Jeebuz, he hasn't hit .250 in four years.

mcare89 wrote:

ReadingPhilly wrote:i'd rather him be aggressive than not. aggressive doesn't have to mean a bad contract.

I go back and forth on this. On one hand, it's good to be aggressive and never get stuck settling for a stopgap late because you slow-played your hand and you're left alone at the dance, plus you won't get screwed when somebody comes out and overpays a CF and everybody else's price goes up. On the other hand, to get somebody to sign early is risky because you might end up paying him way more than anybody had planned to spend on a CF. The Papelbon deal in a vacuum wasn't terrible, it just became terrible because it was way more than anybody was willing to spend on a closer.

But I think part of being a good GM is reading the market. No other team misread that market, just the phillies, iirc.

Monkeyboy wrote:But I think part of being a good GM is reading the market. No other team misread that market, just the phillies, iirc.

How can you say that with such certainty? He got a million more than Lidge and had a good year.

The Madson and Bell deals were disasters. Some of the risky (wrt to health and performance) moves worked out for at least this year, like Nathan and Rodney, some were wash outs, like Bailey and Santos.

I'll take the best, most durable guy for the max-payroll team.

Do you recall how intense the bidding got for Papelbon and how Rube had to keep adding to the offer just to avoid Papelbon signing somewhere else?

Me neither.

I've got no problem with Rube targeting Papelbon. But it's possible that by being more patient he could have saved millions and maybe even years. The counterargument (that he might have lost Papelbon) doesn't seem overly compelling since: (a) there didn't appear to be anyone else interested at the price Rube was willing to pay; and (b) if a market for Papelbon had developed later at a lower price, there's no reason to think Rube couldn't have jumped in then. There's also no reason to think he would have paid more at that time since Papelbon's deal was a record for a reliever.

A postscript: As much as we all would like the free agent market to be a science, it's an art. No one (including me) can say when it's exactly the right time to move on a free agent target to get the optimal deal. But, given Rube's history (Ibanez, Moyer, Polanco, Blanton, Howard, Baez, Gload, Nix, Papelbon) I think it's fair to say Rube has been a proponent of the preemptive bid and has, at least from a fiscal/payroll standpoint, consistently hurt his own payroll flexibility by having significant contractual dead weight to deal with every year.

JFLNYC wrote:Do you recall how intense the bidding got for Papelbon and how Rube had to keep adding to the offer just to avoid Papelbon signing somewhere else?

Me neither.

I've got no problem with Rube targeting Papelbon. But it's possible that by being more patient he could have saved millions and maybe even years. The counterargument (that he might have lost Papelbon) doesn't seem overly compelling since: (a) there didn't appear to be anyone else interested at the price Rube was willing to pay; and (b) if a market for Papelbon had developed later at a lower price, there's no reason to think Rube couldn't have jumped in then. There's also no reason to think he would have paid more at that time since Papelbon's deal was a record for a reliever.

OK, but there were reports of many teams wanting Ibanez, yet the consensus is Rube 'misread' that market, too, 'extra year,' etc

if there was ever a free agent to be patient with, it's josh hamilton.

there's only a few teams that can afford him and the market might actually dictate him getting say a 5 year deal instead of a ridiculous 7 or 10 year.

i'm not dying to get him, but it's not often you have a chance to get one of the best hitters in baseball in the open market on a reasonable deal.

It's a shame the Phillies get stuck with dead weight contracts. They should only make great signings like Jason Bay or that Lackey guy or Zito or Rowand or blah blah blah.

All teams, including (or maybe especially) teams that win WFCs and stuff, have dead weight on their payrolls. It's the cost of building winning teams.

Well, gee, let's go out and make as many dumb signings as possible. Then we'll win another WFC.

Sarcasm aside, all teams do so occasionally, under Amaro the Phils have done so consistently. There's a difference.

Well, gee, let's never sign anyone then we won't have dumb contracts.

. Pretty much every team makes dumb signings. Are there any teams other than the Royals or Tampa Bay that hasn't had plenty of dead weight on their payroll? and look at how successful they've been.

The Phil's have not had many players come up through their system to fill holes. They have to overpay for vets. If they suck for a while they can get the high draft choices and do more roster building from within. Until then, they will overpay at times like all the good teams do.

Apparently the issue is not as self-evident as I thought.

The teams you cite can't do really dumb contracts because they can't afford it. As for the issue that "all teams do it," no other team has, during the last 4 years (Rube's tenure), moved as quickly and expensively each year as have the Phils.

Saying "all teams do it" is not the issue. Yes, occasional bad contracts are a cost of doing business. The issue is the extent to which a team does so, the consequences of doing so consistently and how the damage can be mitigated going forward.

I take your point. I just think there's often excessive certainty here on these deals when we're partly/mostly just guessing at 'the market' and 'the extra year.' Maybe I'm going too far the other way.

And maybe Amaro is improving. Waited Jimmy out pretty well, imo, and is saying all the right things this year. But if he loves Upton, I personally won't give a shit if Bourn ends up with $1M less AAV or one less year.

As I mentioned, it's an art, not a science and I've made too much of it already. I'm hoping Rube has become more patient and the early signs suggest he has. With everyone in the current crop of FA having one or more significant questions, this is certainly the year to let the market unfold and hopefully have your patience rewarded with a very favorable deal or two.

Kind of a bad year to have glaring and obvious needs tho.

Remember when the Phillies really sucked and they never were in the market for any top FA's on the market? You win some and you lose some. I agree with Smitty and Grote.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:my expectations for the Upton contract are so low, I almost can't be disappointed!!

He's supposedly seeking 5/75.

Upton has averaged 3.8 WAR (fangraphs) over the last 3 years, although last year was the worst of the three. At his peak in 2008 he was a 5-WAR player. He's 28 years old beginning the season next year. Assuming WAR are worth around 4.5 M$ each, we can probably say over the course of a 5-year contract he'd provide something between 15-20 WAR. So, over the next 5 years, he's probably worth something between $75M and $100M. That's not including the value of the lost draft pick, but also not including the likely increase in the value of WAR. He's also basically an average defensive CF statistically, and his clutch performance has been pretty consistently negative. I guess I wouldn't mind 5/$75M since his RH bat helps balance our lineup, but that presumes he'll be happy and hard-working playing here. His reputation is that he's somewhat of a prima-donna as a player.

No way is Bourn at his age and with his LH bat worth 5/$75M to the Phils. Also coming off of a career year. Also represented by Boras. Also costs a draft pick. No thanks to my former favorite Phils farmhand.

JFLNYC wrote:As I mentioned, it's an art, not a science and I've made too much of it already. I'm hoping Rube has become more patient and the early signs suggest he has. With everyone in the current crop of FA having one or more significant questions, this is certainly the year to let the market unfold and hopefully have your patience rewarded with a very favorable deal or two.

This would be best. But I think that kind of thing only happens in theory. Message board folks are great at theory. But as a brilliant man once told me, theories only work in theory.

If you can be patient and make a patient, smart move that's great. But there are a bunch of smart GMs out there trying to do the same thing. And you are correct. It is much more an art than a science. things like fantasy baseball and Strat-O-Matic are easy. The real stuff is very difficult to pull off.

Amaro's aggressive moves have advantages and disadvantages. So far they've resulted playoff teams. They should be a contender again. But even with Gillick, all sorts of folks constantly claimed he misread the market and blah, blah, blah. I'm very sensitive to that kind of talk because quite honestly, none of us have a clue regarding how to read the baseball market.

That brilliant man may indeed be brilliant for many reasons, but that saying is not one of them. Theories don't only work in theory. They often turn out to be facts.

Where are we at for Pitchers/catchers reporting countdown?

Sending out a BUCKY SIGNAL for the question I just posted