Everyone else, maybe, thinks this is a little bit nuts. The Phillies’s success came about through some big free agency moves, but it also was driven by some legit, home-grown talent coming into its prime. Now that Utley and Howard are past it, and Rollins is no youngster, it is less certain that they’ll have a great comeback by tossing loads of cash at guys over 30 on the free agent market. But then, I watch the Nationals so other than the entertainment value of Phils fans telling everyone how brilliant it is, history be damned, to overpay for 30-year-olds who make a living with their legs, I don’t really care.

In the abstract, I do find it a study in contrasts, to balance what the Nats are doing (cheap prospects and a bunch of veterans on 1-year deals) with the Phillies’s more certain, but more pricy, approach. I think youth will win more games for the Nationals over the next 5 years, but whether they’ll ever rival the Phillies teams (and their giant payrolls) of the last few years is an open question.

Still having Bourn is much better than not having him. It’s not my money and their window is definitely more closed than open. Go for it while you can.

If you think about it, Phillies are paying Rollins $33 mill for 3 years (with a fourth year that vests easily). Right now, Jimmy is 34 with 2 (3 w/ the option) years left on the deal. Bourn is going to be 30, which pretty much makes this deal comparable (if less than $12 per is the rate for which he’s signed). While they play different positions, Jimmy has more pop, while Bourn gets on base a bit more. They aren’t worlds apart. Right around $12 mill makes sense. Not sure if it is the best use of money, but I like the idea of Rollins and Bourn putting pressure on pitchers on the base paths. Leads to mistakes, which could be taken advantage of by Utley and Howard.