Joe Nathan: Deal, or No Deal?
The 2008 series of the GameDay magazine debuts a week from Monday, and Guest Editor Nick Nelson was kind enough to invite me to do a feature for the April issue. With the recent talk of an extension for Nathan looming on the horizon, it seemed a good time to give you a preview of my contribution. Many thanks to GameDay and to Nick Nelson for the opportunity.
Contracts, payroll and rollover. That's an easy way to summarize Bill Smith's first off-season as General Manager of the Minnesota Twins, and there's been endless discussion and debate around those terms over the last six turbulent months. Smith's introduction to his new position has been a trial by fire, and while we may not agree with each decision that's been made, it's become clear that there is a direction for this team. Minnesota is on a road to 2010, and while there's every reason to believe this club can and will be competitive in the preceding seasons, the story of this past winter has made it clear that everything is being built to culminate in the summer that the new ballpark opens.
With that in mind, let's turn our attention to the biggest name to survive the winter. Joe Nathan is in the final year of a contract he signed in 2005, and his role in the future of this team has yet to be determined. If you're Bill Smith, where does your evaluation begin?
Contracts
Nathan's contract expires after the 2008 season, so the first question is "what would it take to keep him in a Twins uniform?" Francisco Cordero signed a four-year, $46 million deal over the winter. Mariano Rivera signed a three-year, $45 million deal. Initial speculation led to the belief that a new contract for Nathan would require the Twins to pony up roughly $40 million over a four-year span, but considering Nathan has been arguably better than both of the aforementioned closers (who are both in roughly the same age range), one could argue that Nathan is worth more.
Name Save % IP K/9 WHIP HR/9
Joe Nathan 92.4 140.0 11.06 0.91 0.45
Takashi Saito 91.3 142.2 11.67 0.82 0.50
Mariano Rivera 90.1 146.1 7.93 1.04 0.43
Francisco Rodriguez 89.7 140.1 12.06 1.17 0.58
J.J. Putz 89.4 150.0 11.16 0.81 0.60
Bobby Jenks 89.0 134.2 9.09 1.15 0.47
Jonathan Papelbon 88.9 116.2 12.27 0.84 0.62
Billy Wagner 88.1 140.2 11.13 1.12 0.83
Trevor Hoffman 88.0 120.1 7.03 1.04 0.60
Todd Jones 86.2 125.1 4.38 1.34 0.50
Joe Borowski 84.4 135.1 8.11 1.40 1.06
Jason Isringhausen 84.4 123.2 7.71 1.37 1.02
Bob Wickman 84.1 104.1 6.81 1.38 0.52
Chad Cordero 83.4 148.1 7.95 1.25 1.27
Francisco Cordero 78.6 138.2 11.03 1.23 0.71
Brad Lidge 78.5 142.0 12.17 1.33 1.20
Huston Street 74.6 120.2 9.70 1.03 0.67
This table is cumulative over the 2006-2007 seasons. Nathan was best in converting saves, had the second-best home run rate, allowed less than a base runner per inning and induced lots of strikeouts. But this table isn't to tell you how good Nathan is. It's about his comparison to the league's best (and more well-known) closers. Note where Rivera and Cordero fall on this list.
Ignore the finer points and smaller print of our imaginary contract for now; that's for you to debate later. So just forget about things like no-trade clauses and option years; just focus on the money. After a signing bonus, Nathan is likely to be making $10-$12 million per season, average, and could be making much more in the latter years of a new deal.
Payroll
In an era where baseball has been dissected to the point where you can gauge nearly every aspect of a pitcher's game, we know that The Closer is a position that's relatively easy to create. Think about it. The job of The Closer is to enter the game with a lead (on most occasions), get a few outs (rarely more than three) without surrendering that lead, and get a Save (which is like getting a gold star for coming to work). It certainly takes mental dexterity and talent, but finding a pitcher to fill the role doesn't require a mystical chant or a worldwide search.
This doesn't mean that the pitcher awarded the role of The Closer deserves any less credit for being a good pitcher. We don't need to examine Nathan's numbers to know he's been an extremely valuable member of the bullpen and one of the game's best closers. But on a team where management will always be conscious of payroll, even if it has gone up over the last handful of seasons, can you justify spending $12 million on a player when a far less expensive option could fill the position? The financial value of a closer simply escalates much quicker than his bullpen counterparts.
Rollover
During the offseason months, this organization has once again seen its share of turnover. This time, however, the turnover has involved some of the biggest names not just over the last five years, but also in franchise history. Gaps left by those-who-shall-not-be-named aren't easily replaced. Could this young team absorb the loss of Nathan?
This argument goes beyond fiscal commitments and speculation on whether Juan Rincon or Jesse Crain or Pat Neshek is ready to be The Closer. It becomes about leadership, confidence and even something as intangible as name recognition. Joe Nathan isn't just a guy we love; he's an elite player at his position. His place on the Twins' active roster has more impact than the Saves he collects, and there are times when "the good of the team" has to do with more than money.
Enter the Closer
I'm not going to give you my opinion on whether or not Nathan should be re-signed. You all have the information, and the debate of the armchair GM is part of the experience. This is about the good of the team: a team whose apex is currently planned for 2010. When deciding whether or not the Twins are retaining more value by keeping Nathan than by trading him or letting him walk, there are a number of scenarios you should be playing out. Not just the money he'll cost per year, but injuries, his value in July, contract stumbling blocks (no-trade clauses, signing bonus, incentives) where his replacement will come from and how the team would be affected. Let's get to it.
Hey you, GameDay reader. Joe Nathan, $12 million: Deal, or no deal?
Be sure to find your GameDay outside the Dome for home games all summer long, just off the concourse.
0 recs |
21 comments
Comments
Devil's advocate
But two questions that I would like to pose before I answer deal or no deal:
- what are his 2007 numbers alone, without the 2006 numbers added in; and
- Is anyone certain that Joe Nathan is not on the decline?
In 2007 Joe got similar results, but the innings were much wilder, and frankly only slightly less terrifying than:
a) a bungi jump;
b) having to pick the kids up at the widowed mother-in-law's house when you know she's feeling frisky; or
c) handing the ball off, in the ninth, to Eddie Guardado.
I am guessing the stats in 2007 come close to the stats for the previous couple of years, but anyone with a brain saw Joe laboring to get those outs in 2007, and it certainly appeared to be an uphill struggle far too often. (and no this statement is not an endorsement of Old Twins Cap's geriatric curmudgeonly rants against statistics)
I really believe that Joe's best days are behind him and that he is heading toward an average closer rather than an "elite' closer.
So, if the question is $12 million for one more year I would say yes let's make the deal and throw in some extra cash as a signing bonus this year because a) we have it and b) it pays to reward players for their performance and their loyalty, and he will be worth it still as I expect this tear he will still be a top 5 - 6 closer (per chance given, as I believe he won't have many opportunities to save many games, frankly) and I believe next year he will still be in the top 50%.
But if the contract says $12million for the next four years, when we have so many young arms in the bullpen and we know our salary issues will be tight I have to say no deal.
by montanatwinsfan on Mar 22, 2008 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2007 numbers
Save % IP K/9 WHIP HR/9
90.2 71.2 9.67 1.02 0.50
I thought that Joe was struggling slightly more to retire hitters last year, too. Of course it's all relative, because he's still the balls. Here are some other numbers of note:
Year Outs:PA GO:AO OppOPS xFIP LD% GB% IF/F
2006 0.782 0.73 .454 2.46 21.9 35.6 17.7
2007 0.762 1.06 .574 3.33 20.8 40.4 9.9
by Jesse on Mar 22, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clicked 'Post' by accident
by Jesse on Mar 22, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a great photograph, man.
by natetheskate on Mar 22, 2008 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not in favor of signing him longterm
Second, there is little reason to make a closer one of your highest paid players, and the Twins experience should show them that. They needed a closer, they turned to Hawkins. It didn't work so well, so they went to Guardado, who did the job effectively until he got expensive. So they let him go, and got a guy in trade who was a failed starter with one good year of middle relief under his belt, made him a closer, and lo and behold--2 time All-star! Don't fall in love with your closer; there's another one out there somewhere.
Third, let's look at your list above of closers. Let's take Nathan and compare him to the below average guys on that list--the Borowski, Wickman, Cordero group, lets say. These guys converted about 84% of their save opps; Nathan did over 92%. OK, based on 50 opps (which is more than Nathan usually gets, but lets make the math easier): Nathan saves 46 of those games, BorWickDero saves 42. 4 games difference, but of course you don't lose all your blown saves, so lets say the difference is 3 losses with the average guy. Not to minimize 3 losses--that's a lot, and may be worth $12 million a year. But, Nathan has nowhere to go but down, and the Twins should be confident they can find someone who can convert better than Joe Borowski. At what point is it just not worth the money?
I'd rather find a 3rd baseman.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 22, 2008 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good commentary ...
To date, the Twins attitude has been "we can't compete for the stellar position player free agents. We're going to develop our own, trade for young talent, try to convince our guys to stay when they get to FA world & sign middling FA's to fill in gaps."
If that's where we stay after the new ballpark, then do we really have a NEED to clear money out by letting guys like Joe Nathan go?
I really, really like having Joe Nathan around - he seems to be the kind of guy who'll help the youngsters grow up to be winners, and I think you need both pitchers & position players who fit that bill on your roster.
by BD57 on Mar 22, 2008 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree with BD on this
This makes a lot of sense to me. If it's between resigning Nathan and signing or trading for a sweet but mid-priced free agent 3B, maybe I'd take the 3B, but if the money's just gonna sit losing money in Pohlad's subprime securitization portfolio, then let me at least watch Nathan scare the hell out of me then probably save the games for me. I love having him out there.
Plus the fact that I can wear a Twins shirt with my first name on the back doesn't hurt ;)
by natetheskate on Mar 22, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Free agents
When you sign free agents, you typically get them on the downside of their careers. I don't have the numbers in front of my, but it is a fairly common thing for a guy to have a career year going into free agency and have one of his worst years coming out of it. With free agents, it's risky to say the least to expect them to do after signing them what they had been doing prior to signing them.
The other thing is it's all well and good to say the team should sign players to fill holes, but those players are sometimes not available through free agency. This year, for example, the best third baseman on the free agent market was Mike Lamb. Adam Everett was near the top of the shortstop class. So if you rely on free agents and they just are not available, you're stuck.
If you lock up a guy like Nathan, you minimize both those risks. You know what you're getting. And you're not likely to get anything better for cheaper on the free agent market in 2010. I'm pretty sure closers will cost several more million per year by the time his contract is done. Singing him to 2008 dollars ensures some savings relative to 2010 dollars.
by cmathewson on Mar 22, 2008 6:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with you on the first point
I agree that free agents are almost always on the downside--see Torii Hunter. The majority of players don't reach FA until they are on the wrong side of 30. But that's exactly the point with Nathan--he's on the downside just like any FA you might sign; the guy is 33, and under K for his age 33 season. So you would be signing him for his 34-36/7 seasons--those are not going to be his peak years, but you would be paying him peak dollars.
As for the availability point--you're right. It's not like you can choose not to sign Nathan and take your $12 million to the infielder store and get an equivalent quality third baseman any time you want. But there are other ways to acquire players (and salary), such as by trading for players under K or in arbitration. Availability is still an issue, though, you are right about that. Still, I have a hard time thinking Nathan for $40 million or whatever is a good investment.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 22, 2008 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess my issue is...
"If you lock up a guy like Nathan, you minimize both those risks. You know what you're getting. And you're not likely to get anything better for cheaper on the free agent market in 2010. I'm pretty sure closers will cost several more million per year by the time his contract is done."
I would maintain that you don't know what you are getting. You are making a risky investment for 2010. While closers are going to be more expensive, it may well be that Nathan's skills decline to the point where he is no longer worth that amount.
I also wonder whether at that point he will be better than Neshek? Of course you can only speculate but considering when pitchers are in their prime vs. when they are in their decline, it seems like Nathan may be on the wrong side of the curve, while someone like Neshek will still be in the fat part of the curve.
by guinness junky on Mar 22, 2008 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I guess I would preface everything on the lack of a no-trade clause. Some in this thread have said the value of a no-trade is a few million a year. I think it's more than that. If Nathan insists on a no-trade, I say, fine, send him to the highest bidder at the All-star break and give the job to Neshek.
In other words, my whole argument depends on being able to trade him if Neshek shows that he's closer material. He certainly hasn't showed it yet. His first year, he was very vulnerable to left handed power bats. And last year, he wore down considerably. So you need Nathan signed through this year and if Neshek gives you what he did in the first half last year for a full season, then you can trade Nathan for a couple of pretty big pieces, like a shortstop and a starter.
by cmathewson on Mar 23, 2008 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No trade clause
Without a no trade clause, he'd be giving the Twins a huge gift by saying, "Here is my potentially undervalued contract that other teams would jump at the chance to own. Do what you will with it."
by natetheskate on Mar 23, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No hometown discount
by cmathewson on Mar 23, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's true
by natetheskate on Mar 23, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Twins also offered to make Santana
by natetheskate on Mar 23, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Value of the no-trade clause
by cmathewson on Mar 23, 2008 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah because Santana was demanding market value
by natetheskate on Mar 23, 2008 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How much is an above average closer worth
The important point of this argument, or of the overvalued closers argument in moneyball, is that there is very little difference between the guy who pitches the 8th v. 9th innings (ignoring anxiety).
As EricInMadison points out, the Twins have a history of building good relievers from within. I agree, and think there is a decent chance that in the last year or two of this contract, Neshek or someone else becomes a better closer, for cheaper, than Nathan.
So, lets say in 2010-2011, Neshek is a better closer than Nathan, and that Nathan is still an above average closer. The question isn't whether we have a cheaper good closer, its whether there is one spot in the bullpen that won't be very strong that Nathan significantly upgrades. Say the option is having Dennys Reyes (or other bad veteran pitcher) v. Joe Nathan. Nathan, to me, is enough better than our weakest spot in the bullpen to improve our team. A strong bullpen (as a whole, not just the clsoer) is a lot of fun to watch, and absolutely wins a lot of games.
I would pay a lot of money to upgrade Dennys Reyes to Joe Nathan. For the analytical baseball mind, I think this is the question, not whether there will be better, cheaper options.
by snolls on Mar 23, 2008 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Cant disagree with that, but
By 2010, when Joe nathan is eating up $12M he may be better than Dennys Reyes, but we will also have groomed (or found) someone else who is also better than Dennys Reyes, (and quite POSSIBLY better than Nathan will be at that point), for a whole lot cheaper.
by montanatwinsfan on Mar 23, 2008 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was trying to say
In 2006 our bullpen was one of our strengths. At the time, it included:
Nathan
Rincon
Crain
Reyes
Eyre
Guerrier
Neshek
Of these players, I would say that only Nathan and Rincon were established and dependable. Crain was in his second year, and became a "known" that year. Reyes and Eyre were not players you would seek out, ideally. Guerrier and Neshek were young, and were unknowns who would develop into very good pitchers.
I think that we can expect to have a new set of the Nathan/Rincon pair (suppose it is Neshek and Crain, for the sake of argument).
I have faith that our farm will develop the equivalent to Crain, Neshek and Guerrier.
The value of still having Nathan is that he could be the replacement for Eyre/Reyes. That is worth a lot. Reyes had a really good year, which helped us have a good year, but i would say that was fortuitous. Nathan could be expected to pitch more innings with better performance. If he can, we can avoid one of our weak spots on the roster, which is the spot that we may not otherwise fill with a reliable pitcher Gardy is comfortable with.
I completely understand your point, and that's how I felt a couple of months ago. How much is he really worth when we can trade him for position talent. But now I've decided that the potential improvement to our bullpen, plus the likelihood that we can still get talent for him in a couple of years if we want to, has persuaded me to want to sign him.
by snolls on Mar 23, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Signing Nathan Makes Sense to Me
#1 Do you think we could of got more for Santana when the Yankmees were 5, 6, or 7 games out in July?
We got picks for Torii & very iffy -even if we are all hopeful- prospects for Jo- yes I am aware hope springs eternal in March- I even read one desparate homer in the Strib who predicted 10 All-Star seasons for Go-Go. Here's to hoping he is absolutely correct- but I ain't betting the house on it.
I hope Joe has his best 4 seasons ever '08 to '12 & is a Twinkie for every one of them but I doubt that will be the case.
by Swanee on Mar 27, 2008 8:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 














