Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Breaking news: Phillies sign veteran Brad Wilkerson | Main | Thursday: Phillies too good for their own bench »

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Comments

ouch.

I somehow don't think they are 4th anymore.

Rank your farm system by how the ML team is doing. How do i give credibility to a ranking that had us 20th with these STUD players still in house. Give these players time in pinstripes then evaluate them all individually. WFC in 2010.

If we wanted Gillies over Sanders, we probably had a good reason...maybe we should trust our scouts.

Giving of d'Arnaud could be a mistake as he could end up as a very good catcher...but that's the cost of winning.

The return for Lee from SEA outweighs what we gave up for him...especially when you factor in Francisco.

We paid market price for Halladay.

BA's list is a little bit of a surprise since they tend to be tools biased and thus would rank Gillies & Gose higher than some other stats oriented scouts, like Sickels.

But the fact is Gillies and Gose are not elite 4-star prospects despite what is posted on Beerleaguer. I thought May might eke in, however.

The Saunders mystery has been discussed here before. It could be that the Phillies, practically alone, think Gillies is a better prospect. That's hard to believe. My guess is that it was a position thing. Saunders is a corner guy and Gillies is a CF. He gives them insurance if Gose falls short. Both will be groomed to replace Victorino in 2012.

Dom Brown, a corner guy, is their best prospect. If they re-sign Werth, then they just don't need Saunders.

Future=Over

Just kidding of course..

This thread is sure to turn into an anti-Rube campaign.

Two words: Roy Halladay

Good luck to the guys we traded. But the bottom line is we got not ONE of the best pitchers in baseball, but THE best pitcher in baseball for the next 4 years (maybe 5) and we signed him for well under market value.

mikes77: I wasn't advocating that the Phils should have traded Lee to the Yanks for Vizcaino, I was pointing out that Javier Vazquez ended up netting the Braves a prospect ranked higher than all 3 of the Phillies prospects in return for Lee - which would suggest the Phils were vastly under-compensated. That is just one prospect and one BA top 100 list of course, so i'm not going to try and evalute the trade solely on those premises.

Just pointing attention to another situation that makes the Phils' return for Lee look pretty meager.

At this point, all we can do is hope that the ex-Seattle contingent of the Phillies front office has a better read on these guys than does BA.

NEPP: "We paid market price for Halladay"

Were you referring to the package of prospects or the $20M/yr extension?

It would be interesting to know which of the prospects were sold to Toronto for the cash.

Lots made about the outfielders, but the key is the progression of Aumont and Ramirez. High-minor pitching is at a premium with Drabek gone. It was thin even with Drabek here.

Clout- Before this post I want to make it clear I am not calling Gillies an elite 4 star prospect. If you compare Gillies to Desmond Jennings (a consesus elite 4 star prospect), he doesn't fall short. High Desert is a much bigger help to power hitters then to high average speed guys.
Desmond Jennings- 305/391/457 with 134 steals in 163 opportunities over 1373 PA in 4 years.
Tyson Gillies- 321/419/447 with 80 steals in 113 opportunities over 977 PA in 3 years.
They both have been young for their level and aside from a bit less SB % Gillies compares favorably. Of course he has to do it at Reading, but I am encouraged.

JW - Yeah especially given that Gillies isn't a power prospect either. Amount or Ramirez have to contribute in a really meaningful way (either as a closer or starter) at the MLB level for several seasons for the Lee trade to really have been a good one for the Phils.

JW, you make a valid point.

We are pretty deep in the OF as NEPP stated yesterday. We are possibly 6-7 deep in the OF position as of now.

Regarding the starting pitching, now that we have Halladay locked up we really don't need anyone necessarily to "step in" until at least 2013, maybe even longer. Halladay is here until 2014, maybe 2015. Hamels is here until at least 2013 and most likely will get extended. Blanton until at least 2013, Happ and KK will be here for the foreseeable future. So really, what is the urgency in the roation as well?

I think that after disecting these trades for the past few months, it has come to a point where the topic is a little redundant. And basically is overrated. Because as we have all seen, based on the developement of the players this might turn out to be a dynamic trade in the end anyway.

todd: There is a huge difference between posting stats at Montgomery and Durham and posting them at High Desert, which, by the way, does help high average guys. It is the most extreme hitters park in abseball.

I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't fall short." From everything I've read, he falls way short of Desmond Jennings.

There is nothing to be discouraged about Gillies, but he simply is not an elite prospect. Sickels rates Jennings an A, for example, and Gillies a C+. That sounds about right to me and is in line with BA and other analysts.

"which would suggest the Phils were vastly under-compensated."

But it also needs to be acknowledged that Phillies garnered *3* prospects. Which isn't to say that the Phillies weren't undercompensated (although "vastly" is almost certainly too strong). Perhaps they were. But in the spirit of "refilling" the system, Amaro put a certain emphasis on quantity; and to that end brought in three individuals of high upside, rather than just one stud and a crop of swill.*

*Assuming those were his options. Maybe there was no pure stud to be had. Is Saunders a stud? Would Texas have traded Feliz?

Mostly, it bothers me that Amaro didn't grab Morrow, who was traded shortly afterward for a reliever.

I am holding out hope that Mathieson can turn himself into an effective closer by 2012 with Aumont staying healthy and coming up in the rotation. Although I guess any of those 2 becoming productive in 2012 is all I should hope for at this point.

"the Braves a prospect ranked higher than all 3 of the Phillies prospects in return for Lee - which would suggest the Phils were vastly under-compensated"

Not necessarily. The Phillies got 3 prospects back from the M's for Lee. Quantity is worthless if the talent isn't there, but they got a top 100 guy in Aumont(who still has a high ceiling) and two other prospects the Phillies are high on.

As much as I'd like to see Werth signed to an extension, I can't help but to notice the handwriting on the wall.

The Phillies are stocking up on affordable outfielders who could platoon. They already had Francisco and Mayberry. They've added Wise and Wilkerson, and if all goes well, they have Brown for 2012 or possibly 2011.

Considering the Lee trade to Seattle, is there a possibility that Amaro moves Werth at the trade deadline if an extension cannot be worked out?

(I'm not endorsing this as a good idea, but it seemed to me that it isn't impossible considering Amaro's record).

"it isn't impossible considering Amaro's record"

When has Amaro ever traded a key piece in his lineup at the trade deadline? Especially in the middle of a World Series season?

The chances of that happening are 0%

Regarding the beginning of the post, the writing is on the wall. Werth even insinuated that on several radio interviews I heard him on. He isn't taking a pay cut(and he shouldn't), he is going to be gone after this season.


William: Wise and Wilerson are not major league players. Nor will they be on the Phillies major league roster unless catastrophe strikes.

Off-topic, but this caught my eye in the paper, from Manuel:

He also told his players not to become complacent with the recent success.

"Some guys have to be reminded," he said. "One of the biggest things I'm concerned about is [that] the game is the No. 1 priority. Win the game. Sometimes guys get caught up in distractions and hoopla. It's got to be filtered. I'm concerned about some guys, but it's not a big problem for us, nothing our coaches and me can't handle.

I'm pretty sure I can guess some of the guys he's speaking about.

****Were you referring to the package of prospects or the $20M/yr extension?****

Both. And honestly, we're paying $70 million for 4 years...or $17.5 million per with a $20 million vesting option for a 5th year. That's below market for Halladay financially.

Prospect wise, we paid about the going rate for probably the best pitcher in baseball. You could throw the Santana trade out there but the Twins stupidly held out trying to drive up the price and got far less than they would have gotten from Boston or NYY when both of them pulled out leaving on the Mets involved.

If the Phillies are ravaged by injuries and are seemingly out of it at the deadline, then maybe they'd trade Werth. I doubt that will happen.

Clout- I agree that Gillies is not there yet. I tend to think that prospects that don't have a pedigree get downgraded and have to prove it over and over. As far as High Desert goes I know its the best hitters park, but it helps slow mashers more than speedy guys, not that it doesn't help the speedy guys, just not as much. If you run his stats through the equivalency translator he would have hit 292/373/418 in clearwater in the FSL. while nowhere near his high desert stats, those stats in clearwater (a pitchers haven), would be worth getting excited over.
By doesn't fall short I am talking about his triple slash line from the first three years. Even though he doesn't have much power, players of his type can be rated elite. I think that he is underrated by the scouts due to high desert and a lack of pedigree. Of course this year will go along way to deciding how good he is, but I am encouraged.

Gillies has the potential to at least be the next Michael Bourn...GG CF with great speed and no power...who hits .290.

That's a good piece to have.

As mentioned this has been debated quite a bit, but I'll add my two cents. My guess would be that if seattle offered saunders they would not have been willing to throw in two other top 10 (in their system) type prospects. Amaro and company took quantity over quality. I'm not sure I have a problem with this, because even a guy ranked overall # 30 in the minor league universe could be a bust at the MLB level.

The biggest shock to me was seeing Knapp on this BA list, I don't think he deserves that high of a ranking given his level (A ball) and his recent injury issues.

Klaus: Yeah i guess you are right about the quantity being just as important to refill as the quality - but considering ATL got a better prospect and two years of a 25yr old who already is MLB average in Melky(along with a lesser prospect) you could probably argue that 1 year of Vazquez @ 11.5M got very similiar value to 1 year of Lee @ $9M.

I wouldn't want the package the braves got, but in terms of plain value, i think its obvious that either the Phils got ripped off, the Yanks overpaid... or both.

Aside from his one awesome year in the sally(in which he was unbelievable) I think Michael Bourne didn't show the plate discipline that Gillies has, and he will be a year younger in AA. He is a good piece to have.

Lol it seems I am driving the Gillies bandwagon. If he isn't at least as good as Richie Ashburn I will be majorly dissapointed.

to todd: Exactly.

Gillies has the potential to be a dynamic leadoff hitter for the Phils if he continues to develop. That would give them a CF to replace Victorino and a leadoff hitter to replace JRoll, which would give them considerable flexibility in 2012/2013.

Aumont and Ramirez both have the potential to develop into rotation stalwarts, if all goes as planned.

The Braves got one high-ranking prospect from Low A ball who's still a teenager. There's a lot more risk with that type than with 3 guys slated for AA ball.

Overall, I'm relatively happy with the return for Lee...It was definitely a better haul than the one they gave up for him.

Phils fans really have to be realistic about the Lee deal and the prospects acquired. They received several prospects that they were high on and made a deal that allowed them to fit in Halladay and numerous other roster fillers that were needed for this perennial world series team. While it would seem to be easier to get back to the WS with Lee and Halladay in 2010, what happens beyond that point? We'd have to guarantee making and winning the WS with Lee otherwise we've kissed away our budget for another near miss. But what we have as of today is a replinished farm system (who's to say what prospect will be better than what you gave up or received), several years of Roy Halladay instead of one more with C.Lee and the strong possibility of losing him after this season without any immediate return. We made the world series with a couple months of C.Lee. How much better do you think the Phils will be with a full year of Halladay? Other than the Yankees I think the rest of the mlb teams would gladly switch places with the Phils today. Just saying

NEPP: So instead of "both" you really mean: PHI paid market value in prospects for 1 year of Halladay and cash - while they got him below market value on the extension/options for $20M/yr.

I agree with your assessment of the trade, but I think we are still paying fair market value on the extension as well. I don't believe Halladay would have gotten much more than a vesting 4yr/$80M deal at the age of 34. It doesnt make it a bad move or anything and I love that we have him - I just dont share people's opinion that we got some kind of great deal on him.

Honestly I am expecting 310/400/430 with 50 steals this year at reading. As the driver on the Gillies bandwagon I am allowed to overrate my boy.

I think its fair market value for Halladay with the 6 million added in. Its a shame we traded one of our studs for $. Ok i'm posting too much, back to lurking in the shadows.

"High-minor pitching is at a premium with Drabek gone. It was thin even with Drabek here."

JW, tommy hit on this earlier when he referenced how long the pitchers on the big club.

IMHO, your point about the high minors being thin is exactly why Joe Blanton was extended: there's no one else ready to replace him.

So, with Halladay, Happ and Blanton in the fold for the next 3 years, and Hamels for the next 2, barring injury they've bought themselves some time to let some of the lower ranked pitching prospects develop. Also, if Kendrick DOES actually pitch effectively and can hold down the 5 hole for a couple of years, then he's under their control too.

Aumont & Co. have some time before they're going to get thrown to the wolves.

You're ignoring the fact that we're only paying Roy $10 million this year...that a nice discount that has to be factored in.

We got a good fair deal for Halladay...I do think Halladay could have gotten 5 years on the open market though.

T-Dub: Everything you just posted is how I feel. Unfortunately, on this site for the most part that is only a piece of the puzzle as many posters here in many ways are more concerned with the prospects then they are who we actually traded the prospects for in the first place.

I don't think posters are more concerned with the prospects than who we got in return. I haven't seen one person complain about Halladay being a Philly. It was a high price to obtain arguably the best pitcher in baseball. That said it hurts giving up Taylor, drabek, and d'arnaud and we were hoping for another Cliff Lee type swindle by amaro.

phaithful,
given that a 36 year old d. lowe was able to find a guar 4 year deal at $15mm per year I would bet a farm that Halladay would have been able to beat a guar 3 year deal at $20mm with a vesting option for the fourth year.

I wonder if we hadn't gotten the 6 million would we have been able to throw May instead of Drabek, or Valle instead of D'Arnaud.

"That said it hurts giving up Taylor, drabek, and d'arnaud and we were hoping for another Cliff Lee type swindle by amaro. "

Well Toronto were smarter than Cleveland and actually got a fair trade. What did you think Toronto was going to gift wrap Halladay for us?

I don't think it "hurts" giving up those guys that much.

Taylor should be good, but again we still have Dom Brown and other OF players. D'arnaud is expected to be good as well, but we have Ruiz for the foreseeable future, so was Travis just going to ride the bench?? Drabek is the same thing. Is he the real deal or is he going to be a flop? We don't know.

One thing we DO know is that we got the best pitcher in baseball for UNDER market value and for the next 4 or 5 years and we got 3 quality prospects. Not great prospects, but quality prospects. Rube did a good job

****D'arnaud is expected to be good as well, but we have Ruiz for the foreseeable future, so was Travis just going to ride the bench??***

Well, D'Arnaud would have been all of 24 by the time Ruiz's contract was up...and in AAA if he keeps to his 1 level per year pace.

Quoted from article by Adam Foster that can be viewed in its entirety here:
http://projectprospect.com/article/2009/10/13/ba-historical-hitter-rankings-study

"30-percent of 2009's top 50 position players never ranked inside of a Baseball America top 100 prospect list.

The following eight players never ranked inside a BA top 50 but were also among 2009's 50 most valuable position players (note: we're only using BA's pre-season top 100 rankings here): Ian Kinsler (peaked at 98), Matt Kemp (96), Chase Utley (81), Dustin Pedroia (77), Kendry Morales (76), Aaron Hill (64), Carl Crawford (59) and Shin-Soo Choo (51).

Pedroia wasn't ranked in BA's 2007 top 100, the final year in which he entered a season with prospect eligibility. He also didn't make the cut for Baseball Prospectus' top 100 that year. He was 74th on our 2007 top 100"

The morale of the story is this; don't put so much emphasis on BA rankings.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Akm9XYCw8bYObIfQBsO7SYY5nYcB?slug=ap-mlb-hghtesting&prov=ap&type=lgns

MLB to start testing for HGH use at the Minor League level...should be interesting.

well the flip side is 70% of the top 50 position players were ranked in a top 100 list. Granted its not an exact science but it seems much better to be ranked than not. There are always going to be guys that develop late and get better than they were projected to be, but it is alot rarer.

todd - Richie Ashburn? No way. If Gillies turns out to be their starting CF by sometime 2012 and gives them 4-5 years of at least average production w/sold defense that would be just fine.

I am interested to see him at Reading when he likely gets there later this season or if he even starts the season there.

the morale of the story T-DUB as i read it was this, in the last paragraph
"In total, just under a third (30%) of the top position players in baseball (from 2007-2009) were never ranked as top 50 prospects by BA. And when you broaden that scope to top 100 prospects, BA has had an 86-percent success rate in terms of ranking the top approximately 10-percent of hitters inside the 2-percent of prospects. That's pretty good. "

"Well, D'Arnaud would have been all of 24 by the time Ruiz's contract was up..."

Ok? So Toronto was high on D'Arnaud. Are you saying you wouldn't have given him up and thus the Halladay deal could have fell apart over that reasonsing?

Also, Ruiz will only be 32-33 when his contract is up. You don't think he will be able to play for another 3-5 years longer after his contract?

Oh God no...I was just commenting that D'Arnaud wouldn't have been in a Jaramillo type situation. I'd make the trade 100 times.

On Ruiz...most catchers decline as they enter their early-to-mid 30s. Guys like Pudge are typically the exception.

MG- I was joking. As the self appointed driver on the Gillies bandwagon, I thought a ridiculous projection was needed.
MVP- Ruiz will be going into his 34 yr old season when his contract is up.

Chris in VT: "There's a lot more risk with that type than with 3 guys slated for AA ball."

Right. That's really the gist of it. And the Phillies will need fresh talent sooner rather than later. A single A pitcher is less "helpful" in that regard than a series of AAs. Which is why package to package comparisons, purely considered, are to a large extent superficial. What were the trading team's needs? What constituted an acceptable level of risk?

""The biggest shock to me was seeing Knapp on this BA list, I don't think he deserves that high of a ranking given his level (A ball) and his recent injury issues.""

MadMax, I was surprised at that as well.

All of these prospect rankings seem to be based based on the subjective "potential" that they see in these prospects, regardless of how they evaluate them.

As such, I'd like to give each and every one of you a demonstration of what "potential" is.

Hold out you hand, palm up in front of you.

Take a look into that hand.

See anything?

That's "potential".

It also doesn't guarantee in any way shape or form that the prospects that the Phils gave up for Halladay will out shine the prospects we received in return for Lee. If none of the prospects pan out on either side then we've traded Lee for Halladay which I'll take any day of the week.

Ruiz will be 34 when his current deal expires and he's a Free Agent.

todd: Right. When the contract is up he will be 33, entering the next season he will be 34. Regardless, he has only played 10 seasons between the minors and majors. Guys like Pudge, Piazza, Posada and other World Series winning catchers play 18-23 seasons in the minors and majors before they hang it up.

So I am not concerned about replacing Ruiz anytime soon either.

Geez Mvp and NEPP its taken me being unemployed and shirking chores around the house to post on your level. How do you keep jobs when beerleaguer is clearly a full time job, and NEPP with his part time job on various other sites. Very impressive.

"See anything?

That's "potential"."

Let's say, Michael Saunders has more potential than me. To the extent that that proposition is meaningful--i.e. is a basis for making sound judgments about both Saunders and me--than "potential" must indeed have some kind of concrete corollary.

The specific ranking of prospects--#5 in comparison to 8, say--is largely hocus-pocus--an organizing device, not to be taken scientifically. But taken generally, as Todd points out, these rankings do have predictive value.

****How do you keep jobs when beerleaguer is clearly a full time job, and NEPP with his part time job on various other sites. Very impressive.****

I'm a gov't employee...consider this your tax dollars at work.

****Guys like Pudge, Piazza, Posada and other World Series winning catchers play 18-23 seasons in the minors and majors before they hang it up.
****

You realize you just compared Ruiz to 3 HOF level catchers (well maybe 2 and one just missing guy in Posada).

Klaus-in my rankings you just edged out Saunders so congrats!
NEPP-conclusion:Ruiz is a Hall of Famer!!! senor octobre in cooperstown

Todd: I advise you to re-adjust your criteria.

Klaus-I just re-adjusted my rankings, in a shocker you are now the number one prospect in all of baseball just edging out Heyward and Strasburg.

God, I hate back and forth arguments on BL about projecting the future value of our minor leaguers. The truth is that nobody knows, not Rube, not clout, not MVPTommy, not Todd, not NEPP, nor AWH; and certainly not me, so I won't offer any opinions. I mainly care about the 25 players on the Phillies roster, not some guy four years away. Please, April, come soon!

"You realize you just compared Ruiz to 3 HOF level catchers (well maybe 2 and one just missing guy in Posada)."

I compared Ruiz to them in age. But if you want to once again look into things more than I intended, then fine. How about Bengie Molina and Benito Santiago for names that are playing/played until near 40?

Klaus, we agree on predictive value, and Bill James would as well, though he might use a different method.

I was simply making a point that judgement of that "potential" is a subjective evaluation, and is no guarantee of future success.

todd, if I read that quote correctly, the success ratio applies to "hitters" - that is, position players - and not to pitchers.

Does anyone know the 'success ratio' of their pitcher rankings?

LF- I'd love to know what people said about Pujols when he was 19.. He was probably "toolsy" but can't hit the curve ball. "He'll top out at AAA"

"God, I hate back and forth arguments on BL about projecting the future value of our minor leaguers."

Umm, LF. It hasn't stopped since December 14th and it won't for another 3 years until we have a better picture of the guys we traded and received. That is the nature of some posters.

Well todd, since, as LF says, there's no way of knowing, your ranking is as sound as any other.

"****Guys like Pudge, Piazza, Posada and other World Series winning catchers play 18-23 seasons in the minors and majors before they hang it up.
****

You realize you just compared Ruiz to 3 HOF level catchers (well maybe 2 and one just missing guy in Posada)."

3 HOF catchers who were juicing...most catchers aren't able to maintain full-time catching duties into their mid/late 30s without some help.

Don't know if this link has been posted, but here's an exerpt of a SN interview with Halladay:

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/article/2010-02-22/sporting-news-conversation-roy-halladay

Although I will admit, that in terms of value added, civil discussions about prospects pale in comparison to bizarre psycho-sexual one-joke playlets about Cole Hamels.

Pujols was drafted at Age 19 (in the 13th round)...I dont recall whether or not it was due to signability issues, I'm guessing it was since he posted a .920 OPS across 3 levels (A, A+, AAA) at Age 20...and was a MLB starter at Age 21 (where he put up a ridiculous 1.021 OPS in 676 PA).

I doubt they were calling him "toolsy" at the time.

MG: "Amount or Ramirez have to contribute in a really meaningful way (either as a closer or starter) at the MLB level for several seasons for the Lee trade to really have been a good one for the Phils."

Really?

We let that past? One of these two pitchers MUST contribute in a "really meaningful" way for "several seasons" for the Lee trade to have been a good one?

So you've decided that Gillies will have no Major League impact?

We dealt a one-year rental away and got back three of the Mariners' top 10 prospects. Prospects don't always pan out. That's life in baseball.

As someone else suggested...

Is it possible the Phils chose between a package of Saunders and Aumont... and a package of Gillies, Ramirez and Aumont?

I think more likely, it's as someone said... the Phils probably wanted a CF prospect more than a corner OF prospect.

****Is it possible the Phils chose between a package of Saunders and Aumont... and a package of Gillies, Ramirez and Aumont?****

I would take the latter in a heartbeat...I really like both Gillies and Ramirez. With Dom Brown, Saunders would have been overkill.


Also, Gose is far from a sure thing so you cant compare him to Gillies.

CJ - No but it is generally more expensive and more difficult to obtain medium-high end pitching talent.

Let's say Gillies turns out to be a Bourn-type player. That is his ceiling. My bet is that he doesn't get there.

Klaus, you got me there! I'm chuckling out loud as I read it. The key word in your comment "Although I will admit, that in terms of value added, civil discussions about prospects pale in comparison to bizarre psycho-sexual one-joke playlets about Cole Hamels." is the word "civil". I enjoy the "civil" discussions. My eyes glaze over when the statements about the commenter's intelligence are passed back and forth.

Lake Fred-I understand where you are coming from but this is a thread about minor leaguers. Actually compared to the threads from the past few weeks this one has stayed on point and has involved good debate and discussion, without descending into meaningless minutaie over he said she said. So while I understand you don't like prospect talk this has been rather refreshing for me.

Saunders would have been overkill? You should always take the best player overall and Brown is far from guaranteed to being able to generate even average power at a corner OF position (about 22-23 HRs given about 500 ABs).

MG- Why is Bourn his cieling?

Keeping up on this board's comments is at least a part-time job.

todd - Because of his ISO numbers and power numbers in the minors so far.

****Let's say Gillies turns out to be a Bourn-type player. That is his ceiling. My bet is that he doesn't get there.****

I've heard his ceiling is more of a Juan Pierre esque hitter with a very good arm/range in CF.

That's quite a good player.

Everyone is blatantly proving the point I was suggesting, that the Phils did not get fair valeu for Cliff Lee.

You are all talking how the Phils had to choose between package1 or package2 like they were in some sort of bind. Having Cliff Lee for 1 year at $9M (viewed) as an expendable asset shouldn't put you in a situation where you gotta take lesser prospects than desired in leiu of quantity.

Again, I'm not disputing the notion of trading Cliff Lee, I am just pointing out that it looks like the Phils got less in return then they should have.

Bourn iso-108
Gillies iso-126
So they are about even with High Desert pumping up his ISO this year. But Gillies has much better plate discipline and a career minors ops of 866 while Bourns was 770. I think that makes Bourn most likely Gillies floor, not cieling. Well maybe not floor but hardly cieling.

MG: You're kind of all over the place on prospects today. Is it all about power?

Are you suggesting we should have traded for Saunders because Brown won't hit enough HRs?

That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. You seem to be implying that Saunders will be more likely to succeed than Brown? I'm not sure what your point is on Brown's power potential.

todd -
Re unemployment...from experience, as long as you avoid excessive drinking and excessive porn trolling, you're ahead of the game. Household chores will always be there.

thephaithful-I think that jury is still out. We know that they chose gillies over saunders so that tells you what the phillies scouts think. If the seattle three pan out like we hope they do it will have been a good trade, if they don't it will have been a bad trade time will tell.

if i am going to keep posting this much i need a cool BL nickname..hmmm...

Todd, I see your point. I'll behave.

"You are all talking how the Phils had to choose between package1 or package2 like they were in some sort of bind."

No, they Phillies (may) have had a couple OPTIONS on the table from the M's and they took Option #2 b/c it contained 3 quality prospects, rather than 1 top prospect.

thephaitful: We could go round and round on the Cliff Lee trade all day. The package the Phils got doesn't prove one way or the other that they could have gotten more because there's no evidence that anyone was offering more although there's complaints that the Phils didn't offer him to enough teams although there's no evidence that they didn't, etc., etc., etc.

You have the opinion the Phils could have gotten more. I believe the Phils got the package they wanted. It is what it is.

****Everyone is blatantly proving the point I was suggesting, that the Phils did not get fair valeu for Cliff Lee.****

How did we not? We got more than we traded for him in the first place.

Perhaps the GMs involved in both trades knew Lee's value. Dont forget that the great Cliff Lee was held off the playoff roster all of 3 years ago and was a minor leaguer for a good portion of that season. He doesnt have the same pedigree as a Roy Halladay...which makes comparing what we gave up for Halladay and what we got for Lee a pointless exercise.

Bonehead-
Porn trolling-minimum
Drinking-medium to excessive(enjoying a victory insanity right now) its so easy to drink if you have nothing to do.

i look at it like im getting a taste of retirement(without wifey around for 8 hours a day) at 27. I am enjoying

todd/bbeard/cj: fair enough, you all have good points and of course there is no way to draw a line in the sand now when the trade involves AAers.

CJ - Yeah I do value power especially in a park like CBP which is one of the easier parks to hit HRs in.

My point is that you take the better prospect. Saunders likely was that guy.

As for my tie in with Brown, there is no reason why the Phils shouldn't have considered Saunders too just because they have Brown in their system too and the lack of younger players they control at corner OF position on the MLB team.

I like calling them the Seattle 3.. It makes them seem like gangsters from the 30's.
"in a stunning robbery that took place in Spokane the Seattle 3, Phillipe Aumont, Tyson Gillies, and JC Ramirez made off with 70,000$. When they got in the getaway car Aumont was heard to scream "We'll get you coppers. YAH SEE."

Maybe, just maybe, the Phillies really really liked what they saw in Gillies...worst case, they move Vic to RF (where his defense more than makes up for his lesser power from a corner OF) if that is ever an issue.

FWIW, Vic's 2009 OPS of .802 would place him 16th in the Majors (8th in the NL) for RFs (with at least 400 PA)...and he'd probably be one of the top defensive RFs in baseball.

BB put it most accurately. It likely wasn't Gillier or Saunders with a package of Aumont and Ramirez.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG