Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Phillies still afloat above stumbling, bumbling East | Main | Game chat: Lefties slated as Orioles fly to town »

Friday, June 19, 2009

Comments

Agreed, Weitzel. If they're going to pry loose a front line starter, you can't go making prospects like Taylor untouchable.
As for that riverfront development in Reading, or a new ballpark, I wouldn't make any investments banking on that happening.

**repost**

mvp: It's not that you're on the wrong side of the argument. It's that you act so ridiculous in your assertions and dismiss all stats. You also ignore the fact that Taylor has a much higher ceiling than Mayberry and dismiss him because he "hits for average." Do you actually think about what you type? But to play your game here are career minor league numbers for the 2.

Keep in mind that Mayberry has played 5 seasons in the minors, and Taylor has played 3.

Mayberry has 90 home runs, 288 RBI's, 118 2B, 13 3B, 45 stolen bases, and an avg/obp/slg/ops line of .255/.331/.472/803.

Taylor has 35 home runs, 163 RBI's, 65 2B, 8 3B, 33 stolen bases, and his line reads .314/.381/.571/892.

In the first 5 categories Mayberry's numbers are easily catchable for Taylor. In fact, the projections probably would have him passing some of those numbers. That means you look past that where you see Taylor's average is 60 points higher. His OBP is 50 points higher. His slugging is 100 points higher, and his OPS is 90 points higher.

You can dismiss that, but why is it such a bad thing to have a guy who can hit for power AND average. God forbid the Phillies have a guy in the line-up who could reasonably hit .300, hit 20-30 home runs, drive in 80-100 RBI's, and swipe 10 bases a year. Absolutley no use for a player like that right?

That all being said- of course you call up Mayberry because he is the most major league ready to play. There is no use in stunting Taylor's growth by rushing him to the big leagues and having him sit on the bench a few days a week rather than starting everyday and getting work. It's not a lack of confidence from Ruben, but rather a step in development.

I agree. Obviously I don't want them to trade away top prospects for the likes of Bedard or Marquis. But if they can get a Halladay or Webb, they should pull the trigger.

With Utley, Howard, Ibanez, Hamels, Lidge, Madson, et al. all locked up for the next few years we have a chance to build a dynasty. The first sports dynasty the city of Philadelphia has ever had. I say go for it.

Players are essentially company assets, I think the question of whether or not to trade Taylor is all about balancing the value of the assets. The Phillies should be willing to trade Taylor for someone like Oswalt but not someone like Marquis, in my opinion. Taylor is a valuable asset whose considerable future value should only be exchanged for someone with a sizable present value, not another 4/5 starter, we've already got 4 of those.

There is a vast difference between Webb/Halladay and the rest of the names we've been linked to. Baseball history is littered with trades where (someone like)Taylor goes for (someone like) Marquis with (someone like) Drabek tossed in as trade-filler.

Two words for Rube as he contemplates his next move: "Freddy. Garcia."

Regarding Conlin's column. Hypothetically if you could get Peavy or Halladay for a package centered around Michael Taylor (and other pieces obviously) I'd have to probably do that. Dumping Taylor for someone like Jason Marquis I'd be far less inclined to do. Like the old Todd Rundgren song goes, "For the want of a nail, the world was lost."

The fallacy is that the window has to close. Obviously your core gets older but if you do a good job with your farm system you can keep fresh blood pumping through the system cheaply, which allows you to spend money on free agents who fill in your biggest needs. The Yankees did it in the 90's. The Braves did it in the 90's. The Red Sox have done it since they brought in Epstein. It can absolutley be done.

The Phillies have actually started to put together a decent crop of prospects and the core is at a good age where we have maybe 2 or 3 drafts worth of picks to stock more players.

If they can get a no 1 or 2 pitcher that is signed for a few more years, than I am for it. But I hate wasting prospects on half year rentals. It's a huge waste. And if you keep making trades like that, you will be back to Phillies in the 90s (not 1993)

JBird:
We don't need to trade Taylor for Oswalt. Ed Wade will want, like, D'Arby Myers and Jeremy Slayden.

