Steven Straburg post World Series contract, MLBs worst ever?

[War Eagle]

With Strasburg on the brink of retiring, his post world series contract has to go down as worst ever in MLB, right?

He signed a $245 million, guaranteed, contract. Since signing that deal he complete 31 1/3 innings pitched. Injury after injury, he just could not remain healthy.

Breaking that down, he received;

$460k per pitch
$2.6m per out
$7.8m per inning
$30.6m per start.

 

[JB]

Its definitely at or near the top of the list. There are a few others that jump out to me.

Ellsbury with Boston was bad.
Caminiti with the Rangers was really bad.
Andruw Jones with the Dodgers was awful at the end.

many will point to Bonilla but that isnt even in the same ballpark as Strawburg or the above.

 

[JW Smoove]

Not going to disagree, but I assume any team would have done the same - sign the reigning WS MVP. I can think of a lot of terrible contracts, but his, SS was bad due to health issues that the team and ownership had thought were over (based on play the couple prior seasons). I rarely feel for overpaid athletes, but this guy went the extra mile to try and return to the game - and it may have affected his comfort for the rest of his life. I hope he is ok in the end.

Are not all MLB contracts guaranteed (by the way).

So, to answer your question, yes, likely to be the worst, but there are to me anyway, many far worse contracts - where they stay on the roster and fail to perform for years (I forget his name but the Orioles had power hitter that was that way) as one example. At least the woeful Nats (who are playing great BB now) had his roster spot open.

 

[TRyan]

It is the worst contract of all time in baseball.

The fact there is no injury / disability insurance makes it even worse.

 

[JW Smoove]

It is the worst contract of all time in baseball.

The fact there is no injury / disability insurance makes it even worse.

That's the part I don't get, his history was clear, yet they passed. I heard or read that the insurance was pretty pricy as well.

 

[JB]

It is the worst contract of all time in baseball.

The fact there is no injury / disability insurance makes it even worse.

The insurance was astronimical. It was a terrible deal and they should have let him walk.

 

[TRyan]

The insurance was astronimical. It was a terrible deal and they should have let him walk.

Agreed on all points.

 

[brians]

Not going to disagree, but I assume any team would have done the same - sign the reigning WS MVP. I can think of a lot of terrible contracts, but his, SS was bad due to health issues that the team and ownership had thought were over (based on play the couple prior seasons). I rarely feel for overpaid athletes, but this guy went the extra mile to try and return to the game - and it may have affected his comfort for the rest of his life. I hope he is ok in the end.

Are not all MLB contracts guaranteed (by the way).

So, to answer your question, yes, likely to be the worst, but there are to me anyway, many far worse contracts - where they stay on the roster and fail to perform for years (I forget his name but the Orioles had power hitter that was that way) as one example. At least the woeful Nats (who are playing great BB now) had his roster spot open.

Not going to disagree, but I assume any team would have done the same - sign the reigning WS MVP. I can think of a lot of terrible contracts, but his, SS was bad due to health issues that the team and ownership had thought were over (based on play the couple prior seasons). I rarely feel for overpaid athletes, but this guy went the extra mile to try and return to the game - and it may have affected his comfort for the rest of his life. I hope he is ok in the end.

Are not all MLB contracts guaranteed (by the way).

So, to answer your question, yes, likely to be the worst, but there are to me anyway, many far worse contracts - where they stay on the roster and fail to perform for years (I forget his name but the Orioles had power hitter that was that way) as one example. At least the woeful Nats (who are playing great BB now) had his roster spot open.

Yes the Chris Davis one was uncomfortably bad. Uncomfortable because he somehow got lots of sympathy for trying but just being awful. But, at least he was on the field, during a rebuild, so it didn’t hurt quite so much.

 

[JB]

Agreed on all points.

That team will continue to be set back for a while won't they?
It seems DC always finds a way to steal some money, maybe they can give some to the team

 

[brians]

The insurance was astronimical. It was a terrible deal and they should have let him walk.

That makes it even worse.

 

[brians]

“

With Strasburg on the brink of retiring, his post world series contract has to go down as worst ever in MLB, right?

He signed a $245 million, guaranteed, contract. Since signing that deal he complete 31 1/3 innings pitched. Injury after injury, he just could not remain healthy.

Breaking that down, he received;

$460k per pitch
$2.6m per out
$7.8m per inning
$30.6m per start.

I think the real killer, is the players they couldn’t keep because they chose him to give money to.

 

[jbb2388]

Its definitely at or near the top of the list. There are a few others that jump out to me.

Ellsbury with Boston was bad.
Caminiti with the Rangers was really bad.
Andruw Jones with the Dodgers was awful at the end.

many will point to Bonilla but that isnt even in the same ballpark as Strawburg or the above.

Ellsbury with NY

 

[TRyan]

That team will continue to be set back for a while won't they?
It seems DC always finds a way to steal some money, maybe they can give some to the team

I mean their payroll is basically zero right now minus Corbin (Also HORRENDOUS) and Strasburg

 

[JW Smoove]

The insurance was astronimical. It was a terrible deal and they should have let him walk.

Had he not been named MVP I am pretty sure they would have done just that. It was that MVP thing that changed the process (I think). I met the Lerner's a couple times (they were family friends previous generation them and my parents, and other old people), and they are nothing if not shrewd in business. All I can think it that they envisioned selling the team and assumed the contract would be someone else's to deal with, up the line.

 

[JB]

“

I think the real killer, is the players they couldn’t keep because they chose him to give money to.

Agreed there too.
Its such a flaw in the MLB philosophy that wont be changing any time soon. For some markets, you take a chance for big money and if they burn out, its okay. For others, one big miss and you have a decade of misery.

 

[JW Smoove]

Yes the Chris Davis one was uncomfortably bad. Uncomfortable because he somehow got lots of sympathy for trying but just being awful. But, at least he was on the field, during a rebuild, so it didn’t hurt quite so much.

You are correct, he was on the field, the difference I was pointing out was, at least they could put a warm body in SS's place where the Os did not do that.

 

[JW Smoove]

Agreed there too.
Its such a flaw in the MLB philosophy that wont be changing any time soon. For some markets, you take a chance for big money and if they burn out, its okay. For others, one big miss and you have a decade of misery.

Actually, and Boswell for the Washington Post wrote an article, the trades they made and player's that walked (or were traded) have mostly been quiet and not big contributors this year at least. And the team meanwhile seems to have turned the corner winning more than losing now, if they sell (or, if they don't) I see a big signing for next season and then another several years of good to very good baseball in DC. I think they maybe turned it around faster than I certainly expected. And, I am not sure who I would have kept other than Soto, him I keep, but if I do that, then about 4 spots on the current roster are not filled with talented and inexpensive players, making it harder to get ahead.

In hindsight, Soto has not been himself, Rendon has also been injured and played well below his DC stats, Scherzer had both up and down, but if he was kept, he'd be a head case playing on a team rebuilding. I do think Michael Taylor has been ok? But, no one would have kept him.

I still say, minus that MVP award, he might not have even voided his deal!

 

[brians]

Agreed there too.
Its such a flaw in the MLB philosophy that wont be changing any time soon. For some markets, you take a chance for big money and if they burn out, its okay. For others, one big miss and you have a decade of misery.

The Mets (brilliantly by the way) can purchase and eat Verlander and Scherzer on purpose to restock their entire farm system, while The Oakland A’s never recovered for choosing Eric Chavez back in the 2000’s as their “big” contract choice.

 

[JB]

The Mets (brilliantly by the way) can purchase and eat Verlander and Scherzer on purpose to restock their entire farm system, while The Oakland A’s never recovered for choosing Eric Chavez back in the 2000’s as their “big” contract choice.

Absolutely. I love seeing little guys succeed. Even though, they are pretty much farm systems for the bigger markets. Its a huge flaw and one of the reasons that smaller markets never get attendance.

They have to gamble early. Using the Rays as an example, they did that correctly with some talent, only to lose others to Bos and NY. Make a cap, make a floor, and let it work the way it should. There is a reason the Green Bay Packers can succeed in the NFL, but if the cap were to go away, they would have absolutely no shot.

 

[JW Smoove]

The Mets (brilliantly by the way) can purchase and eat Verlander and Scherzer on purpose to restock their entire farm system, while The Oakland A’s never recovered for choosing Eric Chavez back in the 2000’s as their “big” contract choice.

Interesting, I don't follow the Mets, I did not think they got a lot for the 2 pitchers due to the high salaries that their new teams were saddled with, did I get that wrong?

 

[TRyan]

@JB look at their contractual commitments for next year (everyone else is in ARB or Pre-Arb) - Kinda crazy



Two guys making up 75+% of their payroll for 2024

 

[JW Smoove]

Absolutely. I love seeing little guys succeed. Even though, they are pretty much farm systems for the bigger markets. Its a huge flaw and one of the reasons that smaller markets never get attendance.

They have to gamble early. Using the Rays as an example, they did that correctly with some talent, only to lose others to Bos and NY. Make a cap, make a floor, and let it work the way it should. There is a reason the Green Bay Packers can succeed in the NFL, but if the cap were to go away, they would have absolutely no shot.

I agree with Caps and Floors, and also like to see the smaller market teams succeed. I think the luxury tax is BS, the big markets pay it oftentimes without blinking an eye. But mid and small market teams seldom touch it (the Nats were over the Cap for a few years though, I think). That's yet another problem - when the smaller teams do get added revenue (from Cap penalties and such) they don't have to spend it on players, so greedy owners pocket the cash - so I am told). That money should be mandatory salary spending!

 

[JB]

@JB look at their contractual commitments for next year (everyone else is in ARB or Pre-Arb) - Kinda crazy

View attachment 9202136

Two guys making up 75+% of their payroll for 2024

Hahhaha. That is nuts. I have a feeling a few other teams are similar. I think most of the Marlins are in arbitration. last night during the game I think they said it was around 65 million being spent on the books in 2024 and most of it was 3 players.

 

[echico]

Not in the running for the top spot but Pablo Sandoval to Boston was a pit of despair.

 

[TRyan]

Hahhaha. That is nuts. I have a feeling a few other teams are similar. I think most of the Marlins are in arbitration. last night during the game I think they said it was around 65 million being spent on the books in 2024 and most of it was 3 players.

Ya definitely not all that different