January 03, 2009
Rating Howard
Matthew Carruth notes the Phillies are getting good value out of Ryan Howard, but also thinks a long-term deal is a bad idea:
This is not to say that a long-term contract for Howard would be a good idea; the Phillies have an incredible opportunity thanks to Howard's advanced age at premier to squeeze most, if not all, of his fruitful years out while under team control and then let him become some poorly-run team's mistake during his mid 30s. This is, however, to provide yet another illustration of just how valuable getting team-controlled players is.
I think there is an impression that Howard is a young player because he hasn't been on the scene that long. He's the same age as Albert Pujols, however. Albert came up three years earlier than Howard, and played another full season before Howard won the Rookie of the Year. For Albert, a long term contract was a no-brainer, because he would have become a free agent in his prime. That's not the case for Ryan. A four-year deal last season would have been fine for the Phillies first baseman, but now the Phillies are just fine playing out the arbitration game.
Posted by David Pinto at
10:40 AM
|
Players
|
TrackBack (0)
And Howard should stick it to them hard and deep every year for delaying his arrival to the Bigs. He should continue to use the system against them as much as they are using it against him.
How can Howard stick it to them?
If he doesn't play well he'll screw himself out of millions and millions of dollars in free agency.
If he plays really well and then signs a monster FA contract with somebody else, the Phillies still aren't being screwed since he will eventually decline. And even if Howard was awesome for the duration of another contract with another team, he'd still cost 10 - 15 million more a season for them then he did the Phillies so at best he'd provide fair value, not awesome value.
Please tell me how he should stick it to them.
Howard's already in decline. No sense in giving him a long-term deal of any kind.