Print this Article
 E-mail this Article

More About the Free Agents

My theory is that we're seeing the effects of postseason success. Sort of a repeat of the Schilling/Johnson World Series. In this year's Series, the Sox and Cardinals presented startling contrasts. Obviously, the Sox had Schilling and Pedro, but the Cardinals simply didn't have a dominant starter. That is, a starter who could dominate and not just rely on his defense. And they lost the Series.

Arguably, the Yankees lost because they didn't have that dominant starter. And the Astros had a great Series thanks partially to Clemens. These were high-profile events. Obviously, Beltran and others had a lot to do with all this. But my guess is that we're seeing a semi-return to the "Dominant Pitching Wins Short Series" theory. (as opposed to the "It's All Luck" theory).

Most of the teams paying big bucks for top starters have been contenders (Red Sox, Yankees) or teams that think they're pretenders (Mets, Diamondbacks). Which brings me to the other part of my theory.

Dominant starters are getting awesome salaries because postseason games are worth more than regular season games. So if a GM believes his team can/will make the playoffs, and he believes that starter will make a difference in the playoffs, he'll pay more for a starter than a regular player. This actually makes some sense economically, as long as the GM isn't delusional.

I'm not trying to justify these salaries. Some of them can't be justified. But I tend to think that's what's going on in some people's brains.

My colleague Studes, of Hardball Times fame, weighs in with this: (inserts part of quote)

Well, yes. They were. But the problem with this theory is that none of the pitchers signed for big bucks, with the possible exception of Carl Pavano, has more than a tiny chance of qualifying as a "dominant starter" in 2005 (or beyond). Russ Ortiz? Jaret Wright? Kris Benson? These are exactly the sort of pitchers the Cardinals did have in the World Series.

Maybe there's a simple explanation, so simple that we've missed it. Maybe a good number of baseball franchises are wallowing in so much dough that they just have to spend it.

    YEAR    AVG SAL/YR    AVG YRS      #
    1998    $4,427,976       3.06     35
    1999    $3,561,905       2.50     14
    2000    $6,601,587       3.00     21
    2001    $6,038,810       2.85     20
    2002    $5,681,250       2.44     16
    2003    $4,590,947       2.39     28
    2004    $4,933,160       2.46     24
              ========     ======   ====
            $5,076,568       2.70    158

    YEAR    AVG SAL/YR    AVG YRS      #
    1998    $4,438,426       2.78     18
    1999    $3,998,485       2.27     22
    2000    $4,896,635       2.92     26
    2001    $5,379,861       2.72     18
    2002    $5,088,531       1.94     17
    2003    $4,507,887       2.14     28
    2004    $5,690,104       2.31     16
              ========     ======    ===
TOTAL       $4,798,454       2.45    145