Cost-efficiency and the Phillies' bullpen
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Cost-efficiency and the Phillies' bullpen
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
We've already spent plenty of time in this space outlining the Phillies' finances over the next few seasons, with particular attention paid toward 2011, when the team already has guaranteed $130.85 million to 15 players. To put that in perspective, the Phillies' total Opening Day payroll in 2008 was under $110 million. Thus far, the team's payroll has coincided with a dramatic increase in revenue sparked by a playoff appearance in 2007, a World Series title in 2008, and record regular season attendance marks in 2008 and 2009.
But at some point, their revenue will level off, and in the absence of any new major streams, the spending must level off as well. Attendance can only increase by so much, since there are only so many seats in the house. And in a sluggish economy, it is hard to imagine the team being able to dramatically increase the rates it charges its various sponsors. This is why the Phillies say they are not the Yankees, or, to a lesser extent, the Red Sox. They do not own their own cable network, as the Yankees do. And their market reach would seem to be far less than that of Boston, where the closest MLB city is more than 200 miles away (the Phillies, by comparison, have three MLB cities under 200 miles away).
So while we may never get to look at the Phillies' books and judge exactly how much cash flow they have, their contention that their resources are limited is a valid one.
What does all of this mean?
As revenue and payroll levels off, the importance of resource allocation increases. The Phillies were able to eat the contracts of Adam Eaton and Geoff Jenkins without much consequence, because the payroll was increasing and they were still able to add new salary. But with $130.85 million locked up for 15 players in 2011, and $59 million locked up for seven players in 2012 -- Cole Hamels is up for arbitration and Jimmy Rollins and Ryan Howard are eligible for free agency -- the Phillies are at a point where the most important factor in their sustained success will be the decisions they make in slicing the pie.
Which brings us to the bullpen, which was the focus of our main story today in the Daily News. While the Yankees and the Red Sox both have bigger payrolls than the Phillies, they have also found a way to allocate more of their available dollars to the sport's high-dollar positions -- by developing dependable relievers in their minor league system.
Look at the bullpen the Phillies' faced in the World Series: Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlin, Phil Coke and David Robertson combined for 10 relief appearances. All of them were drafted and developed by the Yankees. None of them made more than $500,000 that season.
Look at the bullpen the Red Sox fielded last season: Jonathon Papelbon, Daniel Bard, Manny Delcarmen, Hideki Okajima -- all drafted or signed as amateur free agents by Boston. Bard, Delcarmen and Okajima combined to make less than $5 million (Papelbon earned $9.35 million as an arb-eligible).
The Phillies, on the other hand, have relied almost exclusively on major league free agents in putting together their bullpens over the past four seasons. During that timespan, only three homegrown relievers have finished the regular season with at least 30 appearances -- Ryan Madson, Brett Myers and Geoff Geary. The Dodgers and Cardinals, by comparison, have produced six such players. The other NL team in the 2009 playoffs, the Rockies, has produced four.
The Phillies have been successful in signing or trading for veteran relievers -- Chan Ho Park, Chad Durbin, and Brad Lidge have all made big impacts -- and they rank fourth in the NL in bullpen ERA over the last four years.
But the Phillies are paying $25.625 million in guaranteed money to six relievers. The Yankees thus far have $24.59 million locked up to six relievers, more than half of which goes to Mariano Rivera. The Red Sox have $15.74 million locked up to seven players.
This is not a knock on the Phillies' strategy.
Back when the Red Sox and Yankees made their respective returns to greatness, both relied heavily on veteran relievers (Keith Foulke, Mike Timlin, Alan Embree, Scott Williamson and Curt Leskanic for the Red Sox in 2004; John Wetteland, Jeff Nelson, Mike Stanton and Graeme Lloyd for the Yankees in 1996-97)
And because the Phillies have been able to keep costs low by developing and controlling players like Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, Shane Victorino, Carlos Ruiz, Ryan Howard, Cole Hamels and J.A. Happ, they have been able to spend on the bullpen.
But many of those players are now making salaries in line with the premium nature of their positions.
Because the success of relievers is so volatile, and because their skill set is less refined (a reliever might need command of only two pitches, while most starters need three or four), developing them from within one's own system makes sense.
This spring, the crop of homegrown relievers in spring training is, at the very least, as abundant as it has been over the past couple of years. Lefthander Antonio Bastardo was a starter still looking to develop his slider a year ago. Now, he is fresh off a couple of appearances in the playoffs, as well as a dynamite performance in the Dominican Winter League. He is also being viewed strictly as a reliever for the first time in his career.
Lefthander Sergio Escalona, who converted from starter in 2008, is also competing for a spot, along with Mike Zagurski and Scott Mathieson, both of whom are looking to put injury-plagued pasts behind them.
Righthander B.J. Rosenberg is a hard-throwing reliever out of the University of Louisville who had a good season in the minors last season. He isn't a strong candidate for the Opening Day roster, but could contribute at some point in the not-so-distant future.
And, of course, there is Phillippe Aumont, a big righthander who will start the year as a starter but who many project to someday fill a role in the bullpen.
Bastardo has perhaps the most upside of any of the relievers competing for a spot in spring training. He throws a low-to-mid-90's fastball with good deception, and he showed a ton of poise last year in five starts and three relief appearances (including a big strikeout of Jason Giambi in the playoffs). If he can turn his slider into a consistent second pitch, and if he can show enough command, he could prove to be a huge, cheap boost to the bullpen. Both now, and in the future.
Murph is the best Philly baseball writer since Jayson Stark. He'll be a columnist soon, I predict. His knowledge is wasted as a beat writer.— EL Zorro- Peruse the recent revenue numbers of MLB teams. The numbers CLEARLY and CONVINCINGLY support my original hypothesis. The only teams who see revenue level off are teams like the Indians, Giants, Braves etc. who lost star players without replacing them with other stars. I repeat, the Phillies revenues will level off when they let star players walk. If they can't leverage a powerhouse team in a large market into new, growing, and sustainable revenue streams they are completely incompetent at managing their franchise. And they aren't so this whole article is bogus and based on a bogus premise.— jtj06
- You left a few teams off there, and there were other factors that play into it. What if the Phillies had kept Lee, and say Lee or Halladay or some other key player was lost to injury. Having traded 7 of their top 10 prospects, come trade deadline they'd have no wiggle room to make a deal and stay in the WS hunt. After the year Lee would walk, they'd have a tough call to make with guys like Werth and Rollins and Howard, not to mention their farm system would still be depleted. If you ask me, that seems like a pretty conceivable way for revenue to trail off. The Yankees can afford to swing and miss at a high ticket free agent or two, because they are the Yankees, and have pockets deep enough to recover. Your premise seems to be that by not resigning Lee, ticket sales and such will somehow tail off. To replace star players with other high-priced star players is just not realistic to sustain unless you can afford to pay everyone $15 mil. Rowand was a star when he left, but instead of shelling out big dollars to another FA outfielder, they turned it over to Victorino. Thome was also a star when he left, but we didn't replace him with an established star, he was replaced by another guy in the system, Ryan Howard, who they could control through arbitration for several years. This is how they got to be World champs, but now apparently you're saying that system is flawed.
- The Mets dumped a ton of money into star players and that hasn't worked out very well for them. And as a result, their farm system is in shambles
- JTJ - I think you are taking the phrase "level off" too literally. The fact is, barring a new TV contract, the growth of the Phillies' income is bound to level off. You've been using Forbes' numbers, which are just an estimation, but even using them -- the Red Sox revenue increased by $11 mil after their first world Series and $20+ mil after their second. Between '08 and '09, however, revenue increased just $6 mil. The Phils' payroll jumped between 20-30 percent between '08-'09. Right now, it looks like it will jump about 6 percent between 09-10. As a GM, you can't budget for 20-30 percent growth every year. The Yankees are an unfair comparison because they have introduced a new cable deal and a new stadium in the last 10 years.
Murph a few people have touched on the Phils local TV + Radio packages.Do you know anything about them? NESN + YES would seem like a minnow compared to Comcasts Great White Shark? Seeing how the Phils are in Comcasts back yard shouldnt that be a conductor for upward stabilty? Are the Phillies not taking full advantage of Comcasts prowess? What are they doing wrong here?- Murph. The Red Sox support my point. As their payroll shrunk from 2007-09 (according to USA Today salary data base it went from $143 million to $133 million to $122 million) the Sox' revenue leveled off. Again, only incompetent management stuck in the twentieth century would look at the current stadium revenue and the local TV deal as the end all and be all of revenue and essentially a fixed pie. Popular star players and repeated runs deep into the post season draw global interest, fans and money from casual fans in the US to fans around the world. You are right, the Phillies don't want to ever revisit 2007 when they paid over $37 million for the bundle of uselessness that was Barajas-Eaton-Garcia-Lieber-Thome, that was responsible for 14 wins, 21 losses and ERA over 6 and some back-up catching. But they shouldn't see revenue level off until A) their core players age, or B) they get rid of their core players and all that depends on whether or not they have new stars to replace them.— jtj06
- Phillies' finances. We readers get a lot of information about the dollars the Phillies are putting out, but we never get a hint of the money they are bringing in. "we may never get to look at the Phillies' books" you write. Why not? What are they covering up? Somebody is making a fortune and it sure as heck ain't the players. Although that is what these clubs would like us to believe.— Ron
- jtj - revenues are all about ticket sales and TV deals not the core players. Lat year, attendance was 102% of capacity so the only increses to revenue through ticket sales would be raising ticket prices - not a great idea in this economy. As for TV, unlike the Yanks and Sox who own their TV networks, the Phils have to deal with Comcast. Considering Comcast's dealing with the NFL amd Big Ten networks and DirecTV, don't expect them to give the Phils much more money regardless of ratings or team success. Hence, their revenue will level off.— rudeman
- Speaking of pens. Chopa to the Yanks.
- Rudeman not buying your Comcast angle. The Phillies are an incredibly hot item and a compltetly seperate entity than Comcast let alone the Big 10 network,Nfl network or Direct TV. If Comcast is too worried about its other issues than the Phillies either need to start their own network or find a more lucrative TV package. Its a premiere mlb franchise in the largest market with just 1 team.
