Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Pair of misplays cost Phils in ninth, Braves win 4-3 | Main | Breaking news: Myers denies involvment in bar brawl »

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Comments

Martino's piece reminded me of listening to Steve Stone and Chip Karay call Cubs games back in the late 1990s when I lived in Chicago. No holds barred, but no agenda. That was a tough, thoughtful piece. I hope the clubhouse doesn't close ranks on him for this sort of candor.

Myers, Moyer, and Lidge should be counting their lucky stars that the Eagles signed Vick. What a fortunate distraction for them!

I agree with the sentiment that Lidge's blown save was especially "unfortunate" yesterday. If Utley makes that play the inning is completely different. However, maybe what happened yesterday is what he deserved Friday night. Something is really wrong with this guy and I would have no idea how to handle it. That's why UC gets paid the big bucks.

And count me in as someone who says that the article on Moyer was refreshing. I still like him, but his double standard needed to be called out. The thing that gets me the most is Moyer signaling over the media, saying his piece, and then not allowing the media to ever ask questions about it again. Pretty unfair.

And Myers is the Phillies chance to separate themselves from the Eagles. I commend them for signing character guys since Gillick took over. Cut the chord on the guy - if we choose not to have a selective memory we realize that he really wasn't that great of a closer anyway.

They might, but I respect the fact that he didn't let that stop him from writing it. Moyer has earned a great deal of respect up until now, but he also deserves to be scrutinized for his little performance. I also have a problem when someone uses the media for their soapbox, then "forbids" them from asking any follow-up questions. That's BS. You want the media? Then you take the good with the bad...

When I read Martino's article this morning, I almost spit out my coffee. I agree with what he had to say, but was shocked to see him word it so harshly especially since he has to cover the team. My first reaction was that he made a career mistake.

After thinking about it, it will help him get information more than hurt. At worst, Jaime Moyer never speaks to him again and maybe a Moyer sympathizer (Cole Hames?) is cold towards him. In the short term that article won't hurt him with JA Happ, Pedro Martinez or Chan Ho Park. In the long term, it will only help him within the Phillies front office.

Nicely played, Martino!

Lidge, Moyer, and Myers should be counting their lucky stars that the Eagles signed Vick. What a fortunate distraction for them!

I agree with the sentiment that Lidge's blown save was especially "unfortunate" yesterday. If Utley makes that play the inning is completely different. However, maybe what happened yesterday is what he deserved Friday night. Something is really wrong with this guy and I would have no idea how to handle it. That's why UC gets paid the big bucks.

And count me in as someone who says that the article on Moyer was refreshing. I still like him, but his double standard needed to be called out. The thing that gets me the most is Moyer's signaling over of the media, saying his piece, and then telling him that they can't ever ask questions about it again. Pretty unfair.

And Myers is the Phillies chance to separate themselves from the Eagles. I commend them for signing character guys since Gillick took over. Yes, we might need Myers yet this season, but I’ll be glad when the guy is gone.

oops - sorry for the double post - i checked a couple times and didn't see it post - my bad.

I think the boldest move would be to try out Martinez in the ninth inning. He demonstrated in his start that when he airs it out, his fastball can hit 92-93; and whereas they tend to start figuring him out the second or third times through, but for a 3-6 batter shot, his repertoire would have hitters guessing up a storm. And there would certainly never be a confidence issue. I highly doubt it will happen, but I'd be willing to bet he could pull it off.

I don't think Madson or Myers, on the other hand, are viable candidates to close. Both have pronounced tendencies to give up the long ball, for one, and neither has a real strong closer's makeup, in my estimation. Myers did a good job in that role two years ago, but ideally you want someone not just with stuff and command, but *poise* on the mound in that final frame. Those guys don't fit that bill for me.

An interesting detail from last night was that Cole Hamels refused to talk to reporters after the game. I wonder if he was more pissed at the offense for squandering opportunities or Lidge?

Refreshing to see a piece like this, following Martino's very thorough article on Hamels last week. That's the way the Inquirer needs to cover the Phils. No reason to cover it the way Zolecki covers the club for Phillies.com. The Inquirer should have different standards. There's a place for both approaches, but in the end, taking risks like this will pay off in a town like Philadelphia.

RSB: The problem is that Martinez' arm probably doesn't have the requisite "bouncebackability" to pitch on consecutive days.

That's two games in a row Hamels refused to talk to the media. Oh well. More column inches for the writers.

The guy who covers for Martino, Ray Paurillo (spell?) does a nice job, too.

I also thought Martino's piece on Moyer was thought-provoking. I will stand up for Moyer, however, in this respect: The media will continue asking you how you feel about this move to the bullpen until you answer them. I think he recognized this fact and wanted to get the answer over with. I believe his refusal to take questions can be viewed as an attempt to close the issue in the name of not letting his frustration continue to be a distraction.

That said, Martino makes two great comparisons to Happ and Park in their handling of being sent to the pen against their wishes. Very good point, and it would certainly have been preferable for Jamie to handle the situation by simply saying, "No, I'm not happy about it, but I don't want to be a distraction." And leave it at that. The way Martino ended his piece was excellent, too. Jamie is indeed a human being and flawed like everyone. We expect too much if we expect our athletes to always say the right things.

"Jamie is indeed a human being and flawed like everyone. We expect too much if we expect our athletes to always say the right things."

And the PR-ization of American life puts us in the ludicrous position of wishing for A) authenticity and B) rote, scripted pleasing speech.

Brett Myers. So much potential all those years ago. That spring training game against the Yankees. The debut vs the Cubs. Then the doucheness. Hitting his wife. Appearing in a "Boy I love shooting guns" article in the PHILADELPHIA inquirer. His god awful closer music. Then there are the great moments. The time he talked Bowa out of removing him from a game on Bowa's second mound visit. Clinching the East in 07. The at bat against C.C. There is no way he will be on the Phillies after this season. I hope they can squeeze one more good run out of him closing or otherwise.

Not suprised to see in the post-game threads almost no complaints about Chase Utley's contributions to yesterday's loss. Leaving men on 3rd with less than 2 outs, terrible defensive misplay in the 9th inning, that started the whole inning etc. No problem, Chase, others will surely get the blame.

Hamels is such a little baby. I know, I know, MVP, WFC. I just don't like the guy.

Why is it so hard to admit that Madson is their best current closer candidate?

Smoltz - may not be able to pitch back to back days. Can't get lefties out.
Martinez - same scheduling questions as Smoltz. Has he ever pitched out of the pen?
Lidge - despite "feeling fine" has demonstrated a pattern of failure.
Mathieson - has been pitching in AA for what, two weeks. You don't throw a guy like this into the closer role a month before the stretch run.
Romero - coming off the DL. Flashbacks to Mitch Williams and walk the based loaded situations.
Myers - coming off the DL. Can he get night after night with everything he's got without blowing his arm out?
Park - definitely has the stuff, but possibly not the mental toughness. Has succeed beyond expectations in multiple inning and fireman role.
Madson - botched his chance earlier this year. BL'ers questioned the whereabouts of his changeup. Since returning to the setup role, he's found it. I give him a second chance, with lessons learned (ie, don't change a thing), and see how it goes.

Listed in order of preference. Without finding someone outside the organization, I don't see how Madson isn't the logical choice by simple process of elimination.

RSB: Why in the world would you think that 1. Pedro would be willing to close or 2. Charlie would ask him?

Where do these bizarre ideas come from?

I think Moyer's tantrum is somewhat understandable- what would you do if, after such a long and improbable career- you realized it was all coming to an end without your input?

I'd chalk up his reaction to that realization more than to immaturity.

clout - I know it's a stretch, and those who have mentioned the issue of Martinez's daily availability/durability point out something crucial which I didn't stop to consider.

If not for that point, however - why not? Martinez did in fact say he would be amenable to pitching in relief, it was the Phillies who declared they signed him to start. Yeah, well - a team that converts their Opening Day starter who'd never before pitched in the bullpen to a closer two weeks later can really be counted on to stand by their words. If Pedro could do it, why wouldn't they consider it?

That Moyer was angry is very understandable. That he chose to call out Amaro and Montgomery because he was angry, shows immaturity. Martino was exactly right.

Moyer had a whole day to collect his thoughts, and he still chose to say what he said.

Klaus: Excellent post. Athletes, like politicians, are faced with two choices in a controversial situation: Spew BS and slide or tell the truth and get ripped for it or lose votes.

"Yes, we can give you expanded government services without raising taxes," wins votes. "No, there's no free lunch. We have to pay for the expanded services you want and that will require higher taxes," loses votes.

Thus, "Yes, I'm happy to take on this new (diminished) role. I'll do anything to help the team," wins fans. "No, I'm not happy about this new role because I know I was doing my previous job pretty well and can do it even better if given the chance," loses fans.

Let's be honest, most people prefer to be lied to.

mikes77: There are certain players on Beerleaguer who are hated irrationally and others who are loved equally irrationally. Facts are meaningless in the face of such emotion. It is the very essence of Beerleaguer.

RSB: Pedro is smart enough to say the right thing, but there's no way he'd be happy about going to the bullpen after being a starter for 17 years. And given the obvious better answers available, there's no way Charlie would suggest it unless swine flu wipes out the bullpen.

Yes, I'm happy to take on this new (diminished) role. I'll do anything to help the team," wins fans.

"No... because I know I was doing my previous job pretty well and can do it even better if given the chance," loses fans.

Which one of those statements was the truth?

Because he sure wans'nt doing his job.

mikes77: "That he chose to call out Amaro and Montgomery because he was angry, shows immaturity."

I agree. Unless he was telling the truth about promises made to him.

There are certain players on Beerleaguer who are hated irrationally and others who are loved equally irrationally. Facts are meaningless in the face of such emotion. It is the very essence of Beerleaguer.

More like essence of fandom. If we all become totally objective what's the point? It is entertainment after all.

Let's face it, the issue isn't with the words Moyer uttered, it's with his failure "to do the right thing". In other words, he failed to perform the proper ritual.

We don't really care about truth or falsity; we only want to know whether Moyer genuflected or not. As it happens, he didn't.

I'm not that old. Was it always thus? Theoretically there could be a world in which I a) disagree with what he said and b) not really care.

Tonight is a really big game in our season. All of the sudden the laid back, care free WFC are saddled with controversy, uncertainty, and unusual criticism. Every time we blow a game to Atlanta, it's a two game swing in the standings.

I was out last night. Should Chase have made the play? If so, it's hard to blame the game on Lidge. There wouldn't be a bunt if Chase makes the first out. Lidge has dug his grave time and again this season, but if your closer gets you a ground ball to start the 9th, you have to make that play. Especially this guy. The whole situation is unfortunate. I'm with joe, if this doesn't seem to have turned by September 1, I'd give Madson a shot. No matter how many Cy Young pitchers we add, we won't repeat with the back end of our bullpen this shaky.

Re: Myers. The guy is brutal. Glad to see him going this off season. In the meantime, I just hope he can help the bullpen. I now have serious doubts that he will be able to. I would give Rube better than 50% odds of going after a reliever in Waivers now.

There is no way in the world that Amaro or Monty made an unconditional promise that Moyer would remain in the starting rotation no matter how be pitched. However, I don't doubt that Amaro generally conveyed the idea that the Phillies envisioned Moyer as a starter, and not a reliever.

Remember, at the time of the negotiations, it was unquestioned that, if he signed, Moyer would be in the starting rotation. The sticking point was over the length of the deal. I imagine the discussions went something like this:

Amaro: We might be willing to throw in an extra year if you'd agree to a bullpen role in Year 2.

Moyer: I'm a starting pitcher. I won't agree to that.

Amaro: We know you're a starting pitcher. We're signing you to be a starter. But you're 46 and, if we're going to sign you to a 2-year deal, we have to keep our options open.

Moyer: Well, I'm not signing here to pitch out of the bullpen.

Amaro: We want you to be a starter and, as long as you pitch effectively, that's what you'll be.

Moyer: Where do I sign?

No reasonable person could construe these types of assurances as anything other than conditional ones, contingent on performance. Did Moyer expect that he could post a 7.50 ERA, and the Phillies would still be obligated to keep him in the starting rotation? Of course, he didn't. But I don't doubt that Amaro made statements which led Moyer to believe that, if he pitched effectively, he would remain in the rotation. What this dispute really comes down to is a difference of opinion about whether Moyer has pitched effectively enough to keep his job.

klaus: Again, excellent post.

gobaystars: I agree with you. Problem is, some people don't recognize that in themselves.

i continue to think that what moyer was referring to was that amaro and monty promised he would not be sent to the bullpen because of incentives. in other words, moyer talked to amaro and monty before he signed because he was probably afraid that the incentives might push him to the bullpen to save the club some money. if so, they said, "no, we won't send you to the bullpen because of incentives." moyer probably thought this had something to do with his incentives. We are all speculating here.

and great, the fish are taking it to the rockies. we might be only 3 games up at the start of play tonight.

I am already tired about hearing about Moyer.

Just shut up and pitch when you are asked to. OK?

At 46 years old, he squeezed 2 GUARANTEED years out of the Phils. He should be thankful about that.

Here are the FACTS for Digger's son-in-law...

The Phils have 6 capable major league starters. He is easily #6 on that list. There are only 5 spots in the rotation. The team is trying to win something this year and are in first place.

Grandpa had 4 full months to make his case... HE FAILED. He had the 2nd WORST ERA in the National League among starters. He has traditionally been bad in August and September. He was generally ineffective since the All Star break.

Jamie had his chances and he didn't get it done. I don't care what "promises" were or were not made to him. This isn't little league ball. This is major league baseball. Kendrick got taken out of the rotation last year, when he wasn't getting it done and Moyer got it this year.

Shut up and do what your asked to do, and when you get your next chance to pitch, look like a big leaguer again; instead of some AAA guy or some guy who is washed up.

BAP: Although you have zero knowledge of what happened, you declare what you say couldn't possibly have happened, then you lay out what you think happened, dialogue and all, and conclude that Moyer misconstrued the conversation.

Interesting.

denny b, I realize you're not big on facts (review your comments on Bastardo et al), but while the comparison between KK and Moyer is correct in that both were removed from the rotation for pitching poorly, there is a slight difference in just how poorly they were pitching.

In the 5 starts prior to getting yanked, KK gave up 6 earned runs twice, 7 runs once and failed to go more than 5 IP in 4 of them. His ERA rose from 4.37 to 5.06 in that time.

In the 5 starts prior to Moyer getting yanked, he gave up 6 earned runs once, 4 earned runs once, 2 runs once and ZERO runs twice. He went 7 IP in one of them, 6.2 in another and never failed to go more than 5 IP. His ERA DECLINED from 5.58 to 5.47 during this time.

Not remotely the same situation, when analyzed closely.


clout: You are allowing your boundless love for Jamie Moyer, and your hankering for an argument, to interfere with your common sense. Do you think Ruben Amaro made an unconditional promise that Moyer would remain in the starting rotation no matter how he pitched? Do you think ANY GM, in the history of baseball, has ever made such an unconditional promise to any player? And, even if Amaro -- or any other GM -- actually used the words "I promise," do you think any reasonable person could construe that as anything but a conditional promise which is contigent on performance?

If you asked Jamie Moyer, "Did you understand that you could allow 8 runs per start and still be assured of a starting job for 2 years," I think we all know his answer would be, "No, but I wasn't allowing 8 runs per start." In other words: he understood that any promise was inherently conditional on his performing well; he just doesn't agree with the assessment that he wasn't performing well.

"Why in the world would you think that Pedro would be willing to close?"

Only possible answer is that he was willing to pitch out of the bullpen in the World Baseball Classic, and did well against admittedly inferior competition (how the Netherlands managed to beat the DR twice would normally trigger an investigation, wouldn't it? How much could a gambler make on that?).

"denny b, I realize you're not big on facts (review your comments on Bastardo et al)...."


You mean, when I said Bastardo wasn't the answer in the big league rotation and he wasn't ready yet when he was recalled in June? You mean those, Clout?

The FACTS are, that Moyer isn't one of the top 5 pitchers in this rotation anymore. Them's the facts. The FACTS are that Moyer was one of the worst starting pitchers in the National League this year, before being demoted. The FACTS are, the Phils are now stuck with him for another year, because they gave him a 2 year contract for big money.

Moyer had plenty of chances to show he belonged in the rotation of a 1st place team in 2009. He didn't measure up to the guys he was competing with and doesn't have 1/10th the stuff that Martinez has.

Shut up and pitch when you are asked and collect the checks the team is paying you. If Adam Eaton could do it last year, you can too!

BAP: I have no idea what was said, so I am ignorant of what, if any, promises were made.

As are you. Although ignorance has never stopped you before.

"Do you think Ruben Amaro made an unconditional promise that Moyer would remain in the starting rotation no matter how he pitched?"


And, so what if he actually did? I am sure he made that "promise" back in the winter, when Cliff Lee was still in Cleveland, JA Happ was still thought of as a "fringe major leaguer" and Pedro Martinez was pitching for his home country in the WBC.


Things change. I don't feel bad at all for Grandpa. He got 4 months to show his stuff. He somehow won 10 games, while having the 2nd worst ERA in the NL among starters. He got squeezed out by Lee, Happ and Martinez and his own inadequacies, not by Montgomery and Amaro.

If he had pitched well, he'd still be starting. That simple. And if Kyle Kendrick had pitched well last year, he would have kept his job too.

i continue to think that what moyer was referring to was that amaro and monty promised he would not be sent to the bullpen because of incentives. in other words, moyer talked to amaro and monty before he signed because he was probably afraid that the incentives might push him to the bullpen to save the club some money. if so, they said, "no, we won't send you to the bullpen because of incentives." moyer probably thought this had something to do with his incentives. We are all speculating here.

That's my guess as well. It seems pretty unbelievable that Moyer would make something like that up out of thin air, and the fact that Amaro & Montgomery didn't stand up for themselves suggests he was telling the truth. I think this is most likely about the incentives promise you're referring to.

And I'm loving klaus' posts about Moyer being pilloried mainly for being unwilling to perform the agreed-upon ritual.

clout: I have no idea what Bill Clinton said when he went to get our hostages back from North Korea. However, I think I can confidently proclaim that he didn't say: "If you don't give them back, we're going to drop a nuclear bomb on Pyongyang." Why can I confidently assume that? Because it would be a totally bizarre, and unprecedented, thing to say in the context of hostage/prisoner negotiations.

Making an unconditional promise that a player can always keep his job, not matter how well he performs, would be a bizarre and unprecedented promise for a major league GM to make. I wasn't present and don't know what Amaro said to Moyer but, whatever he said, it could not reasonably be understood as an unconditional promise that Moyer could keep his job for the next 2 years, no matter how he performed.

denny b - 100% agree. I don't know why everyone seems to think you have to either trash the guy or deify him in this situation. You can just state the logical facts and rational decision made.

Anyway, I still maintain these 'promises' he alluded to were that he would get every opportunity to earn the bonuses in his contract for amount of innings pitched.

"Things change."

Precisely. Which is why no oral "promise" can reasonably be understood as anything but a conditional promise. Not to mention that, when you sign a contract, the contract itself reflects all promises that were actually made. If the promise wasn't memorialized as part of the final written contract, then it isn't enforceable (the "parol evidence rule," to the many lawyers and law students on this board).

Dukes said, "I continue to think that what moyer was referring to was that amaro and monty promised he would not be sent to the bullpen because of incentives."

I believe this also. Amaro could not give Moyer unconditional guarantees that he would stay in the rotation regardless of performance. That is just plain dumb to believe such a thing occurred.

The fact of the matter is, Moyer did not perform well enough to stay in the rotation on performance. More importantly to the front office, he did not perform well enough to be guaranteed his 2nd year incentives. His salary grows to 10 million next year, if they keep him in the rotation. That would be fine if you thought he could contribute significantly to a championship this year and next. He can't.

I believe Amaro made these (incentive based)promises to Moyer. Does'nt matter. Jaime Moyer should'nt have called him out, because he was'nt performing well enough to protest.

denny: I don't recall anyone making those comments about Bastardo when he was recalled, but if you were not on that crowded bandwagon, I apologize. But I stand by my post about the huge difference in the circumstances of KK and Moyer being removed from the rotation.

BAP: So if your boss says, "BAP my boy, I'm giving you a big raise at the end of the year" and then he says later, "I've changed my mind. I've got a new employee I like better," you have no problem with that, right?

mikes77: "Amaro could not give Moyer unconditional guarantees that he would stay in the rotation regardless of performance."

This is the straw man that BAP has been hauling around. Moyer never said anything of the sort.

Clout said, "Moyer never said anything of the sort(regarding unconditional guarantees that he would stay in the rotation regardless of performance)."

I know he did'nt say that. But that seems to be what people are debating.

Like I said before, I believe the promises that Moyer talked about, were regarding his playing time, based on incentives. Moyer sees that he has 22 starts and his incentives start at 23 games started. He also sees that he contributed to the team's championship last year, and Pedro did not. Moyer feels like he has been wronged. And I can see his side of that.

What I can't see is how a 23 year vet can get 24 hours to think things out, then call out the front office members by name, when he (Moyer) was not performing well enough to protest on any level.


Klaus: it wasn't so much that Moyer spoke his mind that bothered me; it was that he went out of his way to do so, and *then* tried to save PR face with statements like "I don't want to be a distraction". Moyer was trying to serve up your A and B options simultaneously, where one or the other would have been preferable.

clout: I would recognize that: (1) my boss's promise was never enforceable; and (2) that, whenever your boss orally promises to give you a raise, it's implicit that the raise will only be forthcoming if you continue to perform well at work. I'm sure I'd be mad in your scenario, but the anger would arise because I would probably disagree with my boss's assessment that I wasn't performing well at work.

I'm sure if you pressed Jamie Moyer on the point, he would agree that, no matter what statements were made during negotiations, every player understands that, if he doesn't peform, he'll lose his job. The reason he is mad is not because he believes he had an entitlement to a starting job; it's because he believes he performed well enough to keep that job.

bap is the master of the straw man.

Phillyblunt: If you don't at least explain what the strawman is in my point, then it is you who is engaging in dishonest argument tactics.

clout should be applauded for his consistency, as with KK he's said that WHIP isn't that large of an issue. Jamie's WHIP had been on the rise in his last several starts, too. I think the bigger issue was that he (Moyer), as with KK prior to his demotion, was giving up more fly balls than ground balls. Greater WHIP + giving up more FB is not a recipe for long term success at the Bank.

NEPP should also be applauded for his intel. Martino reports that there was indeed an altercation at Shannon's Irish Bar in Jacksonville early Saturday morning where Myers was present, but witnesses report that Myers was not part of the altercation... but a member of his party was.

"Myers was present, but witnesses report that Myers was not part of the altercation... but a member of his party was."

...named Jamie Moyer

or so presumes Andy Martino

If the Phils pulled Moyer from the rotation to fund the "Pedro experiment" from Jamie's incentive potentials then he has a gripe.
If the Phils pulled Moyer from the rotation beause of his performance then he does not.

I have no idea which is closer to the truth.
Either way, I would rather have an athlete say what he thinks than tell 'em what they want to hear.

Moyer's last 12 starts, reverse chronological

IP WHIP GB/FB Decision ER/R
5 2.4 9/16 L 2/3
5 2.0 3/13 L 6/6
6.2 1.5 7/13 W 0/0
5 2.2 10/9 L 4/5
7 .28 5/13 W 0/0
5 1.8 6/15 W 6/6
6.1 .94 15/7 W 1/1
5 1.4 7/9 W 4/4
6 1.3 7/11 W 1/1
6 2.0 9/12 L 6/6
6 1.3 10/11 ND 3/3
7 .57 12/7 ND 2/2

Wait, Myers' party was involved in a bar brawl at which he was a bystander and then later the same night he fell out of his car and got a black eye?

Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG