How walking away from Masterson could be reasonable
Cleveland's perspective not that outlandish, though the best-case is still getting a deal done
By Jim Piascik
March 21, 2014
Follow on Twitter
So how on Earth could Cleveland not finish negotiations with current #1 starter Justin Masterson and keep him long-term?
That is the question on everyone's mind this morning after news broke Thursday night that extension talks between Masterson and the team are over. The typical ranting and raving over the cheap Dolans and the stupid front office and other typical complaints followed.
But what if Cleveland is making a reasonable decision?
First, let's go over what we know (it is also important to note that each of these offers would be tacked on top of Masterson's $9.7 million contract he already signed for 2014).
Paul Hoynes of The Plain Dealer reported Thursday night that Masterson's side offered a two-year contract for $35 million and a three-year contract for roughly $51 million. Both of these come out to about $17 million per season.
Jon Heyman of CBS Sports reported that Cleveland's counter was a two-year deal with a club option. That offer carried around a $14 million per season salary.
On one hand, the difference between Masterson's two-year, $35 million contract and Cleveland's two-year, $28 million contract does not seem like much; split the difference, call it two years, $31.5 million, and sign on the dotted line. But in reality, these contracts are much farther apart.
The fact that Masterson would even offer a two-year extension seems crazy considering the sum Cincinnati Reds right-hander Homer Bailey just signed for. After an offseason where Bailey and Masterson were lumped together as similar pitchers approaching free agency following 2014, Bailey signed a six-year, $105 million contract (one of those years is 2014, so for comparing to these Masterson extension figures, Bailey signed a five-year, $96 million contract). That contract seemed to put Masterson out of Cleveland's price range, at least until his agents proposed a shorter, cheaper extension during spring training.
When comparing Masterson and Bailey, it is clear that both do not have the longest track records of success, yet both have performed at a high level recently.
Code: Select all
•Masterson (2013) : 3.45 ERA, 3.35 FIP, 3.33 xFIP, 9.09 SO/9, 3.54 BB/9, 3.4 fWAR in 193.0 IP
•Bailey (2013) : 3.49 ERA, 3.31 FIP, 3.34 xFIP, 8.57 SO/9, 2.33 BB/9, 3.7 fWAR in 209.0 IP
•Masterson (career): 4.03 ERA, 3.81 FIP, 3.82 xFIP, 7.45 SO/9, 3.57 BB/9, 14.1 fWAR in 1013.0 IP
•Bailey (career) : 4.25 ERA, 4.00 FIP, 3.95 xFIP, 7.44 SO/9, 2.91 BB/9, 10.5 fWAR in 853.0 IP
Masterson is slightly better for his career, but Bailey has youth on his side (Bailey turns 28 years old in May while Masterson turns 29 years old on Saturday). Overall the difference is essentially negligible, putting Masterson in line for at least a similar contract to the one Bailey signed.
In theory.
Dave Cameron at Fangraphs had the same question as everyone: if Masterson is willing to take so much less than the Bailey extension, how could Cleveland not pounce?
His take? Cincinnati just overpaid for Bailey, skewing our perceptions of the market.
According to Cameron's analysis, Masterson was offering Cleveland a fair market deal, not some kind of massive bargain; just because Cincinnati broke the market for Bailey does not mean Cleveland must do the same.
Regarding Masterson, Cameron writes
"Even if Masterson simply agreed to sign for 3/$45M with no option, it’s not clear that this is a large enough discount for a mid-revenue team like the Indians to take the risk of doing the deal a year ahead of time. After all, the Indians aren’t a team that can afford to buy a ton of market priced wins, and so to take on the risk of his 2014 health and performance, they should get a real discount over what Masterson would be expected to get as a free agent."
Basically, Masterson's side offered a contract that is close to what is considered market value in the aftermath of Bailey's big payday. Considering Masterson is a union rep and has the responsibility not only to himself with his contract but to future players, it should come as no surprise that the right-hander was not offering some gigantic bargain for the team.
But with Bailey diving into a pool of money in mind, the deal looked like a hometown discount and something Cleveland should jump at.
Now, even at two years, $35 million -- or something around that range -- I do think a deal could be worth doing. It is an expensive sum, but on a shorter-term deal, it has the potential to be worth it for Cleveland. It is a little surprising the two sides cannot find some sort of middle ground when they are (a) relatively close and (b) in agreement that the Bailey contract is not a real goal.
But the way information came out about Masterson's "benevolence" with the offer, Cleveland was quickly painted into a corner. Take the non-bargain deal and have a 15-20 percent chunk of the payroll tied up with Masterson or turn down the deal and face another round of criticism for being "cheap." This quickly turned into a no-win situation for Cleveland.
Did frustration at Masterson's camp for putting them in this position influence the negotiations? I have no inside information, but it is not much of a leap to see some friction there.
Maybe by publicly breaking off talks the two sides can negotiate out of the limelight and come to some agreement.
Maybe Cleveland has long-term concerns about Masterson and just wants to be done with the right-hander after 2014 no matter what.
But either way, seeing the extension negotiations break off and not end up being fruitful is not that big of a surprise. A disappointment on some level, yes. But a surprise? Not at all.
If you want to follow Jim on Twitter, he’s @JimPiascik. If you want to e-mail him, you can do so at
jpiasci1@kent.edu