Wade Davis and the Long-Term
Today, the Rockies agreed to sign Wade Davis to a three year, $52 million contract, capping an off-season of bullpen spending that also saw them give $27 million each to Jake McGee and Bryan Shaw. The Rockies’ plan couldn’t be more obvious, as they are loading up on relievers in the hopes of bullpenning their way through October. With their trio of free agent relievers pushing Adam Ottavino, Chris Rusin, and Mike Dunn to earlier-game situations, the Rockies now have one of the deepest bullpens in baseball. If they were able to roll out that group in the postseason, they could be dangerous.
The problem remains getting to October, however. We projected the Rockies for 79 wins before they signed Davis, so adding him will move the forecast up to 80 wins, most likely. And if you think that’s just Steamer being overly negative, it’s not just us.
Rockies after Davis/Shaw/McGee signings project at just 78.2 wins. Best bullpen in NL, but that's still only worth ~2 wins above NL avg, and it's built via massive overpays (at least in cases of Davis, McGee). Meanwhile, C/1B/corner OF remain unresolved problems.
— NEIFI Analytics (@NEIFIco) December 29, 2017
Wade Davis is terrific, but the Rockies *really* need to address the lineup now or the offseason isn't a success.
— Dan Szymborski (@DSzymborski) December 29, 2017
The Rockies won 87 games last year, but were just an 82-win team by BaseRuns. An elite bullpen can help a team outperform context-neutral expectations, but the Rockies are also losing several solid contributors from last year’s roster, and their free agent additions haven’t improved them as much as prevented them from getting worse.
Right now, the Rockies are pretty clearly behind the NL’s Big Three (LAD/CHC/WAS), and our forecasts have them solidly behind STL and ARI in the Wild Card race as well, more in the SFG/NYM/PIT range as a possible contender if things go right, but with plenty of ways things could go wrong. Even if you take an optimistic view of their roster, the Rockies right now profile as the sixth-best team in the NL. That’s a problem in a sport where only five teams per league make the playoffs.
In a vacuum, each of their free agent signings could be defensible. I projected Davis to get 4/$68M (effectively what he’ll get if his fourth-year player option vests), Shaw to get 3/$27M, and McGee to get 2/$16M, so in terms of expected salary for 2018, these guys will cost right in line with what I expected them to get. These deals aren’t necessarily repeats of the “wait, what?” Ian Desmond/Mike Dunn contracts from last winter.
But the problem is that, when you stack this many market-rate (or over-market) free agent contracts on top of each other, it’s very hard to build a long-term winner without getting huge bargains somewhere else on the roster. For a team with a mid-level payroll, committing something like $80 million to the combination of five expensive relievers, Ian Desmond, and Gerardo Parra puts a lot of pressure on the pre-arbitration guys to perform at a very high level. Realistically, that $80 million will buy the Rockies something like +5 or +6 WAR next year, meaning they need to get another +30 to +35 WAR from the rest of their roster. That’s not easy.
And while there are definitely scenarios where the plan could work in 2018 — Ryan McMahon takes over first base and becomes an above-average player, David Dahl gets healthy and fills a corner outfield spot, and the young starters all stay healthy — it gets harder to make this all work in 2019 and beyond. After this season, Charlie Blackmon hits free agency, meaning they’re either going to lose him to a deep-pocket with more money to spend or give him a huge raise from the $13.5 million he’s expected to get in his last run through arbitration. Nolan Arenado is set to hit free agency in two years, and is probably going to be a $40 million per year guy if he hits the open market.
The Rockies almost certainly won’t be able to re-sign both Arenado and Blackmon now that they’ve committed $35 million in 2019 money to Davis, Shaw, and McGee, barring some massive expansion of their payroll. So if the team falls short this year, they’ll be left with a couple of bad options.
1. Let Blackmon leave, opening up another significant hole on the roster, and making them less likely to contend in Arenado’s last year under contract.
2. Re-sign Blackmon with some of the money they’d otherwise give to Arenado, admitting that they won’t be able to keep him in Colorado after the 2019 season anyway.
In option one, they’d keep their chance to retain their franchise player, but might have to hope he doesn’t want to leave for a team that can afford more than one All-Star position player. They would also open themselves up to the disastrous possibility of losing both in free agency for nothing more than a couple of draft picks, if Arenado also ended up not re-signing.
In the second option, they could keep Blackmon around for one last run with Arenado and the most expensive bullpen ever, but they’d have to be willing to let Arenado play out his contract and not get anything for him, even while knowing they wouldn’t be able to seriously compete financially for his services in free agency.
The 2017 Rockies worked because they got +12 WAR from Arenado and Blackmon for a grand total of $20 million between them. And even with that kind of of star-level production for minimal cost, they still were the road Wild Card team, getting eliminated after their 163rd game of the season. As those two cost more (and likely produce less), it’s difficult for me to see how the Rockies can plan on getting to 90+ wins with all this other money committed to the bullpen and some mediocre role players.
Upgrading the bullpen to try and carry you through October is a fine strategy for a team that can be reasonably confident they’re going to play in October. But to me, the Rockies still look like they’re a couple of solid players away from that level, and given that they went cheap at catcher to subsidize this bullpen investment, it’s not clear that the team has enough money left to go buy serious upgrades where they’re needed. If the plan really is to count on both McMahon and Dahl as above-average big leaguers by Opening Day, that’s more of a hope-and-a-prayer than a sound strategy.
And if the Rockies don’t win in 2018, things only get worse the next few years as their two best players hit free agency. Realistically, the Rockies’ best path forward is to keep upgrading this roster, win again in 2018, and use the revenue increases to try and keep their core together for as long as possible. But that only works if they win this year, and I’m not sure swapping out Greg Holland for Wade Davis moves the needle enough to have real confidence in this roster as currently constructed.
There’s still a few more months to go before the season begins, and the Rockies have time to keep making this team better. They should do just that, because even with a very good bullpen, this team still looks a few players short of getting to where they need to be.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I didn’t even think about the likelihood that they would lose Arenado and the domino effects of not resigning Blackmon. They must think there’s no way they’re keeping Arenado and are trying to maximize the next two years.
That’s if this even works. I’d be terrified any pitcher I signed to a huge contract would melt in Colorado. Especially one who throws curveballs on 20% of his pitches. If there is any team that should be signing lots of less-expensive pitchers instead of one big one, it’s the Rockies (which to be fair is what they did leading up to this). And that’s before getting into the risks this deal would pose for every team, that he’s a 30-something pitcher who has had arm trouble before.
I don’t hate this as much as the Ian Desmond signing but the risk here seems really, really high.
Effectively, the Rockies traded their #8 starting pitcher, Tyler Chatwood, to the Cubs for an all-star closer who they will pay about $5 million more in salary per year. Davis is 4 years older than Chatwood, but this seems a reasonable move. With the $40+ million the Rockies paid Jose Reyes and Carlos Gonzalez in 2017 coming off their books, the Rockies have some payroll flexibility – – until Blackmon and Arenado become free agents.
That’s a very rosy way of looking at it. Chatwood is being valued as a #5 starter with some potential upside, not a #8 starter. From that perspective, they’re paying Wade Davis about the same amount as a #4 pitcher with some upside. About what we’d want to pay for…Lance Lynn? Lynn will probably get more than that, though.
Since they are not literally trading Tyler Chatwood and his salary (which they have never paid), I think it is more like trading $52 million of opportunity cost over three years of a closer who (a) has had serious arm trouble in the recent past, (b) was the #45 pitcher in reliever WAR last year (about the same as Chris Rusin), to c) pitch in an environment where good pitchers unexpectedly melt.
My concerns are mostly centered around (c). The contract seems appropriately valued in the abstract, but the risk of it is higher for the Rockies than other teams. I don’t know what I’d do with that money, but it would definitely be something other than this.
Chatwood was a starting pitcher for the Rockies through June only when they had three starters hurt – – Gray, Bettis, and Anderson – – and in September when they were limiting innings for their four rookie starting pitchers. He was the Rockies #8 starting pitcher. Obviously, the Cubs see something different. I hope he does well for them.
The Rockies needed a closer. In a context in which an 8-15 pitcher for a wild card team is paid $13 million/year, paying an established – – if risky – – closer $17 million is not ideal, but seems reasonable.
Chatwood in 2016: 27 games, 27 starts, 3.6 bref war.
The rockies must love this crop of rookie sps to push this guy to the #8 SP. As a #8 in 2017 he started 25 games and was great outside of coors.
#8 Starter.
Effectively, the Cubs signed a late-inning reliever with less mileage on his arm and 5-6 mph more on his fastball that produced at least as well as the departed (Brandon Morrow) for 6M less annually and for 2 years instead of 3, while netting a draft pick out of the swap.
Effectively, the Rockies chose the guy with more mileage, health risk, reduced/declining velocity, gave him 6M more annually, forfeited a draft pick, and added 17M to their 2020 payroll right when their franchise player hits the open market.
While I agree that Brandon Morrow is a far better value than Wade Davis, Brandon Morrow is more of a health risk than just about any reliever who threw more than 30 innings last year.
He threw 56 dominant combined innings in his first full year in relief; how is he more of a health risk than some guy with a ton of mileage on his arm that just struggled his way to 30. Dude even threw 12 straight playoff games, and while that certainly deserves caution in itself, it also shows that his arm has taken well to the relief role; asking him to be healthy for 2 years doesn’t seem like a bigger risk than Davis for 3, given the latter’s already declining stuff and recent elbow issues.
Because Morrow’s arm has almost fallen off 3-5 times, while Wade’s arm has almost fallen off only once?
Morrow’s injury history is epic. I think you can make a good case the market over-corrected for that, and I’d certainly rather have Morrow at 2/$22m than Davis at 3/$52m but that’s why he was available for such a good price.
Arenado would bring back a huge haul, right? Probably including one position player who can help the team right away?
How about trading him now and locking in McMahon as the long-term 3B – or do the Rockies feel good enough about their short-term prospects that they consider Arenado untouchable? And how much would trading him hurt their 2018 projections, anyway?
How much would trading one of the game’s top 10 players hurt them?
Plus, McMahon averaged 80 MPH on his batted balls last year. Yikes.
They probably still have $20MM to spend. Going for broke and signing Cain probably makes sense at this point.
I’m not sure I’m ready to live in a world where Nolan Arenado is pulling in $40M per season.
Ready or not, here it comes…..
What team do you root for, Kevin? Would you be super excited about a hypothetical 6/$250M deal for Arenado for his 29-34 seasons? Doesn’t that seem a bit Greinke-ish to you? What about 10/$400M? I am a HUGE fan of Arenado, I’m just not sure I’d be willing to commit such a huge portion of my payroll to one guy who, while amazing, still is perceived as somewhat of a Coors Field darling (career road slash .266/.317/.473, wRC+ of 108). Just a gentle reminder that another spectacular defensive player’s career slash line after two dreadful seasons at the plate with the Cubs stands at .262/.344/.412, wRC+ of 108).
Judging by my down votes, the majority of the commenters think it WOULD be a good investment, and I just don’t see it that way, so if you could hash out the argument for, I’d be grateful.
This isn’t to say that Arenado has not been aided by Coors, but here are the home/road splits for every single player in the majors this past year
.261/.331/.437/.769 (90904 PAs)
.249/.318/.415/.733 (94391 PAs)
Suffice to say, those sample sizes sure seem to suggest players hit better at home than they do on the road.
Just to play devils advocate…can you explain the OBP-AVG being basically a whole (.010) higher on the road? home v road…
No one knows but it’s clearly a combination of comfort, sleep patterns (studies have shown that people take 3 days in a new environment to adjust back to a normal sleep schedule…so exactly when ballplayers are leaving townagain) and perhaps ballpark effects (teams sign players that fit their stadiums. There’s also a possible home team bias in umpires.
And I know this. But Chatwood got paid (at least in part) because of his quality road splits (and spin rates). But Arenado’s career OPS splits differ by .168; the average 2017 hitter showed a gap of .036. Isn’t it fair to presume that these splits might similarly play a factor in depressing the kind of FA deal Arenado would receive on the open market?
Also, how many teams can afford a $40M/year player?
I think the argument would be that his defense won’t erode simply by moving ballparks, and his defense consistently nets him almost 1 WAR on its own. Plus, wRC+ is accounting for the Coors Effect – while his home/road OPS may have been 1.036/.886, his home/road wRC+ last year was 133/126, which is a much smaller disparity.
