sydnor wrote:I'm not all over the place. I'm just being realistic.

1. I don't think the team is as bad as Shore (for instance I said 90 losses not 95)
2. I think some BOLD moves plus some luck can get us to contend. Signing Ruiz is not bold, it's a lack of ideas.
3.If Carlos Ruiz was willing to come back at a clearly discounted market price (Say 50% of what he could get on the market), then yes, I'd consider signing him. But you've said as much in the past - free agents are risky. Why would you sign a 35 year old catcher? You're paying for what he did this year, you're paying for what he did the year he cheated. You're not getting his best. I'm just asking you to solve the problem (the Phillies playing poorly) without the same reliance on the same players who got us into this mess. Yes they won a championship but that was 5 years ago.

We're going in circles. I'm just saying nothing should be off the table. Sorry that's not imaginative enough for you.

the difference between resigning chooch for another year nad bringing in a catcher of similar years is the grown-in factor of comfortability with the starting pitchers who will remain with this team.

pacino wrote:the difference between resigning chooch for another year nad bringing in a catcher of similar years is the grown-in factor of comfortability with the starting pitchers who will remain with this team.

that comfort gave you a 85-95 (depending on if you're grote or shore) loss talent team this year. Not good enough. What if, and I'm not saying this is likely, it turns out that the new catcher is way better than Chooch at framing pitches and calling a game. What if, since we can't measure it, it turns out Chooch has no idea what he's doing, we just think he does because he's a good guy and we had stud pitchers and we were winning for lots of reasons that had nothing to do with ruiz. Is this no different than the bad old days of the 80s when scrappy white guys were kept around because they hustled? And people didn't know how to measure offensive contribution and just allowed for that. Let's move on and try something different. I'm not asking we trade Cliff Lee to shake things up, I'm asking that we move on from paying whatever market value is for a 35 year old catcher who was injured and suspended for cheating this year.

i can understand that sentiment. perhaps starting fresh can jumpstart something. i disagree with getting rid of chooch if we can get a decent contract from him, that's all. i dont think it's a given to get rid of him just due to age, that's all.

pacino wrote:i can understand that sentiment. perhaps starting fresh can jumpstart something. i disagree with getting rid of chooch if we can get a decent contract from him, that's all. i dont think it's a given to get rid of him just due to age, that's all.

Ok, the rub is "Decent contract". I want something so favorable to the Phillies that it's nearly inconceivable that he takes it. I won't sign him for what he made this year.

sydnor wrote:

pacino wrote:i can understand that sentiment. perhaps starting fresh can jumpstart something. i disagree with getting rid of chooch if we can get a decent contract from him, that's all. i dont think it's a given to get rid of him just due to age, that's all.

Ok, the rub is "Decent contract". I want something so favorable to the Phillies that it's nearly inconceivable that he takes it. I won't sign him for what he made this year.

he made five million. good luck finding comparable performance for less than that.

List of to-be free agent catchers younger than Chooch:

John Buck - 33 years old
Jesus Flores - 28 years old
Gerald Laird - 33 years old
Brian McCann - 29 years old
Dioner Navarro - 29 years old
Brayan Pena - 31 years old
Humberto Quintero - 34 years old
Jarrod Saltalamacchia - 28 years old
Kelly Shoppach - 33 years old
Chris Snyder - 32 years old
Geovany Soto - 30 years old
Kurt Suzuki - 29 years old

Which of these would you sign over Chooch? I'm looking at a list of a lot of shit, or players who will demand too much for too long. If we can bring Chooch back for even one year to let someone like Rupp get more at-bats and time at the plate without being a full time catcher, than why is that not "smart"?

We have too many positions tied up in "old money" where all we can hope for is an injury free, productive season. Bitching and moaning about some of us wanting to bring Chooch back for a year as a bridge to our farm catchers seems a bit disingenuous.

pacino wrote:

sydnor wrote:

pacino wrote:i can understand that sentiment. perhaps starting fresh can jumpstart something. i disagree with getting rid of chooch if we can get a decent contract from him, that's all. i dont think it's a given to get rid of him just due to age, that's all.

Ok, the rub is "Decent contract". I want something so favorable to the Phillies that it's nearly inconceivable that he takes it. I won't sign him for what he made this year.

he made five million. good luck finding comparable performance for less than that.

Looking at Fangraph's value based on WAR, Chooch is worth $9 million this year with his 1.9 WAR. This is his lowest value since 2008, and he was arguably one of the highest valued catchers in baseball LAST SEASON. I understand, that by nature, older people suck and break hips and what not, but people expect Chooch to blow out the candles on his 35th Birthday Cake and go into cardiac arrest or fall off a cliff.

If there's one thing that drives me bonkers it's when we start saying we'll be better next year because we won't have so many injuries. Every year somebody starts counting up the games missed by key players and adding those games back in for next year as if injuries were a one-time fluke. If there's anything the past few years have reminded us, it's that older rosters are more injury-prone and, worse yet, sometimes those injuries signal the end of a productive career.

Next year all the vets will be another year older. If anyone is counting on greater overall health among the aged as the basis for a significant team turnaround, you're likely to be disappointed. Considering the age of our roster, we're just as likely to lose more time to injuries as less.

1. There ARE ways to measure catcher defense and framing and stuff like that. Chooch does very well in this regard.

2. My Scouty insider had good things to say about Ruiz. He is a good catcher. A position that doesn't have many.

3. Ruiz is a very unusual player. He has had a very weird but effective career. He is a good catcher who has been an above average hitter for five straight seasons. He had a very fine season with the bat at age 31 and his best year at age 33. He didn't start to hit well in the big leagues until he was 29.

4. Replacing him with someone worse is creative but I don't think it helps.

5. I have no idea how much he will get or for how long. I have a feeling it will be a lot. I can't describe what a lot is but I think I'll know it when I see it. If so, we would probably be best off letting him go. But I bet two bucks right now that he will be pretty good at age 35. Especially in a somewhat less than full time role.

Slugs don't give me fangraphs value to justify a new contract. Do you know how many catchers made 9 million this year? 4.

The idea that 16 people including Ruiz are worth 9 million is silly.

Further that list you trotted out of younger players? Agreed that even with McCann that's a gruesome list. But the fact is that on other message boards for other baseball teams they are having a similar version of that argument and Ruiz is on that list in place of their catcher. The only thing he has is familiarity.

JFLNYC wrote:If there's one thing that drives me bonkers it's when we start saying we'll be better next year because we won't have so many injuries. Every year somebody starts counting up the games missed by key players and adding those games back in for next year as if injuries were a one-time fluke. If there's anything the past few years have reminded us, it's that older rosters are more injury-prone and, worse yet, sometimes those injuries signal the end of a productive career.

Next year all the vets will be another year older. If anyone is counting on greater overall health among the aged as the basis for a significant team turnaround, you're likely to be disappointed. Considering the age of our roster, we're just as likely to lose more time to injuries as less.

Are you counting Ben Revere and Dom Brown and Horst and Lannan and Mr. Pettibone amongst the aged?

Just kidding. Your point is good of course. And Brown has gotten hurt a lot regardless. And Lannan really isn't good and Horst was probably a one year wonder and Mr. Pettibone isn't all that great either. But they are young and hurt that's for sure.

Utley and Rollins have actually been surprisingly healthy. Not young guys like Lee and Papelbon have been as well.

On the other hand, I can see Howard having a fairly healthy season next year, Halladay is likely toast although you never know.

The Braves have had a lot of injuries and so have the Dodgers. But they are real good teams this season.

What we need is a real good team. One that can overcome injuries. Because they will have players get hurt.

JFLNYC wrote:If there's one thing that drives me bonkers it's when we start saying we'll be better next year because we won't have so many injuries. Every year somebody starts counting up the games missed by key players and adding those games back in for next year as if injuries were a one-time fluke. If there's anything the past few years have reminded us, it's that older rosters are more injury-prone and, worse yet, sometimes those injuries signal the end of a productive career.

Next year all the vets will be another year older. If anyone is counting on greater overall health among the aged as the basis for a significant team turnaround, you're likely to be disappointed. Considering the age of our roster, we're just as likely to lose more time to injuries as less.

Luckily for you, no one said that. I said that in addition to the usual suspects for injury this year, we lost young players at inopportune times. And, this whole argument is predicated on adding as many new good players as possible, complementing young starters at 3B and CF and LF and possibly RF. Or a good veteran in RF and nice depth on the bench, with Ruf and Hernandez and Frandsen instead of Delmon and Wiggy and Martinez. Franco may soon emerge. The pitching should be stronger, perhaps significantly so. Etc.

Alright Grote, young starters at 3B, CF, RF (and I assume Brown for LF?) In addition to locks at 1B, 2B, SS. So now you have 7 position players. Yet we're supposed to add "as many good players as possible"? Where the hell is that supposed to happen if not at catcher? How is that not the same team?

It HAS to be McCann. The only alternative is centerfield and I'm all ears, but why not McCann AND a CF?

sydnor wrote:Alright Grote, young starters at 3B, CF, RF (and I assume Brown for LF?) In addition to locks at 1B, 2B, SS. So now you have 7 position players. Yet we're supposed to add "as many good players as possible"? Where the hell is that supposed to happen if not at catcher? How is that not the same team?

It HAS to be McCann. The only alternative is centerfield and I'm all ears, but why not McCann AND a CF?

I already said I'm open to McCann. And have said several times CF is the place to be "creative/imaginative."

And yes we have aging, injury-risk locks at three positions, but also good young depth at those spots now.

Why can't we add a starting pitcher or one elite reliever? Or both. Either through free agency or a trade with a small-payroll team.

Still not seeing where there's grounds for confidence that Amaro just won't dig up a new class of wiggintons and mini-marts. (for that matter, mini-mart himself could well be back.)

The anti-Chooch guys are counting on a GM with a proven track record of lousy talent evaluation and worse resource allocation to make a better alternative choice. It'll be Ruiz, John Buck, 5/95 for McCann, or some cheap guy who hits .200/.225/.300 but that montgomery perceives as a Quality Person.

dajafi wrote:Still not seeing where there's grounds for confidence that Amaro just won't dig up a new class of wiggintons and mini-marts. (for that matter, mini-mart himself could well be back.)

Again, there's no room for that slop, especially if they add a full-time outfielder. Our bench will actually be good and young.

Goth porn up in here

None of those guys are ever supposed to start, Grote. Then our old guys get injured and they play.

I don't mean to be goth (it comes naturally?) but I think you're blind to just how bad our GM is at the most basic requirement of his job. It took five years to erode the talent base, but we're here.

There is nothing in Dom Brown's history to suggest he'll play 150 or so games next year. Revere was supposed to be back by now and is not. His one plus attribute is his speed. He broke his ankle. What we may get next year is a slightly slower version of Ben. We can all make our own judgments as to how valuable that might be. I don't see a significant net improvement from those two younger players.

The Phils' 3 best pitchers were all healthy this year. Who's to say Lee won't be next year's Halladay? Papelbon has lost 4-5 MPH off his fastball the least few years. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if at some point over the coming months he needs some surgery. I suspect the young bullpen arms will be better next year, but I thought the same coming into this year. Adams, who was actually effective early in the season, likely won't pitch next year. Saying the pitching can't be worse next year is not an argument, it's a prayer.

I like Asche and Ruf. The league has started to find Ruf's weaknesses, though, and no one can be sure whether he's capable of making the necessary adjustments. The league hasn't yet found Asche's weaknesses, but it will and, again, no one knows how and when he'll adjust. They both could be better next year, but they could also both struggle as they adjust. Maybe Franco will be ready but, even if he is, it's unreasonable to expect him to start his career at peak performance.

There are two things we can count on: There will be injuries next year and there will be declining performance by one or more of the players we're counting on. OTOH, there will be positive developments, too, some unforeseen, if not unforeseeable. But, without significant improvement to the roster, when I try to predict the net effect of what might go right and what might go wrong with the present roster, I have a very, very difficult time concocting a reasonable scenario by which this team is 15+ wins better. YMMV.

dajafi wrote:None of those guys are ever supposed to start, Grote. Then our old guys get injured and they play.

I don't mean to be goth (it comes naturally?) but I think you're blind to just how bad our GM is at the most basic requirement of his job. It took five years to erode the talent base, but we're here.

Good young backups/depth mitigate injury risk. It's a good thing, and we're allowed to have those occasionally.

Where in this thread or elsewhere lately have I given Amaro a vote of confidence?