Is that possible? Sure. But it doesn't even matter. Hamilton was not available when Hamels was and in retrospect, Hamels signed way below his market value. Look at how Greinke was paid. Hamels would have easily gotten another $30 million.
Originally Posted by Philsforever
Bottom line, sequencing matters. The Phillies had opportunities to sign good pitchers and took them. They did not have those same opportunities with hitters, with the possible exception of Werth.
If you remember back, it was widely assumed that the club would extend Werth or Howard. We know how that turned out. Howard also preempted the club from pursuing Pujols or Fielder.
Last year they had the option to sign Willingham or Cuddyer and passed and now are trying to trade for them. Im not being short sited. I just feel that Amaro would have been better suited to buy a hitter or 2 instead of all this pitching.
Dude, like who?? Who is or was out there that was within the budget and better than the current options AND pitching options? It's not enough to simply say "spend on the offense!" When there's nothing to spend on.
How about this? Can you just stop your complaining? You're on an island here. There wasn't another option for Amaro to pursue. I agree with A-Team, we're not saying he hasn't made bad decisions. But there wasn't a viable FA bat to sign this offseason in the Phils budget. I'm lost why that doesn't make sense to you.
Amaro's failings are the choices he made. I will never understand signing Polanco to make him into a third baseman when Beltre' was available.
I struggle with the number of left handed batters he has pursued as well. After trading for Revere the idea of signing another left handed bat in Hamilton just seemed ludicrous.
...and yes, I would take a flyer on Soriana if the Cubs are willing to pick up some salary.
wow.... I dislike the guy and I even feel bad for the beating Amaro is taking from Philsforever.
Remember you're a fan and he is a Stanford educated executive and former player.
There are so many different variables when it comes to running an organization. Amaro doesn't care what you think or desire.
He has to appease the casual fans by fielding a playoff caliber roster as well as retaining fan favorites if he can at a realistic price. He has to sell out the premium seats and wants to keep the sell-out streak going/start a new one. This doesn't even begin to into ALL the hall of fame hitters who were willing to sign with us for sub-market value over the past 3 years. we can't even get Jayson Werth to give us a realistic deal... what do you want him to do ?
It would have been nice to sign Josh Willingham, but that's about the only name that I see and say, "shoot, we could have gotten that guy."
I keep seeing Beltre's name come up, but there is no indication that he was ever obtainable. Remember that at the time they signed Polanco, Beltre was asking for a substantial 4-5 year deal and telling teams he would only sign on the West coast.
When he was a free agent again the following year, Polanco was coming off a season where he basically matched Beltre's production for a fraction of the cost. So there was no reason to consider signing him.
Do I need to make this a thread for people to remember this?
I'm not sure what good firing Ruben would do at this point. Even if you do think he deserves to be canned, what would a new GM be able to do to help the big club right now? There are no chips to trade and no one left on the market to sign.
After last offseason it was clear that Ruben is betting the immediate future of this team on the core, possibly at the expense of the long-term future of the team. I feel like you have to let him ride out the productivity of the core until the **** completely hits the fan in the next couple years.
A range of outcomes may occur, the two extremes being that everyone stays healthy this year, they compete for (and possibly win) a championship, the continue to play well for another year or two, and a few of the prospects hit and this team rebuilds on the fly. If that's the case, then obviously, Ruben stays.
The opposite outcome is that Utley and Doc can't stay healthy, Howard and Rollins continue to decline, and the team hovers at or below .500 again. If that's the case then they have to make decisions on Utley and Halladay, the team probably goes nowhere, and it becomes clear that Ruben has to go.
The in between situations consist of the Phillies remaining somewhat competitive, but the farm doesn't produce bona fide prospects/trade chips, and so Ruben cannot improve the team in any significant way. In this case, the team slowly flames out until Howard's contract is up. If this happens then the Phils are pretty much in the same limbo that they're in now. Firing Ruben during a period like this would have some symbolic value, but there isn't much you can ask another GM to do (besides signing whatever free agent comes on the market, and you're still talking about outbidding other teams with what would be a pretty undesirable free agent situation in Philly).
Ruben bet on the core, and because of that, his fate is essentially tied to that of the core.
I don't really think that's true at all. Ruben seems to have executed the vision of his betters (for better or worse). The Phillies have shown in the past that they won't punish a company man until it's blatantly obvious that he's incompetent. Whatever complaints we have about Ruben, incompetence isn't really one of them.
A lot of people assume that the buck stops with the GM, but that's not necessarily true - it depends on the organization.
Barring an unforeseen or unknown internal argument, I think Ruben has about 5 years to turn things around before his job security can be questioned.
The key is for Ruben to continue to learn from his mistakes. His seemingly worst quality - signing certain players to above market contracts at the earliest opportunity - is quite possibly the product of his superiors.
Man you guys should have lived through the 80s-90s then you would have a GM and front office to ***** about.
i have to agree with what you said. im just frustrated the team hasnt addressed their need for power in the lineup for years now.
Originally Posted by k_dol50
k_dol, another problem with your post is that you are crediting/debiting Ruben based on factors outside of his control. He should not be cheered if the team produces a World Series, because he's built a roster that should win 80-85 and has a high variance due to a lot of risky properties.
Similarly, he should not be jeered if the team wins 65 games. That being because he's built a roster that should win 80-85 and has a high variance due to a lot of risky properties.
The result is irrelevant. Process is all that matters.
I did, and i finally thought the organization turned the corner and I believe it has. What this all comes down to is a difference in philosophy.
Originally Posted by genetic freak
This front office believes in putting its resources in pitching while hoping to hit on cheap offensive solutions or a young player.
Where I believe you have enough pitching with Halladay lee hamels and paps that the bulk of the remaining budget should be used to acquire a bona fide power threat. If this team can average 4 runs a game with this staff they will have a better chance of winning then trying to hold teams under 2.5 runs a game.
With the way the ball carries at the Bank, I think building a roster that exploits your home field where you play 81 games a year makes a lot of sense.
Where there is room to argue is if Ruben has a more accurate perspective on a player's talent. In cases where we're looking primarily at injury risk/attrition, those numbers can be easily calculated by an outsider like me.
So basically, if they tinker with Lannan and Kendrick and they both become 4 win pitchers, kudos Ruben and company. If they succeed because Utley, Howard, Rollins, Young, Chooch, Halladay, Lee, Hamels, and Papelbon stay healthy - congrats on being extremely lucky, but Ruben and friends shouldn't get any extra plaudits.
Let's put #27 another way. If you grade somebody based on results - then you will allocate resources inefficiently. If you grade based on process - then you will allocate resources efficiently.
Ideally, you actually should grade on a blend of the two, since grading process can be prone to errors. Ostensibly, results have some signal about the quality of the process - it's just not a perfect (or even relatively high) correlation.
So grading purely on results is bad. Grading purely on process is better. Grading on a combination is best. That's an easy concept that every baseball executive understands intuitively.
Professional sports adds a twist in that fans tend to be irrational and baseball executives earn money based on their whims. So there is pressure to grade results more heavily than they should be.
The Phillies have a history of completely ignoring that fan pressure when it comes to GM's. Of course, it's a small sample.