Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 601: Why Washington Signed Scherzer

Episode Date: January 20, 2015

Ben and Sam banter about Nori Aoki’s contract, then discuss the Nationals’ signing of Max Scherzer.

Hey, are you awake? Yeah, I'm right here. How can I ask you about today? Good morning and welcome to episode 601 of Effectively Wild, the daily podcast from Baseball Perspectives, brought to you by the Play Index at BaseballReference.com. I'm Sam Miller with Ben Lindberg. Hi, Ben. Hi. Ben Lindberg of Grantland, by the way.

That's right. How are you? Okay. Excellent. Did you use the Play Index at all today? I didn't today, no. It's an exception. Mm-hmm. I did. Yeah, you wrote about Max Scherzer. I detected some Play Index use in that article.

There was. It was all Play Index driven. Well, a lot of it was. Yeah. So we're going to talk about Max Scherzer, of course. Very quickly, though, Russell Carlton has written a piece for BP that will be up on the site in the morning about the Nationals hiring of Rick Ankeel, who is going to be their life skills coordinator. And, of course, this is a topic that Russell is particularly qualified for. If you know about his day job, he's a clinical psychologist and he often writes

about these so-called soft factors in his writing. And so he writes about Ankele. And one might argue that as much as the Max Scherzer news matters and is worth a great deal of analysis, that maybe the Rick Ankele hiring is also big news and worth a great deal of analysis, that maybe the Ricky and Kiel hiring is also big news and requires a great deal of analysis. So you can read Russell's analysis of it. I recommend it. Maybe the Nationals signing Kiela Kaihui requires an article with lots of analysis.

Jeez, what has Kiela Kaihui been doing? I thought of him the other day. I almost mentioned him in a day. I almost mentioned him in a thing that I was writing. Let's see. He's been a broad. He played in what country last year? He was in Japan.

He wasn't great. He's played the last two seasons in Japan actually. Last year he had a 772 OPS Which is not particularly Impressive

He's still only 30 years old Huh So the Baseball annual comment for him last year Mentioned that he was Going to Hiroshima And It said for him last year mentioned that he was going to Hiroshima and it said

it concluded with if the level of play in Japan is as they say somewhere between AAA and the majors then he may have finally found his home planet but apparently not no, doesn't seem that way and now he's back huh

did you say 772? Mm-hmm. Boy, surprising. 30 years old. Uh-huh. He's going to be around. I hope he plays until he's 48. Yeah, maybe he'll go to the Mexican League or something.

Just stick it out for the next decade. 281-407-511 slash line in six AAA seasons. Sounds pretty good. I saw a Calvin Pickering reference yesterday too. Those two, I sometimes confuse them. Uh-huh, yeah. So let's see. Pickering has not played since 2008.

That's a shame. Two years in independent ball in three different independent leagues. No, two different independent leagues as well as Korea, I believe. And he just kept hitting. He hit all the way to the end.

Okay. Can we talk about the aoki deal for a second also mexico yeah yeah uh yeah tell me about the aoki deal how did that happen oh that's a good point so yeah so we i think we i wrote an article earlier this off season about like off-brand bargains on the free agent market. Guys who I thought were comparable to players who would get more expensive deals. And I made a Nick Markakis Aoki comp in that article. And then we did a podcast about that, I think, also.

And maybe talked about it there. And those guys seem somewhat comparable. Markakis is a couple years younger, and so it seemed likely that he would get a longer deal. But that he could get four years and $44 million from Atlanta, while Aoki could get a one-year deal from the Giants for $4.7 million guaranteed. one-year deal from the Giants for $4.7 million guaranteed. And there is a club option that could become, it could vest into a, what, I guess it could vest into a mutual option. Even if this option is exercised,

even if he gets all the incentives in the deal, it would then be a two-year $12.5 million maximum and probably will not come to that maximum. So it's a $4.7 million one-year deal with a $5.5 million club option. And that's pretty amazing, really, when you think about some other guys and what they've gone for this winter. I mean, he seemed like a guy who probably wouldn't be paid what I think he would be worth, but this, I think, doesn't even meet my low expectations for what he would make. Yeah, and in fact, we'll get back to this,

but you actually put your money sort of where your mouth was on this, and you picked Aoki for your off-season signing who would make more than Jim Bowden predicted. I did. You did. And with his signing, assuming Hiroki Kuroda is in fact not coming back, that ends it. So all of the players that we've picked have signed,

and we have results for that. So I can actually now declare, you got that one wrong. Aoki was predicted to get $12 million, so that docks you $7.3 million. But every other one we got right, except for I said Sandoval, I said under on $90 million for Sandoval, and he got $95. So we missed two out of 13. Otherwise, we did very well. And in all, you were $71 million to the positive, and I was $58 million to the positive. So it was kind of close.

All right. Well done by both of us. Is that a John Chenier tracking that for us? It is, yes. Yeah, John Chenier listener. John Chenier tracks all of our various bets and drafts, and you can find the file with all of those things updated all the time at the Facebook group if you are so inclined.

The biggest miss was on Brandon McCarthy. The biggest miss on Bowden's part, I guess, was on Brandon McCarthy, who signed for $28 million more than Bowden had predicted, than Chase Headley, who was $25 million, and then Melky Cabrera, who you accurately nailed as an under, and he was $22 million under. Nice job. Nailed as an under And he was 22 million under Nice job So John Heyman did tweet That Aoki was offered

Multi-year deals for more guaranteed Money by other teams And that he was said To want San Francisco For the combination of city And contender and playing time So it sounds like he May have left more money on the table elsewhere.

But I wonder how much more. Regardless, it seems like quite a coup. So when we're off, when our opinions are not backed up by the market, it's one thing to say, well, it's still a blind spot or something like that. But it's also quite possible it's a blind spot or something like that, but it's also, uh, quite possible it's a blind spot on one of our parts. So does this make you reassess? Is there, are we asking the wrong question on Aoki? Maybe? Yeah. I don't know. I've, I've written more about him and looked into him more than I have for most players. So I feel somewhat confident that my evaluation of him is correct

as being worth more than this. I mean, it's just, it's so little given what wins are going for. It's like he's being paid for less than one and he's not that bad, is he? So I don't know. I feel that even if I am off to some extent i couldn't be off by so much that that it would make sense to me but i don't know maybe i'm missing something what about the

defensive factor i mean yeah that's possible i i guess the the same debate that is had about marquecas can kind of be had about aoki and he looks bad and the defensive metrics say that he isn't that bad but maybe maybe they're wrong maybe they're misleading and he actually is closer to what he looks like than what the numbers say he is and sure maybe maybe that's part of it all right um So let's talk about Max Scherzer. But before we do, maybe not before we do, as we do, to start off, this seems probably to be the first of a, to precede another Nationals move, right?

You consider it quite likely they will trade another starting pitcher before the season starts? Pretty likely, although I kind of hope they don't. Maybe we can get into that, but yes, sure. So, Steven Strasburg is the one, I mean, I would like them to trade Steven Strasburg just to see. I'm curious to see. And to me, the Scherzer deal

makes more sense to me if they trade Steven Strasburg, for reasons I got into when I wrote it up. But I want to know what you think about Steven Strasburg's trade value. Clearly, he's a very good pitcher. He has been one of the best pitchers in baseball over the past three years. He has a fifth of three, which is very good. He has an ERA plus of 125, which is pretty good. He has gotten one fifth place Cy Young vote, I think, in that time and been an all-star and led the league in strikeouts once. And he's been good. He's been really good, right?

He has not been one of the five. He has not been as good as Scherzer, for instance. He has not been as good as probably, I don't know, a dozen or more other pitchers. But I want to know how much you think Steven Strasburg's trade value is still higher than another player with his stats would be simply because he's Steven Strasburg. his stats would be simply because he's Steven Strasburg. How much does he still maintain the kind of intrigue and unresistable sexiness that goes all the way back to him being a phenom

who has always at least, if never quite put it together, like you might hope for from the greatest pitching prospect of all time, has at least never disqualified those assessments of him. He has always had great stuff. He has always thrown hard. He has always done amazing things and has put together incredible starts from time to time and incredible runs and altogether very good numbers. Is he still benefiting? Does his trade value still benefit from SDSU? Maybe.

I would say that he's generally regarded as a disappointment by the average fan, maybe, if only because of how great his reputation was coming in and how amazing his debut was before he got hurt and had the Tommy John, those 12 starts as a rookie when he was just appointment viewing and was throwing incredibly hard and was just amazing to watch and had the stats to match. He is, I think, regarded as being maybe less valuable than he actually has been or something of a letdown. Every, just true for just about every baseball player, though, to some degree.

They're all disappointments to the average fan. Sure, I guess so. But fair enough. Sure, I guess so But fair enough But yeah, I would say that he probably has more value than Oh, I don't know, it depends If we're talking about a guy with exactly the same stuff as Steven Strasberg Who has put together the same stats

I'm not so sure that he has more value than a guy who didn't have the same backstory I think at this point it's been a few years. It's been more than a few years. That was 2010 he was a rookie. And that is some injuries ago. I don't know. I think people probably move on with pitchers more quickly than they do with position players. Probably for a good reason.

Okay. Fair enough. Now do you think that his stuff, is there another pitcher with his stuff and similar stats? Does he get extra bump because of the stuff? Do you think the average team would still look at him and say that for some reason or another, those numbers don't reflect what he's going to do next year? It's good stuff. Again, it probably suffers in comparison to the otherworldly stuff that he had when we first saw him. crazy secondary stuff and was putting up three eras or three fips or whatever he's been putting up

then yeah i would think he he would have less value than he does is there another pitcher with better stuff than him max scherzer i don't know no darvish yeah maybe darvish. Yeah, maybe Darvish. Darvish, very, very similar numbers, in fact, over the past three years to Strasburg. And he's the one guy who I think of as being impossible to imagine hitting. And no matter what he does this year, I will still think next year that he is a Cy Young frontrunner just because it's incredible. And they have essentially the same numbers over the past couple years, although Darvish strikes out a few more and walks a few more. But basically, the defense independent stuff is similar. The adjusted stats are similar.

It's all pretty similar. And I feel like Darvish at this point, well, let's see. When Sky Cockman did his ace ratings last year, his ace vote, his ace survey, remember that? Strasburg and Darvish were both quite high on that list. They were both considered aces where I don't think that Jordan Zimmerman probably was or Johnny Cueto was. Maybe that's changed now. Well, what about Kershaw? Well, Kershaw is clearly better, but that's the thing. I don't know.

I don't know if he is considered to have better stuff. Stuff means whatever you want it to be. Stuff is sort of nebulous. Yeah. better stuff. Stuff means whatever you want it to be. Stuff is sort of nebulous. Yeah. I feel like maybe Kershaw would, it almost feels like Kershaw would be seen as having better stuff if he weren't so good. Stuff is what you say about a person a lot of times who is slightly disappointing. Stuff is like Jeff Samarja has stuff. He does have stuff. Jake Arrieta has stuff.

Does he? I think so. Chris Sale? Does Chris Sale have stuff? Yeah, sure. Do you think that the average... Let's say that their contracts were exactly the same right now. Who would get more back in trade, Strasburg or Bumgarner?

Oh, man. I think probably Bumgarner, just for the age and the durability. And he's been worse, though, over the past three years, but not in the postseason. Not when it counts. Not when it counts, whereas Strasburg, nowhere to be seen when it counts, quite literally. Yes. Shut it down. His career is mostly defined by his not being used in the postseason. Right.

All right. And so one more. Let's say that the contract status were exactly the same. Who gets more back, Strasburg or Zimmerman? Strasburg. So then I don't even have to ask whether the return would be comparable for Zimmerman right now. It would not be, in your opinion. Well, aside from the fact that he has one year left and Strasburg has two?

I'm saying specifically because of that fact. Oh, well, yeah, sure. Wouldn't even be close. Well, aside from the fact that he has one year left and Strasburg has two. I'm saying specifically because of that fact. Oh, well, yeah, sure. Wouldn't even be close. Yeah. All right. All right, so now on to reality. Who's going to, do you think they'll trade Strasburg?

Do you buy that? Does that pass the smell test to you? It's feasible. I wouldn't say it's the most likely guy that they would trade. You wouldn't? No, I don't think so. All right, so why did they get Max Scherzer, Ben? Well, he's a very good pitcher.

They're a very good team that wants to win right now, and that's part of it. And I don't know, it's kind of a weird situation where often we talk about one of these long-term contracts for pitchers and we talk about them the same way, and we've been talking about them the same way for so long that we even talk about talking about them the same way, where whenever we do a transaction analysis or a podcast about them, we, as you mentioned in your article, we come up with comparables the same way. And the

comparables are always kind of depressing. And there's lots of precedent for people who don't work out in long-term pitcher deals. But this is kind of a case where it's a future-oriented move, even though it's a present-oriented move, in a sense, in that they do have just an incredible rotation right now, but there are ways that they could lose those guys or some of those guys in the next year or two, whether it's Zimmerman or Pfister reaching free agency or Strasburg after that. And those are all in the next couple of years. So by getting Scherzer, they have both ensured that they will have someone beyond the next one or two year window. Even if he's not the pitcher then that he is now, chances are he'll still be pretty good in a few years. But at the price they're paying, they ought to be able chances are he'll still be pretty good in a few years.

But at the price they're paying, they ought to be able to get a pitcher who is pretty good right now. Like if you're willing to spend $210 million, it's not like there's just not going to be any options for the team that's spending $210 million. I mean, it's not easy necessarily to land a big free agent. I think that's an underrated aspect of the signings that you do have to get the guy when they're available. But $210 million is like, there's going to be guys you can sign if you have that much money in any year. And if we're talking about what they need two years from now, you could maybe argue that they'd be better off waiting and

seeing who's still good there then. Maybe. You could. Or you could even argue that they could have spent better in the present and some other area of the team. Maybe they need hitters more than they need yet another great starter. Maybe they need another reliever more than they need a great starter. But they now have the freedom to trade one of these guys without worrying so much about the present. And therefore, they can kind of do that to keep this thing going that they have built. And even though it's a sort of present-oriented move in that you're signing a free agent and he's over 30 and he's just going to get worse probably from now on. Now they can kind of refresh either the farm system or younger major leaguers who would be getting good or still be good when Scherzer is not good anymore. So that's something.

And I don't know. A lot has been written about the terms of the contract. And they are unusual terms. And it's greatly deferred. It's more deferred than any other contract ever. And Dave Cameron wrote a bit about what the actual present value of the contract is. It's significantly less than the actual number that you see reported. And yet there are also all of these tax breaks that Jeff Passon detailed at Yahoo that save lots of money. And so it kind of evens out in a sense where

Scherzer gets less because of the deferrals. And then there are also these tax breaks. It's the complicated way that we analyze contracts now where we figure out what the luxury tax implications are and what the actual present value is and what the rate of depreciation for these contracts is. And maybe some fans are not interested in delving that deeply into tax law to see how much a contract is actually worth. But I don't know. is actually worth. But I don't know. You could certainly argue that it wasn't the most efficient way to spend, but it makes a really good team, a great team, at least for the moment. I googled unusual terms and it took me to a BBC article on unusual terms of endearment. Such as? Egg with eyes. In Japan, women are frequently called an egg with eyes.

This is a great compliment. Just having an oval-shaped face is considered very attractive in Japanese culture. Also, diving fish swooping geese. That's a term of endearment for one person? A story surrounding the greatest beauty in Chinese history. It is said she was so beautiful that when she looked at fish in a pond, the fish were so dazzled by her beauty that they forgot to swim and gradually dived to the bottom.

Okay, I'll have to try that. All right, so you read what I wrote. I sort of have, I don't know, I can't quite figure out if I'm maybe just missing something. So I was thinking that this is an interesting move for the future, not because, or I guess maybe not just because, but not primarily because Scherzer will be around to give them rotation fulfillment when their other guys leave. That's a nice thing. But because it frees them up to trade Strasburg.

And I think that you can maybe argue that the, maybe the rare, well, we've heard this said many times by GMs, I think, or paraphrase what they've said. The sort of rarest, most valuable thing in baseball right now is the superstar prospect under club control who is making the minimum while giving you close to MVP performance, right? And you can't, no matter how much money you have, you can't sign one of those on the free agent market. You can draft a guy or sign a 16 year old Dominican kid and hope that he becomes that, but you just can't really get that. And you either have to kind of get lucky when you develop and they're in your system and you have

one or you trade players for one. And that's seems to be like one of the, uh be one of the reasons that small market teams are able to do more with less is that they do those trades. They have the freedom a lot of times because of the expectations around their competitive windows and also just because they're forced to make these moves that turn out to be really beneficial to them. they're forced to make these moves that turn out to be really beneficial to them. They make this trade where they trade somebody who's going to leave in two years and they get a huge haul back. And so you look at how long the Dan Heron deal was still paying off for the A's or how long the Jeff Samarja deal is going to pay off for the Cubs, right? And you can't buy that. You have to trade for that, more or less. And so I sort of feel like what signing Scherzer does is that it makes it so they can trade Strasburg and get presumably almost any prospect in the game back. And over the next seven years, that's really the payoff. More than Scherzer will be the payoff, it's that guy who will be the payoff.

