Bedard And Arbitration
Now that Erik Bedard is back on the DL and the season is basically toast, we have to turn our attention to what they do with him going forward. Even if he can return to the mound in a couple of weeks (his earliest possible return date would be August 10th), they’re not going to be able to trade him for anything of substance in August – between his injury issues and the need to pass him through waivers, you can basically write off Bedard as not tradeable.
That brings us to the off-season. Even if he doesn’t pitch much the rest of the year, Bedard’s still going to be ranked as a Type B free agent. According to the latest calculations, Bedard’s a good way ahead of the cutoff, and there’s almost no chance that guys like Brian Bannister and Dallas Braden will pass him the last two months.
So, the M’s will be in a position to receive a compensatory draft pick if they offer Bedard arbitration and he leaves to sign with another team as a free agent. However, the M’s have to seriously ask themselves whether they want to risk Bedard accepting an arbitration offer.
Bedard signed for $7.5 million this year because he was arbitration eligible, even though he was coming off a bad season in 2008. His numbers are better this year, and the arbitration process essentially never gives pay cuts, so the M’s would have to be willing to pay him between $8 and $10 million for 2010 if he accepted. Due to his injury problems the last two years, he probably can’t do better than $10 million (arbiters lean heavily on playing time in deciding how much a player should get), but he has a pretty good case to get a raise over what he got last year. $9 million should probably be the expected cost if Bedard accepts arbitration.
Is Bedard worth $9 million for 2010?
It depends on how the free agent market plays out this winter. Last year, teams used the recession to clamp down on salaries, so $9 million would buy a +2 to +3 win player such as Bobby Abreu, Adam Dunn, Orlando Hudson, and Pat Burrell. However, MLB has weathered the economic storm better than teams projected, and we will likely see some inflation in the free agent market this winter compared to what we saw last off-season. If we project the cost of a win on the free market to be around $4.5 million, then Bedard would have to project as a +2 win player in 2010 to be worth $9 million.
He’s been worth +1.9 wins this year, and since 2004, he’s averaged about +3.2 wins per season. Obviously, the bulk of that was concentrated in his excellent 2006/2007 seasons, but even in the first few years of his career, he was a +2.5 to +3 win pitcher. When he’s on the mound, he’s valuable. How often you think he’ll be on the mound for 2010 essentially answers the arbitration or not question.
If you think he can give you 100+ high quality innings next year, he’s worth the arbitration offer. However, there’s a pretty decent chance that he won’t crack 100 this year, and he didn’t do it last year either, so there are obviously significant risks that go along with that assumption. For better or worse, Bedard is always going to have health problems. You have to count on him missing time, and maybe a lot of it.
On the other hand, the upside is certainly there. Rich Harden is a pretty comparable pitcher, and after breaking down in both 2006 and 2007, he threw 148 innings last year and looks poised to throw about that many again this year. Pitchers with arm problems can come back. Sending Bedard to the scrap heap is just as foolish as counting on him for 30+ starts a year.
In general, you want to guarantee as few years to a pitcher as possible. The risks that come with long term contracts to pitchers are extremely high, and if a team could get away with nothing but one year deals to the entire rotation, it would be in their best interest. In offering Bedard arbitration, your maximum risk is for 2010. There’s no Carlos Silva potential here, where he’s ruining your payroll for years into the future. Even if Bedard accepts arbitration and breaks down again next year, the net loss is contained to one season.
Plus, there is that draft pick to consider. As a Type B, he’d bring something like the 40th-45th pick in the draft, which probably has an asset value of $1 or $2 million. So, if you think Bedard is probably worth $9 million for next year, and his expected cost if accepts is $9 million, you should offer arbitration, because the chance at the draft pick pushes the needle towards a positive return.
It isn’t a slam dunk, though. If the M’s think they can do better in free agency with $9 million to spend, the 40th-45th pick in the draft isn’t so valuable that you have to offer arbitration. If the team sees some more value signings available this winter (along the lines of what Abreu or Hudson signed for last winter), the M’s are probably better off declining to offer Bedard arbitration and taking their chances on re-signing him to a low base, high incentive deal. Would he take it to stay in Seattle? Probably not. But that might be the team’s best plan.
What are a few of the names the team might target in FA if they decided to take the money instead?
What kind of incentives does the CBA allow for in contracts?
How likely is he to accept arbitration though? Isn’t there some team out there that would be willing to sign him to something like 2/$15m or maybe even a 3 year deal? Would the extra guaranteed money be enough to decline the arbitration?
But I thought Bedard was guaranteed to pitch 7 innings a start and be a Type A free agent.
I’ll start out by saying I’m not a big fan of Bedard in the first place. With that being said I see the only real option is what you said there Dave is to try and sign him up for a year. If he can return to a dominant healthy player it seems to me that you have the option of trading him off next year at the deadline if the Mariners feel they won’t be able to keep him.
Man, I think if you can get a guy with Bedard’s upside on a one-year deal, you do it, as long as your medical staff doesn’t think his arm is toast.
To me the question is what do people think Ben Sheets will get on the market?
Sheets career FIP: 3.56 (NL)
Bedard career FIP: 3.65 (AL)
Sheets IP/season (2005-2008): ~150
Bedard IP/season (2005-2008): ~150
If you think that Sheets will take a one year “prove it” contract from a team for less than $7-9M, then he may be the more attractive option. On the other hand, if you think that he’ll command a multiple year deal or a single season contract in excess of $8-9M, then I think you offer Bedard arbitration.
Or if Washburn is gone, you could always try to sign both.
The potential reward is worth the risk in Bedard’s case. I say offer arbitration.
Though I just realized that my above post ignores the fact that Sheets is RH versus Bedard’s leftiness. It also assumes that both are deemed equally healthy and available to pitch at the outset of 2010.
tknight – the first thing to ask is what holes the M’s need to fill in 2010 and beyond, then look at what names are available. Currently the M’s look like they have C, 2B, LF, CF, RF, SP1, and SP4/5 filled for 2010. They have some internal candidates for 1B/DH (Shelton, Carp, Clement), so it will be interesting to see how they handle that position. To me the biggest needs if they want to contend in 2010 are SS, 3B, and SP.
If they do want to spend some money on the 1B/DH situation, the could look at guys like Branyan or Delgado. If they want more of a veteran backup who could start if none of the young guys step forward, they could spend less money on someone like Hinske. Going for some of the really old guys like Thome or Sheffield strikes me as unlikely. They could also look to go after a AAAA slugger who other teams have given up on, so I think this situation is fluid.
SS is an obvious whole, but still without an obvious solution. Bunch of guys available for 2010, but none are super-exciting. Mostly decent defensive stop-gaps, but no one the M’s would necessarily want to lock-up for more than a year. Still, if they don’t acquire Hardy, Brignac, etc. than they should probably look to spend some money on Everett, Wilson, Tejada, Scutaro, etc. None of them are great options, but at least one of them could be had at an affordable rate.
3B doesn’t offer a ton of options either. Beltre will be available an obviously pretty much everyone hear would love to have him back, but his pocketbook would be better off if he signed a 1-year deal in a more friendly park. The other options are Crede, Figgins, and maybe Glaus. Tuisosopo is the internal option, and honestly I’d like to see the M’s just bring in a marginal guy to compete with him, as long as his defense is average-or-better. Other than getting Beltre back on a 1-year deal, no one else excites me.
Which bring us to the rotation. The USSM guys have done a great job discussing the depth the M’s have toward the back of the rotation, but behind Felix the team doesn’t really have a lot of upside in the rotation for 2010. There are plenty of decent pitchers available that could be a #2/#3 starter (Bedard, Washburn, Wolf, Pineiro, Penny, Myers, Lackey, RJ (if healthy), Harden, etc.). I would be a little surprised if Bedard accepted arbitration. Starting pitchers with his upside just don’t seem to get stuck with 1-year deals all that often until they start getting advanced in age. Even if he accepted, I think he is easily worth the roll of the dice. Particularly if you believe in the scouting acumen of the front office under Z, then you have to like the idea of the compensation pick.
Washburn is a bigger question for arbitration (assuming he isn’t traded). Dave doesn’t seem enthused by the idea of offering him arbitration, but I would seriously think about it. A lot of the decision depends on whether you believe in Washburn’s improvement this season. Washburn has clearly benefitted from some BABIP (.251 2009 vs. .280 career), LOB (79.0% 2009 vs. 74.0% career), and HR/FB (6.8% 2009 vs. 8.5% career) luck. That said, his xFIP and FIP both indicate real improvements this year, as batters are swinging at a few more pitches out of the zone and making less contact on those pitches. If you believe that he is slightly improved, then he is probably a 2.0-2.5 WAR pitcher in 2010. That makes him worth around $10 million. To me, the faith you place in Z’s drafting ability helps dictate whether you offer Washburn arbitration. I have some faith, so I’d like to see them offer arbitration to both Bedard and Washburn.
Best case scenario might be having both Bedard and Washbrun decline arbitration (netting 2 compensation picks), then signing similar pitchers for the same money on 1-year deals where the M’s don’t lose any picks. Don’t know how practicle it is, but if the M’s can get 1 good starting pitcher to replace Bedard/Washburn on a 1-year deal while getting 2 comp picks, I think everyone would be happy. Worst case is probably getting both Bedard and Washburn back for 2010 at around $21 million combined, which isn’t the end of the world (kind of status quo). Status quo isn’t that bad, so the downside to me isn’t worth foregoing the arbitration offers.
That said, I hope Washburn gets traded so the M’s can avoid the dilemma. That would also make the Bedard decision a little easier.
On incentives: you can’t do performance incentives, but you can heavily lean on playing time incentives. So you could offer Bedard a $5m base with $1m for every 5 starts he makes, and if he’s a star and makes 30 starts, hey, you’re out $11m and happy about it.
Offering Washburn arbitration would be insanely crazy.
Hopefully his new team is crazy.
As for arbitration, I really don’t think he’ll accept. His agent or someone out there will convince Bedard that he’s finally a free agent and it is his turn to get his pay day. On the other side of the coin, I bet some team will take the risk and sign him up to a $30/3 deal, and I don’t think it will be us.
The faster Bedard is out of a Seattle uniform, the better as far as I am concerned. Too much uncertainty for too little return. Let him go and try to forget about the hideous way he came to town.
For argument’s sake, how much would Washburn be expected to make in arbitration?
If only we’d discussed the pros and cons of offering Washburn arbitration, say, less than a week ago!
Yeah, good riddance. After all, talent grows on trees! I don’t know why anyone would want somebody who, if he can get anywhere near his career high for innings, would be worth insanely more than his salary.
Dave doesn’t seem enthused by the idea of offering him arbitration, but I would seriously think about it
That makes him worth around $10 million
You’re already paying him $10 million. And players don’t go to arbitration to make the same money, they go for a raise. And since he’s improved this year and been healthy, he’ll get one. Probably $13 – $15 million. If the team offers, he’s accepting. Do really want to overpay for him for another year?
Is the TB thing dead?
I wasn’t trying to open a can of worms with the Washburn arbitration talk, and I know there was a post a week ago. I just think the decision to offer Bedard arbitration isn’t completely independent of Washburn.
Obviously me saying “Dave doesn’t seem enthused by the idea” was an understatment (intended). But I’m curious what the major aversion is to offering Washburn arbitration. There have been some pretty compelling posts documenting some real improvements in Washburn this year. If you believe those improvements are real, then he is probably a 2-3 WAR pitcher in 2010 (he is already at 2.5 WAR this year, worth $11.4 million).
So either (1) you do not expect Washburn to maintain his improvement; (2) you would rather spend the money elsewhere; (3) you think Washburn hasn’t improved at all and his “improvement” is mostly luck; (4) some combination; or (5) something else I’m not thinking of on the fly. still, to me it seems like a reasonable risk to take, depending on how the free agent market is shaping up in December when the decision needs to be made.
Overpaying an OK starting pitching like Washburn on a 1-year deal isn’t the end of the world, even if by $2-3 million. You can almost think of it as an “at least we’re not getting stuck with a ridiculous longterm contract” premium. Again, I would rather see him traded. But the arbitration decision doesn’t have to be made until December, after the free agent market has shaken out a little. The team could also try and work out a deal where he would agree to decline, but would still have a standing 1-year offer from the M’s if he doesn’t find something better.
How about 5 being that you can let him go and then sign him to a 2 year deal for about the same as the single year will cost if you offer arb?
mymrbig,
The view that Washburn’s improved performance is due to an improvement in Washburn’s pitching, ie that it is “real,” is widely shared; Dave’s posted about it on this very blog.
But a lot of Washburn’s supporters suggest that whatever is new about Washburn’s pitching is not only real, it’s permanent. Hitters and pitchers make adjustments to their game all the time; most of them have no effect, and some of them put them a bit ahead of the rest of the league’s adjustments. In paying him for 2009 level performance (and he’d likely get a bit more than even *that* would be worth), you’re assuming the league won’t catch up with whatever changes he’s made. Historically speeaking, the odds are against it.
Slam dunk post!
Watching the market for players, I have concluded that one year contracts, even at a slightly inflated value that arbitration forces upon a team, are far, far better than multi-year contracts with few exceptions. Bedard would be a very acceptable risk on a 1 year arbitration deal. He fits the very mold of the type of player a team should bet on.
So either (1) you do not expect Washburn to maintain his improvement; (2) you would rather spend the money elsewhere; (3) you think Washburn hasn’t improved at all and his “improvement†is mostly luck; (4) some combination;
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.
This thread is about Bedard, a guy we can’t trade and who has great stuff, not Washburn, a guy with so-so stuff whom we should most definitely trade while the getting’s good. J.J. Hardy, please!
Plug Hardy in at shortstop and suddenly, mediocre pitchers are producing above their heads (see Gutierrez, F. and his effect on flyball pitchers).
Talk about low risk, high reward.
You guys are forgetting that your #3 starting pitcher will be back next year too – Silva!! Having that fatass albatross hanging around while trying to put together signing Felix long term, Washburn for a couple years at a home discount, and arbitration on Bedard just may be too much to invest in one position. You might be looking at 50 million next year in starting pitching: Felix 10m, Washburn 9m, Bedard 10m, Silva 12-14m, and a youngn for 3m.
Please go read the comment guidelines.
On Bedard: This post makes a very good argument about why this is a 50/50 argument. There are good points on both sides of offering Bedard arbitration.
What I think Dave’s giving short shrift to is the upside potential of keeping Bedard around. Yeah, Bedard can blow out and be an injury risk. Then again, he can have a lights-out season where everything comes together.
The upside limit for Bedard is high. If he stays injury-free, then you get a lot out of him. I think you have to run some risks to put yourself in position for a championship. Bedard is a good risk to run.
Plus, the M’s have replacement-level fallback options, so a Bedard injury is a small catastrophe, not a huge one.
I think the M’s best bet is to offer Bedard arbitration, and put a 2 year/$15M contract in front of him. (Or, better yet, a 1 year/$9M with a vesting option for an additional year at $9M, based on playing time incentives.) Offer him his choice:
2/$15
1/~$9 in arbitration
Free Agency, and the M’s get a draft pick
Do you all think it could be a smart move (for the M’s and Bedard) to move Bedard into the closer’s role. We have seen him allow no runs and pitch 4 innings how many times?
I think he could be worth 9 million/ 1 yr as our closer and maybe have less chance for injury.
Thoughts?
We have david Aardsma.
No offense intended to Aardsma and his ilk, but it’s a crime to squander talent like Bedard in a relief role.
Does “consistency”** of performance factor into market value of a win? If a starting pitcher like Bedard yields +2 wins over 100 innings between stretches on the DL, is he less (or more?) valuable than a pitcher than gives you +2 wins over 200 innings?
In other words, is there any opportunity cost to carrying a +0 win pitcher to cover Bedard’s expected time on DL?
[** Not in the cliched and meaningless sense of somehow magically getting all your hits/HRs/strikeouts evenly spaced across series/games/innings.]
Ahh, see, that’s the heart of measuring value over replacement player, right there, the cause of much statistical debate.
The short version is yes. Someone has to pick up those innings, and that guy’s likely to suck. You’d rather have a 2-win over 200 inning dude.
Red Apple – I’m in total agreement. Bedard in the bullpen would be a waste. Plus, I don’t think there is any kind of definitive study showing that throwing 20 pitches 65 times a year is less hazardous than throwing 110 pitches 30 times a year. Probably completely dependent on the individual.
Marinerman1979 – The M’s do have David Aardsma. And they should think of trading him if some team with a smaller budget is desperate. Build cheap bullpens. Aardsma is hitting arbitration and his 1.75 ERA is not supported by his 4.14 xFIP. He has given up 1 HR in 60 flyballs, and that ratio can’t possibly hold up. He has been great for the M’s, but he has had a healthy dose of luck on his side this year.
The short version is yes. Someone has to pick up those innings, and that guy’s likely to suck. You’d rather have a 2-win over 200 inning dude.
I disagree. The baseline is already “replacement level”, so we’re factoring in that the guy who has to take the other 100 innings is going to suck. That’s already included in the calculation.
The +2 win/100 IP guy gives you value + upside, as a smart GM can find better than replacement level players for cheap (Langerhans, for instance).
DMZ – I think it all completely depends. If a team’s “replacement” is pretty good, then it makes much more sense to gamble on upside guys that might only throw 100 innings. Perfect example is the Red Sox this year taking chances on Smoltz and Penny. Great risks for the Red Sox because they have plenty of money and better-than-replacment “replacements” in guys like Buchholz, Bowden, and Masterson. I agree that for a team with less depth, gambling on the Hardens and Bedards of the world is not as cost effective.
I think comparing Bedard and Washburn is almost a good example. Looking ahead to 2010, if teams think Bedard is likely to give 2.5 WAR over 120 IP and Washburn is likely to give 2.5 WAR over 180 IP, which one should get the better contract? Who is actually more valuable to a team? The answer depends more on who the replacment is for the 60 IP gap. If the replacement is Bruce Chen, Horatio Ramirez, or Sidney Ponson, then go get Washburn. If the replacement is Clay Buchholz or Phil Hughes or Madison Bumgarner, then go for Bedard. Washburn also works a little better for a team with a poor bullpen.
That said, if the choice is between Bedard and Washburn at roughly the same dollar amount, I have to imagine 80% or more of people would take Bedard, because if everything goes right for Washburn, he’s worth 3 WAR, whereas if everything goes right for Bedard, he’s worth 5 WAR.
Yeah, I messed that up if you’re already counting replacement contribution. But now you’re spending on the 100IP guy and better than replacement level players for cheap. At the very least, assuming you had a great minor league free agent signing cooling their heels in AAA, the total cost is now +$500k.
My wish list would be; (1)to trade Washburn for a SS, (2) offer Bedard arbitration and have him decline, and (3) take the extra money saved and offer King Felix a long term deal and he accepts.
Before the season, I looked at projections posted here and elsewhere and concluded that the fate of the team was in Erik Bedard’s endurance level. The reason was that he is by far the most talented player on the team whose contribution was dependent on his questionable durability. While in fact most of the projected team is nowhere near their expected level of contribution (some higher–Felix, Branyan, Aardsma, some lower–Beltre, Griffey, some gone–Yuni, Silva), when push came to shove on the season it still depended on the health of that one arm. When he was good, he was very, very good; when he was injured the replacements were horrid.
That’s not entirely right, but it is close. Here’s the expected utility equation:
Value (offering arbitration) = prob(he accepts)*value(he accepts) + prob(he rejects)*value (he rejects)
The above quote addresses the first time on the right side, but not the second. The value of his rejecting is about $1.5M–the value of a type B compensation pick. The value of his accepting is the value of his performance minus the contract you offer. I think the weighted average of performance expectations next season for Bedard makes him a 2 WAR player, so $9M is looking pretty break-even. Which means that offering him arbitration is worth about the probability that he rejects it times the value of one type B compensation pick, which is less than one million dollars. It’s not a huge gain, but it’s something.
Would he most definitely accept arbitration if offered it? The fans are understandably frustrated by his inability to stay healthy. The media is the media and are foolish at best. I can’t imagine Erik gives a whit about the latter, but I wonder if he longs for a new beginning back in Canada (although those hometown things are overstated).
Anyway, I’d definitely offer him arbitration. He could turn out to be healthy and net a few decent prospects 12 months from now. And really, $9 million for one year isn’t a bad gamble.
I say offer Bedard arbitration. We can’t get anything for him now, there aren’t too many pitchers floating around with that kind of talent, if he declines we get a draft pick, if he accepts we get an ace when he is healthy, and a trade chip for next year. Now the negative is the exact same thing happens next year that happened this year, so if you offer him arb. you hope he isnt on the DL July 31st 2010.
I was thinking the same way as Dave. With Bavasi as GM, I’ll take my 2 WAR/200 inning guy, with Zduriencik, I’ll take the 2 WAR/100 inning guy.
But that +500k is already spent, assuming you have the better than replacement pitcher already signed, correct? So the $500k isn’t an additional cost. It’s only an additional cost if you get a player like Bedard and you have to go out and acquire a better than replacement pitcher to soak up the innings he’s not going to get you due to his fragility.
That doesn’t make any sense. Why would you spend $500k on that guy if you didn’t need to?
Exactly, so why is the total cost now +500k?
Because you have to pay him a major league salary instead of a minor league one.
That said, it’s still a minor factor. In most cases, I’ll take the +2 win/half season guy, count on my ability to get better than a +0 win replacement, and end up with 2.5 to 3.0 wins in total.
Bedard- I see no reason to expect anything more from Bedard than what we’ve seen this season. He is never going to be the innings eater everyone in Seattle is hoping he’ll become.
Now this may just be ’scout-talk’ and not have much statistical backing (to this point) but a large part of Erik Bedard’s game relies on getting people to swing and miss.
Problem I see with him (especially this year) is he really doesn’t hit the strike zone enough for his game plan to continue to be effective. I believe as more and more teams embrace the ‘patients = good offense’ mentality, Bedard is going to have more struggles like we’ve seen this year. I do not believe Erik Bedard is a front of the rotation starter anymore.
However, weighing the benefits of offering arbitration, I think the M’s might as well go for it. The M’s should have plenty of cash so paying him shouldn’t be a problem. If he does accept however, have realistic expectations, don’t rely on him to be your #2 behind King Felix if you want to win next year.
Washburn- He is defiantly putting up career numbers this year and is actually almost pitching himself into the Cy Young debate. You know when the last time he put up career numbers was? Yup, you guessed it, it was the last time he was in a contract year.
Only way I possibly think of keeping this guy around is if he takes a “I sucked for most of my contract and much of my success this year is due to the defense behind me so I’ll take a discount to stay and continue to benefit from this ballpark/defense and will sign before the deadline” contract.
Otherwise trade this guy NOW and get something in return while you still can. I hate to say it, but the front office cock-blocking his trade last year is actually looking like a good move, but seriously, cash out while you are still ahead. We sign this guy to yet another long term, big money deal we can expect exactly what we got from him over this current contract. Did everyone forget what a “great teammate” this guy was when we were loosing?
Wow, not only was my post way longer than expected, but I double-posted… good-game me
Gonna pay $9M for a guy who probably won’t pitch much more than 100 innings for you?
What having Bedard in your rotation means is having your bullpen put in about 70 more innings, usually filled in with long relievers like Miguel Batista. Stack on top of that having to pull in 6th and 7th starters to replace him when he stubs his tow or when doesn’t like the breakfast he has, and decides to go on the DL.
Didn’t someone once say something about the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Is a B-level pick really worth the risk of actually having to pay him?
But, in the other direction, is there some team out there dumb enough to sign him to a long enough contract? Texas, perhaps? A team with more money than good sense?
Gonna pay $9M for a guy who probably won’t pitch much more than 100 innings for you?
If he’s 2+ WAR for 100 innings, why not? Frequently injured players are frustrating, but at 9 mil, he’s got more upside than down.
And I’ve really had enough of nonsense like this:
Throwing a baseball 90+ MPH with movement and precision is an incredibly unnatural act that few bodies can consistently sustain. That his body isn’t as good at it as the charmed few says nothing about his toughness or character or whatever.
Do you make disparaging remarks about co-workers who miss work for cancer treatments?
Unless he completely breaks down and misses almost the entire season the risk we’re talking about is quite small. For every inning he pitches less than the 100 innings+ we’d like you can knock some money off his value, but even if he only pitches 81 innings, as he did in 2008, then that would equate to a few million dollars. A worst case scenario of squandering a few million dollars on overpaying him and a best case scenario of either having a Bedard 2006/2007 performance or a top 50 draft pick isn’t a bad situation to be in.
I have also.