Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of

« In progess: Phils call on Cloyd in critical spot | Main | Minors: Florida Instructional League opens Monday »

Friday, September 21, 2012


I wish they wouldn't have scored that 1 run in the 8th inning.

a box score of 800 000 008 would have been an alltime great.

800-000-017 came up as a disconnected line. Damn...i wonder if any team has put up a box score that was an in use phone number.

That sweep may have to get us through the winter. I loved it. It was great after a kick in the balls against Houston to come to New York and sweep, concluding it with just pounding the daylights out of their staff last night. David Wright needs to be set free. He can't be living out the rest of his prime playing in an empty Citi Field.

I'd love to see the financial statements for Citifield and compare to CBP. What a contrast on how the two clubs used their new stadiums to attract fans and build a team. The Mets can blame it on the Madoff debacle, but the Wilpons could have sold the team and that doesn't explain all the ineptitude anyway. Phils unloaded contracts and improved (putting aside whether there was a cause effect relationship). Giants lose the league's best hitter and they increase their lead, not to mention what they did in 2010 with their ragtag group. The Mets are a laughingstock of a franchise that will probably lose David Wright to free agency next year. They may have a good group of young pitchers (Niese, Harvey, Wheeler), but otherwise the best thing they have going for them is the guys who announce their games.

The drama of game two followed by the utter stomping in game three was very nice. Sarge pointing out in the first inning there's no mercy rules in the big leagues unlike little league gave me a good chuckle.

Still want to know what are the worst post-ASB home records by NL teams. Mets have to be on a historical pace of ineptitude.

MG - They posted it during the Mets broadcast. Mets were still only about fourth worst. I think it covered AL and NL.

What did this win do to the Phillies expected W/L record based on run differential? It must have increased it by like 10 wins.

Ollie - Wow. You would think a .154 winning pct over more than a 25-game stretch would be hard to duplicate.

Then again if there are only 3 worse teams since 1933 when the ASB was inaugurated that is on a historical pace of ineptitude. Probably puts the Mets less than the 1th percentile in terms of winning pct.

LOL Met indeed.

Actually, the 2012 Cleveland team ranked the worst. They're 18-47 since ASG and Mets are a bit better at 20-43.

Phillies' expected record is now 76-74 -- same as their actual record.

Blasphemy, maybe, but I want David Wright. It sure would fill a need (says Capt. Obvious).

Pythag W/L tells us that Charlie went from a good manager to just an average manager after last night.

Phils have gone something like 22-9 since late's not all against the dregs of the league, and most of the losses are against the worst teams on the schedule.

And where was Mr. Met last night?

Just get to 82 wins....a guaranteed winning record...and stop all the madness. I'm more happy with that after the season we've had and where we were on July 14.

more *than* happy with that

Not blasphemy. Wright may be the single biggest impact player they could possibly pickup considering their needs across the board. And he seems like a standup competitor. Highly unlikely l happen this offseason. They'll exercise that option.

"Pythag W/L tells us that Charlie went from a good manager to just an average manager after last night."

Their expected record if Cholly had made all the moves he should have made, and not made all the stupid ones: 90-60.

Pythag W/L tells us that Charlie went from a good manager to just an average manager after last night.

Great. Now it's only a matter of time before someone posts that Pythagoras has an "irrational hatred" of Charlie Manuel.

All right. I'm only going to say this once, because I know the Cholly haters will jump on me immediately, but the 'pythag' says nothing of what Manuel has done to get the most out of his team this season. If pythag is mostly RS/RA (which, I admit, I do not have time to look up right now, but I think I remember that is what it is- please someone correct if I'm wrong), all it tells us is how reflective the team's record is of its actual performance on the field. For instance, the Orioles pythag probably has them down towards .500, but they have gotten extremely fortunate throughout the season in close games- hence, their 20+ games over .500 record or whatever it is.

So the Phils' record is right around what it should be given how the players have played. Great. What does that tell us, though, about how Manuel was able to actually keep the team performing and maxing out their limited potential throughout the second-half of the season? I'll go on record as saying more than half the teams in baseball, if they went through as hard a crash (and subsequent sell-off) as the Phils did from a 100+ win season to what they went through in the first half of this year, would have quit. They certainly wouldn't have gone on the run that this team- has gone on with the limited talent available.

That's all. I know I'm an idiot for defending Manuel, and you can't put a statistic on 'not getting a team to quit.' But I think it's something he won't get any credit for, especially from serial Cholly haters like MG.

Iceman -- it's RS^2 / RS^2 + RA^2.

It correlates with how teams perform but he fun of it is that it's merely a proxy and provides little / no explanation for deviations. It's pretty much empirically derived though "luck" and bullpen use/quality are commonly referred to when it's off. Pretty silly to use it as a sole measure for manager quality.

That imagined record of 90-60 has me wondering, BAP. You were probably just tossing out a number for effect, but still...If you think that in 60 of our 74 losses Charlie should have made a different move, you think that move would have gotten us a win almost 25% of the time. Obviously there's no way to know, but it does make me wonder. I thought suggesting 14 more wins was pretty high.

I agree with JW's comments that the Phillies v. Mets are a study of 2nd half contrasts. One could argue that the shake-up at the trade deadline actually helped infuse energy, however, Iceman, as opposed to being a reason to quit. It could have gone either way, it seems to me. I do like to credit Charlie for rallying the troops, and the guys themselves for not giving up - Jimmy, who's come on strong in the 2nd half, Chase & Ryan & Doc, who've come back from injury with a let's-see-what-we-can-do attitude, Cole...mainstays of the team.

Here's an interesting piece about Halladay and the offseason:

I have difficulty w/ the concept that a team playing poorly is not the fault of the field manager -- "He's not the one striking out", etc. -- but a team playing well is some manner of credit to the same man.

GBrett: There's obviously no way to know, but I would guess that a different move would have led to a different game result far less than 25% of the time. For one thing, if you're talking about any move related to the bullpen, there's just the reality that all these guys (save for Papelbon) pretty much suck. Second, sometimes the bad move works out and the right move would have turned out badly; it's just the law of probabilities. Third, I just don't think the decision to use one player over another has a 25% chance of impacting the game. I'd guess that a manager's tactical choices can add or subtract maybe 3-4 wins over the course of the season. But that's just a guess.

As much as I hate having to root for a guy coming back off of surgery, the Cardinals have left me with no other choice. (

Also did the Beerleauger-nocenti catch KK's quote after his Astros start? "I can't say I did my job." Solid. Now do it tonight.

I would have preferred a lower score we will wish we handsome of those runs this weekend.
Also don't get the reluctance to give Howard a rest and trying out Ruf.

I don't think there could have been a better chance to give Ruf a few ABs last night. Why bother calling him up when he's only warming the bench?

Oops although I assure you got it I meant we will need those runs this weekend.
Also don't like,asking fun or showing dislike for other teams. Mets will no doubt be back they have some nice young pitching.

This is beautiful, from lorecore:

"albert ross: So far this year, the ratio of my RBI/ABs with RISP = 39/61, or .64."

This is one of the most clueless attempts at a stat that you can make."


It isn't an "attempt at a stat."

It is the ratio of the players that were in scoring position that Howard knocked in. It is significantly higher than Braun, Votto, Beltran (and Hamilton, I might add).

I love it when people similarly respond that RBI/AB is also a "made up stat." Using that logic, all stats are "made up stats." Just because a sabermetric uses a particular stat doesn't make it less "made up."

It's a freakin' ratio. Deal with it.

Howard gets on base less than those other players - either via a hit or by a walk. That lessens his overall value. No one questions that.

As a matter or statistical averages, and based on the performance of his teammates that hit behind him, of course if he got on base more - even if was say a walk with two outs - getting it would increase his run production. No one argues that.

But that metric directly speaks to how effective he is at driving in the runners in scoring position when he steps up to the plate. His ability to drive in those runners is why he hits 5th. That anyone would seek to diminish his historic numbers in that regard - relative to all the players who have ever played the game - is either sad or pathetic. Not sure which is the better adjective.

