I wouldn't say his 204 at bats in the PCL last season constitute "destroying" AAA pitching, but that's really just picking a nit. I think the team was stupid to promote him when they did back in 2008, but there's nothing to be done about it now. His attitude seems fine, the hits will start to fall in. If he can hit .220 in the majors, he might as well be here.

Hmmm, I agree. if only because of his super-low BABIP, indicating that at some point he will ascend to the mean, and it will be awesome

Add in the 70 PA in Syracuse producing a line of .344/.386/.516 and that gives him a career AAA line of .339/.420/.623 over 274 PA.

How many have done better than that?

This is off-topic but... for those watching yesterdays game, how was Ruiz' fielding at 1st? I see he actually got the start there.

As a curiosity, of the 105 AL batters with 50+PA (again excluding Sunday) only one has a lower BABIP than Snider's .150.

Mark Teixeira at .128.

Well, off the top of my head Mike Marshall immediately comes to mind. And when I look it up, I see Marshall hit .373/.445/.675 with 34 HR and 137 RBI in the PCL when he was Snider's age. The Dodgers left him there to hit .388 in 66 games the following year before they tossed in the towel and brought him to Dodger Stadium. Where everything was very different indeed.

Snider posted very nice numbers in the PCL, no argument whatsoever. But it's the PCL - Hector Freaking Luna hit .351 there last year.

Snider did indeed have a nice three weeks in Syracuse. And he spent most of that same season at AA where he hit .262 with 116 strikeouts in 98 games.

But again, the above is nit-picking. On your central question - should the Jays send him down - I think we generally agree. Why would they do that? So Adam Lind can play LF and Randy Ruiz can DH? What's the point of that?

Now if Snider's still hitting .143 on May 25th, that's an entirely different proposition. But I would be very surprised by that. I do think Snider's future wil end up somewhere between Adam Dunn and Carlos Delgado, which will be fine enough.

I expect it to be much closer to that of Adam Dunn (but with good walk totals rather than what Dunn does) than Delgado, but 'twill be enough, 'twill suffice.

Mike Marshall put up some pretty good numbers with the Dodgers over 7 plus years. Mediocre strikeout to walk ratio probably held him back from becoming a full-blown masher. Still, translate his major league numbers of Dodgers Stadium circa 1980s into 2010 Rogers Centre numbers and you have some decent raking going on.

And yes, I would say he destroyed AAA pitching.

But the PCL is a little different now than it was then, given that it swallowed half of the American Association between then and now.

2009 average line in PCL: .272/.341/.418

1981 PCL: .283/.357/.417
1982 PCL: .285/.361/.430

If I recall correctly, Albuquerque was a very strong hitter's haven relative to the league, more than Las Vegas is today. But admittedly I haven't checked the park factors on that.

I agree that Snider should stay up - he obliterated AAA pitching so completely in his short time there in 2009 that he has nothing left to prove.

But I'm beginning to wonder whether it matters either way. Comparison points: Lloyd Moseby, who was brought up about two years too early, and Shannon Stewart, who was brought up about a year too late, both went on to have good major league careers.

As long as Snider is putting in the work, he will become whatever he will become. All we can do is wait.

I'm not sure if Mike Marshall's the best comp. His foot did have a coke habit, after all. Per wiki:

The legendary announcer, Harry Caray, once said during a Cubs telecast that, "Mike Marshall is going back to LA to get some cocaine for his foot." His partner in the booth, color commentator Steve Stone, quickly interjected, "Uh, Harry, that's novacaine."

Caray might have had some fun with Snider's striding-to-the-plate music. 

>Add in the 70 PA in Syracuse producing a line of .344/.386/.516 and that gives him a career AAA line of .339/.420/.623 over 274 PA.

> How many have done better than that?

At that age not many. Let's not forget Josh Phelps though, who at age 24 in 2002 went 292/380/658 in Syracuse over 257 AB. You'd have expected him to be a success too, even at 24. Josh Phelps went all Chuck Norris on AA and AAA and yet his subsequent career should be used as a note of caution. The criticism of Josh Phelps was that his swing was too long; he beat the John Halama's of this world to a pulp, but struggled against pitchers with a fastball. (I also suspect  one might find some platoon splits). Does Snider have any issues with his mechanics or timing? If not, you'd still be optimistic about his chances.

