Madison Bumgarner to the Dbacks, 5-years/$85M

[liveforoctober]

Guys...please...as much as people hate me posting in every thread about the Brewers payroll etc. It gets just as annoying seeing people post how much these big money deals are going to be regrettable. None of us know that. Just because a player might be older, and gets a lot of money doesn't mean the contract will be regrettable. If Bumgarner wins a cy young in those 5 years and the Dbacks win a world series, will they rgret it?? I highly doubt it, even if his last 3 years are terrible. I wouldn't as a Brewers fan, I know that much.

 

I honestly think some of it is envy in that the Brewers will never make these kinds of signings so everyone hopes they turn out bad for the team that does sign them, so they can feel better about the Brewers NOT signing someone like this.

 

I tend to look at these things with no regard to the $$, because i honestly feel you have to. Think about it, who is MORE likely(of course no guarantees) to be a better pitcher over the next three years..Madison Bumgarner, Gerritt Cole and Stephen Strasburg, or Brett Anderson, Josh Lindblom and Matt Lauer?? Who's numbers would benefit the Brewers more in all likelihood?? That's how I look at these things.

 

So you think this is a good deal only if Bumgarner wins a Cy Young and they win a Series? Otherwise it isn't? Is that a good interpretation of what you just said?

 

I feel I'm safe in saying this will be a bad deal then.

[reillymcshane]

Guys...please...as much as people hate me posting in every thread about the Brewers payroll etc.

You are correct.

 

It gets just as annoying seeing people post how much these big money deals are going to be regrettable.

Not one person to the point of your post said this was a deal the DBacks are going to regret. The fact is that it is a long deal and a lot of money. It's like you're just looking for an excuse to argue.

 

Just because a player might be older, and gets a lot of money doesn't mean the contract will be regrettable.

Of course not. But there is evidence showing that players - as a whole - decline over time. To not take the existing information into account is foolish. Again, it doesn't mean Arizona will regret the signing. It simply is a factor in trying to determine the value of any FA signing.

 

If Bumgarner wins a cy young in those 5 years and the Dbacks win a world series, will they rgret it?? I highly doubt it, even if his last 3 years are terrible. I wouldn't as a Brewers fan, I know that much.

This is one of those questions people ask to justify anything. It's ridiculous. Of course you're going to not regret winning a WS and a guy winning a Cy Young. Are those things likely for AZ? I doubt it.

 

I honestly think some of it is envy in that the Brewers will never make these kinds of signings so everyone hopes they turn out bad for the team that does sign them, so they can feel better about the Brewers NOT signing someone like this.

Of course we are envious of teams getting good players. We'd love to have Cole and Strasburg and Rendon.

 

We hope those signings don't work out so we can do better, and it hamstrings those teams in the future.

 

I tend to look at these things with no regard to the $$, because i honestly feel you have to.

It's reckless and foolish to ignore the financial implications of deals made in baseball. You can't divorce one from the other. Sort of like life.

 

Think about it, who is MORE likely(of course no guarantees) to be a better pitcher over the next three years..Madison Bumgarner, Gerritt Cole and Stephen Strasburg, or Brett Anderson, Josh Lindblom and Matt Lauer?? Who's numbers would benefit the Brewers more in all likelihood?? That's how I look at these things.

Every person in the world would likely agree that Strasburg, Dole and MadBum will be better than Anderson, Lindblom and Lauer. Again, you can't divorce the financial implications of signing a player. We just don't get Strasburg because we want him. We have to fit him in a budget.

[Brewcrewin07]

I just feel like if the Brewers are ever going to have a top of the league rotation consistently, at some point they are going to have to spend big money to get an established front line starter. They haven't proven to this point they can grow them consistently in the minor leagues, if they had I wouldn't care if they ever spent money in FA on pitching. I also don't feel like they will ever have the prospects required to obtain a TOR pitcher. For a half a season or so?? Sure, they could likely do that, but I just want some consistent, pretty dominant pitching. I mean who as a Brewers fan wouldn't want to have a rotation like the Nats, or the Astros, or the Dodgers have most years??

[trwi7]

Heyman thinks the deal is quite reasonable...can't say i disagree in comparison..

 

Jon Heyman

@JonHeyman

·

9m

Bumgarner 85M deal seems quite reasonable, especially considering his incredible October record, and especially in this market with Wheeler getting 33M more. 1st on MB: @JeffPassan

1st with 15M deferred: @Ken_Rosenthal

 

If you’re basing the deal on being reasonable because of a player’s incredible record in October but the team isn’t good enough to play in October (and the pitcher is a lot worse than when he accumulated those October stats) then signing him based on that is really stupid.

[PeaveyFury]

I just feel like if the Brewers are ever going to have a top of the league rotation consistently, at some point they are going to have to spend big money to get an established front line starter. They haven't proven to this point they can grow them consistently in the minor leagues, if they had I wouldn't care if they ever spent money in FA on pitching. I also don't feel like they will ever have the prospects required to obtain a TOR pitcher. For a half a season or so?? Sure, they could likely do that, but I just want some consistent, pretty dominant pitching. I mean who as a Brewers fan wouldn't want to have a rotation like the Nats, or the Astros, or the Dodgers have most years??

 

Sure, and I think most of your points here are very fair takes. The issue is, they don't have the prospects right now, and free agency is a dangerous way to fix an issue like this. They've chosen their path to try and do so, with smart, cost-efficient, lesser-known guys that they feel can contribute and make them better. You can disagree with that path, but it doesn't make it wrong, and they've generally had more positive results with it than bad. Until they have a few that develop internally, they're going to have to continue to do stuff like this.

[xisxisxis]

I just feel like if the Brewers are ever going to have a top of the league rotation consistently, at some point they are going to have to spend big money to get an established front line starter.

Why do they need a "top of the league rotation". If there's anything *we* should have learned about baseball is that there is no single winning formula to win a world series. Each team is unique in how they combine different aspects of the team together to win a world series. Two teams from the last 5 world series have won with WORSE starting pitching that the Brewers had in 2018 and 2019. TWO! It's possible using the current approach to make it to the World Series and to win.

 

They haven't proven to this point they can grow them consistently in the minor leagues, if they had I wouldn't care if they ever spent money in FA on pitching. I also don't feel like they will ever have the prospects required to obtain a TOR pitcher. For a half a season or so?? Sure, they could likely do that, but I just want some consistent, pretty dominant pitching. I mean who as a Brewers fan wouldn't want to have a rotation like the Nats, or the Astros, or the Dodgers have most years??

Yes, the Brewers need to do much better developing their own talent across the board. One of my few gripes with Stearns is that he took to long to clean out the ineffective player development/scouting. Will he put the right people in place? Who knows, but there really isn't much downside movement that is possible so chances are they will do better.

[adambr2]

I just feel like if the Brewers are ever going to have a top of the league rotation consistently, at some point they are going to have to spend big money to get an established front line starter. They haven't proven to this point they can grow them consistently in the minor leagues, if they had I wouldn't care if they ever spent money in FA on pitching. I also don't feel like they will ever have the prospects required to obtain a TOR pitcher. For a half a season or so?? Sure, they could likely do that, but I just want some consistent, pretty dominant pitching. I mean who as a Brewers fan wouldn't want to have a rotation like the Nats, or the Astros, or the Dodgers have most years??

 

Ok, well, Bumgarner isn't an established front line starter. He used to be, but he isn't anymore.

 

Also, farm system strengths fluctuate over time, we have gone from one of the weakest farms in baseball to one of the strongest to one of the weakest again all in the last 5 years. So I doubt it's true that they will never have the prospects to trade for one and if they don't that's probably a good thing because it likely means they're continuing to draft in the back half of the MLB draft as they have recently.

 

Everyone wants consistent, dominant pitching. If it were that easy, everyone would have it. It isn't like going to the store and asking the cashier for a pack of smokes.

[jonescm128]

I just feel like if the Brewers are ever going to have a top of the league rotation consistently, at some point they are going to have to spend big money to get an established front line starter. They haven't proven to this point they can grow them consistently in the minor leagues, if they had I wouldn't care if they ever spent money in FA on pitching. I also don't feel like they will ever have the prospects required to obtain a TOR pitcher. For a half a season or so?? Sure, they could likely do that, but I just want some consistent, pretty dominant pitching. I mean who as a Brewers fan wouldn't want to have a rotation like the Nats, or the Astros, or the Dodgers have most years??

 

1. We will never sign a TOR arm in free agency. It's never going to happen. Ever. The constraints on small market teams is too much to overcome and those guys will always sign with the large markets.

 

2. Stearns and company have prioritized developing pitching in house. He only took over 4 years ago it takes time. Woodruff has worked out pretty well.

 

3. We have had prospects to acquire great pitching and that can happen again

 

4. Every single team wants consistent dominant pitching. Of course we all want a rotation like the nats but they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get it and that will never happen with us.

 

I really think you need to become a fan of a large market team. This is getting ridiculous that every single post you have turns into this.

[PeaveyFury]

Yes, the Brewers need to do much better developing their own talent across the board. One of my few gripes with Stearns is that he took to long to clean out the ineffective player development/scouting. Will he put the right people in place? Who knows, but there really isn't much downside movement that is possible so chances are they will do better.

 

I think this is a very fair point as well.

[markedman5]

Heyman thinks every deal is reasonable. He is a player shill when it comes to contracts.....not objective at all.

[MrTPlush]

Not a bad deal, especially with the deferred money. I’m okay with not going after him, wasn’t confident he would pitch well at Miller Park.

[Ennder]

I think half the deals should turn out to be regrettable by the teams, and half the deals should be regrettable by the players. Then it would be a fair market. If every deal was great for every team, then the players didn't get enough.

 

I don't have any data to back this up but my guess is about 10% of these types of FA deals favor the team and the other 90% favor the players. Free agent deals rarely end up being worth it when you go to 5 years.

[stalton]

I think half the deals should turn out to be regrettable by the teams, and half the deals should be regrettable by the players. Then it would be a fair market. If every deal was great for every team, then the players didn't get enough.

 

I don't have any data to back this up but my guess is about 10% of these types of FA deals favor the team and the other 90% favor the players. Free agent deals rarely end up being worth it when you go to 5 years.

 

I imagine it would take a while to compile but take a FA cost and a stat of ones choosing (WAR I'd assume) Set up parameters what's considered in whose favor and crunch the numbers. If the going rate was 8 or so million per WAR, I'd probably start there.

[wntrtxn21]

Guys...please...as much as people hate me posting in every thread about the Brewers payroll etc. It gets just as annoying seeing people post how much these big money deals are going to be regrettable. None of us know that. Just because a player might be older, and gets a lot of money doesn't mean the contract will be regrettable. If Bumgarner wins a cy young in those 5 years and the Dbacks win a world series, will they rgret it?? I highly doubt it, even if his last 3 years are terrible. I wouldn't as a Brewers fan, I know that much.

 

I honestly think some of it is envy in that the Brewers will never make these kinds of signings so everyone hopes they turn out bad for the team that does sign them, so they can feel better about the Brewers NOT signing someone like this.

 

I tend to look at these things with no regard to the $$, because i honestly feel you have to. Think about it, who is MORE likely(of course no guarantees) to be a better pitcher over the next three years..Madison Bumgarner, Gerritt Cole and Stephen Strasburg, or Brett Anderson, Josh Lindblom and Matt Lauer?? Who's numbers would benefit the Brewers more in all likelihood?? That's how I look at these things.

 

If your team is the Yankees, cubs, Dodgers, RedSox, Astros, Nats, Angels, etc... you can look at things your way, w/o regard for money. Brewers, Rays, Twins, Pirates, Reds, etc.. cannot ever look at any player with no regard for money. It's easy to disregard money when it's not your money they are spending.

[BuckyBrewer61]

When it comes down to it, huge free agent contracts are simply a gamble. And with giant contracts, the best case scenario is it’s a fair deal, most often it’s a good deal for a few years then a bad deal on the back end, and in some cases it’s an all around bad deal from the start.

 

When you’re the Yankees, Nats, Dodgers, Angels...you can afford a bad big contract. Even multiple.. Look at how much dead money is on those rosters BEFORE they go out and still hand out mega deals. Pujols for the Angels, Ellsbury and Tulowitzki for the Yankees, the Dodgers paid Homer Bailey $20mil just to go home last year.

 

The Brewers can’t do that. If they signed Strasburg then he got hurt, then fans would really learn how it feels to scrape the bottom of the barrel. When you only have so many eggs, you don’t put them in one basket. Sure maybe it could work out, but history tells us it’s less likely, and it’s a fool’s strategy.

[JimH5]

I think half the deals should turn out to be regrettable by the teams, and half the deals should be regrettable by the players. Then it would be a fair market. If every deal was great for every team, then the players didn't get enough.

 

I don't have any data to back this up but my guess is about 10% of these types of FA deals favor the team and the other 90% favor the players. Free agent deals rarely end up being worth it when you go to 5 years.

 

That's possible. Though I don't know that teams all use the same formula to determine if a contract was good or not.

 

The Nats were adamant that they needed to go big on the Jayson Werth deal to get other players to know they were serious about winning. Whether that's hogwash or not, it's not really something that fits into a Dollars per WAR calculation.

 

One thing that's pretty clear is that younger players under team control are often producing at levels way above their pay.

[sveumrules]

I think half the deals should turn out to be regrettable by the teams, and half the deals should be regrettable by the players. Then it would be a fair market. If every deal was great for every team, then the players didn't get enough.

 

I don't have any data to back this up but my guess is about 10% of these types of FA deals favor the team and the other 90% favor the players. Free agent deals rarely end up being worth it when you go to 5 years.

 

Looking at the 2014 offseason here are all the contracts signed for at least 3 years & decent money, with how they turned out (so far in Max & Lester's cases)...

 

Max Scherzer | 7/210 | 32.5 fWAR, 34.7 rWAR | TEAM

Jon Lester | 6/155 | 16.8 fWAR, 17.9 rWAR | FAIR

Pablo Sandoval | 5/95 | -1.1 fWAR, -0.1 bWAR | PLAYER

Hanley Ramirez | 4/88 | 1.3 fWAR, 1.4 rWAR | PLAYER

Russell Martin | 5/82 | 12.5 fWAR, 8.4 bWAR | FAIR

James Shields | 4/75 | 0.8 fWAR, 2.7 rWAR | PLAYER

Victor Martinez 4/68 | -3.7 fWAR, -1.8 bWAR | PLAYER

Yasmany Tomas | 6/68 | -0.6 fWAR, -2.5 bWAR | PLAYER

Nelson Cruz | 4/57 | 15.7 fWAR, 17.0 bWAR | TEAM

Ervin Santana | 4/55 | 7.2 fWAR, 10.8 rWAR | FAIR

Chase Headley | 4/52 | 5.9 fWAR, 4.9 bWAR | PLAYER

Brandon McCarthy | 4/48 | 2.7 fWAR, 1.9 rWAR | PLAYER

David Robertson | 4/46 | 6.0 fWAR, 5.8 rWAR | FAIR

Nick Markakis | 4/44 | 5.8 fWAR, 6.6 bWAR | FAIR

Melky Cabrera | 3/42 | 2.2 fWAR, 3.7 bWAR | PLAYER

Francisco Liriano | 3/39 | 4.6 fWAR, 2.7 rWAR | PLAYER

Andrew Miller | 4/36 | 7.2 fWAR, 8.8 rWAR | TEAM

Billy Butler | 3/30 | -1.1 fWAR, -0.6 bWAR | PLAYER

 

By my count that's 18 deals with the team "winning" three, five more that were fair then the last ten being overpays of varying degrees.

 

In total it looks like $1,290,000 (yes, that is one billion two hundred ninety million dollars) were spent on those 18 players, who have produced in the neighborhood of 105-132 WAR, with three years total left to go between Max & Lester.

 

Assuming another 10 WAR for those last three Max & Lester seasons & you're looking at somewhere between 9.1 & 11.2 million per win.

 

You could almost say when it comes to free agency, it often pays to not spend.

[superfly]

Guys...please...as much as people hate me posting in every thread about the Brewers payroll etc. It gets just as annoying seeing people post how much these big money deals are going to be regrettable. None of us know that. Just because a player might be older, and gets a lot of money doesn't mean the contract will be regrettable. If Bumgarner wins a cy young in those 5 years and the Dbacks win a world series, will they rgret it?? I highly doubt it, even if his last 3 years are terrible. I wouldn't as a Brewers fan, I know that much.

 

I honestly think some of it is envy in that the Brewers will never make these kinds of signings so everyone hopes they turn out bad for the team that does sign them, so they can feel better about the Brewers NOT signing someone like this.

 

I tend to look at these things with no regard to the $$, because i honestly feel you have to. Think about it, who is MORE likely(of course no guarantees) to be a better pitcher over the next three years..Madison Bumgarner, Gerritt Cole and Stephen Strasburg, or Brett Anderson, Josh Lindblom and Matt Lauer?? Who's numbers would benefit the Brewers more in all likelihood?? That's how I look at these things.

 

If your team is the Yankees, cubs, Dodgers, RedSox, Astros, Nats, Angels, etc... you can look at things your way, w/o regard for money. Brewers, Rays, Twins, Pirates, Reds, etc.. cannot ever look at any player with no regard for money. It's easy to disregard money when it's not your money they are spending.

 

 

If we continue to go through life closing off 60% of the league because of money, then we indeed will further put ourselves into the box of “we can never ever spend money on a single player”.

 

I think there was a discount given as speculated, but if the brewers could have gotten Madbum for a similar deal I’d spend it 10/10 times as a GM. He may or may not be an ace anymore, but he sure as heck would have slotted in nicely behind Woodruff. 17 million is not bad for a #2 type starter with a high floor and upside. I’d rather dumpster dive to fit payroll rolling Woodruff and Bumgarner our in a playoff series than dumpster dive in the pitching heap and pray it can hold together through a season. Imo

[DHonks]

Saw it reported that the Dbacks were his #1 choice. This is something we heard from Doug Melvin quite often...players preferences often play a role, whereas fans magically think any player will willingly come to their team.

[JimH5]

I think half the deals should turn out to be regrettable by the teams, and half the deals should be regrettable by the players. Then it would be a fair market. If every deal was great for every team, then the players didn't get enough.

 

I don't have any data to back this up but my guess is about 10% of these types of FA deals favor the team and the other 90% favor the players. Free agent deals rarely end up being worth it when you go to 5 years.

 

Looking at the 2014 offseason here are all the contracts signed for at least 3 years & decent money, with how they turned out (so far in Max & Lester's cases)...

 

Max Scherzer | 7/210 | 32.5 fWAR, 34.7 rWAR | TEAM

Jon Lester | 6/155 | 16.8 fWAR, 17.9 rWAR | FAIR

Pablo Sandoval | 5/95 | -1.1 fWAR, -0.1 bWAR | PLAYER

Hanley Ramirez | 4/88 | 1.3 fWAR, 1.4 rWAR | PLAYER

Russell Martin | 5/82 | 12.5 fWAR, 8.4 bWAR | FAIR

James Shields | 4/75 | 0.8 fWAR, 2.7 rWAR | PLAYER

Victor Martinez 4/68 | -3.7 fWAR, -1.8 bWAR | PLAYER

Yasmany Tomas | 6/68 | -0.6 fWAR, -2.5 bWAR | PLAYER

Nelson Cruz | 4/57 | 15.7 fWAR, 17.0 bWAR | TEAM

Ervin Santana | 4/55 | 7.2 fWAR, 10.8 rWAR | FAIR

Chase Headley | 4/52 | 5.9 fWAR, 4.9 bWAR | PLAYER

Brandon McCarthy | 4/48 | 2.7 fWAR, 1.9 rWAR | PLAYER

David Robertson | 4/46 | 6.0 fWAR, 5.8 rWAR | FAIR

Nick Markakis | 4/44 | 5.8 fWAR, 6.6 bWAR | FAIR

Melky Cabrera | 3/42 | 2.2 fWAR, 3.7 bWAR | PLAYER

Francisco Liriano | 3/39 | 4.6 fWAR, 2.7 rWAR | PLAYER

Andrew Miller | 4/36 | 7.2 fWAR, 8.8 rWAR | TEAM

Billy Butler | 3/30 | -1.1 fWAR, -0.6 bWAR | PLAYER

 

By my count that's 18 deals with the team "winning" three, five more that were fair then the last ten being overpays of varying degrees.

 

In total it looks like $1,290,000 (yes, that is one billion two hundred ninety million dollars) were spent on those 18 players, who have produced in the neighborhood of 105-132 WAR, with three years total left to go between Max & Lester.

 

Assuming another 10 WAR for those last three Max & Lester seasons & you're looking at somewhere between 9.1 & 11.2 million per win.

 

You could almost say when it comes to free agency, it often pays to not spend.

 

That's good research. My only quibbles with the no free agent strategy is that teams have to fill out their rosters, and sometimes the only players available are those on the free agent market. And by signing free agents (instead of trades), nothing is lost from the organization except for money. And all WAR isn't valued equally. Getting enough wins to reach the postseason is more valuable that other wins.

[Eye Black]

Saw it reported that the Dbacks were his #1 choice. This is something we heard from Doug Melvin quite often...players preferences often play a role, whereas fans magically think any player will willingly come to their team.

This is the quintessential article that stands out in my mind regarding Doug Melvin complaining about that very thing...

 

[jerichoholicninja]

Saw it reported that the Dbacks were his #1 choice.

 

Because they offered the most money obviously. I don't believe for one minute that the old Bum went into the off-season pining to play in Arizona.

[DuWayne Steurer]

That's what's really interesting. WHen someone signs a free agent for 4 years and X dollars, a lot of people say "We could have signed that guy for X dollars plus Z!"

 

First of all, the guy has to WANT to come to Milwaukee. I don't think people understand how much of a role that plays. You hear the "they'll go where the money is" line quite a bit, but man..... some people just don't wanna play here, or look at the Roy Halladay thing. Location matters to these guys. Stuff matters.

[Bulldogboy]

On the surface this deal appears reasonable and one the brewers should have been on. It seems that people tend to think deals like this will not age well which is fair. That said given where the brewers are they have to do deals along these lines to get where they want to go. The cain deal is by far dicer and so far is right on track to be a disaster two years from now. It is what it is. When you can't develop pitching you have to buy it. Mad bum or Anderson give me mad bum all day.

[Ennder]

I think there was almost no chance that MadBum was signing with any team in the midwest, even the Cubs, unless they grossly overpaid. Highest offer is rarely what wins these things unless it matches up with what the player wants. When highest offer does win it means the team went way over realistic value and was very player friendly.