Part of

« Feliz among veterans accepting a minor league deal | Main | Wednesday thread: Loose ends from a long winter »

Saturday, February 05, 2011


BAP - That a pretty reasonable post. Schwimer goes have an outside chance largely because he has decent enough command/control. Does he has a very good/great secondary pitch though? Nah. Durbin had a very good slider when he came up. I just don't think he will be a viable MLB bullpen pitcher over the long term.

I only mentioned Michael Young because:

1. He wants out of Texas

2. He could probably be had for Blanton, and we might even get Texas to pay enough of the salary to even out the books for 2011 - 2012 (especially if Young demands a trade).

3. He can play 2B, SS and 3B - three positions in which our starters have had significant time on the DL in recent seasons.

4. He's signed through 2013, which might give Amaro leverage in negotiations with Rollins, especially if J-Roll repeats his 2009 - 2010 performance. If push came to shove, it would make retaining Rollins a luxury instead of a necessity.

5. Even if everyone were to stay healthy, he could be a super utility man to give Polanco, Rollins and especially Utley some much needed time off. (I'm not sure if he'd be capable of LF, but if so, he could give Ibanez the occasional rest).

6. His presence would allow for a high quality pinch hitter - either himself or whoever he's starting for on any particular day (Rollins, Utley, Polanco and possibly Ibanez).

7. I figured that his presence would benefit the team overall more than Blanton, particularly considering the presence of Kendrick and Worley.

Isn't a big part of why Young wants out of Texas a desire to be an everyday player and not a super-utility guy? That and the fact that he's pissed at the Org for all the flexibility he's shown in the last few years and them continuing to screw him over.

NEPP: Good point, but if he's got a desire to win a World Series, I'd say that he has a pretty good chance at doing so in Philadelphia.

Also, I'm not sure how well he's gotten to know Cliff Lee in a half season, but if his presence in Philly influenced his decision at all, it'd be in favor of coming to town.

Finally, if he could play LF (and that is a big "if" I know), he'd have two chances at an everyday starting role for 2012-2013 (SS or LF), and also three very good chances at a W.S. ring, which despite 2011 I do not see happening in Texas.

Will, here's a provision of Young's contract from Cot's:

"no-trade protection 2007-09, limited no-trade protection from 2010 to May, 2011 (submits list of 8 clubs to which he'd accept trade), before receiving 10-and-5 rights in May, 2011"

If You're Young, why would you agree to go to Philly where you'd get limited playing time?

NEPP, all true, but I wish my employer was screwing me over while I was guaranteed $16MM/yr.

awh: I'm inclined to believe that he'd be better off playing for a NL team where he could play on the diamond rather than to settle for a role as a DH for the next three seasons - a role that he'd likely find himself segregated to for the rest of his career after three seasons of limited play in the field.

Also, I am certainly bias here, but I'd argue that despite 2010, he'd have a better shot at a World Series ring over the next three years in Philly than anywhere else.

Mayberry ? Do you really think the Phils will carry 6 outfielders and just one backup infielder - Valdez ? Mayberry only makes the team if the Phils just carry 6 relievers.

Actually Mayberry makes the team if they decide Brown needs more seasoning at AAA.

Will, Blanton's owed:

2011 8.5MM
2012 8.5MM

Young is owed:

2011 16MM
2012 16MM
2013 16MM

With approx 3MM/yr deferred.

48-17 = 31MM difference in their contracts.

Since the FO's reason for trading Blanton in the first place is to lower the payroll, I'm not sure that there is any way to do this trade without Texas picking up considerably more than $31MM of Young's contract.

Now, if TEX gets desperate for SP (injury, etc.), then maybe they'd be motivated enough to do the deal, but otherwise I don't see it happening.

Why, from a baseball standpoint, would the Phillies trade a guy who is a #3 - 4 SP on most teams for a "super utility" guy who might get 350 PA this season?

Sure, Young's WAR has been 2.4, 3.9, 2.7 the last 3 years vs. Blanton's 2.1, 2.0, 1.9 (fangraphs), but that's based on Young averaging 673 PA during that time. He's likely to get half that number of PA in Philly, severely diminishing his 2011 projected WAR of 2.2 vs. Blanton's projected WAR of 2.1.

bap: "Maybe it's my excessively positive nature getting the better of me."

Really? bap got away with that one? Well played.

$16M is a lot for a guy who will hit about .285 and hit 20 HR.

Will: "He could probably be had for Blanton, and we might even get Texas to pay enough of the salary to even out the books for 2011 - 2012 (especially if Young demands a trade)."

Since Young is owed $48M, what exactly would the Phillies have to give Texas to make them pay most of that money, given that their stated reason for trading Young is to reduce budget?

Utley & Brown? The idea of Texas trading Young for Blanton AND eating most of Young's $48m salary is ludicrous.

More ludicrous? Trading for Michael Young when we already have entrenched starters at every position he plays.

There is ZERO chance the Phils even consider trading for Young.

I see that for the third year in a row, Lidge says he's heading to camp injury-free.

clout: I had figured that the deal would have to be more complex than Blanton for Young + cash, but Amaro has a history of getting complicated deals done - and significant dollars changing hands in these deals.

Everyone has very sound arguments against the Phillies trading for Young. I don't disagree - I'm just examining the possibility.

The only thing I don't agree with is that there is zero chance of it happening...not after the Cliff Lee signing.

clout: Does that mean we have a 66% chance of a good season from him?

clout - This time I actually might buy it. Healthy and effective Lidge is a Top 5 (maybe even top 3) factor on this team pushing 94-95 wins this year.

***Also, I am certainly bias here, but I'd argue that despite 2010, he'd have a better shot at a World Series ring over the next three years in Philly than anywhere else.

Posted by: Will Schweitzer | Monday, February 07, 2011 at 01:12 PM


Dont get me wrong, I'd love it if it happened (and it was payroll neutral) but there's a 0% chance of it happening. Young would be the best super-utility/bench guy in baseball if we were to have him on our roster.

On Lidge: I'm gonna go with Mar 15th for the day he goes under the knife to get his knee or elbow scoped...and May 6th for when he's back on the 25 man.

Let's see, football season ended last night. Is it baseball season yet? It's been so darn cold this winner, I'll settle for spring training.

I vote "No" on Michael Young.

If Young could play LF, it would actually be a very intersting move (if it were payroll neutral of course). Of course he's never played LF in his professional career so there's that.

He's a career .833 OPS hitter vs LHP...

"Durbin Hopes To Join A Contender"

Story over at mlbtr quoting Rosenthal

If he's tall enough to play 3B he's tall enough to play LF right?

I'm really surprised that the Rays haven't signed Durbin yet. They lost their entire bullpen to free agency so they could use a solid veteran back there to stabilize things. The Twins would be another good place for him probably. I would guess both teams would love to have him but not at his current asking price.

MG, the Phillies won 97 games last year with 6 of 8 regulars doing stints on the DL.

Of those, Rollins only played in 88 games and anybody with eyes that worked knew he wasn't the same player even when he was on the field.

Utley only played in 115 games, and when he got back he wasn't the same either.

Howard spent a shorter period on the DL, but his power was greatly diminished when he returned.

Polly had an injury that required multiple cortisone shots and offseason surgery.

Ibanez, coming off of surgery, played like a replacement level player in the first half.

Blanton missed a month. Happ missed 2 months. Moyer missed 2.5 and was gone for the year. Hamels sucked the first month so Charlie rode Doc hard.

Lidge sucked the first four months coming off surgery.

Madson missed 2 months on a self-inflicted DL stint.

I could go on.

Still, they won 97 games - the most in MLB. One wonders how many games they would have won had they been reasonably healthy last season. 100? 103? More?

At the beginning of last season, the top two guys in the rotation were Halladay and Hamels. The bottom 3 were:


This season, assuming the top 2 don't change, the bottom of the rotation is:


HUGE, HUGE difference, no?

I'm starting to think that maybe we don't realize how good this team is/can be.

95 wins?

If Lidge is healthy and effective all season and the rest fo the roster enjoys reasonably good health, IMO that's the least they'll win.

awh - I understand where you are coming from but 94-95 wins is nothing to scoff at either.

Like just everybody else, I like the Phils to win 90+ games this year and take the NL East. Just want to see how some of the other pieces fit into place & how a few things look in spring training to get a better sense.

Awh: Yes, our starting rotation is much better this year than last year. And I will enjoy every second of it...And it will be awesome.

But with that last you put up there, I'm reminded that there's no Moyer this year. I'll really miss Moyer. All the other guys are better. And they're much more awesome. But there was just something about him striking out people half his age with that 82 mph fastball....I'll miss that.

awh - Do I think the Phils win the WS this year? Nope even though they are the clear NL favorite in Vegas at the sport books and trail only the Red Sox and Yanks? right now.

MG, we're cool. I'll wait until Prediction Day to give my final take, because, yes, you're correct, lots can happen in ST.

One of the things that scares me a little is the health of the roster, especially the SP.

So, I'll wait until Prediciton Day because lots could change between now and then.

MG, the only thing I predict is that the Phils make the playoffs.

We found out last season you can take nothing for granted, even if they are the best team (which, IMO, they were).

MG: I can't imagine the justification of the Yankees having better odds than the Phillies to win in 2011.

Considering the competition, I'd put money on the Yankees not making the playoffs at all.

awh: The problem with comparing the much healthier and improved Phillis of 2011 to what happened in 2010 and using it to project victories is that it assumes that none of the other teams in NL East have improved. I think they all have, including the Mets if they stay healthy.

The Phils may have improved the most, but NL East 2011 is not the same as last year's model.

awh - I would simply bet against the Phils to win the WS because teams with great rotations almost never win the WS.

awh - The only starter that really scares me on the starting staff is Oswalt and his back. Chronic pain often waxes and wanes with back issues but the underlying condition never really improves either. He had a ton of epideral shots though last year. Can't imagine it is in great shape.

Yeah, the health of this club is the single biggest factor on whether they make the playoffs or not. You have a bunch of geezers on this team with a few key guys coming off injury-plagued years.

"...for the third year in a row, Lidge says he's heading to camp injury-free..."

As for me, for the 52nd year in a row, I'm heading into ST skepticism free. Really. Honest.

Send Baez with Blanton and Polanco to Texas for Young

***Send Baez with Blanton and Polanco to Texas for Young

Posted by: Kevin | Monday, February 07, 2011 at 04:06 PM


If I were a Phillies fan, I wouldn't do that deal I dont think.

Andy - It likely has a degree of truth because for the first time Lidge didn't have any offseason surgeries and was likely able to have a more normal offseason training regimen.

NEPP: If the Rays wanted to overpay for a mediocre middle reliever, they would've just re-signed one of their own guys, no?

Smart teams don't overpay FA middle relievers, because they're so fungible (unless you're the Yanks and money doesn't matter). You might have noticed that the Phils arguably have the same weakness in middle relief that the Rays do. Same with the Red Sox. And plenty of other highly competitive, top-level teams. No one is lining up to give 2 years and 5 million to Chad Durbin. The Rays are run in a highly intelligent, highly cost-conscious manner. Signing Durbin doesn't seem like it would go along with their strategy at all.

Clout: You were the one who insisted all season in 2009 that Lidge was fully healthy, and that his performance had nothing to do with injuries, weren't you?

Jack: No, I never insisted Lidge was healthy. I merely criticized posters here who excused all of Lidge's failures as the product of injury, given the inconsistent seasons he had with the Astros, including years when he was allegedly injury free.

****NEPP: If the Rays wanted to overpay for a mediocre middle reliever, they would've just re-signed one of their own guys, no?****

I don't think they'll overpay for him and I don't think ANY team will overpay for him. He'll be lucky if/when he gets a 1 year, $2 million deal from someone with maybe a club option for a 2nd year.

They were smart to not overpay any of their own guys...considering how many comp picks they got out of not resigning any of them.

First, what clout said: the NL East looks improved across the board.

Second, while there's no debating the upgrade in our pitching, there's also no debating that the Phillies scored 3 or fewer runs in 78 games, then lost their highest OPS player in the off-season. You can give me all the averages and end-of-season totals you want, but they were a flat-out bad offensive team in almost half the games they played.

I also don't share many posters' confidence that all these over-30 players (Howard, Utley, Rollins, Vic, Polanco, Ibanez) are still elite players at their positions, but just coincidentally happened to have anomalous down years at the same time. More likely, some will bounce back, some won't, and some may actually get worse.

Then there's this: with all the talk about the many injuries last year, it seems to me that a team built around starting pitching is considerably more susceptible to being derailed by injury since: (a) pitchers tend to get injured more than everyday players; (b) there are 8 everyday players & only 5 starting pitchers; and (c) a starting pitcher, though he plays only once every 5 games, has a much bigger impact on the game outcome than any everyday player, no matter how good that player.

None of this is to suggest that the Phillies were wrong to re-shape their team into a pitching-oriented team (they weren't) or that they aren't the heavy favorites to win the NL East again (they are). It's simply to point out that it's kind of silly to say, "They won 97 games last year so, with Lee & a full season of Oswalt, they'll win more." A lot can go wrong, no matter how good your pitching. About 94 to 97 wins is a reasonable goal/expectation. Anything beyond that would require a lot of things to go right.

"The problem with comparing the much healthier and improved Phillis of 2011 to what happened in 2010 and using it to project victories is that it assumes that none of the other teams in NL East have improved."

Ummm, clout, I DO assume other teams in the NL East have improved. But I'm waiting until Prediction Day before I discuss it any further.

"Yeah, the health of this club is the single biggest factor on whether they make the playoffs or not."

MG, that's true of most teams, but, frankly, I was a little surprised they won th emost games last year given all the injuries they had.

This will be a new year and changed rosters for every team, but this team and core of players showed me something last season.

What I also saw last season was how much difference having a truly dominant ace makes. Also, Hamels was an ace for 5 months.

This season they'll have 4 of them to start the season.

We're about to see how much difference that makes.

"they were a flat-out bad offensive team in almost half the games they played."

While this is true, I don't think its an accurate reflection of the lineup when healthy. If you list the time spent on the DL by nearly every bat in the lineup, it's a small miracle that they made the post season at all.

If the 2011 Phillies stay injury free, I would argue that the increase in production you'd see from Howard, Utley, Rollins, Polanco, etc... would sufficiently offset the downgrade in RF without Werth.

"teams with great rotations almost never win the WS."

Spurious correlation. Teams with great rotations tend to have less money to spend on key bats. This isn't the '90s Braves relying on Mark Lemke and Jeff Blauser to score runs. The 2011 Phillies will win a lot of games where they'll only put three runs on the board.

bap, what you say makes sense, but I also think you need to look at it this way:

If I had told you on April 1, 2010, that:

the Phillies would have 6 regulars on the DL and that

Rollins would only play 8 games,

Utley 115, SLG sapped by injury when he returned

Howard only hits 31 HR, DL'd, SLG sapped by injury when he returned

3/5 of the starting rotation misses at least a month, one out for the season,

Madson out for 2 months,

Lidge DL'd, misses a month and sitting with a 5.57 ERA on July 31st,

other members of the bullpen on the DL, etc. etc. etc,

would you, on April 1st of last year, have predicted they make the playoffs?

I surely would not have.

That should be "88" games that Rollins played.

I'd like to chime in if I may.

First, "no" on Michael Young. I don't think the Phils would do it even if they take on the salary.

Next, listen we got beat by an inferior offensive team last year. Their great pitching stopped us and as we all know, pitching and defense wins WFC's. We have the best rotation in the world with Blanton as a #5 and the Phab Phour without him, great! But the bottom line is you still have to hit to win. Can our guys stay healthy? Can Dom/Ben Fran produce? Can we hit better with RISP? All major questions. It doesn't matter how well we pitch if our staters give up 2 and we only score one.

We are the cream of the NL East but yes, the Braves, Mets and maybe even the Gnats got better. I don't think it'll be a cakewalk.

I'm hoping RAJ still has another trick up his sleeve as I feel the offense needs a little tweaking.

The Nats, Fish and Braves got better...the Mets got much much worse IMHO. So, our divisional games will be tougher I would think. Overall though, I predict a lot of close games. If I had to toss a number out there, I'd go with 98 Wins in 2011.

awh: That logic works two ways, no?

If someone had told me on April 1st last year that the Mets would lose Beltran for 2/3rds of the season, Bay and Castillo for half the season and Ollie Perez would have a career bad year; that the Braves would lose Chipper for half a season, McLouth and Jurrjens to career bad years and that Glaus would flop; that the Marlins' Coghlan, Cantu and Maybin would have bad years and the Nats would be the Nats, then I absolutely would've predicted the Phillies make the playoffs.

"The Nats, Fish and Braves got better..."

How did the Marlins get better? I'd argue they treaded water at best.

I don't think the Nats are a better team. If Werth is able to replicate his production in Philadelphia (which itself is doubtful), he still would fall short of providing what they lost offensively in Adam Dunn.

Plus no Strasberg for the season...and I doubt they have anyone who will give them what Capps did in the back end of the pen for the first half of the season.

As for the Braves, the jury is still out. I don't agree that Uggla = Derek Lee, and losing Wagner from the pen is going to sting.

Heather - I like what the Fish did this offseason especially further bolstering their pitching staff by signing Vazquez (good value signing) to a 1-yr deal and finally get some legit LHP relievers in Choate & Dunn. Also added Webb and Mujica in the Maybin deal to provide them with some additional middle relief options. They even decided to keep L. Nunez who I like as a potential setup man. About time they bolstered their bullpen which generally has been a host of hasbins, journyman, and marginally-talented guys.

Too bad they made one of the dumbest moves this offseason in signing a catcher (Buck) coming off a career offensive year with numbers way off his career norms, is a poor defender, and will turn 31 this year to a 3-yr/$18M deal. Yeah, they need a starting catcher but this would get my nod for one of the dumbest 5 moves this offseason.

Derek Lee, a 35-year old .770 OPS 1st baseman, is better than Dan Uggla, a 30-year old .877 OPS 2nd baseman?

Will - I don't either. Where's the brilliance in spending so much more additional money in LaRoche/Werth vs. Willingham/Dunn? Yeah both guys are much better defensively but they are likely to turn in equal or even slightly less offensive numbers.

As for their pitching, their backend of their bullpen is very good butg you just can't convince me that a team with a rotation of L. Hernandez, Lannan, J. Marquis, Gorzelanny, and Detwiler/J. Zimmeman/Maya is going to win more than 75 games. Yeah, its an improvement over the slop they have marched out over the past few seasons but there isn't a guy on this staff who wins more than 11 games either.

If they had the deepest bullpen in the league, a stellar offense, and played quality defense, they might be a good team with that rotation. Too bad they don't have any of the forementioned qualities although their defense should be notably better this year.

Jack: haha good memory.

I love clout's response: Technically I didnt say Lidge was healthy, i just criticized people who said he wasn't healthy.

Sums up about every debate i've read that he's apart of.

The NL East isn't really all that much better. It will be the Phillies and the Braves again (and the Braves are closer than people here are willing to grant).

The Marlins could get to 85 wins if things broke right. I'd be shocked if the Mets or Nats broke 75. The Nats have a horrible pitching staff. The Mets too (with Santana out). The Marlins you can make an argument at being decent if Vasquez returns to form, but they have Hanley and Stanton and a whole lot of crap in that lineup. And suddenly their bullpen is great? Please. Mike Dunn has worse numbers than Bastardo, who everyone on here thinks is a bum. When San Diego trades relievers, you have to realize that means the Padres think they are creations of PETCO and are overrated. Those guys will never put up numbers like that again. I'd buy the Marlins as a .500 team, but they can't contend with the Braves and Phillies.

Jack-exactly right. And every year we get the "Marlins could be tough..."

On paper, how many teams didn't get somewhat better to much better in the off season? Obviously Tampa Bay got worse, perhaps the Yankees too, and the bottom feeders like the Pirates, Astros, Royals, Mariners probably stayed the same. Of course the regular season will reveal which teams really made the right moves.

BedBeard: How many games did the Marlins win last year?

lorecore: How would you know anything about that? The name lorecore never appeared on this blog until very recently.

Clout: The Marlins won 80. With a run differential of +2. Which means they were exactly a .500 team. Which is about where I'd peg them for this year. If things break right, they could get to 85, and depending on how those wins are distributed temporally, they could make things "interesting" into September.

They have a miniscule chance of actually competing with the Phillies or Braves for the division. They are simply not close to those two teams in terms of overall talent.

Jack: Would you like to make a bet on how many games the Marlins win this year?

How's this: For every game they win above .500 you skip a month of posting. For every game under I skip a month.

Clout: Any team with a true talent level of .500 can go somewhere like 5 games up or 5 games down from that. Anywhere in between 76 and 86 and we were both essentially right (could be swung by injuries, bad luck, etc.).

How about the bet is any game over 86 that they win, I'll skip a month. Any game under 76 that they win, you skip a month. It makes more sense.

I lead my league in 'times on base' a remarkable 8 consecutive years, which helps explain my 25th-best-all-time career .415 OBP.

Who am I?

You're the fried chicken man.

ding ding ding ding

Wade Boggs is correct

This is fun.

I hit the most grand slams ever - 23 to be exact. Who am I?

I am the last pitcher to record 20 CGs in a season.
Who am I?

(Nothing better than playing around on to get sharp for the new season.)

clout, you had me until you mentioned "Ollie Perez".

Jack, exactly right. There's a "swing" factor in each direction with baseball teams.

Last season, I predicted 98 wins for the Phillies. If anyone cares to go back and check the archives, I always include a "+/-" factor of 10 games in my predictions, as IMHO the swing can be that large.

So, if you think the Fish are a .500 team in 2011, by my reckoning if everything broke exactly right for them (no injuries, big injuries to other teams, win most 1-run games, all the bounces go their way, etc.) they could be 10 games over. OTOH, they could be a 71 win team if the baseball gods had every affliction in the universe (injuries, bad bounces, blown calls, team quits[2009 Mets]), beset them.

Jack: Well if you actually think they can win 86 games then I'm not sure what your point is. I've already said their team is good enough to win that many, something you earlier disagreed with.

Guess you changed your mind.

Iron Horse

who am i = who cares?

Blanton and Rizzotti and PTBNL (Biddle) for Michael Young and 20 million in cash??????

noname, there's about as much chance of Jesse Biddle being included in a trade for Michael Young as there is of Rosanne Barr winning Miss America.

Rizotti, Goosewich, Mathieson and Savery for Young. Sweep the leg, Rube.

El Toro?

Bed Beard, what happens to Youn's salary in that trade?

WGAS you are deal is a great deal (for the phillies). Biddle has no history. Rizzotti is a sell high candidate (and blocked by a big piece) and Blanton has no real value to the phillies. The rangers would decline that deal tho.

ding ding ding

we'll accept El Toro.

Fernando Valenzuela had 20 CG in 1986.

Curt Schilling was the last to reach 15, which he did in 1998.

noname, you are forgetting the $48MM Young is owed. For a 2.2 WAR player (fangraphs projection). $16MM for 2 wins above replacement is WAY overpaying, much less factoring in the talent they'd be giving up.

Besides, Blanton is a 2.1 WAR player.

Are you saying you're willing to give up a #3 SP, a AAA first baseman who's raking and potentially attractive to another team who needs a hitter in a deadline deal, a first round draft pick who's performed to expectations...all to take on another $7.5MM in salary for .1 WAR? Seriously?

Besides, where does Young and his 16MM play?

And you call me crazy.....

Here's one for you:

Which ex-Phillie, who played at least 10 years in MLB, has the highest lifetime OBP of any player ever to wear a Phillies uniform?

Since we're discussin Young, does anyone else think this is delusional?:

"Neither Ryan nor Daniels wanted to speculate on whether a deal would actually get done. If the club wants to trade Young and make the club better for 2011 and beyond, they'd likely need to another team to take on most of Young's salary and receive quality players in return.

"We're talking about one of the premier hitters in the game," Ryan said. "We have an equity that we want to get proper compensation back for. We'll just have to see who has an interest level and what possible opportunities that we have."

What I mean by delusional is that they think they can trade him and get another team to take on his whole salary AND get quality players in return.

Michael Young wants to play everyday and won't come here. From mlbtr:

"...the list of eight teams Young is willing to accept a trade to: Cardinals, Yankees, Twins, Astros, Rockies, Dodgers, Angels, and Padres."

Let's drop it.

Bill James and Marcel both project better numbers @ 4.17 and 4.34. Baez will get the spot because he has to be paid. Why start an arb clock if you do not have to? Gotta give the kids their work. They will have their chances with Contreras, Baez and Romero in the pen. Injuries happen and pitching depth is a sweet sweet thing. Let them duel it out for the callup.

Phillies batting coach thinks Brown's flaw is fixed

Greg Gross: competent batting coach?

Or the man who destroyed the #1 prospect in baseball? Stay tuned...

"Let's drop it."

Not so fast...

Jayson Stark: "Young would be willing to consider expanding his eight-team list on a "case-to-case basis."

Will, I saw that this morning.

Let me be clear (awh channels Obama):

There is no way in the world IMHO that Michael Young is coming to the Phillies.

He is owed too much money. The whole purpose for the Phillies trying to trade Blanton was to REDUCE PAYROLL.

The whole purpose of the Rangers trying to move Young is to REDUCE PAYROLL.

Why would the Phillies take on Young's 2012-2013 contract?

Please explain, given the current payroll of the Phillies, in addition to their future needs such as sextending either Hamels or Oswalt, or picking up Oswalt's option, how this makes economic sense for the Phillies?

Not to be rude, but you're nuts if you think they'll take on that salary.

Clout: So we both agree the Marlins are a .500 team? Awesome.

awh: Don't even bother feeding the speculation about Young. It's idiotic and makes less than no sense. Even in shooting it down, there's no point to talking about it.

And is the answer to your trivia question Bobby Abreu?

Late, but Pipp'd got it.

Let's talk about trading for Carlos Gonzalez - that is about as likely as a trade for Young.

"The whole purpose of the Rangers trying to move Young is to REDUCE PAYROLL."

I don't that's it, exactly. I don't think the Rangers have a pressing need to reduce payroll as an absolute number. They want to get rid of Young because they feel he's overpaid for his production, they think he's about to decline even more, and they want to get rid of him before his 10 and 5 rights kick in.

And now, of course, they want to get rid of him becuase he's publicly demanded a trade.

Jack, no. The answer is none other than HOF player "Sliding Billy" Hamilton, #4 on the all-time list in OBP, with .4552 in the record books.

Interestingly, "ex-Phillies" occupy 2 of the top ten spots on the OBP career leaders list, with Jimmie Foxx coming in at #10. Foxx actually ended his career in a Phillies uni in 1945.

If you didn't see it on, Peter Gammons says

"NL East rivals poised to challenge Phillies"

"What I mean by delusional is that they think they can trade him and get another team to take on his whole salary AND get quality players in return."

They don't. If they really thought he was one of the premier players in the game why did they spend all offseason trying to shop him, then finally signing someone who plays his position (3rd), then trading for someone who is going to cut into his ABs at DH (Napoli.)

All that crap about Young being a premier player and them looking for a great return is just posturing. By their actions, it seems internally the Rangers don't value Young very much at all.

Heather, reports indicate that they were trying to move Young before he asked for the trade(it's what pissed him off), depite telling him that they weren't trying to move him. According to what I've read their biggest reason for wanting to move him was to reduce payroll.

My trivia question:

Who is a UT player masquerading as a regulkar on an AL team who's getting paid way too much, who the Phils would never ever trade for in 2011 because he would not bring that much, he'd have no starting position, he would cost too much in trade value and he'd mess up the salary structure leaving the Phils with even less flexibility entering the season than they already have?

Anyone? Anyone?

"Heather, reports indicate that they were trying to move Young before he asked for the trade(it's what pissed him off), depite telling him that they weren't trying to move him. According to what I've read their biggest reason for wanting to move him was to reduce payroll."

My take on that is that they're trying to move him because he's overpaid for his position and value, not that they need to reduce payroll as a whole.

And....that they were trying to move him before his 10 and 5 rights kicked in and before the rest of the league caught on that he wasn't very good anymore and his trade value plummetted even further.

If you have a depreciating asset, wouldn't you try to move it before it's lost all of its value if you could? Especially when you don't even need the marginal value the depreciating asset provides?

Young isn't very good. He's a slightly above-average hitter who can no longer play good defense at any decently valuable defensive position.

He's no better than Polanco or Ibanez right now. Why on Earth would we even want him, let alone take on his salary?

Please stop talking about this. Please.

Heather, can we agree on the fact that they want to trade Young because of MONEY?

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel