I would definitely give Papelbon away if it meant Rube would stop signing closers to huge long-term deals.

We've gone from 102 wins to 81 to probably less this season. That's a complete failure with our payroll.

Grotewold wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:Ok. Teams do lots of dumb shit but I would rather that my team not. The closers for the 8 best teams in MLB (pit, stl, atl, lad,, bos, tb, oak, det) make combined about 1/3 of what Papelbon makes.

I get that. Really. I'd love to develop a Motte or Kimbrel or Jansen. Just saying, you could argue Boston got lucky with Uehara and could have easily been in deep shit right now. But if we had a couple high-ceiling relief prospects and could sign a couple $4-5M free agents instead of Papelbon, I would consider that approach. Just saying it's not uncommon by any means or crazy to pay a premium for a higher chance of elite performance and stability.

Anyway, I can feel this isn't gonna be my day here. This isn't me ceding the last word. This is me running and hiding.

Is it common? Other than the dumb Soriano contract, what other relief pitcher deals anything like Papelbon have been done in the last few years? I think the smart teams get it.

Grotewold wrote: Just saying it's not uncommon by any means or crazy to pay a premium for a higher chance of elite performance and stability.

That's a fair enough point, but signing a closer to the biggest closer contract in the history of MLB is, by definition, an uncommon event. Context is also important. Papelbon was signed to that contract going into a year when Howard was coming off an achilles rupture, Utley's future was uncertain, our 3B had missed 40 games due to injury and had a grand total of 4 XBH after June and the team had lost it's regular LF. So it's certainly fair to question whether allocating so many resources to a closer was a wise decision.

Trent Steele wrote:Is it common? Other than the dumb Soriano contract, what other relief pitcher deals anything like Papelbon have been done in the last few years? I think the smart teams get it.

Yes the most recent instance of a big-money team signing a closer. We can't say for sure what the Yankees would have done if they hadn't had Rivera all these years, but I'm thinking best available pitcher.

The "smart" teams are low-payroll by and large, so it's a bit of an unfair comp. Boston has gotten creative with it the past few years, after passing on Papelbon/Madson, to terrible results last year and good results thus far this year.

JFLNYC wrote:

Grotewold wrote: Just saying it's not uncommon by any means or crazy to pay a premium for a higher chance of elite performance and stability.

That's a fair enough point, but signing a closer to the biggest closer contract in the history of MLB is, by definition, an uncommon event. Context is also important. Papelbon was signed to that contract going into a year when Howard was coming off an achilles rupture, Utley's future was uncertain, our 3B had missed 40 games due to injury and had a grand total of 4 XBH after June and the team had lost it's regular LF. So it's certainly fair to question whether allocating so many resources to a closer was a wise decision.

He got the biggest closer contract in the history of MLB because he was a consistently outstanding and relatively young free agent. Why would he not? Lidge got the same AAV in 2008, FFS.

Whether they should have signed a bat instead is totally fair. I know you liked Cuddyer, and maybe others. But would it have mattered? Would you feel better going into 2014 with him instead?

laf837 wrote:We've gone from 102 wins to 81 to probably less this season. That's a complete failure with our payroll.

Which is why I think Rubes job depends on this offseason. I don't think Monty is going to tolerate a top 5 payroll with declining revenues and TV viewership.

Do something already!

GrizzledVeteran wrote:Do something already!

Grotewold wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

Grotewold wrote: Just saying it's not uncommon by any means or crazy to pay a premium for a higher chance of elite performance and stability.

That's a fair enough point, but signing a closer to the biggest closer contract in the history of MLB is, by definition, an uncommon event. Context is also important. Papelbon was signed to that contract going into a year when Howard was coming off an achilles rupture, Utley's future was uncertain, our 3B had missed 40 games due to injury and had a grand total of 4 XBH after June and the team had lost it's regular LF. So it's certainly fair to question whether allocating so many resources to a closer was a wise decision.

He got the biggest closer contract in the history of MLB because he was a consistently outstanding and relatively young free agent. Why would he not? Lidge got the same AAV in 2008, FFS.

Whether they should have signed a bat instead is totally fair. I know you liked Cuddyer, and maybe others. But would it have mattered? Would you feel better going into 2014 with him instead?

They gave him a four year contract with a pretty easy vest for a fifth year barring injury or a complete and utter collapse (55 games finished in year 4 or 100 games finished in years 3 and 4). AAV is irrelevant at that point. A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT for a reliever is unacceptable, period.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:They gave him a four year contract with a pretty easy vest for a fifth year barring injury or a complete and utter collapse (55 games finished in year 4 or 100 games finished in years 3 and 4). AAV is irrelevant at that point. A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT for a reliever is unacceptable, period.

I understand that in theory, although "utter collapse" is a bit much. But can we wait for his performance to actually drop from elite before freaking out? Assuming he's even here the whole time?

p.s. The fallback was four years for Madson, which most here would have supported

Jayson Stark: Teams that have spoken w #Phillies say they're not upbeat about making any deals today. Michael Young still in play but no clear destination

I'm not going to freak out just yet. Feel like we heard the same thing last year before moving Vic and Pence.

Grotewold wrote:Whether they should have signed a bat instead is totally fair. I know you liked Cuddyer, and maybe others. But would it have mattered? Would you feel better going into 2014 with him instead?

Going into 2014 with an established, RH, power-hitting All-Star RF with only a 1/$10.5MM commitment left on his contract? You betcha I would. His RH power and short commitment is exactly what this team needs to help bridge the gap to the next generation of Phils.

And the choice to me was not between Papelbon and Cuddyer. It was between Rollins and Cuddyer. My plan was to: (a) sign Cuddyer instead of Rollins; (b) look to Galvis as our future SS; but (c) trade for Marco Scutaro (who the Red Sox had made available and ultimately traded to the Rockies for bupkis AND who had 1/$6MM left on his contract) as insurance for Galvis/Utley/Polanco, as necessary.

Heyman:

Chase Utley and the Phillies have been discussing deals for three years or two years plus a vesting option for a third that would pay him in the neighborhood of $13 million a year, sources said.

Grotewold wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:They gave him a four year contract with a pretty easy vest for a fifth year barring injury or a complete and utter collapse (55 games finished in year 4 or 100 games finished in years 3 and 4). AAV is irrelevant at that point. A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT for a reliever is unacceptable, period.

I understand that in theory, although "utter collapse" is a bit much. But can we wait for his performance to actually drop from elite before freaking out? Assuming he's even here the whole time?

p.s. The fallback was four years for Madson, which most here would have supported

Except they could've frontloaded the contract or done ANYTHING to make the contract more palatable on the back end, when the team would likely not be a contender anymore. If they'd paid Paps $16M or $18M in 2012 and 2013, he'd be a hell of a lot more moveable at this point. The other reported offers didn't come close to the Phillies' AAV, so the option year was the 2012 equivalent of Raul's third year.

And the "utter collapse" isn't a bit much--in fact I'm not even sure what you're talking about. That's what it would take to bump him out of the closer slot in 2014-15. You're not paying him $12M to rot in the bullpen, and the team isn't good enough that a handful of badly blown saves will change anything.

can't they just send some money with him now, which would have the same effect as having frontloaded it?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Except they could've frontloaded the contract or done ANYTHING to make the contract more palatable on the back end, when the team would likely not be a contender anymore. If they'd paid Paps $16M or $18M in 2012 and 2013, he'd be a hell of a lot more moveable at this point.

Except we figured to be pretty much capped out in '12 and '13, much less so in '15 and '16. It wasn't about trading him.

stevemc wrote:Heyman:

Chase Utley and the Phillies have been discussing deals for three years or two years plus a vesting option for a third that would pay him in the neighborhood of $13 million a year, sources said.

this would be fucking incredible

Houshphandzadeh wrote:can't they just send some money with him now, which would have the same effect as having frontloaded it?

Valid point. Total brain fart due to lack of sleep. Ugh.

Sorry, I hated the signing at the time and still hate it a year and a half later. There's nothing anyone can say that will make it better. I would've rather them pay him $30M on a one-year deal in 2012 than this contract. He was never going to be anything more than an expensive luxury in the final two years... when he's 33 and 34, so who knows what his trade value will even be.

hope our deadline deal is a chase utley extension