Matt Holliday produced similar weight adjusted numbers after he moved on too. I think if you focus too much on the raw numbers, you’ll see that Arenado’s production will “decrease,” but the weighted numbers will probably remain good.
Given his asking price, I’d have no problem giving Arenado somewhere around $240-270 million. Whether you want to split that up over 6 years or 10 years and where you want to put the opt out are the bigger concerns.
There’s no reason to believe Chatwood was paid because of his road splits. Rockies hitters have the biggest home/road splits by far, and there’s a few reasons for why that may be the case that don’t involve the players actually being worse than what the overall context neutral numbers imply. Whatever the reason, you can be sure that MLB teams are using much more rigorous metrics than home/road splits when making 6 figure decisions.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-cant-the-rockies-hit-outside-the-rockies/
Don’t worry about the down votes…consider who is doing the down voting…one guy on all 6 of his accounts.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvotes (I didn’t) but if your point is that he’s more likely to get a 10/30M with an opt-out then I agree.
Basically, he’ll probably get less than Machado will, since he’ll be (I think) 2-3 years older. But Machado will still be the baseline. The $40 million AAV over 10 years seems like it’s going to be high even in the post-Harper salary landscape. That’s going to be much higher than Stanton has at a similar age this year.
I haven’t put any thought into whether that’s a “good” investment or not but at first blush a 10/$30m seems okay depending on payroll budget. I’d be a lot less excited about 10/$40m, but okay with 5/$40m (which he would never settle for) since I’d miss most of the really ugly years at the end.
This is the argument in a nutshell though, right? It’s probable that a 10-year contract for almost any player — maybe literally just any non-Trout, or pretty close — is a pretty predictable bad gamble and you just have to look at the decline years as an additional part of the cost of the peak years.
More or less. Superstars in free agency get those wacky 10 year deals where it looks really good through age 32ish and then starts going downhill, with terrible value in the latter part of the contract. It makes sense to think of it as deferred salary from the early part of the contract.
(“32ish and then … downhill”) – unless you’re Joey Votto. Obviously, the exception to the rule, but still …
Arenado’s very valuable but he’s a scary signing because his offensive results aren’t actually exceptional, merely good (and buoyed by Coors), but his defense is absolutely phenomenal. Defense, however, ages the worst of all player skills, so its the least likely to continue into the FA period.
I think there are too many people who get mislead by how incredible Arenado is in fantasy baseball and the Coors effect; the guy’s value is tremendously about his glove, and the glove ages fast in MLB.
I don’t know. I’m not so worried about his home/road splits or how much of his value is tied up in defense. He’s gotten better hitting away from home recently and everyone’s defense will start to decline around the free agency years. So maybe he goes from great to average…is that worse than going from average to bad? You lose value either way.
He’s going to be something like 28 when he hits free agency, which probably makes him a safer bet than, say, Paul Goldschmidt who I think is 3 years older. He’ll even be a year younger than Rendon and Altuve. You can make the argument that all three of those guys are better players than Arenado today and I would agree with you. But while I’d be concerned giving Arenado a huge contract, I wouldn’t be much more concerned than those other guys.
Just pay no attention to the downvotes. I have no opinion on the case for and against signing Arenado to some hypothetical imaginary future contract but you’re obviously talking sense.
So, based on the first comment being downvoted, and the followup getting upvotes…
Have we all learned that snarky, dismissive comments with no evidence or argument are unpopular. And that substantive comments (whether or not they are agreed with) tend to be appreciated?
Of course not! But a boy can dream.
Have we “all” learned? Nope, and yet when (my guess) 80% of us have, I prefer to focus on that high number. We’ll never account for the troll factor, those who will always be negative because in their world that’s what passes for fun.
I mean it entirely depends upon context.
Arenado is a superb player. A team like LA, BOS. NYY, CHIC it makes sense to pay market rate. Tying up 30+% of your payroll in a player for a bubble team in a mid/small market? Not so much.
I agree signing him to a 10 year 365 million dollar contract is a bad baseball move for Colorado. Trading him next off-season is almost certainly the safer bet
Totally thought the same, roenick. I just don’t see Arenado getting $40MM per year, and I think he’s incredible. It’s still a world where Larry Walker is pulling in regrettably little HOF support (not to say that sportswriters and GM’s have the exact same thought processes, it just speaks to plenty of doubt and resultant discounting surrounding Coors numbers).
The problem is in the formula for whatever projections you’re quoting. To say The Rockies new bullpen is only worth 2 wins above the average NL bullpen is crap.
Lets take the Cards bullpen and switch it with the Rockies…now you’re telling me having a combination of Brett Cecil/Trevor Rosenthal up there lobbing softballs would only cost you 2 wins that is complete and utter crap.
Good or Bad bullpens WILL cost a team around 10-12 games (positive or negative) on average per year. That’s just common sense from watching a lot of baseball.
Yeah that’s just not true. Ten wins is a MASSIVE difference.
I agree that seems a bit light and I think relievers are still a bit undervalued by fwar. But it’s hard to see it amounting to more than 4 wins. 5 if everyone has a great season. No matter what relievers still only throw 4-5 innings a week.
I ma not be the brightest bulb in the socket, but I don’t come to Rotographs to make statements like “this is bullcrap” without SOME kind of evidence. WHY is it bullcrap?
So true. One would hope that Fangraphs would be a place where serious, non-casual fans can have real, informed discussions. We can disagree, but not for reasons like “The (insert team) rule.”
Except for “the COORS rule” which shall be given ultimate deference in all circumstances
IT IS BULLCRAP because it is a FELONY FRAUD. Just GOOGLE it man.
Knowing that the Rockies have the majority of their talent wrapped up in two cost-controlled players that aren’t highly likely to sign long-term deals, I wonder if they are intentionally signing relievers knowing that they have a very short window to compete and this might be the best bet if they need to go into a rebuild. If things are looking bleak for them going into the trade deadline this year, I wonder if they would look to move Blackmon and/or Arendado as well as their newly signed relievers. Everyone needs bullpen help and, as long as Davis, Shaw and McGee are performing adequately, they could easily be moved. Had they decided to sign someone like Hosmer, Santana, Darvish, etc, they would be much more difficult to move on from and they would likely be stuck with the for the long term.
I agree with this – I think it’s a move to try to compete this year and if things go south they can blow it up. Relievers are ALWAYS tradeable, even the elite guys. I pulled the cumulative leaderboard for WAR for the last 5 years and of the top 10 relievers, 6 have been traded while basically at or near the top of their game (Chapman, Miller, Kimbrel, Melancon, Robertson, Davis) and Betances is a decent bet to get traded in the next year or two. Only Jansen, Rosenthal and Cody Allen have not been traded.
Moving multiple relievers at record-setting prices probably wouldn’t net much (if any) of a return. Most of the names you mentioned were still controllable when they were moved, hence the significant returns.
You are missing the point…if the Rox blow it up and trade any of these relievers, they don’t need much (if any) return. They would be primarily looking for salary relief to get those contracts off of the books for future years and anything else in return would be gravy. Their only real cost to signing these guys was the draft pick they gave up to sign Davis and they still might recoup that if Holland signs for more than $50,000.
2 things on this article.
1. It does make a pretty good case that a team with a closing Arenado/Blackmon window should probably be going all in. And paying market rate for relievers is kind of weird but at least makes sense. I wonder if relievers are more willing to sign up for Coors then starters?
2. I bet the Rockies are satisfied with the Dunn contract. If you would have told them before the season that Dunn (for $7mm) would be above replacement level and would pitch in 3 playoff games and get 4 outs with no runs, I doubt they’d complain.
Umm, Mike Dunn has pitched in 3 postseason games, but those were all in 2010.
Yeah but weren’t you majorly impressed by those 3 outings 8 years ago?!
FanGraphs Headlines and the Incorrect-Hyphenation
So in next year’s offseason, the Rockies are gonna complete the trifecta and sign Kelvin Herrera, right?
“barring some massive expansion of their payroll”
The Rockies currently have one of the worst TV deals in the majors, but it ends in 2020. Perhaps they’re banking on increased post-2020 revenue with an eye towards modestly backloading potential Arenado and Blackmon extensions in the meantime.
Would it make sense for the Rox to trade Brendan Rogers and McMahon for Yelich? He could play LF this year and then Dahl could take over LF or CF in 2019 (depending on which guy is less scary in center).
I don’t really like this move, but I don’t like the Rockies current configuration either. If the game is “Fix the Rockies Bullpen-and-Desmond-Laden Roster Without Resorting to Explosives,” maybe it would make some sense.
Would probably take more than those two to get Yelich
Dave, Isn’t it possible that the Rockies are hoarding relievers in order to swap them for young talent at the trading deadline, when relievers are in greater demand?
While it is a lot of money for a closer, I do like the signing. They have nothing in house to close. Davis has done it before. The Rockies need to shorten the game and this is what they have done. As for the long-term issues with Blackmon and Arenado, I’m not hearing anything about Blackmon’s age. He turns 32 this summer and I’m not sure it is in the Rockies best interest in signing a 32 year old Coors Field CF to a long term $100+M contract. Don’t get me wrong, I love Blackmon, but the playing time in CF is beginning to add up. He had leg issues at the end of last season.
As for Arenado, sign him now if possible. Make 10/$350 offer. He is the second best player in all of baseball. He has hit 37+ Hr and 130+RBI in the last 3 seasons, 3 gold gloves and hasn’t even been in the top 3 in MVP voting. How much do baseball writers play a role in players of Arenado’s caliber leaving their team? More than people think. He is virtually ignored for his accomplishments. I feel like a player of Arenado’s talent want to be acknowledged for their on field accomplishments and this is not happening at a national level in Colorado for Arenado.
Arenado is a better player than the past 3 NL MVP winners.
You use HR’s, RBI’s, and Gold Gloves to prop up his value, essentially ignoring that you’re on FanGraphs.
Then accordingly, you say he’s the 2nd best player, although Stanton just hit 60% more home runs in a tougher park.
Trout and Stanton didn’t play in large baseball markets, still won MVPs, and their teams signed long-term extensions with them many years before their walk years. The Rockies didn’t make an offer to Arenado for 300M+ in advance and now they will face the music in 2 years, like the Orioles are doing with Machado.
So blame your favorite team, the Rockies, instead of the media.
I think it’s worth pointing out that defense probably ages differently according to position. A speed-based outfielder will lose his defensive value quickly once his wheels go (Crawford, Kemp, etc.) versus an infielder who defensive value is based upon hand-eye coordination, soft-hands, footwork, internal clock (Adrian Beltre, Josh Donaldson, Justin Turner – three older, yet still elite defensive 3B), traits seemingly more resistant to aging.
I wouldn’t be that surprised if Arenado is an elite defensive 3B well into his 30s.
I don’t understand why this got so many upvotes.
Yes, Beltre’s defense has aged amazingly well but so has his offense.
He is an exception, period.
Second of all, Turner has never been considered elite defensively.
His career high DRS is 7 and he only had one season with UZR/150 over 5.
Finally, have you looked at Donaldson’s defensive numbers?
Donaldson’s past five seasons by DRS. 12->20->11->2->3.
His past five seasons by UZR/150. 11.1->13.3->9.8->5.7->-1.1.
If anything, Donaldson would be a great evidence to not overpay for Arenado’s defense as he ages.
The point is that corner infielders can offer defensive value into their 30s, unlike most outfielders, because they are less reliant upon physical traits. Accordingly, paying value for a 3B’s defense for 7-8 years is probably less risky than doing the same for a different defensive position.
You decry Turner’s track record on defense, yet also conveniently fail to point out that his best defensive seasons happened to occur in his 30s. Which is the essential point of the post.
Relating this to Arenado is kind of pointless because the dude is kind of good offensively. But giving him big money through his age 36-37 season is less daunting because it’s feasible he will adequately man third base for that duration.
I’m still trying to figure out the Desmond signing.
The most reasonable avenue of rationality is the Rockies placing a premium on his versatility and defense. They probably valued him as if he was the best defensive CF and SS on the roster, given Blackmon and Story’s weaknesses.
Going to be lots of guys available cheap in the next month, some on pillow contracts
How you are all brilliant baseball minds and utterly absolving Tapia for the discussion. Welker, Hampson, Rodgers should all likely become legit weapons in the next two years also. Losing Blackmon and Arrenado will hurt, however infusion of Tapia, Dahl, Rodgers, Hampson, and Welker over the next two years could help ease those blows significantly.
The five guys you mentioned are highly unlikely to ever combine for 12 WAR in a single season, which Arenado and Blackmon (two guys) just did.