“Small-market” Team Goes Big Time
Thursday, October 30th, 2008Before we get carried away with the Philadelphia Phillies’ World Series’ triumph, let’s put it in perspective. Yes, the 2008 Phillies deserve credit for winning, and yes, it’s nice that the Phillies’ fans can finally celebrate the second World Series championship in the team’s history. But as long overdue as the championship might be, it only emphasizes the failures of the franchise and the reasons for those perennial failures.
Start with the inept way the Phillies have been run. For years, the Phillies cheated their fans. In recent decades they were a big-market team operating like a small-market team. There was no legitimate excuse for it. Ownership just didn’t want to spend the money to give the fans a winning team.
That is not to say the Phillies should have been spending the gobs of money that made the Yankees and Red Sox winners. But the Phillies play in the fourth largest market in Major League Baseball, and they either weren’t generating revenue commensurate with their economic status or they were stuffing money in their pockets instead of spending it on improving the team.
And improvement is what the Phillies needed.
In the 14 years between their last two World Series appearances, 1994 through 2007, the Phillies had eight losing seasons and appeared in the playoffs only once. After they lost to the Toronto Blue Jays in the 1993 World Series, they endured seven straight losing seasons.
In contrast, during that period, the Oakland Athletics made five post-season appearances, the Minnesota Twins four, and both are legitimately small-market teams. Their payrolls were small but their player moves were big. They didn’t have the money to spend lavishly on players, but they figured out another way to win.
During that time the Phillies didn’t win any awards for spending or spending wisely, and they didn’t figure out another way to win. Maybe they fooled themselves by getting to the World Series in 1993 with a payroll that ranked 19th out of 28 teams. But for the next nine years their payrolls were in the lower half of all payrolls, and they had losing records in eight of those years.
When they finally climbed into the upper half of the salary stratosphere, they pieced together three successive winning seasons, 2003 through 2005, and finished second to the perennial division champion Atlanta Braves the last two of those seasons.
The experience, however, was apparently not a pleasant one for the Phillies. Whereas they shockingly climbed into the top five in payroll standings in 2004 and 05, breaking the $90 million barrier both seasons, they went back under $90 million in payroll expenditure until this year.
Winning isn’t all about spending money. The Rays, with the next-to-smallest payroll this year, just played in the World Series. The Phillies, whose approximately $105 million payroll was smaller than five of the other post-season teams, just won the World Series. But the Phillies paid in all of those losing years for not paying for players.
On the other hand, the Phillies did not pay nearly as much for their winning season as the Mets paid for their losing effort. The Mets are the answer to this question: In the aftermath of the Phillies’ World Series triumph, who looks worse, the team they beat in the World Series, the Rays, or the team they beat during the regular season, the Mets?
Some of the Mets’ weaknesses vis a vis the Phillies were obvious. The Phillies had a better bullpen generally and a better closer specifically, even before Billy Wagner went down for the season.
Brad Lidge had a perfect season, demonstrating graphically the bizarre on-and-off nature of closers. When general manager Pat Gillick obtained Lidge from the Astros a year ago, he had no idea that Lidge would have a 48-for-48 year. But knowing the pattern of relievers, Gillick figured it was Lidge’s year to be consistently effective again, and he was.
Lidge wasn’t the only difference between the Phillies and the Mets. The Mets don’t have a Jimmy Rollins on their team. The shortstop fell well short statistically of his 2007 most valuable player performance, but he nevertheless had a knack of coming through when the Phillies needed him to.
They also had Shane Victorino, who produced a bunch of big hits and defensive plays and provided intangible contributions that the Mets didn’t get from any of their players. Jayson Werth did some of that, too.
When the 2008 season began, the Mets were faced with overcoming their sordid September collapse of the year before. They didn’t. They led the Phillies at the start of this September, and they led them halfway through the month. They didn’t make it through the second half.
They will begin next season faced with overcoming the two-time division champion Phillies. That burden will loom large enough. If Jerry Manuel had to do some fancy talking when this past September arrived to get the Mets psychologically beyond the previous September, what will he need to come up with next September?
Last year the Mets squandered a 7-game lead with 17 games to play. They lost 12 of the 17 games. This year they had a 3-game lead with 17 games to play and lost 10 of the games.
No matter what Manuel may tell the players, is there any chance the Mets could avoid a third such episode next September if they reach the final 17 games as the division leader? Sure. They’ll just need to have an 18-game lead.







