Joe Blanton files for $10.25MM

Link goes to meanest headline.

He's asking for a lot but most people really sell Cookies short. He had a fine season in 2009 and improved in basically every meaningful "predictive" category.

over 2 years ago WholeCamels 53 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

For that kind of money...

you might expect that Charlie had given him a bunch of meaningful post-season starts in the playoffs. Not so much. This number seems absurd. Lincecum is seeking $13 mil. And Blanton wants more than $10mil. Puh-leeze.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/morosi-on-tim-lincecum-arbitration-011910

by Boundforbeach on Jan 20, 2010 8:20 AM EST reply actions

And not to beat a dead horse...

but if he gets more than the $9 mil it took to keep Lee for next year, I’m going to puke

by Boundforbeach on Jan 20, 2010 8:21 AM EST reply actions

This, but I’ll also punch some babies.

Seriously, Joe is not worth that kinda money.

Scar tissue is stronger than muscle tissue. Realize the strength, move on.

by JCB79 on Jan 20, 2010 9:02 AM EST up reply actions

Oh, okay.

Wait.

$10.25 million……dollars?

Oh hell no.

by ajay on Jan 20, 2010 9:11 AM EST reply actions

Ideally less but still a bargain

I do think that the arbitration process would generally give Blanton less than 10.25 but more than the 7.5 the Phillies offered, but people are misinterpreting how baseball salaries are determined.

Firstly, you can’t compare to Tim Lincecum. He’s a first year arbitration player which means that he should be making barely half of what a third year arb guy like Blanton would make— so you should really be comparing Lincecum’s third year which will be about $20-25 million in all likelihood.

Secondly, you can’t compare Cliff Lee. The Phillies were perfectly aware that Blanton would get approximately $9MM and clearly they preferred Blanton + Aumont/Gillies/Ramirez to Lee alone. Cliff Lee’s salary was determined by a contract he signed in August 2006, when he had a career ERA of about 4.40-4.50. Lee was a bargain which is why they were able to flip him for prospects.

Thirdly, people seem to think that Blanton’s season was a fluke last year. It actually was not— he struck out more batters than ever, way more than switching leagues would account for, and it’s backed up by the fact that hitters swung and miss WAY more often than they ever had before against him all while keeping his walk rate steady. At this point, he’s much better than just a #3 pitcher and if probably will pitch 200 IP with an ERA near 3.90-4.10 this year, which teams pay closer to $15MM for on the free agent market (if they can get one year deals, usually the player takes a discount to do a multi-year deal, so pitchers like Blanton typically get something like 3/$38MM rather than 1/$15MM).

I do think that they’ll be able to settle around $8.5-9.0MM, but the fact is that people need to compare Blanton to other 3rd year arb pitchers and realize that $10.25MM would still be a bargain.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 20, 2010 9:14 AM EST reply actions 2 recs

good analysis. i hope they settle around 9mm

by mkellyrutgers on Jan 20, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

Thanks Matt

for ruining my knee jerk reaction to Blanton’s demand :) Seriously, I appreciate the context, but I still don’t understand why he was not given a more prominent post-season role if he is, in fact, “much better than just a #3 pitcher.”

by Boundforbeach on Jan 20, 2010 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

I think Charlie and the scouts knew the same thing about Hamels that my numbers were telling me— he just wasn’t getting hit all that hard in reality. The same number of home runs, line drives, balls hit to outfield, etc., were getting hit with the same # of K, BB, GB, etc. Hamels was going to get 2 starts per series because he was still a mid-level ace even if he got lucky enough to look like an elite ace in 08. Lee was obviously getting 2 starts per series, and Pedro was so hot that he got a lot of starts too. Happ was given a role against Colorado bc they couldn’t hit lefties, too. I guess the basic answer to your question, though, is that they had 3 guys last October who were capable of pitching likes #1s and good #2s, so a #2 or very good #3 just wasn’t going to get starts.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 20, 2010 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

I agree with everything in the middle three paragraphs, but isn’t 10.25 still high for a third-year arb pitcher of that caliber, historically? I’m just going on a general sense of what I recall from past years, which obviously isn’t reliable or anything, but what are the actual best comps? Andy Martino seems to think Blanton’s number is out of whack too – his explanation is not very clear, but third year or not, it would seem that more than four pitchers ever would have submitted higher figures than Blanton if 10.25 was a bargain.

I guess this is all moot though if Blanton has really signed an extension.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah, 10.25 is high but 7.5 is low. I’m guessing Casey Close (Howard’s agent too) predicted that the Phillies would go lower than precedent suggested like they did with Howard and figured he could argue it the same way (i.e. “Maybe 10.25 is on the high side but it’s still on the correct side of 8.5 unlike their offer of 7.5”.)

by Matt Swartz on Jan 20, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions

Secondly, you can’t compare Cliff Lee. The Phillies were perfectly aware that Blanton would get approximately $9MM and clearly they preferred Blanton + Aumont/Gillies/Ramirez to Lee alone.

This is nitpicking, but presumably it wouldn’t have been Lee alone, it would have been Lee + the lesser prospects that Blanton would have brought back if he had been the one dealt.

Unless the Phillies asking price for Blanton was really low (which is possible), in which case a lot of teams missed the boat by not going after him.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

I think that they had trouble getting good offers for Blanton. Also remember Benny Looper is the Phils’ Asst GM in charge of minor league scouting and that he was the guy doing that in Seattle under Basavi before Zduriencik came in and replaced everyone. He probably has a higher value on those three games on the basis that he must have if he drafted them in the first place.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 20, 2010 11:01 AM EST up reply actions

Firstly, you can’t compare to Tim Lincecum. He’s a first year arbitration player which means that he should be making barely half of what a third year arb guy like Blanton would make— so you should really be comparing Lincecum’s third year which will be about $20-25 million in all likelihood.

Please correct me if I’m interpreting this wrong. Since Blanton is a 3rd year arb and Lincecum is a 1st, the weight in salary increases is mostly due to Blanton’s years of service rather than performance?

by Phils 2036 World CH on Jan 20, 2010 10:25 AM EST up reply actions

Correct, service time is the reason that the numbers are not comparable.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 20, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions

The Big Rugulach (and not sugar free)

I love the guy but I do compare his number to Cliff Lee since we would have to sign both next year if we wanted to keep them beyond 2010.

So you got some prospects for Lee and I have some high hopes for Aumont but this is making me verklempt.

I love Blanton but he is a very good #4 and a decent #3 at best. Cliff Lee is a dominant #1 that on our staff would have been pitching out of the # 2 spot. Takes pressure off Hamels and whoever we end up with at 4 & 5.

I just see this as going to Lugers but ordering the fish. You’re in a nice place, its expensive but your not getting what you should be getting which was Lee and Halladay for 1 solid effort for a championship season in 2010.

by boknows71 on Jan 20, 2010 9:28 AM EST reply actions 1 recs

Lee and Blanton will not have the same salary demands after this year. Lee will want something like 4/$85 or 5/$100 and will deserve it. Blanton will probably want 3/$38 and deserve it. The Phillies were not going to be able to afford Halladay AND Lee at the top of the rotation for more than one year, and they knew it. I still think it would have been worth it given the relative competitiveness of the team in 2010 and the relatively weak prospect haul they got for Lee, but the Lee deal has nothing to do with the Blanton demands. Everyone knew approximately what Blanton was due in arb (and he is by no means a #4).

Also, Hamels doesn’t need pressure off. What could be more pressure than 2008 WS Game 5 in the rain? He just needs a few more weakly hit bloops to hang up in the air for Victorino and Ibanez rather than falling in for singles. That type of luck was the difference.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 20, 2010 9:53 AM EST up reply actions

rec'd

for the Luger’s reference. Bo Knows Steaks.

by dajafi on Jan 20, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

If the pressure of being #2 in the rotation is too much for Hamels, I don’t think I’d want the guy on my team.

by Cormican on Jan 20, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

I agree

We could not have signed Halladay and Lee for more than 2010. Just as I wrote up above. That was my whole premise of why they should have kept Lee and you can undoubtedly compare Lee and Blanton for 2010.

by boknows71 on Jan 20, 2010 10:28 AM EST reply actions

Huh?

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

You can compare their 2010 salaries

Sorry, didn’t make sense when I re-read it either. Maybe I should just get back to working and not trying to do 2 things at once. My employer will appreciate it.

by boknows71 on Jan 20, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions

I think Matt’s point was that you can’t point to Lee’s lower salary as a basis for arguing that Blanton submitted an arb demand that is too high. Lee’s salary was not based on an arb demand, it was based on a contract that Lee signed under a very different set of circumstances.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 10:59 AM EST up reply actions

The choice was either:

2010: Halladay + Lee
2011 and future: Halladay + two picks

2010: Halladay + Blanton + Aumont + Gillies + Ramirez
2011 and future: Halladay + Blanton + Aumont + Gillies + Ramirez

I’m not a supporter of the trade, but not because we should have kept both Lee and Halladay. We should have kept our prospects and not even gone after Halladay in the first place.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions

So you’re saying…

2010: Lee/Blanton/Drabek/Taylor/D’Arnaud > Halladay/Blanton/Aumont/Gillies/Ramirez

which I can buy. But if you can’t re-sign Lee after 2010 (a pretty decent bet), then your argument turns into

2011 and future: Drabek/Taylor/D’Arnaud + 2 picks for Lee (assuming Amaro offers arb!) > Halladay/Aumont/Gillies/Ramirez

which I don’t think I agree with.

by dajafi on Jan 20, 2010 12:02 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, it’s a bit risky. And the crack about Amaro is a fair point. I don’t know what his deal is with arbitration. It’s like he has a weird phobia about it.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 12:07 PM EST up reply actions

Even more than that, I think that if you can add Roy Halladay for tens of millions less than he’s probably “worth” without a severe talent hit to your current major-league team, it’s almost certain that’s a good thing.

by dajafi on Jan 20, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

HELL NO

this is like ryan howard money, no way phils will give him that much

eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK

by eagleswin on Jan 20, 2010 11:57 AM EST reply actions

Way to comment without reading any of the preceding comments.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions

You have a crazy knack for saying what I’m thinking, taco pal.

by Trev223 on Jan 20, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions

Arbitration Process

People have to really understand how this works at a base level, before going nuts. First off, both parties know what they think he is worth according to the process because they were talking salary well before this came about. Because they could not agree on this one year term (or multi year for that matter), they both have to submit a cost of what they feel each is worth. With the Phils coming in at 7.5, Blanton and company would be idiotic to request 8.5 or 9 for his last year. As mentioned previously, he is no ace, but someone with his numbers make a very nice living in this league. We could find comparisons of non arb. players with both good and bad contracts. Quick example, Carlos Silva is making 11 million a year……. I think we all know Blanton is more valuable than that.

So with these figures, they go into an arbitration hearing. At the hearing, they both present their cases, and it will be determined which salary is more in line with a player’s true value, relative to service time. THERE IS NO MEETING IN THE MIDDLE ONCE THEY GET TO THE HEARING. It’s either the Phils 7.5 or Blanton’s 10.25. It’s a chess game inherent to baseball, nothing to take personally. No matter what the cost is, we have a nice low risk pitcher signed for the year, under a nice contract.

by hessshaun on Jan 20, 2010 12:31 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

meet in the middle

But as is often the case, teams and players will often settle in the middle prior to the hearing, or even work out multi-year extensions.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jan 20, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed, and we are on the same page. But really, it would be a waste of everyone’s time if Blanton and the team were just a million or two apart. He is banking on the higher amount to threaten to get the team up to 8.5 or 9. People have to realize that the player still needs the leverage to negotiate and meet a team in the middle of his desired price. At the same time, he needs that figure to be realistic enough to potentially have a case at the hearing.

by hessshaun on Jan 20, 2010 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

I wonder if a moderately frontloaded Blanton multi year contract would be a good idea. That might throw him a bone for his production up to this point, and at the same time help the team financially for the darker years that are about to come, ie, lots of players getting pay raises or released etc.

by Whack8888 on Jan 20, 2010 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

I kind of like this idea, but I don’t think they have the flexibility for 2010. Figure they guessed at around $8m for Cupcakes; if they give him $10m instead, with the idea that they’ll then have him for $9m in 2011 and 2012, that pretty much means no more signings before the year and could limit their ability to add a piece in summer.

OTOH, structuring it $8/$9/$10, with a $2m buyout or $11m option for 2013, might make sense if he’d take what’s essentially Randy Wolf’s deal with the Brewers.

by dajafi on Jan 20, 2010 1:20 PM EST up reply actions

Somewhat along the lines of Pitchers and contracts, do any of you guys look at the the Felix Hernandez Mariner’s contract and get real excited about Hamels contract. I dont know the numbers that well, but they are somewhat comparable as pitchers, correct? 80 Million for 5 years might be do able for the Phils and Hamels, maybe Hamels will even accept a little less.

Am I way off with my analysis of the situation?

by Whack8888 on Jan 20, 2010 1:03 PM EST reply actions

Hamels is 1) older; and 2) frankly, not as good. They OUGHT TO be able to sign Hamels for less than that.

How awesome is it to be Felix Hernandez? You’re 23, you signed a 5 yr/$80MM contract, which makes you a free agent at 28 (your prime, barring injury or collapse), you’ve already made more money than you’re going to know what to do with, and you’re probably going to get a HUGE free agent deal.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jan 20, 2010 1:11 PM EST up reply actions

Do you mean at the end of his current contract or now?

If we’re talking about after his current contract ends, then maybe not, even though Hamels is not as good as Hernandez.

If we’re talking about now, then as WC says we can probably get him for an even more favorable deal. But would we want to? As it stands, we only owe him $16 million for the next two years, so it would in essence be a three-year extension for something like $20 million per.

by taco pal on Jan 20, 2010 1:15 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks to you and WholeCamels for the reply, I was basically trying to say what both of you said. It seemed like it was pretty good news as far as the ‘good pitchers signing to extensions with there team’ market goes.

I was referring more to the end of his current contract, or perhaps negotiations to to redo that contract before the final year or something along those lines, not anything occuring this off season.

Also, I would have posted this on your 2012 fan post, as it is most pertinent to that topic, but that post has left the fan post listings.

by Whack8888 on Jan 20, 2010 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

What MattS said

This is simply how arbitration works, especially in the third year.

One thing I slightly disagree on is that Blanton at $10.25 million would be a “bargain” per se — it’s solid value for money, yes, but with the virtual collapse of the market for mid-level guys over the past two offseasons, I have a hard time seeing Blanton getting that figure for a 1-year deal on the open market at this point.

And if it actually gets to arbitration, and they have to debate the $8.875 million figure, I can see the Phillies arguing that very point. Look at some comparable starters who signed this offseason: Rich Harden (1 year, $7.5 million); Jason Marquis (2 years, $15 million); and Brad Penny (1 year, $7.5 million). Randy Wolf (3 years, $29.75 million) is the lone exception.

Honestly though, I expect them to come to an agreement somewhere in the $8.5 to $9 million range.

by PhillyFriar on Jan 20, 2010 1:08 PM EST reply actions

You don’t want to pay 10.5 mil for 1 year of Blanton. Seriously, it inflates he value for next year even more. The Phils really have 3 choices here.

Win arbitration.

Settle for a 1-2 year contract.

Trade him.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Jan 20, 2010 3:38 PM EST up reply actions

That and Pineiro just signed for $8 million a year and had a better year then Blanton just had.

by Ant on Jan 21, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions

But it’s not wise to expect Pineiro to have a better year than Blanton in 2010. And it’s a two-year deal for Pineiro so there is extra uncertainty.

As far as the value inflating for future seasons, this is his last Arb year, so I’m not sure why that would be true. Next year he gets what the market will give him.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 21, 2010 10:49 AM EST up reply actions

Matt, you obviously know better than I do how arbitration works. Would it be persuasive for the Phillies to argue, “In his third arb year, we’re essentially trying to determine what Joe would get on the open market, and comparable pitchers taking one year deals — namely Rich Harden and Brad Penny — are getting far less than $10.5 million”?

by PhillyFriar on Jan 21, 2010 11:30 AM EST up reply actions

Except I think Blanton could point to his health record — which is excellent — in contrast with those of Harden and Penny, which are not-so-good.

I guess I’m kind of in the pro-Cookies camp here because I have a feeling, based in large part on his peripherals last season, that he’s due to have a really good 2010… not Cy Young or even All-Star quality, but maybe a 3.70-ish ERA, 200 IP, etc.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jan 21, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions

I don’t think Harden or Penny could be brought up anyway, since they’re not in the same service-time class (especially Penny, who came up in 2000). The best layman’s explanation of arbitration I’ve seen is here, by James Lincoln Ray

"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"

by The Dark on Jan 21, 2010 1:50 PM EST up reply actions

fyi, you can’t look at open market players, only guys with the same service time. and the expected innings makes up the difference between those guys and blanton anyway.

by Matt Swartz on Jan 21, 2010 11:41 PM EST up reply actions