Poll: Which is the better contract - Jack Flaherty or Frankie Montas?
It’s been quite the ride here recently for Jack Flaherty, who yesterday signed a deal that’s being described as 2/$35 but, barring injury, it’s unlikely to play out that way. The breakdown is $25 million in 2025 and $10 million in 2026. The deal with the Tigers also has a $10 million bonus for 2026 if he makes 15 starts in 2025. Finally, it contains an opt-out after the first year.
Flaherty posted fWAR totals beneath 1.0 for three straight years, 2020-2022, for various reasons. Then, in 2023, he was essentially a league-average starter with a 1.8 fWAR. And last year, he turned in a 3.2 fWAR season. It’s impossible to ignore what he did most recently but we have to keep in mind that the track record is not very good.
If we view Flaherty’s contract as a one-year deal, 1/$25 values him at what he did last year. Is that a good contract? It seems to me you can make an argument either way. Regardless, if he duplicates in 2025 what he did a season ago, the Tigers are happy, even if he opts out. If Flaherty fails to match 2024 numbers, the Tigers will pay him $20 million – assuming he reaches 15 starts – and likely won’t be thrilled with his output over the two-year deal.
Now, let’s contrast that with the Mets’ deal with Frankie Montas, who they signed earlier in the offseason. Montas has a 2/$34 contract, with the money split evenly between both seasons. And, like Flaherty, Montas has an opt-out after the first year.
Montas has a spotty track record, too, even if not in the same way as Flaherty. Montas posted a 4.0 fWAR in 2021, a 2.0 mark in 2022 and then he pitched in just one game in 2023. Last year, coming back from shoulder surgery, Montas posted a 1.4 fWAR but he pitched significantly better in the second half of the season.
Their respective contracts have Flaherty valued as the better pitcher, by a full win. But who’s more likely to reach their contract status – Flaherty to turn in a 3-WAR season or Montas to produce a 2-WAR year?
And which would you rather be stuck with – bad Flaherty at 2/$40 or bad Montas at 2/$34?
There’s no clear answer to me, as it seems reasonable to prefer either one. There’s more upside with Montas, from a strict $/per WAR point of view. But Flaherty has a full season of strong results in 2024, compared to having to go back to 2021 with Montas. Yet from 2021-24, Flaherty has delivered 5.9 fWAR, compared to the 7.4 of Montas, with Montas holding a 483.1 to 420.2 edge in innings.
Does it come down to a higher ceiling with Flaherty but a higher floor with Montas? Not sure that I agree with that statement – just another point to consider. So, which deal’s better?
I think Mets fans have recency bias (and PTSD) when it comes to Flaherty since he carved us up in G1 of the NLCS. We did get our revenge in G5 where he was ousted after 3 innings giving up 8ER in a 12-6 victory with a lead that never felt safe for the Mets. It's easy to remember his dominance from G1 and less easy to remember the shalacking we gave him in G5. I'm glad we took a flyer on F Montas and glad we passed on Jack F.
Flaherty is 29 this season. Montas is 32. Flaherty was consistent all the year last year. He had a similar season of the 2021 season of Montas. Flaherty's 2024 season was comparable to Manaea's 2024 season. Montas 2021 was comparable to Manaea's 2024 season. If Flaherty and Montas pitch well then both will opt out. Having signed Montas the Mets will saving $8m. Flaherty is younger and trending upward. Montas is trending downward since 2021. Flaherty is the better deal.
That said, remember that Montas signed December 4th. Flaherty wasn't going to sign his current deal at that date. So Flaherty would be the starter in a six-man rotation if Stearns signed him yesterday. There is no blame to signing Montas.