Odds & Ends: Mauer, Hairston, Buck, Benson

Links for Tuesday…


Leave a Reply

92 Comments on "Odds & Ends: Mauer, Hairston, Buck, Benson"


nepp
5 years 7 months ago

Why is Keith Law being put forward as the end all of prospect rating? Why not list their places on BP’s top 100 or BA’s?

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

Your entire point is invalidated by it’s reliance of Keith Law’s rankings. Keith has got to be the most biased talent evaluator out there, pushing prospects and systems that fit his mentality rather than performance and true potential.

5 years 7 months ago

That’s absurd, but feel free to try to back it up somehow. Typically the type of comment I see when someone feels Law slighted their favorite team. Why would Law judge prospects based on someone else’s mentality?

Anyway, I don’t believe BA or BP has their top 100s out yet. Aumont is #47 on Jonathan Mayo’s, if that helps.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100127&content_id=7983130&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

Do you read his chats? The man makes statements on prospects that make it obvious he has no idea how he’s been doing. It’s one thing not to know about every prospect, but when Keith doesn’t, he makes it up (and whether it’s positive or negative has a lot to do with the organization). Just last week he said of Dan Hudson ” what a D1 college product did in A-ball – especially low-A – is just not that exciting. Unless he stunk, in which case, he’s got one food in the discard pile.”

How does Keith not know that Hudson tore up A, AA, and AAA and spent significant time in the majors all in his first season? Why did he see fit to make something up?

Keith relies on people to tell him what prospects are good. And those people work in specific organizations. He’s not an analyst, and his rankings are more about raising the value of the organizations that help him out.

But go ahead and call me absurd. I’m not the guy backing an “analyst” who makes things up when he has no idea what he’s talking about.

5 years 7 months ago

I can’t speak to one on-the-fly chat comment on Daniel Hudson. But you’d need a good ten examples of Law opinions that showed bias to start having a case against him. Burden is on you to prove that Keith Law does not travel around looking at prospects and has an agenda in his rankings. Are there prospect experts who feel this way? Team execs? Or is it just some disgruntled fans who don’t like opinionated writers?

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

Keith’s detractors include all of those groups. I assumed that was common knowledge…

It isn’t that I don’t believe Keith travels around looking at prospects. It’s just he’s one guy, and his time is finite. He gets the bulk of his information from MLB scouts and execs (and if you read his chats and articles, he’ll say that a lot). It doesn’t take a genius to figure out which teams those guys belong to.

TradeYouk
5 years 7 months ago

Where have you seen it mentioned by prospect experts, team execs, scouts etc. that they have a negative opinion on law? It seems like you are grasping at straws here. Also, I would like to see where you are getting the scouting reports on Hudson that profile him as anything better than a #3 starter. Even Baseball Prospectus, who rated him #1 among White Sox prospects mentioned that many scouts feel that he has maxed out projection wise on his stuff and that his ceiling is that of a #3 starter.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9776

Also, last year both BA and BP’s top 100 lists came our Mid to Late February, so they will probably come out the same time this year. Keith Law’s is probably the most reputable one out right now, which I am sure is one reason Tim referenced it.

markjsunz
5 years 7 months ago

Most likely it is script written for him by a script writer. Most top 100 prospects will make no or limited impact in the Big Leagues. There are more busts then sucess storys with minor league players.

Alex
5 years 7 months ago

In regards to Tim’s challenge to find 10 instances of Keith Law’s bias I think that would be helpful but unnecessary. As a journalist the onus is on you to protect your reputation and when there is even one major instance of apparent bias it can severely damage a writer’s (and publication’s) reputation.

As for Keith specifically, I don’t think its a coincidence that astute readers (and of many different team allegiances) notice a pattern of bias, there may be something there. I’m not sure its bias or poor information analysis/acquisition but I’ve long been weary of taking anything he says (or lists) without a strong doze of skepticism. Further, I would strongly shy away from making any argument using his list.

On the Phillies trade I also think RAJ should have shopped Lee more, however, in terms of real value, I think what he traded mid-season last year and what he got back this offseason are roughly the same, with more higher ceiling guys coming in and more backup type players going out. Obviously, time will tell how these prospects pan out and how good the Phillies scouting/talent evaluation was.

The mistake for the Phillies was giving up such a boatload of talent for Halladay. I love the contract we got for him but really, where was the competition on this one? He was only willing to go to a very limited set of teams in a very limited time frame, why did we have to give 2 A prospects and a young catcher that was the only catching depth in our system.

TradeYouk
5 years 7 months ago

Also, if you google “Keith Law Daniel Hudson” you will find a chat in June where someone asks about Hudson after moving up to AA and a chat in August where someone asks a question after Hudson moved up to AAA. If you honestly believe that Keith had no idea Hudson pitched past A ball, the chats are 2 instances that show he was aware of Hudson’s promotions.

NL_East_Rivalry
5 years 7 months ago

So… people shouldn’t get their information on players through scouts? Hm… that philosophy might change the draft, trades, and signings of FA’s. I think you may be onto something here.

vtadave
5 years 7 months ago

Please provide a link to that chat comment.

Your take that a guy who does this for a living has “no idea what he’s talking about” without backing up such a comment with specific examples is what is absurd.

Feel free to disagree, but you might come off as less of a scorned fan if you actually had something to back up your opinions.

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

Hell hath no fury like a Philly fan scorned.

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

what do you mean “without backing up”…I gave an example, a quote from his last chat. Do I need to link you to his last chat on ESPN? Here you go…http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30543/mlb-insider-keith-law

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

For someone trying to disparage Law’s analytical ability, shouldn’t you use a more analytical approach to make your point instead of throwing out an anecdote from his chat? I don’t think the fact that Hudson shot up to the majors changes the perception that he has back of the rotation stuff. He’s going to need more than small sample successes at various levels to convince people he’s anything more than that.

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

The notion that he has back of the rotation stuff is not shared by all scouts. If that was Keith’s opinion based on watching him this year…okay. But OBVIOUSLY Keith did not watch him this year.

How does someone who’s supposedly an expert miss the fact that a guy shoots through every minor league level in one season, and makes the majors? Is that common? Seriously, how does he not notice that? Unless he’s not paying attention. Kind of my point.

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

That’s still an anecdotal rebuttal to Law’s analytical abilities. Anyway, he uses a combination of traditional scouting and advanced metrics when making his analysis. It’s unfair and inaccurate to say he relies solely on other scouts opinions. Here’s an anecdote: Isn’t Law the one who got lambasted for voting for Javier Vazquez over Chris Carpenter because of advanced statistical analysis?

As for Hudson, yes there is mixed opinion. All the more reason to wait another year before judging him in a year where he never pitched more than 56 innings at any given level. Even still, he’s a college righty who throws high 80s to low 90s — there isn’t much room for improvement in that area. He’s a guy who’s going to have to rely on control, changing speeds, and breaking balls. Unless his change-up is of the Johann Santana variety, then that sounds like a back of the rotation guy to me.

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

I didn’t agree with Law choosing Vazquez over Carpenter, but I also didn’t think it was a big deal.

I brought the Hudson thing up because it’s fresh in my mind. It isn’t the first time Keith obviously didn’t watch a guy…it won’t be the last. If you’d like me to, I could start making a spreadsheet for you. : )

I don’t agree with a lot of Law’s opinions. But the bigger issue is he makes statements without personal knowledge on the situation. Which is why I made my initial point about quoting him to back an argument. He’s not a sound source.

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

No spreadsheet necessary :) I think you’ve made your opinion about Law pretty clear! I guess what I’m trying to say with Hudson is that there was probably some thought about putting him on the list but for various reasons he was left off — perhaps for some of the same reasons that I am skeptical of Hudson. Law probably made a mistake not acknowledging his ascent to higher levels in his response, but I don’t think it means he didn’t do his due diligence on Hudson. I think it was just the kind of screw up that happens when you are inundated with questions and have to answer them quickly. But…we can agree to disagree about that one!

ugen64
5 years 7 months ago

how does that statement prove he “obviously didn’t watch the guy”? there are 2 possibilities. I personally believe Law took issue with the question’s wording and noted that sample sizes of 56, 24, and 18.2 IP don’t really constitute “dominating” a level. I have personally watched many times a pitcher who threw a 3.43 ERA in 123.1 IP last season in the majors, and yet I believe he won’t be anything more than a 4th or 5th starter. but wait, he “dominated” the majors just as much as Daniel Hudson did. his name is Brad Bergesen, he strikes out fewer than 5 batters per 9 innings and he throws an 89 mph fastball.

the other possibility, which you seem to be promoting, is that Law actually didn’t know Hudson pitched above A-ball. but what does that have to do with not seeing him? how do you know that Law didn’t watch him pitch 50 times between college and A-ball? oh wait, you don’t – because you’re just throwing out wild speculation as if you know what Law has and hasn’t done.

5 years 7 months ago

As soon as you posted this, Omar Minaya immediately tried to acquire Brad Bergesen. 😉

ugen64
5 years 6 months ago

well to be fair, there are a lot worse pitchers he could be pursuing. Bergesen could probably pull off a consistent 4.00-4.25 ERA in the NL, which probably makes him the 3rd or 4th starter in that rotation. :-)

TradeYouk
5 years 7 months ago

The way I interpreted his comment was that he was referring to the poster’s part of the question that said Hudson “dominated every level in existence.” I think his point was that half of Hudson’s minor league starts were made in Low A and A last year, so that “domination” wasn’t anything to get excited over. He wasn’t saying that Hudson only pitched in A ball last year. It was more a point on sample size I think. He definitely could have worded it better, but I am not going to fault anyone who tries to answer as many of the thousands of questions they get for not answering 100% clearly every time.

5 years 7 months ago

It’s not the fact that the Phils traded Lee that bothers me. I get the whole “long term thinking”, but the point of “not shopping Lee around” is what bothers me. The Phillies should have received better prospects, and could have.

alexJ64
5 years 7 months ago

To me, if you trade for Halladay and still have Lee, then people start dreaming about an all-star rotation and shopping Lee around become difficult. If you want to do it, you have to to it right away, as they did.

ruffintumble
5 years 7 months ago

That’s an excellent point that I haven’t seen mentioned before.

Alex
5 years 7 months ago

Yep, and the Mariners took advantage of the Phillies weakness in this position. There needed to be a craftier PR move, maybe something such as a leak shortly before the trade that the Phillies, have limited salary resources and may try to move Lee if they can get Halladay. That way the other shoe dropping is expected by the fan base but doesn’t give away our bargaining position as much. When shopping him we could hold onto the option of keeping him.

jrollpatrol08
5 years 7 months ago

oh of course….the lee/halladay trades HAD to occur simultaneously. had the fanbase been able to consider these two together for, say, a week or so, and then have lee be traded!!!! wow, ruben would have been forced into exile in tibet. i mean, us loyal followers to MLBTR watched this trade unfold as a “three-team trade” between PHI, TOR, and SEA, with possibly the phils NOT having to give up drabek and taylor because seattle was sending prospects to toronto also. when the dust settled and reality set in, phils fans were left scratching their heads. i guess one way to successfully mask the unpopular trade of a newfound CY hero is by bringing in the best pitcher in baseball for undermarket value…….its PR101 and ruben is the instructor

Abraham Zapruder
5 years 7 months ago

Keith Law? Hhahahahahah

From Ricciardi, “He’s become a writer. It doesn’t take long. Keith Law is officially an idiot.”

5 years 7 months ago

If Ricciardi is your ammo against Keith Law, you should keep looking.

Vegandork
5 years 7 months ago

When you think about hiring someone, you don’t call their previous employer? I’m no Ricciardi fan, but Ricciardi’s failures included Keith’s tenure with the Jays.

not_brooks
5 years 7 months ago

Why would you call a previous employer who’s had his foot surgically removed from his mouth about 15 times?

brettfan1
5 years 7 months ago

Mellinger’s post on the Royals was the second part of a two part story. The first part was an optimistic, “what if everything goes right”, look at the 2010 season. The one that you linked was the pessimistic, “what if everything goes wrong”, look at the 2010 season. The pessimistic one might be the most likely outcome, but if you are going to link it you should also link the optimistic post. Royals fans have enough pessimism without having the rare optimistic outlook overlooked.

R_y_a_n
5 years 7 months ago

Amaro definitely could’ve gotten a better return for Lee in my opinion, he didn’t shop around though. When someone made him an offer (in a 3 way trade that included Halladay) Amaro didn’t look at the big picture and jumped on it. Halladay will be great for them, but they didn’t maximize their return. I really don’t think Amaro has done a good job this offseaon…just my opinion.

iwishihadaclue
5 years 7 months ago

I don’t think he’s done a great job either and i’m sure we are not only ones thinking that. Not to mention they didnt add much payroll flexibility for next year.

ugen64
5 years 7 months ago

most people thought he did a bad job last season… I’m still waiting for Dave Cameron to admit he might have been wrong about Raul Ibanez…

jrollpatrol08
5 years 7 months ago

true, not much payroll flexibility….but every current starting position player is signed through 2011 except jayson werth. he comes off the books after 2010, as does some bullpen/bench money. barring any unforseen wild occurrences to the starters, their ‘core’ is basically set up. their offseason next year will probably be quiet, thats all…which sucks b/c next year’s FA class is gonna be a damn good one

markjsunz
5 years 7 months ago

Any team that took on Lee was going to have it`s minor league system raped for a one year rental. Lee is going to the open market next year so unless he is the last player you think will put you over the top into the world series he is not a good fit.
Under the circumstances Amaro got the best deal possible.

JerseyJohn32190
5 years 7 months ago

I don’t think Tim is pointing to Law’s Top 100 as if it proves they aren’t great prospects. I think the general consensus is the Phils didn’t get a great package in return. I didn’t like the deal for them either.

Abraham Zapruder
5 years 7 months ago

The 3 prospects plus Francisco are more valuable than the 4 prospects the Phils gave to Cleveland. I call that a win. Plus, the Phils got the value that Lee supplied to get the team to the World Series last year. Amaro did well.

JerseyJohn32190
5 years 7 months ago

If you wan’t to look at it that way, then it’s a good deal. But just because you got a great deal when acquiring Lee doesn’t mean you should give a discount when trading him away.

5 years 7 months ago

Worth noting that Jack Zdurencik has said he ended up giving the Phillies exactly the three prospects they asked for at the start of the negotiation. These are prospects the Phillies like a great deal. It doesn’t make a whole lot of difference what Keith Law thinks of them.

jrollpatrol08
5 years 7 months ago

yea we can look at this a bunch of different ways, really, much have been talked about in some way or another:

if you are ruben amaro, which is the more important option for trading lee:

1) shop him around. make 6 serious calls (as likely only contenders are using lee for a 1year rental) and see what package you can get. get 2 STUDS and another dude. take your time, get a great deal. get a bunch of players on keith law’s list so people will be happy.

2) just get the deal done as roy halladay is preparing to come to philly. make it happen so the two trades appear to be a 3-team deal, and by the time its over the positive of roy halladay hopefully outweighs the negative of losing lee. this option will be made in haste because roy halladay is really the centerpiece of the whole transaction…

and so he chose option 2…had to be one or the other

tr2008
5 years 7 months ago

it was a tough situation. Amaro couldnt have traded Lee for the best offer before getting Halladay because getting Roy was not a definite. At the same time, Amaro couldnt have traded Lee after getting Halladay because it would have driven the philly fan bonkers. they would have gotten used to the idea of having both Lee and Halladay only to see Amaro move Lee for hte highest bidder of prospects. He had to do it the same day and get the best he could in that timeframe, IMO

JerseyJohn32190
5 years 7 months ago

A GM can’t let the fans get in the way of his job like that. If he could have gotten a better package for Lee by holding on to him for a couple more weeks, then that’s what he should have done. By essentially taking less to not upset the fans, he wouldn’t be doing his job.

tr2008
5 years 7 months ago

I definitely agree with you I just think it may have been a small factor, which is PR. Some people still think it was a 3 way deal.

bflaff
5 years 7 months ago

Benny Looper, who spent 23 years with the Mariners, most recently as their VP of player development, left the M’s to take up a VP position with the Phillies after the 2008 season. So chances are, what the Phillies know about the Mariners farm system is pretty much what the Mariners know about the Mariners farm system. As a result, the Phillies’ confidence that they got three good prospects, given how well they knew the players already, probably greatly outweighs the uncertainty they’d take on if they went to some other organization and had to rely on much more imperfect information when they submitted their prospect wish list. What’s a better deal? 3 guys you know you like, or 3 guys where all you have is a scouting report and some chatter?

boomshwa12
5 years 7 months ago

If anything, I would have to think they could have started a minor bidding war between the Rangers and Mariners for him. They probably could have gotten the Rangers to fork over one of Smoak/Feliz/Perez or the Mariners to trade Triunfel in that scenario. Everyone knows about the Rangers great farm system, and they touched base on many of the top starters on the market this offseason I’d have to think they would have made an attempt to acquire Lee

Andrew Jones
5 years 7 months ago

If Cliff Lee gets traded twice in 6 months for what everyone agrees is not full value, it might be time to realize that MLB GMs don’t place as high a value on him as commentators do.

Utley4God
5 years 7 months ago

It’s tough to lose Lee, but I agree with this comment. What about him caused two “low-ball” deals to go through? What am I missing.

TwinsVet
5 years 7 months ago

Kris Benson comeback?

Anna Benson is the only thing this guy has ever contributed to baseball fans…

alxn
5 years 7 months ago

never heard that one before

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

I agree with those who say the Phillies could have gotten more for Lee. These prospect lists are always somewhat subjective but many believe that Aumont is just a reliever and Gilles looks like a 4th outfielder. The Phillies have shipped out Jason Knapp, Lou Marson, Jason McDonald, Carlos Carrasco, Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D’Arnaud — then replaced them with a hard throwing reliever, a 4th outfielder type and a questionable pitching prospect in Juan Ramirez — all to get a couple months of Lee and then get a slight upgrade to Halladay. I think it’s a pretty heavy price to pay. I understand the Phillies are going for the whole enchilada again this year, but to claim that their farm system didn’t take a big hit in the process is mostly wishful thinking by hometown fans.

Andrew Jones
5 years 7 months ago

They get 4 years of Halladay at below market value, Ben Francisco for 4 years, 3 months of Lee, and 3 prospects. The farm system certainly took a hit, but did they lose anyone who gives as much value as a top 3 in the league pitcher for 4 years?

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

What I am saying is 2 things: 1) The Phillies should have gotten more for Lee and 2) their farm system took a big hit.

jrollpatrol08
5 years 7 months ago

the phils got halladay for 4 years probably 5 at a great price. i ll trade all those prospects for that any day of the week.

PhilliesRed
5 years 7 months ago

Honestly, what makes you think the Phils could have gotten more for Lee? Was it the awesome haul that Cleveland got for him when he would have been around for two – not just one – playoff pushes and postseasons? In that deal the Phils gave away 4 diminishing prospects and got back not only Lee, but a cost controlled major league level outfielder. I think Dave Cameron is right to notice that for whatever confusing reason, other GMs just don’t want to give up premium talent for Lee.

But here’s another idea. Dave wrote this about the Yankees this offseason:

“The Yankees have entered the prime area of significant diminishing marginal utility. They are so good that adding another high quality player doesn’t help them that much in 2010, and because of the long term contract that is required, they’d be risking future flexibility to add wins that may actually matter for an upgrade that just isn’t necessary.”

I might get flamed for this, and certainly I understand that the Phils are not as good as the Yankees, but something like this rationale might have played a part in the Phils deciding to move Lee. The argument is this: the Phils basically don’t need the “4-5 wins Lee would’ve provided in 2010,” and by keeping him, failing to sign Blanton long-term, and having an empty cupboard for the next two-three years, the Phils would have been “risking future flexibility to add wins that may actually matter for an upgrade that just isn’t necessary.” PECOTA – god bless it’s confused little soul – and other projections make it look like the Phils are pretty far out ahead in the NL east. Keeping Lee wouldn’t have a great impact on the Phils playoff chances, and though it would have made the Phils better in the playoffs, there’s so much variance in playoff performance and odds that it would be foolish to trade future flexibility and talent for potential increased in-playoff odds. Just a thought.

5 years 7 months ago

I think it’s logical to suggest the Phillies thought they didn’t need the 4-5 wins Lee would’ve added in 2010. I don’t agree with that, but I could see that being part of their stance.

crunchy1
5 years 7 months ago

I agree that teams aren’t giving up premium talent for Lee, but the Phillies didn’t even get close to “premium” talent. They didn’t even get anyone that projects as a major league starter.

bflaff
5 years 7 months ago

One of Amaro’s VPs (Benny Looper) was the Mariners’ VP of Player Development until the end of the 2008 season. So he and the Phillies presumably know a lot more about these prospects than most people. And that’s a lot better situation for them, in terms of having confidence that their prospect evaluations are correct, than it would be if they dealt with a team whose system they didn’t know as well (which is basically every other system). Prospects are a dice roll to begin with, but it probably feels a lot better to do it if you know the players as well as the Phillies do here.

5 years 7 months ago

” the Phils basically don’t need the “4-5 wins Lee would’ve provided in 2010,” and by keeping him, failing to sign Blanton long-term, and having an empty cupboard for the next two-three years,”

how so ?

keeping lee for 2010 doesn’t mean they are obligated to sign him for 2011 and beyond..and keeping lee would help them in the playoffs…phillie fans are upset because they feel the window closing soon…and this move only made the window close that much more…michael taylor and drabek would’ve helped this team in the future..

jrollpatrol08
5 years 7 months ago

yea and an interesting thought. phils owner david montgomery basically subscribes to that exact strategy—put together a contending team, focus on winning the division, and hope to get hot during the playoffs/world series. bingo. it seems so easy. don’t need to go in as a favorite because anything can happen. just play competetive and play good in the postseason. im not a fan of that strategy; for once i kinda wanted to go all in as a favorite with halladay and lee for 2010, but it didnt work out.

coachofall
5 years 7 months ago

Cliff Lee = Barry Zito. I know it hurts for some to admit this but its true. Some idiot GM will throw 100 mil at this guy and he will regress to his actual talents as he ages.

vtadave
5 years 7 months ago

Because both are left-handed..and….??

Thing is, Cliff Lee is actually getting better AND his velocity has increased over the last couple years. When Zito signed in San Francisco, he was getting worse and his velocity was down.

coachofall
5 years 7 months ago

Both left handed yes, both experienced failures and successes prior to their big contract. Both will be/were signed to be a number one ace which neither truly is.

Garett123
5 years 7 months ago

Because 21 yr old centerfielders with great speed who hit .341 last year grow on trees(aka Gillies). MLB.com had Aumont in the top 50. And the almighty Kieth Law has Ramirez just missing his top 100. Not that bad i’d say. They had to move swiftly because they couldnt have Lee and Halladay together then trade Lee a week later. Also I love how all the experts out there think they know more than a GM (with advising from Gillick) who just put together a team that went to back to back world series. Give it a chance.

JerseyJohn32190
5 years 7 months ago

21 year olds putting up numbers in A ball do grow on trees though.

Guest
5 years 7 months ago

Yes People hit 300 and above in the Cal League and never come close to it again.

The Cal League will make a JV HS player look like a stud. Come out to High Desert, Lancaster(Pitchers worst nightmare.. likely the greatest hitters park in all of baseball) Inland Empire, ECT.. you’ll see what I mean.

jrollpatrol08
5 years 7 months ago

i like the ‘glass half full’ mentality here, bro. keep it up. phils are still the best team in the national league with or without cliff lee

EcRocks
5 years 7 months ago

The only good way to evaluate the Lee trade will be to look back on it. Either Lee isn’t as good as he looked for the past two years and everyone knows it, the prospects the Phils received from the Mariners are better than they are being ranked, or Amaro is a moron. As a Phils fan I’m afraid its the latter, but I’m willing to wait and see before I jump on him. Personally I don’t think Lee is about to start pitching at his pre-2008 levels.

rockiesfan_303
5 years 7 months ago

I disagree. I think the long term value of the prospects completely justifies the 4-5 wins Lee “might” have one. Yet, they acquired another ace, and its unknown how many wins he will get now that he is on a really good team. Great trade for the Phils, great for the M’s(IF they can contend this year, or bring back Lee) and great trade for the Jays.

loewdog
5 years 7 months ago

Really should have played Angels against M’s to get the best package.

Muggi
5 years 7 months ago

I keep seeing people say, “they should have received more”…so please, someone enlighten me as to who the Phils would have been WILLING to trade him to, that would have been interested in trading three of their top-10 prospects for a one-year rental of Cliff Lee, with an almost guaranteed trip to free agency.

Keep in mind Philly probably didn’t want to trade him in-division (probably preferred the AL) or to teams they would likely see in the WS (NYY or BOS).

The only team I can think of off the top of my head is LAA, and who’s to say Amaro didn’t make ONE phone call?

I understand not liking the deal, I understand people saying it was a mistake, but I don’t understand posters saying there were all these better deals out there. Where?!

darkdonnie
5 years 7 months ago

Jim Salisbury said The Phillies contacted two teams and The Texas Rangers were one of them. So it’s not like he just gave him to Sea.

fisk72
fisk72
5 years 7 months ago

Tim – Tuned in 590 The Fan & caught your gig. What a couple of cement-heads. Never thought anybody could make the Score crew in Chicago sound lucid but these guys pulled it off. Making fun of your name? (Larry Dierker). Wow, where’s the red stapler?