Phillies sign Utley to 7 year/$85 million extension

by WholeCamels on Jan 21, 2007 11:41 AM EST in News

Update: From Phillies.com, the official word.

Details forthcoming, but reports have it that the Phillies have signed All-Star second baseman to a 7 year, $85 million contract extension. No exact terms as of yet. My first instinct is that I like the deal, but I'd like to see how it's structured first.

Utley is a rare player who provides good defense and terrific offense at a position where the latter is scarce. He'll only be 34 when the deal ends, which isn't terrible, and he's not an "old player skills" guy so he promises to age pretty well. He and Ryan Howard are the primary and possible sole occupants of that thinning sliver in the Phillies fan Venn diagram that represents the players that performance analysts and old-school fans seem to appreciate with near-equal enthusiasm.

One can make a decent argument that, service time aside, Utley was the more important player to lock-up than Ryan Howard. A power hitting first baseman (even one as tremendous as Howard) can be replaced much more easily than a good fielding, slugging second baseman.

No details yet about the nature of the backloading on the deal, which is the primary concern for me.

Nit-picking a bit at Ruben Amaro Jr.'s statement:

"(Utley)'s a hard-nosed, full-throttle player who exemplifies the spirit of Philadelphia. He is tailor-made for this city and we couldn't be happier to lock him up for years to come."

You know, just once, I wish I were a fan of a team that just put the best players on the field without having to comment on how well they'll be received in Philadelphialand. I realize he's just paying lip service here, but please stop perpetuating this myth. Fans just want a winning team.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I want to see the structure of it as well

But in this winter's market... I'd have to say this is a relative bargain. I'd much rather have Utley at 7/85 than Soriano at 8/136.

by Homer on Jan 21, 2007 12:32 PM EST reply actions

my thoughts exactly

This looks like a bargain in this market. Plus, if you look 3-5 years down the road and if the market continues to get crazier and crazier, this deal could become an absolute steal.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jan 21, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

I like it

As we're all likely to point out, the language of the contract might make the 7/85 number seem like fools gold, but superficially, I like the numbers of the deal. Here's hoping there isn't a terrible (for the organization) out clause or any other type nonsense...

by fuzzycopper on Jan 21, 2007 12:46 PM EST reply actions

p-bake nails it

Any contract of that length is going to make one blanch a little bit, but everything we know about Utley suggests that he's likely to be productive through the length of this deal. He's been healthy, he works his ass off, he's gotten better through his career, and he doesn't have "old player skills."

And I think that if Ryan Howard's camp looks at this rationally, they have to be happy too. Remember that Howard is basically a year behind Chase: he has to figure that one more good year in 2007 gets him a contract that's probably even sweeter than this one.

by dajafi on Jan 21, 2007 1:20 PM EST reply actions

Contract structure

From Yahoo! Sports

After making $500,000 last year, Utley gets a $2 million signing bonus and salaries of $4.5 million this year, $7.5 million in 2008, $11 million in 2009 and $15 million in each of the final seasons.

It really starts to build as the contract goes on...

Some fluff about how good Utley is.

Utley also became the 15th player in major league history -- and second on the Phillies -- to hit .300, and record 200 hits, 30 home runs, 100 RBIs, 40 doubles and 130 runs in one season. He and Hall of Famer Chuck Klein (1930 and 1932) are the only Phillies to accomplish the feat.

Over the past two seasons, Utley leads all major league second basemen in home runs (57), RBIs (197), hits (350) and runs (217).

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jan 21, 2007 4:03 PM EST reply actions

the way I look at it

7 years = long contract
85 million = a lot of money
Chase Utley = best 2nd baseman in MLB

I've already read comments on other blogs about how this will end up haunting the Phillies just like the Pat Burrell contract. Yeah, sure, because paying 13 mil for an outfielder the hits 30 homers and drives in 100 rbi every season is just so outrageous right?! Please, Burrell's deal isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

Glad to have Chase, glad to have Burrell. Be even more glad if we had a bullpen.

http://pabaseball.blogspot.com

by Carson on Jan 21, 2007 5:49 PM EST reply actions

I wish this were true...

"You know, just once, I wish I were a fan of a team that just put the best players on the field without having to comment on how well they'll be received in Philadelphialand. I realize he's just paying lip service here, but please stop perpetuating this myth. Fans just want a winning team."

I'm similarly fed up with the endless paeans to the "hard-nosed, blue-collar type of player" that the Philly media thinks we all love. Personally, I prefer brainy/funny/quirky players, but above all I just want a winning team.

But, sad to say, I think there's plenty of evidence that fans don't simply want a winning team. A large segment of the fan base will turn on a player - let's call him 'S. Rolen'... no, wait, that's too obvious, we'll just refer to him as 'Scott R.' - who appears not to be emotionally involved in the game, even if both he and the team are doing relatively well overall. I think it's all garbage - I think Burrell, Rolen, and others have cared deeply about winning, and simply haven't displayed it in a media-friendly way - but there does seem to be greater fan affection, and more allotted room for error, for certain types of outwardly demonstrative players. [I won't say 'emotional', because Utley keeps it pretty poker-faced out there and they still love him.]

by The Navigator on Jan 22, 2007 10:14 AM EST reply actions

Burrell

Last September, he was passionately rooting for his team late in games he was taken out - you saw it in his actions in the dugout, the way he greeted players coming back after scoring, etc. If you were at games, you noticed this. If you watched games on TV and saw players getting congratulated after scoring, you saw it too. Yet, of course, none of the media picked up on this and tried to change the story about Pat.

by David S. Cohen on Jan 22, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions

Imagine

Imagine the infield the Phils would have if Rolen had stayed here. Rolen, Rollins, Utley, and Howard - would that be the best infield ever?

by David S. Cohen on Jan 22, 2007 10:23 AM EST reply actions

i don't know -- third base!

it certainly would answer the ever-present lineup protection question.

by gr on Jan 22, 2007 11:02 AM EST up reply actions

Thome

Yeah, but if Rolen had signed that offer before they finally traded him, the Phils wouldn't have been able to sign Thome. As fantastic as Rolen is/was to watch defensively, and as good a hitter he has the potential to be, I enjoyed Thome's time here much more than Rolen's.

by maxr on Jan 22, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions

Forget reality

I'm not talking reality. I'm talking imagination here. Not only would Rolen, Rollins, Utley, and Howard be one of the best infields ever (seriously, where would it fall?), but it would also have been completely homegrown. How awesome would that be?

by David S. Cohen on Jan 22, 2007 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

answer

it would be so awesome that none of us would care that victorino is the starting RFer.

by gr on Jan 22, 2007 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough

I agree, and the left side of the infield would probably be one of the best all time in terms of defense. No ground ball would get through Rolen and Rollins. Hopefully Howard can develop into a better defensive first baseman, like Pujols did when he finally settled down there. As it is, I'll take excellent defense up the middle, and superb hitting all around (save the black hole of 3B).

by maxr on Jan 22, 2007 4:29 PM EST up reply actions

Superb hitting?

superb hitting all around (save the black hole of 3B).

You do realize that our RF is going to be some combo of Victorino/Werth/Rowand. Hardly, "superb" and possibly more of a black hole than 3B.

Furthermore, it seems that one Mr. Barajas is going to be gettng a lot of time at catcher and, no matter what his defensive rep, one thing he's clearly not is a good hitter.

by Laaaaazzz on Jan 23, 2007 7:18 PM EST up reply actions

In the infield

I meant superb hitting all around in the infield, save for 3B (and catcher, I suppose, but the way the game is now, good-hitting catchers are a rarity, so I can't fault the Phils too much for probably not having good hitting from the C position this year. But who knows--maybe Ruiz could break out).

by maxr on Jan 24, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions

I love Utley...

But come on Phillies, why now? Seriously. Utley now joins Pujols in the category of guys who got big contracts after just 3 years. Really? Utley was the best 2nd baseman LAST year. There are a LOT of players in the history of the league who can make that claim. Some that people thought were going to be studs forever. Most don't end up filling the hype.

I want Utley on my Phillies HoF squad, but I haven't counted him in yet. Guessing that Utley's 31-34 years will be worth 15 mil a year 3 years before we even get there is hard to swallow. What if Utley bombs next year? He doesn't have the track record yet.

And I will be even more pissed if the Phillies cry poor.

by jonk on Jan 23, 2007 7:40 PM EST reply actions

can you name them?

The "history of the league" is about 120 years long. Let's limit it to the last 20 years. How many guys can make that claim?

The way cost-benefit analysis works is: if you want a big payoff, you need to take a big risk. Everyone here realizes that locking anyone up to a seven year deal - even Utley or Howard - is a risk. The only question is: how does the risk compare to the reward?

Also, by the way, if you only mention the "15 mil a year" from ages 31-34, then you're being misleading. You have to look at the average and the total, not cherrypick only the years you want to talk about. So what if the Phillies want to underpay for the first three years, save the difference, and then use it to overpay for the last three years? Won't that still be worth it? What if the contract had been 99 cents a year for four years, then $20 million for three years? Would you still say it was a bad deal?

by taco pal on Jan 24, 2007 11:07 AM EST up reply actions

salaries

"So what if the Phillies want to underpay for the first three years, save the difference, and then use it to overpay for the last three years?"

Doesn't that usually mean, then, that a team would be paying the most for the years that would be most likely to be less productive? That's not a great way to run a team. The only way that has a chance of working is if a team can continually fill in with young, cheap players from the system or if they have an unlimited budget. Teams don't budget for a 7 year average.

by Ace on Jan 24, 2007 12:03 PM EST up reply actions

You're being disingenuous. Utley wouldn't sign for

just four years at the lower salary level - he'd be giving up three arbitration years and a free agency year, in any one of which he could realistically expect to exceed the salary he'll get under this contract. The back weighting is the incentive for him to sign now, giving the Phillies his prime years at below-market rate. I think it's a very equitable deal.
Not that there's anything wrong with developing young, cheap, major-league fill-ins...

by Chris R on Jan 24, 2007 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

agreed

Also, Ace, I note that another factor you're failing to account for is the time-value of money.

by taco pal on Jan 24, 2007 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

contracts

I wasn't commenting on the Utley contract at all, just the comment that was made about salaries in general. Of course he wouldn't sign a contract that does little more than cover his arb years.

Whether it is a good deal or not, we know how much the team (barring a trade) will be paying him in those later years, when there's the chance that his level of play will have decline. It's a chance they felt they had to take.

Looking down, things don't necessarily look too good on that developing young talent thing.

by Ace on Jan 24, 2007 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

Inflation

It's not really taking a big a chance when you consider inflation of about 10% each year. It's been pretty consistent since the free agent system was introduced. $15 million in 2013 dollars is a lot less than $15 million in 2007 dollars.

by enterpsmith on Jan 24, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

Incentive for what?

For him to get 15 million for his declining years? We HAD him for his good years. And at a cheaper rate since it is arbitration. I don't see why we needed to throw him incentive for anything. Hmmm...let me take about the same salary I'd get in arbitration and tack on 15 mil a year for the next 4 years just so I'd still get the same thing for the first 3 years. Where is the incentive?

The Phillies threw away their leverage.

by jonk on Jan 26, 2007 7:32 PM EST up reply actions

You're nuts, jon

Utley's "Track Record":

1997 - 2nd round pick by Dodgers out of high school.
2000 - 1st round pick by Phillies out of UCLA.
2000 - Debuted in Low A Batavia
2001 - Moved to High A Clearwater
2002 - Jumped to AAA Scranton, changed positions
2003 - Changed back, remained at AAA Scranton, plus 43 games in the Majors, starting less than 3 years after he signed.
2005 - Hit .291 / .376 / .540 with 28 homers, 105 RBI, 93 RS, finished 13th in MVP voting at age 26.
2006 - Hit .309 / .379 / .527 with 32 homers, 102 RBI, and 131 RS, made all-star team, won silver slugger, finished 7th in MVP voting.

This is a guy who was drafted high out of high school, drafted in the 1st round out of college, moved rapidly through the minors, even enduring a position switch, and has garnered MVP votes in both of his first 2 full seasons. He's a certifiable stud.

He's clearly the best 2B in baseball at this point; he's probably the best middle-infielder in the NL.

And this contract takes him right to the point where I'll be fine with the Yankees buying him.

by Shore on Jan 24, 2007 8:42 AM EST reply actions

What about my nuts?

Where did I not say that Utley isn't a stud? I own 2 Phillies jersies, and he is one of them. I love me some good gritty white players. That doesn't change the fact that the Phillies didn't have to do this and yet they did. They had leverage. What if he gets injured next year? That is a HUGE risk they just swallowed. He can get injured every year, but they didn't have to sign him to a long term deal now. They could have done this same deal next year for 6 years and it would have made a little bit more sense.

The issue isn't with whether Utley will return value on this contract (and consider me pssimistic for those last 2 years), but whether this deal HAD to be made right now and put the Phillies on a huge financial risk.

by jonk on Jan 26, 2007 7:36 PM EST up reply actions