Why the Phillies probably won't sign Josh Hamilton, and why that probably is a good thing
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.
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.
- Best post I've ever read here. I think that Hamilton is on the phone at this moment with his mentor Young and is being convinced that the Phillies have a shot at the World Series this year. Amaro is good at getting these kind of deals done.
From what I am able to glean from the various media sources available, methinks Texas is after Stanton now and will go hard in that direction.
Welcome to Philadelphia Josh Hamilton.— World 
Comment removed.- Comment removed.
Cheese, what you are missing is that the Giants have won 2 out of three of the last WS based on pitching and bottom feeding with less than what the Phils are willing to spend which seems to be the luxury limit. Given the way huge contracts and players have been moving of late an argument could be made the Phils could have dealt Howard, Utley, Rollins or any Pitcher including Doc regardless of their numbers. If Bostons junk and to some lesser extent Miami's bad signings can be moved why not the Phillies. If they continue being willing to spend they surely could win like the Giants have or even the Cards and Braves with their payroll limits. Can't the Phils do the same type of dealing, I think so, but they have to be more business based instead of basing decisions on hometown favorites and fantasy attributes like Jimmy's "Drive" and Ryans "Big Smile" and Chase's "True Grit". It is not the money or dead money but rather the mindset that makes your scenario the only possible and limited outcome.— DUDESKINS- I look at it the exact opposite way, it would make more sense for the Phillies to go to 4 years and then have Howard and Hamilton's deals end at the same time and you take 50 million off teh books just like that and know that you have 4 that window.— mdb20
- 3 years, $80 million, North Philly crack? He'd be crazy to turn down that deal!— pic man
- Me, I think this is a whole lot of hot air and bs for a dreary December day with no hockey.— PhillySubsMac
- Hamilton's definitely signing here. He heard we have a giant bell with crack in it.— Edward Creed
- Howard is already a broken down player.— Borkey
- I actually agree with Murphy. 3 years $80M is a fair offer for Hamilton. I wouldn't go any longer, but perhaps higher in dollars if the last year includes a buyout option. Taking on Hamilton is a risk, there's no doubt about it. Why do you think the Rangers had to celebrate in the locker room with ginger ale? The Phillies will need to provide a supportive environment which I'm sure they will. Having Young on board is a plus in this regard. I think it's reasonable to assume Amaro has offered Hamilton's camp this figure and is now waiting to see what they do. Hamilton is waiting to see if there's anything else out there that is better, and I don't think there is, truthfully. Maybe someone will go to 4 years but that's it. If Hamilton resigns with the Rangers, Cody Ross will be the next Amaro signing and then bullpen help. Personally, I think Brett Myers is an interesting option for an 8th inning guy. Projecting an opening day lineup that includes Hamilton gets VERY interesting. Do you put Howard in the four hole, or Hamilton?? Great problem to have if you're Manuel.
1) Revere
2) Utley
3) Young
4) Hamilton
5) Howard
6) Rollins
7) Ruf/Mayberry/Brown
8) Kratz
9) Hamels— Sam Crow - What does this guy Murphy bring to the sports table.....am I missing something ?????— d1955h
- perfect reply!! — advantasux
- The heading of the article suggested that Hamilton signed elsewhere or turned them down; instead it is just David Murphy's viewpoint - I would take the chance if the Phillies can get it done.— Marie Elena
- agreed 100% with all written here — advantasux
- My advice; don't do anything. No more trades, no more free agent signing. I'm not happy with acquiring Young and Revere. Play Frandsen, play Brown, play Galvis. Bring up those supposed live arms from the farm. Let's find out what we got.— john blatnik
