Fitting Eric Hosmer in San Diego

On Monday, the Red Sox agreed to terms with first baseman Mitch Moreland. It was meaningful news, for two reasons. One, this is the Red Sox we’re talking about, and it seems like everything the Red Sox do is always big news. But then, additionally, Moreland electing to re-sign would appear to take the Red Sox out of the running for free agent Eric Hosmer. And while I’m certainly not Hosmer’s agent, the market for his services apparently isn’t large.

It could get larger. Scott Boras will work hard to make it larger. It’s possible to see a team like, say, the Mets throwing their hat in the ring. Yet the Red Sox move increases the chances that Hosmer will stay in Kansas City. It also increases the chances that Hosmer will go to San Diego. The Padres, so far, have been the most closely-linked suitor. They seem deeply motivated to turn Hosmer into a part of their core. The Padres haven’t won more than 77 games since 2011.

It’s been a while since the Padres were good. It might still be a while until the Padres are good. Right now, they’re tentatively projected at 71-91, with no single player projected for 3 WAR. This past season, three teams from the Padres’ division made the playoffs. The season before, the fourth other team made the playoffs. What hope the Padres have is almost entirely tied up in the farm system. It is thought to be terrific. The Padres have done an impressive job of restocking, but it’ll take time until that translates into more major-league wins. I don’t think that could be questioned.

This is why Hosmer would feel like a weird investment. I don’t know if he’ll sign for $120 million over six years. I don’t know if he’ll sign for $175 million over eight years. I don’t know if he’ll sign for more than that. But what we know is that Hosmer is a free agent, and he’s going to get a huge guarantee. And as with virtually every free agent, you’d expect Hosmer’s best years to come at the front. Those are the seasons in which we can be least confident the Padres might be competitive.

You expect big-money free agents to sign with good teams. Those are the teams that can make the best use of them. Yet Hosmer might not have that choice to make. It’s possible he’ll end up choosing between a rebuilding situation in Kansas City and a rebuilding situation in San Diego. The Padres could be poised to offer more money. And this wouldn’t be an unprecedented outcome. Barry Zito signed with a Giants team coming off a 76-win season. Zack Greinke signed with a Diamondbacks team coming off a 79-win season. Robinson Cano signed with a Mariners team coming off a 71-win season. Jayson Werth signed with a Nationals team coming off a 69-win season. And, of course, Alex Rodriguez signed with a Rangers team coming off a 71-win season. Those contracts aren’t all success stories, not from the team perspective. But these things have happened before. Hosmer could be San Diego’s Werth, installed in advance of the competitive turn.

Just to re-state things: That still doesn’t seem efficient. Hosmer’s best years could go to a team in fourth or fifth place. Beyond that, Hosmer plays the same position as Wil Myers, the Padres’ only current long-term contract. Myers is capable of playing the outfield, but he hasn’t been very good at it before, and a position move could mean the exit of Jose Pirela. I don’t want to get too far into the weeds. The Padres’ organizational future doesn’t depend on Jose Pirela playing every day. But Hosmer isn’t even an obvious fit.

You probably already understand that Hosmer, as a player, is fascinating. I think too much is made of the perceived conflict here; even the advanced numbers think Hosmer was legitimately good in 2017. He was also legitimately good in 2015 and in 2013. I’m comfortable declaring that Hosmer is an above-average everyday player. He’s more athletic than the average first baseman, and as much as Hosmer’s game has hinted at a higher ceiling, he’s fine as is. Swings like this suggest Hosmer could turn into a force:

But even without any further development, Hosmer projects for a 121 wRC+. He’s coming off a 135 wRC+. Over the past three seasons, Hosmer ranks in just the 2nd percentile in terms of productivity to the pull side, but he ranks in the 68th percentile going back up the middle, and he ranks in the 98th percentile going the other way. There are similarities to, say, Christian Yelich and Joe Mauer. Hosmer is a good hitter who teases that he could be a great one.

At some point, you stop thinking about potential. Hosmer’s already batted more than 4,000 times in the majors. Yet this is where there’s another point in his favor — he turned only 28 at the end of October. Hosmer might still be entering his prime. Short of that, his decline could be several years off. Rare is the quality free agent who hits the market at Hosmer’s age, but it does open the door to somewhat unconventional suitors. The Padres could choose to think about Hosmer’s 2020, while paying him a couple years before that.

Big contracts always happen one at a time, and so, generally, they’re evaluated in isolation. It’s important to always keep the bigger context in mind. For the Padres, I think this evaluation would be mixed. They’re in position to have a lot of future financial flexibility; only Myers is on the books long-term, so their current 2019 commitments total $22.75 million. The Padres anticipate drawing a lot of their future value from arbitration and pre-arb players. But in recent years, the Padres have also topped out at a payroll of roughly $108 million, and you could have Myers and Hosmer earning more than 40% of that. Both Myers and Hosmer look to be good enough, but neither is a superstar. A Padres team with hopes of contending would need to be extremely efficient with what money it would have left.

If that means ownership would okay a higher payroll, that would be good news. Inefficiency doesn’t matter so much if you just have more money to play with. It’s just, the Padres will never be the Dodgers. Not in terms of what they can spend. The Dodgers can afford to make worse investments. The Padres have already hitched themselves to Myers, which makes proper evaluation of other commitments all the more critical.

Lastly, because it’s talked about too often to ignore, Hosmer is frequently credited with possessing strong leadership skills. He’s been the heart of the clubhouse in Kansas City, and he emerged in the national spotlight during the World Series runs. I don’t doubt that Hosmer has been one of the leaders of the Royals. What we don’t know is whether those traits are “sticky,” so to speak. A leader of one clubhouse might not be a leader in another. The Padres have a whole different group of players, players Hosmer hasn’t played alongside with for years. The Padres and Hosmer haven’t developed together, and interpersonal dynamics are never so easy to forecast. Maybe it helps that Hosmer has already seen one rebuild all the way through. Maybe he could help to guide the Padres, with his experience. Or maybe it wouldn’t work like that at all. Hosmer would definitely be the highest-paid player in the clubhouse. He could be respected, or he could be resented. Teams need leaders, but good luck knowing who the leaders will be.

The more I think about Hosmer, the more I feel like one of the “high guys” on him. I think he’s worthy of a lengthy commitment, and I think there’s upside in there, even beyond what Hosmer has already done. I’m encouraged by how hard he sometimes hits the ball, and I suspect his above-average athleticism will afford him a more graceful decline. That all being said, Hosmer, for me, falls short of being great, and the Padres as a suitor have two qualities that make them atypical. They’re a smaller-market operation, and they’re probably at least a couple years from being competitive. You don’t expect a team like that to wade in these waters. If the Padres were to end up with Hosmer, it would put that much more pressure on the farm system to churn out cheap and quality major-league talent. If the Padres could surround Hosmer and Myers with enough talented youth, there would be a contender, there. They’d just need to hope that the youth would come quickly, or that Hosmer’s decline would not.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

newest oldest most voted
matt
Member
matt

With the Padres projected for roughly a 70 million dollar payroll I’d feel a lot better about hosmer contract if it was structured 35-30-15-15-15-15 this would make hosmer relatively cheap when the Padres really are ready to try to compete, he’d get 6/125 million which seems reasonable. If ownership did sign off to this idea as a Padres fan that doesn’t want hosmer I’d be fine with a deal like that

ALLluckNOtalent
Member
Member
ALLluckNOtalent

I was going to say something similar. A front loaded contract and/or one that gives a significant signing bonus makes a lot of sense.

Come July 2019, if Padres feel they still aren’t going to be in a position to win in 2020, they can try to unload Hosmer at the deadline or that offseason. Unless he implodes, shouldn’t have much trouble finding at least neutral money/prospect trade to unload him and if he is able to keep wRC in the 130’s, could even get a nice haul for him

And then of course if they do look like can compete in 2020, part of it is probably because Hosmer played well and then they can reap a below market salary on him from 2020 through end of contract

The Real McNulty
Member
The Real McNulty

You realize the Padres could just “eat” the extra money when they want to trade him, right? If we’re distributing the 6/125 in some way, it’s smarter to delay payments as long as possible.

Now if we’re willing to adjust the 125M for NPV, then sure, there’s a chance that frontloading the contract makes sense for the Padres (if Hosmer overvalues the present value of a dollar)

kevinthecomic
Member
Member
kevinthecomic

While you are mathematically correct, i don’t think PV is the main decision criteria here. The Padres would want to front load the contract while they are paying everyone else (except Myers) minimum wage and then have the flexibility to pay arbitration and/or free agents when they are good (hopefully) in a couple of years. This way they won’t have to “eat” any salary; something they may not be able to do anyway because, as JS mentions in the article, they need to be hyper efficient with their spend in order to be competitive as a small market team.

The Real McNulty
Member
The Real McNulty

yes but instead of paying Hosmer 10 extra million in the first year to save paying him that amount in a following year, they can just pay him the average amount, pocket the extra money, and let that money make extra money for them rather than Hosmer. I’m not sure you’re talking about the same PV as I was.

timprov
Member
timprov

I’m pretty sure they’re not allowed to “pocket the money” without paying corporate income tax on it. Which more than washes out any npv gains.

kevinthecomic
Member
Member
kevinthecomic

Except that’s not how for-profit companies, including baseball teams, operate. They operate on annual budgets. So, maybe the Padres figure they can break even or make a little scratch fielding a bad team with Eric Hosmer on it for the next two years. Then when, hopefully, they are better, they can increase the budget in anticipation of the higher revenues that come from fielding a competitive team. So, in the early years, you pay Hosmer $30-MM or $40-MM on a total budget of $90-MM and then when the prospects are ready, the Padres can pay Hosmer $15-MM to $20-MM on a budget of say $150-MM (I don’t think the Padres ever sniff the salary cap) which gives them the flexibility to sign expensive free agents or to trade for veterans.

sadtrombone
Member
Member
sadtrombone

Well, not all baseball teams operate that way. Some seem to have that use-it-or-lose-it philosophy that other organizations have. Some, however, are perfectly content to hoard money when the team is young and spend it later when you are good. The cyclical approach is easily the better model but I’m getting the sense that a lot of teams do not operate that way.

If you have an owner who is finicky and operates on a strict annual budget then yes, you should front-load the contract. But if not, you’re always better off shoving money off into future years.

mikejunt
Member
Member
mikejunt

I could see the argument that it makes sense to frontload a risky player like Hosmer into a period when you have no competition for the money so hes less likely to hamstring you if he declines at the end.

Certainly the Matt Kemp contract would be a better asset if he was paid more early and less now in that fashion.

jdbolick
Member

The Real McNulty is absolutely correct. People in various discussions keep treating MLB teams as if they’re NFL teams, where front-loading a contract makes sense because later on you might push up against a salary cap. But there isn’t a salary cap in baseball and the Padres are nowhere near the luxury tax. If a player has a back-loaded contract, the team can earn interest on the money saved. That’s the same concept behind deferred payments. A front-loaded contract would only make sense if teams were not allowed to pay down part of a contract in future trades.

Hughes
Member
Member
Hughes

Just don’t try to NPV with a hilariously high expected rate of return like the Mets. Only 18 more celebrations of Bobby Bonilla day to go.

jdbolick
Member

Bobby Bonilla day might be the most entertaining part of being a Mets fan these days.

The Real McNulty
Member
The Real McNulty

this makes sense only if Hosmer places a higher value on present money than the Padres do.

Powder Blues
Member
Powder Blues

PV > FV

Hughes
Member
Member
Hughes

For equal sum of payments. The question is always how much more are you giving me later for not giving it to me now.

Bobby Bonilla’s people made the right decision on that FV.