Fangraphs: Why a Mid-Market Team Can't Sign Players to Long Contracts

http://www.fangraphs.com/community/the-risk-of-long-contracts-for-middle-market-teams/

Middle-market teams have historically tried to play the game like they are mini-large-market teams. They develop talent and when they have enough to make a run at the playoffs they make moves. They buy free agents, extend players through their age 27-33 years, and trade for proven talent. Unfortunately this usually does not work and we often see one of the top six most expensive teams (or the Cardinals) in the playoffs year after year. Then, the middle-market team's "window" has closed, and the wait starts over.

The ultimate conclusion is that as a middle-market team, the ORIOLES should have a change in focus from spending money on long-term contracts, which are huge risks, to using money and trades to put together a solid supporting cast of players on shorter-length contracts. These players will support a group of younger cost-controlled players where their risk of failure is not tied to large amounts of cash. It is a superior strategy to hoping that during a window of opportunity, where long-term contract players are not past their prime, the team will make the playoffs a few times. If played correctly... The ORIOLES could have a consistently good team for long periods of time.

The Orioles.

Didn't seem to me that this "community research" was anything more than an opinion piece that wasn't backed up with any research at all. It was written so generally that I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

The Orioles.

By the logic of this article, we shouldn't have extended Adam Jones.

Didn't seem to me that this "community research" was anything more than an opinion piece that wasn't backed up with any research at all. It was written so generally that I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

Would St. Louis' performance over the last decade be a sufficient case study?

Before we go too far down this path, how do we define mid-market?

Would St. Louis' performance over the last decade be a sufficient case study?

Sure. Tell me how Yadier Molina, Matt Holliday and Adam Wainwright fit the author's paradigm.

I think the article makes a valid point. Small to mid market teams have to rely on their systems to provide talented cost controlled players to make up the bulk of the team. Then management can fill in gaps with the more expensive "long term" talent. The 2010 Cardinals were a good example of suc a team. The had hired guns like Carpenter and Holiday. A home grown superstar in Albert Pulholz. Some mid level contracts that included Lohse and Penny. But the remainder of their roster was comprised of relatively inexpensive cost controlled talent that included Y. Molina, Craig, Wainright, Jay, Franklin and others.

I've thought for some time that the Cardinal model was the one to follow. This winter Duquette will have a chance to use this model to "reboot" the Orioles roster. I'm interested to see how it goes.

Nothing against the Cardinals' model, I just don't think it tracks the author's paradigm at all. He has a problem with extending players through their age 27-33 seasons, and that's something the Cardinals have done about as often as other teams.

Sure. Tell me how Yadier Molina, Matt Holliday and Adam Wainwright fit the author's paradigm.

The organization made a decision to retain home grown talent like Wainright and Molina long term. Holiday replaced Pulholz. The have a number of mid level signings like Peralta and Heyward but overall they have stayed true to form. Remember,had it not been for the tragic car accident, Tavarez would be playing right field as a uber talented cost controlled player instead of Heyward. The Cardinals are getting ready to go to the playoffs again and remain near the middle of the pack in payroll. Good model to follow.

Baltimore had, what, $20MM in dead money on "supporting cast" this year. How is that different than "underperformance in year 4 of 5" for an established FA signed and productive through the first three years.

Seems like author hasn't actually thought through these issues.

The ACTUAL solution, I believe, for mid-market teams is to have a strong enough farm system that you can handle having 1/4 of your budget invested in dead money. Whether it's the tail end of a larger FA contract, a flier on rebound candidates, a player acquired that you think you can fix, you are going to have players producing below the salary you are paying them. You need to offset that with players producing beyond what you are paying.

Whether the dead money comes in the form of a long term contract or a one-year deal is irrelevant. What matters is a team's ability to not be hamstrung financially, and the safest way to protect against that is to have cheap options in-house.

Nothing against the Cardinals' model, I just don't think it tracks the author's paradigm at all. He has a problem with extending players through their age 27-33 seasons, and that's something the Cardinals have done about as often as other teams.

I agree there are inconsistencies in his article. But wouldn't you agree that he is generally arguing against signing guys like Cruz, Hamilton, Verlander, and Ortiz if you want to remain a consistently successful mid market team?

I should slightly revise that. By "in-house" solutions that doesn't have to be a player you acquire as an amateur. But it has to be a pre-arb talent that is giving you that production-beyond-salary. So maybe you supplement draft/international signings with trading for prospects, and maybe your balance even leans towards acquiring cheap talent by trade rather than by developing in-house.

I agree there are inconsistencies in his article. But wouldn't you agree that he is generally arguing against signing guys like Cruz, Hamilton, Verlander, and Ortiz if you want to remain a consistently successful mid market team?

The main things I didn't like about the article were (1) it had nothing but limited anecdotal support, (2) the valid points it made are pretty obvious to everyone, and (3) the Cardinals don't really follow the approach he suggested (avoiding extensions of players through age 33).

The other thing is, having a good team isn't just a matter of what strategy a team follows, it's a matter of execution. The Cardinals are flat out better at drafting and development than most teams. Lots of teams try to emulate their approach, but they simply aren't as good at the execution.