The Mets Should Give Cespedes Five Years

Apparently the Nationals are offering Yoenis Cespedes a five-year deal, while the Mets have no interest (reportedly) in going beyond three years. This seems to me an obvious mistake. At 5 years, $100 million (around where the Nationals' offer is believed to be), you're paying Cespedes to be worth under 3 wins above replacement per year. He's been in the Majors for four years. Yearly WAR totals, averaging Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs: 3.4, 1.9, 3.7, 6.5. It's tough to project this guy not to be at least something like a 3.5 win player, if not 4, and if he's that then 5/$100 is an entirely fair contract. Perhaps a bargain. And the funny thing about the reluctance to go longer-term is that the one big concern about Cespedes and the Mets disappears after 2017, because that's when Curtis Granderson's contract expires. At that point, you could quite naturally move Cespedes to right field rather than having to play him primarily in center, and he's a really good defensive corner outfielder.

And I don't actually buy that long-term payroll constraints, and the need to pay their young pitchers, will be that much of a problem. In 2020, the Mets will have the following players under contract at sub-free agency prices: Kevin Plawecki, Domonic Smith, Dilson Herrera, Amed Rosario (as well as several other shortstop types), Michael Conforto, Brandon Nimmo, Jacob deGrom, Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz, and (I think) Zack Wheeler. Now, none of these guys with the possible exception of someone like Smith or Rosario would still be making the league minimum; they'd all be in arbitration, many of them in their last round of arbitration. You'll also have David Wright on the books at $12 million that year, because his contract was middle-loaded. Put it all together and I just don't see how having Cespedes under contract at a pretty reasonable rate is going to be a problem for that team. Not if the payroll has actually risen back to a more ordinary level, after what looks like it should be a pretty prolonged period of the team's being really good.

So yeah, if the Nationals sign Cespedes to 5/$105 or something like that, that's just not gonna be okay, and the Mets' reluctance to go that far really does seem to signal that something remains deeply rotten with the team's long-term financial situation.

That's an Interesting Lifestyle Choice

This is considerably more random than my usual fare, but it caught my attention and is funny so I thought I'd write about it. I just saw the following question from a recent Washington Times poll:

"You may have heard about major league pitcher Stephen Strasburg of the Washington Nationals, who is recovering from elbow surgery. His team is trying to make the playoffs, but needs to decide whether to let him pitch the rest of the season or shut him down to protect his arm. What should the team do? Let him pitch the whole season. Shut him down early, no use risking his arm."

The results were 11% let him pitch, 47% shut him down, 42% unsure. That doesn't surprise me, given that the way this poll is phrased you almost can't say you think he should continue to pitch. They mention that he's recovering from elbow surgery, which is slightly misleading given that he's done rehabbing from the surgery, and the concerns are just about a pitcher coming off of surgery. They mention that the Nationals are trying to make the playoffs, but not that Strasburg is one of the best pitchers in the league. Then they also mention that shutting him down would "protect his arm." Now, maybe these arguments are correct, but it's a hell of a slanted question. But that's not the point.

No, the point is the sample of which they asked this question: 800 likely voters nationwide. Now, I'm not sure why you wouldn't limit this to baseball fans, or more specifically to Nationals fans since they're the only ones, presumably, who care about the Nationals' making the playoffs. Maybe it would've made sense to limit it to the Maryland/DC/Virginia area? Who knows. But, more to the point... likely voters? Huh? This isn't actually going to be on the ballot in the fall elections, guys. There's exactly no good reason only to care about what people who want to vote in the 2012 Presidential election think about the Great Strasburg Debate. Hell, I'm not even sure "all adults" is the right theoretical sample. Lots of children and teenagers are avid baseball fans; why not let them have a say?

That this happens to be about baseball, an interest of mine, and more specifically about a baseball story I've been following somewhat in detail, is a nice coincidence, but ultimately this is mainly a great example of the way pollsters and those presenting poll results don't think about the context of the question. If something isn't going to be up for a vote at the next election, it really doesn't matter who's registered or likely to vote. If something isn't the kind of thing you can vote on, which side has the majority might not be the best way to analyze the results. Don't just treat every poll as though it's a variation on the basic Presidential horse-race theme.