mozartpc27 wrote:

CFP wrote:Willingham or Kearns would be fine by me if Werth isn't here next year.

Ugh... these options aren't lighting my world on fire. Werth >>>>>>>>>>> than either of those guys. I'd love to get someone who could... you know... come within 85% of his production.

td11 wrote:

HillMD wrote:Our playoff rotation is just "good" in the same way that Dave Cameron has had one sexual encounter (with a woman) in his life.

what

HillMD wrote:

td11 wrote:

HillMD wrote:Our playoff rotation is just "good" in the same way that Dave Cameron has had one sexual encounter (with a woman) in his life.

what

Dave Cameron has never had a sexual encounter. Our playoff rotation is not "good"

There you go

stevemc wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

CFP wrote:Willingham or Kearns would be fine by me if Werth isn't here next year.

Ugh... these options aren't lighting my world on fire. Werth >>>>>>>>>>> than either of those guys. I'd love to get someone who could... you know... come within 85% of his production.

check Willingham's production please.

Willingham's avg > 85% of Werth
Willingham's OPS > 85% of Werth

Willingham's season was cut short by an injury but his totals over 114 games would come within 85% of Werth's.

Grotewold wrote:

stevemc wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

CFP wrote:Willingham or Kearns would be fine by me if Werth isn't here next year.

Ugh... these options aren't lighting my world on fire. Werth >>>>>>>>>>> than either of those guys. I'd love to get someone who could... you know... come within 85% of his production.

check Willingham's production please.

Willingham's avg > 85% of Werth
Willingham's OPS > 85% of Werth

Willingham's season was cut short by an injury but his totals over 114 games would come within 85% of Werth's.

Do they see Brown as a probable star-caliber player in 2011, in which case they get someone like Ross to insure against a slow start from Brown and spell Ibanez?

Or do they see Brown as a year away from Werth-like production, in which case he becomes Ibanez's replacement in 2012 and Amaro seeks a long-term outfielder this winter?

Should be interesting.

joe table wrote:And if they tender him and trade him to us, that is another salary of ~8mm with only one year of controllability

stevemc wrote:

joe table wrote:And if they tender him and trade him to us, that is another salary of ~8mm with only one year of controllability

aside from being able to afford the $8MM, what else in that scenario is bad?

mozartpc27 wrote:

Swiggers wrote:Cameron's statement falls into the same trap that Sheehan and some of the other BP folks did last year when they predicted an easy victory for the Dodgers in the NLCS.

They are looking at season-long numbers, without accounting for the fact that August-September numbers mean a lot more than April-May-June-July numbers do when trying to predict immediate future performance.

The Dodgers were a better team than the Phils in April and May of 2009, but not after that. But Sheehan and co. failed to grasp that and instead focused on the cumulative season numbers.

Something similar is going on here with Cameron.

Sheehan can get under my skin as much as anyone, but even he isn't this catastrophically stupid. Cameron is trying to do the "let me stir up a controversy by needling Phillies fans" Law/Sheehan thing, but he is so late for that particular bus that it is just a grim parody of an already pretty ridiculous pattern. Saying the Phillies aren't the favorites in the NL now is like saying that water isn't wet or the sky isn't blue in an attempt to rile other people up who try to argue with you: you can do it, but you've selected a position so absurd that most people won't even engage, assuming instead that you are one of life's unfortunate cases.

If this douche had to lay his own money down to fund a bookmaking operation, do you really think he'd make the Reds or Padres equal favorites with the Phillies? Only if he wanted to go into hiding for the rest of his life in the event of a Phillies NLCS victory.

This is not to say that the Phillies will definitely win the NL by any stretch; as we all know, anything can happen/go right/go wrong in October. But to say they aren't the favorites is just to deny plain reality. if you just want to needle people for the sake of doing so, you need to take up a position that is at least minimally plausible: that the Phillies are somehow not the favorites in the NL isn't it.

Fangraphs chat wrote:Question: Why do you seem to be one of the few (if not the only) baseball analyst/bloggers who won't recognize the Phillies as HUGE favorites in the NL playoffs?

Dave Cameron: Because they aren't? Their rotation is good, everything else is just okay.

The Eeming Tree wrote:By the way, read through Law's chat today, and he seemed to have the same notion I've had for a while: he doesn't totally buy into Amaro's "we're an old-time scouting operation and that's it" smokescreen.

WheelsFellOff wrote:The Phillies are 1-game back in the loss column for the BEST RECORD IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. That just needed to be pointed out.

Phillyfanatic wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:The Phillies are 1-game back in the loss column for the BEST RECORD IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. That just needed to be pointed out.

It would be nice to hvae the best record in all of baseball, but who cares?

Phillyfanatic wrote:The only thing that matters is best record in all of the National League, because that clinches homefield advantage through the entire playoffs.

I hope the moment they clinch best record in the National League they rest every starter they've got except for Rollins, Blanton and Kendrick and they set up Halladay, Hamels and Oswalt with maximum rest. If Halladay, Hamels and Oswalt have one more start in them then pitch them 5 innings each and use the bullpen the rest of the way. Get those guys rested and set up for the playoffs.

Napalm wrote:I think Werth said he cares. And I think he said the rest of the team cares too.