"doesn’t the vision for what the Phillies may become, seven years down the road, pale in comparison to what they’re set up to achieve right now?"

I think that "seven years" is a pretty ridiculous time frame to put in that statement. Taylor could very well reach the majors by 2010 or 2011. Frankly, what they're set up to achieve in the next two seasons does not at all pale in comparison to our potential in 2009. I think Boston set a pretty good example of why you don't trade away the farm for rentals after you win a championship.

"odds are always against prospects, even the best ones, to develop into productive Major League contributors."

That may be true, but I'd say that the odds of getting a true impact pitcher in the current market are just as long. The odds of getting an impact pitcher signed beyond 2009 are damn near astronomical. Personally, I'd rather the potential for home grown talent in 2010 and 2011 than a half season rental of a mid-level pitcher, even if it makes the playoff race a bit tighter than it would have been.

"no prospect should classify as untouchable while window remains open."

For the right player, yes. If Toronto calls in a panic and wants Taylor for Halladay, Taylor can't be untouchable. However, for Penny, Marquis, Oswalt, Bedard, even Peavy...I'd just as soon see them play the cards they have in upcoming seasons.

----

On a side note, it's pretty clear that Taylor > Mayberry in terms of potential, but the Phillies did the right thing by calling up Mayberry. Barring a season ending injury to or a trade of a starting OF, there is absolutely no reason to start Taylor's service clock and disrupt his progression. If all goes well, he will be a presence in the future, but at this time, Mayberry was the smart choice.

Andy: Wade does drive a hard bargain doesn't he?

Truth: agreed. It shouldn't have to be an either/or scenario. You can keep an eye on the present as well as the future without sacrificing one for the other. The best way to ensure the window stays open, in my mind, is to not to not get caught up in a desperation mindset and make a cockeyed trade that marginally improves the present while greatly compromising the future.

This is my perspective: I want to see a quality team for years to come rather than an elite team which has two years to live before the whole thing goes to hell, and in the meantime very easily could hit a wall in the Division Series like the Cubs or Angels last year, no matter how great the regular season record is or how many deadline bonanzas they've scored.

Incidentally, this perspective presumes that the true front-line starters - Halliday, Peavy, Oswalt, Bedard - thought to be out there are not actually going to be accessible because they'll either be injured or their teams will still have a shot in another 5-6 weeks. And the second-tier guys are simply not worth top-tier prospects.

I'm with p. Red and even moreso Truth Injection when he says "the fallacy is the window has to close." Remember when we almost traded Howard for Kris Benson and then Zach Duke because we were on the brink of the playoffs. Someone in 2003/4 may have made said, we're "set up to achieve now." Thank goodness we didn't make that shortsighted mistake.

A different sport, but an interesting comparison maybe: Just the usual roster turnover? explores the mix of youth and veterans on the Eagles.

Personally I'd like to see the Phillies bolster the farm and set the team up for sustained success. Even by going all in, you only increase your odds of winning it all... anything can happen in the post season and I'd hate to see the Phillies bounced in the first round after giving up major prospects.

I don't know Brian G, we would've had a few more years of Anna Benson in Philly as well. You can't discount that...I bet she could'a hit lefties better than Howard in late and close situations.

Why do guys keep putting Peavy on Roy Hallady's level. Halladay is on a different level (and is not on the trade block). Peavy has the Cy Young, but he is a 'salary bust' waiting to happen. Fly ball pitcher who does not dominate on the road and plays in a pitchers park.
You should not have to part with Taylor to get Jake Peavy. The White Sox practically had'em for a prospect package that was basically Carrasco, Kendrick and Gose.
Jason Marquis' name should'dt even be mentioned in the same sentence with Michael Taylor.

The other side of the coin, Joe, to the "anything can happen in the post season and I'd hate to see the Phillies bounced in the first round after giving up major prospects." is that... anything can happen in the playoffs, so just get in and maybe you win it all...

JBird: So I'd rather set ourselves up to have a 50-60% chance to get in the playoffs each year for the next 10 years, than sacrifice that for a 10% upgrade of our chances in the next two years.
If we stay successful the ballpark will stay packed and we can keep our payroll near the tops in the league.

Pardon the interruption, but...

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1156768/1/index.htm

A very good article on Ol' Cholly. A decent read.

The bottom line is this: Which pitcher will both (a) be available and (b) of high enough caliber to be worth Taylor?

Do you give up Taylor for the following pitchers, not considering their contracts or health?

YES: Halladay, Haren, Webb, Lee

MAYBE: Bedard, Oswalt, Peavy

NO: Chris Young, Marquis, Doug Davis, Penny, Duke

Now, who is available?

YES: Peavy, Bedard, Young, Davis, Penny

MAYBE: Duke, Marquis

NO: Oswalt, Halladay, Lee, Webb, Haren

Of the second "YES" category, Peavy is injured and probably doesn't want to waive his NTC to come here, irrespective of whether he's on the decline or not. Bedard is a headcase and is a free agent after this season - unless we could guarantee his resigning with us, I wouldn't trade Taylor for him. Young, Davis, and Penny are all definitely not worth Taylor from a talent perspective.

Brian G. I look at Anaheim since they won in 2002. They've stubbornly refused to trade some once promising prospects to put them over the hump from perennial contender to favorite and a lot of those prospects have not been the cornerstones they were supposed to be. Prospecting is a crapshoot. Does that mean you part with Taylor for Brad Penny, no....but I don't think anyone looks at what Cardenas and Outman are doing this year and thinks, "I wish we hadn't traded for that bum Blanton."

I wish we hadn't traded for that bum Garcia, though.

And just to make our discussion complete: I wish we had gotten an actual prospect in the Abreu deal.

I could NOT DISAGREE MORE with thr premise in this post. Michael Taylor is potentially an MVP type caliber player. You never trade everyday players like that, UNLESS you can get a true #1. Not a #2, a #1 and we know that we will not get a #1 nor do I think any true #1's are available.

I wish the Phillies weren't the losingest franchise in professional sports history. . . And I'll agree with Andy, I mean really, what the hell. If the White Sox pawn one more sore-armed pitcher who immediately breaks down on another team, I hope Kenny Williams gets a beatdown at the next Winter Meetings.

Well, if nobody wants to trade any good prospects maybe we could get a slightly used fungo bat for Anthony Hewitt.

Once you factor health into paco's list, things get sketchy pretty quickly. Even if their teams were willing to part with Halladay, Peavy, or Webb, they are all sitting on the shelf right now; with Peavy probably back around Brett Myers' return, and Webb not even throwing consistently in the BP yet, a sell-the-farm/win-now deal doesn't seem very likely.

As an aside, in a recent chat, ESPN's Keith Law said no one in the Phillies' farm system should be untouchable.

JBird: Keith Law has been pretty bearish on the Phillies farm system for a while. IIRC, he rated Travis d'Arnaud over Lou Marson when ranking the Phillies prospects last season.

Saying he's a potential MVP candidate is just a tad of a reach. He is a tremendous prospect. He COULD turn into that type of player, but we don't know. He could also be a complete bust.

To me, you only consider trading Taylor if you're going to get a bona fide ace who is healthy and able to contribute immediately and is under contract for at least a couple more years beyond this one. Haren, yes. Webb, yes. Halladay, yes. Everyone else, no.

In other words, the only people for whom I'd trade Taylor are people who will never get traded. So he isn't untouchable in a literal sense, but he is in a practical sense.

The 2003/2004 team and the 2008 team aren't in the same league. Those teams were desperate just to reach October. This is a team eyeing a title. And for every Howard story, there are more Reggie Taylor stories.

"I think Boston set a pretty good example of why you don't trade away the farm for rentals after you win a championship."

They did, however, trade Hanley for Beckett. I guess Peavy and Oswalt are no Beckett, but Taylor's no Hanley, is he?

JBird: Again, I'm not against trading Taylor in the right deal.

if we had a chance of acquiring Halladay, Webb, or Peavy then I would probably do it.

Marquis, Penny, even Bedard don't have me anxious to cash in on Taylor yet.

tw's right though, there's nothing to trade him for right now anyway. Penny's the only guy part way available and if we have a rotation of Hamels-Blanton-Penny-Moyer-Happ we're going to need to carry 11 pitchers in the pen and only carry the starting 8 and Bruntlett to play the field.

As much as it pains me whenever I write this phrase...I agree with Bill Conlin.

Ugh. Now I need a shower.

Honestly, to me, it's Halladay Or Bust when it comes to a guy like Taylor. Those other guys just aren't worth it. I'd rather see another Value Village sequel than giving away Taylor for a guy like friggin' Bedard.

I think JW is right, but as some have pointed out, it's kind of a moot point. Halladay, Peavy, Oswalt don't seem to be available.

Unless you're advocating trading Taylor for Brad Penny or Jason Marquis, and I really hope you aren't, then this doesn't seem to really be an issue.

It all depends on the terms of the deal. If the Phils can trade for a good pitcher AND sign him after (or at the time) to a long term contract, then go for it. The track record of teams trading for pitchers at the deadline and then, because of that, making the playoffs is mixed to say the least. And 2 draft picks isn't really worth that much.

I'm not advocating for any particular pitcher in exchange for any particular prospect(s). The only think I recognize is they need a No. 1 or No. 2.

Different subject- In tonight's game , we need a good game and some innings from Bastardo- if we go early to the bullpen it could be a long ugly weekend- with some AAA or AA relief pitcher turnpike traffic.

The Phils will trade him for pitching. They've already held onto Donald and Marson too long. 3 months ago people were panicking at the thought of trading Marson for Buckhotz (not that the Sox ever were considering it).

"I'm not advocating for any particular pitcher in exchange for any particular prospect(s). The only think I recognize is they need a No. 1 or No. 2."

Which seems to echo what Manuel said the other day-"give me an impact arm" (paraphrase).

We don't necessarily need to give up Taylor. Marson is coming of the DL soon, Carrasco still has value and Happ or Bastardo could be included in any deal that upgrades the rotation. If we wait a few weeks, Donald will be back as well. Throw in a few secondary players like Worley, Kendrick, Savery, Galvis or D'Arnaud and you might have a deal.

Depends who you're talking about of course. I wouldn't include Drabek, Brown or Taylor unless we're getting a Cy Young caliber pitcher in return, and I wouldn't even include 2008 AL Cy Young winner Cliff Lee on that list. I just don't think we need another soft-tossing lefty.

The catcher situation is instructive here. Jaramillo was a heralded prospect for a little while, then Marson began to steal his thunder, until eventually Jaramillo was seen as expendable and traded away for nothing (Paulino). Now he's hitting a serviceable .274 with a .351 OBP for the Pirates while Marson struggles at AAA and um, Travis D'Arnaud is maybe the next great catcher or something.

For a brief window there the Phils had two promising catching propsects and, as curt said, they waited too long to move either of them, and they also may have evaluated their talent incorrectly to begin with (ie. maybe Marson ain't that great).

Point is we don't know how either Taylor or Mayberry will turn out, or if they will pan out at all.

"They did, however, trade Hanley for Beckett. I guess Peavy and Oswalt are no Beckett, but Taylor's no Hanley, is he?"

No he isn't....he might be better

You think he's that good, Dude?

Better than a 30-30 shortstop? I mean HanRam's defense leaves a little to be desired. But still... Even if he has to move to CF in a couple years his present offensive production would be The best of all possible worlds ceiling for Taylor.

Tray,
Let's compare minor league stats (not perfect, but it's all we have)

In 4 minor league season Hanley did the following.
BA-297, OBP-351, OPS-781, also not Hanley didn't play 3A

In 3 seasons Taylor has done the following.
BA-312, OBP-380, OPS-888

I think OneChair is right that this guy is potentially another Dave winfield.

Hanley might be the best player in the world, but Taylor seems like he could be pretty good. Taylor looks like he could be Matt Kemp with more power. Anyone have a better comp? A more athletic Magglio? It depends on how he responds to Charlie's coaching. If he can unlock his power potential, look out.

Hanley Ramirez is a toolbox who turned out to be a superstar... the kind the Phils are still waiting for.

Dude: Hanley was in the majors by age 21. Taylor is 23 and is still in AA. Something to consider.

Except Ramirez is almost exactly 2 years older but has been a full time and productive major league starter for 3 years. So to compare appropriately you'd have to have go back in time and put Taylor in the majors full-time last year, instead of in single-A.

Jimmy Rollins is a toolbox turned star. So is Ryan Howard. Werth is also toolsy, but they didn't draft him.

Ahhh, Bler again. MOSTLY everyone on here was saying how good Taylor was compared to Mayberry. YET in the very next breath would trade him for a "Rental"(Halladay, Oswalt, Bedard all have contracts expiring in '10 or '11. If Taylor was a "stud", "Annual all star", "Only 23" or "Dave Winfield", why would you trade him for a 2 year payoff?????

Makes no sense BLers. Matter of fact Taylor isn't even a top 100 prospect. Here's a secret, he is good NOT great.

before I get jumped on for that, let me reconsider- Howard was not toolsy, his production was just down.

you guys really trust Hanley is as old as he is? c'mon.


Also, Hanley is as good as he is going to get, now that is REALLY D@MN GOOD, but I'm just saying.

Halladay and Oswalt are not rentals.

I don't think, by definition, a 1st baseman can be a "toolbox". Ryan Howard has a tool, maybe 2 if you include is improved defense (again at 1B). The power tool is a very valuable tool, But I don't think his arm, speed, and hitting for avg. tools are showing all that well a the moment. Not sayin' he isn't amazing and useful, just not a "toolbox"

mvptommyd: We'd have to trade Taylor for one of those guys, because Mayberry wouldn't get it done. Taylor would be of much higher value to teams than Mayberry. Of course, I guess 30 GMs don't know as much as you.

Remember on the last thread where mvptommy claimed that Taylor wasn't as good as Mayberry because he hit for a higher average? That was amazing.

"Oswalt are not rentals"

I want no part of Oswalt or his contract.

Bed Beards: Do their contracts expire in 2010 or 2011? Yes they do, Halladay's extension is up in 2010. Oswalt's in 2011. They will not resign them after that, they will command waaaay too much money. Therefore, if you guys are saying Taylor is so good, why would you trade him for a 1-2 year chance to win it all.

Me personally, I don't care for Taylor as being deemed a "stud". So I would do it in a heartbeat as I stated.

If I was the GM for the Nationals and had Penny and Marquis, I would trade both of them to get Taylor.

Jack: I completley agree. I am just saying if you guys love him so much, why trade him? I agree based on his numbers Taylor is more "desireable" than Mayberry. I just think Mayberry will be a better Major Leaguer.

Me, I would trade him this minute for Halladay, Lee, or Oswalt.

"Also, Hanley is as good as he is going to get, now that is REALLY D@MN GOOD, but I'm just saying."

Don't see why he couldn't improve some.

"I just think Mayberry will be a better Major Leaguer."

Why, there is nothing in his track record that would suggest that?

That Dude: I know, BUT based on his limited spring training and what I read on him, with his father having the pedigree. That is my opinion. It is a huntch I have on him. I get killed on here because of his age, his stats lined up to Taylor. But So far he has done well. Good Arm, good power, good routes to balls. I don't get a good feelings on Taylor, to me he is a run of the mill hit for average guy that has limited power. For a infielder that would be fine, but for a OF it doesn't cut it. I don't see him doing well in the major leagues. That is why he isn't top 100 prospects.


Adam Dunn - Couple Dozen Walks + Geat Defense = Best case scenario for Mayberry.

Ahh...mvp- where brain cells go to die.

Per usual you totally misunderstand the tone of the discussion. So here is a simple breakdown to help you out.

The premise is based off Bill Conlin saying, "Michael Taylor should be untouchable."

There is a second premise saying, "The Phillies are a starter away from running away with the division and maybe the NL."

The general consensus is that Taylor is going to be anywhere from good to a Stud prospect. His numbers look very good and seem to indicate a cornerstone to the franchise for some years.

So you need to decide- is Taylor untouchable or not. My belief (and the belief of many) is that Taylor should be untouchable unless they can get a front line starter. If they can't get a front line starter than hold the fort with him. As good as you think he will be, it's dumb to say you wouldn't trade him for someone like Halladay.

TI: I said I WOULD trade him. Where did I ever say I wouldn't. I am saying I am surprised YOU would since you love him so much!!!

mvp: Did you actually look at the numbers I posted comparing Taylor and Mayberry? Taylor should be able to catch, and possibly pass Mayberry's numbers if they both played the same amount of time in the minors.

I'll put $20 on Taylor being in Baseball America's top 100 for next year. He was #100 exactly on Keith Law's top 100 this year and he's passed a couple of guys ahead of him like Greg Halman and Max Ramirez.

I am making fun of you guys because you all say. Taylor is a "stud", he is the next "Dave Winfield". But lets trade him for a Hallday. Um excuse me, if you have a "Stud" you wouldn't trade him for a guy that going to leave next year.

Personally, I am not that impressed with Taylor. I would trade him for Hallday in a second.

mvp: I was saying it'd be dumb for someone like me to say I wouldn't trade Taylor for Halladay even liking him as much as I do.

As good as I think he could potentially be, you are getting one of the top pitchers in the game. It's not like you're dealing for Doug Davis or something.

JBird: I wouldn't bet you because he might be like #95 since Matt Weiters, Tommy Hanson, Fernando Martinez and such will be off the list. Still big deal #95 YES! He is a stud now! ::sarcasm::

TI: Right, BUT you are going to lose Halladay after 2010 when his contract ends. I am surprised you would trade Taylor for a 2 year number 1 pitcher. When you have according to you a potentially 15 year All-Star outfielder.

Kyle Drabek wasn't on that list either. who cares?

Well, if he comes up and he's a league average-ish corner outfielder for 3.5 of the 6 years he's under the team's control (aka very cheap) that's something that has a lot of value. If anything, young, under-control players are over valued in the market.

We decided last night. The Phils will trade Carrasco, Savory and a low end prospect for Gil Meche and Ron Mahay. Phils get their No. 2 starter and get to keep Taylor and Drabek and Brown. Win win.

JR: Except that will never happen on Royals part. As they are trying to build and not sell.

No, you are trading the 6 years Taylor is under control for 2 years of Halladay (and hopefully 2 high draft picks). You have to pay Taylor market rate after those 6 years just like you'd have to pay Halladay after 2 to keep him.

Tommy: People can be VERY high on Taylor and be willing to trade him for ONE OF THE BEST PITCHERS IN THE GAME. Why is this hard to understand?

mvp: Don't put words in people's mouths to further your argument. It's intellectually dishonest and makes you look pathetic in your argument. I never said he would be a 15 All-Star. I'm just saying he has shown an ability to hit for average, with some pop, and can swipe some bags. I know he doesn't have the "pedigree," like you are looking for but his numbers are better than Mayberry's no matter how you try to protest that.

Also, you are assuming the Phillies wouldn't be able to sign Halladay despite all the money coming off the books by then. Also if they got someone like Peavy they would have him through 2011. That's 2+ seasons of an ace pitcher. You'd be foolish not to do that. As much as I like Taylor and as good as I think he could POTENTIALLY be- I would trade him for someone like Halladay, Webb, or Peavy.

I wouldn't trade him for someone like Lee, Bedard, of Marquis. Why is that hard for you to comprehend?

Right, so if all your guys cases why trade 6 years of a cheap "stud" OFer for 1.5 years (2nd half of 09 and 2010) of a #1 pitcher. When you could trade Carrasco, Kendrick and some LL prospect for a Chris Young or someone of that nature. Similiar to a brett myers or Joe Blanton.

Now again, if it was me, Taylor is gone. I am going on your guys assertions of him.

If I was the Royals' GM, I'd take that deal, though I'd probably ask for Donald or Marson as the "low end" throw-in. On the other hand, there's so little pitching available the Royals might be able to get more than that somewhere else.

MVPTommy: I can ALMOST understand why you think Mayberry is a future stud. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely, but you're not the first to voice this opinion on BL & his physical tools alone do provide at least some slender basis for your prediction.

All semblance of rationality breaks down, however, when you predict stardom for Mayberry, while simultaneously saying that Michael Taylor won't be that good. Not only are Taylor's numbers a million times better than Mayberry's, but he is bigger, faster, 2 years younger, a much better all-around hitter, and has even better physical tools except for perhaps homerun power (and even that isn't clear, considering the age difference). So what possible basis could there be for your assessment that Mayberry is a future stud & Taylor won't be that good? Are you a professional scout? Have you even see Michael Taylor play? Or are you just pulling this prediction out of thin air?

Minor league numbers are certainly not perfect predictors of major league performance, but it almost seems like you believe they're a reverse predictor of major league performance.

Tommy: Where did you go between earlier when you were posting and now?

Can you go back to there?

Tommy: True, it's a pipe dream to pry Meche from KC, but the Royals are building for the long term. They brought in Mike Arbuckle (presumably to re-tool their farm system). He's familiar with Savory and Carrasco. He probably would like to be re-united with 2 of his highest draft picks.

How would KC explain it to their fans? ... Hmmm ... That's a tough one ... Maybe with the money they save, they could hire more marketing people and bobble-head makers.

Getting Halladay adds the best pitcher in baseball on your team, for at least the next 2 years. In those 2 years, the Phillies would have a very strong chance of winning the WS. Adding Chris Young might help, but he's no Halladay and is a fly ball pitcher.

mvp: You are approached by a person who is extremely wealthy and are given two options:

1.) Give the person 10,000 and you are guaranteed to make 1,000,000

2.) Give them 3,000 and you are guaranteed to make 200,000

Which one is the more attractive option?

add dollars after all the numbers in that previous post.

"Personally, I am not that impressed with Taylor. I would trade him for Hallday in a second."

I love Taylor and I WOULD trade him for Halladay, but that wont happen

Or to restate my question, to bring it in line with your more recent post: why are you "not impressed" with Taylor? What on heaven's earth is not impressive about him, especially as compared to Mayberry?

You keep repeating your opinion like a mantra, and yet you haven't cited a single fact or inference to back it up. You just say "I'm not impressed with him." So tell us why. Is there a hole in his swing? Is there some flaw in his game that isn't showing up in the minor league numbers? Is he only good at hitting certain kinds of pitchers? Have you even seen him play?

It's like saying, "In my opinion, the Dominican Republic has a stronger military than China." Then when someone describes all the weapons that China has, and the DR doesn't have, you say, "Well, this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it." You are indeed entitled to it, but if you can't cite one fact to back it up, yet you shout down everyone who disagrees with you, then we certainly have a right to ridicule you.

BAP: Didn't you read the earlier post? tommy said that Mayberry has a pedigree because his dad played.

he is also inferring that Taylor is not a top 100 prospect and after checking that list, it will definitely change next year alot of those prosepects aren't what people thought...

I don't know if the Royals would or wouldn't trade Meche, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched. They're a small market team in rebuilding mode. He's expensive and only under contract for 2 more years. They already have an ace in Greinke and 8 of their top 10 prospects are pitchers. But their lineup sucks something fierce. Meche could garner them some excellent prospects, while freeing up a big chunk of money to bring in a bat or two.

See, truth, BAP, where you're going wrong in this argument is the "logic" part. I tried logic for a while too, and then it became apparent that this was just a shouting match, so I gave up.

I don't know why people are still responding to tommy's Mayberry/Taylor foolishness.

If Mayberry's pedigree is so valuable, maybe we should just put him out to stud and use the proceeds to sign John Lackey this off-season.

Hmm. Maybe that's what tommy meant when he said Mayberry was a "stud".

All makes sense now!

Another interleague road trip coming up. With Mayberry in the lineup, they will need another righthanded DH to face lefties. Coste? Gnome? Cervenak? Time to start Michael Taylor's clock.

BAP: Maybe we should just dump the team and bring in all second generation stars. With the Laroche brothers at the corners, Ripken brothers up the middle, and Chris Duncan, Brian McRae, and Gary Matthews Jr. in the outfield how can we lose?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG