Last week I asked if the Phillies should consider bringing Roy Oswalt back given his continually decreasing asking price. The responses both here and offline were similar: Blanton was still a major question mark because of his health, and Oswalt is better even when he isn’t healthy. The consensus agreed that the Phillies should consider him.
For the most part, I felt the same way. A team should always consider its options even if it doesn’t act in a specific manner. Considering Oswalt is a solid business practice. If things broke right, the Phillies would end up with another solid pitcher in the rotation. But a lot would have to break right to make his return worthwhile, so anything beyond merely considering his return doesn’t seem to make sense at this point.
Recent reports suggest that talks between both sides never got past the preliminary stage and his return to Philadelphia is unlikely. Ruben Amaro wasn’t bashful in suggesting that the Phillies have few resources remaining and a talented and crowded rotation to begin with.
He’s exactly right.
There is a major difference between spending money and allocating it properly. The rotation isn’t an area of concern this season and funneling in whatever resources remain isn’t very wise. Yes, Oswalt is better than Blanton, but the difference between the two, health permitting and at this stage of their careers, is far less clear.
The Phillies have immediate access to Blanton’s medical file, and had Oswalt’s file on record. While we can’t always blindly trust the team, this seems like one of the situations where the team isn’t letting on all that it knows about both players. Would it even prove shocking if Blanton pitches the whole season — like he usually does — and Oswalt misses 10-12 starts? Would it shock you if, at the end of the season, Blanton was more valuable in part due to his added playing time, and their numbers were very similar?
My tone should suggest that I wouldn’t be shocked if either scenario came to fruition, and for that matter I’m willing to accept the risks associated with Blanton. In my view, his risks are less significant than Oswalt’s. The two pitchers are connected, however, because in order to sign Oswalt the Phillies would have to find a trade partner for Blanton and hope that his potential new employer absorbed most of his remaining salary. And that’s the real kicker — any valuation of Oswalt with the Phillies in 2012 has to factor in the portion of Blanton’s salary that a trade partner wouldn’t absorb.
If Oswalt signs for one year and $7 million, and the Phillies are left with $4 million of Blanton’s 2012 salary, then Oswalt is effectively an $11 million pitcher. In most cases it’s tough to directly tie two players together like that when transactions occur, but it’s obvious in this case that the departure of one directly correlates to the signing of another.
In that guise, is Oswalt worth $11 million over one year, relative to what Blanton would have made? Maybe. But the Phillies don’t seem to think so and this is a case in which I’ll defer to their judgment on the matter.
For teams in the Phillies position it’s imperative to reduce risk by adding good players in spots occupied by potentially risky ones. I found the Chad Qualls deal fairly unnecessary but it did accomplish that goal. Working hard to find a trade partner for Blanton in order to sign Oswalt doesn’t move the needle much in that direction.
Overall team risk isn’t downsized at all, as in both cases there is the strong likelihood that Kyle Kendrick makes 14 starts this season. If the Phillies want to trade Blanton, so be it. If they are intent on signing Oswalt, then that’s their prerogative. But effectively swapping one for the other doesn’t accomplish much in their favor this season.
Agreed. Besides, I’m bullish on Blanton for this year, and I want to see him do well. He’s had an unlucky couple of seasons.
Hell, I wonder if Oswalt would be back next year if he does sign a one year contract elsewhere this year.
Also, as this is my first comment, I want to say thanks Eric and Corey for Brotherly Glove— your articles are always balanced, lucid, and informative. I’ve been coming here daily for Phillies discussion for a while now.
Eric, your point is well taken and your view is well put.
I just am not sold on Blanton remaining healthy this year, i’m not even particularly confident that he can make it through SPRING TRAINING off the DL. Arm problems are a HUGE red flag for pitchers, and Joey B may end up needing Tommy John sometime in the near future…at least judging by how things were sounding while he was out this past season. Obviously Roy Oswalt’s back problems are cause for considerable concern as well, but i’m less concerned than I would be if it was an arm problem.
A healthy Roy Oswalt I think is STILL able to look like the Roy Oswalt of old, but that’s depending on his health holding up. Anyway I still would like to see Roy brought back if it’s at all possible, especially if the front office has reason to believe that Joe’s not going to hold up. Trading Joe now would be a bad idea though, since the Phillies would have to eat the salary and get a nothing ‘prospect back…
Eric, I agree completely. And since the Phils already paid a 2m buy-out of Oswalt’s contract, isn’t the 11m, in reality 13m? Definitely not worth it.
The $2m b/o is irrelevant because it’s a sunk cost. The incremental spend to get Oswalt and dump Blanton is what is relevant to the argument.
It’s only a sunk cost if you have done the smart thing and moved on. Say you buy a stock for $15 and it’s value falls to $5, the smart thing to do is cut your losses and sell, not wait and hope for it to return to $15. That smart decision is by definition a “sunk cost”.
By bringing Oswalt back, it’s like buying back the same stock you just sold for $5 – at, I don’t know, say $10 or $12 – or well beyond the value you put on it when you made the sharp decision to sell it. (decided it was a sunk cost) Therefore it is absolutely relevant when factoring in the actual cost of his future services. And so I reiterate; it’s definitely not worth it.
If you want to use a stock analogy, that is the wrong one. The analogy would be more like paying $2 for call option with a strike price of $14. When the option expired, the stock was trading at $10 so you lost your $2. If the stock dropped to $7 and you thought it was a value, you would buy it regardless of whether or not you already lost the $2.
The problem with comparing the decision to purchase a stock with the decision to acquire a pitcher is that your portfolio does not have a limit on the number of holdings you can have in it whereas the Phillies can only have 25 men on their roster and should only have 5 starting pitchers among them. Therefore, if you still insist on including the sunk cost of the $2M into the equation, you should do so on the basis of how much you are going to pay that slot in your starting rotation. In other words, you are already paying $10.5 for that slot ($2M paid to Oswalt and $8.5M owed to Blanton) in 2012. Then, the question becomes – assuming that (a) someone will take Blanton and pay $4.5M of his salary and (b) you can get Oswalt for $7M – would you rather pay $13M for the slot and have Oswalt pitch or pay $10.5M for the slot and have Blanton pitch?
I stand corrected on the stock example, yours is much more on point.
However, you ended up saying the same thing I wrote in my original comment.
“Then, the question becomes – assuming that (a) someone will take Blanton and pay $4.5M of his salary and (b) you can get Oswalt for $7M – would you rather pay $13M for the slot and have Oswalt pitch or pay $10.5M for the slot and have Blanton pitch?”
But I was told that was irrelevant to the argument. I don’t think it is, so let me try again. I agree completely with Eric, except I think that it’s only a sunk cost if you move on from it. If you do not, iif you go back into the Oswalt business, it’s not and needs to be factored in. I’m glad it looks like RA Jr. will not make this mistake.
And beside that, who really knows which pitcher will be more effective after a year of injury. I’ve seen back injuries, and elbow injuries ruin careers, I’ve seen guys rebound as well. It’s nature, no one knows, certainly not Bill James, fans, or ZIPS. So why pay more than you have to for that type of uncertainty?
Now we agree on the issue at hand.
Lefty, I agree that nobody knows who is going to be injured, perform well, etc. My point is more that the upside on Oswalt is MUCH higher than the upside on Blanton. If you have to players that are coming off of an injury plagued season, and one is significantly more talented than the other, then I don’t see how it makes sense to believe that the player of lesser ability is going to perform better. Sure, you could get ‘lucky’ and have Oswalt go down to injury with Blanton staying healthy–in which case Blanton would provide more value, but there’s no real reason to think that’s any more likely than the opposite. And all things being equal Oswalt is a much better pitcher, and if they get a similar number of starts I’d be hugely surprised if Blanton preformed anywhere near the level of Oswalt.
Basically, in my opinion an $8.5mm Blanton + $2.5mm in roster flexibility < $11mm Oswalt, provided everyone stays healthy. I think Oswalt is more likely to provide $11mm in value (~2ish WAR) than you're likely to get from Blanton + whatever you can do with that spare $2.5mm.
Not to mention, it looks like the Phils are over the luxury tax threshold. Any incremental amount they’d have to take on, on account of signing Oswalt and trading Blanton, would be taxed at 20%.
Also, I don’t know if you need Oswalt. If you count on the Big 3 starting 96 games and the Phillies winning 2/3 of them, they have 64 wins there (FYI – the Phillies won 65 of their 95 starts last year). Worley is projecting to pitch .500 ball, and if they’d win 1/2 of his 32 starts, they’re up to 81 wins. The Phils won 7 of 15 starts KK made last year and Bill James projects 26 starts for Joe w/an 8-10 record. Regardless, if you project a slightly below .500 record in their starts, that’s another 14 wins. I think 95 is acceptable.
*correction – 94 wins
I don’t believe that they’ve exceeded the luxury tax yet. The threshhold is $178M and they’re at a little under $168M in cumulative AAV for the 20 players whose contracts are already set. That leaves another $2M to $3M cumulatively for the likes of Worley, Mayberry, Bastardo and whomever else makes the roster. Also, the penalty for exceeding the limit is 42% in 2012.
Blanton didn’t pitch bad last year when he came back. He was on the post-season roster, remember? Oswalt, even when Chooch confirmed he was throwing well was still getting killed. I think Blanton has a bit more “grit” than Oswalt. Grit and guts win when skill and talent can’t.
I think it makes more sense to look at the net cost of swapping the pitchers.
If you keep Blanton on the roster, you’re paying him ~$8.5mm. That’s $8.5 which is going to be spent on the 4th SP position for this year.
Moving him and signing Oswalt to a hypothetical $7mm Oswalt is actually a net savings for that position.
Again using the example proffered above, being forced to pick up $4mm of Blanton’s deal in order to move him essentially means that your 4th SP position has gone from a cost of $8.5mm to $11mm, for a net cost of $2.5mm. If you look at the deal in that light the question becomes, does Oswalt provide $2.5mm more in value than Blanton would?
I tend to to think yes, his ceiling is much higher than Blanton’s, and it seems most statistical projections (ZiPS, Bill James, etc) seem to think Oswalt has the better year. I tend to agree and if you can get him for something like the hypotheticals here I think it’s potentially worth doing.
You have to look beyond the Oswalt for an extra $2.5M > Blanton comparison and look at the potential opportunity cost of that extra $2.5M. Assuming that the Phils will not exceed the luxury tax threshold this year, and I believe that there is an incentive in the CBA to be under it this year, spending that extra $2.5 on Roy would reduce the amount that Phils’ payroll is under the limit from ~$7M to ~$4.5M. While this might turn out to be irrelevant, it might also limit them at the trade deadline if they try to acquire a player. If they get a high priced player, they would have to force the other team to pay more of the acquired player’s salary, probably at the cost of a better prospect. Otherwise, they might be limited in the the type of player that they can target. Of course, we can only use hypotheticals to discuss what might happen during the season, but right now, the decision is Blanton and an extra $2.5M to potentially use before meeting the threshold vs. Oswalt. Since both of these guys are injury risks, I’d rather have Blanton and the cushion.
As as said in response to Lefty above, my basic premise is that you’re more likely to get the ~2.2ish WAR out of Oswalt than you are out of Blanton + whatever is made of the $2.5mm in roster space.
Further, I’m not sure I want Ruben to have a lot of salary flexibility if that means he’s going to go out and pick up a high-cost, high-priced player at the deadline like he did last year. That move was an unnecessary overpay, and if he’s prevented from making more such moves, well, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
EricL,
Weren’t you on the other side of this debate just last week? Anyway, you make a compelling point about higher upside value, I don’t disagree with your comparative player eval. I just disagree with the value of the “possible” upside. I’m not a big Joe Blanton fan, but he is a serviceable 4 or 5 if healthy. It’s a gamble one way or the other, I just tend to choose the least costly path and take my chances.
Well, I’m not really on either side, because I don’t know what the numbers are going to be.
If you have to pay something like $6mm of Blanton’s salary and sign Oswalt for $11mm, then I would hate it, but if you have to pay something like $2mm of Blanton and sign Oswalt for like $6mm I’d love it. There’s sort of a sliding scale here, but in general I would prefer Oswalt over Blanton provided the price is similar.
We try to cultivate a certain type of atmosphere in our comments and yours was unnecessarily argumentative, had nothing to do with the article, was combative for no apparent reason and didn’t advance any conversation anywhere. You were discussing issues tackled in past articles that are best-suited for those articles, not specifically this one. And I believe it’s spelled “speech”.
I’m not suggesting there’s a singular factor that swings a decision like this to a team’s thinking, but one way to look at it is in line with this phrase that became popular in the last few years. That’d be built to win in October. If you think Blanton, or Worley give you as good a chance, or better to win a Game 4 of a playoff as Oswalt, then consideration of other factors gives them an edge in that aspect of an overall evalation. I’m not taking playoff participation for granted here, just that it’s pretty obvious that this club’s goal is not just winning a division. And I’d feel more comfortable with Oswalt in a Game 4 of a playoff than the either of the other 2 in a pretty general sense.
Ran across an interesting historic tidbit today. In the 51 years of the expansion era, 31 teams have won 102 or more games. How many of those won more the following year? ONE. The 2002 A’s. Not to lose sight of the more important winning a World Series goal, but that’d be a pretty cool accomplishment to nail, which would coincide with a 6th straight year of more wins than the last, and very likely a 6th straight East title. That A’s club, disimilarly, averaged 28.6 years of age, similarly, was led by great starting pitching with Mulder, Hudson, and Zito.
Anything that can handicap Ruben from making a stupid deadline trade is fine with me, since he’s already pillaged the farm system long enough as far as i’m concerned. My bigger concern is about extending Hamels, and I have already resigned myself to him being gone in free agency…which makes me furious thinking about it.
I hear what you’re saying, but the flip side of the argument is, if Ruben decides he has to have a player from a dumping team, the less salary the Phils take on, the better the prospect(s) that they’ll have to give up. As far as Hamels is concerned, I’m not so sure that they won’t re-sign him once the season starts. I think they are reluctant to go over the luxury tax in consecutive years because (I believe) the tax rate increases for repeat offenders. However, I would not be surprised if their strategy is to stay under the tax ($178M threshold) this year, exceed it next year ($178M threshold again), then get under it for 2014 and beyond when the threshold rises to $189M. If my belief – or maybe it is just my hope – is correct, they can give Hamels an extension after the season begins without having any of the extension impact their 2012 salaries for luxury tax purposes.
I guess we’re going to go circles on the Hamels subject ad infanitum in the forseeable future at a minimum. Might as well take a deep breath and get ready foir the stamina test. I recently ran across this thought on a Cubs blog…
“Hamels, who recently agreed to a one-year, $15 million deal with the Phillies, buying out his last year of arbitration, is likely to be a free agent after 2012. The Phillies have discussed an extension with him, but it doesn’t appear that it will happen.”
It really pissed me off. And so does any thought so conclusive at this point about the final result of where this is headed. It’s NOT a good sign that this is still on the shelf, and health willing, it’s going to be significantly more expensive than some 11 months ago when the subject was covered more than extensively on this blog (approximate conclusion…Verlander/Weaver deals of 5/85 were a decent standard from which to opine.
Personally, I don’t know where the correlation comes from the timing of the Red Sox/A Gon extension of a year ago that was interpreted as a lux tax avoidance. That only speaks to 1 side of the 2 way negotiating street. Adrian had already gone through a move, and was maybe more primed to sign. In this case, I think this is simply a matter of 2 parties that are apart, or far apart on a deal. The player has a pitching mate chirping in his ear who went as far as the free agent course, and can pass on from actual experience that you can always keep the door open here as his voice of experience. That’s a nice safety net to fall back on when there is no reason to believe he won’t get closer to Sabathia length and dollars from a market playout. Why should he settle for less now? Scott Proefrock was right when he said “there’s plenty of time”…the problem is that’s true from Hamels vantage point. The Phils, already sporting a payroll of some 40% higher than the 2009 defending champion number of 113 mil maintain every legitimate right to decide where the ladder of expense stops. I’m sure the Phils aren’t blind to tax implications, but its a more fundamental decision of how much above the Halladay/Lee contracts do you want to go and still feel fiscally responsible. Packed houses do enable large spendings, but even that has a ceiling. When and if the Phils decide to max out an offer, THEN, Hamels faces the need to make a decision. And if they draw the line in the sand short of say 7 years, and 140 million, in a way, you have to tip your cap (not to say it’d be a cheerful result), and root/hope for the replacement. But this thing, to me, simplifies to do the Phillies want to take another financial plunge to the next level, and length plunge to the same plateau. Chances remain pretty good that they do. But it’s no lock. The only lock that is valid is the lock that should be applied to the door committing those of rushes to judgement on what they might think is a simple decision, spoiled by several years now of massive spending. Maybe they oughta be thankful for that, rather than disrespecting the massively expensive committment that is. I put the chances of Cole sticking at better than not. But that’s as definitive as I can get. The club could and should have wrapped this up a while ago, but they still do have time. Course that time may result in a 9-0 start by the end of May that adds fuel to the fire, but this isn’t over for the worst for quite soime time yet.
Being as he’s as buried as a ghost, comment number 26 in a several day old post seems a decent place to mention a name long removed from Phillie conciousness, Ross “I am Hip” Gload. I thought Raul deserved at least a rumor in the off season, and that’s gotten a little carried away, with Yankee observors way overstating “at least he can play the field.” Ahem.
Not the Raul I know. Not for more than a called strike. But Gload hasn’t gotten ANY mention as a candidate anywhere. And it’s not surprising, he’s really another in the long list of Amaro attackers who claim Ruben signs ‘em too long. But is Ross Gload done? or does he get a crack at some sort of a deal in the coming weeks? I’d say he’s probably finished, but maybe fringe types do get signed to deals even later than this. 8 pension qualifying years, and 7 million bucks earned into a not bad playing career, I’d assume Ross would like another job. But maybe someone can educate me on if that’s still a decent possibility. I’m having a hard time seeing it.