Dead Trade Winds
The trade deadline in baseball came and went without much fanfare. And that shouldn't be a surprise.
With so many teams still within sniffing distance of the playoffs (including division leaders, there are 15 teams within 5 games of a playoff spot entering today) and the extra wild card spot helping keep teams in the playoff race, there's not a lot of teams willing to pull the trigger on major moves. Some of these teams on the fringe are in the uneviable position of "Should I Stay or Should I Go?", not far enough out of the playoffs to concede anything but far enough where you're going to have to gain X number of games on a bunch of teams in the next two months.
Trading guys was no problem for the crap de la crap of baseball (Astros, Cubs, White Sox all trading top half of the rotation starters to contenders). Hell, we even got one of the best trades for names in MLB history, as the Orioles shipped Hoes (L.J. Hoes - he's real, trust me) to Houston for Bud (Bud Norris). The only other trade I can think of with better names was when Detroit traded Furbush to Seattle for Fister.
The End of Long Deals?
Two stories that have transpired from the past couple weeks could not have been timed out better. As A-Rod, among many others, awaits his suspension from MLB on his role with the Biogenesis facility that has trampled the season of Ryan Braun, Albert Pujols went on the disabled list with a torn plantar facia, an injury that has been bothering him all season. According to many sources, it sounds as though he may be done for the year - just like his fellow Angels are (14 games back in AL West, 10 games back in Wild Card as of today).
The timing of this news has led a lot of sites to ask which of the contracts was worse - A-Rod or Albert? What the real question should be is: is this the end of long-term deals? It was going to be difficult for either of them to truly live up to the expectations of the size and length of their respective contracts (each got 10-year deals).
Here's what Albert has done since 2012 since becoming a member of the Angels. Those are not terrible stats, but when compared to the first 11 years of his career, there's a sharp decline in all of his power numbers (from 162 game averages of 43 home runs .328 average, .420 on base, .617 slugging with St. Louis to 31 home runs, .275 average, .338 on base, .485 slugging with the Angels.) In other words, he went from a Hall-of-Fame player to a guy that's above average, but definitely trending downwards (and in a hurry). There's still eight years on his mega-deal (10 years, 240M), so there's still time for him to turn things around (perhaps the injury has hurt his production?). But more likely, this is the sign of a player who is on the latter half of his career who can still produce at above-average player percentages. However, above-average is not what the Angels paid for.
As I said back in 2011, I thought it was smart for the Cardinals not to overpay for Albert. In my lifetime, they are as smart and steady of an organization as there has been in the majors, almost always in playoff contention. They made it to three World Series with Albert (won two), so they definitely got their money's worth and the very best of his contract. For this contract to be worth it for the Angels, I think they will need to win at least one World Series.
In that same article linked in the previous paragraph, I noted the stats of A-Rod since he signed his deal. Nothing has changed that would support this being a smart contract for the Yankees - a sub-par 2012 and a non-existent 2013 that is likely to end in suspension tell that story. They did win a title with him in 2009, which honestly seems decades ago with how much has happened in baseball and with A-Rod since then.
In the aftermath of these deals, I think you will see these big market teams be smarter in making these long-term deals. Should a long deal be made, it will be similar to the Dustin Pedroia extension with the Red Sox (a 6-year deal that signs him through his 38th birthday). Signing a 31-year-old guy to a ten-year-deal has proven to be a foolish move. The best of these guy's careers has already passed, and paying a 38/39 year-old Pujols close to $30M is going to be a disaster towards a team's payroll - the return on investment is going to be brutal for the Angels. If another 10-year deal is to be made, it will be for a guy in his mid-20s, which would be infinitely smarter than the Albert & A-Rod deals.
The Rise of the Small Payrolls
Ironically, it's contracts like these that have helped teams with smaller payrolls become contenders - as these teams have no chance in hell of ever being able to sign a guy to that long and rich of a contract.
A list of each team's payroll entering 2013 shows that you can contend in MLB with a lower payroll. Out of the six division leaders through July 30, there's more teams in the bottom half leading divisions than their higher spending bretheren:
AL West: Oakland (60M, 27th overall out of 30 teams)
AL East: Tampa Bay (57M, 28th)
AL Central: Detroit (148M, 5th)
AL Wild Cards & Contenders: Boston (150M, 4th), Baltimore (90M, 15th ), Cleveland (77M, 21st), Texas (112M, 12th)
NL West: Los Angeles (216M, 2nd)
NL East: Atlanta (89M, 16th)
NL Central: Pittsburgh (79M, 20th)
NL Wild Cards & Contenders: St. Louis (115M, 11th), Cincinnati (107M, 13th), Arizona (89M, 17th)
While not likely to happen, it is possible that none of the top-10 spending teams make the playoffs. That would require Detroit and Los Angeles (the NL version) to tail off in the last two months and for Boston to slip out of the Wild Card - all of which I don't see happening. Best case scenario for the big spenders - three of the top 10 make it.
You may think some of these teams are flukes, but keep in mind that the Rays have been in the playoffs or on the fringe of it for a while now, Oakland won the division last year, and Pittsburgh has had strong first halves of seasons for three straight years now. These teams are all heading in the right direction and have solid player bases to remain contenders for the foreseeable future.
Argue all you want about MLB needing a salary cap, but I don't think that's accurate. In fact, it has forced these smaller teams to think outside the box, crunching numbers that were not studied decades ago in order to maximize the talent on its limited payroll (at least limited compared to the Yankees and Red Sox of the world).
I'll take my chances with the Rays, Pirates & Athletics' set-up for the next five years over what we have on both sides of Chicago.
