Options dwindling for Rollins, Phillies
If you thought Jimmy Rollins' re-signing with the Phillies was inevitable a couple of days ago, the recent signings of Alex Gonzalez and Rafael Furcal by the Brewers and the Cardinals make it a stone-cold lock.
Options dwindling for Rollins, Phillies
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
If you thought Jimmy Rollins' re-signing with the Phillies was inevitable a couple of days ago, the recent signings of Alex Gonzalez and Rafael Furcal by the Brewers and the Cardinals make it a stone-cold lock.
If you believe the Phillies when they express a willingness to enter the season with Freddy Galvis and Wilson Valdez as their options at short stop, well, that makes one of us. There are still some fringe players out there, but none are any more impressive than Valdez and Galvis -- Ronny Cedeno, Yuniesky Betancourt, and so on. Feel free to slump over on your keyboard. The Phillies could certainly look to deal for a player like Eduardo Nunez or Jed Lowrie or Mike Aviles, but it is generally hard to acquire defensive utility players because they are almost always worth more to their own team than whatever another team is willing to give up.
As for Rollins, the list of potential suitors appears to be limited to the Phillies. The way I see it, these are the only teams who would even have the need for a guy like Rollins:
Tampa Bay - Sean Rodriguez/Reid Brignac
Kansas City - Alcides Escobar
Atlanta Braves - Tyler Pastornicky
Mets - Ruben Tejada
Nationals - Ian Desmond
Reds - Zack Cozart/Paul Janish
Astros - Angel Sanchez
Giants - Brandon Crawford/Jeff Keppinger/Ryan Theriot
The Rays aren't going to give Rollins the kind of contract he is looking for. The Mets are looking to shed payroll, not add it. You have to figure the Nationals are not yet ready to give up on Desmond. The Reds don't appear to have the money. The Giants have veteran options who can fill in if the highly-touted Crawford stumbles.
The Braves and the Royals are the only two teams that appear to pose even a semblance of a threat. The Royals don't always make the smartest personnel decisions, so who knows.
But in reality, it comes down to Rollins and the Phillies. Rafael Furcall just singed a two-year, $14 million deal with the Cardinals. That's a pretty significant chunk of change for a guy who has barely been on the field the last couple seasons.
To me, an at-market deal for Rollins would be 4 years, $36 million with a club option and reasonable buyout. There were some rumblings that Rollins could get $13 mil a year. To me, that's a huge overpay, just based on the market rate for short stops. Now that there does not appear to be much of a market for Rollins, you would think a four-year, $40 million deal would easily get it done. If Phils really don't want to go beyond three years, I think a 3 year, 30 million deal with a club option that has a big buyout and vests on certain incentives would make sense.
how about 2 years 14 million. take it or leave it. what happened to renteria and cabrera?
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
- Dear most-of-the-commentors-on-here-are-losers; you're not improving the average loser quotient. Idiot — joeibt
- how's about 3 years and Pennsylvania teacher's salary?— gulls3012
- if they sign jimmy, it had better be to an incentive-laden contract with low guaranteed base salary per year. that is the only way you can protect yourself against jimmy's lazy and entitled attitude. last time he signed a contract with us, he downshifted from fifth gear to third. his performance declined every year of the contract, including his option year. give him 4 years but with only 4 million per year guaranteed. give him a chance to make up to 10 million per year with incentives and set those incentives high. also, put penalties into the contract: for instance, every time he swings for the fences from the leadoff spot, subtract money. every time he pouts about hitting somewhere other than leadoff, subtract money. every time he fails to run out a ball to first, etc.. really, we are in the driver's seat here. clearly no one in the league ia interested in his ridiculous contract demands. and i have no problem with valdez or galvis as the everyday shortstop. whatever offense we lose without jimmy in the lineup, will be offset by having a real leadoff hitter, victorino, in the lineup.— zwarte piet
- Incentive laden contracts aren't legal in MLB. — jtj06
- I agree with Murphy's conclusion. 3+1=30 or 40 with a 2.5 buyout— Andrewsgvl
- Good stuff Murph, although I didn't take you for a slumper...Rollins has got to be ticled pink with his agent, who wined and dined Pujols while J Roll played Cuba Gooding's role, saying "show me the money"..While I think Murph's offer does make sense all around, how about this scenerio...J Roll gets a healthy one year deal with really good incentives and he gets another shot at free agency next year?...Phillies get a player with a chip on his shoulder,hungry like a lion, and the Phillies retain the ability for fiscal health and flexibility with the potential development of Freddy Galvis...Either way, he's here.— bearsfriend
- he should have been hungry like a lion this year, but he wasn't. — PhillyfanstuckinVa
- Yes, one would think...sometimes it takes some longer than others to figure things out. Reality in the free agent market has slapped him some...in the wallet. — bearsfriend
- Ruben shouldn`t give into Rollin`s demands.30 mil for 3 years with 2.5 mil buyout.I`m afraid if the Phillies sign Jimmy for less than he wants you will have a unhappy player with an attitude problem.If he doesn`t like the offer go with Galvis and Valdez.— penn state man
- an attitude problem? you mean it could get worse? — coloradoeagle
- I agree COMPLETELY with zwarte piet. Rollins in too old, does not hustle, has a bad attitude, is always hurt and is not worth anywhere close to what he is asking. And he should NEVER bat lead off.— chucksf
