19 Year Olds Stink
by Avar on Jan 30, 2012 3:20 PM EST
Email
Print
Lot of talk lately about what Harper will contribute this year. Unfortunately the answer is almost certaily very little. According to Baseball-Reference.com exactly 58 players have played 40 or more games as 19 year olds since 1901. About one every other year. Almost all of them were lousy. Only two were really good. Mell Ott in 1928 and Jimmie Foxx in 1927. They had OPS of 921 and 908, respectively. (I used OPS as my comparison - nothing's perfect).
Some really great players played as 19 year olds; Robin Yount, ARod, Pudge, Justin Upton, Beltre. All of them had OPS of less than 700 which is pretty weak.
The most recent decent season by a 19 year old was Renteira in '96 with an OPS of 757. Last year, an average starter put up OPS of about 780, so 757 isn't great.
So, it's been 84 years since a 19 year old has put up an OPS better than an average starter.
Mike Trout is interesting to consider. He was ranked ahead of Harper by Baseball America last year, his OPS last year was 672. His slash line was 220/281/390. That is awful. It's really hard to justify giving a starting spot to a guy performing like that.
Trout will probably be much better this year. Twenty year olds do much better. There have been 186 players with at least 40 games played at age 20. And a number of them were excellent. Mel Ott improved to OPS of 1.084 at 20, which is amazing. Some other great ones were ARod, Ted Williams, Al Kaline, Jimmie Foxx, Ruth, Frank Robinson and Mantle. Even here though, only 32 have EVER put up OPS of >780 at age 20. But, at least it's happened multiple times in living memory. Just in the last 20 or so years the following have had OPS >780 at age 20; ARod, Heyward, Griffey, Stanton, J Upton and Cabrera. I think Harper has a chance to be in that group...as a 20 year old.
I think it's important to understand how rare it would be for Harper to have a strong season this year. More likely, he will be in the Ian Desmond, Rick Ankiel range this year with OPS of 650 or so. That would actually be a big accomplishment, putting him in the top 10 all time seasons for a 19 year old.
Of course, I'd love see the 19 year list re-written with Harper at the top or even just below Ott and Foxx. But, it's really asking too much of him. Let's hope for a strong '13 from him.
111 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
great reverse jinx!..........
bat him 5th on Opening Day, behind Morse…
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Jan 30, 2012 4:15 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Point taken, but...
if you look at 20 year-olds that play their second season versus ones that start out at 20, the numbers are quite different. Harper may not tear up the league at 19, but he will gain valuable experience to allow him to hit like, say, ARod did at 20: 1.045 OPS, .358 BA, 91 XBH…
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
ROY often comes from seasoning in the minors, though
by William.Hatheway on Jan 30, 2012 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
I couldn't care less about ROYs
There’s been lots of ROYs who had pretty unspectacular careers. Remember Jason Jennings?
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
yes, and...
longo, pedroia, verlander… to name just three in a row. check the list for other gems
by William.Hatheway on Jan 30, 2012 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
How many players went on to have hall of fame careers without winning ROY? Seriously, this is a moot point.
by RossingtonCollins on Jan 31, 2012 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
This is true.
Everything points to 2013…
In 2013, we will have:
1) A healthier, fully rehabbed, innings-limitless Stephen Strasburg on the mound
2) A 20-year-old, Major League-experienced phenom in RF in Bryce Harper
3) A CF (identity currently unknown) who is not only better than replacement-level, but presumably better than average
In addition to these three things (which we lack this year), we will also have at least 5 (maybe 6 or even 7, depending on the CF) of our 8 starting position players under the age of 30, with all but one of those (Harper) either about to enter or already smack in the middle of his prime. Same thing for the rotation, only with at least 4 of 5 (or maybe 5 of 5) pitchers entering or experiencing their prime years.
2013 looks so good, as long as we don’t eff it up this year by making short-term decisions. Stick to the plan, win as many as we can, and nuke the National League next season.
by rarumberger on Jan 30, 2012 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
nice article, btw
anything can happen, but good to be realistic.
by William.Hatheway on Jan 30, 2012 5:35 PM EST reply actions
Go! Super Joe Charboneau!
