By Chris Maza
Fan Fanatic Sports Staff
The kid has never thrown a pitch in professional baseball, and yet he's guaranteed to make enough money that he could never throw one at all and be financially stable for the rest of his life.
It's not Stephen Strasburg's fault, even though he put his pen on the dotted line of a record-breaking $15.1 million contract. It's not Scott Boras' fault for negotiating the best contract he could for his client. All he's doing is using what the current system is giving him.
And it's certainly not the Washington Nationals' fault. The Nationals were put in a terrible position. Sure, it's a position they put themselves in by being the worst team in baseball. But they shouldn't be held captive by that fact. Some say that if Washington had doubts about their ability to sign Strasburg, they shouldn't have drafted him. But if they did not draft him, they would be criticized for not choosing the best player and not being committed to winning. And in drafting him, they were pretty much forced to sign him or suffer the exact same reaction as if they never drafted him at all.
They had to sign a ridiculous contract for a pitcher- granted, with loads of potential - who may or may not ever see their major league facility. They did what they had to do with the pick because they couldn't do anything else with it. Major League Baseball does not allow draft picks to be traded. If you're the first pick, you have to be ready to give a boatload of money to a player who statistically speaking doesn't have much of a shot of ever living up to its potential and hype.
This isn't like football or basketball where draft picks make immediate impact in the league. It takes years sometimes for these guys to develop into the players we see on Major League diamonds, if they do at all. How valuable Strasburg really is to the Nationals will not be decided this year and maybe not even next year. Even if he does reach the majors, the return on his club's investment could be obscenely limited, as his best years could come after his four-year contract has expired and he's left Washington for bigger dollars he'd be able to get elsewhere.
Baseball needs to allow teams to do with picks what they wish. If the Nationals can sacrifice a gamble on a very good prospect to get someone closer to major league ready or a couple of lower picks to save money that they can use on the free agent market, then why should they not be able to if that's what they think the team needs?
Until this happens, small market teams will continue to be forced into this perilous situation. And how much better are they getting by it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the Nationals got a great deal for a guy that has the potential to be the ace in Washington, even if he doesn't make the rotation next season. Actually, 15 million, Strasburg could easily outperform that contact and the National look great, or he could be a major bust, it's a crap shoot either way. But the Nats got the best arm in the draft, and he could easily, based on his stuff, step into the rotation now and be better than the boatload of stiff they have throwing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the draft pick angle, but think the Nats could be greatly rewarded with the money risk they just threw down.
I'm not discounting the fact that he's got tremendous upside. What I'm saying is it's an awful big commitment to a guy who is in a spot that historically doesn't necessarily mean success, especially as a pitcher. Over the last three decades (1978-2008), the first overall selections that were pitchers are as follows - Mike Moore (161-176, 4.39 career ERA), Tim Belcher (146-140, 4.16), Andy Benes (155-139, 3.97), Ben McDonald (78-70, 3.91), Brien Taylor (Never made the majors), Paul Wilson (40-58, 4.86 ERA), Kris Benson (69-74, 4.41 ERA and one hot wife), Matt Anderson (15-7, 5.19 ERA) Brian Bullington (0-5, 5.08 ERA), Luke Hochevar (12-19, 5.42 ERA), David Price (5-5, 4.60 ERA).
ReplyDeleteIn baseball terms, is 15 million spread out over 4 years (under 4 per year) that big of a commitment for a guy that can throw almost 100 miles per hour. The draft is and always will be a crap shoot, I look at it like he's got the tools to be VERY successful with ace stuff, and that money, regardless of if he's a rookie or not, plus he's more polished than most since he played college ball, isn't that high of a price to pay for that type of upside. Can't argue that he isn't ace material, or at worst, closer stuff. Those guys are hard to find, it's proven.
ReplyDeleteTo most teams, no it's not a huge commitment. To a team like the Nationals, which only has four players on its major league roster making more than $4 million a year, it is a larger commitment. And yes, he has tremendous upside. But didn't all of the guys I listed have that kind of upside at one point? Why else would they be No. 1 picks?
ReplyDeleteYou're looking way too into the numbers, about former first-round busts. He's got star written all over him ...the Nats are not a small-market team, if they were, then they wouldn't have shelled up $10 million for Adam Dunn, plus a $4 million per year commitment to the best arm in college, and you can argue, in the minors right now, isn't that steep. I'd rather have a $4 million per year fireballer that is going to put fans in the seats than a $4 utility player that are a dime a dozen.
ReplyDeleteHe's legit, stop grouping him in with those other busts!