Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, February 17, 2021
The Padres hope to never have to see Fernando Tatis Jr. play a game in another uniform.
The team and it’s wonderkid shortstop took a giant step toward that aim on Wednesday by agreeing to terms on a 14-year contract, according to multiple sources.
The deal is worth $340 million and is the longest in MLB history.
Tatis, who turned 22 on Jan. 2 and has two years of service, has yet to play the equivalent of a full season. But he finished fourth in National League MVP voting in 2020 after batting .277 with a .937 OPS (on-base-plus slugging percentage).
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
At least you can't doubt their commitment to winning. This team has made moves(not all great, though) the last few years which is great for baseball in San Diego.
There's a lot of ways this could go wrong (it's probably more like to go wrong than to go well, in the end), but I love the idea of it -- long-term commitment from both sides.
Profit margins collapsed and now many newspapers are barely more than websites with fancy names.
I hope he is the next Trout. Very exciting. But so young.
- 14 years is a long time, and it seems like there is a not zero chance of this being a really bad deal for the Padres
- I thought Tatis would sign a team friendly deal in exchange for the Padres not playing with his service clock
- Good for Padre fans, though. Not without risk, but eff it.
- I also wonder if this kind of thing might reduce odds of a lockout/strike out?
I think the only caveat with that analysis is that the Padres would already get him for five years at a drastically below market price, so you're really paying for the next nine years, which are much more tenuous.
Sportico LINK
But they’re also paying $24 million per year for his non-prime years.
Not saying it’s a bad contract — I’ll leave that analysis to others. But I would look at this as $340 million for what is likely to be nearly all of Tatis’ career value, regardless of how many years that comes in.
As noted above, they could have had him for 4 more years of team control without having to commit to a long-term deal. I’m sure they are saving a bit of money by entering into this deal now vs waiting 2 or 3 years, but I’m not sure how much.
Yep, the Supreme Court confirmed a few years ago that you can't get double-taxed on state and local income. Wynne v. Maryland Comptroller of Treasury.
That is the only real way to look at it, you assume you overpay at the end, you hope that inflation happens so the overpay doesn't look so bad, and you are pretty certain you are underpaying in the early middle. Add in that once again, baseball gets revenue from people in the seats more than any other sport out there, and this is going to make fans excited to be Padres fans for years to come, so they aren't just buying tickets in advance in July in the years that they are contenders, but now in March.
$24M isn't very much. Top players are getting AAVs over $35M. Especially not 10 years from now. Even 2% inflation reduces the PV to $19.5M in 10 years.
I always love when a team gets congratulated for being "committed".
The Marlins were very committed when they signed Stanton long term.
Tatis appears to not have a no trade clause so he's probably going to get traded before 10 years of service time.
No, it's not. Anytime a player signs one of these deals people say that, and it never happens.
Lot of risk here for the Padres. Good chance this and the Machado contract won't age well. If the current owner flips the team in the next few years, expect the new ownership to want to shed one or more of Machado, Tatis, or Hosmer.
It’s a $340 million contract. AAV is basically irrelevant IMO, except for luxury tax purposes.
We'll see. Harper in Philly definitely got younger people interested in the team and has given an otherwise mediocre team a bit of interest. First time since Utley/Howard/Rollins left that people in the city are actually wearing jerseys of a current player.
Ugh, that offseason of stories about how baseball owners were ####### over players and colluding because Eric "The Best FA Available" Hosmer wasn't signed got old real fast.
Any sort of analysis needs to account for the fact that the Padres could have gone year to year with him for the next four years. So how good this contract is depends on how he produces after 2024. The bet the Padres are making is that he'll be good enough over the next four years that he would get even more money if they signed him then and that he'll be good enough over the following ten years to justify what they'll pay him.
Two things:
1) Who would you rather have, at this moment: Tatis, entering his age 22 season, locked into his age 22-35 seasons for 14/$320m; or Mike Trout, who is locked in for his age 29-38 seasons at 10 years/$371m?
2) Anything is possible, obviously, but Tatis has now played about a full season, if you combine his age 20 and 21 seasons. It's not quite as good with the bat as Trout at those ages, but it is historically rarified air he is in right now. I mean, who in history as been this good this young and didn't end up having an excellent career (as an everyday player, not a pitcher)? Cesar Cedeno (who had a good career, but obviously didn't live up to his early-20s numbers)? Pete Reiser (who missed his age 23 to 25 seasons serving in WWII, and also suffered injuries)?
The list of players who were this good at age 20 or 21 is extremely short,and a few of the names you might compare to Tatis so far were actually not as good by any objective measure. Tony Conigliaro was pretty awesome at ages 19-21 (really, up until he got hit in the eye with a pitch)...but he was never as good as Tatis has already been. Vern Stephens and Vada Pinson come up as highly successful at a really young age, and they were good...but they didn't put up numbers nearly as good as Tatis has thus far.
It really is like, ARod, Griffey, Mantle, Trout...only a few players have been this good, this young. And then you add that he plays SS (at least, for now), so he has plenty of room to move on the defensive spectrum. I think San Diego was smart to get this deal done.
According to Heyman, Tatis will get $34M over his next 4 years and $306M over his 10 free agent years for $340M.
He’ll get a $10M signing bonus w/salaries of $1M $5M $7M and $11M in 1st 4 years. If he continues performing at his current level, $34 million seems like a good ballpark of what he'd make in arbitration (maybe on the low side), and $306MM is a fair estimate of what a 26 year old Tatis would get on the free agent market (again, maybe on the low side). I guess this reflects the Padres taking on some risk that he turns into Gary Templeton (he won't) or Nomar Garciaparra (within the realm of possibility).
Juan Soto.
Not a word I've heretofore encountered, but it shows up in at least a couple of actual dictionaries online, & ... uh ... yeah. Presumably it's code for "I'm too stupid to know the term wunderkind."
From what I can gather you can find people willing to assume a few million dollars of the risk, but a number of major players went bust and after that people weren't too eager to take up the slack.
If we looked at the structure of the contract, we maybe could have seen they actually weren't. The Marlins gave him $6.5M and $9M in arb years, and then $14.5M in his first free agent year before the salaries jumped to $25M+ per year. The Marlins traded him right before the $25M per year kicked in.
And this wasn't the first time the Marlins pulled something like this off. They signed Mark Buerhle to a 4/$58M deal that paid him only $6M in year one, Jose Reyes to a 6/$102M deal that only paid $10M in year one, and Carlos Delgado to a 4/$52M deal that paid $4M in year one, only to move after just one year.
Best OPS, through age 21 (min. 500 PA):
Ted Williams 1.041
Jimmie Foxx 1.015
Albert Pujols 1.013
Mel Ott .986
Hal Trosky .976
Juan Soto .972
Fernando Tatis, Jr. 956
Mike Trout .948
Cody Bellinger .933
Joe DiMaggio .928
The first "bust" on the list is Bob Horner at #19 at .879, then Stanton depending on whether you think he's a bust.
So basically they are giving him another $280-290 million in exchange for locking up years 5-14. They are also basically taking on 4 years of performance/injury risk that he would have borne if they had waited until he hit free agency to try to sign him.
$280-290 million per year is a discount relative to what he might sign for in 4 years assuming that he keeps his performance level up. (Machado signed for $300/10 years and Tatis is arguably better). So it seems like a reasonable deal from that standpoint. At $8M/WAR, Tatis needs to generate ~36 WAR in years 5-14 to make this deal work, a bit more than that (maybe 45? I don’t know) if you want to price in the addition risk that the Padres are taking on by signing the deal today rather than waiting a few years. Not a crazy number but not a given, either. Which I guess is what deals like this should be.
If you think the “market price” of a win is less than $8M then it’s a bit of a tougher sell.
Similar Batters through 21
Vern Stephens (896.5)
Carlos Correa (881.2)
Garry Templeton (870.9)
Mike Caruso (866.0)
Jim Fregosi (864.7)
Alex Rodriguez (862.1)
Starlin Castro (859.8)
Arky Vaughan (854.2)
Dick Bartell (853.8)
Bob Horner (848.2)
Well, a 14 year deal for Hal Trosky would have been a disaster. Though in that case he fought in WWII, which basically ended his career (he came back after the war, but was nowhere near the player he was). The 5.7 WAR that Trosky put up at age 21 was the highest of his career, but he did put up better rate stats in 1939.
But even Trosky wouldn't be a disaster. He had 25 WAR left. If Tatis could replicate that offense at SS we're probably around 35 WAR. Heading off to war in 2028 won"t be fun.
This reminds me that Ronald Acura and Albies were not the big deal international signees when they were first put under contract either. I think they got Acura for $100,000, which doesn’t seem among the higher international bonuses they typically pay.
Kevin Maitain was the next Miggy and the prize signee his year. He is still eating his way through the minor leagues.
Was Juan Soto the big deal signing his year?
We spend so much time anguishing over draft choices and successes in the MLB draft. Does anyone ever look at how good or bad we are at identifying the future stars on the international front?
Since you're picking guys at 16 rather than 18-22, it has to be a lot more random.
If Tatis remains this good, he'll be making AAV in arb his last couple years. Sure, any long contract is a risk, but I like the deal and the fact that it only takes him through 36.
The Cubs under Theo also structured contracts so they paid very little in year 1 and sometimes year 2. See Lester and several others from the middle of the last decade.
Well, they say they are 16...
That would make it even more unpredictable!
FWIW, he has a full no-trade clause. Those can always be waived though.
James Shields was traded for two players on the Padres who have a combined $400M in contracts (Wil Myers being the other).
That Tatis/Shields trade was panned, not only because the Padres were clearly looking to dump Shields' salary, but because of Tatis. While no one thought this was the most likely result, people did think he had a high ceiling.
Signing a 22-year-old player to a record 14-year deal seems like an insane risk... "irrational exuberance" comes to mind.
I mean, I do hope it turns out well but Tatis could spend the next 3-5 years looking like the next Willie Mays and then suddenly have an unexpected downturn and ending up being the next Cesar Cedeno.
Cedeno put up 52 War over his career. Pinson, the other poster child for brilliant starts/fade early, put up 54 WAR. Though not overly satisfying, those totals would make the contract worthwhile.
95% of the players on those lists where the player is super young and has stats whereby they are in the same conversation as Trout, Williams, Ott, etc, turn out to be great players. These are precisely the type of players you give these contracts to if you are a team that hands these out.
Now you may think the idea of the 10/320 contract is a dumb one, and I can see that, but for SD I think it's a great move and shows they are willing to try to compete with the Dodger blue wave that seems to continue to roll on.
It also includes ARod and Arky Vaughan.
EDIT: coke to 44. Read more carefully Ron
Many of the projection sysytems in fact do something conceptually similar to similarity scores. I suspect Szym would not find (say) Mike Caruso of any value in projecting Tatis.
And Shields went 4-12 with a 6.77 ERA after the trade, and was almost as bad for two more years after that, and the White Sox didn't come close to winning anything. The Padres paid most of his salary during that time but the Sox still had to pay him about $25 million for that performance, then another $2 million to buy out his contract. Hey, it's only money!
14 years is a long long contract.
A lot can happen.
#66 Tatis hit well and was a highly ranked prospect in the minors, too. It’s not like he just came up and had a great 140 games out of nowhere.
But like any player, he could have an early decline. He also hasn’t been particularly durable during his time in the majors so far (hamstring and back injuries). He can miss some time and this contract will still look fine, but if he suffers a longer term, lingering injury that affects his performance or ability to take the field, that would be bad.
But like I said earlier, I don’t think it’s a bad contract. I think they probably just signed it a year or two early.
In a year or two, Tatis probably doesn't a 14/$340M deal. Maybe a 12/$330M or $14/$400 though.
Actually probably more than 330, as I was estimating with two arb years knocked off instead of just one.
Sure, these are still ballplayers and a lot can happen. But ZiPS, which knows a thing or two about how players decline, thinks he's easily worth it. Taking the 50th percentile projection of 11 WAR over the next two years, you don't get a deal near as good as 14/$340 for him in two years.
Because you gave up some of the risk that he might flame out, and now that he's closer to free agency, he has less incentive to have his arb years bought it.
Of course every team would love to say "I would like the same deal but just with less risk on my end". But that's not things work. The same deal isn't available in two years.
Tulo is closer but didn't really hit until 24. Over the ages covered by this contract, he put up 45 WAR.
Fregosi is a reasonable comp who got hurt at 29 ... 44 WAR. Nomar didn't get started until 23 ... 44 WAR. Pinson 22-35: 42 WAR. Cedeno 41 WAR. As scary tales go, 40-45 WAR for $340M is weak sauce.
It's certainly fair to question whether they could have gotten something like 8/$200 (or whatever) that would still make him FA by 30 but nobody's too concerced about what happens if he goes off a cliff at 30.
Frank Thomas had a "diminished skills" clause in his contract. I wonder if anyone has ever had a clause that puts the risk of catastrophic injury on the player? Hard to define "catastrophic" of course, but you'd think Roy Campanella would count, and I'd trust the ingenuity of lawyers (or arbitrators) to hand cases short of that.
I’d rather wait two years and sign him for 12/$350 than sign him for 14/$340 today (assuming he performs). Maybe I’m just stupidly risk averse but that extra 2 years at the back end aren’t worth much while getting to wait 2 years before making a $300+ million commitment has a lot of value.
Again, I'm not, but maybe I havent communicated my point well.
Ok, maybe I have. And, fair enough Dave. But youre not getting an extra two years on the back end with a 12 year deal in two years versus a 14 year deal now. Youre simply just paying more for not taking on the risk sooner.
I think this deal is a steal for the Padres.
With the caveat that I dont study the economics of baseball or how free agency works. Just explain like Im 5.
But: The team that signs him is unlikely to get a bargain. Free agents as a group are overpaid a fair amount if one looks at their contribution to marginal revenue. However it is worth noting that the worst signings as a group are second tier players (because if they slip they become expensive dead weight). And if Tatis is walking to get a mega contract he doesn't qualify as second tier.
In the end it's a calculated risk. If he stays reasonably healthy and takes reasonable care of himself (Eddie Mathews and Andruw Jones are two obvious cautionary tales here) they rate to be very pleased that they signed the deal. There is some chance that his career to date is not a true level of talent, but it's pretty rare for a player to hit this well and be way over his head.
EDIT: Or to put that last point another way, a 155 OPS+ is not in itself of signature significance. See Jim Hickman. 155 OPS+ by a 21 year old SS though? Damned few have played that well that young. The comps start with Arky Vaughan and ARod.
I'm not sure how many times I'll need to say it, I'm not referring to exactly which years he gets, but the change in risk you are going to take on by signing him now versus getting more data points on his ability.
Plus an arb year coming in the first two and, in this hypothetical, you're likely looking at having to pay $360M to get him over those 14 years rather than $340M. That extra $20M is the cost of reducing your risk.
I agree. If Tatis and Machado star on the left-side of that infield for 10 years and lead them to a few pennants and a Championships it's a franchise redefining deal. As the only team in SD, the Padres have the chance to own the city if they can slay the Dodger monster.
The risk to the Padres is far more substantial. I still love the deal for all involved and hope McCoy is wrong about where Tatis plays those 36 million dollar years.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main