I was really hoping that we had a statistically easier schedule remaining than the Mets.  No luck.

So, with most teams experiencing situations where players feel that they are “out-playing” their current contract (one that they felt was fair not so long ago), I thought it would be interesting to throw around some ideas on what we think the “typical” NFL contract will look like in a few years.  There are many issues that seem to have all come to a head at the same time, and it’s a good possibility that we may see some fundamental changes in how contracts are structured in the not-so-distant future.  Some of the relevant issues that are presenting themselves are the issues of players wanting new deals more frequently, rookie contracts getting out of hand, the issue of guaranteed money, and the current CBA expiring soon and the slew of issues that could stem from that.

As an aside, before I really get into this, it would be interesting to do some kind of study regarding the number of players wanting new contracts per season over the past decade or so and to give some analysis to each situation within its proper context.  I’m not even going to attempt a project like that, because I do not have the appropriate time and resources to conduct such an undertaking.  Using some speculation, I am however, willing to give an opinion of what I feel is occurring.  If someone were able to conduct this research, it is highly likely that they would find a few trends that have emerged over the past decade or so that have contributed to this current situation.  To do this topic justice, I will have to touch on a few other subjects from my first paragraph as well.  In my opinion, at some point in the past decade, players in general migrated to a mindset that it would be in their best interest to negotiate long term deals for financial security.  Two and three year deals became less popular for the upper echelon player, and they sought larger commitments from teams.  Now we all know how inflation plays a role in our lives; let’s apply the same concept to a multi-million dollar multi-year contract.  The inherent problem with a long term deal is that the relative value will actually decrease as the contract progresses.  This is also working in a bubble where the salary cap stays constant, which we know doesn’t exist.  This also leads to the contracts seeming “unfair” after a relatively short time frame.

Another trend deals with the actual structure of contracts that are currently being used.  As a business organization, every team knows that their players will be seeking long term deals, which will bring financial risk to the team.  In general, teams need to assume that as players age, their production will also decrease, and the likelihood of injury will increase.  If long term deals were structured evenly throughout the duration of the contract, the last few years would probably yield an older player, who is making a sizeable amount of money, who may be injury prone and/or less productive.  Of course, this is not smart business prowess.  To combat this issue, as the average contract length increased, teams front loaded these deals with some form of guaranteed money, and basically left the back few years almost as “ghost” years in the deal.  The values of these years could hinge heavily on performance requirements or other issues.  This feature also allowed teams to have the ability to cut the player and dump the contract without much penalty against the salary cap.  In general, most six or seven year deals are really three year deals that are meant to be restructured at that point, but also give the team the ability to dump the contract with limited problems. 

The other issue that plays a role here is the growing issue of the value of rookie contracts.  Weather fair or not, these contracts become useable bench marks.  For all intensive purposes, the increasing rookie contracts have done nothing but drive up market prices for individuals that reach free agency; among other problems that I will briefly explore here.

As for the other things I had mentioned; rookie contracts getting out of hand, the issue of guaranteed money, and the current CBA expiring soon.  I’m going to look at these together, because in my opinion, they are actually very closely related and may be dealt with at the same time. 

We are all aware that the current CBA will be running out soon and if nothing is done about it, 2010 will be played as an uncapped year.  When this first went public, I’m sure there were a lot of people who instantly though, “Wow, now my favorite team can just go out and break the bank for one year.”  I’m no legal expert, so I’m not going to attempt to touch that situation in depth, but it’s safe to say that there are measures in place that pretty much force the Union and the Owners to reach a new agreement.  It most definitely will not be an all out spending spree with no downside.  There are things built into that scenario which will hurt both the players and the owners, so this is something that both sides will want to avoid.  This is a good thing.

However, with a new CBA coming into existence, it allows the opportunity to take care of these other problems now.  The NFL owners are all for some type of rookie pay system going into effect; and honestly, it is the fair thing to do.  The incoming rookies may not like this too much, but they don’t exactly get a vote.  In theory, the players should actually be in favor of this system as well, but something tells me they’ll hold onto that card for a minute.  Yes, some have come out and endorsed it, but it won’t go into effect unless they agree to it, and technically it’ll be a nice item to bargain with.  The players will be in favor in an increase in guaranteed money.  I believe this is where the compromise will occur.  The Union will eventually agree to instill a rookie pay scale, and in return, the Owners will enact some changes to how they treat guaranteed money.  This would all be fine.  If these two changes occur, theoretically, contracts should stabilize themselves after a few years.

So what will be the collective outcome after everything settles?  In my opinion, a few years from now, contracts will be very different.  There should be some sort of rookie pay scale, perhaps resembling that of Major League Baseball.  I’m fine with that.  Also, once guaranteed money becomes a bigger staple in NFL contracts, I think you’ll see contract length and overall value decrease significantly.  If players are interested in guaranteed money, they better be ready to live with two and three year deals at somewhere between a third and a half of the overall value of a current five or six year deal.  I think five year deals will be considered long term and I’d be shocked to see deals going longer than that.  Teams will simply not be willing to sink millions of guaranteed money into a long term investment.  To illustrate what I’m saying, take Samuel’s 6 year, approximately $60 million deal with $20 million guaranteed.  In a few years that might look like a 3 year, approximately $18 million all guaranteed deal. 

So what do you guys think?  Like I said I’m not an expert on contracts and such, I’m just shaking the old rocks around in the head and seeing what comes out.

So the ASB is coming up in a few days and it'll be a few days of rest for most of the Phillies.  I'm sure the focus over the next few weeks is going to be what trades we can pull off and what needs to be done for us to be able to 1) Win the East and 2) contend with the Cubs, Brewers and for arguements sake I'll throw in the D-Backs as well (Webb and Haren can pose some problems in a playoff series).  Our (the fans') focus is on improving our pitching staff (both starting and relief a bit), and rightly so.  Pitching has always been a sore spot in Philadelphia over the past few seasons and I'm all for doing what we can to make it better.  It seems that the front office may be on board (since Pat admitted that they're not going to simply go after some #4 or #5 pitcher).  All signs point to either Bedard or Burnett making a Phillie debut sometime within the next few weeks.  I'm fine with either of them (given what's out there), as long as we don't get bent over the barrel on the deal.  Either of these two could make a nice #2 behind Hamels; as long as they decide to pitch with some heart and stay healthy.  If Myers somehow returns to form (although I'm less confident with this), we would have a pretty formidable rotation with Hamels, Bedard/Burnett, Myers, Moyer, Kendrick.  Eaton can then be shipped out for pen help (which I'm fine with).  Also, maybe we can get a nice lefty for the pen to take a little load off Romero.  If these things were to happen, I can honestly say I would be happy and feel that we made some decent moves to help us contend.  However, there is one issue of late that I want to explore...  the offense.

So we live and die by the bat in Philadelphia.  I understand that and can live with that.  The only problem is that when things aren't going well with the bats, it's difficult (at best), for us to contend every night.  Over the last 25 or so games, our pitching staff has been doing a decent job (for the most part).  Their ERA isn't much higher over that stretch than what it was for the first 65 or so games of the season, yet we've been doing horribly.  Recently, Charlie has even stated that he's become a little concerned with our lack of production offensively (and the fans are as well).  Overall, pitching has been a pleasant surprise this year; especially the bullpen (currently second behind the Cubs in ERA), but lately the big sticks have been letting us down.  Now we could come out of the next few weeks with a bolstered pitching staff and hope that our bats get hot again and stay that way through the rest of the year, but personally, I think I'd feel a little better if we could pick up a good bat to help us.  Wouldn't you? 

However, there are some issues here.  First, if we make a trade for a decent arm, there's no way we're trading for a good bat as well.  We simply cannot afford to give away that many prospects.  And I'm not a believer in the "Let's destroy our future for this year" idea.  Also, where's this guy going to play?  First, second, short, left and center are out...  So we need a third baseman or someone who could play right.  So our criteria is a nice bat that plays third or will play right and isn't going to cost us alot in a trade.  That'll be easy to find... Lol.  So I'm going to suggest something here, and I know I'm going to catch alot of flack for it.  *Takes a deep breath*  Sign... Barry... Bonds...  There, I said it.  I realize that the first week he shows up would be a circus, and I'm willing to go there.  At this point he has gotten ZERO offers to play.  So, we could probably get him for a reasonable price for the rest of the year.  I'd be willing to go $6M for the remainder of the season.  At his age and situation there was no way he was going to get more than $12M for a full year, so pro-rate it for the remainder of the season.  Every single person on the Giants has said that he's the most remarkable hitter they've ever seen.  I know the negatives that come with him, but what does he bring?  He might be the most feared hitter ever...  I'll say that again... ever.  He has an incredible eye and is extremely patient and the plate.  He's got no problems taking walks if need be.  I'd rather a right handed bat, but seriously he hits lefts pretty much as well as righties.  He's only going to play half a season, so his knees should hold up.  We can also sub for him late in games if need be.  We would instantly have probably the most feared lineup in baseball, especially if Howard keeps up what he's been doing lately.  How do you pitch to this?

I want to do everything in our power to make us the best team possible, and I think this would definitely help.  We get a big time bat withough loosing any prospects or current starters, we can then ditch So and still have an extremely deep bench, and we can move Victorino down a bit to give us speed at the bottom of the lineup.  Plus opposing pitchers are going to have some issues.  What do you do?  Can't make mistakes to Utley... okay...  Don't want to make a mistake to Bonds, but you can't just simply walk him every time with Howard AND Burrell behind him.  I wouldn't want to face that. 

So I got it out there...  I'm sure I'm going to get bashed for it though...

Additionally, WHEN this team makes the World Series, I know who the DH will be...

So we know Cole and Pat got hosed pretty bad.  It's really sad that when players are having great years and really deserve to be included they not only get screwed by the fans but also the manager who fills the open spots.  So who do you think should be going?  Here's my take...  And you can tell I'm being honest because I included more Mets players :-)  And it even passes the 16 team test...

[Note by JasonB, 06/25/08 12:10 PM EDT ] promoted from fanposts

 So, we’re in the darkest hour of the offseason here; where literally nothing is going on.  I’m sure there’s some front office dealings that are happening behind closed doors, players are resting and working out (hopefully not being dragged through the streets of Vegas), and Andy and the staff are strategizing and trying to figure out what exactly they believe will yield the best results.  But, for us, there’s really nothing going on right now.  While OTAs are still fresh in our minds, and visions of approaching Training Camp surface, I thought it would be interesting to get some opinions of our offseason so far.  Specifically, what offseason addition (draft, signing or trade) do you feel is going to fare the best?  I’m going to leave how you evaluate your choice a little open ended.  It could be the player you feel will compile the best stats, the player that you feel will revolutionize one of the three facets (offense, defense, or special teams), or the player that you feel is just an all around good pickup for how/where we got him, etc.  I’ll make one request; don’t pick Asante.  I say that simply because he is the obvious choice.  My idea behind this is to get a real feel about what we think of the non-obvious choices here.  (For argument’s sake, I will say that I feel Asante is the best answer here, as I’m sure most people do.)

Continue reading this post »

I think the Mets organization is barking up the wrong tree here.  Outside of a vew games, do you honestly think there would be a drastic differenece in your season if you started the year with somone else at the helm?  I don't.  Perhaps instead of just ousting the coaching staff, the Mets should review thier roster and see if they actually have the (healthy) talent that they THOUGHT they had.  I'm going to say.... no.  Out of the Mets entire roster, I'd take two guys.  Wright and Santana...  IMO everyone else is either often injured or a shadow of their former selves.  I honestly think the Mets front office went into the season thinking that they had a better team than they actually did.  How do you blame the Manager for players getting hurt, not hitting, loosing power, walking everyone, and blowing saves like it's going out of style.  Are you telling me that if there was a different manager that they wouldn't have used Heilman, Wagner, Alou, Delgado, or Beltran the same way that Willie did (in most instances)?  I doubt it.  I know it's much easier to blame the manager when the right thing to do would be to open your eyes and see that maybe you just need better players...  Good luck guys...  Your next manager should last all of two months.

It seems that our old friend, light-hitting Nunez had his contract purchased my the Mets...  Having a career year at AAA I see...  .133 in 45 ABs.  Good addition.  Is it just me or is their roster slowly transforming into one of our old line-up cards...  Chavez, Nunez, Anderson, Wagner...  A few more pickups and they could have a starting 9.  I'm sure Shawn Wooten and Marlon Byrd are running around somewhere.

Well, we all know how much everyone (most people), that doesn't live in Mass., "loves" Boston's sports teams and their fans...  I think I've definitely found a shining example of their fanbase and why everyone hates them.  It involves the mound charge/ fight between the Red Sox and the Devil Rays last night.  Sox & Dogs Now, the OP (and most of the commenters) put the fault on Coco Crisp for this melee (be still my heart), and rightfully so.  But, scroll down and pay special attention starting at Comment 8.  Wait for it... wait for it....  If "Random Hero" isn't a beacon of class, I don't know who is...  You stay classy Boston.  (and they say we're bad... pfft)  No matter how poorly anyone on any of the Philly teams was doing, I would NOT revert to some display like that...

Also, have you guys heard of the letter that the may of LA sent to the mayor of Boston.  Normally mayors make wagers over championships, like "If we win, you have to send us (local food item or whatever) and if you win we'll send you (one of our local food items or whatever)."  Well the mayor of LA (and forgive me, I'm too lazy to look up names right now) sends a letter to Mayor Boston saying if Boston wins, LA will send them their best football team (the LA Avengers of the Arena League) and if LA wins, Boston has to send LA their best football team (the Pats).  He concluded by telling Mayor Boston that if LA wins and they get the Pats, that Boston could keep the coach because they have one right down the street that still might even have some Pats gear he could wear...  Now THAT'S funny.

I will have to preface this by saying I'm overjoyed that the Phils have spent more time in 1st place this year than they have pretty much in the past decade combined.  That being said, we could have a tough road between now an the All Star Break.  If we take a look at our schedule to this point and take into account the winning % of our opponents, we can get a weighted opponent's winning %, which is different than the overall opponent's winning % (out of 60 games, the more that are against worse teams, the easier the schedule), which gives us a kind of strenght of schedule to this point:

So, over our first 60 games (where we went 35 and 25), not only does our opposition have an overall record of .490, but they weighted % by the number of times we played them is slightly lower at .481, meaning we played the worst teams more often.  So against a weighted schedule of .481, we were able to win about 58% of the time.

Now if we take a look at the remainder of the schedule between tonight's game against Cincy and the ASB, it's a little more difficult.

So, if we take a look at the ramaining 36 games, our opponent's winning % has moved to .541 (a .051 increase), and a weighted % of .544 (a .063 increase).  Notice over these 36 games, the weighted % is higher than just the total % (and we are playing the better teams more often so this makes sense). 

It's a give that there are many other things that come into play (ie. injuries to key players like David Ortiz), but I'm just pointing out that the remainder of our schedule until the ASB will probably be much more difficult.

Well you know GCobb had to get his .02 in about the whole Buzz vs. Bloggers stuff...  Here you go...  Okay, well the first few paragraphs are fine...  Except there's nothing Earth-shattering in there, it's pretty much the same stuff every other blogger has been saying...  Some of the criticism is legit, some isn't...  He suggests that some of this is about jealousy...  Yeah I can buy that...  He also says alot of writers give the same kind of treatment to radio personalities...  Eh, possibly...  But let's see some of the highlights, eh?

I remember being in the Eagles lockeroom at the Vet and hearing the sportswriters go off about how there were too many erroneous reports.

You mean reporters don't like other reporters?  Say it ain't so... Say it isn't so...

I hate to see somebody's reputation damaged by a fictitious story.

Should have said... "I hate to see somebody's reputation damaged by a fictitious story; especially mine."

For the most part, guys who are in the media are attention seekers and some don't like to share the attention.

Another revelation...  Was your lead on this gem a burning bush by chance?

I do wish websites would just report and say ridiculous rumors. I try to develop sources with credibility and I'm not going to put something up that I know isn't true. 

Ummm yeah well...  I'm thinking the first part of this should say, "I do wish websites would just report and NOT say ridiculous rumors."  I could be wrong though...  And as for the second part...  Which unattainable WR are we trading for this week buddy?

Thank you.  Please drive through...