More Than Meets the Eye: Twins Sign Nick Blackburn
AdamOnFirst had this earlier today, so be sure to check there for additional discussion.
First, what we know: the Minnesota Twins have signed Nick Blackburn to a four-year, $14 million dollar contract. The deal buys out this season (Blackburn's final season as a serf) and all three of his arbitration years. There's also an $8 million option for 2014, which would be Blackburn's first year of free agency.
Oddly enough, a year ago tomorrow the Twins did the exact same thing for Scott Baker. In terms of dollars the deals are quite similar (Baker's was four years, $15.25 million with an option in 2013 for $9.25 million).
Over his first two full years in the majors, Blackburn has been a remarkably consistent pitcher. His ability to control his pitches and stay in command of his situation, in conjunction with his ability to consistently chew up innings, are where a majority of his value comes from. It's easy to undervalue skills like endurance and strike zone control, because anytime you rely on players hitting the ball to be a big part of your success as a pitcher you're playing with fire. But Blackburn has proven to this point that he can succeed on that margin.
In 2008, Nick was a 2.5-win player; last year he was a 3-win player. Barring injury, his value above replacement should continue to be in that range over coming seasons. Understanding that the value of a win above replacement being about $3.5 million, let's outline some parameters for expectations.
| Split | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014* |
| Age | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 |
| Value vs Free Agency | --- | 40% | 60% | 80% | 100% |
| Expected $$ at 2.5 WAR | --- | $3.5 MM | $5.25 MM | $7 MM | $8.75 MM |
| Expected $$ at 3.0 WAR | --- | $4.2 MM | $6.3 MM | $8.4 MM | $10.5 MM |
* = Option Year
In arbitration, the standard scale of compensation versus full value (or market value for a free agent) is 40-60-80, so that's where those numbers come from. They're just a guide. Therefore, if Blackburn is a 2.5-win player in 2011, 40% of his value would be $3.5 million. That's how you read the chart.
As of this writing we don't have numbers on Blackburn's new contract for his three arbitration-eligible seasons, but at a glance it looks like it's a pretty fair deal by baseball's financial climate today. Obviously the more wins he's worth over replacement, the bigger bargain this deal becomes.
Obviously the Twins didn't need to do this. Not just because Blackburn is under team control for the next four seasons, but because Minnesota was already thrust tightly up against their payroll threshhold for this coming year. The second half of that sentence is what seperates the Blackburn deal from the Baker deal a year ago. So why did the Twins make this decision?
Cost certainty. Because of Joe Mauer.
Twins Assistant General Manager Rob Antony said it himself in our Q&A two weeks ago:
J: Not wanting to go with more than a one-year deal [with any of the incoming free agents], did that have a direct correlation with the change in the revenue sharing stream that comes in now that you have your own stadium?
RA: No, I think it has more to do with not knowing how much our All-Star catcher's going to cost in the future.
J: (laughs)
RA: (laughs) So it's hard to commit substantial dollars to other players, aside from what we've already committed to the Morneaus and the Cuddyers and the Nathans, and players down the road. We're just trying to maintain as much flexibility as we can so we don't cut ourselves short on that one.
Also, this in response to a question on the organization's philosophy on spending:
Now the projected revenues are obviously going up in Target Field, and so we basically looked at it and said you know what--we've got about $90 to $93 [million] to work with, and we were at that. When Orlando Hudson became available our owner basically said "Don't worry about the payroll, if you think we can get this guy and you think he would be a great addition, let's go".
This means two things. First, it means that the Twins were already at or above what they wanted to spend before they brought in Orlando Hudson. So why throw on another few hundred thousand dollars when you just as easily could have waited until after the season to cut this deal? Because of number two, which is that the Twins wanted some payroll flexibility.
In this situation, payroll flexibility and cost certainty are the same thing. With the organization trying to hammer down exactly "how much our All-Star catcher's going to cost in the future", the best way to maintain some level of flexibility is to understand exactly how much you're spending on payroll in coming years. Down to the dollar. Instead of waiting it out with Blackburn in arbitration next season, the front office is getting a better idea of future finances.
Extending Joe Mauer is a big deal. Even for the Twins, whose revenue will suddenly become top ten in baseball, having a player make more than $20 million (for the first time in franchise history) is a hugely, massively big deal. The more accurately future blueprints are laid out, the better position this team will be in to adapt in coming seasons.
Blackburn deserves this extension, and although long-term contracts for pitchers are always risky, as long as he's healthy this is a good deal. I just think there's more to it than meets the eye.
0 recs |
29 comments
|
Comments
Discount
Under even the highly conservative estimates of 2.5 WAR per year with the current $3.5 million/WAR conversition rate, this deal is still a discount of $1.5-2.25 million dollars. The Twins, however, take on some sizeable risk. On the other hand, they also gain upside since the $3.5 million number is rather depressed this season and is likely to rise by a> regressing back to trend and b> continuing to rise as time moves forward. Therefore, it’s looking like a sound deal on paper.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
Well, this isn't exactly a paralyzing contract
but I don’t think I would have done this. Blackburn’s results have been consistent, but I’m not convinced it’s sustainable.
Blackburn, as I have pointed out before, has had terrific results with runners in scoring position; much better than his results otherwise. Although it’s not impossible that this is simply part of his skill set, I’m disinclined to believe it. I think he’s been somewhat lucky in these situations, and if that trend reverts to normal, it’s going to have an outsized effect on his ability to prevent runs.
We’ll see.
I think this is the kind of criticism he'll have to deal with his entire career.
He’s never going to overpower anyone, strike anyone out or fool anyone. And you’re right—he certainly lives on the extreme edge of peripherals—balls in play, strikeouts, swings and misses…this is a guy who survives in an area where a very small percentage of pitchers survive. Yet for the last two years he’s not just simply survived, he’s been a good pitcher.
And if he duplicates this kind of a performance again, we’ll have this exact same conversation next year. Maybe not with you, but with somebody.
What will be frustrating is, even if he goes the next two years and replicates his first two years, and then has a bad year…people will actually say “see I told you so, this is the kind of pitching he actually is”.
Sorry that’s not a bitch at you. It’s just a bitch in general.
Yeah
And to be honest, Blackburn’s peripherals are pretty much in line with where he should be anyway. He hasn’t had low BABIP or HR/FB numbers, high LOB numbers, or any of the other kind of fluky luck results that can skew performance badly. He’s outperformed his FIPs and xFIPs slightly, but no more than a quarter of a run, and I think xFIP under-corrects for DP possibilities for his slightly above average GB ratio to account for that.
The danger is his peripherals are rather odd and he really needs to maintain his very strong walk rate or he’ll face bas consequences quickly. This is somewhat more difficult to do than if he maybe had a worse walk rate, but a better K rate and was more “normal” overall. On the other hand, he’s been following this strange MMO for the last two years, and has basically been doing the same thing in the minors for years as well, so there’s not a ton of reason to believe this isn’t the real Nick Blackburn.
The added danger with him is he has a couple specific skills which would be terribly damaging to his success if they go from very good to pretty good. If he keeps his control, he’ll be fine.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
Sure, look, I hope it works out
But it’s…very rare for a pitcher to survive in the space he occupies. He has been good the last two years; he deserves praise for that.
But when discussing extensions, what you are discussing is his future value. Never mind the lack of K’s—I’ve given up trying to convince anyone who doesn’t already believe it that it’s almost impossible to survive at much less than 5 per nine.
But: overall in his career his OPS against is 774. With RISP it’s 665. I don’t buy that as sustainable, and it doesn’t take much regression in RISP situations to lead to a lot of runs.
Also, in the 2nd half last year, he gave up a .323/.346/.517 line; not something that instills confidence.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 7, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
Noise
Since his periphirals and BIP percentages were strikingly similar in 08 and 09 whether Blackburn had runners on or not, so I’m buying that more than result oriented stats like his ratio-slash line.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
Except that really isn't true
His BABIP was significantly lower with RISP, which is SOME of the difference between his results with RISP and not.
As for buying this or that, it really isn’t a matter of buying A or B. What is indisputably true is that his OPS against is much lower with RISP than it is overall. What is also indisputably true is that if he gave up the same OPS against with RISP that he does overall, he would give up more runs.
The only question is whether he will sustain his results with RISP. It seems to me there are 3 possibilities:
1. The last 2 years are indicative; he’ll continue to have this kind of split—giving up a somewhat worse than average OPS against with nobody on, but thriving with RISP
2. He actually is better than he’s shown—he’ll do better with nobody on than he has in the past, and maybe will align the 2 numbers that way.
3. He is what he is, but the fact that he has done so well with RISP is somewhat fluky, and that number will go up to his overall line.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 7, 2010 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
1
1. I’m using Fangraph’s splits, so I have only been looking at bases empty vs on base:
2. While many of Blackburn’s numbers stay pretty steady either way, several make interesting shifts, and did the exact same thing for both the last two years. in both cases, his strikeouts drop somewhat further and his BABIP drops a fair bit. This has also, though, been accompanied by a consistent trend in BIP type change as he also becomes groundball heavier.
This leads me to believe Blackburn has a relatively large change in approach compared to most pitchers when guys get on base. This intuitively makes sense. As a guy who can, but doesn’t always, get key grounders, he seems to be focusing much more heavily on keeping the ball on the ground when there are runners on. Grounders with runners on are going to have a lower BABIP, just because of the availability of fielders choices and such, though I don’t know if that probably covers the whole magnitude of the change.
I’d be more concerned if the BABIP transformation were unaccompanied by the BIP changes or if it hadn’t been consistent, but for now, it seems like at least some of the change is Blackburn’s doing. At any rate, particularily high LOB rates are a more direct symptom of what you’re getting at, and he hasn’t had those, so my trepidation is minimal. He can be like a somewhat less-able version of Carlos Silva without the headcase mound temper that caused him to flameout.
Your argumument has merit, I just don’t think I’m particularly convinced.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
Fair enough; the future seasons will tell the tale
I actually asked Bill James about this recently, and he said it could be just luck, but that he could more easily conceive of a concept of “clutch pitching” than he could “clutch hitting” because hitting is reactive whereas pitching is proactive.
He pointed out that pitchers could more easily change their approach in certain situations than hitters. Do they have a pitch they only use in particular situations? They can (and do) work around certain guys in RISP situations (even Blackburn, a control guy, walks more with RISP, as I’m sure is true of all pitchers).
My thing is this: I don’t buy that Blackburn has any inherent ability to supress OPS with RISP; but even granting that he does…I cannot believe that the gulf is as wide as the results have shown so far. He’s essentially below average overall (774 OPS against vs. an ML average of 751) but way, way better than average with RISP. The problem is, even a relatively small correction—not all the way to even, but a small regression, is going to have a big, big effect on his runs allowed.
by Eric in Madison on Mar 8, 2010 9:08 AM EST up reply actions
CHONE and PECOTA project him as about a 2 win pitcher in 2010
I’m guessing they do a fairly good job of quantifying Eric’s concerns about his good fortune with RISP. If he turns out to be worth 2 wins for 4 years, he’d fall just ever-so-short of being worth his contract with the current assumptions (add inflation and he’d get there). So like Jesse points out in the article, the Twins are getting cost certainty and Blackburn seems to be priced about fairly.
continued...
is if they do a deal like this with Liriano. It would have potential to be big savings and also a possible waste of $10 million. And for those reasons I don’t think I have to worry about the Twins extending Francisco out beyound arbitration.
I agree, this won't happen with Liriano.
Blackburn’s been consistent and he’s been healthy—two things Liriano hasn’t been, and the two most important things when signing younger pitchers to multi-year deals.
I don't particualary like committing money to players who we have under our control for the same amount of years anyway
Ugh
but with that said it is a fair deal for both sides, really
Wow Blackburn makes nearly identical money as Baker does now....
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Mar 7, 2010 7:39 PM EST reply actions
Bad move. Whether or not Blackburn can maintain his previous levels of performance, he certainly would never be dominant enough to hit the arbitration jackpot. The Twins take on considerable risk and yet receive no upside, reducing Blackburn’s trade value along the way.
In and of itself, not a huge deal, but it’s disappointing to see another blunder after a string of solid moves. This also might be an area where it would help having a statistical analyst of some kind around.
Risk
It’s reasonable to dislike the risk, but even highly conservative estimates of the future player salary market show this to save a chunk of change every year…
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
risky
seems like the main reason to lock up a young player long-term is to protect against a huge jump in value. Blackburn’s been productive but I don’t hear anyone raving about his upside. His upside seems to be about what he’s done. A lot of people fear him dropping in production. No one anticipates him suddenly starting to strike tons of guys out. This could still save money if the market goes up, but it’s got a lot of risk. Hope he doesn’t flame out.
He's basiacally a little better than Pavano. Pavanoe got $7 million in arbitration.
I’m not saying Blackburn would in his first year, but it seems like the Twins will save several million dollars over the life of the contract if Blackburn continues to pitch like this.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
If
yeah, if he stays this good, it could save some money. But the downside risk seems higher than the upside risk.
To me the best news is they think he’s really good. And they know a lot more about him than I do, so that’s encouraging.
Yeah
If you just look at it from a statistical perspective, the risk seems too great. But the kid’s never been hurt. He’s been incredibly consistent. He might not have much upside left, but he doesn’t have much downside either. He’s a minimum-effort pitcher with the best mechanics of any pitcher on the staff. And he’s a horse. So the odds of him pitching like this for the next three years are pretty good, all things considered.
"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot
200 IP
Yes, exactly 33 starts and averaging 199 innings the last two years has it’s own value, on top of his rate and peripheral achievements. Value, I’d say, beyond what’s measured in WAR.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the damn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
~ Earl Weaver
"In God we trust. All others must provide evidence."
~ Billy Beane
WAR measures this
in that Blackburn provides more WAR, at the same rates, over 210 IP than if he only pitches 160 innings. But it’s not something that if you were looking solely at ERA one might notice…
by Adam Peterson on Mar 8, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions
Pavano comp
my only quibble is that comparing him to Pavano is a bit misleading because Pavano they had to pay market rate, and Blackburn gets a discount. If the Pavano contract was a benchmark of his market value, and Blackburn’s salary is pegged to market rate during his arb years at 40%, 60%, and 80%, plus a year of whatever they want first, say 10%, that would make Blackburn’s projected salaries 700K, 2.8M, 4.2M, and 5.6M, or a total of 13.3M, or less than what they paid him, while taking on a lot of risk in case he gets hurt or gets worse.
Of course market rates could go up, or he could outperform the Pavano benchmark; but you’re still risking 14M to save not that much.
It’s still only an average of 3.5M a year, so it won’t kill them. It’s just odd — like the second year for Brendan Harris.
I was about to wish them well and say, let’s hope he’ll be the next Chien Ming Wang, remembering his top-5 Cy Young-vote year — then I remembered Wang got hurt….
It seems early to me
I’m not sure why they didn’t wait a year with Blackburn. What was the hurry? I doubt Blackburn is going to improve significantly. His free agent year is not that valuable since it is in 2014 when he’ll be 32. I’m not against the signing, it isn’t a Joe Mays contract but it is favorable to Blackburn. It is a tradeable contract, I’ll predict Blackburn doesn’t finish the deal with the Twins.
We now have the breakdown
as per the Strib
2010: $750,000
2011: $3,000,000
2012: $4,750,000
2013: $5,500,000
2014: $8,000,000 Option
It strikes me as front-loaded, actually. On his current trajectory, his final year of arb would be much, much more than $5.5 million.
I think this backs up my crackpot, read-between-the-lines, Mauer-related-cost-certainty theory. Doesn't it?
But I’ve been wrong before.
And yeah, it does seem slightly front-loaded, although it also seems the Twins will have Blackburn at below-market rates over all three arbitration years if he stays healthy. It’s almost like they’re paying for a 2-win pitcher.
that little chart is great
actually, this whole post was pretty sweet.
I'd rather have Rios steal 50 bases than hit 50 home runs. I want production.
Good signing
While Blackburn doesn’t have the same upside as Baker, even with a little regression in his FIP, over 200+ innings he’s between a 2.5 and 3.0 WAR pitcher before one even considers whether his ERA-FIP splits (positive both the last two years) are repeatable, as AdamOnFirst and Eric in Madison debate.
In other words, based on actual runs given up, he’s actually been around 8 runs better than his FIP-based WAR. So IF this split is repeatable based on him being able to pitch out of jams by keeping the ball down, etc, then we’re actually getting between a 3.2 and 4.0 WAR pitcher for this price. If it’s not repeatable, then his ERA will regress to around the FIP, and it’s still a bargain for a 2.5-3.0 WAR pitcher.
If healthy, a bargain
If injured, not something they can’t overcome.

by 






