Incidentally, the current downside for Snider would be Delmon Young.  Young will probably be good by the time he is 27, but he will be too expensive for the Twins by then.  Young's minor league career (taken as a whole) was probably at least as impressive as Snider's, but he was promoted at least a year too early in light of his strike zone and personal issues.

While there are certainly no guarantees that Snider doesn't go down Phelps' career path, there is a world of difference between Phelps getting half a season in at age 24 and Snider doing the same at age 21 (even conceding Phelps' better rookie season). That three-year age gap is a huge, huge difference and ultimately means that you're comparing apples to oranges as far as Phelps and Snider are concerned.

This is off-topic but... for those watching yesterdays game, how was Ruiz' fielding at 1st? I see he actually got the start there.

He didn't really have much to do, but he did have trouble picking a Jose Bautista throw out of the dirt, one that Lyle probably scoops with ease.

I really hope Snider doesn't get sent down, because I don't think there's much left for him to learn at the minor league level. He can't work on his approach down there because the breaking stuff isn't ungodly and to me it appears he's best served figuring out his approach with the big boys. If he was whffing at a prolific rate or not walking I'd be concerned, but his 13.8 BB% and 25 K% are pretty consistent with his work in the minors, and a BABIP of .143 when you have a 23.8 LD% and decent speed just doesnt compute. The negative of perhaps ruining some of his confidence isn't something I'm comfortable with, and would hope the front office hasn't even started having this discussion yet; it's way too early and he's shown too much to be so reactionary.  Brantley and Davis are very different situations because Brantley wasn't supposed to be up yet and only got the call due to Branyan's injury (who was presumably signed to help the team prevent having to use Brantley too early), and Davis was replaced by one of the top prospects in all of baseball on a team that doesn't think it can afford to be giving away games in April.

I'll add that if wasting service time when the club isn't competing and he isn't producing at his best is a concern, then perhaps the club should take this slow start as an opportunity to lock him up through his arbitration years, giving yourself options on 2016-18 as AA has been known to do. It's hard to see it costing much more than 15m to lock in his preFA salaries today in light of the recent Lind extension, and the potential value of those option years would be gigantic while the risk of him being a sunk cost is minimal and affordable if structured correctly.

I'll add that if wasting service time when the club isn't competing and he isn't producing at his best is a concern, then perhaps the club should take this slow start as an opportunity to lock him up through his arbitration years, giving yourself options on 2016-18 as AA has been known to do.

This is an absolutely brilliant idea. The anti-Hinske move.

Unfortunately, because of the optics it just isn't going to happen. It just doesn't look good to lock up a player who is "struggling" (I put that in quotes because I really don't think Snider has played badly), even though in a rational world it would be a great move for the Jays.

With the right player, it would be a brilliant move.  I am not sure if it would be for Snider.  You have to know the player better than any of us do to make that judgment. 

The problem is that contracts can influence development and performance ("the contract year" phenomenon being a simple example of it). 

On a related issue, what do people think of the Phillies' decision to sign Howard to a rich long-term contract while trading Cliff Lee?  It is not exactly an either/or situation, but I myself would feel as much reluctance (at least) signing Howard to any kind of deal covering 4 years from now as I would for Lee. 

A math based analysis of the Howard extension:

Ryan Howard contract = Vernon Wells contract

but I myself would feel as much reluctance (at least) signing Howard Howard to any kind of deal covering 4 years from now

If I understand correctly, it is a 5-year extension that starts in 2012, covering Howard's age 32 to 36 seasons. He was already signed for 2011. You'd think that there are enough bad contracts to players in their 30s that Amaro could have used as a red flag.

As with this type of deal, the hometown fans will love it, thinking that their guy won't decline (he's different, don't you know?). Meanwhile, Kenny Williams knows who his new DH will be in 2014, at pennies on the dollar.

Even if Howard declines, he's still going to be one heck of a masher at age 34. It's possible that the back end of the contract will be a burden, but given that the Phillies are built to win over the next 3-4 years I think that is more than an acceptable risk.

I don't mind big contracts to elite hitters - Vernon Wells most definitely never was in that category, so there ends any comparison between Wells and Howard.

Howard is already a first baseman, so decline in defensive value will be minimal. He's a big man, but seems to be in very good shape - I would be more concerned about handing out money to Prince Fielder than Howard, even though Fielder is much younger.

I think the most likely career path for Howard is Jim Thome.

Howard's not as good as Thome was, and a little better than Mo Vaughn, Cecil Fielder and David Ortiz. 

The Howard contract is horrendous, and I can't believe Gillick didn't talk Amaro out of this, especially knowing how much he hates going more than 3 years for anyone. It's not the first headscratcher from Amaro though, as the Ibanez, Moyer, and even Polanco deals all came out of nowhere, and made no sense in the current market. I guess this confirms the Phillies care very little for "advanced" statistics and are as old school as it gets. The problem with this extension is the same problem with the Wells one - the timing. If you are going to extend a guy 2 years before you have to, you better be getting a discount, and I just can't see how this can be considered anywhere close to that. It appears the Phillies would have lost nothing by waiting out at the least all of 2010 and then make a decision from there. The Phillies have maxed out their revenues the last couple of years with a jam packed stadium and it appears 140m is near their current limit, otherwise they would have been insane to trade one of the best pitchers in baseball (Lee) when they are a championship calibre team - there's simply no way you can justify acquiring Phillipe Aumont/Tyson Gillies for a year of Lee and 2 draft picks if this wasn't the case. What all this means is that the Phillies can't retain Werth without cutting payroll from elsewhere, because their projected 2011 payroll is already at 135m, and that's with the 24m of Werth, Moyer, Romero, Durbin, and Contreras coming off the books, and you still need to have a bullpen behind Lidge/Madson. While Domonic Brown is a tantalizing OF prospect, the lineup in the near future loses a lot without Werth balancing out the heart of the order from the right side, and Brown would be better utilized taking over for the aging, defenseless Ibanez. I also wonder what this contract does to their chances of retaining Rollins after 2011, as he'll be looking to cash in after a club option for only 8.5m in 2011.

It's astounding to me that Howard can get more per year than Joe Mauer 2 years from FA, and if Ryan Howard is worth 25m Albert Pujols is worth close to 50. Investing that much money in a 32 year old, free swinging (he's drawn one walk this year) slugger who brings very little defensive value (despite the hype from the media about his improved D he still can't make an accurate throw to 2B) and is neutralized easily late in games by a decent lefty is not a very good idea. The 7th, 8th, and 9th innings are his lowest OPSs, and that's with all the increased IBBs he gets when the situation warrants it. Once you look past the HR-RBI, Howard was less valuable in their championship season than Utley, Rollins, Werth, Victorino, and Hamels, and they added Roy Halladay. Quite a bit of scratch for a guy the statistical community probably won't consider one of their 5 best players by the time the extension kicks in.

Once you look past the HR-RBI, Howard was less valuable in their championship season than Utley, Rollins, Werth, Victorino, and Hamels, and they added Roy Halladay.

Granted he doesn't have much defensive value, but here are the top offensive WPA guys in the NL last season:

Rk		Age	PA	Tm	BtRuns	BtWins	Plays	WPA ▾
1	*Prince Fielder	25	719	MIL	62	5.9	731	8.10
2	Albert Pujols	29	700	STL	79	7.4	725	7.90
3	*Ryan Howard	29	703	PHI	34.1	3.2	716	6.30
4	*Joey Votto	25	544	CIN	40	3.8	556	6.10
5	*Andre Ethier	27	685	LAD	28.4	2.7	703	4.80
6	*Chase Utley	30	687	PHI	32.7	3.1	721	4.50
7	Ryan Braun	25	708	MIL	42.9	4.1	751	4.50
8	#Pablo Sandoval	22	633	SFG	34.9	3.3	651	4.20
9	*Adrian Gonzalez	27	681	SDP	57.9	5.5	687	4.00
10	Derrek Lee	33	615	CHC	36.3	3.4	622	3.70
11	*Raul Ibanez	37	565	PHI	21.3	2	572	3.70
12	*Nick Johnson	30	574	TOT	22.3	2.1	600	3.60
13	Hanley Ramirez	25	652	FLA	42.1	4	695	3.50
14	Jorge Cantu	27	643	FLA	4.5	0.4	657	3.50
15	David Wright	26	618	NYM	21.4	2	672	3.40
16	Matt Holliday	29	270	STL	24.1	2.3	280	3.30
17	Miguel Tejada	35	673	HOU	7.9	0.8	691	3.00
18	Mark Reynolds	25	662	ARI	18	1.7	699	3.00
19	Ryan Zimmerman	24	693	WSN	29.1	2.8	705	2.90
20	Matt Diaz	31	425	ATL	18.1	1.7	446	2.90

Howard is a guy you want up as much as possible with men on base, and with men on the value of a home run relative to a walk increases. As long as he can hit the way he does, and is properly utilized, he will remain very valuable.

Regarding the money - it's only money. Provided the Phillies can afford it for now, I wouldn't be complaining if I were a Phillies fans. This is a veteran team and their window of opportunity is now and for the next 3-4 years.

Howard is a guy you want up as much as possible with men on base, and with men on the value of a home run relative to a walk increases. As long as he can hit the way he does, and is properly utilized, he will remain very valuable.

Regarding the money - it's only money. Provided the Phillies can afford it for now, I wouldn't be complaining if I were a Phillies fans. This is a veteran team and their window of opportunity is now and for the next 3-4 years.

I don't think the biggest question is whether Howard can remain valuable, but why the Phillies seemed be bidding against themselves for a likely past-his-prime first baseman who was still under contract for two more years.  I mean, they are paying him $25 million per year for 5 years.  This the type of contract you give a young superstar at a premiere position.  Not a guy who has Richie Sexson as his number one comparable at BR.com.

I would venture that had the Phillies simply let Howard play out his existing contract, they could then have signed him to 3 year contract for half of the per year rate he is now signed to.

WPA is not representative of a player's skill at all, and his high 2009 number is nowhere near the 2 previous seasons. WPA is also way too dependent on the hitters in front of you to take very much out of it - if the Phillies are down 2 runs in the bottom of the 9th and Utley and Victorino work walks in front of Howard and he HRs, that HR is going to be worth MUCH more than if he hits that tater with the bases empty and 2 outs.

Snider posted very nice numbers in the PCL, no argument whatsoever. But it's the PCL - Hector Freaking Luna hit .351 there last year.

Luna has not a little Major League experience and was 29 last year. He SHOULD knock around enough marginal pitching to do well in the PCL. There's little relevance between that and what a 21 year old does in the same league.

WPA is not representative of a player's skill at all, and his high 2009 number is nowhere near the 2 previous seasons. WPA is also way too dependent on the hitters in front of you to take very much out of it - if the Phillies are down 2 runs in the bottom of the 9th and Utley and Victorino work walks in front of Howard and he HRs, that HR is going to be worth MUCH more than if he hits that tater with the bases empty and 2 outs.

But we are not fundamentally talking about Howard's skill, but rather his VALUE to the Phillies.

I know exactly what WPA is and is not. And given that you have the right table setters, Howard's skills become much more valuable than if you don't. The Phillies have them - therefore Howard's value is increased. My point is that Howard fits in very well with the other players in the Phillies lineup.

Personally, I don't think Howard is a great candidate for decline. The fact that he hasn't drawn many walks so far in his career leaves the door open for him to develop that skill. In a certain sense, he is an unfinished ballplayer. That being the case, as long as he remains healthy there is a real possibility of him getting better. There have been players that have had better careers in their 30s than in their 20s.

Yes I know they are overpaying him - blah, blah. If you are not a Phillies fan, why should you care? If you are, then you should have fun watching this team play over the next several years at a very high level.

"The fact that he hasn't drawn many walks so far in his career leaves the door open for him to develop that skill. In a certain sense, he is an unfinished ballplayer."

The problem with this statement is that it just isn't true. Twice in his career Howard has walked over 100 times, 108 and 107 times in the 2006 and 2007 seasons respectively. Those totals represented BB% of 15.3% and 16.5%, the two highest totals of his career to this point. Unfortunately for Howard those came in his age 26 and 27 seasons and after increasing his BB% each year from his first exposure to MLB pitching in 2004 (4.8, 9.5, 15.3, 16.5) he has now seen a decline in those numbers since (11.6, 10.7, 3.6 current). If that trend continues, coupled with his proclivity to K at near record levels, his value going forward is largely tied up in his ability to hit the ball hard and a long way. What is more probable; a slugging first baseman that is entering his 30 year old season averaging over 32% K for his career with declining BB% numbers will reverse that trend and produce commensurate value with respect to his new $125M contract extension or that said slugger had already reached his peak in his age 26 and 27 seasons and is now experiencing the beginning stages of what is a normal (non-enhanced) career decline? I could be wrong, but I sure wouldn't bet the mortgage on the former.   

 

One other thing I noticed and neglected to mention in my last post, Howard's HR/FB% closely mirrors his BB% in their career progression. Starting with 2004 and including his present 2010 numbers give you this:

18.2, 34.9, 39.5, 31.5, 31.8, 25.4, 15.0

Obviously I doubt that he maintains such a low percentage this season, but for a slugger who's value is now almost directly correlated to his ability to hit homeruns that is a disturbing trend; especially when coupled with almost the exact same declining BB%.

He SHOULD knock around enough marginal pitching to do well in the PCL.

Agreed, but .351? And the league is full of similar cases.

But I probably do go overboard in dismissing everything that happens out there...

If the offence is inflated in the PCL, shouldn't we be giving bonus points to the pitchers?   Pitchers like Brad Mills are thriving in the PCL, which presumably means that they are even better than we would judge by their numbers alone.

As for the hitters -- the easiest way to discount the league effect is to compare them to each other.  Brett Wallace's offensive numbers might be inflated by the PCL, but every other hitter in the PCL has the same league advantage and Wallace's OPS is still one of the highest in the league.

It makes me laugh that so many people are writing Howard off based on what they perceive as declining trends.

These stats are highly variable from year to year and it's very dangerous to draw conclusions from them, just as it would be dangerous to draw conclusions from a coin landing heads 4 times in a row.

The guy may or may not be declining, but he is not old by baseball standards and should be fine for the next 3-4 years. After that the Phillies are going to be a very old team and in need of rebuilding - I agree that Howard's contract will very likely be a burden for them then (but then there is the Kenny Williams/waivers possible solution), but in the meantime Phillies fans - ENJOY THE WINNING! As a Jays fan I wish the local team were in a position to overspend on a guy like Howard.

The number one factor that helps us understand what may be in store for Howard for the next 3-4 years is his health and fitness level. The guy is durable and seems to stay in good shape for a big man.

It's a bit more complicated than that.  The current PCL results from the union of the former PCL and the American Association, but they play a severely unbalanced schedule.  The former PCL teams play each other 16 times and teams from the AA 4 times.  You really want to compare former PCL vs. former PCL.  And then there are the park factors.  The high altitude places (Reno, Colorado Springs, Las Vegas) are different from the low altitude places (Fresno, Sacramento, Portland).

Wallace's performance in the PCL to date (best in Las Vegas, next in Sacramento and last in Memphis) is consistent with what you would expect.  The overall number of 23 homers in 474 at-bats, and a slugging percentage of .492,  probably reflects pretty much a neutral PCL environment.  He is doing a little better in the power department this year net of the park, which may result from the normal growth curve and adaptation to the league. 

Regarding the walks - take a look at the IBB column.

It's pretty clear that for two years they were pitching around Howard more - why? Likely because of who was hitting behind him and also because pitchers hadn't figured out how to attack him yet.

My rule of thumb is that for every IBB given to a slugger, there is probably one non-intentional intentional walk given where they deliberately pitch around the guy hoping he gets himself out. This is based on my observations and is not meant to be an objective statement. But anyone who has watched enough baseball has seen plenty on "non-intentional intentional" walks dished out.

When discussing a player's patience, I think it's sensible to make these adjustments so that we can weed out the "fear" factor. If we do that for Howard - we get:

year, PA-IBB*2,"real" walks
2005,332, 17
2006,630,34
2007,578,37
2008,666,47
2009,687,59

The second column is Plate Appearances subtracting both the IBB and the NIIBB (non-intentional intentional walks).

As seen from these data , his "real" walk rate has actually been INCREASING ever since he entered the league.

It makes me laugh that so many people are writing Howard off based on what they perceive as declining trends. The guy may or may not be declining, but he is not old by baseball standards and should be fine for the next 3-4 years.

It makes me laugh that you keep saying 3-4 years (2013-2014) when the Phillies are going to owe a 36 year old Howard 25m in 2016 and 23m in 2017, or a 10m buyout. If you want to keep this thing purely emotional, sure - the Phillies are winning, things are great, their slugger is locked down, and it's a good sign that ownership is willing to pony up to keep a superstar for a long time. This was the exact same reaction that met the Vernon Wells deal. Most people come around here for objective analysis, and it's weird that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Phillies gained NOTHING by extending Howard today. I'll leave you with a few choice quotes from The Law :

The contract extension the Phillies gave Ryan Howard made me laugh when I first heard about it. If you sign a player two years before he hits free agency, you're supposed to get a discount. Instead, the Phillies paid a premium, giving Howard more money to cover years when he won't produce nearly enough value to justify the salary...This signing says to me that the Phillies are still stuck in the old model of player compensation, in which counting stats, especially home runs and RBIs, earn players the biggest paychecks, and knowledge of player aging patterns was largely absent from the industry. It's one thing to say, as the Phillies do with pride, that they don't have a soul in their front office who so much as dabbles in statistical analysis. It's another to thumb one's nose at the sort of actuarial tables that drive business decisions in almost every other industry, data that say here that Howard is part of a class of players that, as a group, ages poorly past 30, and is not worth long-term commitments at increased salaries. And here, the Phillies are paying Howard to be better for the next five years than he's been for at least the last two, when we know that such a turnaround is extremely unlikely, given his skill set and body type.

Howard's not as good as Thome was, and a little better than Mo Vaughn, Cecil Fielder and David Ortiz.

Okay, how about Carlos Delgado, then?

How did Carlos do from age 30 to 34? I wonder.

Actually, Howard's quite a bit behind Delgado as well.  The career OPS+ doesn't capture it because Carlos got the call early and struggled while Howard was tearing up the high minors.  If you compare apples to apples, age 26 to 29 performance, Carlos was quite a bit better. 

There was mixed opinion expressed at the time of the Delgado extension discussions, and I recall that Robert expressed some concern with the drop-off in early 30s performance on average.  I shared that concern, but felt that the Jays had lowballed him even taking that into account. 

My point originally was that I really didn't understand why the Phillies would have traded Lee for financial reasons and then given an unnecessary extension to Howard.  If you are going to go for it (and I certainly agree that the Phillies ought to now), why wouldn't you want Howard and Utley and Halladay and Lee...?

If you want to keep this thing purely emotional, sure - the Phillies are winning, things are great, their slugger is locked down, and it's a good sign that ownership is willing to pony up to keep a superstar for a long time. This was the exact same reaction that met the Vernon Wells deal. Most people come around here for objective analysis, and it's weird that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Phillies gained NOTHING by extending Howard today.

1) The Jays were winning when they signed Vernon Wells? I must have missed all that - where are the championship banners?

2) The Phillies are in a much better financial position now than the Jays were then, you know, with championship teams and a new ballpark filled to the brim. Honestly, it's moronic to compare the two signings.

3) They gain nothing? They get to keep Howard for 2013 and 2014 - and probably after that their window of opportunity will be closing so boo hoo they will have to rebuild with a big contract on the books.

As far as Law - yes I have stated that the last few years of the Howard contract will most likely be a burden . I have also stated that they have overpaid. So I am not in total disagreement.

What I DO think is that the new contract gives the Phillies a better chance to win in 2013 and 2014 than if they had let Howard go. Why? Because I think Howard will be very productive over the next 3-4-5 years. Why? I have explained my reasoning in my various replies.

As for objectivity,  There is absolutely nothing OBJECTIVE about trying to map out the future of a ballplayer. All of them are different and the projection business is nothing more than better of worse guesses that frankly are not a whole lot better than holding up your finger to determine which way the wind is blowing.

Ryan Howard is not a "member of a class of ballplayers that age badly". He's an individual and as such you have to assess him taking into account his own characteristics. Personality comes into it - you have to know something about Howard' s motivational makeup to even begin to think about his future - and the numbers don't know that.

Personally, I see a ballplayer that will likely age relatively well into his mid-30s. It's no use comparing him to the Alvin Davises of the world - I'd sooner look to guys like McGwire, Delgado, Thome and others who hit well well into their 30s as guideposts. Yes I admit, that is a largely subjective assessment. But if you are going to do something that is as foolhardy as trying to come up with "comps"  for a player (and really as I said "comps"  are of limited value because Howard is an individual) then you are firmly in the land of subjectivity.

There was mixed opinion expressed at the time of the Delgado extension discussions, and I recall that Robert expressed some concern with the drop-off in early 30s performance on average.  I shared that concern, but felt that the Jays had lowballed him even taking that into account.

If you mean the original big contract signed during Ash's tenure I don't think I participated in those discussions - as they took place before this site was born.

I remember the discussions of whether or not the Jays should re-sign Delgado or let him go as a free agent, but he was in his age 32 year then. I think that I used Frank Thomas's hitting decline from age 33 to 37 as a guide to Delgado, and Carlos has fallen roughly in line with that.

Incidentally, Delgado's performance aged 31 to 34 was almost as good as his age 27-30 seasons.

1) The Jays were winning when they signed Vernon Wells? I must have missed all that - where are the championship banners?

Did somebody say winning championships? Because I said winning, and the Jays finished 2nd with 87 wins in 2006, and all winter were talking about taking the next step. The Vernon Wells extension was touted as an integral component of that process, and JP went hard after FAs Lilly & Meche after landing the best SP and RP on the market the winter before, and ended up signing a DH that was coming off an MVP calibre season. The comparison in the signings is that both teams jumped the gun and extended a guy without receiving any sort of discount, hampering their ability to sign talent in the future.

2) The Phillies are in a much better financial position now than the Jays were then, you know, with championship teams and a new ballpark filled to the brim. Honestly, it's moronic to compare the two signings.

This isn't about their financial situation NOW, and that's the point you seem to be unable to grasp. Howard was under contract for 2010 and 2011, at which point he would have to contend with Adrian Gonzalez and Prince Fielder if nobody had signed before then. This leads to the next point...

3) They gain nothing? They get to keep Howard for 2013 and 2014 - and probably after that their window of opportunity will be closing so boo hoo they will have to rebuild with a big contract on the books.

You seem to be erroneously assuming that Howard was going to walk after 2011, and I'm not sure why. When you extend a guy 2 years before he's scheduled to become a FA, you are supposed to get a discount for those free agency years. Joe Mauer, a consensus top 5 player in the game, just accepted 23m a year before he's a free agent (and Boston and NYY don't have catchers), but you can't grasp that extending Howard 2 years before he's a FA for 25m is a bad move. If you dídn't love Interstellar Overdrive I'd return the favour and call you a moron.

What I DO think is that the new contract gives the Phillies a better chance to win in 2013 and 2014 than if they had let Howard go.

Correct and irrelevant. Extending Cole Hamels right now for 25m a year would also give them a better chance in 2013 when he becomes a FA at 29, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a horrendous idea to do so.

Once you agree that the Phillies overpaid you are agreeing with the people who are criticizing this deal from a market value perspective. Nobody is denying the fact that Howard is likely to still be a very strong hitter when his new contract kicks in - we are pointing out the silliness of the timing and the fact that this backloaded extension will cost them talent in the future, perhaps as early as next year because they probably won't have the long term flexibility to throw money at Werth, and Rollins and Hamels will need contract extensions too over the next 2 years if they are going to be around when Howard's extension starts.