Why the Phillies probably won't sign Josh Hamilton, and why that probably is a good thing
The latest Phillies and baseball news from Philly.com.
Why the Phillies probably won't sign Josh Hamilton, and why that probably is a good thing
David Murphy
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.
Instant offense and the offense we need RIGHT NOW— ghost of callison- EXACTLY!!!!! "The offense we need RIGHT NOW!"!
Why worry about 2016?
Hello, @ghost, thanks for the support last night, sorry I didn't get back on in time to join in.— advantasux - Anytime, my friend. Good to talk with you again. Let's hope Amaro gets this done.
- @ghost, I'm sitting here wondering two things:
1) where our friend @warbiscuit will come down on this topic
2) exactly what will @dogbiscuit find to bark about from the entries you and I posted,
I could actually hazard a guess about @war - he'll agree with us - but I can't for the life of me figure what will give @dog yet another reason to attack. But we both know it's coming!
How about you?— advantasux - @advantasux, dogdope lays in the weeds waiting for his chance to pounce on anything warbiscuit says and, if guys like you and I agree with warbiscuit we're marked men, especially when we attack dope boy's two BFFs: Amaro and Manuel. When dog dope accuses us as never having suggestions, he's basically calling himself out. I've never seen anything from him other than a slam directed toward warbiscuit, you, I, or anyone else that has the guts to speak the truth as we see it. He's like all the other kool aide drinkers in this town that are used to apologizing for failure and accepting mediocrity. He expects others to do the same, but I wasn't brought up to expect mediocrity, especially from a team with a 180 million a year payroll. Trust me, dog moron will be back, sooner rather than later.
- Sad fact is you guys never have a positive statement about any move, sign a free agent we paid too much, make a trade we're depleting the farm system, pick up a young player to play centerfield ( which btw none of us know how we'll he'll do or not do) and we complain the team is cheap. There is just no making some people happy unless we sign 24 all stars. Sad — DogBiscuitthedope
- you're right, @ghost, and as you and I would quickly attest, he is completely entitled to his own thoughts on the subject. But that's not what he wrote about...no mention of "Should we or shouldn't we sign Josh H." anywhere to be found in his post.
Instead, he bashes us for never having a positive statement about anything, including both signing certain free agents or making trades. Funny thing is, both you and I are firmly in the camp for Amaro to get Hamilton in here and we said as much, no? Oh well.
Changin gears a bit, and I hope @dog sheds some light on this but, I could have sworn he wrote a completely different post just minutes before this one, even angrier than this one, but, somehow it disappeared and he replaced it with this latest one. If true, I'd love to know how he did that. I hope he puts aside his differences with us to school me on that.— advantasux - Lol I wondered where the post went as well. Actually I wouldn't mind seeing Brown, Revere and Ruf in the OF, not ready to give up on Brown just yet. If Ruf is the real deal I like the idea of a young OF blended with the old IF. Would like to spend some $$ for solid setup guy. If they sign Hamilton I'm not hating it just wouldn't get into I bidding war for the guy
— DogBiscuitthedope - The jury is out on Ruf, but I like his upside. He's not a late bloomer, as he spent 4 yrs in college. I'm not sold on Brown, although like you, I'm not ready to give up on him unless trading him nets a solid bridge to Pap. I think the Revere signing, although he's no Upton, may work -- particularly if we are able to secure Hamilton in right field, since Revere's bat won't be as important with Hamilton on board. As others have said, his substance abuse problems (hopefully) are behind him. I think he'd welcome the change of scenery and he sure as h*ll will like the dimensions of our ball park.
- LOL - DoggyDope is looking forward to seeing Brown, Revere, and Ruf in the OF. That's comedy - as that would be the worst OF in baseball). Only one can catch. Only one can hit a HR (in the minors, at least). The one who can catch is just a singles hitter. Can't imagine a worse off-season (so far). The front office is conning the fan-base -- pretending to be in this for another WS. The fact that they still employ Rube-the-Boob and Uncle Charlie speaks volumes about the ownership group. They need to replace Smug Ruben ASAP. This isn't turning around until he is replaced.
— Copper34 - @cooper you should really try not to comment on things you know very little about, makes you sound like a moron. You know when Rube took over he won more games than the yr before 3 straight years, only folks that understand baseball know how hard that is. Even with last yr bad first half, tell me what team has won more games over the last 4 yrs? You're complaining about having a singles hitter who can hit 300 and play defense and your complaint is he can't hit hrs, hey dopey the Giants were last in the league in HRs last year, how did their year turn out? Again educate yourself as my dog knows more about baseball then you. Hey tell us genius what moves would you have made for CF and 3rd, please dazzle us with your baseball knowledge, please I need a good laugh. dope
— DogBiscuitthedope - Who is this "cooper" to whom Mr. Dope keeps referring? — Copper34
- Hamilton has not had a drug or alcohol suspension since he hit the big leagues. All of his problems were as a young minor leaguer. The drug addict angle is over done. I would be more leery of Prince Fielder who has had some real down years when he decides to get extra fat. He also had a father who one season hit 39 HR and woke up the next spring and couldn't lost all of his power...at age 32. That is what happens to fat, out of shape athletes.— UncleStosh
- If it's true the Phils offered Hamilton 3 years and $80 million, I'm not sure the Rangers will match the offer. Also, although Hamilton has reportedly told the Rangers he'd allow them to match his best offer, he may just go through the motions - and the Rangers may let him. For all anybody knows, the Rangers and Hamilton may have already parted ways in principle, and the Rangers may have agreed to review his best offer for no other reason than to help him get the best possible offer in free agency. Let's not forget the Rangers have the same ability to acquire free agents, like Swisher and Bourn, that the Phils do - and at a much lower salary than it would cost them to retain Hamilton, who didn't cost the Rangers more than $27 million last year, but only $13.75 million or roughly half that amount. For $27 million, the Rangers could acquire Swisher and Bourn. The Rangers may come back and match the $80 million and the Phils could counter with $81 million, a much rounder number. With this game of chicken, one team will flinch, and if that team is the Rangers, Hamilton will become a Phillie. A final point is that, just like the Phils, the Rangers have the ability to make a trade with the Marlins for Giancarlo Stanton. The Rangers have a lot of young prospects, like Profar and Olt, who have been coveted by most of baseball, and the Marlins could find Stanton worth the right package of prospects. What's more, the Marlins may be a lot more willing to trade Stanton to a different league than to trade him within their own league, especially their own division. I'd rather have Stanton than Hamilton right now, and maybe the Rangers feel the same way. So, let's not close the book on Hamilton before the last chapter has been read. That chapter is being written as we speak.— onthebucks
