Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Tuesday: Can the Phillies sell and still contend? | Main | Game chat: Phillies welcome back sorely missed Doc »

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Comments

One of the guys in the Oswalt trade has come up to the majors and say hi

He would looked good in Phil's pinstripes

Out righted Sanches -- now there is a surprise...

Sanches should have been "outrighted" to not being on a baseball team anymore.

Buy sell - We got Oswalt primarily for the 2010 stretch run and playoffs. He went 7-1 with a 1.74 ERA in the regular season, and 1-1 with a 1.84 ERA in the playoffs. 2011 didn't work out as well, but it's still a damn good deal in hindsight.

Dan Szymborski, on ESPN Insider, proposes a "win-win" trade between the Phils and Dodgers - Hamels for pitchers Zach Lee and Chris Withrow and 1B/OF Jerry Sands. I could live with that.

One of the guys in the Oswalt trade has come up to the majors and say hi

Leave me out of this.

Seriously........not even one AB in the ML's and he already he would look good in Phillies' pinstripes? Could you at least wait until he actually put on the uniform first before making these statements?

"Hamels for pitchers Zach Lee and Chris Withrow and 1B/OF Jerry Sands."

Bleh. One good stuff/no command long shot; one 4th outfielder; one "top" prospect whose numbers have never matched the hype (kind of reminds me of a lesser version of Kyle Drabek). I'd much rather get one major league ready guy who actually has the numbers to match the hype than 3 lottery tickets. The Dodgers' minor league system doesn't do much for me.

Rollins like Victorino failed when the Phils needed them the most. If you can unload JRoll by all means do it.Galvis can play, certainly defensively. Like Werth before them JRoll and Vic were exposed. Not really that good. OPS nonsense is BS. Lived off protection from Utley and Howard.
Only Ruiz stepped up.

The J-Roll hate by BLers is expected and excused because of the amount of other unintelligent things said by the same contingent.

The words allegedly uttered by the front office regarding Rollins are inexcusable.

BAP - it's not Olt or Profar, and obviously that would be preferable. I do think it's a vastly better return than the two supplemental picks, though.

Lee's struggled since a promotion to AA, but the Dodgers have been very aggressive with promoting him. The guy won't turn 21 until September. His 5/1 K/BB ratio in high-A was impressive, and remember that his 4.55 ERA was in the California League, which is notorious for hitters' parks.

Withrow's finally been moved to the bullpen, where he's much more likely to succeed. I don't know why the Dodgers didn't move him one or two years ago. He has the pure stuff to be a closer or setup man, and should benefit from not having to command a third pitch as a starter.

Sands has a legit power bat with upside, though he's fallen out of favor in the Dodgers' organization. He might not be a star, but he'd be a solid role player at worst and a viable, cheap option in LF for a few years if he pans out.

Iceman - The Rollins-bashing from the front office has Dallas Green written all over it.

You all hate Jimmy and Ryan but love Chase and Pat.

I won't say out loud that you're racists but call me now so we can dance around the topic.

Not much in the way of sourcing in that J-Roll line. Knobler gives no indication that he talked to anyone in the front office -- he might as well be pulling the alleged dissatisfaction out of thin air.

Wonder if they can find away to bring Headley to the Phils in a 3 team Hamels deal.

What amazes me is how the FO apparently didn't pay any attention to J-Roll before they threw another 3-4 year contract at him. It's not like the man has undergone a radical personality change. Whether one interprets it positively or negatively, Jimmy's attitude has been extremely consistent.

Colonel: I'm not suggesting it's an unrealistic package. I'm just not that excited by any of them. I'd prefer someone who can help in 2013 and, when I say help, I mean help in a starting role.

Still wonder if Dallas Green is lurking around the FO. One guy who should have been put out to pasture back in the 90s.

Jimmy's "leadership" won him the MVP award in 2007.

Now his "leadership" is a failure?

And you wonder why people are skeptical of the use of intangibles when evaluating players.

Attitude reflect leadership, captain.

Jack- Rollins had a torrid month of June as the team cratered around him, thanks in part to a bullpen supplied by the front office that is trashing him for not leading hard enough.

