choco wrote:

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?

Another calculation is the Phillies might save a few million in salary for the rest of the year, but maybe that causes more people not to buy tickets for the rest of this year and next year and also causes people who already bought tickets this year not to attend the games. If the average person spends $100 on tickets, parking and concessions per game, every 10K tickets not sold is $1 million. If the average person spends $50 a game on parking and concessions, every 2K in no-shows is 100K in revenue.

You save money on the salary, but you might lose it on the revenue side too.

Edit: The Phillies are paying MY10 5.5 million and the Phillies and Rangers are splitting the 1.2 million extra he got for being traded to make up for income tax differences.

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

They could pretty easily have that savings wiped out with decreased fan interest.

Wait... this argument is that trading MICHAEL YOUNG would make people who bought tickets not attend a game?

Grotewold wrote:jeez man

I'm not a big fan of bringing a pitcher up and down. Especially when they've been prone to giving up home runs and their lone start is against a team that basically only hits home runs.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:jeez man

I'm not a big fan of bringing a pitcher up and down. Especially when they've been prone to giving up home runs and they're lone start is against a team that basically only hits home runs.

Well someone had to come up, and he's been red hot

Maybe they'll keep him for the 'pen to wind down his innings, but if not I don't care

But Valdes pitched so well last time!

Need more bullpen games.

Shore wrote:
Wait... this argument is that trading MICHAEL YOUNG would make people who bought tickets not attend a game?

Yeah, that was a bad argument. I concede that point.

I guess I'm saying that I would've traded MY10 for pretty much anything because a longshot lottery ticket is worth more than he is to the team, but the other point is that it only saves about 2 million bucks and that savings could be wiped out by other factors (maybe not for him, but maybe another player), so you have to consider other factors to see how much money you're going to save on a salary dump.

choco wrote:

Shore wrote:
Wait... this argument is that trading MICHAEL YOUNG would make people who bought tickets not attend a game?

Yeah, that was a bad argument. I concede that point.

I guess I'm saying that I would've traded MY10 for pretty much anything because a longshot lottery ticket is worth more than he is to the team, but the other point is that it only saves about 2 million bucks and that savings could be wiped out by other factors (maybe not for him, but maybe another player), so you have to consider other factors to see how much money you're going to save on a salary dump.

Agreed on considering all factors. But MY10 is... butt.

Trent Steele wrote:

dajafi wrote:

smitty wrote:Just read BP article by a guy from around here. He's some kind of smart guy. Anyway, he did this study using all sorts of terms and regression analysis chats and stuff I don't understand.

The study looked at GMs and their trading record. Amaro wasn't the greatest. He was second behind Dombrowski.

Basically, the Phillies got tons of WAR from Halladay, Oswalt and Pence and the guys we gave up for him haven't done much (yet, in several cases).

The bottom line is Amaro got a lot of value from guys he traded for and the guys he traded have yet to accumulate much in the way of value.

This doesn't surprise me. Generally, when you get the best player in the deal, you win the deal. Lee #1 and Doc were clear wins, even if D'Arnaud works out. Oswalt, we'll see, though even if Gose and Villar turn out to solid guys, I can't hate the deal because Oswalt was unhittable down the stretch that year. Even the Pence trade was defensible--though it was pretty clearly an overpay even at the time. Short of the unbelievable haul the Braves sent for Tex in 2007, I can't think of many quality plus quantity packages that compare. And he was a much better player than Pence.

The case against Amaro has almost nothing to do with trades. It's resource allocation, contracts, and general approach. That he's obnoxious adds some flavor to the disdain, admittedly, and that they claim to be a scouting organization yet have had so many high profile evaluation failures suggests he's simply full of shit.

Trying to figure out how we won all these trades, added a bazillion dollars in payroll, and dropped like 30 games in standings in last two years.

A team led by Carlos Carrasco, Louie Marson, Jason Donald, Travis D'Arnaud, Anthony Gose et al instead of Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Pence et al wins 70 games a year.

So you're right. They wouldn't have dropped 30 games in the standings. They just would have sucked. Nice low payroll though.

This article was strictly about trades. The Phillies have won these trades in a huge way. The article had lots of economist type language and charts and graphs and stuff because the author is a bioeconomist, whatever that is, among other things.

But even someone as dumb as me can understand the value to this point that the Phillies received from Amaro trades has far, far exceeded the value given up.

Of course, some of the guys he traded should eventually pay off. Carlos Carrasco may win a Cy Young and Anthony Gose may be a hall of famer.

But you sure as shooting weren't winning division titles and pennants and stuff with those guys.

I will also report on the next article that rates GMs about contracts, resource allocation, general approach and smugness. What I won't do is criticize everything about him just because I don't like him. I don't care a whit about him one way or another. I just care about what he does and doesn't do.

I don't think trading Michael Young for nothing would have had much effect on ticket sales or anything like that. He wasn't traded for,the same reason Marlon Byrd and Nate Sheerholts and Kendrys Morales and Mike Morse and a host of other very tradable assets weren't traded. No one wanted to pay much of anything for them. And no GM wanted to just give his players away. That's the story of this deadline.

Being the one GM who gave away players for nothing probably would not have been wise for more than one reason.

By not trading MY he ends up with nothing, whereas by trading him, he would have ended up with something.

JFLNYC wrote:By not trading MY he ends up with nothing, whereas by trading him, he would have ended up with something.

Yes. The reputation for caving and giving away players for much less than they are worth.

In theory, you are probably correct. Something is better than nothing.

But this trade deadline, no GM was doing that. Trading guys for very little just to say they made a trade. Being the only one to do so might not be the best strategy in the near, medium or long term.

Of course, the way things are,going right now, their might not even be a medium or long term.

Just so we're clear, are the people bitching about this saying there was a decent deal to be had and Amaro said no just to pay Young $2M and see more from him the rest of the year?

Grotewold wrote:Just so we're clear, are the people bitching about this saying there was a decent deal to be had and Amaro said no just to pay Young $2M and see more from him the rest of the year?

I think that's exactly what happened. It was the damn dippin dots. Froze his brain right up.

SQTM.

smitty wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

dajafi wrote:

smitty wrote:Just read BP article by a guy from around here. He's some kind of smart guy. Anyway, he did this study using all sorts of terms and regression analysis chats and stuff I don't understand.

The study looked at GMs and their trading record. Amaro wasn't the greatest. He was second behind Dombrowski.

Basically, the Phillies got tons of WAR from Halladay, Oswalt and Pence and the guys we gave up for him haven't done much (yet, in several cases).

The bottom line is Amaro got a lot of value from guys he traded for and the guys he traded have yet to accumulate much in the way of value.

This doesn't surprise me. Generally, when you get the best player in the deal, you win the deal. Lee #1 and Doc were clear wins, even if D'Arnaud works out. Oswalt, we'll see, though even if Gose and Villar turn out to solid guys, I can't hate the deal because Oswalt was unhittable down the stretch that year. Even the Pence trade was defensible--though it was pretty clearly an overpay even at the time. Short of the unbelievable haul the Braves sent for Tex in 2007, I can't think of many quality plus quantity packages that compare. And he was a much better player than Pence.

The case against Amaro has almost nothing to do with trades. It's resource allocation, contracts, and general approach. That he's obnoxious adds some flavor to the disdain, admittedly, and that they claim to be a scouting organization yet have had so many high profile evaluation failures suggests he's simply full of shit.

Trying to figure out how we won all these trades, added a bazillion dollars in payroll, and dropped like 30 games in standings in last two years.

A team led by Carlos Carrasco, Louie Marson, Jason Donald, Travis D'Arnaud, Anthony Gose et al instead of Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Pence et al wins 70 games a year.

So you're right. They wouldn't have dropped 30 games in the standings. They just would have sucked. Nice low payroll though.

This article was strictly about trades. The Phillies have won these trades in a huge way. The article had lots of economist type language and charts and graphs and stuff because the author is a bioeconomist, whatever that is, among other things.

But even someone as dumb as me can understand the value to this point that the Phillies received from Amaro trades has far, far exceeded the value given up.

Of course, some of the guys he traded should eventually pay off. Carlos Carrasco may win a Cy Young and Anthony Gose may be a hall of famer.

But you sure as shooting weren't winning division titles and pennants and stuff with those guys.

I will also report on the next article that rates GMs about contracts, resource allocation, general approach and smugness. What I won't do is criticize everything about him just because I don't like him. I don't care a whit about him one way or another. I just care about what he does and doesn't do.

The whole premise is strange to me. I have no idea how you can judge whether he has "won" the Oswalt and Pence trades now. Anything can happen but I feel it's more likely than not that Villar, Cosart, Singleton, Gose, etc. will exceed the 8ish WAR put up by Pence/OSwalt, but I didnt RTFA, so who knows.

Grotewold wrote:Just so we're clear, are the people bitching about this saying there was a decent deal to be had and Amaro said no just to pay Young $2M and see more from him the rest of the year?

I don't think anyone can either bitch about the non-action or defend the non-action on that point. We just don't know, outside of that one questionable Yankees rumor.

Btw, trading minor leaguers for major leaguers is logically always going to end up bent a short-term "win." But the trades can't be fully evaluated until the careers of the players involves have ended.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Just so we're clear, are the people bitching about this saying there was a decent deal to be had and Amaro said no just to pay Young $2M and see more from him the rest of the year?

I don't think anyone can either bitch about the non-action or defend the non-action on that point. We just don't know, outside of that one questionable Yankees rumor.

Right ... but what's the more reasonable assumption? That there wasn't a deal to be made, or that there was but Amaro herp derped it, trolled us, etc

Grotewold wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Just so we're clear, are the people bitching about this saying there was a decent deal to be had and Amaro said no just to pay Young $2M and see more from him the rest of the year?

I don't think anyone can either bitch about the non-action or defend the non-action on that point. We just don't know, outside of that one questionable Yankees rumor.

Right ... but what's the more reasonable assumption? That there wasn't a deal to be made, or that there was but Amaro herp derped it, trolled us, etc

Considering Rube thinks fewer buyers makes for a better market for sellers, I'd say the answer to that question is unclear.

Trent Steele wrote:

smitty wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

dajafi wrote:

smitty wrote:Just read BP article by a guy from around here. He's some kind of smart guy. Anyway, he did this study using all sorts of terms and regression analysis chats and stuff I don't understand.

The study looked at GMs and their trading record. Amaro wasn't the greatest. He was second behind Dombrowski.

Basically, the Phillies got tons of WAR from Halladay, Oswalt and Pence and the guys we gave up for him haven't done much (yet, in several cases).

The bottom line is Amaro got a lot of value from guys he traded for and the guys he traded have yet to accumulate much in the way of value.

This doesn't surprise me. Generally, when you get the best player in the deal, you win the deal. Lee #1 and Doc were clear wins, even if D'Arnaud works out. Oswalt, we'll see, though even if Gose and Villar turn out to solid guys, I can't hate the deal because Oswalt was unhittable down the stretch that year. Even the Pence trade was defensible--though it was pretty clearly an overpay even at the time. Short of the unbelievable haul the Braves sent for Tex in 2007, I can't think of many quality plus quantity packages that compare. And he was a much better player than Pence.

The case against Amaro has almost nothing to do with trades. It's resource allocation, contracts, and general approach. That he's obnoxious adds some flavor to the disdain, admittedly, and that they claim to be a scouting organization yet have had so many high profile evaluation failures suggests he's simply full of shit.

Trying to figure out how we won all these trades, added a bazillion dollars in payroll, and dropped like 30 games in standings in last two years.

A team led by Carlos Carrasco, Louie Marson, Jason Donald, Travis D'Arnaud, Anthony Gose et al instead of Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Pence et al wins 70 games a year.

So you're right. They wouldn't have dropped 30 games in the standings. They just would have sucked. Nice low payroll though.

This article was strictly about trades. The Phillies have won these trades in a huge way. The article had lots of economist type language and charts and graphs and stuff because the author is a bioeconomist, whatever that is, among other things.

But even someone as dumb as me can understand the value to this point that the Phillies received from Amaro trades has far, far exceeded the value given up.

Of course, some of the guys he traded should eventually pay off. Carlos Carrasco may win a Cy Young and Anthony Gose may be a hall of famer.

But you sure as shooting weren't winning division titles and pennants and stuff with those guys.

I will also report on the next article that rates GMs about contracts, resource allocation, general approach and smugness. What I won't do is criticize everything about him just because I don't like him. I don't care a whit about him one way or another. I just care about what he does and doesn't do.

The whole premise is strange to me. I have no idea how you can judge whether he has "won" the Oswalt and Pence trades now. Anything can happen but I feel it's more likely than not that Villar, Cosart, Singleton, Gose, etc. will exceed the 8ish WAR put up by Pence/OSwalt, but I didnt RTFA, so who knows.

I don't think I wrote he won trades anywhere. What I wrote was the guys he traded for provided a ton of value SO FAR and the guys he traded away have not. That is the way the author did the study. Amaro got great immediate results from his trades resulting in many wins and flags and sell outs and dippin dots sales.

As far as I can tell he added up the WAR SO FAR and derived some computer number. Do that and only Dombrowski scores higher.

Like I said. Five years from now, after Carrasco wins a Cy Young and Cosart, Singleton and Villar are the new Carlton, Luzinski and Schmidt, this changes dramatically.

That is my understanding of it anyways.

JFLNYC wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Just so we're clear, are the people bitching about this saying there was a decent deal to be had and Amaro said no just to pay Young $2M and see more from him the rest of the year?

I don't think anyone can either bitch about the non-action or defend the non-action on that point. We just don't know, outside of that one questionable Yankees rumor.

Right ... but what's the more reasonable assumption? That there wasn't a deal to be made, or that there was but Amaro herp derped it, trolled us, etc

Considering Rube thinks fewer buyers makes for a better market for sellers, I'd say the answer to that question is unclear.

Are you basing that off of Bucky's paraphrasing, which prominently included the word "could"?