And so somebody asked me, well, just a couple minutes ago, why not just use this money to sign Strasburg? And it's because then you don't get to trade somebody for the equivalent of Addison Russell. You've put the same commitment into Strasburg, but now you don't have the awesome top five prospect who might turn into a superstar making the minimum. So I actually sort of like it for that reason. To me it feels like the Nationals are using their financial advantages to put themselves in a position to make one of these super coup moves that small market teams get to make. I sort of love it. I sort of love, well, if I'm right, if that's accurate, if I'm reading it correctly, I sort

of love that they're using their big market advantages to get a small market advantage in this situation. I sort of think that it is the perfect situation for them because they do get the pitcher who replaces the guy who's leaving, although they'll probably end up overpaying for him. But they also get the prospect who might turn into something great, and that is just not something that's otherwise ever going to be available to them. Especially for a team that is in a competitive window now

and is not likely normally going to trade a veteran for prospects, that's just not an opportunity that was otherwise likely to come up. And so I like it. I think it's a future move and not because Scherzer is going to be really great, but because maybe, I don't know who they're going to get, but that guy might be really great. He might flop, but he might not. So your perception of the signing then is heavily dependent on what comes next right so if they if they don't get enough or what you deem to be enough for the guy

that they trade or they don't trade anyone then you will change your your opinion of the signing uh yes if it's just scherzer for the money then then I'm not inspired by it. It's fine, whatever. I don't have a big problem with it, but I'm not super inspired by it. But if they use this to pull off an awesome trade, then I'll be pretty into it. And I sort of think that they should trade Strasburg. I don't necessarily see the same kind of guaranteed, guaranteed, nothing's guaranteed, but almost guaranteed return for one of their five-year pitchers, Fisker and Zimmerman,

that they would get for Strasburg. Just looking at the returns that Latos and Samarja got, who are not the same level of pitcher, but still looking at the returns that Latos and Samarja got, who are not the same level of pitcher, but still looking at the returns that those guys got is less inspiring to me than I would think that they would want to get. And maybe those guys would be easier to re-sign also because they're not Boris guys or they're long-time, lifelong nationals in Zimmerman's case.

So that might make them easier to retain than Strasburg will be in a couple of years. Yeah, and they're each going to bring back a pick and all that. It would be kind of fun if they didn't do the smart thing, if that is the smart thing, right? If they just held on to all of these guys. I'm over the super rotation. I'm totally over it. This has been like this. Every year there's a super rotation, and they're always underwhelming.

I mean, they're fine. They always pitch pretty well, but it doesn't guarantee you anything, and they're never quite as sure as you think they're lining up to be anyway. I mean, you know, the Phillies. Right. Would this be the most fun super rotation since the Phillies of Halliday and Lee and Hamels and everyone? Oh, I don't know.

I think that Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, and Fer Scherzer Sanchez and Pfister remember that was two years ago that was all four of them in the top ten in the AL and XFIP and I mean all four in the top ten and then Porcello was the number five

and so that was pretty astounding and then this one is the same as last year for the Nationals, except you basically replace Roark with Scherzer, which is good, but their rotation doesn't look as good as it did maybe last year. Like Strasburg has taken a little bit. I mean, like we were just talking about, some of the sparkle is off Strasburg and certainly a lot of it is off Gonzalez. So they already suffered attrition in their super rotation status as the UN. So I don't know that Scherzer over,

by the way, Roark who was phenomenal last year. I don't know that they've moved the super rotation needle all that much. I mean, Scherzer's great, but I don't know that I expect all that. I don't know that I expect more out of their rotation this year than, yeah, I probably do. But no, I don't think this is, I would take the Tigers of 2013. Uh-huh. Okay. And where does this leave the tigers of 2015

uh what you're what do you mean you're worried about the tigers no but now that we can officially close the book on scherzer's time with the tigers there was always this sneaking suspicion that maybe boris would manage to connect with Illich and he would somehow end up back there. And they are looking more vulnerable entering a year than they have in the past few years, right? Probably. Well, yeah, probably, but I guess somewhat. Yeah, probably, but I guess somewhat.

I mean, just with Cabrera coming off his injury and... Both Martinez, both Martini due for regression, and no Austin Jackson, and... The rotation is... It drops off after three. Yes, right. But they do have, and one, Verlander. Three, assuming that Verlander is one of those three. Yeah, exactly. That, more than almost anything, is probably the hinge.

Yeah, I guess the Tigers... I mean, it is definitely not going to be the same conversation we had about the Tigers two years ago. In fact, Ken Funk's essay on the Tigers and the BP annual, uh, looks at the question of why the Tigers never did really run away with the division. Like they were expected to,

I mean, they should have been winning. It was felt like they should be winning these divisions by 20 games and they never really did. And this year it's going to, I don't know, I would guess that they'll be projected to win it by like three or four, I guess.

Like they look like a high 80s team to me. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Do you think they're done? I mean, they probably, presumably, they haven't done anything other than make some trades. So they presumably had some money budgeted for Scherzer in case. So do they take that money? I guess there's... At this point, there's only so much they can do with it. There's shields, and they could find somebody to trade for.

Mm-hmm. That should be a pretty locked-down bullpen, I'm sure. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I would expect something. So now it's just shields and and Rasmus That's it And then baseball starts Yeah, just about

Ricky Weeks I hope no one bought a timeless ticket To see Giovanni Gallardo That would be a shame Okay, is that it uh do you one quick question about the astros and the cubs trade um to me one of the interesting things to watch this off season has been uh the astros and the cubs were kind of working in parallel in a lot of ways for the last few years. They were doing similar things and the Cubs clearly are a year ahead of them and so it's interesting to see them make a

trade where maybe one of them, the Cubs, I don't know, this is the question I'm wondering, does this put it in sort of starker relief how far ahead the Cubs are in this process or is Valbuena a win-now guy as much as Fowler would be? Yeah, I think, I don't know. I mean, Matt Dominguez, who was the Astros' third baseman last year and I guess was the presumptive third baseman heading into this year before this move, was pretty terrible last year.

heading into this year before this move, was pretty terrible last year. So in that sense, it could be as sizable an upgrade for the Astros, given that they have a guy who can play where Fowler was playing, and they didn't have a guy to play where Valbuena will be playing. So in that sense, I guess it's comparable. Yeah, if it weren't the Astros and the Cubs, I wouldn't even think about it that way. I would just say, oh, each team was trading from depth.

But all the same, it's sort of, I mean, Fowler was the, Fowler, I think the headline, I think, headline when they traded for Fowler of my transaction analysis was like, Astros add a player. That was their first one. That was like the first guy in their supposed next stage. The thing about's, it begs you to think of, the thing about the Astros is that all the moves, maybe it's just you and me, because we talk about them so much, but they all require you to think of each move as, like, what does this say about where they are?

What does it say about the process? And so Fowler has a little bit of, like, symbolic value in that sense. Even if it's only 10% deferring to the future, deferring, deferral to the future, it's still like, oh wow, they're still deferring to the future. Yeah, except the other things that they've done this winter don't point to that really, the Gattis trade? Well, no, but if this is that, I mean, maybe this is not even 10%.

If this is 0% deferring to the future, because Valbuena fills a need and Fowler was surplus, then it's not even 10%. But even if it's only 10%, I still think, oh, okay, so still more on 2016 instead of this year. But I'm not sure that that's the case i think you could make the case that uh that their 2015 depth chart uh got stronger if you believe in valbuena this year uh at uh so maybe do you believe in valbuena sure why not you do more or less sure more of us you do all right okay right, so that's it for today. We'll be back tomorrow, I suppose,

so send us some emails at podcast at baseballperspectives.com. Join the Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectivelywild. Rate, review, subscribe to the show on iTunes, and support our sponsor by going to baseballreference.com, subscribing to the Play Index using the coupon code BP, and getting the discounted price of $30 on a one-year subscription.