Last December’s Andrew McCutchen trade talks between the Nationals and Pirates included top prospect Lucas Giolito and left-hander Gio Gonzalez, reports Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports. Heyman notes that talks between Pittsburgh and Washington centered around three players, and he reported back in December that Giolito and minor league righty Dane Dunning were a part of McCutchen talks. Some combination of Giolito, Dunning and Gonzalez (whose salary is roughly similar to that of McCutchen) certainly seems like a nice haul for the Pirates, though to be fair, Heyman hasn’t specifically listed that trio in a singular report, nor is it clear that said trio was ever actually offered. Furthermore, it’s not known whether the Nationals or the Pirates are the team that backed out of talks before Washington sent Giolito, Dunning and Reynaldo Lopez to the White Sox in exchange for Adam Eaton. McCutchen is off to an ugly .214/.286/.393 start at the plate, though Giolito hasn’t fared much better in the minors. Through 34 1/3 Triple-A innings, he’s posted a 6.55 ERA with 9.4 K/9, 5.0 BB/9 and a 43.3 percent ground-ball rate.
More notes on the Nats…
- Asked about what type of money Bryce Harper will command in free agency, the GM of another club tells Heyman that he believes Harper will command closer to $500MM than $400MM on the open market. Furthermore, he stated a belief that $400MM is the “baseline” for a Harper contract in free agency. There’s been plenty of consternation among fans about whether Harper has truly lived up to the hype surrounding him in his career, though his 2015 NL MVP and .376/.491/.744 start to the 2017 campaign are undeniably strong points in his favor. Harper won’t turn 25 until the season comes to a close, and he’s already been worth 24-26 wins above replacement (depending on one’s preferred version of the metric). Whether that makes him worth an investment approaching half a billion dollars is, of course, another debate, but he certainly looks to have rounded back into form after reports of a shoulder injury that plagued him throughout a “down” season (by his standards) in 2016.
- Nats general manager Mike Rizzo explained the team’s decision to move top prospect Erick Fedde to a bullpen role this season to Mark Zuckerman of MASNsports.com. Washington felt it would have to limit Fedde’s innings this year one way or another, and keeping him in a rotation role would’ve meant shutting him down in the minors at some point. However, by moving him to the ’pen, the Nats can not only manage his innings but also take a look at the former first-rounder on the Major League roster at some point. “If he was farther away from the big leagues in our mind, we probably would just shut his innings down when they were over, and utilize that,” said Rizzo. “…We thought all along that if we were to see Fedde in the big leagues this year, it would probably be in a relief role … as the bullpen struggled and we had three guys on the disabled list at one time, we thought this was a good time to use the transformation to get him into the bullpen.”
- Rizzo also explained to Zuckerman that the Nats consider right-hander Joe Ross “too valuable” as a starting pitcher to consider a similar shift to the bullpen. Rizzo stated that Ross’ stuff is “too good” and referred to him as a “proven starter,” though the Nationals do currently have Ross in Triple-A in an effort to improve his effectiveness against left-handed opponents. Rizzo notes that Ross is “100 percent” healthy but may have been losing his release point as he worked deeper into starts.
Here come the Harper haters.
Just remember, Arod got 10/252 from Texas as a 25-year-old with a pair of top-3 MVP finishes.
That was in 2000 and Harper will be coming off his age-25 season with at least one MVP and probably six All-Star appearances. Add in 18 years of inflation and $400 million starts to look LOW.
If every player suddenly became a free agent after this season (obviously wouldn’t happen, this is just hypothetical), I think only 2 players, Trout and Machado, would definitely be worth $400 million or more. Harper is a good player, but not that much of a superstar. Worth Stanton money, maybe, but I wouldn’t give him more than that.
Trout is certainly worth more from a production standpoint, but I’d imagine Harper would bring in more revenue from merchandise and increased ticket sales because of his persona. He is much more marketable than Trout and seems to seek the spotlight.
I don’t think this extra value is enough to make him more valuable than Trout (who is undeniably more proven), but I think it’s worth noting.
If Trout were to become a FA and say signed with the Yanks he’d blow way up. A player like him playing CF for the greatest franchise in sports,in the media capital of the world,and repped by Nike..well it would be legendary!
Trout has zero personality. It’s not like the Los Angeles Angles are in the middle of nowhere. He’s in LA and still has little to no national exposure. Being a NYY doesn’t mean as much now as it did a decade or so ago.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better!
Why would Machado be “definitely worth $400 million or more”?
I know the cool thing is to hate on Bryce Harper, but am I the only one that thinks Machado is overrated? Yes, he’s a very good player. But I wouldn’t put him anywhere near Trout in this conversation. And quite frankly, if he’s playing 3B, I would pretty easily put him below Harper too. I don’t think his bat is anywhere near as dangerous as Trout or Harper’s. There floors (Trout specifically) are as high as Machado’s ceiling right now. Sure, he could absolutely blow up and get to that next level, but I’m not risking $400+ million on it.
And yes, I know defense is part of the game too and blah blah blah. If the team paying Machado thinks he can play an above average SS everyday while OPS’ing .850+, then the conversation (vs Harper) starts to change in his favor.
Because Machado plays a premier defensive position.
He plays 3B… I wouldn’t call that a “premier defensive position.” That title is for SS, CF, and C imo.
As I said, if the signing team thinks he can be an above average SS everyday, then the conversation changes. But as of right now, he’s a 3B…
His defense is considered extremely valuable at either position.
I’m aware that he’s a good defender. Again, maybe it’s just me, but I don’t place THAT much of a premium on third base defense. Yes, it’s absolutely important, but I don’t think it’s important enough to make up for the massive difference in their bats. Trout and Harper have significantly more upside with the bat compared to Machado.
Again, like I said before, if he’s playing an above average shortstop everyday instead of third, the conversation changes. THAT is a premium defensive position. Even if that were the case, I’d still have him well below Trout (not even close really), but he’d absolutely be towards the top of that next tier for me.
Trout and Machado are more stable than Bryce. Just look at the stats.
Stanton is over paid.
Stanton signed, what, 13/325, from his own team which included arb years? While having nobody else bidding for his services.
Harper is one of the 10 best players ever through his age already (which people easily dismiss)
Finish out this season and 2017 as a 150 OPS plus, decent fielding corner outfielder at that age, while several teams have money to spend and are eager to win?
40 AAV is likely the floor for him at that point. The question will be length of commitment and opt outs (which could lower the total price).
A-Rod played a premium position where offense was not plentiful. He didn’t have any bad years. Harper does not play a premium position and already has had an off year.
The money teams (Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Red Sox,) have no need to lock their team into such a deal with their present outfielders except the Yankees, who have not shown a willingness to give out big deals like they had in the past.
Nobody is worth that level of money. Contracts like that are why many cannot afford to go to a MLB game. And the argument about TV contracts paying for it doesn’t work. Just look at parking, memorabilia, and concession costs.
Okay, you can attack me now, but I’ll not change my opinion.
Do you think MLB tickets would be cheaper if all the players agreed to play for the league minimum? Honest question, not meant to attack you.
Yes.
yes
yes
No. The owners will charge whatever the market will bear and regardless of whatever the players are making.
Not for a second. Ticket sales are no longer large portions of the revenue stream. There are many teams that could give the tickets away for free and still turn a profit but choose not to.
Yeah by the time you buy tickets for a family of four to go to a game you’re already around $100 maybe more depending on where you are. Then on top of that you’ll probably pay 10-30 in parking (at least in Cincy) and your kids will want something to eat/drink or whatever else so by the time you’ve got all that you’ve spent probably $200 for 2-4 hrs of your time
The best way to start a debate is by opening with “I’ll not change my opinion”.
Do I agree with you that ticket prices and all the associated costs of going to a game are high? Yes. However, there are obviously enough people paying those prices to keep the business going, otherwise we wouldn’t see salaries and franchise valuations going up like they are.
Minor league baseball is a great alternative. Pretty much everybody in the continental US is close to a team, prices are much lower, great atmosphere, and very family friendly.
Well said. Agreed
I have a simple solution if you find the prices too high… don’t go to games and don’t watch! I agree, the money players make is insane and most of the time out of line with their actual production, but complaining about the cost for something you can easily avoid is just childish.
I agree with you completely. I can still go to a Pirates game for about $25 per person if I sit in the cheap seats, which are still fine. When the day comes that these seats are $35-$40 each and it will cost me $200 to take my family of 5 to a game, plus parking $20, food $50, I am looking at $300 for one game, just so a player can make $35 million a season. MLB please put a cap on the team salaries.
That’s not how any of this works lol. Literally nothing.
The pirates are going to continue to inflate the prices because people continue to pay it. If you won’t pay that, but your neighbor will, then they will continue to charge that.
It has nothing to do with the players salary.
When people make comments like this, you realize they know nothing of economics or the business of baseball.
1. The money in the game is from tv money.
2. The price of the tickets to a game are based on the value of the tickets to the most consumers.
3. Businesses, including baseball, don’t set their prices based on their expenses. Literally no successful business on earth operates that way. Your expense budgets are based on the revenue projections that you have, and whatever internal formulas they derive cost and expense vs revenue ratios.
Big money contacts have exactly nothing to do with the cost of the ticket you buy to go to a game. Literally nothing. They are completely separate financial focuses.
The vast majority of team revenue comes from their tv deals. I don’t think any team in baseball derives more than 30% of their total revenue from ticket sales, and even then, a huge chunk of ticket sales are generated by season ticket holders and commercial box sales. I.e. Not you and the family of four going on a Wednesday night.
And again, those prices are set based on the maximum number of people that will attend based on the price. If they can sell 20k tickets and $30 a piece or 30k tickets at $25 a piece, and they have the capacity, they will sell the 30k tickets every time. It’s based on demand. Not their expenses. You would be paying the exact same even if every player in the league made the league minimum.
Teams spend money focusing on total franchise value improvements. And winning is the greatest financial value improvement they can create as a culture. Other things are largely out of their control. But they can control their winning, and sometimes spending big on a player that helps complete the team and improve their location on the win now curve is the best course of action (though, not without risk).
375 m. Is a good deal for Harper and the team willing to pay that amount of money. Dont forget Harper have some neck issues and that is something to think about and have in consideration
If you want to have a successful team then one player can not make $35 million a season. It will over time make the team average or less. MLB needs to cap the total team salary. Pirates are considering trading Gerrit Cole (rumored) plus they will never be able to offer him 7rs/$150 million so they are forced to trade him. The signed him out of college and developed him and just when he gets to be the ACE and pitching well, they have to consider trading him. Yankees for years had a terrible farm team, but didn’t matter because they could just sign any free agent they wanted. Just put a cap on team salary.
Capped salaries are an awful idea in the sport. Especially when the big money is paid for players decline years.
Are the Pirates better off paying Cole to decline on their team, or trade him for the haul of valuable players with their best years ahead of them with several years of control?
Salary caps just takes money from the players and gives it to the owners.
Machado can get something around 325m to 355m the only player that worth more than 400m is trout …
handing that type of money out to one player is a good way to financially handcuff your your ball club.
Depends on the team and the structure of the deal.
Lopez and Gonzalez would have been a nice deal for the Pirates.
Giolito and Gonzalez for Cutch would have just been Gonzalez for Cutch in reality…although even a 1 for 1 of GG for AC would have been better than declining his option this winter, a very possible outcome.
a ball club has 25 men on it, they all have to be pretty damn talented to make the postseason, if Harper gets paid $400+million then the team could probably only afford him, meaning that the team wouldn’t be able to sign anyone else, or anyone significant, meaning that they’ll suck.
Or they don’t care about the luxury tax and pay the extra charges…
All of you guys are acting like the team that signs someone like Harper for 10/400 plans to do so with only an 80 million dollar payroll.
It’s going to be a team in the 180-200m range per year. It’s like adding him to a team that currently sits in the 150-160 range. These are already good teams with large payrolls.
Nationals, O’s, Jays, Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, Red Sox can each afford a 10/400 investment into a 26 year old 8-10 win player.
Also, some surprise teams could make it work (Rangers, Braves, Mets, Angels, Mariners, etc etc) might be able to pull it off.
This isn’t a total shock. Harper is a special player, and teams have the space, motivation, and ability to give him that.
The Pirates messed up. Cutch is done and now they get nothing.
No player is worth that type of contract. None
exactly, any gm or owner for that matter willing to hand out that kind of a contract shouldn’t have a job
Except a 10 Win player totally is considering the financial climate of the game right now. In fact, a 10 win player is worth a lot more than 35ish aav
Can’t wait till he gets way less that $400m. I don’t care who you are, you don’t deserve almost half a billion dollars to play baseball. And who just goes out and talks about fetching a number like that? How arrogant can’t you get. “Yeah I think I deserve around $500m cause I’m so great, would never even consider anything less than $400m.” Give me a break.
If he gets less than that, it’s because he didn’t play well for the next 16 months.
Umm, $400 million for how long? Over 10 years- beyond crazy, no way a team wouldnt be better off with two $20 million (annually) players.
Over 15 years, maybe not quite as nuts- I still wouldn’t do it- but figure in the first 5 years his annual salary isn’t too far off of market value, you hope with inflation he’s a relative bargain years 6-10, and that he’s still useful enough the last 5 years that his salary isn’t an anchor on the team.
For those raising the Arod comparison, keep in mind that even though Arod did everything that could have been reasonably expected of him in Texas, they ultimately had to pay the Yankees to take his contract off their payroll. It was plain and simple a bad contract (in 2000 dollars) that was doomed to fail- it is possible that teams have learned from that mistake and giving Harper a contract that offers the team no potential upside would be a mistake.
If Harper is a 10 win player, and those two 20 million dollar guys are both 4 or 5 win players, you are better off getting Harper and developing a role player to hold down the other position (assuming good health for everyone involved).
i dont think any player is worth 500 million dollars…
When 1WAR costs about 9ish million per year right now. And you assume over the next 10-15 years that inflates to 10-12M
You have to ask yourself if Harper can give you 40-60 WAR over the length of that deal. If so, then he’s worth it.
I think the only reason Harper won’t fly past $400m is that there just aren’t enough bottomless pocket teams to bid it that high. You know exactly who the bidders are going to be … the usual suspects, plus one or two surprise teams whose owners are feeling lucky.
I don’t see any team going that high just yet, because there’s obviously a ton of risk allocating such a large portion of the budget to one asset. That said, if he actually plays up to his ceiling, he’ll always return surplus value, because what he’s doing is in a vacuum worth about $80-100 million per year, so I don’t buy the “there’s no way he’s worth that” narrative- just can’t see a team willing to go to $500M. I’d expect a boatload of opt-outs to suppress the total value slightly