Chase Utley for $85 mil?

by SmokeyJoeWood on Jan 22, 2007 2:55 PM EST

The Phillies signed Chase Utley to a 7 year $85 million dollar extension.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2738188

What do you think of this deal? He's one of the best 2B in the game, production-wise, but he is already 28. 7 years is a long time, he might not be able to stick at 2B for that long.

Poll

Good deal for Philly?

Yes, he's worth it.

121 votes

No, they are crazy.

41 votes

162 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I voted yes

But I'm qulifying that with, he's worth it right now. Probably the best 2B in baseball and one of the best all around players in the game. But you are right, He is 28 now and someone who peaks this late (or maybe he just didn't get a chance earlier?) scares me because he could age quickly. I dunno. I like him, especially with that INF tied up till 2010, but he's a little scary to me for some unknown reason

by yondaime4 on Jan 22, 2007 4:54 PM EST reply actions

Not to mention

Guys playing the pivot break down faster than average (somebody forgot to tell Jeff Kent).

I still voted yes too, because his bat's so good. But it's not a no-brainer, like the arb buyout the Indians gave Sizemore.

by Yakker on Jan 22, 2007 5:11 PM EST up reply actions

Sizemore...

can you explain why extending Sizemore through his club-controlled years wasn't a no-brainer in your eyes?

by jhelfgott @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2007 6:28 PM EST up reply actions

And I'm an idiot

Yep, read that wrong. My bad.

by jhelfgott @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2007 6:35 PM EST up reply actions

Sure

If Utley stays healthy and relatively productive, they probably saved themselves about $20 million.

by Brickhaus on Jan 22, 2007 5:15 PM EST reply actions

yes

This is definitely a yes. But compared to Reyes and Wrights money it looks like Utley negotiated well. It was smart of Omar to do their contracts before Howard and Utley rather than after.

by JD Sussman on Jan 22, 2007 5:27 PM EST reply actions

In 2014..

Remember, seven years from now $12M won't mean the same as it does in today's baseball market. Most teams will have $100M+ payrolls, so it's unlikely that Utley's contract will be crippling even if he becomes merely an average player in his mid-30's.

by FI @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2007 5:37 PM EST reply actions

Horrible deal

Absolutely Freakin Insane.

He is not paid $12 per year since the first three years are arb years. The estimated amount he would have received through arbitration was $25 million.
What they did was add on four years at $15 per year.

It is possible he is worth $15 per year. It's even possible he's a little better than that. It's much more likely to be a big loser.

why it's bad

paying him $15 million per year 3 years before the market is even established
Seven year contracts are not guaranteed for health.
Basing the price on an inflated market that has a solid chance of either staying flat or going down.
His high price comes when he is 31 and starting the decline.
Career year?

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 22, 2007 6:31 PM EST reply actions

So i guess

Your arguement is basically...too long of a contract, right? Which I agree, contracts longer than 4-5 years are a huge risk.

That said, I don't think this is a bad deal at all. Utley is the best 2B in the league hands down. I don't agree that 31 is the age you start to decline, not in this day and age with strength programs and specialized diets. Maybe 33 or 34 he starts to decline, but I've read that 28-33 is prime years these days.

by doublestix on Jan 22, 2007 6:50 PM EST up reply actions

Length +

Not just the length but also too early. Why not wait a couple years to see?

I would rather risk paying him 16 or 17 million than pay 15 now and he gets injured or starts to tank.

Yeah he is one of the best now. I do disagree with the age though. Many players do start to decline that early.

If you look at the Sizemore contract you will see not only was he paid much less but everyone expects Sizemore can improve by a lot.

I really don't understand paying someone where if and only if he keeps playing at his max value do you break even on the contract.

Arthur: "Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!" Black Knight: "Yes I have." Arthur: "Look!" Black Knight: "It's just a flesh wound!"

by pedrophile on Jan 22, 2007 6:59 PM EST up reply actions

Market Correction?

People seem to be operating under the assumption that salaries will continue to grow. But what if there's a market correction like the in the years following the Jeter, Manny, and A-Rod contracts?

Contracts are cyclical. It's a pretty safe bet that there will be a correction by the time Utley's salary is $15 and he's closing in on 35. This will be an albatross.

by cinquad on Jan 22, 2007 7:24 PM EST reply actions

actually...

inflation in payrolls had actually been fairly consistent year-to-year.

by FI @ Minor League Ball on Jan 22, 2007 7:31 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

And because of systemic bias, arbitration awards only go one direction: up.

by Yakker on Jan 22, 2007 8:30 PM EST up reply actions

Chase Utley -American Badass

and my hero. Im a royals fan but Chase is my #1.

by wildthang on Jan 22, 2007 10:29 PM EST reply actions

market value

it looks to be about market value, which is the problem i have with it. utley was three years from free agency. he didnt have any leverage. however, the phils didnt get anything in return. when a club gives a guy in his position a long term deal they should get something in return (discount, deferred money, etc.). instead, they pay market value and give him a partial no trade clause.

by dmb60614 on Jan 22, 2007 10:46 PM EST reply actions

Terrible deal.

Your choices are either:

Pay your (relatively) young 2B $25 million over three years until he's 31, then let someone else pay him big for his decline years.
Decide three years early to give him a 4 year $60 million contract from when he's 31 to 35, having no real idea what the next three years will bring.

Pretty stupid, if you ask me. Then again, I think Gillick's done a terrible job with the Phillies. Trading a great one-year contract with an option on one of the best players in the game (Abreu) was pretty damn stupid as well.

by abbreviatedman on Jan 23, 2007 10:13 AM EST reply actions

not a "terrible" deal

Yes, it's long, and yes, the the 4 years for $60 million may be a bit overpriced in a few years (but if he can keep up that same production in his aged 31-34 years (even if he's playing 1B or OF) $15 million won't be an albatross.

But those risks are outweighed by the PR move for their fans, the state of mind of their current players, and their future players'/free agents' desire to play for them now that they've shown they are willing to spend for their franchise players.

by Galt on Jan 24, 2007 9:34 AM EST reply actions