Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Follow Up on Trades

thankfully, i've been too busy the past couple of days to dwell on the trades because i think i'd have been as bothered by them as ben seems to be. bottom line, i think ben is right that gillick folded here. however, i'd really like to know why he folded.

- is it because gillick is a p*ssy? i doubt that's a reason. gillick has nothing to lose in this gig with the phils. he knows it's a short term role and his legacy is already established. with nothing to lose, i can't believe that gillick would make a panic move and fold without a reason.

- is it because management mandated a salary dump? was gillick given a mandate by montgomery to cut costs at all costs? playing chicken with cashman would have maintained some risk of having to keep abreau and his contract.

- is it because gillick felt that from a team chemistry standpoint dumping abreau was more important that getting max value in return -- an addition by subtraction situation?

not sure what the reasons are, but it seems pretty clear that cashman (my preferred choice for GM) played gillick here.

Labels:

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone see Rhodes calling out Lidle on sportscenter yesterday? He was saying that Lidle had no work ethic and a bunch of other trash talk. Pretty funny that Rhodes would be calling anyone out...

12:31 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pete -

Well considered post, but nothing you've said changes my opinion of this deal.

I don't think Gillick is a p$ssy, just that he's a bad card player and misread the adversary. He only considered things from his own point of view and not from Cashman's. This is usually a sign of immaturity, but in this case we may have to chalk it up to intellectual inefficiency. Too bad.

With respect to "addition by subtraction," I view this as a non-issue. In other words, I don't mind moving the very talented Bobby Abreu if Gillick judged his presence to be a negative. The problem I have is what he got in return. If I don't like a piece of art work in my house - but it has a value to another collector - I don't throw it in the trash can. Rather, I sell it for market value. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Have you heard "baseball people" raving about the value the Yankees picked from the trash heep? I have. Most recently, from the Dodger's GM, who sounded if he couldn't believe the Yankees pulled off this trade (interview on FAN tonight).

Addition by subtraction (in the Gillick world) is overrated. I gave him a pass when he gave Texas a starting pitcher with a live arm (and a 10 cent head), but I said at the time he should have and could have received SOMETHING in return. Pitchers don't grow on tree, for cripes sake!

Of course this was a salary dump. Fine. I understand, and I even approve if it means that the Phillies buy or trade for alternate talent. But what's the plan? And how would demanding compensation in the form of (CHEAP) Phil Hughes have negatively impacted the payroll? On the contrary, getting a stud minor league pitcher would have SAVED money by reducing the need to sign an established major leaguer. Even a 3rd or 4th line pro starter costs BIG buck (Milton, Lidle, etc.) The money thing makes this trade even HARDER to swallow.

I'm tired of the argument that the "value" the Yankees traded was salary obligation/relief. The Yankees don't care about spending a little money, and there is no salary cap in baseball! These are specious arguments, and I'm sick of them. We're not talking about the NFL or NBA, where trades are no longer about talent, but contract obligations.

You know me. You know that I believe contradictions do not exist. I have concluded that Pat Gillick either received a bribe from the Yankees (which I doubt), or that he was completely snookered by Cashman and the Cashman's manipulation of the media (specifically WIP and FAN).

"The Yankees wouldn't have traded Phil Hughes under any circumstances." Bullsh$t. They had no pressure whatsoever to add Bobby Abreu and a serviceable pitcher to their roster for the high-profile dogfight with the Red Sox?

It will take a lot for me to get over this trade.

Ben

8:27 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

This is usually a sign of immaturity, but in this case we may have to chalk it up to intellectual inefficiency.

i am seriously hoping that "dumb" is not the real reason... which is why i didn't list it as a possibility. gosh, i hope you are not right on this, ben.

9:41 PM EDT  
Blogger The Big Dog said...

