Overpaying for relievers
Maybe the Pittsburgh Pirates aren't the team to be taking lessons from, but then again, why not? In a small market, they've got to make things work and work on the cheap, relatively speaking. I bring this up after reading a Pirates blog in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Pirates beat writer Dejan Kovacevic follows up on the Pirates' non-tendering of closer Matt Capps:
http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/pbc/archive/2009/12/14/morning-l...
What struck me were comments by Pirates GM Neal Huntington. Dejan reports: "Neal Huntington commissioned Dan Fox, the Pirates' statistical guy, to perform an analysis of the value of relief. Among other information it produced: If you take the top 50 relievers in the game, then take out all the closers, there tends to be a 60 percent turnover from year to year."
Huntington's "long-standing thinking" is summed up this way: "People have tried to pay the big bucks for relief, and it generally doesn't work."
Ring any bells?
How about Mike Remlinger at three years and $10.6 million? Or LaTroy Hawkins at three years and $11 million? Or Bob Howry for three years and $12 million. Or Scott Eyre at three years for $11 million?
Yep, those are all relievers signed by the Cubs in the era of Jim Hendry as GM. Just recently, Hendry re-signed lefty reliever John Grabow for two years and $7 million. We'll see how that works out. It may or it may not.
Hendry also has signed veterans such as Mark Guthrie and Scott Williamson, with less than stellar results. To paraphrase the late Sen. Everett Dirksen, a few million here and a few million there, and pretty soon we're talking real money.
As most of you know, the return on almost all of these investments was not what the Cubs bargained for. Remlinger was a total disaster. Hawkins was miscast as a closer, and he did and said knuckleheaded things in his time with the Cubs before they traded him. Howry had his moments, but really, was he any better than our old pal Michael Wuertz (I had to bring that up again)? You know how Lou felt about Eyre, a.k.a., "Stevie Ire."
Huntington did not tender a contract to Capps, 26, who made $2.425 million this year and was seeking a reported $3.4 million in arbitration. The Pirates figured they could probably do better, or at least no worse, for a lot less. The real outcry in Pittsburgh is not over the Pirates losing Capps, but getting nothing for him. When the Post-Gazette reported that the Pirates might not tender Capps a 2010 contract, interest from potential trading partners allegedly dried up. Huntington at least blamed the leak in his own front office and not the paper for reporting that Capps might not be tendered.
The Cubs, as we reported yesterday on this blog, have some interest in Capps. However, they want to see what his market value is because they don't have much spare money lying around.
I'd love to hear what you think about the whole idea of paying middle relievers big bucks, but it will be interesting to watch the Pirates' approach and see if other teams, even bigger-market teams, follow suit.
Guess where most of the solid middle relievers come from...the low budget clubs. Why? Because they give their young guys a chance to prove themselves. They gain valuable experience and don't have all the pressure in the world on them. Who is our best reliever usually? Marmol. Where did he come from? Our system. Signing all these older guys to huge contracts creates unnecessary pressure. Who cares what you have done, what you are doing in the present is what is important.
Oh, and one reason I believe that a lot of these big signings struggle (and the turnover of the top 50 like mentioned above) occurs due to them finding success one year, exploiting it, then the rest of the league/hitters catching up and figuring them out.
Fuld is an excellent defender, Pods is a below average defender in CF. Fuld will likely put up a higher on base percentage than Pods, based on past track records. The only thing Pods does better is steal bases, and that is just not worth the signing. I would agree with platooning Johnson and Fuld in CF as a better option than Byrd or Podsenik.
No way on earth would I want the Cubs to commit 15.5 million to Mike Cameron. It would be more of the same. The same people that are complaining about him getting away are the ones who would complain first about him hitting .250 for 8 million a year.
There is NO REASON to pay for guys who perform at basically replacement level, regardless if they are relievers, CF or 2nd base.
Pods: 1.7 UZR in CF in 2009
Fuld: -38.2 UZR in CF in 2009
R. Johnson: -2.1 UZR in CF in 2009
Fukudome: -18.1
Cameron: 10.3 in 2009
Rowand: 1.5
Nyjer Morgan: 40.5
I should throw this one in there, too:
Pie: 5.3 UZR in 2009
Couple of things:
First, middle relief. Middle relievers (and closers for that matter) are by products of the specialization of roles that developed because of free agency. It used to be that most starters would give you seven or more innings regardless of how the game was going. When you went to the pen it was either a veteran starter who was at the end of the line or a wet behind the ears fire-baller who would cut his teeth by mopping up. The thing about that is those young guys gained their experience in the pen before eventually becoming starters. Now guys are drafted and put into roles in the minors to be groomed as a specialist and I think it's a terrible waste of money and talent. If there is one aspect of MLB I could change it would be a return to the way pitchers used to be developed, too much money gets thrown at too many guys who really shouldn't by in the bigs.
