Committed/under team control for 2012 (allowing for Brown but no other minor leaguers):

SP: Roy Halladay - $20 million, Kendrick, Happ/Drabek, other 2 unknown
1B: none
2b: Utley
ss: none
3b: Placido Polanco - $6 million
OF: Domonic Brown - cost low, usefulness unknown
OF: Ben Francisco - cost will be getting high by then, I think he will be FA after 2012
OF: none
c: Carlos Ruiz - will also be getting expensive and will be in his age 33 season

RP: Bastardo, Mathieson, ???

Gets kinda scary...do not want to repeat the bad old days of the late 1990s, with Schilling (i.e. Halladay), Rolen (i.e. Utley) and dreck.

More Aumont

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE4lGCjx7Og&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_R_EVy67Eg&feature=related[/youtube]

Look at Aumont freeze that converted pitcher! Oh yeah!

Doll Is Mine wrote:The one thing that makes me feel a little better is the fact that Gillick is probably involved in these talks and he, more than anyone, knows the Seattle farm system. I'm sure we're getting quality back.

If so, he's even better than we thought since he last worked there in 2005. I doubt there are many "prospects" left from that time. But if magical thinking makes this go down a little easier, knock yourself out.

S2D wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:this is all $#@!. i am convinced. none of it makes sense. we had questions about amaro but he isnt this dumb. there are smart people around him that would prevent something like this from happening. no team just gives one of the best pitchers in the majors away. no one.

Why do people assume this? We've had one year of Amaro being the GM, and it's been mostly good, but not without it's mistakes. A lot of people didn't like the hiring at the time, and it could still turn out that we just judged him too soon. He could easily $#@! this team up, given enough time, and it appears he has.

You don't cave to a team dangling a guy with a NTC and a strong desire to play for you. Period. You just don't. Wait them out, and be prepared to go with Lee for the season. So what if they don't end up trading him here? There's only two more years with this core of players anyway, so you're essentially only risking 2011 by being coy.

You don't look to cut costs in the rotation by subtracting your other ace. Lee, with his salary, represents possibly the greatest value in terms of available starters this winter. Get rid of $#@! Blanton. Does anyone believe that with Pinero and Marquis asking for 10+ million a season, that we couldn't send Blanton somewhere, anywhere for god sakes? He's gone at the end of the year just like Lee is.

I guess this is how Cleveland feels

I can only pray that what appears to be the deal isn't. Judging this purely as a negotiation, there is no way to spin the following as anything other than an abject failure:

I have some amount of units, lets say 10, and I would like to acquire asset Y. Asset Y's value depreciates over time. I would like to acquire asset Y while expending as few as my units as possible.

I speak with the owner of asset Y, and he wants 8 units from me for it. I think that is too high, and I tell him there is no way I will pay more than 6 units for it. He refuses. So then I find somebody else with a different asset, asset Z, which is equal to something like Y-1. The owner of asset Z will sell it to me for 5 units. I make the deal.

Then, five months later, when asset Y has depreciated some, I sell asset Z for 4 units, and then I buy asset Y for the same 8 he fuck-ing asked for in the first place.

Whatever, the generic algebra-problen bull-shit above is stupid, the point is, if they wanted Halladay that bad, they should have offered Taylor/Drabek in July. if it was too high then, it is TOO HIGH NOW when Toronto has NO LEVERAGE!!!!! It's INSANITY to offer it now.

I mean, that's a fuck-ing disaster if they do it, and it makes me re-think everything I thought I knew about Rube. No excuse for that kind of --- heh heh --- "negotiating." None.

joe table wrote:Aumont's arm action looks fine to me, quick arm and isn't dragging it through way late or anything. His lower body is weird though, he has a tiny stride for a guy of his size, and a little inconsistent with the land foot

This guy is still very, very raw. He didn't have a HS baseball team to pitch on apparently

1. He throws across his body, which is almost always not something desirable. It puts more stress on the arm because the arm is working against the natural forward motion of the body. It creates great movement, but at a cost. Maybe more importantly is his front shoulder flying open so early, which is what leads to his arm slot flattening out

2. He has a short stride, as you mentioned, which means the arm is doing a lot of the work, not the lower body.

3. Because of his low arm slot, its tough for him to stay on top of his curveball consistently, which leads to the pitch flattening out. He creates tons of sink on the fastball, but that's really it. I can't see him even developing a usable changeup from that armslot

The crappy thing is, he didnt even generate that many groundballs in 2009. 50% overall, 45% v LH, 55% v RH batters.

blech all around.

mozartpc27 wrote:I can only pray that what appears to be the deal isn't. Judging this purely as a negotiation, there is no way to spin the following as anything other than an abject failure:

I have some amount of units, lets say 10, and I would like to acquire asset Y. Asset Y's value depreciates over time. I would like to acquire asset Y while expending as few as my units as possible.

I speak with the owner of asset Y, and he wants 8 units from me for it. I think that is too high, and I tell him there is no way I will pay more than 6 units for it. He refuses. So then I find somebody else with a different asset, asset Z, which is equal to something like Y-1. The owner of asset Z will sell it to me for 5 units. I make the deal.

Then, five months later, when asset Y has depreciated some, I sell asset Z for 4 units, and then I buy asset Y for the same 8 he $#@!-ing asked for in the first place.

Whatever, the generic algebra-problen bull-$#@! above is stupid, the point is, if they wanted Halladay that bad, they should have offered Taylor/Drabek in July. They wouldn't then, and it's INSANITY to offer it now.

Good analysis if the reports end up true. I negotiate practically all day, everyday for a living...if I screwed something up this bad, I'd be out of a job. If my client forced me to act in this way, I'd tell them that they may as well keep their pants around their ankles in the future as everyone will know how easy it is to ^%$&^$ them, so may as well cut to the chase.

Ruben can't be this dumb. He just can't.

someone please be ready with the firerubenamaro.com domain.

FTN wrote:

joe table wrote:Aumont's arm action looks fine to me, quick arm and isn't dragging it through way late or anything. His lower body is weird though, he has a tiny stride for a guy of his size, and a little inconsistent with the land foot

This guy is still very, very raw. He didn't have a HS baseball team to pitch on apparently

1. He throws across his body, which is almost always not something desirable. It puts more stress on the arm because the arm is working against the natural forward motion of the body. It creates great movement, but at a cost

2. He has a short stride, as you mentioned, which means the arm is doing a lot of the work, not the lower body.

3. Because of his low arm slot, its tough for him to stay on top of his curveball consistently, which leads to the pitch flattening out. He creates tons of sink on the fastball, but that's really it. I can't see him even developing a usable changeup from that armslot

The crappy thing is, he didnt even generate that many groundballs in 2009. 50% overall, 45% v LH, 55% v RH batters.

blech all around.

1 is caused by 2 though in my view. The arm itself is not awkward....he doesn't do the Prior/Heilman long hook with a late catchup action for example. If they can work to get him a little longer/more repeatable stride and get him to finish out over his front leg more he will stop cutting himself off as much......what I am saying is that I'd be more concerned if the arm action was cutting off his delivery, vs his leg action

Obviously this guy is big time boom or bust. I am not disputing that. You have to wonder about his athleticism since it would take that to refine his lower half mechanics/balance/consistent stride, and he is a big lanky guy

This really doesn't make sense.

Let's go back 12 hours and it's clear there are two plausible scenarios and rationales in which the Phillies trade for Roy Halladay:

--to put together a super-rotation for 2010 fronted by Halladay and Cliff Lee, for which you give up a quality package of prospects

--to ensure that you have an ace beyond 2010 without having to give up prospects, for which you give up Cliff Lee

The upshot of the rumors we're hearing is that the Phils will have parted with Cliff Lee and a quality package of prospects, without making themselves particularly better for 2010 and really weakening the team further out. The only clear "win" is having Halladay at what seems like a team-friendly contract beyond 2010.

That Amaro has characterized himself as a "bird in hand" guy makes me worry that some variant of the upsetting reports is true--that the combination of his impatience and the atrociously short-sighted "$140 MILLION OR DEATH!" diktat led to a splashy but awful deal.

That the deal is pretty clearly worse than what he could have done to get Halladay five months ago, when he had much less leverage, gives me some hope that either the reports are erroneous or that the team knows something about the Mariners prospects coming back that we don't.

At any rate I'm depressed and exhausted, and I've come to hate like half of you.

mozartpc27 wrote:I can only pray that what appears to be the deal isn't. Judging this purely as a negotiation, there is no way to spin the following as anything other than an abject failure:

I have some amount of units, lets say 10, and I would like to acquire asset Y. Asset Y's value depreciates over time. I would like to acquire asset Y while expending as few as my units as possible.

I speak with the owner of asset Y, and he wants 8 units from me for it. I think that is too high, and I tell him there is no way I will pay more than 6 units for it. He refuses. So then I find somebody else with a different asset, asset Z, which is equal to something like Y-1. The owner of asset Z will sell it to me for 5 units. I make the deal.

Then, five months later, when asset Y has depreciated some, I sell asset Z for 4 units, and then I buy asset Y for the same 8 he $#@!-ing asked for in the first place.

Whatever, the generic algebra-problen bull-$#@! above is stupid, the point is, if they wanted Halladay that bad, they should have offered Taylor/Drabek in July. if it was too high then, it is TOO HIGH NOW when Toronto has NO LEVERAGE!!!!! It's INSANITY to offer it now.

I mean, that's a $#@!-ing disaster if they do it, and it makes me re-think everything I thought I knew about Rube. No excuse for that kind of --- heh heh --- "negotiating." None.

That's not negotiating. It's bending to the will of Toronto because you're too scared to let the game play out with them. They're the ones sweating. We already have an ace and we're under budget. They have an unhappy player whom they have to deal, not only to appease him, but to appease the fans in Toronto. His value becomes essentially zilch once spring training starts. The Mets were patient with the Twins and they stole Santana right before pitchers and catchers reported.

Clear winners of this trade:

1. Toronto
2. Seattle

Phillies are worse than they were before it all.

nycphils wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:I can only pray that what appears to be the deal isn't. Judging this purely as a negotiation, there is no way to spin the following as anything other than an abject failure:

I have some amount of units, lets say 10, and I would like to acquire asset Y. Asset Y's value depreciates over time. I would like to acquire asset Y while expending as few as my units as possible.

I speak with the owner of asset Y, and he wants 8 units from me for it. I think that is too high, and I tell him there is no way I will pay more than 6 units for it. He refuses. So then I find somebody else with a different asset, asset Z, which is equal to something like Y-1. The owner of asset Z will sell it to me for 5 units. I make the deal.

Then, five months later, when asset Y has depreciated some, I sell asset Z for 4 units, and then I buy asset Y for the same 8 he $#@!-ing asked for in the first place.

Whatever, the generic algebra-problen bull-$#@! above is stupid, the point is, if they wanted Halladay that bad, they should have offered Taylor/Drabek in July. They wouldn't then, and it's INSANITY to offer it now.

Good analysis if the reports end up true. I negotiate practically all day, everyday for a living...if I screwed something up this bad, I'd be out of a job. If my client forced me to act in this way, I'd tell them that they may as well keep their pants around their ankles in the future as everyone will know how easy it is to ^%$&^$ them, so may as well cut to the chase.

It's very true -- to a point. Your 10 units are depreciating, too, as is asset Z. Plus TOR was asking for Drabek, Brown (a bit better prospect than Taylor) AND Happ AND Gose in July. So you're not giving them the 8 units they asked for. You're probably giving them more like 7 and you did squeeze 1 unit out of asset Z (a/k/a Lee), so your net cost for for asset Y is more like 6, which is what you offered in the first place!

Look, I have no doubt that Rube's had several discussions around possible trade scenarios with just the Blue Jays and a three-way also including the M's. Out of this, you have pretty much all Phils and M's prospects mentioned at one time or another as well as a number of regulars (Happ, Blanton, Lee).

This stuff comes out in pieces to the so-called media insiders so they try to play GM themselves by putting the pieces back together. It's like trying to put a puzzle together without the cover of the box for reference. What we see is a mish mash from all these guys.

dsc25 outlined this in his link to TGP, but it bares repeating. Remember the famous words of Sgt. Schultz and get to bed!

kimbatiste wrote:

cshort wrote:

Liberty Bell to Toronto, CN Tower to Seattle, Space Needle and Pike Place Market to Philadelphia.

I would do this.

Don't think the Liberty Bell would pass the physical.

Over ten thousand votes (I think this is a lot) cast in the philly.com poll question, "Who would you rather have, Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee? (oh, if it were only that simple).

Roy leads by about 70 votes at this time.

I was in bed, trying to fall asleep, when this final thought occurred to me:

Maybe it's not as bad as I thought originally.

Another way to look at this is:

Toronto (Halladay) and Philadelphia (Lee) each have a pitcher whom they cannot extend. Each gets two draft picks if they hang on to him and never move him, but that's it. Neither can probably get either if they have to compete with the other 31 teams to do it.

However, Philadelphia, because of Halladay's personal affinity for them, can extend Halladay, IF they get the opportunity while he's still under contract. But it can't afford both of them, not even (grumble) for just the one year.

So, who has the advantage? Rube can make a semi-permanent asset of what he paid for Lee by paying more for Halladay right now (i.e., throwing good money after bad).

But if there is no Halladay, Rube would likely have to move Lee now if he wanted anything more than the two draft picks to show for it come tihs time next year.

Toronto, if it wants to do any better than the 2 draft picks for Halladay, also needs to move Halladay. They are basically in the same spot, playing chicken about which one will blink first.

The difference is: Toronto fans expect to be without Halladay or Lee in a year. Phillies fans expect to have at least one of them.

Because of this, looks like Rube blinked. In his defense, he'd already spent to get Lee; to make that look less bad, I can see why he'd blink on Halladay.

It's the wrong move, but I can see why he would blink. He really should be able to keep the price to Taylor OR Drabek (not both) plus D'Arnaud and somebody else (with the somebody else coming from Seattle). If Toronto gets 3 decent prospects out of this, it's doing better than what it will do if Halladay walks. However, Toronto is kind of in the "we lose no matter what happens" seat with their fans, so it's probably easier for them to say "Screw itm we'll just take the picks" like they mean it. They lose their franchsie guy either way, which means they should have an easier time bluffing.

If the Phillies had played theirs cards right, they still would have had Taylor or Drabek and Brown when this was done, but maybe it's not quite as easy as I thought it was. Amaro's balls aren't as big as we thought, though.

except there's a bunch of top tier pitchers available next year. One of them likely would have signed with us, even if Halladay didn't.

dajafi wrote:This really doesn't make sense.

Let's go back 12 hours and it's clear there are two plausible scenarios and rationales in which the Phillies trade for Roy Halladay:

--to put together a super-rotation for 2010 fronted by Halladay and Cliff Lee, for which you give up a quality package of prospects

--to ensure that you have an ace beyond 2010 without having to give up prospects, for which you give up Cliff Lee
.

Yeh, yesterday I was arguing that I wasn't sure if we should trade prospects to end up with Halladay, Lee, and Hamels because I was afraid it would destroy our depth. Today, our depth is shot to hell and we only have 2 of the 3 top pitchers. What a difference a day makes, 24 little hours.

dajafi wrote:
At any rate I'm depressed and exhausted, and I've come to hate like half of you.

zOMG, Dajafi hates me. One of our most tolerant board members has run out of patience. We are lost.

Depending on what we get back from Seattle, if all this being reported is generally true, this probably won't be a disaster, and is probably something close to neutral.

However, we're in such a unique circumstance having one of the best players in baseball wanting to play for us, and the team who controls him having much less leverage in the situation than they had last year, or so you would think. There really ought to be a way to make this work that leaves you feeling something better than hoping it's a lateral move in the short and long run.

If Amaro says or hints that the $2 mil between Blanton and Lee was a significant factor in deciding to trade one instead of the other, I'm going to be really pissed at this organization.

It's right there. So close. Grab it.