Wow, Big Dog in from vacation in North Carolina. Have to admit when I first heard all of the discussions on Scrapple (a much better source than any media outlet online) I was agreeing with all that everyone was saying. Yes, I do think that there was "addition by subtraction" for the fact that we no longer have to hear about potential Abreu trades. I was very concerned about what we received for Abreu which basically amounted to less than what we got for Charles Barkley. I still am confused and concerned. But Gillick is no "dummy". He could have squeezed more out of this trade, but maybe Cashman took the cancerous and horrible Lidle and when Gillick saw that he didn't want to blow the deal. I honestly don't know. I do know that all of the players that they got rid of won't hurt them this year. Yes, we can cart out all of the Abreu datamongers and Money Ball, but Abreu just wasn't a good fit for where this team is going. Sad as it is, I would be happy with a decent team in 2 years. If Gillick's plan is to de-Head Wade this frigging mess, which it is, than I think that we need to sit back and enjoy the ride. Delucci is no worse than Abreu (well, probably but he's more of a fan guy), Lidle was a total putz, we all know Bell sucked (as bad as it seems, Nunez is worse, that deal was total de-Head and that may hurt a little)....I am happy with seeing Wolf back, Mathieson up, all of the other young guys up...I want Floyd and Hamels both pitching now. My hope is with all of the money saved, Gillick is aggressive this off-season and turns this into a "Gillick" team with competent role players with our superstars (Utley, Howard) and aggressive in getting an ace (or 2).

8:56 AM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil Hughes went 5 innings last night. He gave up 2 hits and struck out eight (Reading Phillies).

Abreu is 5 for 13 with a bunch of runs scored.

Cory Lidle gave up 1 run in 6 innings, fanning 5 and picking up the win.

The four guys the Phillies picked up had a pizza and watched Herbie Fully Loaded on cable, and debated whether or not Lindsay Lohan has breast augmentation.

Let's go Phillies; the season isn't over yet.

Ben

8:08 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

do you think it's possible cholly got in gillick's ear and said "i don't care, just get that sum'bitch off my team!"

cole hamels has been awesome tonight. maybe it's just because they are winning, but i'm finding this team much more watchable with only one of the laissez-faire triumverate actually in the lineup.

10:16 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anyone else notice the Phils are playing better since the deal and David Delucci looks a lot better than Abreu simply because he swings the bat. Long term the deal was lopsided, but short term you lose a turd pitcher who was only as good as .500 in his best year and was always just good enough to lose and wouldn't be resigned and you lose a complete pussy in Abreu. I know baseball people love him, but come on, we all follow this team. We all see him pray for walks in the late innings when it counts. We all know that Abreu's numbers and reputation were significantly bigger than the man himself. Unloading him was a great thing. I'd rather keep Delucci long term-at least that guy has balls.

Bumble

10:52 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said, Bumble.

Ben

8:36 AM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mean Guy,

"do you think it's possible cholly got in gillick's ear and said "i don't care, just get that sum'bitch off my team!"

My response,

The "Mayor of Stumble" lacks the intellectual acuity required to piece together coherent thoughts. As such, I doubt he "articulated" the strategy suggested by your comments. Besides, Bobby is an affable guy, if nothing else. He's hardly the type that inspires attention, let alone a "damn the torpedoes" campaign.

A is A. Pat Gillick's shadow won't darken the doors of the winner's table at the World Series of Poker any time soon.

did we need to shed is salary? Sure. Is the team playing better after the trade? Sure. Could he have received fair compensation if he were a better GM? I say yes.

Ben

9:34 PM EDT  
Blogger The Big Dog said...

It's about time Bumble started throwing his cynical hat in the ring. This team is much more watchable and everyone's opinions seem dead on. Gillick's plan is to de-Head this mess and I think 2 seasons worth of erasing could be the trick. Do you think Burrell with the right mix of vets and players can de-J Mike himself? Maybe with Utley and Rowand calling him a knob and slacker and waste of space 24/7 he could actually be a solid, power hitting leftfielder? We'll see.

One other thing, Concrete Charley is the Eagles. And he is also a bitter, surly, crotchety old man. I don't think for one minute he wasn't one of the top 5 Eagles of all-time and for the era, a nasty sumbitch. Don't ever use Parry and Charley in the same paragraph.

8:11 AM EDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home