| 01 April 2009
A letter from Beta Twin:
"Only a man of your pedigree and stature can help me with this dilemma regarding the subject of a recent post of yours, Stephen Strasburg. Why would baseball allow Strasburg and Scott Boras to hijack the Nats organization with this supposed 50 million dollar contract demand? Jon Heyman's column on SI.com first raised my ire over this situation. To me this represents one of the fundamental flaws with baseball, the draft process and inability to sign players. It is crazy that anyone can demand this sort of money from an organization without throwing a pitch in the majors. There is no way of knowing whether Strasburg will have a career mirroring Randy Johnson or legendary flameout Mark Prior.
David Price, a former #1 pick signed for 10$ million, considered to be the traditional max value for a #1 pick. Is Stephen Strasburg really 5 times better than David Price or every single other player ever drafted by an MLB team? David Price only just closed out Game 7 of the ALCS last October. Could you imagine the outcry if Matthew Stafford demanded 5 times the pay of past #1 picks in the NFL draft? To me, MLB, and the NFL as well, needs a rookie pay scale similar to what the NBA currently has in place. For Jake Long to be the highest paid at his position in the NFL without playing a snap is ludicrous, and an insult to veterans that have proven themselves over the years. These leagues need to reward performances on the field in the pros and not just hype.
Of course, I realize that there is a BIG difference between an NBA team with up to 15 players and an MLB organization with multiple farm affiliates. However, baseball should be smart enough to come up with a system that allows teams to be able to sign drafted players. (I take that back...obviously Uncle Bud isn't smart enough to think of such a thing.) Surely there must be a cap on what rookies should be able to earn through the draft, whether it be pick-by-pick or a rookie pool max. MLB doesn't have a salary cap of course, but maybe this could be a step towards leveling the playing field. These guys obviously deserve to get paid fairly as top picks, but it has to be reasonable for everyone involved. Heyman compared the contract demands of Strasburg to Sox ace Daisuke Matsuzaka. The only difference between Strasburg and Matsuzaka is that Matsuzaka was a 6 time All-Star in Japan, while Strasburg pitches against the likes of Air Force in the Mountain West. Matsuzaka earned his contract with the Red Sox by clearly being the best pitcher in a nation which has won the first two World Baseball Classics.
Just for arguments sake, let's assume that Strasburg will have a plaque in Cooperstown one day. The worst teams (like the Nats, sorry) should be able to pick the best players without having to worry about signability. In the end isn't this the goal of the draft?? Do fans really want to have to deal with this JD Drew scenario every few years? How can the Nats truly expect to get better if they have last year's first round pick unsigned, and then miss out on the next Walter Johnson because of contract demands. It's not like the Nats are huge players in free agency, Adam Dunn aside. How else would they get better, seriously? Ending Jim Bowden's reign of terror will only get the team so far..."
Beta Twin,
You raise an interesting point in comparing the situations of MLB rookies to NFL and NBA ones. Clearly a large problem in Major League Baseball is the lavish demands of its draftees who have way more options and rights than any other amateur athlete in the world. You're 100% on when you suggest that it hurts parity, and by allowing these potential superstars to avoid going to the seller dwellers that can't afford the current superstars, who is the draft really helping?. So yes Beta Twin, the MLB does need to figure out how to take control of the amateur draft process.
One of the biggest agitators that feeds this dilemma is the flexibility players have going into the MLB draft. Unlike the other major sports, in baseball you can be drafted and chose not to sign, and still keep your amateur status. In fact a large amount of top D1 baseball players have already been drafted at least once, including out of high school and possibly earlier in their college career. This flexibility alone gives all but seniors an incredible bargaining position. I feel this is the first place the MLB needs to focus on in improving singability of draftees.
As for Strasburg's individual case, and debating if he is worth the big paycheck, you have to look at it in a slightly different light. If you don't think of Strasburg as a rookie, but as a free agent, the $50 million investment may not seem so outrageous. You cite Mark Prior as an example of a ‘flameout' however while Prior's inability to stay healthy was disappointing...did he not perform to the ability of his contract?
In his first two healthy years for Chicago Prior started 49 games, pitched 328 innings, posted a record of 24-12, had 392 strikeouts and only 88 walks. He was a main factor in the Cubs winning the division in 2003 and helped the team make a very close push to a World Series.
Yes, at the end of this his arm fell off, but ask yourself...would you pay $10 million for a free agent who could put up numbers like those? I certainly would. So what kind of pitcher would you pay $50 million to have control of for the next 4-5 years? I'd say one who will win 15 or so games a year, strike out about 160-200 batters a year, and post an ERA between 3.5 and 4. If the scouts think Strasburg can do that, then I say show him the money.
| < Prev |
|---|
