MattS wrote:

dajafi wrote:

MattS wrote:i'm reacting to all of this news very differently than everyone else. the payroll keeps turning out to be higher than i thought it would be. i don't really see the phillies lowering payroll in 2010 and 2011, so the higher that it is in 2009, the more optimistic i am about the budgets in 2010 and 2011. moyer making a couple million more this year and a couple million more next year, when i thought that payroll would never get a couple million higher, is just good news for 2011. when the phillies give chan ho park 2.5 million more this year, that just means that money is going to be spent in 2010 and 2011 when i didn't expect it too. i'm not really thinking about the fact that they could have gotten more with that money. i'm just happy it's not going to claire betz and is potentially going to represent a higher payroll and more margin for error later on. i've been saying for the a year or two that i didn't see how the phillies could maintain their competitiveness into the next decade, and they're going to do it by spending more money. who would really care if the phillies spent like the yankees but made a pavano type deal now and then?

I see what you're saying here, but I think you might be making an assumption I don't necessarily agree with: that the team's budgeters are rational. It seems possible to me that the spending is a result of sentimentality (Moyer) and exuberance (Park--though why they blow the WFC dividend on him is a mystery perhaps only Amaro's therapist, were such a person to exist, could explain to us).

Another option: the payroll goes up now because revenue is up. If the team starts to lose, attendance and other income drops, and we can be damn sure payroll will decline. Just because they're spending, doesn't mean that they're spending well; if the expenditures aren't sound, they won't be sustainable.

For me it still boils down to the fact that I don't trust this group of decision-makers. Maybe that's irrational; they did just win the title. But if it were Gillick and/or Arbuckle who were still around, and Amaro gone, I'm pretty sure I'd feel much more optimistic.

they generally don't lower payroll. it's not rational-- they should lower payroll when it stops being profitable to have such a high payroll, but i feel like they'll resist lowering payroll the same way that they resisted raising payroll before. if i'm wrong, so be it, but i think they will stay competitive at $135MM through at least 2011 and therefore really won't drop payroll before then. ibanez's deal is through 2011 so i'm less thrilled about that but he still is a 2-win player, and while they could have gotten a slightly better player for that price, the willingness for a team primed to win 88 or 89 games to spend on an extra $5-10MM on about 2 wins worth of players is actually why we made the playoffs this year. It's rational and I approve.

Well, you're the first person I know to be smart who's given it a thumbs-up. So that does make me feel a little better. Here's hoping you're right.

i'm giving the thumbs up in the sense that it's bad news to come with larger good news. this wasn't the best way to spend money. moyer and burrell should have been offered arbitration, but i'm treating that as old news. given that they weren't, this is proof that wasn't smart. but proof we're willing to spend enough that we can afford suboptimal spending mixed with news that we are suboptimally spending isn't really bad news. i have less faith in amaro than i did a few weeks ago, but more faith in the owners' willingness to make smart profitable investments in making the team better.

in reality, i'm basically realizing that we have a team that's about as competitive as the team in 2007-2008 and one of those teams were the world fucking champions. and i'm just too damn okay with that to focus on the fact that we spent the money to make ourselves a 90-win team instead of spending the same money to make ourselves a 91-win team.

Shore wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Here are some details on Moyer's contract: He's guaranteed no less than $13 million. He'll make a base salary of $6.5 million 2009 and 2010. His 2010 salary can escalate to as much as $11 million based on innings pitched in '09 ($250,000 for 150 innings, $500,000 each for 160, 170, 180 and 190 innings) and starts in '09 ($250,000 for 23 starts, $500,000 each for 25, 27, 29 and 31 starts). Also, he can earn $250,000 performance bonuses each year for 150, 160, 170, 180 and 190 innings pitched.

Lauber

Jesus.

If he duplicates his poor 2007 (33 starts, 199 IP, 5.01 ERA), he'll earn

2009: $6.5M base plus $1.25M in performance bonuses
2010: $11.0M base plus $1.25M in perfomance bonuses

That's 2/20.

Please, defend.

I might be reading this wrong but doesn't the above say he has a base of 6.5 million both years and the performance part adds up to 11 miilion maximum in 2010? I'm too tired to do all the math but I think he can make a max of 5.5 million plus a base of 6.5 million in 2010.

i'm just gonna put this out there:

the rotation to start the 2008 season was:

Myers
Hamels
Moyer
Kendrick
Eaton

Barry Jive wrote:i'm just gonna put this out there:

the rotation to start the 2008 season was:

Myers
Hamels
Moyer
Kendrick
Eaton

This rotation can't compete with the Mets. They got Johan!

smitty wrote:

Shore wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Here are some details on Moyer's contract: He's guaranteed no less than $13 million. He'll make a base salary of $6.5 million 2009 and 2010. His 2010 salary can escalate to as much as $11 million based on innings pitched in '09 ($250,000 for 150 innings, $500,000 each for 160, 170, 180 and 190 innings) and starts in '09 ($250,000 for 23 starts, $500,000 each for 25, 27, 29 and 31 starts). Also, he can earn $250,000 performance bonuses each year for 150, 160, 170, 180 and 190 innings pitched.

Lauber

Jesus.

If he duplicates his poor 2007 (33 starts, 199 IP, 5.01 ERA), he'll earn

2009: $6.5M base plus $1.25M in performance bonuses
2010: $11.0M base plus $1.25M in perfomance bonuses

That's 2/20.

Please, defend.

I might be reading this wrong but doesn't the above say he has a base of 6.5 million both years and the performance part adds up to 11 miilion maximum in 2010? I'm too tired to do all the math but I think he can make a max of 5.5 million plus a base of 6.5 million in 2010.

No, 6.5M base and he can get 2.5M more from innings in 09 and also 2.5M more for starts in 09 which takes it to 11M. Then he can get an additional 1.25M for innings pitched in 2010.

So, he could conceivably make 11M in 2010 without ever throwing a pitch that year, but he can make 12.25M if he throws 190+ innings.

Barry Jive wrote:i'm just gonna put this out there:

the rotation to start the 2008 season was:

Myers
Hamels
Moyer
Kendrick
Eaton

I agree with your overall point, and I don't even care the dollar amount they offered Moyer. My problem is that it's a guaranteed contract for 2010. That seems silly to me. He's 46. Moyer had absolutely no leverage here, and they gave it to him anyway.

Here is every pitching season from a pitcher age 46 or older. I used absolutely no criteria here, so if they threw one inning, they're on here.



20 seasons in history. That's it.
And what is it really? 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 20 are literally nothing as they pitched 25 innings or less. So, that leaves us with 13.

Just focusing on the age 47 season since I'm fine with giving him a one year contract, only Jack Quinn, Phil Niekro, and Hoyt Wilhelm pitched at this age. Quinn and Wilhelm were used as relievers at this point. Niekro is the only one to start, and he was league average in ERA and pitched 200 innings.

So, aside from the cup of coffee those other two guys had at age 47, the Phillies are banking on Jamie Moyer doing something that only THREE pitchers have done in history, and only ONE did as a starter.

They basically just put 6.5M (and possibly much, much more) on one number in roulette except the odds are hundreds of times worse. I love Jamie Moyer, but sign him for next year and see how he does, then sign him again next year if you want.

philliesphhan wrote:

smitty wrote:

Shore wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Here are some details on Moyer's contract: He's guaranteed no less than $13 million. He'll make a base salary of $6.5 million 2009 and 2010. His 2010 salary can escalate to as much as $11 million based on innings pitched in '09 ($250,000 for 150 innings, $500,000 each for 160, 170, 180 and 190 innings) and starts in '09 ($250,000 for 23 starts, $500,000 each for 25, 27, 29 and 31 starts). Also, he can earn $250,000 performance bonuses each year for 150, 160, 170, 180 and 190 innings pitched.

Lauber

Jesus.

If he duplicates his poor 2007 (33 starts, 199 IP, 5.01 ERA), he'll earn

2009: $6.5M base plus $1.25M in performance bonuses
2010: $11.0M base plus $1.25M in perfomance bonuses

That's 2/20.

Please, defend.

I might be reading this wrong but doesn't the above say he has a base of 6.5 million both years and the performance part adds up to 11 miilion maximum in 2010? I'm too tired to do all the math but I think he can make a max of 5.5 million plus a base of 6.5 million in 2010.

No, 6.5M base and he can get 2.5M more from innings in 09 and also 2.5M more for starts in 09 which takes it to 11M. Then he can get an additional 1.25M for innings pitched in 2010.

So, he could conceivably make 11M in 2010 without ever throwing a pitch that year, but he can make 12.25M if he throws 190+ innings.

Gotcha. Based on 2009 season. OK, that seems IFD. So if moyer stinks in 09 they need to limit his starts and innings. That probably won't happen so he needs to be good in '09. And if he is good in 09 he will definitely pitch enough innings to make 11 million simoleans.

philliesphhan wrote:They basically just put 6.5M (and possibly much, much more) on one number in roulette except the odds are hundreds of times worse.

Hundreds of times worse? Come on. It's not even remotely like that. Jamie Moyer has proven time and again that he's a unique pitcher. His career path is unlike anyone else's. Sure, it could all come to an end next year, but to suggest that it's a gamble worse than one number on a roulette wheel is a ridiculous overstatement.

I'll wager that the Phillies get 24-26 wins out of this contract. If I were Ruben, I probably wouldn't have offered him the second year, but I'm not upset about it. Getting upset about it is pointless. It's not your money and you're upset about something that may or may not happen in 2010. What's the point?

The Phillies are coming off a World Series championship. The level of anger some people have in the wake of that championship is astounding to me. Cut the team some slack. This isn't the 1997 Phillies spending millions of dollars on Mark Leiter and expecting us to think they're going to compete. Times have changed dramatically and so has the team. Let's be happy for a while.

Drugs Delaney wrote:The Phillies are coming off a World Series championship. The level of anger some people have in the wake of that championship is astounding to me. Cut the team some slack. This isn't the 1997 Phillies spending millions of dollars on Mark Leiter and expecting us to think they're going to compete. Times have changed dramatically and so has the team. Let's be happy for a while.

I'm not sure it's anger that's being expressed so much as an amplified level of incredulity.

Basically the probability is Rube's just committed himself to publicly embarrassing Moyer and/or the organization sometime during 2010. I'm with you & probably everyone in hoping that doesn't transpire, but there's really no reason for anyone to be in that position at all, to address the situation at hand with means more appropriate to it. I think that's the point most are trying to make.

drsmooth wrote:I'm not sure it's anger that's being expressed so much as an amplified level of incredulity.

Between the Moyer and Ibanez deals and the decision to not bring back Burrell, there's a noticeable level of anger around these parts. It's not just incredulity.

drsmooth wrote:Basically the probability is Rube's just committed himself to publicly embarrassing Moyer and/or the organization sometime during 2010. I'm with you & probably everyone in hoping that doesn't transpire, but there's really no reason for anyone to be in that position at all, to address the situation at hand with means more appropriate to it. I think that's the point most are trying to make.

Yeah, and I'm choosing not to get upset about stuff like that less than two months after the franchise won a World Series. Live in the moment. Worry about 2010 in 2010.

We are living in the moment. And in this moment, our GM has made a small string of what we believe to be head-scratchingly poor manuevers that most likely make our world series champion team worse. This is a board where we discuss baseball (most of us anyway), and that's what we're doing. What, are we supposed to just ignore all the offseason manuevers until April? I suppose we should have 12 threads every week about Yay how happy we are that we won a world series. Of course we're happy, but this board would be awful if we didnt' talk about what was going on with our team. And it's entirely possible to be happy about the World Series and still critical of current events. "Living in the moment" isn't that interesting on a message board. Reading about how and why Ruben Amaro is pissing all over our jubilation is much more interesting. And also, it's highly possible that people exaggerate just a tiny little bit for dramatic effect when communicating on the internet

Did Moyer really show any sign that he couldn't put up a season somewhere between his '07 and '08 numbers for '09? but i totally agree that the 2 year contract is a huge mistake. hopefully (and i think he would) if Moyer doesn't think he's got it in him to go on, he'll retire and the phils will be off the hook for the remainder of his contract. I'm not worried about him for '09.

I don't understand thinking a one-year deal at this money is good/great but a two-year deal a disaster. If you're almost certain he'll fall off a cliff in 2010, isn't there a good chance of that happening this year?

Yes. So why maximize your risk by giving him two years

Woody wrote:Yes. So why maximize your risk by giving him two years

I might not have, depending on the context of the situation (ie, payroll constraints, chances of signing a Lowe or Johnson, plans for Myers in 2010, other teams' offers for Moyer or lack thereof, etc).

I'm just saying if you think he'll collapse in 2010, it could almost as easily happen in 2009, so why sign him at all.

cartersDad26 wrote:hopefully (and i think he would) if Moyer doesn't think he's got it in him to go on, he'll retire and the phils will be off the hook for the remainder of his contract.

You're joking, right?

If Moyer is terrible, I don't think Charlie or (more likely) the front office will stick with him. I understand he stunk in 07 and still threw 200 innings, but the Phillies literally had no starting pitching options, particularly in July/August, when Moyer struggled. For a good part of August (when Hamels went on DL), the rotation was:

Moyer
Loshe
Durbin
Kendrick
Eaton

There were no other options left. That could certainly happen again, but barring a rash of injuries, the Phils should have more starting pitching depth to weather those injuries and pull Moyer from the rotation if he stinks:

Hamels
Myers
Blanton
Moyer
Happ
Park
Carpenter
Carrasco
Kendrick

If he pitches in 2009 like he pitched in 2008, 2 years/18 million is a good deal.

WhiteyFan wrote:

cartersDad26 wrote:hopefully (and i think he would) if Moyer doesn't think he's got it in him to go on, he'll retire and the phils will be off the hook for the remainder of his contract.

You're joking, right?

Yeah. This is a silly. He's not going to turn down $7 mm (and none of us here would, either) and just walk away. That's why he fought so hard for a second year

un to see how it plays out, huh? Well, it'll be fun for disinterested observers like me and (most of) you. I'm not sure how much fun it'll be for Amaro, Charlie Manuel, and the Phillies' phans.

This doesn't represent a huge financial risk for the Phillies. If Moyer flops, the Phils are out only $13 million (the amount that's guaranteed). Actually, I suppose that is sort of huge; if they spend $13 million for one lousy season and the first year of Moyer's long-delayed retirement, that won't be much fun at all.

But it's not the contract per se that concerns me. What concerns me is that the Phillies, having won a World Series, seem to have very little interest in improving. Granted, they're not likely to win another World Series no matter what they do. But don't you have to at least try?

Let's review the Phillies' big moves. First, they spent $30 million to get worse in left field. Now they've committed $13 million and who knows how many innings to a 46-year-old pitcher. What's next? Trading Brad Lidge for Brian Wilson? Three-year contract extension for Eric Bruntlett?

Jamie Moyer's an incredible pitcher, and he deserves to pitch until he can't pitch. I'm just not sure if the defending World Champions should be risking being the team without a chair when the music stops. Francisco Rodriguez made news the other day when he said the Mets are the team to beat in the NL East. Perhaps that seems rash of him, but you have to admire his analysis.

- Neyer's blog