“We’d rather have the money.”
That’s what the Toronto Blue Jays decided this week, looking at Alex Rios on the one hand, and about $61 million on the other. They decided that they would rather have the cash, and they preferred the cash so much that they didn’t even need to get a prospect or a player or so much as a thank-you card in exchange for Rios. They simply let him be claimed on waivers by the Chicago White Sox, and just like that, they executed the largest salary dump in baseball history.
The seven-year, $69 million contract Rios signed back in April of 2008 looks ridiculous now, of course. He’s been durable and good defensively since that point, but he just hasn’t hit: .280/.328/.447 with just 72 unintentional walks in 1162 plate appearances. While that kind of production is acceptable for a corner outfielder who plays plus defense, it represents Rios’ line for his age-27 and age-28 seasons, and is far below what the Jays expected when they signed him to the contract coming off his best season in 2007. In that year, Rios played in 161 games and hit .297/.354/.498. It was the second straight year in which he’d hit for both average and power, following some early-career issues with getting the ball in the air. His walk rate and K/BB had improved for the second straight season. He looked like a player coming into his peak with developing skills to match his impressive tools.
It wasn’t unreasonable, 16 months ago, to regard Rios as good enough to be a core player on a championship-caliber team. There was the issue of his value to the Blue Jays, who with Vernon Wells‘ contract in center field wouldn’t play Rios at the position where he’d be worth the most to them. There was his already being signed for 2008, although a back-loaded long-term deal made that a non-issue-his salary actually fell significantly that year. There was, and this may be most important, Rios’ advanced age; the Jays were signing him not for his early peak through late peak, but for his entire peak on into his decline. That Rios was 27 on the day the deal was signed limited the upside he could provide during it. Even at that, the clear improvement in his skills from 2005 through 2007 gave the deal an echo of the John Hart-era Indians, where a team was investing in its future by locking up its homegrown players to long-term deals.
Unfortunately, Rios stopped developing. He went back to walking less and striking out more, not radically so, but enough to alter the value of a player who had marginal rates in those categories to begin with. He went back to hitting the ball on the ground, again not as much as he used to, but enough to make him a less-valuable batter. The problem with his 2006 and 2007 weren’t the seasons themselves, but that he had no room for error off of them. Any regression-and regression is always a possibility-would cripple his value. When Rios went back to walking 40 times a year (instead of 55) and hitting ground balls 41 percent of the time (versus 37 percent), it was enough to turn a fledgling star into a disappointment-but one now being paid at a very high rate of pay.
In retrospect, we also know where the market for corner outfielders went. Had the Jays waited a year, they would not only have been signing a less-impressive version of Rios, but they would have had the backdrop of Adam Dunn and Bobby Abreu and Manny Ramirez struggling to find suitors in their favor, as opposed to the silly market that made Jose Guillen a very wealthy man. You can’t blame J.P. Ricciardi for not seeing that developing 16 months ago.
What you can blame Ricciardi for is the one flaw that crops up time and again in his tenure: his uncanny ability to pay for a player at the absolute peak of his market value. He signed Rios when he was coming off of the best year of his career, which followed his second-best. The appalling Wells extension happened after 2006, which was just the second year in his career that Vernon Wells was a star. As Keith Law points out at ESPN.com, Ricciardi has repeatedly made bad financial decisions, both on players in-house such as Rios and Wells and on free agents like Corey Koskie and B.J. Ryan. Ricciardi signs players coming off of huge years, and contracts such as those have nothing to do but turn out as overpays. Ricciardi is never the guy signing Frank Thomas to a one-year, make-good deal and watching him become an MVP candidate; he’s the guy who signs Thomas for $18 million a year later and hopes he does it twice.
It’s not like Ricciardi is the only GM in baseball history to have this flaw. The fundamental error in the free-agent market, going back 30 years, is paying players for the year they just had as if it represents their level of performance going forward, when even a cursory look at the evidence will tell you otherwise. Rios, Wells, Ryan, and Burnett were all cases of signing a player coming off of a career year and mistaking that career year for something more. Exacerbating the problem is that Ricciardi, whether through necessity or preference, backloaded his biggest deals, so that three-quarters of Wells’ money gets paid in the last four years of the deal, and 70 percent of Rios’ deal is paid in the last four years; Ryan also got (and will get) most of his money on the back end. The further from the player’s peak you get, the more money the Blue Jays owe them. That’s a problem in the best of circumstances and it’s a disaster when the players aren’t good enough to earn their salaries.
