This is Willard Preacher's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Willard Preacher's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Willard Preacher
Los Angeles
Enjoying show business, the So Cal weather, and following the Phils.
Recent Activity
"A.J. Burnett said, 'Probably not' when asked if he plans to pitch next year." Hmmmm, sounds familiar, as he said the same thing last year, too, and that was without being guaranteed $10M+ reasons to think otherwise.
1 reply
TMac mentioning Galvis and Hernandez as likely to complicate the Phils' interest in Blanco next year only proves that even being paid to watch and be with this team, literally every single day, doesn't guarantee an awareness as to how they work. As if there's ever been a concern by the Phils about having too many light hitting utility IF's. Pfft.
1 reply
"Day game Hamels." Maybe we need our GM to instruct our manager on how/when to use our highly paid ace?
1 reply
I sure didn't mean to generate any political discussion. My overarching point remains, regardless - if this FO so much as considers extending RAJ (even if just to circumvent a "lame duck" scenario), it would be about as bad a decision as any entity can make. If the attendance drop this year isn't eye opening enough to the ownership group that this city wants/needs a competitive team in order to generate that revenue they mainlined through the "glory years," then they should be forced to sell on the basis that they're not intellectually competent to be running an organization and immediately institutionalized.
1 reply
The Phillies ownership group extending Ruben Amaro, Jr. would be a more egregiously terrible move than all of the many noted bad moves that RAJ, himself, has made. This team is already a handful of years away from being competitive again thanks to Amaro and keeping him at the helm will only served to set the team back exponentially. A RAJ extension would be a worse abuse of power than anything Rick Perry is being indicted for.
1 reply
Juums, it will be interesting to see whether the Phils put their money where their mouth is with regards to Sizemore. He's a fine "fall back" plan as a stop gap until you find your "build for the future guy." I don't think you'll ever see him and Castillo on the same 40 man roster. But if I'm a betting man, I suspect next year you do see Grady in lieu of of the "for the future guy." But your larger point stands. If there's one area of surplus to deal from (aside from closer) it's in the OF. Seeing Mayberry's name there makes me cringe. Seeing Ruf's name there makes me wish they really, truly knew that he's actually a 1B, like they say they do...
1 reply
"So, the Phillies have the largest drop (%-wise) in attendance this year, going from 8th in attendance to 15th." And yet everyone gets all incensed when JRoll calls the fans "front runners." Sometimes the truth hurts.
1 reply
So the lesson is that the real problem here is "Cody Asche as protection?" Perhaps that explains why Brown has been a sh8tshow this year, as well.
1 reply
"Byrd's had some serious stinkers recently too." Patented BAP reverse jinx?
1 reply
If we're really being fair to the staff in charge of making these decisions, we should actually be looking at what Ruf did 7 years ago.
1 reply
"Per how these things tend to work, he's going to rediscover the stroke he had last year just in time to become the leading Phillie Killer of the year for the last six weeks of the season." But the only real problem is that the Phillies are already dead. Unfortunately, the ultimate Phillie Killer already has a semi-permanent location right in the Phillies Front Office.
1 reply
Juums, I was alluding more to the simple rules, processes, etc., of the game. Something like, oh I don't know, how the waiver process works. Basically, just so long as you demonstrate that you're not a "talk out you ass WIP-type whackadoo" we could use your site! The one thing that I am starting to miss about BL is JW's unique perspective as a jumping off point for discussion.
1 reply
Juums, if you build it, they will come... I'm all for it, just so long as you promise to actually understand the game, provide some sort of insight outside of the standard prevailing wisdom, and not use it to try to get attention, all like some /cough/ posters here...
1 reply
Yeah, I've gathered as much... Oh well, not the first time someone has posted without even a limited understanding of what it is they're talking about. I do love that about this site!
1 reply
"And Amaro cannot afford to give him away his biggest chip." WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HE'D RISK DOING BY EXPOSING HAMELS TO IRREVOCABLE WAIVERS!!! And, to reiterate, exposing Cole to irrevocable waivers is, quite literally, the only possible way to now trade him in this season, thanks to the Cubs previous claim. Basically, any discussion of Cole being traded this year at all is absolutely, 100% moot, unless it revolves around trading him after the season. Don't waste your breath or time even discussing it, analyzing it, reasoning it, etc., because it will not happen.
1 reply
Tal, Hamels would only be available for irrevocable waivers (meaning he couldn't be pulled back if/when claimed). Granted, any team making a claim would be responsible for paying his entire remaining contract, but he's not egregiously overpaid by any means, and he'd be a hell of an addition to many teams for several years. Basically, any team that wants him can have him at his current contract without having to give up a damn thing in return. BOS, for instance, would even be able to claim him, pay him his contract, and we'd get nothing in a trade, so why would they not claim him on waivers, then trade us something for him? Not sure why you'd assume that he'd "not be grabbed that quickly." And if he is grabbed, he's the "grabbing" teams property immediately. That's not likely a risk that anyone wants to take (and certainly not a perception you'd want to put in Cole's head that he's essentially expendable in that vein).
1 reply
Sizemore quickly getting the OF "versatility" tag. Can't wait to see Sandberg try him at 3B in the next few weeks.
1 reply
Let's not let the actual process and facts get in the way of page views!
1 reply
BAP, nope. Right there with you. Then again, "puzzling" is probably an apropos adjective to describe many of Sandberg's decisions. "Forced upon him" may be another effective descriptor...
1 reply
I don't see how anyone could fault Rube for actually trading Fausto. What good does it do to keep him, anyway? The fact that starting pitching isn't exactly an area of surplus for us, or that Fausto wasn't our desired first trade chip (hi Paps!) is really part of being a "seller." Candidly, Rube hasn't exactly put himself in a position to be the one making those decisions. When another team has an area of need, you do what makes sense, which is exactly what happened here. I'm certainly not one to ever laud Rube, but here's one instance where it's tough to find any fault whatsoever. Think of how we'd react next month if we heard that this potential offer was on the table and Rube didn't react.
1 reply
I'm all for speculation on what it would take to trade/get Hamels, but in my head I still can't get over why the Cubs of all teams would be the ones making the claim. I can't imagine that they're looking to actually get him (they're a long way from "win now" mode, just like the Phils). Would they be looking to block him from someone else?
1 reply
And this is where RAJ's ego comes into play. His next move will be one where the pendulum swings the complete opposite way. He'll trade away Ruf for and aging, oft-injured Ross Gload-type of has-been, so that he doesn't have to conceded that he's, you know, actually rebuilding.
1 reply
SP isn't exactly an area of strength for the Phils to be dealing away, but really, why not? This is the first real, tangible move that RAJ has made that says "yeah, we stink, let's rebuild." Though, given the rumors of the Dodgers being so stodgy in any trade discussions, I'm not exactly counting on either PTBNL contributing in any capacity whatsoever.
1 reply
CT, I was joking about other GM's not working with Rube because he's a DB. If anything, you'd think they'd be jumping at the chance to fleece him. The only problem is that he doesn't have anything worth fleecing. The deadly combination of vesting options, NT clauses, and the general age of his talent, means that Rube is bringing a knife to a gun fight. His comments about other GM's not being aggressive enough is endearingly commical. It's like posting a a pair of dog-chewed, stained and smelly British Knights on craigslist and bitching that no one wants to drop a couple hundred bucks on them. He's clueless, which only serves to satisfy BAP's initial hypothesis. At this point, we're just waiting out these terrible contracts until the rebuilding phase even begins.
1 reply
Maybe the other GM's don't want/like to work with Ruben because he's a smug douchebag, and it's as simple as that? Just spitballing here.
1 reply