MLBTR Polls

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.

Every winter, a host of players agree to minor league contracts with hopes of finding good opportunities to make it onto a big league roster at some point in the season. Some of these are reached early on, as teams target players they like but who lack the track record to warrant a major league deal. Others are made just before Spring Training by players who had been holding out hope for a guaranteed contract.

In most cases, minor league signees provide depth and leadership in the upper minors. A good number of those players end up as solid role players on the major league roster, some more impactful than others. And every now and again, a high-end big league player emerges after inking a non-guaranteed contract. (E.g., J.D. Martinez, Justin Turner.)

This year’s MiLB free agent crop didn’t produce any controllable standouts in the mold of Martinez and Turner, but it was loaded with quality players who have delivered immense value to their teams. Who gets your vote as the best of the year?

(Teams listed are original signing clubs. Players ordered alphabetically by last name. Did I miss someone? Choose “Other” and discuss in the comments.) 

Joe Blanton, Royals — After appearing in just two minor league games last year, the 34-year-old righty was surprising enough when putting up solid results for Kansas City. But he’s been even better for the Pirates, firing 26 frames from the pen with a 31:6 strikeout-to-walk ratio and just four earned runs.

Franklin Gutierrez, Mariners — He hasn’t had much big league time, but the 32-year-old slashing a ridiculous .309/.358/.647 in 148 MLB plate appearances and was hitting quite well at Triple-A before that. He’ll be quite an interesting free agent to watch, though of course his .357 BABIP and (especially) 36.4% home run-to-flyball ratio are bound to fall.

Kelly Johnson, Braves — Johnson has been steady and productive since signing with Atlanta and moving to the Mets via trade. Filling in all over the diamond, Johnson has provided his clubs with flexibility and a .270/.319/.456 slash in 308 trips to the plate.

Mark Lowe, Mariners — A relatively undistinguished reliever for most of his career, Lowe transformed into a stud this year in Seattle. He hasn’t been quite as good since being shipped to the Jays, but still owns a 1.63 ERA with 10.3 K/9 against 2.0 BB/9 over 49 2/3 frames.

Ryan Madson, Royals — Madson, 34, had not even pitched in the big leagues since 2011 when he came to K.C., yet he picked up right where he left off. All told, he’s contributed 54 2/3 innings with a 2.47 ERA and 8.4 K/9 against 2.0 BB/9.

Franklin Morales, Royals — Notice a theme here? Another bargain bin score for a bullpen that hardly needed any help, the southpaw Morales has tossed 58 innings of 2.79 ERA ball. He’s been particularly stingy against opposing lefties, but has also held righties to below-league-average batting results.

Clint Robinson, Nationals — Unlike the other players on this list, Robinson had virtually no track record in the big leagues coming into the year. While his outfield defense has been predictably poor, it’s not really his fault that the club was forced to use him out of position. Robinson has been a revelation on offense, slashing .272/.368/.423 over 277 plate appearances.

Geovany Soto, White Sox — It was somewhat surprising to see the veteran Soto fail to earn a big league contract, and he’s shown why in Chicago. With well-rated defense and a .237/.321/.444 slash over his 191 plate appearances, Soto has been worth about a win and a half above replacement despite limited duty — and that’s before factoring in his strong framing numbers.

Carlos Villanueva, Cardinals — Targeted by St. Louis because of his swingman capabilities, Villanueva has not been needed as a starter but has excelled in the pen. He sits with a sub-3.00 ERA over 57 1/3 innings, with 8.2 K/9 against 3.0 BB/9.

There are a variety of factors that can lead players — even those good enough to command many millions of guaranteed dollars — to sign one-year deals as free agents, ranging from age to the need to prove health or ability before returning to the market in search of a longer contract. From a team’s perspective, it can be beneficial to promise a higher single-season payout rather than limiting roster flexibility and buying up post-prime seasons with a multi-year pact.

With most of the season in the books, it seemed like an opportune time to look back at those one-year pacts that have seemingly worked out. The good news for these players, of course, is that they enjoyed solid platform deals to work off of in their next foray onto the open market.

Excluding the many minor league pacts, I’ve come up with a list of nominees out of the dozens of one-year deals agreed upon last winter. So, which of these deals (listed from cheapest to most expensive) represents the best value for the team that reached it?

• Nori Aoki, Giants ($4.7MM + option): Before dealing with an unfortunate concussion issue, Aoki seemed well on his way to representing one of the steals of last year’s free agent market, and there’s an argument to be made that he still is just that — especially when you factor in the reasonable option for next year.
• Asdrubal Cabrera, Rays ($7.5MM): Checking in with a slightly-above-average .264/.317/.420 batting line and solid defensive and baserunning numbers, Cabrera has been worth over two wins above replacement in less than 500 plate appearances. That’s hard to find for a reasonable price on the open market.
• Colby Rasmus, Astros ($8MM): Rasmus has been a solid, two-win player for Houston in just over 400 plate appearances, representing nice value for the investment. He’s been much the same player he was last year, but the ’Stros did well to get his youth, power, and upside for such a meager commitment.
• A.J. Burnett, Pirates ($8.5MM): After an ill-fated swing south to Philadelphia, Burnett returned triumphantly to Pittsburgh this year. Though he lost some time with a DL stint, the veteran righty has still racked up 140 1/3 frames of 3.14 ERA ball.
• Brett Anderson, Dodgers ($10MM): Los Angeles rolled the dice on the talented lefty, and it has paid off handsomely. Though his peripherals are less compelling — Anderson only rates out at 1.6 fWAR — he’s contributed 158 innings of 3.36 ERA pitching.

The August 31st trade deadline — for adding players to an organization who will be eligible for the post-season — is not nearly as celebrated as the July 31st version. To be sure, most significant deals occur at the earlier date, since thereafter players must clear revocable waivers (or be claimed by the acquiring team) to be dealt.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant. This year, several clubs were in competition to add outfield options as September approached. On deadline day alone, five players who figure as platoon/reserve options changed hands.

So, which of these moves looks to provide the best value to the acquiring team? (Links to posts on acquisitions; poll order randomized.)

Cubs acquire Austin Jackson from Mariners — Jackson will cost Chicago $1MM, a player to be named later, and an international bonus slot ($211,100). In exchange, the Cubs get a center field-capable player who has fallen why shy of his early-career numbers since heading to Seattle. He’s always maintained even platoon splits, so he’s not exactly a typical time-share candidate, but he provides flexibility across the outfield.

Royals acquire Jonny Gomes from Braves — Kansas City took on about $380K of Gomes’ remaining salary and parted with young infielder Luis Valenzuela to add the veteran. Gomes is a classic late-season add: he’s a valued member of the clubhouse and mauls left-handed pitching, making him a limited but useful role player.

Giants acquire Alejandro De Aza from Red Sox — While they won’t owe De Aza much (if anything) in the way of salary, San Francisco did have to give up an interesting (but underperforming) arm in Luis Ysla. In De Aza, San Francisco gets a player who has hit well in recent months and traditionally performs well against right-handed pitching.

Dodgers acquire Justin Ruggiano from Mariners, Chris Heisey from Blue Jays — Los Angeles took a different approach from the teams listed above, adding two right-handed bats who could end up serving in platoon roles with expanded rosters and possibly competing for a single post-season roster spot. Both have spent much of the year in Triple-A, and cost little to add.