Alex Rios is a decent baseball player, largely because he’s a terrific defensive right fielder and would be a good center fielder. He doesn’t draw enough walks or hit the ball in the air enough to fully capitalize on his talents, and because of this, he falls short of being a superstar. His contract, signed at the apex of his perceived value, only makes sense if he performs at the level at which he peaked, and few players sustain that kind of work. The Blue Jays will be rebuilding to one extent or another, and are better off for the $61 million that they’ll save and for now being able to get both Adam Lind and Travis Snider into the lineup simultaneously. The White Sox threw them a rope this time; however, it’s high time J.P. Ricciardi stopped doing things that require him to be rescued.
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
b) The title could have been 100x better with the simple addition of the word 'the'.
This was a bad contract when it was signed. However, the Jays probably got a good value based on what they actually paid Rios for a year and half. It reminds me of the backloaded contract that the Marlins signed Delgado for before flipping him to the Mets after a year.
To put it another way, Rios at $12 mil last year, then $10 this year, $9 next year, down to $6.5 in 2015 seems like a more reasonable allocation of cash. than doing the exact reverse.
I'm just curious, because it seems like a great way for teams to structure contracts, but I suspect players hate it because it's a lower starting number should they end up in arbitration at the end of the contract.
Also, the time value of money argument is missing out on the fact that by backloading the contract you are severly limiting your possibilities for the future. If Rios' contract was more evenly spread surely he could have netted more than nothing. While flawed, Rios is certainly better than a lot of the outfielders being traded out there (Hairston, Hinske, Guiterrez (probably), Milledge) for something. JP's backloading basically destroyed the trade value of Rios.
In isolation I suppose you could argue that this mistake showed an optimism in the development of a budding player that didn't pay off. However, given JP's track record this is another mistake in a long line that leaves me wondering how it is possible that he is still around to make them.
I write this in theory, because the arbitration issue inn practice supersedes all of this.
They either backloaded these at the advice of Ricciardi (who thought he would be outta here in a couple years if Rios, Wells, Burnett and Ryan didn't produce - thus making the back-end of the contracts his predecessor's problem - or would be enjoying the fruits of competing) or to try to spend draw in as many players as they could in the first two years and then deal with it later.
For those accounting / finance nerds, if you go into the notes of Rogers Communications financial statements for the last quarter, they actually disclose that they are taking a writedown on BJ Ryan's contract. I had a good chuckle until I became depressed thinking about what a waste of money it was.
Generally when I'm trying to come up with a WACC, if the comparable company or opportunity betas are producing something significantly higher or lower than 10% (unless it's in a volatile industry like biotech where it's justified), I always try to fudge it to get close to 10%. Much easier to justify "everything is around 10%". Pretty much just assumes a beta of 1 and then a 6% risk premium + 4% risk free rate. Easy enough!
Kind of like using batting average instead of OPS+ or another advanced stat in comparing players now that I think about it.
Finances 101. They say it on every TV commercial for mutual fund companies, etc. Past performance is not a guarantee of future success:
http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/investstrategiesstyles/a/aa081906a.htm
I don't agree at all with this. What about Scutaro this year? What about the non-BJ Ryan bullpen for his entire tenure with the team?
When does Burnett exercise the "out"? When he's pitching well (see: what really happened). When does he stay with the Jays? When he's hurt and has to miss work. So, the way the deal was structured, the "upside" was taken away without any protection from the risk.
This was a case where if that was the clause required to get a deal done, the Jays needed to just do without Burnett.
Rios (age 26) .297/.345/.498 .201 ISO 7.9% BB rate
Beltran (age 27) .267/.367/.548 .280 ISO 13.3% BB rate
The other main difference besides Beltran's better power, patience and track record is that Beltran was a free agent so the Mets had to bid against all other teams to get him while the Blue Jays had the option of taking Rios to arbitration twice more before deciding whether or not to give him 70 million dollars.
Strike three (or is it more) against Ricciardi is that he didn't trade Scuataro last month at the height of his value, and perhaps Barajas, too.
The problem for Ricciardi and the Jays is that always think they are on the verge of contending and don't realize they need to rebuild the entire offense. The pitching is in decent shape especially with Dustin McGowan, Jesse Litsch, Casey Janssen, and Shaun Marcum returning from injury. But the internal improvement of adding Randy Ruiz and Travis Snider won't be enough to overcome weaknesses from 5/9ths of their lineup.
And if they simply just weren't in the AL east, most of that would also be true minus the handful of division titles.
Anyone have an example of this really working out (I mean as an organizational philosphy, as opposed to just one or two players like Wright or Longoria)?
I've been one of JP's biggest defenders for quite a while, but this was incredibly boneheaded. The only explanation that makes any sense was the ownership told him to cut salary, and the only way he could do that with Wells on the books was to let Rios go.
Rios will be an asset for the White Sox.
They held on to Halladay (not to mention Overbay, Scutaro and Downs), presumably to "compete" next year in a division where they were already well out-gunned by 3 teams.
Moving Rios and Rolen are great business/long-term decisions. But they certainly don't make the team any better for next year, they make them worse.
So, again, what's the logic behind paying Halladay a lot of money to pitch for an extra year and a half for this sinking non-contender?
If they are in sell mode, they are certainly not executing properly and selling their assets at their highest values.
If they are trying to compete, they aren't effectively adding anything. JP's job is in jeopardy, and he knows it, and is basically just running around like a chicken with its head cutoff versus actually redefining or executing the Jays' long term strategy.
In fairness to Ricciardi (and I use fairness lightly since he has botched his real window to compete in the last few years), he is between a rock and a hard place. The Jays are missing key pieces to compete, but have too many talented young positional players and pitchers to enter rebuilding. Ideally they would use that, and go out an effectively add guys through trades or free agency, but I think with the death of Ted Rogers, they aren't going to have much room to add payroll. Unless they drastically reduce or add payroll, they are going to be a perpetually mediocore team until a salary cap is instituted (not going to happen), the # of playoff teams is expanded (not going to happen), or there is a divisional realignment and they get moved to the AL Central (also not going to happen)... basically, I don't see them as anything beyond a 75-85 win team for the indefinite future.
Perhaps that will be easier to do in the off-season when playoff-contending teams are more likely to part with Major League talent that could help the Jays immediately. But I have little faith in Ricciardi 1) understanding this is something he needs to do and 2) being able to evaluate the talent properly to get the right bundle in return for their ace.
Joe: Please do an article about all the baseball moves in the past 33 years where this "fundamental error" happens (you can have your interns or BP IDOL rejects do the research). You can start by closely examining Hendry, Wade, Syd Thrift, Littlefield, Bonifay and whoever paid Nick Esasky. This readership loves to see voluminous data.
The Jays, provided they use the available dollars to reinvest into their team more efficiently and not just cut salary, should also be improved. They could spread around the $10 mill per quite nicely. They have a lot of good players on that team.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8459
Dexter Carter isn't even on the list and he was clearly the Sox 2nd or 3rd pitching prospect (with Poreda).
The top 3 Sox prospects were and are Flowers, Hudson and Danks. In Poreda and Carter, the Padres got 2 of the next 3 plus a solid 4/5 starter in Richard and a weird pitcher in Russell that they might be able to turn around.
One thing I don't like to hear from some baseball pundits is criticism of Ricciardi for giving Alex Rios the lucrative contract at the beginning of the 2008 season AND criticism of Ricciardi for mitigating the damage by letting Rios go for nothing. Perhaps the Blue Jays could have gotten something for him, perhaps not. But the team does have more financial flexibility because of this move.
I don't think letting Rios go for nothhing can be evaluated properly until we see what the Jays do in the off-season with their newfound flexibility. If I were the general manager I'd bank the savings for a year or two while the team was rebuilt, but that probably won't happen.
I mean, if Riccardi hadn't put the Jays in this situation, then he wouldn't have needed a "good move" to get payroll flexibility.
It should also be stressed that the Rios contract was not entirely indefensible on its own but rather extremely troubling in the context that Ricciardi always pays too much for players coming off peak years. Joe Posnanski had a great piece at SI.com on the worst contracts in baseball and Ricciardi is responsible for three of the 11 he listed -- and it could have been more if Pos considered contracts that are no longer in effect (Frank Thomas) -- leading Posnanski to suggest renaming bad contracts 'Ricciardis'. Great idea.
Not likely, but biting on Rios wasn't likely either ...