Poll of the Day

Just a quick update. In the next day or two I’m going to put together the spreadsheet with all of the submissions for the Reader Top 30 and then post it. Also, since I’ve completed my own Top 30 list, I’ve had some time to work on other projects here, and one of them has been to make some changes and improvements to the SONAR system. The feedback I’ve gotten (from those who’ve participated in the discussions) was positive, and just like anyone who creates anything, I always want it to improve and become more useful, so I’ve been able to make some changes that I think accomplish just that. I’m hoping to have a writeup on Friday with the changes and new data, so check back for that. Also, as we get closer to spring training games starting, I’ll try and put up a daily thread where you can discuss the prospects’ performance. But for today, I thought we’d just do a fun informal poll/discussion, so check below…

Today’s question is simple, but one that everyone has a take on

Which package of prospects do you rate higher, the guys we GOT for Cliff Lee or the guys we GAVE UP for Cliff Lee? Do not factor in Ben Francisco, I’m talking about just the prospects. This topic was brought up in the comments section in the last few weeks, so I thought it might be worthwhile to take a quick poll and see what the consensus is.

Getting Cliff: Carlos Carrasco, Jason Knapp, Lou Marson, Jason Donald
Trading Cliff: Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies, JC Ramirez

66 thoughts on “Poll of the Day

  1. Not factoring in Francisco I give a slight edge to the guys we gave up over the guys we got back. I think that Carrasco/Aumont are a wash, Gillies is slightly above Marson while Knapp rates slightly above Ramirez.

    That leaves Donald as the tie-breaker in this scenerio (although 1/2 year of Lee + Francisco turns the final deal in the Phillies favor)..

  2. I have to say, as an economics instructor this line of reasoning to determine how the Phillies did in the 3/4 team trade is like nails on a chalkboard.

    The appropriate consideration this winter after the Halladay deal was this: Is 1 year of Lee plus the draft picks (or if you’re a dreamer the exclusive rights to negotiate w/him for a new contract) worth aumont,gillies,ramirez. That’s it.

    Framing it in any other way is simply irrational decision making or perhaps a case of sweet lemons.

    It’s not that I’m not a net fan of the moves they made over the last year, but that one in particular seems risky at best and hasty and ill-considered at worst. I remember people liked the prospects we got for Abreu at the time as well…

  3. based on PP’s projections, Gillies has the chance to be the best prospect in the entire group. marson is a big unknown, but i was/am a fan.

    don’t really care about CC or Donald. i see them as role players. i love knapp, but he was injured and still compares well to Aumont.

  4. John K- I think you are missing the point. This is a website that discusses the prospects in the Phillies farm system. At no point is this poll described as ‘how the Phillies did in the trades’. The point is to compare one group of prospects that used to be here, to a group that arrived recently.

  5. I think the package we got was better. But the trades don’t exist in a vacuum, this year we might find out that we needed the guys we gave more then the prospects we got for the future. What do we do if Ruiz, Rollins or god forbid Utley goes down for a extended length of time. Would you really want to bring back Eric Brunlett for 2 months or give donald a shot?

  6. I just played along as if it all took place in a vacuum and agree with most the package we got is slightly better than the package we gave.

    Ideally I would not have made the trade. I predict come October/November we’ll be in the WS again wishing we had more starting pitching depth. And I’m giving them that Cole will return to 08 form.

  7. Assume a can opener…let’s keep the prospects in a vaccum for this forum.

    I’ve seen this questions asked in several BP chats and the answer is always the Phillies got more back for Lee then they gave.

  8. For me its about having the best top-end talent.

    I rank Gillies as the best position player of the three as his skill set (good CF defense, speed, and getting on base) plays everyday for almost every team. I rank Aumont the best pitching prospect of the four because 1) I think Philly people were always convinced he was a starter 2) he’s a little ahead of Knapp and currently healthy 3) he’s not the head case Carrasco is.

    That makes the second deal better.

  9. I’m quite honestly shocked at how lopsided this poll is.

    I’m repeating myself from an earlier discussion, but I like Knapp a tick more than Aumont (mostly because I think he’s more likely to stick as a starter); Carrasco a significant amount more than Ramirez; and Gillies a tick more than Marson (but a Marson/Donald package more than Gillies).

    Look, I know we all like our shiny new prospects, but as PhxPhilly pointed out, none of them has passed the Double-A test — hell, Ramirez didn’t even pass the High-A test — while three of the four we gave up already have. I think the Indians got good of value by “buying low” on Carrasco and Donald in particular, and I think the entire Carrasco/Marson/Donald contingent will be contributing major leaguers (at least as a back end starter, backup catcher, and utility infielder). There’s just much more risk involved in the trio we got back.

  10. I think with Francisco taken out of the equation, the two sets of prospects are equal. You pushed me to pick one, so I went with the second offering, because I like Gillies and Aumont a lot and think that, other than the very young Knapp, they are the two highest ceiling guys among the 7 players — and high ceiling with positive on-the-field results to back up the scouts’ perception. I posted elsewhere that this may be a ‘grass in greener’ syndrome on my part, but watching Carrasco, Marson, and especially Donald live in 2009, lowered my opinion of all of them. This is strange, since I had seem them play the prior season. However, a look at the stats confirms my impression of regression.

  11. I should add by way of a P.S. that I can see Aumont becoming a starter, but knowing what we’re paying Lidge to close, I’ll shed no tears if Aumont becomes our next closer.

  12. “The appropriate consideration this winter after the Halladay deal was this: Is 1 year of Lee plus the draft picks (or if you’re a dreamer the exclusive rights to negotiate w/him for a new contract) worth aumont,gillies,ramirez. That’s it. ”

    How about adding Ben Francisco to that mix? Francisco is a good bench player and has a chance of becoming a lot more than that.

    Anyway, on the hypothetic question (old prospects versus new prospect), I went with the Aumont group, but just by a hair. In retrospect, when you consider that, for P.R. purposes, they really had to do this deal simultaneously with the Halladay deal and therefore had a bit less leverage (they had a sense of urgency other trading partners did not share), I think they did pretty darned well.

  13. that would be “hypothetical question” – I don’t type very well.

  14. PhillyFriar —
    I see Knapp as the key ingredient in the top group and he did not take the high A test yet, and had to be shut down in low A. More to the point, the other 3 guys in the top group did take the AA or AAAA test last year, but scored, at least in a Phillies uniform from dreadful, in the case of Donald, to not very good, in the case of Carrasco, to good, but down from very good the prior season, in the case of Marson. If the Phillies prospects had aced their AA/AAA test last season, we would not have had to trade all 4 of them for Lee.

  15. Looking at just the prospects, the package we gave up was clearly better IMO. Knapp has more value than Ramirez, Carrasco has more value than Aumont (no injury history, further along), and the position players are a wash.

  16. i value the package we gave up more. just because they were known quantities and they all will make the majors. i don’t know if the guys the phils got back will ever make the majors. we’ll find that out this year.

    going on pure upside alone i would say that the package we GOT for cliff was better than what we gave away.

    marson will probably be an opening day catcher this year.
    donald will be in the bigs for a little as a utility man. he’ll have one or two breakout years and go back to anonymity. carrasco is still super young and has made the majors. had a lot of bumps in his short stint, but he has a lot of upside still.

    will Aumont ever be more than a fastball pitcher? will gillies ever make the majors with the slight amount of power he has? ramirez had a terrible year last year. yeah, in a bad park, but he was still terrible.

  17. The issue is how did we do, looking ahead.
    Carrasco may never get over his inability to deal with hitters when runs have scored and hitters are still on the bases. His stuff is real but his head seems to be a big issue. I’d much rather have Aumont who (probably) doesn’t have those kind of problems.

    We’ll see how JC Ramirez does; unknown but supposedly has large hard fast ball. This season should tell us more as he and Aumont go to AA Reading.

    The prize could be Gillies. IF he can continue his momentum of 2009 at AA Reading, he will become the heir-apparent to Victorino in CF. Vic’s deal is for 3 yrs.–through 2012. Gillies would then be able to replace Vic sometime in 2011…making Vic tradeable when he has one yr remaining.

    3rd baseman/catcher anybody? THAT would be smart General Managership!

    All depends on Gillies continuing upwardly in Reading, etc. He’s be our best leadoff guy in many years…oba of .370 predicted…with super speed on the bases and outfield.

    That’s a PLAN!

  18. Ranking the prospects:
    1. Knapp
    2. Gillies
    3. Aumont
    4. Carassco
    5. Marson
    6. Ramirez
    7. Donald

    Phillies get (2+3+6)/3 = 3.66
    Injuns get (1+4+5+7)/4 = 4.25

    Phils win…see, you really can quantify anything…just kidding!!!

  19. PhillyFriar, I see your point on the guys we got back but there is just as much risk in Knapp as there is with Ramirez. Just because guys should make it to the Majors doesnt automatically rank them higher. A back up catcher and a utility infielder can be found everywhere. The reason why we traded Marson and Donald away was because we knew they were worth more as prospects than MLB players.

  20. I think you need to include Francisco to make it accurate. I can’t honestly say that I rate Knapp higher than Aumont at this point. From what I’ve seen and read, Aumont has a very high upside as well. And then there’s Gilles who could have a hiugher upside than both pitchers. Let’s see how he does at Reading. If he has the kind of year I think he’ll have, he’ll really put himself on the map. When do the minor league ST games start?? Around the 10th?

  21. I like the prospects the Phillies got back.
    Guys keep arguing that Marson, Donald and Carrasco have already passed AA. On this, Allentown makes a great point. ‘If the prospects would have aced the AA/AAA test, the Phillies would not have had to trade all four of them for Lee.’
    For me, Aumont is better than Knapp. He is farther along and has more pitches. Carrasco is obviously more valuable than Ramirez because he is farther along, but I am not in the camp that believes Carrasco over Ramirez is not a slam dunk. Carrasco has good stuff, but I like RH pitchers that have the potential for a plus breaking ball, not change-ups. Ramirez has a comparable Fastball and better breaking ball. Jason Donald is a utility infielder that is not plus defensively at any position. He is meaningless in the dicussion.
    The difference in the packages all depends on who is the better prospect: Gillies or Marson. A starting CF is worth more than a backup catcher. I like Gillies.

  22. I think I would go with what we got back. I like Gillies and think he has a shot to be the best player in the deal. I also believe Aumont is on par with Knapp, just more advanced. I think Marson is a dime a dozen catcher. The guy has no tool that is really good, all average. As far as Carrasco, how long can you wait for a guy to get a heart? I always liked Donald, but opinions are mixed on him.

  23. @Jonesman: right, like there’s no subtext. It’s just a completely random question – those prospects were picked out of a hat, right?

    Why do we care about our prospects? Mostly b/c it impacts our big league club (some people are legitimate fans of minor league teams or really enjoy following a certain ballplayer’s progress). As you describe it, this site would view any trade we make for prospects as a boon, while any move that trades them away would be disaster. The headline on the site is not “Phillies trade away carrasco, marson, donald and knapp!!” – it is only meaningful when you consider that we got the adverb and Francisco in exchange.

    In fact, I know that the deal has been considered “in isolation” on this site before as a separate Halladay deal and then 1/2 year of lee + aumont, gillies, ramirez, francisco for the four we shipped out.

    That’s why I don’t think my comment was really off topic – sorry if you & others don’t agree, I”ll just keep my trap shut on this.

  24. I like the “whoever got the better player wins the trade” rationale in evaluating trades. While this wasn’t a trade , I think the superior player in this exchange is Gillies. Speed and a high OB% at the top of a lineup is a defense’s worst nightmare. He just has to continue the trend as he progresses through the system. Aumont v Knapp is a wash. Aumont v Carrasco is advantage Aumont. Which leaves Marson and Donald v Ramirez. I think Cleveland wins that for now but if Ramirez makes our rotation at any level and has a ten year career or more it changes to advantage Phillies.

  25. I thought the poll question was: Which package of prospects do you rate higher? The question was not would you take 1 year of Lee and 2 draft picks instead of Gillies, Aumont and Ramirez.
    For once and for all… 2 draft picks are nothing. Busting slot in 2 early rounds is nearly the same as having an extra, late 1st round choice and supplemental pick. The team wanted players going to the high minors, not draft picks that might be ready in 2016. Let those meaningless picks rest already.

  26. I still like the fearsome foursome better.
    I really like Marson. Maybe he will never develop power, but he can stay at catcher (which is huge), could hit for average, and get on base. He could be a valubale #2 hitter.
    I just love Donald’s attitude and rank him much higher than he probably deserves because of it. He’s the player I would most want back due to his positional flexibility (he will never be ‘plus’, but I would take adequate) and potential to hit much better than the Castro/Bruntlett group. He has ability to start and not be a black hole in the offense or defense. I really like that. (I’ve seen how valuable a guy like Craig Counsell was.)
    Carrasco was our #1 prospect for years. Were we all wrong? Maybe he’s Brandon Duckworth, maybe Gavin Floyd. But we traded an upside potential that lost his luster. He might get his confidence and be a solid #2.
    Knapp is really the guy I had no trouble including as the headliner in this deal. A guy with really only one professional season (a great start but not that good after that) and a huge arm. Lots of risk there. A long way from contributing. He could be a #1 but really far away. By the time he’s contributing the trade will be a long ago memory. I think we trade him while he value was high. The others while their value was low.

    Gillies looks like he will at least be a 4th OF. But with the number of OF prospects it was not a need position. However, he does project as an excellent leadoff hitter, with OBP and speed. That could be very deadly for opponents. As I said before, his projection is really what would swing this comparision.
    Aumont seems like Knapp to me, just a year later and still has not bombed out so I’d give Amount a slight nod.
    Ramirez and Carrasco also seem like a wash. Good stuff with inconsistent results. Carrasco is at a higher level so he gets the nod.

    In the final analysis, I think Marson is a starting catcher but barely. (Just look at how many bad/untested catchers there are.) On the right team I think he starts for 5 years but he will never be an all star. Gillies could be a top5 leadoff guy and make an all star team. Based off the data so far, I am not convinced of that and neither are many of the ‘scouts’ who rank him so low.

  27. Donald showed nothing last year in an extended look when he was basically fighting for a bench spot. Had he shown anything whatsoever, they could have non-tendered Bruntlett. Donald was terrible last year…it almost looks like that “breakout” year at Reading in 08 was a fluke.

  28. On Marson, I think he has the potential to be in the Top 30 catchers in the league…that makes him a potential starter. He’s definitely got the skillset to be in the Top 60 at a very thin position.

    Carrasco just needs to get with a good pitching coach…someone like Dave Duncan could probably transform him into a legit #3.

  29. Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez might be a better package in a at first glance but now to the Phils Aumont is the only one with any value. Signing Vic and having Gose puts Gillies in limbo.
    Ramirez get no luv from me.
    On the other hand Marson and Donald could of filled utility
    roles this year or at least minor league back ups. Carrasco amd Knapp will be a test of minor league instruction by the Phils. Should they flourish……

  30. I think it would be a better exercise to give an overall grade of the prospects sent to the Indians today, taking into account how they progressed and how they would have fit in with our current Phillies system if not traded. Then to do the same with the prospects that were traded for in another six months. I think half a season under our minor league system could really change things around a little bit. The park disparity for Gillies will be gone, as will Aumont as a reliever.

    With all that said, I still like the prospects we got from Seattle as they have a much higher potential than the ceilings that 3 of the 4 sent to Cleveland have reached (not including Knapp, of course)

  31. John K, if it helps you, think about it in these terms: was our farm system stronger with the Carrasco/Knapp/Marson/Donald contingent, or is it stronger with the Gillies/Ramirez/Aumont contingent? Everyone knows there are other considerations here, but as this is a site focusing on Phillies minor leaguers, the question is framed in terms of, “How has the farm system evolved through these two trades?”

    Just because guys should make it to the Majors doesnt automatically rank them higher.

    I know, bergeraj, and I’m not suggesting it as a blanket consideration. I just think there’s a tendency among prospectniks to fall in love with guys at lower levels because they’re young and projectable. I always think of this article by Nate Silver from awhile back, and try to avoid falling into the same “Michael Bourn is a better prospect than Shane Victorino” trap.

    Take Marson, for instance. Sure, some of the shine has worn off as he struggled a bit in Triple-A — but he’s still a nice player, and PECOTA’s 50th percentile projection has him hitting .268/.363/.376 for this year. Earth shattering, no, but compare that to Carlos Ruiz’s career .246/.337/.379 line and tell me that Marson isn’t a potentially valuable piece… and that’s before we even consider that, at just 23, he still has some room to grow as a player. Could Gillies be better than that? Absolutely. But he’s at least 1.5 years away, and he’s far from a sure thing; baseball history is littered with guys who hit in A-ball who simply flamed out along the way to the majors. (That isn’t to pick on Gillies, specifically, just wanted to make a point.)

    Donald showed nothing last year in an extended look when he was basically fighting for a bench spot. Had he shown anything whatsoever, they could have non-tendered Bruntlett. Donald was terrible last year…it almost looks like that “breakout” year at Reading in 08 was a fluke.

    NEPP, in Donald’s defense, he hit .310/.420/.421 in 58 spring training at bats last year, so it was through no fault of his that the club stuck with Bruntlett on the 25 man. That said, he certainly had a brutal go of it at Triple-A; I don’t think his 2008 was a fluke necessarily, but we should have seen the warning signs (namely, the 23.8% K) that would have predicted his bubble bursting a bit.

  32. Aumont is a better prospect then knapp, he is 2 levels ahead of him, fastball is just as good if not better b/c of movement, and already has better secondary offerings then knapp. Knapp was projected to be a closer in the bigs anyway so there is no evidence that one or the other has a better chance of sticking as a sp. Gillies has a better eye then either donald or marson, arguably a better hit tool and more speed then both combined. His defense is also not in question like donalds and marsons is. cc gets an edge over jc but that could change quickly. his lac of power…well i will take 4 out of 5 tools. oh yeah we also got a 27 y/o of who has talent and is cheap for a few more yrs. the m’s prospects are way better then the ones we gave up for lee.

  33. I think Knapp and Aumont and fairly equal in terms of value. Both big guys with huge fastballs and unproven off-speed stuff with injury concerns to boot. So the question is really: Gillies + Ramirez vs. Marson + Donald + Carrasco. Considering Marson and Carrasco have already made it to the show and could wind up being regulars at some point, the advantage probably goes to Cleveland. Gillies is a nice player, but does anyone really know what we have in Ramirez?

  34. For reasons i stated above in effect we traded Lee for Aumont.
    I think he will be the closer before the year is out. Lets hope
    he can fill the role.

  35. As I said before, I like what the Phillies received because I like Gillies potential more than Marson and Donald combined. Both packages are close though. I can easily see the other side of the argument though. If you believe that Lou Marson is a legit starting catcher, then what the Phillies traded away is better. I am not convinced he is a starter.
    As for the Knapp is more likely to stick as a starter than Aumont argument. Why? Knapp is a low A pitcher, was hurt as a starter, and he is hurt right now. Knapp had a higher k/9, but Aumont had a much better ERA in low A. Comparable performance, same type pitcher. Aumont is a year and a half older but has already pitched in AA. Do not see Knapp as any better or less risky than Aumont.

  36. If I look at the Halladay trade, I see the Phillies trading top prospects that they were extremely high on. Taylor and Drabek are studs and D’Arnauld is a top catching prospect at a lower level. This is trading guys who could be position starters and a #2/3 starter. That’s a big loss, including potential future stars. Looking at the Lee trade in comparison, I see a big, big step down in value. I think the Phillies largely traded prospects they had soured on. I don’t see how the poster above can say Donald could start in the majors and not be a defensive or offensive black hole, when he was an offensive black hole at AAA. A .629 OPS does get it done, and that would decrease against major league pitching. Carrasco has been an enigma the past two season for the Phillies. He may have a post-Philly breakout like Gavin Floyd did, but he simply didn’t progress this past season. Marson slid back a bit as he advanced a level. I think those who say Marson could be our backup catcher and Donald our utility IF a year from now are correct, but the downside of trading such utility players is loss of $ savings at the back end of the roster. Knapp could be much, much more and is the wild card in the deal. I think his injury reduced his value and the Phillies were not quite sure what they had and saw him as risky. I think he’s a big loss, almost on the order of Drabek, but a lot riskier.

  37. ****NEPP, in Donald’s defense, he hit .310/.420/.421 in 58 spring training at bats last year, so it was through no fault of his that the club stuck with Bruntlett on the 25 man. That said, he certainly had a brutal go of it at Triple-A; I don’t think his 2008 was a fluke necessarily, but we should have seen the warning signs (namely, the 23.8% K) that would have predicted his bubble bursting a bit.****

    I was referring to his AAA effort, not Spring Training. I used the wrong terminology when I said “non-tendered”…I should have said released. Bruntlett stuck with the team all year because we had no internal replacement.

  38. Championship teams, aside from the Yankees to some extent, have their stars and crucial players come through the system.

    Marson and Donald will have major league careers, but I do not see either as being a significant piece to a championship contender. Carrasco and Knapp are too hard to figure out, the former because of his head and the latter because of his youth.

    Gillies and Aumont are less certain to make the majors but are more likely to be dynamic crucial pieces to a championship team. That’s why I take the second group.

    Potentially having too many quality CFers is not a realistic concern to me. Someone out there will want one.

  39. Check it we are playing in the year 2010. If the cf prospect make it and if some one might want them etc. etc. means little to me. The bullpen is a wreck, available starters are same ones we had, and nada worthwhile in the upper minors. How can anyone tell me that is good.

  40. Exactly, PRD.
    Your post hit the nail on the head. And with regard to too many Center Fielders, the best thing that could happen is that Gillies, Gose, JiJames and Hudson all progress accordingly this year. That would solve the perception that the Phillies have nothing in the minors to trade at the deadline.

  41. After reading all the comments, it sounds like the value of what we traded and what we got is pretty close to equal. However, I would rate Aumont and Gillies individually better than individual player that we gave up. If you accept the concept that whoever gets the best player wins the trade then the Phillies won twice!

  42. It comes down to star quality…one player can easily turn the tide in either direction… Which player(s) have that possibility more than others… Marson, Donald, Ramirez, Gillies- we all seem to agree do not appear to have ‘Star’ quality but could be good major league players. Carrasco seems to have head issues as mentioned (if that gets cleared up he could have some ‘star’ flavor, but that seems less likely by the day, this will be the defining year) and Aumont comes with his own concerns (starter/ reliever?). He has ‘Star’ potential if with his skills as well if it can all be tapped into… so the jury is out on both…Knapp seems to be the one player that everyone agrees has the ‘potential’ to be a ‘Stud’… and since this is all about potential Knapp could be special and that may be the player that we wish we did not let get away… Time will tell.

  43. If get this right, You have a good (maybe great) snow shovel .
    And even though you have several rakes you would trade for another rake in case someone wants one next year. Good luck with that.

  44. nowheels –

    Are you trying to use this discussion as a thinly veiled attempt to blast the trade (Lee= good snow shovel)? If that’s the case then give it a rest and go away. That’s not the point of this thread.

    If your not I’m not sure who the “snow shovel” is. I can’t think it is any of the guys Cleveland got as there is no way they can be termed good or maybe great, this early.

    Also I have no desire for a rake in your analogy. I’m trying to score a snowblower, knowing full well that it may not run. But to re-iterate what I said earlier using your metaphor, Championships require snowblowers from your organization, neither shovels nor rakes will do.

  45. I think both Gillies and Aumont have star potential. Aumont needs work, but he’s a big guy, who throws very (he hits the high 90s on the gun), with good movement and he’s a bright kid with an aggressive demeanor on the mound. Aumont could be a bust, but he could also be your future closer or ace. He has an enormous upside.

  46. Don’t know, wouldn’t it be better to have 4-5 good rakes vs. several flimsy snow shovels? Afterall, you can just hire the local neighborhood kid to shovel your snow instead and you won’t need a snow shovel.

    You can then go to the local flea market and trade those extra rakes for a good push-broom or post-hole digger. Before long, your tool-shed will contain more than just a couple of rusty snow shovels.

    Hope that clears things up!!!

  47. I like Gilles quite a bit and while many have already identified Gose as a major league starter, its important to remember that he’s still a very young kid who didn’t hit much for average and is no where near ready. Gilles on the other hand has has good numbers for two years and if he puts up a good year in Reading, the Phils will have options. Keeping Werth or Victorino is still very much a question that will be debated for months. Victorino with a fair deal is more easily traded than without a contract. Sticking to the minors, the question will be what Gilles and Brown do this year to show they’re ready sooner rather than later. What a great season this will be.

  48. Victorino’s defense took a hit last season. I think it’s quite possible that the Phillies move him out to a corner eventually. Perhaps a 2012 outfield rotation of Victorino/Gillies/Brown.

  49. Listening this moring to 610 they had on phillies beat writer, he said gilles is better player than aumont, in fact he question who scouted him and said he was anything special.that what i got out of it, Aumont is wild all over the place, bad mechanic,doesnt see him as being anything.

  50. I agree with Murray. Gose has a high ceiling but it is far from clear he will ever hit well enough to be a major league starter. His .323 obp just isn’t good enough to take advantage of his base-stealing speed. He was young for full season, but he still has a lot to learn about hitting.

  51. Oh, Aumont definitely needs tinkering, but you can’t rely too much on what you see from pitchers, particularly young pitchers, in the first few days of ST when it’s still cold in Florida. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Aumont struggles for several months this summer while they try to fix the things he is doing wrong. However, if you doubt the raw ability take a look at some of the WBC or other game footage – his raw stuff is electric.

    Personally, I don’t expect Aumont to be in the majors before 2012 or late 2011 at the earliest and it could be quite a bit later than that. He needs work, which is one reason why they were able to get him.

  52. Gosh, I hope that plan is not to make Victorino a corner outfielder. That might be okay for a short amount of time if there were an injury, but the loss in power in the outfield would not be a good thing.

  53. VIC in right would play better on the road. Besides the power thing there is so little ground to cover at home.

  54. It’s very hard to have a high octane offense without having power from your corner outfielders. Victorino is a very nice centerfielder – as a corner outfielder, in my view, he’s barely above average.

    Now back to the minors . . . . .

  55. Let’s just hope the old shovel you “left” out in the yard has a good year,

  56. Now I get it. Those uninformed comments come from listening to, and repeating, what was said on 610.

  57. In regard to having too many CF: I think it diminishes the value other teams place on those players. They know you would be more willing to part with one of them than a similar quality player at another position. Not really a big issue since most of these guys will be very young and could develop power to be excellent corner OF prospects as well.
    I see it as similar to teams who have an “6th” starter in Spring Training. It sounds great because you need pitching depth but if none of those guys will be effective in the pen you have a problem. All the other GM’s know you need to trade that guy so they do not need to offer as much.

  58. Pxp, depth is never a problem. It is never a problem having too much of something, rather than not having enough.
    You may be right about a CF surplus being negative, but only if the Phillies wait until 2013 to try to get bidders for 3 guys that are ready at the same time. (I seem to remember the Rangers having a problem moving catchers in the same situation.) That type of situation is a longshot and too far away to take seriously. More likely, if Gillies, Gose and JiJames all have good seasons in 2010, it will give the team the OPTION for pieces within trade packages at the deadline to trade(this year or next). It does not matter what position your good players play, as long as you have good players.
    The logic that having options, is worse than not having options, makes no sense whatsoever.

  59. Marson and Donald being close to the majors and playing key defensive positions (which also happen to be positions of need for the Phils) tilt this question in favor of the 4 prospects we traded for Lee.

    Don’t believe Donald’s and Marson’s weaker years last season. Both were fighting minor injuries all year long. Look at what they did in AA (a level higher than any of the Seattle prospects). Lots of guys have a bad season in the minors and come back to be quite good in the big leagues.

  60. mike77
    Cheese in and of itself depth isn’t a problem but you have to look at the whole picture not isolate one thing. Aside from
    a couple positions there is nada. Every farm system has CFs
    why makes you think you will be dealing from strength. Sub
    Gose or Gillies(they knew he was coming) for Taylor and rethink the whole thing. Can’t you see there was more behind the Taylor thing then baseball. Who knows what. But that is what stick in my throat. If you can tell me the whole system isnt better off with Taylor than a hovel of CF maybes then we are really a different place.

  61. The Phillies played Victorino in RF at a time when he didn’t hit as well as he does now. Don’t assume they would not be content to go with two CF in their future OF. It might not be wise, but less dumb than giving significant playing time in the corner OF to weak-hitting IF like Sefcik. The Phillies are very big on speed and defense. Both Gose and Gillies boast strong arms, so one could wind up in RF. The Phillies are still convinced Gose will develop power, perhaps he will. Still, a future OF corps of Brown/Gillies/Gose seems long on defense and speed and short on offense. Makes reupping Werth more important.

  62. “Still, a future OF corps of Brown/Gillies/Gose seems long on defense and speed and short on offense. Makes reupping Werth more important.”

    Very true. But if Werth isn’t signed, the team will go out and sign (or trade for) another corner outfielder. The notion that Brown and Ibanez will play every day in the same outfield is far-fetched – the team cannot have that much lefty/righty imbalance in the line-up. I could, however, see the team getting a righty hitter and trying to set up a platoon with Brown for a year or two.

  63. Wow this poll really took off. Regardless of what side you came down on neither can say definitely today what the end result is. We just don’t know and won’t know until the season is over if this was a good or bad move.

    And even then there is the chance this could be both…a bad short term move and a good long term move…provided your benchmark is winning World Championships and not just getting to play in them.

  64. Voted for Marson et al, just edging what we got back. If you include Francisco (why not, by the way?) then the return edges the guys we sent away.

Comments are closed.