Somebody Give Pat Gillick the Name of Daniel Briere's Agent

Sure, the Flyers recently signed free agent center Daniel Briere to a nice $52 million contract, but it's clear that the players of the National Hockey League lack the consul of "superagent" types. Whereas agents in other leagues find that it's easy to hoodwink teams into believing that an athlete is worth more as he gets further from 29 years old, the puckheads are letting things like this slide:

The contract is heavily front-loaded, with Briere to make $10 million next season -- double what he made last year. He'll then make $8 million in the next two years and $7 million during the 2010-13 seasons. The contract then tapers off with Briere scheduled to make $3 million in 2013-14 and $2 million in the final year of the deal.

You know that wouldn't fly if Boras or Rosenhaus had their fingers in this cookie jar. They could probably negotiate a 3-year, $35 million deal for Gordie Howe, citing Moses as a precedent for his expected physical stamina and "leadership ability," and nobody would bat an eyelid. The stiffs at the NHL's business offices need to know how lucky they are to not have these types of guys around.

On the other hand, the NHL's main employees--the players--are not so lucky. This incredibly logical way of placing the correct value on the diminishing athletic abilities of aging players is not accepted with such sangfroid in any other major professional sports league. Then again, the players' union in any other MPSL (I like time-saving acronyms) isn't even close to the unprecedented level of weakness of the NHL's. After the 2004-05 lockout--which I recall as a few vague memories of weeping Canadians--players returned to face the bitter reality that an entire season of hockey was canceled and few people cared. Goodbye leverage. Hello peanuts.

Even though I think the NHL's product has improved by leaps and bounds since then, I'm not yet disheartened by this shift in the balance of power. You have to figure the owners aren't making a hell of a lot of money either, not when your team's "national exposure" is roughly once a month on a channel anchored by televised rodeos and karate competitions. Too bad the players don't have quite as much to fall back on anymore.

But hey--if P. Diddy and the Phillies starting rotation have taught us anything, it's that mo money equates to mo problems. Enjoy this period of fiscal sanity while it lasts, hockey fans.

And You Thought Burrell Was Dead Weight

I've harped before on the number of ill-advised contracts the Phillies have accumulated just in the past year, bringing their payroll just south of $90 million, and the club's struggle to validate its new spendthrift ways for the first couple months of the season.


Even though the Phils have picked up the pace again, currently two games behind the Mets for first place in the NL East, it's sobering to remember that this is a club that has made a string of financial decisions that include still paying part of Jim Thome's salary. The fans love Jim, but I can bet you the Phillies' bean counters were among the few booing lustily upon his return to Philadelphia this past week.


I must admit that this team finally looks like it wants to fulfill the heavy investment, both financial and emotional, of all the panic-stricken naysayers. For the benefit of those crusty cynics--which, quite frankly, often includes myself--I can present to you a funhouse mirror of sorts, an image that shows how big-time blunders become much more destructive with access to big-time bucks. I am speaking, of course, of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Apparently, we don't like Juan Pierre anymore. He doesn't hit for power and he doesn't get on base. He takes odd routes in the outfield and, when he and the Dodgers are lucky, covers the mistakes with speed. He throws poorly. He does steal bases and he does hit singles.

And, for that, he'll be paid $44 million through 2011.

Yet while Gary Matthews, Jr. and Arte Moreno are laughing maniacally in Anaheim, the Dodger faithful are feeling a little buyer's remorse:

He is a slap-hitter on a team that does not hit home runs. He is a base stealer on a team that does not take many pitches. He is a center fielder between a near-rookie in right and a near-40-year-old in left. There have been better fits.

He won't apologize for his game, because it's every bit of what he's got. The Dodgers wanted him. Here he is. All of him. Every day.

With lines like that last one, it's reeeallly hard to believe that anyone in Dodgerland truly thinks Pierre is going to turn it around, which raises the question: Why mince words in the first place? Clearly you cannot be optimistic about it. The article is titled "Wait and See" for crying out loud! Does that sound familiar to anyone?

This is an often-ignored facet of the "moodiness" of Philadelphia sports fans. To quote Beavis and Butthead, we don't like things that suck. And there's no reason to pretend that we do, either. If you have a starter on a potential playoff team that is a colossal drag on all but one or two statistical categories and he's also maligned by fans, insiders, and media alike, then there's only one reason to keep up the charade: there's just too much money at stake.

So while it's reasonable to dig overpaid, underachieving guys like Pat Burrell and Freddy Garcia, the Phaithful should be thankful that the buck generally stops at the ceiling of approximately $10 million per year.

Poverty, relatively speaking, is bliss.

Wait and See [Yahoo! Sports]

Gotta Spend Money To Make Money

John Kruk, you've made a successful second career yelling at Peter Gammons on Baseball Tonight. So we ask you this: what's wrong with the Phillies' personnel philosophy?

Honestly, I think they baby their minor-league players too much. They keep them in the minors so long that when they fail, it’s in the big leagues. I don’t think they’re going to change until they get new ownership. They’re good people, but how do you convince people of their age that we need to spend $100 million on a guy? If I had the money these owners have, I’d have trouble with it myself.

Whoa, Krukker. That's a complex answer. Let's take this step by step.

(1) How does somebody stay in the minors too long without failing at some point? Of course you're going to get more Gavin Floyds than Cole Hamels...es. It's the law of averages.

Isn't the best way to see if a guy's going to succeed in the majors is to actually get him some major league experience? Unless there's some sort of Tron-like survival simulation that can trap a prospect inside an XBox until he can hit the breaking ball with consistency, you're going to have to call him up sometime and evaluate his adjustment and personal growth. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.

And I think the patient approach worked just fine for Rolen, Rollins, Utley, Howard, Hamels, et al. An organization's reluctance to leverage the long-term success of its prospects against a short-term exploitation of the hype and publicity gained by rushing every single one of its blue chippers into the bigs (I'm looking at you, Kansas City) should be applauded, not criticized.

(2) You've got a point about the owners. Their nearly-invisible public image sends the wrong message to a fanbase desperate to win and historically intolerant of people who seem to lack even a modicum of "passion" for the organization. They seem to emerge once every couple years to make another ineffectual front office change--the kind of decisions that move the team no farther forward or backward.

And why should they? Bill Giles and David Montgomery purchased the Phillies in 1981 for $30 million. According to Forbes, that investment is now worth a cool $457 million. That's a lot of Dollar Dogs. However....

(3)....that doesn't mean they haven't been willing to spend for on-field personnel. It's a matter of spending money on the right players than any old free agent with a little experience and misleading stats. This winter's free-agent pitcher bonanza was a perfect example of owners running wild. A few of these questionable decisions are working out at the moment (Ted Lilly, Jason Marquis), but I'm willing to bet a lot of GMs would like a mulligan on their ill-advised signings (Barry Zito, Gil Meche, Vicente Padilla, Miguel Batista, Jeff Weaver...it's a long list).

And who says the Phillies aren't spending money? Their current payroll is almost $90 million and has more than doubled since 2001. In baseball's currently rosy financial state that's still only the 14th highest in the majors, which is why it might appear that Giles and Montgomery aren't spending enough.

Still, it's about quality, not quantity. There are no $100 million Phillies, but let's just say there are plenty of guys who are feeding their families pretty damn well. A quick look at some of those recent fat free agent acquisitions (and one recent trade acquisition) that are supposed to turn a team into a contender:

- Freddy Garcia, owed $10 million in 2007: this looks worse with each successive 5-inning outing for "the Chief," the highest-paid pitcher on the Phillies roster. In an 8-year career, he's posted a sub-3.80 ERA only once. Once a premier strikeout guy, his velocity has been declining and he seems more susceptible to injuries. Looks like an early bust for a guy that was brought in to be a potential staff ace--at least he'll be a free agent at the end of the year.

- Tom Gordon, owed $7 million in 2007: only in Philadelphia does a 38-year-old relief pitcher receive a three-year contract with a club option for a fourth. He turned in an All-Star season in his first year as a Phillie, but it's very likely that he only had one good year left in the tank. Injured and ineffective this season, plus the presence of Brett Myers in the bullpen renders him obsolete as a closer even though he's still pulling in a mega-closer's salary. A dubious contract for a guy who had only saved more than 30 games once in a season before 2006.

- Jamie Moyer, owed $6.5 million in 2007: you have to love the fact that the 44-year-old Moyer has pitched 21 more innings than the 30-year-old Garcia (though he has missed at least one start due to injury). The grizzled junkballing clubhouse "leader" thing screams Major League, but he rocked for the Phillies after being acquired from Seattle last August. Even so, most of his second-half numbers saw a significant overall decline last season. Not surprisingly, a lot of his 2008 contract is based on statistical incentives accrued this season and the next--not a bad insurance policy for what has been one of the team's more pleasant surprises.

- Wes Helms, owed $2.05-2.3 million in 2007; another acquisition who is not living up to expectations, Helms was supposed to be the starting third baseman and has promptly played himself out of a starting job. A .321 slugging percentage and zero home runs just won't cut it from a generally "offensive" position. On the plus side, he's been a real team player. It's just a shame he's usually "helping" his team from the bench. Barring a miracle, I can't see the club picking up his third-year option in 2009.

- Adam Eaton, owed approx. $7 million in 2007; though he's never had an ERA under 4.00 in any season, he's not a bad pitcher by any measure. Of course, it helps when his offense averages 5.5 runs/game when he starts. The problem here is that he's getting #2 money when he's a solid #3 at best...and, technically, right now he's either the #4 or 5. This winter's inflated free agent salaries are partially to blame but he may have already hit his career stride in San Diego.

- Rod Barajas, owed $2.5 million in 2007; a textbook example of pre-season panic, as the Phils believed they so desperately needed a veteran presence in front of rookie Carlos Ruiz (doing the exact opposite, in fact, of what Kruk accuses and trying to protect the kid from failing right away). There's no need to go into the details of why this was a mistake, so let's take the time to appreciate the irony of his contract's incentive clauses for an MVP award ($100,000) and a Gold Glove ($50,000). Hmm...pick up the $5 million in 2008 or buy him out for a mere $500,000? Well, Chris Coste requested to be sent to Reading (AA) instead of Ottawa (AAA) so he could get some starts at catcher. You can connect the dots there.

And let's not forget they still owe Jim Thome something in the neighborhood of $7 million for this season alone.

See, there's no reluctance to spend money in the Phillies boardroom. It's just not being spent right when almost $35 million--40 percent of the entire payroll--is devoted to players that are either significant risks or falling far short of expectations.

There are still plenty of good contracts: a lot of the homegrown players (which makes the backloaded ones easier to swallow), Jon Lieber, Aaron Rowand, etc. The problem is that the Phillies, contrary to the Krukker's observations, may be spending too much for too little and forcing the team into a situation when they have to field inferior players instead of lower-priced alternatives (i.e. Greg Dobbs, Abe Nunez) or those bright-eyed prospects that are supposedly coddled so much. It's simply a financial logjam. Keeping up with the Joneses (or New Yorks or Los Angeleses) is just not a viable option.

Cot's Baseball Contracts [an invaluable resource for excellent contract information I could not find anywhere else]
Interview With John Kruk [Philadelphia Magazine]