How Much Should Strasburg Get?

Midlodad,
You sound like his agent.

Are there enough Nats fans out there to support what your theory?

Problem with that is the assumption that he gets that many MLB starts this season and next. Even if signed early, prudence as opposed to greed, would say that he needs to spend some time in the minors and that he would need to work his way into the rotation more gradually next season if he earns it.

As far as Nats fans go I think both of them would show up every time he pitches.

being the parent of a player, i'd say get what you can while their giving.

it's funny, when you think like a fan. you can't believe the money they pay. when you think like a parent .........well you know.

baseball is a business,when your done their isn't any negotiating they kick you to the curb.

The best method to determine what the true value of Strasburg is would be to allow him to negotiate with every MLB team, not just the Nats. The true market place would then determine his real value. However MLB doesn't want that to happen so they are allowed a special arrangement which is totally to their advantage. Given that fact, the draftees should be encouraged to get every penny they can.

The owners will make up for the Strassburg contract by dramatically underpaying other draftees (becasue of the leverage they have) and no one will ever say a word about it.

Midlo,
You make some HUGE leaps of faith in your assessment.

The biggest of which is that he's ready to be successful in the major leagues.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:

Now, suppose Strasburg gets to MLB by the end of July. Time enough to do 14 starts, 7 of which would be home dates. In 2010, estimate 34 starts, 17 of which would be home dates.

Now, take the number of additional fans you think would show up for those first 24 starts on average, multiply it by 24, then multiply it by the average ticket price. Then add a factor for what the average fan drops at the concession stand.

I think that number might be pretty low if he starts out 3-4 at home.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
So tell me, why shouldn't he get it? Because if he doesn't, it just goes to the team ownership.

For "it" to be there, there has to be profit. You can't assume Strasburg = Profit, he's an unknown quantity. And besides, profit is not a dirty word, owners are entitled to some.

I am very much against the payday for unproven, untested, unknown quantities. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

I don't think he is worth $50 million, and I don't think he has the leverage to get it. I mean, what's he going to do, go to an Indy league and then re-enter the draft next year, just to do it all over again only with less leverage?

But whether he has immediate success in terms of W/L or ERA or whatever, the central fact is this. The Nats cannot fill the stands. Strasburg will fill the stands.

How long will the hype last? What if he goes 0-5 with a high ERA. What if he gets hit hard, or is not ready. His money will be guaranteed, regardless of his performance. That's the issue.

Not necessarily. If he signs an MLB contract instead of the standard MiLB contract -- and this is I would think a near certainty -- it can have some guarantees and some incentive clauses. He might be well advised to bet on himself and tie his compensation to measurable things like sales of jerseys with his name or number on them, the extent to which home attendance on the days he starts exceeds average attendance on other dates, etc.

% of gate and sales? That's movie star stuff. That would be a whole new system of compensation. Why wouldn't that apply to all players?

didn't reggie get a buck a ticket? plus all the change and battery's he could carry from the outfield.

Whatever he makes is fine with me. It's not my money. However, my question is if he gets a % on shirts, how many do you mgf? Who determines the price, and what stores display them? If I were getting compensation based on that, wouldn't you need to get into those types of negotiations? That makes me an equal business partner. What if they make 50,000 shirts, and only 10,000 get sold. Does Straus eat a share of the loss? If avg. attendance is 20,000, does Straus guarantee that? What isfattendance is 19,000 when he pitches. Does Stras pick up the difference? What if attendance jumps to 21,000, but another player is on a long consecutive hit streak at the time? Performance incentives are routine and logical, but few players want the so-caled incentive-laden contract. In the end, players want the guaranteed money, and that makes sence because they are not entrepeneurs under the current labor union baseball contract model.

Lets not compare Reggie to Strasburg here---Reggie was established

As far as I know MLB teams don't give incentives on shirt sales or ticket sales, that's why they pay big bucks, so they can reap the benefits.
He may make some nice cash on appearances, endorsements from companies to wear their stuff or very lucrative card deals though his agent. He will get an MLB contract but paid out over x amount of years, perhaps 5. Unless he's been throwing and doing bull pens he won't be found on the MLB team so quickly, and on 8/15 the season is done for most teams.
My opinion is he would only get called up unless the Nats are in a playoff situation, like Price was last year, because sooner than that his clock starts ticking for arbitration and they want to drag that out as long as possible.

If he does well, his calling card will be when he reaches arbitration but I doubt that he will be on the team that long, they will pay big bucks and hope he does well, so they can sell him off to those that can afford him. That's why they drafted him, they know he will bring a big price they can't afford, but someone else can and give them 2-3 players of value and pick up his MLB contract.

I really think that at 50M, the commissioners office would balk. But then again, they have a stake in the team who drafted him, so who knows.

How much should he get and how much will he get are 2 different things. Ask the Nats #1 pick from last year. Lost a whole year (other than playing indi league) and sounded bitter this year from what they had in the paper; at least towards the Nats. I have not heard the $50 million. I read $20 million, Boras saying that he is worth what the Sox paid for Dice. I would say that Dice was playing pro ball already for a number of years.
Anyway, my mom (no sports fan at all)wouldn't pay $10. She might be talked into buying a Happy Meal if you said he was starving (no hungry wouldn't work). Of course she would come up with a cleaning or grounds job for him to earn the $10. This is a woman who has worked hard all her life, still cans/freezes food at 82 years of age.
Maybe Congress can get involved with the negotiations and offer a stimulus package to him - that way we'll all pay. Of course on that note, the stimulus packages may help bankrupt the country - then Strasburg may want that cleaning/grounds job for $10.
The older I get the more I realize that mom ain't so far off base.
OK enough rambling. He should get enough to tide him over until he make the big leagues - any more is greed and covetousness. I know that won't be, but that's my opinion. Oh and the grounds work would help with strengthening muscles and tendons that may not be hit with the weights and pitching.

Tim Robertson

^ Strasburg shouldn't get too much since he is unproven at the big league level. However, I think he will get Daisuke type money. His agent is Scott Boras, and if he is the best pitching prospect EVER, he will get a pretty penny.

"Selig also hinted that management will propose major changes to the amateur draft during collective bargaining in 2011. It’s possible baseball will propose a firm slotting system of signing bonuses."

On one hand you have signing bonus that can get out of hand, on another hand you have teams offering way under slot money to those who they know have no other option.

MLB's slotting for signing bonuses should be investigated for price fixing.


MLB Slot money

In that same interview, Selig adamantly denied owner collusion in the free agent market in years past.

But apparently he has no problem with collusion in the market for drafted players, who would be free agents but for the draft system.

We're heading for management and existing players making rules for new prospects. No one at the bargaining table to represent the prospects. Slotting is a sure thing come 2012. And the numbers will continue to go down.

The collective bargain is for players in the union I believe. The money the owners pay these unproven kids that get drafted is money that could be going to larger salaries for the players in the union.

The Nationals need to counter Boarass's data and studies and conclusions with the odds of a hard throwing, 1st round draft pick getting injured, because those odds are quite high. Strasburg is not a sure thing, and I've not heard one knowledgable baseball person suggest that he would be in the majors this season.

blprk, like the way you spelled Boras. tee hee, giggle, giggle.

The general rule of thumb in any labor negotiation is that proven commodities are worth substantially more than unproven commodities. If the MLBPA knew what was good for them, they'd push for higher and higher payments to the draftees, because it would have the effect of making them more valuable by comparison. E.g., if Strasburg gets $25 m, what is a guy like Matt Garza worth when he gets to arbitration? Answer: More than Strasburg.

exactly...I think every pitcher in the pros was good in college like strasburg. He pitched in a weak conference in college and some college guys cant hit 98...well guess what the pros can. I would give him 10 million max.

I have not read through this thread, but I would pay him no more than about $4 million. He has not done anything to earn it. But, then, I would not have drafted him or anyone else affiliated with Scott Boras. Let him go play in the men's leagues.

I think he's worth substantially more than that because he has the unique ability to put fannies in the seats, up the TV ratings, and sell jerseys, etc.

At this point, the Nats had better open the vaults, because their fans will revolt on them if they don't sign him.

Of course, that's something they should've thought through before picking him. If they picked him without a sound plan to sign him for a cost they could handle, then they were stupid, stupid, stupid.

quote:

I think he's worth substantially more than that because he has the unique ability to put fannies in the seats, up the TV ratings, and sell jerseys, etc.

Is there proof he can do these things? Has he done it yet? If not, then he is NOT worth it if he "might" be able to do that. He is a college player at this point who has been projected to be very good. He hasn't done anything yet so the team shouldn't be opening the bank for him just yet.



The Nationals have greater needs at this point than a pitcher who can only pitch once every 5 days. I believe when they played the Cardinals recently, they said there were all of 5k in the stands! Sure it rained, but still!!!

I think people are fairly well convinced, and Strasburg won't sign unless that contribution is valued, so that is a good attitude if you're trying to provoke an impasse and assure that he goes to Japan or some such.

That's like saying you won't hire a salesman on a salary + commission basis, because you won't pay any guaranteed salary until he proves himself. The problem being, your competition will outbid you for the hire, and you will end up out of business due to lack of sales.

The Nats having only 5,000 in the stands is precisely why they so desperately need Strasburg. If he debuted in September (as Andrew Miller did the Sept. after being drafted out of UNC), I would bet the gate would be a season high.

One way people in real businesses weigh these things is to pay consultants to do market surveys. The surveys are not always accurate, of course, but you have to deal with the best information you have. If you simply say, "I won't pay until after you prove it," you will never have to pay because you'll never get the business opportunity in the first place.

If you've watched any O's games of late, all they can talk about is that tonight is Matusz's debut. They are a last place team trying to generate fan interest. On their weekend home stand, there were more BoSox fans in the stands than O's fans. With Detroit in town now, they need to sell tickets somehow.

Now, compare the number of people who know who Matusz is to the number who know who Strasburg is. Every Little Leaguer in a 100-mile radius will ask dad if he can go to that game. And come home with a tee shirt that says "Strasburg" across the back.

Until Strasburg proves it, he isn't worth it.

Also, I doubt the Nats fans will revolt, but if they did, who would know? They don't have enough fans to create much of a stir.

Finally, having watched both Matusz (from age 13 on) and Strasburg, I am very comfortable to say here that Matusz will have a better big league career than Strasburg. Heck, I think Mike Leake will have a better big league career.

I think if they fail to sign Strasburg, everything they are trying to do to build a fan base will suffer tremendously. And that puts Strasburg and Boras in the driver's seat.

Personally I would not have drafted him. The track records of pitching phenoms taken in the draft are not good. The risk of injury alone is enough to make me steer clear. But all that is to be considered before you spend your pick.

At this point, they've raised their fans' hopes, and if they don't sign him, the GM will have to be fired to save face, just for starters. You can't go back-to-back years without signing your top pick and then try to convince fans to come out to watch a team that wins only 30% of its games on the premise that you're building for the future. Someone would have to take accountability for repeatedly drafting guys who won't sign, when guys who would sign were right there for the taking (and got taken by your competition).

Bottom line, they should've talked to him pre-draft, and if they couldn't reach an agreement pre-draft, they shouldn't have taken him. Let him go be the next Mark Prior at the Yankees' expense.

But now that they've taken the plunge, they're all in. They can play the brinkmanship game all they want, by Aug. 17 they have to give him what he wants or they're toast.

Here's a non-hypothetical for you guys, by the way:

Was Rick Porcello worth his bonus in 2007?

He sure is pitching a lot better right now than a lot of guys who cost a lot more. Not all of them, but a lot of them. And he's just getting started.

Should the Tigers have refused to sign him unless he would've taken less than the $7.65 million that he got?

Do you think they'd have their 2-game lead in their division without him? If they were out of playoff contention, how much worse off would that organization be financially right now? And how would that amount compare to the couple of million that perhaps could've been saved if they'd've taken someone else instead of Porcello?

Next question:

How does Strasburg in 2009 compare to Porcello in 2007?

Which one faced tougher competition prior to starting his pro career?

Which one logged more innings, went longer in starts, and generally built a track record of being a workhorse before being drafted?

Which one brings more immediate fan excitement (translating into ticket sales, TV money and royalties of sales of licensed logo gear)?

Which one was picked by a team more desperate for something to draw in fans?

Which one was picked by a team in greater need for a top young pitcher to anchor its future staff? (Hint: Detroit already had Verlander in 2007.)


If you can finish this little quiz and still claim that Strasburg should get only $4 million, you really aren't thinking this through, you're just being jealous because you don't think anyone should make that much money. Hey, if you want to complain, complain about how much Britney Spears makes to do whatever it is she does. Baseball is also an entertainment industry. The headliners generate unreal amounts of revenue and thereby can command unreal amounts of pay.

Midlo, you're talking about one player getting $7.65 million and comparing him to a player demanding $50 million?

If a player wants $10 million and a team thinks he's worth it-fine. But for a player to demand $50 million when he hasn't even proven he can play professional ball is a whole other issue...

It's been rumored Ted Lerner has been advised to
offer $1M with incentives in a take it or leave it approach.

Scott Boras is furious. Might get fired.

It appears the #1 draft pick will re-enter next years draft, and the Nationals will get a compensation pick. Stay tuned

I surely would not give in to a $50 million demand. But the purpose of that demand was likely just to stretch out the negotiating range at the outset. I honestly don't think even Boras thought he'd get anything near that figure. It's just too much of a quantum leap for baseball to grasp all in one draft cycle.

It's hard for me to imagine Strasburg turning down an offer in the $15-20 m range if the Nats go there and stand pat. Boras may not like it, but in the end the Nats don't have to yield to demands, they only have to make an offer that is preferable to his next available options. Those options include the Hochevar route (indy ball followed by 2010 draft), returning to school (again re-entering the draft in 2010), or heading to Japan and trying to somehow dodge the draft entirely and become a free agent so that he can get Matsuzaka money. With any of those, there is the ever-present risk of injury or fall-off in performance, and if he gets boxed into next year's draft, he'll have LESS negotiating power next year than he has in the next 10 days.

Offering $1 m -- that can't possibly be true. You may as well just flip him the bird.

So no, I would not do $50 m, but the suggestions of $1 m or $ 4 m are just not realistic to the situation. Strasburg is going to get substantially more than Porcello, that much you can bet the ranch on.

I am going to agree with Midlo on this one. Strasburg won't get $50 mil like people are saying he will. He is obviously an immense talent but he isn't THAT much better than any other draft pick in years past that he can demand 5x the amount of the highest ever given. I see the Nationals offering a signing bonus around $10 million and a very good multi-year contract with incentives. If I were dealing with the negotiations, I'd structure the contract similarly to how NFL teams structure theirs with their draft picks...You get a guaranteed figure up front (let's say $10 million) and then are offered a contract that depends on performance and level of play (let's say 5 years, and anywhere between $11-30 million, depending on what happens. $11 if he craps out, $30 if he's an all-star). These are just BALLPARK figures so please don't take them to be so literal. I don't know enough about the negotiations to come up with solid numbers. All I know is if I were the Nationals I'd want to make sure I'm getting enough bang for the buck. And if I were Strasburg, I'd want to be comfortable the next several years in my contract.

Wherever the "$1 million" source came from is absurd.

OMG!

The best (or worst) part of the draft process is here. Sign or attend college?

Many college (and HS) players have life altering decisions.

Such questions will be answered by next week, marking the end of the MLB Draft signing period.

As of date, 20 of the Top 32 picks have NOT signed.
Slot money ranges from $900K to $2.5M.

Not one of the players, that Boras represents have signed, yet.

Should Strasburg get Boras's full time attention, next week, what happens to his other first round draft picks.

Matt Harrington, a 2000 first rounder and then drafted 5 times, never signed (turned down $4.9M!)(& is in Texas changing tires at COSTCO (not that there is anything wrong with that).
Harrigton's agent T. Tanzer, after many botched negotiations, no longer represents baseball players.

1st rounder A. Crow (pitching at Fort Worth in the 2009 Am Assoc.) states he is being offered less this year than the Nationals offer in 2008. Dayton Moore and the Royals response 'And your point is?', reflects the opinions of many owners.

For GM/Scouting Directors, time is running out.

Stay Tuned

postscript: J H, I hear the youthful enthusiasm and naivete. The other poster is simply inexperienced in such matters.

Bear-

That wasn't a personal shot at you. I just don't think a guy with this much hype and skill would be offered that much less than those around him. Brien Taylor signed for more money almost two decades ago. There have been literally hundreds of less heralded prospects to get more than $1 million. Is it right? That's not for me to say. But in comparison, Strasburg will be offered quite a bit more.

I wish the owners would just flip Boras the bird and not draft any player he represents. He's losing clout. Arod had to throw him aside to get his contract done.

Yeah, A-Rod really suffered on that one.

You think he would've gotten what he got had Boras not stretched the Yankees' thinking first?

Here's a clue to the answer: Has A-Rod fired Boras? Or does he still use him?

There's a simple reason why you can't successfully boycott Boras. He is viewed as the best advocate for the player and as a result, he can recruit the best prospects for his draft negotiations work. The only way to boycott him is to avoid drafting any of the top players.

Which some teams do, of course. The other teams are thankful for having that much less bidding competition.

I think Jim Callis of Baseball America put it best: Why is it OK to pay $52 m for Daisuke Matsuzaka, but not OK to pay Strasburg less than that? Why is it OK to pay $2.0 m/year for a utility guy (a guy who has proven out as only an average MLB producer), but not OK to pay 750k to sign a top prospect in the 2nd round?

Many teams are willing to bid up draft signing prices for the simple reason that it's a less expensive way to stockpile talent than the free agent market, esp. when you remember that once you sign them, they're yours for several years at the MLB minimum, which is around 400k. Not chump change, but you could take fliers on maybe 100 guys, some of whom will pan out, for less than A-Rod will cost you for one year. And heaven forbid you buy yourself a C.C. Sabathia and he comes down hurt. You may wish you'd bought yourself 15 Rick Porcellos instead.

The question we all have to answer is, why isn't this like any other free market decision in the universe? In any other context, fixing prices this way would violate the antitrust laws. Why are so many of you so much in favor of price fixing?

If it were your son, you would feel differently. I guarantee you that!

His actual signing bonus has to stay in line with those of the past, his MLB contract can be whatever they feel he is worth, paid out over x amount of years. Also, one has to remember that it can become too much of a financial burden if they ever want to trade him and a team won't pick up his bill, BUT, he certainly could be worth his weight in gold for a later trade for many established prospects that would service the team better than just ONE player. The problem is once you sign a player for mega bucks, your other guys get less, they would rather go off to school because for most, money is more important than the actual team who signs you. One has no clue how important the team is that you sign with, if you get X amount of dollars and the team's development farm su cks, you are not going to get anywhere. But you might have some money in the bank, or maybe not after living on milb salary for years. Lot depends on one's personal goal and the value they place on what this is essentially all about, playing on the big field.

If he were mine, I'd say sign for what it takes (everyone in agreement) to begin playing and begin your MLB service time and all of the MLB perks. That in itself is worth lots of money in the bank. He has essentially already missed one season of MLB service time. JMO.

Boras can do what he does because he does represent some of the best prospects in baseball.

TPM,

You could be correct, but some of what you have posted is not in agreement with what I've read previously. First, I believe there are no limits on the bonus he can be paid. MLB attempts to artificially limit bonuses, but they have virtually zero power to force teams to stay within bonus guidelines. I believe MLB requires above slot bonuses to be approved by their offices, but they really don't have any power to reject them. They generally try to call the owner directly and "encourage" him to not break slot. Some owners are more willing to go above slot than others, and I have read that MLB will try to threaten owners with stuff like not giving them an all-star game. But in the end, the owners/teams are free to give any player any bonus they deem appropriate.

In addition, the bonus doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the MLB/MiLB contract the player signs. MLB contracts aren't necessarily the standard at the top of the draft, but aren't uncommon either. In some cases the contract and bonus are related...for example, last year Brian Matusz reportedly took less bonus money in exchange for a big league deal. I believe the MLB contracts are standard contracts worth the major league minimum in year 1. If the player doesn't sign a big league deal, I believe they sign pretty much a standard minor league contract with standard starting monthly salaries. I believe the salaries in either case are negotiable, but I think it's safe to say that it is the bonus money that generally provides a player his riches (hence the term "bonus baby").

Also, unless the player is determined to be a multi sport guy, his bonus is paid in full early on. I'm not sure exactly when the bonus is paid, but I'm almost 100% positive it is at least within year one after the player signs. Multi sport guys can have their bonuses spread over more years. This requirement that the bonus be paid up front largely gets around the issue you mentioned of making a player difficult to trade. Because the bonus has already been paid, it really doesn't factor into the trade discussions that may surround a given player.

The idea that if one player signs for X, then other players can't get as much money is true, although it really shouldn't be. As Midlo Dad alludes to, the issue of misallocation of resources is very real in regards to the MLB draft. Teams do have a draft budget, but really their budgets should be much higher for the draft, even if at the expense of not signing a mediocre utility player. Adding in the fact that all teams are owned by billionaires, and an astute team that really puts an emphasis on the draft should be able to afford pretty much all the players they can possibly draft.