FTN wrote:

That was back in his Eugene Landy phase.

almost forgot that brunt almost fucked up that inning with 2 misplays, and then he lucks out with a triple play. pedro started that game in his return to new york. bard was on the verge of blowing it. fun times.

need the civil war pic please

jackpot

ULYSSES S BRUNT

So is the Bruntlett thing real? Cause I just threw it up on Wikipedia.

Rev_Beezer wrote:So is the Bruntlett thing real? Cause I just threw it up on Wikipedia.

You weren't banned from your last experiment? Good for you!

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/891 ... tracts-mlb

Ryan Howard gets a total snub, only comes it at #3 on Jonah Keri's list of the worst contracts in baseball. Papelbon gets an honorable mention.

Barry Jive wrote:Papelbon gets an honorable mention.

His points about closers and even Manuel's usage patterns are valid, but why is this deal so much worse than, say, Soriano's? Because if Papelbon continues to be effective he'll be here longer?

And I think it's pointless to view contract amounts in a vacuum. Almost everyone on his list is from a high-payroll team, who could afford to splurge on a higher ceiling and more consistency. Really, you could argue they'd be foolish not to, with teams increasingly re-signing their own players and the market for premium free agents weakening.

Soriano is also an honorable mention. or do you mean Rafael

Barry Jive wrote:Soriano is also an honorable mention. or do you mean Rafael

The latter

Here's the highest paid relievers in recent years, from Cot's. It doesn't include Soriano's most recent 2/28 deal with the Nats (with a $14M option for 2015) and perhaps others

1. Mariano Rivera, $15,000,000 (2008-10) (2011-12)
2. Rafael Soriano, $14,000,000 (2013-14)
3. Brad Lidge, $12,500,000 (2009-11)
4. Jonathan Papelbon, $12,500,000 (2012-15)
5. Francisco Rodriguez, $12,333,333 (2009-11)
6. Jonathan Papelbon, $12,000,000 (2011)
7. Joe Nathan, $11,750,000 (2008-11)
8. Rafael Soriano, $11,666,667 (2011-13)
9. Francisco Cordero, $11,500,000 (2008-11)
10. Billy Wagner, $10,750,000 (2006-09)

Obviously, the K-Rod deal came became derided with all that happened to him, but there wasn't a national outcry when he signed it like there was for Papelbon. Or any of the others, really.

Why is that? I get that Papelbon's is longer, but as even Kheri allows, he's been a model of consistent excellence -- why the strong assumption that he can't pitch two or three more good years?

I would agree with you that Papelbon's deal is not much worse than Rafael Soriano's. Soriano's deal is really bad. But the counterargument is that Papelbon's option is much more likely to vest, which would make his deal going forward stand at 4 years, 52 million. We've been through the Papelbon arguments a ton but regardless of how positive you are on the deal, no closer in baseball is worth what Papelbon is making. Soriano's deal is only 2 years, 28 million, and the third-year option requires him to finish 120 games over the next two years. He's more like one of a cast of a few very good bullpen guys than Papelbon, who's the stud of our pen and only needs to finish 100 games over the next two years or 55 in 2015. And the way Charlie uses him, he'll get that easily unless he's seriously injured.

I guess the other factor is that Soriano is not nearly as good as Papelbon, but given the volatility of relievers he could still have a better season this year.

Barry Jive wrote:I would agree with you that Papelbon's deal is not much worse than Rafael Soriano's. Soriano's deal is really bad. But the counterargument is that Papelbon's option is much more likely to vest, which would make his deal going forward stand at 4 years, 52 million. We've been through the Papelbon arguments a ton but regardless of how positive you are on the deal, no closer in baseball is worth what Papelbon is making. Soriano's deal is only 2 years, 28 million, and the option requires him to finish 120 games over the next two years. He's more of a cast of a few very good bullpen guys than Papelbon, who's the stud of our pen and only needs to finish 100 games over the next two years or 55 in 2015. And the way Charlie uses him, he'll get that easily unless he's seriously injured.

I guess the other factor is that Soriano is not nearly as good as Papelbon, but given the volatility of relievers he could still have a better season this year.

I agree that Papelbon will end up with the longer deal. But why wouldn't he?

And to me, the "closers aren't worth what Papelbon" got argument is a separate issue. Clearly, the market price of elite closers is around $13-15M, with the younger and/or more consistent ones getting more years.

Obviously, a higher-payroll team who goes cheap at closer and has that work out is helping itself. But that's so far from a given that most/all of those teams go for the surer thing.

Grotewold wrote:Obviously, the K-Rod deal came became derided with all that happened to him, but there wasn't a national outcry when he signed it like there was for Papelbon. Or any of the others, really.

you say stuff like this a lot but it's completely unprovable.

Barry Jive wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Obviously, the K-Rod deal came became derided with all that happened to him, but there wasn't a national outcry when he signed it like there was for Papelbon. Or any of the others, really.

you say stuff like this a lot but it's completely unprovable.

No it's not. I'm sure you could link to pundits ripping other deals, but doubtful it would anywhere close to the reaction to Papelbon's.

But to get back to baseball, how was it a huge gamble or mistake by the Phillies? Would they have been better off giving Madson $11M a year and one less year (assuming that was possible)? Given the ball to Bastardo and signed an outfielder everyone here would have hated? And what would they have done with the savings to ensure a better team?

The only was this deal is bad, let alone among the "worst" in all of baseball, is if Papelbon is terrible the last year(s).

Grotewold wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:I would agree with you that Papelbon's deal is not much worse than Rafael Soriano's. Soriano's deal is really bad. But the counterargument is that Papelbon's option is much more likely to vest, which would make his deal going forward stand at 4 years, 52 million. We've been through the Papelbon arguments a ton but regardless of how positive you are on the deal, no closer in baseball is worth what Papelbon is making. Soriano's deal is only 2 years, 28 million, and the option requires him to finish 120 games over the next two years. He's more of a cast of a few very good bullpen guys than Papelbon, who's the stud of our pen and only needs to finish 100 games over the next two years or 55 in 2015. And the way Charlie uses him, he'll get that easily unless he's seriously injured.

I guess the other factor is that Soriano is not nearly as good as Papelbon, but given the volatility of relievers he could still have a better season this year.

I agree that Papelbon will end up with the longer deal. But why wouldn't he?

And to me, the "closers aren't worth what Papelbon" got argument is a separate issue. Clearly, the market price of elite closers is around $13-15M, with the younger and/or more consistent ones getting more years.

Obviously, a higher-payroll team who goes cheap at closer and has that work out is helping itself. But that's so far from a given that most/all of those teams go for the surer thing.

How is it a separate issue? Almost all professional baseball teams overvalue closers. Some of them don't. Market price doesn't mean a team is forced into overpaying for players all the time, which is what the Phils did with Papelbon. To be clear, I don't mind the Papelbon deal. He was an elite option on the market, probably the best relief pitcher to hit the open market in a very long time. The Phils are just overpaying him for his services because the market almost always inflates the cost of good relievers.

Barry Jive wrote:How is it a separate issue? Almost all professional baseball teams overvalue closers. Some of them don't. Market price doesn't mean a team is forced into overpaying for players all the time, which is what the Phils did with Papelbon. To be clear, I don't mind the Papelbon deal. He was an elite option on the market, probably the best relief pitcher to hit the open market in a very long time. The Phils are just overpaying him for his services because the market almost always inflates the cost of good relievers.

Again, I'm just saying they only "overpaid" if he's awful the last year. Which is not likely, let alone a certainty. Yet many pundits immediately declared it a mistake.

also, even if it's one of the worst in baseball, it's still not in the top 15. there are 30 teams in baseball, and every one of them but the Astros has a bad contract on the payroll. If Papelbon had the worst deal on the team (which, after Howard, he inarguably does), it'd still be no big deal because it's still just in that 16-20 range per Keri. I'm glad they have Papelbon. I wish he didn't make as much money as he did, but if I had to turn back time I'd probably be okay with the Phils giving it to him again.

Good God they need to start playing games soon.