What the hell is going on?

A baseball team invests good money and scouting into identifying the players that they think can best help their team.  They go through the drafting process, paying high draft choices millions of dollars before they ever see a major league game.

In exchange for that, they have exclusive control of that player for six years (at least as I understand it).  During the first three years, they can renew the player contract unilaterally, and then during the final three years they are required to tender an offer, which can be rejected by the player and result in binding arbitration.  If no offer is tendered, the player becomes a free agent.

A lot of teams sign their best players to multi-year contracts during the latter half of this six year window.   This is usually a win-win for both parties - the players get security, and the team usually gets a bargain, maintaining that player a year or two or three beyond their six years, at prices below what the players (expected) value would be
on the free agent market.   Bonderman, Granderson, and Inge are all examples of this, and you can make your own judgments about whether any of them have been worthwhile.

Of course, there are a lot of players signed as free agents after this six-year window expires, as well, but unlike what I've described above, they are very rarely bargains.

Over the last several years, we've seen a lot of players dealt at the deadline because they were going to be free agents at the end of the season.  I understand why Cleveland traded Sabathia last year - they weren't going anywhere,  knew they couldn't sign him for the money he'd command, they got a stud prospect in LaPorta who then they would have control of for those six years at a fraction of what Sabathia would make.  This makes fiscal sense.  It's logical.

But the trend is changing, and it's really getting on my nerves. Take a look at these:

AUGUST 8, 2006: Cliff Lee signed a three-year, $14 million contract extension with the Cleveland Indians on Tuesday, another long-term commitment for a young player the club considers key to winning in the future.  Lee's deal includes a club option for the 2010 season for $8 million, plus $1 million in award and incentive bonuses.

APRIL 5, 2005:   The Cleveland Indians today announced they have signed VICTOR MARTINEZ to a 5-year contract through the 2009 season with a club option for the 2010 campaign.

In 2007, Lee was horrible, spent a good part of the season in the minors, and the signing looked like lost money, (though only as much as the Tigers are paying Gary Sheffield to play for the Mets this year).   Since the beginning of last year though, you could make an argument that Lee is one of the top 5 pitchers in all of baseball, and an
incredible bargain.  2008 Cy Young, 29-12 with an ERA under 3.00, hasn't missed a start.  And his contract would pay him only $8 MILLION next year, after which he would be a free agent.  If I were a Phillies fan, I would have been ecstatic at their acquisition. It cost the team so much less in terms of their top prospects than Halladay would have, not to mention the relative difference in their salaries - Halladay will make $15.75 million next year, and probably want a contract extension at a similar price in order to waive his no-trade clause.

After Joe Mauer, Victor Martinez is the most productive offensive catcher in the AL, though not a huge defensive asset.  He's been consistent, a .297 career hitter with power (except for last year when he had wrist problems), on his way to a third 100-RBI season.  He is under contract next year for $7 MILLION, and everything I am reading indicates the Indians are shopping him like crazy (and if so, I suggest a phone call Mr. Dombrowski - he'd look great wearing the old English D).

It's one thing to throw in the towel on this season and trade a guy in his walk year, but the Indians could have both of these top players for all of 2010 for only $15 million.  Is the economy in Cleveland even shittier than in Detroit?  The baseball economics of this don't make any sense to me at all. 

I'm picking on the Indians because it's easy, but the Padres are considering trading Adrian Gonzalez (headed toward third straight 30HR, 100RBI season in one of the worst hitter's park in MLB), who is under contract for next year at $5 million, and a CLUB OPTION FOR 2011 FOR $5.5 MILLION! 

So teams invest all this money in player development, and then have the foresight to sign their players at bargain prices before they reach free agency...and then trade them, not just in their walk year, but when they have them under contract for another year or two?  For what, prospects that may or may not pan out, with whom they'll repeat this
stupid process? 

When the press conferences were held for the Lee, Martinez and Gonzalez signings, GMs talked about how these guys were cornerstones of the franchise (Mark Shapiro on Martinez : "With a special player like Victor Martinez, whose talent is matched only by his character, it is a priority for us to insure his long term place in the line up, on the team and in the community." )  And now, they are ripping out those building blocks and letting everything collapse.  What about a commitment to fielding a competitive team?  Fans have come to accept turnover, but this illogical approach leads to an eternal, self-perpetuating rebuilding mode...and as forgiving and loyal as baseball fans might be,  I think these kinds of moves are what might eventually turn people away from the game.

Say what you will about Dombrowski, but I don't think that if the Tigers were foundering this year that Curtis Granderson (under contract for $5.5m next year, $8.25m in 20011) would be on the block.  Because even in lean economic times, he knows that Granderson is a bargain at those prices, and a guy you can win with -  just like
Martinez, Lee, Gonzalez and others who might be changing teams in these baffling baseball times.

I just don't get it.

Vclips