Cliff Lee signs with Phillies

[CubColtPacer]

So would I. The Cubs are past the glory years with lesser players than the Phillies have and a lesser payroll. If I had to build a team for 2013 and beyond though I'd much rather take the Cubs than the Phillies (assuming the Cubs can spend only 20-30 million less than the Phillies and not 50 million less).

 

This isn't Kansas City. Big boys don't get to take 2 years off and only build for the distant future.

 

Which is why I don't like where the Cubs are. And the point of my original comment was that the Phillies are going to have to take off multiple years soon enough and they really didn't have to. They could have had a great team now and been prepared for the future but they've utterly ruined that.

[SouthSideRyan]

i wonder what were the huge factors. a return to the nl? easiest path to playoffs (though rangers and yankees were pretty good bets)?

 

I don't think he wanted to be "the man" in Texas. I don't think he was ever comfortable with all the hero worship they placed on him.

 

What are you basing this on?

 

Thats been all of the talk here in Dallas this morning, but I think its mostly an excuse. They are also saying now they were not comfortable giving him all of that money too. He seemed to enjoy being the spotlight on the mound during the playoffs.

 

We didn't want him anyway! Besides, he wasn't Texas tough!!

[jersey cubs fan]

So would I. The Cubs are past the glory years with lesser players than the Phillies have and a lesser payroll. If I had to build a team for 2013 and beyond though I'd much rather take the Cubs than the Phillies (assuming the Cubs can spend only 20-30 million less than the Phillies and not 50 million less).

 

This isn't Kansas City. Big boys don't get to take 2 years off and only build for the distant future.

 

Which is why I don't like where the Cubs are. And the point of my original comment was that the Phillies are going to have to take off multiple years soon enough and they really didn't have to. They could have had a great team now and been prepared for the future but they've utterly ruined that.

 

That is an utterly ridiculous assumption to make years in advance. They are a successful big market team acting like a successful big market team.

[AI]

i wonder what were the huge factors. a return to the nl? easiest path to playoffs (though rangers and yankees were pretty good bets)?

 

I don't think he wanted to be "the man" in Texas. I don't think he was ever comfortable with all the hero worship they placed on him.

 

What are you basing this on?

 

Thats been all of the talk here in Dallas this morning, but I think its mostly an excuse. They are also saying now they were not comfortable giving him all of that money too. He seemed to enjoy being the spotlight on the mound during the playoffs.

 

We didn't want him anyway! Besides, he wasn't Texas tough!!

The discomfort was real. Ryan said it very plainly that six years made them uncomfortable, but they did it. To be sure, bitter, uneducated Rangers fans will throw vitriol Lee's way. But that doesn't mean that there is some relief that (1) it's over and they can move on, and (2) they didn't commit 140 million dollars to a guy that is 32 with some troubling signs of back issues.

 

All that being said, I really wish he had come back to Texas, but I respect the way the Rangers approached the situation and I think the long term future of the Rangers under this new ownership group is bright.

[Four and Twenty]

Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Hamels has the edge, but Lincecum, Cain, Sanchez, and Bumgarner is a damn good rotation, too.

 

NLCS rematch?

[CubColtPacer]

So would I. The Cubs are past the glory years with lesser players than the Phillies have and a lesser payroll. If I had to build a team for 2013 and beyond though I'd much rather take the Cubs than the Phillies (assuming the Cubs can spend only 20-30 million less than the Phillies and not 50 million less).

 

This isn't Kansas City. Big boys don't get to take 2 years off and only build for the distant future.

 

Which is why I don't like where the Cubs are. And the point of my original comment was that the Phillies are going to have to take off multiple years soon enough and they really didn't have to. They could have had a great team now and been prepared for the future but they've utterly ruined that.

 

That is an utterly ridiculous assumption to make years in advance. They are a successful big market team acting like a successful big market team.

 

Successful teams don't have an entire roster of 30+ year olds with no prospects to replace them while expanding the payroll to levels that might not be able to be sustained. That's irresponsible. You can't buy an entire team through free agency...even the Yankees have taken some effort to develop young players. The Phillies did when they originally developed Utley/Howard/Rollins/Vicotorino but that was a long time ago now.

[UMFan83]

Is is true that the rooftop across the street from Wrigley already added 5 years to the championship and pennant portions of the "AC" sign?

[davearm2]

Successful teams don't have an entire roster of 30+ year olds with no prospects to replace them while expanding the payroll to levels that might not be able to be sustained. That's irresponsible. You can't buy an entire team through free agency...even the Yankees have taken some effort to develop young players. The Phillies did when they originally developed Utley/Howard/Rollins/Vicotorino but that was a long time ago now.

The Yankees have been operating in this mode for years and years. They've been amongst the oldest teams in MLB for awhile now, with very little homegrown talent making an impact at the MLB level since the days of Jeter Posada and Rivera. And obviously their payroll has grown steadily even when that growth looked unsustainable.

 

The Phillies are now emulating them. There's no reason the Phils can't be successful with this approach, even with ~75% of the Yankees' payroll.

[CubColtPacer]

Successful teams don't have an entire roster of 30+ year olds with no prospects to replace them while expanding the payroll to levels that might not be able to be sustained. That's irresponsible. You can't buy an entire team through free agency...even the Yankees have taken some effort to develop young players. The Phillies did when they originally developed Utley/Howard/Rollins/Vicotorino but that was a long time ago now.

The Yankees have been operating in this mode for years and years. They've been amongst the oldest teams in MLB for awhile now, with very little homegrown talent making an impact at the MLB level since the days of Jeter Posada and Rivera. And obviously their payroll has grown steadily even when that growth looked unsustainable.

 

The Phillies are now emulating them. There's no reason the Phils can't be successful with this approach, even with ~75% of the Yankees' payroll.

 

The Yankees have Cano, Gardner, Cervelli, Hughes, and most of their bullpen that are all 28 and under. The Phillies have Hamels, 1-2 bullpen guys, and then Brown gets his first action this year. That's an obvious edge to the Yankees group. And as I've said if the Phillies truly do have the Yankees payroll they can emulate the Yankees and they'll be fine. I don't believe you can do a Yankees style model long term without the huge financial disparity that the Yankees have had on the league.

[KingCubsFan]

So would I. The Cubs are past the glory years with lesser players than the Phillies have and a lesser payroll. If I had to build a team for 2013 and beyond though I'd much rather take the Cubs than the Phillies (assuming the Cubs can spend only 20-30 million less than the Phillies and not 50 million less).

 

This isn't Kansas City. Big boys don't get to take 2 years off and only build for the distant future.

 

Which is why I don't like where the Cubs are. And the point of my original comment was that the Phillies are going to have to take off multiple years soon enough and they really didn't have to. They could have had a great team now and been prepared for the future but they've utterly ruined that.

 

That is an utterly ridiculous assumption to make years in advance. They are a successful big market team acting like a successful big market team.

 

Successful teams don't have an entire roster of 30+ year olds with no prospects to replace them while expanding the payroll to levels that might not be able to be sustained. That's irresponsible. You can't buy an entire team through free agency...even the Yankees have taken some effort to develop young players. The Phillies did when they originally developed Utley/Howard/Rollins/Vicotorino but that was a long time ago now.

It's only irresponsible when you're a mediocre team like the Cubs. The Phillies developed a hell of a core and are now doing everything possible to maximize their chances at multiple championships. It's how every organization with resources should operate, and hopefully the Cubs can be as irresponsible some day.

[Ballgame64]

Why do people care what the contract implications are for the Phillies? If they are behind the 8-ball in a few years, good it could make it easier for the Cubs.

 

Also, since tomorrow isn't promised to anyone, I'd just as soon have the teams I root for try to win the next championship. Afterall, it is just one form of entertainment.

[AI]

From Chuck Greenberg...

 

Seven guaranteed would have gotten a deal done. Rangers were not willing to make that commitment, so he went to Philly for 120 guaranteed over 5.

 

There was a point on Monday when Cliff Lee's agent, Darek Braunecker, finally did what Nolan Ryan requested last Wednesday: He told the Rangers what it would take to get Lee.

 

The answer: Seven guaranteed years. The Rangers said no.

 

“There was a lot of back and forth and a point at which they said, ‘If you would do ‘X’, we’ll agree to terms,’” Rangers managing general partner Chuck Greenberg said. "Those terms went beyond the parameters we were comfortable with, specifically in terms of years. It was beyond the level we could live with, so we would not accept those terms. But it wasn’t a matter of Cliff not being willing to stay here."

 

Greenberg and club president Nolan Ryan are confident that Rangers Ballpark in Arlington or even the heat didn't play a factor in the decision. And the fact that he was ready to come if the price was right, would support that position.

 

Ryan expressed last week that going six years for Lee was beyond his "comfort zone." There was just no way they could talk themselves into seven years.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4858972/rangers-didnt-cross-7th-parallel-for-cliff-lee

[davearm2]

Successful teams don't have an entire roster of 30+ year olds with no prospects to replace them while expanding the payroll to levels that might not be able to be sustained. That's irresponsible. You can't buy an entire team through free agency...even the Yankees have taken some effort to develop young players. The Phillies did when they originally developed Utley/Howard/Rollins/Vicotorino but that was a long time ago now.

The Yankees have been operating in this mode for years and years. They've been amongst the oldest teams in MLB for awhile now, with very little homegrown talent making an impact at the MLB level since the days of Jeter Posada and Rivera. And obviously their payroll has grown steadily even when that growth looked unsustainable.

 

The Phillies are now emulating them. There's no reason the Phils can't be successful with this approach, even with ~75% of the Yankees' payroll.

 

The Yankees have Cano, Gardner, Cervelli, Hughes, and most of their bullpen that are all 28 and under. The Phillies have Hamels, 1-2 bullpen guys, and then Brown gets his first action this year. That's an obvious edge to the Yankees group. And as I've said if the Phillies truly do have the Yankees payroll they can emulate the Yankees and they'll be fine. I don't believe you can do a Yankees style model long term without the huge financial disparity that the Yankees have had on the league.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Cano is the only impact player in that Yankees group. The others will have roles, but they probably won't be cornerstone types. Hughes maybe. The others, nah. Five years from now we won't be viewing the Yankees' core as homegrown. They'll continue to build through splashy free agent signings and trades for high-profile guys too expensive to keep (or soon to be).

 

Regardless, the point remains that the Yankees emphatically disprove the notion that a core of 30+ YO guys is inherently bad or dooms a team to imminent collapse. So do the Red Sox for that matter (Varitek, Schilling, Manny, Lowe, Lowell, Ortiz, Wakefield era of 3-4 years ago I mean). It's sustainable, as big contracts come off the books every year.

[erik316wttn]

I wonder if there was ever any talk of him getting a no-trade clause in his negotiations. Dude has got to be sick of being traded.

[davearm2]

From Chuck Greenberg...

 

Seven guaranteed would have gotten a deal done. Rangers were not willing to make that commitment, so he went to Philly for 120 guaranteed over 5.

 

There was a point on Monday when Cliff Lee's agent, Darek Braunecker, finally did what Nolan Ryan requested last Wednesday: He told the Rangers what it would take to get Lee.

 

The answer: Seven guaranteed years. The Rangers said no.

 

“There was a lot of back and forth and a point at which they said, ‘If you would do ‘X’, we’ll agree to terms,’” Rangers managing general partner Chuck Greenberg said. "Those terms went beyond the parameters we were comfortable with, specifically in terms of years. It was beyond the level we could live with, so we would not accept those terms. But it wasn’t a matter of Cliff not being willing to stay here."

 

Greenberg and club president Nolan Ryan are confident that Rangers Ballpark in Arlington or even the heat didn't play a factor in the decision. And the fact that he was ready to come if the price was right, would support that position.

 

Ryan expressed last week that going six years for Lee was beyond his "comfort zone." There was just no way they could talk themselves into seven years.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4858972/rangers-didnt-cross-7th-parallel-for-cliff-lee

On Mike & Mike this morning Greenberg made the case that missing out on Lee might've been the best thing to happen to the Rangers. They saved face with their fanbase while also avoiding a potentially crippling contract.

[AI]

From Chuck Greenberg...

 

Seven guaranteed would have gotten a deal done. Rangers were not willing to make that commitment, so he went to Philly for 120 guaranteed over 5.

 

There was a point on Monday when Cliff Lee's agent, Darek Braunecker, finally did what Nolan Ryan requested last Wednesday: He told the Rangers what it would take to get Lee.

 

The answer: Seven guaranteed years. The Rangers said no.

 

“There was a lot of back and forth and a point at which they said, ‘If you would do ‘X’, we’ll agree to terms,’” Rangers managing general partner Chuck Greenberg said. "Those terms went beyond the parameters we were comfortable with, specifically in terms of years. It was beyond the level we could live with, so we would not accept those terms. But it wasn’t a matter of Cliff not being willing to stay here."

 

Greenberg and club president Nolan Ryan are confident that Rangers Ballpark in Arlington or even the heat didn't play a factor in the decision. And the fact that he was ready to come if the price was right, would support that position.

 

Ryan expressed last week that going six years for Lee was beyond his "comfort zone." There was just no way they could talk themselves into seven years.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/texas-rangers/post/_/id/4858972/rangers-didnt-cross-7th-parallel-for-cliff-lee

On Mike & Mike this morning Greenberg made the case that missing out on Lee might've been the best thing to happen to the Rangers. They saved face with their fanbase while also avoiding a potentially crippling contract.

They had to go for it. Only hindsight will tell us if avoiding seven years was a blessing or a curse. I lean towards blessing. It will hurt in the short term unless the Rangers can make a move for Grienke without getting totally pantsed.

[Lefty]

I don't understand the point of having 4 aces on your team. I mean I do, but there has to be some sort of cap to Philly's payroll and they have to be nearing it. Is it smart to use a large portion of your resources on having a 4th ace caliber pitcher?

 

4th guy still makes 32 starts. It also means less innings for the bullpen. And no bullpen is as effective as whoever their 4th guy is gonna be.

[davell]

Rightly or wrongly, if I were a Ranger fan and knew that not giving out the 7th year is why Lee isn't on my team, I'd probably be pissed. Yeah, that contract is probably going to suck the last couple of years, but if he helps you win one WS, then it makes it worth it, in my opinion anyway. They've got a decent window here, with young guys still not making alot of money, so adding a couple of difference makers seems like the right thing to do. Go all-in and you've got a 3-4 year window where you're going to be one of the favorites each year anyway. Seems like the thing they should have done to me, since they've never won a WS. They may not get this close again for a long time.

[Wilson A2000]

What's wrong with the Howard money?

Seriously?

 

No not seriously you goof. It didn't keep the Phillies from getting the two best pitchers in baseball. All of the top players are overpaid.

 

Philly was just defeated by a Giant team that has 3 very solid starters. Now the Phillies have three pitchers who are better and a fourth for good measure.

[UMFan83]

I don't understand the point of having 4 aces on your team. I mean I do, but there has to be some sort of cap to Philly's payroll and they have to be nearing it. Is it smart to use a large portion of your resources on having a 4th ace caliber pitcher?

 

4th guy still makes 32 starts. It also means less innings for the bullpen. And no bullpen is as effective as whoever their 4th guy is gonna be.

 

The playoffs have to be a formality even before Lee. What I was wondering was whether it was worth spending their resources on a 4th ace quality starter, or address an offense that got worse in the offseason. A team like the Giants isn't going to get lucky every year and win with mediocre offense. A 4th starter would probably pitch 2 times max in the playoffs. That 4th pitcher might be Cole Hamels, who basically carried the team to a World Series 2 years ago on the strength of his starts. In fact, he won the World Series MVP award. Just crazy he might be put in a position where he pitches 2 times all postseason en route to a world series title.

[17 Seconds]

so the phillies have the 2 best starting pitchers in baseball, another one that's in the top 10, and another one that might be in the top 10.

 

unfair.

 

that bullpen is going to get a ton of rest with halladay and lee going back to back.

[bcl412]

Phillies pitching staff>Miami Heat

[Butterscup1679666578]

Yeah I don't understand all the Lee-LeBron/Phillies-Heat comparisons. Halladay, Lee, Oswalt and Hamels will never be on the field at the same time. It's not even close to the same situation.

[Little Slide Rooter]

So is it pretty safe for Phillies and Red Sox fans to purchase their 2011-2014 World Series tickets?

[Sammy Sofa]

So is it pretty safe for Phillies and Red Sox fans to purchase their 2011-2014 World Series tickets?

 

Yup, just like the Phillies and Yankees fans last year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL