Hey all,

First of all I was really thrilled by some of the responses to my last post about differential basbeall analysis. I am doing some of the math behind the project right now (I unfortunately had no takers in helping me on the stats/data mining side), and I am already seeing some very interesting results about the real, negative value of "ground ball" hitters as well as guys without patience. One of the interesting consequences of differentials is the existence of many secondary effects, and GB hitters as well as those who don't see too many pitches have a very real and negative type of secondary effect that I will be measuring. Hint: in this system, Bartlett is a very, very poor hitter for your team, not individually.

Second of all, I wanted to ask everyone's opinion about Stephen Strasburg, the rookie phenom who is apparently the next coming of everyone from Barry Sanders to Carey Price and everything in between. His agent, venerable Scott Boras, is reportedly seeking a $50 MM deal for Strasburg's rookie contract.

Strasburg is clearly the best available player in the draft. He throws in the high 90's, sometimes topping 100, doesn't walk many people, and seems to have at least three major-league quality pitches already. One scout (probably a cronie of Mr. Boras) has hyped that Strasburg is already a better pitcher than AJ Burnett, a claim I find pretty ridiculous given Strasburg's zero pro ball experience.

The Nationals, thanks to winning fewer than 60 games last season, have the distinct advantage of picking first this year, and Strasburg should be a no-brainer. Except the kid (Boras) wants a $50 MM deal with a $10 MM signing bonus included. This is more money than we committed to Pat Burrell, a proven (if defensively inept) major league hitter who is expected to provide an impact bat to the offense. Washington really has its hands tied here: the financial committment to Strasburg, however large it may be, will probably tie its hands over the next few seasons. Who's to say Strasburg doesn't crash and burn at the major league level, or at least not produce up to expectations for a season or two. For $50 MM, you can get three years of Derek Lowe consistency or two years of the best right-handed hitter in baseball. For $50 MM, you should be getting a sure thing. And, financially-strapped, small-market teams (which are more likely to receive high draft picks due to smaller budgets) are now being put in a position where they may not be able to select the best overall available player because the player is willing to sit out.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm a big believer in the free market, and I think that the draft may not really even be the best or most fair way to get rookie players to teams. I'm totally against a salary cap in baseball (or any organized sport) and I like to see market-setting behavior from teams such as the Yankees and Dodgers, who basically determine player prices after acquiring top-line talent. The problem is, without any way of controlling rookie salary demands, struggling organizations such as Washington will not be able to select the best overall player, and if they choose to do so, they risk not being able to sign him to an earthly deal. This is a problem going on in many sports, including the NFL.

The NHL caps rookie contracts. I don't think this is the right approach. But, players who declare for the draft should be signable at a modest rate, no matter what kind of potential or current skills the players may possess. If the player is truly spectacular, he will make money through the arbitration process in as soon as two years. He could be commanding Ryan Howard money if he is successful, and then the Nationals will be even more strapped for cash. At least if he is signed, however, he is tradeable, and they can move him before arbitration kicks in.

What should baseball do? Here's my suggestion: Create an "opt-in" system. What  mean by this is that baseball should force rookies to declare whether or not they will go to and agree by an arbitration hearing should they not sign a contract with a willing team. If the player opts in, he and/or the team can request arbitration, and the two parties must agree to abide and sign by the arbitor's decision. If a player opts in, he is eligible for arbitration as a "Super Two."

If the player chooses not to opt-in, he can still declare for the draft but his status will be noted as such and he will not be eligible for arbitration until after his third year, no matter how he performs the first three.

I don't know if the players' union will go for this (most likely not) but it could easily be tied into other changes in the arbitration and compensation system that make equal or better concessions for veteran players and other such nonsense. The point is that by forcing an arbitration hearing, the team knows that cost control won't be so much of an issue (it will be hard for any agent, including Boras himself, to convince an arbitor that his rookie should receive a $50 MM deal before ever playing a single day in the majors).

That's just my two cents. Let me know what your suggestions are!