Some Phillies Links for You, June 7, 2010: Drafty in Here, Zoo TV, Hot Stuff

by WholeCamels on Jun 7, 2010 8:21 AM EDT

Erratic hitting plagues Phils again
At this point I'm vaguely happy they're scoring runs, even if they look ugly while doing it.

Mascot Madness: Ranking All The MLB Mascots - AZ Snakepit

#1 Phillie Phanatic (Philadelphia) The most-sued mascot in sports, the team had to pay $2.5 million to a man after the Phanatic jumped him with a bear hug, causing serious back injuries. That's hardcore mascoting, right there. Falls completely into the case of "I have no idea what it is," but the tongue alone is just marvelous.

YOU BET YOUR ASS!

Phillies Players Host Special Event For Local Kid Charities

A few Phillies hosted a special screening of the Karate Kid in West Philadelphia at the Rave University 6 theater.

Who does the "wax off"?

Ryan Howard's Mystery Woman Revealed
Google Image Search FTW

Phils aim to restock farm system in draft
Soooo... they're looking for good young players. Props to Martin Frank for crafting a good article out of nothing.

Phillies Notebook: Another perfect outing for Lidge
This also is encouraging.

SB Nation Expands for Fans, by Fans Sports Sites - NYTimes.com
We know we've made it when we're covered by the Grey Lady. How's that for an image in your head? Congrats, Tyler and Jim.

Phillies' prize pitching prospect Aumont demoted to Clearwater
Cliff Lee deal looking worse and worse.

I want to go to the zoo with Roy Halladay: Faces Will Be Broke
In case you missed it, our pals over at Zoo With Roy were invited to appear on ESPN First Take last Friday. Video, with Mob informant production values, included!

Scott Rolen's Reds beat the District of Columbia's Nationals, 5-4. - Red Reporter
Rolen is outplaying anyone on the Phillies right now, how about that?

One Catcher Drives In Another: Dodgers Walk-Off Again - True Blue LA
Got a little help from the Dodgers, at least, in a 5-4 L.A. victory over the Braves.

Mets 7, Marlins 6: Coeur's Light's Silver Bullet Powers Sweep Of Fish - Amazin' Avenue
Mets starting to shed the "LOL," endowing it upon the LOLPhillies.

Tweet Comment 39 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Phillies’ prize pitching prospect Aumont demoted to Clearwater

Given the inexperience, the shift to the rotation, and the change in mechanics, Aumont really should have started the year in Clearwater. I just hope his confidence isn’t too badly shaken by his rough go of it in Reading.

Also, speaking of the Cliff Lee deal, here’s J.C. Ramirez from last night: 4.2 IP, 7 H, 5 R, 1 BB, 1 K. Yikes.

by PhillyFriar on Jun 7, 2010 8:45 AM EDT reply actions

Ouch. You’d probably have a better handle on this than I would, PF, but what is Ramirez at this point? I can’t come up with any clearer way to phrase the question, but the stats from this season bounce around from 7-8 SO per game to 1-2 almost at random. Is this common with raw prospects, or is he as confounding as he seems?

by Trev223 on Jun 7, 2010 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

I think “confounding” is an excellent choice of verbiage.

I don’t really know with him at this point. Scouting reports are that he’s the same guy he’s always been — throws hard, has solid raw stuff, but no change up to speak of to use against left-handers means he looks a bit more like a reliever every day. His overall season stats aren’t really bad, but repeating High A (and in the pitching friendly FSL), I think it reasonable to hope for a bit of a more dominant performance.

by PhillyFriar on Jun 7, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, that makes sense. I hope he turns a corner, though — and this is the reason I hate that phrase — the corner he has to turn seems pretty vaguely defined. It may have been because of yours or PhuturePhillies pre-2010 prospect lists, but I was really hoping Ramirez would give early legitimacy to the Lee-prospects. Still time, at least — 21 isn’t crazy old for A+ right?

by Trev223 on Jun 7, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Please no "the sky is falling" because the prospects we got in the Lee deal are off to a shaky start

blah. we could have had Lee. blah blah.

There is still a very good chance that Aumont makes it to the bigs either as a 8th/9th inning guy or a starter.

by Clyde Simmons on Jun 7, 2010 9:03 AM EDT reply actions

No one is saying “the sky is falling,” just that it’s not looking so great.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jun 7, 2010 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions

Just expecting the worst.

by Clyde Simmons on Jun 7, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

This is not about the sky being falling— it is about looking at what we gave up and what we received and saying that we almost definitely did not get good value in this trade.

