Tell you what - if Burrell gets a $12 million/year contract, I will give you $100.
If Burrell gets $11 million or less you give me $20.
Deal?
What does this have to do with anything being discussed?
I don't think anyone's saying Burrell's going to get more than $15 million per on the free agent market. I think where the disagreement comes in is whether the Phillies would be better off with Burrell (even at $15 million) or on paying Ibanez $20 million at 38 and 39 years old.
You guys are killing me. Aside from the simple fact that the Phillies did not want Burrell back, they figured - rightfully - that the number that they would have had to give Burrell in arbitration would be so high (relative to market value) that there was NO WAY that they were going to see draft picks if they offered him arbitration.
Two things, which I've said here numerous times, which seems to be the theme of this thread (repeating ourselves):
- The Phillies not wanting Burrell back under any circumstance is one of my problems, so I'm not sure why you can say "aside from that fact". That's one of my primary arguments.
- Offering arbitration does not just bring up the possibility of draft picks. It also inhibits other teams willingness to make an offer, thus decreasing the commitment you'd have to make to talk Burrell into a multi-year deal. It's been reported that Burrell would have taken LESS than Ibanez accepted.
It's just a damn shame how little they value Burrell and why they would rather give up a draft pick and pay Ibanez $20 million in his 38 and 39 year old seasons than give Burrell a 1 year deal.
You seem to like to come up with hypotheticals, so here's mine.
Of these three situations, I'd rather:
1) Burrell signed to a 3 year, $30 million deal
2) Burrell accepting a 1 year, $15 million arbitration
3) Ibanez on a 3 year, $30 million deal.
It appears that the Phillies best-case scenario was #3. To me, that was the worst case scenario. Significantly. I'm much more concerned about the $20 million owed to Ibanez in his 38 and 39 year old seasons than I would be slightly overpaying Burrell in his 33 year old season.
You seem so extremely caught up on that extra few million while overlooking how overpaid the ancient Ibanez will be at that time. I think not offering Burrell arb was a mistake. I think taking Ibanez at 3 years/30 million rather than Burrell (either to a similar contract or to arb) is more damning. I don't know why they're getting a pass from you on this.
You keep bringing up market value, if Burrell isn't worth $11-$12 million, why is Ibanez? Did the Phillies overpay for him?
I've had it with your position that I am some kind of idiot or Phillies nut-hugger because I agree with them.
Um...ok.
Nobody's said that. I've said I didn't like the decision since the beginning, since before you debated it. But whatever. If you want to go all persecution complex, feel free.
I'm sorry I can't state my disagreement.
