Friday Bantering: Roy Halladay, Buck Martinez and Alex Anthopoulos
by Tom Dakers on Dec 11, 2009 11:13 AM EST
in Toronto Blue Jays Analysis
Email
PrintToday's Roy Halladay rumors are more a rehash of what's gone on the last week. Tom Verducci at SI.com says that the Phillies badly want Doc.
"They've been very aggressive," one baseball source said about the Phillies' pursuit of Halladay. "They're putting together a package, even if they need another team. They're trying to find the players [on other teams] the Blue Jays want to get it done."
I think they could make the trade tomorrow is they offered Drabek, Taylor and Brown. But there isn't much incentive to do that yet. Why blow other offers out of the water when you don't know if there has been other offers.
The LA Times talks about the Angel's interest in Doc:
There were reports late Wednesday night that the Angels offered pitcher Joe Saunders, shortstop Erick Aybar and top outfield prospect Peter Bourjos to the Blue Jays for Halladay.
But at least two sources familiar with the Angels' thinking shot down that rumor.
The trouble is every team has 'sources' that will shoot down every rumor. Some sources will just want to mess with reporters and others will want to make it look like the team isn't as interested in a trade as they are, hoping to be in position for a better deal.
The Blue Jays have targeted Saunders, catcher Mike Napoli and Bourjos, among others.
Reagins said it's "possible" a deal for Halladay could be expanded to include other Blue Jays coming to Anaheim.
"We've talked about a lot of things," Reagins said of his discussions with Toronto. "They have a lot of pieces that are attractive."
I don't know why the Jays would 'target' Saunders, in particular. Angels have better young pitchers.
I wonder who the other 'attractive' pieces the Angels are talking about?
Over at Sportsnet, it sounds like the TV booth makeover won't end with Buck Martinez:
Sportsnet's three-headed team of analysts – Pat Tabler, Rance Mulliniks and Darrin Fletcher – are without contracts, and don't be surprised if some or all don't get new ones.
It would be nice if they would settle on one guy. Alan Ashby is great on the radio, I'd be happy if they picked him. Though perhaps any of the three they have would improve with Bucks help. I often thought that Jamie didn't seem to have the skill to keep the color guy in line. Sometimes Rance would have a good point but then would drive it into the ground going on and on about it, I would think Buck would be smarter better at it. Maybe Rance and the others felt with Jamie they had to fill more air with talk.
But then I wouldn't mind if they brought in someone more experienced.
Richard Griffin at the Star has a piece about Alex Anthopoulos' performance at his first winter meeting:
It came immediately following the Rule 5 draft Thursday morning, the one rookie Jays' GM Alex Anthopoulos skipped to catch an earlier flight home. His former boss, Omar Minaya, asked how the kid was doing.
Given an uncertain answer, the former Expos GM, now with the Mets laughed. "He's going to be alright," he said. "He's a good kid, he just has to learn to slow down."
I'm getting that feeling myself, that he is going to have to take a breath every now and then and relax. Beyond that, I get a bad feeling when other baseball people call our GM a kid.
Griffin compares Alex and JP:
However, in terms of solid information, there's no comparison. Whenever the former GM did make himself available, J.P. was glib and quotable, always with an opinion on what else was going on, especially in the big picture.
At least once per day, Ricciardi would toss a bone to the media wolfpack that could be used as barter in the ever-voracious press room. We miss him for that.
There is no doubt, Anthopoulos will find his own level. Right now he's trying his best to be the anti-J.P., especially in the wake of the media circus around the Roy Halladay trade deadline.
Alex, when I've heard him interviewed, seems like he wants to fill time without saying anything much. Sort of like a politician that wants to take up time so no more questions can be asked, while not saying anything of substance. You hear a bunch of buzz words with nothing that you can point to as information. But Griffin's likely right, he'll figure out how to talk to the press.
I like reading Griffin a lot more when he's not spending all his time trying to get someone fired.
71 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
being belittled by Omar Minaya
ummm…..
When Anthopolous trades Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore and Brandon Phillips for a few months of Bartolo Colon and then flips Colon for Rocky Biddle, then maybe I will care what Omar Minaya had to say. Mixing Bartolo Colon and poutine, though, that’s just wrong.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Beyond that, I get a bad feeling when other baseball people call our GM a kid.
AA also worked for him in a very minor role some years ago, so there’s a different relationship there. I think it is more reflective of their history than any real indication of how he’s viewed.
There’s an editor I freelance for who’s been calling me ‘kid’ for twelve years, since I finished school. It’s just one of those things.
I think kid in this context is purposely belittling..
But like Hugo says, no current GM has screwed up as much as Omar. How he keeps a job I have no idea.
hmm
was that appropriate to skip Rule 5 draft, or does it not matter so much?
I get a feeling now that it's going to be the Phillies
I betcha, the deal is already really close, but AA is just trying to get a few other minor pieces through a 3rd, 4th team.
Happ, Brown, are probably agreed to, and ….
Then Phils flip a few players to one or two other teams (i.e. Victorino, Blanton or others that don’t figure into the Phils plans, but might on other teams), in exchange for 2 or 3 true prospects that are not necessarily close to the majors yet. For example 1st and 2nd round draftees from 2008 draft. These prospects of course, go to the Jays, as part of the deal.
Maybe those are the final parts of the deal in limbo at this point.
And a Halladay extension with Philly would be perfect as Jays fans. He’s not with with Yanks or Sox, and out of the AL altogether. Yet, he’s with a contender, which is what Jays fans would want for the guy, AND we get to see him once a year with in interleague play. Plus, can you imagine a Yanks – Phillies WS showdown of AJ vs. Doc part II? That’d be pretty cool.
All the while the Jays get a good OF prospect that is not too far away, a mid-rotation starter who is controllable for a long time, and 2 or 3 good prospects to compensate for the draft picks we are losing by not keeping him.
The Phils instantly become the front runners for the WS next year, and get the best pitcher in baseball for the next 4-6 years, and have a good chance to be playoff contenders during that period. They also don’t lose their coveted Drabek, and they rid themselves of a few players they really don’t need anymore. Heck, Doc might even be willing to give them a favorable contract, given the fact that I think he’d be happy over there, and given the fact that they train in Florida.
Phillies fans are the new Red Sox fans here on the East Coast
with their bandwagon jumping and overgrown sense of entitlement. I don’t know if I’m emotionally prepared to give them the satisfaction of watching Doc pitch every 5 days
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
if I had my choice, I would prefer Roy go to Phillies, since they are an NL team. By that same logic, I would be happy to see him go to the Dodgers.
Having said that, what the Jays get in return for Roy is the final arbiter of which option the Jays should take. So, if the Yanks or Bosox or Angles pony up a better deal, the Jays should take it. Anything else is secondary and a very distant second at that, IMHO.
Focus on winning, and let the other teams worry about their own records.
by aagoodfella on Dec 11, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
My insane dream, which ranks up in the realms of possibility as winning the lottery or being the meat in a Rachal McAdams/Felica Day sandwich, is that the Yankees come up at the deadline with a monster deal including Hughes, Montero, and some top prospects, and take Doc. They’ve already said they don’t want to offer any extension until mid-late in the season in any case, and Doc discovers that he and his family don’t like living in the media saturated New York market. He wins his World Series ring (beating the Phillies who have suffering having to demote Drabek to AAA) and declines an extension, instead resigning with Toronto, who thanks to a newly minted $120m payroll and the maturing prospects, have committed to being agressive on the free agent market.
And with my won millions, I buy a skybox to sit in with my two ladies and watch Doc’s opening day performance in 2011. Yes, this are the lengths I have gone to mentally to avoid the desire to cut myself every time the words ‘Halladay’ and ‘trade’ show up online.
I do not know who are Rachal McAdams or Felica Day, Craig can you post pictures? LOL
by aagoodfella on Dec 11, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
I not think that the Yanks making such an offer is all that unrealistic. However, the probability of Roy coming back is lottery-like odds. Roy is gone and we should say our thanks and goodbyes and save a spot for him on the level of excellence.
by aagoodfella on Dec 11, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, I'd love to see doc shipped elsewhere only to return when he is a FA
Funny. Doc loves Toronto, but wants to win (in Toronto first). By sacrificing himself for a season, he’d be able to bring in a few pieces to make Toronto a contender, thereby resigning with them.
If only the real world would be a video game.
Agreed in principle, but...
If the Jays have to face Doc 5 times a year, those are 5 games that are difficult to win, and five games where a crucial opponent has a good chance to win. That has to be in the equation, somehow.
not to mention a virtually impenetrable obstacle to the playoffs.
But, it is tough enough to get a good trade done without satisfying a hidden spite-the-AL-East agenda. So, lets just stick to our knitting would still be my recommendation.
by aagoodfella on Dec 11, 2009 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
Good lord I hope not
Though I don’t know about the entitlement bit. The stereotypical Philly fan (though not the more enlightened die-hards you’re likely to see at places like The Good Phight) always just wants to get every big name player available. It’s just that before, say, three or four years ago it was more just about shouting vain hopes to the sky. Now it’s actually possible, so people are really listening for it.
I think some of us are still getting used to this. I never in my life thought there’d be a Phillies bandwagon, but here we are I guess.
"overgrown sense of entitlement"?
Ouch. Where does that come from? What does that even mean? That we think we’re entitled to Doc? Personally, I don’t even want him. He may be the best pitcher in baseball, but we’ve already ponied up alot of prospects for Cliff Lee, so I’d rather we just focus on signing him. Makes no sense to trade half the farm for both guys, and watch one of them (at least) leave after this season. I’d say the only fans in the NL with a sense of entitlement is the arrogant Braves (and maybe the Mets). Our team has lost 10,000+ games and has generally sucked with brief exceptions (this three year run being one of them). I may be blind, but I don’t see it. You may have a point on bandwagon jumping, but isn’t this rather typical for most teams that enjoy success after years of suckritude? And if it bothers you to see Doc in a Phils uniform, just repeat the words “Joe Carter” and “Mitch Williams” over and over. It should cheer you right up.
by Boundforbeach on Dec 11, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
well, I do not think the Phillies have that bad a history. What about the 1980s era when the NL East was the strongest division in baseball and the Phillies were anchored with such timeless greats as Mike Schmidt/ And it was only 1993 when the Jays and Phillies faced off in the world series. I do not think that pleas of misery by Phillies fans ring all that true, LOL. Now, try being a long-suffering Jays fan. There is a heartbreak story for you. LOL
what? The Phils originated in the late 1800’s. It took almost 100 years to win the first World Series in 1980. We got another 28 years later. You guys have been an expansion team since only 1977 and have already won back-to-back champsionships, no easy feat. You’re suffering right now, but c’mon.
by Boundforbeach on Dec 11, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
You'll be happy to have Halladay, and it won't take long to realize that, once you have him
Not only does he win games for you, but the stories of how intense he is in the clubhouse are quite inspiring, almost to a point where it’s silly, but it sure works for him. Here’s a bit more on Halladay. One of the better blog posts on him. He’s special.
http://mopupduty.com/index.php/a-story-forgotten-halladays-reinvention/
That's A Mistake
That we think we’re entitled to Doc? Personally, I don’t even want him. He may be the best pitcher in baseball, but we’ve already ponied up alot of prospects for Cliff Lee, so I’d rather we just focus on signing him.
If the Phillies follow this philosophy, you guys don’t have a prayer against the Yankees, especially if they do end up with Halladay. If you’d have made the big trade in July, the chances are that the 2009 World Series would have gone to you, and not New York. And what is agreed on as the main reason the Phillies lost? The Yankees had the pitching, and Philidelphia didn’t.
Back in 1992, the Jays dealt likely future Hall of Famer Jeff Kent, a kid who’s talent was absolutely undeniable, for David Cone. We won the World Series that year, and without Cone, there’s a chance we don’t make it into the post season. When you have the pieces in place, you do what you need to go for it.
Are Drabek, Brown and whomever else more important than a World Series? Because that’s the decision the Phillies made last year, and lost to New York. The best pitcher available in baseball also is one of the only ones with an excellent record and experience against the team you most likely have to beat. Stick with Lee and your prospects, and chances are 2010 turns out to be a repeat.
Let me stop you there
If we made the trade for Halladay, we wouldn’t have gotten Lee. At the time it was an either/or thing, not both, no matter how many people said “ZOMG THEY STILL HAVE DRABEK TAYLOR AND BROWN.” Considering they won both games Lee pitched, getting Halladay would have meant they broke even if anything.
And Halladay wouldn’t have gotten the offense to score more than one run in Game 2, nor would have prevented Lidge from imploding in the 9th in game 4. I don’t see how you can assume Halladay would pitch a shutout, so if you slot him in there the Phillies still (more than likely) lose. I also don’t see how you can assume a complete game, so if we put Game 4 on the back of the Phils pen, that’s something else we can’t say for sure.
My point is this: It’s not my belief that the Phillies lost because of their starting pitching, or at least not only because of it. Would Roy be better? Sure. Would the Phillies have lost anyway if that trade had happened? I’m inclined to believe they would.
I also don’t see how you can assume a complete game
He’s the one guy in baseball you can almost back that assumption with, and his last start against the Yankees was a complete one hit shutout game. The point is, there’s no one out there that can improve the Phillies chances for a World Series more than Halladay, and there’s only one guy that can immediately end the Phillies chances for a World Series, and that’s Halladay in New York.
If Philidelphia wants to have untouchable prospects, that’s cool, but you’d better hope the Yankees don’t offer Montero and Hughes to Toronto, because as good as your hitting is, it doesn’t have a prayer against a rotation of Halladay, Sabathia, and Burnett in the post season.
The time Hamels pitched against the Yankees before the World Series, he went six innings and gave up two runs (one on an absurd broken bat HR by Teixeira that I’d wager is largely unrepeatable) during a season that seemed to be dragged down significantly by the Verducci Effect and bad luck. In the World Series? Not so much.
Halladay is better than Hamels, but the point of the above is to say that regular season performance =/= post season. We know what Halladay is capable of, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that unless you can guarantee a shutout in game 2 or that Halladay can completely remove a struggling Phils pen from play against a great offense, he wouldn’t have done enough to overcome the fatal flaws on the 09 Phils.
But hey, it’s pointless to argue this too much since I’m only interested in arguing the past bit (and we’ll never find out what might have happened). I’m not going to get on the Phils for not just tossing their farm system out the window in July, but if you disagree then that’s fine. We’ll agree to disagree.
As for this year, you’re right that Halladay gives the Phils the best chance to win. Given the fact that the Phils have done pretty well against Sabathia and Burnett in the past, though, those two don’t scare me that much. It’s all irrelevant, because I don’t see the Yankees giving up Montero and Hughes (plus others) anyway.
Ah well
I’ve never understood allowing prospect obsession handicap a significant chance to win now. I think the point is that the decision was made to protect prospects instead of getting the person who would have given the Phillies the best chance to win. I’ll grant you, maybe Halladay doesn’t put the Phillies over the edge (although I think the significant inning savings Halladay would have represented for the Phillies bullpen from August to the postseason should be considered as a major factor), but statistically, he’s the mostly likely candidate to have done so. The Phillies went for the cheaper option instead and ended up losing the World Series.
But
Cliff Lee wasn’t a bad plan B. He kicked ass with the Phils. Now if they could have gotten both of them…
True
Cliff Lee was actually a very good pickup, and I’m surprised how dominant he was. But… they still lost. If they hadn’t been so insistant that Drabek was untouchable, who knows?
Just to be clear, here
Again, not getting into the advanced stats, but in this case the traditional stats tell the real story quite clearly.
In five playoff starts:
1. vs. Colorado: 9 IP, 6 hits, 1 run (given up with two outs and two strikes in the ninth while up 5), 5K’s 0BBs. At the plate: 1-2 with a stolen base.
2. at Colorado: 7.1 IP, 5 hits, 3 runs (one earned), 5 K’s, 3 BB’s. Left the game with the lead.
3. vs. Dodgers: 8 IP, 3 hits, 0 runs, 10 K’s. At the plate: 1-3 with a run scored. He could have easily finished the game if the Phillies weren’t up by 11.
4. at Yankees: Same pitching line as the Rockies game (including the same instance of the Yankees run being scored), but with 10 Ks instead of 5. Had two highlight/blooper reel defensive plays as well.
5. vs. Yankees: Ugliest game by far. 7 IP, 7 hits, 5 runs, 3BB, 3Ks. Most of the Yankees damage came after the Phils had built up a six run lead. Oh, and the Phillies still won.
In games started by Cliff Lee during the postseason, the Phillies were 5-0.
Whatever the merits of a Lee/Halladay comparison, can we at least agree that Halladay would have a miniscule amount of room for improvement (and that likely that improvement would have to come with the bat)?
of course
the Lee acquisition worked out brilliantly for them. What the Indians were thinking, I don’t know, but if the Phils knew they could get Lee for so little, they were smart not to give up more for Doc.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Lee did work out great, this point can not be debated
by aagoodfella on Dec 12, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for putting up with my comments
especially this late at night.
And as I’ve said before, this has no bearing on the relative merits of Halladay vs. Lee, or what the Phils should pay, or any of that. That’s perfectly debatable.
Except, of course, that the Phillies lost. So, really, Lee failed. It’s not his fault, but saying that Lee was the solution when you lost the World Series is facile.
i’m not sure you’ve presented anything that would support your contention that if the phils acquired doc instead of lee, things would’ve been different. the evidence is that it could have only turned out the same or worse, since they won every time lee took the hill.
Except...
Of course, that the Phillies lost. It’s not a question of proving whether or not Halladay would have made them win. It’s the fact that they went with the cheaper option in order to protect prospects and then lost the World Series. It can’t be proven that acquiring Halladay wouldn’t have put them over the top either.
The organization took the second, cheaper option because they wanted to protect their propects. (and believe me, I’d take a deal like their Lee deal at any time) The organization ultimately failed in their decisions as their team was overmatched and beaten like a Salvation Army drum in the World Series. If the loss of the World Series didn’t ultimately matter, they could have done that without Lee to.
My point is really simple. When you have the pieces to win, and you just need one or two things to get you over the top, getting twitchy and proclaiming prospects untouchable and going to your second choice is a poor decision from an organizational standpoint, because the point is to win now.
In Short
If you have a chance to win, and you’ve targeted a guy as your best chance to get you there, not making the deal because you’re too impressed by the potential of a prospect to move for him is a bad decision.
If the Phillies went in saying ‘we want either Halladay or Lee, we regard them in the same way’, I wouldn’t be critical. But they targeted Halladay as their first, best option, and then walking away is the wrong way for a club to operate when you’re sure you’re going into the post season.
ah, now I understand your point.
Of course, in the end, it turns out that it did not matter as Cliff Lee performed very well.
But if I understand you correctly, you are saying the Phillies left it to theoretical chance.
Basically they made their decision based on bad reasoning, which was a prospect’s potential out-weighed getting their first option to win in 2009.
I’m not for throwing away your farm at the drop of a hat, but if you’ve got a team that you know is going to the playoffs and you know you need pitching, not getting the best you possibly can because you don’t want to shift a guy who ‘might’ be a star in a few years is silly to me.
Unless Doc pitched every third game instead of every fourth game, the Phils couldn’t have done any better with him than they did with Lee. On the other hand, it’s certainly possible that Doc might have gone 4-1 in the playoffs instead of matching Lee’s perfect record.
I could agree that the Phils suceeded in their acquisition, despite a poor rationale, but unless Doc could affect games he wasn’t playing in, he couldn’t have acheived better results than Lee.
Actually,
We don’t really know that. We don’t know what having a guy like Doc logging innings and saving the bullpen does in the post season, or in the World Series itself. The guy has faced the Yankees more than almost any pitcher in the last five years. You don’t know if his advice and experience helps Hamels and Pedro. You don’t know if he goes in an throws that complete game, maybe that one extra inning of rest on someone’s arm is the difference between having enough to get that extra inch of break so Matsui pounds it into the dirt down the third base side instead of crushing it over the fence.
The only thing that we absolutely know for sure is that Cliff Lee wasn’t enough to win the World Series.
while I think you have a very good argument
that teams that have a legitimate shot to win now shouldn’t pass up on acquisitions of premier players because of a desire to preserve minor league prospects, I don’t think you can say the Phillies played the situation last season badly. The fact that the Phillies won every time Lee pitched wouldn’t retroactively make it a good deal if it was a bad one, but passing on Doc was a great move at the time for Philadelphia considering what they had to give up for Lee and of course it worked out. Certainly, the Lee acquisition didn’t “fail” in any meaningful sense of the word.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
i agree, I think it was a good organizational move for the Phillies
by aagoodfella on Dec 12, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
It's the mentality
The Lee deal was a good one, but again, they lost. I’m against organizations going to their backup plan because they’re so obsessed with prospects that they deliberately undercut themselves. If the Jays were in the position to acquire a piece that they felt was the difference between winning and losing a World Series, and the cost was Snider, you pay the cost. Deciding ‘well, we’ve got an option that’s sorta as good and he’s cheaper’ midseason when you’re in the hunt for the World Series are decisions of losing clubs. Hence the Cone-Kent trade. Everyone knew that Kent was going to be a very good ballplayer, and that Cone was only going to be a half year rental. But the Jays decided he was the piece they needed to get over the top to the Series and paid it. Since they won the World Series, they’re above criticism for it.
So you're arguing it's Karmic retribution then?
Because otherwise you still haven’t explained how going with Lee instead of Halladay cost the Phillies anything last year. Was Halladay going to win those Yankees games to such a degree that they’d count twice? Otherwise the Phillies are losing even if Halladay threw two complete game no-hitters.
If you’re just saying you just didn’t like the idea, well, fine. That’s just like your opinion, man.
/Lebowski’d
But Phillies fans who weren’t fixated on Halladay were damn glad to have Cliff Lee. And there’s nothing that Halladay could have done to prevent the Phillies losing that series.
No, I’m arguing it is the mentality. Philidelphia had targeted the piece that they thought would best give them the chance to win, and they balked at the price because of what a prospect might be. So they went to their second and lesser choice. So, as a organization, they willingly went with what they felt was a lesser asset in order to protect a prospect in their preperations for a World Series. That is an organizational mistake, in my mind. It is being willing, as a ball club, to trade away the best chance to win now for a possible chance to win later.
I understand your arguement somewhat.
But ultimately, in the end, it didn’t matter. Lee pitched as well as Halladay would have.
In hindsight the deal the Phillies made actually worked out better. Especially if Lee is around for the next couple years.
If they still get Halladay, I think they will be set up pretty good for the near future.
If they get Halladay, I’d make them the odds on favourite, even against the Yankees.
The thing is, I’m really not as much criticizing the specifics (Lee verses Halladay, etc) but the operational mindset behind it. If you have a shot to win, and you’ve got a number one guy who you think is the key to do so, rejecting that over the potential of a pricing prospect is a bad decision in my view.
While I understand what you’re saying, your argument vastly oversimplifies reality.
You’re basically framing this situation as one that presents two options: (1) go for broke to get the best player available; or (2) hold on to your prospects and plan for the future. You’re ignoring the general statistical improbability of winning a World Series in saying that the Phillies should have pursued course #1 with reckless abandon. I mean, over 5 playoff spots, what’s the difference between a 13.8 WAR pitcher (over 2008-09), and a 14.7 WAR pitcher (over 2008-09)? How much does the second pitcher bump up your World Series chances? 5%? Less? I can’t possibly believe that it’s more, given the crapshoot that is playoff baseball.
So in that case, it’s all about value: do you surrender a vastly superior haul of prospects — i.e. a substantial amount of future value — to raise your World Series odds 5% or less? Maybe you would, but I can’t imagine many else would do the same. Saying you should “go for broke” is all well and good, but the reality is far less cut and dried.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 13, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
I should add...
That the standard of discourse here is very good, and I only came to weigh in with my opinions because it’s a pretty reasoned discussion.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 13, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
So in that case, it’s all about value: do you surrender a vastly superior haul of prospects — i.e. a substantial amount of future value — to raise your World Series odds 5% or less?
To increase my odds 5% of winning? Yes, and any GM that doesn’t is an idiot not to. Any idea what 5% statistically represents in a playoff situation?
In short, you management came up short and you’re defending a loss. I wholly support decisions that lead to losses by teams not named the Toronto Blue Jays. Enjoy Drabek sometime down the road maybe…
I think ayjackson made the point
that Cliff Lee didn’t pitch on three days’ rest. So we aren’t just looking at the difference between Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay for their starts, we’re looking at the difference between Roy Halladay and Joe Blanton in a World Series game.
Which rotation would you prefer?
Option 1: Lee, Pedro, Hamels, Blanton, Lee, Pedro, Hamels
OR
Option 2: Halladay, Pedro, Hamels, Halladay, Pedro, Hamels, Halladay
The Lee acquisition was a tremendous coup but the Phils would have gotten World Series starts from Doc, which they could not get from Clifton Phifer. Not to mention — as has been brought up by Dex — no pitcher knows the Yankees better than Doc.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
of course
Phillies fans are inherently no more or less obnoxious than any other team’s fans. And just about every team experiences the bandwagon effect, which of course is a good thing. Hell, I wish there were a Jays bandwagon. I only meant that the Phils have gotten to me personally because they are the most recent team to see the effect (the Yankees bandwagon never left,haha) and because they are geographically close to me. Nothing against the Phils or their fans, but the closer to me the team to which Doc is dealt (and I don’t think he’s getting traded to the O’s or the Nationals) the more it will sting.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
by hugo on Dec 11, 2009 4:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
all the press seems to be weighted to Phillies getting Roy. A contrarian would say this means he is likely to wind up somewhere else. Of course, what do contrarians know about baseball? LOL
by aagoodfella on Dec 11, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Doc to Yanks - next question.
When the Jays close on a deal with the Phillies, Angels or whomever – at the last second – the Yanks will come in – like they always do – and offer a Montero, Hughes centered deal, with some other eye candy and – deal done.
IM(H)O this is actually IN OUR FAVOR – the Yanks will then crush US and crush Boston. They will actually HELP US by crushing Boston as well as us. That narrows the gap between Boston and us. We have a chance – IF 4 or 5 of our 23 young pitchers blossom – to actually contend for the wild card.
Gotta see Ruiz get 500 at bats – what do you say – 35 homers?
35 homers is possible for Ruiz, although Dakers and Hugo will pounce on you for that comment, LOL
Phillies and BoSox both have nice prospects that NYY money cannot necessarily match
I think Angels are motivated buyers so if NYY tries to do something at last minute, it might be too little too late
who knows what is going on with Dodgers?
haha
I wouldn’t disagree 35 homers is “possible.” Just not likely.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Ruiz can't get 35 homers
because his platoon partner at 1B, Carlos Delgado, is going to swat 27 and reach 500 as a Jay!
I hope you are wrong. After Frank Thomas, I would prefer if the Jays did not become the elephant grave yard of MLB — where old sluggers come to die. LOL
given the same number of at-bats, I’d bet on Delgado to put up better numbers than Ruiz in 2010.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
if it comes to Ruiz or Delgado
hard to say what Delgado would do for sure … his numbers seem to be tailing off a little, although they are not falling off a cliff. But he is definitely showing the signs of a career in twilight. Numbers coming down a bit. and a major injury (hip) requiring surgery. Will he ever be the same again? That is an unknown. I would be hesitant to sign him for more than a one year deal. The career will come to an end soon. It could be one year or four years. But he is on the downtrend and whether he ever comes back from injury is uncertain.
In contrast, Ruiz is still moving up, even if admittedly, he is progressing along the learning much more slowly, than traditional baseball stars. In my view, there are many ways to skin a cat and many paths to MLB success. Perhaps, Ruiz is taking a path less trodden by. In any case, best case scenario with him is that you get 4, maybe 5 years of productive service.
With Delgado, I would argue you can look at past history and draw a trend line down, the question is how steep. With Ruiz, I would argue you can look at past history and draw a trend line up, the question is how flat. Is one trend line above the other? I think they will be fairly close.
I am in the camp that Ruiz is on the uptrend and has a lot to prove and can probably offer the Jays a year or two of more productive service than Delgado, who could already be done for. Meanwhile, Dakers and Hugo, I think, feel that Delgado’s fantastic career numbers to date are a better indicator of future results than unproven Ruiz. There are merits to both positions, but personally, I would rather stay with Ruiz.
by aagoodfella on Dec 12, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
generally, I don't disagree, but I have to point out that it's hard to say Ruiz is on an upward trajectory
he’s 32 next season and that’s when offensive players generally start to decline. Ruiz isn’t exactly athletic so while he might stave off decline for a while (certainly he has no fielding skills to lose), it’s not exactly a safe bet. Of course, Delgado is in decline too, but from a near hall-of-fame trajectory.
I liked what I saw from Ruiz last season so I’d like him to stick around and see some at-bats. But he wouldn’t keep me from acquiring someone else – not necessarily Delgado though, who only makes sense for the 2010 Jays in a very specific context (I’d actually want him around to mentor to guys like Lind, Snider, and Encarnacion as much as for his hitting, since he is so well known as a student of hitting)
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
Move Delgado to the AL, so he can DH occasionally, and get him out of CitiField…presto. 30 HR with regular at-bats.
I am sure he won’t sign with the Jays, but I would be absolutely delighted if by some fluke he ends up hitting number 500 at the Rogers Centre, even with an opposing team.
It would be one of my favourite moments as a baseball fan. I sincerely hope the roof would come down.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
- Dennis ‘Oil Can’ Boyd claims he used cocaine before a majority of his games
- Does Billy Beane’s contract extension signal an optimistic dawn for Oakland fans?
- Ask Alex: Will Alex Avila be an All-Star again?
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
