Houshphandzadeh wrote:People are pining for the 90s now!

We have truly arrived as POS jerk off fans

Come on, Housh. All I see anyone saying, at least what I was saying, is that there's not much to watch right now. We have Cliff Lee every 5th day, but the other players are dull to watch. The one exception is probably Utley. I would never go and boo these guys because I appreciate what they've done so much, but I don't see why we can't have an honest discussion about the merits of watching a team that doesn't get on base, doesn't hit for power, plays bad defense, doesn't steal bases, and pitches like crap. I'm not pining for the 90's, I'm pointing out that this team is not enjoyable to watch, by nearly any standard, and that's not something I could say even in the 90's. In fact, the reason I'm using the 90's as a comparison is to show how bad this team looks right now.

It would be easy to go ahead and say "oh yeah Nate Schierholtz who gives a shit" but there was really absolutely zero reason to not tender him a contact. You would have thought at the very least Amaro would have for the sole reason that he could have someone on the roster from the Pence trade.

dajafi wrote:IMO Manuel is the greatest manager in Phillies history and it's not even close. But I'm starting to think we've reached a point where, for this team at this time, his flaws outweigh his strengths.

They don't play sharp baseball. Almost every night, there's a baserunning mistake, or an error, or a failure to execute. The sabermetric orthodoxy is to denigrate "the little things," but if you don't have the saber basics--guys who get on base, mash dingers or both, and pitchers who strike out a crap ton of guys without issuing walks--you'd fucking better do those little things to have any chance of winning. And you'd better get the little decisions right--like leaving in Bastardo to face the lefty leading off the 8th, and to hell with roles.

When the Phils won five straight division titles, they had enough raw talent to overcome their occasional mistakes. They also made less of them, probably (and ironically) because there wasn't so much pressure with every at-bat. This was Manuel's sweet spot as a manager who let his players play, gave clarity and confidence around roles, and was strategically predictable in a way more good than bad. (We won't talk about Brad Lidge in 2009.)

But that team's gone and I'm not sure this manager is right for this team. If we had a detail-oriented nut like Buck Showalter, I have little doubt the Phils would have at least 3-4 wins than they do.

With the right group of guys, I think you're right, but I'm not sure that's the case with this group. Outside of the core and 3B Young, most of these guys have never really played that well for anyone. They just aren't very good. The core and Young are just past their prime. It's not their fault, it happens with all players eventually. The problem is that we haven't filled in with young productive players over the years. We patched with older vet types and traded what youth we had. The way to sustain a situation like this is to hold onto your best prospects and trade some of your older guys while they still have value for some other younger pieces. With some luck, you hit on enough guys to keep the train going. It's hard to do it successfully, but it's also hard to turn that much talent in the core and minors, along with all that money, into the mess we currently have. Amaro has really done the unlikely given the team and resources he had at his disposal.

CFP wrote:It would be easy to go ahead and say "oh yeah Nate Schierholtz who gives a shit" but there was really absolutely zero reason to not tender him a contact. You would have thought at the very least Amaro would have for the sole reason that he could have someone on the roster from the Pence trade.

I always assumed, with no evidence really, that there was some kind of clubhouse issue. Why else would he be let go like that?

We have a GM who doesn't care about walks and you're assuming Schierholtz' non-tender was rational?

He thought he was an everyday player and had no problem telling people he was. He's a guy that complains if he isn't getting what in his mind he thinks is enough ab's. It turns out that it looks like he was right.

Monkeyboy wrote:With the right group of guys, I think you're right, but I'm not sure that's the case with this group. Outside of the core and 3B Young, most of these guys have never really played that well for anyone. They just aren't very good. The core and Young are just past their prime. It's not their fault, it happens with all players eventually. The problem is that we haven't filled in with young productive players over the years. We patched with older vet types and traded what youth we had. The way to sustain a situation like this is to hold onto your best prospects and trade some of your older guys while they still have value for some other younger pieces. With some luck, you hit on enough guys to keep the train going. It's hard to do it successfully, but it's also hard to turn that much talent in the core and minors, along with all that money, into the mess we currently have. Amaro has really done the unlikely given the team and resources he had at his disposal.

Ugh. Are we really going to do this again?

He turned the talent and the money into Lee, Halladay, Oswalt and arguably the two best teams in Phillies history. They lost the 2009 World Series in six games, then entered the 2010 and 2011 postseasons as the favorites to win it all, and got bumped in short series by insanely hot teams that did wind up winning it all. You presumably grasp that the strongest team doesn't always win in the playoffs. Yet if they'd won a few more short series, you'd probably not think Amaro is this cretinous moron incapable of feeding and dressing himself. It's ironic.

Which of the traded prospects would be filling a current need? When exactly was he supposed to "trade some of the older guys for some other younger pieces"? Whom should he have traded? Rollins, coming off bad years in 2009 or 2010? Utley, with his knees? Those deals don't work out too often; the one time he tried such a trade sent Cliff Lee to Seattle, which didn't work out real well.

I actually hate defending Amaro. I think he's a pretty mediocre GM, probably for the same reasons you think he's history's greatest monster: the failure to demonstrate much understanding of how to construct an offense, underinvestment in draft bonuses and international signings when it really could have made a difference (pre-new CBA), overemphasis on intangibles, and excessive generosity in free agent years, dollars or both. Plus he's an obnoxious, self-satisfied prick. But this guy also acquired Mayberry for Greg Golson, got Cliff Lee in an absolute plunder of a deal in 2009, added Pedro Martinez for that stretch run, found free talent in the likes of Frandsen and Pierre, saw something in Kyle Kendrick that the rest of us geniuses missed, and got Michael Young in what looks like a really good deal.

The core got old. It happens to them all. I don't want Amaro to remain the GM because I think his strengths, such as they are, don't match with the rebuild effort the Phillies need now. But I also don't think there's a single GM who would have done things very differently, at least enough to overcome the aging of the core.

Good post. I thought he also did very well to buy out FA years of Madson and Werth. Really the Howard deal and the Pentz trade loom large as the main bad moves, as well as the return on Lee to Seattle (though who knows what we would have got from Yankees, and he obviously didn't want to go there)

Can't even really get on him for this offseason's moves. He picked up scrubs we don't like, but they were cheap and short term

That being said I could easily see him doing more dumb stuff in the future

One too many years for Moyer, Ibanez, Polanco and Blanton didn't help.

Dajafi, very strong post.

I mentioned my biggest issues with Amaro in the first thread, and will echo them here. He is extremely reactive, makes a lot of unnecessary gambles, and often fails to have a long term vision. The Pence trade is by far the biggest failure, but the unnecessary years and dollars are also pretty egregious. We can all beat the Howard contract to death, as we can with the Ibanez, Polanco, etc. being too long. A great GM knows when to say goodbye, knows when the market is flush, and knows when the market is inefficient. Power and pitching are the two most expensive tools, and the two most volatile, yet Amaro hitched his wagon to them.

No GM bats 1000; even Friedman, Beane, etc. make enormous blunders. The question is, is Ruben patient enough and clever enough to rebuild an organization? I think not.

I wish the White Sox were a better team and competitng this year. We probably could have dumped Howard on them for Dunn, who while having another atrocious year, is at least a free agent after 2014.

What often gets forgotten with Rube's fetish for "cost certainty" is the opportunity costs. It's frustrating enough to have to watch Moyer or Ibanez or Polanco in the final year of their respective contracts, but the cost in other moves that can't be made can be significant.

If Ibanez doesn't have a third year, maybe Rube gets Beltran at the deadline in 2011. The inability to unload Blanton's contract probably led to trading Cliff Lee. There are the small deals, too. The extra years for Baez and Gload probably cost us nothing but money. But did we really need to give Nix a second year? Because if we hadn't, we probably would have kept Schierholtz.

I argued before the 2012 season that signing Rollins to what amounts to a 4-year deal was a mistake; that the monies could have been allocated elsewhere. To be sure, Rollins had a good year last year and Galvis probably wasn't ready. But the season went south anyway. I took an enormous amount of heat about it at the time, but I still wish Rube had allocated the money he spent on Rollins to signing Michael Cuddyer. I'd be much happier with getting maximum value from Galvis at SS right now during his pre-arb years. And having Cuddyer and his RH power bat in RF (even with his significant home/away splits) would look a whole lot better than the shit we've been running out there. There have been very few opportunities for the Phils to promote from within and reallocate funds from veterans. Galvis was one of those few opportunities. And, although it would have been a year too soon, I believe in the old maxim that it's better to get rid of a player a year too soon than a year too late.

The fact is that from 2009 until this past off-season, Rube spent money like a drunken sailor. And by committing to deals too long and too rich for non-elite players (Ibanez, Moyer, Polanco, Blanton, etc.) he cost the team both the chance to get (or, in the case of Lee, to retain) other players who might have gotten us over the hump in 2010 and/or 2011 and, at least in the case of keeping Rollins and not giving Galvis his chance, the opportunity to reallocate funds for more pressing needs.

As much as others hate defending Rube, I hate running him down. But let's not pretend it's only been one bad contract (Howard) and one bad trade (Pence). I give him all the credit in the world for the original Lee trade, the Oswalt trade, getting and extending Halladay, etc. But there have been a series of smaller miscalculations and misallocation of resources which hurt the team in both the short and long terms.

usctrojans31 wrote:I wish the White Sox were a better team and competitng this year. We probably could have dumped Howard on them for Dunn, who while having another atrocious year, is at least a free agent after 2014.

The Adam Dunn who currently isn't even opsing over .600? Who is making the mendoza line look good?

dajafi wrote:[
Ugh. Are we really going to do this again?

He turned the talent and the money into Lee, Halladay, Oswalt and arguably the two best teams in Phillies history. They lost the 2009 World Series in six games, then entered the 2010 and 2011 postseasons as the favorites to win it all, and got bumped in short series by insanely hot teams that did wind up winning it all. You presumably grasp that the strongest team doesn't always win in the playoffs. Yet if they'd won a few more short series, you'd probably not think Amaro is this cretinous moron incapable of feeding and dressing himself. It's ironic.

No, I would have but thanks for telling me what I would do. Your arrogance is, shall we say, breathtaking. I also like how you've ignored me saying in several instances how Amaro isn't a bad GM when it comes to most things, but that he has a blind spot when it comes to offensive production. I guess it's easier to act like a non-mod and insult someone if you make up their position and tell them what they think. I do grasp that the best team doesn't always win the playoffs which is why I said all along (go ahead and check) that it makes no sense to send the farm for an aging pitcher (oswalt in this case) that will only give you a very marginally greater chance of winning because of the luck involved in winning. Do you grasp that?

dajafi wrote:Which of the traded prospects would be filling a current need? When exactly was he supposed to "trade some of the older guys for some other younger pieces"? Whom should he have traded? Rollins, coming off bad years in 2009 or 2010? Utley, with his knees? Those deals don't work out too often; the one time he tried such a trade sent Cliff Lee to Seattle, which didn't work out real well.
.

You do realize that just because the prospects sent other places wouldn't fill current needs doesn't mean they didn't have value, don't you? It's really kinda crazy to say the guys we sent to the astros for Oswalt or pence don't matter because they don't fill positions of need. If they had value, and the trades prove that they did, then maybe they could have been spent elsewhere for other players. The logic you guys have with this surprises me a lot. Isn't it possible that these prospects where spent on the wrong players? I think they were. As for the rest of it, I was just suggesting a rather common sense way to stay good and that he did the polar opposite. Of course there would be difficulties doing it and there would be a chance it didn't work out, which is exactly what I said when I said it would take some luck. It might help if you actually read what I wrote rather than stereotyping my post and responding to that stereotype.

dajafi wrote:
I actually hate defending Amaro. I think he's a pretty mediocre GM, probably for the same reasons you think he's history's greatest monster: the failure to demonstrate much understanding of how to construct an offense, underinvestment in draft bonuses and international signings when it really could have made a difference (pre-new CBA), overemphasis on intangibles, and excessive generosity in free agent years, dollars or both. Plus he's an obnoxious, self-satisfied prick. But this guy also acquired Mayberry for Greg Golson, got Cliff Lee in an absolute plunder of a deal in 2009, added Pedro Martinez for that stretch run, found free talent in the likes of Frandsen and Pierre, saw something in Kyle Kendrick that the rest of us geniuses missed, and got Michael Young in what looks like a really good deal.

The core got old. It happens to them all. I don't want Amaro to remain the GM because I think his strengths, such as they are, don't match with the rebuild effort the Phillies need now. But I also don't think there's a single GM who would have done things very differently, at least enough to overcome the aging of the core.

Yes, I think he's history's greatest monster. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Of course he made some good moves. I have always agreed to that and this is just another case of some stupid strawman you've built, I assume so you can feel like you won some imaginary argument or something. But the fact of the matter is he took the best team in baseball when you consider the quality of the big club, finances, and minor leagues and he got rid of those resources in a way where we have little at the end. If you want to say he did a decent job, then fine, but I disagree and disagreeing with that doesn't make me an idiot. And it isn't because we didn't win again, it's because I honestly have disagreed with his moves much of the time, but particularly as Gillick's team has left and this has become more and more amaro's team.

And I disagree that no other GM would have done things much differently. I think nearly all GMs would have kept that core together and gone after a big pitcher or two if they had the chance, but I seriously doubt most GMs would have assembled this collection of turds on the margins. The fact that a few turds ended up having decent years by chance (Pierre, I'm looking at you) is besides the point. Quick, can you name another GM in any sport who inherited a team of this caliber in its prime, had the minors stocked like we did, and enjoyed the increase in payroll that he's enjoyed who ended up with a worse product 4 years later? I can't... and that bothers me.

btw, dajafi, if you decide to reply, I would appreciate it if you left out the personal insults. After all, you are a mod and should act like one.

This thread blows more than the Phillies.

Monkeyboy wrote:btw, dajafi, if you decide to reply, I would appreciate it if you left out the personal insults. After all, you are a mod and should act like one.

Are you talking about your post or mine? Where did I insult you? The "history's greatest monster" is a joke--a Simpsons reference, actually, used to describe Jimmy Carter. I also agreed with about half of what you're saying, and said as much.

You changed your points between the post I shredded and the deeply aggrieved response above. "Filling a current need" does not automatically mean "value." Yes, it's possible that the guys traded for Pence instead might have been dealt for Justin Upton or Giancarlo Stanton, and in your unquestioned baseball wisdom I'm sure you would have had the foresight to make/not make those moves, and of course Upton would rake for the Phillies in this scenario, Stanton would be healthy, etc.

Nor did I assert that those players "didn't matter." What I was saying is that he cashed assets available to try to maximize the odds of winning in a season. Without Oswalt, the 2010 team probably doesn't make the playoffs--they were barely above .500 at the time of the trade (and I disliked the trade at the time for that reason). The Pence deal was unwise, but I thought that was for 2012 as well as for the playoffs in 2011. And based on how Pence hit with Utley and Howard in the lineup after the trade, it might have worked out well last year.

I'm not insulting you (though I'll admit I'm very sorely tempted, particularly after your calling me arrogant and stupid). I do think you are exceptionally thin-skinned, as you show in thread after thread and in dispute with poster after poster.

Trent Steele wrote:This thread blows more than the Phillies.

ENDORSED

FWIW Polanco produced 6.8 WAR for 18mm. If we're viewing that deal as a mistake, very few FA deals are gonna be winners. And yes, he sucked last year

Ibanez we've talked to death, we weren't getting him for 2 years, on the whole the contract was "meh" (big win 09, big loss 11)

Blanton was another decent deal. Got about 4 WAR for 22mm. Not good, not terrible, and biggest problem was that he got hurt

Moyer deal didn't stop us from doing anything else we wanted to. But that's the one where I really agree that the extra year was unnecessary

For those unproductive extra years, he also got 2011 out of Madson for 4.5mm and 2010 out of Werth for 7mm. Also got a dirt cheap extra FA year on Chooch's deal

He's not a very good GM but we're going full on goth pile on mode just cause the current team does really suck

Where would we be right now with Cuddyer instead of Rollins? Rollins can still play and he'll also have trade value if we want to go that route

Even the best teams have Polanco/Ibanez type deals.

I think it was usctrojans31 who recently said he thinks the Cardinals are the best run organization in MLB. I think so too. But if you look at their 2011 world champion team, you'll see they employed Ryan Franklin, for $3.25 million, and he put up -1.6 WAR before getting released. Jake Westbrook wasn't as bad at -0.2 WAR, but he also cost $8 million and they acquired him, the previous season, for Ryan Ludwick, whom they could have continued to use. After that season, they signed Rafael Furcal for two years at $13 million. He was decent last year, worth about what they paid, but is going to miss most or all of this year. With his injury history and going into his age 34 season, it wasn't a huge shock.

To be clear, I think Mozeliak is a great GM and I'd consider parting with a toe to have him running the Phillies. He does a ton of things vastly better than Amaro--filling out bullpens, keeping the minors stocked--and at something like two-thirds the payroll. But none of these guys are right every single time.