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions

way too early to say that, also

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jun 7, 2010 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions

At what point am I allowed to say that?

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions

Not this year.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions

We’re talking about three guys that are each 21 years old. At 21, Cliff Lee was a single-A pitcher with a 1-4 record, 5.24 ERA, and 1.925 WHIP. Give them some developmental time before giving up on them. Maybe they’ll develop, maybe they won’t, but where they are right now doesn’t determine where they’ll be in four years.

Honor is no substitute for victory.

by The Dark on Jun 7, 2010 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Point taken.

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions

No matter what these guys turn out to be, the Cliff Lee trade was a bad decision.

by David S. Cohen on Jun 7, 2010 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

These guys aren’t looking better than two high draft picks plus 2010 Cliff Lee.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Jun 7, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions

And 15 mil. Cliff Lee’s 9mil in 2010 and the 6 mil they got back from the Halladay trade. Whether or not you like to so-called decision to restock the farm for Lee, the early returns on the prospect haul don’t appear that impressive. RAJ should have done better.

by Boundforbeach on Jun 7, 2010 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

And the three years of Joe fifth-starter Blanton that the Phillies went and signed up for after the Lee trade. Remember, part of the complaining about Lee was that they couldn’t afford him and Blanton. But, we could have traded Blanton for a bag of balls, reduced the payroll, and afforded Lee, without having Blanton’s so-far-atrocious start to the year.

by David S. Cohen on Jun 7, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

This I don’t know about. Blanton’s going to cost us 8 per year over three. If Lee commands something crazy on the market like 22 a year over seven, then the savings on Blanton would not have made that big a difference for us in making Lee affordable.

Plus, like we were saying below, you have to analyze the decisions based on how Blanton’s projections looked as of this past offseason, not based on how he’s pitched so far this year.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed, but even then, I believe I was on record saying that Blanton should have been traded for a prospect and his salary taken off the books. (Even with his salary on the books, we could have afforded Lee.) I seriously doubt the Phillies couldn’t have gotten one middle-of-the-road prospect for Blanton. Add in the two supp picks for Lee at the end of 2010, and the Phillies would be in the same place as now, but with Lee in 2010 and not Blanton (and the prospects a few years further down the road). To me, it was a no-brainer to keep Lee. Still is.

by David S. Cohen on Jun 7, 2010 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions

We would arguably be in the same place in terms of prospects, but we would also be an extra $12-15 million in the hole per year, which would have to come from some other area of the team. Also, we would probably have more than $20 million/year committed to Lee not only for the remainder of his prime but also through his age-37 season or so, maybe even beyond that. (It’s possible that would have prevented us from doing Howard’s contract, but maybe not, plus I think the Phillies’ policy of not giving those kinds of long-term deals to pitchers, particularly those over 30, is basically correct.) I think this was a decision where there was no clearly correct answer.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions

I didn’t think Lee should be signed to a long-term contract, just play out the current $8M contract and then get the supplemental picks.

by David S. Cohen on Jun 7, 2010 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Hard to balst on Blanton, who should, legitimately, rebound to 3rd starter form. I’m guessing he still isn’t 100%, so I’m not concerned about his extension much.

by Cormican on Jun 7, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

The only sense in which I might agree with this is on the principle that if you appear to get the worse end of a trade at the time it’s made, then it’s still a bad trade even if it turns out down the road that you were actually made better off.

But if the question is will we actually be made worse off from the deal no matter what these guys turn out to be, then the answer has to be no. For instance, if one of them turns out to be an all-star, we’ll have gotten the better end of the deal by a pretty wide margin.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions

I like to evaluate whether a trade is a good “decision” or not, as I phrased it, based on your first principle. Whether it turns out better or worse for a team, as you said, is something that you can only figure based on the future.

For instance, if the Phillies traded Chase Utley for Akinori Iwamura, that would a horrendous decision. But, if Utley then breaks his arm and never plays baseball again and Iwamura becomes an All-Star, it will have turned out great for the Phils.

But it would still be a horrible decision.

by David S. Cohen on Jun 7, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Right, ok. My initial reaction to the trade, like yours, was that we didn’t get nearly enough. Later on, I made my peace with it to a degree, based on (1) Franklin Piliere’s more favorable analysis (a minority viewpoint, but one from a respected source), and (2) the fact that Benny Looper’s knowledge of these guys exceeded that of the scouting community as a whole. I still don’t think it was a good trade per se, but I don’t think it was as bad as I initially thought it was. In fact, I think the “margin of badness” was probably worse on the Halladay trade than on the Lee trade. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will “work out” in the end. We’ll see.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions

You can tell me the Halladay deal was a bad decision, but not the Lee deal.

Offer me

-1/2 season of Lee (how far he helped us get in the post season is worth a few million alone) -3 years of cost controlled Ben Fransico
-Aumont
-Gilles
-Ramerez

for Donald, Knapp, Carrasco and Marson, and I would still pick what we got.

The Halladay trade was a whole other beast, however. Giving up Drabek, Taylor and D’Arnaud really hurt, especially when the Jays had zero bargaining power.

by Clyde Simmons on Jun 7, 2010 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Technically, the Cleveland part of that deal isn’t really relevant, since it was already done. If, hypothetically, the Cleveland deal was good but the Seattle deal was bad, then the former doesn’t rehabilitate the latter, because there was nothing to stop us from just enjoying the fruits of the Cleveland part of it.

But I agree with you that the Seattle deal wasn’t that bad, although I can’t say I like it.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Can’t you see? This deal is tearing us apart!

by Wet Luzinski on Jun 7, 2010 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Snort. LOL.

by taco pal on Jun 7, 2010 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Mr. Met ain’t shit.

by SethC on Jun 7, 2010 9:36 AM EDT reply actions

Agreed.

I also appreciated the Power Rankings basement ranking of the Colorado Rockies mascot— I about wanted to shoot the darn cross between Barney and Cera from The Land Before Time during the waning innings of game 4 of last years NLDS. If he could distract me (watching from a distance on a not-so-big screen), I shudder to think of what he does to opposing pitchers… definitely should be an unwritten rule about that (or a very large, very rowdy Phanatic straight behind the umpire during key moments for us).

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions

That article was a fun read. It’s a shame for Arizona that they have to resort to what I would expect to be an offseason space filler 2 months into the season, though.

by Cormican on Jun 7, 2010 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Word. Phanatic cuckolded’d him.

by Wet Luzinski on Jun 7, 2010 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed on the Runs

After thinking about yesterday’s loss, it somehow feels a little less crushing than the others— we scored 5 runs, something that we could not do all of last weekend. Lidge looked fabulous again (he does that a few more times, and I may actually breathe during his outings). I am looking at the raw hitting stats from this almost three week slump today, and I think that it is going to show that the last week has had solid progress… or at least I am hoping.

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 10:37 AM EDT reply actions

Phillies Have Been Through Worse

In a Delaware Online Article, Martin Frank contends that while the Phillies are currently performing badly offensively, they have been through worse, and should make a turn for the better soon— he seems to think that this weekend ended the slump… I am not sure… I think we may have 4 more games before this streak breaks (6-16). He pointed out that the Phillies were sub-.500 at the All Star Break in 2007, and there were rumors about Charlie Manuel’s job stability, and they turned that around. They went 4-14 last year and turned it around.

So: 2 Questions— 1. At what point is this slump considered over??? 2. Do you still think that the Phillies are going to break out of this and be ok, or were they perhaps playing well over their head in the early weeks of the system, and this that we are seeing now is the reality?

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 11:09 AM EDT reply actions

Most sued mascot

Any thoughts about why that is, beyond longevity? Could this market’s dyspepsia and ironic tag as a city of brotherly love, to say nothing of the over-lawyer’d region, have anything to do with this?

Serious question for you attorneys out there on the board. Prospective client walks in off the street, says he’s been hurt and wants to sue. You say, “OK, who hurt you?” Guy says: “The Phillie Phanatic.” Honestly – what’s your first-blush reaction?

by Wet Luzinski on Jun 7, 2010 1:26 PM EDT reply actions

Is this before or after I stop laughing?

More seriously, I would have a hard time believing that there was harm, but would listen with a very skeptical eye toward the fact that this person may be trying to game the Phillies organization.

by dannijd on Jun 7, 2010 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions