Please, please can we just get this done I can't take the waiting any longer.

TenuredVulture wrote:

The Dude wrote:I agree with that, but TV was using a different model altogether in his analogy. It's either that car or a lesser model

The point I was making is if we are using overpaying in an objective sense, then we mean paying more than necessary to acquire the desired object. That is, if you pay 80,000 for an Escalade, but a guy down the street is selling the exactly same model for 70,000, you overpaid.

But in the case of Halladay, there isn't an exactly the same model, so really, you can't overpay in this objective sense, unless the Blue Jays say, ok, we'll take Drabek and 3 other guys for Halladay and Amaro counters by adding Happ.

But if we're talking subjectively, then someone who posts here might say, well, if it takes Drabek, and 3 other top prospects, and you have to take Wells's conract to get Halladay, that's too much--Halladay isn't worth. But if the Yankees take on Wells's contract, then you might say it's a bad deal, but it's not clear that you overpaid. In that case, Steinbrenner would disagree.

Yeah, I know what you meant, I think my reply was appropriate to it

The Dude wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

The Dude wrote:I agree with that, but TV was using a different model altogether in his analogy. It's either that car or a lesser model

The point I was making is if we are using overpaying in an objective sense, then we mean paying more than necessary to acquire the desired object. That is, if you pay 80,000 for an Escalade, but a guy down the street is selling the exactly same model for 70,000, you overpaid.

But in the case of Halladay, there isn't an exactly the same model, so really, you can't overpay in this objective sense, unless the Blue Jays say, ok, we'll take Drabek and 3 other guys for Halladay and Amaro counters by adding Happ.

But if we're talking subjectively, then someone who posts here might say, well, if it takes Drabek, and 3 other top prospects, and you have to take Wells's conract to get Halladay, that's too much--Halladay isn't worth. But if the Yankees take on Wells's contract, then you might say it's a bad deal, but it's not clear that you overpaid. In that case, Steinbrenner would disagree.

Yeah, I know what you meant, I think my reply was appropriate to it

OK.

truth142 wrote:Please, please can we just get this done I can't take the waiting any longer.

I think of it like Christmas. 99% of the time when I was a kid, the anticipating part of Christmas was actually more fun than Christmas itself. July 31st is baseball Christmas, and Roy Halladay is an "an official Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time."

And this year, I do believe, the Phillies and their fans are going to get exactly what they asked for!

ek wrote:Monty says payroll is not a concern. also said wants to go for it today but keep an eye on tomorrow

That's about the only informative thing he said

The Red Tornado wrote:

ek wrote:Monty says payroll is not a concern. also said wants to go for it today but keep an eye on tomorrow

That's about the only informative thing he said

OMG MONTY SAID WE'RE GETTING HALLADAY TOMORROW AT THE LATEST!!!

Missanelli is saying that based on a Heyman report that if the Phils include Drabek then it's a done deal.

Lee Thomas would just steal him, Longmire style

I'd try swapping Drabek for Taylor in the deal Missanelli says Heyman says the Phillies offered (Taylor/Carrasco/Donald). I am kind of surprised that was characterized as "woefully" inadequate. I would think that Drabek/Carrasco/Donald/Marson might get it done, and I'd prefer that to Drabek/Taylor/Donald, which I think would definitely get it done. They are now talking about Happ, who I do not think will be included in the Halladay deal when all is said and done.

Must keep Taylor

How crazy is it to think the Phils are like a 100+ win team if they sign Halladay right freakin now?

TenuredVulture wrote:How crazy is it to think the Phils are like a 100+ win team if they sign Halladay right freakin now?

49-24 rest of the way.

45-26 against the NL without him.

The Red Tornado wrote:Missanelli is saying that based on a Heyman report that if the Phils include Drabek then it's a done deal.

Missanelli talks a lot of Phils, but he really does not know what the hell he's talking about.

TenuredVulture wrote:How crazy is it to think the Phils are like a 100+ win team if they sign Halladay right freakin now?

About as crazy as figuring out who the heck pitches with a Halladay, Hamels, Happ, Blanton, Moyer, and Pedro rotation. Um, that is six...

Can't trade Moyer (contract), don't want to trade Happ, Blanton is a inning eater (or is that Buffet), the city would be burned if I even joked about Hamels, so I guess Pedo get tossed in the deal with the Phils eating his salary.

GMAN wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:Missanelli is saying that based on a Heyman report that if the Phils include Drabek then it's a done deal.

Missanelli talks a lot of Phils, but he really does not know what the hell he's talking about.

but heyman does

ek wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I'd try swapping Drabek for Taylor in the deal Missanelli says Heyman says the Phillies offered (Taylor/Carrasco/Donald). I am kind of surprised that was characterized as "woefully" inadequate. I would think that Drabek/Carrasco/Donald/Marson might get it done, and I'd prefer that to Drabek/Taylor/Donald, which I think would definitely get it done. They are now talking about Happ, who I do not think will be included in the Halladay deal when all is said and done.

if they don't include drabek, they are going to have to wait it out and hope Toronto gives in.

Probably, and I I don't understand the hesitation when it comes to him. Order of reluctance, for me:

1. Brown
2. Taylor
3. Happ*
4. Marson*
5. Drabek

I've said this before, but I put Drabek behind Happ and Marson because Happ is helping the team right now and Marson really should be called up to the big club ASAP (that's why I starred them - so no one thinks I am saying Drabek is worse or less valuable in an absolute sense than either of those guys). I imagine if he is not traded, he might be. This is a deal meant to convert a future asset into a present asset, as another poster has said, so Drabek-for-Halladay not only is the most attractive option for Toronto, it's the most attractive option for the Phillies IMO. Obviously, I would part with either of Taylor/Brown if necessary, and one of Happ and Marson. If it's Happ, I expect the package should be Happ/Drabek/Donald/B-arm. If it's Marson, then I might go as high as Drabek/Taylor/Marson. But either of those should get it done IMO.

Ideally, we can talk them into Drabek/Donald/Carrasco/somebody else, but, as I've said before, I am more ready to do Drabek/Knapp/Donald/another arm than I am to do any deal that includes Taylor or Brown.

Halladay's next start is Friday

hopefully its sorted by then

actually, Friday afternoon would be perfect- they would pull Halladay for his start and he would start at the BSG game on Saturday!!

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

FTN wrote:Using fielding % is ridiculous.

What other fielding metrics would indicate Werth would be more than adequate in CF, that compensate for the additional runs, bases, etc. resulting from the additional errors? I'm sure you know the "expepcted zone" for CF is larger than corner OF and thus some metrics won't translate accurately from one position to the other.

If you believe middle defense is irrelevant to winning baseball, that's even more rediculous. A good defense is built from the middle on out. You need to have plus defense up the middle (2B, SS, CF, C), you can't have a weak link and expect to contend. This is one of the basics of baseball, baseball 101. Of course you can't go "all glove no bat", but you can't discount the glove with regards to middle defense.



(I may have provided sig material for someone... "you can't discount the glove" )

For all those who want to become informed about fielding metrics:

Here's a link talking about the newer metrics like UZR, DRS, PMR, and why they're important. Bonus for Ibanez discussion. The second half of the article has the good stuff you'll want to read.

Most people here use UZR/150 (referred to simply as UZR), which is a calculation of the number of runs above or below average a fielder is in both range runs, outfield arm runs, double play runs and error runs combined. It's a rate stat, so if someone is performing at -10 through half the season, and they keep performing at that level, then they'll be at -10 at the end of the season. This stat can be used to compare fielders at the same position, but it's not meant to be used to predict how someone would perform if they switched positions. For example, an Eric Bruntlett may perform well according to UZR in LF, because leftfielders tend to be plodding mashers who can't field very well, but he can have a negative UZR at SS, because the average SS fields his position well. The stat compares a fielder to the average fielder at that position.

There are, of course, limitations to using defensive metrics. One, you really need larger sample sizes to make declarative statements about a player's defense. There's enough year to year fluctuation in UZR that it's still an imprecise measuring stick. If a player has 2 or 3 years in a range, that's probably his talent level. Half a season is too small to point to anything, especially if the number is outside a larger trend. Two, teams that scout and position their players well may skew some metrics. For example, fielding bible gave Utley a supurb +/- in 2008 (+47!), and I suspect it was due to the fact that Utley is routinely positioned relatively close to the 1B line, perhaps due to Howard's defensive weaknesses. The difference between an UZR of 25 and an UZR of 15 may simply be positioning. Three, different stadiums may hamper different fielders to varying degrees. I imagine this is much more of an issue with OFs. Ibanez's improved OF defense (according to the metrics) may be due to playing in a smaller park. Some systems try to take account for this, but again, it's not precise, and may depend on a player's weaknesses/strengths.


My link talks about it, but fielding percentage is terrible for a number of reasons. One, it does not take into account a player's range. Two, it's subject to the whim of the scorekeeper. What matters is making outs, and if a SS can't reach a ball up the middle, or jumps to make routine throws, his lack of errors may fool people into thinking he's actually able to create a lot of outs on defense. Derek Jeter is the poster boy in this regard. The newer metrics only look at turning balls in your area into outs.

Lastly, concerning Jayson Werth, he hasn't played too much in CF. But his UZR in (LF, CF, RF) is (20, 24.9, 17.6) for his career, which suggests he's an above average OF. I have a hard time believing he wouldn't be above average in CF, even though the average CF is usually more fielding oriented than the corner OF positions.

Ihad the stream on for 5 seconds and Missanelli said Toronto will get the same value next year at the deadline as this year

wtf