Howard's career OBI% is a measure of his acdtual performance. Denigrating him on the basis of what might have happened had he taken more walks with two outs and nobody on is denigrating his actual performance based on a counterfactual.

What's particularly funny is when haters like Baer seek to ignore the significance of his AVG with RISP by falsely applying generalities to specific situations and concluding that it isn't a "reproducible skill," (because based on statistical averages, AVG with RISP should more or less equalize compared to AVG under other conditions). This is the kind of mistake that people who only think they understand statistics make.

I again refer you to the book "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow," by a nobel-prize winning economist who talks at length about similar types of errors that even statisticians make in estimating probabilities.

er...obviously, why he hits 4th.

I mean really - everyone here has to acknowledge the beauty of the following argument:

"Also, ISO holds the largest correlation to run production, moreso than AVG with RISP. Howard is currently under .200 for the season, which is an immediate sign that indicates his RBI total is nothing special compared to the opportunities that he's been presented.

Posted by: lorecore | Friday, September 21, 2012 at 09:29 AM"

So - even though he has driven in a higher percentage of runners in scoring position than Hamilton, Votto, Beltran, and Braun - his RBI total is "nothing special" compared to the opportunities that he's been presented.

Because his ISO is low, having a higher ratio of RISP knocked in is "nothing special."

I think that no one here could deny that beauty of that argument.


Flipper -- I like the spirit of your post. But it is true that all players will hit better over time with RISP due to some advantages gained in pitching strategy and defensive alignment, &c., when men are on base. Not to completely dismiss your point re Howard. Just throwing that out there.

Sophist- yeah, I guess that was what my overall question was. Why are we using that stat to measure Manuel's performance, when it really tells you nothing about how the talent on the team has been maximized/minimized?

Sophist -

" Just throwing that out there."

Yes, Sophist good point. I get that (why I said more or less, but I should have been more careful)...

But as you're aware, Howard's career performance is affected by a very specific variable - the differential in his performance with the shift as compared to w/o the shift. It isn't really that he's hitting better when there's no shift, it's that more or less the same performance nets better results. And he nets better results when their are runners on base. His very specific skill set has a disproportionate value, in a sense.

The flawed thinking is conflating getting better results with RISP and hitting better with RISP.

Iceman -- people use it as a proxy but I don't know when that started or how it's justified. Clearly an easy explanation for deviations is performance in close games which people like to chalk up to how well a bullpen is leveraged and how well the pen performs when it's most needed. The manager's role there is apparent, but there's so much else going on here,

"Why are we using that stat to measure Manuel's performance, when it really tells you nothing about how the talent on the team has been maximized/minimized? "

This is a common problem when trying to measure phenomena in the face of high uncertainty.

People seek to find a number so they can think they can quantify something with some level of certainty. However, they don't check the metric they're using. In other words, they don't check the "validity" - which in testing means basically how well does that metric measure the phenomenon we are trying to measure.

Consider standardized testing as a means to measure the quality of a job or school applicant. We like to use such tests because it gives us a number that we can compare to other test results. But if we really think about it, we know that such tests don't do a particularly good job of telling us how well a student will do in school or how well a job applicant will do on the job. As a statistical average those tests tell us something: generally, people who score well will do better. The tests have value in that regard. The problem is when people don't fully understand the validity of the measures they're using.

This is what happens all the time in baseball. People want to discount Charlie's performance as a manager because he doesn't make the pitching changes he makes (we won't even get into the flawed analysis they use to determine that his moves are "mistakes"). That's fine - but the problem is when they ignore his historically good results (for this franchise) as a manager. They can discount that all they want by arguing a counterfactual (that another manager would have just as successfully leveraged the talent the team has had during his tenure) - but there is a logical flaw in such reasoning. Certainly, we can think of talented teams that did not have success.

flipper - I'd love to see a detailed study of Howard's hitting and the defensive alignments. I'm sure there's some proprietary data out there. ... I don't really disagree with you. The question to me is the degree to which Howard is actually better w RISP and how undervalued (by stat types not salary or among fans) Howard is/may be because of the way the metrics out there treat different AB. I mean, I think your general point is fine, but the devil of the whole thing is in the details.

phlipper: i am a huge howard fan and routinely defnd his production, but i also am a fan of intelligent baseball analysis. In 2012, Howard has not been among the better productive players in the league.

You can isolate specific situations and lump base runners altogether as one all you want - but in the end the conclusion of such analysis will not be right.

I instantly regretted posting this argument, since i immediately remembered trying to debate similar topics with you before and getting absolutely nowhere. I'll stop now.

Regarding Charlie who knows? But I give him credit for having the balls to bench Rollins when he didn't hustle. We all know his faults but his teams play for him. His teams after the ASB have been good the last few years. Terry Collins was getting praise in NY before the ASB. Look at him now, his team quit on him.

Cloyd: 105 ERA+, 3.86 ERA
Halladay: 100 ERA+, 4.03 ERA

People want to discount Charlie's performance as a manager because he doesn't make the pitching changes he makes (we won't even get into the flawed analysis they use to determine that his moves are "mistakes"). That's fine - but the problem is when they ignore his historically good results (for this franchise) as a manager. They can discount that all they want by arguing a counterfactual (that another manager would have just as successfully leveraged the talent the team has had during his tenure) - but there is a logical flaw in such reasoning.

Then how should fans evaluate these decisions? I don't think Manual is terrible -- far from it. He clearly has a good handle on the clubhouse. I have a hard time defending some of his matchup choices, though, in the only way we know how -- by comparing the probabilities and the intangibles (how rested a guy is, etc..)

Flipper -- another way to get at Howard's value is win probability added. He's in the top 5 since 2006. From 2008 to 2011, his more down years, he was still 8th in all of baseball.

Rollins has a 1.033 OPS since the benching.

Sophist -

"I think your general point is fine, but the devil of the whole thing is in the details."


Along those lines, I remember a Baer thread a while back where he did break the numbers down a bit but then discounted what they showed by saying that a significantly higher differential with RISP (than the average differential) isn't a "reproducible skill" -- specifically because of the conflation I just spoke of. He starts with the assumption that a player can't just hit better because there are runners on base, and then uses that to say that proportionally better (than average) performance with RISP must be some sort of anomaly.

Anyway, I think that OBI% does a good job of at least starting to explain Howard's high RBI production - although it is flawed because it doesn't control for position on the basepath of runners driven in; i.e., what % were on 3rd, 2nd, 1rst. If by chance Howard had a higher % of runners on 3rd, it would obviously lead to an anomalously high RBI rate - although we might assume it to be unlikely that over many ABs that metric would differ from what we'd expect to be the average.

No one ever gives Howard credit for how well he's performed for his career with runners in scoring posistion. I think it's because he actually is worse with the bases empty, which of course is more than when the bases are occupied, and, he's been the final out in the playoffs two years in a row.

i don't actually believe that Charlie should be judged differently whether the team is above/below its pythag w/l, i was just making a joke of how their run diff changed so much in one game.

Expected wins/losses in no way should be the sole criteria or even necessary the most important criteria in evaluating a manager's performance. It's best attribute as a measurement criterion is it's simplicity.

2000: 0
2001: +3
2002: -2

2005: -1
2006: -1
2007: +2
2008: -1
2009: +1
2010: +2
2011: -1
2012: 0

I have looked at other manager's and that consistency in performance from others managers who have managed at least a decade is pretty unusual but I would need to calculate it for at least 20-25 over managers who have managed at least a decade.

I was looking to make a quick analysis of Cholly based on this sole criterion it is that he manages to his talent level. Positive spin on this is that he hasn't had a real down year in performance when all is said and done. That's hard to do. The negative spin is that he doesn't get a lot more out of his team than expected either. If you have a 84-85 team that needs someone to push the right buttons more often than not, he might not be the right guy to manage that team.

"You can isolate specific situations and lump base runners altogether as one all you want - but in the end the conclusion of such analysis will not be right."

That he knocks in runners at a higher rate than Votto, Braun, Beltran, Hamilton, etc., is clearly relevant.

And it is ludicrous to say that the simple fact of the rate at which he knocks in those runners "will not be right" (unless the numbers are incorrect).

You can certainly consider the rate of knocking in runners in scoring position to be an "isolate situation." It certainly is an "isolated situation."

But it happens to be an "isolated situation" that is extremely important in terms of the outcome of games.

And of course, whether or not you are a "huge fan" of Howard is completely irrelevant to the simple ratio of his RBI/opportunities with RISP. Not sure why you think it is important to bring it up.


2006: 0
2007: -1
2008: -4
2009: +5
2010: -1
2011: +6
2012: 0

Put at him +5 in Detroit.

For his career:

1986: -13
1987: +1
1988: +1
1989: -2
1990: +2
1991: +3
1992: +4
1993: +4
1994: +7
1995: -4
1996: -3

Puts him at 0 but that is largely because of that horrendous rookie season as a manager in Pittsburgh.

1997: +4
1998: -4

0 in Florida

1999: 0

0 in Colorado.

Does this tell me if Leyland is a better manager than Cholly? Can't say. It is interesting though to note the variation in his team's performance though. Not a ton of season where he is in the -2 to +2 range

Sophist -

"Then how should fans evaluate these decisions?"

Arguing about (and evaluating) the decisions if fine. That's part of what sports fandom is about. The problem as I see it, though, is when people jump from evaluating those decisions to definitively concluding that Charlie is a moron or the counterfactual (inherently unprovable) that the team would have done better with a manager who makes different decisions (I wonder whether the same folks would disagree with pretty much all managers just as much as they disagree with Charlie).

You should hear me ranting on and on about Reid's pass/run ratio. But when I say that Reid is a moron because he doesn't run the ball more, I know that my evaluation is subjective. I can't avoid the bottom line of Reid's performance over time; it is undeniable.

What gets me is when people hold on to the belif that a high % of Charlie's decisions are "mistakes," particularly when people fail to fully appreciate the full comparison of the marginal advantages of the different alternatives he has. I contend that if such a high % of his decisions were "mistakes," it is highly unlikely that he would have a team that has performed so well for so long.

He certainly appears to be a bumpkin. But his loyalty to his players and his steadfastness in giving the opportunity to either success or fail has worked out.

"The negative spin is that he doesn't get a lot more out of his team than expected either. If you have a 84-85 team that needs someone to push the right buttons more often than not, he might not be the right guy to manage that team."

You're going to need to explain that one. On it's face, that is not what that stat measures. All is it is an empirically derived formula for how many WL a team has given a certain run distribution. What role the manager had in getting his team to score more runs than they otherwise would or prevent fewer runs than their talent dictates is my clear on its face from the statistic.

Ice~ You're not an idiot for defending Manuel. He's no rocket scientist to be sure, but the players love playing for him & he won't let them quit.

Every player who's been here the last few years loved it here. Cholly's a big part of that.

And yeah, while they'll be sutting home this Oct. at least they didn't tank it like the Mets. A better than .500 record would be great. Hopefully next year will be much better.

The error here, in equating Pythagorean WL with management to a talent level, is confusing talent level and RS and RS. Can't a manager get more runs out of a bad team? Are they suddenly more talented? No.

I think a balanced view of Charlie Manuel as manager would acknowledge that if you take all the apparently boneheaded decisions that work out and subtract them from the tactical mistakes that don't work out, he's probably down couple of games this season. And that is huge when considering the games they are behind in the wild card hunt.

But it is equally true that Rube's personnel/roster management has probably cost a couple of games as well.

And all that has to be balanced against the fact that the team clearly likes to play for Charlie. Either the combination of players he is given is fortuitous. Or Charlie is a guy these players respond to. Likely some of both.

On the whole, that means Charlie has likely been a net positive over the long season. Would I like to see someone who's a little more tactically adroit? Sure. But it can't be denied that when other teams have Mets'd on their manager, this team has not.

bay_area_phan: I think you're taking a stat an applying an incorrect conclusion to it. If a manager makes decisions that improve runs scored or runs prevented, then it's already reflected in the Pythag W/L. You can't then take how a team performs relative to the Pythag W/L and make a determination about the manager. That doesn't make sense.

I think Manuel does get the most out of his players (although that is difficult to prove).

It seems to me like there should be a way to retain that benefit while also putting someone near Manuel to zap him with a small amount of electricity every time he does something like using Diekman instead of Horst in a close game because Horst is "the long man".

On the whole, that means Charlie has likely been a net positive over the long season.

Mostly I agree with this. I wish that he would, in the words of the great philosopher Harry Callahan, "know his limitations" and hire a bench coach and let him handle the in-game tactics.

World Series winners since 2000 have outperformed their Pythag by an average of 1 win per year. Five of 12 had a negative Pythag with -5 being the worst. Seven of the 12 had a positive Pythag with +8 being the best. Eight of the 12 had a Pythag between -3 and +2.

I have no idea what this tells us.

Lest any sympathy develop towards the New York Mets, I link to the January 29, 2008 BL thread, the day the Mets traded for Johan Santana:

"You can't then take how a team performs relative to the Pythag W/L and make a determination about the manager. That doesn't make sense"

Right. The way manager decision-making sneaks into their is, as I said, the idea that some teams win more close games than usual (Orioles) and that that is somehow a reflection of good use of bullpen resources (which falls on the manager). But I'm not sure closer analysis of such teams reveals all that much.

BAP: Thanks for the reply.

* *

aksmith - It occurs to me that rather than say simply that the combination of players is fortuitous, that some of the credit for the character of the players goes to the scouts & GM who looked at the character of the player in signing him.

GBrettFan - I agree. But aside from Halladay and Lee, the "character" players on this team were drafted by Arbuckle and Wade. Rube and his henchmen had nothing to do with it. So, the credit for the character of the team is pretty widely distributed and hard to attribute.

If Howard, Utley and JRoll and Chooch are the main "character" guys, then who do you credit for them? I'd have to say it was Arbuckle and Wolever, since it's pretty well acknowledged that Wade left the drafting to his underlings. Would I be incorrect there?

Sophist - That's a fair point.

Speaking of bullpen usage in extra innings games... Buck Showalter saved his closer until the 18th inning. Same thing Manuel would have done. Same thing pretty much every manager does. Doesn't make it right, but Showalter is getting a lot of credit for why the O's are doing so well in 1-run and extra-inning games. But he's largely managing by the book.

I just wish BAP was the Phillies manager so we'd have 90 wins.

KAS: but what would ryne sandberg do?

lorecore: Good point. Probably time to analyze the Pythag of Lehigh Valley!

I have to think the GM is going to sit down with Charlie after the season and ask him what he wants to do. Charlie has likely earned a say in his future after next season. But it also seems likely that if the Phils don't promote Sandberg in some capacity next season, such as bench coach for instance, he'll go the way of Mark Parent. Both seem capable of being good big league managers on the field. What we don't know is if they're good in the clubhouse.

I could see a graceful exit of Charlie to an assistant to the GM post with Sandberg moving up. I could also see Charlie insisting he wants five more years. He is nothing if not stubborn. And frankly, it would be hard to turn him down should he go that route.

akmsith: good point, managing on a 1 year contract is pretty rare for an established manager such as Charlie. If he has the desire to manage another ~3 years, then he will almost certainly push for an extension.

Ideally, I hope Charlie just asks to finish out his contract and retire.

I imagine the Mets are saying... well if the games were only innings 2-8, we'd have won 2 of three!

It's amazing how the species, Metus Trollius, has become an endangered species and really hasn't been seen around these parts since the '08 season.

Range has pretty much been limited to the Williamsburg and Verrazano bridges.

My favorite part of that 2008 Santana thread was bay_area_phan's insistence that the Phillies would never be the team to go out and get the star pitcher. An early reverse-Beerleaguer jinx?

I have gone back and looked at that thread many a time. It's amazing how perspectives have shifted in such a small amount of time. Even a year after that thread, it was a 180 degree turn almost.

The first inning in last night's game reminded me of the Bugs Bunny cartoon where the Gas House Gorillas did a conga line around the base paths.

What I would like someone t explain to me is this:

If one is going to use Pythagorean to evaluate a manager, how then, does one isolate and evaluate a manager's effect on the RS/RA?

Or, is the RS/RA simply a function of the players who are on the team, that is, a manager has no effect on them?

Good to hear. Melky Cabrera requested he be removed from consideration for the batting title. MLB agreed.

That's kinda strange.
One isn't 'considered' for the batting title.
There are only parameters and results.

What I find interesting is how many posters were on that Santana trade thread a mere four years ago who have all but disappeared form these premises.

Neal Huntington put the Pirates' players through NAVY Seals training programs this spring including a 'hand-to-hand' components. One of the more unusual and dumber things I have heard a GM do to this team.

Something I thought they did in 'Major League Baseball 6' which was direct-to-video

Bonehead: Cabrera would win the batting title under current rules. He failed to reach the minimum required ABs, but was so close that when baseball adds the remaining ABs (with no hits), he would still win the batting title.

In this case, MLB and the Player's Union worked out a one-time amendment to that rule that says it is not applied to suspended players.

The most amazing part of that Santana thread was the fact that the Mets had fans who would actually come and talk trash. I guess there are some diehards out there still but wow, that rivalry died pretty quickly.

Here's the prize of the 2008 Santana thread:

Hey Phillies fans, what's worse than the Mets getting Santana? How about when we sign Ryan Howard in a few years, since you won't pay him? Aw yeah. GO GIANTS!

Posted by: LGMG | Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM

I looked back and I wanted the Phils were a starter short & wanted them to resign Lohse to a 2-year deal with an option (would up getting 4 years from the Cards).

Here was my main comment. Turns out the Mets did have the same holes in their bullpen, they did have injury problems with and the 3 guys I mentioned. Delgado & Reyes rebounded nicely for them but it wasn't enough.

Basically a good/very good team that didn't get enough from their secondary guys around their stars to win the NL East in '08.

"One player - particularly a pitcher like Santana - can change the outcome of a 162 game season and the playoffs for that matter.

There is no positive spin on this from a Phils perspective. None. Zero.

Still, the Phils will have a good team in '08 and will be in the playoff hunt again. Nothing is certain and the Mets still have some important concerns too (Can Reyes rebound? Can Alou, Pedro, and El Duque can stay healthy? Does Is Delgado's slide going to continue? Will the same holes appear again in the Mets' pen that plagued them the last months of the season?) All of the Mets' fans crap posted here today about winning the World Series is ridiculous."

Posted by: MG | Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 10:40 PM

Sabean has certainly given his share of terrible FA contracts out.

Maybe Carpenter came back a little too early....

Listening to Gargano flip out over every single thing in the Cubs-Cards game is funny.

There was also one poster, I think Tray, who said yeah Santana is good but the rest of that team is old, I don't see them in contention for 6 or 7 years. I want to buy that guy a beer and have him pick some lottery numbers.

Just a few posts into the thread and I see names like

Sir Alden :)
from the district
lekh tizdayen
The Theory
That Dude
James L (forever a Phillies fan!)

Those guys/gals used to be regular or semi-regular posters.

"...that rivalry died pretty quickly."

Because....... so did the Mets!

tray, lekh tizdayen, and The Theory post very sporadically. Not much I can remember at all this season. kells went over to GoodPhight.

JW's reverse jinx in the header of the Santana thread worked wonders!

I remember that thread because JW quoted one of my posts for one of the follow up threads, don't know how often he did that back then.

"Phillies manager Charlie Manuel tells reporters (including's Todd Zolecki) that he hopes the club acquires at least one "first-class good" relief pitcher this winter. Zolecki speculates that this new reliever could push Antonio Bastardo out of the bullpen, as Bastardo has struggled this season."

Bastardo has had some struggles this year but the Phils' issues this year have been the lack of a RHP setup reliever. Bastardo has pitched well the last few months, still destroys LHB, and is a far superior option to the likes of a Diekman/Rosenberg/etc

Yo, new thread.


The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories


Rotoworld News



Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel