Opinion: Signing relief pitchers to multi-year deals is stupid

[Dan Druff]

The Dodgers just signed reliever Brandon League to a 3-year, $22.5 million contract.

I have nothing against League. After pitching poorly in his first few outings as a Dodger when they acquired him via trade, he rapidly improved, and in fact finished September with a 0.55 ERA. Overall, he had a 2.30 ERA for the Dodgers and pitched well as their closer after Kenley Jansen went down.

But I still hate this signing.

As a baseball fan since the mid-'70s, I have seen countless relief pitchers look unhittable one year and barely able to record an out the next. There are a few dominant, hard-throwing closers who buck that trend, such as Mariano Rivera. However, in most cases, signing a reliever to a large contract is a huge and unnecessary risk.

I feel that part of this is because relief pitching is a very psychological role. When you are getting everyone out and have an ERA under 2.00, it's easy to keep going out there and pitching with confidence. However, all it takes is one or two awful outings where you give up 6 runs in an inning, and your ERA balloons and suddenly the wheels can fall off. Relief pitchers don't have multiple innings to right the ship. They can't throw 9 straight shutout innings in one day to erase a poor previous outing's impact. A reliever who gives up a lot of runs has the unfortunate reality of knowing he will have to pitch about 5-10 straight shutout appearances to reverse the damage, and that can be very tough on the psyche.

Think of it this way: Say you're a winning 1-2 NL player, and you decide to take a shot at an excellent 10-20 game. Unfortunately, you run terrible and lose 10k. Next time you go back to 1-2, are you going to see it the same way? Probably not. You are going to keep thinking about how many 1-2 sessions you're going to have to win in order to get back that 10k, and the task will seem insurmountable.

Anyway, to me it seems that relief pitchers are extremely streaky, and that it varies from year to year which ones are good, which ones are bad, and which ones are terrible.

Brandon League has a career 3.60 ERA. He could be great with the Dodgers next year, he could be okay, or he could be awful. There's no way to predict it. And you really want your $22.5 million players to be somewhat predictable.

If I was the GM of an MLB team, I would invite a ton of players to spring training, both young AA/AAA types and established middle-relievers without jobs. I would sign the ones that look good to a 1-year contract for relatively little money, and release/demote the rest. Regardless of their performance, I would do the same the next year. If they wanted to leave the team for others that would sign them for multiple years, I would let them go.

There is never a shortage of middle relievers looking for jobs, and you can always find some that look surprisingly good and come cheap. As long as you don't get too attached to them, you can have an effective bullpen for very little money.

[General Bonkers]

Minimum mlb contract is around 500K, 22mil for 3 years to a good relief pitcher is about right imo.

Sounds like he pitched good at the right time to get payed, if the Dodgers need him and think he is going to continue to pitch well it's a no brainer.

[Dan Druff]

Minimum mlb contract is around 500K, 22mil for 3 years to a good relief pitcher is about right imo.

Sounds like he pitched good at the right time to get payed, if the Dodgers need him and think he is going to continue to pitch well it's a no brainer.

If there was a high chance he would pitch well for 3 years, I would agree.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to predict the performance of relief pitchers (aside from the premier ones) from year to year.

[NaturalBornHustler]

Druff you are the Yankees of the west, with no budget. Why the fuck would you care what they spend? It isn't like it is going to prevent them from making other moves, which would pretty much be the only reason to hate an overpayment. Especially at only 22.5 million, that is pocket change to the new ownership.

Just sit back for the foreseeable future, realize that money will be wasted, more money will be spent to cover up that money wasted, you will qualify for the postseason almost every year, and then 10 years from now have a couple new championships in the trophy case.

Sounds like a good deal to me, you are still living in the pre-Magic ownership era where money actually meant something.

I know your inner Jew is just revolted by this turn of events, but embrace it and the 95 wins/postseason appearances that will come every year because of it.

[BCR]

I generally agree. Over time, the things that seem to be the best indicator of continued success for relievers is velocity and how the pitcher is getting outs. You want a guy who is throwing strikes and having guys miss. When a reliever starts to lose velocity, and he can't get hitters to miss in the strike zone, it's most often trouble. Example A would be the Heath Bell signing by the Marlins last year. Going into the year, he had been on a downward trajectory of velocity and getting guys to swing and miss, and his contract proved a horrible investment. He got $27 million over 3, and after a horrible season got traded to the DBacks with the Marlins having to eat $8 million of the remaining $18 million.

I haven't followed League that much, but that would be some of the factors that are most important when inking a reliever and gauging the chance it's a successful contract imo. The mental part is huge, but it's hard to measure unless a guy is a known headcase.

[gut]

This years version of the Rays should be the textbook definition of how to assemble a bullpen. Have about 7 solid starters on the roster, have the best 5 start, other 2 in the pen, and the rest of the pen consists of journeymen signed to moderate contracts/ former closers who crumbled and they snagged them off the scrap heap.

Baseball traditionalists have fucked up bullpens for the most part. The save is really a worthless stat. Math shows time-and-time again that you should use your best relief pitcher in high leverage situations, and most teams don't do this. The players themselves also wouldn't be happy doing this, because it's still save totals that get you big contracts. Thus, when your team is up 3-2 in the 7th inning, and your starter has loaded the bases with only 1 out, the manager brings in a guy with a 4.85 era whose fastball tops out at 91, because the flamethrower is going to wait for the 9th....IF you still have the lead. It's idiotic.

[General Bonkers]

Minimum mlb contract is around 500K, 22mil for 3 years to a good relief pitcher is about right imo.

Sounds like he pitched good at the right time to get payed, if the Dodgers need him and think he is going to continue to pitch well it's a no brainer.

If there was a high chance he would pitch well for 3 years, I would agree.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to predict the performance of relief pitchers (aside from the premier ones) from year to year.

Thats the game between clubs, if he pitched that good at the end of the year with all the bs that was going on with the Dodgers there are a lot of teams that noticed, the dodgers staff obviously think he's worth it.

and it sure looks like they are gonna be the Yankees of the west the way they are spending

[WillieMcFML]

basic moneyball principles

never pay for saves, or relief pitching in general

the cards are a good example of how it's done

lots of young arms, some future starters, all providing relief at a discount

[NaturalBornHustler]

basic moneyball principles

never pay for saves, or relief pitching in general

the cards are a good example of how it's done

lots of young arms, some future starters, all providing relief at a discount

LOL at the Dodgers giving two fucks about a "moneyball" principles.

They are now operating under the "money pit" philosophy.

[Sloppy Joe]

Druff you are the Yankees of the west, with no budget. Why the fuck would you care what they spend? It isn't like it is going to prevent them from making other moves, which would pretty much be the only reason to hate an overpayment. Especially at only 22.5 million, that is pocket change to the new ownership.

Just sit back for the foreseeable future, realize that money will be wasted, more money will be spent to cover up that money wasted, you will qualify for the postseason almost every year, and then 10 years from now have a couple new championships in the trophy case.

Sounds like a good deal to me, you are still living in the pre-Magic ownership era where money actually meant something.

I know your inner Jew is just revolted by this turn of events, but embrace it and the 95 wins/postseason appearances that will come every year because of it.

The first round of splurging feels like it will be a huge failure though.

[Dan Druff]

Druff you are the Yankees of the west, with no budget. Why the fuck would you care what they spend? It isn't like it is going to prevent them from making other moves, which would pretty much be the only reason to hate an overpayment. Especially at only 22.5 million, that is pocket change to the new ownership.

Just sit back for the foreseeable future, realize that money will be wasted, more money will be spent to cover up that money wasted, you will qualify for the postseason almost every year, and then 10 years from now have a couple new championships in the trophy case.

Sounds like a good deal to me, you are still living in the pre-Magic ownership era where money actually meant something.

I know your inner Jew is just revolted by this turn of events, but embrace it and the 95 wins/postseason appearances that will come every year because of it.

The first round of splurging feels like it will be a huge failure though.

I'm starting to worry about this myself.

Adrian Gonzalez sucked in the limited time he was a Dodger, and hopefully that's an aberration and not typical. He did hit a bit better during the final week or so.

Josh Beckett was decent but isn't likely to be worth anywhere near the money they're paying him.

Carl Crawford's success or failure is yet to be seen, but I am skeptical that he can come back and be close to what he once was. I felt his contract was even overpriced at the time he signed with Boston.

And Nick Punto... WTF? All he was good for was ripping off players' jerseys at the end of the game. Somehow he hit for a decent average as a Dodger, but it seemed he always choked when up in a key spot.

Then there's Hanley Ramirez, who started out well, but then was pretty much striking out in every at-bat in September.

Andre Ethier was given a big extension, but he has never proven himself to be an elite player, but rather just a good player who gets injured fairly easily.

The Matt Kemp contract was huge but at least I agreed with it. He really is a great player, and it appears that his bad second half was the result of an injury they were hiding from the pubilc. Yes, it would be awful if he comes back and is never the same player, but at the time they signed him to the huge contract, he didn't have an injury history and really looked like a special player -- which he can easily still be for years to come.

I am just worried that they will keep throwing around $ and then will come to the realization that the team is losing big money, and will tighten up the pocketbook for years to come until these bad contracts expire.

[Pooh]

The first round of splurging feels like it will be a huge failure though.

I'm starting to worry about this myself.

Adrian Gonzalez sucked in the limited time he was a Dodger, and hopefully that's an aberration and not typical. He did hit a bit better during the final week or so.

Josh Beckett was decent but isn't likely to be worth anywhere near the money they're paying him.

Carl Crawford's success or failure is yet to be seen, but I am skeptical that he can come back and be close to what he once was. I felt his contract was even overpriced at the time he signed with Boston.

And Nick Punto... WTF? All he was good for was ripping off players' jerseys at the end of the game. Somehow he hit for a decent average as a Dodger, but it seemed he always choked when up in a key spot.

Then there's Hanley Ramirez, who started out well, but then was pretty much striking out in every at-bat in September.

Andre Ethier was given a big extension, but he has never proven himself to be an elite player, but rather just a good player who gets injured fairly easily.

The Matt Kemp contract was huge but at least I agreed with it. He really is a great player, and it appears that his bad second half was the result of an injury they were hiding from the pubilc. Yes, it would be awful if he comes back and is never the same player, but at the time they signed him to the huge contract, he didn't have an injury history and really looked like a special player -- which he can easily still be for years to come.

I am just worried that they will keep throwing around $ and then will come to the realization that the team is losing big money, and will tighten up the pocketbook for years to come until these bad contracts expire.

lol, really? Sense the sarcasm because I don't think anyone on Earth would disagree with it. That contract will go down as one of the biggest busts of all time. Carl Crawford is a small market guy. You're pretty much fucked with him unless you can somehow unload him to a team like the Pirates.

I could be mistaken but isn't Beckett almost done with his contract...maybe 2 years at the most. He's done as a viable pitcher.

Gonzo could go either way in my book. My guess is you will get a few great years out of him. He was miserable in Boston playing under Valentine.

[Dan Druff]

I'm starting to worry about this myself.

Adrian Gonzalez sucked in the limited time he was a Dodger, and hopefully that's an aberration and not typical. He did hit a bit better during the final week or so.

Josh Beckett was decent but isn't likely to be worth anywhere near the money they're paying him.

Carl Crawford's success or failure is yet to be seen, but I am skeptical that he can come back and be close to what he once was. I felt his contract was even overpriced at the time he signed with Boston.

And Nick Punto... WTF? All he was good for was ripping off players' jerseys at the end of the game. Somehow he hit for a decent average as a Dodger, but it seemed he always choked when up in a key spot.

Then there's Hanley Ramirez, who started out well, but then was pretty much striking out in every at-bat in September.

Andre Ethier was given a big extension, but he has never proven himself to be an elite player, but rather just a good player who gets injured fairly easily.

The Matt Kemp contract was huge but at least I agreed with it. He really is a great player, and it appears that his bad second half was the result of an injury they were hiding from the pubilc. Yes, it would be awful if he comes back and is never the same player, but at the time they signed him to the huge contract, he didn't have an injury history and really looked like a special player -- which he can easily still be for years to come.

I am just worried that they will keep throwing around $ and then will come to the realization that the team is losing big money, and will tighten up the pocketbook for years to come until these bad contracts expire.

lol, really? Sense the sarcasm because I don't think anyone on Earth would disagree with it. That contract will go down as one of the biggest busts of all time. Carl Crawford is a small market guy. You're pretty much fucked with him unless you can somehow unload him to a team like the Pirates.

I could be mistaken but isn't Beckett almost done with his contract...maybe 2 years at the most. He's done as a viable pitcher.

Gonzo could go either way in my book. My guess is you will get a few great years out of him. He was miserable in Boston playing under Valentine.

Didn't you just defend Crawford a few months ago and claim that he would do great with the Dodgers? This seems like a complete reversal on your part.

Beckett was a "viable pitcher" in the month or so he had with the Dodgers, but not a great pitcher. But even if he pitches okay and eats innings, he's obviously not worth the money.

[Pooh]

lol, really? Sense the sarcasm because I don't think anyone on Earth would disagree with it. That contract will go down as one of the biggest busts of all time. Carl Crawford is a small market guy. You're pretty much fucked with him unless you can somehow unload him to a team like the Pirates.

I could be mistaken but isn't Beckett almost done with his contract...maybe 2 years at the most. He's done as a viable pitcher.

Gonzo could go either way in my book. My guess is you will get a few great years out of him. He was miserable in Boston playing under Valentine.

Didn't you just defend Crawford a few months ago and claim that he would do great with the Dodgers? This seems like a complete reversal on your part.

Beckett was a "viable pitcher" in the month or so he had with the Dodgers, but not a great pitcher. But even if he pitches okay and eats innings, he's obviously not worth the money.

I still believe Crawford will be a great clubhouse/community guy but he thrives on small markets. LA fans aren't as rabid as Boston so its possible he could be okay but he will never justify that salary.

When I say "viable" I am considering the huge salary Beckett is receiving. He's still a solid lower number 2 guy.

[gut]

Didn't you just defend Crawford a few months ago and claim that he would do great with the Dodgers? This seems like a complete reversal on your part.

Beckett was a "viable pitcher" in the month or so he had with the Dodgers, but not a great pitcher. But even if he pitches okay and eats innings, he's obviously not worth the money.

I still believe Crawford will be a great clubhouse/community guy but he thrives on small markets. LA fans aren't as rabid as Boston so its possible he could be okay but he will never justify that salary.

When I say "viable" I am considering the huge salary Beckett is receiving. He's still a solid lower number 2 guy.

Pitcher A: 43 IP, 38/14 K/BB, 2.93 ERA, 1.326 WHIP
Pitcher B: 89.1 IP 78/26 K/BB, 3.53 ERA, 1.187 WHIP

A was Beckett after being traded last year, B was Grienke after being traded last season. Of course Beckett moved to the easier league for pitchers. If he has his head on straight, he's probably their number 2 starter next year, unless they bring in another big name....which is entirely possible.

[tony bagadonuts]

Druff I agree with your assessment in general, and $22 million for League is laughable. Having seen his work up close and personal I don't think much of him.

[chinamaniac]

Druff I agree with your assessment in general, and $22 million for League is laughable. Having seen his work up close and personal I don't think much of him.

GOD

[NaturalBornHustler]

More details on League contract, it is even worse than originally thought.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodger...=Google+Reader

By Dylan Hernandez

November 6, 2012, 9:45 a.m.

Brandon League’s new contract with the Dodgers could be worth as much as $33.5 million, according to a person familiar with the deal.

The contract, which is guaranteed for $22.5 million over three seasons, was finalized last week.

The live-armed reliever will be paid a $3 million signing bonus, of which he will receive $1 million this year and $2 million in 2015.

League will earn base salaries of $4.5 million in 2013, $7.5 million in 2014 and $7.5 million in 2015.

If League finishes 55 games in 2015, the deal will include a $7.5-million player option for a fourth season. If League finishes 55 games in 2015 and 100 games over 2014 and 15, the option will be worth $8.5 million. If he finishes 55 games in 2015 and 150 games in 2013-15, it will be worth $9 million.

League can earn $500,000 in performance-based incentives in every year of the contract: $150,000 for 55 games finished, $250,000 for 60 games finished and $100,000 for 65 games finished.

League will donate $35,000 a year to a team charity.

In other Dodger news, apparently they are going after Grienke and Sanchez as well.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...on-their-list/

Dodgers looking to add starting pitching, Zack Greinke and Anibal Sanchez “on their list”

Aaron Gleeman

Nov 6, 2012, 4:14 PM EST
9 Comments
Zack Greinke Getty Images

A potential reunion between the Dodgers and Hiroki Kuroda is one thing, but Jayson Stark of ESPN.com reports that Zack Greinke and Anibal Sanchez are also “on their list” as Los Angeles looks to add starting pitching.

Los Angeles’ payroll is already around $200 million, so making a serious run at Greinke or even Sanchez would more or less say the Dodgers can spend whatever they want at this point.

[Dan Druff]

BUMP

I was proven right.

League was mostly useless.

First year 5.30/1.546
Second year 2.57/1.460
Third year Didn't pitch in MLB

Great use of $22.5m.

[Shizzmoney]

same goes for cornerbacks in the NFL