Are the risks of "Max Effort" worth the cost?
- Thread starter Niastri
- Start date
fWAR is probably better, because we’re talking about replacement level talent, not performance. They’re also tiny sample sizes of imperceptibly lower than replacement level.
I posted this in the wrong thread. Tigers pitchers are seeing peak velocity this spring- here is manager AJ Hinch's reaction:
This quote caught my attention:
With velocity of course comes concerns. Is it good for pitchers’ arms? Can they sustain this March velo months into the season?
“We saw our first 100 mph fastball on the first day of spring,” Hinch said. “I’m not sure if that’s good or bad. It’s definitely different.”
This quote caught my attention:
With velocity of course comes concerns. Is it good for pitchers’ arms? Can they sustain this March velo months into the season?
“We saw our first 100 mph fastball on the first day of spring,” Hinch said. “I’m not sure if that’s good or bad. It’s definitely different.”
This is a perfect example of why you have to scroll backwards through the replies...
I've been thinking about how the CBA completely works against real value on the pitching side (and has mixed results for position players too). The CBA, I'm guessing, is like the NBA's version where the vets have more power so guess which group gets all the money? The problem is that player performances don't age the same in baseball. Every team is now desperate for established starting pitching under 30. Everyone was throwing money at Yamamoto. The cost of trading for young pitching is super high. And the market for guys over 30 has, conversely, largely cratered, though Nola and a few others got well paid. Smart teams are buying up pre-FA years and trying to hold a guy a bit longer into his early 30s, after which presumably his arm will be in decline and his price will become absurd.
The Poscast was talking about Spencer Strider, an extreme example since he's a top 5 pitcher. But still... he's made $1m last year and this year again. They signed him to a deal with team options that will get to 6/$75m. Not bad. But last year alone Fangraphs pegged his worth at $44million. He'll probably exceed that for a few years, and in year 7 or 8 or so his decline will begin.
I get how the CBA places an onus on young players to establish themselves before they can get paid, and the teams undoubtedly love getting six years of a guy's life with little recourse for the player. But this is garbage. The older players are basically trying to recoup pent-up value in the free agent market, and the teams are willing to pay since they are skimming the younger ones so blatantly. The teams also realize this, so they are trying to get around the CBA, with extensions the second they know they have a budding star. But it's not enough.
I suggest a few fixes:
1. If a player reaches a certain level of performance (maybe awards? Or WAR?), he goes to ARB in year 3.
2. ARB formulas need to change to reflect real value. They need to be much more aggressive in paying guys.
3. In exchange for this, maybe there is a way for a team to have an option for one extra year, at a truly fair price for the player (e.g. 1.5x his last arb #).
Obviously getting way out over my skis here, but the effect of shifting a bit more money/power to the younger players who earned it (the previous year or two at least) would in turn take some out of the mouths of the over-30s who are increasingly risky investments.