The Dude wrote:that's basically a trade to do a team a favor. there's no point in it, and the salary doesn't mean anything this year

He was the #20 ranked prospect in the Yankees system in May, Yankees have a better system than Phillies, not sure adding a top 20 prospect to our system is nothing.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Ask the Nats.

What does that mean? Did they give two starters or their "overpaid" closer away for nothing?

If you're talking about several years ago, that's apples and oranges. A mostly empty stadium and terrible fanbase vs. our situation a year out from a new TV deal

It was a glib statement to be sure, but there's little value in being mediocre in the current MLB environment. Sacrificing a handful of wins by moving players who aren't in your long-term plans might provide actual long-term benefits to the team in the form of protected draft picks and a larger signing pool.

It's not as if the fans are watching this crap team in record numbers anyway. So yeah, I disagree that it's not a realistic notion for a GM to consider.

How far down that road do you want to go? Embellish the Brown and Lee injuries? Phantom hammy injury to Hamels? No beer sales after the 2nd inning?

"Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!"

It's true, your honor. This man has no dick.

choco wrote:So $6.2 million for the entire season, or $3.1 million for the rest of this season.

Not even -- we're well past the halfway mark

Grotewold wrote:
That said, was it realistic to expect to get next to nothing from Howard for two full seasons? Or worse than nothing from Roy Hallday for two full seasons? An extremely flukey/weird 2012 from Lee and 2013 from Hamels? Absolutely nothing positive from the bullpen (other than Papelbon) two consecutive years? Perhaps the dramatic dropoff from Ruiz this year should have been foreseen --

for me the answer the the howard question is yes.
the collective answer to lee/halladay/hamels is that it was probably about 50/50 that one of the first two would lose significant time to injury in 2012-13 and also about 50/50 that one of the aces would have an unlucky season in either 2012 or 2013. unfortunately, they hit the trifecta.
i'm guilty of believing that papelbon and the rest of the pen would be better than they have been. however, i and rube should have known better. high-profile closer/setup fa's over 30 not named rivera are a bad gamble, as are young relievers who have been relievers most of their minor league career. i'm kicking myself for having forgotten those rules.

though selling high might have been wise with ruiz, his total implosion was the least predictable of these problems, unless one knew about the adderal thing beforehand.

On a much happier note, Topps is putting out wall-sized reproductions of classic baseball cards. So far, Schmidty is the only Phillies available, but I'm sure that we can get a Steve Jeltz print someday soon.

http://www.topps.com/team/mlb/national-league/philadelphia-phillies/wall-art.html

phorever wrote:

Grotewold wrote:
That said, was it realistic to expect to get next to nothing from Howard for two full seasons? Or worse than nothing from Roy Hallday for two full seasons? An extremely flukey/weird 2012 from Lee and 2013 from Hamels? Absolutely nothing positive from the bullpen (other than Papelbon) two consecutive years? Perhaps the dramatic dropoff from Ruiz this year should have been foreseen --

for me the answer the the howard question is yes.
the collective answer to lee/halladay/hamels is that it was probably about 50/50 that one of the first two would lose significant time to injury in 2012-13 and also about 50/50 that one of the aces would have an unlucky season in either 2012 or 2013. unfortunately, they hit the trifecta.
i'm guilty of believing that papelbon and the rest of the pen would be better than they have been. however, i and rube should have known better. high-profile closer/setup fa's over 30 not named rivera are a bad gamble, as are young relievers who have been relievers most of their minor league career. i'm kicking myself for having forgotten those rules.

though selling high might have been wise with ruiz, his total implosion was the least predictable of these problems, unless one knew about the adderal thing beforehand.

Don't kick yourself too hard about Papelbon -- he was excellent last year and almost all of his numbers are a tick better this year. I understand the velocity/injury concerns, but nothing bad has materialized. Most of those blow saves were flukey as hell.

As for Howard, you expected both of the first two years of the deal to be lost seasons?

Grotewold wrote:

choco wrote:So $6.2 million for the entire season, or $3.1 million for the rest of this season.

Not even -- we're well past the halfway mark

Good point. So just 2 million bucks.

The money isn't even a factor at this point. You might save it off your payroll, but you're going to pay for it on the back end.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:Rube did say something interesting yesterday, apparently at the counter at Mack's Pizza.

He said the waiver trades could yield better returns than could be had now, because by the mid/end of august there are fewer real contenders remaining and those who remain may be willing to pay more. (I'm paraphrasing of course; I couldn't transcribe and eat an extra cheese slice at the same time).

Discuss.

Although I agree with the idea of not accepting a pile of shit simply because of the 7/31 deadline, Rube is actually saying that when you have:

--Fewer buyers
--More sellers
--Fewer games remaining
--No potential other buyers to drive up the price due to the waiver process

That you might get a better return? Stanford degrees just ain't worth what they used to be, I guess.

Also a team with no interest could just claim him to block him.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:Rube did say something interesting yesterday, apparently at the counter at Mack's Pizza.

He said the waiver trades could yield better returns than could be had now, because by the mid/end of august there are fewer real contenders remaining and those who remain may be willing to pay more. (I'm paraphrasing of course; I couldn't transcribe and eat an extra cheese slice at the same time).

Discuss.

Although I agree with the idea of not accepting a pile of #$!&@ simply because of the 7/31 deadline, Rube is actually saying that when you have:

--Fewer buyers
--More sellers
--Fewer games remaining
--No potential other buyers to drive up the price due to the waiver process

That you might get a better return? Stanford degrees just ain't worth what they used to be, I guess.

Yup. Had the same puzzled reaction to Rube's inverted supply-demand theory. That said, there could be an argument that returns are better in waiver deals because while more teams are looking to sell, supply is actually less because the supply is based only on the people who get through waivers.

Wheels Tupay wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:Rube did say something interesting yesterday, apparently at the counter at Mack's Pizza.

He said the waiver trades could yield better returns than could be had now, because by the mid/end of august there are fewer real contenders remaining and those who remain may be willing to pay more. (I'm paraphrasing of course; I couldn't transcribe and eat an extra cheese slice at the same time).

Discuss.

Although I agree with the idea of not accepting a pile of #$!&@ simply because of the 7/31 deadline, Rube is actually saying that when you have:

--Fewer buyers
--More sellers
--Fewer games remaining
--No potential other buyers to drive up the price due to the waiver process

That you might get a better return? Stanford degrees just ain't worth what they used to be, I guess.

Also a team with no interest could just claim him to block him.

Yup, especially a team such as the Rays, where he'd have no interesting in going but they'd want to keep Boston from claiming him. Or Cleveland, who's competing against Texas and Tampa/Boston/Baltimore for one of the wild card spots.

Oh and I also forgot that the Phils are already limited to AL buyers due to his shitty defense. What a fucking idiotic statement from Rube.

ethan martin starting vs the braves tomorrow night. well.

A spot start? WTF is the point of just giving him a spot start? Especially against the best power hitting team in the majors?

My guess is that this won't end well.

jeez man

1 wrote:ethan martin starting vs the braves tomorrow night. well.

well i'll definitely be watching

kimbatiste wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:Rube did say something interesting yesterday, apparently at the counter at Mack's Pizza.

He said the waiver trades could yield better returns than could be had now, because by the mid/end of august there are fewer real contenders remaining and those who remain may be willing to pay more. (I'm paraphrasing of course; I couldn't transcribe and eat an extra cheese slice at the same time).

Discuss.

Although I agree with the idea of not accepting a pile of #$!&@ simply because of the 7/31 deadline, Rube is actually saying that when you have:

--Fewer buyers
--More sellers
--Fewer games remaining
--No potential other buyers to drive up the price due to the waiver process

That you might get a better return? Stanford degrees just ain't worth what they used to be, I guess.

Yup. Had the same puzzled reaction to Rube's inverted supply-demand theory. That said, there could be an argument that returns are better in waiver deals because while more teams are looking to sell, supply is actually less because the supply is based only on the people who get through waivers.

These comments are great but I fear they don't take into account the perfect inelasticity of demand for CLIFF LEE

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

heyeaglefn wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:if it seriously was this tommy kahnle guy, then im glad we didnt trade. seems like he is pretty sucky.

For M Young plus giving back 5 million dollars? What the heck do you think Young is worth to the Phillies?

Why in the hell do we care if the Phillies' ownership saves a portion of the $6M that they owe to Young for 2013?

First, because Young is no value to us in 2014, he's gone. Second, because with Young gone, both Asche and Ruf can play every day. Third, because this guy is hardly worthless. He walks a ton of guys, although this year seems a bit of an outlier. Even with the walks, he has a WHIP less than 1.20, which is very good. He strikes out 10.5 per 9. He gives up only about half a hit per IP. Both of those stats are really, really good and indicate that he is a guy with truly good stuff, who needs to learn to control it. So... he is a bit of a lottery ticket, almost exactly a match for guys we haven't given up on completely as Phillies farmhands, including Martin and Aumont at the upper level, where he would slot in at AA. He's certainly not a primo prospect, I doubt he helps much next season, but he does have value. Better numbers than Diekman or Aumont, but a level lower and younger. If he were in our system, he'd likely be the top relief prospect in AA/AAA.

CLIFF LEE scratched!!!!!!! We're doing this!!!!!!!

/ohwait

1 wrote:ethan martin starting vs the braves tomorrow night. well.

That means Lee is still unable to pitch -- a prime reason he wasn't tradeable for much in return.

i'm sure that was way, way down on the list.

That yankees player is also in his 4th year, so they'd have to add him to the 40 man roster or risk losing him.