No Trade Clause for Werth? Amazing...

Ok.  It's official.  Scott Boras has some naughty pictures of Nationals GM Mike Rizzo, and he used them to blackmail Rizzo into giving Jayson Werth that ridiculous 7 year $126M contract.  How do I know?  The terms of the deal just got crazier.  The Nationals gave him a full no trade clause.

Take a deep breath.  You heard me right.  The Nationals gave a 31 year old right fielder (albeit a very good one right now) a 7 year $126M contract with a full no trade clause.  NBC Hardball Talk's Craig Calcaterra brought some much needed levity to the situation as he want to do:

 "I find this interesting only insofar as I thought that a seven-year, $126 million contract to a corner outfielder over 30 was a defacto no-trade clause to begin with."

Touche.  My problem with the no trade clause given to Werth is that it's gratuitous.  To make matters worse is that it didn't sound like there was any actual negotiating involved in this deal.  Based on the reports I've read, Rizzo offered the contract to Werth (through Boras), and Boras said something to the effect of, "Where do we sign?"  The Nationals probably could've gotten away with either not offering the clause at all, or negotiating the clause into the contract but with a lower average annual salary.  Essentially, the Nationals out negotiated themselves.  Even if they wanted to get out from underneath this albatross of a contract (and they will), they won't be able to unless they get expressed written permission from Werth himself.  Yikes!  

Other highlights from the press conference include the following nuggets:

"One thing I saw with the Nationals team the last few seasons, competing against them, is a grittiness and a willingness to win. They have some talent. It's very young and unpolished. ... I look forward to working with them."

Being a DC Metro resident, I got a chance to see the Nationals a lot, too.  I wish I hadn't, but I did nonetheless.  Outside of Strasburg and Zimmerman (and the occasional Dunn bomb), this team was depressing to watch.  They might have some talent, but they're hardly very talented.  He's got a few 74-88 seasons in his future, so I hope he still enjoys "working with them" in two or three years.

"Over the course of my career I've played with guys who've played into their 40s and seen the kinds of things you need to do to keep yourself in shape. My grandfather played 19 years...I think I have a long career ahead...definitely into my 40s.

Now, that steroid testing is in place, you see player's declining much earlier than their early 40s--unless their name is Jamie Moyer, and he doesn't count because he's a freak of nature.  I have no doubt Werth will keep himself in excellent shape.  I do have serious doubts of him being worth the money he'll be paid in the last three years of his contract.

"The young talent in this organization is immense. With the length of the contract I got, I felt good about this. ... I've been in the postseason a lot the last few years. That's what you play for, what you get to spring training early for. I hate to lose, that's for sure. I don't want to say anything bad about Philly. Look at last year, we had the best record and we didn't win. Nothing's guaranteed. We've got a good scrappy team. You go out there and take your chances."

Yes, Strasburg, Harper, and both Zimmermans are immensely talented.  Outside of that, the Nationals have a pretty shallow farm system, especially at the upper echelons.  Most publications have them ranked in the middle of the pack at best in 2010, and most of that was due to Strasburg.  I love how he says he "hates to lose," yet he signed with a team that's lost 478 games (average of 95.6 games) in the last five seasons. 

Yeah, this wasn't all about the money at all.  Was it?  And that's ok.  There are very few people that would turn down that kind of money, especially when they were being offered between 60-70% of that from other teams.  I just wish people would drop the charade.

Details Surrounding the Jayson Werth Contract

The gruesome details regarding the Nationals deal with Jayson Werth have come to light.  Not surprisingly, it's heavily backloaded.  According to the report, Werth will earn salaries of $10M in 2011, $13M in 2012, $16M in 2013, $20M in 2014, and $21M in 2015, 2016, and 2017.  He'll also get a $4M signing bonus which will be paid out sometime between January 2011 and January 2012. 

This is a pretty great deal for the Nationals over the first three seasons, but that's about it.  It gets pretty ugly after that--$83M for his age-35-38 seasons.  Ouch!  What are the odds this one ends poorly?

The escalation in Werth's salary coincides with the end of Ryan Zimmerman's contract.  If Zimmerman decides he'd rather test the market than sign an extension, the Nationals could be at risk of losing their franchise player.  Zimmerman will be 29 after the 2013 season, and will likely still be at the height of his powers.  There are a lot of teams that would be very interested in a third baseman who hits for power and plays Fielding Bible Award quality defense.  With the way the market has played out over the past few weeks, Zimmerman could get a massive contract.  The Nationals, on the other hand, will be left with a $20M outfielder that's past his prime.  Good trade off...

I hate to disagree...

I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague here at BBIMH but I don't think Jayson Werth's contract has any major effect on the market, especially for Carl Crawford and Cliff Lee. Although this is completely non-baseball related, allow me to indulge in a simile. When I was a senior in college, one of my wife's friends received a wedding proposal while on a cruise her fiancee paid for especially for that purpose. At the time, all of my male friends were somewhat irritated with this gentleman for setting the bar a little high for the rest of us. However, when it came time to get engaged, as most of us have, none of us made the call to Carnival or Royal Caribbean. As sensible adults, we simply treated his behavior as an outlier and proceeded about our business in our usual fashion. The teams reasonably in the running for Crawford and/or Lee include the Yankees, Angels, Tigers, Red Sox, and Rangers. Each of these teams is run by more than capable management that will not wilt to market pressure and will offer either player only what they think is reasonable and cost effective for their team. The "But mom, Jimmy's parents let him stay up to 11:30" argument only works on the weak parents or teams and none of those teams are even in the discussion for those players. No contract, no matter how objectionable, and that does include Darren Dreifort's 5 year, 55 Million dollar monstrosity, has ever really meaningfully changed the market for the higher revenue teams.

I would argue that this move has a much greater effect on the weaker sisters of the league. The deal in effect establishes a sort of poor tax leviable against those teams who cannot offer the inducement of postseason success to prospective signers. The teams who should be terrified of this move are the Orioles and Pirates of this world who now are expected to pay an extra 15% or two years to receive the signature of second class free agents like Carl Pavano and Carlos Pena. If we are to see any effect from the Werth deal, it will be in these signings.

Werth's Big Contract Resets the Market Place

As I mentioned yesterday, Scott Boras is the type of agent who recommends that his top-tier clients wait until late in the offseason before deciding on where to sign.  That is, of course, unless some crazy team comes out of nowhere, and throws bags of money in his client's direction.  In the case of Jayson Werth that's exactly what happened.

MLB.com's Todd Zoleski reports the Washington Nationals have signed right fielder Jayson Werth to a 7 year $126M contract.  Just the other day, Scott Boras confidant, Jon Heyman, predicted Werth would likely see a contract similar to the 4 year $66M deal Jason Bay received last year from.  To see him, instead, receive a contract similar to Matt Holliday's 7 years $120M deal with the Cardinals is pretty shocking. 

The Washington Nationals free agent splash is one that will likely have huge implications on the rest of the free agent market.   Buster Olney tweeted that it "has the impact of an 8.0 earthquake," and compared it to the shockwaves felt after the Dodgers signed a Kevin Brown to a 7 year $105M contract in 1998.  Some might consider this statement to be a bit of an exaggeration, but I don't. 

Werth does a lot of things very well:  hits for power and average, gets on base at a high rate, runs the bases well, and plays excellent defense at a corner outfield spot.  While I don't think giving Werth an average annual salary of $18M per season is excessive (I have him pegged as being worth $15-16M per season over the next five years), it's still ill advised.   This is especially true when you're paying that kind of money out over seven years to a player who will be 38 years old when the contract expires.  The Nationals, still 2-3 years away from being contenders, probably shouldn't have signed Werth.  It would've been a lot smarter for them to save up their money, and focus on developing their farm system.  That said, if they had to sign him, they probably should have signed him to a five year deal rather than a seven year deal.  Then again, if the Nationals hadn't been so willing to overpay for Werth's services, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

So how does this affect the rest of the free agent market?  It completely resets it.  Everything we thought we knew can get thrown out the window.  If Werth can get 7 years $126M, then Crawford probably won't be willing to take the 6 years $112M contract I suggested he was worth in October.  Instead, he'll probably get a deal closer to 8 years $160-170M.  This narrows down Crawford's suitors to the big guns:  the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels. 

Cliff Lee's price probably went up as well.  If Werth can get a 7 year deal at 31 years old, why can't Lee get the same at 32?  Lee is after all, the premier pitcher on the free agent market.  With Lee, we're now looking at C.C. Sabathia money--7 years $161M.  Keep in mind that Sabathia received his contract when he was 27 years old.  The Rangers aren't going to commit to Lee for that long, so this all but guarantees he signs with the Yankees.

What about Adrian Beltre?  Well, initially I had him pegged at 4/$56M or 5/$64M.  Now, we might be seriously looking at him getting a deal closer to 5/$80M, which was unthinkable when the offseason started.  The Angels and Orioles are among the teams interested.  If the Orioles don't land Mark Reynolds in a trade, I expect them to go hard after Beltre.  Like the Nationals, the O's might need to overpay in order to acquire a premier free agent.   That said, the Angels had the most unproductive third base situation in baseball in 2010, and are desperate to upgrade.  If they don't sign their primary target (Crawford), we might see the Angels overpay Beltre in order to avoid coming up empty handed.  Beltre has a home in Los Angeles, which makes Anaheim an ideal destination for both parties.

As you can see, this contract has wide reaching implications.  It essentially sets the tone for the free agent market for years to come, and kick starts the next period of salary inflation.  The scary part is that this contract will probably be topped at least three more times over the next few months when Cliff Lee, Carl Crawford, and Adrian Gonzalez sign their megadeals. 

Werth in High Demand

According to John Paul Morosi of FoxSports, Jayson Werth has multiple suitors.  The most serious of his suitors appear to be the Phillies, Red Sox, and Tigers.  The Rangers and Angels are also rumored to be interested in signing the 31 year old right fielder, but would likely only become active players if their primary targets signed with other teams.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not sold on the idea that the Phillies are really interested in bring Werth back.  Amaro’s quote from Randy Miller’s recent article only strengthens my opinion:

"Oh, I think it's a possibility," general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. said by phone Thursday. "We never ruled it out. People can speculate whatever they want to speculate. We've never said we don't want to bring him back."

See what I mean?  While he says the Phillies haven’t ruled out bringing Werth back, he never goes as far as saying that bringing him back is a priority.  With every comment he makes, it feels like he’s playing along to keep up appearances and placate the fan base.  To my knowledge, there haven’t been any rumors or reports of Werth meeting with the Phillies brass to discuss a new contract.  While those meetings may occur in the near future, the absence of said rumors is the reason I question Amaro’s sincerity. 

As for the Red Sox, they met with the right fielder on Wednesday in Chicago.  The purpose of the meeting was not to exchange contract offers, but to give both parties a chance to meet and get to know each other. 

While the Red Sox are considered the favorites to sign Werth, it appears they’ve have actually made Carl Crawford their primary target with Werth being their Plan B.  This strategy is actually pretty sound.  The Red Sox know Scott Boras will probably keep Werth from signing until after Crawford signs, presumably to drive up the demand for his services.  This gives the Sox a chance to put all of their efforts into signing Crawford.  If Crawford were to sign with another team, the Red Sox can switch gears, and put all of their resources into signing Werth.

Negotiations should start to heat up next week when baseball leadership convenes for the Winter Meetings.  Werth is reportedly looking for Matt Holliday money.  In other words, he wants a six or seven year deal worth $20M per season.  This seems to be a tad excessive to me considering his age and skill set.  Werth is a very good player, but he’s not a 6-7 WAR player like Holliday.  When it’s all said and done, he’ll probably sign a five year contract worth $17-18M annually. 

How is Ruben Amaro Still Employed?

Ruben Amaro's continued employment with the Phillies only proves my theory that corporations (of any kind) prefer mediocrity to innovation and competence.  Think I'm wrong?  If I was, Amaro never would've said this:

"Amaro, however, did bring Werth into the discussion when asked about leftfielder Raul Ibanez‘ 2010 season.

Ibanez 'was still a pretty productive player and . . . his numbers are not all that different from Jayson’s last year,' he said. What did [Ibanez] have, 83 RBIs? Jayson had 85. [Ibanez] didn’t have as many opportunities as Jayson did to drive in runs.

“Clearly, Jayson had more runs scored [106 for Werth and 75 for Ibanez] and his on-base percentage and stuff were better, but [Ibanez] had 37 doubles and five triples. . . . The difference in their production was not all that great.”

This comment is interesting for two reasons.  One, Amaro is clearly trying to save face by justifying his signing of Raul Ibanez a couple of years ago.  By attempting to prop up Ibanez's performance (while cutting down Werth's), he's proactively trying to deflect criticism from both the fans and media.  Let's be honest about all of this though.  Ibanez is in a clear state of decline, and at this point is worse than Werth in every facet of the game.  Going into his age-37 season, Ibanez will be make $13M, thus making him nearly untradeable.  Essentially, Ibanez's presence on the 2011 roster is the primary reason the Phillies won't be able to re-sign Jayson Werth.

Two, Amaro's comment shows he lacks a fundamental understanding of how runs are created.  He still views offense through the lens of run production, rather than run creation.  In his world, all of the credit for run creation is given to RBI men that drive in runs.  As I've mentioned before, this point of view is fundamentally flawed because (a) it assumes the act of driving in runs is a skill (which it's not), and (b) completely ignores the skill involved in getting on base.  Getting on base is probably the most important aspect of run creation.  If players don't get on base, the only way for a team to score is via the solo home run.  I don't think I need to tell you that this isn't the most efficient way of scoring runs. 

My favorite part about Amaro's quote is when he says, "The difference in their production was not all that great."  Just looking at offensive production, Werth created 39.9 weighted runs above average (.397 wOBA), while Ibanez created 10.1 (.341 wOBA).  Werth got on base more often, slugged for a greater average, ran the bases more effectively, and was a slightly better defender.  Using WAR as a measure of value, Werth outpace Ibanez, 5.0 to 1.8.  In other words, Werth was an All-Star quality outfielder, while Ibanez was a fringe starter.  To me, the difference in production was huge.  Then again, I'm using objective measures, while Amaro is trying to save his own ass.  If it wasn't for a massive difference in age (and race), I'd openly wonder if Ruben Amaro and Britney Spears were twins separated at birth.  They both exhibit the similar levels of baseball knowledge and questionable judgment.

Boras Pulls Heyman's Strings...Again!

 
In response to Ruben Amaro's comment regarding the Phillies interest in Jayson Werth, John Heyman reported via Twitter that the Phillies are making a "big push" to sign him.  Anyone who follows baseball knows that Heyman is Scott Boras's personal hand puppet.  (Enjoy the visual everyone.)  It's getting increasingly difficult figuring out where Heyman's head begins and Boras's ass ends.  This seems like nothing more than an effort to keep as many high payroll teams in the hunt for Werth's services in an effort to drive up the price.  It's a smart move by Boras, but I'm not sure what it says about Heyman.  On one hand, it's possible he's unaware of what Boras is doing.  If so, then Heyman is a fool.  On the other hand, Heyman knows what Boras is doing, and is willing to help him out because he wants the scoop.  If so, then Heyman is being a tad unethical.

Phillies Still Interested in Retaining Werth?

A couple of days ago, ESPN's Jayson Stark reported the following on the negotiations between the Phillies and right fielder Jayson Werth:

"Here’s one Phillies source on the odds of his team finding a way to keep Jayson Werth: “No chance. None. Zero.” In the end, it might not even be the annual dollars that will force the Phillies to move on. It’s their unwillingness to go beyond three or four years for a player who will turn 32 next May."

When Phillies GM Ruben Amaro caught wind of Stark's report, he apparently went ballistic:

“That’s unequivocally a false statement,” Amaro said. “That did not come from me and I would not express that.”

Ok.  I'm sure Amaro wouldn't express that he has no interest in retaining Werth--at least not publically.  He's not stupid.  I'm sure if he finds away to pawn Raul Ibanez and his $13M salary off on some poor soul (Brian Sabean anyone?), he'll make a real attempt for Werth.  Until that happens, I don't expect for there to be any real movement on the Phillies end.  Going into 2011, all of their starting outfield slots are filled.  Ibanez will be in left, Victorino in center, and super prospect Dominic Brown will be in right.  Unless the National League decides to unexpectedly adopt the DH rule, there's no place for Werth to play.  They're not going to bench Ibanez, and they shouldn't stunt Brown's growth.  He's ready to play in the big leagues, and he deserves the shot to show everyone what he can do.

I'm sure Amaro and the Phillies like Werth, but I've never gotten the impression that they liked him that much.  I understand that.  Werth is not a sexy player.  He's one of those players that's great at nothing, but good at everything.  Players like Werth tend to be undervalued league-wide.  Factor in Werth's age, I can understand why an old school type of GM like Amaro would be apprehensive about signing a 32 year old corner outfielder with no exceptional strengths.  I'm not saying he's right (because he's not).  I'm just saying I understand his thought process.  

Jayson Stark is a pretty well respected baseball writer with a history of having great sources, especially within the Philadelphia sports scene.  While I take any trade and free agent rumors with a grain of salt, I'm much more likely to believe a guy like Stark than I am Amaro.  It's not that Amaro isn't trustworthy.  I'm sure he is.  My reasoning is that Amaro has a vested interest in keeping all of his options open.  Sometimes that includes withholding information from the public.  Stark's only interest is in reporting the information.

Please Get Me Some of Whatever He's Smoking

We all knew it would happen eventually, but Scott Boras has finally gone off his rocker.  MLB.com's Todd Zoleski has all of the juicy details:

“We have, in my mind, probably the most coveted offensive player in the free-agent market,” Boras said. “Carl Crawford is a really great player, but the truth of the matter is, Werth scores as many runs, and his on-base percentage is the same. Werth is a guy that can play center field and has played center field recently.  He’s a Gold Glove-type outfielder. Crawford is, too. But the big difference is that Werth has 87 home runs over the last three years and Crawford has 42. Werth is really a middle-of-the-lineup guy. I think when he bats third, he’ll be a 110-to-120-runs-scored guy and a 100-RBI guy. And I think teams that are looking for a right-handed bat view Werth as a middle-of-the-lineup guy.”

If you're wondering if Scott Boras was high when he said this, you're not alone.  While he's right that Werth has hit for more power and driven in more runs than Crawford over the past two seasons, Crawford actually provided an additional 2.5 WAR in comparison to Werth.  While both players have skill sets that are likely to age well, Crawford is three years younger than Werth.  This makes Crawford a much better bet to play at a high level deeper into his contract. 

Additionally, Boras is apparently looking to get Matt Holliday money (7 years $120M) for Werth.  I don't have to tell you that it's an incredibly bad idea investing that kind of contract into a player that will be 39 when his contract is up.  If you don't believe me, ask the Yankees and Cubs how the Kevin Brown and Alfonso Soriano contracts have worked out.   If anything, I see him getting a contract a little bigger than the one the Red Sox signed to J.D. Drew (a great comp for Werth injuries aside).  My money is on a four or five year deal with an average annual salary of $15-16M.

So Raul Ibanez's Contract was a Bad Move for the Phillies? I'm Shocked!

 
When Raul Ibanez signed a three year $31.5M contact in December 2008, analysts in the SABR community cried shenanigans--and rightly so.  The Phillies, coming off of a semi-surprising World Series championship, had just committed a significant amount of money to a player entering his age-35 season.  SABR analysts had two primary issues with this signing.  The first was that players entering their age-35 season are usually some state of decline.  This is especially true of players, like Ibanez, who have below average base running skills, and questionable (and this is being kind) defensive skills at a corner outfield position.  The second was that the free agent market clearly shifting away from the old, slow, lumbering power hitting 1B/LF/RF/DH types in favor of younger, athletic, defensive oriented players.  Rather than allow the market to play out, the Phillies jumped on Ibanez by offering him a contract at the 2007 going rate.  Had the Phillies been patient, they probably could've gotten the discount that teams were able to get on comparable players like Adam Dunn, Pat Burrell, and Jason Giambi.   Two years later, it's looking the SABR analysts were right.  After an All-Star quality showing in 2009 (.379 wOBA, +3.9 UZR, and a 3.9 WAR--all the best showings of his career), Ibanez struggled out of the gate and regressed back to his career norms (.341 wOBA, -6.7 UZR, 1.8 WAR).  Obviously, this is bad news for the Phillies considering we can expect similar regression from Ibanez who will be entering his age-37 season in 2011. 

This has created an interesting dilemma for the Phillies.  Right field Jayson Werth will be a free agent this offseason.  Werth is the type of players SABR analysts and new-age front offices love.  He's good, but not great, at everything.  Werth has a very good batting eye (.367 career OBP and 12.3% career walk rate), above average power (.481 career SLG), plus defensive skills (a career +10.3 UZR/150 in the outfield), and above average base running abilities (87.5% career stolen base rate).  Essentially, he's everything that Ibanez isn't.  Seems like an easy decision for the Phillies, right?  Wrong.  The Phillies have one of the top outfield prospects in the game, Dominic Brown.  Brown has been described in some circles as a five tool player with once in a lifetime talent.  While it's likely that the "once in a lifetime talent" remark is a bit over the top, there's no denying his talent.  The Phillies hold him in such high regard that they were willing to empty their farm systems in the Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, and Roy Oswalt trades just to keep from having to give up Brown.  In 2011, Brown will be given every opportunity to take hold of a starting corner outfield position.  As a result, the Phillies will likely fill Werth's impending vacancy with Brown, unless they can find a way to unload Ibanez's $12M salary.  Considering Ibanez's poor showing last season, this is unlikely.

How does Ibanez's contract play into this?  Rob Neyer says it best:

"But this all goes back to the Raul Ibanez contract, which we hated. If the Phillies hadn't signed Ibanez for $31.5 million, they'd have a little more cash available for Werth. If the Phillies hadn't signed Ibanez, they would have the perfect spot for Domonic Brown.

Instead, if they are able to re-sign Werth they'll have to either eat some of Ibanez's salary or make Brown wait another few months for an every-day job.

As usual, the real issue here isn't money. It's flexibility. When the Phillies were foolish enough to commit $31.5 million to Ibanez, they were also committing three years and 1,800 plate appearances to him. Which, even though he's played reasonably well through the first two years and 1,200 plate appearances, just never made much sense."

As usual, Rob is dead on here.  I don't advocate holding a position open for a prospect that's a couple of years away from the majors, no matter how good that player projects to be.  They're called prospects for a reason.  For every "can't miss" prospect that lives up to the hype, there are several who fall below that mark--if they make it to the majors at all.  That said, the Phillies would've been well served had they signed Ibanez (or preferably a player with a better set of skills) to a contract that kept Brown's arrival in mind.  Had they done so, the Phillies would've had enough money (and a position) to sign a 32 year old multi-skilled player that's averaged 5.0 WAR per season since 2008 (Werth).  Instead, they will be stuck with an aging (37 year old), one-dimensional player that's averaged 2.5 WAR per season since 2008 (Ibanez).  Every team has choices, and it appears the Phillies choice to go three years with Ibanez could have long term repercussions.