Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 494: Evan Drellich on the Astros’ Aiken Pains

Episode Date: July 17, 2014

Ben and Zachary talk to Houston Chronicle Astros beat writer Evan Drellich about the Astros’ contentious negotiations with no. 1 overall pick Brady Aiken.

Two disappointed believers, two people playing the game Negotiations and love songs are often mistaken for one and the same Good morning and welcome to episode 494 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Prospectus presented by the BaseballReference.com Playette Dicks. I am Ben Lindberg, soon to be a staff writer for Grantland.com. I am joined today by Zachary Levine of Baseball Prospectus, who joined us recently and Russell Carlton ran the numbers. And where did you rank among frequent Effectively Wild guests or guest co-hosts I think I was tied for first if you don't count uh the uh the 30 preview segments that uh that were done each of the last couple years

if I don't have a 30 and a 30 ahead of me I think Paul Spohr and I were tied for first so we're making history here so Sam and I as mentioned I Spohr and I were tied for first. So we're making history here. So Sam and I, as mentioned, I am traveling. Sam and I could not coordinate times, mostly my fault, and mostly the fault of Canadian internet. I am in the British Columbian wilderness right now, and Zachary is in Las Vegas. And we are talking today to Evan Drellick, who is in Minnesota, who's covering the All-Star Game and is still hanging around. Hey, Evan. Hey, guys. There's a lot of pressure for me with Zachary there.

Being on the same podcast with my predecessor, you're putting a lot of pressure on me here, but I think I can handle it. I know. It's like Star Trek Generations except with Houston Chronicle Astros beat writers. We've got the former one and the current one. Evan, why don't you tell the world where you are right now? I am standing outside of a place called Whirlyball, W-H-I-R-L-Y. It's apparently, I've never participated, I'm about to, it's apparently a bumper car-esque, some sort of lacrosse kind of involvement,

like a cross between bumper cars and lacrosse. So you're in a bumper car and you've got a pole and you try to scoop up, I assume it's a ball or a round object, and you try to get it in the goal. But I haven't done it yet. So there's great excitement to follow for me after we're done here. Yeah, that sounds much more entertaining. And if we like it, we're adding it to All-Star Week next year. Yeah, that could be the perfect skills competition. That could be part of the skills competition.

So we have called Evan here today because the Astros are in the news. The Astros are doing something controversial. I know this never happens. This is unprecedented. The Astros are doing something controversial. I know this never happens. This is unprecedented. But the Astros are embroiled in this mess currently with the number one overall pick in the draft, Brady Aitken.

The deadline to sign Aitken is 4 p.m. on Friday. And as of now, he is unsigned. And there is a dispute broiling here. The Astros had come to an agreement with him for a $6.5 million bonus. And then there were medical issues. And now there are disputes over whether there is a problem with Aiken's elbow. And if so, how much he should be paid, how much that bonus should be reduced. There is haggling going on back and forth. There's posturing. There's war in the media. how much he should be paid, how much that bonus should be reduced. There is haggling going on back and forth.

There's posturing. There's war in the media. So we have invited Evan on here to tell us about this situation because he's been covering it very thoroughly for The Chronicle. So, Evan, first, I guess, tell us what did the Astros know or what did teams know generally about the players that they are going to draft? How much medical information do they have and why did whatever they saw after the draft come as a surprise? I should know real quick. The deadline is 4 p.m. Central for those who will be watching the clock on Friday, 5 p.m. Eastern. The answer is not very much in terms of knowledge

teams go into the draft with. Now, the top 200 guys, the scouting bureau sends out a form. I was talking to an agent about this today. There's no teeth to it. There's nothing, you know, you don't have to go get a physical. You don't have to go get an MRI. In the NFL with the scouting combine, you do. They put you through all this ahead of time. Now, I don't have to go get an MRI. In the NFL, with the scouted combine, you do. They put you through all this ahead of time. Now, I don't think the agents and the union would ever go for a combine-like system. Part of the problem is logistics. You know, when you have the draft, you still have people playing.

How are you going to do this? Maybe just off the top of my head, you would have to think there could be a way to do it for the top 200 guys, the guys that the Scouting Bureau follows. But, you know, the Astros took a guy that they had never seen an MRI of his arm. And it's the reason, you know, why don't, a question I had in my head for a long time was why don't major league players go for an MRI every year? And the answer is because, A, you're always going to find something, particularly on older players, and B, you're just giving teams ammunition or leverage against you.

If they did have the MRIs ahead of time, how many times do you think it would actually help a guy? It wouldn't. The only guy that would help is the kind of guy who had a known injury, had a major surgery, is trying to come back and prove he's healthy. Otherwise, you're just giving a team a way to find something wrong with you and drop your draft stock. Yes, we get that question a lot. A lot of our listeners wonder why pitchers don't go for MRIs after every single start, it seems like. So can you tell us a little bit about what you found out about what the issue is here? Because it sounds unusual. It's not the typical torn UCL situation. It seems to be a case where there is an undersized UCL or a missing UCL or a malformed UCL in some sense.

So what have you discovered here and what implications does that have for Aiken's health? Yeah, I spoke to someone yesterday who has knowledge of what's going on. And I asked the question, well, if this is an elbow ligament issue, why not just have him go for Tommy John surgery? We see how successful Tommy John is and how unfortunately frequent it's become. And the answer was because according to this person, it would not be a straightforward um you know quote-unquote slam dunk tommy john surgery because he has the name r.a dickie was mentioned i it's it doesn't seem to me my understanding is that the ligament is not entirely missing uh but it's slight it's it's an abnormal ucl um yeah i spoke to a doctor after that and explained what I knew. And with that information,

it wasn't enough for him to be fully convinced that Tommy John surgery would indeed be problematic. And probably unless we had an MRI in front of us, we wouldn't be able to make that decision. It's just from afar, there's just not enough information yet. But, you know, that is the most I've gotten. I haven't seen anybody else get any more detail than that, that it's related to an abnormal UCL. And so there's some disagreement about whether this is a problem or how big a problem it is, because obviously he's been able to pitch with this issue and pitch well enough to get drafted first overall. And his agent, Casey Close, and his trainer have said that he's asymptomatic, that he's able to pitch, which isn't quite the same as saying that there's no irregularity here.

So that's not necessarily contradicting the idea that the Astros have found something or picked up on something unusual. And so the question is, I guess, whether this abnormality is actually a risk factor or whether it's just something that works for Aiken for whatever reason. Right. It's the question of how much latent danger really is there. How much are the Astros using this to their advantage and trying to sign Mac Marshall and saying, well, you know, maybe I don't think a team would ever instruct the doctor. At least I hope a team would never instruct the doctor to exaggerate a situation, right? And the medical profession is one we need to have faith in. But the door is there.

And, you know, there's real collective bargaining issues here. A, with the slotting, because Jacob Nix, who's the fifth round pick, is contingent on Brady. B, with the way the medical draft process is run, as we were talking about earlier, you know, if a major league player is hurt, right, one of your 25 man guys gets hurt, he has a right to a second opinion and the team has to consider that second opinion. Now in this situation, there were second and third and fourth and fifth opinions, but the team doctor is the final say leaving the only real recourse here, a grievance, which could happen, um, or Brady going back out and trying to go, uh, pitch a

junior college for a year or try to go to UCLA or something like that. Right. And so Close represents both Aitken and Nix, the fifth rounder that the Astros drafted and came to an agreement also for an above slot bonus with him. And so he understandably is upset about what's happened here, that the Astros had this verbal agreement and have rescinded it because it was, I guess, kind of contingent on the bonus that they had agreed to with Aiken. And so Kloses said that the Astros have acted with a complete disregard for the rules, while an MLB spokesman said that he is confident that the Astros have acted in complete accord with the rules. So it's either complete disregard or complete accord. It can't be both of those things.

