Stephen Strasburg’s Extension Is a Win-Win
Last night, in the middle of his start against the Detroit Tigers, news leaked out that Stephen Strasburg had agreed to a seven year, $175 million extension with the Washington Nationals. As Jeff Sullivan noted last night, this is seen as surprising news, as Scott Boras clients usually end up testing free agency, and Strasburg was four months away from being not just the best free agent on the market this winter, but the only high-end pitching option available.
And it’s not like the Nationals broke the bank to keep Strasburg away from free agency. The 7 year, $175 million total essentially matches the contract figures that Justin Verlander and Felix Hernandez received in their long-term extensions three years ago, except Strasburg’s actual contract is valued significantly less than those two, because it also includes $70 million in interest-free deferrals. Once you account for the payment structure of Strasburg’s deal, the net present value is $135 million, which is the NPV a player would get if he signed a 7 year, $158 million contract without backloading or deferrals.
That total puts Strasburg south of not only Hernandez and Verlander (not even accounting for the inflation that has happened in MLB salaries since those deals were signed) but even less annually than Jon Lester, who got $155 million from the Cubs for six years. Lester was selling his age 31-36 seasons when he signed with Chicago, while Strasburg would have been selling his age 28-34 seasons had he entered the market this winter; combined with his superior stuff and the dearth of alternatives on the market, I would have guessed that Strasburg would have been able to do significantly better than this as a free agent.
But Strasburg comes with one big variable that Hernandez, Verlander, and Lester did not have: a Tommy John surgery in his history. While the UCL replacement surgery has become a somewhat routine procedure in baseball with a pretty strong success rate for recovery, the expected longevity of the new ligament remains something of a question mark.
What we don’t know is how long the new elbows will last. “Doctors told us that once a young pitcher gets TJ, he likely will require it again within seven years,” says one NL GM. “So if he gets the surgery at 20, just as he is entering his prime at 27 or 28 he may be entering another danger zone.”
That quote came from Peter Gammons story on Tommy John surgeries from two days ago, written in the aftermath of Garrett Richards blowing out his elbow and requiring the ligament replacement surgery. Jeff Zimmerman’s research has suggested that the expiration date on a new UCL might be closer to four years, or 650 innings pitched.
Stephen Strasburg is now almost six years and a little over 700 innings removed from his Tommy John procedure. In other words, there’s some reason to believe that he’s headed into another high-risk point of his career, and while Verlander, Hernandez, and Lester came with their own risks, there’s a bit more concrete data suggesting that betting on Strasburg long-term is likely paying for the right to fund another rehab. No one knows enough to say that Strasburg’s elbow is definitely going to go at some point during his next contract, but the probability of that happening seems high enough that we don’t really know what the market would have given Strasburg this winter.
Jordan Zimmermann got $110 million over five years from the Tigers this past winter, setting the record for most guaranteed money for a pitcher with a Tommy John surgery in his file. Strasburg would have cleared that mark easily, and perhaps he would have broken $200 million, getting up near Max Scherzer’s total — which was also less than it sounds due to the Nationals deferral structures — had he made it through the summer and reached free agency as best player on the market.
But we can’t ignore the risk that Strasburg would have taken in trying to get there. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the longevity of the ligament replacement, we can’t even safely assume that Strasburg’s elbow will hold together through the rest of the summer. It probably will, but based on his distance from the procedure, it won’t be any kind of shock if Strasburg ends up walking off the mound in pain in July or August. And if that happened, Strasburg would have given up the right for a huge financial windfall in exchange for the hope that he’d land an extra $30 or $40 million.
In his shoes, taking the safe road seems to be a justifiable decision. Strasburg isn’t Bryce Harper, a preternatural slugger who can mostly know that his skills will remain in place barring some kind of unpredictable occurrence. A pitcher who has already had his UCL replaced is essentially living on borrowed time, and there would seem to be a lot of value in turning the unknown future into a certain secure paycheck for most of the remainder of his career.
Strasburg didn’t break the bank, and relative to what he could have gotten in free agency, he probably left some money on the table. But he wasn’t at free agency yet, and there’s enough risk that he might not have made it there that this seems to be a perfectly reasonable decision, especially considering the marginal difference in a few extra tens of millions of dollars to a guy who will have earned more than $200 million during his career by the time this contract ends. While I’d imagine Scott Boras would have loved the opportunity to produce a book of plaudits about Strasburg’s arm, it seems like Strasburg made a perfectly reasonable decision to take the guaranteed money now rather than further testing the limits of his surgically-repaired elbow.
But despite spending the last few paragraphs suggesting the risks surrounding Strasburg are quite high, I think this was also a price the Nationals couldn’t pass up. Spending the equivalent of $160 million on Strasburg, keeping him around for the remainder of Harper’s time in Washington, is a worthwhile bet for the team even if Strasburg ends up missing a couple of years due to another rehab. Strasburg’s effective price is roughly $22.5 million per year; that’s the same AAV that Zimmerman got from the Tigers. Baseball is now a place where the Mike Leakes of the world can command $16 million per year on a long-term deal, so it’s not like the Nationals could have easily redistributed Strasburg’s money into a comparable talent.
They’re taking a significant risk with his future health, for sure, but at this price, Strasburg doesn’t need to stay healthy to justify the investment. If he can give them three or four high quality years out of the seven contracted years, the Nationals will do just as well as if they signed a lesser player without the health risks. Without the TJ history, Strasburg probably is looking at something like David Price money; the Nationals got him for something like $80 million less than what Price got. That’s the TJ discount.
To me, this looks like a win-win. Strasburg sells a lot of risk and gets a life-changing contract that should keep him on a contender for the foreseeable future, while the Nationals get to keep one of the best pitchers in baseball around while they have a window to take advantage of his excellence. The Nationals are in a position to take some risks, and at this price, betting on Strasburg to stay healthy while they still have Bryce Harper is a risk worth taking.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I agree that this contract feels like a reasonable compromise from both sides.
Just some other potentially relevant info regarding repeat Tommy John surgeries, from the ones I’ve recorded:
– I have 71 professional players out of 1147 requiring revision TJ surgery (6.2%)
– Of those, the average time between surgeries is 4-5 years. The median is also around 4 years
– Of the 72 revision surgeries (Venters has had 3 TJs), 41 have returned to the same level of pro baseball (for at least one appearance), 10 have not, and 21 are still in the process of trying to return to the same level of baseball
– Scanning the list (very unscientifically) for pitchers who were MLB starting pitchers after two Tommy John surgeries, I see: Chris Capuano, Tyler Chatwood, Cory Luebke, Kris Medlen, Randy Wolf, Victor Zambrano
That is not a very noteworthy list, but there must be some selection bias. How many revision surgeries were on players with a career ERA- around 80?
Thank you very very much for sharing your research. 🙂
Very interesting stuff. One question, though: out of those who did not require revision surgery, in how many cases was it because they stayed healthy, and in how many because they retired first/never even truly made it back after the first? Events like that could be throwing some bias into those numbers.
Luebke hasn’t yet started a game in the majors, doesn’t look like he will be in the near future.
While Medlen is technically a starter, that’s generous given his results so far. Although it is mysterious that he has an extreme drop in F-Strike% but holding steady in Zone%.
What do you for non recurring players?
2016-2017 winter’s biggest pitcher contracts are going to Aroldis Chapman and Kenley Jansen, unless someone REALLY loves Rich Hill…
I’m sure Dusty Baker will make sure he doesn’t get overworked and injured again.
As much fun as Dusty-bashing is, his Cincy record for keeping his starters healthy was just fine, wasn’t it?
Aaron Harang begs to differ.
So jeepers, he wasn’t perfect like major league managers typically are? Well, I guess I stand corrected.
So does Homer Bailey
Guys who were just fine during the Reds’ Baker tenure and beyond: Cueto, Leake, Arroyo, Latos, Volquez.
Harang, coming off a three year span of throwing almost 700 innings, got hurt. Homer Bailey, who the Reds ownership rushed for PR reasons and has never been 100%, had his only full seasons under Baker. Oh and there’s also the matter of the 2012 Reds having 0 starts missed due to injury – to my knowledge the only team on modern record to have such a run of health.
But you know, you’re right. Tired jokes and surface level narratives from more than a decade ago should take precedence over the facts of Baker’s managerial record. That’s fair.
And while we’re here: the 2016 Reds have seen injuries to DeSclafani, Iglesias, Bailey, Moscot, Lamb, Lorenzen, Simon, and – in the minors – Reed. Oh, and Finnegan is currently pitching through a hamstring issue. That Bryan Price sure is a terrible manager isn’t he? I hope people are making jokes about him in 2029.
2003 Mariners used five starters for the entire season. I think they were modern enough.
So… since 2003 it’s happened twice? And in that time, it never happened with any of the darlings of managing – Bochy or Maddon or La Russa or Torre or whoever else? Cool.
The criticism levied against Baker is insane and hilariously transparent. No other manager gets anywhere near the blame for any injuries as Baker does. And when Baker has teams and players that don’t have injuries, he’s given no credit. He’s held to a standard literally no other manager in the league is held to.
If Strasburg excutes opt-out, Does nats pay for the deferred salaries?
In that case, It looks like 3Y 90M deal
No, the deferred money is accrued each year, so for each year of the contract, he gets $15M in salary and $10M in deferred money. If he opts out after year three, it’s 3/$75M, or equivalent to 3/$72M after accounting for deferrals.
I think I disagree with Dave on this one. If it was just a straight 7/$175M with deferrals it would be fine. But because of the opt out which, unless I missed it, Dave never even mentions, all of the risk lies with the Nats. And Strasburg, even with the TJ surgery aside, hasn’t exactly been the model durability.
On the other side of the coin, someone like the Yankees, with contracts coming off the books and a strong need for front line starters, would have almost certainly made Strasburg a monster offer assuming he made through the year.
I guess I’m on fence but I’m leaning towards not loving this for Nats.
I’d say it’s a good deal for the nats if they think there’s no way they resign Harper and thus their window is between now and when he hits FA.
Good point.
1. Opt outs are new enough that we just don’t have much history by which to judge/value them.
2. TJ revisions are new and few enough that we just don’t have much history by which to judge them. But given Roegele’s list up above (again, thank you!) it seems quite possible that once Strasburg gets a 2nd one, from that point on he could well be valueless while drawing his $23 mill per year (factoring in deferrals).
Given recent contracts, I guess I like this one for the Nats. But I wonder if Boras and Stras are peddling goods on which they have much better expiration date info than the Nats and all the rest of us do.
Yeah but it’s not so much the dollar value of the opt though. It’s the fact the Nats are gonna have to pony up big dough for Strasburg’s decline phase (when he’ll ostensibly be even more injury prone) if he opts out to keep him.
That last is a very good point – if a superstar Scott Boras client taking a lower-than-expected deal in the midseason of his walk year rather than becoming a free agency seems too good to be true, maybe it is. This could be a sign that team Strasburg isn’t feeking too comfortable about its elbow and wants to cash in while it still can.
In other words, while there is, of course, no guarantee of anything, this may mean that we should adjust our estimate of the likelihood of re-injury upwards.
Question: do players–especially pitchers–typically undergo physicals before signing an extension? Obviously, before signing a free-agent contract they do, but I’m wondering if they don’t need to do so for an extension, since it is the same team.
Basically, if the Nationals did not have Strasberg undergo a physical before this signing, then I agree that Boras/Strasberg may well be sitting on information about the elbow that the Nats don’t have.
It was reported at the press conference that Strasburg left the team when it was in Kansas City last week to get a physical.
jpg: good point on the opt-outs. They may be difficult to value, but certainly have great value for the player. One other point that is worth mentioning: the Nationals are ‘buying high’ based on Strasburg’s recent performance (see August’s article with rolling 20 game FIP). This time last year, Stras was damaged goods, virtually worthless, at least according to the pundits. So it appears as though Boras took advantage of recency bias to get his TJ guy a massive contract that the Nats will grow to regret.
Baseball industry consensus: “the Nationals got a great deal, Strasburg gave a ‘hometown discount’. Strasburg could have gotten a lot more on the open market.”
CCSAGE consensus: “the Nationals fall for recency bias, are doomed!”
Strasburg’s value has never been higher, due to a confluence of events: his impending free-agency and his recent dominant performance. If he were performing like he did one year ago, the consensus would be that he’s costing himself millions. And we are not close to a consensus on the topic; all we have are some knee-jerk reactions and click-bait articles. I suspect it will take a few days to digest the numbers and make a more informed judgement. Part of the fun of following the sport is predicting the outcome and seeing who’s crystal ball is the clearest. So unless you have a Delorean in your garage, your snark is meaningless…and inacurate: “will grow to regret” is far different than “are doomed” and there is a very good chance that Strasburg suffers an injury or decline in performance and would have received far less this winter.
I’d be curious for more detail on the long-term failure rate of TJS — I see the 7 years stat thrown about quite a bit, and yet not much analysis beyond that. My instinct says we’re taking one data point here and applying too much certainty to it to create a perception of risk that isn’t necessarily justified.
Yea surprised there is no mention of the Y3 and Y4 opt-outs. While that changes the math for all contacts, I think it does even more so with a TJS survivor. He can miss a year and a half with TJS, play a year and a half, and then opt-out (assuming the TJS happens within the next year). Then you’ve paid 72M for 1.5Y of Stras. Not saying it’s a bad contract for the Nats, but the opt-outs deserve recognition.
I don’t think that’s more than a minute possibility. If he gets a 2nd TJS then I don’t think he’s opting out, unless he gets the surgery tomorrow and is lights out the next two years.
I know this is a minor point, but does the deferred money get counted for luxury tax and revenue splitting purposes in the year it is accrued or the year it is actually paid?
Correctly if I’m wrong but I think MLB actually uses the NPV of the contract, adjusted to a certain assumed inflation/interest rate and spreads the luxury tax burden equally over the year terms of the contract.
So I think they just assume he signed that 7/158 deal, and assume it pays out the same every year.
Correctly if I’m wrong? how… I have a real talent when it comes to typos I swear, they are always borderline poetic
I think there is a timing mismatch that might be what made this a good idea for Strasburg:
If Strasburg gets hurt this year, then he might miss his only chance to get a big FA contract. He would possibly have to take a pillow contract and by the time he’s healthy and a FA again, he’s into his decline. This gives him a big incentive to get this big deal as soon as possible.
If he gets hurt and needs TJ any time in the next 7 years, the exact timing of when shouldn’t matter that much to the Nats, assuming he recovers to more or less the same level he would be had he not gotten hurt, the Nats will still be getting about 6 healthy years in total. They would probably prefer it happen later than sooner, but it won’t kill their value if it happens. However, Strasburg is much more invested in being healthy for at least the next year or so, as opposed to during the years after that.
Bip, I’m pretty sure that the Nats would prefer that if there is an injury that it happen in the last year of the contract. Supposedly pitchers (and Strasburg) start the decline phase at 28 (next year), so the later the injury happens in the contract, the less WAR is being lost – in fact, this contract looks like more market value if one assumes he’ll be injured in 6th year. Obviously, Washington really doesn’t want another TJ and should be doing everything they can to safeguard their investment and Stras’s health…
BIP, I misread your comment and re-stated what you said. Sorry buddy.
No worries. My main point is that while both the Nats and Strasburg would prefer a later injury to a sooner one, Strasburg’s incentive to avoid an injury this year was much higher, prior to signing this extension.
Wouldn’t this have been just as true during the offseason? What makes the timing of this so unusual is that it happened during the season.
It wouldn’t apply during the offseason because he’s already a free agent, so there’s no chance of TJ sinking his free agency. In prior years, he still has time to recover and restore his value before hitting FA. It’s specifically the year before being a FA where a TJ would hurt him the most.
Isn’t it a given that the Nats would take out an insurance policy on Strasburg’s health?
It’s probably a given they try, not a given they get one as all pitchers are time bombs let alone one already with a tommy John in the rearview. They might make the premium so high that it doesn’t make fiscal sense as it’s essentially more payroll. I.e 5 mil a year to ensure the whole deal.
Would he even be insurable with his injury history?
I feel like contracts are a 0 sum game and therefore have a GTO approach that would work best. Certainly an area for further inquiry.
Well, whenever a player leaves a significant amount of money on the table, it suggests to me a lack of confidence in his health. This may be smart, even for someone who feels healthy since it can gets south fast, but it also makes you wonder if Strasburg isn’t feeling 100% and is unsure if he can survive the season without breaking down
Strasburg has had one of the easiest schedules of any SP’er. His numbers are decent but I wouldnt put him in the top 10 of the NL let alone the top 10 of MLB which is what that kind of money should be buying
He’s projected as the 5th best pitcher ROS, ahead of many people who have signed bigger deals than him: http://www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&type=steamerr&team=0&lg=all&players=0&sort=19,d
“Should be buying”, but isn’t, clearly.
A career ERA/FIP of 3.07/2.80 is just “decent” to you?
I think its a “fair” deal for both sides, since both had to come to terms with the big wildcard which is his health. Don’t forget, it’s not just his arm/elbow that’s a risk…he’s missed time with other various ailments.
Given Boras’s typical pattern to push FA, both sides coming to an agreement NOW indicate to me that they both had to give a little – AND they were comfortable doing so. SS takes a worst case off the table (TJ injury this year before he hits FA), and the Nats keep their player at a discount to true Market Value AND preserve their window for a Title with Harper/Scherzer.