Robertson gets 3-year, $21 million extension

I think they overpaid. I would've rather seen 2 year, $10 million...

Robertson gets 3-year, $21 million extension

January 16, 2008

By JON PAUL MOROSI

FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER

The Tigers have signed Nate Robertson to a three-year deal worth $21.25 million, a person with knowledge of the negotiations told the Free Press this morning.

Robertson will earn $4.25 million this year, $7 million in 2009 and $10 million in 2010. He would earn $11 million in the third year of the deal if he throws a combined 400 innings in 2008 and 2009 or 200 innings in 2009.

Robertson went 9-13 with a 4.76 ERA in 30 starts for Detroit this year. He is the second Tigers pitcher to receive a three-year contract extension this off-season, after Dontrelle Willis signed for $29 million in December.
.

I hope "Gum Time" doesn't become "Bum Time"!

We needed to lock other guys in before Nately....say, Justin? Curtis?

01/16/2008 1:25 PM ET
Tigers sign Robertson to three-year deal
Lefty has been innings-eater for Detroit over past four seasons
By Jason Beck / MLB.com

DETROIT -- The Tigers signed another member of their rotation to a long-term contract, agreeing to terms on a three-year deal with left-hander Nate Robertson.

The contract is worth $21.25 million -- $4.25 in 2008, $7 million in 2009 and $10 million in 2010. That 2010 salary jumps to $11 million if Robertson pitches either 400 innings in 2008 and 2009 combined, or 200 innings in 2009 alone.

Robertson has been a member of Detroit's rotation since being called up late in the 2003 season and has proven himself capable of taking a heavy workload. He has averaged 195 innings per year over his four full Major League seasons, including 208 2/3 innings during the regular season in 2006.

A three-week stint on the disabled list with a tired arm cost Robertson some innings last year following a solid start to the season. He finished with a 9-13 record and a 4.76 ERA, allowing 199 hits over 177 2/3 innings with 119 strikeouts.

If the Tigers were going to work out a longer-term contract with the 30-year-old lefty, now was probably going to be the time to do it. He was eligible for arbitration for the second time and would've been eligible for free agency after the 2009 season. Thus, the new contract essentially buys Detroit an extra year, much like the Tigers did with Dontrelle Willis last month.

Robertson, Willis and Jeremy Bonderman are all under contract through the 2010 season.

Jason Beck is a reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

I'm glad we signed him for the extension. We need pitchers. He isn't the best, but he will get the job done.

I do wish we could trage bonderman... because he can't get the job done.

laprimamirala wrote:

We needed to lock other guys in before Nately....say, Justin? Curtis?

I like that we resigned Nate, but your right! We need to take care of our really awesome players first, and then worry about the rest. Verlander is an amazing pitcher, and Curtis is just all around amazing.

TG wrote:

I do wish we could trage bonderman... because he can't get the job done.

I don't know... I think I trust Bonderman more than Robertson...

The Robertson contract makes sense, and here's why
Posted by Danny Knobler January 16, 2008 16:42PM

DETROIT -- Is Nate Robertson a $10 million pitcher?

Well, yes he is, in that he's going to make $10 million in the final year of the contract he signed with the Tigers today. And maybe that sounds like a lot, for a pitcher with a 42-55 career record, a pitcher who has managed to lose more than he wins the last two years for a team that wins a lot more than it loses. Since the start of the 2006 season, including the postseason, the Tigers are 27-38 when Robertson starts and 164-106 when he doesn't.

So why do they want to keep him around for the next three years, and why is he eventually going to make $10 million (or maybe even $11 million, if he pitches 400 innings the next two years or 200 in 2009)?

Welcome to baseball in the 21st century. Sorry, but this deal makes sense for the Tigers. First off, they get Robertson for $4.25 million in 2008, when he may well have gotten more than that in arbitration. They get Robertson for $7 million in 2009, again possibly for less than he would have made in arbitration. And while $10 million sounds like a lot, it's at or below where the market is pricing average big-league pitchers who give you about 200 innings (as Robertson does).

So why did Robertson sign? It's a lot of money, and a lot of security. Sure there's a chance that he would get more if he went year by year (and if his record improved). But if you had a chance to guarantee that you'll get $21.25 million over the next three years, setting you and your family up for life, in the city and for the team you want to play for, you'd do it, too.

Remember, Robertson isn't the Tigers' ace. That's Justin Verlander (who will be making a whole lot more than $10 million in 2010). He isn't their No. 2 pitcher (and Jeremy Bonderman will be making $12.5 million in 2010). He may not even be their No. 3 starter (Dontrelle Willis gets $12 million in 2010).

So why keep Robertson at all? Well, have you looked at the Tiger farm system lately? The one pitcher in the minor leagues they see as a definite big-league starter is Rick Porcello, who hasn't yet thrown a pitch in the minor leagues, let alone in the majors.

Maybe Robertson improves (he's 30 years old), and the deal eventually looks like a bargain. Maybe he gets hurt, and it looks like wasted money.

Right now, it looks like a reasonable deal, in baseball as it exists in 2008.

*****

A couple of other quick notes:

Robertson missed some time last year with what they called a ``tired arm,'' and there was some thought that he was affected by the long season and short offseason. He said today that pitching coach Chuck Hernandez suggested he take it a little easier this winter, and he has. He said he still hasn't thrown off a mound; he figures he'd already been on a mound five times at this point last winter.

You'll hear that the Tigers now have four of their five starting pitchers ``signed or under control'' at least through 2010. Here's what that means. Robertson, Willis and Bonderman have contracts that run through 2010, and all three would be free-agent eligible at that point. Simple enough. As for Verlander, the contract he signed out of the 2004 draft technically runs through 2009 (and will pay him just $500,000 in 2008). But the contract also says that Verlander can elect salary arbitration if he's eligible for it, which he will be after this season. So in effect, Verlander is only signed through this year. However, he has just two years and two days of big-league service time, leaving him four years short of qualifying for free agency. So he's technically signed through 2009, really signed through 2008, and ``under control'' to the Tigers through 2011.

Valuing Nate Robertson

I was sort of surprised to see the Detroit Tigers locking up Nate Robertson for three years and $21.25 million. While I normally like buying out free agent years, I don’t think this was a good move. The Tigers bought out only one year for not much of a discount.

As a free agent, I have him valued at $30 million over the next three years. But the Tigers would have gotten him for about what they will pay him during his arbitration years—$4.5 (2008) and $7 million (2009)—without much risk. If he has a phenomenal year in 2008 it’s possible that he gets more in 2009, but if he pitches poorly they get him for less. Why not just go to arbitration and take a small risk? A small fluctuation in performance means little to the Tigers, but is quite significant to a single player whose livelihood depends on his talent. The cost savings are supposed to occur in 2010 when he gets $10 million. But I have him valued at about $11 million in his first year as a free agent, which isn’t much of a cost savings.

It doesn’t seem like the Tigers are getting much of a discount for insuring Robertson against a decline in his play. I think it would have been better to let the future play out, and if he continues to pitch as he has, then you suck it up and pay the extra million. But maybe this is a sign that salaries are in for an even bigger jump than I am anticipating.

Thanks to David Pinto for the pointer.

Posted by JC in General, Moneyball

bobrob2004 wrote:

I don't know... I think I trust Bonderman more than Robertson...

I don't. I don't trust either, but Robertson more. I have seen Robertson pitch multiple times, and he is an okay pitcher, but he never seems to get very good run support (or like one of the games i was at we had a 6 run lead and grilli comes in and it gets tied!)

At the 2 games I was at that Bonderman pitched he got taken out in the 4th inning once and 5th once... And watching on tv i never feel safe with him in.

TG wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

I don't know... I think I trust Bonderman more than Robertson...

I don't. I don't trust either, but Robertson more. I have seen Robertson pitch multiple times, and he is an okay pitcher, but he never seems to get very good run support (or like one of the games i was at we had a 6 run lead and grilli comes in and it gets tied!)

At the 2 games I was at that Bonderman pitched he got taken out in the 4th inning once and 5th once... And watching on tv i never feel safe with him in.

I don’t know, I just remember Robertson having more worse games than Bonderman…

Bonderman – 56-62, 2.56 K/BB ratio, 4.78 ERA, 1.37 WHIP, 93 ERA+
2003 – 14/28 QS (50%)
2004 – 12/32 QS (37.5%)
2005 – 17/29 QS (58.6%)
2006 – 19/34 QS (55.9%)
2007 – 15/28 QS (53.6%)
Total – 77/151 QS (51%)

Robertson – 42-55, 1.98 K/BB ratio, 4.60 ERA, 1.41 WHIP, 97 ERA+
2004 – 16/32 QS (50%)
2005 – 16/32 QS (50%)
2006 – 20/32 QS ( 62.5%)
2007 – 13/30 QS (43%)
Total – 65/126 QS (51.5%)

Their stats are very similar. Robertson’s best season was in ’06 when he had a 3.84 ERA, 119 ERA+, 208.2 IP, 2.04 K/BB ratio; while Bonderman’s best year was also in ’06 when he had a 4.08 ERA, 112 ERA+, 214 IP, 3.16 K/BB ratio. Robertson had 13 wins that year while Bonderman had 14. And since they’ve become full time starters, they allow their offense to win about 51% of the time. Funny how people seem to think of Bonderman as a “front of the rotation guy” while Robertson is a “back of the end rotation guy.”

But in 2010 I think Bonderman will have the better season of these two. He will have the age thing going for him (26 to 33) and he’s got to have that breakout season one of these years, right?

Go Tigers

Your link doesn't work. Try again!

I think we should look at locking up our great players like Verlander first...I don't mind Nate or Bondo but neither one of them has Verlander stuff. Some of the role players will change over the years as that is free agency in today's game, but I would love to see us lock up our nucleus of stars with long term deals. Probably wishful thinking with the Yanks and BoSox waiting in the wings.

Justin is definitely getting shortchanged. Why pay oodles for newbie Dontrelle when you know Justin can deliver? (did he even get a raise?)

No he didn't and I really wish they would show some good faith and give him a new contract now while they can still afford him. His potential is incredible and what an awesome arm. I would be devastated if we lost Justin down the road.

Nobody (recently) can do what he's done at such a young age. I hope he does feel some loyalty and wants to stay for awhile.

I sure hope so...I just know if I was #1 and everybody was making it but me I don't know how much loyalty I would feel. The guy is awesome...he threw me a ball at the world series in St. Louis cause I was watching him warm up in my tigers jersey. Told me thanks for coming to the game...can you imagine?

We have to keep showin' all Tigs the love and loyalty. I know they enjoy their fans. Sure wish he had been at Fandemonium.

I wish I had been there

It was low-key, but that worked for us. I'm not sure I could've handled the crush of Tigerfest...
by the by, what do you teach/coach?

Tigers can pay Robertson 21 million but they could not pay 1 -2 million to keep Durbin!

that does seem pretty absurd!

I miss Durbin!

From cdurb's avatar, that boy did not look happy at all in a Phillies uniform.

Nate can buy a lot of gum for $21 million.

or he can give some of that 21 mil to those of us less fortunates!

I teach Health and coach Basketball...I think I could live on 21 million. It is just a little better than I make as a teacher.

good for you! I could definitely do it as well. But not quit my job and do weird things like most lottery winners. Life as usual, pay off debt, then invest invest invest!

LOL...I would be sitting on the front row at Comerica every game with that kind of money though Wouldn't that be fun...