Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Monday: Phillies make losing a team effort | Main | Game chat: Phillies visit Twins as 'Chase' begins »

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Comments

On 8-28, though, they were 9 games behind in the loss column. One key difference between their situation and ours, however, is that they had no other teams between themselves & Atlanta.

Do you think in 2014, with a 34-year old Ryan Howard, a 35-year old Jimmy Rollins, a retired Chase Utley, and a 37-year old Roy Halladay, and with absolutely no prospects at all outside of a long shot in Brown set to be good major-league players at that point, this team is going to be competing?

Face facts here. This team isn't going to be competing for the next bunch of seasons anyway. It's simply a question of when you want to concede that point.

_________________________________________

The classic Jack argument where he only focuses on the circumstances that support his argument and ignores all the variables we don't know.

There is every possibility that the team doesn't compete in 2014.

According to Cot's though in that season we are on the hook already for 74 million. Hypothetically let's say we add Hamels at 25 million. That gives you 5 guys for 99 million. Add in the arb guys (Kendrick, Bastardo, Herndon)and you have 8 guys for probably around 110-115. What are you assuming the payroll will be at that point? 120? 150? 170? Butting right up against a luxury tax cap? Or cost cutting like crazy?

How do we know some guys like Biddle or Gillies won't be up and producing cheaply? How do we know guys like Howard will even still be with the club?

There are far too many factors to speak in definite. What Amaro needs to do is try to maneuver pieces in a way that the Phillies are able to compete. People talk about "the window" but there are ways to make moves without closing the window behind you.

As DH has been pointing out with his discussion of the Coolstandings #'s, your view on the Phils' chances really do depend on whether you think that they will continue to play at the same level they have so far this year, worse, slightly better, or considerably better.

If you think they will play the same, worse, or only slightly better, see what you can get for Hamels and trade him if you think that what's offered in return is better than what you could get with the same resources at the end of the season otherwise.

If you think they will play considerably better, then you don't even try to trade Hamels.

I doubt that any of this matters. My guess is that RAJ will sign Hamels unless Hamels asks for more from the Phillies than what he'd accept from some other team. That seems unlikely to me. I think that RAJ will give market value to keep Hamels on the team. With Hamels, Doc, and Lee going forward, this team will be in a place to compete for a couple of years going forward - and signing Hamels is pretty much the quickest road towards that end. A team can underachieve any year, but his job is to put them in a position to compete, and he's got the money available to put the Phils in such a position. I still find it funny that anyone who's been a fan of this team for more than 10 years could complain about a team going into the season with those three pitchers at the top of the rotation.

Seriously, 3 pitchers among the top 10-15? in MLB?

They also lucked into Atlanta having a historically bad collapse and they were aided by some idiotic 1st place team that decided to sweep Atlanta in the final week of the season for sh!ts and giggles.

???

ESPN has the at 4 games in the loss column behind Atlanta in the WC on 8/28/2011

***Seriously, 3 pitchers among the top 10-15? in MLB?***

That could win you 1 WS in a 15 year span if you're lucky...as the Braves showed us.

TTI: Yes, for all we know, Tyson Gillies is the next Matt Kemp and Jesse Biddle is the next Clayton Kershaw, and they will be that good in 2014. If you think that is likely to happen, then I could see how you are optimistic about the team.

I think that is extraordinarily unlikely. I think this team will be old, unproductive, and will not have any impact young players on it in 2014.

What is your prediction? Or are you going to continue to hide behind a "well, we just don't know" position? In which case what is the point of *ever* discussing *anything* in the future?

"That could win you 1 WS in a 15 year span if you're lucky...as the Braves showed us."

So you have some magical way to lock in winning WFCs? You put a team on the field that is good enough to be in a position to compete heading into the crapshoot of the post-season. Whining about not having something better than that is living in a fantasy world.

Or being one of those BLer posters who has a proclivity for being overly negative.

"they were aided by some idiotic 1st place team that decided to sweep Atlanta in the final week of the season for sh!ts and giggles."

As I (and many others) said at the time, just about the dumbest move they could have made. There was only 1 scary team going into the playoffs in the NL last year, and the Phils handed them the WC on a silver platter.

TTI: "People talk about "the window" but there are ways to make moves without closing the window behind you."

That is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, Amaro has not made any moves in the last couple of years like that.

Jack on June 12, 2012:

"...I think this team will be old, unproductive, and will not have any impact young players on it in 2014."


Jack on June 12, 2009:

"I think this team will be old, unproductive, and will not have any impact young players on it in 2011."


If you keep predicting that for long enough, Jack, apparently unaware that you have no ability to actually predict the future, you will eventually be right.

You may even be right about your predictions for Dom now that you've walked them back a bit.

"ESPN has the at 4 games in the loss column behind Atlanta in the WC on 8/28/2011."

I wish that were true, as it would give me some ammunition to be negative. But, alas, they were indeed 10 back in the loss column on 8-28-11.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/type/wild-card/date/20110828

Hamels sees the writing on the wall. He knows the Phillies are the oldest team in baseball and he will never win a WS here. Hello, Dodgers. RAJ will, of course, wait too long to trade Lee and Doc and will end up with 2 over the hill pitchers. The Nationals will rule the NLE for a long time. The Braves are not bad. The Marlins are young. The Mets will spend like drunken sailors. Can you say 5th place by 2014

That could win you 1 WS in a 15 year span if you're lucky ... as the Braves showed us.

Exactly. It's difficult to imagine Halladay, Lee & Hamels ever having as good of a combined year as they all did in '11, but even w/ them it didn't happen. And I'll always wish r00b had chosen to have those 3 starters in '10, as well, but that's over & done. Still had Halladay, Hamels & Oswalt, though. Didn't happen. Point being, the GM gambled & lost, & now he's flailing about w/out a clue. Face it, he looked at his ball club on the final day of last season AND DECIDED ITS MOST PRESSING NEED WAS A CLOSER. Everyone should be downright terrified as to how he handles Hamels, Victorino & Pence.

I think the discussion on buying/selling is a good one with reasonable arguments on both sides.

I just have to jump in on this dumb "The Phils swept the Braves in a meaningless series, how stupid of them" comment. The BL conventional wisdom before that series was that the Phils needed to start winning and play all of their starters because they had been in such a rut the last few weeks of September. Now, using hindsight as their guide, it was instead a stupid decision that anyone could have seen coming.

It's a perfect example of how some people like to pretend there is no archive on this site and stand on a high-horse of hindsight despite blatantly contradicting they've said in the past.

TTI: Yes, for all we know, Tyson Gillies is the next Matt Kemp and Jesse Biddle is the next Clayton Kershaw, and they will be that good in 2014. If you think that is likely to happen, then I could see how you are optimistic about the team.

____________________________________________

And another classic Jack discussion tactic. Go to extremes to make your point. Where did I ever say Gillies would be Matt Kemp or Biddle would be Kershaw? Furthermore, what scout has even hinted at something in that ballpark. I can see though how you would take, "How do we know some guys like Biddle or Gillies won't be up and producing cheaply?" and turn it into "Biddle and Gillies will be major league superstars the likes of two of the best players at their positions today." There is a middle ground there.

As far as a prediction- it is not hiding to say "we don't know what will happen" and that doesn't mean there is no point in discussing things. The point is that people need to stop talking in absolutes about these things because it makes them look stupid.

However, I will play your dumb little game and say that i expect in 2014 for the Phillies to be competing for the second wild card spot...not because injuries have torpedoed their season but because they are having some roster overturn/

Iceman: Are you certain it's posters blatantly contradicting themselves & not simply different posters w/ different opinions? I'm not saying you're wrong -- I really don't recall upon which side of the fence each individual poster fell -- but on the surface that seems like slightly different take on the classic "Everyone on Beerleaguer said ..." statement.

BAP - 1:25, I stand corrected. I was looking at 8/8/11.

Phlipper: Are you just blatantly making things up that I said now? And putting them in quotes to make it seem like it is a direct quotation?

That's funny. I'm now officially done engaging with you.

"...but that's over & done. Still had Halladay, Hamels & Oswalt, though. Didn't happen. Point being, the GM gambled & lost,..."

That's beautiful - and the kind of logic that explains why American spend (lose) more money gambling than than on all other forms of entertainment combined. They think that if they just pick the right lottery number, or lean a bit to the right when the roll the dice, or wear their lucky underpants, they'll take something that is an inherent gamble and change the odds to their favor.

It's always a gamble, and chances are that the best team going into the post season will not win the WFC. That doesn't translate into a reality that putting together the team with the best record in baseball two years running was a mistake in some way. Well, unless you have a proclivity to view anything that RAJ does, by definition, negatively - because, you know, he went to Stanford.

It was a joke, Jack. My assumption was that anyone would realize that you didn't actually say that. I was rhetorically mocking you for being so inherently negatively. There is little doubt that you were hand-wringing about how old and slow the team was going forward in 2009, only to watch the team have the best record in baseball the two following years.

But I guess I should have made some exceptions to my expectation that everyone would be smart enough to realize that it was an obviously made up quote. My apologies. I won't overestimate you again in the future. As soon as I've dried my tears from weeping because you won't engage me anymore.

(Does that include challenging me to argue why Charlie's pitching moves are the "right" thing to do even though I never made such an argument previously?)

"I just have to jump in on this dumb "The Phils swept the Braves in a meaningless series, how stupid of them" comment."

Iceman, they should have played to stay in shape, but tried to deliberately tank the games. Anyone who knows baseball would have had that expectation. If their manager wasn't a "moron" they would have done that.

Iceman - "It's a perfect example of how some people like to pretend there is no archive on this site and stand on a high-horse of hindsight despite blatantly contradicting they've said in the past."

"I don't really want to see the Cards in the NLDS...Pujols/Berkman/Holliday (if healthy) is a deadly 3-4-5 and Carpenter/Garcia is an excellent 1-2. In a short series that would be the kind of team I'd worry about. The Braves, D-Backs, and Brewers would be much more favorable matchups, IMO.

Posted by: Chris in VT | Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 11:02 AM"

Thanks for playing. Now get off YOUR high horse.

1- If the Phils do not resign Hamels they are going to be "bitch slapped" in the cable television negotiations in 2 years with no star players in their peak.
2- If by trading Hamels the Phils hope to get good again in 3 or 4 years like posters are saying here, they will only be good again if they develop/acquire another Hamels. I've been a Phils fan since 1960's and I know who hard it is to come by an ace-- Bunning, Short, Carlton, Schilling and of course our 3 current aces are on the short list. If they trade Hamels we will have no aces in 2 or 3 years.

Talk to me about Darin Ruf, people.

When the Phils lose, this blog becomes generally more interesting because of the diversity of opinions and conversation.

Good column on Harper:

"After going 3-for-4 with a walk Monday night, Harper is batting .295/.381/.527. He isn't simply holding his own — he's dominating. Among players with at least 160 plate appearances, Harper ranks 12th in the NL with a .908 OPS. He has the highest OPS on the Nationals.

Let's rephrase that: Bryce Harper, age 19, is the best hitter on a first-place team.

His fellow teenage debutants don't come close to replicating his performance. As a 19-year-old rookie, Beltre hit .215/.278/.369. Jones hit .217/.265/.443 when he was called up in 1996. Rodriguez debuted in the majors while he was still 18, but he was clearly overmatched and hit .204/.241/.204 before he was sent back to the minors. The following year, A-Rod played sparingly and batted .232/.264/.408. Only in 1996, when Rodriguez was 20 (he turned 21 during the season), did he dominate, leading the AL in batting average (.358), doubles (54), runs scored (141), and total bases (379).

In the last 40 years, the only 19-year-old to play regularly and hit at an above-average level was Griffey, who batted a respectable .264/.329/.420 for the Mariners in 1989. Factor in his glove in center field and Griffey was a well-above-average player — but at the plate, Harper has clearly been better.

In fact, with one exception, Harper has out-hit every teenager in major league history. Here is a list of the highest OPS by a teenager (minimum: 150 plate appearances) going back to 1876:

Year Age Name OPS
1928 19 Mel Ott .921
2012 19 Bryce Harper .908
1964 19 Tony Conigliaro .883
1951 19 Mickey Mantle .792
1970 19 Cesar Cedeno .790

Ignore, for a moment, the names on the list, and just consider Harper's place on it. Bryce Harper is in the midst of a season that is almost without precedent in MLB's 126-year history.

Now, with only 39 games under his belt, it's possible that Harper is simply in an unsustainable hot stretch, and that by year's end his numbers may drop into more pedestrian territory. But Harper has built up such a lead that he's likely to stay on this list even with some regression to the mean. Griffey, for instance, didn't have a .908 OPS in any single month of his rookie season. Harper has played so well for so long that there's no other way to characterize what he's doing but to call it historic."

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8041110/so-far-bryce-harper-living-ridiculous-hype

Chris - were you saying last year that the Phils should not have played their starters or tanked the games?

Phlipper - On this blog? Or in real life?

I made my feelings about facing the Cardinals fairly obvious on this blog prior to the end of the season. As for actually posting during the final Braves series? Not sure I posted a single comment during that series at all.

Are you guys serious about this "get good again in 3-4 years" stuff?

Yes, they will have a ton of money tied up in Halladay, Lee, Hamels (or a similarly talented free agent), Papelbon, and Howard in 2013 and 2014, but it's not sunk cost -- those guys figure to be very good players. Probably very, very good as a collective.

They're also going to be a max-payroll team for the foreseeable future, given the upcoming TV-deal negotiations and the financial counter-productivity of cutting payroll and, as a result, ticket sales. The ownership grip is THISCLOSE to stamping its ticket as an elite franchise and greatly boosting the value of its investment.

Obviously we'd all love for them to have worked a young impact player in by now, but not doing so doesn't automatically preclude success. The team needs to get younger, incrementally, but this talk of returning to late 90s Phillies baseball is absurd.

MG -

That's impressive. Especially if you factor in that overall, offensive numbers are down from the eras when some of those other examples played (although not all).

It will be interesting to see where he finishes the season.

Thanks for that Harper post MG. Can you imagine being mentioned in the same breath as Mantle, Ott and Conigliaro? And people want this kid to be less cocky? Ha!

Chris -

"I made my feelings about facing the Cardinals fairly obvious on this blog prior to the end of the season. "

Fine - but saying that you feared the Cards more than other teams and saying that the Phils should tank the Braves series are different.

If someone says that winning games against the Braves was stupid then they're essentially saying the Phils should have tanked the games. If they didn't say that at the time, then I think that the charge of hindsight influencing opinions is probably valid.

Vlad G. Let's go, ready to trade Pence.

I'll repeat myself, the only way this is a 3-4 year rebuild is if Howard and Utley are essentially finished as mlb players yet continue to suck up $40m in payroll. Lord willing, that won't be the case. There is no other reason that the team can't trade Hamels & Vic (if they think the season is lost) and still be right back in it next year.

I'm a little stunned that no one has suggested selling high on Galvis in this thread. (Or if someone has, my apologies) If you believe his true ceiling is as a utility man with great defense, then the pop he showed before going down might lure a trading partner into thinking he is more than a utility guy.

Before he got injured, at least.

The difference between good defense and highlight-reel defense might be something the market overvalues.

I personally want to see how Galvis pans out in Philly, but he could have been (still might be?) a sleeper trade chip. I was thinking that when those silly rumors that Starlin Castro was available surfaced for 10 seconds before being properly beaten down.

Utley's contract ends after next season, so that's not a major factor in the "rebuild" debate.

Obviously Howard is a wild card, but most of the gloom and doom things I've read were of him not being 100% until after next year, not him being out of baseball by then.

Who do you get for Hamels and Victorino that turns it around for next year?
Ted Williams and Ty Cobb?
wishful thinking
And you still need to rebuild your pitching staff in a year or so with one more top pitcher who you could have built the staff around.

Who the hell is going to lust after Galvis?

Joe D: Your constant homoerotic references are amusing, but really: Not every trade is a blockbuster. Is it your contention that Galvis would not yield a serviceable piece that might be useful in rebuilding?

I will amend an earlier statement:

"It's always a gamble, and chances are that the best team going into the post season will not win the WFC."

But arguably, each year the team with the best record has the least bad chance of winning the WFC. We might argue whether the hottest team, inherently, has the best chance, but I would guess that if you stacked up all the hottest teams against all the teams withe best best records, the teams with the best records has won more often.

Does anyone know what the Las Vegas odds were going into the playoffs last year? I'd be reasonably sure that the Phils had much better odds than the Cards. Again, how anyone can whine incessantly about rooting for the team that was the favorite going into the playoffs is beyond me.

Rich: I don't think you trade Hamels or Vic for a guy that's an all-star in 2013. but you can contend next year with some free agent pickup to replace them and hopefully you've improved the farm in the deal.

Pence to the Mets for Wright.

To: Phillies, Philadelphia
Re: Opportunity, window of

Sorry, boys. The window's closed.

Wow the stupidity in these threads lately.

I saw an article online describing the best trades for teams that are either definitely selling like the cubs or borderline, like the phillies, the author said that most two month rentals don't bring the trading team a lot of value, there are players who are so top of the line, so impactful, that even as a rental, the trading team should still get a top of the line prospect ( or two).

The author was talking about Colbert of course and the receiving team, would Detroit. Apparently they have a 3rd baseman in the minors that either is ML ready now or the beginning of 2013 & I believe a third in line pitcher.

With Cabrera blocking any newcomer from occupying 3rd base. It may be a good trade. I hadnt looked at the stats of these two players and basing this strictly on what the article said,,, I believe it was the Bleacher report..

Hamels & Verlander -- even for a few months into October. ... 'I'm not going to deny it' would make 1 hellva 1 -2 punch for the tigers..

I believe These are the 2 players mentioned in the article..

Nick Castellanos. 3rd b
Drew Smyly p

Sneed: If everything breaks right for Darin Ruf, he may one day be a poor man's Andy Tracy.

And I say that with the highest respect for Andy Tracy. You know that.

Chris- what you posted has nothing to do with what I said.

Valverde's OK & all, but I wonder if Detroit would be interested in a Closer? He's in NM condition, hardly ever used ...

If the Phil's are not hopelessly out of it by the trade deadline, I vote for the St. Louis approach - get healthy and get some bullpen help. Also, Brown stays in AAA unless they are hopelessly out of it or they incur outfield injuries. The kid needs to play regularly to build skills and confidence.

Penis penis penis...ballllllllllz

From Jim Bowden's report on ESPN insider on deadline sellers.

Players to market:

Cole Hamels, LHP: The Phillies should try to sign him first and only consider moving him if he’s not signed by July 31. With a rebuild possibly on the horizon, it would be wise to also keep open the idea of re-signing him as a free agent in November. The Dodgers would love a deal for Hamels around prospect Zach Lee. This is an opportunity for L.A.'s new ownership to make a big splash.

Shane Victorino, OF: If the Phillies don’t feel they can win the division by the deadline and Victorino is not signed, they might have to consider dealing him and getting value rather than a compensatory draft pick after he walks. The Tigers could put him in left and DH Delmon Young.

Domonic Brown, OF: The Phillies have given up on him and his stock is at its lowest. However, there are still some organizations, like Toronto, that place a premium on tools and he could end up there.

"Hamels sees the writing on the wall. He knows the Phillies are the oldest team in baseball and he will never win a WS here."

Posted by: don s

I guess we can all just ignore 2008.

(Currently written on Amaro's Thoughtboard (whiteboard with Phanatic stickers around the border))

Vic to Toronto straight up for Ben Frank....
You can do it. Make it happen!

If things have not turned around by July, trade Lee (have to be to yankees, cubs, dodgers, or boston). Then turn around and sign Hamels with the Lee money. After letting Vic walk at the end of the year Sign Josh Hamilton -from the money the Phillies had that were going to sign or at least attempt to sign Hamels with, and with the combo of free money from Vic, Blanton, etc. etc.

This just really isn't the Phillies year:

Phanatic sued by Abington woman over alleged pool horseplay

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20120612_Phanatic_sued_by_Abington_woman_over_alleged_pool_horseplay.html?cmpid=124488459

I never realized that mascots had such a tough life:

He's not the only mascot to get into legal trouble, though. In 2010, an Upper Darby woman sued Disney, claiming a Donald Duck mascot touched her breast, causing a “shock to her entire nervous system" along with flashbacks and digestive problems.

I read that Phanatic piece a few hours ago and was laughing but my first thought was how the hell is Tom Burgoyne going to pick up a beach chair and a woman and throw them? Then I read on to see it might not have been him in the suit.

Zach Lee? I can't bring myself to get too excited.

Joe D: Your constant homoerotic references are amusing, but really: Not every trade is a blockbuster. Is it your contention that Galvis would not yield a serviceable piece that might be useful in rebuilding?

Posted by: Mick O

So a team looking to rebuild is going to send us a rebuilding piece for Galvis?

Ok.

Hamels for Zach lee? Phils have given up on Brown? Where does Bowdon get this stuff?

Phils have given up on Brown? That's a pretty surprising statement to make.

Bowden's probably not that far off. In fact, I can see it now:

r00b trades Hamels for an A ball prospect, a Magic Johnson jersey (replica, not autographed) & 2 Dodger Dogs. He then spends the rest of the season defending the trade by taking awkward, backhanded slaps at Cole, & is shocked -- SHOCKED! -- when now 2-time WFC MVP Hamels declines to return to the Phillies this coming Nov. at a steep formerly-"hometown" discount.

Stanford Rules!

As an aside, the some of tthe phillies former prospects traded to build this Phila dynasty, in recent years, comprise at least 3 ( perhaps as many as 5) spots in the revised top 50 prospects .. I believe they are actually in the top 30.. With Gose, Singleton, D'arnault ( spelling).. The current MiL prospects for the Phillies comprise None of those 50 slots..

Re Josh Hamilton . . .

He's obviously a fantastic player. But it's funny to see people complain that RAJ has crippled the team with terrible contracts, and then turn around and advocate that we sign Josh Hamilton. People DO realize that Hamilton will be 32 next near, and is 100% certain to command the very type of 8-year, $180M contract that every fan will be complaining about by Year 2?

Are people really asking for Hamilton to come here? I have only skimmed the past few threads.

I don't see Hamilton getting more than 5 years. Nobody is looking to be on the hook to a 39 year old Hamilton. But it'll still be for big money. 5 yrs-$120m?

Big city attitudes, controlled substances and booze every 3 feet and aging "dirt dog" throw your body around playing style + "pars weakness" = Hamilton in Philly unlikely making it.

I do continue to love the people on here who have envy of Amaro cause he went to Stanford. The gall of him to go to such a high place of education. What a dick!!

I don't think people are envious. I think people like to point it out when talking about how he has mismanaged the payroll since he took over. I find it funny.

You're right, TTI. That's why I am so pissed at Obama. The guy's a snob, going to Harvard.

Right. Why would people be envious of someone who makes very, very nice bank, for doing something that they'd give their left testicle to do for free, and that they spend hours fantasize about doing with no actually interaction with the real parties involved, from behind a keyboard?

And repeatedly posting about what college he attended is completely relevant to evaluating his performance.

No envy involved.

You're all part of the problem. All people who go to college are snobs. They make everybody liberals!

The point being missed in this "should we have tanked against Atlanta" discussion: could the Phillies not have just as easily lost to Milwaukee if they played as poorly?

The hindsight narrative since the Cardinals won the World Series is that the Cardinals stormed through the playoffs, cutting down every team in its path, starting with the Phillies.

The truth: a team built on great starting pitching and mediocre hitting got a week of mediocre starting pitching and terrible hitting. They chased the other team's ace in the 2nd inning and lost that game, and would've been out of the series earlier if they didn't get a rainbow-up-his-ass home run from Ben Francisco in another game.

If they were playing Milwaukee, they might have beaten them in a butterfly-effect kind of way, in that maybe the players would have played better if they flew to Milwaukee instead of St. Louis, etc. If you hold the Phillies' play constant, though, I am confident they get beat by Milwaukee too.

It occurs to me that the Phillies would have played Arizona instead of St. Louis. I think my point still stands.

You guys gotta calm down. I went to Nairobi State and dropped out junior year to smoke bud and wear straw hats.

DH: Same thing happened in '10, only in the NLCS. Too many things can go wrong when you're essentially counting on one guy (the starting pitcher of each game) to single-handedly win that game for you. Game 5 of the '11 NLDS was the worst vision of every Phils fan who had big doubts about the offense made real.

"If they were playing Milwaukee, they might have beaten them in a butterfly-effect kind of way, in that maybe the players would have played better if they flew to Milwaukee instead of St. Louis, etc."

Classic post.

Phils and Twins dead even with a 9 o/u.

I guess i'm a sucker still liking the Phils here.

I think KK has been quite serviceable and think it'll be under 9 with a fully available bullpen - well except for Papelbon unless its a save situation.

When I grow up, I'm going to Bovine University!

If we end up sweeping the Braves and the Cards sneak into the Wild Card, I can totally see a scenario where they beat us in 5 as I have a bad feeling one of our Aces will blow a big lead and our offense simply won't show up in a deciding game no matter how well Doc pitches.

Posted by: NEPP | Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 02:28 PM


Ha!

Right. Why would people be envious of someone who makes very, very nice bank, for doing something that they'd give their left testicle to do for free, and that they spend hours fantasize about doing with no actually interaction with the real parties involved, from behind a keyboard?

And repeatedly posting about what college he attended is completely relevant to evaluating his performance.

No envy involved.

Posted by: Phlipper

You are pretty special. I dig it.

There is no way a big market team (NY, Philadelphia, Chicago, LA) takes a chance on Josh Hamilton with his drug problems. None.

Why do people assume that no one here could possibly have attended a school such as Stanford, and thus are obviously envious of Amaro?

Many posters on here, despite often being misguided as to the substance of their ideas, strike me as quite intelligent, and have no need to be envious of something like that. The poster saying others must be envious of someone who went to ... Stanford (oh my!) ... strikes me as probably projecting, more than anything.

Anyway, playing baseball at Stanford is not exactly the equivalent of graduating top of the class with a degree in electrical engineering. I mean, come on here.

Jack - WTF does attending Stanford have to do with anything? Why would someone bring it up as part of an argument against RAJ's achievements as the GM?


What's your explanation, if not envy?

Any calls for breaking up the team right now are insane. I'm going to stick my neck out here and predict that this team will regress to norms to such a degree that these conversations will seem silly in September.

You really have to look at the statistical anomalies plaguing this team right now. There's a run-differential/record gap that should normalize in the team's favor. There's a DIPS/ERA gap that should do the same. Ditto for men in scoring position and home runs allowed. Meanwhile the team's players as a whole aren't outproducing their talent level in such a way as to outweigh the above--Chooch has been, but Halladay has done the opposite. And even if you're a pessimist on the Chutward front, as I am, it's not unreasonable to expect that the equivalent of one .270/.350/.430 player will be added to the lineup before too long. Finally, from the standpoint of the division, Washington's pitching is likely to revert in the opposite direction.

Like Jack, I'm not at all bullish on the team's medium-term prospects as the core continues to age and the bad contracts move into their negative-value stage. And there are no guarantees that the regression will happen in a timely manner, if at all--the team has been brutal to watch much of the year. I'm not trying to be a Pollyanna here. But anyone who looks at the underlying numbers on this season and doesn't see a realistic scenario for a resurgence isn't thinking about it enough. I think this team is either going to make the playoffs or lose a down-to-the-wire race.

NEPP: 4:13

Dude.

I am not worthy.

Phlipper: I have no idea. I don't really care, and have never brought it up either way.

All I'm saying is Eric Bruntlett and John Mayberry Jr. went to Stanford to play baseball too. Am I supposed to assume everyone is jealous of their brilliance, too?

I once drove through Stamford, CT but I didn't know Ruben played college ball there. What was his major?

NEPP is that for real? Wow.

Not for anything but did you see Bill Maher bought a small share of the Mets?

Polanco taking BP today....until he hits a line drive off the l-screen and it comes back to hit him giving him a new injury.

Everyone is jealous of the BruntBeard.

Not for anything but did you see Bill Maher bought a small share of the Mets?

Posted by: please steak

Yeah and I really didn't need another reason to hate the team but they gave me one.

"Phlipper: I have no idea. I don't really care, and have never brought it up either way. "

Then you're missing the whole point of the argument.

The argument was why would someone keep bringing up the fact that RAJ attended Stanford other than envy. That was the context in which someone said the reason was envy.

Feel free to offer an alternative explanation.

"All I'm saying is Eric Bruntlett and John Mayberry Jr. went to Stanford to play baseball too. Am I supposed to assume everyone is jealous of their brilliance, too?"

Maybe you could possibly explain how that statement could possibly be relevant to the discussion at hand?

What was his major?

Double major. Looking at himself admiringly in reflective surfaces, & writing big checks really fast.

I believe the point re: Stanford is that since it supposed to be such a good school, then Ruben is supposed to be a smart dude. But, his actions reflect otherwise (according to the posters who mention Stanford).

That's just my guess, though.

For all the talk about trading away Hamels for a top 15 prospect, does anyone remember how Brown has panned out so far? He was at one point rated the #2 prospect in all of baseball outside of Trout.

This post isn't to dismiss Brown because I think he can still turn it around, but prospects are what they are: prospects. I'll take the guarantee of an ace pitcher for this year, than roll the dice and be lucky to get 6 years of an avg major leaguer.

Jack: It is how the comments are phrased. Clearly you are smart enough to see that and are just playing devil's advocate.

I would like to see Rush Limbaugh buy a share of the Phills.

I agree with JBrid that Hamilton gets 5 years, and if not 5 then 6. No way he gets 7 or 8.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG