text:
July is a crazy month for baseball. With the trade deadline at the end of the month, hundreds of rumors and potential trade scenarios are revealed. With all the transactions and rumors, the end of July is sure to spark a lot of debate.
Jayson Werth signed with the Washington Nationals in the 2010-2011 offseason, leaving a gap in right field for the Phillies. Ruben Amaro didn't fill the void, giving Ben Francisco and Domonic Brown an opportunity. However, it wasn't enough as the Phillies were struggling to produce runs.
In result, the Phillies were in need of a right-handed bat and names like Hunter Pence and Carlos Beltran came into the conversation. Initially, it seemed unlikely that the Phillies would land Pence. As rumors developed, it was believed that the Phillies would need to trade Domonic Brown or Vance Worely in order to obtain Pence.
I remember sitting in the 200-level of Citizens Bank Park on July 29 watching the Phillies beat the Pirates. Following trade rumors on Twitter, everyone in the section speculated that the Phillies made a move. After the final out of the game, 45,000 remained anticipating the fireworks show. Dan Baker came on the loud speaker and made the announcement: "The Philadelphia Phillies have acquired HUNTER PENCE from the Houston Astros!" The crowd erupted in excitement of the new right fielder.
In a somewhat surprising move, the Phillies acquired Pence (and a million dollars) in exchange for Jarred Cosart, Jonathan Singleton, Josh Zied, and a player to be named later. The Phillies gave up two of their top prospects, but were able to hang onto Brown and Worely.
After the addition of Pence, Phillies Nation commenter Chuck A wrote, "Pence reminds me of Utley, Lenny Dykstra, Ty Cobb and Pete Rose all rolled into one. Philly is gonna fall in love with guy fast."
It will be interesting to see how the prospects the Phillies gave up will pan out, but Pence didn't disappoint, as Michael Baumann explained in his analaysis of Pence's 2011 season. He batted .324 with 11 home runs and a .954 OPS in 54 games with the Phillies.
The development of the trade rumors and the addition of Pence was certainly something to remember in 2011.
0 Comments
Love Pence. Love the way he brings a new energy to the club and the fact that he's a righty you can slot right behind Howard in the lineup. Maybe not as crazy about him as most phans are (and after a very solid 2011 we probably are already overrating him)…
But we gave up a LOT to get him: it looks like we gave up more talent for him than we've done in the recent past, including Halladay and Lee (Cy Young winners…)
Singleton and Cosart were and still are very valuable pieces… Zied is no filler, and the player to be named later turned out to be Domingo Santana, a very promising prospect. And we really didn't need to pull the trigger… we were gliding to the post-season, comfortably in 1st place with an offense that had improved remarkably since Utley's comeback… Had we been in 2nd place in the division, then yea.. go for it without a doubt. But we really didn't need to pull the trigger considering the price tag was definitely high (we got Pence when his value was at his career peak).
But we did. And I'm happy with Pence.. I like him on our team and I enjoy watching him play. Still, I wouldn't have made the deal.
Agree on all points.
One note about this comment in the article:
"… it wasn't enough as the Phillies were struggling to produce runs."
runs per game by period:
3.82 …through May 22nd (i.e. before Utley returned)
4.77 …May 23rd through July 29
4.54 …July 30 through end of season
– the spike to 4.77 wasn't just due to Utley, as others also improved, but replacing Valdez/Orr/Martinez with Utley (3rd best hitting 2B-man in the NL) helped quite a bit, and may have helped others around him as well.
– not to imply that Pence didn't help — he certainly did, and the 4.54 includes the 8-game skid after they clinched
Point is that a) they were scoring runs just fine, and b) they were already virtually assured of making the playoffs (99% or so at the time, IIRC). So if you believe, like I do, that the key to baseball is making the playoffs and that it's a crapshoot once you do, this was a very high price to pay.
I wouldn't have made the deal either — but I do like him.
Dammit. I should have read the comments before I went and calculated the RPG stats you just posted here.
I was going to make the same point, in that it's just blatantly wrong to say that they were struggling to produce runs, even though that narrative seems to have spread like novovirus.
The deal was unnecessary and a mistake, IMO, and his bug-eyed, impatient, spastic mannerisms and style of play kind of grates on me as well, to be honest. Let's go eat!
The Phils maybe gave up a lot. But these players were all prospects, and that means they were all question marks and still are. In addition, Singleton was blocked at first base for six years.
Please remember, too, that when the trade was made, the Phils had no regular right fielder and the player combination they were using wasn't producing. With the potential that Utley would continue to need frequent rest and the fact that Ibanez was to be a free agent soon, the team really did need to pick up a productive and healthy player, rather than relying on an unproductive platoons for what looked to be 2011 AND 2012.
Comparing this to what the Giants paid for only a half-season of Beltran, my conclusion is that mid-season deals are always costly. But when what you've got looks as dismal as a lineup with question marks in RF and 2B, sometimes a deal looks like a necessity.
Maybe gave up a lot? Maybe?
The package they gave up to get Pence is widely accepted as being very, very good, and probably slightly better than the Cleveland deal in which Lee was acquired. You see, you're evaluating minor-league talent incorrectly. You're looking at those guys and saying, "Welp, they're just minor leagures, might never amount to nothin'! And lookie here, you've got a real Every-Day-I'm-Hustling Dirtball™ kinda player back for these unproven kids who might all suck!"
The problem with this outlook is that those guys hold a lot of value despite their being "question marks" and even if none of them turn out to be star players they're still quite valuable to other teams as trading chips. Other teams covet them because they have the potential to turn into the Holy Grail of baseball players – young, producing, cost-controlled players. There's a lot of value in that mere POSSIBILITY, even if it never bears fruit. So if the value of the prospects was on par with the package that was sent to acquire Cliff Lee you should expect to get a player of that caibre in return–remember, Cliff Lee was coming off of a Cy Young award and is one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. While Pence is a nice player, an above-average talent, he's no MVP candidate nor is he what anyone would consider a dominating player. You can really see the reason people claim the Phillies overpaid when you see the relatively meager return the Astros were able to pull for Bourn, who is 3rd in fWAR (behind Matt Kemp and Josh Hamilton) amongst CF over the last three years. (Pence, btw, is 6th amongst RF over that same span)
Now, let's move on to your second paragraph. You say that "…when the trade was made the Phils had no regular RF and the combination they were using wasn't producing." Well, that's just wrong. From the time the Phillies lineup was more or less in tact (May 23) through the day of the trade (July 29th), Domonic Brown had a triple slash line of .251/.341/.402 for an OPS of .743. For comparison, over that same period of time here's how the other Phils hit:
Howard – .249/.350/.442
Polanco – .200/.278/.255 (with significant time missed to injury)
Francisco – .233/.321/.342
Utley – .288/.379/.505
Rollins – .267/.329/.440
Ibanez – .255/.290/.458
Mayberry Jr. – .270/.309/.517
Victorino – .324/.412/.541 (with significant time lost to injury)
Ruiz – .286/.397/.393
So, as you can see, for those two+ months the only Phillies who were "producing" at a pace significantly higher than that of Domonic Brown were Utley, Mayberry and Victorino. That's it. And, as you can see from schmenkman's post above, their offense as a whole was producing at a very proficient clip leading up to that trade. To that you must also add the fact that the Phillies were already in first place by 5 games and had a 99.1% chance of making the playoffs at the time of the deal. Your claims of a "dismal" lineup are just empirically wrong; the team was excellent at that point, in great position to make a postseason run. Pence's addition was therefore costly and unnecessary.
I don't mind a legitimate debate, Eric, but when someone starts putting idiotic words in my mouth like "welp," "lookie here," and, "nothin'," I get disgusted. Especially when that someone doesn't seem to realize that "maybe" is not a definite evaluation and allows for other possible results. I might even be tempted to call such a person an arrogant @sshole.
I thought you were better than that.
I'll still take the time to point out some problems with your own arguments. First, when the trade was made, Brown was only somewhat productive, (743 OPS isn't exactly great) and he was NOT the regular right fielder. He also couldn't play decent defense. He shared time with Francisco, who was absolutely dismal, and sometimes Mayberry, who was also subbing a lot for Victorino and so couldn't always play right. With unproductive bats and injuries in other positions, and potential lingering problems with Utley's knee, there did appear to be a need. Now, with Ibanez gone, there is definitely a need, something Amaro was addressing by getting a player still under team control.
Also, you've omitted a point about Bourne being #3 and Pence being #6. There may actually be more elite right fielders than there are center fielders, which would render this argument irrelevant. I haven't looked into the stats for RF and CF, but neither, I suspect, did you. If there's ten excellent bats playing right and only two playing center, then being #6 is actually better.
And you can't compare trades so easily. Those you mentioned Pence, Lee, and Bourne all play different positions, and all, therefore have entirely different skill sets. It's apples and oranges. Different trading partners also put different values on players they wish to trade.
I'll sum up by saying that prospects are called prospects because they are just that. To me, someone who even might turn out good still could turn out bad. My point was not that it WOULD happen, but that it COULD happen; thus the term "Maybe."
A few things, George:
First, don't take this so seriously. It's the comment section of a Phillies fan page, not Panmunjom.
Second, I know you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Unfortunately, it's just not my style. The comments I put in quotations aren't meant to be ascribed to you personally, but more as a caricature of the whole subset of people who take those positions based on what I consider to be an unlettered approach to the game. It includes 700-level mouth-breathers, the dregs of the WIP-caller fanbase all the way up to moronic beat writers (I won't any specifically, but I will say that one of them turned in an empty HoF ballot this year, while arguing that Dave Concepcion should be in the Hall).
My incredulity over your use of "maybe" wasn't because they might turn into good players because that's irrelevant. You can't judge the package they gave up 5 years from now, because neither side making the deal is privy to the information that will come out in that time. You have to evaluate a deal when it's made, and by just about every account the package of players the Phillies gave up to pick up Pence was immense. There is NO debate in the baseball community that the Phils surrendered "a lot" in that deal because those pieces, even at the time the deal was made, were quite valuable.
Now, to your points:
At the time of the trade, and contrary to your assertion, Brown was essentially the starting RF. Again, using the May 23-July 29th time frame, the Phillies team played 59 games. Domonic Brown appeared in 53 and started 48 of them. If someone starts 5 out of every 6 games at a particular position, they're the starter. Ben Francisco, on the other hand, had by that time played himself out of the regular rotation. In that same span of 59 games he played in 37, starting in a mere 17 of them with only 9 of those 17 starts coming in right field. Mayberry was not an issue; of those 59 games he started 2 in right. Second, as evidenced by the stats above, Dom was performing at the nearly the same offensive output as Ibanez, Rollins and Howard, yet nobody was clamoring for an upgrade at those positions. I'm not sure what the injuries to Polanco and Victorino, or the lessened production from Howard and Ibanez had to do with trading for a RF, so I'm not sure how that's even germane.
Nor was Utley a concern. Over those 59 games he sat out 4 – May 29th, Jun 8th, Jun 16th (after playing in both games of the doubleheader on the 15th) and Jun 26. During the month of July he played in every game and was amongst the top offensive weapons on the team. There was no concern about Utley and the trade had nothing to do with him.
You bring up the need for an outfielder now that Ibanez is gone. Well, ok, maybe. Had Brown been allowed to stay up for the last few months of the season he may well have performed at a level well enough to be considered in the mix for the starting RF job. It's also possible that he might have improved to the point where you wouldn't want to put anyone else there. You just can't assume that everything would have played out in the same way if you remove a piece here or there. That's the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. Or, alternatively, you might have a need for another outfielder. But you'd also have those 3 major prospects in your system and nearly $1o,ooo,ooo extra to spend, so perhaps Cuddyer is signed to man that position, or perhaps the Phils are able to make a deal with another team at more favorable conditions, not under the gun of a trading deadline in which Wade knows he can leverage as much out of the Phillies as possible. There are too many other possible scenarios to say that we needed Pence, and Pence specifically, to man RF this season.
Now, I don't really know what you're trying to prove when you say that there might be more elite RF than CF. Well, ok, that doesn't really help your case. If there is an abundance of talent at one position it should be easier to find someone very good at that position, and therefore cost LESS to acquire a player at such a position than it would cost to acquire a player where there is a scarcity of talent. So, if there are more talented RF than CF, then it stands to reason that acquiring a talented RF should cost less than acquiring a talented CF. But it didn't; Bourn came at a significantly cheaper price, in terms of talent surrendered by the Braves. While they're not all that different in terms of on-field value (Pence has been worth 9.5 bWAR/11.9fWAR since 2009, Bourn 8.8 bWAR/13.8fWAR), and you're paying for the more abundant asset, the price should be cheaper, not more expensive. Again, this is a mistake by Amaro; paying MORE for the 6th best RF by WAR than another team did for the 2nd best CF by WAR, at a more scarce position is really mind boggling.
And finally you can evaluate trades for players at different positions. You look at how valuable one player is and you see what kind of package was required to trade for his services. Then you look at the second player, even if he plays a different position, and you see how much value he adds to a team, and then you see what kind of package was required to trade for his services. Then you can compare both the players received and the packages sent. Player #1 value compared to player #2 value and trade package #1 compared to trade package #2 allows you to make quite accurate apples to apples comparisons.
So, just to reiterate, they most certainly did give up a lot, regardless of what comes of those players, and it was in all likelihood too much for what they got in return, and the evaluation only gets worse when you include the monetary costs and unnecessary nature of the deal.
EricL: While you make SOME valid points, you are still skewing t6he statistics to favor your arguments.
1. Just because Utley had only missed a few starts, his health was still; a major concern. It was obvious t6he entire year that his injury was still affecting his power.
2. When no one one your team is producing, you have to get somebody who will. Upgrades were impossible at the other positions because of a large contract in the case of Howard, no interest in an antique right fielder, lack of available talent at 3rd and short, etc. A right fielder, however, w3as available; a MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE outfielder than Brown. And Brown needed more development defensively, had options left, and could thereore be sent down.
3. You fail to grasp that when a team wants to upgrade a PARTICULAR POSITION, that that position becomes more valuable to all parties. The team with the need will pay more (and sometimes overpay) and the team with the player will demand more. The Astros may have gotten less for Bourne because they wanted to get rid of his probably arbitration millions, and the Braves only had somewhat of a need.
4. Your argument about Brown performing well enough to be in the RF mix for 2012 flies in the face of your argument about foregone conclusions. Isn't it a foregone conclusion to think he'd improve enough, or a foregone conclusion the Phils could have used Pence's pay to sign someone else for 2012? Personally, I don't think Cuddyer is even as decent as Pence, and he's a lot older.
5. Yes, you can judge a package five years from now. It's exactly what you have done for trades like Ferguson Jenkins for Bob Buhl and Larry Jackson. Jenkins, at the time of the trade, was not universally thought to be a HOF player; he hadn't even pitched very well.
I never once have said that the Phils didn't overpay. MAYBE was my word. I think the real issue is that you didn't, and still don't, see a need for Pence, whereas a lot of others did, including the front office.
Lastly, I don't care that you supposedly weren't addressing me in particular with your alleged humor. You said it in response to MY comment; that's pretty specific. I also don't accept that I shouldn't take it so seriously. No one wishes to be equated with illiterates, even on a comment page. Even though "names will never hurt me," it's still crude, rude, and the tactic of a person who can't engage in a real debate.
What's this "Welp" crap? That word has never been a part of my vocabulary. "Maybe" still indicates that there is a possibility that they did overpay; or are you unfamiliar with the meaning of the word? There are no definites with prospects: even the ones that are labeled "sure thing."
Two things you missed: at the time of the trade, Brown maybe was decent, but couldn't field for anything, and so he wasn't the regular right fielder. He alternated time with Francisco and Mayberry, but only when Mayberry wasn't subbing for Victorino, who had "significant time lost to injury." With the injuries the team had already had, it was pretty important that they find someone who could add to the lineup.
The other thing you didn't look into is the probability that there are mor productive players around to play right than there are to play center, so your argument about Pence being numbver six while Bourn was number two would be irrelevant. I haven't looked into the stats for all those outfielders, but neither have you. CF and RF is an apples/oranges comparison.
Trading less for
what are the odds the Phillies can resign both Hamels AND Victorino ???
I always though it was a forgone conclusion that Victorino is gone…as its easier to replace Speed and Defense than it is Pitching -or- Power…
Victorino has morphed into more than just speed and defense-
17 HR's, 16 triples, 17 doubles, and a career high .491 SLG and .847 OPS
If we can trade him he could bring back some real value. I will miss him, but you're right, he probably has to go.
@Lefty… Definitely true about his power… I meant that more in the fact that he has no set spot in the lineup, he's not counted on to drive runs in with the long ball. And I'd imagine someone will pay him $10+ m next year, I'd be shocked if that team was the Phillies
I think his #2 bat in the lineup can be replaced/Polanco… Maybe after next year we seek a 3b that can bat 2nd and a CF that plays good defense, has wheels, and would be ok hitting 7th or 8th…. I wonder if mini-Mart could even be that guy. Batting 8th would anyone care if he only hit .230
I would hope D Brown would be his replacement, with JMJ sliding over to CF. We'll see if he can improve his defense this season I guess. Charlie mentioned once that he thought Brown was ready offensively, just needed to shore up his defense.
Um, you cannot replace Victorino's bat with Polanco's bat. The only similarity between the two is that they're made of wood. It doesn't really matter where they bat in the lineup, as that's generally irrelevant. (Over the course of a season an optimal lineup versus a generic sub-optimal batting order worth about one win.)
Victorino was arguably the MVP of the team last season, so his loss will definitely hurt in 2013 unless Mayberry/Pence are able to step up and contribute.
I'd also say that the best option available next season for 3B might be to pick up Polanco's option. Sure, a lot of that depends on how his body holds up this season, but Placido is still one of the best defensive 3B in baseball, and the free agent crop of 2013 looks to be quite thin at 3B. Wright might be available, but really, would you rather have another year of Polanco at $5.5 million or Wright, and his below-average defense and declining offensive production for >$10 million? I think, depending upon salary constraints–which are themselves contingent on what happens with Hamels and Victorino–there might not be a clear-cut upgrade available.
Oh, and finally, MINIMART CANNOT PLAY AT THE MAJOR LEAGUE LEVEL. AT ANY POSITION. EVER. FOR ANY TEAM NO MATTER HOW AWFUL THEY ARE. He is not "ok" at hitting. He is bad. Just clueless. And he can't even do the small things right, like bunt or play situational ball. He's an okay player if you're a AAA club and might be acceptable as a late-inning defensive replacement. On a bad team. That is missing half of it's players due to the plague. Maybe. And that's being generous.
3 man platoon next year LF-CF ?? Could work I think and that's the kinda stuff you need to do I you want $65 m tied up in 3 pitchers
Not knowing if you'd have Rollins past this season… Or if Mayberry was a guy they could count on, if Utley was going to hold up….. I can't fault them for getting a guy to help the offense
If JMJ has a good year next year, do you think RAJ will go with him and a unproven Brown to be a starter. Its not typical RAJ thinking to go with a unproven and barely proven player to be a starter. I dont know if resigning Victorino is the answer or not just putting it out there. I also suspect unless Shane has a career year, he could be willing to take a fair market value deal for 2 years. He seems like that type of guy to me but i could be wrong. I dont think he will go all Jayson Werth on us but who knows.
Uhhhmmmm By "go all Jayson Werth on us" you mean have somebody make you an offer you can't refuse… $126 m ……. I'm fairly certain Victorino would take that offer as would every other player in every other sport
No i mean demand more money than he is Werth.
Wow Moyer was picked up…Good luck to Jamie..
The bad news for him is that it's in the thin air of Colorado, which means his pitches are going to have less break and the balls that are put in play are going to have a lot of room to fall in, if they manage to stay in the yard.
Not an ideal fit, IMO, but I wish him the best of luck regardless.
It's nice to see that Jamie Moyer agreed to terms on a minor league contract with an invite to spring training. i too wish him the best of luck. Since Colorado Rockies began humidifying the balls use in Coors Field and having some success, maybe that might help Moyer. At least it will stay in the yard for him.
They haven't had that much success with reducing homeruns. Basd on ESPN's park factors, it's been one of the top 3 homerun parks in three of the past 4 years.
While that little tiny bandbox the Phillies play in remains middle of the pack.
Yep. Over the past 4 years there have been 2.5% more HRs in the Phillies' home games (by both teams), than there have been in their away games. Not in the same "ballpark" so to speak as the home parks of the White Sox (+32%), Yankees (+31%), Rockies (+29%), or Rangers (+27%).
I remember watching as Brown continued to get his chances at the plate and in the field. It was a perfect setup for the young man to show his mettle and he was pretty consistent. Sure, he hit 2 hrs (solo shots) in one game but there were so many other chances for him to step up.
Pence was a PIA while on the Stros. Always a headache and always a gamer. When the Phils were able to sign him I was sure that Brown would be in the mix but was really relieved that he wasn't. I too want to see Dom Brown succeed as a Phil. Where exactly? I suppose like most of you are saying its inevitable that Vic is going to leave us, I just hope its in the AL. He has all the makings of a royal PIA. An OF of Pence, Brown & Junior in the near future? Sounds appealing – and young.
The problem with Shane is that he is trying to hit home runs, which he should not be trying to do. He should be trying to hit the ball hard on the ground and use his speed. As should Jimmy be doing. But they keep the ball in the air and negate their speed. Shane had a real good year last year. Personally, I need to see him do it again.
I think he gets traded. As mentioned in a previous post, he is the expendable guy when you talk about who to sign long term.
Pence – HAD to have that right handed bat.
Th Dipsy
"He should be trying to hit the ball hard on the ground and use his speed. As should Jimmy be doing. "
What do you mean exactly? Beating out infield hits? Because if it goes through the infield even Charlie Manuel can get a hit. Infield hits are such an extremely rare occurrence even for fast guys I don't know why you would focus on that.
But maybe you mean something else.
As you say, Vic had his best year last year — did he do that by getting a lot of infield hits? No. he did it because he had the lowest ground ball rate of his career.
League wide, here is OPS by where the ball is hit:
– ground balls: .492
– fly balls: .777 (excluding line drives)
– line drives: 1.672
Victorino last year:
– ground balls: .544
– fly balls: .791
– line drives: 1.973
If you believe in WAR, Victorino was the best player on the team last year. If they do sign Hamels long term, I don't see any scenario where they could afford to keep him though.
"War- Huh, Good god, what is it good for? Absolutely nothin, say it again" Sorry couldn't help myself, I guess you can tell what era I grew up now?
Seriously, I'll believe in it a lot more when there is one single agreed upon formula. I think the formula I like best right now is the Baseball Prospectus one -WARP. But I switch from time to time, there needs to be just one. BTW Vic's WARP was 5.3 last season.
Nice post. I liked your reference.
I, too, will believe in WAR (and put more faith in other sabermetric numbers) when a sensible formula is agreed upon.
Thanks for the shout-out, Amanda….don't think I've ever been quoted in an article on here before. Yes, I do remember saying that about Pence….that he "reminds me of Utley, Lenny Dykstra, Ty Cobb and Pete Rose all rolled into one." And that Philly would "fall in love" with him fast.
While some have made the argument that we didn't need him…..that we were solidly in first place and that our offense was fine…..I would argue that we really needed, not only that RH bat, but the ENERGY and PASSION that this guy brings to the park every single day. I think this was a necessary trade for the next few years and that he'll be an integral part of a playoff contender and hopeful World Series winner.
I would be curious to see how many times Shane and Jimmy fly out each year. Just because you hit 15 HR's doesn't mean you are a power hitter. If you are always trying to hit the ball as long and far as you can, my momma could hit 16 HR's that way. Shane has a horrifyingly loopy swing. He doesn't bunt (Refrain from the chorus: But thats not his game!), his swing is not leveled in order hit singles.
Shane had a good year last year. Hats off to him. But my guess is that it won't happen again this year. But I believe he would do more good for the team if he concentrated on OBP, stealing bases, and just hitting the ball hard and level. Then the singles come more. I'm not talking about infield hits. Thats silly. He's a speed player who tries to play like a power player. Don't cite Canseco and Bonds and HoJo and Soriano (back in the day) as guys that could do both. Shane is not one of them.
The Dipsy
Dipsy, I guess I don't worry so much about categorizing him as this kind of player, or that kind of player. His power has improved consistently over the years, and largely because of that (he also about matched his career high OBP), he had his best year offensively.
He added more value to the team with his bat last year than he ever has. I'm not sure why you would want to mess with that.
Whether he gets on base by hitting a ball through the infield, or by a line drive to the outfield, he can still "use his speed" as you say.
Strange comments. We should not have done the deal but we want him long term? Just how were you going to get him long term? Continued overvaluation of prospects is a problem here. I would rather take an established solid MLB player than the chance on prospects any day. Sure sometimes you give away a star but if you get one in the trade where is the loss? Looking long term you have Pence which makes the possible loss of Victorino not as threatening. None of the players mentioned would fill the the RF positions.
Now that he's ours, we better make the most out of it. How's that strange?
Sure, there's nothing contradictory in wanting to keep him around while still thinking the deal was ill-conceived. I have to adjust my desires for this team with the reality as it stands, so while I would have preferred to go with an OF of Mayberry, Brown and Victorino this season–which, BTW, would have cost something on the order of $10.3 million for this season, now that Pence is here it makes sense to keep him even if that pushes the total outfield payroll toward $20 million.
The problem with giving away prospects–especially ones very highly regarded–is that if and when those guys develop they're MUCH more valuable than the guy you got. You have to compare the total value produced from the guys you got to the guys you gave up, and do so with their salaries in mind. You cannot operate a continually successful team with payroll constraints without manning a number of positions with players who are significantly underpaid. The way the market in baseball works is that the underpaid players tend to be the young, productive ones. And so losing one or two of those is a huge loss to a franchise that has finite funds.
Further, the prospects don't have to be able to fill in RF. My gripe with the Pence trade is that it was an unnecessary overpay. We can disagree as to whether Dom Brown would have been adequate in RF going forward, but the value of the prospects could and should have been able to fetch a far greater return than a costly above average RF. So, if at some point it would have become glaringly obvious that Brown can't play RF, you'd still have assets which could be used to fill that void. Seeing as the team was already in a position to make the playoffs and Brown was producing at a reasonable level offensively, that unnecessary trade removed valuable assets from the organization that could be used to either play or in a later transaction for a more important piece, if such a need arose.
You're essentially saying, "What good is a gold brick? You can't eat a gold brick. And you can't pay your mortgage with a gold brick." And you're right. Except that other people place a lot of value in that brick, and it can be traded for food or money or other assets you might need. Or the price of gold might skyrocket and you end up keeping it for yourself as you've then got a brick of gold that you paid little for and watched turn into something great.
Your mindset is the same one that would agree with having sent Sandberg to the Cubs for Ivan DeJesus or Furgeson Jenkins to the Cubs for Bob Buhl and Larry Jackson (credit: TGP). I'll admit that trading well regarded prospects is sometimes beneficial and can be a smart move provided you get enough of a return (For example: Roy Halladay), but when you do so for mere "established solid MLB player[s]" and when you do so to fill a non-existent "need" you're asking to go down in the annals of baseball as someone who made a colossal mistake. Sure, Glenn Davis was a solid MLB player–an All-Star even, but can you really say that the Orioles won the trade in which they received him in exchange for Curt Schilling, Pete Harnisch and Steve Finley?
On September 1st, 1990, the Boston Red Sox were in first place by 6.5 games. They felt, however, that they could use some help in their bullpen for the stretch run. As it turned out, they were right, as the race came down to the wire, finishing the season a mere two games ahead of the Blue Jays. Luckily for them, the guy the acquired pitched lights-out down the stretch, holding opponents to a .220/.256/.244 line. So, you know, they got a solid MLB player. Unfortunately, Larry Andersen was on the tail end of his career, whileJeff Bagwell, the player who went to the Astros and was a very well regarded prospect at the time, turned into the hall of famer we watched dominate the NL Central for 15 years. As someone running a franchise, you cannot afford to do that, just because prospects are prospects and you might be able to get a decent player in return.
Or, you know, what Manny said in like 700 fewer words.
Living near Baltimore, I remember that Glen Davis trade. I was never an Orioles fan, but the locals here were livid. And as bad as that was, it only gets honorable mention in this piece. (three sports included, but mostly baseball)
Oh, and good comment, (gold brick tangent withstanding) . My only argument to it would be that at that time we all felt that we really did need a right handed presence to balance the lineup.
I can't argue that we probably paid too much. Maybe Ed Wade's specter in the FO will sway Ruben to re-evaluate these moves before doing them in the future.
Ugghhhh- It's good thing I read that over again this morning. I was trying to be funny, and totally blew the punchline! – "Notwithstanding" Doh!
That's ok, I knew what you meant.
And I suppose that portion of the post sticks out like a sore…brick of gold! Ha!
I also did not think the deal had to be made. IMO the FO thought was that the deal was for the post season, not the regular season, but it did not work out that way, not sure if it was due to the injury that he had surgery on this off season, or the putting him in the three hole(which I disagreed with at the time by the way) Or maybe it was just the pressure of being in the post season for the first time. I also not a big buyer of a guy who is in AA or A is blocked by any player, many players switch positions as they move up the minors, Chooch was a second basemen for christ sake. I know they tried Singleton in the outfield for a short time, but I think some of these young athletes can become competent defenders at other positions if they and the francise put the time in to it.
I also do not think it is strange that once the trade was made that it is in the Phillies best interest to keep him long term, because that had to come into the decision process to make the trade. I know it would be hard for at this time to trade Vic with so many unknowns in the OF, but how do you weigh that with losing his talents to FA next off season.
On a side note did Either really sign for 8 million? And could you make that trade for him and Vic straight up?
Ethier had somewhat of a down year. The Dodgers have a great center fielder already, so why would they go for Victorino?
I think the Phils weren't just thinking about the playoffs when they got Pence. They were thinking that Brown and Mayberry were still going to be big question marks in 2012 and that they should acquire someone proven.
Eric places too much value on prospects. They are, especially at the A and AA levels, unknown quantities. But just because they are unknown quantities doesn't mean they don't have value. When you place value on these guys, I think you have to ask yourselves questions like: The value you are getting back; where your team is as an organization, now and for the next few years; the depth of your minor league system. In the Pence trade:
1) Pence is a damn good player, not above average;
2) The team had to have a RH in order to make the big push for the WS. Had to have it. Guys on here point out all the time how well our offense played one Utley came back and Pence arrived;
3) Singleton was blocked and couldn't play another position other than first, Cosart was a good AA arm. We have more of them. Zied – You can take him.
4) While we have traded good minor league talent away in the last few years, trading those guys still left us with a superior farm system. Ranked 5th by someone for 2012.
If you play chess, AA players are pawns and guys like Pence are bishops. You'll trade your pawns for a bishop anytime. The Phils needed a RH bat and they had the prospects to get it done without DENTING the farm system and its obvious the Phils are not that concerned about being abale to pay for players.
Don't fall in the love with minor leaguers.
The Dipsy
Dipsy, to your points:
1) He's somewhere between BJ and Justin Upton. It's a very good bet that his 2012 will not be as good as his 2011. His batting average on balls in play was .319 through 2010, and .361 last year. That kind of spike typically means it's not sustainable.
2) You seem to think that there was universal agreement that a RH bat was needed. Actually many disagreed at the time; partly because they had been scoring as well as they were, and also since Victorino had like a 1.200 OPS vs. lefties and had been hitting 5th. Again, as noted in the second comment in this thread, they had scored 4.77 per game from May 23rd to July 29th. They scored 4.54 per game after the trade.
3) SIngleton could still play OF, and even if blocked would have been a valuable trade piece in the future. Word was that the outfield experiment last year was cut short to let him focus on his hitting, and improve his stats so he would look better as a trade chip.
4) I know they were ranked 5th by Keith Law a year ago; any idea where you saw the #5 in a recent ranking?
Schmenk, how many runs per game BEFORE May 23rd?? Seems as though that offensive boost came when Utley came back off the DL?
I agree that minor leaguers are just that. They're prospects and prospects only. None of these guys have played one game at the major league level yet. So to say that we gave up too much is really just guesswork at best. There is no way to know for sure how any given prospect is going to perform at the MLB level until he actually does and produces a good enough body of work.
I would do this deal again….in a heartbest. Let's go eat!
Before May 23rd they averaged 3.82 per game, and that's exactly the point — that they were scoring just fine for the over two months once Utley came off the DL on May 23rd, at 4.77 per game.
No, you don't know how anything will happen until it happens. But of course prospects have value, which is why teams are willing to give up major leaguers for them. But a trade like this can haunt the organization for decades, and for what?
– They had been scoring 4.77 per game since Utley came back
– They had Victorino hitting 5th and putting up a 1.032 OPS vs. LHPs
– They already had a 99% chance of reaching the playoffs.
The trade may have improved their chances of winning it all from 20% (on the high side) to what — 25%?
The question of prospects has much less to do with how they may contribute on the field for the Phillies some day than whether the Phillies got enough back for the value they represent. And concensus is that the Astros made a killing (unlike in the Bourn trade with Atlanta). Here is how the 3 main prospects rank in Houston's farm system:
– #1 Singleton, #3 Cosart, #7 Santana http://www.minorleagueball.com/2011/11/21/2578508/houston-astros-top-20-prospects-for-2012
– #1 Singleton, #2 Cosart, #6 Santana
Who give a crap where these players rank in one team's particular system? I want to know where they come out when compared to all teams' systems. If a team has lousy prospects throughout, who cares if someone suddenly becomes their number one?
And what did you find when you looked that up?
I, and many others, and going by past history, felt that the Phils were vulnerable to the LH pitcher, especially in the post season. I regarded the RH bat as an essentil in order to succeed in the post season more so than the reg. season.
I thought that #5 ranking was for 2012. My bad. I believe that we still have an excellent farm system.
Singleton – I, for one, do not believe for a second that the reason Singleton was moved back was to let him concentrate on his hitting. Think about it like this: If they move him to the outfield and he can play there, he is very valuable and less likely to be traded. But they move him back so he can concentrate on hitting to build his trade value which naturally insinuates that they are looking to deal him. If they are looking to deal him then he probably couldn't play the outfield because at that point they'd love to keep him. Just speculation mixed with some common sense on my part.
The thing about minor leaguers is that they are much more apt to fizzle out as they climb the minor league levels then adapt. I don't get really hype about a prospect until they've blown away AA.
Advanced Metrics. Well, the numbers are what the numbers are. I happen to think the Pence is a helluva player and a great fit for the team.
The Dipsy
Exactly!! "A great fit for the team" That's the whole point , I think, with Hunter Pence. He brings a UNIQUE passion, hunger and energy to this team that's infectious to the team and the fanbase. That was missing. Say what you want about Dom Brown and his skillset and what he did in the minors and that he should have played instead. In my opinion, he was/maybe is missing that energy. He didn't/maybe doesn't have it. SOMETHING needed to be done to infuse new blood into the lineup….RH blood….and Carlos Beltran certainly wasn't the answer.
Like I said, I like him too now that he's here. He's like the "surprise" baby.
But WHY did something need to be done? Because the team wasn't entertaining enough despite having the best pitching AND best offense in the league?
At the trade deadline these are the left-handers for possible play off teams we could have faced-
Venters, Oflaherty, Sherril
Bumgarner, Sanchez, Affeldt, Lopez
Garcia, Rzepczynski, Rhodes
Saunders, Patterson, Zagurski (oh the irony)
Wolf, Narveson, Parra
I can only speculate, but my guess is that this is why RAJ made the trade. At the time we all felt the same, every blog, every forum, every news outlet with a columnist. They all said we needed a right handed presence in the lineup, or we would get chewed up by the left handers we faced in the playoffs. I can't argue that they paid too much for this particular player, but they pay too much ( either in trade value, or salary) for every player, why does this surprise anyone?
Two dissenting opinions from July…
The Phillies Don't Need a Righthanded Bat
Dr. Strangeglove: Hunter Pence and Terms of Enrampagement
Thanks for sharing, schmenkman. That last paragraph of the first article sums up my approach to this franchise:
"Contrary to what you might have heard, this is not the Phillies' "window" to win a World Series. The Phillies are a relatively wealthy team with a good minor league system. They can continue to win for years to come – if they try. People only insist that the Phillies are in a temporary window because that's what they want to believe, so as to rationalize their base desire to indulge in profligacy. Those future teams may very well have opportunities to win the World Series. It might be worth it to hurt those future odds a little to help our present-day odds a lot, but it isn't worth it to hurt our future odds a lot to help our present-day odds a little – which is exactly what you'll find yourself doing if you falsely tell yourself that the future is hopeless no matter what when it isn't."
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
"People only insist that the Phillies are in a temporary window because that's what they want to believe, so as to rationalize their base desire to indulge in profligacy…it isn't worth it to hurt our future odds a lot to help our present-day odds a little – which is exactly what you'll find yourself doing if you falsely tell yourself that the future is hopeless no matter what when it isn't.""
Seriously, this is the mindset of a large number of posters here, and it's exactly why this team is going to suffer in a couple of years.
I know a lot of you think I harp on about the stupid moves this team is making and it sounds ridiculous because the team just won 102 games and has had a lot of success and the product they're currently putting on the field is still very good. I understand that. What I'm saying is that the last 5 years of dominance NEVER HAPPEN if Ed Wade had spent his tenure dumping guys like Utley, Rollins, Howard and Hamels. This is what Ruben Amaro is well on his way to doing, with the sole exception of Domonic Brown whom the crowd I'm speaking of generally hates because he lacks grit or hustle or energy or some other unquantifiable nonsense.
Very poor wording on my part-
"They all said we needed a right handed presence in the lineup, or we would get chewed up by the left handers we faced in the playoffs."
I should have noted it more like this-
"The overwhelming majority said we needed a right handed ………."
The fact that dissenting opinions existed at all- is due to the common view that so many others felt that way. If there wasn't a huge groundswell, Mike and Taco's posts would never have been written.
Anyway, the bottom line is that RA Jr. still made the trade. It's a medium-high risk gamble, most trades are. So, now I guess- we go eat 🙂
I never thought Dr. Strangelove had anything worthwhile to say. He took contrary positions at times just to generate debate. (He was also, in my opinion, a lousy writer who delighted in his own self important and irrelevant references.)
"WHY did something need to be done"? I think I, and others in the "commentariat" believe that the Phils were gonna need a RH bat to advance through the post season. And I think so did Ruben did to. As to the timing, there is a trade deadline to deal with.
The Dipsy
Schmenkman, having the best offense in the league doesn't mean you don't try to improve it even further if you feel that it's necessary to to bolster the lineup for the postseason. That's exactly what Ruben did.
Chuck, it depends. There are always costs and benefits, and in this case, as Manny quotes a couple comments above, the costs far outweighed the benefits, IMO.
"…try to improve it even further if you feel that it's necessary to to bolster the lineup for the postseason. That's exactly what Ruben did."
And how'd that work out for him? If you're saying that Pence was acquired mainly to help int he playoffs the trade would unquestionably be a abject failure.
Playoff series are subject to a high level of variance due to their short length. In short, that means you need to be lucky to win a playoff series, and the inferior team frequently wins.
Making big trades for a slight improvement raises your chances of winning any one particular playoff series by a very small amount. Thus, paying a kings ransom for that small chance is foolhardy.
"Kings ransom" – What?
"Slight improvement" – "What?
Need a redefinition of terms here.
The Dipsy
The "open window" etc was due to the fact that most of our homegrown players are/ were coming towards the end of their contracts… Rollins, Utley, Victorino, Madson, Hamels… Once you add Halladay and Lee you've decided that because your franchise has won only two titles its 128 year history… That you want to make moves NOW that you think can give you a better chance at winning another World Series, instead of playing and planning to "be competitive" five years from now. By adding Pence last year we solved the RF question while giving Brown the luxury of improving without the pressures of performing on the MLB stage. If Brown is as good as advertised, he alone should help us be competitive in years to come …. But how anyone can truly find fault with this team trading prospects for proven players while trying to secure another World Series title.. I just can't understand. An organization going balls-out to try to win a title right now, and people worrying about how it effects us in the year 2017
The problem with this kind of thinking is that YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE A WORLD SERIES.
You want sustained success because that gives you the best shot at making the playoffs year after year, and that's all the organization can control. The playoffs themselves are very reliant on luck. I've said that over and over and over and it doesn't seem to sink in.
In a 5 or 7 game series the better team frequently loses. That's because it's a short sample size and the variance inherent in the sport can cause big swings over the short term that obscure the actual level of talent on a team. Football and basketball are not like this, because there is much less variance in those games, and the better team more often wins. Sure, there are still upsets, but nowhere near the number that baseball has, because you can play strategies in those sports, attacking the other team's weaknesses. If you know a team has a poor RF, you can't attack that position, because baseball doesn't work like that. It's very dependent on luck.
The 116 win Seattle team of 2001 lost in the ALCS to the 95 win Yankees in the ALCS. Do you really think that a team 21 wins better than another is in any way shape or form the less talented team? Things like that happen a lot in baseball because SHORT SERIES ARE CRAPSHOOTS.
Thus, if you want to win the World Series YOU NEED TO ENTER AS MANY CRAPSHOOTS AS POSSIBLE.
It's better to make the playoffs 5 years in a row with an 88-win team than to make it once as a 116-win team.
Thus, "going balls-out" to win a championship in baseball is stupid and does not work.
"Thus, if you want to win the World Series YOU NEED TO ENTER AS MANY CRAPSHOOTS AS POSSIBLE.
It's better to make the playoffs 5 years in a row with an 88-win team than to make it once as a 116-win team.
Thus, "going balls-out" to win a championship in baseball is stupid and does not work."
^ What he said.
To augment that point, I had this in another thread, but I think it's worth repeating.
Other successful teams' last 5 playoff appearances:
Braves (last 10 years): 0 WS appearances, 0 WS wins
Red Sox (last 8 years): 2 WS appearances, 2 WS wins
Cardinals (last 8 years): 3 WS appearances, 2 WS wins
Yankees (last 6 years): 1 WS appearance, 1 WS win
Giants (last 15 years): 2 WS appearances, 1 WS win
Angels (last 8 years): 0 WS appearances, 0 WS wins
Dodgers (last 16 years): 0 WS appearances, 0 WS wins
Rangers (last 16 years): 2 WS appearances, 0 WS wins
Phillies (last 5 years): 2 WS appearances, 1 WS win
Lessons from this list:
– Phillies aren't the best, or the worst, at capitalizing on playoff chances
– They've actually been more fortunate than 5 of the 8 teams
– Playoffs are not predictable — all you can do is get there and take your chances
No one has said you can guarantee a world series. But you can improve your chances. The Phils aren't the only team that tried to do this. The Giants, Braves, and Cards all made deadline deals, and gave up some promising players to do so. The Cards, as we all know, succeeded.
And Manny, winning 88 games per year does not always equate to five years of playoffs. Sometimes it doesn't even get you the wild card.
While I frequently argue about the dangers of short series, better team doesn't always win, etc…. The phillies are trying to Mae sure that they remain among the "88-win" teams with their recent acquisitions… And while there is some luck involved in the postseason, some of these comments would have you believe that it's ALL luck… It's not
Rockies in the WS in 07 –> crapshoot
Phillies and Rays in 08 –> crapshoot
Yankees and Phillies in 09 –> ok fine
Giants and Rangers in 10 –> crapshoot
Rangers and Cardinals in 11 –> crapshoot
Conclusion: it is a crapshoot
Hottest team heading into the postseason…. Rockies 07… Phillies 08…. .Cardinals in 11 …
People are saying crapshoot as though you have no chance to control your own destiny.. which is false. I'm acknowleding that A LOT of the postseason has to do with matchups.. i've said before that I don't think the '08 Phillies would've beat the Red Sox – we matched up well with the Rays …
and that the Brewers and D'Backs would've been an easier draw last year than the Cardinals – who, for whatever reason, had our number last year.
The Phillies have made moves the past few seasons to give them a team they think will -help their odds- in the postseason …. but to call it all luck just isn't accurate
There is certainly luck, as in any game, but no, it's not all luck, and I don't think anyone was saying that.
Yes, matchups matter to some extent, although of course you can't control that (unless you lay down, but let's not get into that).
So that leaves trying to adjust your team to improve your chances. So how much did a trade like this one improve their chances? Earlier in this thread I suggested that their chances of winning the WS might have improved from ~20% to about ~25%. That's based on the average team starting at 12.5% (1 of 8), and adding something for a 102-win team with an very high run differential, and an excellent starting rotation.
Another way to view that is that the difference between a 102-win team and a 90-win team over a 5-game series is the difference between 3.2 and 2.8. And it's probably even closer to that, since the 102 wins are against the league-average, while the NLDS is against another top team.
So it's all a matter of shifting the balance between winning now and winning in the future, and the Pence trade moved a lot of chips from the future side to the now side. It turned out not help very much, but what many of us are saying is that even without knowing that ahead of time, the improvement to this year's chances was not worth the very high cost.
Think about it Don, the Giants really sucked until late September into October of 2010. The Cardinals, with some of the worst relief pitching in the majors last year were very much a mediocre team but going into September late October, they found the "zone".
I really am not saying its a crap shoot but, given the teams that get scorching hot at the right time, you have to be able to make some adjustments to counter the pitching you're facing, basically tweak the offense just enough to win. The Phils are guilty of doing nothing.
Guilty of doing nothing? The whole argument here is that they've done too much, tried too hard, and traded everything …… I have NO idea why the lineup got tweaked right before the postseason with Utley then Pence then Howard… If it was due to a struggling Polly then Vic shouldve been the one batting second in my opinion. I'm a firm believer in the theory of "dance with the girl that brought you", and Charlie basically switched his date as soon as they got to the dance last year
Schmenk, you keep saying that but you have no idea how good, or bad, these prospects are gonna turn out. They are "unknown variables". As we all know from our algebra and such, if you have an unknown variable in an equation, then you can't come up with an answer. If we are talking about chips, then Pence is a $100 chip and the minor leaguers are $10 chips.
"Potential" gets managers fired.
And I'll go this far – as long as the Phils keep bringing in good talent, as they did last year, you can keep trading your prospects, for Its when you stop drafting well and being able to replace those prospects that you start running into trouble. That hasn't happened to the Phils yet.
The Dipsy
Prospects are assets, and they have value. And their value varies quite a bit, depending on their age, position, performance, upside, etc. The Phillies gave up very valuable assets (the Astros' 3 of their top 6 or 7 prospects), for not much improvement to their playoff chances.
Is it possible none of them pan out? Sure. Just as it's possible one or two turn into stars. But that's all irrelevant because we won't know that for years. What we know is that they have value today, and it feels like that value was given away for not much in return.
Hunter Pence …. All Star RF…. "not much in return" ???- for prospects …. a guy that wasn't a rental- he was controlable past this year – for prospects
those guys might turn out to be great – but that was said of Carrasco, Donald, and Marson once too ….
Filling a team need with a controlable all star caliber player… and not subtracting anything from the MLB roster is a "win" from every fan base except ours I guess
EricL has laid out the alternatives already. I'll just say that signing Cuddyer or Beltran as a FA may not be quite as attractive, but their farm system would be much stronger today.
I was curious and looked up their projections for 2012…
"Bill James" projections from FanGraphs:
– Pence: .292/.349/.486 (.835) — $9-$11.8 million
– Cuddyer: .275/.347/.451 (.798) — $10 million
– Beltran: .279/.369/.480 (.849) — $13 million
And again, they would still have those prospects to trade for other needs.
For what it's worth… Cuddyer was the guy I wanted dating all the way back to last offseason, knowing that the Twins wouldn't contend, and assuming they would be Sellers at the deadline….. They didn't contend, but they didn't sell either.
I really wanted Beltran at the deadline but rumors had them asking for Domonic Brownand the Phillies said no as Beltran was only a rental
…..so I was happy with the Pence deal. It's not often that the core of your team has such sustained success, and we know that Rollins, Vic, Utley, Howard, Ruiz, Halladay, Hamels, Lee (damn that's a lot of talent) wont last forever.. So again, they tried to improve their odds of winning it all while they had the talent to even make that a consideration.. It like the boxer with a bad record (2 world series in 128 years) going for the knockout when he thinks he has a chance even though he'd be more exhausted in the later rounds, somewhere down the line… Can't fault the guy for going after the knockout instead of just trying to extend the fight
I thought the Giants gave up a very good pitcher for Beltran, No?
Yes, Zack Wheeler to the Mets.
Then he was signed as a FA this offseason by St. Louis for 3yr/$30M.
I was just reading about him, number 6 pick in 2009 draft. Wheeler is a heavy price, and that was only for a rental.
Actually the 3/30 is Cuddyer; Beltran signed for 2 years/26 million.
I wish you guys could remember the 80's and 90's when we had NO prospects in the farm system. We used to get worked up over guys like Tyler Green and Bruce Ruffin.
If we went by the "this guy represents only a .0000000001% chance in the team doing better in the playoffs", then lets never make it trade since it doesn't matter so much. I don't buy into that math or the premise it is alleged to support. I have seen acquired players carry teams into the playoffs and win the WS.
To my knowledge, n all these trades we have made over the last four years, we have not given up one quality major league position player. We have given up Gonzalez, Outman, and Floyd. Thats one really good pitcher and two ok ones. These are the ones that spring to mind. And look at all we've gotten back.
The Dipsy
Anthony Gose and Travis D'Arnaud are both supposed to be legit from what I've read..
Sincerey, DevilsAdvocate
Well, I've read all or most of these comments and I see all sides to the argument. But, at the end of the day, I would STILL make that deal to get Pence. The guys we gave up are PROSPECTS ONLY and, until we know for sure how good or bad they will be a few years down the road, they will remain PROSPECTS ONLY.
By the way, one of the guys we got back in the Cliff Lee trade, Phillippe Aumont, looks like is gonna be a good one. Just thought I would throw that in since just about everyone on here criticized that deal from Day One.
Again, it's really irrelevant today (i.e. 7/29/11) whether they ever amount to anything or not. What is relevant is that due to their status as some of the best prospects in the organization, and in top 60 or so in baseball (maybe better, I don't recall offhand), they had a lot of market value.
A big chunk of the organization's value was squandered (IMO) for little gain.
Prospects have market value, by the way, and not saying anything people don't already know, because some of them turn into the holy grail of baseball team construction, the young, cheap, player who is controlled for their best early years. Those would be nice to have around 2013-2015 as the team struggles to stay under the luxury tax threshold.
Schmenk, this was already brought up but how can you actually say that Hunter Pence is "little gain". ??
Young, All-Star OF, under control for 2 more years. He came in and played his a$$ off and put up great numbers. Plus infusing a brand of enthusiasm that we haven't seen here in awhile and that was sorely needed.
I say little gain because:
– they were already scoring very well (best in league after Ut returned)
– they were already virtually assured of making the playoffs
– it only improved their playoff chances marginally
– they could have signed a player of similar value as a FA this offseason (cost controlled doesn't mean when you have to pay them $9-$11.8 mil.
…Doesn't mean much, that is.
You know, when I think about this in more depth, while the Phils traded many prospects, they really haven't traded away a position of immediate need. For instance, very soon Utley's knees will no longer allow him to play. Have we traded a really good second base prospect? Polanco is not going to last much longer, how many 3rd base prospects have we traded? We traded Singleton, but he was blocked. We have a guy to eventually replace Jimmy. In all the big trades I think the only infielders we gave up were Jason Donald, a utility guy/DH for Cleveland, and Villar, who although good defensively, will seemingly never learn to stop hacking at everything he sees.
Shane could be gone soon, but we kept D Brown. JMJ and Pence can play for many seasons yet. Traded a couple outfielders but beside Gose, no one of note so far.
It's true we traded our best catching prospect, and that could soon be a position of need soon as Chooch can't keep taking the beating he takes everyday, but we got Roy Freakin' Halladay for him! And we still have Valle, a decent prospect. I'd like to have Gose and D'arnaud back, but would make that trade 1000 times over again without giving it a second thought.
Pitching, yes we've given up really good pitching prospects, but it's not a position of need at the moment and there is no shortage of young arms in the system nearly ready to go.
So while it's also true that we traded away 2 of our 4 prospects listed in the 2011 top 100 for Pence, at this point I'm not sure that's as much the issue, as our farm system's inability to provide guys at positions we need.
Oh, and this old man's memory isn't quite what it used to be, if I missed someone important we traded away, I encourage you to point it out, just go easy on me. 🙂
I truly believe if our system produced better results in positions of need, we would not be all that bad off. I know it's a hit and miss job, but some teams employ a more sabrmetric approach, and I'd like to see our scouting dept. update in that area.
And, Lefty, while we gave up "value"…..not gonna say that the prospects don't possess value…. to get Pence, getting him filled a "need'. We NEEDED that proven RH bat. WE gave up positions of no immediate need to fill a position of more immediate need.
I was certainly on the side that thought we did need a good RH bat. Remember how we battled MB on this?
But I can also see schmenkman's POV that we could have got Beltran as a FA if we waited.
Beltran? He of the perpetual leg injury? How would he have been better than the healthy and much younger Pence? How much more than the $26 million/two year contract would it have taken to keep him from the Cards?
To clarify, I can also understand the other guy's POV that they could have kept the 2 top 100 prospects and waited for FA. Beltran, Cuddyer, whoever.
But- I like the Pence trade better. He's an awkward one, but if he had the determination and courage to fight through coaches that looked at him the first time they saw him and said get this uncoordinated guy out of here his whole life, and still make it to the bigs, he's got what it takes to be capable of greatness. (whew- what a horrible run-on sentence, I didn't think that one would ever end.)
Schmenkman, who would you have signed instead as a FA this offseason?
I don't know. Let's say Cuddyer for argument's sake. I'm at aphone and don't' have their records handy but I think he may stay healthier.
Ok, so the argument is always made on here that the Phillies need to get younger. Yet Carlos Beltran and Michael Cuddyer are quite a bit older than Hunter Pence yet it's being suggested that we should have signed one of those two instead??
Plus Beltran is at what?? ….2/26 ? And Cuddyer 3/31.5? How is that all that much different than what Pence will get? In fact, Beltran is a great deal MORE EXPENSIVE.
I'm just not sure I undersatnd the argument of signing another free agent in the offseason when that free agent is older and about the same money or evn more…
Sigh. We're going around and around, now but…
Because you would still have 2 very valuable trade chips to either develop or use to fill other needs.
(not even counting Santana and Zeid).
So you would rather have trade chips………….sigh, I DO get that argument………… and have another older, expensive player on the payroll….(you guys always argued AGAINST the Ibanez signing)….as opposed to a younger player at least compared to Beltran ??? Infact, most people on here were totally against Cuddyer signing here because he was too old and too expensive.
I would rather have trade chips than NOT have trade chips, absolutely.
Pence turns 29 in April. We're not talking Mike Stanton here.
Cuddyer IS too old and too expensive… now that we no longer need a rightfielder. If he was signed in addition to Pence, he would be taking time from cheap young alternatives like Mayberry and Brown.
I don't think Cuddyer would have been signed in addition to Pence. I think the Phillies realize that JMJ is part of the solution in left field. Thankfully. And Cuddyer is 33-34. Beltran 35, right? That….in baseball years….is a great deal older than Pence's 29. Especially when you're talking about the same money for Cuddyer and Beltran at even more $$$.
Pence was the guy. If RAJ had wanted to trade something so so to rent Beltran, I would have been OK with that, too.
I guess the arguments revolves around how much value you put on A and AA prospects. If somebody will something I have plenty of in exchange for something I need, I'm doin it.
Onto the next topic. Or not.
The Dipsy
If you have a lot of cards, I'll take your '52 Mantle for my 2012 Pence.
I haven't looked at my baseball cards in years. Love my 55 Mantle (NOT mint)….it was one of the first cards that I bought at an auction and didn't get inside of a pack with a stick of gum and it really got me into the hobby for awhile.
so basically, I think the Phillies are going to win the World Series in 2012
Why not?
I agree, lets rock!


text:
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
Need to know what the paint inspection mark looks like on a brake booster for a 68z. Color, location ,shape,size? thanks alot John

subset: commoncrawl


text:
For her dress I used the hoodie pattern (minus the hoodie- I added a collar instead) and used fabric painting, fabric transfers, applique and beads!
A Little Photo Shoot...
A. is in love with this dress!!
The Details...
The Front:
The girl (which represents the girl in the poem.. who I made sorta to look like my daughter) is painted on with black fabric paint.
The tree is appliqued on with black knit fabric.
The rain is painted on with silver glitter fabric paint. (a little hard to see in the photos)
The leaves are also appliqued on by sewing down the middle of each leaf. I just used up some scraps I had left over from previous projects :). And I added fray away to the edges of the leaves to keep them from fraying.
So the tree comes around under her left armpit.. and around to her back...where you find the backside of the girl, and also the poem.
The poem is added to the dress using a fabric transfer. I added a little bit of silver glitter fabric paint around the edge of the poem.
The skirt is two layers, turquoise on the bottom and blue on top. The fabrics were snipped apart into strips, and embellished with beads, then the strips were knotted at the ends. I picked out bead colours that matched the leaves on the tree. I remember I used to have a skirt like this when I was younger and I loved it, A. loves her equally as much, if not more! ! :)
And I paired the dress with some black leggings (also a Lil Blue Boo pattern) :)
This is definitely something new for me, and I'm so glad I tried it out, I learned a lot in the process :).. I can't wait to see who the judges choose as top 10 this week, and I can't wait to see all the submissions, it's going to be great!


text:
ces1 The shore of Lake Michigan from about 25,000 feet. Somewhere down there are Saugatuck and Holland.
ces2 The Illinois coast of Lake Michigan somewhere north of Chicago.
ces3 The new Denver airport, WAY east of Denver. A Delta Airlines employee riding next to me joked that it's more convenient to Kansas.
ces4 Denver, with the downtown area at bottom left.
ces5 Finally, some snow, on the front range of the Rockies.
ces6 Here you can see ski trails cut through the woods.
ces7 More snow-capped peaks
ces8 You can tell you're getting close to Las Vegas when the rocks turn red.
ces11 Nevada's Valley of Fire State Park -- I think.
ces12 Part of Lake Mead. It looks as unlikely in this desert as a lake on Mars.
ces13 Lake Las Vegas, upstream of Lake Mead, where Las Vegas gets its drinking water. It's ringed by hotels and golf courses but gasoline-powered boats are not allowed on its waters.
ces14 The state of the consumer electronics industry is CROWDED.
ces15 Ron Gividen, PR director of West Chester, Ohio-based Escort Inc., explains a new content to a blogger who's making a video on an iPhone.
ces16 The glorious madness that is CES Unveiled.
ces18 The GM-OnStar press conference is under way Sunday night at the Venetian.
ces21 A view from room 1875 at Bally's
ces23 The Strip at dawn
ces24 Dawn breaks across the Las Vegas valley Monday, Jan. 9
ces25 Jake Sigal at Livio Radio's CES press conference
ces26 The CES opening keynote
ces27 The Cadillac Cue interface
ces28 The networking and deals at CES, at the Maylong Group booth
ces29 The Fulton Innovation wireless charging booth
ces30 Baby kangaroo! At the Las Vegas Monorail stop at the Convention Center
ces31 At the outdoor Chrysler display at the Convention Center "central plaza" -- aka parking lot
ces32 Microsoft's last booth at CES, for now anyway
ces33 More cool stuff from Chrysler
ces35 A nearly full moon sets over the mountains west of Las Vegas
ces41 Ford CEO Alan Mulally (center of group at lower right) introducing the new Ford Fusion
ces42 The lower level of the Las Vegas Convention Center's South Hall, or about 1/32nd of the Consumer Electronics Show
ces43 A tiny little sliver of the massive CES show floor. Matt Roush photo.
ces44 A wall of big screens, anybody?
ces45 Another wall of big screens at the Panasonic presentation theater
ces46 The Ford echibit in the Las Vegas Convention Center North Hall, which by itself is about the size of Cobo Center.
ces47 Ford CEO Alan Mulally, second from right, in an innovation panel Wednesday
ces48 Delphi showing off high-tech driver interfaces
ces49 Delphi's all-video-screen in-car interface
ces50 A demonstration at the House of Marley
ces51 Now THAT's a big screen
ces52 Looking north from the bridge between Bally's and Bellagio, made famous in the original "What Happens In Vegas Stays In Vegas" commercial
ces53 looking south from the same bridge
ces58 The Chinese New Year display at the Bellagio conservatory
Categories: Tech


text:
Exotic Print Tank Maxi Dress
Style: 570080049
Out of Stock
This is summer when it sizzles! Weightless chiffon printed in rhythmic waves of pink and red-orange hotter than the tropics, on a strappy, slit-at-the-hem maxi. Shell: 100% Polyester. Lining: 100% Rayon. Dry clean. Imported.
- Pullover style. Seamed waist has elasticized smocking in back.
- Adjustable strap cinched with silvertone latticed barrel bead. Deep side slit.
- Ultra-soft Flame red lining.
- Length: 57" from shoulder.
Read more… Read less…


text:
After selling the Star Wars rights to Disney, George Lucas is wealthy in a way that mocks the idea of capitalism, and has a completely blank canvas for the first time in years. We asked you to come up with the best guesses as to how he will go spectacularly insane. The winner is below, but first the runners up ...
19Entry by mightyzamfir
by mightyzamfir
18Entry by aerodynamite
by aerodynamite


text:
NARROWSBURG, NY — Seventeen Sullivan County non-profit organizations have received $17,920 in Decentralization Grants (DEC) for 2011 cultural programming at a special awards ceremony held on Saturday, February 5 at the Delaware Arts Center in Narrowsburg. Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther was on hand to present the award checks.
Allocated by the New York State Council on the Arts, the funding is administered by the Delaware Valley Arts Alliance (DVAA). The granted organizations represent 10 Sullivan County towns: Tusten, Delaware, Callicoon, Liberty, Fallsburg, Lumberland, Forestburgh, Rockland, Thompson and Highland.
Grant recipients are the Callicoon Center Band for a summer concert series; Callicoon Creek Park Association for a concert series; Cornell Cooperative of Sullivan County for art workshops; Delaware Valley Chamber Orchestra for a local composers series; Delaware Youth Center for art and theatre workshops; Forestburgh Theatre Arts Center for a theatrical production; Friends of Sunshine Hall Free Library for winter cultural program; Icehouse Arts for three youth video workshops; Liberty Free Theatre for theatrical production; Liberty Museum and Arts Center for a jazz festival; Livingston Manor Free Library for a Johnny Darling Frolic; Roscoe Free Library for watercolor workshops; Shandelee Music Festival for a family outreach series; Sullivan County Community Chorus for two concerts; Town of Fallsburg for two free Chamber Music at St. Andrews programs; Town of Lumberland for an architecture workshop for children; and Western Sullivan Public Library for theatre classes for young people.
DVAA seeks candidates to serve on future grant review panels. A likely panelist is a citizen informed about the arts and/or county cultural events. Duties consist of reading applications and participating in two meetings. Call 845/252-7576.


text:
Americans are bombarded with information about "healthy eating," but we suffer from higher rates of obesity and chronic disease than ever before. In fact, obesity rates increased in 23 states last year and did not decline anywhere, according to a recent report [7] published by the Trust for America's Health. Read the report here [7].
Four states reported their adult obesity rates at 30 percent or higher. In addition, 30 states reported their percentage of overweight or obese children at higher than 30 percent.
As a nation, we are increasingly eating more processed and fast foods. Our supermarkets are full of convenient packaged foods that appeal to our taste buds, but compromise our nutrition [8].
It is easy to fall into the pattern of eating fast, convenient, prepared food, but we are not nurturing ourselves by doing so. Our Standard American Diet lacks nutrients and relies heavily on processed foods. Our fast foods remove us from the pleasures of creating and savoring a wonderful meal, and our fast pace often prevents us from connecting over a good, slow meal. We tend to eat for convenience and speed, not health and pleasure.
These poor habits can lead to obesity, along with a number of other health conditions: heart disease [3], diabetes [4], some cancers [5], arthritis [9], and others.
Start by focusing on foods you should eat, rather than those you shouldn't eat.
"During the past few decades, the focus seems to have been on foods to avoid or 'good' food versus 'bad' food," says Carolyn Denton [10], Licensed Nutritionist, Abbot Northwestern's Institute for Health and Healing. "But what qualified as bad kept changing. First it was fats, then carbs. However, current research shows that what we fail to eat may impact our health more than eating 'bad' foods."
Along with this negative focus, we often experience a large gap between knowledge and action. We are all aware that fruits, vegetables and whole grains should be the major elements of our diet. We are also aware that diet alone is not as effective in achieving a healthy body weight as [11]diet [12] combined with exercise [13]. However there is often a gap between our knowledge of what to do and our actually doing it.
Here are the top 10 things you can do to close the gap.
Learn more about how to establish a healthy diet [14] and what experts recommend [15].
Read more about the benefits of physical activity and fitness [16].
One Town Gets Children to Live a Healthy Lifestyle [17]
Trust for America's Health "F as in Fat" report [18]
Food as Medicine [2]
The Mediterranean Diet [19]
Diet & Nutrition information, self-assessment and goal-setting tools [20]
American Dietetic Association [21]
Dietary Guidelines [22]
Weight-Control Information Network (WIN) [23]
Diet & Nutrition resources: websites, books, articles and self-assessments [24]
CDC: Obesity epidemic [25]
[1] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/sites/default/files/images/thumbnails/obesity%20pic.jpg
[2] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/food-medicine
[3] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/conditions/heart-disease
[4] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/conditions/diabetes
[5] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/conditions/cancer
[6] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/health/diet-nutrition/more-about-dietary-guidelines-and-your-health
[7] http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009
[8] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/glossary/3#term29
[9] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/conditions/arthritis
[10] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/our-experts/carolyn-denton-ln
[11] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/create-healthy-lifestyle/physical-activity-fitness
[12] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/wellbeing/health/diet-nutrition
[13] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/wellbeing/health/physical-activity-fitness
[14] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/food-medicine/how-should-i-start
[15] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/health/diet-nutrition/what-experts-recommend-healthy-eating
[16] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/health/physical-activity-fitness/why-physical-activity-fitness-important
[17] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/07/16/hearstmagfamily381292.DTL
[18] http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/
[19] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/mediterranean-diet
[20] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/create-healthy-lifestyle/diet-nutrition
[21] http://www.eatright.org/
[22] http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/
[23] http://win.niddk.nih.gov/index.htm
[24] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/create-healthy-lifestyle/diet-nutrition/find-out-more-about-diet-and-nutrition
[25] http://www.cdc.gov/NCCdphp/publications/AAG/obesity.htm
[26] http://kidshealth.org/parent/nutrition_center/healthy_eating/kids_cook.html
[27] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/promo-tiles/mediterranean-diet
[28] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/activities/how-eat-mindfully
[29] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/activities/healthy-foods-have-hand-quick-easy-meals
[30] http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/promo-tiles/cooking-quick-tip


text:
Doomsday-Mongers Prepare for Mayan Apocalypse
December 21 marks the end of the Mayan calendar and the doomsday-mongers are ramping up for the end of the world: Ahead of December 21, which marks the conclusion of the 5,125-year "Long Count" Mayan calendar, panic buying of candles and essentials has been reported in China and Russia, along with an explosion in sales of survival shelters in America. In France believers were preparing to converge on a mountain where they believe aliens will rescue them. Of course how this mythical Armageddon will occur "remains vague, ranging from a catastrophic celestial collision between Earth and the mythical planet Nibiru, also known as Planet X, a disastrous crash with a comet, or the annihilation of civilisation by a giant solar … Continue reading


text:
salfurd Roughyeds
Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:58 PM
"Come on you yeds , come on you yeds
just keep your bottle dont lose your heads
for 80 minutes we will let you know
its Oldham rugby here we go !!!"
Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:02 PM
we would'nt be getting slammed buy rochdale or oxford.....have 4 or 5 super league kids is'nt going to be the difference!!
its teams with crafty pro's that get teams out of this league...not kids!
Its teams with motivated players that get out of this league, not young players with poor attitudes or teams with loads of pay cheque professionals!
Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:11 PM
if we don't select the salford lads theres no point of the agreement from a salford point of view....salford are'nt in this to help oldham..
the 8TH most successful team in british RL
Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:27 PM
Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:54 PM
I would rather we had remained a stand alone club but the decision has been taken to link up with Salford so lets just get on with making it work . My main objection was the effect that short term loans would have on team morale but we have been told that both clubs view long term deals , preferably season long loans , as the way forward so in effect those loan players will simply become part of our squad and will be picked solely on merit . What benefit is there to Salford if those players are selected to play each week even if their form does not warrant a place . They want these players to justify being retained by Salford and they can only do this by impressing week in week out . If they are not good enough to perform at CC1 level there's not much hope for them at SL level . So lets at least see who we get and how they and the team perform before we condemn the arrangement.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:35 AM
Assume we do well in Championship1 this year and get promotion. Assume we then do well for a couple of years in the Championship. Assume Salford continue to struggle and walk a thin line with their creditors......it could conceivably be the quickest way Oldham could get back into SL
OK, Whitebank could never be a part of that......but if we must partner with anyone, better a Salford than a Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington.....
Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:38 AM
But it's the problem that lies beneath the surface that has been bubbling for years. The RFL and SL have wanted the clubs outside the top flight to feed the SL clubs, and making it more a closed shop than it already is. Areas that are are richer in talent than most SL clubs, Oldham being a prime example, are needed to plug the gaps missing at those clubs. What is certain happen, is that clubs in the Championship that 'share' resources will eventually play for nothing, as they will be exempt from the three year franchised rounds (even though no clubs outside SL will get promoted) - and that will happen.
I and another person on here has sat through hours upon hours of meetings with regards to player pathways, and the constant battle the RFL have fought to drain areas of resistance like Oldham to try and get the whole structure under the SL banner i.e. Salford/Huddersfield. And in the end they helped kill that off, along with the development pathyways from 11s to 14s. Now that phase two has been complete with a linkup with Salford, the RFL have now got what they have wanted for them and their Manchester franchised club - an area of rich talent, unlike the Salford area.
Edited by oldhamer, 28 November 2012 - 08:40 AM.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:03 AM
I really cant see them spreading their own gospel and overshadowing ORLFC in Oldham with marketing if they have little to show for it in their own back yard and as other had echoed i think the fact we have paired with one of the smaller SL clubs may be something more of a blessing rather than if we had paired with a club who could realistically target taking our support.
In terms of poaching players I know little on the recruitment process to comment but surely the towns talent has been poached for years since the original clubs demise. From an uneducated view i dont know how this announcement will have that much more impact.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:10 AM
Devil's advocate here.
Assume we do well in Championship1 this year and get promotion. Assume we then do well for a couple of years in the Championship. Assume Salford continue to struggle and walk a thin line with their creditors......it could conceivably be the quickest way Oldham could get back into SL
OK, Whitebank could never be a part of that......but if we must partner with anyone, better a Salford than a Saints, Wigan, Leeds, Warrington.....
if we must?.........we actually don't thats the whole point
as part of the partnership.....it apparently gives oldham & its players better access to
the full-time club's strength and conditioning programmes, their medical expertise and their sales, marketing and commercial initiatives.
if salford have better training facilities than OCL's facilites dotted around oldham then i'll eat my hat
salford have a head conditioner,mark berry...sure full time players will benefit greatly from seeing him....but part time players who might only see him once a fortnight if they are lucky is'nt going to do much......infact id go as far to say our guys will find it more beneficial subscribing to mens health or mens fitness,eating correctly and training in the fantastic OCL centers......
salford have a club doctor & dentist............wow
as for the sales,marketing & commercial side of things.........he's some free advice to chris hamilton......getting whitebank upto scratch along with a winning side...and you'll double,probably treble last seasons average......without the need to sell the clubs soul to salford....
Edited by roughyedspud, 28 November 2012 - 09:11 AM.
the 8TH most successful team in british RL
Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:30 AM
No better marketing than a winning side Spud. Also, they are not likely to engage businesses to support Oldham, when they can give it to their first priority, Salford.
Many moons ago, Huddersfield came on mass over the border and tried to set up links with every amateur club in the town, promising top class coaches coming down to do sessions etc, access to facilties etc etc. One club jumped on board, the rest saw straight through them. What they really wanted was two things, the approach to the clubs talent and the most important one, the target of the parents etc for season tickets, lottery draws etc. Did the Giants fulfill their linkup promise? Did they hell.
In other words, it was all one way - at it will be no different to this linkup. Salford with both feet in the door in Oldham will and can approach the clubs amateur clubs promising the same dream, in reality, they will deliver the same goods - a big fat nothing!
Look at Salfords amateur clubs... Langworthy (a limited youth section), Eccles (even smaller youth section) and Caddishead (even smaller). Folly Lane is classed Swinton.
Oldham have Oldham St Annes (teams at every age group), Waterhead (teams at every age group), Saddleworth (teams at every age group bar two). Sprinkle that with a team from Higginshaw, Fitton Hill and the newly formed Limehurst Lions. A rich picking of talent. And remember, Salford is a City.
Salford in their desperation over the years turned to Rochdale to fill their talent centres, and that didn't turn out as expected.
I think many will know that the passion I have for this club inside and out, but this decision has totally gutted me. If the linkup was with someone like Warrington, Leeds, Wigan or even Saints for matter, I could see a slight, only slight, however, benefit.
Edited by oldhamer, 28 November 2012 - 09:37 AM.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:02 AM
you know what...if us and salford had just signed a basic "player loan agreement" where we take 3 or 4 of their brightest youngsters on season long loans...and they come here and fight for their position like everyone else...and left out all the other "partnership" nonsense.......then i don't think it would have kicked of as much as it has.........
the 8TH most successful team in british RL
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:22 AM
*The RFL have wanted this Australian structure for years:when they saw how unpopular it was,they went to it `undercover`.It`s all a means to an end for them
*One of the classic first steps to a full feeder club status is the link-up:when you want to buy a company in a friendly way,you often do it in steps,either putting your people in first or making sure that their systems/processes align with your own.Once the feeder structure is in,it`ll be impossible to get out of it.I really admire Featherstone for their stance on it.
*When you do this,you look for the added value the purchase will give you :having the Oldham `area`,for nothing,is a great `buy` for Salford.For `buy` and `purchase`,read `link-up` and `feeder club`.
*CH and,let`s be honest,Scott and Spanner as well, will be wanting to look after themselves-a job is a job.So,if it`s the only option on the table,as they see it ,then they`ll take it.I can`t blame them for this - money is money.
What I dislike is the way it`s been done :a `done` deal that was sold initially as something different.CH`s proving again his total lack of-I won`t say `care`-understanding of people who`ve supported the club for so long (and these are the people who are most pee`d off)..and his management of expectations is nil.
Ruffyed,as for the moans coming mainly from stay-aways,I think that you`ve read it wrong.
Edited by Raff, 28 November 2012 - 10:24 AM.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:40 AM
the 8TH most successful team in british RL
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:45 AM
jamie dallimore has answer a question prompted by me and said that scott naylor has full control of the squad and won't be dictated too by salford.....
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:54 AM
the 8TH most successful team in british RL
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:06 AM
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:18 AM
Posted 28 November 2012 - 11:19 AM
Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:01 PM
Eg:to pinch a phrase:Scott WOULD say that he has full control..what else is he going to say?
:how do we afford ,on our crowds (which will be lower than last year`s,in revenue if not in spectators),expenses for the owner,plus Scott plus Spanner.Simple business:if your revenue is reducing,you reduce your costs,not add to them.Or maybe one of them is doing it for free (genuine question,by the way,as I don`t know)?
:why not have,as Spud said, a player loan OK for the season?
And I agree that time will tell.I also agree that it should have been set out in a much better way but,at the end,that`s the perogative of the owner.
So,we`ll see.
Edited by Raff, 28 November 2012 - 01:02 PM.
Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:48 PM
The first player to arrive from Salford as part of the deal is Adam Files and as I hoped this is on a season long loan basis . This has got to be an improvement on the last couple of years dealings when we never knew who would be the next short term loan signing , crisis management by any yardstick . If the other signings are on this basis at least the coach will know in advance who he has to pick from . The rest as they say is up to him . As a bonus Adam comes highly recommended so maybe this link up might not be as disastrous as we first feared .I know there are other issues which are of concern but in the final analysis it is how we perform on the pitch that will ultimately be the deciding factor on whether the link up has been successful or not .Time will tell but I am still optimistic for the season ahead ..


text:
The Dish
Tag: John Giragos
40 years for John G's calls for a celebration at its relatively new home in Manalapan
- 5:20 pm Monday, September 16th, 2013 by M.M. Cloutier
In this age of corporate-owned retail chains, restaurants owned and operated by the same family for decades are farther and fewer between.
John G's—a long-popular breakfast-and-lunch everyone-loves-the-cinnamon-nut-French-toast eatery that relocated two years ago from Lake Worth beach to Manalapan's Plaza Del Mar—is clocking 40 years.
Forget the 40-is-the-so-called-new-20 stuff. It's every gracious, hardworking minute of 40 years a family has devoted to a restaurant late patriarch John Giragos launched with big dreams in 1973 after being in the dry-cleaning business in Michigan.
The Giragos family—John G's now is owned and operated by three of John's grown children—is celebrating its 40th anniversary on Sept. 21, [More]


text:
Why? Because you can! And pickle, and jam, or otherwise celebrate the resurgence of the domestic arts our forebears held so dear. Put on your best apron and step into our kitchen, won't you?
In part 2 of urban chicken keeping we cover taking care of baby chicks and frugal simple brooders you can make at home.


text:
This is an artist's concept of Kuiper Belt object 2003 UB313 (nicknamed "Xena") and its satellite "Gabrielle."
Ground-based observations suggested that Xena was about 30 percent greater in diameter than Pluto, but Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys images, taken on Dec. 9 and 10, 2005, yielded a diameter of 1,490 miles (with an uncertainty of 60 miles) for Xena. Pluto's diameter, as measured by Hubble, is 1,422 miles.
Xena is the large object at the bottom of this artist's concept. A portion of its surface is lit by the Sun, located in the upper left corner of the image. Xena's companion, Gabrielle, is located just above and to the left of Xena.
Image Type: Artwork
Credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Schaller (for STScI)
To access available information and downloadable versions of images in this news release, click on any of the images below:


text:
Heroes: Season 4 DVD
Experience all the intrigue and suspense of Heroes: Season 4 in this 5-disc set that includes all 18 gripping episodes from the fourth season's volume, Redemption. As the heroes mourn fallen friends and face dangerous new foes, prepare for a wild ride - filled with shocking twists and turns - through an ominous funhouse that culminates in a Brave New World. Then step right up and explore hours of exclusive, behind-the-curtain magic with the show's writers, stars and artists.
Read MoreLess
More Details
- Format: DVD
- Rating: Not Rated
- Number of Discs: 5
- Run Time: 812 Minutes
- Region: 1
- Aspect Ratio: Widescreen
- Studio: Universal Studios
- DVD Release Date: October 2, 2012
- Cast: Ali Larter, Hayden Panettiere, Jack Coleman
- Genre: TV Series
- Color: Color
- Release Date: 2009
Availability: In Stock
Ready to ship in 5-7 Business Days