A Mad Max Contract for Scherzer

"A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." --Sen. Everett Dirksen

Three years ago, the best pitcher in baseball -- that is, the pitcher with the best performance over the last three-to-five years -- was Roy Halladay. He's now retired, after his arm, and his ERA, blew up.

Two years ago, the best pitcher in baseball was Justin Verlander, who posted a 4.54 ERA last season, 20% worse than average.

Today, you've probably heard that the Washington Nationals have signed Max Scherzer to a seven year deal worth $210 million. We're enured to the numbers at this point, but $210 million is still a boatload.

Because he's not Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer is certainly not the best pitcher in baseball. He's probably not second. But over the last three years he's dominated opposing batters to the tune of 55-15, 3.24 and 723 strikeouts. Any team would like to have the Max Scherzer of the last three seasons.

The problem is, that doesn't guarantee anything about next year, when Scherzer will be 30. And it hardly provides any guide at all to his performance five years from now, when he'll still have two years remaining on the deal.

In a spectacular study at Baseball Prospectus, Sam Miller and Mike Gianella found that 20 high-priced free agent pitchers who performed similar to Scherzer before age 30 pretty much pooped the bed thereafter. Only about half performed at an above average level the following year, and by year four more than half were either out of baseball or below replacement level.

Maybe Scherzer is like the other half. Small consolation. Even the top 50% stopped being Max Scherzer 2014 and became Kyle Gibson 2014. "Who's Kyle Gibson?" you're asking. Yeah, that's the point. (Answer: A rookie Twins starter who went 13-12, 4.47. He's not making $30 million next season.)

Maybe Scherzer's even better than the good half. Maybe there's something unique about him because he's Max. Maybe he's more like Tom Glavine, the only member of the exalted group who maintained consistently high level performance for even five years. (It's worth noting that Glavine signed the big deal with the Braves, the team that knew him best.) Then the Nats have brought aboard 33 WAR and a first ballot Hall of Famer.

That's awesome, but it's not the way to bet. First ballot Hall of Famers are celebrated because they are rare, even among guys who dominated batters from age 27-29. Instead, the Nationals have placed a quarter-billion dollar chip on 37 hoping against the odds that it will cash in.

I'm Just Sayin'

Last year I opined that it would be great for Tom Glavine and John Smoltz to join Greg Maddux in retirement. The three of them ought to make their Cooperstown debuts together. I pointed out that, in their 40s, Glavine had dropped to sixth on the depth chart while Smoltz had earned the loyal customer discount at the rehab store.

Instead, Glavine signed up for one last stint with the Braves and Smoltz inked a deal to spell Dice-K in Boston as soon as his elbow was compliant. And several readers sent their verbal brick-a-bats my way for demeaning the two greats.

Fast forward to August 6, 2009. Having watched Grandpa Tom throw in practice, the Braves cast their lot instead with guys barely clear of their pacifiers, and Smoltz, back from the DL, has contributed exquisitely to the Yankees' pennant run, surrendering a Ponsonian 39 runs in 41 innings. By hanging around one year too many, they'll not only have to retire on someone else's terms (Glavine's services are in demand on par with Mike Vick's), but the magic carpet carrying Maddux into the Hall of Fame in 2013 will have to come back for them the following year.

I also suggested that Plaxico Burris not shoot himself in the thigh. I'm telling ya, ballplayers should listen to me.
b