Here was the post from the end of the last thread _________________________________________ Did anyone else see Matt Gelb's piece yesterday? "With Jimmy Rollins finally under contract for 2012 and beyond, the Phillies have a better idea of their payroll for the upcoming season. As noted in Sunday's Inquirer, it's wholly possible the Phillies have a lower payroll in 2012 than 2011, but the numbers will be similar. The Phillies finished 2011 with approximately $176 million in payroll. They currently have guaranteed $135 million to 16 players in 2012. That figure will rise with raises through arbitration to Cole Hamels, Hunter Pence, Kyle Kendrick and Wilson Valdez." Gelb puts in what he thinks those arb numbers will be and they are: Hamels- 14 million Pence- 11 million Kendrick- 3.4 million Valdez- 910,000 That would get you to around 164 million dollars for 20 players. Then you figure in guys not listed on the site: Bastardo, Mayberry Jr, Worley, Stutes, and probably another bullpen arm for around 500,000 a piece (and factoring in maybe a low projection or two) you have a 25 man roster making somewhere between 166-169 million. We ended last season at 176 million. Going to be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Did anyone else see Matt Gelb's piece yesterday? "With Jimmy Rollins finally under contract for 2012 and beyond, the Phillies have a better idea of their payroll for the upcoming season. As noted in Sunday's Inquirer, it's wholly possible the Phillies have a lower payroll in 2012 than 2011, but the numbers will be similar. The Phillies finished 2011 with approximately $176 million in payroll. They currently have guaranteed $135 million to 16 players in 2012. That figure will rise with raises through arbitration to Cole Hamels, Hunter Pence, Kyle Kendrick and Wilson Valdez." Gelb puts in what he thinks those arb numbers will be and they are: Hamels- 14 million Pence- 11 million Kendrick- 3.4 million Valdez- 910,000 That would get you to around 164 million dollars for 20 players. Then you figure in guys not listed on the site: Bastardo, Mayberry Jr, Worley, Stutes, and probably another bullpen arm for around 500,000 a piece (and factoring in maybe a low projection or two) you have a 25 man roster making somewhere between 166-169 million. We ended last season at 176 million. Going to be interesting to see how this shakes out.

MG: Define "effective" in relation to Zach Duke. Again- his career numbers against lefties are: .280/.333/.418/.750 In strictly his appearances as a reliever his numbers are: .296/.346/.408/.754 in 107 plate appearances. Do those numbers strike you as effective?

Duke may give up a hit but it's pretty unlikely he will BB a guy let alone 2 guys before getting pulled. ____________________________________________ This is hilarious. So Duke may let more guys on base but it's okay because they are hits and not walks. In their careers left handers have 887 plate appearances against Willis and 847 against Duke. Willis has 262 strikeouts and 73 walks for a 3.59 K/BB ratio. Duke has 150 strikeouts and 51 walks for a 2.94 K/BB ratio. but okay- you don't want to use career numbers because you're argument falls apart and you think it is better to use more recent numbers to evaluate a player. In 2011: left handers against Willis had a slash of: .127/.169/.200/.369 in 60 plate appearances. left handers against Duke in 2011: .225./.247/.324/.571 in 74 plate appearances. Is that recent enough for you? Do you want to put anymore restrictions on the criteria. Maybe we can look at numbers when they pitched on full moons. Study and find something that will prove your point. Willis has never pitched as a reliever. Duke has and has a slash line of: .296/.346/.408/.754 in 107 plate appearances. Again, saving money is one thing but saving money to bring in a guy who we know is not very good is a bad move by all accounts.

Left handers vs Willis have this slash line: .200/.274/.288/.562 Left handers vs Duke have this slash line: .280/.333/.418/.750 MG: Saving money is one thing. But if you are going to save money you should probably get the guy who has considerably better career numbers against the people he will need to get out when he enters games.

awh: I honestly would really consider that offer. Teams around the league were really high on Alonso and Grandal. The issue with Alonso is that he seems pegged for first base so obviously he is blocked here. However, you could flip him around for something else. Grandal would be a nice catcher to let get one more year in Triple A and then move from there. It's a good haul the Padres got.

I think its good that we got Jimmy for 3 guaranteed years instead of the 5 he wanted. Even if he gets to the 4th year option it is still a year less than what he wanted. I know personal feelings can't come into these proceedings but it would've hurt to see Rollins doing well elsewhere while we we trotting out trash like Renteria, Punto, or even turning the keys over to Galvis in an impossible spot for the kid. This feels similar to the Jeter signing last year where the guy is so identified with the team that it has to happen- it's just a matter of the price.

Amaro is getting credit for a move? I was told numerous times by posters that he is a guy who has no idea what he is doing and gets schooled by everyone in negotiations. And that he is a stupid Stanford grad. [/sarcasm]

"Also, no one knew the Red Sox weren't spending money on a closer this off-season. The general feeling was they were after either Papelbon or Madson. Once Papelbon signed then it came out they were trying to trade for Bailey. Again, you are using after the fact facts to prove your point." Not true. Just go back to Globe/Herald or several other sources which strongly indicated after Cherington was named the GM that they weren't going to make much of an effort to resign Papelbon. Cherington even came out after the day Papelbon was signed to say they didn't even make him an offer & that they weren't going to spend large dollars on signing a closer long-term Posted by: MG | Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 12:18 PM ___________________________________________ This is comedy at its finest. I say something and get told it is completely untrue and then the person basically proves my point. MG: The general consensus was that the Red Sox were in on one of the big boy closers. That was everything read and heard on the issue. In the past two weeks it came out that the Red Sox and Yankees were tightening their belts. Amaro didn't know that 4 weeks ago.

aksmith: You show an amazing trend to not be able to critically think but then try to turn it on people because you don't understand the fundamental basis of their argument. It's a trait- I'll give you that. I find it odd that you weren't here last year decrying giving Lee 21 million even though the situation was sort of similar to how you view the Papelbon situation this year. I want to live in your world where somehow 21 million dollars doesn't matter but 13 million does. Also, it's funny that you get out of what awh and I said that "They think it's more important to have a closer than one of the top 7 or 8 pitchers in baseball." Are you trying to miss the point? I do believe that I mentioned numerous times that 12-13 million was a steep price. However, I don't view it as crippling necessarily. It is if they let it be. I don't know what Rube's rush was. Maybe he thought if he didn't act he wouldn't get the guy he wanted or the price may go up. If for some reason some team gave Madson 12 or 13 million than Papelbon would've gotten more than he did.

MG: Yes there were closers on the market but look at some of those deals. Heath Bell got 3 years, 27 million. The last three years his ERA+ is 140, 191, 146 for an average of 159 a season. Joe Nathan got 2 years, 14.75 million. His last healthy season (2009) he had an ERA+ of 210. Last season his ERA+ was 83. 7+ million a year is a lot for a guy who has a huge injury question mark hanging there. But I know he was one guy you heavily advocated. Frank Francisco got 2 years, 12 million. His last three years he has an ERA+ of 122, 120, and 120 for an average of ~121. He has also lost the closer job twice the past three seasons. Another guy you heavily advocated. Papelbon got 4 years, 50 million. His last three years he has ERA+ of 254, 112, and 145 for an average of 170. His career ERA+ is 197. Bell's is 127. Also, Papelbon is 3 years younger than Bell. So when Bell is getting 9 million average, and Francisco is getting 6, and Nathan is getting ~7.5 it is not as if Papelbon at ~12.5 is completely ridiculous. It's not great, but it's not outrageous. Also, no one knew the Red Sox weren't spending money on a closer this off-season. The general feeling was they were after either Papelbon or Madson. Once Papelbon signed then it came out they were trying to trade for Bailey. Again, you are using after the fact facts to prove your point.

"One thing I don't understand though is 'how can you judge Amaro for signing Papelbon in hindsight." What a weak cop-out. You who you objectively evaluate most things that occur with a heavy degree of hindsight?" MG why is this a hard concept to understand. I'm referring to hindsight in that had Amaro known the market would pretty much collapse for Madson he probably would've waited to sign a closer. You don't know that though. And if Madson had signed elsewhere for something like the 11 million the Phillies supposedly offered than Papelbon probably gets closer to 14 million. It's easy to gauge things in hindsight. It doesn't constitute a good argument though and it is just someone trying to appear smarter than they are by purporting to see into the future. On that last sentence- do you ever proofread anything you write so it sounds like you are trying to make a salient point? Whatever you are trying to say there is completely muddled. cut_fastball: Of course a team that wins the World Series is not going to speak a word about luck or a hot hand. Is that really your argument? Really?!?!

cut_fastball: You can't be this dumb unless it is an act. In the original post I made I outright said the pitching let the team down. I'm not sure how that is defending the Phillies or being an apologist. I specifically mentioned something that failed and cast blame on Lee and Oswalt for being less than advertised. But again, that is "an apologist." Secondly, I know you want to bow at the altar of LaRussa and say, "Great managers make great decisions; great players make great plays. “Luck” is where preparation meets opportunity." That's fine but let me ask this question. If Lee does what he normally does and holds a 4 run lead how smart does LaRussa look in that series. You are bringing up great authors and ideas (based on your posts I don't think you have ever read any of those authors or understand those ideas) but you fail to grasp the idea of hindsight not being a rationale. That series happened to work out in LaRussa's favor despite- gambling with Carpenter on short rest, and leaving in Garcia a little too long in Game 3. It wasn't that he "shook it up," or that Charlie didn't. The Cardinals had bad moves in that series and it didn't cost them. The Phillies had bad performances. There is a difference. Independent thinking doesn't frighten me, that's just a stupid thing for you to say. Stupid independent thinking annoys me and insults the very fabric of intelligence that a discussion should have. You engage in that second one.

aksmith: Money is money. It doesn't matter who that money is going to. It's kind of a silly argument to say, "Well Lee at 21 million isn't hurting the budget because he's a starter." Why isn't it a possibility in your mind to spend less there and then spend the money they did on Papelbon? And really, if we are to believe the initial reports Amaro had Madson ready to be locked up at 11 million per year. That was ~2 million less than Papelbon over the years. So it's not as if signing him was going to significantly change the budget any. Also, I don't think anyone ever thought that having Thome on the team was going to lead to Cuddyer leaving a bunch of money on the table to come here. That's jsut you having some line of thought you want to prove right even though no one is arguing the opposite. "Rube jumped the shark with that signing. And if Madson signs a cheap one year or two year deal somewhere else, it will make it an even worse signing." Something you- and many others don't get on here. Hindsight is not a good point in an argument. Anyone can make their ideas look good by using hindsight. Had Amaro known Madson would still be out there he may not have jumped in on Papelbon. But had Amaro not jumped in on Papelbon somebody would have. 2 other things: 1.) cut_fastball, I hope that post of yours was facetious because it was in the top 10 of the silliest things posted on this blog. 2.)DPatrone- I get that you feel that Game 5 hurt but again, we never should have been in game 5 anyway. That matters some in the equation.

Explain something to me- why is the offense good in the regular season but they suck in the post-season? Why is that a huge deal? Don't we understand by now that the playoffs are a bit of a crapshoot? Also- and I may be alone on this- I think the pitching is why we lost to the Cardinals. People like to focus on the 1-0 outcome of Game 5 because they have short attention spans but the offense should've had that series won in 3 or 4 games. Let's recap: Game 1- Halladay has a terrible start to the game and gives up three runs in the first. He then settles in and in the 6th inning the offense erupts for 5 runs and bails out Halladay giving the team an 11-6 victory. Game 2- Chris Carpenter going on short rest has nothing and the Phillies jump him for 4 runs through the first two innings. The much praised Cliff Lee blows a 4-0 lead which almost never happens and the Phillies lose 5-4. Game 3- Cole Hamels and Jaime Garcia pitch zeroes at the opposing teams before Ben Francisco connects for a 3 run home run which is the difference in a 3-2 win. That should've been the series. Game 4- The Phillies give Roy Oswalt a 2-0 lead in the first. He gives the Cardinals 1 back in the bottom half. Then 2 more in the 4th, and 2 in the 6th leading to a 5-3 loss. That was the second time in the series where one of the four aces blew a first inning lead. Game 5- Chris Carpenter- on full rest- pitched an excellent game. I know people are pissed but we got out classed by one of the top 15 or 20 pitchers in baseball. It wasn't as if it was Kyle Lohse out there doing this to the Phillies. Carpenter is a Cy Young winner. Perhaps people would like us to sign guys to specifically play in October. Maybe we can lock up Prince Fielder long term but he only plays in the playoffs. Beltran is out there, maybe we can get him too. Also, I love that it is Papelbon hamstringing the budget. Not Utley at 15 million, or Halladay at 20, or Cliff Lee at 21. Nope, it's Papelbon at 13.

awh: I goofed in what I typed. I was trying to say the moves make the better in some ways. That was why I talked about stuff not really related to on the field and said that is why you have to hope they work out baseball wise. Sorry to make you do all that work on my goof.

Did everyone see the note on the Willis contract where he gets a 25,000 dollar bonus if he makes 30 plate appearances?

Redburb: Clearly he is but it makes it funnier that he is refusing to see that. NEPP: Small hair splitting but the "best there is..." shtick was Bret Hart's not Ric Flair. On the topic at hand: I think JW is hitting on the moves in the right tone here. Moves can serve two functions. 1.) On the field and 2.) Off the field. The moves the Phillies have made this off-season make the team better in so many ways that you have to hope that they work out baseball wise. Thome is going to be the elder statesman of the team. I think a lot of guys will seek his guidance and advice as he feels the hitting role of Gload last year. Nix is not a great ball player but he brings a certain panache to the field that a guy like Ben Fran never did. Nix will struggle but he will do things on the field (mostly defensively) that will impact games. Papelbon is a fiery guy and I think the fans will embrace him once they get past the Madson stuff. Paps has some of that closer disease where he has the goofy mannerisms but he will go out and scowl and bring some energy late in the games. Willis is a guy who has his own style and they will be able to market him. Now granted- this all falls apart if the guys don't contribute on the field in the way you would like but as far as marketing tools- these guys were good signings.

Steve Jeltz wishes he was on the 93 team.

NEPP: I know people complained about Mini Mart incessantly but he was basically Jeltz who was the starting shortstop for this team for 4 freakin' seasons.

On a serious note- I think we are seeing what teams around the league really think about Prince Fielder as far as being a long term investment. I'm kind of surprised people aren't jumping in on him. I think whatever team gets him may be able to do so on a relatively short contract and he could be dangerous. Honestly, if I were the Rangers- I would go hard after him and try to get him for maybe 3 or 4 years at something around 20 million plus a season. Then negotiate from there. I think he would instantly help that team survive the tide shifting the Angels way right now.

I remember watching that game in 1989 and thinking, "I wonder how this guy will affect our payroll in 6 years."

aksmith: How far do you think Pujols will fall in the next 5 years that he becomes completely untradeable like Raul Ibanez? One is a career OPS+ of 112. The other is a career 170. Do you honestly think an AL team wouldn't take the chance with Pujols? Also, what makes you think that in a hypothetical world where the Cardinals had to trade Pujols they wouldn't pick up some of the salary? Also, you still have yet to answer the question as to how you know what their payroll will be in 2020 and 2021.

Only a simpleton would not be able to see that the only reason the Cardinals were not able to "meet Pujols demands" is because they shelled out a bunch of big contracts that have plenty of questions while waiting for the situation to sort itself out. Again- they are paying Berkman/Lohse/Holliday 41 million dollars this season and lost Pujols over about 4 per year. But that is a solid plan to some. Stunning.

MG: They paid Berkman 8 million for 2011. They re-signed him for 2012 in September for 12 million dollars.