Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

by FuquaManuel on Nov 10, 2007 10:51 PM EST Comment 28 comments

The Phils continued their quest to shore up the bullpen by re-signing lefty J.C. Romero who was arguably their most consistent option out of the pen down the stretch. The Phils gave him $12 million over 3 years with club option for a fourth.

I like Romero, but given his recent track record, his control problems, and the unpredictability of relief I think that we overpaid.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

$4 mil a year for a relief pitcher who was released mid-season last year. The Phils continue to not know how to handle their money. I like Romero to a degree, but if the walks remain the same and the hits start catching up, we are fooked.

by jonk on Nov 11, 2007 2:01 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

And if this helps Charlie-proof the bullpen for the full season instead of the solid last two months they had in 07, this team will be mighy hard to beat. I say solid move, here's hoping JC keeps the Zagurskis and Model Dictators in the 5th-6th innings where they belong!

by das411 on Nov 11, 2007 2:18 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

Poor decision. By July of 2008, we'll already be saying "we really have him for another 2.5 years?"

by FTN414 on Nov 11, 2007 2:51 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

I like to call the $4 mil a "virtual" no trade clause.

by jonk on Nov 11, 2007 3:37 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

This is terrible. And its not the Phils money they are spending.. its OUR money.. We pay to go to games... etc. I hope I'm wrong, but this is the worst signing... Maybe not Eaton bad but...

by Homer on Nov 11, 2007 3:45 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

Great. $12 million for a BABIP-driven career year (and as effective as Romero was in 2007, that's exactly what it was). It'd be nice if the Phillies could've just recognized that they'd caught lightning in a bottle for a half-season, thanked the baseball gods, and walked away.

There's a very significant chance that Fabio Castro puts up the same performance as Romero next year.

by Seth on Nov 11, 2007 5:05 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

It takes a good three months of a mediocre career to get a $12M contract? Wow!

by David S. Cohen on Nov 11, 2007 8:48 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

I dislike this contract as much as the rest of you, however, you have to admit it is easily market value. So if we wanted him back, this is what it was going to take.

by Neduol Caz on Nov 11, 2007 11:24 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

I don't buy that. it's market value because the Phillies have set it as market value.

by perfectdepth on Nov 11, 2007 11:54 AM EST up reply actions

Market value's already set

Based on the last few years, this is the market rate for quality set-up men. Last year the O's alone signed Jamie Walker for 3/12, Danys Baez for 3/19 and Chad Bradford for 3/10.5. Those guys have career ERA+ of 116, 110 and 132 respectively. The Mets gave Schoeneweis 3/10.8 (92 ERA+). Romero has a 108, with terrible results as a starter early in his career (about 20% of his innings) and a bad 2006 season with the Angels. Romero's deal isn't setting a new market.

Whether (1) Romero really is a quality set-up man and (2) whether relievers are worth this much money are separate questions. His PHL ERA was ridiculous and won't be seen again. But he does keep the ball in the park (both last year and for his career) and induces a lot of groundballs (1.87 career g/f). Consistency and control, as others have said, are his biggest problems.

by ken on Nov 11, 2007 2:51 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Market value's already set

you're pointing to contracts that are almost universally derided in the baseball world. that's not evidence of market value. what about LaTroy Hawkins' 1/$3.25M deal? what about David Riske's 1/$2M deal?

and on top of that, Romero is not a setup man. his career numbers make it very clear he's a strictly situational reliever.

by perfectdepth on Nov 11, 2007 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Market value's already set

When you're talking about market value you can't throw out a few deals from the equation because they're "universally derided." Ultimately the Phillies are trying to guess how other teams (or at least one other team) value Romero. The Phillies might have guessed a little high, but based on last winter it's not an unreasonable guess. You pointed out good examples for finding undervalued relievers, and the Phillies would of course be smart to make similar finds. But those aren't good comps for the type of deal Romero would get because he is coming off a much stronger year than Hawkins and Riske were.

by ken on Nov 11, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Market value's already set

that was kind of my point; you can't cherrypick a few contracts and say that's market level. obviously Hawkins & Riske signed for below; I think it's equally obvious that the Baltimore contracts are substantially above market.

do you think Baltimore is happy about the deals they handed out? do you think Mets fans are happy with Schoeneweis?

by perfectdepth on Nov 11, 2007 5:19 PM EST up reply actions

I think we're talking past each other

My objective was to look at how much Romero could receive on the open market this winter.
Whether you think Romero's deal is worthwhile is another question entirely; I'm assuming that the Phillies think he's a quality reliever and am interested in what he could make on the open market (in other words, his market value). Based on what other relievers coming off good seasons commanded last year, I think 3/$12 is a reasonable guess as to what at least one other team would have offered Romero. If you think that the Phillies wildly outbid what any other team would have offered Romero, we'll have to agree to disagree.

by ken on Nov 12, 2007 8:39 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

I hate this deal.

As longtime readers of TGP know, I've long felt like the absolutely characteristic Phillies move was their retention of Rheal Cormier, a lefty reliever somewhat similar to Romero, for six years whether his results were great, horrible, or in between. Cormier's seasonal ERA and ERA+ numbers with the Phillies were:

4.21, 102
5.25, 74
1.70, 234
3.56, 126
5.89, 75

2006 (half-season): 1.59, 294

They paid Cormier about $16 million for this very inconsistent performance.

Here are Romero's numbers over the last six years:

1.89, 236
5.00, 91
3.51, 135
3.47, 128
6.70, 68

2007 (full year): 1,92, 243

At best--at best!--he's likely to have one great year, one okay year, and one atrocious year in the three, with a $4 million opportunity cost for that bad year.

So much for learning from mistakes.

by dajafi on Nov 11, 2007 11:50 AM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

Can you imagine what a Larry Andersen type might get in todays market?? Wow... Why pay for what a replacement player could give you. This is an Ed Wade move.

by Homer on Nov 11, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions

of course...

I also didn't hate the Eaton deal when it was signed. So maybe I'm wrong here; I certainly hope so. It's just very, very difficult for me to see a guy with Romero's command problems being consistently successful.

by dajafi on Nov 11, 2007 11:59 AM EST up reply actions

Re: of course...

I don't see how a pitcher with a career 1.5 whip is worth this kind of money... I really really hope I'm wrong

by Homer on Nov 11, 2007 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

Let's see. I see two outstanding seasons, two very good seasons, one kinda poor and one really bad year out of the last six. I think that's a pretty consistent and good performance for a relief guy.

Romero has an old fashioned "rubber arm", he gets a LOT of ground balls, he strikes out a pretty good amount of guys, he keeps the ball in the park and he does pretty cool little dances on the mound when he gets a big out.

On the other hand he walks a LOT of guys and had a lucky BABIP for a while last season. Well, he's walked a lot of guys throughout his career and he's been pretty effective most of the time. And the BABIP thing isn't 100 percent universal as a tool I don't think. For one thing, I think Romero has low BABIPs most of the time (because it's hard to hit the ball well vs. him -- as opposed to a guy like Eaton who gives up hard shots to the gaps, the wall and over the wall a lot). He had a very low BABIP during his time with the Phils and as a result gave up hardly any hits or runs. That won't continue but he should still be pretty good I think. He has been most of his career and he's still not old. So his BABIP will go up some and he won't have a 1.29 ERA or something like that. But I think he'll still be good anbe valuable.

Romero gives the Phils another pretty good not all that old veteran to add to Lidge, Madson and Mateo in the pen. (Plus the old, old veteran Gordon). That's a pretty good thing right there. I can easily see three of the above guys doing well next season.

Then you have a slew of younger, less proven but talented arms to get another 3 or 4 relievers out of.

And you have to hope Sanchez, Condrey, Mesa and AA will never pitch for the Phils' big club again. I see a pretty good bullpen being put together here.

I think it's a bad idea to sign a bunch of veteran, mid 30s, expensive veteran pitchers to man your pen. The Phils (and other teams) have tried and failed to make this work in the past. I don't think you can man your pen with a bunch of unproven guys either. You need a good mix I think and that's what the Phils' pen is looking like at this point.

Romero is a rubber armed lefty who throws hard and has nice moving stuff that results in lots of ground balls, few home runs and who has been successful during most of his career. That's pretty valuable in my view. Maybe not actually worth 3 years at 12 million but he's gonna help the team win next season I think and I think there's a pretty good chance he'll be good for at least two of the three seasons. I think you have to make some signings like this.

by smitty on Nov 11, 2007 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

The problem is that the Phillies are unlikely to get value on this contract. What is the best case scenario? He pitches well to an ERA around 2.50 and lets in few inherited runners? They only use him for a batter or two a game and he'll likely have significantly less innings than another guy who is in the bullpen making $4 mil a year.

The other sad part is this:

"We also gave him that opportunity to play that role after being released."

Those were Amaro's stupidly public, but pretty much correct tough words. Then the buckled faster than the 2007 Phillies playoff team. I'd put this in a memo and send it out to all the Phillies players if I were Dan Lozano, and then just one word following it, "PWNAGE!"

by jonk on Nov 11, 2007 12:31 PM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

The Phillies overpaid a reliever after a fluky good year? No way.

Prediction: Geary has a similar or better 2008 than Romero.

by christonabike on Nov 11, 2007 2:53 PM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

Certainly possible, and as I wrote above, I don't like the deal. But stuff-wise, Romero is a considerably better pitcher than Geary.

by dajafi on Nov 11, 2007 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

by Dalton Bouchee on Nov 12, 2007 3:56 PM EST reply actions

Re: Phils Sign Romero for 3 years, $12 million.

Damn! Hit the POST button by accident. Sorry about that.

Oh, well, what the hell. Romero was 1.) A Free Agent; 2.) Based on his 2007 season, evidently not toast yet; and we'll throw in 3.) Everybody and his granny was saying that they'd better re-sign him.

Put it all together with a look at last year's FA Frenzy and what do you get? About what you'd expect. "A contract that overpays him."

To be honest with you, I think that it's premature to judge whether it's "market value" or not. By January or Febuary, it may start looking like a bargain after these GM's get done throwing all their "new money" around. They weren't exactly models of restraint last year.

by Dalton Bouchee on Nov 12, 2007 4:09 PM EST reply actions