Second. I kind of feel the window for the Cubs as they are currently comprised has closed. I would rather see them fill their position, bullpen, and bench holes from within. How terribly worse would they be with a platoon of Sam Fuld and Reed Johnson in center vs. signing Byrd or Podsednick? Defensively speaking, is Jake Fox (now gone) or Micah Hoffpauir going to lose any more games for you vs. Soriano or Bradley? Would the cost of an Orlando Hudson really be more efficient or productive than a platoon of Baker and Fontenot?
I just look at it and see where all the money is tied up and think that they can get just as good of a result by staying in the organization as they can by going outside which in the long run will be better for the club. If you can develop your roster and keep them under control for an extended period, not only will you find out what you have but you'll also create value in those players who can be used as future bargaining chips in future trades. Additionally, it frees up future dollars to get the over the top FA when you really need him.
Just my 2 cents...
One of the least appreciated yet key roles on a baseball team is that of a middle reliever or set-up man. A team must have a lead BEFORE getting to the closer for the closer to have any chance to prove their value.
Saves are a key statistic, but just as important is "holds". A middle reliever that can choke off rallies and shut the door on the opposition from the 6th thru the 8th inning also allows their offense the opportunity to stage a comeback if their team is losing.
I think we need to separate true middle relievers from those pitchers thrown into a game for mop-up duty when their team is hopelessly behind.
How well do you think the Cubs would've done in 2008 without Marmol coming into the game in the 7th or 8th inning and then handing the game off to Wood to close it out?
did Marmol come from? Failed starter.
Where did Wood come from? Failed starter.
Cubs will have plenty of failed starters to choose from in 2010.
"Saves are a key statistic" omg, Saves might be the single most ridiculous statistic in the history of statistics.
>> Saves might be the single most ridiculous statistic in the history of statistics. <<
Both agree and disagree.... the fact is that a game comes down to the effectiveness of the starter, middle reliever AND closer (if needed) as well as offensive production. If one of those 4 don't do what they're in the game to do, it obviously makes it more difficult to win.
How many games have a Cub middle reliever blown after being handed a game with a lead? Last season it was conceded that Cub starting pitchers weren't the problem.... it was the offense (Piniella likes to blame it on injuries), Gregg and middle relief.
Saves and Holds don't tell you ANYTHING about how good a pitcher is though.
Aaron Heilman can come into the game in the 6th inning with a 5-2 lead. He could give up 2 runs and he would be credited with a hold even though he sucked.
Ricketts, Phil Wrigley, Chicago Tribune, WHATS THE DIFFERENCE .
I don't care about the lousy exspensive food, or toilets, I'm only there 3- 4 1/2 hours, I can wait.
It seems like the plan is to fix everything else and then the team. If they want to build the organization the right way from the minor league systen on up which is where I think they are going they might as well start now and move some players for up and coming prospects. Please don't wait two years to start a five year rebuilding plan.
Middle relievers are generally failed starters and closers, so why any team would commit years and dollars to that position is beyond me. Agreed with other posts, these roles should be filled with cheap alternatives - whether it is a young pitcher or an outcast veteran.
If you combined the money spent by the Hendry on middle relief, the Cubs could have signed a decent starting pitcher or a proven closer over the past few years.
Well, Dave, I understand what you are saying, and to some degree it's true, but just a little short-sighted.
Relief pitchers USED TO BE nothing more than failed starters, etc, etc. However, over the past 30 years, more and more, relief pitching has become a specialty. Granted that some of these "specialists" are still failed relievers, but more often they are groomed to become relievers in the minors for one reason or another.
Some pitchers are just plain cut out to be relievers. Bruce Sutter is a prime example. His success was based on this splitter....a devastating pitch in short bursts, but which becomes more hittable the more it is seen. Conversely, a knuckleball pitcher also has a devastating pitch, but it is less suitable for relief because it is also hard to catch, and that usually leads to losses late in games with runners on. Also the knuckleball is so unpredictable it doesn't matter how often a hitter sees it. Consequently good knuckleballers are usually made starters.
Other factors, like injuries, Kerry Wood, as an example turn starters into relievers. And yet simple body Physique can determine whether a pitcher should be a starter or reliever. Again a good Cubs example was Juan Cruz. The Cubs kept trying to make him a starter but after 3 innings or so, he would start losing his stuff. That wasn't all the Cubs fault, by the way. He was young and head strong and didn't want to be converted to a reliever, so the Cubs got rid of him and he "woke up" somewhere else.
Today, most successful relievers were groomed to be just that, because the above factors are sorted out earlier in the minors now than they used to be.
BroLight - I actually agree with your assessment, but the truely quality relievers year after year are closers, period. And there aren't that many of them out there.
You would be hard pressed to find a consistent, quality middle reliever that has pitched in the 7th or 8th innings over a 3 to 4 year span. Generally these guys have a quality year or two and then they play to the back of their baseball card again. I'm not sure whether that is due to overwork, or statiscal outliers (i.e. very low BABIP), but those player don't consistently produce to make the investment worth while.
Teams are much better off taking that money and using it to develop their own talent to take a flier on a veteran with a one year contract .
if they know how to evaluate & develop their own talent. So how does Michael Wuertz go from a decent/fair pitcher here to much better with the A's? Is it the Cubs evaluation process? Are the pitching coaches not owning up to the task?
Once those answers are addressed, then we can move onward. It's one thing to have to pay relievers because your organization truly doesn't have what's needed. But it's a whole other - and much more serious issue - to have that talent, not know it & deal it away.
Oh BTW, Capps would be nice at the right price but I'd be interested in seeing how Carrasco just non-tendered by the ChiSox would fit in on the North side.
Hello daddio...
Wow, its been a long time since I said, let alone typed that phrase. I hope for your sake that doesn't make you as old as I am.
They still don't, with a few exceptions, and relatively speaking, pay relievers big bucks; but a good reliever is worth every penny he is paid.
As far as your Wuertz question is concerned. Wuertzee was always hard to get a hit off of and still is. And he isn't a bit better now than he was with the Cubs. He had a good year last year, but had a very similar year with the Cubs in about 06, if I recall.
And it wasn't a matter of pitching coach or improper evaluation, either. Michael should be pitching for the Cubs today, and if Rothschild had the final say, he still would be.
Just because a pitcher like Wuertz is a good reliever, and he is, doesn't mean they don't have a bad streak or two in a good year, or even a bad year or two in a career, for any number of reasons. In Wuertz's case, he is gone due to the convergence of two factors: a bad streak during which he lost some confidence and control and Lou Piniella's lack of patience. If there is fault to be assigned, it belongs around Lou's neck.
It was the very same with Eyre, except that in the case of the latter, Lou never showed any respect for the pitcher. He joked about mispronouncing his name and all, and it might have been funny at the time, but when it continues, it's by design or Lou just didn't care or respect him enough and that is inexcusably rude and lazy on Lou's part. We could have used Eyre last year, but he wasn't there because of Lou.
Don't get me wrong...Lou has his strengths, but his weaknesses seem to me to be about being too lazy or too old to care about these things and this definitely should be his last year.
Bruce....
Since the great expansion of MLB revenues through the last two media contracts, the continuing gains from internet revenues, etc. The players have benefited greatly overall, but the middle relievers were the last group to see those gains benefit them. So GENERALLY it can be said that part of the increased cost of middle relief is systemic.
When looking at the "pace setters" among highly paid MR, one has to look at the teams involved. Again generally speaking MR is more highly paid on teams that think they will be in genuine contention, than those who think not. And with the Cubs having become annual contenders, it should be expected that this applies to the Cubs, and it does.
As the belief grows that contending teams get there with pitching, that too contributes to higher salaries for MR. Even the Rangers have finally accepted this fact, and it has accelerated under Ryan's leadership.
As far as the Cubs are concerned, after the 2003 finish, the near miss had Cubs management believing that the Cubs could from that time forward be annual contenders. Even though that wasn't always the case, that feeling of being so close fueled the need to have a top flight relief corp...enter Mercker, Hawkins & Dempster, all thought to have been overpaid.
I need to break the history recap, here to mention that the success with having signed a rehabbing Dempster, Jim seemed enchanted by such "opportunities" from that point forward.
After 04 Baker debacle down the stretch blamed largely on a tired bullpen and poor clutch hitting...enter Williamson & the first of several "enchanted" contracts with Chad Fox. After 05 season in which the bullpen went through pitchers like Tiger went through mistresses in trying to buttress the success of Dempster, Ohman & Hawkins....enter Howry & Eyre and Hendry began to be a "pace setter" in paying for relief pitching & was scolded by Bud.
Then came the calamity of 06 with Derrick's injury & young starters leading the way down. Afterwards came the exits of Baker and MacPhail and the beginning of the GREAT PUSH for the Series with the Tribsters opening the checkbook wide in trying to WIN NOW as the Tribune's other assets were sliding into the abyss and the sale of the Cubs at MAX value became an unannounced certainty, and an in house necessity. Rebuilding the Cubs on short notice, going worst to first, was the command given Hendry, who did what he had to do to rebuild the rotation and boost the offense but not on the bullpen, spending a lot of money in the process.
Nothing of import was done to the pen after being swept out of the playoff in 07 & the trade for Gregg was the only real addition from outside the organization after the sweep out of the 08 playoffs.
That pretty much brings us up to date, except to remind everyone that along the way holdover relievers were earning MORE than adequate raises through the arbitration process, which was driving up the average cost of a MR, and Lou was running off pitchers like Hill, Eyre & Wuertz which didn't exactly have a moderating impact on salaries, either.
Has Hendry overspent on some relievers? Of course. But does that make him one bit different than any other contending GM? Not even a little bit! They have all overpaid at times, especially when contending.
Also, when you are trying to BUILD a winner, it takes $$$s on both ends....to sign good pitching, and to pay off the failures. If a team sits around and lets these contracts work themselves out, the rest of the team ages and the team gets caught in a vicious cycle of always rebuilding but never getting there.
The team's present circumstance is more negatively affected by moves made because of ownership's sudden surge to win from the fall of 06 until now, than any other single cause, and overpaying relievers doesn't come close.
The main problem the Cubs have with relievers, is the same one they have with position players....their managers won't trust the kids until they run out of vet options or cash, whichever comes last!
The Padres have been finding relief help for cheap for years so the Pirates haven't cornered the market on this one. If you are going to pay big bucks in your bullpen you do it on a closer, not on middle relievers or set up men. Maybe you have one old guy who 'guides the young guys' but other than that you just run out the nastiest young guys in your system that aren't starters. So, if you have a 7-man bullpen you have 1 high priced closer, one medium priced vet and five guys who just throw filth at the hitters. Shuttle guys in and out until either their arms fall off or they need bigger contracts.
If you don't have five guys in AA or AAA who can fit the bill then you need to fire your scouts and farm director.
Exactly.
I'd just like to point out that Mike Cameron, one of the Cubs top priorities this offseason, signed with Boston tonight. You could see this coming a mile away, or at least I could see it about five days ago. Boston signed him to a bigger deal than I would have wanted the Cubs to sign him to but this is another instance of the Cubs supposedly prioritizing a player and not getting him when they could have.
Hello Marlon Byrd. My guess: 3 years/$18 million.
How does Cameron get that much? That's a ridiculous amount for a .250 hitting CF.....Isn't he 36?
I'll take Podsednik every day of the week and twice on Sunday over Marlon Byrd. Byrd is a product of Arlington ballpark. He will be absolutely awful in the NL. He has done very little in his career to justify a 1 year deal at $5M let alone a 3 year deal at $18M. But, we're talking Hendry here, so I know what you are saying...
Byrd is not worth what ever he'll demand in salary. This I agree this would be a very bad signing. Product of Arlington Ballpark and career year. Podsednik is not realy a center fielder though,and has a poor arm. Baldelli I read can only play part-time. I keep pulling for Crisp if he's healthy, the White Sox and Royals seem to be interested, probably cheaper then the above three.
Yes I agree, perhaps the Cubs should see if any of the young pitcher out of the minors, or the
ones traded for the last couple of years can make the staff as starters or middle relief.
Perhaps they will find another Maddux, Jenkins, Marmol or Randy Wells. You can't suceed if not given a chance. I still don't believe Samardzja will ever be any good, I hope I'm wrong.
Clue me in, why can the Red Sox with a small ball park, and attendence similar to the Cubs
afford to sign expensive free agents.
This makes me wonder if the Cubs really feel that confident that they can trade Bradley. If Hendry was given a budget to be at by opening day, and having to trade Bradley to balance out any signings......I just wonder. Seems like he's being ULTRA conservative. He's already dumped Miles to free up money.....
I mean, if you are a GM why wouldn't you wait to see what the FA market sets itself at? Especially after Abreu signed late last year, and came reasonable. Why spend 9 million on Bradley and possibly 12 million more next year? Unless you are an AL team and can have him DH.
Meanwhile, the best team in the NL continues to get stronger with the Phillies landing Halladay, and having already signed Polanco.
Lets hope all these supposed conversations at the winter meetings, lead to trades. If not, I don't see how this current team competes for the division, let alone a championship.
Have you seen Pods play CF? If you think Fukudome is bad then just wait...it'll just end up worse. Byrd's value isn't just in his bat, it's also in his above-average defense which is what the Cubs need out there.
I think dollars should only be spent on everyday position players and starting pitchers. I think a team should be able to use their system to produce relievers. It sickens me after spending worthless money on Hawkins, Remlinger, Eyre and Howry that Hendry would spend $7.5M on Grabow. I guess the only positive thing to say is that instead of 3 years and double digit millions, it was only 2 years and single digit millions this time.
I love the fact that Tampa Bay is ignoring Hendry now. Hendry should have made the deal when he had a shot to in November. You can sense desperation creeping in. As many have pointed out, Hendry will probably eat $20M on Bradley. Last I heard, Tampa Bay's price was Burrell in 2010 and only paying $500K for Bradley in 2012 (meaning Cubs would pay $11.5M in cash in 2012). Hendry is a joke!
It sounds like Mike Cameron is headed to Boston to play LF. Here comes Marlon Byrd or Rick Ankiel Cub fans! Hendry is a joke! Sorry, said that already.
Huntington brought that up and now its being talked about here in the media. Relievers, and closers especially, are severely overrated and overpaid. Cubs could have easily used a reliever already on the roster for Grabow's spot and save the $7 million...
Bruce - great commentary, as always. I couldn't agree more with this post. If you look back at successful relievers, they are usually guys who came out of the minors and dominated (Francisco Rodriguez, Wainwright, Broxton) or guys who started for a while, but were getting older (Smoltz, Wood) or guys who only had a couple pitches so they were better suited for the bullpen (Mariano Rivera, Marmol). Even Chan Ho Park was washed up as a starter and then was great for the Phillies last year when he only had to pitch one inning.
It doesn't seem like a tough formula, especially for a team like the Cubs who have power arms in their system. Give a few of them a chance and add in a few older guys with invites to Spring Training and spend your available money on guys who play every day, like a CF or a 2B.
Interesting twist on using statistical investigation by an MLB team. That's even outside WARP and VORP and others sabermetrics.
I don't believe that most teams will be able to resist the middle relief gamble because it's a role so critical to success. Plus, you get a Howry or Linebrink who gets to about 30 years of age and puts up 85 good innings one season, and everyone looks at them and says, "Man we could sure use those 85 innings in our 7th and 8th innings - sure, we'll give em 2 or 3 years." And it always seems to be trying to catch lightning.
It'll be especially interesting this year because several viable candidates like Capps and Carrasco put up pretty good seasons in 2008 and/or 2009. When that first middle guy signs, it's going to be intriguing to see what kind of market that deal sets up. Especially in competition with the other 265 non-tenders.
Actually, it's not outside the realm of WAR and VORP- those stats aim at giving a simple and as inclusive as possible value over 'replacement level' (what's available at AAA for league minimum). The Pirates are absolutely correct, and many other teams are doing the same. The amount of value a reliever can provide is limited because at most, they pitch 80 innings a year. Even if those are all really high leverage innings, you'll find that a #4 starter normally has more value simply because he pitches so many more innings.
The Cubs are actually in a decent place to go young and cheap in the pen, and expose some young arms to the majors who will be valuable in the future. But they seem intent on spending money in the pen while they have holes in CF and 2B, and all just so they can field and 84 win team next year.
Sounds like teams are wising up and maybe tightening their belts, much like most Americans (except for gov't) when it comes to spending. Those names you rattled off Bruce do give pause for thought....