Bear with me for a moment. I recognize that this is a relatively small issue I’m about to get into, but it’s Monday, and I’m a little under the weather, and there’s not much else going on other than 40,000 Manny Ramirez rumors. I understand he’s accepted a sponsor’s exemption to the FBR Open, and will be guesting on a three-episode arc of “House” during the May sweeps.
Last month, the Florida Marlins non-tendered right-handed reliever Joe Nelson. Nelson was the Marlins’ best reliever last season, leading the team’s pen in strikeouts, strikeout rate, K/BB, and ERA. That he doesn’t show as well in the context-adjusted stats-he was just sixth in WXRL-points to how he was used, but inning-for-inning, he was their best reliever. The Marlins, apparently concerned about Nelson’s eligibility for arbitration, declined to offer him a contract and allowed him to become a free agent. Nelson subsequently signed a one-year, $1.3 million contract with the Rays. It seems fair to say that the free-market salary Nelson got represents an upper bound on his potential cost, so the Marlins probably could have kept him for that same $1.3 million. Again: their best reliever last year, and they’d already traded away Kevin Gregg and cut loose Doug Waechter. Non-tendering him was a pretty questionable decision at the time.
Fast forward to last week, and the news emerges that the Marlins have reached an agreement with Scott Proctor on a contract for 2009 worth $750,000, and another $250,000 in incentives. Now, the Nelson decision looks so bad you might think it makes cars for a living.
The Marlins had a reliever coming off of a healthy and effective season, with some history of success in his past, who they could have retained for a minimal investment. Instead, they cut him loose and brought in a pitcher who, although two years younger, is a much higher risk, is coming off of a brutal season curtailed by injury, and who looks for all the world like a pitcher broken by a two-year stretch of overuse. Proctor is 26 months younger than Nelson, but his elbow is much, much older than 32.
IP RA BB SO HR Proctor 2008 38.2 6.98 24 46 7 Nelson 2008 54.0 2.67 22 60 5
For want of $550,000-probably less than that-the Marlins traded the guy on the bottom for the guy on the top. Those lines don’t reflect that Proctor will be coming off of elbow surgery, or that he made 83 appearances in both 2006 and 2007 before the elbow went bad in ’08. Moreover, it’s not like Scott Proctor has any upside. He’s 32, and we know what his career years look like. He’s never had a season like Nelson’s 2008, and while it’s a lot to expect that Nelson would repeat that performance, the gap in the two pitchers’ upsides is significant. The Marlins don’t have a slew of young arms they’re making room for, as is made clear by their need to sign Scott Proctor and his sling. They simply wanted to save what amounts to a rounding error in the overall team budget.
Why am I making such a big deal over this? Well, I got in trouble last month when the Marlins non-tendered Nelson, for calling the team “a blight on the face of the American sports landscape.” I stand by that statement. I’m certain there are Marlins fans, and I’m certain that there is an argument to be made that their approach to success cycles has some merit. However, you have a sports organization that has, for more than a decade, had exactly one goal, and that goal has not been “to win a championship.” That the Marlins fell into a title in 2003 happened, but the real goal of this franchise has been to get its hands on hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local tax revenues in the form of a new stadium. They haven’t cared how much of an embarrassment they’ve become, haven’t cared that their payroll falls below the central fund revenues they get from the rest of the league, haven’t cared that the actual attendance at their games often falls below five thousand people. They can turn a profit, and they can continue to make a reach for that $300 million jackpot.
That makes you a blight on the face of the American sports landscape. It makes Jeffrey Loria an abomination as an owner. It does not, I should emphasize, reflect upon Larry Beinfest or the baseball operations staff, who have done yeoman’s work under awful circumstances. That doesn’t mean that the franchise should continue to exist though, because it exists solely and entirely to steal taxpayer money.
The Marlins made themselves appreciably worse for 2009 so they could save a half-million bucks. Just go away already.
One other thing…the Associated Press story on the signing included this gem:
The Marlins needed bullpen help after the departures this offseason of right-handers Kevin Gregg to the Chicago Cubs, Doug Waechter to Kansas City, and Joe Nelson to Tampa Bay.
There’s absolutely no context presented for that paragraph, so let me fill it in. Those pitchers are gone, but they’re gone because the Marlins dumped them. Gregg was traded (in a great deal), Waechter was outrighted to the minors, and Nelson was non-tendered. The above implies that the Marlins have been decimated by the loss of their best relievers to free agency, when in fact it was the Marlins who cut ties with each and every one of them. The noun isn’t “departures,” it’s “dumping.” Read the sentence with that one word change and decide for yourself which is factual.
We know that columnists aren’t going to comment on the truth-that the Marlins have become an embarrassment to MLB, sucking up industry dollars through the welfare program and tax dollars through other means-but it would be nice if the reporters would make an effort to get the facts right, so that it didn’t look like a complete and total cover-up.
Sorry, Doug. We’re still trying.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
Montreal deserves a team. Montreal even supported the team it had before the strike.
Win or lose Montrealers never supported the Expos.
I went to one of their last games in 2004 and it was a joke; the bus driver dropped me off at the furthest corner of the Park because I dared interrupt his conversation with two colleagues in the broken French that labeled me a hated Anglophone. I had to walk so far that I counted three raccoons and a skunk along the way to the stadium, all so I could join about 300 baseball fans who bothered to show up. The paid attendance may well have been in the thousands but only members of the Gary Carter and Andre Dawson fan club ever showed up for the actual games so I have no idea what you\'re talking about that suggests support of the Expos.
Loria may very well have sold them out but Montreal clearly never deserved a team before or after the strike.
Not the best comparison but didn\'t those same Montrealers manage to run the Quebec Nordiques out of town because Quebec City happens to be too close to their fan base?
Maybe it\'s because the Canadiens have traditionally dominated the NHL that the fans are so snotty towards other sports?!? Montreal has no tolerance of anything other than the Habs yet they have the best sports coverage in Canada and boast many of the best sportswriters in Canada. Go figure.
That city and their fans got screwed.
https://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1467
Loria\'s just a hatchet man for Selig and MLB. Perhaps Joe\'s \"Angel of Death\" moniker needs revamping - Loria is MLB\'s extortionist-in-chief. He\'ll either force a city to cough up an expensive publicly-funded stadium on favorable terms, or he\'ll take the substantial payout when MLB finds another city with a buyer and public funding. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
Keep up the good work.
Then some other people chimed in and called him Stephen A. Smith and silly things of that sort.
However while I will never defend the ownership, I still don\'t him like calling the entire franchise, which to me is more than just Jeffrey, a blight.
Was this a bad move that stinks of dropping money? Yes of course. Should they get the publicly funded stadium? No of course not.
Do all of these things equate to being an embarrasment? And a blight on the landscape of American sports landscape? I would say no. I am heavily biased of course because I have been a fan since opening day, and been there through the Two championships in that time. I can name a lot of teams that it sucks to root for way more, that one thing is for sure.
1. Are you suggesting that we should give a team like the Nationals or the Pirates brownie points for trying (and failing) to spend 2 or 3 times as much as Marlins?
2. Why the griping over the publicly funded stadium? The Miami city government isn\'t some puppet organization. They decided that they had something to gain long-term by enticing the Marlins to move to their city. I don\'t understand the intricacies exactly, but the stadium would obviously result in decades of additional tax revenue for the city. Even if you just consider the state, growth\'s good for everyone.
I don\'t even know what to say anymore. I\'m done.
i realize that you were just trying to make an analogy (and that your intentions were noble), but please don\'t bring non-baseball politics into the discussion. there are many of us that don\'t buy the \"majority\" view on many current issues, yet still can criticize the AP for its baseball coverage.
The franchise is a business and should be / is being run that way.
------------
Joe is right...it\'s a blight.
[Sarcasm off.]
It\'s well documented that winning games leads to revenue at measurable, marginal rates. The BP writers had a nice long piece on this in _Baseball Beyond The Numbers_. One can confidently say that the difference between Nelson and Proctor has a revenue value, and it\'s more than $500,000. I wouldn\'t mind seeing someone with a little more familiarity with the math and a little more time drawing it out like that.
I\'m a fan of the Oakland Athletics, so I know the hard realities of not having a franchise with unlimited resources, but there are risks one takes to be competitive, that sometimes work and sometimes don\'t (Mulder trade yay, Hudson trade oops), and then there\'s just not paying attention to the larger picture in the name of making short term money.
Still, looking purely by WXRL, Proctor was a net negative (-0.256) while Nelson contributed about 0.866 wins . . . I\'m pretty sure the lowest reasonable spot on the curve in BBTN for 1 win was a value of about $450,000, and that was a few seasons ago, so I would guess that a middling team with at least some shot at the playoffs can easily justify the 1-win upgrade for 550k. With 15 more IP for Nelson, it\'s an unreal easy decision.
Frankly, I just don\'t think that 54 innings by a 34 year-old guy who has only 100 innings in the majors is, well, even a small deal.
Relievers and bullpens are a crapshoot, as is repeated over and over on this site, and you\'re attributing motive to a baseball decision when you don\'t know all the circumstances. Maybe Nelson is a jerk in the clubhouse. Maybe the coaches can\'t work with him. Maybe the Marlins notice he doesn\'t take his conditioning seriously. Sure Proctor is probably a poor replacement, but he doesn\'t have to stay on the big league roster all year and pitch the 7th inning every game.
And Washington would still be without a team, which saddens me to think of, but would have been the most just outcome.
Any why not, Joe, isn\'t Larry ultimately the one making the day-to-day decisions on who to keep and who to sign? I know he works at the behest of ownership, but simply presenting the case you made here for keeping Nelson should have been sufficient even for a cheapskate.
Furthermore, the Pirates enjoy the advantages of over a century of continuous existence in the same city and the attendant deeply rooted fan loyalties and revenue streams. (I\'m probably reaching here. I, like 330,000 of the Pitt\'s former residents over the past 50 years, haven\'t spent much time there.) More importantly, they play in one of the best ballparks in baseball--financed with taxpayers\' money, of course.
When seemingly every other franchise--including those perennial paupers the Yankees--gets to treat municipal bond issues like GM treats its pension fund (topical!), can you really blame Loria for trying to do the same?
Of course we all want to live in a world were every team single-mindedly pursues championships at all costs. But baseball is business first and baseball second. Sure, I\'d play for free, but you wouldn\'t find me mopping up the flooded urinals under the right field bleachers in Babe\'s crib for nothin\'.
Nevertheless, not offerring a serviceable, underpriced reliever like Nelson arbitration and then turning around and signing Proctor is seemingly indefensible. I watched most of the 158 innings he threw with the Yankees in that one-and-a-half season stretch and that probably understates his mileage, given Bigelow Joe\'s adorable tendency to dry-hump him just about every other day. Then again, Proctor seems like a decent dude and he\'ll probably throw more innings than a certain petulant Arkansasian whose five year dower already feels like at least a mollymawk.
As for how he was as an owner...that is a completely different story
Give the man some credit - he looked at his competitive environment and saw that good organization, management, scouting, and player development could put a winning team on the field year after year; without resort to the crapshoot of paying FAs exorbitant amounts for past performance.
The Twins made the playoffs 4 times the past 8 seasons (and came within a game last year of making it 5), had only 1 losing season during that stretch; and has a roster full of young, home-grown talent that will continue to contend for years.
Baseball needs MORE Carl Pohlads, and more fans capable of appreciating good ownership when they see it.
I\'m not saying that what Loria is doing is \"right\" (a question that\'s irrelevant in my view) but it seems foolish to focus on perfectly rational behavior, rather than on the structures that not only give rise to Loria\'s behavior, but would and will give rise to similar behavior by other actors present and future. The reason this is folly is that it creates the impression that the problem is some moral failing of Loria\'s when, in fact, the problem is of a different kind. If we focus only on Loria, we don\'t fix the bigger issue.
As for the Marlins ownership,yeah, sure, and yet... they\'ve won. Recently. Twice. That complicates my impulse to condemn their practices. As for extortion of taxpayer money for a stadium... um, that\'s MLB ownership 101.
Why is Loria a bad guy because he insists on turning a profit ? I’m sure the Yankees turn a profit too. The Steinbrenner’s probably spend 50% of their revenues on salaries and are good guys because that happens to work out to $200mm, but Loria is a jerk because he spends 70% of his revenues which is only $30mm ? I’m making those numbers up, but I have to believe that no matter how cheap Loria is, there is no way the Marlins have a higher gross margin than the Yankees. So, why aren’t the Yankees labeled the cheap bastards ?
You can argue it’s terrible that Loria wants to stick the taxpayers with a bill for a new stadium ok fine. But how much higher are average ticket prices today because of the foolish, uncontrolled spending of owners like Steinbrenner, Angelos, Moreno, McCourt, etc. ? What’s worse for John Q. Public paying for a new stadium with tax dollars or not being able to go to the games once the stadium is built because of the grotesque ticket prices jammed down people’s throats by spendthrift owner’s in large markets ?
I know that ticker prices are impacted by a number of factors, not just player salaries, but it seems to me that the lack of a salary cap, and the lack of revenue sharing has created a situation where large market teams “buy†their way out of mistakes. This unfair advantage set up a cycle of inflating player salaries, creating a dire need for new revenues for smaller market teams, causing new stadiums to be built(with smaller capacities to limit supply and increase price, thereby maximizing revenue), etc. The new revenues were spent on player salaries, and on and on it went. It was/is a bubble. It will of course pop. Meanwhile we lambaste a guy like Loria who wins and makes money in the worst market in MLB, and praise stupid fat cats like the Yankees whose main skill is buying their way out of mistakes. Beautiful, I guess that’s the American way these days, but I can’t help but think that a league of Loria’s with a salary cap and revenue sharing would mean that I could:
a) have an expectation that my team has as much a chance of winning as any other team
b) take my family to a game with decent seats for less than $200 per game
What’s so wrong with that ?