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
Reply fail
should have been linked to RobBobS’ ROY comment…
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
Nice Article....
However, this is no ordinary 19 year old. How many of those before him were touted as highly? Considered to be as talented? Appeared on the cover of SI only a couple of years after playing 14U Babe Ruth League…..being proclaimed as “Baseball’s Chosen One”? This “ain’t” some ordinary kid. I’ll agree with RobBob on this one as well, in the fact that even IF he performs as historically projected by the performance of other “ordinary” 19 year old kids, I will gladly elect to see that if it helps him gain the experience he needs to perform at an All-Star level in 2013.
He can get that experience starting in June.
Bringing him up early isn’t likely to win us enough extra ballgames to offset the loss of Strasburg at the end of the season, if it wins us many at all.
What if he performs in ST as the the key link to a successful 2012 season? What if a playoff birth depends on whether he is with the team for a full season, as opposed to a half season? Long odds, yes…..but considering the alternatives, maybe not so much. I’d rather see him bat .240ish with 15 or 20 HRs in this first full season, than a platoon of players who will hit about the same, or even worst….and he gets a full season of experience.
That's a terrible bet.
You’d gamble a year of team control for maybe getting into a one-game wild card playoff? When we can push all our chips in next year, without actually sacrificing anything in the long term?
the extra revenue from a playoff push would be worth it.
Especially in extra season ticket sales for 2013.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
Only if we win the wild-card playoff.
If we lose that, we’ll be essentially in the same position as if we hadn’t gotten the playoff berth to start with.
"I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you."
-Leslie Nielsen, Airplane
Projections.......
If each of these players played a full season in DC in 2012, who would have better stats?
Harper
Bernadina
Cameron
Ankiel
If Harper would project to outperform the others (even if the others are placed in platoon scenarios) while also getting a year of experience, I think it would be a mistake to not play him the full season. Of course, I think Spring Training means everything in making the decision.
by sullyzz on Jan 30, 2012 6:43 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
+1, and +another1
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Is his amount of experience gained significantly different if he misses the first four weeks?
And here I’m assuming that he performs well in Viera – which is no gimme, methinks.
If he performs well in Florida, why send him down to MiLB just to have to bring him back up to MLB four weeks or so later, where he will have to re-adjust once again to the Big Show? I know the reasoning behind the four or so weeks, but I’d say just bring him on to DC for those 15-20 home games, where the increased attendance to see him play will pay for that year down the road that everyone is so concerned about. Every game that he plays at Nats Park will likely generate an additional million or so for the team, don’t you think? And if you ask Scott Boras, I am probably WAY LOW on that figure! lol
If he generates an extra million every game, then the Nats want to keep for as many games as possible, thus delaying the 4 weeks.
Why wouldn’t you trade 4 weeks of Harper in 2012, for a year of Harper in 2018?
I’m excited to see Harper in Washington, but 2012 isn’t the bet-the-farm year. Obviously, we don’t know what will happen this year, but all signs point to our young team getting even better next year, with an unleashed Stras, a real solution in CF, additional offense from Harper, and hopefully clear up our middle infield in a favorable way.
#extendZim
I see it differently…..if he is good enough to play in DC out of spring training, then the funds he generates in added attendance revenue during home games, in those 4-6 weeks that you want to send him to Syracuse, would likely pay his entire salary in 2018. No? April and early May are down weeks for Nats Park attendance….Harper excitement would change that THIS season, if he plays at a high level in Florida during Feb-Mar. Plus, a FULL year under his belt in DC, would do wonders for him in 2013. Sorry Syracuse….but If he proves to be the best option we have for the third OF position, then he HAS to go no further north than Washington, DC.
You’re assuming he’s not going to the highest bidder come 2018 (or best team with money maybe). That’s the risk.
Worth taking.
Besides, if he’s any good, the Nats will try to get him signed long term well before this becomes an issues.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I would also note that the Nationals will be in a better shape to bid in 2018.
Both Werth and Gio’s contracts will be up by then. I agree with Rob that hopefully if Harper is good, the Nationals will throw a big check at him to get some more years of team control. But the more years of team control we have, the more leverage we have in negoiations. Consider the most team friendly deal in MLB, Evan Longoria’s pact with the Rays. The reason that a talented player chose to accept a deal that would pay him substanially less is not because he is stupid or loves the team so much he’s willing to give up tons of money to stay a Ray. He did so, because there is always the possibility that even a great talent won’t get paid truckloads of money because of injury or steep performance decline. Each year of team control is another chance for the player to significantly harm his value. Think about if Barry Zito had signed the year after he signed with the Giants. Extenstions offer the player the chance to tade potentianal earnings for guranteed pay days. If I offered to pay you a $1 million dollars or a 75% chance to win $10million, which would you take? I would guess that most would take the million.
Plus, a FULL year under his belt in DC, would do wonders for him in 2013.
Really? What possible proof could you offer that 4 weeks is going to make a huge difference? He could still get 500 PAs in 2012. I don’t see a crazy advantage.
Sure, if Harper comes in with a monster Spring, then I would consider it. But if he is coming up simply because he’s slightly better than Cameron, Bernandina, and the other minor league free agents we signed, then it is going to hurt the Nationals for him to spend a month in Syracuse. Plus, I would like to find out what we have in Corey Brown. His 2011 was ruined by this Staph infection thing, however, assuming he is rehabbed from that he could be a useful 4th OF or power bench bat.
#extendZim
I just can't see the need to worry too much about 2018 here in 2012
There’s way too much stuff that can happen between now and then — good and bad. Three weeks in the minors won’t break my heart, but neither will having him up at the beginning of the year. My main hope is that the Nats play the best players they have.
Corey Brown? Not so much. 610 PAs at the AAA level and he’s done nothing good, even in the PCL. He might be a major leaguer someday, but he isn’t one today.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Really?
Then why didn’t we just offer 10-year, massively back-loaded, $200+ million contracts to guys like Jose Reyes, Prince Fielder, Mark Beuhrle and C.J. Wilson? After all, we’d get pretty good production from them this year. It’d totally be worth it.
Wait wait wait.
You’re talking about huge amounts of money spent on players who probably won’t be good for several years of the contract. I’m talking about possibly losing the services of a good player for a season.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I think he was just chafing at the nonchalance.
With regard to Corey Brown, I agree that he has been nothing special in AAA, but if he is recoevered from his injury to get back some of the flair that .917 OPS from AA. He might never do it, but he’s 26 now, so if he doesn’t make it, I doubt that you would see him again.
#extendZim
I don't mean to sound nonchalant
It’s not like I don’t CARE what’s going to happen in 2018.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
an extra 5k in attendance for a month is going to pay harpers 35 million for 2018?
these teams are bigger cash cows than i though
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Feb 2, 2012 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
35 million???
Where do you come up with that number?
Even if the number was remotely reasonable, you do realize that Harper’s salary that year, assuming he’s not signed ahead of time, will be decided by an arbitration panel regardless, right?
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
You are exactly right.
Nothing good can come from going all-in this year.
For anyone who wants to go for it now, look at it this way: You can’t guarantee a playoff spot, ever. The Red Sox and Braves proved that last year. And even if you do get to the playoffs, you can’t guarantee a World Series. The Yankees prove that annually.
Your best bet, if you want to win a World Series, is to build the best team you can that will get the chance repeatedly. Going all-in at a bad time is what teams like the Brewers do – teams that don’t have the resources to build a perennial powerhouse, and need to strike when their narrow window opens.
The Nats have an opportunity to build something sustainable. Unfortunately, even with the team’s considerable resources, there is good reason to doubt that Harper will stay with the team longer than he has to. It makes no sense to let him go a year early just to take a shot in the dark during a year when we’ll be losing our best pitcher just as the Wild Card race heats up, not to mention that we’re a long shot to even get there at all.
Something good can come from it
He can rake in April. That would be worth it.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
raking in april would be worth it??
that is absurd. maybe more fun if you are the few with season seats but one, he probably wouldnt rake, and two, if he did, it probably wouldnt make us a WS team, etc. THAT IS NOT WORTH IT
by William.Hatheway on Feb 1, 2012 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
thanks
Thanks for all the comments. For the record, I think he should get called up this year. But 1) it should be in June so he can’t get Super Two status and 2) no one should expect him to be any good this year.
We can heap unrealistic expectations on him next year.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, sometimes it rains.
Shrug.
I don’t care about super-2 status. Does he make a couple-three million more in 2015 if they call him up in late April? Yeah, but so be it.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I don't care about Super-2 either
Which is good, because he’d probably have to wait until sometime in July to avoid it now (they changed the criteria in the new CBA).
However, I’m completely OK with the Nationals waiting long enough to get the extra year of player rights.
And again, everyone assumes that Harper is going to wreak havoc in Viera. If he hits .250 and makes a handful of errors, the Nationals may well decide he’s not ready for f/t MLB play and send him down on the merits.
It could be significantly more.
Ryan Howard holds the record for first time position player arbitration awards at $10 million. Harper is scheduled to make $2.15 million in 2014. That salary would be considered at future arbitration hearings as well. I’m not sure what they Nationals saved on Strasburg because of his injury, but some speculated Strasburg missing Super 2 was worth close to $20 million.
At $20 million, it is not a small deterent. And although the Nationals will hopefully not see an arbitration hearing with Harper, I worry about Boras’s leverage in negoiations.
In al, I am less concerned about Super 2, but again it depends on the Nationals overall finances. Given that they didn’t sign Fielder, I’m inclined to think they have more money to spend on this.
#extendZim
RobBob Got It RIght.......
WHY, WHY, WHY worry about 2018, or whatever year, in 2012? That is over a half decade away! What if THIS is our year? What if HE is the reason for THIS being our year? All this Super 2 talk is nonsense……RobBob is correct; if he is the real deal (which I think we can all agree he is), a long term deal will be completed well before then anyway. If he is the best option for that third OF position after Spring Training, he has to come to DC, regardless of what happens a half decade from now. We can’t “worry” about whether he will remain a Nat when he hits FA……he’s going to do whatever he wants then anyway, whether money is the issue or not.
Actually
We can’t "worry" about whether he will remain a Nat when he hits FA……he’s going to do whatever he wants then anyway, whether money is the issue or not.
That’s actually part of a General Manager’s job description; it’s the GM who has to balance the needs of the future against the fierce urgency of now. It’s always easy to sacrifice tomorrow for today. You don’t have to look too far these days to see some of the negative things that can happen when your planning horizon gets too short.
Well, yeah, but we're talking six years here
It’s extraordinarily hard to predict what the state of the team will be in six years. Any attempt to do so would have a margin of error wide enough to comfortably fit Harper’s ego.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Yes, but what state couldn't the team use another year of control on Harper?
Even if we sign Harper to an extenstion and thus gain the year of control without keeping him in the minors, that extension will cost more if he becomes a free agent earlier rather than later. And besides he could still get 500 PAs if he came up in May without going to the postseason.
#extendZim
What state?
(1) He’s so extraordinarily good his 3rd year arbitration figures to be $25M
(2) He gets injured
(3) He doesn’t play well in his first 5+ years
(4) The team around him loses viability, making him a star among schmoes
Other possibilities exist.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
You care should because it determines the kind of club that you have.
A carefully managed club will be competitive year in and year out. A poorly managed club will look the like NL Central teams, the Florida Marlins, etc, where you have a cycle of feast and famine.
The life cycle of unfortunate team-
The team builds a young core thru the draft, saving money by fielding non-competitive teams, trading parts off for prospects (sound familiar?). Then there are a couple adjustment years, the team becomes competitive just as senior members of the core start to reach free agency (sound familiar?). The team attempts to win in its narrow window trading several prospects to acquire final pieces. See, Brewer’s last year, the Reds this year; the Marlins WS rings.
Life cycle fo the fortunate team-
Build a young core, ensure that you can continue to afford major pieces. Trade away pieces that you won’t be able to afford for large hauls of quality prospects. Be pernially competitive.
To be clear, it really isn’t about money. These principles apply to almost all teams. Both teams in Chicago have boat loads of money and huge fan bases. Both have reasonably soft division. Yet, both have only a few post-season appearances. They are both regularly beaten by the Twins and Cardinals, who regularly have lower salaries. To be sure having a salary Yankee/RedSox/Phillies money helps. But I think judicious long-term planning is important, so you don’t have “all-in” years.
On the other hand, I agree that we need to avoid the Royals mistake of “BEST FARM SYSTEM EVER” where you are “rebuilding” for 20 years. The Nationals should be very competive 2012-2017, as a result our draft positions will suffer, but we will hopefully boost our overall revenue so that we will either remain competitive after this core reaches its walk years or be competitive again quickly. The choice here is a small investment, for a major gain. If the Nationals aren’t competitive in 2018, after losing several key players in the offseason, then it would be nice to be able to jump start the rebuilding by trading the year of Harper (assuming that he is determined to make it to free agency/ leave Washington anyway) that we gained by holding him back for a couple weeks in 2012.
#extendZim
Stastically, 58 players in 110 years is an incredibly small sample size, far too small to be hoping to draw any sort of legitimate conclusion from. If Harper comes up some time this year and struggles, it’s far more likely to be due to the vast difference in talent he sees between the minor leagues and the majors than it is to the fact he happens to be 19.
by Armless Penguin on Jan 31, 2012 1:23 PM EST reply actions
But age IS a factor.
It’s almost unquestionable.
58 players in 110 years isn’t really the sample size. The sample size is every player that has ever played professional ball at the age of 19 in those 110. Of those countless players, and I say countless because I’m sure it’s actually impossible to tell how many that is, only 58 were deemed good enough to play in the Major Leagues. Of those, only 2 were really good. So even supposing Harper is in the top 0.001% (or whatever) of 19 year old ballplayers ever, which I expect he is, it’s a bit much to ask that he be in the top 1-2% of that group as well.
It’s especially troubling that the two players listed played in ‘27 and ’28. I’d say the chances that they faced pitchers even remotely comparable to what Harper will be facing (in a division with the Marlins, Braves, and Phillies no less) are nil.
Fact is, he’s a bad bet right now. He just is. Why roll the dice like that? It makes no sense.
Let me try one more time
Players who played at age 19 fared much better as a whole in their age 20 year than players who started at age 20. The difference is, of course, the seasoning they gained from that first, tough year. So, even if Harper DOES struggle in 2012, it will still be better for him and the team in 2013.
And, truth be told, the Nats’ plans should have them hoping but not expecting to compete in 2012, and expecting to compete in 2013. So, that extra seasoning will have an even greater impact.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Correlation does not equal causation.
You don’t know that the reason that 19 year olds with MLB exp. do better because of the expierence. Perhaps they were generally better than the group of players that make it at 20. In the same way that players that make the MLB at 21 are generally better those that make it at 23.
#extendZim
You can flip that around though
The fact that 19yo players are strongly correlated to lousy performance does not necessarily imply causation. Given the limited number of 19yo players, causation may lie elsewhere. To play Devil’s Advocate, you understand :-)
I'm not arguing that 19yo players are terrible.
Though I think there are some compelling data sets to suggest players improve until they peak/plateau about age 27.
#extendZim
But there isn't a limited number.
The number of 19 year old players this year alone is enormous. You can’t just count the ones that make the majors, because the fact that they’re not playing in the majors implies something significant.
Here’s two causal links that I can propose right now:
1) 19 year old hitters, in virtually every case (including Harper), will not have had ample opportunity to experience and adjust to Major League or Major League-ready pitching (be it in terms of fastball speeds, movement on pitches, and sophisticated pitch selection/command). This puts them at a disadvantage versus older players.
2) 19 year old male humans are, in many (or most) cases, still in a state of physical growth and development. So they should be expected to be, on average, slower and weaker than players in their 20s. This has an additional effect, which is that it’s hard to develop reliable physical skills when the body is not constant.
Now, Harper has clearly shown that physically he’s at least major leaguer, despite possibly not being fully mature physically, and that he’s extremely quick to make adjustments and learn the game. But he probably can’t be the only guy that good ever. History is against him here. He’s a bad bet to get us to the World Series this year, so why would we take a year off his prime production for a few weeks of his transition to the bigs?
Exactly
That is my point. He is extremely unlikely to do well in the majors this year. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of 19 year olds have played competitive baseball, including every major leaguer ever. 58 of them played in the majors at 19 and two of them were really good at it. I hope Harper is the third but I’d bet the house that he isn’t.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose, sometimes it rains.
I get your point about not many players doing well at 19
but the part about thousands of players, etc., doesn’t really resonate. ALL MLB players are 3-sigma events — even the Adam LaRoche’s of the world. They are all extraordinarily talented compared to the multitude of players who dream of baseball stardom. So the ones great enough to play reasonably well are rare among them? OK, but we are now talking about a guy referred to as a “once in a generation talent”, not just any old prospect.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I'm sure you won't find many people who will say that experience is not a big cause of improvement
Nevertheless, on average, for 20 year-olds playing in their second year in the majors, the OPS increases nearly 8 per cent over their rookie year. And guys like ARod and Al Kaline jumped up over 40 per cent in their second year.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Sure, but the question is, but perhaps they would have posted those numbers, even without the call-up.
And that is my only point. It is a fallacy to say that a year in the MLB is automatically more useful than a year in the minor leagues. Becuase we don’t know which 19 year old players could have been put in the big leagues, but weren’t. So, we don’t know how much they improved by being in AAA, with a mid-year call up.
#extendZim
I think all the angles on Harper have been covered, but my 2 cents are:
1. Given his age and limited ABs against high level minor league pitching I would put the bar fairly high for him making the team out of ST. However, this is to say that he, the team, and the fans deserve that he have a shot.
2. To me he needs to justify the jump to the ‘Bigs’ and the extra year of team control is an added, but secondary, reason for sending him to AA or AAA to start the season.
3. If he is sent to the minors, he still needs to perform well to justify moving up before September. I make no assumption this will be the case, though I am hopeful based on his brief AFL success.
4. I do not normally equate experience at the major league level with that at the high minor league level for an unproven kid because the pressure and desire to succeed in the majors may set back the confidence level if early failure occurs. In the minors, hitting adjustments and experiments can occur without the need and pressure to succeed ‘right now’. However, Harper seems to have the drive and confidence that few 19 year olds have, so I am less convinced on this point for him.
5. Finally, it is certainly exciting to have a potential ‘Micky Mantle’ on my team. It is rare to have a 5 tool player to watch and root for from the start on your team. I hope he hits .400 with 6+ HRs out of ST, so the decision to go north with him to DC occurs for the right reasons.
yes,.....Mickey Mantle.........
so, he starts off slow in ST, as is his habit, gets smoking hot, and………….everyone says he needs to learn about riding a bus some more…..If I were that guy, and I didn’t agree that I needed to ride the bus some more, I might decide they don’t love me as much as they said and dream of the day of free agency…
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Jan 31, 2012 6:32 PM EST up reply actions
*yawn*
The “I’m going to be offended, take my career and go home” argument really doesn’t make sense to me at all. I mean, really? Even if he’s frustrated in the short term, the team has six or seven years to change his mind. And he has six or seven years to grow up and gain perspective … IF he doesn’t already have the perspective to see why the team has to do what the team thinks is best.
Look, once he’s on the team for good, the team’s attitude will be helping him. Remember Strasburg last year basically calling out Harper, saying “if he wants to be with us, he should sign?” That will be Harper in two years, talking about someone else.
You argued yesterday that the Nats might have saved $20M by keeping Strasburg from Super 2 status
I don’t know if this figure is accurate at all (it seems high) but let’s assume it’s true. To Strasburg, that’s $20M he loses from his playing career, because the team that had the right to do it exercised their right to do it. If I were him, I would not soon forget twenty million dollars. Time’s going to come soon when the Nats will try to extend Strasburg’s contract, and they might even bring up the notion that he might accept a bit of a smaller deal to stick with the team that drafted him…
Forget it. Stras will demand market price or more to stay in DC; he’s got 20,000,000 dollars to make up.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
*yawn*
Did I argue that yesterday? It seems right, but I don’t remember doing it. Ah, will, they say that the mind is the second thing to go when you age …
And for the rest, I get all that, I really do. I don’t expect that the Nationals will get a home town discount from anyone. My point is that I don’t expect that players will be nursing a grudge against the team six years after the fact … especially when they know that every other MLB team has done the same thing to players in in similar situations. Really, it’s the exceptions (Heyward in 2010) that you tend to remember because it’s so very rare.
They may have other grudges against the team by then – over playing time, an arbitration hearing that become contentious, etc. But being mad over service time … ESPECIALLY in Harper’s case where I’m not suggesting the team move to avoid “Super 2” status, just that they not blithely toss away a year of control. Arb 4 players get their money. For $$$, the key issue is Super 2 status.
You should get more sleep.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I think I was actually the one that linked to the $20 million article
But I am not sure that it would have worked out that way because Strasburg was injured meaning that his future arbitration earnings would be reduced.
#extendZim
Oh. OK. You guys look alike. Maybe.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I do have a twin
But I’m guessing chubias is not him :-)
This guy?
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Meanwhile,
if I’m a young player who was always made to feel like I was an important part of the team, not just a pawn of the organization, then come time to re-up, those arguments about giving loyalty back to the team may well resonate. “Those guys could have played contract games and cost me umpteen million dollars, but they didn’t. I respect that and I am willing to take a smaller deal to stick with this organization…”
Loyalty DOES matter.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Oh, I'm not saying that a player may appreciate it if the team doesn't play those games
I just doubt they hold a lasting grudge if the converse is true.
And while loyalty may matter in some circumstances (possibly it did for Chien-Ming Wang, for example), I would point out that both Strasburg and Harper are represented by Scott Boras. History suggests that expecting a “good partner” discount from Scott Boras is not a good business strategy. His clients rarely even sign extensions before becoming free agents, and I’m not sure a Boras client has ever offered a hometown discount.
they gave lincecum 20 mil. so it aint high
by William.Hatheway on Feb 1, 2012 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but
We are talking about the difference between his salaries in post-contract year 1 (pre-arb), Arb-1, Arb-2, and Arb-3, which would have been Arb-1, Arb-2, Arb-3, and Arb-4 if he had started before June ‘10. The difference doesn’t come completely from that final year’s salary, since he’d make a ton of money either way (but more, obviously). The question is whether the sum of the differences in those four years adds to 20M.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
Just Want To See If I Am Clear.....
The majority on here feel that even if Bryce Harper proves to be the best player on the team in Spring Training, and his immediate presence in DC would pay huge dividends in winning the Division and possibly beyond in 2012, it is still best to send him to MiLB? Just to save a few dollars and/or control over a half decade from now? I am not a baseball executive, but I think I am pretty close to accurate with the belief that the Nats did not pay the money they spent on Harper for MiLB towns to get “up-close and personal” viewing of the “Chosen One”…..he was paid to make an impact on the MLB team; and if he proves he is ready during ST, that he is the best option to fill that third OF void, Welcome to DC! For added emphasis…..barring some sort of trade that brings in a proven and valued CF, I don’t see anyone else in the organization who can touch him. Can’t wait for ST…..its’ gonna be fun, and these debates will continue to rage! lol
by sullyzz on Jan 31, 2012 6:33 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
perhaps in a more mature organization that's been there and won a few..........you tell the fans to wait some more...
you tell the fans who waited for JZimm to return, who waited for Strasburg to return, for our draft and farm to pay dividends………
nah, no more waiting unless it’s for onfield reasons….
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Jan 31, 2012 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed! Many things can happen in a baseball season, and no matter what the projections are at the beginning of the year, the team has to push forth “the best” players and make every effort to be the last one standing in October, and not stuck in a rut worrying about what is going to occur a half decade from now. I’ve seen power rankings that already have us in the top 10…..that is within striking distance from the crown. Call me naive…..but I am a former Braves fan, and I CLEARLY recall the Braves 1991 worst to first season.
yes, they need to play the game with the best players, not play by contract status...
or perhaps another team from ‘91 could serve as a warning. Last in the East, no-hit in May before an Olympic Stadium crowd of 8,833 ….Dennis Martinez’ perfect game in LA that helped them finish second to the Braves by two games was about the only highlight….
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Jan 31, 2012 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
If Harper is THE BEST player on the team in ST, he makes the team
I really don’t anticipate that, though. He did OK in ST last year, although he hit for no power at all – even though he only played in the last couple of innings against the scrubeenies. Where it really gets interesting is if he hits .250 or so with a couple of dingerz and a handful of errors. Then the debate will REALLY get heated …
I think the issue here is two-fold.
1. I don’t believe that Harper is going to have a rookie season like Zim did. I think it is more likely that he will have an OPS around in the low to mid 700s. Harper being the “best player on the field” would be due to the true poo we have for other options. IF Harper looks good enough that he is going offer a 3 or 4 WAR season, then sure bring him up straight away. But if he’s going to give a 1 or 2 WAR season, then the couple of weeks isn’t going to matter.
2. It is unlikely that the Nationals will win the division in 2012. We are more realistically looking at a second wild-card shot if we are in contention, which seems silly to trade a significant value for a few hairs more of production.
As an aside, I think it would be wise if the Nationals could find another worthwhile OF and a decent bench bat.
#extendZim
Fukudome!
I think it would be wise if the Nationals could find another worthwhile OF and a decent bench bat.
I could get behind that.
Anyone else think this offseason has been wierdly long? I mean it is Febuary and there are still a number of top FA out there.
#extendZim
I'd much rather see Harper.
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
How about both?
Fukudome to start in RF until Harper is ready (any plan has to allow for the possibility that Harper struggles in ST and starts in the minors, even leaving the contractual issues out of the discussion). Once Harper is ready, then the team can (a) slide him into LF, moving Morse to 1b and sitting LaRoche or trading him; or (b) if LaRoche is healthy and raking, consider the Morse/Werth/Harper OF with Fukudome as the LH bat off the bench.
You are, of course, correct
Rob
--"Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." -- Mal Reynolds
I'll try not to let it go to my head ...
too late
by d_c_guy on Feb 1, 2012 5:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
rec’d
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Feb 1, 2012 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
Average doesn't stink
If Harper comes up and hits like an average major leaguer, that means he will be better than half of all major leaguers. The Nationals performed at basically league average in the corner outfield positions last season by wRC+. Left fielders were a little better at the plate, but made up for it by being bad in the outfield. Right Fielders were exactly average (100 wRC+) at the plate. If Harper can be at least that good, then he should play.
Every season that a team might contend is a treasure. This could be the Nats’ year. They were .500 last year and got better in the offseason while the team that won the division probably got worse. Let the kid play. Let him get his dorky-backpack-wearing rookie season out of the way in a year with few expectations. The money it will cost to burn this year of team control won’t matter much to the richest owners in baseball.
Besides, the Mayan apocalypse is going to wipe out the planet in December.
Regarding "expectations"
I agree that the team would have reasonable expectations for the kid. However, the DC baseball game-attending crowd is not likely to be so reasonable in their expectations. Of course, this happens all the time with phenoms, but two points:
1) Strasburg came in and basically met expectations that he’d be great right away. Does that raise the bar higher than it should be, in the eyes of the casual baseball fan who would go to the game precisely because Harper is now playing?
2) More important, how does Harper handle not being as successful as he expects of himself? I ask that having no idea what the answer is, but someone in the Nats org. better have a pretty good read on that.
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
1. In Washington it certainly does, I can’t tell you how many times I went to a Nats game when Dunn was still around and after he would K it up I would hear someone near me say something along the lines of “I thought we brought him here to drop bombs, not strike-out.” The casual Baseball fan here (or probably anywhere) doesn’t understand that K’s happen more often than people think. So for Harper I’m sure the first time he strikes out people will question everything.
2. I don’t think this will be a problem for him he’s got a good head on his shoulders, in terms of dealing with failure and adjusting to his level of competition. It has never taken him that long to adjust to playing up to his competition… I can’t remember the exact leagues and stuff but I remember reading in the SI article that he would be playing on his brothers 14u teams while he was 9 or 10 (Yeah, thats not the majors I know). He never had that much trouble adjusting A or AA ball last year. I’m pretty sure he can deal with failure by now.
by RossingtonCollins on Feb 3, 2012 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
I was referring to team expectations
but the personal expectations for Harper among casual fans would be ridiculous. Probably seasoning in the minors would help with that…some. But it seems like all players take half a season or so to adjust to the majors regardless. I’d rather have that half season take place in a year the Nats aren’t seen as favorites or strong contenders from the start of the season.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Federal Baseball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
