Jump to content

Did the Phillies overpay for Hamels


Greg

Recommended Posts

Yea that kind of money is just retarded but in all fairness I think he would have easily gotten that much or more on the open market. Its a good deal for both sides prob. Likely a little more than Philly would have wanted and likely a little less than Hamels could got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top talent in baseball is always going to be overpaid slightly especially in free agency, and Hamels was months from hitting the open market where he'd of gotten a huge payday. Every off season the top tier free agents sign ridiculous contracts most more than the ones the offseason before. Its just the way the game is and you have to hit on your free agent acquisitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably, but PHI seems to have decided that their window is still open for another year or two. I tend to think it's over, but this may be a better option than selling off all the overpaid players they have in the hopes that they'll get something decent......they probably wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of "overpaying" really only applies to the owners or if there's a salary cap. As fans in an uncapped league, it's really all about how much the owner is willing to spend, and you can't assume that just because the payroll is high that the money will dry up, or that just because the team saved money on some players that the payroll will be replaced. There are teams with low payrolls out there that aren't winning where the owner is just pocketing the profit. As fans, you should care more about the player that you're getting or not getting, and less about how much it cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of "overpaying" really only applies to the owners or if there's a salary cap. As fans in an uncapped league, it's really all about how much the owner is willing to spend, and you can't assume that just because the payroll is high that the money will dry up, or that just because the team saved money on some players that the payroll will be replaced. There are teams with low payrolls out there that aren't winning where the owner is just pocketing the profit. As fans, you should care more about the player that you're getting or not getting, and less about how much it cost.

Sure, there are always exceptions, but the majority of payrolls will be dictated by revenue and not necessarily the depth of the owner's pocket. It's really more about the efficiency of tying up a large percent of the available budget in a certain player.

EDIT: With this contract, the Phillies will have ~110M (~65% of their budget) tied up into their top 5 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of "overpaying" really only applies to the owners or if there's a salary cap. As fans in an uncapped league, it's really all about how much the owner is willing to spend, and you can't assume that just because the payroll is high that the money will dry up, or that just because the team saved money on some players that the payroll will be replaced. There are teams with low payrolls out there that aren't winning where the owner is just pocketing the profit. As fans, you should care more about the player that you're getting or not getting, and less about how much it cost.

Yeah, I agree with this and never understood all the irritation people have with how much money a team pays for a player...maybe if you know your owner (cough, PA, cough cough) is the type to spend money on only one big name guy and then sit back and wait for him to win the World Series, then I can see frustration from the fans if the player isn't going to make the team a serious contender simply by being on the team...or maybe in the NFL and other situations where there is a clear cap...

But if we had signed Pujols or some other big named player that would make us a contender almost all by themselves assuming we acquired the rest of the right pieces (not necessarily stars) to put around him, I am sure a lot of people would have complained about it. I don't necessarily feel this way, at least not with who/what we have on the roster currently. I think this team just needs a superstar, either with the bat or on the mount as an ace, to be viewed in an entirely different light (i.e. serious contender vs. hanging around by lucky, non-sustainable play/circumstances).

Then again, it would have to be a real superstar, not necessarily the best option in FA in a given year...because that is what Miguel Tejada was...he wasn't a Pujols or Halladay type acquisition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for giggles, I calculated out 24M divided by 210 innings (Hamels has averaged about 205 over the last 4 years) and came up with $114, 285 per inning.

Great work if you can get it! :D

And looking at his stats, Hamels averages 6.5 innings per start over his career. If you figure he throws about 14 pitches per inning, that equals about 91 pitches per outing, and using your 210 innings example puts him at 2,940 pitches per season. So if he makes $114,285 per inning, that means he makes about $8,163.21 per pitch. I would probably take that...I should start charging my work a certain amount for every key I punch on my keyboard here at work. I would be quite wealthy as I spend all day on the computer managing a website and writing press releases :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...