Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Game chat: Can Cliff and company continue climb? | Main | Reports: Phillies willing to go six years with Hamels »

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Comments

If the lesson wasn't learned after the Lidge signing, I think we've all learned it now.

And if not, we've got 3.5 more seasons for it to sink in!

Lee has a FNTC and was adamant about wanting to stay in one place for awhile. Not sure he would accept any trade.
Posted by: AL | Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 09:51 AM

Lee has a limited NTC, not a full one. The list of teams is unknown.

I don't think Paps at his worst will ever come close to how bad Lidge was after 2008.

I just think Papelbon was a bit out of gas. He'd been used 3 of 4 days, one being a 1.2 inning performance. I never expect perfection. Was his contract steep? Yes. Am I glad he's here? Also yes.

No J Papelbon appearance sees anything happen in "mere moments". That 10th inning was interminable. I think it lasted longer than the 9th, even with 3 pitching changes.

Iceman: Amazing. Phillies sign a closer to a huge deal, then it turns out he's a massive disappointment, but they end up with a good replacement in-house who can do the job just as effectively.

So what do they do when that replacement leaves? Sign another closer to a huge deal.

If there was one team who you think would have learned a lesson about giving huge deals to big-name closers, it would be the Phillies. And yet they didn't.

I don't think the Lidge and Papelbon signings are an apples to apples comparison. Lidge's AAV at the time he signed the deal accounted for a much higher percentage of total payroll.

I wonder how possible it will be to move Papelbon in the offseason and bring Madson back on a flyer deal to close? Obviously you'd have to be 100000% clued into Madson's health.

Joe D: No one is trading for Papelbon.

If other teams wanted him on this deal, they could've had him. From what we've heard, no other team was even close to offering him anything near what the Phils gave him. So why would they now give up prospects just to get him on a deal they didn't want to give him in the first place?

You're probably right, Jack, but how would you say that approach worked out for the Sox, Jays, and Reds? Things change.

Frankly I had never heard of Diekman before he started pitching with the big club this year so I don't really have a dog in this fight. However, I'm interested in know who Clout thinks should be in the bullpen instead of Diekman both at the time he was called up and now. Clout, you are the Tim Geithner of Beerleaguer.

“You are right to say we’re not coming before you today to say ‘we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.’ What we do know is, we don’t like yours.”

I wouldn't say Papelbon has been a massive disappointment. Overall, he has pitched pretty well especially given the alternatives in the bullpen this season.

Just the amount he is making means that he has to literally save almost every game for him to earn his contract - especially next year at $13M.

If anything in baseball, teams have generally gone in the opposite direction the last 2 years and avoided signing closers to long-term deals (3+ years at double-digit annual salaries). Been some exceptions like Bell and Papelbon but most teams are trying to avoid paying closers who are in their 30s big dollars for multi-years. Rightly so. It is generally a questionable use of funds especially on teams with limited funds.

We haven't even gotten to the expensive part of Papelbon's contract yet. No one's taking him.

As for Madson . . . it isn't medically possible to be 100000% clued into his health. He had TJ surgery. It usually takes 2 years to get back to previous form. There aren't many guys who bounce right back the very next year. Adam Wainwright is the typical case. Strasburg is the anomaly. And I'm not even sure Strasburg is back to previous form. I think his stuff is just so good that he can still dominate even at less than 100%.

Phillies fans tend to be overly nostalgic for former Phillies. In reality, Madson is not likely to be very good next year.

One guy that Weitzel wanted as a reclamation project (Padilla) has become one of the more useful relievers for the Red Sox & pitched pretty well for them:

34 IP, 3-0, 3.71 ERA, 9.0 K/9, 2.4 BB/9, 0.53 HR/9

Certainly would have been nice to have the last 6 weeks when the pitching staff has largely imploded & they have struggled so badly for RHP answers that even Sanches has been recalled twice.

"I wouldn't say Papelbon has been a massive disappointment. Overall, he has pitched pretty well especially given the alternatives in the bullpen this season.

Just the amount he is making means that he has to literally save almost every game for him to earn his contract - especially next year at $13M."

Contradict yourself much? :)

Clout, what was our bullpen doing in May? Oh, that's right, blowing every single lead we gave them, and turning every single close game into a loss (I'm using hyperbole, just to be clear).

Point being, we would have been clamoring for literally ANYONE to get a shot in late May when the season wasn't yet on life support, since our bullpen was literally the worst in the majors. For some reason, though, you construe this as people thinking that Diekman is going to be a superstar, elite pitcher. I can guarantee you no one felt that way. Some felt (and may still feel), that he has the tools and stuff to be a good reliever, but we are all aware of his control issues, and wildness.

Ryan: Well, injuries can happen to any player. If Papelbon got hurt, people would say "you can't blame Amaro for the fact that an injury happened." So yes, Bailey and Santos and Madson all got hurt. Bailey was predictable, but not sure Santos and Madson were anything more than random.

Further, I would argue that the team with only a little bit of money invested in their closer has a lot more flexibility to deal with potential injuries than the team who invested all of their available offseason cash in a closer.

What happened to the "no excuses" Papelbon of the previous blown save?

Jack, the Phillies would have to eat money but they'd be saving money signing a vulnerable Madson.

Also, wow, I just re-read Clout's comments in the last thread about Diekman.

He says that people were "clamoring" for Diekman to be recalled in May, and that we're obviously now regretting that.

That's absurd for a number of reasons. The first is that thinking Diekman is worthy of a roster spot is a lot different than wanting him facing Matt Kemp with the game on the line. Second, is, even if you acknowledge that Diekman has real issues, who on earth do you think is a better option right now? Have you seen the rest of the Iron Pigs the team has been trotting out?

I mean, by all means, if there's some stud relief prospect in the system being held back by Jake Diekman, call him up. If ever there was a year where people could get a chance, it's now. If you're in the Phillies system, and you can't crack this bullpen, you probably never will.

Fat - There is a huge gap between 'massive disappointment' and being pretty much flawless which is what Papelbon unfortunately has to do to get value/exceed the value on his contract.

For Papelbon to have been a 'massive disappointment' he would have to be putting up numbers like Bell. He hasn't. No where near that.

He has just failed in a few close games which really hurts given the Phils' current record.

I didn't dislike the Papelbon signing as much for the dollars as the years. If Papelbon's velocity doesn't get back to 95-96 next year and he is now routinely going to be at 93-94 max & maybe even lower in another year or two, then the stage is more set for him to be a 'massive disappointment.'


Jbird: Clout has a definitive answer to Diekman: They should have signed 7 closers all at $15M/yr contracts instead.

And its pretty hilarious that the reason a guy like Jake Diekman is pitching in the majors is because the team's closer is eating up almost the entire payroll available for the bullpen by himself - the exact premise that clout will deny exists.

Can't balme Pap totally for yesterday. Kemp beat Rollins throw by an eyelash. Pap was in his 3rd straight game. Hell, Axford has 6 blown saves for the Brewers.

The Phils also only scored 3 runs. Pieere hit into a critical DP.

Diekman is like any 3/4 or submariner and struggles to find a consistent release point where they are comfortable enough to have good command.

There are simply outings where Diekman looks like has little consistency from a pitch-to-pitch standpoint in his release point. Not going to cut it especially for a guy who should be used more situationally.

Given that Diekman only got coverted to a 3/4 release a little more than a year ago, he would benefit a lot more this season pitching more regularly at Lehigh and getting instruction/feedback from Nichols. Call me skeptical in Dubee's ability to work with him to improve it this year.

"Fat - There is a huge gap between 'massive disappointment' and being pretty much flawless which is what Papelbon unfortunately has to do to get value/exceed the value on his contract."

Whether someone is a 'disappointment' is entirely relative to the amount of expectations for him, and yes, an aspect of that is the enormous contract he signed. No one forced him to sign it.

I wouldn't call Fontenot a 'massive disappointment' relative to his expectations, but overall, he has been a lousy player for us.

The expectations for a budget-busting closer are near perfection. He hasn't even been close to that. He's been a huge disappointment.

Luis: "I did read a lot i believe on this blog as well as other's that we could build a MLB bullpen on our minor league talent."

Exactly right. And clamoring for Diekman. But Fatalotti and Jack say it never happened.

The irony is that, if you go back to those May posts, I rather strongly recall that, after he got done chiding the Moronocracy for believing that Jake Diekman was the savior, clout actually added the caveat that there was no harm in calling him up since the rest of the pen was so bad & you never know who might catch lightning in a bottle.

What makes this ironic, of course, is that it is essentially the exact same sentiment expressed by the Moronocracy. Only difference is that, when a member of the Moronocracy says it, it means "Diekman is the savior." When clout says it, it means, "See how much smarter I am than you."

I would say that it will be interesting to see if Amaro learns his lesson the second time around (I know he didn't re-sign Lidge, but he was around to watch what happened with his contract), but what do people put the odds that he's here at the end of Papelbon's contract? 50/50?

We may never know.

Even if he was the very definition of perfection, he is not worth $50 mil over 4 years.

No closer is; and unless one comes along who is perfect AND can almost double the number of innings pitched in a season by the average closer, no closer ever will be.

With the lone exception of Mariano Rivera and the Yankees (the best closer in the history of the game and the largest budget in baseball), has there EVER been a top dollar contract paid out to a closer that worked to the benefit of the team. Has it ever happened?

Jbird: "Frankly I had never heard of Diekman before he started pitching with the big club this year."

Then 1. You never read this blog, you just post on it.

Or 2. You're a liar.

Jack: As I recall, your bullpen solution was to re-sign Madson.

Again, folks, to lower the boredom factor, let's all stipulate that Papelbon's contract is a disgrace, it totally sucks and it's a disaster, just as all other big long-term contracts for ballplayers are. Now that we're all in agreement, let's move on.

By the way, Diekman hasn't even been all that terrible. If he were simply used a situational lefty and the rest of the pen was better, no one would be complaining about Diekman.

In fact, his stats compare favorably to J.C. Romero's in 2008, when he was considered a key part to a championship bullpen.

Diekman: 12.4 K/9, 6.4 BB/9, 1.93 K/BB, 7.3 H/9, 0.5 HR/9

Romero: 7.9 K/9, 5.8 BB/9, 1.37 K/BB, 6.3 H/9, 0.8 HR/9

Will S: Other than Mo, i do not believe so. Open to anyone coming up with suggestions, but I do not believe any closer has signed a contract with guaranteed money exceeding ~$30M and has ever produced enough to even argue if it was a good deal or not.

MG: "One guy that Weitzel wanted as a reclamation project (Padilla) has become one of the more useful relievers for the Red Sox & pitched pretty well for them."

Frankly, these kind of guys are likely to give you a better season than the minor leaguers everyone clamors for. But for every Padilla or Nathan, there are three crappy, washed up veterans that don't pan out (Qualls). You have to be very sharp to pick the winners.

I'll add a caveat to ending the Papelbon's contract sucks discussion and ask that people stop suggesting that the Phils trade him. He's not going to get traded.

As for Diekman, I'm pretty sure I made a post expressing my wish that he make the team in Spring training. Not because I thought he was a savior or, even particularly good. I just wanted to see a 6'4" lefty who throws 97MPH sideways. Now I've seen it. It's a little frightening.

Fatalotti keeps saying "we" as if someone has elected him to represent the board. My guess: He's unelected, but suffers from delusions of grandeur.

40 G, 97 PA, .311 BA/.361 OBP/.367 SLG, 99 OPS+

What were people expecting from Fontenot that this could be considered the output of a "lousy player"? Aside from his one horrific defensive day in (I believe) Baltimore, he's been better than I expected. At worst he's a replacement level player playing somewhat above replacement level. I'm failing to see the problem. Fontenot might be the sole semi-intelligent move r00b made this past off-season.

lorecore: "that the reason a guy like Jake Diekman is pitching in the majors is because the team's closer is eating up almost the entire payroll available for the bullpen by himself."

Link, please. Or is this more of your know-nothing speculation?

I'd like to point out that in addition to Padilla, I was the first to float Juan Pierre's name. Even though I'm not a great fan of the "concept" of Pierre.

I love that Clout's argument is that because we don't know the Phillies' precise budget (although for practical purposes, we do--it's the luxury tax number), then we should presume it doesn't exist.

You know, because that makes sense.

I wanted Bastardo to close because I am of the mindset that giving out huge $ to closers is dumb. Well we see how Bastardo has done this year.

Again, folks, to lower the boredom factor, let's all stipulate that Papelbon's contract is a disgrace, it totally sucks and it's a disaster, just as all other big long-term contracts for ballplayers are. Now that we're all in agreement, let's move on.

Posted by: clout

Can we also agree that the closer role is stupid and overblown?

These two agreements will end all conversation on the topic.

Joe D: I felt/feel basically the same way. And we'd both have been correct, as the team is so bad, bullpen included, that it hardly matters who, if anyone, was deemed "Closer". At least our idea would have led to a far less expensive loss or five.

G-Town- I am sorry that I slammed your boy Fontenot. I was looking for an example of a player that is not very good but nobody expected him to be, so he can't be considered a 'disappointment,' as opposed to Papelbon. I don't consider Fontenot to be very good. He has done fine relative to his role on the team.

According to Jack a BB/9 of 6.4 and H/9 of 7.3 "compares favorably" to a BB/9 of 5.8 and an H/9 of 6.3.

I think Jack is losing his mind.

Jack: I said the Phillies budget doesn't exist?

Link please.

What I said is, when it comes to money, you are clueless.

Joe D: I happen to agree with both those propositions. That's two of us.

Clout: That was a parody of a Clout post, right?

I listed 5 stats, 3 of which Diekman was better than Romero, and 2 of which Romero was better in.

So you post the 2 stats Romero was better and say I'm insane for saying Diekman "compares favorably" overall?

That's amazing.

Iceman: I'm worried that you're suffering a schizoid breakdown. Yesterday it was imperative to you that Fontenot be on the team in '13, but today he's a "lousy player"? Get those meds squared away, friend!

Clout: or there's option #3 The conversation about Diekman was so innocuous that I glossed over it. Is there really an argument against having given Diekman a shot? My personal bullpen solution would have been to trade for Fieri when he was available. I remember expressing dismay when he went for so little to the Angels.

Luis: there was a lot of talk about internal bullpen options in the offseason. I think most people were hoping De Fratus & Stutes were those options as 6th & maybe even 7th inning guys with Savery as a possible 2nd lefty/LOOGY. If you can find a lot of Diekman hype from the winter, I'd be surprised.

"Fatalotti keeps saying "we" as if someone has elected him to represent the board. My guess: He's unelected, but suffers from delusions of grandeur."

Your guess is wrong. The Moronocracy got together a few weeks ago & held an election. We picked Fatalotti as our official spokesperson.

Sorry Jack. H/9 and BB/9 are a helluva lot more important than K/BB ratio despite your firm belief that K is the single most important stat in the world.

Jbird: The Diekman hype was during spring training and into the beginning of the season. Sorry you missed it.

Jack: You were winning this debate handily until you got carried away & said that Diekman's numbers are better than Romero's were in 2008. For all of his wildness, Romero's 2008 WHIP was 1.34. Diekman's WHIP is 1.53. Not to mention that Romero had an uncanny knack for getting himself out of messes, & Diekman does not.

So Romero was much better at getting himself out of messes, and much better at not creating the messes in the first place. There's really no comparison between the 2.

clout: "Link, please. Or is this more of your know-nothing speculation?"

#1. Do you believe that the Phillies think Jake Diekman would be a better option in 2012 than all other free agent relief pitchers besides Papelbon?

#2. If not, then why didn't the Phillies obtain such free agent relievers to start in place of Jake Diekman?

My answer is #1. No, #2. They lacked payroll flexibility to do so.

What are your answers to the question?

clout: Jake Diekman's hype actually started in the Arizona Fall League last year.

Re relief pitchers: I do think clout makes one very good point. Finding good relievers is something of a crapshoot, but a good place to look is among failed starters. The Phillies swung & missed with Dontrelle Willis, but they hit with Durbin, Park, and Contreras, just as the Sox have hit with Padilla.

A guy who is not quite good enough to be a viable starter can suddenly become much better in a bullpen role, because he can throw harder & can rely almost exclusively on his 2 best pitches. Also, the bar for tolerable wildness is set much lower for relievers. There are plenty of decent relievers who walk 4 to 4.5 batters per inning. There aren't many starters who can get away with that.

A really good candidate for conversion to the bullpen would be Jonathan Sanchez, who was just DFA'd by the Royals. He's a FA after the season, so there's not much point going after him now. But he'd be an interesting guy to look at, in a relief role, in 2013.

BAP and Clout: All I said was that Diekman's numbers compare favorably. I didn't mean Diekman was better--just that if you compare the numbers, there's nothing that stands out to you that says Diekman is terrible, when you consider Romero was considered a key piece to a championship bullpen.

I agree that Romero was much better that season at getting himself out of messes (which was a lot of luck, but whatever, it still happened).

All my point is, is that concluding that Diekman is awful and shouldn't be in this terrible bullpen is a little bit premature and a little bit insane considering what the other options are. I mean, come on.

Jack: I wouldn't say his numbers compare favorably, though. He just strikes out more hitters. But I agree that, for all of Diekman's problems, the Phillies don't have 7 better bullpen options. And, since the season is a lost cause anyway, there's no harm in sticking with him in the hopes he can improve his command. If his problems persist, though, he's not a guy they should count on for 2013.

clout: I'm sorry I missed it too. It was obviously a very scintillating back and forth between those who thought he should be given a shot at the bullpen because there weren't a lot of better options and those who argued that he should be given a shot at the bullpen because you might catch lightning in a bottle.

I'm not loving Papelbon's performance relative to his contract expectation, but overall, there are a lot bigger problems the team has on the field.

Also noticed his fielding has contributed to his problems in two of his bad games. He fell on the first base line a few weeks ago and couldn't get off a decent throw, then he collided with Chooch yesterday leading to a non-play that looked to me like it could have been made. Tough breaks/plays, but would Halladay or Lee not have likely converted those two swinging bunts to outs?

Of concern over the longer haul, MG (I think) struck a nerve a few weeks ago when he mentioned that Papelbon's dominance has been predicated on painting the black consistently at 95-96 mph (paraphrasing here). Now, the velocity seems to be more in the 92-94 range and from what I've seen, he doesn't seem to be exactly painting the black either, at least not consistently. That has me more worried going forward than yesterday's struggles after a heavier workload, pitching the day following, and a couple of bloopers.

If Diekman is given a shot as a LOOGY in this weak pen, that's one thing, and something I was happily "clamoring" for. But, it's another to be given a 30pitch+ inning against left/right hitters, especially a righty as good as Kemp. Big difference there.

Bed's Beard: I don't think even Jake Diekman's parents think he should be facing Matt Kemp with the game on the line.

What were KK parents thinking?

Iorecore: KK's parents were thanking Amaro for buying them a new vacation house.

I get the anger at Paps. However, I don't think using the cost of his contract as a rationale is sound reasoning. I suppose if you pay a guy ~13 million a year he should save every game, but that just isn't reality. How often do closers go through full seasons without blowing saves?* Even the gold standard Mariano Rivera never went through a full year without blowing a save.

The problem yesterday was a combination of things of which Papelbon was a part of. The offense left the Dodgers pitching staff off the hook in the top of the 10th and then everything the Dodgers put in play in the 10th found real estate despite nothing being hard hit. On top of that- Paps was working his third straight day. That is tough for any closer.

*Yes I know Lidge did it but there were a few games in that season where he needed his defense to bail him out- most notably the game in Atlanta where Vic threw out the tying run at the plate, and the division clincher where Rollins had to dive up the middle to start the double play.

Carnac (holds sealed envelop to his forehead): The Phillies, Graham Spanier, clout, Fred Willard, Ilya Bryzgalov.

< opens envelop >

Carnac (reads contents of envelop): Name five who are having an off year in 2012.

< Ed bows his head in respect >

lorecore: "#1. Do you believe that the Phillies think Jake Diekman would be a better option in 2012 than all other free agent relief pitchers besides Papelbon?"

A: No, of course not.

"#2. If not, then why didn't the Phillies obtain such free agent relievers to start in place of Jake Diekman?"

A: Because they had Bastardo, Contreras, Stutes, Herndon and Kendrick and didn't think they needed to sign another FA reliever.

"My answer is #1. No, #2. They lacked payroll flexibility to do so."

And your answer, like all your posts, is ignorant speculation devoid of supporting factual evidence. Been like that through all your screen names.

Jack: "All my point is, is that concluding that Diekman is awful and shouldn't be in this terrible bullpen is a little bit premature."

Another stawman bites the dust. Not a single poster has said that.

Nats designated Ankiel for assignment; he'd be an acceptable CF option for Phils for duration of season if Vic is traded.

clout: so you believe the Phillies thought that Stutes Herndon and Kendrick were also better than all other FA relievers?

Jbird: "It was obviously a very scintillating back and forth between those who thought he should be given a shot at the bullpen because there weren't a lot of better options and those who argued that he should be given a shot at the bullpen because you might catch lightning in a bottle."

Wow, you don't get anything right, do you?

There were a number of folks here who asserted that Diekman was the cream of the crop, top of line, best of the best among the Phillies minor league options and not just one of a bunch of average prospects all of whom were a crapshoot but worth throwing at the wall to see if any of them sticks.

Continue to make up fantasies though. You're very creative.

eh, why am i bothering. If clout thinks that the Phillies believed their bullpen was the best collection of arms that money could buy on the open market, i'll let him think that. Sorry to everyone for dragging it out, i should know better.

mel: I'd take him if he'd agree to try pitching again.

His K/BB rates are right in line with his career numbers. So are his batted ball percentages. Just about every stat based on peripherals has him right at his career numbers.

You expect random variation. I'm not ready to sound the alarm just yet, though the velocity drop is disturbing.

I feel that Diekman has the best stuff and that dreaded word "potential" of these AAA MLB pretenders on our bullpen staff. He was rushed from AA through LV to the big club. He needs some seasoning. As I recall Madson was on par with dog dirt when he was first put in the Phillies bullpen. I'd rather see Diekman coming into games instead of the Schwimer, Valdes, Stutes or the departed Qualls.

Yesterday's game needed Papelbon to close it out for the victory. He didn't do it. The loss hangs on his shoulder. If he only had gotten Abreu out in the 10th... That trade for some magic beans still haunts us!

lorecore: "If clout thinks that the Phillies believed their bullpen was the best collection of arms that money could buy on the open market."

You really shouldn't bother since you're not even honest enough to accurately describe my views just a few posts higher.

Stick to fantasizing that you know anything about team budgets.

Paps doesn't even get into the game if Mayberry makes that catch (salt in the wound, yesssssss).

Fontenot is a spectacular player for the sole reason that he keeps Mini-Mart off the roster.

clout: yup, I'm the guy making stuff up.

Jbird: I know. Your post above bore no resemblance to the actual discussion.

despite the fact that one shouldn't feed trolls, I'm still interested to hear who Clout thought should have had that bullpen spot over Diekman at the time (with quotes) and who should get it now. Aumont? Trade Biddle for a reliever? Friend?

In other news: Trevor May gets lit up again walking 8 in 5 innings which gives him 23 walks in his last 20 innings. He was the Phillies lone top 100 prospect on most pre-season lists.

"I suppose if you pay a guy ~13 million a year he should save every game, but that just isn't reality."

This is a strawman argument that people keep making: literally NO ONE has claimed that Papelbon should be expected to save every game. The argument is: if you're paying the guy far more than any other closer in the league, it's reasonable to expect him to meaningfully distinguish himself from than the pack.

Papelbon has a save percentage of 87.5%. A good closer should be around 85%. So we've established that Papelbon's a good closer. Other good National League closers with 15+ saves this year: Kimbrel (96.4%); Hanrahan (89.7%); Myers (90.4%); Francisco (85.7%); Putz (85%); Clippard (88.2%); Street (100%). So, exactly half the teams in the NL have managed to find good closers. Yet, only one of those teams is paying $11M for that closer.

Can we all at least agree that Diekman has a role in the bullpen this year and possibly in the years to come?

Can we also all at least agree that the role for him is not as a guy asked to go multiple innings?

Lastly, can we all agree, that had Mayberry caught that ball at the fence, the offense not left them loaded in the 10th, and Paps not blown a save- we wouldn't be talking about Diekman giving up a walk off home run to Matt Kemp anyway?

Funny thing about the Phillie system. The fanboys always talk about all of the great talent in the obscure corners of the system, but the AAA team is always manned by retreads and rejects.

I would love to know what other offers to Pap were this offseason. Were there others close or did Rube just pull a Nationals/Werth thing & toss out that insane amount of money

Curt, I think that's the nature of the game. Your real young prospects play at AA. The AAA team is loaded with replacement parts for the big league team as needed.

Who is this Clout guy?

People keep referencing him, but I have no idea who that is.

G-Town: please get your facts straight. I said Fontenot was a lock for the roster next year. Never used the word imperative. We have enough revisionist history on this site, don't add your name to the list.

I don't know, Fred. Seems like the few young guys who make it through the farm system are expected to succeed at AAA - Galvis, Brown, Worley, Happ, scores of relievers, most recently. I think the more likely explanation is that we aren't drafting and developing a whole lot of talent.

Papelbon's rankings among NL relievers with 20 IP pitched:

ERA
Outside the top 40

K/9
15th

WHIP
21st

DIPS
14th

Opponents BA
40th

Certainly not a guy worth 15 mil. I think if you're going to judge a reliever you have to look way past blown saves. This guy simply has been extremely overpaid.

Clout, since you keep asking for links, here's a thought: Considering you made the positive assertion that people were claiming that Diekman was the "bullpen savior", how about you provide the board with some direct quotes and sources to that effect. Otherwise, just stop.


BAP: What does the amount of money paid to someone have to do with the ability for them to do their job? That is the point of what I am saying.

Also- there were absolutely people saying he should be saving everything so stick your strawman.

Iceman: True, you never used the word "imperative". My mistake. Still, I cannot help but wonder why you'd be terrified, even mildly so, at the prospect of losing a lousy player.

"What does the amount of money paid to someone have to do with the ability for them to do their job?"

None. However, when your bullpen, as a unit, has blown as many games as ours has, it is absolutely worth considering how we've allocated our resources in that area. We allocated a huge percentage of our overall bullpen budget to one guy -- one guy who doesn't even pitch in many of the most important situations and who is essentially performing no better than half the closers in the league in his extremely limited specialty. Meanwhile, the rest of our bullpen is wretched. Something is very wrong with that picture.

Also, there is absolutely no one saying that he should be expected to save every game. At most, someone may have made this passing comment as a short-hand way of saying, "No closer is worth that kind of money." But no one seriously made the argument that Papelbon is a failure if he doesn't save every game.

BAP: It isn't a strawman argument and it is also you taking me literally yet you dismiss others as talking in shorthand. I think you are playing fast and loose here.

"I wanted Bastardo to close because I am of the mindset that giving out huge $ to closers is dumb. Well we see how Bastardo has done this year"

I would have been very happy with Bastardo as the closer and that extra $50 mil over 4 years to add a position player to the lineup. The downgrade from Papelbon to Bastardo isn't worth the money that could have gone toward scoring runs.

BAP -

Making his Beerleaguer arguments exactly the way I like my women.

Will, I get the spirit of your argument, however, if Bastardo was closing, he probably would have gone and blown the additional games that the added bullpen salary would have preserved.

I guess I'm saying, Bastardo has sucked so bad that I think its a wash regardless.

Now if the argument is, I would've paid Joe Nathan, then I'm perfectly behind that.

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