Ryan Madson Back to Phillies: Waiting for Monty? Or, "Let's Make a Deal."
by WholeCamels on Nov 9, 2011 7:48 AM EST
Email
Print
Despite multiple reports that the Phillies and relief pitcher Ryan Madson had agreed to a four year contract worth approximately $44 million, nothing confirming that the deal was complete had been issued (credibly, at least).
Do we have a reason for the delay now? According to Jon Heyman at SI.com, the deal is pending approval from Phillies President David Montgomery, and has been for over a day now.
This may be nothing more than Monty being incommunicado; maybe he's rafting down the Colorado River and doesn't have cellphone reception (ha), or maybe it's something else -- a decree from upstairs putting the brakes on some of GM Ruben Amaro's, shall we say, "impulses," likely in the name of limiting the length of contracts to pitchers. Or maybe Monty hates the proposal. We don't know.
In any event, the front office machinery needs to get its act together if they want that "veteran closer" because I certainly don't think Jonathan Papelbon is going to come to the Phillies for fewer than four years, and Heath Bell is just, well. Heathy.
I like Ryan Madson a whole, whole lot. I think four years, $44 million is too much for too long but not by shocking amounts, and I'd rather give him the money to him than most anyone else. But this is what the Cult of the Closer hath wrought. Mr. LaRussa laughs at us from his Barcalounger.
A short play in one act, from our own joecatz, after the jump...
"Ill-Considered" - A One-Scene Vignette from joecatz
Son: but Dad!
Dad: Take it back to the store!
Son: but it was only…
Dad: I said no.
Son: But
Dad: No buts.
Son: I told..
Dad: and I TOLD YOU how much. It’s not my problem you can’t listen.
Son: Please?
Dad: no. You’ll thank when your older
Son: I HATE YOU
Dad: I’ll get over it.
171 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don’t know if this happens in other organizations but if a GM and a Player agree to a deal only for the team President or other deciding member nixes it due to either length or dollar amount then that to me is rather embarrassing. One would think given the nature of negotiations that Rube would have a discussion with Monty ahead of time and agree on parameters for a deal. X number of years at Y salary so that a delay does not happen. Now, if it’s simply a matter of Monty not being reachable, which I doubt, then that’s just whatever.
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
I’m not crazy about the contract, but it really seems like this would hamstring Amaro as a GM, no?
that’s arguably not a bad result (I would sure argue that, and I can think of a few other posters who would agree cough TP cough), but if I were Amaro I wouldn’t stick around long if the owners were publicly overruling me.
by perfectdepth on Nov 9, 2011 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah. Generally, I think it’s very very bad for suits to meddle with the personnel people. Either fire them or get out of the way, but don’t look over their shoulders. In this case, though, I don’t think I’d shed a tear over it. In any event, the ownership really does need to be involved in contractual decisions. It’s not like Monty is in the draft room or anything.
I negotiate frequently in my job. I have parameters, but sometimes negotiations take you just outside of those parameters. So you make a handshake with both parties understanding it needs to be vetted by higher-ups. Maybe Monty said let’s try to stay within 4 years and $42mm, this goes just outside that, so needs review.
Good point.
If Boras (or Amaro, for that matter) leaked it while review was pending, that’s not going to go over well.
Agreed, this wouldn’t be management publicly undermining the GM, it would be one party jumping the gun on the GM and leaking info.
yeah, I had thought about that situation as well. there’s certainly a lot going on that we can only really infer.
by perfectdepth on Nov 9, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Front-paged star
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
The only national media guy I consider reliable is Rosenthal, so I take anything Heyman or Olney say with a grain of salt. While I have no doubt we will sign Madson I do have doubts that Dave Montgomery wouldn’t have been fully informed of what was going on before a deal was struck.
The deal does not thrill me, but I can live with it. This is Scott Boras, after all.
On the other hand, I can see Montgomery wanting to put the brakes on this -anything over three years for a pitcher is just too much of a risk. I think he okayed the Lee deal because Lee wanted to specifically come here. It was a one-time exception, but now if they do it for Madson it becomes their regular M.O., which means any future deals for Hamels and Halladay become that much more expensive, in years and not just cost.
So if that’s the holdup, I don’t blame him a bit.
by Airedale260 on Nov 9, 2011 9:58 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I had totally forgotten about that, but yeah that is their policy. They structured the Halladay deal with vesting options specifically so they could say they were formally complying with it. And then before they signed Lee, they called Halladay to get his approval since they didn’t want him to be annoyed about them giving a longer deal to Lee.
“that is was their policy.” Fixed. Regardless of Madson, they are almost certainly going to have to give Hamels >3 years when his time comes. Too many exceptions negate the rule.
by Boundforbeach on Nov 9, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
You are not thinking corporately. Instead, if Monty’s policy is really the reason this is going away, this means Hamels is gone.
/suits being suits
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
Is this their policy or was it Gillick’s policy that RAJ had gone along with, until Lee Part Deux?
Ed Snider is a crotchety old fuck.
That is all.
Top men ought to be checking on this.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
I hope thats not the reason, because that likely means Hamels is gone.
I hope the reason is simply that Montgomery is sart enough to smell a bad deal in the air.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
I think for Hamels another exception could be made, maybe a four- or five-year deal. But I think what would be more likely that they stand pat until their bluff is called, then work on getting something close to their position, so they can keep the three year policy with an exception here or there.
Montgomery strikes me as the ideal sort of owner -he generally lets the GM run operations and doesn’t interfere, but when the reins need to be tightened, he’ll do it, no question.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a couple of years after Bill Giles took over, the Phillies began a long stretch of losing seasons, and then a couple of years after Monty took over, the Phillies began a long stretch of winning seasons. That positive shift in the Phillies’ fortunes came before the opening of CBP and before the hiring of Gillick.
Giles was a shitty talent evaluator and tried to fill seats with gimmicks instead of winning baseball. He failed.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
I think he tried to win also, he was just really incompetent at it. Almost every single one of his big contracts were gigantic busts and fiascos. The main problem was, why was he even trying to evaluate talent in the first place? One of Montgomery’s main virtues, like nearly all good owners’, is that he stays out of the way. Monty’s probably a terrible talent evaluator too, he just understands that it’s not his job.
Whoops! Apologies for the samsies above (hadn’t read down this far).
But sadly, this means we are in agreement on this.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
Thinking aloud...
How much is a draft pick worth? Assume that it’s going to be Madson or Papelbon, you can’t have “neither” even if that’s the most prudent choice.
I assume the Phillies have the last pick in the first round. So if Papelbon would sign for the same as Madson, the Phillies give up the last pick of the first round and get an earlier pick when Madson signs elsewhere.
In that scenario, you’ve traded Madson for Papelbon and an earlier pick. How much more valuable is, for example, the 20th pick compared to the 30th pick? And, is the difference worth the risk that Madson signs with a team whose pick is protected and the Phillies end up with no first round pick?
Unless he sings with a lower half(record wise in MLB) team. We didn’t get a 1st round Pick for Werth last year, we get compensatory round picks(in between rounds 1 and 2).
Speaking of this, can we pass the hat around to hire the entire Rays FO? Last year they worked that system to get like 47 of the first 90 picks lol.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 9, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
Yes. For losing a Type A, you get:
1. A sandwich pick between the first and second rounds, AND
2. If the signing team was good, it’s first rounder, or if the signing team was bad, it’s second rounder
Ahh that’s right, been a while since I had my class on baseball management. It is insane how much random info exists in just running a baseball team.
Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"
by Ed Van Chimp on Nov 9, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
So for argument’s sake, again, the only choices are Madson and Papelbon, and Madson=Papelbon and they are both willing to sign equivalent contracts:
Absolute best case scenario is sign Papelbon, receive 16th pick + supplemental pick.
Worst case is sign Papelbon, Madson signs with bad team, receive supplemental pick and 2nd round pick.
or
Worst case is re-sign Madson, keep last pick of first round, no supplemental pick.
I’m trying to figure out what the value of a draft pick is, not determine what the Phillies should do in this particular situation. Are two lower picks worth more than one higer pick? And if not, to what extent is worth the gamble to go for the higher 1st round pick + the supplemental pick, when you could end up with no 1st round pick?
If Papelbon and Madson were 100% equal and you were assured of being able to sign whichever one you wanted, then yes it would make sense to choose Papelbon instead of Madson.
Of course, they may not be equal – Madson’s contract might be a better value than Papelbon’s. And if you don’t sign Madson, you’re not assured of getting Papelbon either.
I think I tried too hard to tie in the current situation to the question I’m trying to ask, which is simply this: Are a a supplemental pick and 2nd round pick more valuable than one first round pick?
"But it's less than we were paying Lidge!"
I hate this deal, which endorses both the “proven closer” fallacy and Scott Boras’s existence. And if I were Ruben, I would have pulled the offer after Boras put him on the spot by feeding the story to his mouthpiece Jon Heyman..
Cuddyer in town to visit with Phillies
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
Uggh. And it says Manuel flew in from Florida just to meet with him. Sounds like a full court press.
by Boundforbeach on Nov 9, 2011 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
help us, David Montgomery. you’re our only hope.
by perfectdepth on Nov 9, 2011 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
In the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that the reason Monty isn’t moving ahead with madson is because he wants to make sure he saves room for Rollins.
But in the dirty dark place in my mind, I know that its more likely he wants to commit to Cuddyer more.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
Monty is pretty smart. I don’t think he would throw his weight around either way in favor of Cuddyer vs. Rollins.
Think corporately. You know that Monty said “yes” to 5 years of Howard.
This is potentially an interesting mixed bag for us at TGP. Monty’s rules would keep the Phils from overpaying for pitchers. But they would reinforce overpayment for popular position players for marketing purposes.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
I am too. Rollins > Cuddyer for marketing purposes.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
One, I don’t know if I agree with the premise. Two, Montgomery has no history of throwing his weight around on pure personnel decisions, whether for marketing purposes or not.
I think my comments above are a knee-jerk reaction in part due to my great antipathy at RAJ’s pursuit of Cuddyer. You might recall that I was the head of the Bring Bourn Back Camp (instead of Pence) at mid-season; the Cuddyer move seems just as much an overpay (although without the loss of prospects).
Curiously, based on how StL won, we could argue that Bourn would have enabled that type of winning far more than Cuddyer or Pence for that matter.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
Just cause he ahs no history of it, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. it just means we’ve never heard about it.
I’m kind of on Buds side here, in the sense that its no entirely out of reason to think that:
1. Monty had guidelines
2. He bent them over the past few seasons to win another championship (likely at Rubens behest..)
3. The championship didn’t come.
Monty also knows its a crapshoot. He’s come out and said it many times. I would not be shocked at all to see the pursestrings tightened a bit.
And honestly, if you’re gonna make a point about contracts, lengths, etc.. with your GM, the one to do it on is definitely this one.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
Again, I’m talking about a choice between two position players. I am not talking about Madson, I am talking about your original claim above that Monty would push for Cuddyer over Rollins. That issue does not implicate the size of the budget or overall policies on types of contracts. It’s a player personnel decision.
I’m especially annoyed by this: “They failed to acknowledge that preventing runs is necessary, but scoring runs helps, too, especially in the playoffs, when you are, in theory, facing other team’s best starters, high-quality lineups, or both.”
It’s remarkable how simply everyone accepts the narrative of the Phillies altogether mediocre offense.
The runs Utley added upon his return apparently don’t count.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 9, 2011 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
For those wondering, no relief pitcher (including K-rod and Mariano Rivera) have been signed to a deal longer than 3 years since after the 2007 season.
Scott Linebrink signed for 4/19 with Atlanta, so 5mm per…
The Reds inked Francisco Cordero to a 4 year 45MM deal. 8.5 first year and just north of 12 in 09,10,11.
check out Scott Boras Wikipedia page if you really want to see how bad some of his deals turn out.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
This
Buried in yesterday’s thread (in part due to other comments I made in the same post) was my point that, with the exception of Rivera, I can’t think of ANY reliever who was good (and injury-free) for 4 straight years (maybe 4 in a career, or 4 out of 6 or 7), and that includes old timers like Gossage and Sutter. This makes 4 years plus an option completely an overpay.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
Hmmph, not 4 years of good yet. Especially if we replace “good” with “great” (which is what $10M should get).
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
he’s been fantastic for four straight years, and arguably “good” for a fifth
$10 million? I can’t say I’m worried about it
Get rid of ‘06 when he tried his hand at starting again, and I’d say he hasn’t had a single below average season.
Baseball-reference similarity scores are very interesting in this context.
Jack Baldschun anyone? (Let alone Chad Qualls). Maybe we can hope for Gene Garber.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
Trevor Hoffman is another guy who consistently strung these seasons together.
Wagner was generally pretty consistent.
I think the basic point these guys are rare is legit. But I’d say Bell, Papelbon, Madson, Thornton and a few other guys fit the profile of being consistent, even if some have limited closing work on their cards.
Wagner was generally pretty consistent.
Not injury-free, not for 4 straight years.
Trevor Hoffman is another guy who consistently strung these seasons together.
Point taken on Hoffman. Thought of posting his name as well. But I think the exception proves the rule here.
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
Well, Wagner had 3 straight years a few times. And I don’t think relievers are any more injury prone than any other player. If that’s such a big concern, then no one should be signed for more than 3 years.
then no one should be signed for more than 3 years.
“That’s the point. "
- Monty
GMAT verbal section question, Philadelphia sports version.
In 2015, which one of the following will prove to be a better investment?
a) Ilya Bryzgalov's contract b) Ryan Howard's extension (c) Mike Vick's extension (d) Greek bonds from 2009
no it doesn’t… you can’t just throw your hands up and say “reliever!”
relievers as a group are volatile, but the exceptions are exceptions for reasons particular to them (that is, for example, Lidge had already shown himself to be both volatile and susceptible to injuries prior to the Phillies extension of him)
which one of us is he…?
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
-Oscar Wilde
by VanceinmyPants on Nov 9, 2011 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
It would be just like a Penn grad to quote Oscar Wilde.
-------
Celebrating over 50 years of slightly more Phils wins than losses: 1961-2011
EHHH!
try again.
Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
-Oscar Wilde
by VanceinmyPants on Nov 9, 2011 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
build your own bullpen
Righties: Madson, Contreras, Kendrick, Mathieson, Herndon, Stutes, Schwimer, De Fratus, Aumont
Lefties: Bastardo, Savery
I think Mathieson will probably be going to another team (good for him), and I would have De Fratus and Aumont start the year at LV unless they completely blow everyone away in ST. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I’d do.
I’d go with this, with the exception that I’d take the best of Savery, Schwimer, De Fratus or Aumont out of Spring Training, handedness aside.
If you have to have a PROVEN closer, and Madson or Papelbopn each want 4 year deals?
Kendrick
Stutes
Herndon
Contreras
Bastardo
Savery
JOE NATHAN
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
My dad's take:
Prior to this week, RAJ has helpd firm to no more than a 3 year deal. Boras has insisted on 4. Raj knows that Monty will aprove no more than 3/39 for a closer. Boras is asking for 4/49 the richest contract ever for a reliever not named Rivera.
On Monday, Raj tells Boras that if he doesn’t have an answer he’s going to get deeper with papelbon. Boras agrees to lower the AAV on the contract to 11mm per year, if RAJ guarantees a 4th year, and a vesting option. RAJ, thinking he can sell Monty on an additional year for only 5mm more, and less AAV, ok’s the deal in principle, but tells Boras he has to go to Dave to get the ok on the years.
RAJ can’t convince Monty to do it, and goes back to Boras on tuesday. Boras balks, and leaks the terms of the deal, as if it’s done, with the idea that Monty will be embarrased into okaying it.
Monty calls Boras and tells him he’s been wanting to tell him to go F’ himself since JD Drew.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
Oh, I hope so…I truly despise Scott Boras. He’s damn good at his job, but I prefer someone like Ron Shapiro, really.
I hate Boras not because he’s a scumbag, but because he has single handedly hurt the players union, the fans, and owners more than any other individual in the history of the game by creating a class system in free agency.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
You’d think that with the way some of Boras’s contracts have panned out, teams wouldn’t want to haggle with him. I’m sure the Boston Red Sox are kicking themselves over J.D. Drew’s contract, even though he had two very good seasons there. Yet somehow he manages to find a way to get players (and himself) the exorbitant contracts they want. If I were a GM, I’d avoid talking to him and “star” players at all costs.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 9, 2011 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Boras
skim down to high profile negotiations, and check out the sheer audacity of bad deals and overpayment.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
Since 2001, Boras has been tantamount to bad deals for the following:
Bonds 90mm at age 37
Andruw Jones
A-Rod 1 and 2
JD Drew 1 Beltran for 119mm over 7 years.
Kevin Milwood 5/60 in 2005
JD Drew, Dice K (Boston) in 2006
Barry Zito and the worst contract in history
Alex Rodrigues Opt out
He got andrew Jones a 2yr/36mm deal making him the 5th highest player in the game in 2008 after hitting 222 in 2007. (he negotiated a release from the contract for deffered money the next year…)
4/60 for Lowe with the Braves
3/36 for Oliver Perez
2/45 for Manny (after negating the options prior)
7/120 for Holliday 9which could keep the cards from keeping Pujols)
Jayson Werth…
the 3/35 deal for Soriano with player opt outs…
The guy SINGLE HANDEDLY decimates organizations.
"Sometimes, the balls that fall in are jam shots"...Hunter Pence, on BABIP
dude, seriously… many of those are not bad at all
but more to the point, in what way is Boras responsible for a team’s poor decision-making process? (like, the first A-Rod deal was a shit-ton of money, but it didn’t hamstring Texas; what messed them up was that they signed a whole bunch of mediocre players for large deals, whereas A-Rod himself was fantastic)
you say above that he “hurt the players union, the fans, and owners more than any other individual in the history of the game by creating a class system in free agency”—how? how is he singly more responsible than anyone else?
single-handedly decimates organizations? I can’t begin to understand what you mean by this… which teams have been “decimated” by these deals? of the deals you list above, none of the teams in question were ruined or even hamstrung by the deals, except possibly SFG & Zito
did the Cardinals not know that Pujols would one day be a free agent? did they not know he was the best hitter in the game?
they can afford Pujols, they just might choose not to pay; and the Cardinals will in no way shape or form be destroyed by it
Hey, you said no teams would be hamstrung, I was just pointing out how the Cards might be hamstrung.
sure
my larger point is that the teams make these decisions
my other point, unstated, is that there is a ton of money in baseball not being distributed to the players… when teams started paying out some of these huge deals, they revealed to the world that the money is there, it’s just a matter of how much they want to spend
Holy shit…
Boras is either the worst judge of player potential in sports agent history, or he’s the most poorly judged sports agent in history. After he reading these, I’m wondering how he still can successfully negotiate anything.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 9, 2011 5:30 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sure he would say that it isn’t that his contracts are too high, but that every other agent’s contracts and the market as a whole are too low. The owners should be paying more across the board.
That isn’t necessarily a crazy stance, but I think it’s probably wrong.
Yeah…that just sound wrong.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 9, 2011 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn’t dismiss it so easily. Boras might say something like: “You say the J.D. Drew and A. Soriano deals were ripoffs, but look, the Red Sox and Cubs still made money hand-over-fist in every single season of those deals, and even if you extrapolated the same pay rate to every player on both teams, they still would have made money hand-over-fist. If my clients’ contracts are too high relative to everyone else’s, then the solution isn’t to lower my clients’ salaries, but to raise everybody else’s clients’ salaries so that they match mine.”
I’m not saying I agree with that, just that any counterargument would have to be pretty nuanced.
If Boras were a sabermetrician, which he probably isn’t, he might say something like “You’re taking the $5-6 million per WAR rate as given, but there’s no basis for doing that. The real rate should be more like $15 million per WAR. It isn’t my fault that everybody else’s clients are so horribly underpaid.”
I’m almost certain Boras knows plenty about Sabermetrics. He supposedly puts together elaborate, thick 3-ring binders with detailed stats, accomplishments and arguments for valuation of his players. I would be flat out amazed if Boras was unfamiliar with valuations based on WAR.
In fact, the last 3 years (prior to 2011), Jayson Werth was a slightly more than 5 WAR player. I almost guarantee you, he included that in his stats, noting that the Phillies undervalued him, as he should have made $25m/year, “So I’m going to give the Nationals a good deal and only get $18m AAV, since he’ll be a little older, maybe he’s only worth 4 WAR/year. Mr. Rizzo, okay, I’ll call you Mike. Mike, you are going to make out great on this with Werth hitting behind Harper in a few years, you’ll have to expand so you have space for all the awards.”
I’m sure you’re right… he’s not going to ignore anything that might help his client…
at any rate, I got the impression he himself was surprised by the Nats offer to Werth, telling him that no one else would come close to it
My guess is the Nats offer was close to what Boras was asking, which is what surprised him. Any negotiator with any skill asks way at the top range of what he can ask for, so that he can come down to the number he wants and both sides feel like winners. The Nats just skipped the haggling and came in high.
I’ve long suspected he made a pact with the Devil, personally.
Plus the Perez and Soriano deals can be chalked up to the fact that the GMs who agreed to those are complete idiots, and both have since been fired.
Cashman never did approve of the Soriano signing, did he? I thought that was done against his will.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 9, 2011 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
marlins may make an offer to jose reyes
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/jose-reyes-three-year-deal-candidate/
If they got him, that would actually be a pretty dangerous lineup.
If Reyes would actually consider this, the Phillies should get in on it. Or, if Reyes signs a high dollar shorter-term deal with Miami, it might make it easier to re-sign Rollins for fewer years.
As one of the commenters pointed out, though, if Reyes wants to try to get another big free agent contract after this, he probably will negotiate a 5 or 6 year contract with an opt-out clause after 3 years.
jim salisbury
Highlights:
- Sources say a Madson deal was never imminent
- Discussions ongoing with both Madson and Papelbon
- Progress being made with Papelbon
I’ve kind of made peace with the possibility of a Papelbon signing, if his contract turns out to be smaller than Madson’s. I’m not saying I’ll like it, but I won’t be upset by it.
Here’s what will upset me: (1) signing Cuddyer, (2) not signing Rollins
I’ll be ok if we get Papelbon on a 3/30-type contract. 4 years is a bit too much for either closer, and I think that Papelbon’s “issues” in 2010 and Madson’s having a better 2011 season might bode well for that type of deal.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 9, 2011 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
Madson didn’t have a better year in 2011. He actually had a somewhat substantially worse 2011 than Papelbon.
Check the numbers, Paps had a better K rate, B rate, FIP and xFIP. The only stat that liked Madson better was ERA.
Both players got really lucky with HR/FB rates, but Paps was ‘less’ lucky (Paps: 4.8, Madson: 3.7).
by philiafan14364 on Nov 10, 2011 12:50 AM EST up reply actions
amusing comments section on this article
I take it that this Lindros is the same person as our Lindros.
If Cuddyer is PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of playing [left field/third base] why does he have more than 100 base hits?
I love it.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 10, 2011 1:53 AM EST up reply actions
Confirmed; I mad.
I have apparently been told, because there are many pilots who are deaf in both ears, and if his hearing is really bad he can always get “coklier” implants.
Next time I go to the audiologist I’m going to take my baseball bat with me and just start ripping balls through the office to showcase my perfect hearing abilities.
100 base hits? Wow. Who is ths titan of the ballfield who has more than 100 base hits? We must sign him forthwith!
I mean, you look at the Phillies lineup, and you don’t see anyone with more than 100 base hits. Hell, you look at the Hall of Fame, you see lots of guys who never got more than 100 base hits. Nolan Ryan, Pedro Martinez. Pshaw! Cuddyer has more base hits than both of them combined!
Salisbury interviewed Amaro today
Transcript here
I found this most interesting:
David is the most supportive owner anybody could ever have. We all have people that we have to answer to. But David Montgomery is … I think about what Pat Gillick said to me when he kind of passed the baton and I took over. He said, ‘You will never find a better place to work and you will not have a better boss.’ I know I’m not going to get a better one than Dave.
Also discussed Galvis, but unfortunately not Brown, and reinforced the 3 years for pitchers rule (sort of).
The comments in that article are about as bad as they come…
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 10, 2011 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
I started to read the comments, but then I got distracted and started counting words. On comment had 276 words and no periods. I mean, there are run-on sentences, but that dude deserves an award.
If that’s the case, I’m not even clicking on the link. I have no desire to read about "scat"http://loveletters.tribe.net/thread/fce72385-b146-4bf2-9d2e-0dfa6ac7142d: .
by 88Lindros88 on Nov 11, 2011 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
Eh, I’ve seen worse. But this was my favorite.
Dom Brown, Vance Worly and Mike Stutes for Logan Morrisson and Emilio Bonifacio. You just got younger, cheaper and solved LF and SS. Resign Kendrick for the 5th spot and get a guy like Mark DeRosa or Jose Lopez to be a bench guy to fill in at 3B. Offseason solved.
Let me take a stab at the thought process...
…that goes into this proposal:
1) I don’t like Dom Brown.
2) I like LoMo because he tweets funny stuff.
3) I don’t want anybody to know that I only want to trade Dom Brown because I don’t like him, so I’ll add Worley (ya Worly) and Stutes because I know their names and I don’t know the names of any minor league prospects.
4) I heard of Emilio Bonifacio once, so I’ll throw him in to make it an even trade.
Boom! Sign the papers.
by topherstarr on Nov 11, 2011 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
I’ll be honest, that trade wouldn’t really upset me too much. Morrison is basically Dom with a bit less natural talent: killer batting eye, good power potential, but not Dom’s overall athleticism. Bonifacio appears to be heading into his prime now, as he put up a .341 wOBA in 2011. He certainly did benefit from a .372 BABIP (Holy Christ!) on the year, but his BB% has gone up to 9.2% from 6.7% in 2009, giving him a .360 OBP, over 60 points higher than his BA. His defense is pretty sound almost everywhere (except shortstop, go figure), and he’s fast as fuck (40 SB on the year). If Rollins is truly gone, he’d fill up that leadoff role pretty nicely.
I was thinking back to philiafan’s post on possibly trading Victorino, and I think if we throw him in the mix here, we could possibly keep Brown and Worley, or at least one of them, and throw Kendrick in the mix instead to help keep our side of the deal up. But let’s say we do throw both Brown and Worley in a trade offer. I say let’s go after Mike Stanton. I don’t know about the willingness of Miami to trade Bonifacio since the state of third base there is unknown to me. If he’s up for a trade, grab him and a prospect. If not, at least two solid prospects.
So tl;dr – Victorino, Brown, and Worley for Stanton, Bonifacio and/or prospects. Alternatively – Victorino, Kendrick, and one of either Worley, Brown or Stutes for Morrison, Bonifacio.
What say you?
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 11, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
You know, I hadn’t realized how good of a season Bonifacio had last year. Earlier in his career he was crap! So yeah, that trade isn’t as bad as I thought originally. I still wouldn’t do it though. That BABIP is very suspect, even for a fast guy.
More to the point, I think trading Dom would be wrong no matter what. The name of the game is to sell high, not sell low. And even if we accept the premise that Morrison is undervalued right now because of his conflicts with management, selling low is not excused by the fact that you’re using it to simultaneously buy low. It’s still a missed opportunity to buy low by selling high (or at least selling medium).
Fair, but I think Ruben backed himself into a corner with the way he’s treated Domonic Brown so far. It’s going to be quite a while before he can bump up his major league value. Of course, if other teams understand Brown’s potential like we do based on his peripherals in the minors, then the previous statement is a moot point. And I agree, we should sell high on Brown, hence the idea of acquiring Stanton over Morrison, as wildly unlikely as that may be.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 11, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
How does trading, basically, your 3 youngest players, who all have, at least, 4 cost controlled years, make you either younger or cheaper?
I agree with Topher and conehead than this is not an egregious trade, just doesn’t accomplish what he posits.
Completely OT, but I’m sitting in my school cafeteria, and Chris Carpenter’s long lost twin just walked in. I wanted to slug him.
Some people don't think it be what it is, but it do.
by TheOrangeCone on Nov 11, 2011 12:59 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Phillies sign Papelbon
Per Jim Salisbury. Anyone have any details on the deal?
"Fools admire, but men of sense approve."
-Alexander Pope
I should say, both sides have reached an agreement:
http://twitter.com/#!/JSalisburyCSN/status/135073246478467072
"Fools admire, but men of sense approve."
-Alexander Pope
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
St. Louis Cardinals
Friday, May 25, 2012, 8:15 PM EDT
Busch Stadium
Clear. Winds blowing from right to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 90.
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
- Roy Halladay bobblehead with glove on wrong hand selling on MLB.com
