Jayson Werth, Sham-WOW

Bigger rip-off, Werth for $127 Million or the ShamWow?

In December 2006 two players signed deals for 7 years and $126M-- Barry Zito with the Giants and Vernon Wells with the Blue Jays.  Fast-forward to December 2010 and we have Jayson Werth signing a 7 year $126M deal
with the Washington Nationals.  The Nationals have to be crossing their fingers that this deal doesn't end in a similar fate as those other two deals.  Jayson Werth right now is better than either Vernon Wells or Barry Zito were at the time of their signing but he's also a few years older.  Moreover, Jayson Werth who at 31 years old has 18.7 career WAR will get more money than Matt Holliday did last year with 21.9 career WAR at the age of 29.

Now, teams have been spending more money this winter, showcased by middle relievers getting 3 years (Benoit), backup catchers getting $21M (Buck) middling starting pitchers in their 30s getting $35M extensions (Arroyo) but any way you want to slice it, this is a vast overpay for the Nationals.  The rumor was that Werth was going to sign a contract in between the 4 years $60M that Jason Bay signed and the $120M that Matt Holliday got.  But the Nationals blew Werth out of the water offering more money than Matt Holliday.  Crazy.  Scott Boras clients usually don't sign early with Boras sometimes even taking so much time to the detriment of his client (see Damon, Johnny).  When Werth showed a willingness to accept a deal this early, that should have been a sign to the Nationals that this was too much, but of course there should have been a million other signs like his age (32 on opening day), his injury history in his early years, the (bad) history of contracts like this (and we even failed to mention Alfonso Soriano) and the fact that the Nationals aren't going to competing in the next few years.

More on that last point, the Nationals will be paying  a total of $36M to Jayson Werth in 2011 and 2012 for the team to not compete.  Further, at the end of his contract Werth will be making $36M when he's 37 and 38.  There is a small window, in 2013-2014, where Werth may be productive enough to earn his salary at the same time that the Nationals can expect to compete.  For that small window, the Nationals decided to spend an extra $72M.  Oh, and I forgot to mention that Werth plays the same position as the Nationals best prospect, Bryce Harper.  And if they expect Werth to not be an everyday right fielder by the time Harper is ready that just reaffirms how irresponsible of a move this was.  Again, crazy.

There isn't any reasonable excuse for this kind of irresponsible spending but there may be an explanation and  it may have been in reaction to Adam Dunn leaving where Ryan Zimmerman said:

"Knowing that we had one of the three top free agents on our team and we didn't want to resign him, it's frustrating for us as players," Zimmerman said. "We're not in the front office. We don't make the decisions, and we don't have to write the checks. But we're getting to the point on our team where we're supposed to wait it out, wait for the young guys, start doing some things and start making some moves. Not only are we ready for that, I think the fans are, as well. We've trusted the front office, and we still trust them. But we want to best possible team on the field." 

 [...]

"When you add a guy like that, a bona fide No. 4 hitter, it lengthens your lineup a ton - a guy that would be hitting fifth is hitting sixth," Zimmerman said. "It makes the other team notice. I think all of us notice what they (in the front office) do. We've trusted their plan the whole time, and now it's getting to that point where it's time to do some things. We know we have a good young team, but we need a few pieces. Obviously, you're not going to do all that in one season, but you can add a piece here and add a piece there."

Ryan Zimmerman's opinion may, and likely should, carry some weight in the Nationals front office as he's their best player, but if that's the case then they'd be better off with Dunn for 4 years than Werth for 7 years.

I'm sure you didn't need to read my 2 cents on this deal to realize this was a bad move by the Nationals but I'm going to leave you with 2 more thoughts, or cents if you will:

1. This deal doesn't prove that bad teams have to spend more on free agents.  As Keith Law mentioned, that would require good teams to get free agents at a discount, and as the Yankees will tell you, that just isn't the case.  Bad teams do, however, make stupid decisions and this is definitely qualifies as one.
2. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking this deal will change or attempt to change the atmosphere in the Nationals' clubhouse.  When the Mets (over)spent for Pedro Martinez people claimed that Pedro changed the culture of the Mets, allowing them to bring in Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado--that even though Pedro Martinez was paid $53M to have only one good season, it was well worth it-- baloney.   Winning changes the clubhouse, not careless spending.