Clifton PHIfer Lee
Sometimes the Chuckster is right.
Clifton Phifer left a lot of money on the table to re-join the Phils. 5x ~$20MM contract to wear maroon again.
over 1 year ago
JulioBernazard
81 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Like it, mostly because it stiffs the Yankees…it should also be noted that jay was right as well in regards to the whole dialogue of players taking the biggest contract under union/agent pressure
Should have written about this earlier today when it would have seemed prophetic, but … the interesting thing is that despite the Yankees’ immense resources, the Phillies are in the better competitive situation for the next 3-5 years. They face the Mets, not the Red Sox, and the Red Sox are building a 100-win team. The Yankees rotation is a mess that isn’t quite fixed by adding Cliff Lee, while the Phillies have one of the best rotations even without Lee. Rays vs. Marlins, that’s a wash. The Phillies are simply the better organization right now.
by Jay on Dec 14, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s the same amount per year as the other offers (23 million) but yes he did take less years.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
That is one hell of a starting rotation.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Dec 14, 2010 1:20 AM EST reply actions
We’ll find out in a week that he took less because he has a Versus TV deal lined up for “The CP.Oswalt Show”
HOW ARE THE FOUR OF THEM GOING TO COEXIST?
Moved from swan pool terrace (swan) to fresh restaurant (dolphin).
by westbrook on Dec 14, 2010 1:29 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Phillies, Red Sox, Yankees.
I’m bored. This is boring.
by xrickx on Dec 14, 2010 1:50 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Seeing the Yanks rebuffed is fresh and interesting.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 14, 2010 8:09 AM EST up reply actions
It’s a pretty good deal for him. He can take public transit to the ballpark any day he likes, and he doesn’t have to play in New York.
Hmm. Guess not.
In the new Geico commercial, Marte sings "Let me be myself" on Wedge's front lawn (with the cavemen).
by V-Mart Shopper on Dec 14, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
I’m eagerly awaiting the typical Yankees panic move where they sign Pavano to a 60 million dollar deal and sell the farm for Greinke.
I’ve heard many reports that the Yankees won’t go after Grienke because they don’t think he would cope well with all the pressure of playing in New York with his history of depression and social anxiety.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 14, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
Of course, and that’s true about every “report” we hear from writers and reporters concerning possibly trades and signings and other such topics so I thought it was obvious.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 14, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
No. There is a difference between a report and unsourced speculation. Most of the “reports” you’re citing are no different than you or me just writing it off the top of our heads. That’s not a report.
The possibility of trading for Kansas City Royals ace Zack Greinke has been discussed, although one of the Yankees insiders said it was highly unlikely the team would risk trading any of their high-level prospects for a pitcher with a well-documented history of social anxiety disorders.
It is, frankly, unlikely that any club “will risk trading any of their high-level prospects for a pitcher with a well-documented history of social anxiety disorders.” The club that does is not going to be one known for prudence in such matters.
In theory, yes. But I suspect this is just spin that came after it became clear Greinke wasn’t going to pitch in the Bronx. I don’t know where this “well-documented history of social anxiety disorders” stuff comes from. He missed a lot of time a few years ago, but it seems to be well under control now.
But it seems like it’s hauled out at every opportunity. He has those mental issues, of course. If it’s history it’s in the past, yet it is treated as an issue today. I suspect he doesn’t feel comfortable playing in certain cities, and this is not prima facie evidence of a mental disorder.
I think we are mainly talking about his market value, however, and not his actual mental state. I think even you would agree it’s a risk factor that would have to show up on an actuarial chart at least in some small way. Question is, how do the 29 GMs feel about it? How deep are all the stigmas about mental illness in that specific, tiny population? And who worries about being the GM who trades away the farm for a guy with “a history” who then melts down?
You’re probably right—there must be an actuarial risk attached. But there is also a prurience attached to it, a most likely unjustified stigma that media can’t stop from repeating. Obviously, I don’t know the details of his case, but I’d bet he has a better chance at having a significant future than Jim Eisenreich did. But he’ll always be branded as mental, which is unfair.
The real comp isn’t a guy like Eisenreich, it’s Cliff Lee. If Greinke sustains/rebounds over the next two seasons, we’ll see if he gets nine-figure offers.
The reports I’ve heard were people saying they talked to someone in the Yankees organization. Now, I know that doesn’t mean it’s authentic, but it’s certainly more than just someone blogging at home.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 14, 2010 11:02 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think Chuck was right. The argument always seemed to hinge on a hometown discount. This is Lee taking marginally less to go to a more competitive situation.
by afh4 on Dec 14, 2010 8:12 AM EST via mobile reply actions
I disagree. The discount wasn’t in the money, it was in the years. That’s huge.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 14, 2010 9:41 AM EST up reply actions
I was floored by Halladay’s as well. So yeah, maybe it’s me.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Dec 14, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
Have to disagree. Leaving $30 million on the table is leaving $30 million on the table.
The Phillies are in a better competitive situation, but it’s not a massive difference.
How much did Halladay leave on the table? How about Roy Oswalt?
Is this really all that exceptional?
I think Halladay and Lee are exceptional in that they left money on the table to GO to a specific team rather than to stay with their current organization, teammates and fans. Oswalt, Zambrano and many others have left plenty of money on the table to extend their careers with their current teams, but this is different.
I think there can be almost no doubt that Halladay would have gotten offered at least $160 million. He left $100 million on the table in my view.
But Lee, because of the way the teams he’d played for had moved him like a hot potatoe, never had a chance to do what Oswalt and Zambrano did. I mean, isn’t this the deal Lee would’ve given Philadelphia if he’d just stayed?
Probably, but then Philly wouldn’t recieve all those shiny new minor leaguers in the Mariners deal.
Our best players wear suits.
Those guys stunk. And it cost Philly a bunch of money, more than likely.
by afh4 on Dec 14, 2010 9:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Perhaps Lee would have given Philly the same deal, or even better, but even that would be unusual (the under-market part) as he’d only just arrived.
Regardless, he was not re-upping with his longtime club. He was returning to a club where he once spent three months. Do you really not see the distinction?
The difference is obvious but Lee is so unusual in the extreme movement he’s undergone. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that if you’ve never had a hometime club seriously approach you, is it so odd to invent one?
What’s stranger, to me, is why he insisted on bringing his talents to market at all.
by afh4 on Dec 14, 2010 11:27 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don’t understand. As opposed to doing what?
And yes, as unique as Lee’s two-year journey has been, I still say it’s entirely odd to invent a hometown club.
As opposed to getting this kind of deal with Philadelphia or Texas without hitting FA. Maybe this sort of deal wasn’t on the table.
Philadelphia essentially got a better offer from Halladay and decided they couldn’t wait to see how the Lee negotiations turned out.
He was only with Texas for three months, and I think you would find that for a star player to re-up in the final three months of his contract is pretty unusual — even if he wasn’t just traded.
I think you’re also overlooking that he did make all the teams set a market for him, even if he didn’t take the top offer. He gets Philly to 120M by driving the Rangers to six years and almost seven.
Don’t think I was arguing for a “home town discount”. My point was this: Cliff Lee – for a number of reasons – would never sign with the Yankees. I figured it’d be the Rangers because 1) they just got a huge influx of TV money 2) it was closest to the Lee family home 3) the Rangers look like they’ll be competitive for awhile. But the Phillies? Why would they go out and sign a FA for a hunnert plus megabucks after they traded him for a bag of beans? Gotta admit I never saw that part comin’.
And if there’s anything to learn from this little bit of drama it’s this: never let you’re loutish fans near a potential free agent’ family. It can come back to haunt you.
Our best players wear suits.
There’s a pretty good chance, actually, that the Rangers will not be perennial contenders, but more like the small-market club that gets a nice shot once in a while. It’s unusually shrewd for a player to have that kind of insight, or for his agent to care.
While we think of them as a small-market club, there is a lot of money to be taken advantage of there. I think there is some potential for them to operate more like the big boys.
Like San Francisco or the White Sox. Like the Indians could have been if the Westbrook and Hafner contracts didn’t kill them.
The Giants were 23 games under .500 for the five seasons prior to this one. They finished in 3rd place three times, in 4th once and in 5th once.
The White Sox have been a few games over .500, but they’ve finished in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd again and 4th in the past five seasons. In a relatively weak division, they haven’t broken 90 wins since 2005.
So honestly, what the hell are you talking about?
Spending. I didn’t say the White Sox and Giants spent smartly. But if a team with a pretty smart management could consistently have a payroll around 10th, like the Rangers could do, that’s going to produce results better than a nice shot once in a while.
How convoluted are we to enjoy that Lee left that much money on the table simply because we hate the Yankees? And that he signed with a different higher payroll team only adds to our sense of despair over the plight of all things MLB.
Ye damned whale!
Yeah, I don’t find this fun or exciting.
I bet Halladay’s pissed.
by afh4 on Dec 14, 2010 8:25 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Wrestling with Cholly in the dugout must be worth quite a bit to The Phifer.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 14, 2010 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
Five years for $107.5m, with a $12.5m sixth-year buyout and a $27.5m sixth-year vesting option
So that is really a 5-year $120m deal. And that 6th year option is really $15m.
So I guess, per that LGT tweet, how much would the expected returns differ between Greinke and Carmona and should we try and take advantage?
It only takes one bidder to have a sweet deal, but there are reportedly a few interesting arms available that compare to or trump Carmona in reality or perception (Greinke, Garza, Shields).
The Yankees aren’t going to deal Hughes to get a pitcher, not one like Carmona at least. And even then, Hughes is himself three years from free agency, so it would only provide Cleveland with a little bit of cost savings and it would require Cleveland and New York to believe they are getting back the better pitcher.
Carmona’s GB-ways fit in Texas, but is Derek Holland worth the risk as a cernterpiece? Martin Perez?
This kind of article is why I hate the Yankees, even though the Yankees don’t have anything to do with writing it.


