So which rule is close saying or implying that the Astros have disregarded, I guess? And who's right? Have the Astros actually violated any rules here? and who's right? Have the Estros actually violated any rules here? Well, you know, Zach had the tweet sometime yesterday that I've read this however many times and I still can't figure out what the rule is. I've had the same reaction.

I'm not sure exactly what it could be. Knicks would seem to be the area where something could have been violated. But there are times when the players union and agents will themselves back out of a verbally agreed upon deal, right. That's kind of a, you know, have your cake and eat it too type of thing. That's to me is the most you might be talking about.

But he could also be speaking to those other issues. You know, are they following the spirit of, of the CBA both in terms of the medical and medical and the way the slotting has come up. But I have a hard time seeing where a specific rule has definitely been violated at this point. They just haven't said it. Now, Evan, do you get the sense that the numbers that I've seen reported are 6-5 for Aiken was before the medical exam and 1-5 for Knicks. Do you get the sense that either or both of those was a pre-draft number, that either or both of those was a number where we'll pick you because we know your number?

I know officially you can't have that, but you can know a player's number. I mean, that's what they did with Carlos Correa when the Astros got a discount on him. Do you think that this was all part of one puzzle here? I think when you're drafting your top 10 rounds, I think that's the way all teams approach it as much as you can. I think it's case to case how much you can know very far ahead of draft day, but once you're on draft day, as I understand it, you're calling guys constantly right before your pick and things like that um you know mac marshall is the interesting part of all this right because because it seems those those three guys played in the same 18 and under team usa uh championship winning team last year are they you know what what was their sense of what it would take to get marshall and how convinced were they going into the draft that they would be able to do it?

And I don't have the answer to that at this point. You know, I think the interesting thing with all this is clearly I more than I was 48 hours ago. I after having written that story yesterday, did the reporting involved with it? It does seem that there is a legitimate issue. the reporting involved with it it does seem that there is a legitimate issue and and you know what it would be quite incredible if there weren't uh for the astros to be so bold as to uh try to manipulate the situation um just because of that uh but and and ben you touched on this at the start this isn't an organization that's bought itself goodwill that kind of bought itself the benefit of the doubt at this point and casey close is you

know you could somebody may over already written it but there's an argument to be made that he is the top agent in the game and i'm sure scott boris would would not appreciate that and that's up for debate um but in terms of who do you believe in the situation from afar it i think casey close has that going for him right now, and probably he realizes that. He realizes the Astros are a team that if you go public and say they're doing things the wrong way, people are going to believe it. Now, who is... We know Aitken's story. I mean, the number one pick in the draft.

Who is Jacob Nix, and is he a guy who, I mean, often you see a guy, you know, have a verbal agreement for 1.5 in the fifth round, and it's either he's an injury guy where he's one of these really high ceiling but fell because of an injury and still demands the money, or I guess probably more often he fell past a certain point and then no one wanted to take him because they didn't think they could sign him. Is he, as you've talked to people inside or outside, probably more outside the organization, is he considered a first-round talent? Is it a big deal if they can't get a deal done with him?

I think it's a big deal if you can't get a deal done with anybody within the top 10. done with him? I think it's a big deal if you can't get a deal done with anybody within the top 10, right? I don't think you take a guy in the top 10 and certainly he's a, he's, you know, he's another UCLA commit. He's another close guy. He's not Aiken, but nobody else is in that draft. I think you take, you take him knowing you can get him.... and and they did i mean they think if it doesn't have the solutions we understand it uh... there's no problem but he was a perfectly i don't know about marshall but for for a cannon for for uh... brady effort brady and mix it's it doesn't there's no issue

on the others those deals reported done i think june seventh you know uh... or that might be making Aiken's day and Nix was either a couple of days before it or after it. So it seems the thought process going in was correct. It's just there's been this stumbling block. So if you were inclined to go full conspiracy theory here, or maybe you have some grudge against the Astros and you're inclined to perceive whatever they do in the most negative light possible, then the rationale here for them from that perspective would be, say, that they took Marshall not expecting to have a shot at him

and maybe found that he was more willing to negotiate than they expected. to negotiate than they expected. And so they've, they've adjusted by looking for this way to, to save on Aiken in order to afford Marshall. Is that the, the basic scenario that, you know, if, if you wanted to look at what the Astros are doing in the worst possible light, that would, that would be the thought process there? I think so. But I also think at this point, it would be very hard to believe that. Right. believe that. I think there's a question of an element of that. Are they pushing Aiken? Let's say the issue is real, and there's very much a reason to believe that the issue is real. Again, we just don't know how serious this latent danger is. So maybe the reality is instead of 6.5 he deserves 5.

I don't know how you value these things if they're very smart people doing that. But maybe they feel like, well, if we can just get another mill down here, maybe we get Marshall. Maybe that's where it comes in. But again, that's just kind of speculation at this point. a lot as a player. If he walks away, it kind of screws up their whole draft because he takes that

portion of the draft pool with him. Maybe it makes it harder for them to sign players in the future. It contributes to their reputation as this cold calculating team. So it does seem like, you know, if that were true, then it would validate everything negative that anyone has ever said about the Astros, because it seems sort of like a stretch for all of that actually to be the case, for them really to be making this up or making a much bigger deal out of whatever the issue is than it deserves. Yeah, sure. I think probably that's a fundamental disagreement between Aikens camp and the Astros about just what this injury means.

The Astros might feel one way and Aikens camp another. That seems to be what it comes down to. But they do need each other here. I still think it would be surprising if Friday passes and they haven't gotten it done. The chances of Aikens becoming a first overall pick again are, you know, essentially nil.

And the Astros, who, but Marco Pella gave them seven runs again tonight, second straight out. They have so far been, look, it's very early. We'll see what happens in three years. But right now, if you say right now in the moment, they missed. They missed on that pick. They should have taken Bryant. We'll see what happens in three years. But right now, if you say right now in the moment, they missed. They missed on that pick. They should have taken Bryant. We'll see what the future holds.

And, you know, that's not a final judgment. It's just right now they missed. The other first overall pick is out for the year with a broken leg. That's bad luck. You can't – nothing you can do about that, but it happens. You really can't let this – you can't let it go. But at the same time, if there really is a problem with him you probably are better off taking the pick next year um so and and that's just what we don't know

how how bad is it is it really bad enough that the asterisk would be wise not to sign him at all i think if you're still willing to give him 3.1 probably tells you that he's not worth passing on, you know, if you're still willing to give him 3.1. Right, and that's the minimum amount that they need to offer in order to get that compensation pick next year, which would be the second overall pick. Right, and if they don't sign him, let's say there's a grievance filed on behalf of Knicks for the deal that got done.

There's a scenario there where you're losing draft picks next year because they make you sign a Knicks or something like that. You know, the potential for a grievance isn't a good thing in this. Uh, and it's definitely leverage towards, um, toward Brady, but I, I, I wrote this think in the end it's not going to matter. But by coming out and being so vocal as Casey Close was with Fox Sports, it's pretty clear that Brady Aitken has an agent right now. It's not definitive, but Jim Crane, the Astros owner, referenced the fact that the team and Jeff Luno were talking to the agent. Now, this happens everywhere.

This is one of these silly baseball rules that nobody actually follows, just like the July 2nd international signing. Nobody gets the deal done ahead of time. But if this doesn't get done and Brady wanted to go to UCLA, it would seem possible to me that there would be an NCAA eligibility issue here because you're not allowed to have an agent, which just kind of complicates the other scenarios more. Yeah, it's interesting. You've been in Houston.

You're hearing from readers, you're hearing from fans, things like that. What is the opinion in Houston of, I guess, beyond just this, the way that the Astros conduct business? Yeah, I know fans are going to be upset that the team is losing and everything, but are fans finding this smart and interesting in some of the things that we talk about? Or do you think people find them cheap and cold and calculating, as was mentioned here?

What do you think the general perception is outside the games? I think it's a mix. I mean, there's certainly, we see the diehard fans that fully believe in everything. I don't think, I don't know if anything of what you just said is mutually exclusive. They can kind of be all those things. There's no question that what they've done is a cost-saving measure. Jim Crane has saved a considerable amount of money by going this way. I think there's been a sentiment expressed that this is the only thing they could have done,

has been basically this exact roadmap. I think for the most part that's true, but it's not exactly true. There are other decisions they could have made. They could have spent more on Jose Abreu, for example. You know, I don't know if there's one overriding sentiment. I think fans are getting impatient. I think Jim Crane himself, you could hear it in spring training when he's talking about hoping the team would get to 81 wins this year.

You know, he didn't say that was a goal uh an expectation but he you know it was clearly something that was never going to happen you know barring uh uh you know what is it you guys did your your um that that fun sam i think you did he did a great story uh about you know the one season where the Astros and the simulation of however many times you guys did it, 191 games or whatever it might have been. Yeah, I think it's fan to fan. I think some fans are patient. I think some are just, you know, tired of hearing about

how smart an organization is without seeing some results. I spoke to someone today who said that just looking at this situation, he thought that whether the Astros have handled it well or not, and maybe they've handled it perfectly, but his sense was that not many teams would have handled it this way, rightly or wrongly, that you could count on one hand the number of teams that would take it this far, I guess, on a potentially minor issue, or maybe it's not. Maybe it's not fair to say that, but that the Astros certainly are kind of calculating and they want to get every edge that they possibly can and that maybe they're correct in doing that,

but that would not be the typical way that most teams would handle this. Do you get the sense that that's true? Because you wrote that article about how the Astros are perceived in the industry a couple months ago, and Sam and I discussed it. And one of the complaints that you heard from people was that the Astros treat players as assets or as statistics and not people. And this is maybe more fodder for that perception. I don't know whether that's fair or whether it's just that there is that pre-existing reputation. And so this kind of falls into that bucket. But do you get the sense that this is a uniquely Astros way of handling this situation for better or worse? handling this situation for better or worse? I think if any team, given the answer is a benefit of the doubt, if any team believed this was a serious problem, they would probably have to go this far.

But again, if you're willing to pay the guy 3-1, that's where it gets, you know, how bad could it be? It's kind of a thought I keep coming back to. If it's so bad, you would probably just break it off. I was talking to somebody who's been through this before, and he said that, A, it was a cut-and-dry situation, but, B, he said that he was very upfront about it. We don't know. I don't know what's been going on in those conversations

between Casey and, well, between the family and the Astros, whoever's talking to whoever at this point without touching NCAA eligibility rules. You know, I asked Scott Boris, it's something I'm going to write coming up, what's the difference between the Astros and the Cubs if there is one? Because I think those are the two teams that we can say are following something of a similar rebuilding process, at least at the same time. And he said they were completely different, ideologically, and I didn't expect that answer.

And he went on to say that Jeff kind of has, to his experience, hasff kind of has a to his experience as a uh kind of narrow um track of of thinking i guess and i i he didn't mean narrow in a derisive way um but he made the point that you know he he knows theo's uh front office and decision makers better um and that basically he doesn't with the Astros. He kind of knows Jeff, and that's kind of what he knows about the operation. He did mention the word baseball people, which is, of course, when you start getting into a question of old school and new school

and all those types of things. But I think it's really interesting to compare those two franchises. Is there another team out there that would take it this far? Yeah, I do think there is. I think the Astros have gotten in their own way. I think their PR attempts almost shoot themselves in the foot. When you ask about the story I wrote in May, perception can be misperception. If a player is pissed because of shifts, which he shouldn't be,

and we know this, right? We know the numbers are there, okay? But if a player is pissed because of shifts, he's still pissed. And the Astros have put themselves in a position where they've given people a lot of things to be ticked off about. And they rightfully believe winning will cure it. And you know what? I think they're right.

Winning will cure it. It's just, it's been kind of a rocky path to get to a point where they can get there. And lastly, can you imagine anything changing, anything systematic, structural changing as a result of this controversy? Because, of course, it's it's possible to find some wear and tear in any pitcher's arm when you look at an MRI. some wear and tear in any pitcher's arm when you look at an MRI and the interpretation of the MRI results is somewhat subjective and players are kind of at the mercy of the team's interpretation of those results. There's no real recourse there. Can you imagine, you know, there being a fix for this kind of thing to kind of put the player and the team on an equal playing field in the future? Obviously, the players union is upset about this. Is there some change that

could be instituted that would help future teams and players avoid this sort of situation? Yeah, you know, it was funny. So Tony Clark, the head of the players union, discussed this. So Tony Clark, the head of the Players Union, discussed this. It was the annual All-Star Game BBWA meeting with both. The commissioner went first, then Tony went. And the question to Tony was not specifically about the Astros. It was about how, after going through this draft cycle, has the sliding system worked. He gave his answer.

It was an interesting question, loaded question. He went right into the Astros without anybody asking questions directly about the Adels, which tells you, you hear it and see it. There's a lot of concern about this, and they're very unhappy. And the union was unhappy with the Astros beforehand, as they would be unhappy with any team that hasn't spent money, even for agency. The Astros are, again, one of the lowest paid in baseball, at least so hard than last year. But the union was unhappy with them to begin with in that regard, and they weren't happy

with them because of the service time issues with Springer and so on and so forth. I do think we'll see this draft system revised somehow. How far they're going to go in the medicals, I don't know. How much ground would the players give to let teams have medical information ahead of time? This is certainly a good example of why one would argue they should be able to. But the slotting system, where you have the picks tied together, that's at the real heart of the issue. This is the first CBA we've had this. I don't know what you would do in place of it or if you would modify it somehow,

but I believe that that's changed in light of this, because if you leave the structure the same, you conceivably, even if the answers are not being manipulative in any capacity, you open the door for teams to be manipulative if you leave the structure as it is now. Just one more question. What has it been like covering this team? I mean, I covered it for, I covered the first year of this administration in Houston, and I know you covered the Red Sox last year, a team that was playing important games for seven months, and every game there was something on the field that mattered that you could write about. I mean, how much less are you writing about baseball,

and how interesting or tedious or awful or any adjective you want to use has it been covering a team with this much off the field? Oh, it's totally fascinating. I mean, even the last couple days with all the writers around at the All-Star, people would say, hey, never stopped with that team, right? And I that. Is it at times head-scratching covering them? A little bit. It can be. But it's been totally interesting. They're not boring. There's nothing boring about this team. Totally interesting. They're not boring. There's nothing boring about this team. Well, thanks for filling in, Zachary, and thanks for joining us, Evan.

Everyone should go read Evan's stuff at The Chronicle. You can find it at blog.chron.com slash ultimateastros. You can also follow him on Twitter at evandrellich, D-R-E-L-L-I-C-H. And he's one of the best beat writers in baseball on one of the most interesting beats. So it's a good combination. So thank you, Evan. Oh, that's kind of you. I appreciate it.

Thanks, Zach. Thank you. This was fun. All right. So please support our sponsor, Baseball Reference. Go to baseballreference.com. Subscribe to the Play Index using the coupon code BP to get the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription. And we are done for today. Canadian internet allowing.

I or someone will be back with another show tomorrow. And Evan, I guess that means that it's time for you to go play bumper cars. Yeah, I'll let you guys know how many goals I score with the bumper cars. All right. Talk to you later. Bye.