whopping $5MM north of the team’s counter. Million+ dollar spreads are fairly rare. Three were settled in 2017 (Drew Pomeranz, Pedro Strop, Jake Diekman). Two more settled in 2018; Springer also avoided a hearing, agreeing to a two-year deal. But Mookie Betts and Trevor Bauer both won trials that year with big money at stake. Bauer and Gerrit Cole repeated the feat in 2019. In 2020, there are three big-money cases, with Josh Hader and J.T. Realmuto joining Springer with voluminous spreads. There are also some big spreads in relative terms. The Brewers’ two open cases — with Hader and fellow lefty Brent Suter — each features 50+% spreads (as against the team number) in value. We’ve rarely seen that kind of spread, though there was one greater that went to trial: Dellin Betances, in 2017. He lost that memorable case. But his agents at Excel are still willing to duke it out; per Passan, via Twitter, they lead the way with six of the still-open cases this winter.
From a global perspective, there isn’t necessarily more at stake than has been the case in recent years. The total player demands this year tally $128.4MM, with the team counters amounting to $108.2MM — good for a $20.2MM gap. There was obviously far less at stake last year with so few cases, though the total ~18% net spread between the sides is about the same. The tallies look different in prior years. In 2018, we saw nearly $140MM in demands but only a $18MM+ gulf, so the spread was a narrower 15.25%. The cases were smaller on average in 2017, with a file/counter split of $113.55MM and $95MM, but that was good for nearly a 20% divide — the largest of the four-season sample.
All things considered, it seems that the 2020 arbitration hearing class is more a culmination of recent developments than terra incognita. Perhaps it will function as a new standard for years to come. Then again, as the above exercise shows us, the tendency always is one of change. It’s possible we’ll begin to see new trends emerging; some may now be hiding in plain sight while we focus on those that have already been identified.
Checking In On Last Season’s Lowest-Scoring Offenses
If you can believe it, sub-.500 teams comprised the majors’ five lowest-scoring offenses in 2019. With the offseason a couple months old and with most of the top free agents off the board, those teams have all had time to improve at the plate. But have they? Let’s take a look…
Detroit Tigers (582 runs, 77 wRC+)
- Among Tigers regulars, only outfielder Nicholas Castellanos (whom they traded to the Cubs in July) and fellow outfielder Victor Reyes posted league average or better numbers last season. But the non-contending club has at least made an effort to upgrade its offense this winter. The Tigers have signed first baseman C.J. Cron and second baseman Jonathan Schoop, who were members of the division-rival Twins last year, as well as ex-Yankees catcher Austin Romine. None of those players will strike fear in the hearts of the opposition, but they’re respectable contributors who should be vast improvements over the hitters the Tigers ran out in those spots in 2019.
Miami Marlins (615 runs, 79 wRC+)
- Like the Tigers, the Marlins have made a legitimate effort to get better this offseason. They’ve remade a good portion of their infield, where first baseman Jesus Aguilar and Jonathan Villar (who could play a super-utility role in 2020) are now aboard. Miami has also grabbed outfielder Corey Dickerson, who was the most productive offensive player of the trio last season. And former Pirates catcher Francisco Cervelli, who was highly valuable in 2018 before concussions helped stall his career in 2019, is in the mix as a backup to Jorge Alfaro. The Marlins should still be a sub-.500 club in the upcoming season, but at least they’ve put in some work to step up on offense.
San Francisco Giants (678 runs, 83 wRC+)
- Aside from letting go of center fielder Kevin Pillar and deciding not to re-sign catcher Stephen Vogt or third baseman Pablo Sandoval, this has been a quiet offensive offseason for the Giants. Their projected lineup for 2020 includes nothing but familiar faces from last year. So, unless the likes of Buster Posey, Brandon Belt, Evan Longoria and Brandon Crawford channel their younger selves next season, it could be another lean showing for the Giants.
San Diego Padres (682 runs, 88 wRC+)
- As far as spending on hitters goes, the Padres were one of the active teams in the game during the previous two offseasons. They added first baseman Eric Hosmer on an eight-year, $144MM guarantee two winters ago and third baseman Manny Machado on a 10-year, $300MM pact less than a year back. Neither decision has worked out all that well for the team thus far, and now it has taken a more modest approach. But that’s not to say the Padres have been silent. They picked up high-OBP outfielder Tommy Pham from the Rays, young OFer Trent Grisham from the Brewers and second baseman Jurickson Profar from the Athletics in separate trades. Pham’s the lone member of the trio who inspires much confidence at the plate, but the Padres are banking on all three to help them break a long playoff drought in 2020. And if the team has its druthers, it’ll find a taker via trade for outfielder Wil Myers, but his albatross contract (three years, $60MM) could prevent that from happening.
Kansas City Royals (691 runs, 84 wRC+)
- The Royals, who lost 207 games from 2018-19, have done little to nothing at the plate this offseason. Third baseman Maikel Franco, who failed to live up to the hype in Philadelphia, joined KC on an affordable contract. There hasn’t been much otherwise, though, and the Royals continue to await left fielder Alex Gordon‘s decision on whether to retire. Even if Gordon sticks around, he hasn’t been a legit threat at the plate since 2015. Maybe catcher Sal Perez will provide an impact bat after sitting out all of 2019 because of Tommy John surgery?
Arbitration Breakdown: Kris Bryant
Over the coming days, I am discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong. 2020 projections are available right here.
The Cubs’ Kris Bryant reaches his third year of arbitration coming off a solid campaign in which he hit .281 with 31 home runs and knocked in 77 runs in 634 plate appearances. This comes at the heels of an injury-laden 2018 campaign in which the third baseman/outfielder only played 102 games and hit just 13 home runs. Bryant had received a record deal in 2018 for $10.85MM, after compiling both a Rookie of the Year Award and Most Valuable Player honors prior to reaching arbitration. However, Bryant’s disappointing 2018 only earned him a small $2.05MM raise. The model projects him to get a far more generous $5.9MM raise in 2020 after a healthy season with solid power.
Starting at an obviously very high $12.9MM salary in his second year of arbitration eligibility, it is possible that Bryant’s raise could be affected just by the base salary on which his raise will be added. So it would be useful to look for comparable players with high salary levels.
The other particularly notable distinction in Bryant’s number is that 77 RBI is a fairly small total for a hitter with 31 homers. A good comp would be a player who hit for similar power, without knocking in many runs either.
Fellow third baseman Josh Donaldson emerges as a possibility with his $6MM in 2018. He hit .270/33/78, obviously quite similar to Bryant’s .282/31/77. However, Donaldson only had 496 plate appearances. Additionally, Donaldson was actually in his fourth year of arbitration eligibility (Bryant is in his third year). Furthermore, Donaldson was somewhat of a unique case coming off a two-year deal. However, $6MM seems at least plausible for Bryant.
Another third baseman to consider as a ceiling is Nolan Arenado last year. Arenado got an $8.25MM raise off a very high base salary of $17.75MM, after putting up a .297/38/110 line in 673 plate appearances. Despite the hitter’s park augmenting those numbers, Arenado’s case appeared to be stronger than Bryant’s, and $8.25MM is likely a ceiling for Bryant’s potential raise.
Didi Gregorius might be a potential floor. Back in 2018, the shortstop received a $3.15MM raise after hitting .287 with 25 home runs and 87 runs batted in. Gregorius played a harder position and actually topped Bryant on both batting average and runs batted in, but Bryant’s extra six home runs suggest Gregorius is probably a floor.
Another floor could be Manny Machado two years ago, as he hit .259 with 33 homers and 95 runs RBI, and got a $4.5MM increase.
Overall, I think the model gets Bryant’s raise about right. He should safely land between Machado’s $4.5MM raise and Arenado’s $8.25MM upgrade, and probably closer to Machado. Donaldson’s $6MM raise, his contractual differences notwithstanding, probably is a reasonable guess as to Bryant’s salary and is only $400K larger than the model projects.
Arbitration Breakdown: Mookie Betts
Over the coming days, I am discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. So far, we’ve previewed Josh Bell, Cody Bellinger, Francisco Lindor, Trevor Bauer, Mike Clevinger, George Springer, and Jonathan Villar. For these pieces, I rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong. 2020 projections are available right here.
As first-year arbitration awards continue to grow with the revenue and payrolls in baseball today, they provide higher platforms through which arbitration records in later years can be more easily broken. Mookie Betts will go through the arbitration process one more time after earning $20.1MM including bonuses during his penultimate year through the arb process, putting him in line to potentially break Nolan Arenado’s record of $26MM his last time through arbitration. Betts’ potential salary is high enough that he has frequently been featured in trade rumors as the Red Sox seek to reset themselves below the luxury tax threshold in 2020.
Either way, Betts’ case is going to simultaneously take a large chunk of someone’s payroll while also being a relative bargain to similarly-producing free agents. After a historic season in 2018 in which Betts hit 32 home runs, stole 30 bases, and racked up an amazing slash line of .346/.438/.640, Betts had a slightly more pedestrian year — by his standards — in 2019. Betts batted .295 and hit 29 home runs while stealing 16 bases, while recording 80 RBI and a league-leading 135 runs scored.
The model uses the generally accurate fact that players’ salaries in subsequent years in arbitration are determined as raises based on their platform year production alone. So while Betts may not have had a historic season, he does have a good case for breaking Arenado’s record, thanks to Betts’ $20.1MM salary in 2019. My model projects a $7.6MM raise for 2020, which would land the Red Sox outfielder at $27.7MM.
Even coming down to earth in 2019, Betts still put up rare numbers. There are very few hitters who have reached their third year of arbitration eligibility with at least 25 home runs and double-digit stolen bases in their platform year — in the last five years, only four players hit both plateaus. Charlie Blackmon got a $6.7MM raise in 2018 after hitting .331 with 37 homers, 104 RBI, and 14 steals the prior year.
Although Blackmon’s batting average obviously bested Betts’ .295, the other three hitters had far lower averages. Todd Frazier hit .225 with 40 HR, 98 RBI, and 15 steals and got just a $3.75MM raise in 2017. Didi Gregorius hit .268/27/86 with 10 stolen bases and got a $3.5MM raise last year, while Aaron Hicks hit .248/27/79 with 11 stolen bases last year en route to a $3.2MM raise. Still, the Red Sox could argue that Betts may deserve a smaller bump over Frazier, Gregorius, and Hicks, and potentially less than Blackmon’s $6.7MM.
Obviously, we are limiting the potential list of comparables by requiring double-digit stolen bases. A couple more recent names (both third basemen) emerge when dropping that requirement. Anthony Rendon got a $6.5MM raise in 2018 after putting up a solid .301/25/100 campaign — and that could easily serve as a benchmark for Betts. Arenado last year got an $8.25MM raise after a .297/38/110 season. Given that Arenado’s numbers were at Coors Field, Betts could certainly argue for that as a basis.
I suspect Betts would be able to successfully argue for at least topping Rendon’s $6.5MM, although Blackmon’s $6.7MM could be a ceiling. I could see Betts even getting up to an $8.25MM raise like Arenado did last year as well, though that might be more difficult. Based on this list of potential comps, the $5.9MM Betts would need to break Arenado’s record definitely seems doable if not guaranteed, and the model’s $7.6MM projection does seem out of reach either.
Assessing The State Of The Josh Donaldson Market
While most of this year’s top-tier free agents could stuff new-team swag in their family’s stockings, veteran third baseman Josh Donaldson remains unsigned a third of the way through January. That’s nothing compared to the laborious matchmaking processes we witnessed last year. And it’s hardly uncommon historically. But it does leave us with at least one protracted offseason drama to witness.
It has seemed at times as if momentum could be building toward a signing. But the latest run of reporting injects new uncertainty into the body of publicly reported information regarding the bidding.
Perhaps growing impatient with the increasingly drawn-out nature of the Donaldson negotiations, and/or seeking leverage in talks, the Twins have begun to explore the trade market for alternative approaches to improving their club, Dan Hayes and Aaron Gleeman of The Athletic report (subscription required). The Twins, per the report, have “seen an uptick” in the volume of trade talks over the past three days as they explore additions at a variety of positions. The club isn’t limiting itself to corner infield options and remains open to adding a starting pitcher if the opportunity presents itself.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s Jesse Dougherty writes that the Nationals have “all but moved on from Donaldson.” That’s perhaps contradictory with recent reporting indicating that the Nats haven’t pulled their offer, but the two could also coexist. It’s plausible, for instance, that the Nationals could leave their previously standing offer on the table but that the team also doesn’t intend to actively pursue a signing and doesn’t expect to land Donaldson. At minimum, with Starlin Castro, Howie Kendrick, Eric Thames and Asdrubal Cabrera all in the fray, the D.C. org obviously feels no pressure to push up its bid.
At this point, it’s fair to wonder just how close the Donaldson camp will get to the third baseman’s reported asking price — said just a few days ago to sit in the vicinity of $110MM. Ever since Anthony Rendon signed, we’ve heard talk of heavy interest in Donaldson. And an expectation has emerged more recently that he would enter the rarefied nine-figure realm. Indeed, as we discussed last week, MLB.com’s Mark Feinsand reported that the Twins, Nationals and Braves “all have four-year offers out to [Donaldson] in that $100MM range.”
What exactly constitutes the “$100MM range” is perhaps subject to some degree of interpretation, but the most recent reports out of Minnesota and Atlanta don’t exactly dovetail with that line of thinking. 1500 SKOR North radio’s Darren Wolfson suggested that the Twins’ offer was more in the $80-85MM range, while MLB.com’s Mark Bowman reported on doubt as to whether the Atlanta organization was even close to the top bidder.
Notably, Dougherty writes in the aforementioned Washington Post column that the Nationals did indeed make a four-year, $100MM offer to Donaldson. But it’s important to bear in mind that, with the Nationals more than any other club, the surface-level number of an offer can be somewhat misleading. The Nationals utilize deferred money in their long-term contracts more than any club in baseball, and while there’s been no firm indication that their offer to Donaldson marked a continuation of that trend, it’d hardly be a surprise to learn that’s indeed the case. The Nats, after all, have baked deferrals into the contracts of Max Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg, Patrick Corbin, Anibal Sanchez and Matt Wieters in recent years. One of the primary reasons that Rendon was said to have spurned Washington’s final extension offer (seven years, $215MM) was because of significant deferred monies.
The question, then, is where the price pressure will come from at this point if Donaldson and his reps at MVP Sports Group are truly determined to secure a deal in the vicinity of that reported $110MM price point. That Donaldson remains unsigned well into January — Hayes notes that the Twins originally believed he preferred to sign prior to Christmas — suggests that none of the bidders have been willing to do so. And the loss of the Nationals as a driving force could leave Donaldson with two highly cost-conscious organizations patiently engaged in a staring contest.
MVP was able to find $300MM for Manny Machado last February, so we may presume some patience on that side of the table as well. But it’s tougher in this case to identify a club that could emerge as a viable nine-figure suitor for an already 34-year-old third baseman, even after an elite 2019 season. The Dodgers, Rangers, Phillies, and others could afford to but haven’t shown any appetite for a massive, lengthy pact. One or more of those clubs could in theory jolt the market a bit by dangling higher-AAV, shorter-term offers. But even in that scenario, getting into the desired realm would still require prodding the Atlanta and/or Minnesota organizations into stretching their valuations yet further. It could ultimately turn out that D.C. is the only place Donaldson can reach the century mark — even if only in nominal form, depending upon deferrals — though that could certainly still change.
It was always going to be difficult to push Donaldson into this rarefied air. As we debated our top 50 free agent list, we felt there’d be broad and strong interest in the hot corner stalwart. But we ultimately capped the prediction at three years and $75MM based upon his age and health history.
To be sure, we’ve rarely seen a player of quite this present-day ability available on the open market at this precise age. But the data points available suggest that teams have been unwilling both to extend on the length of the deal and to pay a premium annual salary. Kevin Brown was the original $100MM player. So far as we can ascertain, he’s also still the only man to receive a total promise of that magnitude entering his age-34 or later season. (The news of his signing was met with rather boldly stated consternation from some notable figures around the game.) Carlos Beltran was a monster in 2011, his age-34 season, but settled for a two-year, $26M deal in the ensuing winter. His health and performance trajectory in advance of free agency closely mirror those of Donaldson. Much more recently, Ben Zobrist secured four years, but at a relatively modest $56MM guarantee. Defensively limited slugger Edwin Encarnacion took down $60MM over three years entering his age-34 season.
Arbitration Breakdown: George Springer
Over the coming days, I am discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. So far, we’ve previewed Josh Bell, Cody Bellinger, Francisco Lindor, Trevor Bauer, Mike Clevinger and Jonathan Villar. For these pieces, I rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong. 2020 projections are available right here.
George Springer enters his final year of arbitration eligibility after playing out a two-year, $24MM deal that covered his 2018-19 seasons. Springer only played in 122 games last season due to a hamstring strain, but he still managed to belt 39 home runs and knock in 96 runs despite consistently batting in the leadoff spot — all while hitting .292. While being limited to 556 plate appearances could hurt an otherwise strong arbitration case, his impressive counting stats should get him a hefty raise.
Players outside their first year of arbitration eligibility are generally awarded raises on top of their prior salary and only based on the prior year of production. In general, Springer would not expect to receive different compensation than he would have based on his .265/22/71 performance in 620 plate appearances in 2018. However, cases like Springer’s can sometimes be considered as “re-slot” cases where they are paid based on career performance or at least on the two prior years that were covered under a multi-year deal.
Further complicating matters is that the salary on which Springer’s raise will be based is not all that clear. Springer received $24MM for his two-year pact, in matching installments of $12MM per season. However, he would never have earned $12MM in arbitration in 2018 (in fact, he filed for $10.5MM), and he was obviously compensated under the assumption that he would have received more than $12MM in 2019 had he gone year to year.
In cases like this, in which the player and team have both filed at the time the multi-year deal was reached, I usually assume the first year of the deal was valued at the midpoint of the team’s and player’s filing. In this case, that’d put year one of Springer’s two-year deal at $9.5MM, since the Astros filed at $8.5MM. The 2019 base salary, then, would be be treated as $14.5MM.
Based on his performance, my model estimates a $6.9MM raise, which would take Springer to $21.4MM if we use that theoretical $14.5MM sum as his base. If we look for useful comps, this seems somewhat plausible. Unfortunately, two of the players who have similar power numbers and service time both played half their games at Coors Field, inflating their statistics. Charlie Blackmon hit 37 home runs with 104 runs batted in in 2017, although his case was stronger than Springer’s in some ways because he hit .331 and racked up 725 plate appearances. That all earned him a $6.7MM raise. The following year, Nolan Arenado got an $8.25MM raise after his 38 HR and 110 RBI, while hitting .297 in 673 plate appearances.
Neither Blackmon nor Arenado looks exactly right. Arenado plays third base. Blackmon hit for higher average. Both had more plate appearances. Additionally, Blackmon was only eligible for arbitration for the third time, unlike Arenado and Springer, who had four arb-eligible years due to their status as Super Two players. Also, Blackmon and Arenado further differ because both received raises after one-year deals. We know Springer’s case to be less common, as he’s coming off a two-year contract.
Springer’s case is very arguably most similar to Josh Donaldson’s case two years ago. Donaldson put up a .270/33/78 season in 496 plate appearances and, crucially, was coming off a two-year deal in which he was paid $28.65MM. That sum was neatly allocated as $11.65MM (roughly the midpoint of his and the Blue Jays’ arbitration filings) in the first year, and $17MM the second year. Donaldson got an even $6MM raise to $23MM in his final year of arbitration. With Springer topping Donaldson in batting average, homers and RBIs at .292/39/96 in 556 plate appearances, it stands to reason that Donaldson would likely get a larger raise. Perhaps that would be similar to his $6.9MM projected raise.
On the other hand, the first year of Donaldson’s two-year pact was better than year one of Springer’s deal. Donaldson hit .284/37/99 in 700 plate appearances, compared to Springer’s .265/22/71 in 620 plate appearances. If that’s part of what is being considered, we’re comparing Donaldson’s combined .270/70/177 performance in 1196 trips to the plate against Springer’s .278/61/167 performance in 1176 plate appearances. In that case, Springer isn’t necessarily a lock to top Donaldson’s $6MM raise.
The only other remotely similar case was Todd Frazier three years ago. He was coming off a two-year deal that effectively paid him $7.5MM. He got a $4.5MM raise after hitting just .225 but with 40 HR, 98 RBI and 15 stolen bases in 666 turns at the plate. This would probably establish $4.5MM as a floor if Donaldson is not already serving as a floor at $6MM.
Overall, it seems pretty clear that the best comp for Springer is Donaldson. Springer should get somewhere in the neighborhood of the $21.4MM that my model has projected him for, albeit perhaps for reasons very different from those the model considered in his case.
Arbitration Breakdown: Josh Hader
Over the coming days, I am discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong. 2020 projections are available right here.
Josh Hader just barely qualified for early arbitration eligibility as a Super Two, significantly boosting his career earning outlook. He did so on the heels of his first season as a full-time closer. Hader saved 37 games in 2019, after saving just 12 games in his career beforehand. However, Hader has consistently pitched in high leverage innings, accumulating 39 career holds, and has put up phenomenal strikeout numbers and a low ERA. In less than three full seasons, Hader has struck out 349 hitters in 240.2 innings and put up a 2.42 ERA. My model projects him to earn $4.6MM in his run through arbitration.
A typical comparable for Hader would be someone who had a full platform year as a closer, but only limited saves prior to that, while having a lower ERA and a lot of strikeouts. The closest comparable is probably Ken Giles two years ago. He had 34 platform saves (to Hader’s 37) and 65 career saves (to Hader’s 49). He struck out 336 hitters in his career, but just 83 in his platform year. Hader struck out 349 in his career, but had 138 in his platform year. Giles’ 2.30 platform year ERA was similar to Hader’s 2.62, and his career 2.43 ERA was almost exactly spot on Hader’s 2.42. Giles earned $4.6MM. Overall it is not clear which of Giles or Hader should earn more, which means the $4.6MM projection to match Giles is probably about right.
This is reinforced by the fact that the other three players in the last five years with 30 saves in their platform year and between 40 and 65 saves in their career all earned between $4.1 and $4.2MM, each back in 2016. Those were Hector Rendon, Cody Allen, and Jeurys Familia. They all had ERA in the mid 2’s as well, ranging from 2.42 to 2.82.
The one thing that sticks out about Hader beyond that list is his very high strikeout rate. That distinguishes him from all of these other relievers who fell short of triple-digit strikeouts in their platform year. Hader’s 138 strikeouts topped all four aforementioned closers.
Another avenue could be to ignore old-fashioned stats like saves and holds and see if anyone else has similar strikeout numbers out of the bullpen. Ultimately, this was limited. I looked for any reliever in the last five years who entered arbitration for the first time with at least 120 strikeouts in their platform year and 300 in their career. That only yielded Dellin Betances, who earned $3MM three years ago, despite only 22 career saves. (That came after he lost a high-stakes hearing in which he sought $5MM.) That would certainly provide a floor, but it is clear that Hader should be well above this anyway.
Ultimately, I think it is safe to assume he lands close to his $4.6MM projection. I could see some upside if his strikeouts are considered more heavily, but since relievers generally get paid based on saves and holds, I do not think he will exceed his projection by much.
Arbitration Breakdown: Trevor Bauer
Over the coming days, I am discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. I rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong. 2020 projections are available right here.
Trevor Bauer’s arbitration cases have gone to a hearing two years in a row, and he has emerged victorious both times. However, his 2019 performance was weaker in several ways, and it remains to be seen how big a raise he can get over his $13MM salary from 2019 in his last year before reaching free agency.
My model does see him getting a sizable $5.6MM raise, mainly due to his career-high 213 innings and 253 strikeouts. After putting up a 2.21 ERA in 2018, Bauer regressed back to a 4.48 ERA in 2019 and actually had a losing record of 11-13 for the first time in four years. This was not merely bad luck either. His FIP worsened by nearly two runs as well, going from 2.44 to 4.34. Of course, with a very low HR/FB in 2018, his FIP benefited. But SIERA adjusts for this and still saw nearly a one-run deterioration from 3.21 to 4.14 for Bauer. Bauer walked a career high 82 hitters while allowing 34 home runs. Despite his higher strikeout total, his K/9 fell slightly from 11.3 to 10.7 in 2019.
Arbitration panels do not use sabermetric stats like FIP or SIERA very frequently, so Bauer’s case will largely come down to his robust 213 innings versus his 4.48 ERA. Finding similar comparables is tricky, but several potential pitchers do emerge.
If we focus on pitchers with at least 180 innings pitched but ERA’s over 4.0 who were entering arbitration for the third or fourth time, we get four pitchers in recent years that seem comparable. Each got raises between $3.0 and $3.55MM, obviously less than Bauer’s $5.6 million projection. Of course, none struck out hitters at anywhere near the clip that Bauer did. Patrick Corbin in 2018 had the highest total strikeouts of the bunch with 178 in 189.2 innings and a 4.03 ERA to go along with a 14-13 record. He got a $3.55MM raise. With fewer innings and way fewer strikeouts, Corbin’s case is clearly weaker. Tanner Roark’s 9-15, 4.34 performance in 180.1 innings earned him a similar raise last year ($3.53MM), while Andrew Cashner’s 184.2 innings and 6-16, 4.34 performance only got him $3.1MM back in 2016. Hector Santiago got a $3.0MM boost in 2017 after going 13-10 with a 4.70 ERA in 182 innings. Each of these four pitchers had a weaker case than Bauer, so his floor is probably in the mid-3’s.
If we flip things to look for pitchers with similar strikeout totals, only three guys with similar service time had 225 strikeouts going into their third of fourth year of arbitration during the last five years. David Price got a $5.75MM raise five years ago after a 15-12, 3.26 campaign, in which he threw 248.1 innings and struck out 271 batters. That case is probably somewhat stale though, even if Price clearly had a better case than Bauer does now. More recently, Gerrit Cole got a $6.75MM raise last year and Jacob deGrom had a $9.6MM raise. The 1.70 ERA that deGrom posted en route to a Cy Young Award clearly makes him a poor comparable for Bauer. Even Cole’s 2.88 ERA is a run and a half better than Bauer’s 4.48. Cole went 15-5 in 200.1 innings and struck out 276. Cole’s $6.75MM raise is obviously a ceiling.
It seems unlikely that Bauer will fall below Patrick Corbin’s $3.55MM raise or best Cole’s $6.75MM raise, and should land somewhere in between. To get the $5.6MM the model projects, he may need to argue that Price’s $5.75MM raise from 2015 is too stale to be relevant, which puts him somewhere in the vague range between Corbin and Cole. I suspect Bauer may not get quite up to that point, although if he does take his case to a panel again, he could quite easily get there if the Reds aim too low. Bauer will certainly be an interesting reference point for pitchers with significant innings and strikeout totals who put up mediocre traditional statistics in future years, since it is obvious that few such cases currently exist.
Arbitration Breakdown: Mike Clevinger
Over the coming days, I am discussing some of the higher profile upcoming arbitration cases. So far, we’ve previewed Josh Bell, Cody Bellinger, Francisco Lindor and Jonathan Villar. For these pieces, I rely partly on my arbitration model developed exclusively for MLB Trade Rumors, but will also break out some interesting comparables and determine where the model might be wrong. 2020 projections are available right here.
Indians right-hander Mike Clevinger only started 21 games in 2019, but when he was healthy, he was dominant. Despite being limited to 126 innings, the 29-year-old had a 13-4 record and 2.71 ERA with 169 strikeouts — all numbers that will factor strongly into his arbitration case. In his career, Clevinger already has a 41-21 record and a 3.20 ERA in 500 2/3 innings. My model projects him at $4.5MM the first time through arbitration, but finding comparables is tricky due to his missed time in his platform year.
To look for comparables, I focused on a rather narrow scope: first-time eligible pitchers in the past five years who pitched between 75 and 150 innings with a sub-4.00 ERA in their platform year and who had 35-plus career wins.
Gerrit Cole in 2017 and Kyle Hendricks in 2018 were the only two pitchers to match those specifications. The former got $3.75MM, and the latter got $4.18MM. Both of those pitchers only won seven games in their platform season, however. Cole did have 47 career wins, topping Clevinger’s 41, but his platform ERA of 3.88 is clearly worse than Clevinger’s 2.71. Hendricks is more comparable, with a robust 2.94 career ERA that is similar to Clevinger’s 3.20. Hendricks’ 38-22 record favorably compares to Clevinger’s 41-21 mark as well. Hendricks makes for a pretty good comp, and adding two years of inflation onto his first-time arbitration salary would probably put Clevinger right around the $4.5MM that the model projects for him.
Another potential comparable who had fewer career wins and a weaker platform season, but was otherwise fairly similar, is Jacob deGrom back in 2017. He went 7-8 with a 3.90 ERA in 148 innings in his platform year, but he had a 2.74 career ERA and a 30-22 record with 479 1/3 innings. DeGrom got $3.9MM his first time through arbitration. This is a likely floor for Clevinger—it seems clear that he should safely exceed $4MM.
What is tricky about first-time eligible pitchers is that for more than a decade, they have rarely broken the $4.5MM barrier. Three pitchers did as part of multi-year deals: Tim Lincecum in 2010, Clayton Kershaw in 2012, and Lance Lynn in 2015. However, Kershaw had a Cy Young Award on his resume, and Lincecum had two. Lynn was a unique multi-year deal that was extremely flat (three years, $22MM), so the $7MM attributed to the first year is not really a reliable number on which to base any Clevinger predictions. The only first-time eligible pitcher who signed a one-year deal worth more than $4.5MM was Dallas Keuchel, who landed a $7.25MM salary after earning a Cy Young Award.
All told, when you consider Clevinger being limited to 21 starts in 2019, he seems unlikely to be the one who breaks the $4.5MM barrier that has been so difficult for first-time pitchers to surpass. However, it also seems likely that he should hit Hendricks’ $4.18MM salary — and probably exceed it. Viewed through this lens, Clevinger appears likely to get close to his model-projected salary.