Why Jason Schmidt Is A...Well, I've Heard Worse Ideas, But Still, No
That's a pretty fair and accurate encapsulation of how I've come to think about the whole thing.
Bear with me; I've been toying with the idea of writing this post for what seems like months, but now that the World Series is over and players are beginning to file for free agency I still don't have any particular outline in mind, so I'm just going to go straight ahead and damn the torpedoes.
This is the big thing, here: Jason Schmidt is a guy whose name value rather substantially exceeds what he actually brings to the table on the field. Fans who want the Mariners to pay out the wazoo to bring him in this winter are imagining Schmidt as the pitcher he was a few seasons ago, instead of as the pitcher he currently is. Don't get me wrong, he was still a perfectly acceptable weapon on the hill as recently as a month ago, but he's no longer the bonafide #1 some people have made him out to be. That part of him is gone, and it's unlikely to ever return again.
It really is a situation where the numbers tell the story. Or rather, one particular number, recorded over several consecutive years. Observe:
Jason Schmidt K%
2002-2004: 26.3%
2005: 21.9%
2006: 20.3%
Schmidt's strikeout rate peaked in 2004 and it's dropped by a quarter in the past two seasons, reaching its lowest level since an injury-plagued 2000 campaign. By itself, it was still well above average and in the same neighborhood as Erik Bedard and John Lackey, but statistics don't mean much without context, and for Schmidt it looks like the beginning of a decline. And as a 33 year old power arm with a history of injuries and taxing workloads, it doesn't really come as much of a surprise, either.
The good news for Schmidt is that his other ratios have generally stayed put, but then again, maybe that's not so encouraging after all; he's always been a flyball pitcher, and when you've got a guy whose strikeout rate is decreasing, you'd prefer to see him counter the decline with a drop in walk rate instead of posting the same mediocre BB% he's always had (save for a 2003 outlier). Without missing bats, Schmidt doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
We should probably avoid going too in-depth if we don't have to, though, and in this case I don't think it's necessary. Schmidt's always pitched to his FIP (3.87 career FIP, 3.91 career ERA), nullifying the possibility that he's a Moyer-like exception to the rule, which allows us to make the following comparison:
Schmidt FIP
2002-2004: 3.04
2005: 4.06
2006: 4.00
There you go. That's the issue in a nutshell - for two years Jason Schmidt has been good, but nowhere near the ace he used to be.
Any contract talk should operate under the assumption that, as an aging pitcher, Schmidt is unlikely to exceed his 2006 performance. Have him repeat his season in Safeco and he probably puts up an ERA around 3.80-4.00. Over 200+ innings, that guy's worth up to $10m or so, maybe a little less (I'm feeling generous). So even allowing for total consistency over the next several years, you're looking at an absolute max of $30m/3yr - $40m/4yr. I don't think that's going to get it done (although the latter has an outside shot).
But what are the odds that Schmidt staves off further decline for the life of his contract? Although his PECOTA page hasn't been updated for 2006, his list of Baseball-Reference comps is terrifying (this isn't authoritative by any means, but still). He turns 34 next January, his strikeout rate has dropped 24% in two years, and as a power pitcher with a history of high workloads he carries an elevated risk of injuries causing him to miss time or pitch worse. Plus, his walk rate's already teetering on the edge of acceptability, and any drop in command could make all kinds of bad things happen. Suddenly you're looking at something like (say) $25m/3yr - $32m/4yr, and that's definitely not going to cut it.
I don't want to get carried away and proclaim that the end is nigh for Jason Schmidt's career, because I don't think it is. Even in what looks like the early stages of an age-related decline, he still has a lot to give before he loses his usefulness, and after starting 32 games in 2006 it seems silly to call his durability into question. But at the same time, he and his agent are going to be asking the market for a #1-type contract, and the smart money's on Schmidt not holding up his end of the bargain.
If you want to think about it this way, Schmidt's probably going to get something in the neighborhood of Richie Sexson's contract without Richie Sexson's upside. And you remember how outspoken I was about that thing after it was signed. Sexson posted a park-adjusted .985 OPS his first year in Seattle, and Schmidt just doesn't have the ability to match that kind of impact, not anymore. I think he can still be a perfectly fine pitcher for at least a few years before his body stops cooperating, but he's going to get paid to do a lot more than that, and I don't want the Mariners to be that team who's left crossing their fingers that somehow by switching leagues Schmidt's able to turn back the clock.
Earlier today (prior to USSM's server crash) Dave posted that $30m/3yr would be as high as he goes with Schmidt, and I'm inclined to agree. I wouldn't want to go past $10m a season, and I definitely wouldn't want to tack on a fourth or, God forbid, a fifth year. It just wouldn't be worth it. Sure, it'd be great to pencil in Schmidt ahead of Felix in the 2007 rotation because seeing those two names back-to-back makes for compelling reading, but in the end what you're left with is an expensive name that's worth more to you than it is to the team on the field.
Unless by some unforeseen miracle Schmidt ends up signing for way less than expected, I'm content to let him (and Zito, for that matter) land elsewhere. Gimme Matsuzaka and everyone's happy.
0 recs |
50 comments
Comments
just my simple 2 cents
So basically, I think Schmidt is a good pitcher, who would make this rotation better(obviously), but hes not worth the 4yr/50 mil that he will probably get, id rather just let a guy like Feierabend have a spot in the rotation making what...300,000?
by MFAN on Oct 30, 2006 10:09 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
For Me
So if Schmidt is production wise one of the better pitchers on the market then sign him... he's going to make the team better and that should be the only focus of this front office. IMO
by MfaninAlaska on Oct 31, 2006 12:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If they do sign Schmidt to a stupid contract
I'd still be a little annoyed, but not as much.
by Goose on Oct 31, 2006 12:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's the right idea
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 5:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Better Values
by MfaninAlaska on Oct 31, 2006 8:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Any $10+ million contract will hamstring the team
Schmidt is a good pitcher who will get paid like a great one. Unfortunately, we already have a mediocre pitcher eating up 10% of the payroll. With his injury history and decreased velocity and K rates, he is a good bet to be a mediocre (or incapacitated) pitcher within three years.
As Jeff said, signing him is not the worst idea, especially if his demands become reasonable, but there are better options available to explore first. But limiting yourself to the free agent market and taking a pay him whatever it costs approach simply because he is the best of a sorry bunch is courting disaster.
by G_ on Oct 31, 2006 9:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You Weren't Lying
checks
Jack McDowell. Ramon Martinez. Hideo Nomo. Sutcliffe. Colon. Todd Stottlemyre.
runs screaming into the night
You want to give this guy 30/3? After that list, I'd pay him to play for Anaheim. Or the Yankees. Or Osaka. I'd be afraid that he'd be catching on Felix.
by NBarnes on Oct 31, 2006 4:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't *want* to give him $30m/3yr
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 5:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, exactly
by Gomez on Oct 31, 2006 9:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Millwood's deal
You MIGHT get less years, but 4/48 is probably not too unreasonable.
This is why I'm pissed that we got Washburn at 4/36 instead of Millwood- because, like the Midas commercial goes, you can pay now or pay later. Millwood > Schmidt.
by eponymous coward on Oct 31, 2006 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What about Bedard
Your thoughts...
by Dollar97 on Oct 31, 2006 9:10 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Same cat as Bonderman
Hell F'in Yes I'd want him.
No F'in Way do I believe he gets traded.
by Matthew on Oct 31, 2006 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bonderman
Although, maybe it's the fact he sounds like Sloth from the Goonies when he talks.
by Trent on Oct 31, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
I don't know which is more remarkable - that Bonderman's name has surfaced in trade rumors, or that Ranger fans don't want to get him for Teixeira.
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would he want to be one?
by Graham on Oct 31, 2006 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bedard's not going anywhere.
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They are so poorly run....
by Dollar97 on Oct 31, 2006 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good thing it's not four years ago.
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That bar tab...
by Dollar97 on Oct 31, 2006 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, seriously
by Deanna on Oct 31, 2006 1:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like DOV
by Trent on Oct 31, 2006 10:01 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm one to see DOV's point
by Gomez on Oct 31, 2006 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see the point.
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably needed something to create an argument
by Trent on Oct 31, 2006 10:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
by Gomez on Oct 31, 2006 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well it's not quite *that* dramatic
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah
by Gomez on Oct 31, 2006 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So it IS true...
by PositivePaul on Oct 31, 2006 11:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
We may share brains
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Having met you both...
But I will say that as much as I think highly of both of you very, very much, I wouldn't go gay for either of you. Then again, I wouldn't go gay for anyone really, either.
by PositivePaul on Oct 31, 2006 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'm glad.
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
'Zactly...
by PositivePaul on Oct 31, 2006 12:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Won't someone think of
by jtopps on Oct 31, 2006 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have this vague impression
by Deanna on Oct 31, 2006 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think a blogosphere all-cute team
by Matthew on Oct 31, 2006 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Untrue.
by Deanna on Oct 31, 2006 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does having an English accent
by Graham on Oct 31, 2006 2:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends.
by pdb on Oct 31, 2006 3:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Geordie? As in this Geordie?
by Goose on Oct 31, 2006 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Decline Phases
That may be true in general, if one looks at a huge sample of players over the course of years.
But if you look at the track records of individual players, most have a down year every once in a while. And I am not talking about flukey luck issues. But genuine declines in performance associated with declines in peripheral stats. A great example is Roger Clemens. He had lots of off years, and a few consecutive bad years. If we restrict the discussion to really elite players, guys like Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez - who do have that bell curve career path - seem more like exceptions. John Smoltz, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, etc. All these guys had some bad years.
The point is, I am not sure how realistic it is to assume that someone like Schmidt is entering the beginnings of a slow prolonged decline. While that type of career path may be generally true (if we increase the sample to 100s of pitchers), it doesn't seem to work for most specific cases.
I think that Schmidt could very well be entering a decline phase. But it is also possible that he could have a career year next season. A lot of posts seem to assume that 2006 is the absolute peak we can expect for the rest of his career. But lots of guy pitch at a very high level well beyond that. That may not be the case.
The biggest problem for Schmidt is his BB numbers. It seems like the guys that age well manage to limit their BBs. Even Randy Johnson managed to do this. But Schmidt just doesn't have the control that guys like Pedro and Schilling do.
I have to admit that I am pretty torn on this whole thing. I think that Matsuzaka is priority 1, and Schmidt and Zito are 2a and 2b. But even Matsuzaka has serious question marks.
by Jerry on Oct 31, 2006 4:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
The problem is, there's no way to see that coming. The odds are against it, and when it comes to contracts this size you always have to err on the side of probability, because otherwise you'll get burned far too often.
There are worse things than having to live with a very expensive Jason Schmidt for the next 3-4 years, but a smarter front office would be able to find better options that don't cost as much.
by Jeff Sullivan on Oct 31, 2006 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well...
It's also relevant to point out that over 3-5 years, someone at Schmidt's age probably isn't going to perform at that super high level.
It may be do-able to gamble on him if it's only three years (particularly if it's your job on the line), but I sure wouldn't be talking about four or five years....
by rtang on Oct 31, 2006 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Combine one's post-peak career
I'd expect a decent-to-good performance from Schmidt, that said, and I'm not sure it warrants paying him great-player money.
by Gomez on Oct 31, 2006 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Basic Summary
To be in favor of signing Jason Schmidt to a "market value" deal, you are required to believe that Jason Schmidt is going to perform better in 2007 and beyond than he did in 2005 and 2006. You cannot - cannot - make the argument that 2005/2006 Jason Schmidt is worth the contract he is going to receive.
If you want to believe that Jason Schmidt is going to be better in his next 600 innings than he has been in his last 400, well, you're allowed to believe that, and you may be correct. Since none of us know the future, that's a discussion worth having, though you can probably guess where I stand.
However, if you think that the level of pitching Jason Schmidt has performed at the past two years is worth something like 5 years, $60 million, well, you're got a failure in your pitcher evaluation.
by davidcameron on Oct 31, 2006 5:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 












