MLBTR Polls

Let’s be honest: this is not a question we expected to be asking at the start of the year, when Marco Estrada was settling into the Blue Jays pen as a swingman and long reliever. But he impressed early, provided a solid rotation presence much of the way, and had a notable impact in the post-season. That makes it worthwhile to wonder: is a qualifying offer in play?

We already know something about Estrada’s market valuation, because the Jays acquired him early last fall from the Brewers. The swap sent first baseman Adam Lind to Milwaukee. He, too, had a nice season after the deal, but at the time it wasn’t the most impactful deal. If anything, that trade suggested that Lind was the more valuable player, since he was the more expensive side of the 1-to-1 trade. Lind cost $7.5MM last year, plus a $500K buyout on a $8MM option that wasn’t certain to be exercised (but now likely will be). Estrada, meanwhile, ultimately agreed to a $3.9MM salary to avoid arbitration.

Nothing about that trade suggested that Estrada would be valued at anything close to the qualifying offer rate. Wwhen he came to Toronto, he was coming off of a four-year run in which he compiled 509 2/3 innings of 3.99 ERA pitching, with 8.4 K/9 against 2.3 BB/9. But that K rate had been in decline, and 2013 was his worst season in the earned run department.How have things changed since? MLBTR’s Mark Polishuk took a closer look in September, but in a nutshell, it’s hard to argue with Estrada’s 2015 results: he logged a 3.13 ERA over 181 frames. But his strikeouts plummeted to 6.5 per nine, while his walks ranged above his career average to 2.7 BB/9. And ERA estimators were not pleased with the new mix of peripherals: Estrada earned a 4.40 FIP, 4.93 xFIP, and 4.64 SIERA.

It’s worth noting, also, that Estrada enjoyed a .216 batting average on balls in play against him. He’s always controlled contact, as Tony Blengino of Fangraphs has explained, but that’s still a notably low mark. He has a notably excellent change, and doesn’t rely on velocity, so you might like his chances going forward. But Estrada has already turned 32 years of age, so that’s not on his side, either.

Then again, the post-season provided Estrada an opportunity to put his abilities on display before the entire league, and he didn’t disappoint. In 19 1/3 innings over three starts, he allowed just five earned runs while striking out 15 and issuing only one walk.

All said, there’s reason for some skepticism, but also reason to believe that some team will make Estrade a three-year offer at a healthy AAV. And given that possibility, he might be inclined to test the market for what will likely be his best chance at a multi-year deal. Meanwhile, a pitching-needy Toronto club might feel okay about taking the risk that Estrada will accept a $15.8MM, one-year qualifying offer. That wouldn’t exactly be crippling for a large-budget contender, even if he’s only a solid back-of-the-rotation piece.

It’ll be fascinating to see what happens with Estrada. For now, let’s see what MLBTR’s readers think: should the Jays make him a qualifying offer?

The NLCS matchup between the Cubs and Mets fell flat, as New York steamrolled their fellow upstarts. Chicago, though, did just fine in the clubs’ regular season tilts (they swept New York in seven games) and had the better regular season record (by exactly those seven wins). While the Mets are focused now on the World Series, it’s back to the future all over again for the Cubbies.

It’s hardly novel to observe that these two clubs are both loaded with young, somewhat opposed talent bases, with the Cubs having more on the position player side and the Mets carrying a better stable of pitching. Quite apart from the head-to-head results, then, it seems interesting to consider which organization has the better outlook after both put up huge seasons.

Each club has some significant players who’ll be controlled for two more seasons, barring extensions — Jake Arrieta and Lucas Duda come to mind — as well as some notable near-MLB prospects — such as Billy McKinney and Brandon Nimmo. But perhaps the most telling comparison, for near and long-term outlook, is of the players who have already reached the majors and are under control for three or more seasons beyond 2015. Here’s a list of some notable names to consider:

Cubs: Jon Lester, Starlin Castro, Anthony Rizzo, Jorge Soler, Hector Rondon, Javier Baez, Kris Bryant, Carl Edwards, Addison Russell, Kyle Schwarber, Arismendy Alcantara

Mets: David Wright, Matt Harvey, Zack Wheeler, Jacob deGrom, Travis d’Arnaud, Jeurys Familia, Wilmer Flores, Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz, Dilson Herrera, Michael Conforto

So, which organizational arrangement would you prefer moving forward?

Entering the season, Ian Desmond carried the reputation of being one of the game’s top all-around shortstops. From 2012-14, he averaged 23 homers and 22 steals per season, hitting .275/.326/.462 and playing passable, if unspectacular defense along the way. Depending on your defensive metrics of choice (DRS considered him below average, while UZR said slightly above average), Desmond was consistently worth about 3.5 to 4.5 wins per season. That kind of track record and the fact that he didn’t turn 30 until this summer made a $100MM+ commitment on the free agent market seem likely. (Desmond had, in fact, already turned down an offer in excess of $100MM from the Nationals, though it was said to come with a large amount of deferred money.)

The first three and a half months of the season, though, could scarcely have been worse. Desmond struggled in the field immensely and even more so at the plate. On July 19, his season batting line bottomed out at an unthinkable and uncharacteristic .204/.248/.324. While that cutoff is admittedly very arbitrary, his production following that date more or less mirrored his excellent numbers from 2012-14; Desmond hit .272/.343/.464 with 12 homers and eight steals over his final 68 contests. Unfortunately for him, his overall season line wasn’t salvageable. He finished his walk year at .233/.290/.384.

The question now facing Desmond is what that ugly three-and-a-half-month run did to his free agent stock. Disastrous first half aside, his strong finish probably did restore some value in the eyes of interested parties, and there’s little else available on the shortstop market. Asdrubal Cabrera is coming off a nice season, but teams have long been wary of his defense and some may view him as a second baseman. Other options such as Jimmy Rollins, Alexei Ramirez and Stephen Drew had equally, if not more disappointing seasons.

While some will suggest that Desmond accept a qualifying offer (if it’s made) or sign a one-year deal to rebuild value, few players want to go the one-year route, and it’d be surprising to see the lone prominent shortstop on the market not end up with a rather sizable multi-year deal. But let’s see what MLBTR readers think.

For this exercise, we’ll focus on the number of guaranteed years, rather than the average annual value of those seasons. Which scenario do you see as most likely?

Heading into the year, it looked like the Nationals would have four fairly obvious qualifying offer recipients: Jordan Zimmermann, Ian Desmond, Doug Fister, and Denard Span. It’s reflective of the team’s overall struggles that only the first of these is a complete slam dunk to receive one now. Despite his forgettable year, Desmond still seems fully worthy as well. But it’s hard to see Fister getting the offer, as $15.8MM for one year probably outstrips his current value on the market.

So what about Span? The center fielder delivered exactly what the Nationals hoped for when they shipped out Alex Meyer to acquire him from the Twins before the 2013 season. He was solid in his first season in D.C. and excellent in 2014, when he slashed .302/.355/.416 and swiped 31 bags over 668 plate appearances. Defensive metrics soured on him somewhat in the second of those campaigns, but he provided outstanding value on his reasonably-priced contract.

This year was more of the same — .301/.365/.431 — but with one glaring exception: Span made only 275 trips to the batter’s box. He recovered quickly enough from offseason sports hernia surgery, missing only about two weeks to start the year. But back and abdominal issues cropped up in the middle of the year, giving way to hip problems, and a late comeback bid proved fleeting. The 31-year-old underwent a hip procedure, ending his season.

The first issue, then, is simply one of health. It’s unclear exactly what kind of recovery timeline should be expected, though certainly we’ve heard no indication that he won’t be ready for the spring. And Span himself recently tweeted that his recovery is progressing well. Regardless of the immediate prognosis, though, there’s some legitimate concern here. The fact that Span struggled with concussions earlier in his career does not help the situation.

While questions about Span’s ability to stay on the field in 2016 do limit his immediate value, though, the bulk of that concern lies in his long-term outlook for teams weighing a multi-year deal. A qualifying offer, of course, only represents a one-year commitment (if accepted), which limits the risk.

True, Span’s health will impact the market assessment that he and his representatives would make in weighing a qualifying offer — i.e., if they don’t foresee an attractive multi-year deal, the QO becomes more attractive. But so long as he remains on track for a more-or-less full 2016 season, Span still seems like an excellent candidate to land a rather high-dollar, multi-year deal in free agency. He and Dexter Fowler arguably represent the only everyday regular center fielders on the market, with Colby Rasmus and Austin Jackson making up their competition.

There’s an argument to be made, then, that the Nats have little risk in extending the QO. There’s no reason not to pick up a draft pick if he’s destined to decline. And we’ve yet to see a single player accept one — even the aging Michael Cuddyer, who declined his offer last year from the Rockies despite coming off of a similarly injury-plagued season. Even if Span did take the $15.8MM, moreover, that might not be a bad result for Washington. Jayson Werth struggled with injuries of his own last year, and Michael Taylor — the presumptive replacement in center — showed both promise and a proclivity to strike out. Both hit from the right side, unlike Span. A left-handed outfielder capable of playing center is a clear target for the Nats, and keeping Span on a one-year commitment (even at that rate) would meet that need and then some. Bringing Taylor on slowly, holding down his arbitration earning power, and limiting the wear and tear on Werth would be nice side benefits.

Of course, there’s a counter-argument to be made here, too. The Nationals have had their share of injury issues over the last several years, and have not always managed to cope when key players went down. And some might disagree that Span would likely turn down the offer; there’s little chance he’ll reach that guarantee over multiple years, and it’s hard to predict how his market would play out — especially if he’s saddled with draft compensation. Is it too great a risk to the club to dangle that much money to an arguably injury-prone player?

