On April 26, 2010, Ryan Howard was a star. For four consecutive seasons, the Phillies first baseman had landed in the top five of the National League MVP voting and swatted over forty home runs. With the Phils in the midst of a five-year run of dominance, the sides linked up on a five-year, $125MM extension.
It’s easy to mock that contract now, with the Phillies still paying down the final portion of it — a whopping $10MM buyout of a $23MM option for the 2017 season. Perhaps the organization believed at the time of the signing that the $13MM decision would be an easy one, but surely since-departed GM Ruben Amaro Jr. did not expect it would be so obvious to say goodbye to (rather than retain) the slugger.
With Howard now looking to make his way back to the majors on a minor-league deal with the Braves, his huge contract is no longer weighing down the Phillies. Instead, it serves mostly as a cautionary tale.
It’s easy to go overboard in criticizing the Howard contract, because we know what became of it. Though he continued to hit at an above-average rate in 2010 and 2011, while playing out the remainder of his arbitration-eligible seasons (which had been bought out under a prior extension), the actual years covered by the five-year deal were a disaster. From 2012 through 2016, Howard averaged 19 home runs annually while slashing a miserable .226/.292/.427.
But that outcome surely wasn’t the expected one at the time of the signing. Howard hadn’t yet suffered a devastating Achilles injury. His K/BB numbers hadn’t eroded to the point that they would. (In fact, he had posted 15% or better walk rates in two full MLB seasons — 2006 and 2007 — and had to that point never ended a full year with less than a 10.7% walk rate.) The swing-and-miss was always there, but Howard hadn’t yet seen his chase rate jump suddenly (it topped 30% in 2010 and kept going up from there).
That is to say: the Phillies weren’t wrong in assessing that Howard was a heck of a player. He was! And he gave them 64 dingers and a .265/.350/.497 batting line over the next two seasons, helping the organization to two more postseason berths. That sort of reduced-but- still-useful production might’ve continued had Howard not blown out his Achilles in making the last out of the club’s stunning 2011 NLDS exit.
Of course, while the Howard extension perhaps turned sour quicker than might’ve been anticipated, that doesn’t mean it was well-conceived. Even at his best, Howard was an extremely limited player; at the time of the deal, he was already thirty years old. And the real sin was committed in making the deal so far in advance of Howard’s free agency, at the end of his peak, and in expectation of a longer run of organizational success than could be sustained. This wasn’t exactly unforeseeable, either. As MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes wrote at the time: “The length makes this an unnecessary risk, and at $25MM a year the Phillies didn’t get a discount for taking the gamble and locking him up two years before free agency.”
The Phillies did not come up with a favorable bounce on their ill-advised dice roll. That’s clear. And the deal ended up costing the organization quite a bit of money that could have been reallocated — perhaps, to other players who might’ve helped extend the contention window. (Or, perhaps to other players who might’ve been signed to unwise contracts that would have deepened the eventual financial hole.) But here, too, it’s best to avoid dramatizing the impact. When the Phillies began dismantling their once-great core, Howard’s contract meant that he’d stay on — eventually becoming the lone remaining relic. But it’d be a bit of a stretch to say that the deal impacted the team’s recent decisionmaking, or changed the timeline for a hoped-for return to contention. The delayed rebuilding launch surely wasn’t driven by this one contract.
For the Phillies, the Howard contract proved to be something like the cost expended on a fancy diamond ring in a relationship that ultimately falls apart. When put in perspective, it’s hardly the thing that stings the most. And eventually, you can look back on it all with fondness despite the hard times. By the end, Howard was even able to be seen once more as a proud part of a golden era for the franchise. The Phillies organization will no doubt remember him just that way for decades to come … with the front office also constantly reminding itself of the lesson paid for in his contract.
nutbunnies
“It’s easy to mock that contract now”
It was easy to mock at the time, too. Howard was already declining. His 2008 season was vastly overrated, with a below average OBP, and he was already unplayable vs. lefties. His home run totals were very nice, but it couldn’t counterbalance his negative value on the basepaths or in the field.
Jeff Todd
Right … as noted. I’m not defending the deal, just trying to view it fairly.
neils
I think nutbunnies’ point is that a “fair” read would be that it was always worthy of mockery. To suggest that Howard’s results weren’t predictable isn’t being “fair”, it’s being ignorant of the analysis that was done at the time.
Back in April 2010, after the extension was announced, Tango gave Howard a 1/3 chance of posting 0 WAR from age 32 onward. (Though, to be fair, he saw 10 WAR as his median result – which is still less than half the contract’s value.) Dave Studeman said that the deal was “not at all likely” to work out for the Phillies, and similarly expected about a 1/3 chance he’d be worth it. Matt Carruth called it “baseball’s new worst contract.” MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes called it an “unnecessary risk.” Josh Levitt asked “what exactly was Amaro thinking?” It looks like Matt Swartz was alone in thinking it was a good deal. But he’s the exception that proved the rule.
Jeff Todd
Just because I’m now stating it is easy to mock the deal doesn’t mean I think that it was a good decision at the time. That’s an unfair logical leap.
I’m not ignorant of the analysis that was done. I’m not suggesting it was wrong. I just didn’t feel it was worth simply rehashing all that as the sole focus of this throw-away post.
All the comments here are pointing out my framing of this … but find me a thing I wrote where I actually say it was wise at the time? Or that it was unfairly panned? I’m simply not arguing that or even trying to hint at it. I’m merely putting a little bit of perspective on the deal now that it’s complete, which is … eh, yeah, it was foolish but in retrospect probably didn’t alter things all that much.
cheapseater
The contract also hindered retaining Brandon Moss, Darin Ruf’s development, and maybe Tommy Joseph’s too.
Jeff Todd
I mean, let’s be fair here. Howard was a franchise icon. Moss was a journeyman to that point. Ruf was held in higher regard by Phillies fans – due to his magical 2012 – than prospect analysts. And Joseph? Not only was his situation entirely unpredictable, but he got plenty of opportunity last year. I don’t think any other organization would’ve handled it differently, and I doubt the current FO let the Howard contract get in the way of what it felt was right for the future.
tuna411
Lets be fair. The Phils signed howard to HUGE money when he was 2 or 3 years away from free agency.
It is one thing to get cheap’ish years in at the beginning because of arb, but they paid him when they didn’t have to…and that is the mistake.
chesteraarthur
“The length makes this an unnecessary risk, and at $25MM a year the Phillies didn’t get a discount for taking the gamble and locking him up two years before free agency.”
Jeff Todd
No kidding. That’s exactly what I wrote. But it’s silly to suggest that, say, Darin Ruf would’ve been the next … I dunno, the next Ryan Howard? … had it not been for the contract.
Just trying to put some reasonable perspective on the contract. I’m not remotely suggesting revisionist history on its underlying merit. It was a dud when it was entered and turned out even worse.
nutbunnies
I think the mistake is not “wow they sure screwed themselves out of Darin Ruf,” but rather screwing themselves out of any opportunity at an alternative period.
cjelepis
Please. Darin Ruf stunk. Just because Angelo Cataldi liked him didn’t make up for his sub .220 batting average. If he’d have produced, he would’ve played. And tommy Joseph played practically full time after being converted from catcher.
bharri
Click the link from ’10 and read the comment section! I forgot there was a time where “this Bill James stat thing was a bust” was a real thing people said
byop 2
It makes an interesting read, looking back at all those comments from 7 years ago.
chesteraarthur
This was my favorite, “thats the most ridiculous thing i’ve ever read that Joey Votto is a better offensive player than Ryan Howard, the guy consistently drives in 140+ runs and has 45+ HR’s.”
Connorsoxfan
I liked the guy who said no one should pay Prince Fielder.
Connorsoxfan
At least someone there knew what they were talking about
dan-9
The best thing about the Ryan Howard extension is that it shut 99% of those people up. Or better yet, convinced them they were wrong.
chesteraarthur
“Though he continued to produce in 2010 and 2011, while playing out the remainder of his arbitration-eligible seasons”
He was a below average player both years, producing 2.6 fWAR combined during that time (because as noted above his defense and base running were putrid). So what does produce mean here? Solely at the plate? During that period he had a 125 wRC+, 10th among 1b, 1 point below Billy Butler. I can understand wanting to view it fairly, but he really wasn’t that great, even during those years.
This is a post from fangraphs about that extension, at the time, with no hindsight bias. It was doing a pretty good job of mocking it at the time it was signed. fangraphs.com/blogs/what-are-the-phillies-thinking…
chesteraarthur
If I missed it, my bad, but there doesn’t seem to be any mention that this extension was signed when Howard was already 30 and was controlled through his age 31 season. The extension covered only post peak decline years. And wasn’t cheap. That was a major reason why this extension seemed so dumb, at the time.
Jeff Todd
Ah yeah I was going to quote another sentence from Tim’s at-the-time writeup but did not end up doing so. Added mention of the age.
Again: I’m not trying to reinterpret the deal. Was mostly just pointing back to the analysis done at the time, which rightly pointed out all the flaws. If I’m arguing anything, it’s a) it turned out way worse than would’ve been reasonably anticipated but also b) how much of an impact was there, really, in the end?
Jeff Todd
I meant at the plate, but I’ll clarify that.
Again … I know it was rightly mocked at the time. Tim did so himself, as I quoted in this very post. I think people are sort of assuming some intention on my part to challenge the orthodoxy on this contract, which I’m not doing at all.
chesteraarthur
To me, and apparently some other readers, your opening comes off as one trying to downplay how stupid it was then and now. You lead with a few statements that seem to be an attempt to downplay the questionable nature of it.
“It’s easy to mock that contract now, with the Phillies still paying down the final portion of it”
“It’s easy to go overboard in criticizing the Howard contract, because we know what became of it.”
It’s not because we know what became of it. Here is a quote from the end of that article I linked, written at the time, “Say hello to baseball’s newest worst contract.”
“That is to say: the Phillies weren’t wrong in assessing that Howard was a heck of a player. He was! And he gave them 64 dingers and a .265/.350/.497 batting line over the next two seasons, ” That doesn’t make you a heck of a player.
Just the way I read it.
Jeff Todd
Well, maybe I went too far in framing it that way. Just didn’t think it would be interesting to read yet again about how dumb the contract was. I think we all know that.
You’re interpreting everything I wrote in a manner to suggest a positive interpretation of the contract. “Mock” … “go overboard” … I’m talking about extreme reactions … the kind that make it out like Howard was a complete waste of a player to that point or that the contract was somehow singularly responsible for the downfall of the Phillies.
Also, you misleadingly quote from that para. The line about what he gave in ’10 and ’11 is not an example of his being a heck of a player. He was a heck of a player to the point the deal was signed. In the very next sentence, I label his 2010/11 work as “reduced-but- still-useful production”.
CursedRangers
Good article. The explosion of salaries in MLB is fascinating, especially considering how few pan out over time. Yet, teams keep going this route.
First it seemed like an ego deal with the owners (and still is). It was akin to ‘keeping up with the neighbors’. Only in this case the neighbors were the Yankees, who were one of the few teams with a massive TV deal and a market. They were overwhelmingly hated by most and fans/owners loved keeping players from going there.
Then that was coupled with false illusions due to the steroid debacle. We got caught up in huge majestic home runs coming from mainly one dimensional players. This led another big uptick in salaries.
Then everyone’s favorite agent, Scott Boras, stepped in an wowed people with huge presentations and analytics to show just how strong his clients were (and minimized their weaknesses).
Then came the new stadiums and new tv deals. Teams became flush with cash that they had to spend. More crazy deals dished out.
And here we are today, where even a slightly above average player can make as much as the biggest stars in football or basketball. Data analytics have come to the forefront. People are cutting their cable cords left
CursedRangers
And right.
But now the owners can sell their teams for crazy sums. Dodgers went for a astronomical price. Which leads to the Marlins likely being sold for $1.3B or so in the near future. This just gives owners more incentive to keep throwing money around. Yet everyone knows these massive contracts rarely pan out.
When will the madness end…
NickinAtl
Not sure where the madness started. Of course, I don’t begrudge owners and players getting paid according to the market. Capitalism is cool, even the major sports leagues’ bastardized version of it.
Johhos
I agree with most that the timing of the extension was poor, but the crime was the timing of the injury. Howard injured himself in the playoffs, when the Phils were making their 5 year run. The Howard injury forced the ill-fated Pence move.
To give Amaro credit though, he was trying to lock up a star first baseman for the foreseeable future at a palatable rate. Howard’s deal is done after this year…Votto and Albert Pujols are costing their teams into their 40’s . And 5/125 will not sniff a star slugger in the near future, not without an opt out.
chesteraarthur
I will wager that Joey Votto’s contract, will result in more surplus (or less negative) value than Howard’s.
hiflew
It might have more surplus value on paper, but it will be just as crippling to the franchise. If not more so due to Votto taking a larger percentage of Cincy’s payroll. Of course I wouldn’t compare Votto with Howard in the first place. A better contract comparison would be of Joe Mauer. Mauer is a very good player, like Votto even approaching Hall of Fame discussion, but his contract has crippled the Twins virtually since the day it was signed. Same with Votto and the Reds. Another good example would be Todd Helton in the 2000s with the Rockies.
Johhos
Votto has yet to hit 35 HRs in a single season.He and his supporting cast haven’t been to the playoffs recently, let alone the WS. That’s not Vottos fault entirely though. Plus Cincinnati owes Votto $132 million minimum for his 34-40 years. Don’t get me wrong, Joey is a cornerstone -I’d take him and the Phils need a solid building block power hitter.
Let’s just hope that he doesn’t suffer an injury half as crushing as Howard’s.
Phillies do not currently have one position player in the majors or even at AAA that you can say definitively will be worth a mega-deal.
chesteraarthur
“Votto has yet to hit 35 HRs in a single season.”
And?
allphilly
Remember, too, that the Phillies rushed a little to sign Ryan Howard because they thought Pujols would set the bar even higher for elite first basemen, which is what RAJ considered Howard to be. Personally, I enjoyed watching Ryan Howard hit even into his bad years. He was also a victim of the heavy use of shifts. Sure the contract was bad, but we wouldn’t be saying that now if he’d had a normal descent instead of a shockingly rapid one.
Jeff Todd
I think the contract would still be bad, and ill-conceived, and all that — just not seen as this total hilarious mess. But that was the risk they took. It is interesting to note the Pujols point … far superior player, of course, but it’s arguable his contract will represent a much bigger drag on his organization than Howard’s deal did.
mike156
I think Jeff is making some good points here. First of all, not every FO in 2010 was using advanced metrics and buying the idea that WAR was an all-encompassing tool.. You had a guy who had finished 1st, 5th, 2nd and 3rd in MVP voting in the four previous seasons, If he has a similar season in 2010, you know an extension may be out of the question. They probably knew they were overpaying, but losing him to FA (or having them bid up in years or dollars) might have seemed to them worse. The Phillies had signed Thome to a seven year contract when he was going into his year 32 season in 2003, and salaries were rising. Unquestionably a bad signing, but I really wonder if he hadn’t shredded his Achilles if he would have had such a sharp decline.
Solaris611
Votto’s contract is pure insanity even if he is a perennial MVP candidate.
siddfinch1079
Nice read, Jeff. Hard to fathom the most recent “golden era” of Phillies baseball was that long ago….seems like only yesterday when CBP was packed to the rafters with boo birds who actually cheered. One can only wonder what career numbers he would’ve had if the organization hadn’t waited until he was 24 to bring him up. While my viewpoint might be scoffed at, I partially think that another reason the Phils threw all that money at Howard was due to his late start as a quasi-apology.
sportsdoctor
There is so MUCH more to this than just an isolated signing. If you look at Howard’s production prior to 2010, he was a top 5 run producer. With that in mind, other teams were locking up players to 9/10 year deals (Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Votto, ARod etc..). RAJ was trying to ensure Howard staying in Philly (with the window of opportunity still open), yet not get into the 9-10 deal (remember, the PED era had players signing well into their late 30’s and into their 40’s). In retrospect, the deal was horrific. But no one, including anyone on this site could have predicted Howard’s ending in 2011 (Achilles tear). And no one could have predicted the poor healing (remember the latent infection that went on into Spring training). Had Howard managed a .250 average, 40 HR’s, and 115 RBI’s, we’d all be talking about a contract that was over priced, but at least not too long. Texas is eating Prince Fielder’s contract (insurance will hopefully take on some). The Angels are eating Josh Hamiltons contract and Albert’s contract. Votto is good, but not through 2022. Management tried like heck to maintain the “window” of competativeness. Keeping Howard in the mix was a priority of ownership. Not defending it, just trying to explain and put the contract into perspective.
reflect
The unnecessary risk is really what made it a tragedy. When you sign a player that early you’re supposed to receive a sizable discount for risk. It’s like the Phillies were just rushing to sign him years early for no apparent reason.
If Howard were a free agent when the contract were signed it would at least be defensible.
DannyQ3913
He was paid for the past and got us a World Series so who cares
eilexx
No, he was paid because the Phillies were scared of Fielder’s and Pujols’ potential contracts, so they jumped the gun.
marckahn
RAJ always seem to pay guys for what they did in the past, not for what they might become in the future. The Achilles tear did hurt, but injuries are part of the game.
cxcx
Check out the comments from the original post on the extension. Check out all the comments on how the Howard contract is as bad as David Ortiz at $12m a year… Know it all people…
I think the biggest failing in this post wasn’t Jeff singing Howard’s praises (he didn’t) but a lack of context of the first baseman free agent market at the time. The original post includes some info on it for anyone interested.
jd396
My biggest problem with this post is that Jeff should have concluded it by adding (flame shield)
eilexx
The contract was horrible the day he signed it, and even worse today. The Phillies were in the mode of “we’re smarter than everyone else” at the time, thinking they could plan and out-think everyone else in baseball. They signed Howard for 5/$125 instead of waiting for Fielder and Pujols to reset the market, and then they’d have to pay more. They thought they’d get him cheaper. But it was foolish to guarantee 7 years (he had two years left on his deal) to a 30+ year old, one dimensional player, no matter how great that one tool is or was.
Amaro had his good qualities as a GM and as an assistant GM, but he always seemed to believe he knew the market better than he did. It was evident in his FA signings…he jumped the gun on Ibanez, Papelbon, etc., and seemed to overpay. And then on the trades…I’ll leave the Lee trade to Seattle alone, because I believed then and I believe now, that that move happened above Amaro’s pay-grade.
The Howard contract was just ridiculous…both then and now.