Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Inflexible Manuel must dissolve veteran loyalties | Main | Beerleaguer for breakfast: Lukewarm questions of ST »

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Comments

And, his salary is peanuts.

To continue from the prior thread and to respond to BAP.

BAP: Thanks for that reasoned position. I get your over riding point: “if the post-season is a crapshoot, and/or our failure in the NLDS was due to the manager's tactical blunders, how could one possibly conclude that a team which won 102 games last year needs to have a massive overhaul of its personnel?”
I want to be clear that while it is a crapshoot it does not mean that you cannot prepare and max your chances. After all if we present a lineup of 2nd stringers chances are good we’ll be going nowhere fast. A crapshoot merely means it’s a short series anyteam could really put it together.
On the other hand we need to be mindful that the playoffs as a crapshoot require that we adjust and tweak things. SO if Howard and Pence aren’t hitting we need to come up with a different lineup and try more things—this is where the manager comes in. And we all know that CM is very conservative, so certainly having him manage as he does in the playoff puts our team at a strategic disadvantage.
So if it’s his fault why dump the team? Rollins, Utley and the others are not going to be as good as they were yesterday in fact their production has dropped off precipitously. So why not trade them for a new bunch. It did work for the Marlins. If the name of the game is winning the WS then let’s recognize that each year since they won they have failed to live up to the previous year’s achievement and with improved pitching too! Why not recognize that and move on?

Best part of Ibanez signing is we get the 54th pick in the draft.

Raul is going to look strange in the wrong color of pinstripes with a NY on his cap.
Wish him the best, except of course against the Phils.

Little Roy is still out there, still hope for a reunion.

"Utley and the others are not going to be as good as they were yesterday in fact their production has dropped off precipitously. So why not trade them for a new bunch."

RK, as has been explained to you, AD INFINITUM, the replacements you advocate are NOT as good as the players you advocate replacing.

That is why.

Ohh...another discussion on the playoffs being a crapshoot. Are we re-running the best of BL from last October?

You know...when you get down to it the playoffs are basically just a crapshoot.

Also, Howard makes too much.

Abreu was a clubhouse cancer.

awh - I think in RK's universe you can trade Rollins and receive Tulo. Then the replacement players would definitely be better than the current players.

RK: the name of the game, to the owners (aka the guys who hire/fire GM's and approve the budget) is to maximize profit. Those 5-10 years of 60-70 wins between championships really diminishes revenue potential.

Also, a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush. Trade a star, even a fading one is a risky proposition. Maybe you can get back 1 or 2 guys who can play. . . or maybe you get back nothing. Cliff Lee was traded twice for fool's gold and once for an ok return (depending on how smoak turns out). If anything the current market trend in MLB is to over-value cost-controlled players and prospects over guys like Utley and Howard. If a Stanford grad wanted to take advantage of that sort of marketplace, he'd keep sending his own over-valued prospects out the door in return for more established talent.

Agree with Jbird. The Yankees can have our over-the-hill player. I'll take the draft pick.

When can we start the lineup construction thread?

Against lefties:

Rollins
Utley
Victorino
Pence
Mayberry
Wigginton
Ruiz
Polanco

Against righties:

Rollins
Victorino
Utley
Pence
Thome
Nix
Ruiz
Polanco

Obviously in real life, Polanco will bat 2nd and Ruiz will bat 8th. But in a perfect world, these would have to be the lineups, right?

Jbird, good point on the revenue incentive for the owners.

Additionally, this question needs to be asked:

With their payroll, why shouldn't the Phillies be competitive every year?

JBird I agree that management does not want to wait 5 years in between. But this is already 4th year in between and certainly the fifth is coming up next. This is exactly why I think we should trade for talent. Let's be honest we have spent much of the last 2 years without Utley and Rollins so getting good young talent for them is worth it.

I bet Ibanez has a solid year for the Yanks. I think they're going into the deal with their eyes wide open; they're not going to overplay him in the outfield and he'll get his ABs at DH. I think he wore down last year because he was out there so much.

I was pulling for the Phils to platoon him and Mayberry last year, but they never really went with that. It's a shame, I think he'd have been more productive with less playing time.

Jack, you have Jim Thome pencilled in as a starter against all righties? Not remotely likely. I'd say it's more likely that Howard will be back in April, which is also unlikely. On those 3-4 days a week when they face a righty and Thome sits, they're going to have some challenges.

