Who here remembers when injuries diminished a player's value and somehow they need a year or more to prove they are capable once again before they hit the really big bucks in a contract negotiation?
Recently the Mets lost starter Noah Syndergaard who declined the qualifying offer to take about $2.5 million more from the Angels for a one-year prove it deal worth $21 million. Now many folks are already lambasting the Mets for allowing him to get away but there are others who recognize that $21 million for a guy with 2 IP in a two-year period is inherently somewhat risky. In fact, for the great many folks who savagely attack the Mets for their decision making (or lack of decision making) are actually defending the club right now for having dodged a sizable bullet financially while simultaneously picking up a compensatory draft pick for losing Thor. Syndergaard's record is 47-31 with a 3.32 career ERA.
It turns out, however, that the Mets are not alone in this situation. Word also emerged this week that Justin Verlander and the Houston Astros arrived at a $25 million one year deal for a man who has logged three times the workload as Noah Syndergaard since 2019. He has a grand total of one game and six innings pitched over two full years. The now turning 39 year old Verlander is a first class pitcher, alright, and the $25 million price tag is a deep discount from the $66 million he earned not to play for 2020 and 2021. His career numbers show a man with a 226-129 record and a 3.33 career ERA.
For a history lesson, let's go back to the career of a hitter we all know by the name of Nelson Cruz. After an All Star season during which he hit .261 with 27 HRs and 76 RBIs the belief was that Cruz was approaching the twilight of his career and the Baltimore Orioles swooped in with a one-year make-good contract for just $8 million, $2.5 million less than he was paid during that final year playing for the Rangers.
Cruz definitely showed he was worth every penny, increasing his output to .271 with 40 HRs and 108 RBIs. He was again named an All Star and finished 7th in the MVP voting for the American League. That single star season in the friendly confines of that ballpark resulted in a four-year deal with the Seattle Mariners to the tune of $57 million. During this period he was producing an average year of .284 with 41 HRs and 104 RBIs per year. That output resulted in three more All Star appearances and two more top ten voting results for league MVP.
Apparently old age and Nelson Cruz are mutually exclusive. After leaving Baltimore he went to Minnesota for more time (2+ years) where he continued to deliver at a stellar level. His first year for the Twins was even better with a .311 average to go along with 41 HRs and 108 RBIs. 2020 was a little harder to understand being a 60-game season but he kept on thumping. Then a year in 2021 that was split between Minnesota and Toronto the now 40 year old Cruz dropped a little and ONLY produced to the tune of a .265 average with 32 HRs and 86 RBIs. He's a free agent once again to see what he can do at age 41.
The lesson here is that age is not the issue with ballplayers producing. Yes, some numbers may not be quite as gaudy as they once were, but many players can still provide strong performance regardless of the date on the calendar. Do you remember when the Mets brought in such leftovers as Rickey Henderson, Julio Franco and Bartolo Colon?
There's a difference here, of course. These players were healthy but older. To come back to the original issue, are recovering players worth substantial increases in pay when they have not yet proven how capable they still are? In this case I happen to sit with the group thinking the Mets in effect dodged a bullet. I hope Noah Syndergaard and Justin Verlander earn their huge contracts but I would have been livid if the club paid Thor $18.6 million to have him pitch to a 4.00+ ERA while he continues to recover.
All of the sudden a $21 million deal for a healthy Marcus Stroman doesn't look so bad, does it? By the way, Stroman is pitching to a 3.12 ERA over the last three years. His won-lost record is in the negative, but everyone who watched him for the 1+ years he was on the field for the Mets (he opted out for 2020 due to COVID concerns), you can see he's a quality arm. Go make it happen, Billy.
14 comments:
I began saying a year ago that Thor was not a committed Met.
As for Stro, his attack on Keith yesterday speaks volumes about him returning to Flushing.
Can't agree more with both of you. Its unbelievable, the guy was actually begging us to sign him to the qualifying offer. The Mets were actually going to pay him $18.4 mil after he didn't pitch in 2 years. The year before he was only so-so.
So we offer him all this money and we still have to hold his hand and coddle him....then sweeten the pot.
That's real loyalty....bye bye Noah.
His stat line this year: 6-7; 4.5 ERA 120 innings.
Magill will be better.
As for Stro....what happened with Keith? Why did he go off?
Reese, for the most part I agree with you about Syndergaard, but I don't think i would characterize it as dodging a bullet.
I think the Mets played it perfectly. This is a classic case of risk/reward. With his background and career stats, it is obvious that he is a very good pitcher. With his TJ surgery and two years not pitching, it is obvious that it is a risk that he will pitch well in 2022. I thought it was a good bet to reserve the $18.4 to have him in the #2 slot behind deGrom, even if they could only get 70% of a full year. If healthy and staring at a long term deal at the end, he would have given some pretty good starts. If not, bummer. But they could not let that talent walk away without at least a draft pick.
We can probably add up $18.4M in contracts that were worse than the risk of Thor pitching a year.
But in the end, it does seem really crazy to pay $46M for two guys that have thrown a combined 8 innings in 2 years.
Last year, I did an analysis of what free agent pitchers had signed for in 2017-2020. Based on comparing WAR compilations, I expected a healthy Syndergaard to attract Stephen Strasberg money, or $35MM per year. So, $21MM being 60% of that while expecting 60% or so of a normal starter’s innings isn’t too bad when you figure that the Angels are going with a six man rotation to protect Ohtani anyway and that Syndergaard will probably only throw five innings per game. So, if he gets 25 opportunities at 5 innings per game, he will be right at his goal of 125 innings and the Angels will be happy. It really isn’t as stupid as the world thinks, but that’s because of the situation. No way he signs up for that again the next year.
All good points above. Despite the plethora of arms that can throw 95+ in baseball today, good starting pitching is the most coveted prize in free agency. This is why teams are so willing to take big monetary risk to sign players based on the potential that they can reach previous levels of performance. With Noah signing out west, the Angels take the risk - and with a one year deal to prove which way he's headed, the Mets have another shot at him in 2023. Until then, Stroman becomes a "must have" as he has already proven his durability and strong competitive mentality. Don't forget that his numbers would have netted wins in the high teens if he was backed by a team that could score. I expect the Mets bats to rebound this year so as Reese says, "Go make it happen, Billy"! And while you're at it, get us a top lefty like Carlos Rodon.
UGH.......for some reason, Noah has really pushed my buttons with the Angels contract. I tend to be a loyal type of person and I also believe that giving someone your word should mean something. I also detest folks who say/do whatever they can to get ahead, despite who they step on in the process.
OK, so the Angels offered more money, but to sneakily take the deal and not even give the Mets a chance to match? That reeks of someone who lacks integrity and it also makes me wonder if he will ever be "right" again. Maybe he grabbed the cash because he knows his arm won't be the same? Hell, he was still unable to throw a breaking ball by the end of last year (after his set back, that wasn't really a set back).
With that said, here are a few stats to think about, in support of Reese's article;
Noah (I refuse to use Thor, since he hardly qualifies), has pitched a grand total of 718 innings over his seven year career, or what amounts to roughly 102 or so, innings a season. Granted, he was a rookie in 2015, but I expect a "self proclaimed stud" to be able to handle 180 innings per year, right?
In that vein, he has only appeared in 58% of his possible innings, largely due to injuries. In fact, three of his seven seasons have been severely compromised by injuries (which is almost half).
Noah has never reached 200 innings pitched in a single season (although he came close in 2019 with 197).
Oh and he has made roughly 29.5 million dollars during that time, to include the last two years (19.4 million of that figure) for pitching a grand total of 2 innings!
The money Anaheim gave him is definitely a risk........maybe he comes back, or maybe his best days are past, but if you had to bet (based on his history), what do you think is most likely?
Noah never reached 200 innings, but did reach 400 lb in his dead lifts.
Sometimes, guys fall short of excellence for clear reasons.
Rumored that Matz could come back.
I prefer looking at this non-emotionally. This was a business decision by Syndergaard. 99% of baseball players are going to pick the team that offers them the most money. Syndergaard just had TJS and had an opportunity to make 2.5 million more and I don't blame him. If it goes bad his chances to make more money might be diminished and he is getting his while he can. It was business for the Mets too. I don't think this could have worked out more perfectly for them. Syndergaard is a big risk. Eliminating that risk, getting a draft pick for doing so and being able to reinvest that money elsewhere in less risky options is how you build a winning club. If he has a great year for the Angels we can always sign him for 2023.
You make a point, Dallas.......I can get a little hot headed, sometimes!
With that said, what bugs me is all of his pre-QO comments about being grateful to get a QO and not imagining playing anywhere else by NY, etc. Then, he gets the offer and sits on it for a bit while shopping his services elsewhere, eventually getting a better offer from the Angels that he reportedly accepted without contacting the Mets or allowing them to match, etc.
Its bizarre and the whole thing just rings hollow, IMO.
We end up with some additional money to spend and a draft pick, but a void to fill in the rotation. Noah moves on to a new team, league and city with a LOT to prove (not to mention he will be eligible for a QO next offseason, whereas if he took the Mets' offer, he would not have that to worry about next year).
Some have said he can just come back in 2023.......not sure the Mets would take him back at this point, but stranger things have happened.
yeah, pretty sure there are no bridges to Citi Field left standing for Syndergaard
I agree with Mike here . .good riddance if that is his attitude. I understand the business and taking the top dollar, but all the stomach churning b.s. before the fact is a little hard to take from those of us that won't make anything near $18M in our lifetimes
Remem 69 I took my QOer with no complaints and said THANK YOU.
:-)
Honestly I don't think Syndergaard ever contemplated there would be a market for his services that would be better than what the Mets were offering with the QO. I have no ill will towards him. I am grateful that someone else gets to work through his arm issues next year and we get a draft pick for it. The Angels are making a bad baseball move. Sure it could work out but it still doesn't mean it was the right choice at the time.
Dallas, I'm pretty sure you are right. When he closed the year, he must have figured that if he could get 18M on the table, that was going to be the a big win and more than he could expect.
I am not completely convinced though that it is a bad baseball move by the Angels. They are in worse shape for pitching than the Mets and are in the Mike Trout window to start winning. They are also a rich market team that does not have as much tied up in 2022 salary as the Mets do, so the extra 2.6 is not that big an issue for them. Again, a risk-reward thing which if handled well, could be provide a big reward for them.
I don't think they are done signing pitchers - they are talking about a six-man rotation and I'm guessing they'll secure another one of the top free agents. .perhaps even Stroman.
Post a Comment