Let’s put this one to an up-or-down vote:

Option decisions are among the first important moves made by teams in the offseason. While many are fairly easy to call, there are plenty of borderline examples.

The White Sox face a tough decision regarding veteran shortstop Alexei Ramirez. Chicago can choose either to employ Ramirez for $10MM next year, or instead pay him a $1MM buyout and allow him to hit the free agent market. In other words, it will cost the team $9MM if it wants another year of Ramirez.

Looking just at last year, this is not a difficult decision for GM Rick Hahn. Ramirez slashed just .249/.285/.357, put up his worst-ever running mark (a rather stunning -5.0 BsR), and was viewed as a sub-par defender by both UZR (-6.4) and DRS (-6). Things ticked up in the second half, but the overall output wasn’t pretty.

Then again, Ramirez has for the most part been a model of consistency over his eight years with the club. He has made 4,999 plate appearances and played an average of 153 games per season over 2008-2015, providing a stabilizing roster presence. Ramirez hasn’t generally been spectacular, but has been an average or better overall regular in most of those seasons.

The 2014 season, in fact, was one of Ramirez’s best. While his defensive metrics dropped, he still rated well there in terms of UZR and continued to generate good ratings on the basepaths. And the light-hitting infielder posted his second-best career batting line, an unexciting but useful .273/.305/.408.

Even if you value the track record, Ramirez is 34 years old and was never an outstanding player. Reasonable-but-optimistic expectations would be for roughly league-average performance in 2016. There was a time where that kind of outlook would make this an easy buyout situation. But ten million bucks doesn’t buy what it used to in the game of baseball.

Ramirez wouldn’t top any teams’ priority lists if he hits free agency, but he’d still get paid. That’s due in large part to the lack of supply on the shortstop market. After Ian Desmond and Asdrubal Cabrera, clubs looking for a plug-and-play veteran will be choosing between Ramirez and Jimmy Rollins, who had every bit as rough a season and is even older.

As MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes writes in his preview of the White Sox’ offseason, the $9MM that Chicago would need to commit to Ramirez is perhaps “only slightly above” his value in free agency. There are some teams that would love to have a potentially average performer to replace sub-par platoons, while others might want a veteran to help ease the transition of younger, long-term options. To an extent, the White Sox look to fit both situations: the idea of a year with Tyler Saladino isn’t too appealing for a club that hopes to win, but clogging the position wouldn’t maximize the value of top prospect Tim Anderson.

All said, the salary is probably close enough to market that the White Sox should pay it if they want Ramirez back. If nothing else, it may be tough to re-sign him after cutting ties, and the risk is limited on a one-year commitment.

The other options for finding production at shortstop are limited. But there are alternatives, and bringing back the incumbent could represent a slight overpay with a fairly low ceiling.

So, we’ll put it to a vote (app users click here):

In this week’s MLBTR Mailbag, Steve Adams opined that it might take a 13-year, $375MM offer — or more — for the Nationals to make a serious run at extending outfielder Bryce Harper. That number factors in an estimated $36MM over two seasons of arbitration eligibility (2017-18) and then eleven more years at a $31MM AAV. A contract of that magnitude would be enough to best Giancarlo Stanton’s 13-year, $325MM deal (which also included a significant opt-out provision).

That’s an immense amount of cash, but Harper is about to cap a 10 WAR season at just 22 years of age. The Scott Boras client will hit the open market before he turns 26 years of age, and would have more or less unprecedented earning capacity if he maintains anything approaching his current level of production.

To put things in some perspective, in addition to the Stanton deal, consider the Tigers’ extension of Miguel Cabrera. At the time, Cabrera was set to enter his age-31 season after a huge 2013 campaign that capped a sustained run of excellence at the plate. He was already controlled for two years and $44MM, but the club added another eight seasons and $248MM on top of that (along with two vesting options at $30MM a pop). The AAV of the extension is $31MM, the same amount that Steve theorized for Harper.

While there’s no indication that Harper and the Nats are talking, or have plans to do so, it’s interesting to consider what it might take to get something done. It’s conceivable, of course, that the parties could consider a different type of deal — Mike Trout’s six-year, $144.5MM extension provides another model altogether — but a maximum value scenario seems more plausible.

Adding eleven free agent seasons at a $20MM average annual value would push Harper past $250MM. At $24MM annually, the total guarantee would be an even $300MM. Or, if you think that Steve is light, and Harper could take down $35MM a year over his free-agent-eligible campaigns, we’d be staring at a $421MM tab.

Assuming the scenario that Steve proposed — two arb years plus eleven more — what kind of cash do you think would be fair and adequate compensation to get a 13-year deal done? Remember, you can discuss in the comments or join the debate over on Instagram.