Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Bracketology 2012: Duke Finally Steps Up To The No. 1 Line

'08 or '09?

I was thinking last night about how historically rare it must be for the Phillies to have four players as good and as cheap as Cole Hamels, Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley. By one measure, the quartet combined for 97 of the team's 260 total Win Shares. For 2008, the Big Four will earn about $21 million combined--$7 million for Rollins (can we now agree that Jimmy's contract was Ed Wade's greatest achievement?), $7.5m for Utley, about $6 million for Howard and $500,000 or so for Hamels. I haven't looked at it closely, but of the ten or so best teams in baseball, I doubt any of them are getting so much production from their four best players, for so little money.

But after 2008, a couple things happen: Rollins and Utley enter their 30s, with Howard a year behind, and three of the four get considerably more expensive. Rollins gains just another $0.5 million--all (well, much) is forgiven, Ed!--but Utley's compensation jumps to $11 million, and unless they suddenly turn into pumpkins, Howard and the arbitration-eligible Hamels stand to make about $9 million and $4 million respectively for 2009. The Big Four combined will pull down about $34 million--still quite reasonable, but less so. (All contract information from the great Cot's site.)

Given that 2008 will be the last year that the core guys will be relatively cheap, the temptation is there to say that the Phils should declare "championship or bust," doing whatever it takes to bring a title to Philadelphia. It's also Pat Gillick's final season in the GM chair, which must work toward a win-now mindset. But there's a counter-argument as well that suggests 2009 is the year to reach for it all.

Star-divide

This has to do with all the contracts that will come off the books after next season, at which point the team's payroll should better align with the value of its roster:

OF Pat Burrell, $14 million
SP Jamie Moyer, $5.5 million
RP Tom Gordon, $5.5 million
IF Wes Helms, $2.15 million

That's over $27 million, more than enough to absorb the increases due the Big Four (as well as secondary players like Shane Victorino, assuming he's still on hand) and make at least one, probably two, big-ticket additions. Actually, depending on how the team chooses to handle Brad Lidge, who's likely to make about $6.5 million for 2008 and is a free agent afterward, there could be even more flexibility. (The post-2008 budget windfall also explains the Phils' late pursuit of Mike Lowell, who probably was offered a heavily backloaded contract.) Finally, I think the Phils' obligations to the White Sox stemming from the Jim Thome trade are either complete or much diminished after 2008.

A final consideration might be that the farm system is likely to look better a year from now than it does today. If 2006 top pick Kyle Drabek can return from last spring's Tommy John surgery and '07 first-rounder Joe Savery continues his good work, the team could have a crop of nearly-ready power arms including current top prospects Carlos Carrasco and Josh Outman. Right now, the system lacks the depth or high ceilings needed to make a run at available superstars like Miguel Cabrera and Johan Santana; that might not be true in twelve months' time.

So, all things considered, whoever succeeds Pat Gillick will be handed the keys to a pretty nice car. He'll have to replace Burrell's production, almost certainly from outside the organization--there are no power bats in the upper levels of the system. But in-house replacements for Moyer and Gordon seem a reasonable expectation, given the young pitching talent of the system.

This isn't to say that the Phils shouldn't be aggressive over the remainder of this Hot Stove season. But the big picture could look even better in a year's time.

Comment 13 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Re: '08 or '09?
     I'm a little leery of the "'08 or bust" talk when I hear it, because that usually suggests denuding the farm system through trades and surrendering draft picks and getting yourself tied to contracts that'll bite you on the butt later.

     Of course, you could say the same for "'09 or bust", too. I think that the team's at a point where they can operate with the idea of sustained excellence in mind. Which, I suppose, is what DAJAFI is getting at? Don't get so focused on next year that you undermine the next one...or more.

by Dalton Bouchee on Nov 27, 2007 4:57 PM EST reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
Well, you always want to plan for sustained success. But every team aside from the Yankees and Red Sox, and maybe the Mets, has to contend with the "competitive cycle"--when to emphasize now and when to emphasize later.

In some relative sense, the Phillies are a now team: their four best guys are under control for a few years yet, as are nice complementary pieces like Myers and Victorino. Sometime in the next 2-3 years, it probably will behoove them to bust the budget, cash in prospects and try to win it all, at the expense of later seasons. I'm just not clear--and, annoyingly, I'm no more clear at this moment than when I started to write this piece, in fact probably less clear--what the best moment is to push all the chips to the center of the table.

by dajafi on Nov 27, 2007 5:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
Is it really just one year that you push all the chips in? Can't that basically be something you do over say... a 3 year period?

The way I see, that period is from now until 2010 at the absolute latest.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Nov 27, 2007 5:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
I think unless you're Tampa Bay or Kansas City, teams with an obvious "later" orientation, it's silly to think too far ahead. But the key point is that as time goes on, our four best players will stay the same or decline production-wise, while they get more and more expensive.

It's not to denigrate Arbuckle or Wade or Wolever or whoever to say that there was a lot of luck in getting those four to the bigs as good as they've been. Maybe there are guys in our system now who will prove to be as good, but I don't see them. So the window of opportunity--to use a phrase Eagles fans have gotten sick of (this one, at any rate)--lasts as long as those four are truly in their primes and not prohibitively expensive.

by dajafi on Nov 27, 2007 9:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but it's interesting that of those four guys only Hamels seemed like a good bet when he was a prospect to become as good as he, in fact, became.

Utley was a solid prospect, but the thought never crossed my mind circa 2002 that he'd ever become an MVP candidate.

by taco pal on Nov 27, 2007 9:57 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
How much more are the big four going to make in '08 compared to '07? If the difference isn't huge, the amount of salary that came off the books this offseason (which is substantial) should also count in that equation.

by taco pal on Nov 27, 2007 7:07 PM EST reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
Ah, but '08 may have to be the year.  After the goings on in September, I think you have to look at the team as being the power of the division, but only for a short period.

Look at it this way:

  1. FLA.  Fire sale mode.  Again.
  2. WSH.  Some nice young talent, but this year's theme is "Make as much money off the new park as possible, while gearing up for a run in '09 and beyond."  Make no mistake, they will be dangerous then.  But for now, lets just say they don't have the firepower to keep up.
  3. NY(N).  After the collapse, there are some bodies on that team that have to go, or the press up there is going to grind them to dust.  Brain damaged is the only way to describe that team right now.  
  4. ATL.  Up and down, but it won't be that way forever.  Eventually they are going to put together some sustained excellence, but probably not until they get a bit younger.  You have to expect it from them.  They've been doing it for too long.
  5. PHI.  Let's see.  3B, maybe another solid starter (hard to find, but they are out there), and what else?  Not much.  The offense, even without Rowand, can still outscore the pitching staff, so what the hell?
Now, when it comes to the rest of the league, you have to figure their chances are as good as anyone else.  It's no secret the NL is the weak sister here, so why not take advantage before everyone else gets their rebuilds done?

Taking on a AL team in October?  Good Luck with that one.  But, if you can get that far...

I realize this is all in very general terms, but I really believe that the window is '08.  You can stretch it to'09, but by 2010, you waited too long.  I say take the chance now before the rest of the division, and the league catches up.

Another thing to consider:  There is a reasonable possibility that at least one, and as many as three of the big four could be playing old by then.  Could very well have a high-priced infield who's performance is in decline at that point in time.  

by glenntwo on Nov 27, 2007 10:52 PM EST reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
I, like the majority of you, do not know when is the right time to trade of an additional prospect or two and make a run at a championship.  What I would like to point out, however, is that while the NL may still be the "weak sister" when compared to the AL, the national league is quickly filling up with good, young teams.  I don't know why people continue to underestimate both the Mets, and the Braves within our own division.  I feel that the Braves are an improved team over last year and even though the epic collapse was great and all, the Mets were beating us for 158 games last year.  In addition, the Diamondbacks, Rockies, and Dodgers all have great young talent.  Also, the Padres just never seem to go away.  So, while I feel the Phillies could make a nice run in one of the next 3 years, the chances are that it isn't happening.

by Neduol Caz on Nov 29, 2007 12:27 PM EST reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
Thats why you want to go now.  In two years, there are going to be a lot of good teams in the NL.  Why not press your advantage while you can.

The Phils are one of the top three teams in the NL, if not the top team.  Arizona won the division but was outscored by over a hundred runs.  Chicago barely won the central, and barely cleared .500.  The Mets flat choked, as well as San Diego.  Colorado?  The Rockies were great fun to watch, but I would be willing o wager that a streak like that to end a season won't be seen in either league for another hundred years, if ever.  It was a fluke.

In trying to create a perfect monster, a lot of people forget that the whole object is just to win the last game of the season.  You don't have to be the perfect team, just the one that outlasts everyone else.  Whether it takes 85 wins or a 105 wins to get to the playoffs and win the league doesn't really matter (remember the '06 Cardinals?).  You just have to be better than the rest of the teams you play.  And right now, Philly is about as close to being the best team in the NL as they can be.  It's time to pull the trigger.

by glenntwo on Nov 29, 2007 10:27 PM EST reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
This is pretty close to my thinking. Our comparative advantage isn't as likely to be as large, or exist at all, in two or three years when the Big Four will be really expensive and possibly declining, and some of the other clubs with stronger farms and/or new revenue sources--if you think the Mets spend freely now, wait till Citi Field opens--bring their strengths to bear.

by dajafi on Nov 30, 2007 7:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
So then doesn't the question become, who is potentially available and undervalued now that would help the team in both 08 and 09?

(my guess as to PG's surprise in-season pickup: Adrian Beltre)

by das411 on Dec 4, 2007 12:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
my understanding is that the Mariners aren't interested in dumping Beltre any more since he's put up respectable numbers the last two years. I'd love to see it happen, but I think their price would be very high.

by perfectdepth on Dec 4, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: '08 or '09?
Arizona was outscored by twenty runs.  My point is that our farm system is finally beginning to come together after years of misery.  However, most of our prospects are young and would net very little in a trade.  So why don't we just hold onto them and see what materializes.  Remember, as our stars get older and thus more expensive, we are going to need young, cheap talent to pair with them.  Taking on big contracts fro veteran players is not the way to do that.

by Neduol Caz on Nov 30, 2007 11:18 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.

Blog Lords

Wholecamels_small WholeCamels

Boys_small jonk

198222_nlds_reds_phillies_baseball_small FuquaManuel

Dsc04697_small David S. Cohen

Meltingface_small dajafi

Phillyfriar__new2__small PhillyFriar

Associate Blog Lords

Bugs_small taco pal

Greg_luzinski_small Wet Luzinski

Cptjackalbatross_small RememberthePhitans

Phillies1980logo_small schmenkman

Madmen_icon_small lizroscher

Blogger Emeritus

Colevatar_small Matt Swartz