Brotherly Bullets: Qualls, Rollins, EJax

It’s been a while since our last installment of the Brotherly Bullets, but this week was rather eventful, and there are a number of quick-hit type items to discuss. Here we’ll look at the peculiar signing of Chad Qualls, the final details on Jimmy Rollins‘s new contract and the Nationals deal with Edwin Jackson.

Qualls: 1-yr, $1.15 Million – Necessary?
I wrote on Wednesday, over at Fangraphs, that signing Qualls was unnecessary for the Phillies. The bullpen was already decent and it was the least relied upon relief corps in the majors last season. With Halladay, Lee and Hamels in the rotation it’s unlikely that the Phillies relievers will see all that much action again.

And while $1.15 million isn’t exactly an exorbitant salary, it’s three times what one of Michael Schwimer, Justin De Fratus or Philippe Aumont would make. The Phillies have several young relief pitching prospects all worthy of an extended look, and after witnessing what Michael Stutes did last season — at the league minimum — one might think the Phillies would try their hand with another prospect this season.

They might, but unfortunately it seems like the Stutes role is the one up for grabs, as the Phillies will seemingly auction off the Stutes and Herndon roles from last season to the potential lame ducks and the prospect trio mentioned above, not to mention Dave Bush and David Purcey. Or, the more likely scenario is that the team reserves one spot for all of those pitchers.

As it currently stands, the bullpen consists of Papelbon, Contreras, Qualls, Bastardo, Willis and Kendrick. The Phillies aren’t going to carry eight relievers with this rotation and a need for more bench players. This isn’t to say that Stutes was automatically deserving of a spot, or that three of the aforementioned prospects should have made the team. Rather, it just seems strange for a team to spend above the league minimum at a number of spots when a) there was no such need, and b) the prospects have just as much of a shot at succeeding given the volatility of reliever performance over small samples.

Qualls is a solid reliever, and is a great insurance policy if Contreras gets hurt. And maybe that’s the crux of the matter: Contreras can’t be relied upon and it was silly to guarantee him two years to begin with. In that guise, signing Qualls makes some sense, as he can setup for Papelbon. If Contreras is healthy, however, a couple of those reliever prospects will pitch on the farm for another season. Those arguing the points above are correct, however, for a team built like the Phillies, especially after what everyone saw last year from Bastardo and Stutes, having that insurance isn’t a huge deal.

Let’s just hope that the $1.15 million policy in the form of Qualls doesn’t hamper payroll flexibility when the team needs to make a move near the deadline.

Rollins’s Options and the Marketing of Deals
According to Jim Salisbury, Jimmy’s 2015 option for $11 million will vest if he makes 600 plate appearances in 2014, or if he combines for 1100 PAs over 2013-14. At the time of the deal, Rollins called the options ‘easy vests’ though the specific terms were undisclosed. He was correct, as his deal easily becomes four years and $44 million if he plays 120-130 games in 2014 or averages around 100-110 over 2013-14.

Rollins only played in 88 games in 2010, tallying 394 plate appearances, but has easily surpassed 600 in every year of his career. The Phillies likely explored his detailed medical history before finalizing the deal and have confidence that his health has returned. But the vests aren’t as interesting to me as the overall marketing of the deal.

Back when it was announced, most fans and analysts loved the three year, $33 million commitment. Jimmy isn’t about to turn into a pumpkin, and if the team wasn’t going to commit big bucks to Jose Reyes, it made more sense to sign Rollins to that deal than to hand over the reigns to Freddy Galvis or a stopgap like Rafael Furcal.

Part of the reason the deal was viewed in that light was the relatively minimal commitment of three years for a player entering his age-33 season. Yet it’s unclear how everyone would have reacted if the options were foregone and the Phillies simply announced a 4/$44 contract. Maybe everyone reacts the same way, or maybe the simple illusion of the non-guaranteed fourth year was enough to make everyone happy.

Obviously, there is a benefit to the team in including the vesting options from a worst-case standpoint, but it’s interesting to wonder how we would have handled the Rollins deal if it was 4/$44 from the start and not 3/$33 with easy options that nobody learns about until nobody cares about contracts and can’t wait for Ps and Cs to report.

Edwin Jackson Signs With Nationals
Finally…. after what felt like six years… Edwin Jackson has signed a major league contract. The Nationals inked Jackson to a one year deal worth between $8-$12 million. That range is appropriate for him, as he has pitched consistently well over the last few seasons but is still viewed as a somewhat volatile performer given his trouble developing throughout his early years in the majors.

At 28 years old, the one-year deal is effectively a pillow contract, as he’ll once again hit free agency next season in the hopes of signing a longer-term deal. With the potential for Cole Hamels, Zack Greinke and Matt Cain to hit the market as well, color me skeptical that Jackson will get that big-time extension.

The deal makes sense for him, but does it make any sense for the Nationals? I’ve made it clear that I view the Nats as wild card sleepers, especially if a second wild card is added. Not signing Prince Fielder hurt their chances of seriously, seriously contending this year, but there is still a lot to like about the team.

Jackson improves the rotation, which is now pretty damn good: Strasburg, Zimmermann, Gio, Jackson and either Lannan or Wang. He might not be the difference between making and missing the playoffs, but he was yet another example of the Nationals quietly improving their roster in a significant fashion. With the potential for two wild card teams this season, he was certainly worth the $8-$12 million commitment.

One year deals are rarely bad (even the Qualls deal was good, albeit unnecessary) though it’s easy to see how many would view this deal as strange for the Nationals. Why sign Jackson for just one season, especially if there is the possibility of finishing 77-85?

That’s a valid question, but the pursuit of Jackson, and Oswalt to an extent, signals that the Nats truly think they can contend for a playoff berth this season. And if they feel that way, getting a solid #2/#3 SP for a minimal commitment and a reasonable salary is a very prudent course of action.

Question of the Day: Given his continually decreasing asking price, should the Phillies consider Roy Oswalt?