Section 215
Fansided

Jonathan Papelbon and the Risk of Taking on bad Clubhouse Guys

By Tim Kelly

facebooktwitterreddit

In case you missed it, various sources are reporting that the Phillies and Brewers are in serious discussions for Jonathan Papelbon. Given the Phillies status as a rebuilding team, it really doesn’t make sense for the Phillies to hold onto a 34 year-old, expensive closer. They aren’t going to win anything with Papelbon, and given that he had a bounce-back season on the field in 2014, waiting on trading Papelbon when he hypothetically could take a step back in 2015, seems silly.

But my point of this article isn’t to discuss whether what Papelbon did in 2014 was a fluke or not. Some scouts, and advanced stats, have suggested that Papelbon had many things break his way in 2014. Perhaps he will take a step back in 2015, or perhaps he really has learned how to pitch without his once-electric fastball. Either way, 2015 probably won’t be as good as 2014 for Papelbon. That again, isn’t the point of this article.

The Phillies have eaten money in the Marlon Byrd trade this off-season, and would eat substantial money to move Ryan Howard or Cliff Lee. Cole Hamels doesn’t fall into that category, nor should he. But if you are a veteran with a bad contract on the Phillies, this off-season has signified that the Phillies are willing to eat money to help move you. One would assume that Jonathan Papelbon, who still is guaranteed $13 million this year with an attainable 2016 vesting option for $13 million, is no exception to this ideal.

So why are the Brewers the first team to show significant interest in Papelbon this off-season? Well, he doesn’t have a great contract and there is the risk that he could take a step back in 2015. But Papelbon has World Series experience and pitched in 2014 like the type of closer that could put a contending team lacking a closer over the top. Right or wrong, it’s hard to think that teams aren’t turned off by Papelbon’s antics. Whether it was his crotchgrab last year or his many public media statements about his unhappiness with not playing on a winning team, at least publicly, Papelbon doesn’t come off as someone who is a great influence in the clubhouse.

Papelbon is one of the better closers to ever pick up the ball, and it’s certainly possible that behind closed-doors he really isn’t a bad clubhouse guy. Perhaps his longevity is something that Ken Giles and Jake Diekman have learned from, and the players in the clubhouse view him at someone to watch as they hope to emulate in his on-field success. But we don’t see that. League executives don’t see that. And frankly, we don’t know if that’s even the case.

I don’t play in the MLB, or any professional sports league and never will.(Man, it burns to say that.) But in my life, I played baseball, basketball, soccer, and still run track at the college level. I know that each sport has it’s own “team aspect”. Out of those four, basketball and soccer — and the same goes for football — are the most important to have a great locker-room in. In those sports, team chemistry carries over to the field. If you have a bad relationship with someone, you might not pass the ball to them. Even if you do pass the ball, if it isn’t a perfect pass, the person wonders if you are purposely trying to set them up to fail. Baseball isn’t the same in that sense.

A pitcher needs to work well with the catcher, and the first-baseman, but for the most part, those are the only two people you need to have much of a personal relationship with. So hypothetically, Papelbon could be a complete douche in the clubhouse and still thrive on the field. I don’t mean to dumb down the sport of baseball, I understand that there is more to it than that, but on the surface that is the case.

Whether people have gone over the top with this or not, clubhouse/locker-room culture is having a greater emphasis placed on it. In Philadelphia we saw this up-close with Chip Kelly’s dismissal of DeSean Jackson, and Sixers coach Brett Brown reportedly places a high-value on culture. Given his statements on the clubhouse culture’s struggles in 2014, it seems safe to say that Ryne Sandberg is coming around as well.

The Phillies current regime hasn’t tended to be “ahead of the curve” on modern sports issues, so if they are coming around on culture, what does that say about the rest of the team’s in the league? Have they placed such a value on clubhouse culture that they wouldn’t be willing to come around on making a move for Papelbon? Really, it varies per situation, but it’s hard to think that Papelbon’s blunt antics with the media have helped his case to be moved.

The thing to consider about baseball is that while it doesn’t involve the same on-field reactions between teammates, the players spend more time together than any other sport. They put in ten hour days (at least) nearly everyday and the season is the longest. If one person is a cancer in the locker-room, it divides the team, and demotivates players individually and their outlook on the team’s chances of having success. It’s human nature; if one person starts to talk badly about the place that you work at, especially one who has accomplished as much and is paid the way that Papelbon is, you start to wonder if they are right.

More from Section 215

So if you are a team like the 2008 Milwaukee Brewers that are just looking to add talent to a pennant race team because you know that free-agency is ultimately going to set your team back for a few seasons, then by all means, you would add Papelbon because of his talent. If things don’t work out locker-room wise, then so be it. That’s worth the risk that he could be the type of piece that solidifies your bullpen in a hopeful run to the World Series.

If you are a team like the 2010 Tampa Bay Rays, knowing that losing Carl Crawford may set you back for a year or so, but that you have a bright future, you would second-guess bringing in Papelbon. Sure, he may put you over the top this year. But if he doesn’t and turns into someone bad in the locker-room, you take the chance that he rubs off negatively on a young team’s morale as a whole and hurts (at least to some extent) your long-term viability. Remember, bringing him in likely entails two years of him.

Much of what we believe about Papelbon potentially being a negative clubhouse guy comes from speculation based off of how he acts towards the media. Make no mistake, it’s refreshing in a sense to know that Papelbon still wants badly to win. It just isn’t something that he should try to make clear publicly through the media on more than one occasion. And it makes you, and many around the league, wonder how he is when what he is saying isn’t being recorded–fair or not.

Certainly league executives have more access to players and managers to ask these type of questions than I do. But knowing what I know about his character, I’d be hesitant to bring in Papelbon for a full-season. I’d be very hesitant to have to guarantee his 2016 option to get him to agree to a trade. As a rental player, he would be more ideal.

The real issue for Papelbon’s trade candidacy probably isn’t just his reputation as being a bad clubhouse guy. It’s that team’s are still worried about him being able to be successful in the long-term without his once-great fastball. Frankly, if a team like the Brewers were to guarantee his 2016 option, they should be even more concerned about that because you would be talking about having someone who has already pitched 625 plus innings in his career until he is nearly 36 at a high price. The Phillies certainly would be willing to help facilitate a move by picking up some money on Papelbon’s deal, but he would still be an expensive closer. Adding in that he poses a risk, at least we think, in the clubhouse, probably explains why someone coming off such a good season has drawn next to no interest until now.

Home/Philadelphia Phillies