Why the Phillies probably won't sign Josh Hamilton, and why that probably is a good thing
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Why the Phillies probably won't sign Josh Hamilton, and why that probably is a good thing
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
We'll start with the caveats. The Phillies could have far more cash at their disposal than they are letting on. They could have an ownership group that is willing to risk four or five years on Josh Hamilton. They could be trigger-happy. Or the Rangers could just be claiming interest in retaining Hamilton out of politeness. But absent a significant extenuating circumstance, I simply cannot envision a scenario in which Hamilton signing with the Phillies makes sense.
Yesterday, Sports Radio 610 WIP reported that the Phillies have made the free agent slugger a three-year, $80 million offer. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of that information. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
What doesn't make sense is why the Rangers would not match that offer. The conventional wisdom at the winter meetings last week was that both sides would like their partnership to continue. Early in the free agent signing period, various national reports cited anonymous sources saying that Hamilton was looking for a contract of six or seven years, which led to the speculation that the Rangers might wave goodbye to their star slugger. But if Hamilton's best offer really is for three years at about $27 million per year, and if the Rangers really do want to retain him, then I have to think that they will.
My sense is that the Phillies made their best offer and put it on the table just in case the Rangers really have decided to move on from the player who helped turn their franchise around. Maybe this really does turn out to be the start of a negotiation, but it would require a huge risk on the Phillies part.
Here's why:
The Phillies know that the window for winning a World Series with this current crop of players is no longer than three years. Even with a player like Hamilton, it might only be two years. Between the money they saved last season, the new national television money they will receive, the increase in the luxury tax threshold next season, and the potential of a new local television deal within the next few years, the Phillies have money to spend.
So why not engage in bidding war for Hamilton? To me, 2016 is the key year. That would be the fourth year of any Hamilton deal. It's also the last year of Ryan Howard's contract. They'll be on the hook for $25 million in salary. Howard will be 36 years old. Hamilton will be 35 years old. Plenty of players have remained productive through those ages. But plenty have broken down. And what happens if both players' production suffers a significant drop off between now and then? You can certainly envision a situation in which the Phillies are paying $50 million to two broken down players. And that would be an excellent way to undermine whatever new core of players the Phillies have developed by that point in time.
The worst case scenario is for them to develop a new batch of players and then look at their payroll and say, "Gee, if only we had $50 million to spend on a couple of pieces that we think can push us over the top." Actually, the worst case scenario would involve a Cole Hamels breakdown too, leaving them with $73 million in dead money.
A three-year deal would make sense because the Phillies are built to win now. And if signing Josh Hamilton doesn't result in a World Series, well, they probably weren't going to win one anyway. But in a multi-year deal, every extra year carries with it the risk of disrupting the next window of contention. Which is why I think three years is likely the maximum the Phillies would go. And I'm not convinced that three years will get it done.
But again, I could be missing something.
- Cuddy is the answer and Rockies would love young catcher prospect Pettibone and Galvis
— NewMick314 - If Phils do sign Hamilton they better provide an armed guard 24/7 to keep him away from North Philly!— jmmdk5
- Here's a big NO vote for Soriano. Ugh.— Breaking Bad
- funny that the author finally admits that the deal that will pay Ryan Howard $25MM at age 36 was a very risky move. With Howard's production going down each season (yes, even prior to his Achilles injury, fanboys), that much seems to be a given. Why that has any significance for Hamilton going through the same thing at age 35 is beyond me for one major reason...Hamilton hasn't even begun to back-slide.
I say, do the deal!— advantasux - Howard is the 5th highest paid 1B in baseball today. Pujols' contract goes up to 25 million this season and by year 3 of Howard's contract, he will be in the middle of the pack with the likes of Carlos Pena and Kendrys Morales in terms of dollars. It's a somewhat risky contract, not extreme. I see you became a fan in 2008, welcome to baseball economics.
- @Silli, I was repeating/paraphrasing the author's assertion that a signing of Hamilton to an extended contract could double the risk already present with Howard when he hits age 36. Not that I disagree with him but, your beef is with the author, not me.
Also, not sure where the "I see you became a fan in 2008" stuff came from but I'd be happy if I had become one as opposed to fifty years prior (a fan since '59, first game in '60, a 10 - 6 loss to the Dodgers).— advantasux - I knew that "fifty years as a fan" stuff would get you. Thanks for taking it easy on us older guys, @Silli. — advantasux
- The Hamilton drug references are almost as funny as the Vick dog references.— Jerome99RIP
- And those using them are probably the same who complain the loudest when some outsider brings up the Philly/snowballs at Santa reference. — vessel
- We better do something, no one wants to admit we are getting older. Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, every year get older, it's not 2008. Why people think these guys can do what they did 5 years ago I have no idea— KDofNorthWales
- You're worried about 2016? Worry about 2013. A dollar now is better than a dollar tomorrow.— CoolZanna
- This is nuts. Who cares about the number of years? Sign him for 5, trade Howard and Hamilton after 3 years for prospects.
- Funny that you ragged on a guy for not understanding "baseball economics" and then follow it up with this statement. Even if the Phillies paid 90-95% of the remaining money on their respective deals, you aren't getting anything near an elite prospect for either of those guys in three years time. At best, you could bring in the 2016 version of the overhyped and head-scratchingly beloved Vance Worley. — le sigh
- SilBil,,,,they would be UNTRADEABLE after three years....duh ! — NewMick314
