What Makes an MVP? and K Relief for the Mets

Just last Friday, the official free agent season started as team's lost their sole rights to negotiate contracts with impending free agents. All teams can now offer an available player a contract. Things are still slow, however, and with only one signing during these first few days (Jeremy Affeldt to the San Francisco Giants for anyone interested) there were some more other important stories circulating throughout the blogosphere. Last week began the announcement period for in season awards such as the Rookie of the Year, Cy Young (for pitchers), the Manager of the Year and the league MVPs (for outfield and offensive players). Thus, the first post I decided to comment on was from BaseballMusings.com. Written by David Pinto, Pujols Wins MVP discusses the slugger's victory in what looked to be a close race with Ryan Howard. The second post I commented on was from Buster Olney's ESPN.com Baseball Blog. This post, entitled Mets Looking for Strikeouts in Bullpen, looks at the team's needs from an interesting perspective and outlines a few scenarios and the pros and cons of each scenario.

Pujols Wins MVP

First off, I would like to thank you for an informative post. The debate about who would win the NL MVP award was heating up towards the end of the season and, to be honest, it really seemed like Ryan Howard was going to win it because of his huge late-season numbers and the fact that his team won the division (NL East) and was going to the playoffs for a second straight year. I know that Howard's numbers were not all pretty, especially his .251 batting average and his 199 strikeouts. But, nonetheless, he still led the majors with 48 home runs and 146 RBI. Also, as I mentioned before, it almost seemed like Howard single handedly carried his team through much of August and September, coming up with huge hits almost every game. The combination of his power numbers, his September surge and his team making the playoffs, I feared MVP voters might give too much significance to any particular statistical category or the fact that his team had a chance to play on into October. It seems my fears were unwarranted, however, as Albert Pujols (pictured to the left) won the NL MVP award.

I think it was much deserved, as Pujols put up his usual spectacular numbers, piling up 37 home runs and 116 RBI, all while hitting .357 (the second highest average in the majors). Also, although his team did not make the playoffs, they were in the race and reasonably competitive for most of the season. I think Pujols was the correct pick because he is such an impact player at the heart of the St. Louis lineup. Although St. Louis developed some offensive firepower with the likes of Ankiel and Ludwick, Pujols supporting cast was not as strong and Howard plays in a home ball park notorious for favoring hitters. I am never sure how much bearing the team's end standing has on MVP voting, but I believe as long as the team is competitive for most of the season, the best player from that team should always receive some consideration. In this case, it was the best player in the league, if not the entire majors.

My question for you is, do you agree with selection of Pujols as MVP? You say in your post, "I'm surprised at the lack of support for Hanley Ramirez". While the young Marlins were surprisingly good in many ways, their drop off towards the end of the season contributed to a lot less press coverage for Ramirez. He put up very good numbers, with a high OBP and lots of runs, home runs and stolen bases (though not as many as in years past). What do you think he needs to do different to get more consideration? If Florida had made the playoffs, do you think he would THEN have received a reasonable amount of consideration since the numbers are there?

Also, if you have the chance, I maintain a baseball blog at andrewotoshi.blogspot.com and would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Mets Looking for Strikeouts in Bullpen

Comments:

(Again, please note that access to this blog requires an ESPN Insider subscription.)

Thank you, Buster, for this great post! Mets fans like myself need to get their minds off of yet another late season collapse and instead focus on the upcoming season, and this post (and the entire Mets bullpen) seems like a great place to start. I think you take a very interesting approach to the Mets search for bullpen arms. Bullpen strikeout ratios are not commonly followed statistics, but as you point out that "the eight teams that made the playoffs [were] among the top 10-rnked teams in strikeout ratio in 2008". I fully agree with you that the Mets need some strikeout pitchers to close out games. Billy Wagner was just that. A shutdown closer that relied heavily on his fastball and missed a lot of bats. I like that show his impact on the Mets ratio and was surprised to see his contribution this season (albeit in a limited role) have such an effect. You see the success of teams like the Cubs and Phillies, and a lot of that should be attributed to the back end of their bullpens. Both teams have shutdown relievers for the seventh through ninth innings and because of this, they rarely (never in Philly's case) lost a game they were leading going into the last couple of innings.

The Mets cannot afford to take a risk on a soft reliever like Brandon Lyon or Trevor Hoffman (no matter how impressive his career numbers have been). Even paying Francisco Rodriguez (pictured below) the money he is going to want is a questionable decision as his velocity is dropping and his K/9 ratio is falling. It almost seems like Brian Fuentes will be a better choice. He has become a legitimate closer the past few years and gets a surprisingly high number of strikeouts. He is accustomed to the NL and, in my opinion, if you can save games at Coors Field, you can likely save games anywhere. He is also slightly younger and going to be cheaper than Rodriguez. I also would not mind seeing Kerry Wood pitching late in the game for us, though I do not see how the Mets can invest in such a fragile player when filling their most important off-season need.

Also, with the trade of Huston Street to Colorado (though I heard he was immediately available again through trade) who are the next top closer's that could be traded? Do you see the Mets making a run at Putz or any other pitchers available through trade? Not sure that the Mets have too many trading pieces, but I also wondered if they would get involved in a trade for Peavy since negotiations with other teams are falling through at the moment.

Also, if you have the chance, I maintain a baseball blog at andrewotoshi.blogspot.com and would greatly appreciate any feedback.

Financial Crisis: How Baseball Could Suffer

We are living in a scary yet exciting time. With the current financial crisis raging on and Barack Obama waiting to take his place in the White House, many are hoping for a great deal of change in the following four years. But, the first change America is likely to witness is a tax hike that would increase the top federal income tax rate from 35% to just under 40%. This move would also give tax cuts to anyone making less than $200,000 a year, welcome relief for most Americans. Unfortunately, in a sport where the average salary is $2,820,000 a year and the minimum salary is $390,000, this tax increase is going to affect all players, as it only applies to households making more than $250,000 a year. As I mentioned in a previous post, we must keep in mind that baseball is still a business and the economy and these important economic decisions have a huge bearing on how much profit the players turn. Even though Major League Baseball's profit margins have grown the past few years, it is not immune to the effects of the current crisis. Although a tax hike might decrease player earnings slightly, the real difference will be made when teams stop offering unreasonably rich and long contracts to undeserving players. Many of the players that might complain about the new income tax should first question whether or not they even deserve the contract they have.

This situation has led some agents to speculate that the tax hike could be beaten, at least in part, if signing bonuses are paid before January 1. These signing bonuses are negotiated into contracts and the total sum, in the millions, is often paid in installments over the length of the contract. Agent Craig Landis said that early signing was "something we'll consider" and agent Paul Kinzer said, "I'm sure it will be kicked around". Even some GMs were open to the idea, with Tampa Bay's Andrew Friedman stating the idea was "not off the wall" and that they would "certainly be open-minded to it depending on what the rest of the terms of the deal are".While it may only affect this year's portion of their signing bonus, some of these players stand to lose a great deal of money, with the almost 5% tax hike amounting to over a million dollars to the highest paid players. Other agents, like Scott Boras, have simply considered asking for larger portions of the signing bonuses to be paid before January 1, 2009, thereby negating the first year of effects from the proposed tax hike. The problem here lies in the fact that players that are becoming free agents are not able to negotiate money with teams other than their own until November 14, the first official day of free-agency. This does not leave a great deal of time for players to sign by the start of January, especially considering the winter meetings, the true start of free agency and trade season does not begin till almost mid-December.

Manny Ramirez, Mark Teixeira and C.C. Sabathia are all likely to get multi-year deals that pay around (or well over in Sabathia's case) $100 million over the full course of the contract. That means that these players have the most to lose from this proposed tax hike. It is interesting, however, that these players are going to get such handsome contracts because Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig just warned teams of the current financial crisis and told teams "to operate in a fashion that is cognizant of [the] economy". Amidst all his concerns, MLB revenue was up to $6.5 billion last year alone. This is due to high fan attendance rates, TV rights and even stadium naming rights, such as the New York Mets' agreement with the Citi Group that pays the team $20 million a year for the next twenty years. These profits have led Boras to call this "one of the more aggressive markets for players", though GMs do not feel quite as confident as does. San Diego Padres GM Kevin Towers believes he saw the effect of the recession at the end of the season with attendance numbers down. That may just be because San Diego finished in last place in what is largely considered the weakest division in baseball, but it is true that consumers have less money to spend on leisure items, with tickets to a baseball game being just that. Towers still believes that the fans will come, however, as long as there is a winning team on the field.

Another way for teams that are building new stadiums to increase revenue from ticket sales is by opting for fewer seating areas and more luxury boxes. On Bloomberg.com, Danielle Sessa wrote an article discussing how the Mets, who will be moving into

their new stadium in 2009, have already sold all forty-nine luxury boxes, which go for as much as $500,000 a year. The Yankees, on the other hand, still have seven of their total forty-seven luxury boxes available. This is actually quite surprising and the Yankees are traditionally New York's team and may be the most popular (as well as most hated) team in baseball. Cost is not an issue, as the Yankees were able to sell all of their luxury boxes priced between $650,000 and $850,000 while the seven remaining were going at $600,000. Though, the Yankees remained unconcerned, unafraid that "the economic crisis will hamper its ability to sell them". Even when not selling out all of the season boxes, the expansion of these luxury suites should help make up for the losses that will be suffered by the teams if attendance numbers decline, something very likely as New York is one of the centers of the current financial crisis.

Thus, although baseball appears fairly immune to some of the economic issues facing America, it remains to be seen what type of effect these issues will have in the long run. It will be interesting to see if a recession will reduce the number of large, long-term deals offered to players, put a premium on young talent or affect attendance in such a way that teams lose money because of high payrolls. In my opinion, the first people to lose out will be the players. As long as there is money to be made in baseball, a majority of that will be going to the teams themselves. Thus, tax increases may be the first of many hindrances that now face a Major League Baseball player hoping to amass his millions. There will always be a premium on the rarest talents and that is understandable. The best players will always get the big contracts, even in these uncertain economic times. Thus it means the players that fill minor roles and exist in mediocrity within professional baseball will suffer the greatest as the tax hike is more noticeable to them than to those players making over $10 million a year and these players can no longer hope to get overpaid handsomely just because clubs were turning such high profits. In an ideal situation, having more competition for larger contracts will only motivate players to perform better and money saved on player contracts can go towards the team's infrastructure and improving the fan experience. All of this, of course, depends on the loyalty of Americans to the great game of baseball. Hopefully, America's love for baseball will overcome the tightening purse strings and rising ticket prices and participation our beloved past-time will not be an expense that has to be cut out of one's budget.

Battling with Boras and 2007-08 Trades in Review

November is a sad time for baseball fans. It marks the end of the baseball season the beginning of a long period in which their appetite for the game can be satisfied through only trade rumors and free agent signings. As I explored the blogosphere, I found and commented on two very interesting posts, one about a baseball agent and another analyzing trades. First, I found a post by Darren Heitner on SportsAgentBlog.com. In his post, Boras May Soon Experience "Total Hell", Heitner discusses a recent arbitration ruling that decided Gary Sheffield had to pay his former agent Scott Boras $550,00 (5% of his $11 million buyout) for his services in negotiating the deal. The second post I commented was on BaseballAnalysts.com. The 2007-08 Winter Trading Season in Review by Marc Hulet. In this post, Hulet covers what he sees as the six biggest trades from last winter and discusses how the course of the 2008 season has changed our perceptions of these trades and the winning and losing teams in them.

Boras May Soon Experience "Total Hell"

First of all, I would like to thankyou Darren for bringing to the audiences attention such an interesting topic of discussion. Interestingly, Scott Boras (pictured below) is one of the best known names in baseball, none of which can be attributed to his actual accomplishments on the field. Instead, he is demonized by baseball fans and front office fans alike for his ability to get huge contract offers for players he represents. I remember when Sheffield initially made this statement regarding Boras and to be honest, I was pretty surprised.

In the past few years, as Boras has become more and more of a negative figure in the baseball world, players he represents have begun dismissing him as they begin contract negotiations with teams. To be honest, I think Boras has unfairly received his bad reputation. The business of sports agency is no different from working in the the front office of a MLB team or playing for one of those teams. A person from any of these three occupational choices will all look to make money first. I just find it ridiculous that teams are able to turn fans against Boras simply because he fails to give in to their contract demands.

I think it has become very clear in the past few years that MLB organizations are making huge profits and if these profits are not in turn invested into top notch players (Boras only represents established stars or ’sure-thing’ draft picks), then the team’s front office and ownership are instead the only one’s profiting. This seems to create unfortunate circumstances in which the teams look to acquire talent at below market price. One must, however, also consider that many of the players that Boras represents, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Garry Sheffield, all are marquee players and likely return the full value of their contracts (even at $20 million or over a year). In just additional ticket sales, merchandising and general fan excitement, Boras claimed (on ESPN’s Jim Rome is Burning) that Manny could return a $25 million dollar a year investment by the Dodgers, not to mention possibly lead them back to the playoffs and perhaps the World Series, as Manny almost managed to do that in only have a season this past year.

In all honesty, I do not quite understand the grounds on which Sheffield claims Boras deserves nothing for his services in the negotiating of the elimination of Sheffield’s $11 million contract. I know Sheffield was planning on leaving Boras and did negotiate his contract with the Yankees himself, but nonetheless, Boras negotiated the elimination of his former contract and simply by the contract he had with Sheffield, he is owed his 5%. I find it a little strange that Sheffield, who made $11 million in the transaction, is going to be so picky about $550,000 when he is currently paid over $13 million.

It seems to me like most of the animosity towards Boras is coming from players and teams that feel Boras is simply reducing their profit margins and therefore standing in the way of them making as large a profit as possible. Perhaps my view is partially biased because I hope to one day work as a sports agent. It just seems to me that players in the league are making so much money (in a large part due to people such as Scott Boras) as are the teams (in a large part due to the players that Boras represents). I guess even though Boras provides a valuable service to players and is the middle man for teams attempting to acquire all the best players, everyone would prefer to pay less for his services and make more for themselves.

I want to know if you see this arbitration decision having any bearing on future events in the world of baseball agency. I think that the panel judged rightly that Boras deserved his share of the settlement and this goes a long way in protecting the rights of agents, even if that agent is despised by a majority of the baseball world. For me, all I can do is give kudos to Boras for reaching the pinnacle of his respected occupation.

Response from Darren Heitner:

Strong comment. I believe that you are correct on many of the points you have made. Even though writers constantly frame Boras in a negative light, he continues to get some of the highest earning clients year in and out. The arbitration decision is good for sports agents. It sends a message to players that they should think twice before trying to stiff their agent after the agent put in hard work to get the player to where he is today. Our labor is not free and must be compensated for accordingly.

The 2007-08 Winter Trading Season in Review

(Please note: my comment may not be immediately displayed in the comments section because as a first time poster my comment must first be approved before they will be automatically and immediately displayed)

Thank you Marc for a great post about a topic that really fascinates me. Looking back on the biggest trades of the past off-season can be either a very satisfying experience or a horribly painful one. I thought your analysis of each trade was excellent and I found it difficult to disagree with many of your conclusions about which team was the winner.

I thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts on the Tampa Bay and Minnesota trade, in which Garza and Young were the centerpieces. I agree that it may have been the most significant trade of the past year. I guess what spoke to me most what that for the Rays it was in a way addition by subtraction (with the loss of Delmon Young promoting harmony within the clubhouse). Young was one of the most highly touted young offensive players in the league and although Garza had a great deal of potential, I believed the Twins might be getting the better of Tampa Bay in this trade. This is probably also due to an inability to predict Jason Bartlett's impact on the club.

I did wonder about the Detroit and Florida trade however. While I agree that Detroit seemed to be a winner before the trade, I still feel that they got the better of this trade post 2008. It is true that Willis was a disappointment at best but Cabrera (pictured below) ended up having a decently strong season. I just wonder if the Tigers' collapse (after being favorites to head to the World Series preseason) played a large role in assuming this trade was a loss for Detroit. Florida did not seem to get a great deal of production from any pieces of this trade apart from a few late season hits by Maybin. If Willis manages to have a respectable season (10 to 13 wins) and Cabrera performs as we all expect, I do not expect Florida's young haul to have a bigger impact on the team's overall performance in the 2009 season. What are your thoughts on that?

On a more personal note, do you see the Santana trade as a bit of payback to Mets fans after the Kazmir-Zambrano fiasco? Even after two monumental late season failures, I have to believe the Mets have the talent to get there and win it all in 2009 with a few key additions. I maintain a blog about baseball and would love some feedback from a pro.

This is the link: andrewotoshi.blogspot.com

If you could spare any time it could be greatly appreciated.