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.

granted, when I thought about the trade and our lack of options, I didn't think of mathieson. Personally, I want mathieson in the bullpen next year, but even if you put him straight into the closer role, what happens when he really screws up? More gordon? I prefer acquiring lidge and having mathieson as backup.

Wizlah 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.

granted, when I thought about the trade and our lack of options, I didn't think of mathieson. Personally, I want mathieson in the bullpen next year, but even if you put him straight into the closer role, what happens when he really screws up? More gordon? I prefer acquiring lidge and having mathieson as backup.

That's fine. But my point is just that you should remove Myers from consideration entirely when evaluating this trade.

When gauging giving up prospects for Lidge vs. annointing Scott Mathieson the closer who is coming off back to back injuries one of which is Tommy John surgery with very limited MLB experience to begin with - I'll take the Lidge deal.

stevemc wrote:When gauging giving up prospects for Lidge vs. annointing Scott Mathieson the closer who is coming off back to back injuries one of which is Tommy John surgery with very limited MLB experience to begin with - I'll take the Lidge deal.

I agree.

phatj wrote:That's fine. But my point is just that you should remove Myers from consideration entirely when evaluating this trade.

I think we both agree on this point - saying that 'acquiring lidge gives you 150 IP of myers' is a dumb thing to say.

P.S. sorry folks, I added a whole extra page there by being pointlessly pedantic. It's all bleh's fault. He said it was a logical fallacy and that made me want to see whether it was or wasn't. I was compelled.

Necessitated, even.

It's easy--and I know because I've done it--to say that we don't need a closer, or that we don't need a "name" closer. But I think it's more difficult to say that when the team is on the cusp of title contention. It's another one of those things we can't quantify, but it seems like the notion of an unreliable closer just haunts the manager, the coaches, probably the rest of the pitching staff. Blame it, like so much else, on Mesa.

So while I understand Silver's point, and I agree with it in theory, we all know that the only way Myers was going back to the rotation was if he was replaced by someone with a track record of success in the role. It's irrational, but it's true. Also probably worth considering is that Myers himself really wanted to keep closing, and is more likely to accept giving up the job to a guy like Lidge than to, say, Mathieson.

dajafi wrote:It's easy--and I know because I've done it--to say that we don't need a closer, or that we don't need a "name" closer. But I think it's more difficult to say that when the team is on the cusp of title contention. It's another one of those things we can't quantify, but it seems like the notion of an unreliable closer just haunts the manager, the coaches, probably the rest of the pitching staff. Blame it, like so much else, on Mesa.

So while I understand Silver's point, and I agree with it in theory, we all know that the only way Myers was going back to the rotation was if he was replaced by someone with a track record of success in the role. It's irrational, but it's true. Also probably worth considering is that Myers himself really wanted to keep closing, and is more likely to accept giving up the job to a guy like Lidge than to, say, Mathieson.

I find it hard to believe that the team couldn't get Myers on board with the idea that it's in the best interest of the team and probably Myers himself for him to be a starter, regardless of who the closer is.

phatj wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's easy--and I know because I've done it--to say that we don't need a closer, or that we don't need a "name" closer. But I think it's more difficult to say that when the team is on the cusp of title contention. It's another one of those things we can't quantify, but it seems like the notion of an unreliable closer just haunts the manager, the coaches, probably the rest of the pitching staff. Blame it, like so much else, on Mesa.

So while I understand Silver's point, and I agree with it in theory, we all know that the only way Myers was going back to the rotation was if he was replaced by someone with a track record of success in the role. It's irrational, but it's true. Also probably worth considering is that Myers himself really wanted to keep closing, and is more likely to accept giving up the job to a guy like Lidge than to, say, Mathieson.

I find it hard to believe that the team couldn't get Myers on board with the idea that it's in the best interest of the team and probably Myers himself for him to be a starter, regardless of who the closer is.

You've got a much higher opinion of Myers' maturity level than I do.

dajafi wrote:

phatj wrote:

dajafi wrote:It's easy--and I know because I've done it--to say that we don't need a closer, or that we don't need a "name" closer. But I think it's more difficult to say that when the team is on the cusp of title contention. It's another one of those things we can't quantify, but it seems like the notion of an unreliable closer just haunts the manager, the coaches, probably the rest of the pitching staff. Blame it, like so much else, on Mesa.

So while I understand Silver's point, and I agree with it in theory, we all know that the only way Myers was going back to the rotation was if he was replaced by someone with a track record of success in the role. It's irrational, but it's true. Also probably worth considering is that Myers himself really wanted to keep closing, and is more likely to accept giving up the job to a guy like Lidge than to, say, Mathieson.

I find it hard to believe that the team couldn't get Myers on board with the idea that it's in the best interest of the team and probably Myers himself for him to be a starter, regardless of who the closer is.

You've got a much higher opinion of Myers' maturity level than I do.

He doesn't have to be mature to understand that starters make more money on average than closers.

Disco Stu wrote:

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).

I know. Why be acceptive to a drop in offensive production at one position if you have better production at another when it's better to just improve that other position. But I think Charlie may have tipped the hat, indicating that the Phils (or at least Charlie) are resigned to the "Rowand won't be back" train of thought.

phatj wrote:He doesn't have to be mature to understand that starters make more money on average than closers.

Do they? Virtually any closer who who signs as a free agent makes good money. Conversely, there's always some starting pitchers who end up signing more affordable deals (these aren't the name free agents, mind you, but there's no guarentee that Myers is going to be a name starting pitcher when he becomes a free agent).

I wouldn't disagree that a starter has more upside earning potential (i.e. in terms of the highest number per year they could make) but I think their is more downside potential too. Some dude who racks up a bunch of saves a few seasons in a row is almost certain to get a good paycheck as a free agent regardless of his actual performance.

Depending on how risk adverse Myers is, I could see the desire to stay a closer from a financial standpoint. Plus, he gets music when he comes out of the pen too.

On DNL last night Conlin tried to make the case that Lidge and Myers should stay in the bullpen. I thought at the time that maybe he had taken too many Lipitors, especially after he also wondered what the Phillies were going to do with Jon Lieber in 2008 (like that would be a good sub for Myers anyway) Anyhoo...he was at it again in todays DN.
here

Warszawa wrote:On DNL last night Conlin tried to make the case that Lidge and Myers should stay in the bullpen. I thought at the time that maybe he had taken too many Lipitors, especially after he also wondered what the Phillies were going to do with Jon Lieber in 2008 (like that would be a good sub for Myers anyway) Anyhoo...he was at it again in todays DN.
here

This was the first really, really awful, my-god-he's-lost-it piece ol' 1Chair has written in awhile, so maybe the Lipitor explanation is actually valid.

Still, it would have been nice if he'd offered a thought or two about what to do with the rotation in the absence of Myers or another valid #2-type starter.

SideshowBob wrote:

phatj wrote:He doesn't have to be mature to understand that starters make more money on average than closers.

Do they? Virtually any closer who who signs as a free agent makes good money. Conversely, there's always some starting pitchers who end up signing more affordable deals (these aren't the name free agents, mind you, but there's no guarentee that Myers is going to be a name starting pitcher when he becomes a free agent).

I wouldn't disagree that a starter has more upside earning potential (i.e. in terms of the highest number per year they could make) but I think their is more downside potential too. Some dude who racks up a bunch of saves a few seasons in a row is almost certain to get a good paycheck as a free agent regardless of his actual performance.

Depending on how risk adverse Myers is, I could see the desire to stay a closer from a financial standpoint. Plus, he gets music when he comes out of the pen too.

I guess this is a question that would be worth studying further, but I lack the inclination to do so.

Changing the subject slightly, I might also point out to Myers the injury he sustained shortly after moving into the pen, and suggest that it indicated his arm might hold up better as a starter.

Warszawa wrote:On DNL last night Conlin tried to make the case that Lidge and Myers should stay in the bullpen. I thought at the time that maybe he had taken too many Lipitors, especially after he also wondered what the Phillies were going to do with Jon Lieber in 2008 (like that would be a good sub for Myers anyway) Anyhoo...he was at it again in todays DN.
here

Since when do 21 of 24 saves and 1.3 insignificant playoff innings, not to mention Myers' relative struggles in non-save situations and back-to-back appearances, equate to "great success"?

Grotewold wrote:

Warszawa wrote:On DNL last night Conlin tried to make the case that Lidge and Myers should stay in the bullpen. I thought at the time that maybe he had taken too many Lipitors, especially after he also wondered what the Phillies were going to do with Jon Lieber in 2008 (like that would be a good sub for Myers anyway) Anyhoo...he was at it again in todays DN.
here

Since when do 21 of 24 saves and 1.3 insignificant playoff innings, not to mention Myers' relative struggles in non-save situations and back-to-back appearances, equate to "great success"?

Don't see how you can belittle Myers for converting 21 of 24 saves when that record does indeed look great next to Lidge's 19 or 27. And Myers is new to the role, likely to improve, and not currently limping. Still, he has more value as a starter.

allentown wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

Warszawa wrote:On DNL last night Conlin tried to make the case that Lidge and Myers should stay in the bullpen. I thought at the time that maybe he had taken too many Lipitors, especially after he also wondered what the Phillies were going to do with Jon Lieber in 2008 (like that would be a good sub for Myers anyway) Anyhoo...he was at it again in todays DN.
here

Since when do 21 of 24 saves and 1.3 insignificant playoff innings, not to mention Myers' relative struggles in non-save situations and back-to-back appearances, equate to "great success"?

Don't see how you can belittle Myers for converting 21 of 24 saves when that record does indeed look great next to Lidge's 19 or 27. And Myers is new to the role, likely to improve, and not currently limping. Still, he has more value as a starter.

I'm saying Conlin didn't make a case for Myers' previous "great success"

What was Myers' bullpen ERA

edit: found it - 2.98

An interesting little fact to consider: The Phillies have now acquired Billy Wagner and Lidge from the Astros almost two years apart to the day (Wagner came over on Nov. 3, 2005, Lidge on Nov. 7, 2007). If, on Nov. 11, 2009, the Phillies trade for Chad Qualls, I won't be at all surprised.

I saw this on ESPN.com

Thought it was interesting. Now imagine if the Phills had hired Gerry Hunsicker instead of Gillick, that would be WEIRD!

Bill McNeal wrote:

An interesting little fact to consider: The Phillies have now acquired Billy Wagner and Lidge from the Astros almost two years apart to the day (Wagner came over on Nov. 3, 2005, Lidge on Nov. 7, 2007). If, on Nov. 11, 2009, the Phillies trade for Chad Qualls, I won't be at all surprised.

I saw this on ESPN.com

Thought it was interesting. Now imagine if the Phills had hired Gerry Hunsicker instead of Gillick, that would be WEIRD!

Well, except that the Wagner trade was 2003. If we get Qualls in 2011 I'd be pretty surprised.