Cliff Lee dealt to Phillies for Prospects
Apparently Jason Knapp, Carlos Carrasco, Jason Donald, and Lou Marson will go to Cleveland for Cliff Lee and Ben Francisco.
"The Phillies have reached agreement with the Indians on a trade that would bring them left-hander Cliff Lee and outfielder Ben Francisco for Class A right-hander Jason Knapp, Class AAA right-hander Carlos Carrasco, shortstop Jason Donald and catcher Lou Marson, according to major-league sources."
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9866498/MLB-trade-deadline-buzz:-Wednesday's-edition
0 recs |
128 comments
Comments
Wow
That’s an awful, awful deal for Cleveland. Just atrocious.
Really must be a buyer’s market or something.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 29, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
yeah, reigning Cy Young Award Winners must be a dime a dozen. The best player of the group Cleveland received is currently on the DL in Low-A.
by richieabernathy on Jul 29, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't think its terrible
but i certainly thought they would get more
by daveh33 on Jul 29, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hm, I missed the inclusion of Knapp
I guess that upgrades this deal from “huh?” to merely “mediocre.”
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 29, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not an awful deal IMO
but the Tribe could’ve gotten a lot more.
><
by Blicks on Jul 29, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wouldn't have been an awful deal
Except they included Francisco as well.
by Fanon on Jul 29, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Francisco is a minor detail
The important thing is whether or not they got key contributors for the next competing Indians team in exchange for their best trade chip. You wouldn’t have wanted Francisco to be more than a spare part on that team anyway, just as he’ll be on the Phillies.
by aap212 on Jul 30, 2009 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But when Ryan Garko goes for what he went for, I have to figure that Francisco has more value than it would appear with this deal. The Phillies’ guys seem like a decent, not great, return for Lee, but then when you add Francisco in, I would assume that someone else would need to come back.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Francisco was a center fielder forced to a corner because of Sizemore? If he’s not, then it’s a bit more even.
by Fanon on Jul 30, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's
Franklin Gutierrez
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+ 1 million
What is Mark Shapiro doing?
Solace: Law says he's a fourth OFer
PaulThomas: I think Keith Law is only a fourth analyst
by hero66 on Jul 29, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely a buyers market.
I kept telling people that the past week that if teams are patient they can get some good deals. A lot of teams didn’t want to give up their big prospects, or didn’t have the money to get the big guy.
by Southwest on Jul 29, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like they could have put together a similar package pretty easily
Wade Davis
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Explain to me
A. Why Cleveland would want Marson when they have Carlos Santana about 1/2 a season away from being ready?
B. Why Cleveland would want Donald when they have a far superior SS option in Asdrubal
C. Why the Phillies would want Ben Francisco when they already have Ibanez, Victorino, and Werth
D. Why, after hearing weeks of stories about how much it was going to cost to get Halladay or Lee, the Indians gave him away for a LAIM in Carassco, and a guy who’s had some great starts in A ball, but also some pretty big clunkers.
by Galt on Jul 29, 2009 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I sure can't! If it goes through as described . .
from the chatter that surrounded the rumors about Lee, it is hard to see how they didn’t insist on getting Brown, Drabek, or Taylor.
This does indicate how much Philly values Brown and Drabek, and how reluctant they were to subtract Happ from the current rotation. It also leaves Philadelphia awfully left-handed at the top of its rotation. I guess they are going to rely on Blanton (Yikes!) as a break. What happens with Pedro, Myers, and the other injured relievers will be played out over time.
zzard (Arlington, VA)
by zzard on Jul 29, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of those stories of the high cost were leaked by the selling teams.
Most trades draw the same initial reaction.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm
A. Corner the market on catching prospects? Trade Victor Martinez and possibly flip Marson as well? h
B. I have no effing clue
C. The same reason they signed Raul Ibanez (before he heat up)
D. LAIMs are somewhat valuable, but the rest is meh.
><
by Blicks on Jul 29, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donald
B. I suspect Donald becomes a 2B for Cleveland.
by knightgalt on Jul 29, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Ben Francisco
Phillies needed a right handed bat off the bench.
by Southwest on Jul 29, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And even if they would move one of them to 2B
I think Valbuena might be the better option
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmm
A. because Marson profile as a very good backup catcher, and Shoppach now looks like shite?
B. 2B ?
C. Ibanez and the heart of the philly lineup in general are all very weak against lefties
D. Because not everyone’s Bill Bavasi or Brian Sabean, this seems like a closer to realistic deal for a 1.3 year of one player (could be better. but not by a ton, I’d personally preferr a safer top prospect than Knapp)
I think it’s mediocare espically with Francisco thrown in , but it’s not really terrible. it’s just that people basing their assumption on Erik Bedard deals are unrealistic.
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Victorino and Werth crush lefties
So basically Francisco can only spell Ibanez.
by Galt on Jul 30, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think its a solid return for a rent-a-player
Cleveland did alright here IMO.
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on Jul 29, 2009 2:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He's not a rent-a-player
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 29, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the rent-a-player is signed thru 2010
terrible deal
by SeanMillerSavior on Jul 29, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my bad, you guys are right...
For some reason I thought he was a FA, but he definitely is signed thru next season as well.
Not liking this deal as much now.
Now raise your goblet of rock. It's a toast to those who rock!
by Dewey Finn on Jul 29, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jason Knapp
Could be a very good pitcher down the road.
by Willigan on Jul 29, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So could Carrasco.
Getting solid depth at C and SS helps alot too. I really like the deal for Cleveland.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weeks ago I said they should shop Lee
But not for that stuff. Horrible deal for the Indians IMO. Good job by the Jays for not accepting poor offers from the Phillies.
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
i think it's worth noting
1) jason knapp has massive upside. maybe you don’t like his overall numbers, but he’s shown flashes of dominance in his first pro season.
2) carlos carrasco is not yet toast. he’s still got a mid 90s FB, a great changeup, and smooth, repeatable mechanics. his upside is still as a very solid #2.
3) jason donald sucks this year, but i’m still a believer in him. he’s got near .900 OPS potential as a SS/3B/2B type utility player.
4) i have no idea why lou marson was included. he’s a solid enough prospect, but i think both teams would have been better off if CLE wanted another arm like julian sampson, yohan flande, or vance worley.
i also think it’s worth pointing out that, though none of these players are great prospects right now, they all are advanced, and they all have the potential to be very good players.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on Jul 29, 2009 2:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I like the addition of Marson.
Catching depth is never a bad thing to have…It certainly helps to make Martinez more available as Marson could probably step into the bigs right now.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
from my point of view, as a phils fan
the problem with including marson is that it now means the phillies have no alternative to carlos ruiz. there could have been a nice spring training competition between the two next year, but now, it’s carlos ruiz or bust.
this also means that if carlos ruiz gets injured, paul bako is catching 6 days a week, and god knows who is catching the other one.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on Jul 29, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tons of talk about this on Twitter right now
Some points that are mention above.
The fact they got Mason instead of say, Taylor is insane. Santana is close enough as it is. Maybe, they trade Martinez before the deadline and give Marson a year’s audition for the position?
I am happy they got Knapp over Happ, but Drabek needed to be in this deal without Brown or Taylor.
Why why do people think Jason Donald is an everyday player? With today’s movement towards defense the best he can be is a UTL player. No shot at playing SS, 2B, or 3B on a good team.
I’m not high on Carrasco either, mid to back rotation player at best.
In all, there is very very limited upside in this deal.
I just got on twitter.Follow me at http://twitter.com/JDSussman
I'll be trying to post lines and analysis as much as possible.
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
by Metty5 on Jul 29, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Further moves for Indians?
With Marson, Shoppach, and Santana around, is Martinez soon to be dealt? With Boston and others in need of a shortstop, and Donald added to the pile, might Peralta be dealt?
I just can’t believe Cleveland didn’t get Taylor in addition to this package.
by aap212 on Jul 29, 2009 2:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed; I wouldn’t have liked the deal so much if Taylor were included. I’d have insisted on Taylor before Marson or Donald, that’s for sure.
by PhillyFriar on Jul 29, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And you'd probably have been shot down.
Lee’s a good pitcher, but he’s no Halladay. His Cy Young is a great thing for him, but it doesn’t actually make him the best pitcher in the AL. He’s very good, but expecting the same return as Halladay would bring is unrealistic.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course he's no Halladay
There are what, 2 other pitchers who are a Halladay? 3?
Lee is a great pitcher, better than Bedard was when traded (Bedard +4 months). We all know Seattle made a dumb trade at the time, but Lee is worth more than the Indians acquired for him. Philly walks away with a steal. Funny they could still trade for Halladay if they wanted to.
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that Lee and Halladay were both available made it more difficult to get a Bedard-like package.
If the Phills were willing to give up Brown, Taylor, or Drabek, odds are they wouldn’t have been shopping for Lee. When Riccardi set the price for Halladay, he forced Shapiro to have a lower price for Lee (or keep him).
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing forced Shapiro to make this bad deal
Nothing.
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's implying it was a bad deal.
It’s a poor haul if you are getting Cliff Lee from 2008. It’s very fair if you’re getting Cliff Lee from 2002-2007 or 2009.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was under the impression
(like mostly everyone in baseball) that Cliff Lee is just simply a great pitcher…
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2008 was a fluke.
He had career best WHIP, H/9, HR/9, BB/9, ERA, ERA+. This season he has reverted to very close to his career norms, which happen to be very similar to Jarrod Washburn’s. Cliff Lee is a solid pitcher, but his 2008 season is the only season where he’s been close to elite.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And 2009?
Where he’s been great, is that fluke too?
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im inclined to believe 2008 was a legit step forward
b/c with his cutter he made a legitimate change in how he pitched.
BUT… being under control for 1.5 years and (presumably) wanting a big pay day somewhere other than Cleveland, he just didnt have tremendous value in a trade market where a number of other good starting pitchers are available. Shapiro cleverly marketed him as a guy who was available for less than Halladay w/out tremendous difference on the mound (arguable, I suppose). So he got the equivalent of two top picks (Knapp and Carrasco), Carrasco with the added bonus of being MLB ready, and two other useful players (Marson and Donald), both near MLB ready or ready and Donald having some good upside with the bat. I probably would have kept Lee if I were the Tribe’s GM… but I certainly dont blame them for pulling the trigger on a deal if they got four guys they liked. Especially considering that this is your last chance to trade Lee for this kind of package. He would next be available in the winter, as an impending free agent and where its a lot harder to sell this trade to your fans.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1.3 WHIP, 6.3 K/9, averaging more than 1 hit per inning...I hardly see "greatness" there
Those numbers are very close to his career norms, 2008 wasn’t. If you think Cliff Lee has been great, you should look at Washburn’s numbers.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
13th in the league in FIP
Adding his 2008 season, he’s just a great pitcher. If you fail to recognize that your decision. If Washburn is pitching great next year, there would be no reason to ignore the idea that he’s made himself a very good pitcher.
For the record, Lee’s FIP is much better than Washburn’s this year…
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FIP is a pretty good statistic, but it favors a guy like Cliff Lee.
The formula is:
(HR*13+(BB+HBP-IBB)3-K2)/IP
The fact that Lee soesn’t walk people helps him here, but FIP rules out H/9 as fielders can have some effect on that stat. The fact that Lee is allowing more than 1 hit per inning is alarming, and really can’t be attributed solely to poor defense. Lee is good, but he’s not a great ML pitcher.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If FIP favors Cliff Lee
Then why is his ERA lower than his FIP? As, incidentally, it was last year. As it did in 2006 and 2005. He’s either been ludicrously lucky every full year he pitched in the major leagues, or FIP is a pretty decent stat for Lee, as it is for virtually all pitchers
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hypothetical situation here
There are two pitchers with identical HR rates and Strikeout rates that have pitched the same number of innings.
Pitcher A allows 2 hits per 9 while walking 8 per 9. Pitcher B allows 8 hits per 9 while walking 2 per 9.
These two pitchers probably have similar ERA’s, Pitcher A would likely have a better one due to all the walks amounting to less RISP. Player A would have an awful FIP, player B would have an exceptional one. FIP does not account for any of the baserunners that got on with a single, double, or triple. If you look at FIP, you really also need to examine how many hits the pitcher allows to see the whole picture. Without doing that, pitchers like Livan Hernandez look very similar to pitcher like AJ Burnett. It’s much like jumping to a conclusion about a player by looking at his BA without ever thinking about his BABIP.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The concept of defensive independent stats
is that walks are solely a function of a pitcher’s ability, whereas defense is a factor in hits. In other words, a pitcher who gives up 2 hits per 9 innings is possibly a more effective pitcher than one who give up 8 hits in 9 innings, and also possibly the beneficiary of an outstanding defense. You can dispute this premise, but then you’d be disputing much, much much evidence.
But dispute FIP or not, it is ludicrous to argue that Lee’s FIP overstates his success when his ERA is superior to his FIP
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the point
You can’t create an argument that a player is an elite pitcher based on 1 statistic. Its a good stat, important to consider. You need to look at the complete picture to make a judgement.
OBP is a very good stat. You can’t make an argument about a player based solely on OBP. If you did, Luis Castillo would be one of the best hitters in the majors. Once again, OBP is a good tool, but other stats need to be considered.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummm
The only time FIP was brought up was to compare Lee to Washburn since you kept comparing the two pitchers. Lee is a great pitcher because of his play the past 16 months. FIP can evidence that but so can just about any other stat on Cliff Lee the past 16 months.
Who made complete judgments on Lee based solely on FIP?
by cowboy4eva on Jul 30, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be you...
My first mention of FIP was in response to your comparison of the two pitchers FIP, which as I mentioned was the only stat you referenced.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 30, 2009 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the only statistic you look at is FIP,
you’d be of the assumption that Livan Hernandez>AJ Burnett. It is a good tool, but can’t be the only tool used. any pitcher who allows a large number of hits without giving up homeruns is going to benefit from FIP. Any pitcher who wlks a ton of batters, but doesn’t give up hits will look terrible.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The whole point of FIP
is that pitchers have virtually no control over the number of hits they allow, other than through home runs and strikeouts.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 29, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it is a good tool to evaluate their performance.
It’s not effective as the ONLY tool. While pitchers have less control over hits than walks, better pitchers do tend to give up less hits than lesser pitchers. They don’t have total control over the number of hits they give up, but they do have some control. FIP completely removes hits from the equation, so it’s important to look at the pitchers hit rate in addition to his FIP.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Of course better pitchers give up less hits than worse pitchers. That’s because they strike out more batters and give up fewer homeruns. This FIP accounts for. The only type of hits that FIP does not account for are non-home runs. The only way your argument would make sense is if you argue that better pitchers regulalry have lower BABIP than worse pitchers, which is simply not true. For example, Zach Greinke has a BABIP of .328, while Livan Hernandez has one of .337. Are you arguing that they are roughly equal pitchers this year?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never made any argument about BABIP...
I never even argued that FIP is a bad stat. I actually stated that it is a good tool. The point I’m making is that FIP can’t be the only statistic used when you present an argument.
Defense and ballparks can definately affect the number of hits a player gives up, but ballpark factors are hardly removed from FIP. Jake Peavy certainly has an advantage ole Hamels in that regard, espescially with the amount HR’s are weighted in FIP. FIP definetely favor GB oriented pitchers over Flyball pitchers. It’s a good statistic, but can’t be the only stat in an argument.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
Looking at a pitcher’s hit rate is completely unnecessary.
I would venture to say that any GM who even has it listed in a statistical table is hurting his team by wasting his time.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 30, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd venture to guess that every ML GM "wastes his time" then.
You won’t be able to find a single ML GM who’s entire evaluation of pitching revolves around FIP. Most probably use it as a tool, but I guarantee they look at batting averages, xbh, and things that FIP does not consider as well.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 30, 2009 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dayton moore doesnt waste his time
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 30, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh? Dayton Moore is about the most dopey, old-school GM in the game at this point, after Brian Sabean
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Jul 30, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dayton Moore doesn't have any statistical tables
He can tell by just looking
by jibs on Jul 30, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ummm
I would not trade those guys for Jarrod Washburn in a similar situation. even if he repeats this year’s goodness next year.
For one, Washburns’ older.
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
#2
He’s not nearly as good as Cliff Lee
by cowboy4eva on Jul 30, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is it a bad deal?
What are comparing it to? The Bedard deal? No one would pay that kind of price anymore. The unrealistic demands for Halladay? Let’s wait and see what he returns before we call this a bad deal.
by jar75 on Jul 29, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unrealistic offers for Halladay you mean
The Phillies wanted to acquire a top 3 pitcher and they wanted to keep their top 2 prospects.
The Indians gave up a great pitcher for a really underwhelming group of prospects. Great job by the Phillies. After the Derosa/Garko deals I did expect more from the Indians.
by cowboy4eva on Jul 29, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What overwhelming offer(s)?
Unless you believe the Buchholz/Westmoreland/Bowden rumor, there hasn’t been a premier offer reported for Halladay. The best offer has been the Phillies’ Taylor/Carrasco/Donald/Happ, which I think is pretty fair. Cliff Lee is a much worse pitcher than Halladay (who isn’t), and this package is a step down from what the Phillies offered for Halladay.
by jar75 on Jul 29, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
Bucholz / Westmoreland /Bowden isn’t exactly a blown away offer either. if you factoring in that they’re trading to a division rival.
I just think that some peopel think a fair deal would be like Halladay for Jered Weaver + Erik Aybar + Hank Conger, or Phil Hughes + Jesus Montero + Austin Jackson. or hell, Jon Lester + Clay Bucholz.
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed as well
there’s no one in this package that upgrades their team now. only marson is near mlb ready, and hes worse than Santana
"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
www.27ClubPeak.blogspot.com
by harendaman365 on Jul 29, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donald and Carrasco could easily be ready for opening day 2010.
This season is kind of a throw away.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now imagine if the Phils....
…package Taylor and Drabek for Halladay…..That would be insane!
by soccerman0 on Jul 29, 2009 2:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ya i know...
Probably won’t happen, but if it did…..That would be one insane rotation. I would think that this move takes Philly out of the Halladay sweepstakes, and makes the Boston the favorite (although I doubt a deal gets down at this point).
by soccerman0 on Jul 29, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, really. this lee deal only happened because ricciardi couldn't stop talking to the media.
i mean, besides the comments like, if TOR wanted people to think BOS was offering clay buchholz, i don’t think they realized that the phillies have noone they could offer that could match that.
put it this way, ricciardi was a tease, shapiro put out.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on Jul 29, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now, how long till Victor Martinez is traded?
><
by Blicks on Jul 29, 2009 2:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully soon
Marson to get some 2009 at bats to be useful for my strat team next year.
by Galt on Jul 29, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This seems like a deal the Indians would accept if there were no other suitors for Lee
…and we know that wasn’t the case. The Indians really missed out on getting 1 of Drabek, Taylor, or Dom Brown.
by minorsfan on Jul 29, 2009 2:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I dont think Philly would do that
I think the reason they were so happy to turn to Lee was because they didnt have to include one of those three.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree alskor..
I think Phillie jumped on this because they didn’t have to deal those guys. I just think the Indians could have acquired a better prospect if they held out a bit longer.
by minorsfan on Jul 29, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
one more thing to point out,
while CLE didn’t get any of the top 3 phillies prosects, i’m pretty sure they got 4, 5, 6, 7.
human beings, who are almost unique in their ability to learn from the experiences of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
by variablesdont on Jul 29, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That 4,5,6,7
would be higher on almost any other team.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought only New York prospects were overhyped....
by Lunkwill Fook on Jul 29, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently
it’s a North Eastern thing.
New York / Philly / Boston prospects are all overhyped
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please, someone tell me everything is going to be alright
It just makes no sense
by cursedcleveland on Jul 29, 2009 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Look
1.5 years of Cliff Lee isnt worth an incredible amount in trade. They probably should have kept him.
OTOH, if theyre not going to re-sign him, then they got two pretty great prospects in Knapp and Carrasco as well as two other MLB ready useful guys they like. They did better than they would have letting Lee walk in a year and a half – and from Friday on he couldnt have commanded this much in a trade.
I dont love this trade for Cleveland, but its not a bad deal by any means. Remember 6 years of those four guys (24 years total) vs. 1.5 years of Lee. I love Knapp and I imagine Cleveland does as well. Carrasco is a near ready at least #3 starter type (though Im not a huge fan). That’s a damn lot to get even if they didnt break the bank. Marson and Donald give them a ton of flexibility and they can also trade other players b/c of the cheap presence of those two. I like Donald a bit too. I guarantee this looks good for Cleveland in three years… just not a slam dunk either way.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
It’s not the package everyone expected in a Lee deal, but I don’t think it’s that bad. Cleveland can move VMart now and give Marson a chance in the bigs. Sure he’s not nearly as good as Santana, but having Marson could allow you to keep Santana down in the minors next year like the O’s did with Wieters this year, get that extra year of control out of the deal. Carrasco could step into the rotation now, and I don’t think it takes a lot of imagination to see him as a consistent #3 guy for awhile. Donald allows you to deal Peralta now, in the offseason, or next year—whenever the return looks greatest. Knapp gives you a high upside arm a few years away from the show.
Sure, Taylor being in this deal would make it look a lot better for Cleveland, but at that point I’d question why Philly made the trade at all.
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jul 29, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This actually makes the Holliday deal better in my book
The A’s are the only team so far to actually get another team’s number one prospect. The Mets did not part with F-Mart for Santana, Phils didn’t give up BroDrAylor (yes, im gonna trademark that), not one blockbuster deal has gone down (well, except the Miguel Cabrera bonanza) recently where a team gave up a legitimate number one prospect, except for Brett Wallace to the A’s.
"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
www.27ClubPeak.blogspot.com
by harendaman365 on Jul 29, 2009 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Knapp would have easily been St. Louis #2 prospect.
Carrasco, Marson, and Donald would all have been to 6 or 7 guys there as well.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
was he a top 25 guy like Wallace?
"Sometimes Joe (morgan) doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions."- billy beane
"That was a great pick...if this was 2002" Me, to guy who selected Barry Zito in a fantasy draft
www.27ClubPeak.blogspot.com
by harendaman365 on Jul 29, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he was in the 25-30 range according to BA.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Knapp?
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...they had him as one of the guys that "just missed" the top 25.
I believe it was a Callis chat where they had him as a 25-30 guy.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Jul 29, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does this mean for Santana
Does Laporta play 1B and Santana DH’s? Marson still seems like a pretty good prospect to me, though it’s not like his defense was ever his calling card.
by FastBennyF on Jul 29, 2009 2:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He's an okay prospect
but he’s a slap hitting catcher with absolutely no power. Never been a fan.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which one are you talking about?
Hopefully not Santana
by cursedcleveland on Jul 29, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is he defensively?
Catchers don’t need to have power to be really useful players.
by thejd44 on Jul 29, 2009 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought defense WAS his calling card
My understanding was that Marson was supposed to be very strong defensively
by Galt on Jul 29, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine as well...
At worst he seems like a quality backup.
"If I ever decide to do a book, I've already got the title...The bases were loaded and so was I."
-Jim Fregosi
by Schmidtxc on Jul 29, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His defense is decent.
Very athletic, but his arm isn’t great. He’ll be a decent big leaguer, but his biggest strength is his batting eye and ability to work walks.
by Southwest on Jul 29, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
I feel terrible for the Blue Jays, who really needed to beat the Indians to a deal in order to get the return they desired on Halladay. The market just shriveled.
by mrkupe on Jul 29, 2009 4:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yup
Not only that, but their best fit is in their own division. Ricciardi overplayed his hand to some degree… but I also probably wouldnt do a deal without Drabek.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
personally
If the Red Sox really offered something like Buchholz + Bowden/Anderson + another guy, I’d at least sit down at the table and really negotiate this one out. I don’t get the big deal about the intradivision thing . . .if the Blue Jays trade Halladay, clearly winning is taking a back seat to rebuilding for the moment, which means having Halladay in the division isn’t going to be a concern for at least 2-3 years, by which point Halladay will be well into his mid-30s.
The Jays can look at this as giving one of their division rivals their best player . . .but they’d also be depriving one of their division rivals of several of its choice prospects. The Red Sox, rather than paying Buchholz close to the minimum to pitch for them, will instead be paying Halladay a boatload of money. It doesn’t just open up money for Toronto to bring in more youngsters, it may also restrain Boston’s financial flexibility. Considering that Toronto post-Halladay trade would be looking down at the battle for the division several years down the line, what Boston is able to do in terms of setting up its future should matter much more than what the Red Sox can do at present.
Am I wrong for thinking this makes way too much sense for Toronto to get this done? Certainly I’d make Boston trade a bundle, as you can be pretty certain that part of the incentive for Boston to make the deal is that exclusive negotiating period they’ll have to sign Halladay long-term. But even if Boston were to trade, say, Buchholz + Bowden + one of Josh Reddick or Ryan Westmoreland + another youngster with good potential, both sides should be sleeping easy after this one . . .and if that’s the case, why didn’t this get done already?
by mrkupe on Jul 29, 2009 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, me neither
If the best offer – an offer that can really help your team – comes from a division opponent, well, you take it and dont look back. Wagering on the future of young baseball players is decidedly difficult enough without handicapping yourself with unnecessary restraints. You know? If youre trading the centerpiece of your franchise you better damn well be sure you get every ounce of value back you can. Jobs always rely on trades like that. If my job is on the line for a big trade Im taking the best guys, period.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This
would be the logical thing to do . as they are screwed for quiet a while anyway.
Something along the line of what you purposed and maybe one more good positional prospect would do (Casey Kelly?) I’m iffy that the Red Sox would do it though, despite crapping the bed lately they still have a very good odds to make the playoff.
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lee/Washburn
Lee has a good ERA and is shackling LHB but he’s still not very good. Lee has allowed 165 hits in 152IP and RHB are hitting .303/.348/.426 off him this year.
Jarrod Washburn on the otherhand, who I’ve admittedly historically never been a big believer in, is having a great season allowing only 109 H in 133IP while sporting a 1.06 WHIP.
This trade package between CLE/PHI was probably about right value wise considering PHI had alternatives. You can get a little more for Lee than Washburn because Lee is signed for 2010. But Halladay is much better than Lee and CLE wasn’t getting Drabek/Happ for him.
by fourthandeye on Jul 29, 2009 5:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Initial reaction was
very negative for Cleveland. I’ve softened a bit, as I don’t like the fit, but I think the value works. I think there needs to be a new calibration in discussion on what constitutes value for players, because we are at a soft period of this evolution. Short of it is, elite pitching prospects don’t get shopped much anymore. The Carlos Carrasco’s/Sean Gallagher’s are at the high end of the types of pitching prospects that get moved, guys with some borderline number 2 potential.
This trade reminds me quite a bit of last year’s Harden trade. A “ready” arm, a guy that wasn’t an ace, but a solid arm, a high upside youngster (Donaldson vs. Knapp), and 2 high level “ready” guys (Patterson and Murton vs. Donald/Marson). I think the value works … but I really don’t like the fit, with Donald and Marson, what with Cabrera and their options at catcher. I would’ve rather seen them go after someone else, another arm or two. I’m not huge on the Carrasco fit, as I think they have guys that may slot similarly to Carrasco, but the more the merrier.
It’s not bad. I think the bigger issue is that there is a paradigm is needed in assessing value, and until it gets more fully fleshed out, that there will always be some negative responses to trades. But relative to where baseball is, and relative to where the market is, I think the value is alright here. Just don’t like the fit.
by toonsterwu on Jul 29, 2009 9:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
Everything has to be assessed in light of a market where teams are super reluctant to give up young, MLB ready talent. Part of it is CBA related. Some of it has to do with better player development systems and teams getting smarter. Some of it is just a trend. Whatever the case, the market is different than it used to be.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question
Do the Phillies represent the NL in the World Series yet again….
I strongly think so, Jimmnie Rollins is starting to gel. jimnie gel style.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jul 29, 2009 10:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dodgers are pretty solid.
But my guess would be Phils.
by alskor on Jul 29, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ehhh
Playoff chances are always a crapshoot. you can have a better odds but it won’t be as good as you think.
FWIW, BP had the Phillies at just 5% odds to win it all last year on Oct 1st. (and Cubs were highest at 30% lol)
by RollingWave on Jul 30, 2009 3:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 









