Quote:
Originally Posted by RedKingGold
Of course salary is "always" a consideration. Even as Greg pointed out, the Yankees and Red Sox are starting to tighten their belts.
But, the argument here was whether the amount the Phillies paid for Ibanez's production would compensate for the cost savings by adding Burrell for the same amount.
Ibanez = approx. 13 million per year for life of deal
Burrell = approx. 8 million per year for life of deal.
Now taking into account the production which Ibanez provided above and beyond what Burrell did, I'm sure the $5 million more cost justifies that.
Further, I still stand by the argument that the difference in production gave the Phillies about ten or more so games won than without Ibanez. Heck, there are games in April/May which he single-handedly won for the team.
If no Ibanez = no playoffs, that also equals no playoff dollars which also help off-set the cost.
In short, I think its funny when fans complain about the dollars that their team spends unless they are (1) small market teams, or (2) A-Rod/Zito/etc. type free agent deals.
People were portraying the Ibanez deal in this thread as if it equaled Soriano/Zito/etc. deals. As seen above, it clearly does not fall into that category.
|
It hasn't been a horrible deal so far for the Phillies, but the contract isn't completed yet.
Furthermore, you are vastly overstating the contribution Ibanez has made in saying that he's added 10 wins to their total. That's Barry Bonds at his best territory; not even Albert Pujols has cracked double-digit WAR in his career. According to FanGraphs, Ibanez hasn't even hit 5 WAR so far this season. There's nothing wrong with a 4.2 WAR player - that's a heck of a season. But let's not get carried away.