Brett Myers is a officially an Astro, and one with a wonky—yet savvy—contract
Because I only focus so narrowly on the Astros, I'm not sure if we are wholly unique in this experience, but having Alyson Footer in her new position has been a awesomely great thing for we as Astros fans. That and the invention of Twitter. As I've been writing, her Twitter stream has provided plenty of info, but also glimpses of how something like officially announcing a player and introducing him to the clubhouse, etc. actually works. That's a perspective that we're not supposed to be privy to, yet Footer brings us along.
I'm not going to link to each individual tweet of hers on the Myers media blitz, but I'll summarize the high points. Brett Myers, who will wear number 39, will get paid $3.1 million in 2010. If things go well, there's a mutual option, yet to be explained, that is worth $8 million if exercised, and would cost the Astros $2 million to buy out. Savvy move, Edward.
Sure, I don't know how the mutual option works, but here's what I do know. Next year, Kaz Matsui and his $5 million are off the table. So even if the Astros do have to take Myers' buyout, the net savings to payroll will be $3 million. Not a lot of risk there. If things go well, Brett Myers is, in his age 30-31 season, under contract for $8 million. Even if Myers doesn't pitch terribly well, it'd still only be a boon to our payroll by $3 million after you factor in the Kazuo Matsui's departure. Yes, I'm obscuring the dollars and cents with some cost/benefit analysis that might not be totally valid here, but it's valid enough for my brain.
Either way, in 2010, Ed Wade brought in a starter with the potential to be a number two caliber starter, who I believe will only need to fit the bill as a number four or five starter, at age 29—which JC Bradbury now informs us may be a player's peak age—for $3.1 million. Even if we assume that a WAR is going on the open market for $3.5 million, Ed Wade still purchased Myers at a discount—this year—under the most pessimistic of the projections.
As we've hashed out before, the value of the deal is also largely ancillary to Myers' actual performance. What truly matters is how it affects the shape of the Astros starting rotation. To that end, McTaggart will hopefully get Ed Wade to give us more specifics on just exactly how it'll play out. But for now, we have the following quotes from Wade, given prior to the Myers signing:
That quote, coupled with other comments in that article and other impressions I've gathered from Ed Wade and Brad Mills this offseason, lead me to believe that Brian Moehler is the odd man out. And that makes sense. The fifth starter was a position Moehler was suited for when Bud Norris was still tossing in a high school uniform. The long-man/spot starter is the position that he is best suited for now. It sounds like Ed Wade knows that Felipe Paulino is due for a rebound; whether it's because sabermetric evidence or scouting reports doesn't matter. What matters is that Ed Wade has made a pretty-savvy little ploy for 2010 that could see the Astros receive surplus value from their starting rotation. I should also add that that starting rotation could be pretty damn good.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
re: 2011 option
McTaggart says that the mutual option for 2011 requires BOTH sides to exercise the option.
Why do we always come down with opposite reactions...
Yes, this contract is good and the option for next year and buyout are both reasonable. It’s the perfect contract for someone like Myers who was good in the past and has fallen on hard times. It’s a bet that he will perform more to his career averages.
Still, I can’t help but draw the obvious connection when I saw his 2010 dollar figure: Myers 3.1 million; Brian Moehler 3 million. For the same price in 2010 dollars, the Astros could have had Myers INSTEAD of Moehler. That would have eliminated this worrisome possibility of having Paulino bumped from the rotation.
Would it have given the Astros as much ‘depth’? Not technically, but that’s also assuming Moehler could be an effective enough pitcher in 2010 to justify a spot in the rotation. I assumed Myers would cost more and that Moehler’s signing was really more of the market reflecting how valuable starters were. I also was willing to give Wade some credit for bringing back players from last year’s team instead of searching for replacements, since those replacements would probably have been more expensive.
I couldn’t have been more wrong on either count. My opinion of Wade took a dip with this contract, even if it was a good deal in and of itself.
We're setting up quite to be quite the foil
I agree, that with this contract, Moehler’s contract becomes almost completely repugnant. But that’s just it. it becomes. It wasn’t a great contract before the Myers contract, but it was something that Ed Wade did while the offseason was still fresh to ensure that there would be something filling out the fifth starter spot if the Wesley Wright experiment failed.
Ed Wade did the right thing in this instance. He treated Moehler’s contract as a sunk cost. He couldn’t get the $3 million he foolishly committed to the contract back, but he he didn’t let that impinge upon his ability to successfully land a starter, for the same price, that actually brought real value to the Astros.
Is paying $3 million for Moehler’s contract a good thing? No. But Ed Wade couldn’t change the mistake he made by valuing security so highly. What he could change was the detriment of having Brian Moehler be the default 5th starter on the team, and he did that very efficiently.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Jan 12, 2010 2:37 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed. He made the right move with Myers. But I’m not sure Wade needed to act while the off-season was young. Moehler would be around now if the Astros hadn’t signed him back in November (assuming no other team would commit 3 million to him). Honestly, you could have rolled the Myers money in with the Moehler money and gotten Harden, couldn’t you?
by David Coleman on Jan 12, 2010 3:04 PM CST up reply actions
I think it’s possible that Wade had little choice on the Moehler contract. Last year’s contract had some kind of vesting player option according to Cot’s. This is kind of hazy and I don’t trust news accounts about the option unless I think the reporter has seen the contract (doubtful). Since I don’t know the exact details, I am guessing; but I think it is possible that a vesting milestone may have required the Astros to exercise their side of the mutual option. If that were true, then Wade is just forced into the situation.
Here’ s an AP article that says the option vested when he pitched 150 innings last season.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4544158
Footer had an article which said the same:
http://footer.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/08/moehler_an_astro_in_2010_i_vot.html
That’s right, I remember that now. Dial back my righteous indignation by 3/4.
by David Coleman on Jan 12, 2010 3:37 PM CST up reply actions
I like to think of the Moehler deal as a fluke. When Wade gave Moehler a $2.3M contract in 2009 with the automatically vesting option for 2010 at $3M, who would have guessed that Moehler would actually top 150 innings, thus taking any wiggle room out of Wade’s hands. Ideally, one of Hampton or Ortiz would have worked out well enough that calling up Norris or Paulino mid-season could have pushed Moehler to the pen and brought his IP down. We just didn’t have enough pitching last season to do so.
At the end of the day, Moehler did his job and performed as expected for a team that failed to hold up its end of the job. He ate 154 innings and gave us 0.9 WAR…I’m not going to begrudge him a $3M contract.
Who did they remove from the 40 man to add Myers?
Anybody know?
I have looked it over a few times now
And I can’t figure it out. I also can’t figure out if there are 41 people on it. I’m just confused.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Jan 12, 2010 2:39 PM CST up reply actions
yeah, the official site is showing 41 as of 5 minutes ago.
by Snake Diggity on Jan 12, 2010 2:42 PM CST up reply actions
I suck at physical counting on a computer screen
So I wasn’t sure if it was just my incapability, or truth.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Jan 12, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions
maybe
sadwoski was on it and they have yet to take him off? I dunno, just saying
by EveryHoustonTeamRox! on Jan 12, 2010 5:17 PM CST up reply actions
In one of Justice’s blogs, he said that Wade knows how valuable Paulino is because of the numerous trade inquiries from other other clubs for Paulino.
Probably a lot of teams ID’d him as a buy-low candidate given his high ERA, but promising peripherals and were inquiring to see if they could basically steal him away.
probably. also, I would expect that sabermetric oriented teams (e.g., Rays, Indians, Mariners, A’s, Red Sox, etc.) have done the same type analyses seen here and at Fangraphs which show Paulino to be a good bet for rebound. they might inquire to see if they can get a bargain from a less statistically oriented team which may not have reached the same conclusion.
Such negotiations make me nervous. I feel like other NBA fans must feel when their team is involved in negotiations with the Rockets. There’s a fear that the other GM has knowledge Ed Wade doesn’t, and a mistake might be made. Hopefully, the volume of interest will convince Wade to hold onto Paulino, and that seems to be the case.
by seanbergmanrules on Jan 12, 2010 6:07 PM CST up reply actions
Don’t forget Wade has been a Paulino fan from day 1. Refused to include him in any trades while he sent Patton, Albers, Gutierrez, Qualls, et al packing.
I think Cooper was the only one that didn’t like Paulino.
Excellent point
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Jan 12, 2010 10:13 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly what I was going to mention.
by Timothy De Block on Jan 14, 2010 8:09 AM CST up reply actions
Memo to Astro beat writers: Learn how to spell.
Memo to Brett Myers: the snappy comeback is: “Retard is spelled Y-O-U-R-M-O-M”
Houston, we have a problem child.

by 





















