My assumption is that there simply weren't that many good deals out there (i.e, it's not just the Phillies).
And while I would have liked to have seen Michael Young traded, really, pretty much the only things the Phillies were going to get from that was salary relief (he wasn't bringing anything good back). Ditto Chooch Ruiz, who is at a low point.
A pity Papelbon didn't get traded, but I suspect he gets traded during the offseason.
We learned that the Royals and Orioles will still overpay for marginal talent.
We learned that smart teams aren't willing to part with prospects who are nearly MLB ready and highly regarded, at least without a return that one can expect to be a big piece for a number of years in the future.
We learned that the deadline can be a good time to pick up an MLB player for later on even if he won't make a difference this year.
Obviously, nobody's saying that. That's a stupid strawman.
Rube should have sold BEFORE the market dried up. AKA, not flipping back and forth between buyer and seller in the weeks leading up to the deadline. He should have picked one and went with it. Standing pat gets you nowhere.
I don't blame him for not making moves on July 31st. I blame him for not making moves in the days/weeks leading up to July 31st.
"Rube should have sold BEFORE the market dried up. "
when was the market wet?
Aside from marketing Lee to texas instead of them getting Garza and assuming that texas would have even paid the price you need there, who got MOVED last week that stopped the Phillies from doing something?
We learned Rube overpaid / overestimated the value he had the last four winters. We learned it takes cajones to let your best player - Pujolis - walk rather than overpay him when it's the easy thing to do. We learned we have an average GM at best.
I find it incredible that somehow we are supposed to think that this team will somehow magically be better with largely the same roster. I would love for someone to show me how this team can contend next year, becuase I just don't see it.
The key question, which we will never know, is what prospects would Boston have traded for Lee if the Phils had kicked in ~$25M? As I posted in the comments following the "Remembering July 2006" entry, it was crazy to expect Boston to part with top prospects for the right to overpay Lee for the rest of this season plus his age 35 and age 36 seasons (and his age 37 season if the Sox were top pick up his option in 2016).
Once the peavy deal was engaged it didn't and wouldn't have mattered. That's the point.
They got peavey and a reliever for their 22nd prospect, their 13th rounder from last year, and a slick fielding 19 year old no bat shortstop and Jose Iglesias, who was utterly expendable for them.
That's like us sending Galvis, Severino Gonzalez and two kids you've never heard of from Lakewood that look god to a scout.
I don't think it mattered if you paid for everything, they weren't giving up anything for value for Lee. They didn't have to. The other deal was better. Because the white sox essentially swapped Iglesias for Garcia.
That's how it works.
The biggest bat moved was soriano. The Yankees gave up an a ball pitcher ranked 25th in their system that walks 4 per 9 and got the cubs to pay 18mm
For a guy with 18 HRs and 55 RBIs with more fWAR than every phillies batter save brown and utley this year. More than Both youngs, and very non brown OF and chooch on the roster.
The rangers made a play for garza very early mainly because they knew the price for lee IF he hit the market. That's the point.
See above for the Red Sox. They were never paying for Lee.
The tigers signed a cheap set up guy and a back up SS. Neither were game defining moments.
Take a look at who wasn't traded here around the league. You have no idea if he was willing to eat salary or not, that information comes from the same places that say the tigers were discussing castellanos for Papelbon. It's all crap.
He couldn't deal Papelbon because it didn't matter how much he ate, no one was going to give him anything worth trading for. I'm not defending Ruben here, but the damn Texas rangers have their DH retiring, their RF about to be suspended, shopped everyone on their roster and still couldn't find a bat.
No one wants Michael morse, or Alex Rios, or even Nate Schierholtz.
No one was moving prospects for anyone.
Look, if other deals were getting made, other names were getting dealt different story, but no one did anything. There's never been a deadline like this ever.
Is the market changing in front of us.
And the funny thing is the phillies might have actually made the biggest move in July anyway by signing Gonzalez.
Players can not only be traded in August (waiver claim process) but also next off-season, so changes are still very much possible. Likely actually. If we are convinced of Lee's value, there is no reason to settle for anything less than the best prospects from another organization. If they are not available, then walking away is the right move. Just like the Phillies didn't trade Howard when Thome was manning 1B or Dom Brown in the past 4 years, there's no reason to believe Bogaerts, Profar, etc were ever available.
Besides the changing dynamics, such as teams locking up their young stars before they reach FA or arbitration, there's also the effect of the 2nd WC. There are still too many would-be contenders who haven't realized they are just pretenders. Adding the 2nd WC without extending the trade deadline into August created a market with too many buyers and too few sellers. The sellers are shooting for the moon, and the buyers are not biting.
Another variable in this year's trade market is the uncertainty surrounding the Biogenesis PED scandal. It is reported the commissioner's office will announce suspensions on Friday (2 days after the trade deadline). Many of the potentially affected players are playing for contenders, such as Nelson Cruz (Rangers) and Jhonny Peralta (Tigers). Teams may be unwilling to trade away prospects for "reinforcements" when they may need to trade for "replacements" instead. It will be telling if we see a wave of deals after the suspensions are announced.
"there's also the effect of the 2nd WC. There are still too many would-be contenders who haven't realized they are just pretenders. Adding the 2nd WC without extending the trade deadline into August created a market with too many buyers and too few sellers. The sellers are shooting for the moon, and the buyers are not biting."
Wow Pencilfish, I was thinking the same thing 5 minutes before I read this. The non waiver deadline should go to August 10th IMO. My 1st choice would be to cut the second wildcard out of the equation, but I understand why they did it. This gives a lot more pretenders more ratings, bigger crowds, more merchandise sold longer than past years. I still don't like it though. It's still better than the NBA where half the teams make the playoffs.
I think also the scope of the second wild card, being a one game playoff doesn't help. Especially with teams that are what I call "faux buyers"
Mainly teams that can't really sell because they are still "in it" but don't want to give up anything of value because they could be out of it in two weeks. Think Yankees.
Teams can't sell off and give up to their fan base and they don't want to mortgage the future to buy. And can you really fault them?
I mean we all scream about not trading chooch or Michael young, but if your the cardinals, are you trading for chooch if you can go out and pick up Shoppach for free?
Ad if your cashman, are you giving up anything of value for Michael young? I'm not.
The big deals? Garza, Feldman, peavy, Norris? Orioles, rangers Red Sox. All division leaders at the time in close races. All starting pitchers too. Not a coincidence. Mainly because this system really calls for four post season starters for wild card teams, not three.
Two top 100 prospects got moved. Total.
One was mike Olt who is having an off year dropped 50 slots and had no place to play in Texas.
The other was Garcia and he was basically flipped for Jose Iglesias because the tigers were backed into a corner with biogenesis. Otherwise they never make the deal.
And your right. It will stay that way unless they expand the wild card to three gems, push the deadline back or start letting teams deal draft picks.
I think the bigger problem with the second wildcard is that it's one game rather than a series. You build a roster for a series not a single game. Baseball isn't a one game sport. I mean, a team like the mets with Harvey on the hill can beat any team on any day if they score two runs. Pitching depth is everything.
Agreed, but pushing the WC to a 3-game series all but insures the WS doesn't end until early to mid-November. Think baseball in a snow-storm in certain parts of the country! It also ices the division winners. Since momentum can play such an important role in the post-season, some of the advantages given to division winners are diluted. Therefore, I think allowing teams to deal draft picks or extending the trade deadline to something like August 15 or 20 is logistically easier to implement.
There should never be a 1 game or 3 game series in baseball period. Every series should be a 7 game playoff. With all the millions and billions of dollars that is generated by Major League Baseball, every team should be required to have a stadium with a retractable roof. This way bad weather wouldn't matter unless a huge snowstorm stops the fans from getting to the stadium.
1. Hamels regresses to his mean (probable) and/or Gonzalez is a legit #2/3pitcher (possible). It's not outside the realm of possibility that Halladay could return and be effective.
2. Minor league arms (Martin, Aumont, Diekman, DeFratus, etc.) improve a historically bad bullpen. Regardless of what happens, I think the BP will be better next year. It would be hard for it to be worse.
3. Revere and Brown don't suck through the first 30 games and also do not break bones or concussion themselves. It's not unreasonable to expect both to continue to improve.
4. 1B, 3B, RF provided basically no value this year. At 3B, Asche and Fransden will be an improvement over Young if for fielding alone. A platoon at 1B with Howard/Ruf/Mayberry would likely be quite productive.
5. Depending on how Ruf performs over the next two months, they could--probably should anyway--consider a FA in RF. Beltran or Shoo for a short contract wouldn't be the worst thing they could do.
I think they will be better next year, but perhaps not enough to be competitive for the 2nd WC. For that to occur, i think they need two of the following to occur:
1.get lucky with either Halladay or Gonzalez
2. Ruf is a superstar at the plate/Effective FA signing in RF
3. Rollins, Ruiz, or Howard has an All-Star worthy year
Yeah, a little surprising to see Amaro ranked so high. But he better enjoy it while he can because that rank will drop over the coming years. He's benefitting from the nature of his trades (sending out prospects and taking in established players) and it being early in his tenure. There's no more WARP coming from players he's brought in (barring a miraculous recovery by Halladay) and the prospects he's sent out should ripen to the point they begin accumulating WARP (they can't all be duds; if they are, then Ruben actually is a genius).
"I don't think it mattered if you paid for everything, they weren't giving up anything for value for Lee. They didn't have to. The other deal was better. Because the white sox essentially swapped Iglesias for Garcia."
That's not necessarily true. Less than a year ago, Ben Cherington got lucky that the Doders were willing to get him out from under a couple of bad contracts. He used that break to sign multiple free agents to short deals (all except Victorino are 90% of making the playoffs this year. However, while making the playoffs should be part of their goal, the new Wild Card rules make winning the division much more important than it was before last season. Since playoff series are basically a crap-shoot, division winners have ~1/8 chance of winning it all and Wild Card winners have ~1/16 chance. ADVANTAGE Lee.
2. Which pitcher has the better contract for 2014 and beyond? As I have pointed out before, because Lee's contract is so back-loaded with that hefty $12.5M option on his 2016 (age 37) season, a contract like Peavy's $14.5M for just next season is much better than Lee's.
The Sox have a deep farm system. Neither you nor I knows what the Sox did offer or would have offered if the Phils had made the annual commitment to Lee more comparable to the $14.5M to Peavy. My opinion is that Boegarts was not going to be moved. However, it is quite possible that a package starting with JBJ would have been on the table and might even have been worth accepting.
I like the two Wild Card format. I didn't at first, because this is baseball and a one-game series doesn't make sense in baseball, and also because I was afraid it would dilute the playoffs. However, I've come around on it. 2011 might have ended a lot differently if those Wild Cardinals had to make it through a play-in game. Maybe we wouldn't have seen Carpenter in Game 5 then. Or maybe we wouldn't've faced the Cardinals at all.
Anyway, I'm gonna just tone it down for the next few days, because quite frankly, the people who've advocated for the positions that got us here today are people who are still talking the loudest, and I probably should not let my emotions get the best of me at the moment.
If a Brian Wilson signing happens in there it's not the end of the world.
But that's a B+ to A+ deadline depending on return."
The problem with your dream scenario is that you were hoping to trade a bunch of player who had little chance to provide any value beyond, well, doing jack shit. Papelbon MAYBE, but that would have required RAJ opening up the checkbook a month ago. He didn't because he thought we still had "a chance," plus he for some reason didn't want to eat any money. My question to you is, what have YOU learned during this trade deadline?
What has anyone been proven wrong on? Are you implying that the Phillies lost an opportunity to move someone because they waited too long?
I did not follow the trade deadline religiously, but did anything suggest that we turned down a haul for Cliff Lee? Soriano was the best hitter traded (I think) and he didn't net very much in return--and the Cubs are still paying him next year--so that doesn't indicate to me that we would have gotten much more for Utley.
If I was RAJ and I'm talking to the Red Sox, the FIRST thing I would have said is, "Look at the Matt Garza trade. Let's be real, if you want Lee, you have to cough up AT LEAST as much. In fact, in comparison, you should be offering us more than that since 1) Lee isn't a rental, and 2) Lee is BETTER. As for his salary, well, that's completely negotiable. The better the prospects you offer me, the more money I'm willing to take."
If that was his stance with the Red Sox, I am willing to bet my life savings the Lee deal would have gotten done, and we wouldn't be embarrassed about the return we got.
Joecatz has said on numerous occasions (a month and half ago when he still think we should go for it) that his worst scenario is if we miss the playoffs AND we don't trade anybody. His worst-case scenario has come to pass. My response to him at that time is that if we don't trade Lee and Papelbon, that's probably going to happen because 1) we're not going to make the playoffs, so don't kid yourself, and 2) we ain't got anything else good to trade. To me, his "dream" scenario is not much different that what has actually transpired. If he rated his dream scenario as A- to B+ depending on return, then his rating for what actually happened should be something like B-. Does anyone think RAJ should get a B- for this?