RK: but that's 4 years of +100% capacity and a new tv deal looming.

RK: I could sit here and address every assertion that you're making, but it really all boils down to this: I am completely baffled that anyone could seriously believe that, if the Phillies followed your plan, traded away Utley, Rollins, et. al. for a bunch of prospects who may or may not pan out, their chances of winning a World Series 4 or 5 years down the road would exceed their chances of winning a World Series in 2012 by sticking with essentially the same cast of characters.

BAP: Why are you baffled? Have they won it recently with this team?

I would also take issue with the claim that trading away star players for prospects has "worked" for the Marlins.

In their 19-year history, the Marlins have never won a division and never won more than 92 games. They have won but 2 WCs and, through the sheer random fluke of getting hot at the right time, they went on to win the WS both times.

The first time was in 1997 & it wasn't the result of trading away good players & rebuilding; it was a result of a one-year payroll bump of 50% which enabled them to bring in veteran players like Bobby Bonilla, Moises Alou, and Alex Fernandez, all of whom played key roles on the team. After winning it all, they promptly traded away the entire team, leading to a 108-loss season the following year. They then followed with 5 more years of sub-.500 ball, until they snuck in as the WC in 2003 & rode Josh Beckett to a WS. Then they traded away a bunch of players again & they've gone 8 straight years without a playoff appearance.

So, basically, in 14 years of trading away all their good players at peak value, the Marlins have won 0 division titles, 1 WC, and one WS -- and have gone 8 straight years without a playoff appearance. Good for them for getting lucky & winning that WS, in a year when they were the worst of the 8 teams in the playoffs. But that doesn't sound like a model I would want to emulate.

BAP: Given the improvement of the other teams and the liabilities we are carrying going into the 2012 season (Howard?, Polanco?) not to mention Utley’s durability and Rollins’ so-so performance why are you optimistic.
I think the pitching is good (although not so sure about relievers) we do not need to score a zillion runs to finish near the top. I would trade for a real future 2B and 3B and with Brown, Mayberry and Pence would have a very strong opportunity to do it again next year or the following either way we would be competitive the next two years although we would not be in the WS—but we are not getting there with this team anyway.

162 games is not luck. And I am not talking about getting rid of everyone.

RK: Let me attempt an analogy.

Lee Westwood, one of the top golfers in Europe, has never won a major championship. But in 2011, he had 3 Top 10 finishes in majors. In 2010, he finished 2nd in both the Masters & U.S. Open. In 2009, he finished 3rd in both the PGA & British Open. And in 2008, he finished 3rd in the U.S. Open. But, at 38, he is kind of oldish -- though not THAT old for a golfer.

So what has a better chance of happening? Lee Westwood winning a major championship in the next year or two, or some randomly selected 19-year old pro winning a major sometime within the next 5 years?

Last year, despite the missed time, only 6 second-basemen added more value than Utley:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=2b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=200&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2011&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&players=0

The same is true for Utley over the past two years.

As for Rollins -- over the past two years, despite the missed time, only 7 shortstops have added more value than Rollins and his "so-so performance":

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=200&type=8&season=2011&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&players=0

Schmenkman, Utley and Rollins are good but we both know they are significantly past their prime. All your data provides is ammo for RAj on a trade. We got Roy for A'rnaud. He is about to make his debut in the MLB. Roy has not yet gotten a ring andit is doubtful he will achieve it with this team

There is nothing wrong with trying to trade for talent. certainly waiting another year or two will nto helpour cuase.

RK: I think history will show that the way to win a WS is to maintain a good, stable high-quality team for as long as possible before age forces you to rebuild.

The Marlins way is inefficient.

An example of what I mean is the p0revious era of Phillies greatness, 1976-1983. During that 8 year period the Phillies made the playoffs 5 times, the World Series twice and snagged one championship. They did not dump their veterans after a playoff loss. They did shed a few as the years went on in trades to help strengthen other areas.

This edition, which began in 2006 by just missing the playoffs, is already ahead of the game with 5 playoff appearances, 2 WS and 1 championship in 6 years. To rip it up now, just because they lost the playoffs would be stupid.

bap: Golf is a poor analogy to use with RK. If he judges his team solely by WS titles, when that team is one of 30 that can win it, he's not going to follow any golfer, who is only one of 156 who can win any one major championship.

"

BAP: Why are you baffled? Have they won it recently with this team?

Posted by: RK | Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 04:06 PM"


RK, are you saying that because a veteran team doesn't win a WS every year that they ought to be dismantled? Do you expect them to win every year?

On Marlins GM tactics:
Let us not confuse an optimal big market strategy with a best we can do small market strategy. Miami is a small market team. It will take quite a few generations for them to develop a mature, stable Marlin fan-base in that area. Florida retirees are not going to abandon their old beloved teams. So, with that in mind, what do small market teams do? You can't afford too many stars, so you trade them for prospects before they leave for free agency anyway. You trade in hopes of getting a good batch of talent that matures at the same time, like Rollins, Utley, Hamels, and Howard. You ride them for a few years and spend some money on support players and take your shot. Then you have the garage sale and try to start over.

Having a team that has a chance to make the playoffs every 7 years does not sound so bad to those of us that remember 1985-2006.

RK: Potential Playoff Contenders for whom it would make sense to trade for Utley: . . . the only ones I can think of is maybe Arizona, San Fran, & Detroit. The only one with an infield prospect I'd want is Detroit, Castellanos. but he's 19 and probably 2-ish years away, best case scenario. So you are killing your 2012, 2013, 2014 and probably 2015 exchanging Utley for Castellanos, who at 19 is no sure thing.

FWIW: d'Arnaud will likely be making his debut in 2013.

I heart prospects, but I'd trade d'Arnaud for Halladay 6 days a week and twice on Sunday.

Clout: What you say is 100% true. Of course, after 1983, the Phillies then were mediocre/terrible for a 10-year stretch from 1983-1992. And that 1993 team, as great as it was was sort of a fluke. The real stretch of mediocrity goes from 1983-2001, with an exception for 1993. And then we still didn't make the playoffs, despite being competitive for most years after 2001, until 2007.

People often accuse me and some other posters of not enjoying this run enough, and worrying about the future too much. Trust me, I enjoy this, and I wholeheartedly believe that when you have a chance for a championship, you go for it, all the way. But I also remember that stretch from 1983-2007, where we made the playoffs a total of one time, and my God did that suck. I don't want to see this franchise go back to that. The future does matter to me.

"I would trade for a real future 2B and 3B..."


RK......WHO?

C'mon, who who you trade for that is a "real future" player at those positions, and who would you be willing to give up in order to get them?

You advocate it, so obviously you've thought it through enough to 'name names'.

RK, in presenting us with your trade scenarios, you should also provide some justification for the OTHER team taking whatever talent the Phillies send over.

For instance, using JBird's trade scenario above, please explain why the Tigers would give up a young, 'potential' star like Castellanos for a 'past-his-prime' (your words) Utley.

Because, after all, wouldn't the other teams value the young, "real future 2B and 3B" just as much as the Phillies?

RK: I think history will show that the way to win a WS is to maintain a good, stable high-quality team for as long as possible before age forces you to rebuild.

The Marlins way is inefficient.

An example of what I mean is the p0revious era of Phillies greatness, 1976-1983. During that 8 year period the Phillies made the playoffs 5 times, the World Series twice and snagged one championship. They did not dump their veterans after a playoff loss. They did shed a few as the years went on in trades to help strengthen other areas.

This edition, which began in 2006 by just missing the playoffs, is already ahead of the game with 5 playoff appearances, 2 WS and 1 championship in 6 years. To rip it up now, just because they lost the playoffs would be stupid.

Posted by: clout

Just look at the Yankees. They've won the most World Championships and it's not by trading away their stars - it's by maintaining a team that's built to win baseball games every season.

3r0ck, and as I've pointed out numerous times to RK, even the storied Yankees - because of the nature of the playof crapshoot - have only won 1 WS in the last decade, despite winning the most games in the AL 6 times, and winning the 2nd most games in the AL twice.

JW, do you have any proof that protection (such as it is) has ever propped up an over the hill player?

Clout and others, trading Rollins and Utley (especially Utley because it pains me to watch this guy's decline after such a great start) for new talent will not destroy this team. Clout we had a great run to the 1980 WS but honestly it was all downhill from there and it led to 20 plus years of a dry spell except for the 93 “fluke” (and it was a fluke). In fact while I am not interested in revisiting the past trading for new talent is the better way to stay competitive rather than wait till the whole thing degenerates to nothing—the farm is not fully stocked and will not provide the next gen alone. Trading one even two of our guys will not destroy the team they were not available for much of the last two years anyway and were not particularly sharp when they came back.
Who would I trade for I think SD has both a 2B and 3B prospects so does Cleveland and we have done business with them. I want a legitimate 2B and 3B with ETA 2012,3. There are many prospects near the maturity point and any of us could sit down and concoct a trade but we are not RAJ. My point is simply such a trade should be considered. It should not be dismissed as heresy.
Unless you guys really believe this team can make it back to the top, think about it.

The Indians just signed Cristian Guzman to a minor league deal. I know the money is tight, but with J-Rolls age and mini-mart being mini-mart wouldn't that have been a good signing? Can adding another middle infielder on a minor league deal be a bad move at this point?

"Unless you guys really believe this team can make it back to the top, think about it."
---
In 2012? What would possibly lead someone to think they would go from 102 wins to not having a chance to "make it back to the top"?

RK: Count me as one of those guys.

3r0ck, and as I've pointed out numerous times to RK, even the storied Yankees - because of the nature of the playof crapshoot - have only won 1 WS in the last decade, despite winning the most games in the AL 6 times, and winning the 2nd most games in the AL twice.

Posted by: awh

Small sample size. What has the history of baseball taught us?

Why is anyone trying to discuss things with RK? He actually thinks that because they've gone out earlier in the playoffs three years in a row that logically it means they'll miss the playoffs this year. You know, despite the fact that they have won more games each successive year.

Using RK's logic, I've got them penciled in for 104 wins and no playoffs.

RK - No one here is dismissing trades as heresy. If you came up with a logical trade and why each team would do it, you would get a good conversation. Instead you use generalizations that do nothing but confuse your point and do nothing to make other posters agree with you.

Why would a young team like SD or Cleveland want past their prime stars such as Rollins and Utley? What type of draw is that to a team like that which in SD's case, will probably finish in 4th place or later in the NL West?

RK: You make it sound like you can just trade Utley & Rollins for "some dudes," and everything will be hunky-dory 4 or 5 years from now. In reality, very few blue chip prospects turn out to be stars, and a goodly number of them flop completely. Remember how distraught people were when we traded away uber-prospects Michael Taylor & Kyle Drabek in the Halladay trade?

If tallied up all veteran-for-prospect trades over the last 20 years or so, you would find that the team which received the veteran has unambiguously come out ahead in the vast majority of cases.

"Have they won it recently with this team?"

Am I missing something? Isn't the answer clearly "yes"?

I'm rather certain at this point that RK is pulling everyone's leg. Either that, or he does not consider the 2008 championship to be "recent", the craziest among many other crazy opinions.

Either way, he is not worth engaging.

bap, stop making sense.

RK is obviously too lazy to go do homework and research potential trades (a project I've suggested more than once.

He/she doesn't have the knowledge base to even speculate about potential trades.

Thus, we are treated to RK talking out of his/her a88.

Absent of putting forth a realistic potential trade, that's really all it amounts to. Nothing more.

Rk, let me demonstrate how it's done.

Many posters here like Chase Headley, the young 3rd baseman for the Padres (I'm agnostic because I've never seen him play).


So, here's a potential trade:

Polanco, Justin De Fratus, Freddy Galvis and $3MM to San Diego for Chase Headley. (The 3MM is the approximate salary diff between Polly and Headley, incl Polanco's buyout).

Now, would the Padres do that trade?

Maybe for a more productive discussion we can dissect the oft stated theme that you can't build a team to win a WS once it gets to the playoffs.

If we take certain factors, such as, power starting pitching, shutdown closer, hitters who see more pitches per at bat than average, etc. can we not construct a type of team that will be more likely to advance in playoff type baseball?

Take a team like the Braves that got to the playoffs year after year but won only one WS. Their top two starters were finesse pitchers, Maddux and Glavine. Smoltz seemed more suited to the power pitcher post season mold. They had some dominant closers on a rotating basis, and they didn't have the type of offensive players who made pitchers work until they went clinically insane, Chipper notwithstanding.

Can it be that a team that will advance further in the playoffs more often than not will have more pitchers who miss bats, rather than induce groundballs? More shutdown closers, and a handful of relievers who also miss bats before the ninth inning, and hitters who aren't all up there free swinging, hoping for a homerun every at bat? Maybe speed is more important than we think it is, or maybe less so.

Even taking into account the streakiness of baseball teams over the course of a season, are there not characteristics that one would build around for championships, more than just excellence in the regular season? Is this a topic worth discussing? Because RK can keep stating his case, and keep getting slapped around, or we can actually attack what around here appears to be a sacred cow: You can only build a baseball team, not a baseball team that will do better in the playoffs. It's mostly chance.

aksmith: In a sport where even the worst team still beats the best team around 35% of the time, and where all 8 playoff teams start out being pretty good, there is no getting away from the fact that there is a substantial randomness element to playoff baseball. Nonetheless, I am more than open to the idea that there might be ways to slightly increase your chances of playoff success. One way I have suggested in the past is to have really good pitching -- since, after all, good pitching usually shuts down good hitting & good pitchers are more likely than mediocre ones to get hot at the right time. The Phillies tried that approach last year & it didn't work, in large part because 2 of their good pitchers didn't pitch like good pitchers in the playoffs. That still doesn't mean it wasn't the right approach.

Nobody in their right mind is going to sit through a summer ball game in Miami. They don't go to Heat games. They don't go to Dolphins games. MLS won't even consider adding the Strikers despite the huge Hispanic base. Miami is just like Atlanta: crap sports town.

aksmith: I think that is worth discussing. "Pitching wins championships" is the old adage, but it's unclear if there is any truth to that. A bullpen that performs well seems to have a high correlation to winning close games, but sometimes bad bullpens (like the Cardinals') have great Octobers.

My guess: over a large sample, the best predictor for playoff success is regular season record. I could be wrong about that.

Is it possible that all 102-win teams are not created equal, that in expectation, a true-talent 102-win team with a certain composition will outperform a 102-win team with a different composition in the playoffs? Yes, it's possible, but I contend that the differences, in expectation, are small. I'm willing to agree to disagree on that point.

What I'm not willing to accept is the argument that you can build a 90-win team with a certain composition that will consistently outperform a 102-win team with a different composition in the playoffs. That's a claim that, for me, requires much more evidence than "look at the trend... 2008 WS, 2009 pennant, 2010 win first round, 2011 lose first round."

Change of topic from RK's drivel:

Except for the fact that he's Thome, I think the Phillies should ride Thome at first as hard as possible (3-5x a week in April and May, against RHP).

Don't they get more value from him over those 50-100 at bats prior to Howard returning, than over the subsequent 50-75 June 1 - Sept 30? Hopefully he can withstand it for a month or two, if not hopefully he can come back from any injury in time for Sept/Oct.

Worst case he's still injured and they go out and get another impact PH at the deadline.

Let me clarify that a bit:

I think the marginal advantage of having Thome at 1B and Mayberry in LF in April and May (plus any benefit of Thome PH June - Sept, less injury risk) is greater for overall Reg Season results, than Thome as PH for presumably full season (and using Wiggy/Mayberry/Nix combo LF and 1B) April and May.

I forget where I read it (probably fangraphs), but the statement was made that the best predictor of playoff performance is pythagorean W/L record, i.e., teams with greater run differentials have a better chance at winning in the playoffs, and if the run differentials are comparable, the team with the better ability to suppress runs should fare better.

But having a better chance doesn't mean that you CAN'T lose. The Phillies last year were about as primed for postseason success as you can be. They had a ridiculous run differential, and were just abusing teams on a regular basis during the regular season.

They had three pitchers who were strikeout pitchers/low-walk pitchers, and two were ground ball machines (and Lee was about league average in that regard). They had filthy, strikeout pitchers in the back end of the bullpen (Madson and Bastardo before he hit a wall in September, Lidge had a SO/9 over 10, and Stutes, if nothing else, could get a K). They had a fairly disciplined offense (if I remember correctly, they were near the top of the league in SO/BB ratio), and they had at least league average power (if not slightly higher).

The team last year is pretty much exactly how you would build a team to succeed in the playoffs. That they didn't win says nothing about how well they were built.

For example, the team was built to take a 4-0 lead early in a game and coast to victory. That they didn't do that in game 2 is not anyone's fault but Cliff Lee's (I'm not mad at Lee, bad games happen, just saying; he was brought here to not do that in the playoffs).

This team was certainly built to win games where the starting pitcher only gives up 1 run in 8 innings, and the closer shuts down the 9th inning. That the Phillies couldn't score a single run against a good, but not dominant, Chris Carpenter is unfortunate, but not indicative of a FO failure to build the correct team.

It sucks that they lost in the playoffs last year, but if I got to start 2011 season with the exact same team, I'd feel pretty good about my chances.

Guzman officially sucks monkey ballz.

Raul's Grandpa: so it's official now? I'd heard rumors but I didn't know monkey ballz sucking commission had certified the results.

This thread hurts my head. The development of the last two drafts are important in keeping this train rolling. All this trade this for that, and that for this. My head hurts see ya tomm. The four aces and the position players and monies to spend later down the road equals winning. This team is totally diff then fishes.

Fatti, excellent post!

The info from fangraphs about run diff and suppression seems reasonable. Pitching and good defense has always seemed to be a decent formula for success.

g'nite hook.

Jbird,
Buster Olney, Bill James and Joe Morgan's daughter made it official today. Guzman has no connection to Boston so Peter Gammons and Hazel Mae won't go on the record.

Reading through your blog article is a real amazing experience. Many thanks for thinking of readers like me, and I would like for you the best of achievements as being a professional arena.

The broadcast team got themselves a new on field reporter....Gregg "with two g's" Murphy. Here's his honest to god quote,

"Murphy said. “Tom, Wheels and Sarge are the top broadcasting team in Major League Baseball and I am thrilled to be working alongside such a talented group.”


bwahahahaaaaaa!!!!!

I don't know him well, but that quote tells me all I need to know about him. I'm sticking to radio audio again this year.

If anybody has a foolproof way to sync the radio audio with MLB.tv, I'd really like to hear it.

Raul's Grandpa: What sort of sample size of monkey ball sucking are we talking about here?

I like the radio team too. I've always felt the tv team should talk less and let the visuals and sounds of the game "talk" more.

Raaaaaauuuuuuuullllllll


So I see that once again, a major league GM with a proven track record of success knows less than Beerleaguers, and for some ridiculous reason doesn't understand that Raul usefulness in the bigs ended two years ago - which is when Jack and the gang said he should have been replaced with Dom Brown.


So - Now that Raul's gone, who are MG and the Debbie Downers going to hate on this year?

I mean sure, Rollins and Howard are perennial targets of hate - but I mean beyond them? Can't be Dom Brown, who can do no wrong.

My money's on Laynce Nix. He spells his name weirdly and that's never a good sign.

I think the top 3 of the BL Whipping Boy power rankings are pretty clear cut going into the first week of exhibition games.

1) Mini Mart
2) Wiggington
3) Nix

On the bubble: Blanton, Polanco, Schneider

1. Mini Mart
2. Mini Mart
3. Mini Mart


FTFY

I'm already mad about Mini Mart and the exhibition season hasn't even started yet.

re: linuep

Jack had Thome listed as a starter vs RHP, I don't think thats possible. I believe Mayberry gets moved between LF and 1B to allow Wigginton(1b) and Nix(LF) to platoon against starters.

The reports are that Thome is trying to play some 1B in camp, but i think we're talking like 3 afternoon games a month and couple extra innings, at best.

my Whipping Boy odds:

Wigginton: 9-5
Martinez: 3-1
Blanton: 5-1
Polanco: 5-1
Nix: 5-1
Qualls: 7-1
Kendrick: 10-1
Schneider: 10-1
Stutes/Herndon/Schwimer: 10-1
Rollins: 20-1
Papelbon: 30-1
Any Other Indv: 50-1
The Field: 15-1


Technically, I should have wrote 'Last man in pen' instead of stutes/herndon/schwimer - dont want someone getting 50-1 odds on the likes of Brain Sanches.

Baseball America put out their top 100 prospects. May was the only current Phillie on it at 69. As for former Phillie pharmhands:

d'Arnaud: 17
Singleton: 34
Gose: 39
Cosart: 50
Villar: aprox. 101-110 (according to chat)

Would have a very solid system if all those guys had stayed, but I'd take the certainty of Halladay, Pence and Oswalt over those prospects all day long.

Anyone think there'd be any use to sign Pudge Rodriguez on the cheap to back up Chooch? He might be injury-prone, but having him strictly as the backup catcher seems better than keeping with Schneider.

Muuurgh: Why whouldn't they have just signed Pudge instead of Schneider? Face if folks, they like Schneider.

i have a dream,that one day i can really appreciate the blog posts instead of commenting it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

SHOP CSN


Advertisements


Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG