Strasburg Returns to DC
As first reported by Jon Heyman of MLB Network, Stephen Strasburg has agreed on Monday afternoon to re-sign with the Washington Nationals. Strasburg’s new seven-year deal will net him $245 million, or a cool $35 million per season. The fancy new contract at least temporarily stands as the largest guaranteed payday in baseball history for a pitcher, eclipsing the $217 million the Red Sox inked with David Price after the 2015 season.
Strasburg and Anthony Rendon are players on the level that any team would have been hard-pressed to replace their production. To not sign at least one of the pair would likely be a strong enough hit to give the World Champion Nats a fairly difficult road to returning to the playoffs in 2020. Making it up in lesser deals for lesser lights has become even more difficult with players like Zack Wheeler, Mike Moustakas, and Yasmani Grandal, all players that could have conceivably helped a post-Rendonburg Nats, already signed.
At $35 million a year, unless the Nats were bluffing about only being able to sign one of their free agents, this likely closes the book on Rendon’s time in Washington. With the team about $32 million from the first luxury tax threshold, Rendon might just barely sneak in. His number would have to be a little less than $30 million, as player benefits also count towards the luxury tax payroll. Unless the team clears payroll elsewhere, they’d have to get extremely creative in order to significantly improve first base, the bullpen, and possibly add another starter at the back of the rotation. It could very likely make them barrel through the $228 million threshold, something they may want to avoid with Adam Eaton, Sean Doolittle, and Max Scherzer nearing free agency and Juan Soto hitting arbitration soon. If the team could truly only sign one of the players, I think Strasburg is the right choice.
Carter Kieboom is unlikely to replace Rendon’s production in 2020 or 2021, but he’s a significant prospect who could become a legitimate plus at the hot corner fairly quickly. I don’t think the upside of whoever would have replaced Strasburg without an additional signing (Austin Voth or Joe Ross) matches what the Nats have in Kieboom.
| Year | W | L | ERA | G | GS | IP | H | HR | BB | SO | ERA+ | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 15 | 7 | 2.96 | 31 | 31 | 191.3 | 152 | 17 | 52 | 228 | 149 | 5.2 |
| 2021 | 14 | 7 | 3.07 | 29 | 29 | 179.0 | 146 | 16 | 49 | 210 | 144 | 4.7 |
| 2022 | 13 | 7 | 3.15 | 28 | 28 | 171.3 | 142 | 16 | 47 | 197 | 140 | 4.4 |
| 2023 | 12 | 6 | 3.18 | 25 | 25 | 155.7 | 129 | 14 | 43 | 178 | 139 | 3.9 |
| 2024 | 11 | 6 | 3.24 | 24 | 24 | 144.3 | 121 | 14 | 41 | 165 | 136 | 3.5 |
| 2025 | 10 | 6 | 3.34 | 22 | 22 | 132.0 | 112 | 13 | 39 | 151 | 132 | 3.1 |
| 2026 | 9 | 5 | 3.46 | 20 | 20 | 119.7 | 103 | 13 | 36 | 135 | 128 | 2.7 |
At $7.7 million a win and 5% growth, ZiPS would have suggested a seven-year, $241.8 million bid for Strasburg, so this is right in line with the computer’s predictions. The loss of a draft pick wouldn’t have scared off any team interested, given the caliber of player Strasburg is, but not losing a draft pick is still a nice bonus for the Nats that another team would not have received.
Strasburg’s status as the highest-paid pitcher in baseball history ought to be temporary as Gerrit Cole will likely sign an even larger deal this offseason. The Nats still have other needs to address at first base, second base, and the bullpen. But if you told me I was allowed to make one move for the Nationals this winter, it would have been to re-sign Strasburg. So how can this be anything but a big thumbs-up?
[Note: I have clarified the paragraph talking about Washington’s luxury tax threshold. My previous wording was a bit confusing -DS]
Dan Szymborski is a senior writer for FanGraphs and the developer of the ZiPS projection system. He was a writer for ESPN.com from 2010-2018, a regular guest on a number of radio shows and podcasts, and a voting BBWAA member. He also maintains a terrible Twitter account at @DSzymborski.
Dayum. Who’d have seen this coming at the beginning of the year?
But then again, who’d have seen Strasburg leading the NL in wins and being the WS MVP for the world champion Nats? Good for him.
We’re going to be discussing this a lot over the next couple of days, I can tell.
I would have felt good with Strasburg at Kiley’s number, and even if you added another year on, but this is now definitely the riskiest signing of the winter, and I suspect no matter how much money Gerrit Cole or Anthony Rendon or Josh Donaldson get it’s going to stay that way by a country mile. Give me Wheeler at $120M over this any day.
“I figured that Strasburg would best the crowdsource by at least $35M.”
Ha.
I did figure that, and if you take that prediction literally, I was correct! As were a lot of other people…but unsurprisingly, I don’t feel like I was right about that. I was thinking like 6/$186…
I’m happy for Strasburg and as a fan of a different NL East team, I am happy that the Nationals have put an ungodly amount of money into a somewhat fragile asset. Just this morning, more people viewed Rendon as a better option, and that was based on Strasburg for $100 million less.
This feels like a pretty big overpay and we’ll soon find out depending on if and by how much Cole exceeds this. I still don’t think a team will give Cole too much more than this. Maybe $1 million more AAV?
We know that the Yankees have essentially offered this deal to Cole already, although potentially not with the deferred money. My guess is that Boras is going to push pretty hard for 7/266M, which would give him the biggest AAV ever (I think) until Rendon breaks it. That should be enough if the Angels only want to go to 7/$245. To get higher than 7/$266M the Angels would probably have to want to get to that level, which…maybe they would do? But I doubt it.
Now people are reporting that it will likely go over $300M. I suppose that’s possible, but that means two teams are willing to go just south of that. That would be a surprise, but then again, a lot of this has been a surprise..
Based on this deal Cole is probably going to get 8 years, $320 million.
Its not that bad if stras stays healthy
Article: “At $7.7 million a win and 5% growth, ZiPS would have suggested a seven-year, $241.8 million bid for Strasburg, so this is right in line with the computer’s predictions.”
TKDC: “This feels like a pretty big overpay.”
I mean, events will go as they will, but it’s a bit odd for a comment to just gloss past the fact that the comment is inconsistent with the original post.
I prefaced my opinion with the comparison to Cole. If Cole does actually get $300 million, I think this will not look like a big overpay.
It’s also an overpay compared to many other predictions. Fangraphs ver own Kiley McDaniel included. I read the post and so did you. One system thinks it aligns with his value. There’s another article on Fangraphs that also paints a rosy picture. Still, if Cole doesn’t significantly outpace this, it will be hard to view it favorably.
If the ZIPs hold up (around 63 WAR), would Strasburg be a HOFer?
The ZIPS projections would also leave him short of 200 wins, so I think he’d have trouble in light of the difficulty that stronger pitching candidates like Schilling (216 wins, 79.5 bWAR) have had in making the hall. Then again, hopefully by the time Strasburg is eligible, voters won’t be attaching as much weight to statistics like wins.
Yeah, wins are not the reason schilling’s not in the hall
Focusing on Schilling just ignores a host of other candidates, like Brown (67.8 WAR, 211 wins), Reuschel (69.5 WAR, 214 wins), Tiant (66.0 WAR, 229 WAR), etc. Whatever you think of Schilling, the point remains that–if the ZIPS projections hold–Strasburg will face a tough road to the hall of fame.
And those guys went through the Hall voting when wins were more valued than now, so I don’t think your point holds up.
Brown in particular was also kept down in the voting because he was seen as not having lived up to a massive contract… so, make of that what you will. Also the fact that Brown was immensely unlikable as a person and everyone in the press (so, everyone voting for the Hall) absolutely hated him didn’t help much.
If he has 3 elite years and perhaps wins a CY Young with 63 WAR his chances are probably better than if he just stays good for 7 more years.
It’s way too much money.
It’s far too many years.
But dammit, it’s not my money and they aren’t my years, and as a Nats fan since game 1 in 2015, I’m glad to see this happen. Just make sure to get insurance on that contract, Rizzo.
Ack, i meant 2005, not (LOL) 2015.
It’s the going rate.
I’m sure the Nats aren’t thrilled at the payout but they needed to do it.
Niw to start saving for Soto’s payday.
A deal that sets a record for AAV almost by definition is *not* the going rate.
It’s Price’s deal adjusted for 1.5% annual inflation (less than actual US inflation).
Until recently, records were set every year or two.
I know..but, I know many Tigers fans that said the same thing about the Cabrera extension..Just sayin..
I know, but Triple Crowns fly forever…
Just nayin.
Were they just as happy when they didn’t sign Max Scherzer to an extension? Just sayin …
Well, by signing Strasburg, they actually are losing a draft pick. If they had let another team sign him, they would have received a pick. Therefore, by signing him, they did lose one in theory.
I agree with you Dan. This was the right move and the amount money/years is not surprising to me in the least.
EVO Ultrafit
“So how can this be anything but a big thumbs-up?”
Don’t the injury history and the fact that no one predicted a contract of this size suggest an answer? The former could portend additional injuries that scuttle Strasburg’s value. And the latter suggests that no one else valued Strasburg as highly, making this contract a significant overpay. Indeed, this seems almost like a case of Scott Boras getting a team to bid against itself: anyone else willing to pay $245 million would have been looking at Cole, not Strasburg, so who exactly did WSN need to beat by making an offer of $245?
Cole is going to get $300 million
Ya I figured he would get 300m from day one, and now this all but guarantees it
Signing any pitcher is risky. But I honestly don’t get why Stras is always labelled as injury prone. Since 2012 he has averaged 168 IP and 4.2 WAR annually. How many pitchers can you name who are more durable and at least this good? I think he’s unfairly labeled as injury prone b/c he had a TJ (who hasn’t?) and was handled with kid gloves when first called up.
Since 2015 he’s 34th in innings, and 11 of those with more innings also have a lower ERA. So that’s a fistful of pitchers right there — if we go with an arbitrary endpoint strategy.
This is a half crazy risk. The kind that would have looked clinically insane just 12 months ago. Wouldn’t it?
Just because nobody else paid Strasburg doesn’t mean that he didn’t receive a similar offer
It’s a lot of money for a high quality, not always durable, product. Not unlike buying a high-end sports car. Congrats to Nats. They had the bucks, wanted the car, and spent what it took.
They also got the rust proofing and nitrogen tires
LOL, reminded me of the Fargo scene with the Tru-Coat
At this point, is it fair to just say that we have a hotter market than expected this year and the majority of the top players are going to get significantly more than projected? If so, are the contracts really an overpay or are they market rate?
This contract just makes even more clear that $/WAR is not a linear relationship and someone here at FanGraphs needs to do analysis to figure out what the curve is.
I’m guessing something like $3m/win at 1.0, $5m/win at 2.0, $8m/win at 3.0-5.0, $10m/win above that? The idea that it is just $9m/win for all free agents is farcical at this point.
I agree. I tried using a similar scale when projecting contracts myself. I haven’t done the research that the Fangraphs writers have but it is becoming abundantly clear that it’s a non-linear relationship and it would make for a fascinating article.
My guess is that the the y-intercept, so to speak, is calibrated in a different spot than 0 WAR. If we keep $9/M year but assume that teams don’t pay for the first, say, 1.5-WAR, then 2-WAR players get $4.5, 3-WAR players get $13.5, 4-WAR players get $22.5. This is linear and shows the compression in salaries for low-end players.
It passes the smell test (for me), as well — teams that are actually playing 0 WAR players aren’t shopping in free agency at all, and most good teams are pretty confident of their ability to develop 1-2 win type players.
It also varies quite a bit by position, unsurprisingly, because:
a) 20 teams always need another starting pitcher, and
b) 28 teams always need another reliever, and
I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a meaningful $/win number unless we also discuss demand.
Just curious, who are the 2 teams that don’t need a reliever?
The Rays are tough to classify here because they need way more innings out of their relievers than anyone else, but I would say definitely the Yankees.
So maybe 29 teams. Last offseason I would have put the Astros in that category instead.
Heck, I bet the curve is steeper for pitchers than it is for batters, and that REALLY matters.
It looks reasonable based on the ZiPS projection, but the ZiPS projection seems quite optimistic about his health and aging curve. I expect that we will find out there is a lot of deferred money, otherwise this would be a shocking amount of money to spend.
$80M deferred but it’s deferred with interest (not sure how that is different than other deferred money deals, if at all). Will be interested to see what the MLBPA analysis of it will be.
Supposedly its a 1% simple interest rate. Not bad as interest rates go (from the Nats’ perspective). I just did a quick and dirty calculation, not using the actual numbers but something close, and got an NPV around 190-195 using a 5% discount rate.
But the NPV of a standard 7-year deal is also quite bit less than the total value, correct? So the effect of the deferred money is not too massive? I would expect this to be equivalent to a standard 215-220 contract based on what you said.
I just redid my simple calculation (which is probably off the “correct” one due to multiple simplifying assumptions). If you just spread $250mm evenly over the 7 years, the NPV is $207. So about a $15 million dollar difference if I was close on the specifics of the deferrals. That’s not nothing (I think?).
maybe teams have figured out that announcing the higher number for the contract (the deferred payments plus interest) is not helpful to them overall. If they announce this as a $255 million deal instead of $245 million, that can work to juice salaries more.
Strasburg is an excellent pitcher, check. Strasburg has reached the qualifying number of innings four times in his career, check. $10,000 and change per pitch is a lot of money, check. I understand that Kieboom might be able to do a fair imitation of Rendon and that there is never enough pitching but I still want the 162 games that the great Rendon is going to give the ………………… s next year and for several more years after, which is far more likely than Strasburg is likely to pitch.
Strasburg will be more careful than Rickey Henderson with his pay,check. 😉
Now all the people who like to complain that owners are cheap and have been sticking it to the players can complain that this is a huge overpay.
Gotta criticize something.
It’s the internet. Those are the rules.
“ as player benefits also count towards the luxury tax payroll.”
What a scam to artificially allow owners to cry poor earlier….considering benefits are roughly the same for every team.