Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Postgame: Rollins fuels Phillies to win No. 101 | Main | Phillies seek two major franchise records tonight »

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Comments

dont give him 5 years! Freddy Gavlis will be an MVP candidate by then!!

Oh boy,

Get ready for the onslaught of J-Roll haters.

Giving pretty much any 34 year old player a 5 year deal is a bad idea. Jimmy is no exception to that.

I think he's angling for a 5-year deal in hopes of getting a 3-year deal. I wouldn't give him more than 2 years.

I'd give him a 3 year deal...as long as its not ridiculously backloaded to the point where we have to put a washed up 36 year old SS out there everyday due to an excessive salary.

I'm sure he would love a 5-year deal.

I don't know what that has to do with reality, though. Which makes this a complete non-story.

as noted by a previous commenter, what was the question?

was it "Jimmy, do you expect a 5 year deal after this season?"

judging from his response "5 would be great", to me it sounds like it was a leading question and '5 years' was included in the question.

i'd really like to know what jon heyman asked.

In related news, Raul said while he also would love a 5-year deal, he'd be willing to settle for 4. What do we think BL?

What's his OBP again? If its over .291, I'd say go for it.

and come on, do you honestly think jimmy thinks a 6 or 7 year deal may be offered? i dont. jimmys good at playing the media and agree with others in that this is negotiating 101. start extremely high and bargain down to what you actually expect and want. start at 5 years, get to 3 with maybe an team option for a 4th year.

i dont think he will take anything less than 3 years.

I'd rather discuss the playoffs and keep the contract talks for the off season.

What I'd like to see is a Braves/Cards one game playoff with the Cards as the winners. Then the Dbacks and Brewers can beat up on each other in the NLDS.

NEPP: He can get over the .291 hump with a big night tonight. You can do it, Raul! Three hits and a walk and he could move out of 5th worst of all NL players!

From the article:

"The Phillies are said to like Rollins very much, are mostly understanding about Rollins' own program and seem not to mind a slight overpay for their own stars."

Imagine that - willing to "overpay" players so they can assemble the best team in baseball.

I think that JRoll is likely to be one of the better SS's in baseball for another 2 or 3 years. Acquiring him for that time at a reasonable premium makes sense. Adding a year beyond that makes sense in terms of honoring his contributions to his team over his career. I'd hope that they could sign him to a four-year contract.

Tacking on one more would only make sense if it isn't at too extreme an amount - but really, IMO, the team could most likely easily absorb his salary for that fifth year even if in a pure cost/benefit analysis it wouldn't make sense.

I think they'll give him a 4 year deal. They want 3, he wants 5...seems like a fair trade off.

3 with only a team option for the 4th is the highest I would go.

Flipper might want to see Rollins and Howard leading the 2016 team, but somehow I don't think that will be very pretty.

Rollins has made $45.28 Million as a Phillie. The idea that we owe him anything else is ludicrous. If you were to give him a 3 year, $36 million deal (his apparent low-end market value now), that would be $81.28 million.

I think we're square at that point.

Jack - agreed 3yrs, 4th option is my ceiling as well.

YOu know what would be hilarious...if the Red Sox gave Jose Reyes the 5 year, $18 million per deal he wants as mentioned in the article. Mind you, the guy hasn't played in 140 games in a season since 2008 and he's currently having a year well outside his normal production. It would be the ultimate buy high moment. The Yankees should threaten to sign him just to get Epstein to jump on him.

To be fair, Rollins has been worth far more than he's been paid so far.

But that doesn't mean you overpay him now.

I actually think Rollins will sign in San Fran, who will offer him 4 guaranteed years.

It has nothing to do with "us" (the Phillies) owing Rollins anything. It's simply a matter of his age, remaining productive years, what he is worth on the free agent market, and whether the Phillies have, or could get, an adequate replacement at this point. That said, let the post season begin and we'll deal with this later.

***To be fair, Rollins has been worth far more than he's been paid so far.***

To be fair, the Phillies didnt need to lock him up long term after the 2005 season and he definitely DID NOT have to accept that deal. It was a mutually beneficial deal that guaranteed the Phillies would have a reliable SS and that Rollins was financially set for life even if he went out and broke both legs the very next day.

NEPP: I'm not denying any of that. I get all that, don't worry.

Dont get me wrong, I love Jimmy as a player and really want him back in 2012 but I'd rather not have to watch his corpse manning SS in 2016.

Phlipper is right.

So much J-Roll hate on this board. It's almost unbearable to read.

I think when you have an aging shortstop with a history of leg injuries, giving him any more than two years is pretty ridiculous.

I'm not sure who the immediate replacement would be, but that doesn't mean you give Rollins 3 yrs plus an option, and certainly not more than that.

Of course, a big playoff run from J-Roll could go a long way.

Bowker will settle for a 5 month contract.

Thre Galvis thing is also a non-starter. The way he's been going, Rollins will be injured so frequently by the second year that Freddy will start most of the games anyway.

Jack: I thought SF would make a run at Rollins too. But then they went and fired their managing partner, supposedly for profligate spending. Now I'm not so sure -- although everything about Rollins-to-SF makes sense.

I'd love to have him back, but I agree with you that 3 years with a team option for a 4th (and a $2M or so buyout) are the absolute highest I'd go.

I never understand these contract discussions at BL. We are the fans not the owners. Hey if they want to spring for it why should we say no. The only time I object is when they insist on playing a washed up player just becuase they are paying him big money.

"I think that JRoll is likely to be one of the better SS's in baseball for another 2 or 3 years."


Newsflash...Jimmy is NOT one of the best SS's in baseball anymore. And certainly won't be 3 years from now.

No need to keep throwing money at aging players. He either accepts a short-term deal, or you let him go. Spend your money on Hamels and Madson, who are more important anyway.

Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but Selig might get his one game play-offs a year early.

My dream scenario has both ATL and STL losing today, then beating each others brains out over 20 innings, using their best relievers each for more than an inning a piece. I'd want, at this point, ATL to win that game, with the hopes that, somehow, they pull out a five game short series with MIL.

I don't always do this, but I largely agree with denny b. in his 10:19 post. The reality is that the Phils need to evaluate Rollins' talent level at what it currently is, and sign extra years based on what they're likely to be like. Age affects shortstop more than most positions.

I haven't even looked at who else might be available yet (beyond the probably over-priced JoseJoseJose). Is he worth what he wants in that third year, much leass fourth?

Denny: Rollins has been one of the top 10 SS in baseball this year.

Now, I think he could pretty quickly go downhill, for sure, given his age and injury history and haphazard performance. But he's certainly still above average, though I guess not "one of the best" if by that you mean one of the 5 best in baseball.

Going by WAR, Jimmy is 10th out of 20 qualifying SS this year.

If you go by the last 3 seasons, he's 9th out of 20 qualifying SS in that period.


FWIW.

Andy: The next best guy is probably Scutaro, who is a better hitter than Rollins but leaves a lot to be desired on defense. Plus, he's 36, so he could start going downhill pretty much anytime.

If Rollins did leave, I might take a hard look at Omar Infante, who has been pretty terrible this year but was good in the 3 years before that & is still only 29.

And I say that by adding this caveat...

Part of being a great player, is being healthy and being able to play. And that continues to be a problem for Jimmy.

Is Jimmy still a top 10 SS? Sure. But his legs are deteriorating and he is only a .260's-type hitter now. 3 years from now, that isn't likely to improve any. It will only get worse.

3 years is the max I go. If he wants more then that, then goodbye. As injured as he will likely be, Galvis will get plenty of time anyway with Jimmy here. And by the time Jimmy is gone in 3 years, Galvis will still only be 24. A perfect time to take over full-time. Galvis will likely become a utility guy on the bench, by at the latest September of 2012.

Yeah, but WAR doesn't count how awesome he's been in the playoffs. I mean, sure, hes only actually hit .226/.296/.339 over the last four seasons in the playoffs, but it really seems like he's been great, and that has to count for something.

Rollins will still be an above average SS next year and his value on defense can't be overstated. Whether you believe there's a large window left or don't, this team should still be close to a powerhouse, so if you can get J-Roll on a 3 year deal, the value of having him next year when you can go hard after another championship, in itself may justify the next 2 years.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Freddy Galvis is never more than a spot starter at SS for the Phillies. And that's pushing it.

"Newsflash...Jimmy is NOT one of the best SS's in baseball anymore. And certainly won't be 3 years from now."

How many SSs would you have rather had on this team, this year? More than 50% of SSs in MLB?

Really?

The thing that BLers are so willing to discount is the impact that being willing to "overpay" has on creating a team players want to play for, and on creating a team that on balance, has + players in each position.

Overpaying for players only becomes an issue when you run out of money and then wind up relying on inferior, low-salaried players. It hasn't happened to the Phillies yet, and with this team's creative front office, it won't happen in the future.

Cries of despair about "over-paying" the ancient Ibanez were legion here at BLer 3 years ago. Turns out that his contract returned a fair value. Cries of "over-payment" with Polly. Cries of RAJ being an "idiot" for extending contracts for over-the-hill players.

The problem with all this pie-in-the-sky hand-wringing is that it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of "opportunity cost" - on the notion that if they don't "overpay" for player A they can just go out and sign player B for a better salary. In the real world, you don't have those kinds of assurances that player B will be available without "overpaying," or that player B will work out.

The proof is in the pudding. The Phillies have the best team in baseball - and they are very, have had one of the best teams in baseball for an extended period of time. They're willing to "overpay" to make that happen. And the constant stream of hand-wringing continues unabated.


If you can lock up one of the better SSs in baseball for 2-3 years, and you "overpay" by extending the contract longer than can be justified by some best of all possible worlds speculation about what could theoretically be some cost/benefit speculation by hand-wringers that have a proven track record of being wrong, you do it.

Fortunately for us as Phillies fans, the team's FO has a proven track record of making the right decisions. Endless hand-wringing about the prospects they have given up, or the bad contracts for older players notwithstanding.

How entitled some Phillies fans have become.

For me, I guess it comes down to this:

If the Phillies sign Rollins to a 3-year deal (or more), I think the odds of them regretting it are very high. If they let him go and look elsewhere, I think the odds of them regretting it are very low.

I think Jimmy is closer to top5 than top10 this year... Can someone post the 9 SS with better WAR?

I'd easily concede Tulo, Reyes, and Starlin. Who else? Yunel maybe, JJ Hardy? Pretty short list i think.

Give Rollins credit in that he has appeared in 140 games and had over 600 PA this year. That's pretty good durability considering his issues in 2010.

In 2009, he led the league in PAs.

Sign him to five years, he deserves it. He leaves it all out there on the field and we love his teeth. The man has pizazz.

I think Peralta is on there too...despite playing mostly 3B this year. Asdrubal Cabrera is anotther.

Tulo
Reyes
Peralta*
A. Ramirez
Andrus
Hardy
Escobar
Aybar
Cabrera
Rollins

I would think that Rollins has 2-3 good years left in him.


Also, I made a mistake in an earlier post...2012 will be his Age 33 season, not Age 34.

"If you go by the last 3 seasons, he's 9th out of 20 qualifying SS in that period."

Which of those 8 other SSs would you have rather had on THIS TEAM over that three year period?

Well, I'd rather have Tulo for one. But Phlipper, as usual, is missing the point that Rollins simply isn't an elite SS at this point in his career. He's just a good SS.

BAP - Didn't Infante just sign an extension with the Marlins?

Prediction: JRoll will sign a 3 year, $40 million deal with a club option/buyout in the 4th year. The AAV for the first 3 will be around $12.5 million with a buyout of around $2.5 M.

Overpaying aging players is, in fact, a very good way to ensure that you DON'T remain the best team in baseball.

People continue to compare us to the Red Sox and Yankees, as big market teams who will inevitably be competitive every year. But it's a very thin line between being those teams, and being the Cubs, Dodgers or Mets. The Red Sox and Yankees have successfully integrated good young players from their farm system, while the Cubs and Mets largely have not. The Cubs and Mets have payrolls bloated with old, overpaid players.

Cries of despair about "over-paying" the ancient Ibanez were legion here at BLer 3 years ago. Turns out that his contract returned a fair value.

Can you point to the Phlippergraphs web site that shows the fair value equation for Ibanez? I might even subscribe to your newsletter. :)

To your probable greater point, Ibanez' contract hasn't crippled the team either (although I would have loved one more viable bullpen arm this past trading deadline)

If there was a GM dumb enough to give Werth 6/$126 million, there will be a GM dumb enough to give Rollins 5/$60 million. I'm just hoping that GM isn't named "Ruben".

There is no way you sign Jimmy to three more years. I would rather develop a younger guy even if he hits Medoza-ish. You have to save payroll to either resign Mad Dog or bring in somebody else, you have to blow Hamels away to keep him and figure out what you will do with 3rd. They also need to figure out the long term leadoff solution.

"...so if you can get J-Roll on a 3 year deal, the value of having him next year when you can go hard after another championship, in itself may justify the next 2 years."

I would extend that. I'd say that you could have a championship caliber team with JRoll at shortstop for 2-3 years. Beyond that, you might very well need to have a better player in that position to be a top echelon team.

So if you "overpay" him for one or two years in order to have those 2-3 years where you can focus your resources on other positions, is that worth it?

Keep in mind, that the very notion of "overpaying" him means that no other teams would be willing to offer a better contract. If through negotiations he's willing to walk unless he gets 5 years, then by definition (unless he completely misplays the market), his "market value" is defined as a player that can get a 4 or 5 year contract.

The only "overpay" contracts the Phils have given in recent years is to Lidge, Ibanez, Polly and maybe Howard.

It's too early to tell how the Howard deal will work, but the Ibanez deal has been arguably bad, the Polly deal looks it's going to be bad, as he has trouble staying healthy, and his offense is pretty poor nowadays, and the Lidge deal has been a disaster.

I don't know where Phlipper gets the idea that the Phillies have been successful in their overpays.

Their most successful deals have been those that were market value or better (Lee, Halladay, Utley, J-Roll)

It's the overpays to aging players that have caused problems so far, and I didn't even bring up Contreras and Moyer.

***figure out what you will do with 3rd.***

Easy, move Jimmy over in 2 years when he can no longer play SS.

Someone please rec that post from Rauls grandpa that says it's ok for a shortstop to hit at the Mendoza line. I'm sure that will go over swimmingly when the Phillies are still a WS contender over the next few seasons.

Who would we be looking at in terms of other free agent SS?

Rollins .328 wOBA would place him 11th among qualifying 3B this year...and its about 20 points higher than Polly gave us with his current .305 wOBA.

If you drop the bar to 400 PA at 3B, Jimmy ranks 17th.

Polly comes in at 22nd.

"Can you point to the Phlippergraphs web site that shows the fair value equation for Ibanez? I might even subscribe to your newsletter. :)"

lol.

It hasn't produce outsize returns, for sure. But the team has done just fine with Raul in LF, despite the non-stop hand-wringing.

"To your probable greater point, Ibanez' contract hasn't crippled the team either (although I would have loved one more viable bullpen arm this past trading deadline)"

I'd go along with that. I would have rather have had another top-tier LHP in the bullpen last year also. But the point is that "good enough" in some positions is good enough. Anyone who doubts that can look at the Phillies W/L record over the past three years and get back to me.

Meanwhile, back in 2011, since we keep adding playoff slots the 'historic collapse' seems to be happening more and more often. Next year we'll have some really flawed team blow a 9 game lead on the team with the 6th best record in the league and lose out on the 2nd wild card.

The 1964 Phils legacy is getting tarnished by all these wannabes.

I love J-Roll, best Phillies shortstop in franchise history. A 5 year deal would be ridiculously stupid. 3 years tops. He's injury prone and plays a speed position where age catched up with you faster than expected.

JJ Hardy got 3 yr/$22M, and that's about what Rollins should get. He'll likely get more, but that team will overpay and be sorry for it within 2-3 years.

If he signs with the Giants then we can officially count him as washed-up (see- Aaron Rowand, Miguel Tejada, Aubrey Huff, Mark DeRosa, and Pat Burrell for resent examples).

I don't think anyone cares if they spend 200 million on Jimmy if it still means they can fill other areas of need (Primary - Closer, Hamels; Secondary - Kendrick raise, backup catcher, utility INF) and have flexibility going forward. Since the Phillies operate under an obvious budget (some percentage of their revenue, Phuture Phillies went over this in detail at the end of last season) there have to be tough choices made. I love Jimmy, but I love watching a good Phillies team more and hope they make the signings that reflect the most accurate value going forward.

"I don't know where Phlipper gets the idea that the Phillies have been successful in their overpays."

That's not what I said - or at least intended to get across.

They have been successful despite some contracts that were reasonable investments at the time but worked out to be "sub-optimal."

Please point out which team hasn't had similar contracts. The expectation that there won't be any contracts that work out to be "sub-optimal" is what I find so laughable.

Phlipper, you can obviously be successful with "bad" contracts. So what?

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to avoid them, if at all possible. That's what people are talking about here. Signing J-Roll to a bloated contract may or may not cripple the team. But just because it may not cripple the team doesn't mean it's not a bad contract, and you should try and avoid bad signings if you can.

Wouldn't you agree?

"It's the overpays to aging players that have caused problems so far, and I didn't even bring up Contreras and Moyer."

That comment encapsulates my point perfectly.

Those problems have lead to the best record in baseball two years running, with the WFC in the third year (and possibly another this year).

So the Phils have won in spite of the bad contracts? Is that what you are saying Phlipper?

Just because the Phils have had some bad contracts doesn't mean they should go out and have a few more.

"Wouldn't you agree?"

Of course. But sometimes you need to be willing to "overpay" to hold your ground in some areas so that you can concentrate on other areas. The question is whether or not paying too much for over-the-hill players is actually characteristic of this team, as opposed to other teams.

The results in that regard speak for themselves. If that were actually characteristic of this team (certainly as compared to others), they wouldn't have had the success that they've had.

"So the Phils have won in spite of the bad contracts? Is that what you are saying Phlipper?"

What I'm saying is that inevitably, hindsight will tell you that some contracts are "bad." The fact remains that all teams have, in hindsight, "bad" contracts. Believing that it won't happen is unrealistic.

By their very nature, contracts with athletes is a gamble. If this team had a history of making bad gambles in the balance, it would be reflected in the results.

Phlipper, I would argue that the recent success of the team has been in large part due to the very fortunate and favorable returns they've gotten on contracts that were perceived to be very team-friendly when they were signed.

Among those:

J-Roll
Utley
Halladay (very below market)
Lee
Madson
Hamels
Victorino
Werth
Ruiz

All these players signed for market-value or below market cotracts and have played at or above the value of the contracts.

redburb: Ah, I guess you're right about Infante. Apparently he just signed the extension yesterday. The shortstop field gets even thinner.

Phlipper, please don't miscontrue what I'm trying to get across. I'm not against bringing J-Roll back, and, in fact, I want him back, but I am leary of them giving him two many years and too much money, and hindering themselves from improving the team in a couple years.

I recognize that they don't have a limitless budget, so this could be a problem.

too* many years...

Fata - 11:22.

Exactly. The zero sum gain notion that "overpaying" some players will cripple the team is a counterfactual.

Based on their track record, there's no reason to assume that this FO won't be able to CONTINUE to leverage a sufficient number of "below-market" contracts into continued success, despite a minority of signings that are considered, in hindsight, by some to be "crippling."

Hard to be interested in this with the playoffs just 3 days away.

Fata - re 11:25

I completely agree with that post (and knew that's what you were getting at).

Yes - extending a JRoll contract to 2 or 3 years could be a problem. But not an insurmountable one, and it might very well be a problem that would enable them to have a shortstop for 2 or 3 years that is good enough for them to win a championship.

If "overpaying" Rollins for years 4 or 5 would cripple the team going beyond that 2 or 3 year window, in the end it would be a mistake. I highly doubt that would be the case. At any rate, there are way too many unkowns to argue that case definitively, as we have seen Jack and denny b. do.

Why do we need Jimmy? We can have Martinez and Valdez play SS for us for 162 games.

Seriously, who would replace JRoll?

I read Scutaro & Tulo as suggestions. Tulo is terrific, but 1) Is he available? and 2) What's his injury rate? I have the impression he's oft-injured, but since I don't follow the Rox, I don't really know.

I do think 5 years is a lot, and I'm trying to look at the situation practically. But at the same time, the thought of the Phillies without Jimmy Rollins makes me instantly sad. It just does.

Sorry - that last post should have been...

"If extending a JRoll contract to 4 or 5 years..."

Anyway - gotta run. I've stirred up enough JRoll hatred to hold the hand-wringers until the next post.

Phlipper, I don't know that anyone considers many of these signings to have been "crippling".

Consider the Lidge deal (and by the way, I am a HUGE Lidge fan): They spent ~$36M on him. In those 3 years, they've gotten 1 year of the worst pitcher in maybe baseball history, he was bad for the first 4 months of 2010, great for the last 2, and he missed more than half of this year with injury.

He's been good since his return from the DL, but hasn't pitched well enough (nor in a role) to justify $11.5M.

Still, this hasn't crippled them, despite it turning out to be a horrific contract.

BUT, here's the thing. Despite being a great team during these three years, would they have been a better team if Lidge were pitching up to his contract over that stretch?

Absolutely. If Lidge were a lockdown closer in the 2009 WS, does that game 4 turn out differently? Probalby yes. If Lidge were still an elite closer this year, how much better would our bullpen with Madson and Bastardo be going into these playoffs.

Lidge deal hasn't crippled us, and its ill effects haven't been enough to knock us from teh to spot in the NL, but his play has had negative effects on the team.

Like Jack said, it's a thin line before those negative effects from overpaid contracts to aging players DO cripple the team, and the fans and FO are right to be leary of such contracts.

3 years is plenty for jay ro
5 minutes is enough for Bowker

***Still, this hasn't crippled them, despite it turning out to be a horrific contract.***

It hasn't crippled them because we got surprise performances out of guys like Bastardo, Stutes, KK and Worley in the bp and rotation. You cannot assume that we will always have unheralded prospects pan out when we need them to.

Hey, it's not like JRoll is Prince Fielder. Can you believe that lardball disrupted team chemistry last week by talking about his future team/contract situation. Thank goodness that the Phillies only employ team players who don't do stuff like that.

Just pointing this out because I was told the Phillies wouldn't do well with a loser like Fielder because they don't talk about contracts with the playoffs approaching.

"But he was just answering a question." I'm anticipating this one. All he had to do was say, "JRoll only talks about contracts when the WS has been won." I'm assuming the third person here.

The Phillies will probably offer a three year contract between 30 and 36 million. Anything more is a major overpay. And if Jimmy says no, then they'll offer arbitration and take the Giants' first round pick.

It hasn't crippled them because we got surprise performances out of guys like Bastardo, Stutes, KK and Worley in the bp and rotation. You cannot assume that we will always have unheralded prospects pan out when we need them to.

Posted by: NEPP | Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Exactly. Which is why you should avoid overpaying aging players, despite some past fortuitous experiences.

You've overlooked GBrettfan's question - if not Jimmy, then who?

Yes we have some bad contracts, all teams do. The thing we also have is a skyrocketing payroll in the next couples years with raises to Hamels, Howard, Utley, Lee and others on the way. The fact that our payroll has grown has mitigated the effect the "bad" contracts (Lidge) and allowed us to absorb them. That luxury goes away as we hit our payroll limit. I don't think anyone here is going to argue the payroll will increase at the same rate it has the last three years going forward. They are going to hit the limit in the next few years, and the more flexibility they build in, the better. To build that flexibility you can't pay for past performance and you can't backload contracts for players that won't be productive during those big dollar years.

I know the Phillies are a big market team and can operate like one. I still don't see this ownership team cutting a 10-15 million dollar player late in his deal and paying him not to play and replacing him with another veteran.

If the Phillies can succeed despite bad contracts, they can also succeed w/ a lesser SS until a more sensible long-term option presents itself. This is a franchise built on starting pitching, & it will not suddenly become moribund due to the loss of any one position player. If Rollins willing to accept a reasonably priced 2-3 year deal, sign him. If not, cut him loose. To quote the man himself, "Nothing's permanent".

"I think when you have an aging shortstop with a history of leg injuries, giving him any more than two years is pretty ridiculous."

I totally agree with this. I can live with the Hardy contract of 3 years $22.5M. Any more than 3 years is something I want the Giants to have on their payroll, not the Phils.

If the season were to end today (that's a joke), the Giants would have the 19th overall pick...so we'd have the 19th, 30th and at least 2 more picks in the top 75 or so. Madson is also a Type A so we theoretically have 6 picks in the top 75 if we see both of them walk.

There is no way the Phillies should sign Rollins to a five-year deal. None. Four years? Maybe... http://jstolnis.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/what-is-jimmy-rollins-worth/

That luxury goes away as we hit our payroll limit. I don't think anyone here is going to argue the payroll will increase at the same rate it has the last three years going forward.

AL: Oh my. Where to begin? You see, there's this fellow named "clout" ...

If the Phillies allow to Rollins to walk, I expect they get the Giants' pick and a compensatory pick. And if they lose Madson, they'll get a similar package, but probably one with a lower first round pick because I don't see Madson going to a second tier team.
However, I would also expect them to sign a closer other than Madson and a SS other than Rollins, thus losing their won first and second round picks. That would leave them with two first rounders and two compensatory picks, then their third round pick. And depending on the players they sign, that would be fine with me.

I'd prefer they sign Rollins to a reasonable contract for no more than three years, and continue to develop Galvis.

That luxury goes away as we hit our payroll limit. I don't think anyone here is going to argue the payroll will increase at the same rate it has the last three years going forward.

AL: Oh my. Where to begin? You see, there's this fellow named "clout" ...

"Hard to be interested in this with the playoffs just 3 days away. "

Exactly.

Define irony: Listening/watching required ethics training that includes 'Appropriate use of company computer' on one monitor while posting on BL on the other.

""But he was just answering a question." I'm anticipating this one."

I thought about that. I know the press likes to stir up controversy, as it's good for readership and you might get a few good quotes to be taken out of context or misinterpreted, but why ask a player on a team that's going to the playoffs this question now, instead of November?

According to fWAR, he's the 8th-best SS in the majors, 3rd-best in the league, even with his injury (which should absolutely be considered, but still) before which he was even higher.

As for Starlin, yeah, he's young and rising while Jimmy's old and declining, but his K% was twice Jimmy's, his BB% was half of Rollins', and he had a lower ISO and an inflated BABIP higher than anyone but Reyes... and I hate fielding stats, but his fielding WAR was -8.8 to Jimmy's +3.6 (second-highest in the NL)...

Phillies (via Twitter): "Roy Oswalt's performance marked 29th time this season a Phillies starter has gone at least 6 innings and allowed no runs."

Now those are "Quality Starts".

We all realize that "five years" indicates the first time Jimmy has put a time element on a future deal, right? This is what you call starting the long bargaining process.

Let's not worry about this for, oh, a month or so.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

SHOP CSN


Advertisements


Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG