Revisiting the Jamie Moyer & Brian Dawkins decisions
by JasonB on May 14, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
in News
24 comments
A number of local writers, fans, and message board commentors noted the paralells between the situations the Eagles and Phillies faced this offseason with Brian Dawkins and Jamie Moyer.
Two very popular older players who had shown signs of slowing down and were both free agents. Both teams allowed the players to reach free agency, but the Phillies decided to give Moyer a guaranteed two year contract while the Eagles decided not to do the same for Dawkins. Neither team wanted to give the older player the contract. The Phillies wanted to do a one year deal with Moyer. The Eagles had made a multi year offer to Dawkins, but the guaranteed money and years were not as high as the offer Denver made.
One team decided to back off it's stance and one didn't.
Of course, the Eagles were slated for their decision. They were the cold hearted organization that cares only about the almighty dollar. The Phillies were painted as the benevolent organization who "gets it." It was said that the Phillies understand that sometimes you have to "overpay" to keep around fan favorites or good locker room guys.
Let's revisit that decision. The Phillies gave the 46 year old Moyer a 2 year, $13 million contract this year. So far, he hasn't even come close to earning that money. His ERA is over 8 and he's registered just one quality start all year. This is what the Phillies feared. This is why they only wanted to do a one year deal with Moyer... but it appears they allowed sentimentality to affect their judgement. You have to wonder whether the Phillies would give him that same contract today if they had it to do over again.
I have a feeling that they really wouldn't have cared how much the fans or fellow players like him if they knew that this is what they'd be getting on the field...
I want to be clear. I'm not trying to pick on Jamie Moyer or even pat the Eagles on the back. I'm a big fan of Jamie Moyer. I'll never forget listening to him speak in the stadium after watching the parade. Moyer could very well turn around his season. Dawkins could very well have two fabulous years in Denver and be worth every penny of the contract he signed there... I'm simply trying to illustrate the point that people are quick to criticize a team for making a business decision. Fans love to spend money when it isn't theirs... But the fact is that sports is a business and while us as fans can be sentimental teams can not be. They have to make the decisions they feel are best regardless of how cold or "heartless" they may seem.
0 recs |
24 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Nice Analysis
I actually thought this same thing watching the game last night.
"The man who complains about the way the ball bounces is likely to be the one who dropped it."
by Getoffmyvols on May 14, 2009 1:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
quality post sir go work for the inquirer
"I think pro athletes should be forced to use steroids. I think we as fans deserve the greatest athletes science can create."- Daniel Tosh
If Football Had A Church , Brian Dawkins Would Be My Preacher. -NPK
by NorthPhillyKid on May 14, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good analysis Jason
*waits for EvilBanner to spew some bs * :)
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
by Joe_D on May 14, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And the REASON they've been fan favorites....
….Is that both guys have been winners up to now.
In one way it’s nice to see Dawk go while he was still pretty competitive. Fading, to be sure, but not an embarrassment by a long shot. Most fans would have turned on him pretty quick if he started costing us games…. Moyer may yet feel the sting of disillusioned fans.
Fans are sentimental only as long as the team is winning.
by DeSean Kauffman on May 14, 2009 1:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Most fans would have turned on him pretty quick if he started costing us games
and then blamed management for resigning him!!!!
I remember most of us wanted Dawk benched by the Chicago game as he was getting exposed in coverage.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
by Joe_D on May 14, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two arguments
This is just me but I never felt Moyer was a great signing. You knew the guy was going to lose his stuff any day. So, to me, the Moyer move would have been good if he was your 5th guy. That way you are ok when that day comes that he is no longer effective. In that way, I think the scenarios are different. I think the Eagles were prepared for a decline in Dawkins play where the Phillies did not have a backup plan. The point is that the Eagles could have still used Dawkins effectively the way they did in the second half of last season, even if his play declined. If is declined beyond repair, then they could have rolled out Demps/Jones and still had Dawkins around those guys all offseason and preseason.
Second, my biggest problem, by far, was with how Dawkins left. I read so many different takes on what he is getting paid over the next two years that it is hard to gauge what is real and what is assumed. I just think that IF the Eagles wanted him, they could have had him before he even got an offer from Denver. I don’t think he ever had any intention of hitting FA and he shouldn’t have. Now, if they felt he was done and did not want him back, then they did the right thing. If they truly felt the team was better with him, I feel he could have been given the red carpet treatment and still ended up with a contract with a much lower cap figure than the one he received in Denver.
by Dawk on May 14, 2009 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is from andy reid
he was on Eskin’s show and this is what he said
a)They made him an offer that would’ve made him the HIGHEST paid 36 year old in the league. (besides QB)
b)He and Brian talked
c)Denver came over the top with a HUGE contract, Brian and Andy talked about it and they both knew that it was an offer HE couldn’t refuse and it was one the Eagles were not willing to sign. They both knew it.
Had denver not given him a RIDICULOUS contract, he probably would still be wearing midnight green with a FAIR contract.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
by Joe_D on May 14, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Something doesn't add up
I agree Denver overpaid. I just cannot tell how much they overpaid by the different numbers I see thrown around. That isn’t really my primary argument though. I think that if he makes the team better, they could have avoided having him hit the market.
Do you remember how downtrodden Dawkins was when he first hit FA? He felt disrespected and felt like they did not treat him the right way. Something happened at the negotiating table and I doubt it was the lack of a 7 million guarantee that made Dawkins go sour.
As to Andy’s comment about making him the highest 36 year old player, how many 36 year olds are in the league that aren’t punters or kickers? Dawkins is a special case and not because he is a fan favorite. He did not play like a 36 year old. And I know he wasn’t going to get paid higher than Kurt Warner so I am not sure how accurate that statement is. I don’t think any of us know how it all really went down as we are all making assumptions, myself included, off of comments we see in the papers. My general argument is that you might have had to overpay Dawkins a bit to keep him but he was probably more valuable and less of a liability to the Eagles than Moyer will be for the Phillies. Regardless, Jason’s comparison is a good one. I am just saying they are not identical scenarios.
I don’t have the angst towards mgmt for not matching Denver’s contract offer. I just think they could have gotten him for less. I think they gambled a bit that no one would pay what Denver did and let him hit FA without being willing to budge at all. To me, I look at the last half of last season and wish we still had him for one more year. If you add Dawkins to what we have added this offseason, Wow. I want my cake and I want to eat it too.
by Dawk on May 14, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats the thing you're not getting
There are no “Special cases” on this team. If you’re old and declining in production you’re NOT going to get over paid here. In fact, you’ll be lucky to get an offer. We have let a lot of talent walk let alone old talent (Trotter, Douglas, Barber). We have seen old special talent walk (Runyan, Vincent, Taylor, etc)… Take away the emotional side of Dawkins and it had to happen.
To be honest, I’m willing to believe him not being here helps us more than hurts us… By the time the championship game comes around he’s too beat up, he always comes up small in the big games (carolina CG game, Arizona and the SB he wasn’t that great either.)… I’ve faced it already — he had to go.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
by Joe_D on May 14, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close to what I meant
What I meant by a “special case” is that he does not play like a 35 year old. Just like Moyer did not pitch like a 45 year old last year. I am not saying he is a “special case” just because he is well liked by the fan base. The thing that YOU are not getting is that the entire organization says they wanted Dawkins back. If that is true, then they blew it. The point has been made over and over that this organization does not play sentimental favorites for the good of the team. In fact, that appears to be the basis of your argument. I, too, agree with the philosophy. That being said, they must have felt his play on the field made them better otherwise they would not have made him an offer to make him “the highest paid 36 year old in the league.”
Your final comments have nothing to do with his age or his decline in play because your opinion is that he always sucked in big games. In fact, that is really contrary to this entire argument. If you think he sucked in that AZ game what did you think of his replacement, Demps? What makes you think they are better off with Demps from that AZ game? I like Demps as a player quite a bit so this is not to rip on him. I can just also argue that it is a bad game to use as a gauge for whether or not the team is better off without Dawkins.
I am not one of those idiot fans who thinks the Eagles are cheap. Far from it. I do agree their track record on aging veterans is great. I just think this situation could have been handled differently and the result would have been positive for this season. That is where I personally draw the line between the Moyer and Dawkins comparison.
by Dawk on May 14, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you're saying
I understand it better now.
I feel you’re a little clouded on the situation.
They DID offer him a contract, so did they feel he could still play.
HOWEVER
They did not feel he could live up to the contract that he was given. I don’t think so either. Dawk of 6 years ago was the best safety in the league. The Dawk right now is a glorified line backer.
Yes, the Eagles DID/DO feel good with Demps because on passing situations he was in for Dawkins. Yeah they still feel Dawkins can play, and they probably see him as a leader in the locker room as well…but they felt for he isn’t going to live up to the contract he was given… Honestly, I don’t either.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
by Joe_D on May 14, 2009 9:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We agree on your last comment
I don’t feel he will live up to the contract he signed in Denver either. Especially because of the team surrounding him. I do feel he could have made this Eagles team even better even if you took him off the field in most nickel situations. That part we’ll just have to aree to disagree on. The part that I admit to have no more expertise than anyone else is that I still feel they could have signed him to a much cheaper deal than he signed in Denver. Something went south at the negotiating table and I feel that is somethint that should not have happened.
by Dawk on May 15, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm waiting on Angelo at WIP
to make the same conclusions. Some criticize the Eagles for being run too much like a business. But the fact is that it is a business, and we can be thankful that it is run by a team of people who care about winning and profits both. If you care too much about the first and not enough about the second, you get Jerry Jones. If you care too much about the second and not enough about the first, you get teams like the Lions, who don’t spend much each year on salaries because, in part, they can pocket the shared revenue and not give much of it to the players, enriching their owners in the process.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
by NJBammer on May 14, 2009 3:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Two Big Differences Between the Phillies and Eagles
Salary Cap and the Phillies just won the WS
by BreckBirds20 on May 14, 2009 3:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
When a pitcher's only chance of having a good game
hinges on getting calls on the outside of the plate, it’s not a good sign.
by Screen Name 20 on May 14, 2009 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, but while Jamie Moyer is a popular player, but Brian Dawkins is/was a Philadelphia icon to a degree Moyer just doesn’t match.
It’s almost like if Cal Ripken Jr. had ended his career with the Colorado Rockies. (Maybe that’s not fair the other way — Ripken was the most idolized, and I admit as huge fan of his, over-hyped player of his generation — but it’s more similar in that he’s a guy who spent his whole career in one town and they gave him that last contract even when his skills probably didn’t warrant it.)
Were they right to do so? Probably not — as they haven’t had a winning season in 11 years and they could have been further along the road to rebuilding perhaps if they’d let Ripken go and started the youth movement sooner (but probably it didn’t matter since their GMs were incompetent).
But anyway, what I’m trying to say is Brian Dawkins was the face of a franchise much more than a well-liked guy who’s just been with the Phillies for just parts of 3 years.
I wonder if I can bill Jeff Lurie and Peter Angelos for the years of therapy their teams are going to put me through.
by BrianS on May 14, 2009 4:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t disagree. But Moyer is a local guy who won a title here… He’s not at Dawkins level for sure, but I think the parallel still works.
by JasonB on May 14, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The comparisons works well but is not dead on
The Phillies have no back up plan to Moyer. They need him to win 12-15 games in the #3 spot to be successful. That was a lot to put on a guy who is 46. The Eagles did not need Dawkins to be Dawkins of 2004-2005 because of the other talent on the defense. He did not have to carry the defense by being the only playmaker on the field as was the case say in 2006. They did need a smart veteran who can coach the guys on the field, who could be in the right place at the right time, and inspire the younger players with his toughness and desire. JJ figured out how to mask Dawkins decline halfway through last year. You can’t do that with a pitcher as easily cuz he is the only guy throwing to those pitches when he is in the game.
by Dawk on May 14, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not like we have a definite back up plan for Dawkins either
We went out and signed 2 safeties and drafted one more in “Macho.”
The parallel was great and I think you’re looking into too far.
The bottom line is the Eagles FO gets nailed for doing things “too much like a business.” 90% of the fan base cried and called them evil when they let Dawkins go…
The same fan base probably had no problem with signing Moyer a fan favorite, much like Dawkins, to two years…. Well, there’s the difference. The Eagles do for what’s best of the team, Phils management did what’s best for what the fans thought was best.
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!
by Joe_D on May 14, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Phillies aren't different
I highly, highly doubt the Phillies signed Moyer because he was a fan favorite. They are a business as well and they signed him because they thought he made their rotation stronger.
Regarding my back up plan comment, the Eagles had already drafted Demps. So, if Dawkins really did stink up the joint, they have Demps. The Phillies signed Moyer to be the third guy in the rotation. They had no one else who they thought could fill that role. Also, if Dawkins is not at the top of his game, he can still contribute as one of 11 guys on the field. A pitcher is the most important player in the game on the night he pitches. If he is off, the team is hosed. Thus, more important to have the “back up plan” in place.
I stand behind what I am saying but I think two things are happening. My arguments are lumped together with all the other people who think Eagles FO is sucks and does nothing right because we have not won a SB. That is not my stance. It is also assumed that I thought the Moyer deal was a good one. I thought Moyer was done, despite his WS heroics. I just did not think Dawkins was as close to done as Moyer. That is why I think the comparison has some flaws. Regardless, it is a good parallel. Not denying that in any way. Even Jason said it is too early to make the parallel stick since Dawkins has not even played a down yet. Since I felt there were some flaws in the argument, I did not feel the need to post a “Hey, great post” liner.
by Dawk on May 15, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
don’t worry, I haven’t lumped you in with the likes of EvilBanner…you’ve voiced your opinion well and didn’t just blast the FO for everything and anything. There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing…makes the site more interesting. on the other hand, it makes the site more interesting because then you can debate, and you just can’t debate well when people just rely on what they feel to make their point.
by eagleyosh on May 15, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah it’s not so much that Moyer is losing his stuff imo. I think it’s location.
by BMY on May 14, 2009 4:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree these situations are similar but when evaluating them you need to look at is (Moyer/Dawk) better than the alternative. As it became evident the Phils were out of the Derrick Lowe sweepstakes they backed off their stance of requiring a 1 year deal. I agree Dawk doesnt have it anymore but hes better than Demps or Sean Jones. Also the Eagles have the luxury of franchising Dawk or signing him and cutting him whenever they believe Demps is better than Dawk, whereas the Phils cannot. Either way both players are overpaid this year, but I think the Phils are as good as last year where i think the Eagles are worse off than last year.
by Nooose99 on May 15, 2009 10:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
