The Case of the Disappearing Franchise Player

Are franchise players a disappearing breed? (via Keith Allison, slgckgc, and Michelle Jay)

In the late hours of Aug. 31, 2017, with mere seconds left until the deadline, Detroit Tigers ace Justin Verlander was given a choice and very little time to make it. The choice was between staying with the team with which he had debuted, and with which he had spent 13 years establishing his legacy, or moving on to a franchise that was on the cusp of achieving greatness.

Verlander later told reporters, “It’s hard to put into words the emotions going on–from uprooting my family to everything you can imagine. Someone says, ‘You have 35, 40 minutes to decide. You know nothing about it. Go!’”

Ultimately, Verlander’s choice came down to which team could help him achieve his long-term goals. At 34 years old and with one rebound already in his career following a shaky season, Verlander chose to accept a trade to the Houston Astros with the hope he could finally win the World Series ring that had evaded him in 2006, 2012, 2013 and 2014. He wanted that milestone for himself and knew it wouldn’t come to him in Detroit, where the team was poised for a tear-down and rebuild.

So he said yes to Houston. In exchange, the Tigers received several players who would help bolster their flagging farm system. Verlander and the Astros went on to win the 2017 World Series. He got his ring after all, and the Astros seem set to make another run for the trophy in 2018.

Had Verlander been the only big name to be traded, it would have been newsworthy, but just a blip. A heartbreak for Tigers fans, certainly, but nothing to indicate an overall shift in how teams treat their stars. But Verlander seemed to be the first rumble of a franchise star trade avalanche. Soon it was obvious the Miami Marlins, under new ownership, had no interest in holding on to Giancarlo Stanton’s mammoth $295 million contract, even if it meant shipping off the reigning NL MVP.

Stanton, like Verlander, was a homegrown player. Stanton had been with the Marlins through a name change, represented them in four All-Star games, and claimed the NL MVP title in 2017 for, among other things, hitting 59 home runs. For the Marlins, a team that desperately needed star power to fill its seats, Stanton was a huge draw. At the end of the day, however, it became a question of money (and debt service) over man, and the team yielded to a rebuild, moving Stanton, and much of its established lineup, like Dee Gordon, Christian Yelich and Marcell Ozuna, as well.

It didn’t stop there. In the last weeks of December, the Tampa Bay Rays, who had claimed they were not rebuilding, traded their one established star, All-Star third baseman Evan Longoria, to the San Francisco Giants. In return, they received a pittance of prospects and the contract of Denard Span as an add-on.

The Giants, not content to take just one franchise face, then turned their attention to the Pittsburgh Pirates and made a deal for All-Star outfielder Andrew McCutchen. Like Verlander and Stanton, Longoria and McCutchen had worn only one uniform in their careers. Longoria even had accepted two team-friendly contract extensions, suggesting it was more important for him to stay with the Tampa club than test his luck in a lucrative free agent market.

What these teams are saying, effectively, by accepting these trades, is that the future gamble of intriguing prospects is more valuable to them than the certain draw of a star player. Of course, these players are not in their prime anymore; their heydey seasons are very likely behind them. To maximize return, it’s smart for teams to move them while they still hold some value.

What gets overlooked in this sort of calculated transaction, however, is the fan attachment to those stars, an oversight that can give the appearance that teams don’t care about their fan bases. In Tampa, where it can be difficult to lure fans to the Trop, the trade of Longoria seemed especially callous.

Ultimately, a winning team sees more fans in seats, sells more shirts, and inspires more season-ticket sales. Teams, wisely, are looking to build those winning franchises for the future by stocking their farm systems with as many quality young players as they can, hoping one is the future Clayton Kershaw or Mike Trout — even if doing so happens at the expense of a current Kershaw or Trout. It has become apparent teams are willing to take that risk, even if it means hurting fans in the meantime.

Wins first, always. Even if those wins are merely a glimmer of hope in ownership’s eyes.

For fans, this can lead to a feeling of bitterness towards the club, and moreso, confusion over precisely who makes up the team at all. Recently, amid rumors that 2016 Rookie of the Year pitcher Michael Fulmer might be on the trade market, the Tigers shipped out season tickets that featured no players on the packaging whatsoever, not even Miguel Cabrera, whose shine has become somewhat tarnished after battling several seasons of injury. While the promotional decision was made to ensure the packaging still was relevant when the season started — Fulmer’s image would later adorn the Tiger’s winter caravan bus— the message it sent to fans was clear: no stars here, sorry.

It’s actually incredibly rare for a player to make it through his whole career in one uniform, no matter how beloved he is by his home team. As of the 2017 season, among those who have played a minimum of 10 major league seasons, only 170 players managed to spend their entire careers with a single team. New Hall of Fame inductees Chipper Jones for the Braves and Alan Trammell for the Tigers (Veterans Committee inductee) were among them, playing 19 and 20 seasons each for their respective clubs. The Yankees have had 25 players spend their whole career in pinstripes, the highest of any team.

The Epistemology of Hitting; or, What Constitutes a Fact about Nolan Arenado?

by Evan Davis

As we pursue truth, are we striving too much for certainty?

Those numbers should make fans feel better about the length of time they got to watch their most beloved stars play in one jersey. But knowing how rare a feat it is to be a franchise guy is hardly a balm for the broken baseball heart.

It also means the idea of teams truly maintaining franchise stars might be its own misconception. With fewer than 200 men playing on one team for an entire career, cases like those of Verlander, Stanton, and Longoria are far more the norm. We’re just noticing it to a greater degree now because more teams of late have been willing to cut ties with their long-term established stars, sometimes for good reason.

Teams are making the most out of their young up-and-coming talent, and they’re being much smarter about it in many ways. The Astros signed Jose Altuve to an incredibly club-friendly contract extension in 2013, betting wisely on his potential. The Rays signed phenom outfielder Kevin Kiermaier to a six-year extension worth a minimum $53.5 million, as they suspected his free agent value might far exceed what they could afford to pay. Given how exciting guys like Aaron Judge and Cody Bellinger have been of late, there’s a good reason teams feel safe in letting go of the big stars. And given how readily fans rally to what’s new and exciting, perhaps owners are making a smart bet.

Teams wisely will hold onto those new and exciting players, but it seems there’s a lot less pull of late to keep them on once their cost begins to balloon. Fewer teams seem inclined to go past the competitive balance tax thresholds. What we’re going to come to see more and more of is existing large contracts being shuffled off whenever possible and teams latching onto club-friendly extensions to keep their stars playing for them. In some cases, players will choose to stay in a familiar environment rather than test the waters of free agency.

But even those kinds of deals don’t guarantee a player will stay with a franchise his whole career, as evidenced by the Rays’ trade of Longoria.

The executives in Tampa saw an opportunity to move Longoria for what they considered to be a fair return and a chance to add more talent to their already rich farm system. If one were to ignore that Longoria was the team’s “face,” the trade makes sense. It’s hard to imagine Longoria rising to new levels of superstardom in San Francisco. He likely already has had his best baseball. The same is true of McCutchen.

They will continue to remain names, potential draws, but it will be more for their past exploits than current ones. Verlander will excite Houston fans for another two seasons, but due in large part to the team’s continuing on-field success. Who’s to say we won’t see the Astros’ spark plug second baseman and undoubted franchise star, Altuve, featured in his own trade three or four years down the road, when the Astros’ window for further contention begins to close? It may feel impossible now, but as the tides of success ebb and flow, things can change.

What is clear is that teams seem less inclined to hold onto contracts for sentimental reasons. If there is value left in a star, he is sure to be fodder for a trade, and no level of fan devotion, or even amiable feelings between the player and management, can keep him safe forever.

If the era of the franchise star ever truly existed, this offseason has proven it is now dead. We are unlikely to see many players remain with the same team for the whole duration of their careers, either because of better offers in free agency or with trade deadline drama that shakes up the baseball world at midnight as August turns to September and the countdown to the postseason begins.

There will always be another Verlander, another Stanton, another Longoria. Perhaps one who can be held onto cheaply for a good long time. Or, at least, that’s what teams are betting on.

References and Resources

• Gabe Lacques, USA Today, “Justin Verlander ready to roll with Astros: ‘This is what you play for'”
• Ashley MacLennan, Drays Bay, “Evan Longoria reacts to trade: ‘It’s pretty tough to handle'”
• Matt Snyder, CBS Sports, “MLB Hot Stove Rumors: Marlins reportedly gave Giancarlo Stanton a trade ultimatum”
• Wikipedia