The Rollins-bashing amongst Phils fans is freaking ridiculous. Yeah, it sure would be a great idea to dump the 3rd best SS in MLB for nothing just to get rid of his eminently reasonable contract.

Iceman: That's the other thing that doesn't make sense.

At the end of May, everyone was crediting the team for hanging in there and battling through the injuries and still being above .500. At that point, Rollins had played terribly. If they wanted to criticize his play then, fine, but the team *was* getting through the difficult times.

Then, in June, the team is falling apart, but Rollins is playing his ass off. What more did the front office want from him?

Maybe there's some behind the scenes stuff we don't know about that's making Jimmy a clubhouse cancer, but I just don't get it. Why would he suddenly be a clubhouse cancer after you inked him to a deal to keep him here for life, basically?

Chris in VT: Some fans are going to bash all players. Such is life.

What some of us are trying to understand is what on earth the front office is doing trashing Rollins.

BB - Headley would be a fantastic fit for the Phils, as he's a solid defensive 3B with a much better bat than his Petco-deflated numbers indicate. The catch is that to get him, the Phils need to send Hamels to a team with tons of young arms and a stronger need for an established playoff ace than for a position player like Headley.

Baltimore might have the arms, depending on what San Diego thinks of guys who have struggled in the big leagues like Arrieta, Matusz, and Tillman. The catch is that they'd LOVE to have a legitimate 3B like Headley, and might well keep him for themselves and trade on the cheap for a lower-end arm like Blanton (don't laugh, he'd be Baltimore's #3 starter!).

Toronto absolutely has the arms, but the wrist injury to Jose Bautista may have ended any likelihood of their buying big at the deadline. They might be more likely to get in on Carlos Quentin as an extra bat down the stretch, rather than giving up the farm for Hamels.

I could see the Phils getting San Diego involved with Texas on a 3-way if the Rangers want Hamels but refuse to move Olt. If the Rangers can get Headley for a couple of young arms, I could see the Phils dealing Hamels for Headley and a CF like Craig Gentry or Leonys Martin.

What I was trying to say about Blanton saving the season, was that without his 8 wins the season would have not been watchable. That's all.

The JRoll comments seem a bit ridiculous (out of the FO allegedly).

"We got Oswalt primarily for the 2010 stretch run and playoffs. He went 7-1 with a 1.74 ERA in the regular season, and 1-1 with a 1.84 ERA in the playoffs."

Too many people like to forget this.

Is the front office really "trashing Rollins"? Where is that coming from? The line in JW's header says nothing about the FO, nor does it indicate any source. To me, it was kind of a throwaway line, as if the Dodgers were to say "They must be disappointed with the way Rollins is playing, that's why we're taking a look at him." I didn't read anything else into it.

Is there another article/tweet/report that I'm missing?

Iceman - The Rollins-bashing from the front office has Dallas Green written all over it.

You are probably correct, ColonelTom.

Knobler's piece for CBS Sports is here:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/danny-knobler/19596632/dodgers-wide-search-for-help-could-include-jimmy-rollins

The money quote:

"The Phillies gave Rollins a three-year, $33 million contract in December, when his only other real offer was from the Brewers. The Phillies thought then that it was crucial to keep Rollins, but they've been disappointed by his play this year, and thought he could have done more to get them through the difficult times when both Chase Utley and Ryan Howard were on the disabled list."

It doesn't say "front office" explicitly, but it's strongly implied by the article.

Again, this screams Dallas Green - it's reminiscent of the way he (along with manager Larry Bowa) trashed Scott Rolen back in 2001. For those who don't remember:

http://assets.espn.go.com/magazine/vol5no14phillies.html

The J-Roll hate by BLers is expected and excused because of the amount of other unintelligent things said by the same contingent.

The words allegedly uttered by the front office regarding Rollins are inexcusable.

Posted by: Iceman

I don't have any issues jumping on Jimmy when its justified. I am however a huge fan of the guy and I was a big supporter of bringing him back. But for the Phillies front office to supposedly say that is incredibly stupid. They expected him to carry the torch while Howard and Utley were out. That just screams of more poor planning on the part of the front office. Terrible.

I'll believe the Rollins thing when more people report it.

In retrospect, demanding to leave the Phillies was probably the best thing Rolen ever did for the team. Thanks, Scotty!

Joe D - Don't assume that just because one person in the front office says something, he speaks for the whole organization.

ColonelTom: I read the article. Nothing in that article, in my opinion, says anything about the FO. "The Phillies" is a really general term that could include the FO, the ownership group, players, coaches and that doesn't even include "sources within the organization". For all we know, it could be some idiot on the radio saying "the Phillies are disappointed in J-Roll so they're shopping him." There is nothing there in my opinion. I think it would be ridiculous for anyone actually within the organization to even hint at something like that.

That, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just think we're reading into this particular quote a little too much at this point. Overreacting to something? On Beerleaguer? Surely you jest.

Don't assume that just because one person in the front office says something, he speaks for the whole organization.

And that, too.

the other ridiculous part of the statement is that, they Phillies KNOW Jimmy's a slow starter...

Anyway... if you want to a pry a 10-5 player from another team, you might want to float the idea that the team holding your rights is disappointed in you and don't want you.

Of all the disappointments this season... wouldn't a slow start from Rollins be far from the top 5 to 7???

"The Phillies thought then that it was crucial to keep Rollins, but they've been disappointed by his play this year, and thought he could have done more to get them through the difficult times when both Chase Utley and Ryan Howard were on the disabled list."

Hard to believe this came from the front office. First, Utley and Howard are still disabled 33% of the time, and their occasional presence hasn't improved the team's performance. What was it Rollins could have done, then? Second the FO was in a whole lot better position than Rollins to "do more" to get the team through the difficult period. Third, if Rollins has been a disappointment, whose fault is that? Jimmy hasn't changed at bit, and he didn't force his contract on the FO.

Not to detract from the very important discussion on whether or not the FO hates the guy they just handed out a lucrative contract to (despite there not really being much interest from other teams), whom they've grown close to over his 10+ years in the organization, but...

I'm seeing Halladay -160 tonight. Now, I know Doc is good, but anyone taking that line is a sucker. #1, we still don't know how healthy Doc really is. #2, if healthy, we he's still on a pitch count (75?), which means you get only a few innings of Doc, followed by the Crap to Pap against a very formidable offense.

GTown - spare me the Rolen hate. Scotty was a monster for 3 1/2 of the next 4 1/2 years with the Cardinals:

2002 (last 2 months): 139 OPS+ in 55 G
2003: 138 OPS+ in 154 G
2004: 158 OPS+ in 142 G, 4th in MVP voting
2005: 84 OPS+ in 56 G
2006: 126 OPS+ in 142 G

He won Gold Gloves in 4 of those 5 seasons, and by all accounts they were well-deserved.

Are we lucky he didn't sign the monster deal the Phils offered, given the health problems he ended up having? Maybe. But he was still a hell of a player.

"Of all the disappointments this season... wouldn't a slow start from Rollins be far from the top 5 to 7??? "

It doesn't even crack the top 20 for me.

When you sign someone on the wrong side of 30, because there aren't many other alternatives, you have to reset your expectations. I hardly believe that I'm unique in expecting less from him. He's given just about what I would have expected.

Though, I'll spare the wasted breath on him continuing to be miscast as a leadoff hitter...

I don't know of Knobler ever just making crap up for no reason. And he's got it in there as basically like a throwaway line, like it's no secret. Why would he make it up?

I agree with Jack- unless there is something we don't know about, it is an absurd statement on its face. I've got a list here of things to blame for the team's failure in Howard and Utley's absence:

1) AAA Bullpen
2) Mediocre to poor starting pitching
3) Abysmal situational hitting
4) Pathetic output from 3B
5) Vic
72) Fans not booing enough
196) Keeping Ruf in the minors
762) The Schmitter
987) Rollins' "lack of leadership"

If the front office was disappointed in Rollins after 50 games, I wouldn't blame them. He had like 10 extra base hits to that point and an OPS lower than Freddy Galvis. He started the season very small when they needed veterans to perform and pick up some slack. Seems like that;s crying over spilt milk, now. And, hte notion that they'd be better off without him and starting Brokeback Galvis next year is delusional.

Jonathan Sanchez DFA'd. Melky Cabrera? Hitting .353 with a .906 OPS and recently named MVP of the All Star Game. There's a reason the Royals stink every year.

I thought the Rollins contract was good when it was signed. And I think it is a good contract now. He is having exactly the season anyone with a brain could have expected.

Since there's no attribution in that article, I'm going to assume it was pulled from the guy's posterior. Even Dallas Green isn't stupid enough to talk about one of the only players who shows up every night and does his best. Which is what it appears Jimmy is doing.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an organization like the Braves, though, where they always seem to have a kid in the minors ready to plug in? Or the Cards? Same thing. They don't always win with their kids and not all of them work out, but the sheer number of players they develop who go on to play pretty well is huge compared to the Phils.

Are we lucky he didn't sign the monster deal the Phils offered, given the health problems he ended up having?

ColonelTom: Yes. Not only that, but his vocal departure in advance of the opening of CBP forced the Phillies to rethink their approach & attempt to recast the franchise as a place players wanted to be, rather than one they wanted to escape. That, in my opinion, was far more valuable than anything Rolen ever did on the field, helluva player or no.

Joe D - Don't assume that just because one person in the front office says something, he speaks for the whole organization.

Posted by: ColonelTom

Well yeah I'm not even sure if the quote is a direct quote from someone on the inside but still if it is then it's a little troubling.

ColonelTom, Scott Rolen had a 9.4 fWAR season in 2004. In his prime, he was a hell of a player.

Jonathan Sanchez, by the way, strikes me as an absolutely perfect candidate for some team to sign & covert to a relief role. I'd be willing to bet that's what he's ticketed for in 2013, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if the experiment is successful.

[Rollins] is having exactly the season anyone with a brain could have expected.

Which is why I didn't like the contract the Phillies gave him then, & still don't like it now. It's well enough for right now, but the final 2 years will be a mess. Think Polanco, only at $11 million rather than $6 million.

Rollins was supposed to carry the team through a hurt chase utley and ryan howard? Oh, now i get why they gave him that contract they confused Jimmy for a power hitter. Which is very easy to do if you hadn't actually watched him play the since 2009.

C'mon on. No way, no how, that's what they thought.

Rollins is making about what he should make given his production at SS.

That 4th year option could hurt of course.

so basically for the next 3 years we are going to bash Jimmy for his production in his 4th year and ignore what he's currently doing.

Got it.

I dont get the current ROllins bashing. Expecting him to have a hot streak just because Utley/Howard are out is asinine. Hoping he would is one thing...had Rollins and Vic started off hot, we might actually be in it right now but its ridiculous to be upset with his production so far this year given he is there for his defense, not offense.

He's been one of the best SS in baseball this year.

By Batting Order AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB HBP SO SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS
Batting #1 289 44 79 19 5 9 31 26 0 40 10 4 .273 .333 .467 .800


Hard to see how anyone can complain about a SS putting up those numbers as your leadoff hitter.

Yes, Rollins contract will = Polanco, only with a much higher OPS and about 20-25 more stolen bases per year.

That contract is extremely fair for his position and his capabilities. It's maybe the only half-decent sigining Amaro has made.

One of the more ridiculous and irritating quotes I've read, and I usually don't bash people's opinions. So he had a slow start, it happens. I saw no lack of effort, never heard a discouraging word from him when he was struggling. I'm sure he was more unhappy than anyone. Lately he's been hot. Overall he's doing his job as well as anyone could have reasonably expected. Glad he's aboard to tell the truth.

I won't believe it came from the FO unless better sourced than this.

And another thing. If the FO is in a "sell" mode and there is any, and I mean any, chance that Rollins may be available and other teams are kicking the tires, why the H*ll would they ever even hint at something like this? Even if they felt that way, which I find hard to imagine.

Obviously, Jimmy was supposed to duplicate Utley's + Howard's production, singlehandedly. Easy-peasy.

If you combine Howard's and Utley's stats for 2011 and divide them by 2 since the year is only half over, then Jimmy SHOULD HAVE:

hit 25 doubles
hit 22 HR
had 80 RBI
drawn 57 BB
scored 67 R


Actually, he has;

hit 21 doubles
but only 9 HR
only 34 RBI
drawn 30 BB
scored 52 R

Which isn't terrible, except he's woefully short on the HR production and RBI.


The juxtaposition of a credible Rollins trade rumor, and a sudden rash of Rollins love on Beerleaguer, brings to mind the last scene of "Gone With the Wind," when Rhett walks out on Scarlett & she finally realizes that she actually loved him all along.

I never post on this site, but I really had to take exception to this discussion:

1) Scott Rolen is a borderline hall-of-fame third baseman who would have been a lock had he stayed healthy. Greatest defensive third baseman since Brooks Robinson.

2) Jimmy Rollins is a Top 5 shortstop, still. It's not debatable. The guy is not a hall-of-famer, but he is an excellent Major League baseball player at the most important position on the field, save for catcher.

1st: Some unnamed opposing front office guy saying he's interested in Rollins, but the contract is awful

2nd: Random unatrributed reference to someone in the Phillies Front Office complaining about Rollins not carrying the offense.

Both stink to high heavens as some sort of trade deadline funny business.

What Iron Pigs are we looking at tonight after Doc hits his 80 pitch count limit?

I'm thinking we see Kendrick, Schwimmer and Horst.

I'm thinking KK for sure, and perhaps since he was stretched out as starter, he can go 3-4 IP? Which would take us to Bastardo or maybe even all the way to Papelbon?

Largely depends on how effective Halladay is on that pitch count.

C.T.

ROOB had to make this trade because he needed another starter in 2010, why did he need another startee? Because he traded away another viable starter w-o thinking about the consequences... Who was that viable starter... Cliff Lee..

CL who was traded to restock' the farm sys ( BS excuse), so when we were short that SP - Roob dipped into the pharm and traded Goose, Villar and MlL Happ for Oswalt ( prospects)

Goose s be Gose..

Startee s be starter

Major league debut for this Fife guy. You know what that means.

I think I said that after the game last night, Ice, that with Halladay on a pitch count, meaning our BP will be seen for probably 4 innings, and with us facing a pitcher we've never seen before, it is likely our winning streak comes to an end.

78 pitch CG SO tonight from Doc.


Write it down.

I was just reading over on MLBTraderumors and it seems I didn't understand the free agent compensation system at all.

The team losing a free agent no longer gets a first round pick and a compensatory pick. All they get is the compensatory pick between the first and second round. The team signing a top free agent will lose their first round pick, if it's not a top ten pick, but that pick doesn't go to the team losing the free agent.

That means Rube either trades Hamels, signs Hamels or get a sandwich pick and nothing else. That really puts the honus on GMs to trade their stars at the deadline whenever possible.

I thought the team losing a free agent would get a first round pick right before the team signing the free agent's pick. That seems to have been completely wrong, although I'm sure i read it.

It puts it on them to trade them for crap compensation.

The new CBA really sucks in a lot of ways. It really screws international signings, draft spending and deadline trades. It also punishes clubs by giving them crap compensation for losing FAs.

buy-sell: You're ignoring the nitty-gritty financial details of the two trades when, in fact, the nitty-gritty financial details were critical reasons behind both deals.

Anyone who wants to discuss the Cliff Lee trade honestly has to begin by acknowledging: (1) it was only about money; and (2) the GM doesn't set the budget. We wanted Halladay & the payroll couldn't accommodate him. So we traded Lee at the same time we acquired Halladay. It's certainly fair to wonder whether RAJ might have waited out the trade market on Blanton, rather than jumping to trade Lee. But we have no idea whether waiting out the market would have made Blanton more tradeable. We also have no idea whether ownership was willing to wait out the market. About the only thing we can infer with near-certainty is that ownership insisted on cutting payroll elsewhere, as a prerequisite to the Halladay deal.

Which brings us to the Oswalt trade. The absolute key to that trade was that Houston agreed to pick up a huge amount of Oswalt's salary. If I recall correctly, they picked up his entire remaining salary for 2010, and some of it for 2011. Without that agreement, there is no Roy Oswalt trade.

Bottom line: it's overly simplistic to say that, if we had kept Lee, we would have never needed to trade for Oswalt. Money was a key consideration in both deals. If there's no Lee trade, maybe there's no Halladay trade. Instead, we traded Lee, got Halladay, and got one of the best haf seasons of Oswalt's career to boot - at no extra cost against 2010 payroll.

None of this is to suggest that I liked the Lee trade in the slightest bit. I'm simply saying that, when you state that we'd still have Gose if only we had kept Lee, you are indulging in considerable speculation. For all we know, we might still have Gose, but no Halladay.

I think the timing of those trades and the Blanton signing was the problem. Rube had already signed Blanton that the three year monstrosity when Halladay shook loose. You know, cost certainty is Rube's holy grail. So, not to take any risk in a one year deal, he instead, jumped into a bad three year deal for . . . you know . . . certainty.

And yes, it was CERTAINLY a bad deal.

When he had that much money tied up in a pitcher no other GM would have ever paid that much money, of course there was no trade market for Heavy B. There is only one Rube. And Wade didn't have the budget to do his buddy a favor.

Really wish they would split up Utley and Howard with Chooch.

Cyclic - Forget it. That would make sense.

Timing & cost certainty were indeed the problem, but aksmith got the details wrong. That r00b dumped Lee for Halladay is not a question. However, he did it exclusively for reasons of money, NOT due to the supposed need to "restock the cupboard". To wit:

(a) It would have cost the Phillies $9 million to pick up Lee's '10 option. (b) Halladay's '10 salary was $15.75 million, of which $6 million was paid by Toronto. (c) The Lee trade & Halladay trade/extension both occurred on the same day, 16 December '09.

I still believe that r00b was so focused on Halladay, & so convinced that Lee would not sign an extension w/ the Phillies ahead of his FA, that he & the Phillies made these decisions w/out ever even speaking to Lee or his agent (a belief at least circumstantially confirmed by the shock at which both of the latter parties viewed the trade).

Blanton fits into the picture as both a classic case of r00b far overvaluing a player based upon a partial season's worth of great play (see: Mayberry, John), & a chance to jam said player into the current (at the time) budget at the expense of being stuck w/ an overpriced under-performer down the line. Note that Blanton only received $1 million in salary for '10, but was paid a $6 million bonus during the second half of that calendar year. By-the-by, that deal was signed on 21 January '10, more than a month after the Lee/Halladay moves.

Basically, the entire mess was the Phillies -- Monty & r00b first & foremost -- being penny wise & pound foolish, as is their wont. Not only that, but the "savings" of ~$9 million then have led, at least indirectly, to the Oswalt trade, the Pence trade, & the loss of a rotation of Halladay, Lee & Hamels in '10. Empty cupboard, empty trophy case, no wiggle room now that Hamels is on the verge of FA. Halladay's great, but he's not that great.

Any chance Galvis sees more playing time this year? PS...I pretty much agree with Gtown last statements..

***By-the-by, that deal was signed on 21 January '10, more than a month after the Lee/Halladay moves.***

Of course it was...it was more the tendering of a contract to Blanton the week prior to the Halladay/Lee trades that killed the budget. They were on the hook to pay him at that point forward. Extending him out was a "give us cost certainty" move that Rube just loves so much regardless of whether or not it actually makes sense for the ball club.

I am always compelled to go back and look at BL archives when a move made in 2009-2010 is ravaged by BL in hindsight. The Blanton trade is one of my favorites.

The Blanton deal was universally praised when it happened, almost without exception. The only person that actually questioned it was clout. Everyone else thought it was incredibly reasonable. Now everyone claims they knew it was a disaster. Go back and read if you have the time. Slamming it now is quintessential BL Hindsight Police.

You'll also come across a long comment from aksmith about the deal that does not express one ounce of question or outrage. I guess he was too busy negotiating something to give his true feelings.

NEPP- any recollection as to what you said about the Blanton trade when it happened?

***any recollection as to what you said about the Blanton trade when it happened? ***

I think, IIRC, I was actually completely for it...at least after 1-2 days to digest it.

I think it was a great trade.

NEPP: Like I said, penny wise & pound foolish. Even after the tender mistake it might have been cheaper to let the thing go to arbitration. But there's no way a guy like Blanton was going to refuse a 3-year deal even if he had to wait a few more months for some of the first year's money. I believe the final two, overpriced years of that deal were the cost of acquiring Halladay & keeping payroll in line in '10.

BTW, who is saying the Blanton trade was a disaster? Why would it be? Extending him after the 09 season was the problem, not the trade itself.

Just reread the archives to check...yup, as I figured, I was initially pissed and then calmed down the next day:

I've calmed down a bit from last night and while I think we paid top dollar for Blanton, it did improve our chances to win now. If we can get another hitter we'll be in a good position to at least make the playoffs and then its a crapshoot. Hopefully Blanton gets off to a good start here or he'll quickly be crucified.

Posted by: NEPhilliesPhan | Friday, July 18, 2008 at 02:40 PM

NEPP- I actually meant the deal that extended him after 2009. Any recollection of your feelings then?

Why do I get the feeling that NEPP is about to be read his Grand Jury testimony and found in contempt?

***Any recollection of your feelings then?***

Honestly no...I'd have to go look it up. I suspect I was for it at the time as he was pretty durable and reliable as a backend guy.

BTW -- here is a link to an article that describes the unnecessary acquisition of RO & it's relationship to King Cole's possible trade

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/phillies/20120716_David_Murphy__A_COLE_DAY_IN_JULY.html

Pay particular attn to paragraph 3 - which perfectly summarizes my frustration with the way R000b has made some of these trades & stripping the pharm system- uses the example of little Roy acquisition.

I do find it interesting that I should have the same knowledge/ability of moves as our GM. You'd think he'd be better qualified for such a position than me...at least you'd hope he would be.

Nobody asked, but I recall hating at least 90% of everything r00b has ever done. As such, I'd guess I wasn't in favor of Blanton's deal, either.

NEPP- then what's the point of commenting on this site? Aren't we all playing GM?

It's fine if you were wrong. I was wrong about trading for Blanton at the first place. Hated it. Turned out to win us a WS. I was an idiot.

It is another thing to come back three years later and say not only was it a bad deal, but you knew it at the time, when that clearly wasn't the case. The facts are that the Blanton deal looked fair at the time. He then not only sh*t the bed performance-wise, but he got hurt. Couldn't have turned out worse. It doesn't mean that, with the knowledge Amaro had at the time, it was a stupid deal.

For the record, here's a book jacket on the Blanton extension:

"Solid signing" -MG

"I like the move" -CJ

"A great signing that likely saves us money over the next 3 years as we dont really need to go out and get a top starter in 2011 now" -NEPP

"[This deal] makes me more comfortable with the Lee trade" -DPat

"It is a fair deal" -Iceman (if I had left a comment at the time)

My friends Opie, Floyd, Aunt Bee, Thelma Lou and Otis are coming to watch my debut tonight.

They call me "Rifle Fife".

At the time, it did seem like a good contract.

Oops.

Me think Roy Halladay no make it through inning 4. Who want a piece this action? He suck wind more than Snuffleupagus last start.

Me also think Flyin Hawaiian just stay in LA after this week. He eat more cookie after UFC weed binge than Blanton and El Sid in all night cookie fest.

That all.

Fortunately, I didn't see my name anywhere on that Blanton thread. Hence, I am free to say it was a terrible deal, without fear of being impeached with my prior inconsistent statements.

On Beerleaguer, you are not allowed to change your opinion.

It is known.

Ctom: I agree with BAP - Theres almost no deal we could make with the Dodgers for Hamels. They lack any impact MLB ready player, the Phillies can't afford to trade Hamels for a package centered around a guy whose still just getting into AA.

NEPP- the Internet sucks that way. Can't erase it unless you pay off JW.

I honestly don't care what you or BAP or anyone else said at the time. My issue was with aksmith acting like everyone, himself included, knew it was awful when it happened and no other GM would have done it (not only that, he was wrong about the timing, which was crucial to his 'point'). That's just flat-out revisionist history.

You can actually say that about deals like Polly's or Raul's or Howard's. But the Blanton one doesn't fit that profile.

LOL...I dont really care either way. I just wish we had a competent GM.

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