Master Index of Archived Threads


In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Yes, he might have known what was going on.

3 votes

Yes, but it has nothing to do with Phillips

13 votes

No, he should have signed him

4 votes

metsguyinmichigan Aug 05 2013 09:22 AM

Steve Phillips took all kinds of grief for not signing ARod back in 2001. Do the recent accusations about PED use and the on-going drama take Phillips off the hook? Or would signing him still have been the right thing?

Centerfield Aug 05 2013 09:25 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Phillips was right not to sign him as soon as Hicks came in and offered that ridiculous contract. At that point, PED's were not on anyone's radar.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 05 2013 09:25 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

I don't think he should have taken the grief back then. Sure, I was disappointed that the Mets bailed so quickly, but Texas came along with a blow-everyone-out-of-the-water offer. I can't say that the Mets should have topped that.

dgwphotography Aug 05 2013 09:27 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Further proof that a broken clock is right twice a day...

Ceetar Aug 05 2013 09:35 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

I don't think so. Maybe not if they had to top Texas' offer (which I suspect Boras would've gotten even if the Mets had been in the mix already with an offer) but it's hard to see the Mets not benefiting from having A-Rod. I mean, who knows how things shake out, but in 2006 with A-Rod at SS and Reyes at second? Hard not to see them winning it all. Also, his contract would've ended by now. Even if he opted out early like he did, I can't see the Mets (And Cashman supposedly didn't want to either) caving in to his demands for an equally absurd contract. Perhaps it still shakes out the same way, the Mets capitalize on the first part and don't cave to greedy demands for contracts into his forties, the Yankees do, and are in the same situation.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 05 2013 09:47 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Joelmon had some thoughts on this topic as I recall. I showed one article fans ignored and goofed on, I talked about lupica, talked about espn confirming it, talked about the owner admitting arod didn't consider texas til the end, even arod in his conference said that

Nymr83 Aug 05 2013 10:02 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

The initial ten year Texas contract ended up being probably one of the best long-term deals ever signed by a franchise!, it would have been even more valuable had the Yankees not moved him to 3rd while he was still a near gold-glove caliber defender at SS in favor of playing an inferior defender at SS. its the extension that screwed the Yankees.

metirish Aug 05 2013 10:14 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

I don't remember any point in his free agency where the Mets were close to getting him or even serious contenders, apart from all the talking that it's.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2013 10:19 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Nymr83 wrote: The initial ten year Texas contract ended up being probably one of the best long-term deals ever signed by a franchise!, it would have been even more valuable had the Yankees not moved him to 3rd while he was still a near gold-glove caliber defender at SS in favor of playing an inferior defender at SS. its the extension that screwed the Yankees. Yabbut, the extension was prompted by him moving to exercise an exit clause in the original contract, was it not?

RealityChuck Aug 05 2013 10:35 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

The contract A-Rod signed at Texas was ridiculous; once A-Rod got those terms, even the Mets wouldn't have been stupid enough to try to top it. And it's clear the A-Rod was not going to settle for less; he wanted to be known for signing the biggest contract in the history of sports. Philips reasons for not signing him might have been a little suspect, but before the contract ended the Rangers thought they overpaid him and dumped him on the MFY. The money tied up in A-Rod's contract would have been crippling to the team.

seawolf17 Aug 05 2013 10:36 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Oh, now Steve Phillips is a genius? Not quite.

smg58 Aug 05 2013 10:45 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Edgy MD wrote: Nymr83 wrote: The initial ten year Texas contract ended up being probably one of the best long-term deals ever signed by a franchise!, it would have been even more valuable had the Yankees not moved him to 3rd while he was still a near gold-glove caliber defender at SS in favor of playing an inferior defender at SS. its the extension that screwed the Yankees. Yabbut, the extension was prompted by him moving to exercise an exit clause in the original contract, was it not? That, and the fact that the Rangers felt that they were better off dealing him four years into his contract, and only the Yankees and Red Sox stepped in as suitors. Phillips made a gut call based on assessment of A-Rod's personality and character rather than his numbers. The assessment of his personality and character has proven to be spot on. That doesn't make Phillips a genius -- the Mariners spent $35M for three years of Ichiro that offseason, while the GM of a team with a glaring hole in rightfield and no leadoff hitter and a manager who knew the Japanese game better than anybody else in America spent $40M for three years of Kevin Appier. But I'm glad the Mets are not associated with Alex Rodriguez, and the move for which Phillips took by far the most heat is, I think, the smartest thing he did in his Mets tenure.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2013 10:47 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

POW! You've been smg58'd!

Frayed Knot Aug 05 2013 11:02 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't think he should have taken the grief back then. Sure, I was disappointed that the Mets bailed so quickly, but Texas came along with a blow-everyone-out-of-the-water offer. I can't say that the Mets should have topped that. B-b-b-but ARod would have signed with the Mets for $100 million dollars less because he said they were his favorite team growing up. or so went conventional wisdom on the MoFo at the time

Frayed Knot Aug 05 2013 11:26 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

smg58 wrote: That, and the fact that the Rangers felt that they were better off dealing him four years into his contract, and only the Yankees and Red Sox stepped in as suitors. And that they felt the Rangers were better off dealing him four into in the contract even though he was still in his twenties and was playing up to if not beyond the best expectations when it was signed. And that even those two suitors who did step up only considered taking him on at a SEVERE discount, with the Sox discount being too big for the union's liking as things turned out. All those factors make it virtually the definition of of bad contract. That said, those numbers weren't even in pencil at the point where Phillips/Mets walked away but it's also silly to imagine that they soon wouldn't have been. It's like Wilpon/Phillips [now appearing in 'Bridesmaids'] make the right decision for the wrong reason.

Gwreck Aug 05 2013 11:38 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Since we're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight: From a baseball perspective, of course it was the wrong decision to not sign Rodriguez. The contract he got from Texas was 10 years, $252 million. Rodriguez put up 71.7 WAR over the life of that contract, easily living up to its value, and arguably more. How he got there (PEDs) is irrelevant as he was never caught. As stated above, it is one of those few long-term contracts that actually benefited the club over the life of the entire contract. Not a "steal" but undoubtedly a good signing. The contract looks even better if Rodriguez opted out after 7 years (as he did), as those first seven years were the peak value.

Ashie62 Aug 05 2013 11:41 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

I believe Arod ws juiced from day 1

batmagadanleadoff Aug 05 2013 11:43 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Plus the Mets were set for life with Rey Fraudonez at short. Why spring for the best shortstop of that generation when you could instead bombard the fan base with constant Orwellian Metspeak designed to delude them into thinking that Rey was better? Cause, you know, he makes it up, and then some, with his glove.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2013 11:46 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Well, the next statement that Rey-Rey was the better player will be the first. It's well pointed out that throwing good money after Kevin Appier (wh also did about as well as could be hoped) was the greater sin.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 05 2013 11:47 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Gwreck wrote: Since we're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight: From a baseball perspective, of course it was the wrong decision to not sign Rodriguez. The contract he got from Texas was 10 years, $252 million. Rodriguez put up 71.7 WAR over the life of that contract, easily living up to its value, and arguably more. How he got there (PEDs) is irrelevant as he was never caught. As stated above, it is one of those few long-term contracts that actually benefited the club over the life of the entire contract. Not a "steal" but undoubtedly a good signing. The contract looks even better if Rodriguez opted out after 7 years (as he did), as those first seven years were the peak value. The contract was tough for Texas as a quasi small-market club that spent so much on him that it couldn't afford the complementary pieces. The Mets, you'd think, could have afforded those. You also have to wonder how many bad the moves the Mets made later trying to atone for the criticism for not going after ARod.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 05 2013 11:51 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

I don't know if the Mets should've topped the contract Texas ended up paying. But the Mets dropped out of the bidding almost immediately. Who knows? If the Mets offfered A-Rod a fair market value contract early on, maybe Texas never submits an offer. A-Rod did everything but formally announce his preference to play for the Mets.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 05 2013 11:53 AM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know if the Mets should've topped the contract Texas ended up paying. But the Mets dropped out of the bidding almost immediately. Who knows? If the Mets offfered A-Rod a fair market value contract early on, maybe Texas never submits an offer. A-Rod did everything but formally announce his preference to play for the Mets. Here's another good question: Do you think that in hindsight, the Mets should've traded Amos Otis for Joe Foy? Or do you think somebody should've drowned Hitler before he reached puberty?

Ceetar Aug 05 2013 12:08 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Look at the Yankees attendance bump from signing A-Rod (never mind the attention that leads to things like advertisers wanting to advertise with you.) A-Rod signing with the NL Champs in 2001 would've led to a crazy amount of buzz and hype and Subway Series rematch crap would've dominated baseball the entire year. A-Rod easily might've made the difference and the Mets would've enacted revenge on their crosstown foes. And when A-Rod got up before Piazza in 9/21 and hit the home run first and been revered as a hero that healed the country he would've forever been the loved and appreciated superstar he's always wanted to be. He would've stayed with the Mets instead of opting out, and when they finally rebuilt on the WTC site they would've named it A-Rod Tower instead of Freedom tower, for he's the hero Gotham deserved. The Yankees on the other hand, would've started fading, and because they had Alfonso Soriano at second still, they would've traded Cano early in his minor league career for Curt Schilling to pair with Randy Johnson and try to dominate, but the old pair of pitchers, while still great, would fail to get them to where they needed to go. Now in 2013 they'd be enjoying their 5 straight losing season under the weight of contracts to guys they signed in a desperate hope to right the franchise direction and draw fans to the stadium.

RealityChuck Aug 05 2013 12:13 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know if the Mets should've topped the contract Texas ended up paying. But the Mets dropped out of the bidding almost immediately. Who knows? If the Mets offfered A-Rod a fair market value contract early on, maybe Texas never submits an offer. A-Rod did everything but formally announce his preference to play for the Mets. At the same time, later accounts said A-Rod goal was to get the biggest contract ever. And that includes other sports. The Mets would not have gotten him for less.

Ceetar Aug 05 2013 12:18 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

RealityChuck wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't know if the Mets should've topped the contract Texas ended up paying. But the Mets dropped out of the bidding almost immediately. Who knows? If the Mets offfered A-Rod a fair market value contract early on, maybe Texas never submits an offer. A-Rod did everything but formally announce his preference to play for the Mets. At the same time, later accounts said A-Rod goal was to get the biggest contract ever. And that includes other sports. The Mets would not have gotten him for less. But at the same time, A-Rod was willing to take a pay cut to leave Texas. So maybe he would've signed a 9/210 contract or something if it came first.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2013 12:41 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Ten years later, does anybody really believe that? Has Boras ever let a player jump at an early offer?

Ceetar Aug 05 2013 12:56 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Edgy MD wrote: Ten years later, does anybody really believe that? Has Boras ever let a player jump at an early offer? Does it always work that way? Does Texas jump in with an offer if they know it's going to be a bidding war?

Nymr83 Aug 05 2013 12:59 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Edgy MD wrote: Nymr83 wrote: The initial ten year Texas contract ended up being probably one of the best long-term deals ever signed by a franchise!, it would have been even more valuable had the Yankees not moved him to 3rd while he was still a near gold-glove caliber defender at SS in favor of playing an inferior defender at SS. its the extension that screwed the Yankees. Yabbut, the extension was prompted by him moving to exercise an exit clause in the original contract, was it not? and the right decision there might have just been to say "take care, Asshole" knowing you got your money's worth on the years he already played.

Frayed Knot Aug 05 2013 01:18 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Nymr83 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: The initial ten year Texas contract ended up being probably one of the best long-term deals ever signed by a franchise!, it would have been even more valuable had the Yankees not moved him to 3rd while he was still a near gold-glove caliber defender at SS in favor of playing an inferior defender at SS. its the extension that screwed the Yankees. Yabbut, the extension was prompted by him moving to exercise an exit clause in the original contract, was it not? and the right decision there might have just been to say "take care, Asshole" knowing you got your money's worth on the years he already played. And the irony of all ironies was that the Yanx (specifically the Steinbrenner boys, not Cashman) wanted so desperately to re-up ARod following his very public and very crass opt-out (right in the middle of the World Series if you recall) because, once Bonds's rep was in the toilet, not only was Alex going to be the 'Clean' guy to break the HR record but at last that most holy record would be returned to pinstripes where it rightfully belonged.

metirish Aug 05 2013 01:22 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Michael Kay just so you know is #here4u https://twitter.com/RealMichaelKay #asshole

SteveJRogers Aug 05 2013 01:26 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

metirish wrote: I don't remember any point in his free agency where the Mets were close to getting him or even serious contenders, apart from all the talking that it's. Right, they balked at Boras' first salvo of contract demands which demanded specific merchandising tents and everything in a big prospectus type of document. Which gave Phillips/Wilpon the "24 and 1" out. Though tin-foil hat wearers would claim that it, Phillips falling on the sword so early when none of the original demands would eventually show up in Texas or The Bronx, was because the Wilpons wanted to keep the franchise value down for their eventual buyout of Doubleday's portion of the franchise.

Ceetar Aug 05 2013 01:29 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

metirish wrote: Michael Kay just so you know is #here4u https://twitter.com/RealMichaelKay #asshole mocking Francesa right?

smg58 Aug 05 2013 03:21 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

SteveJRogers wrote: metirish wrote: I don't remember any point in his free agency where the Mets were close to getting him or even serious contenders, apart from all the talking that it's. Right, they balked at Boras' first salvo of contract demands which demanded specific merchandising tents and everything in a big prospectus type of document. Which gave Phillips/Wilpon the "24 and 1" out. Though tin-foil hat wearers would claim that it, Phillips falling on the sword so early when none of the original demands would eventually show up in Texas or The Bronx, was because the Wilpons wanted to keep the franchise value down for their eventual buyout of Doubleday's portion of the franchise. Tents or not, the "24 and 1" scenario happened in Texas. There was only one team where A-Rod could go and it not be a "24 and 1" scenario. And he's playing for them tonight.

SteveJRogers Aug 05 2013 03:47 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

smg58 wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: metirish wrote: I don't remember any point in his free agency where the Mets were close to getting him or even serious contenders, apart from all the talking that it's. Right, they balked at Boras' first salvo of contract demands which demanded specific merchandising tents and everything in a big prospectus type of document. Which gave Phillips/Wilpon the "24 and 1" out. Though tin-foil hat wearers would claim that it, Phillips falling on the sword so early when none of the original demands would eventually show up in Texas or The Bronx, was because the Wilpons wanted to keep the franchise value down for their eventual buyout of Doubleday's portion of the franchise. Tents or not, the "24 and 1" scenario happened in Texas. There was only one team where A-Rod could go and it not be a "24 and 1" scenario. And he's playing for them tonight. That is true, but the pro-signing and anti-Wilpon press delighted in reminding everyone what ended up not being the case, basically decrying the Mets as the world's worst poker players.

Edgy MD Aug 05 2013 05:44 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Well, maybe they are, but... well, who cares. Steve Phillips is disgraced a half dozen times over since then, and we, for better of for worse, at least aren't associated with the Rodriguez Sideshow.

metsmarathon Aug 05 2013 06:42 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

if the mets had arod, then the awful absurdity of '02-'04 likely never happens, and maybe the mets, boosted by the increased fan attendance and arod's performance, sail past the yankees and dominate the city for the early first half of the decade, and beyond. or, the mets are anchored down by his heavy contract, are unable to free up enough other payroll to buy any good players, and finally jettison him to the yankees for alfonso soriano. and end up right back where we are now. or maybe we end up worse. who really knows.

Fman99 Aug 05 2013 08:01 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

I don't know if the Mets should've topped the contract Texas ended up paying. But the Mets dropped out of the bidding almost immediately. Who knows? If the Mets offfered A-Rod a fair market value contract early on, maybe Texas never submits an offer. A-Rod did everything but formally announce his preference to play for the Mets. Here's another good question: Do you think that in hindsight, the Mets should've traded Amos Otis for Joe Foy? Or do you think somebody should've drowned Hitler before he reached puberty? Can we have one thread on this forum that doesn't mention Hitler's pubic hair? I'll speak out -- I wanted to see A-Rod in a Mets uni. I can recall him sitting in the stands at Shea during the 2000 WS as a spectator and it was the biggest deal -- because it was like he was courting the Mets. That "24+1" was a lot of horse shit, ultimately, the Wilpons didn't want to pay for him and off he went to Texas.

Fman99 Aug 05 2013 08:04 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Edgy MD wrote: Well, maybe they are, but... well, who cares. Steve Phillips is disgrace a half dozen times over since then, and we, for better of for worse, at least aren't associated with the Rodriguez Sideshow. Like you never banged a fat ESPN production assistant dressed up like Princess Leia. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Ceetar Aug 05 2013 08:33 PM Re: In hindsight, was Phillips right to not sign ARod?

Fman99 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Well, maybe they are, but... well, who cares. Steve Phillips is disgrace a half dozen times over since then, and we, for better of for worse, at least aren't associated with the Rodriguez Sideshow. Like you never banged a fat ESPN production assistant dressed up like Princess Leia. Judge not, lest ye be judged. well no, but not for lack of trying.