Ignoring Bryce Harper’s MVP Season

In 2015, at just 22 years of age, Bryce Harper had one of the greatest offensive seasons of all-time. He hit .330/.460/.649 with 42 homers, and his 197 wRC+ was the 37th-best mark of the past 100 years and the 18th-best since integration, with only Barry Bonds posting a higher number this century. With that season, Harper delivered on whatever hype had been manufactured for him as a teen phenom and No. 1 pick overall, one who made his debut at 19 and had notched two All-Star berths before he turned 21. The best way to show the future potential for achievement is to actually do it in the first place. Harper showed he can be the best player in baseball because for one season, he was the best player in baseball.

In the three seasons since that MVP season, Harper has been more good than great, averaging 3.7 WAR per season. For the sake of a hopefully interesting exercise, let’s pretend we only know about Harper’s last three years. What if we throw out the 2015 season and ignore that Harper was actually so good that he put together All-Star caliber seasons at 19 and 20 years of age? What might that tell us, if anything, about Bryce Harper as well as his future?

To that end, I looked at outfielders who accumulated between 8 WAR and 14 WAR (Harper was at 11.2) and a wRC+ between 120 and 140 (Harper: 132) from the age of 23 through 25 from 1973 to 2008. I then eliminated those players who had below a 2.5 WAR or above a 6.0 WAR at 25 years old. This is the resulting group from age-23 through age-25, along with Harper.

Bryce Harper Age-23-to-Age-25 Comps
Name PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+ Off Def WAR
Larry Walker 1600 58 .280 .344 .469 128 51.2 11.2 12.0
Tony Gwynn 1680 12 .329 .380 .415 127 48.4 11.8 11.9
J.D. Drew 1359 58 .287 .386 .505 128 53.4 24.5 11.9
Ruben Sierra 2081 70 .298 .345 .491 129 73.3 -28.9 11.8
Ellis Burks 1702 51 .297 .360 .481 131 60.5 -6.8 11.7
Dave Winfield 1836 53 .275 .351 .436 120 49.5 -1.5 11.3
Ellis Valentine 1530 59 .290 .328 .484 125 41.0 15.7 11.1
Lee Mazzilli 1980 47 .286 .374 .437 130 71.3 -33.6 10.8
Steve Kemp 1847 62 .295 .384 .468 133 70.7 -29.3 10.7
Adam Dunn 1821 113 .246 .379 .532 132 86.4 -42.7 10.2
Lenny Dykstra 1443 26 .284 .350 .428 121 44.6 8.0 10.2
Dave Parker 1408 42 .306 .348 .492 135 56.7 -7.5 10.1
Raul Mondesi 1707 66 .296 .332 .501 121 46.9 1.5 10.1
Jack Clark 1559 65 .275 .358 .485 135 59.8 -27.4 8.8
AVERAGE 1682 56 .289 .359 .473 128 58.1 -7.5 10.9
Bryce Harper 1814 87 .267 .391 .505 132 74.8 -21.8 11.2

What we have above isn’t a perfect match Harper, but in terms of age, position, and overall production, we have a decent set to work with. Perhaps the first question we might have is how those players performed at age-26, the age Harper will be next season.

Harper Age-23-to-Age-25 Comps at Age-26
Name PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+ Off Def WAR
Dave Parker 706 21 .338 .397 .531 146 35.4 17.2 7.7
Tony Gwynn 701 14 .329 .381 .467 136 33.2 4.8 6.2
Raul Mondesi 670 30 .310 .360 .541 138 32.5 3.8 5.7
Larry Walker 582 22 .265 .371 .469 120 17.4 8.9 4.7
Dave Winfield 649 24 .308 .367 .499 144 33.0 -14.8 4.3
Jack Clark 659 27 .274 .372 .481 142 28.6 -13.9 3.9
Steve Kemp 447 9 .277 .389 .419 136 18.2 0.6 3.5
Ruben Sierra 656 17 .278 .323 .443 110 8.7 -0.2 3.1
Lenny Dykstra 584 7 .237 .318 .356 96 -1.2 2.0 2.0
J.D. Drew 496 18 .252 .349 .429 108 7.8 -5.6 1.8
Ellis Burks 524 14 .251 .314 .422 98 -4.6 5.6 1.8
Adam Dunn 683 40 .234 .365 .490 115 14.8 -21.7 1.5
Ellis Valentine 261 8 .208 .238 .359 67 -11 0.1 -0.3
Lee Mazzilli 376 6 .228 .324 .358 98 -0.2 -17.1 -0.4
AVERAGE 571 18 .271 .348 .447 118 15.2 -2.2 3.3

More than half of the players had good or better seasons with another third coming in close to average, although Ellis Valentine and Lee Mazzilli came in below replacement-level. On average, the group comes in just a touch below their average performances from age-23 through age-25. As for the aging process, the group stayed roughly the same for three years, remaining pretty close to average for the late-20s and early 30s before dropping a bit more in the mid-30s.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

There are a lot of different ways to take this information. One might be wariness of the aging process and forecasting deals 10 years into the future. Several players didn’t even make it to their late-20s as productive players. On the other hand, Harper’s young age means that the decline of the contract never gets too far down when it comes to expected production. Another viewpoint might focus on the individual player names and note that Harper compares pretty well to some Hall of Famers. The table below shows the production of the comps above from age-26 through age-35.

Harper Age-23-to-Age-25 Comps at 26-35
Name PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+ Off Def WAR
Larry Walker 5127 277 .331 .416 .613 147 323.1 6.4 48.6
Tony Gwynn 5991 74 .340 .392 .460 133 249.9 -45.8 40.8
Dave Winfield 6301 256 .290 .359 .496 136 263.7 -112.4 37.6
Jack Clark 5092 230 .265 .397 .484 145 260.2 -107.8 33.5
J.D. Drew 4753 179 .274 .383 .481 126 174.2 -1.0 32.9
Dave Parker 5764 201 .300 .351 .491 127 168.4 -79.1 29.0
Lenny Dykstra 3566 54 .288 .387 .421 124 118.4 42.0 28.6
Ellis Burks 4519 214 .294 .371 .531 126 147.7 -39.2 24.4
Raul Mondesi 4571 201 .264 .330 .478 109 61.5 -49.0 16.0
Adam Dunn 5545 304 .231 .355 .476 119 115.6 -203.9 9.1
Steve Kemp 2231 50 .270 .359 .402 115 37.6 -41.9 7.2
Lee Mazzilli 2140 38 .239 .352 .351 103 11.8 -53.9 3.0
Ellis Valentine 945 31 .248 .273 .402 86 -18.0 -10.5 0.2
Ruben Sierra 3586 124 .258 .308 .435 92 -37.5 -109.3 -2.3
AVERAGE 4295 160 .278 .360 .466 121 134 -57.5 22.0

The bare-bones look might examine the average and see a projected contract of close to $200 million. There’s also, based on this group, a little bit better than a one-in-five shot at Hall of Fame-level production with a roughly 50% chance at being worth a $300 million contract over the next 10 years. Opt-outs are going to drop that value some, as a few of the top results lose a bit of their value.

The best way to look at these comps is to think of them as Bryce Harper’s floor. We’ve taken some of the very best attributes of Harper — namely his young debut and his great MVP season — and then eliminated them. Despite this elimination, he still resembles a few Hall of Famers and some Hall of Very Good-types. Here’s what the group above looks like through Age-25 with Harper as a comparison.

Harper Age-23-to-Age-25 Comps Through 25
Name PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+ Off Def WAR
Bryce Harper 3957 184 .279 .388 .512 140 199.7 -30.1 30.7
Jack Clark 2818 105 .276 .350 .478 130 93.6 -20.3 17.4
Ellis Valentine 2447 92 .290 .332 .480 123 66.3 13.4 16.6
Ruben Sierra 3856 139 .280 .325 .474 115 66.5 -35.0 16.6
Adam Dunn 2783 158 .248 .383 .518 131 124.5 -48.8 16.5
Ellis Burks 2308 71 .291 .350 .470 123 62.8 -2.9 14.3
Dave Winfield 2534 76 .273 .342 .433 118 59.0 -13.2 13.4
J.D. Drew 1400 63 .291 .388 .519 132 61.7 26.1 13.0
Tony Gwynn 1889 13 .325 .376 .412 125 51.3 11.7 12.9
Steve Kemp 2483 80 .285 .374 .456 126 76.3 -42.6 12.1
Larry Walker 1656 58 .276 .341 .459 125 47.0 12.7 11.9
Lenny Dykstra 1716 27 .279 .348 .413 117 45.4 13.0 11.7
Lee Mazzilli 2691 55 .275 .364 .410 120 61.6 -42.6 11.3
Dave Parker 1552 46 .304 .344 .488 133 58.4 -3.5 11.2
Raul Mondesi 1798 70 .295 .331 .501 121 49.6 -0.3 10.5

There are so few players like Bryce Harper in baseball history that it is tough to find a lot of good comparisons. In the past 100 years, there have only been 16 players within five WAR of Harper and also within 20% of his plate appearances. Of those 15 other players, 11 are in the Hall of Fame. Manny Machado is another player on that list, with the others being Jim Fregosi, Cesar Cedeno, and Vada Pinson. The 14 players averaged 37 WAR from age-26 through age-35, with eight of the 11 players who played since 1947 hitting that average.

There are even fewer comparable players in history who have hit free agency heading into their age-26 season. If we look at the comps from the beginning of the post where we ignore important, relevant facts, Harper is merely worth a $200 million investment. If we look at the last batch of comps or apply his five-win projection forward with aging, he might be worth $400 million to $500 million. There’s going to be considerable downside to the contract Harper requires, and any opt-outs are going to remove some of the best-case scenarios, but there is almost as much upside in Harper as there has been in any free agent we’ve ever seen, Alex Rodriguez excepted, because we don’t have to guess at what Harper is capable of. Combine those abilities with his age, and the team that nabs Harper isn’t just contending with the risk of a potential albatross; they are also adding the possibility of greatly exceeding the value of his contract.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

140 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
tuna411
7 years ago

opt outs are awful

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  tuna411

Only from one perspective though.

Wonderful Terrific Monds
7 years ago

Heck, there have been plenty of fangraphs comments/commenters who have argued that player opt-outs are actually good for teams, since players might make suboptimal decisions and opt out of what would be bad contracts for the teams.

It’s a dumb argument conceptually, but it’s been made quite a bit.

senor_mike
7 years ago

They are also good to teams in the sense that they keep the overall cost of the commitment down and/or might allow a team to land a player for the same contract that a more attractive landing spot offered without said opt-out.

That said, if I am a team I am still avoiding offering them as much as I could unless that opt-out cuts a significant amount of AAV off a given deal, as they all but eliminate the chance of a team benefiting from performance beyond expectations.

Baller McCheeseMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  senor_mike

Regardless of whether opt outs are “good” or “bad”, in this day and age if you want to land a free agent like Harper or Machado you’re going to have to include an opt out. If you don’t, some other team will.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

That’s not exactly the argument. Opt-outs can be good for teams if it involves players opting out of the decline years of the contract (which it does 99% of the time). Whether the player is making a suboptimal decision is somewhat irrelevant to the situation; the player could be making a suboptimal decision, or they could correctly believe they would get more money elsewhere. Either way, the result would be the same to the team–escaping the decline years.

People tend to make the wrong comparison with the opt-out, which is why people assume it is always bad for the team. We tend to compare the scenario where a player does well and opts out to the scenario where they don’t and don’t opt out, but that comparison never actually occurs in real life–either the player plays well or they don’t. You don’t control that, but you do control whether you give the opt-out.

In the scenario where the player plays poorly, the opt-out is irrelevant to the team, and in fact it is a good thing because the team has saved money by trading the opt-out for paying them more money.

In the scenario where the player plays well, the opt-out is usually good for the player because they can probably earn more money somewhere else (usually, but not always; this is the bad decision WTM alludes to). But it can also benefit the team, since the back half of the contract is nearly always subsidizing the first half; you essentially got the front half of the contract subsidized by something you don’t pay. The only way it’s bad for the team is if the decline doesn’t happen, but the Max Scherzer’s of the world are few and far between, so this doesn’t happen as nearly as often as you would think.

Obviously, a team would not be as interested in giving an opt out to a player at age 28 as they would to one at age 30. So the timing of Harper’s opt-out is important. An opt-out after 3 years, when he’s 29, is way more valuable than one after 5 when he’s 31. If he opts out at 29, you can see how he might perform well over the life of a contract running from age 29-35. But he’s probably not giving you good value from 31-35. But even at age 29, it probably is worth it to trade for a reduced salary from the team’s perspective, and could still be a win-win for player and team down the road.

willl
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Is there any evidence that suggests players accept less money in return for an opt out?

Has anyone looked at contracts with opt outs and compared them to similar contracts without opt outs or the contract crowdsourcing?

I understand how opt outs could be good for teams too, but only under the assumption that the team extracts value from them. I don’t think the Marlins or Dodgers, for example, extracted any value from giving Stanton and Kershaw their opt outs.

Kevin S.
7 years ago
Reply to  willl

So this is conjecture, but it’s rumored that Heyward turned down a $200m contract with St. Louis to sign his $184m, multiple opt-out deal with Chicago. I don’t know if it has been reported if St. Louis’ offer was exactly $200m or higher, and I don’t know how many years it was, but we do have a scenario with a player taking less guaranteed dollars. It’s a starting point.

Number20
7 years ago
Reply to  Kevin S.

@Kevin S.: Heyward has said that if Cardinals had provided opt-outs, he still would have signed with the Cubs. It sounds like once the offers got to a an acceptable amount, he stopped talking with other teams and simply choose the team he most wanted to play for. His main observation about the two teams was that the Cardinal players were older in comparison and probably wouldn’t be around toward the end of his contract.

Heyward doesn’t fit all the theories about how this is supposed to work to the team’s advantage because Heyward does not appear to have valued the opt-outs, and certainly was highly unlikely to exercise such early ones.

martyvan90Member since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  willl

Will, great comment and absolutely true for the teams. There is upside and downside value for the player, as well as negotiation leverage if they want to redo the deal. The value to the team is significantly less, and they should use that fact in negotiating the initial deal, which as sadtrombone points out adds additional value to the player. I like the opt-outs, the overall downside to players is it may reduce “the number” future agents (or players negotiating on their own) can benchmark. But from the players perspective flexibility they control may be more important (valuable) than additional dollars.

bjsguess
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

sadtrombone nailed it.

Potential outcomes:

Player performs poorly prior to opt-out = Player stays. Team is saddled with the entire contract (which they would have been stuck with anyway without an opt-out). Most likely, the contract comes at a slight discount due to the opt-out provisions.

Player performs well prior to opt-out BUT underperforms relative to their new contract = Original team comes out ahead. Team reaped the reward of strong play for a few years maximizing their spending efficiency. New team takes on a less favorable contract that typically ends upside down.

Player performs well prior to opt-out AND continues to be a strong performer under their new contract = Team may not come out ahead. While they did well prior to the opt-out they may regret not signing the player to the extended contract at a higher rate.

Scenarios 1 and 2 work out in favor of the team AND are the most likely scenarios to play out. Scenario 3 also works out for the team during the pre-opt out phase. They lose some value on based on the fact that the player left before his original contract end date. That said, paying full retail for a superstar into their mid/late 30’s is rarely a recipe for success.

In my opinion – Opt Outs (on the whole) are a win/win for both clubs and players, assuming that the clubs are fiscally responsible when it comes to potentially re-upping their opt-out player. Either original party COULD be burned but the real losers are typically the next team that signs the player after an Opt Out is exercised.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

bjguess, there is one reason why people don’t see it this way: It’s because the original team is often the one who re-signs the guy! The whole advantage of the opt-out to the team is that in theory, they’re smart enough to find someone else to take their spot. If they don’t do that, then giving them the opt-out backfires spectacularly, because they’re stuck subsidizing the front half of the contract again, but this time with a less favorable aging curve.

But, more or less, this is how a well-run team should operate. At least to the extent that they are in the free agent market at all. Free agency is for suckers; the best solutions are the ones that keep you out of it as much as possible.

jmsdean477
7 years ago
Reply to  bjsguess

It is really more complicated. Since different deals with opt outs have different values. Some are straight avgs, some are backloaded, some are front, so each deal has to be analyzed from a pre opt out post opt out AAV.

Fredchuckdave
7 years ago

I think its mostly a misunderstanding unless people make it abundantly clear that their perspective on opt outs is dumb; probably just didn’t think about it hard enough.

jmsdean477
7 years ago

They opt out of the bad contract to find someone willing to give them worse terms for the team based on recent performance.

RealCarlAllen
7 years ago

Harper has the unfair disadvantage of playing in the same era of the greatest hitter of all time in Trout. He might “only” be half as good as Trout – but that’s still probably worth $30M/yr for the next decade

Brad
7 years ago
Reply to  RealCarlAllen

I mean, Trout is amazing, but I’m still taking Barry Bonds as the greatest hitter of all time. And Harper lacks for consistent excellence, the biggest separator between he and Trout.

Tanned Tom
7 years ago
Reply to  Brad

Steroids?

jdtTX
7 years ago
Reply to  Tanned Tom

Irrelevant?

Charles Bengal TigerMember since 2017
7 years ago
Reply to  jdtTX

No, it’s not. You can argue at what point PEDs took Bonds from a great, Hall of Fame-caliber player into another stratosphere, but the absolutely insane stats he posted in his late 30s wouldn’t have been physically possible without cheating.

MoateMember since 2022
7 years ago

Does that mean he didn’t hit those home runs? Because I saw several of them. They actually happened.

We’re not arguing what could have happened if he wasn’t juiced, or whether steroids are moral. We’re stating that Bonds’ numbers are the best. That part is an objective fact. Asterisk away, but the man was the best hitter period and the stats back that.

jmsdean477
7 years ago
Reply to  Brad

Even though Harper out produces Trouts bat in a 2015 esq year, its the fact that Trout outproduces him everywhere else every year, and his bat is more consistent!

Fredchuckdave
7 years ago
Reply to  RealCarlAllen

Trout is more of an all around type than “Greatest Hitter;” Greatest player quite possibly but just hitter its hard to outdo Ruth/Williams/Bonds.

sheashea
7 years ago
Reply to  Fredchuckdave

Don’t let the fact that Trout is better at pretty much every other facet of baseball than Ruth distract you from the fact that he is on pace for right about the same amount of offensive WAR as him while playing against actual baseball players and not farm boys throwing 80 MPH.

Defenestrater
7 years ago
Reply to  sheashea

“Don’t let the fact that Trout is better at pretty much every other facet of baseball than Ruth”

I don’t know, I think Babe Ruth was a better pitcher than Mike Trout.

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Defenestrater

Honestly, Trout with his Johnny Damon arm is probably a better pitcher than Babe Ruth.

Michael Jordan today would be Harrison Barnes with a gambling problem.

Adam C
7 years ago
Reply to  sheashea

Hmmm…Ruth had far more home power power, hit for a higher batting average , slugged .690 for his career (slugged .706 from 1914-1932), has the second highest OBP in history, and also pitched at a Cy Young Award level for several seasons. But other than that Mike Trout is better. I can only imagine what Ruth would today in these modern tiny ballparks, access to video, a lighter bat, etc.

jhalpin23
7 years ago
Reply to  sheashea

Trout has the 6th highest wRC+ in history right now, 1 point behind Bonds (even with the steroids), Gehrig and Hornsby for 3rd. He is absolutely one of the greatest hitters ever without counting the rest of his game.

Adam C
7 years ago
Reply to  jhalpin23

Key phrase, “right now”. Trout hasn’t even entered his decline phase yet. Trout won’t have the 6th highest wRC+ when he retires.

jhalpin23
7 years ago
Reply to  Adam C

He’s also just had his best two hitting season of his career back to back, I’d bet that career wRC+ goes up over the next 5 years. And yes it will go down again during his decline phase but it wouldn’t shock me if he ended his career around 170.

jhalpin23
7 years ago
Reply to  Adam C

Also, Trout (172) was ahead of Gehrig (170) and Hornsby (168) and destroying Bonds (136) at the same age. Ruth and Williams are the two best hitters ever by a pretty wide margin but Ruth only playing against white players for his career and Williams…well he was just insane.

williemaysfield
7 years ago
Reply to  jhalpin23

What percentage of white Athelete’s were playing basketball and football professionally in 1925? Baseball was king and I would bet the vast majority of great athletes were playing professional baseball. Your point on WIlliams is right on target. How great would his numbers be if he didn’t missed 5 prime years because of war.

Indiana BobMember since 2017
7 years ago

Also there were only 16 MLB teams in 1929 so the fact that game was not open up to all people at that time is less of a factor than one might think.

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Adam C

Eh…he hasn’t entered the decline phase, sure. But a couple key factors. He has a much higher baseline. I don’t think this is peak Trout. I’d bet he has a couple 200 wRC+ seasons.

Pepper Martin
7 years ago
Reply to  RealCarlAllen

Trout’s great and all but “greatest hitter of all time” is a stretch. He’s more of a Mickey Mantle / Ty Cobb type all-around contributor, which is of course in no way an insult to Mike Trout. But as a hitter he’s just not on a level with Ted Williams and Babe Ruth.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago

I would think that Harper’s opt outs, if they are not well down the road, will severely hurt his bottom-dollar contract amount. I can’t imagine a team committing even $250 million to Harper if they will not get the upside if he does well (assuming an opt out after three seasons). I guess heavily backloading the contract might make opt outs more tenable, but then I don’t see Harper wanting to do that.

It just feels like Harper may end up on a short deal where he can re-enter the market next season. If he’s still a $200 million player even if he has another good-not-great season, it’s not as if he is risking all that much. And I bet he could get $35-40 million on a straight one-year deal (the lost draft picks would be minimal as it would be under $50 million). A return to something close to his peak performance (6+ WAR?) will still get him his massive record-breaking contract going into his age-27 season.

pmartinez45Member since 2025
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

There’s no way he signs for less than $250 or signs a one year deal. This might be your worst take ever.

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  pmartinez45

Yeah, I think Stanton’s contract is a reasonable comparison for what Harper’s should be. Through his first 7 seasons, Stanton produced 27.5 Fwar and Harper 30.5. Stanton then entered his age-27 season and Harper is now entering his age-26 season. Opt-outs always benefit the player, of course, but they seem to be standard now for all deals above 4-years. Unless there’s some injury-factor about Harper we’re not aware of, there’s no way he’ll need to take a 1-year deal. 10 yrs, $325M with at least 1 opt-out should be the baseline.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

The biggest difference is that Stanton was coming off a year in which he posted a 6.8-win season, and Harper is coming off a year where he posted 3.5. Stanton’s projection coming off that season for the next one was a full win higher than Harper’s is right now (thanks, Wayback Machine!).

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

That’s a fair point though you’re getting Harper at a year younger. It would be nice to compare 5-year Zips projections of Harper now vs. Stanton & Heyward (your comp) at the time of their contracts.

Also, Stanton’s contract extension in 2014 was for 13 years, not 10, so taking out his arb years, his FA contract was more like 10 years, $290M.

whiptydojoe
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

I think it’s also a fair point to say: the FA market is different than when Stanton signed–even just a few years ago.

Teams have become more shrewd and a bit smarter with their money. Harper’s going to get money, but he’s done himself no service and the market has also done him no service.

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  whiptydojoe

We’ll find out. I think that teams have become skeptical about giving 30-ish, 3-WAR ceiling guys like Moustakas and Neil Walker $12-15M/year for multiple years. I don’t think that applies to 26-year-old regular All-Stars and occasional MVP candidates like Harper & Machado. Young all-stars and prospects who project as All-Stars are the most valuable commodities in the game. I don’t think they’ll suffer salary compression while MLB revenues break new records every year.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

I think actually the Harper/Machado guys are not “commodities” at all. Guys who produce at that level are more like fine works of art; they’re really hard to find, and they also happen to be status symbols for owners. “Commodities” on the free agent market are getting hammered because almost by definition, they’re replaceable.

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Also he is far and away the most recognizable player in the game. Trout is way better, but Harper is way more recognizable

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  whiptydojoe

Is it shrewd or smarter though?

drew_willyMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  whiptydojoe

This point about the difference in the FA market is underappreciated, I’d think.

bjsguess
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Stanton’s contract is the absolute floor for a player like Harper.

Stanton was not a FA, so the Fish only had to sell him on staying put. You take away competition and you end up with a smaller contract every time.

Additionally, we can all agree that something funky went on with Harper in 2018. Very low BABIP, defense is a real outlier (going from scratch to awful). The fact that he was at 3.5 fWAR in 2018 sets the absolute floor for his performance barring injuries. Move him back to a scratch defender and put his BABIP where it normally is and you have a 5-7 fWAR season. Couple that with the potential to be a 9+ fWAR player and the $400M+ deals start to make sense.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago
Reply to  pmartinez45

There certainly is a way, despite what your worthless shitposting has to say about it.

tramps like us
7 years ago
Reply to  pmartinez45

Market value will decide what he will or won’t do. Good ‘ol fashioned American capitalism. Supply and demand. Econ 101. He can’t sign what’s not offered. Simply stated, if 250 million is his best offer, he’ll take it.

Anon21Member since 2018
7 years ago
Reply to  tramps like us

Can’t tell if you’re being a little ironic here, but MLB’s free agent market is not particularly similar to an actual unrestricted free market. Even setting aside potential collusion, he basically has only 10 potential suitors, and the universe of potential employers is circumscribed by a central committee of owners.

Shalesh
7 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

There are multiple bidders, so it’s a market. Thus, I’d be stunned if $250M is his best offer, though that might validate SadTrombone’s skepticism of Harper’s future more than it disproves that a true market doesn’t exist.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Shalesh

Yeah, it’s definitely a market. It’s just a really small one. And it only sort of works the way we would expect it to based on the intro to econ textbooks. Just like the rest of the markets!

I have no idea what Harper’s actually going to get, but here’s my best guess:
-The White Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers are interested, but they’ve all been trying to limit the number of years/$ on the deal. They’re terrified of a $300M deal.
-It’s been reported that the Phillies are not afraid of spending money, but Machado is their first priority.
-It’s been widely reported that Harper received a 10 year, $300M deal from the Nationals that he turned down. It had zero no-trade protection or opt-outs.

So here’s my best guess:
1) I think if Harper tops the 10/$300M deal it’s probably because the Nationals and Phillies got into an intra-divisional bidding war.
2) If Machado signs with the Phillies and they’re out on Harper, I suspect the story is going to be that Harper will return to the Nationals on something like that 10/$300M deal, maybe with some no-trade protection and an opt-out somewhere..
3) If that deal is really not appealing to Harper, for whatever reason, I would expect he will take a less lucrative deal with one or more early opt-outs, allowing him to re-enter the free agent market at 27 or 28.

This, of course, is just me piecing things together widely reported in the news media, and not because I have any insider knowledge. It’s not likely he’s going anywhere until Machado signs, and maybe not for a while after that, so there’s plenty of time for us to throw out scenarios like this.

Jay Dee
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I think it would be a really bad idea to go into free agency next year with that amazing deep crop. So much value next year and all around good ball players- Then the year after well thats Trout time soo… 3 yr 120 mill straight??….

EasyenoughMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

We have at least one team that has established a projected performance floor for Harper and it’s lower than I would have thought:

The Lerners, who own the Nats, went on the radio and basically said they offered 300/10 and it was refused. Since these are Nats (and they have big TV rights litigation) they almost certainly deferred a chunk of that compensation and the payout increases over time (like Scherzer, Stras, etc). So compared to a straight 300/10 payout, let’s say it’s worth $285m (paid over 14 years for 10 years of performance). Nats only have one contract with an opt out: Strasburg’s. So let’s also say that the $300/10 does not include an opt out (this would let Lerner tell fans that he offered a larger $ sum).

At $9/WAR that’s just 3.16 WAR/year or 31.67 over the life of the contract. If you put some WAR inflation in at $10/WAR (I don’t think that’s necessary) he is then projected at 2.85 WAR per year.

If he averages 4.5 WAR through his age 29 season, He still needs to average 2.3 WAR from 30 – 36 to break even on the contract. Can’t wait to see the outcome.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago
Reply to  Easyenough

How does an offered contract project a performance floor? I would think that a contract offer would represent something around an average or median expected outcome for the player.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Easyenough

That assumes that $9M/win is the actual going rate. The math underpinning that argument requires some assumptions about actual performance matching projected performance.

Also, the deal did not have any deferred money nor did it have an opt-out or trade protection.

GeneralKnarf
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Isn’t the actual rate about 4-5 mil/win? Harper will get paid based on being a 6-8 war (or more) player, not the 3-4 war guy he has been the last few years. Say 32mil for 8 war. A 3 WAR player is not going to get $27 million per season any time soon, but $12-13 is realistic.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  GeneralKnarf

The technically correct, unsatisfying answer is: We don’t actually know how much it is. It likely is non-linear and it definitely varies by reliever vs. starter vs. position player.

Longer answer: Two years ago I tried comparing the depth charts projections to what was being paid. It was about $7M per win. Two years ago, Joe Joe tried comparing it to Steamer projections, and came back with 7.5M. This year, someone ran the numbers and came back with 7.5M. Let’s check when the the ZiPs projections go up for everyone and pitchers and catchers report, but if you want a guess and are dead-set on getting one number, you could do a lot worse than $7.5M.

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

A 6 win player is more than twice as valuable as a 3 win player

johansantana17Member since 2026
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

The Nationals have already offered him $300 million, so your imagination is wrong.

merizobeach
7 years ago
Reply to  johansantana17

But that offer is now off the table. I would love to see Boras elicit a new offer from Lerner only to have that offer turn out to be 9 years at $29M AAV.

Shalesh
7 years ago

What is ZIPS’ 5-year projection for Harper? I believe ZIPS incorporates information about historical similars into its projections, right? It’s not just an extrapolation of a player’s past with some aging-decline.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

I would be more interested in seeing what Harper’s Steamer or ZiPs projection looks like without the MVP year in there. This is a convoluted exercise to demonstrate that Harper’s “floor” looks a lot like his worst seasons (3-3.5 wins, give or take) which lines up pretty well with conventional wisdom. But would the projections see anything different?

Also, I find it unlikely (although possible) that anyone is paying 10/$200M if they think they’re getting a 3-3.5 win player. The player Craig is describing sounds a lot like Joey Gallo or Michael Conforto, who are both projected for 3-3.5 wins next year. Would they even have the leverage to demand a 10 year contract at that AAV?

The most comparable contract was given to Jason Heyward, who was being projected for 4.8 wins when he got 8/$189 with an opt-out and no-trade protection (which was also the offseason with the largest contracts handed out, probably ever, so it’s unlikely that inflation plays a role from that benchmark). Interestingly, Bryce Harper projects for 4.9 wins next year; so his projection MVP season actually has him stack up pretty well to Heyward. I’d be willing to go to 10 years at a similar annual value to get the deal done, but Heyward’s contract is a surprisingly good benchmark.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Heyward’s value was heavily tied to defense (and base running) while Harper’s is absolutely not. They aren’t really that comparable, which you seem to note. And of course for a 26-year old really good player, there is at least some value to project in their 9th and 10th seasons in a contract (age 34 and 35). I’d presume that Heyward would have rather signed his current deal than one for 10/$200 million (though his mind may have changed since).

Interestingly, I think Heyward might have been viewed as a safer player because “defense doesn’t slump” and you know, how bad could he possibly hit? Well, obviously we found out and it was pretty damn bad. Heyward is a great warning sign for handing out opt outs, in a way. The most the Cubs could have gotten out of Heyward in a good way would be three seasons while paying him a good chunk of change. You only get the 3 seasons if the player is good, but you will absolutely have to eat a pile of shit if things go bad. I think teams tend to only think about the good outcome, which is sort of the nature of free agency and the winner’s curse. If you aren’t high on optimism, then someone else who is will end up signing the player.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

If Heyward had played well, the Cubs would have had $20M more per year to go after Harper, which is what I suspect their plan was all along. Even if the player is good in years 1-3, it’s not necessarily the case they would have been a cost-effective signing for years 4-8.

jwa05001
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

What sadtrombone said. I don’t get why this is such a hard concept. Sure you might lose a 5 or 6 win player with an opt out, but the intention would be replace him either externally or internally.

That’s why the club doesn’t mind the opt out so much. And if the player ends up crashing after he opts out? They just dodged a bullet. It’s pretty simple it would seem. Except to Fangraphs commenters

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  jwa05001

It’s actually a really hard concept. I think the biggest reason it is difficult to grasp is that under a perfectly efficient market where everything is known, a player opting out means that the team is losing surplus value on the table. It doesn’t take into account that there are 30 teams with wildly different valuation and it’s an auction situation so the player can win and the team that’s losing the player can win and some other team will really, really lose out.

jwa05001
7 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Player opts out, club loses his services (yes that’s bad)

Club replaces player either with an existing cheaper option (An Aaron Judge or Kris Bryant) or a better/younger free agent. This is good for the club.

The guy opting out doesn’t happen in a vacuum, he can be replaced. And if it just so happens the guy who opted out resigns elsewhere and doesn’t perform? The club dodged a bullet by having the opt outs.

It isn’t difficult at all.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago
Reply to  jwa05001

Clubs don’t mind opt outs because they go hand in hand with lower total possible compensation. That is the only reason.

merizobeach
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

“but you will absolutely have to eat a pile of shit if things go bad.”

🙂

v2miccaMember since 2016
7 years ago

That 2015 season continues to baffle me regarding Harper. At the time, there was definitely a sense that they Harper we had been promised finally arrived. I don’t think any but the most optimistic of projections had him repeating his 9.3 fWAR season, but there was definitely a sense that he should be settling into the 6+ fWAR range as a player. Injuries can be blamed for some of his production, but he largely has played more like a 4+ fWAR player in they years since. That is still incredibly valuable, but it does make you wonder if that MVP campaign will remain a statistical outlier.

Luy
7 years ago
Reply to  v2micca

Go out on a limb, why don’t ya?

Of course the 18th best wRC+ since integration will be his statistical outlier.

v2miccaMember since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  Luy

Unless your name is Mike Trout.

bjsguess
7 years ago
Reply to  v2micca

Injuries aside – his 2017 season feels more like a typical peak season for Harper. If he plays a full season he’ll be at the 6-7 fWAR range. That’s scratch defense and a 150 wRC+ type season.

NetflixnRichHill
7 years ago

Here’s a fun fact about these young free agent phenoms, Bryce Harper and Manny Machado: together, 2012-2018, they’ve produced 60.9 WAR. Over that same time, Trout has produced 64.0 WAR. I didn’t know where else to put this.

lambert58
7 years ago

Now that is an eye-opener. Good post.

ryanredsox
7 years ago

If Harper signs somewhere for $300 million over 10 years (assuming no opt outs, even though it looks almost certain he’ll have at least one) I actually think that would be a bargain for the team. Assuming $10 million is around the price of win over the next 10 years (it’ll most likely be higher with inflation) I would predict that contract having a good amount of surplus value. I would be shocked if Harper averages under 3 WAR per year over the next ten years. Sure he had only one great year, but that 2015 year shows you his true talent level matches his extraordinary scouting reports. It’s just a matter of getting him back to that level, which if he does he’d be worth we’ll over $500 million. If he never does reach that level again, I still think it’s likely that Harper will produce at least 3 WAR on average over the life of the contract. Signing anyone to $300 million is obviously risky, but Harper’s upside is Barry Bonds like, and he’s already proven he can get there.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

His upside is pre-big-head Barry Bonds, sure. He’s not close to second peak Bonds. You could have just said his upside is Mike Trout’s offense.

ryanredsox
7 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

I would argue a player that put up a 197 wrc+ at 22 years old has something close to
big-head Bonds upside. That maybe overly optimistic, but I think Harper at least has the upside to be the second best hitter of the last 20 years.

TKDCMember since 2016🏆 MVP
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

In a certain sense, I guess pretty much anyone that is young enough has that upside, to be the best non-Bonds hitter in the last 20 years. Juan Soto, Ronald Acuna, Aaron Judge, come on down! Kris Bryant, Mookie Betts, hell let’s make some room for Alex Bregman!

Aside from the fact that along with Trout who I guess you are imagining doesn’t exist here, there is no reasonableness to think that Harper would not only match that terrific season, but far surpass it. Big-head Bonds put up four seasons over 200 wRC+, and three of them were over 230. Thinking Harper will match his 197 is optimistic, thinking he could join the big-head Bonds pantheon requires drugs I’m not willing to take on a Friday morning.

LHPSU
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

It’s a bargain in the sense that a $2 bottle of water is a bargain at JFK airport.

Pepper Martin
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

Let’s play a little game. Here’s a list of players, along with the number of times they’ve ever had a 5.0 fWAR season:

Manny Machado: 4
Matt Carpenter: 3
Anthony Rendon: 3
Aaron Judge: 2
Jose Ramirez: 2
Lorenzo Cain: 2
Christian Yelich: 2
Brian Dozier: 2
Andrelton Simmons: 2

Bryce Harper: 1

Also, just for the fun of it, stop to think about this. At the time he became a free agent, Jacoby Ellsbury was four years older than Bryce Harper is now. But according to fWAR, Ellsbury’s best season (9.4 WAR in 2011) was actually better than Harper’s best season (9.3 WAR in 2015). Aside from their transcendent best seasons, Harper’s had three other seasons with at least 4 fWAR, only one of which came in the 3 seasons before he hit free agency. Ellsbury had had two other seasons of at least 4 fWAR, including 4.6 in the season leading up to free agency, and 9.4 two years before that.

Obviously, Harper is a more attractive free agent than Ellsbury… but if they were both the same age, you’d really have to stop and think about which one you’d prefer.

The idea that somebody is going to pay Harper $300+ million is absolutely, completely insane to me. I’m 99% certain that Harper will not be one of the ten most valuable players over the next decade. I’m at least 50% certain that he doesn’t have 20 more WAR, total, left in him over the course of the rest of his career. Harper is just not that good, and everybody’s overrating him because he peaked so early.

ryanredsox
7 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

Expecting Harper to put up less than 20 WAR over the rest of his career seems very unreasonably pessimistic. He’s still projected to put up 5 WAR for age 26 season.

willl
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

I agree expecting less than 20 WAR is extremely pessimistic, but expecting 5 WAR is also really optimistic. It’s crazy that Steamer’s projection for 2019 would be his 2nd best of 8 professional seasons! These things are supposed to be conservative, right?

Steamer’s projection for Trout (9.3 WAR lol) would make it tied for his 5th best of 8 seasons.
For Machado, Steamer’s projection (5.2 WAR) would be his 4th best of 7 seasons.

I don’t know what’s going on with Harper’s projection, but that looks way too optimistic.

Pepper Martin
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

I don’t expect Harper to put up less than 20 WAR over the rest of his career, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if he does (hence the 50% comment).

A 5 WAR projection for Harper, though, is just nuts to me. He’s put up 5 WAR exactly once ever in his career. Here are some players Steamer projects Harper to outperform next year:

Aaron Judge
Nolan Arenado
Matt Chapman
Freddie Freeman
Paul Goldschmidt
Jose Altuve

Barring injuries, I would not expect Harper to be more valuable than ANY of those players, let alone all of them. The expectations for Harper are just wildly overblown, in my view.

Sidenote: just to see if fWAR was missing something, I went over to BBREF… did you know that, over the last three years, Harper has put up just 7.5 total bWAR? That ranks him as the 11th most valuable player over the last three years… among players born in the year 1992:

Mookie Betts (27.0)
Jose Ramirez (18.9)
Manny Machado (16.0)
Kris Bryant (15.5)
Aaron Judge (13.2)
Javier Baez (12.4)
Trevor Story (11.4)
Xander Bogaerts (9.8)
Noah Syndergaard (9.6)
Wilson Contreras (8.4)

jhalpin23
7 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

“I’m 99% certain Harper will not be one of the ten most valuable players in the next decade.”
This is a completely ridiculous statement. I’m not saying he will for sure or it’s even a 50/50 proposition but since Harper has come into the league in 2012 (as a 19 year old!) he is the 12th most valuable player in baseball, 0.3 out of 10th. He’s also put up a 9 WAR season. You don’t have to like him and can think he’s overrated (he almost certainly is) but in a down year for him when he was one of the worst defensive players in baseball last year he still put up 3.5 WAR. He’s extremely good.

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Pepper Martin

I can’t understand this take. I’ll bet you as much as you want with escrow that he puts up more than 20 WAR. There is no doubt in my mind that he knew he had a big contract coming and took it easy as to hit get hurt. Watch how many times he let the ball drop. He’s at worst slightly below average on defense.

jhalpin23
7 years ago
Reply to  carter

I totally agree with the 20 WAR thing, I’ll take that for even odds for any amount of money. And I’ll also throw some down on Harper being a top 10 player over the next 10 years at 100/1 odds because that’s at least 10x too high.

willl
7 years ago
Reply to  ryanredsox

“Assuming $10 million is around the price of win over the next 10 years (it’ll most likely be higher with inflation)”

There’s your problem. It’s a very big assumption that 1.) 1 WAR is worth $10m, and 2.) inflation will continue regularly given the strange almost deflationary effects the new CBA is having on FA spending.

ScottyBMember since 2017
7 years ago

So much of the variance in how people value Harper is the degree of confidence they have in his defensive metrics. Over his career, he has rated as an above-average, slightly-below average, and disastrous defensive outfielder. FG leans towards believing he is and will continue to be a very poor defender.
Given the unreliability of defensive metrics in general, and his very wide variance in his career, I am not so sure we shouldn’t be more conservative in our interpretations. Slightly below average fielding seems more in line with his true talent level (do we really believe he is Jack Clark out there?).
With a more reasonable defensive projection, Harper far outclasses the comp group assembled for this article.

senor_mike
7 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

For what it’s worth, Outs Above Average does not think much of his defensive play either.

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/outs_above_average?type=player&year=2018&min=150

2018: -12 ( 87th of 91 qualified)
2017: -5 (79 of 98)
2016: -4 (67 of 90)

What I can’t say is if 2018 was a trend towards awful, or just an outlier from below-average. If it’s the former then we are looking at a near-future 1B/DH, and then all of a sudden a massive contract starts to look significantly more frightening.

Thizzle13
7 years ago
Reply to  senor_mike

In 2018 his expected catch percentage was 90%, tied for highest with Conforto, Kiermaier, Hicks. His actual catch percentage was nearly the same. as the years before. I’m not much into statistics and their workings (I don’t understand everything), but could that be classified as an outlier?

senor_mike
7 years ago
Reply to  Thizzle13

This article explains it well:
https://www.mlb.com/news/byron-buxton-leads-statcast-outs-above-average/c-253726830

(Ctrl+F for ‘Expected Catch Percentage’ for a better explanation of what I’m about to attempt)

In a vacuum all ExpC% really measures is the ease/difficultly of chances that an OF is seeing, with the higher number correlating to easier chances.

When you compare that to ‘Actual Catch Percentage’ the difference is ‘Catch % Added’, which is the true metric of OAA vs the number counter which accumulates higher/lower based on the # of chances.

Harper’s Catch % Added:
18: -4 (Tied for 82 of 91)
17: -2 (T71 of 98)
16: -1 (T55 of 90)

So not quite as extreme as the OAA #, but the trend looks similar in the sense he rated significantly worse defensively in 2018.

Thizzle13
7 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

You would think he would be able to be a better defender than he seems to be right now. His sprintspeed is not that much slower than Heywards’ and his arm is good enough to at least get some assists. It seems the tools are there to be at least an average right fielder. Being an average fielder indeed greatly boosts his value. (https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/sprint_speed_leaderboard)

Thizzle13
7 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

Maybe I’m way offtopic here, but with his catching background, couldn’t he be transformed into a 3rd baseman? Strong arm, decent instincts….thoughts?

Mean Mr. Mustard
7 years ago
Reply to  Thizzle13

My thoughts are that if he has a good arm and decent sprint speed, it’s probably first step, bad routes, or not reading the ball off the bat well (or some combination thereof) that translates into below average to disastrous fielding.
Third base would be tough if he’s not reading the ball off the bat well, but it would also depend on his quick-twitch actions. If he doesn’t have a good first step at a position that requires that quick twitch, being in the outfield would be less damaging to his team.

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago

Or ya know a big contract looming and being scared of being hurt

carterMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Thizzle13

I’ve thought about this and I ultimately think it’s the route. He would sit mid to upper 90s on the mound w a hof pop time, and play SS when not catching. His range at SS was fine and the book was he’d likely have to move to a corner.

Kyle Sharamitaro
7 years ago

I enjoyed this piece. The title made me think it was going to be an article downplaying how good Harper is, but it ended up showing just how good he really is! Fun journey!

AndrewMember since 2016
7 years ago

I see Harper as somewhere between Adam Dunn and JD Drew, going forward. His 2015 season is looking more and more like an outlier every year.

That said, I still want my favorite team to sign him.

Kevbot034
7 years ago
Reply to  Andrew

If he’s JD Dunn, you won’t want your favorite team to sign him.

PC1970Member since 2024
7 years ago

Interesting list of players, some HOF type guys, some that washed out. Some have some fatal flaws that Harper doesn’t have:

Personal Problems/Coke- Parker, Ellis Valentine
Worse Defensively- Clark, Adam Dunn
Plate Discipline- Sierra, Mondesi
Injuries destroyed career- Steve Kemp, Dykstra.

Some of them have a combo of things. Kemp wasn’t a good defender, either. Dykstra also had personal problems (to say the least). Clark was injury prone & moved to DH.
I don’t remember what the heck happened to Mazzilli.

Of the guys on that list, who is the best comp? Winfield? Coke free Dave Parker? They don’t quite have Harper’s eye. J.D. Drew is a great offensive match, but, better defensively.

Paul G.Member since 2016
7 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

Mazzilli had injuries that caused the start of the decline, but whether that was the long-term cause is another question. From what I read about him, he was not at all prepared to be famous and did not respond well emotionally when things stopped going well. So you can tentatively put that as a combination of injuries and personal problems.

willl
7 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

Harper doesn’t have injury or defensive problems?

There’s a not unlikely scenario where Harper almost exactly follows Jack Clark’s path.

PC1970Member since 2024
7 years ago
Reply to  willl

I meant unforeseen injuries that basically torpedoed their careers. Steve Kemp was a 150-160 game a year guy..until got hit in the head by a line drive in batting practice, never fully recovered & was basically done at age 29. Dykstra played 85 games or less in 6 of 7 years after his age 27 season after playing in at least 125 games every year prior to that. The type of thing you can’t foresee when signing a guy to a 10 year deal. BTW, Harper has played over 145 games 3 of the last 4 years.

As for defense- You could very well be right. I am giving Harper some credit for years prior to 2018 due to the uncertainty of defensive stats over a 1 year period. Was his decline a fluke? or a sign of losing a step? I will say, he sure seems like a more athletic guy than Jack Clark was. If he hits like Clark did (who was a 3 + win player thru age 34 despite his defensive issues), he’ll be still be a very good player, regardless of his defense.

senor_mike
7 years ago
Reply to  PC1970

You had me at ‘coke’.

Ok ok in all seriousness this is a fantastic point. If Harper was able to survive growing up in the land temptation, I find it highly unlikely he’s going to develop a career-threatening vice at this stage in the game.

rosen380
7 years ago

Looks like when a player washed out before age 35, you essentially just counted those years as 0 fWAR. Given that Harper will have a lot of guaranteed money on the table (which these players didn’t necessarily have), isn’t it likely that in these cases, Harper refuses to retire (giving up the money) and they are looking at a run of negative win seasons?

Pujols is at -2.1 fWAR the last two seasons and I’m not sure the next three years are likely going to reverse that. Had Pujols’ contract ended after 2018, the assumption would be that the Angels wouldn’t continue to pump big $$$ into a likely below replacement player.

LHPSU
7 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

The team does not need Harper’s permission to cut bait, they’re just on the hook for the salary.

rosen380
7 years ago
Reply to  LHPSU

True, but teams seem to generally keep rolling that player out there to *hopefully* get something for their money.

If the Angels cut Pujols, they do get 0 WAR just like the article credits such players, but it isn’t exactly that simple as they are still paying him $87M.

For 3/$87M they could have just signed McCutchen and Lance Lynn (and had a little $$ left over). STEAMER plus aging puts them at 4.5/3.5/2.5 wins, so while cutting Pujols removes the negative wins from the board it doesn’t change that they are still paying for about 10.5 wins.

What are the Angels options with Pujols?

1) Cut him and pay him 3/$87M to not play for the Angels (well a little less if another team picks him up for the league minimum)
2) Play him, hoping for any sort of positive value for that $87M
3) Trade him for some other team’s bad contract (presumably with one team or the other eating some money to roughly equal them out)
4) Trade him for essentially nothing, along with a lot of cash and/or actual valuable players
5) Pujols gives up the ghost and retires leaving some/most all of that money on the table.

I’m sure there must be some other scenarios — the only one that isn’t a negative for the Angels going forward is #5 and what are the odds of that one? 1%? maybe 2%?

LHPSU
7 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

For your first point, that’s already taken into account in the calculations. You don’t get to penalize a team twice for paying a player to not play.

In any case, Pujols is something of an outlier. The Angels basically paid almost the entire $80 million of Josh Hamilton’s contract for the Rangers to take him off their hands.

Mean Mr. Mustard
7 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

He said he’d retire when he felt like he couldn’t play up to his standards, but…I guess he never said what his standards were.

deb81162
7 years ago

I think that the CWS are smart by not going over 7 years on Harper and Machado. They need to raise the Avg. Yearly salary to have a chance to get either player. Dealing with Harper, you have to take the entire player and not just his potential (2015 was awesome). But what about his defense? It looks horrible. Myself, I am from Chicago and I sure hope neither the CHC or CHW don’t get either of them, just because they both would be over spending . Just my take on both players

Fredchuckdave
7 years ago
Reply to  deb81162

Really hard to tell what you’re saying with the double negative/tone of the post, but I’m assuming you’re saying that you don’t want the CWS to spend money on two of the youngest/best FA’s ever; and that’s just quite silly; with how teams are spending money now there’s no way they’ll ever spend anything remotely close to as much on anyone else or any combination of players so they’ll just be a Pirates/Rays/A’s team for 3-4 more years or longer until the prospects line up; assuming they don’t spend (but at least they’re trying to spend on some level).

deb81162
7 years ago
Reply to  Fredchuckdave

I would rather have the CHW tank another year and get even more prospects. Abreu isn’t getting any younger either. Myself, I would trade him at the trade deadline. If Trout does become a FA next year, that’s who I would go for if I where them. They could easily get a Pollack and Muskakas this year to fill 2 needs rather than get 1 of these guys. The CWS, had one of the worst defenses in baseball in 2018. Both Pollack and Mouskakas would help improve that and add to the offense.

sgnthlr85
7 years ago
Reply to  deb81162

So you want the White Sox to tank this year and trade Abreu, but you also want them to sign Pollock and Moustakas?

deb81162
7 years ago
Reply to  sgnthlr85

ya, that doesn’t make sense on what I wrote. I said that wrong. I meant to say, I would tank another year if I was the CHW. If they went this route, then trade Abreu. But if they decide not to tank 1 more year, they shouldn’t try to get Harper or Machado and go get Muskakas and Pollack.

bjsguess
7 years ago
Reply to  deb81162

I don’t think it’s a hot take to suggest that going over 7 years on ANY player is generally unwise. Even someone as good as Trout, there is a strong likelihood that years in his mid-30’s won’t be as productive as his mid-to-late 20’s.

If you are unwilling to go beyond 7 years that’s totally fine and a reasonable approach. Just know that you will NEVER land a marquee FA with that restriction. People like Harper and Machado aren’t going to take less years to play for the CWS. And that’s OK. Plenty of organizations will simply never play on the upper end of the FA market.

Adam C
7 years ago

Harper’s career so far is just puzzling. Harper has been hyped since he was a teen. And IMO he deserved the hype. This is a player who is a product of the elite travel baseball system in the US. According to the famous June 2009 Sports Illustrated article from ages 9-16 Harper played 80-130 games a year. That is a lot of baseball for a such a young player. And he always played against older competition and he dominated. And he was a catcher.

Harper gets his GED and graduates high school early. He goes play for a community college in Las Vegas that plays in a wood bat conference. Before Harper arrives the all time single season home run record at the school was 12. Harper hits 31 home runs in his lone season there in 2010. Harper is named the Golden Spikes Award winner which is basically the Heisman Trophy of college baseball. What is amazing is that Harper is just the second community college player to win the award (Alex Fernandez in 1990 was the first). And Harper did this as a catcher.

Harper is drafted #1 and he blows through the minor leagues reaching the majors at age 19. Then Harper has one of the greatest seasons ever for a 19 year old. At this point Harper is looking like a future superstar. To me he looked like Frank Robinson 2.0 . He had some injury issues in his second and third season but was very productive. Then he has that monster 2015 season. After 2015 it sure looked like Harper ha taken a major step forward. Now, I’m not saying he should per putting up 197 wRC+ every season but this guy should be a legit 140-150 wRC+ hitter every season. But he hasn’t been able to do that. So who is the “real” Bryce Harper?

lilpudgeMember since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  Adam C

To be fair, he’s had an injured 111 wRC+, a 155, and a hard luck 135 (159 in the second half) since his monster season. I’d say he is a pretty reliable 140-150 hitter. I think the only “real” Bryce Harper questions are a) will he ever be a monster again and b) can he play competent outfield defense moving forward.

Brewtown_Kev
7 years ago
Reply to  lilpudge

There’s one more “real” question: what is the likelihood that his career will be further hampered or even cut short by the injury bug that has visited him so many times already? Baseball’s long history is littered with players who were more consistently great than Harper early in their careers, only to turn into pumpkins in the latter halves of their careers as they dealt with chronic injury. You can read about several of them in Jay Jaffe’s posts over the past couple days (hall of fame ballot one-and-dones). So what do we expect from a guy who has already been wildly inconsistent from year to year, as he approaches and gets into his thirties? If I were a team’s front office, I’d be terrified of giving this guy a 10 year deal.

Adam C
7 years ago
Reply to  Brewtown_Kev

I keep wondering if playing catcher so much as a pre-teen and teen (80-130 games a year from age 9-16) has had been a major factor in Harper’s injuries in the majors?

Mean Mr. Mustard
7 years ago
Reply to  Adam C

In a sense, he’s kind of a folk hero who had the bad luck to be born in an age when folk heroes are too easily exposed as humans with those pesky flaws.

Kevbot034
7 years ago

I sure wish he’d come to St. Louis so I can watch him live a few times. But somehow, I don’t see it happening lol

GF1954
7 years ago
Reply to  Kevbot034

If the Cards hadn’t been stuck with the Fowler contract, I believe that they would have gone after Harper. One can dream.

Neils-Henning Orsted Joc Pederson
7 years ago

I could be mistaken, but wasn’t Tom Tango’s Marcel projection system roughly as accurate as any? And didn’t the Marcel system only use the last 3 years of MLB performance? Therefore couldn’t we reasonably ignore any Harper seasons before 2016 anyway?

And I’m not sure I concur with the following:

“If we look at the comps from the beginning of the post where we ignore important, relevant facts, Harper is merely worth a $200 million investment.”

To clarify, the author is stating that a 2.2 WAR per year player is “worth a $200M investment” over ten years.

Maybe I’m dead wrong, but I don’t think there’s an owner or GM who would knowingly give an annual 2.2 WAR player $200M for 10 years. Perhaps $120-140M, but not $200M. There’s a Dombrowski Axiom that states that what you pay for as a GM is the wins above *average*, not above replacement. And over his decade-long deal, this theoretical $200M player isn’t giving you much of anything above average.

Tanned Tom
7 years ago

Well the Nats did offer 10/$300 mm. But I agree with the above average vs above replacement concept. Too many posters here trot out the $9 mil per WAR line which is just lazy thinking.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
7 years ago

The Dombrowski Axiom is a great theory, and a name. Where did you get that from?

johansantana17Member since 2026
7 years ago

The Dombrowski Axiom is a good thought, but it needs to be fleshed out more. WAR is adjusted based on how good or bad each team’s actual replacement players are. The Dodgers replacement players are probably well over 0 fWAR players but the Orioles relacement players are probably worse than 0 fWAR players. Therefore, 2 fWAR players have more marginal value to the Orioles than to the Dodgers.

Brewtown_Kev
7 years ago

This article’s headline aptly describes what 30 front offices should be doing this offseason.

JediHoyer
7 years ago

I’m in the camp that he is a superstar and needs a good headspace. I honestly don’t think the nats make sense, they have 3 above average outfielders and Michael Taylor, all cheap with 3 years of control.

bjsguess
7 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

True. But if Harper comes back, they simply flip their excess outfield talent to fill other holes.

Phil LeeMember since 2016
7 years ago

Thinking Machado signs first 10/325ish then Harper 10/375ish……
Would want no earlier than 5yr opt out. Agents will be wanting 3-4 yr opt out. Maybe 5/200M

David
7 years ago

A wise man once said, “Once a player has a skill, he owns it.” I personally believe that Harper is over-rated, but I can’t make the leap to ignore the 2015 season like it never happened.

Domingo AyalaMember since 2024
7 years ago

Now let’s do the opposite and imagine Alcides Escobar had a 10 WAR season.

John Autin
7 years ago
Reply to  Domingo Ayala

Or we could compromise, and just imagine that Harper had ever won a playoff series.

John Autin
7 years ago

The hardest thing about projecting Harper, obviously, is that his MVP season is so far above even his next-best year, and it happened 3 years ago. To illustrate …

I made a comp pool of 83 live-ball players across age 22-25 based on Harper’s offensive WAR totals and rates, designed to put him comfortably in the middle for that span. But look at this breakdown:

— For age 22 alone, his oWAR was #1 in that group.
— For age 23-25 combined, he’s next-to-last.

Looking ahead to age 26-30 combined, that group saw slight improvement in both oWAR and WAR rates (B-Ref version). But does Harper really belong in that pool?

runningfrog
7 years ago

How much future money did Harper earn in that 2015 season? $100m? $150m?

I think you’d have a hard time finding any season from any player in any sport that generated so much future income for him. The gap between “with that season” and “without that season” is huge.

RoyalsFan#14321Member since 2020
7 years ago
Reply to  runningfrog

Maybe Hosmer’s 2017 created an extra $100M? I mean, imagine his contract if he played to his then-career numbers…

The Duke
7 years ago

His defensive collapse last year at a young age worries me as a red flag issue about his general health and attitude.

I get not running into walls but his defense was poor in every respect and he’s very young.

I would stay away from both him and lazy Machado. I feel like both of them will not handle their decline phase well.

abellia11214
7 years ago

6 years at $30 million per is what I would offer Harper with a player opt out after second year. I am not paying a ‘hype’ tax.