ColeforPresident wrote:Lidge on 950:
"Met Jamie Moyer in the past"

nice of lidge to clarify that he didn't meet Jamie in the future

Brad Ausmus, I think, was on 950 or 610 earlier and when asked what type of person Lidge is, he said "if either of my daughters were to ever marry a baseball player, I would like it to be someone like Brad Lidge"

GMAN wrote:If he hits .270 he steals at least 50 bases.

is that one of the rule changes?

Disco Stu wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:For a dope, Charlie's no dope

Except he said that if he had a 3rd baseman, he'd sit Burrell. That is pretty dopey (unless he was referrng to Werth, which is less dopey, but still dopey none-the-less).

Me thinks Charles was referring to the likely loss of Rowand.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:For a dope, Charlie's no dope

Except he said that if he had a 3rd baseman, he'd sit Burrell. That is pretty dopey (unless he was referrng to Werth, which is less dopey, but still dopey none-the-less).

Me thinks Charles was referring to the likely loss of Rowand.

The point is that he feels he can play Bourn if we have a good hitting 3rd baseman. Bourns defense isn't that good to play him over a better hitting player. I'd rather Victorino/Werth than Victorino/Bourn (though, I guess a platoon might not be so bad).

More hate from BP:

If this is too much, then the mods can cut it down or something. I am sure Uncle Milty would have fun doing that and letting me know about it.

Chis Karl wrote:

Nate Silver wrote:

What do they see in Bourn and Costanzo that we don't? Nate obviously misses that fact we have Victorino to start in CF, though I am not sure it matters. jeff, what's the deal with these guys?

Disco Stu wrote:More hate from BP:

If this is too much, then the mods can cut it down or something. I am sure Uncle Milty would have fun doing that and letting me know about it.

Chis Karl wrote:Acquired RHP Brad Lidge and UT-S Eric Bruntlett from the Astros for CF-L Michael Bourn, RHP Geoff Geary, and 3B-L Mike Costanzo. [11/7]


How much do you want to believe that a change of scenery will make a big difference for Lidge? I'm not buying it, not when that change of scenery is from one corporate-monikered bandbox

ohhh, take THAT, big corporations, someone...pointed you out?

Disco Stu wrote:More hate from BP:

If this is too much, then the mods can cut it down or something. I am sure Uncle Milty would have fun doing that and letting me know about it.

Chis Karl wrote:Lidge is a risk and so forth blah de blah

What do they see in Bourn and Costanzo that we don't? Nate obviously misses that fact we have Victorino to start in CF, though I am not sure it matters. jeff, what's the deal with these guys?

I find all of this quite baffling. They're saying essentially that lidge is the most risky option, and we should wait the trading market out a bit longer to see what we can get? I'll grant him that enquiring after joe nathan or the florida lad is sensible, but that doesn't count against what was done in a deal. They may well have inquired after both these options and been told that a) not considering trading for a while until the price settle or b) f**k right off away out here, ye wee bollixes.

I think the flaw in the reasoning here is comparing lidge's trade in terms of value to other possible trades when it's right at the start of the offseason. Sure at the end of the season, we may look dumb and it may seem that other people got better deals, but I doubt it. What is clear from BP's article is that there is a group of people who perceive the value of bourne and costanzo to be large. me, I don't think that's most of MLB GM's, but if it is, we have effectively set the price of trades for closers fairly high, but not unreasonably so.

I can't comment with knowledge of the value of this trade to the astros, because I'm not 100% clear on their needs. But we've traded from a position of relative strength in speedy outfielders, and gambled on costanzo's essential value not being that high. And we've got a closer who isn't 38+. So I'm happy with that.

Bleh brought up the logical fallacy of saying if we trade for Lidge, then we get myers in the starting rotation, and if the argument is structured as follows, than that is correct

a)Brett Myers is a Starter or Closer
b)Brad Lidge is a Closer
c)If we acquire Brad Lidge, than Myers is a Starter

Proposition c) doesn't necessarily follow from a) or b), and if I remember my logic correctly, than affirming c) is indeed fallacious.

But that's not the argument here. And I bring this up because bleh and the Chris Karl make the same point - we could move myers back to the starting rotation at any time. Yes, we could. But we're still left without any single pitcher or group of pitchers well suited to finish the final innings. Whether you fall on the side of closer by committee or prefer the closer as specialist argument, the Phils are without a good fit unless you consider Myers or Hamels (either one of them could have done the job of relief). So that brings us back to assessing lidge in terms of who else we could get for that role, and the value of what we paid. and one of the advantages of trading for lidge is we don't have to use one of our SPs as a closer.

We got a decent closer, paid what most think to be a reasonable price in terms of our team's prospects, and retained flexibility with cash. I know that sounds like we're damning the trade with faint praise, but it's all good. It may be by the end of this offseason that this will look like a steal, and it may be by the end of next season that it looks like we slightly overpaid (if bourn and costanzo contribute significantly to the astros). But I can't see in any indication that the Phils have significantly underestimated the value of either costanzo or bourn to us, so I think we paid far price.

Gotta say, best bit out of a decent trade is seeing how everyone values it differently. MattS and JFLNYC's stuff has in particular been interesting.

The BP guys do tremendously good, objective work with their stats. However, when it comes to analysis, they're subject to the same biases, prejudices and irrationality as the rest of us. Take a look at the Chuck LaMar thread for an example of how one-sided and/or partially informed their opinions can be. So, you've got to take their opinions with a huge grain of salt.

I like Silver, but among the things he didn't factor in:

1. This trade makes us much better in 2008

2. This trade, in effect, brings us a #2 starter as good as that of any other playoff team

3. The picks we will get if Lidge leaves have a good chance to be better than Bourn and Costanzo

4. We already have a young cheap CF.

Other than that, he made some points...

Grotewold wrote:2. This trade, in effect, brings us a #2 starter as good as that of any other playoff team

I don't know if Silver is thinking this way, but the problem with that argument is that the Phillies could have made Myers a starter without making this (or any) trade.

That there was apparently no chance of that happening doesn't make this trade better, it just makes the Phillies stupider.

phatj wrote:

Grotewold wrote:2. This trade, in effect, brings us a #2 starter as good as that of any other playoff team

I don't know if Silver is thinking this way, but the problem with that argument is that the Phillies could have made Myers a starter without making this (or any) trade.

That there was apparently no chance of that happening doesn't make this trade better, it just makes the Phillies stupider.

Then they would have had to sign a closer, most likely inferior to Lidge and much more expensive.

You're right, though -- as a fan, a realistic understanding of the Phils' stupidity is my baseline in evaluating a trade in a way it probably is not for Silver.

phatj wrote:

Grotewold wrote:2. This trade, in effect, brings us a #2 starter as good as that of any other playoff team

I don't know if Silver is thinking this way, but the problem with that argument is that the Phillies could have made Myers a starter without making this (or any) trade.

That there was apparently no chance of that happening doesn't make this trade better, it just makes the Phillies stupider.

I just don't think it was a good argument either way. Regardless of whether we need to acquire a closer because that's the only way to get myers in the rotation, or whether we're moving myers to the rotation just because that's where he's most use to us . . . We still need to acquire a closer. It's kind've a moot point.

I hate closers

philliesr98 wrote:I hate closers

As you are a phillies phan of long standing, this is not surprising.

Wizlah wrote:I just don't think it was a good argument either way. Regardless of whether we need to acquire a closer because that's the only way to get myers in the rotation, or whether we're moving myers to the rotation just because that's where he's most use to us . . . We still need to acquire a closer. It's kind've a moot point.

I don't think it's moot when evaluating the trade.

I think it's fallacious to say the trade was Bourn, Costanzo and Geary for Lidge, Bruntlett and 150 more innings of Myers. You can't include Myers, since he could (and should) have been moved back to the rotation regardless.

Bruntlett and Geary to me are basically replacement-level, so this trade is it's a major-league ready 4th OF and a so-so 3B prospect with some upside for a good but not great reliever who's only signed for one year.

I think it's an OK deal, but it's not great.

It's true, the Phillies could have signed a replacement level closer and inserted Myers back into the lineup. I remember someone on here posting the numbers for that kind of player, and it wasn't crazy bad (i think).

phatj wrote:
I think it's fallacious to say the trade was Bourn, Costanzo and Geary for Lidge, Bruntlett and 150 more innings of Myers. You can't include Myers, since he could (and should) have been moved back to the rotation regardless.

I don't think that holds. I get what you, bleh and the BP guy are saying that acquiring lidge doesn't give mean we can 'now' move myers to starter. But if we move myers to a starter role, we definitely need a closer.

Everyone (including the press) has worked on the assumption that we 'needed ' a closer in order to move myers. But what if the working plan for the phils always was Brett needs to start? Then we've just done the sensible thing and filled a need for closer. In arguing the point about 'lidge means 150 innings of myers' all we're really doing is arguing about the intentions/chain of reasoning behind the deal. And just for once, I'm going to give gillick the benefit of the doubt on this. His pronouncements after the deal about comparing myers to other people on the market makes it sound to me that they recognised myers had greater value as a starter.

Wizlah wrote: But if we move myers to a starter role, we definitely need a closer.

Yeah, but we don't necessarily need a Closer-with-a-capital-C. So compare the haul here to what we would have it we hadn't made the trade but instead had simply plugged Mathieson into the closer role.

phatj wrote:

Wizlah wrote: But if we move myers to a starter role, we definitely need a closer.

Yeah, but we don't necessarily need a Closer-with-a-capital-C. So compare the haul here to what we would have it we hadn't made the trade but instead had simply plugged Mathieson into the closer role.

Is it not wholly possible that Mathieson can become the closer this spring?

Harry Monroe wrote:

phatj wrote:

Wizlah wrote: But if we move myers to a starter role, we definitely need a closer.

Yeah, but we don't necessarily need a Closer-with-a-capital-C. So compare the haul here to what we would have it we hadn't made the trade but instead had simply plugged Mathieson into the closer role.

Is it not wholly possible that Mathieson can become the closer this spring?

I can't see it happening without Lidge getting hurt.