SB Nation User Blog: Alex Falzone

Parade Information

Alex Falzone — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:06:11 -0000

Here's a quick blurb from the article. I hadn't known I would need tickets. I guess they'll be doing something extra in both CBP and the Linc.

Tickets for the stadium events will be available starting at 3 p.m. through the Phillies website, www.phillies.com, according to John Weber, vice president for ticket sales.

Type A and Type B Free Agents

Alex Falzone — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:46:51 -0000

So with the new rules, Type A's get their departing team a 1st and supplemental 1st, and Type B's get just the supplemental.

The Phils have 2 A's (Rowand and Iguchi) and a B (Garcia).

The Phils could potentially have 6 picks in the first + supplemental first rounds.

What are the odds that all three are offered arbitration?

Rowand, certainly. I'd also say certainly yes for Iguchi, because I don't think he'd accept. How about Garcia?

Werth to start in Game 2

Alex Falzone — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:33:05 -0000

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/breaking/sports/20071004_Werth_to_start_in_Game_2.html

Looks like dajafi is getting his wish, albeit a game late. And Burrell takes over his rightful place in the lineup against a LHP.

Looks like both the issues from yesterday have been addressed.

Bye Bye Burrell

Alex Falzone — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:07:22 -0000

It's becoming more and more apparent as each day passes that Pat Burrell will most likely no longer be a member of the Phils in 2007. The latest news, courtesy of Marcus Hayes:

To this point, Burrell has indicated that he would waive the clause only in deals that would send him to New York or Boston.

The Phillies can add San Francisco to that list.

...In trade, the Giants might want the Phillies, who are looking for bullpen help, to take closer Armando Benitez, who comes with plenty of baggage: a $7.6 million salary for this season, the last on his contract; his bad knees, which limited him to 41 games this season; and a poor reputation as a teammate.

Let's hope the last paragraph is just something Hayes made up. If the team is going to move Burrell because management and the fans want him to be something he's not, then fine. Trade him for the salary relief and try to pick up some young guys. Don't compound the problem by moving him and then wasting 7.5 million dollars on another old, injured relief pitcher. Good god, you'd think this team would learn something by watching the playoffs the last few years: the Angels in '02, Jenks last year, the Cards' bullpen this year. You don't need to drop a lot of coin on the 'pen to be successful.

Interview with Mike Radano

Alex Falzone — Thu, 18 May 2006 15:27:47 -0000

The Good Phight is pleased to bring you the following exclusive question-and-answer session with Mike Radano, the Phillies beat reporter for the Camden Courier-Post. Radano, whose work can be found online at the Courier-Post's website, recently penned the Abreu article linked to in Monday's Daily Links.

A lifelong Phillies phan from Washington Township, NJ, Radano agreed to sit down with us and answer a few questions regarding the current state of the team.

TGP: Let's start off with some background information, such as where you grew up and who you rooted for growing up.

Mike Radano: I grew up in Washington Township, New Jersey, as a Phillies fan because my grandmother would have hurt me if I went against the Phillies. I played baseball until I was a sophomore in high school. I actually played golf in high school for a variety of reasons, including we played at a private club. I'm a lifelong Phillies, Flyers, and Sixers fan. Growing up I liked the Cowboys for a variety of reasons - my mom once went on a double date with Roger Staubach - but in my job I really don't root for anyone anymore.

I went to the University of Dayton for three years - hence I now root for the University of Michigan to annoy Notre Dame and Ohio State fans - and then moved on to Rowan University.

TGP: In a previous discussion, you indicated that your father was a successful high school baseball coach. Would you mind elaborating on that a bit? What kind of influence, if any, did your dad coaching have in your attraction to the sport? What did you learn about the game (e.g. any special insights) from his experiences?

Mike Radano: My dad coached at Gloucester Catholic High School from 1971 through 1993 or thereabouts. He was the head coach from 1976 on, with a two-year hiatus in the middle. He won seven state titles and finished with a 321-101 record.

In 1989, he told me I was his freshman coach if I wanted to live at home, and over the next eight years I was with the program under him and then Dennis Barth, who is still the coach at Catholic.

The program is also associated with Brooklawn American Legion Post 72, which has won a pair of World Series titles, so I've been able to gather a ton of information from both situations.

My dad believed that this is a game and that everybody should take the "Let's have fun" approach. He believed that pitching was everything - probably because he pitched for Catholic and Brooklawn in the early `60s and had a tryout with the Detroit Tigers - and built from there. He was big on team chemistry and letting his players express themselves on the field as best as they could. He believed that if he put the right player in the right situation, he would win more games than he lost.

Brooklawn, if you don't know, loves "small ball": bunt the runner over, get in an opponent's head, and focus on pitching, as pitching is the most important thing. While my dad and his teams made me understand Charlie Manuel to a point, Brooklawn helped me to understand what a good at-bat is and to appreciate Bobby Abreu. Not that Brooklawn doesn't honor the Aaron Rowands of the world; I once saw Dennis Barth so incensed by someone bailing on a pitch that he took the entire team into the batting cage, set the machine on high, and let the ball hit him. The amazing thing is that I still believe Dennis had the most sanity of anyone on the 1980 team that went undefeated.

TGP: From your blog page, I see that you covered many things before taking up the Phils' beat. Tell us a bit about your professional sports journalist career, and how you ended up covering the Phillies.

Mike Radano: I've been at the Courier-Post since 1989 - a great year - and started as a part-timer. I answered phones, did wraps, answered more phones, and did all of the little things that so often get overlooked.

As time went on, I covered anything I could on the high-school level until I got my first beat, which was of all things high school golf. From there I got the boys' soccer beat and the girls' basketball beat and did my time at that level.

Eventually I switched over to wrestling in the winter and that showed me the value of all sports, not just the ESPN ones.

After four or five years of that, I was allowed to backup the regular beat people. I covered the Sixers, Flyers, and the Eagles as a feature/sidebar kind of writer. With the Phillies, I was Kevin Roberts' backup, and for every Friday home game, I wrote the main article and the notes. This allowed Roberts to do his Sunday package. In 2001, I also covered the Camden Riversharks in their first season.

After three years of that, we decided in 2004 to allow our sister paper in Wilmington to do our daily stuff and to allow Kevin Roberts to become a really good columnist. In fairness, it was a tough situation ignoring the Phillies, and in 2005 I got the beat.

I come to this beat with an open mind. I'm here to report what happens and to let the players, coaches, manager, and front-office tell the story. It's my opinion that if you let them tell the story, the truth will come out.

My goal each offseason has been to read, read, and read some more, to find every different possible approach to the game. I don't accept everything I read as fact but as a way of approaching the game. There are old-school guys, new-school guys, sabrmetricians, and fantasy geeks that all have opinions, and my goal is to meld all of them into one. I don't dismiss any idea until I really look at it. Maybe that's why I can really appreciate Bobby Abreu and Aaron Rowand or the pitching styles of Brett Myers and Cory Lidle and others can't.

TGP: Okay, let's talk a bit about regime change, and not the Bush/Cheney kind. What effect, if any, has the hiring of Pat Gillick (an outsider) had on the organizational MO? We've read reports that during Ed Wade's tenure, his power was limited, and everything had to be run by Dallas Green and/or David Montgomery. Is this still the case, to your knowledge? Does Gillick have any more individual authority than Wade possessed?

Mike Radano: Ed Wade was a good company man that in all fairness put together a lot of good pieces. Yes, I do think he was limited by the administration. The Phillies' biggest problem is that they are reactive and not proactive. They let things happen and then are shocked when they get bad publicity. The good thing is that the reaction this time was to get Pat Gillick, who has already made moves that indicate that he's in charge of the baseball program instead of what the marketing department thinks will or won't sell tickets.

TGP: Much has also been made about the "change" in the clubhouse atmosphere this year. Last year, the Phils went through a number of stretches where they appeared to be out of the race, yet they showed a resiliency by coming back time and again. Is there really a change this year, or is this just a reason given to try to account for the team's better play thus far? And if there is a distinct "change" this year, to what is that attributed to?

Mike Radano: There is definitely a change but it's a two-year-slow-evolution kind of change. Charlie Manuel took some time to get this team to understand he had their backs. Larry Bowa is a great baseball man who knows and understands the game as well as anyone. The problem is that he's not good with people and that had a negative effect on the team.

Last year, the team played better under a lighter atmosphere. This year, under Rowand's leadership with him putting together events such as a barbecue, bowling, etc., they have become tighter and enjoy playing with each other more. That showed in spring training, and even the slow start - in which plenty of guys talked about wanting to do too much too soon - has morphed into a nice 30-game stretch.

I've said and written that you can question Manuel's in-game moves but not the other 90% of the game that comes under his guidance. I think in-game moves can be blown out of proportion because that's all a viewer can get a grip on.

TGP: Regarding "The Catch", we here at The Good Phight have had some internal debate over the play itself, as you can see here. What's your take on it? Also, please chime in on the debate about when (if ever) such a reckless play is worth it.

Mike Radano: Personally, I'm tired of "The Catch" and have sounded off on it in my blog - shameless plug here - but let me say this: I think the catch was worth it. It fit the situation and Aaron Rowand is the type of player that can make that play. He knows no other way to play the game and should be commended for that. Just don't say that every player should make that play. Also, Rowand said if that it was 10-0 in the eighth inning, he probably doesn't try that.

Rowand has a great feel for, and knowledge of, the game, and that was the best catch I've ever seen live.

TGP: Now that "King" Cole Hamels has been promoted to the big leagues, who does the organization believe is the next best pitching prospect? Gio Gonzalez? Carlos Carrasco? Kyle Kendrick? JA Happ? Someone else?

Mike Radano: It's Gio and Gio and Gio. This is the kid that makes the Thome deal so important, and the Phillies love him. Kendrick has made a nice step forward this year. Carrasco has raised a few eyebrows - in a good way. Brian Sanches looks like he's going to be a good addition to the bullpen and right now, I'd guess Mathieson will eventually be the closer.

Of course, this does not take into account free agency, trades, etc. All that's just projection if nothing else changes.

TGP: Correlating to the last question, does the presence of so many well-performing young pitchers down on the farm make a potential deal for a young, starting-caliber 3B any more likely?

Mike Radano: Yes, but expect the Phillies to be very careful. David Bell won't be here next year. I like David Bell and think he's a pro's pro; if he had been healthy the last 3-plus years, he'd have been the type of player this city loves. If you want to talk baseball, David Bell is your man. He's been better this year, especially in the field, but he hasn't lived up to the contract.

The Phillies drafted Michael Costanzo but it's hard to gauge how long it will take him to get to the Phillies, if ever. That's not a shot at Costanzo, it's just the reality of baseball.

This offseason will be very interesting, especially since Gillick will have a year under his belt and will again be looking to move one of the corner outfielders. I have no proof of that but call it an educated guess.

TGP: What is the organization's take on Carlos Ruiz and Shane Victorino? Do they view them as anything other than backups? What are the chances that Ruiz might be the starting catcher in 2007?

Mike Radano: I think Ruiz is seen as a platoon-type catcher who the Phillies would love to see develop, but he's small, had some injuries, and is a little farther along age-wise. Mike Arbuckle said that he definitely can see him full-time with the Phillies next year, but expect every possible chance to be given to Jason Jaramillo. Also, and anyone on heart medication may need to step away at this point, don't be too surprised if the Phillies offer Mike Lieberthal, if he's healthy, a one-year deal. He's not nearly as bad as some would have you believe. Is he the perfect defensive catcher? No. But he does have a positive relationship with most of this staff, and he doesn't catch Lieber only because Lieber wants someone much faster.

The Phillies love Victorino, but at times his approach can be a bit maddening. I will say that this year his approach has caught the eye of those who count, and they really like what he brings to the team and see him as a potential full-time outfielder. He just has to get used to major league pitching on a full-time basis, but as this last week has proven, he learns quickly.

TGP: We here at The Good Phight would like to thank Mike Radano for stopping by and allowing us to get a little more insight into the team's thinking. If anyone has any follow-up questions they'd like answers to, please add them to the comments section below, and we'll try our best to send them on. Also, if there are other questions that you have a burning desire to see answered, but weren't addressed in this Q&A discussion, add them too. We might be able to run another session or two if we have enough to ask.

The Catch - Worthy Play or Silly Risk?

Alex Falzone — Fri, 12 May 2006 17:35:55 -0000

Was it worth it?

Piggybacking off of The Game Saver article, let's examine whether or not the catch was worth it.

Following is a bit of email correspondence among The Good Phight participants.

"Great catch, but how people are responding to it is ridiculous. And all it will do is fuel the wrong type of attitude."

"If Rowand were to miss two months because of that catch, how many phans would say that it was worth it?"

Here was my first take:
"I'm still torn though. I understand the larger picture of not needlessly exposing one's self to bodily injury, and I agree with that, but if there was ever a situation that warranted doing this, last night was it, IMO.

Quite honestly, most phans aren't going to be able to separate out the context of the play from the risk involved, so I think trying to convince them otherwise is going to prove to be an unproductive endeavor.
If he's out for two months, I don't know how many people would agree with the play then. But if it is just a week or less, with Victorino and Dellucci, I think the risk was well worth it. Of course, how can you ever tell beforehand whether it will be a week or two months? Should the risk of it possibly being a two-month injury be the sole determinant?"

The response:
"Ever a situation where it was warranted? In the first inning of a game that could have easily been rained out in the beginning of May when they were already playing well? This could have much more long term consequences with him out. If this were in the playoffs or a game that could get us into the playoffs, then fine. It wasn't a high leverage game at all."

My second take:
"Although the team has been playing well, they got their hats handed to them the previous night, and if that hit falls in (knowing the rain was coming to make this a shortened game anyway), they lose the series. With a road trip coming up (squeezing in the BoSox series in between), I think it was important for the team to win this series. Granted, you're right in that it's early May, and it was nowhere near as important as a game during the playoff chase, but as we found out last year, every game counts. I'm not as concerned with this part of it, because I'll most likely concede to you that it wasn't that important.
But what I'm saying is, how is one to know beforehand whether the play is worth the risk or not? You can't. So from this viewpoint, should players never attempt to make these kinds of plays? Look, I don't want Burrell and Abreu crashing into fences willy-nilly, all in the name of hustle and grit, but going all-out is Rowand's style of play. He's aggressive, and you can't make him play a different way.
Also, outfield is the team's deepest position, and Rowand's absence isn't going to submarine the team's record. This is what I mean about not removing context, both game/seasonwise and teamwise. Positionally, I'm okay with the CF taking risks, since there's someone to back him up. If this were Utley or Howard, or even Rollins, where there is no good backup/alternative on hand or waiting in the minors, my stance would be different. But the dropoff from Rowand to Victorino is small, IMO, whereas the dropoff from Utley or Howard to the Nunez/Gonzalez platoon would be higher.
I still don't have a problem with the play. If you want to take it into a pure theoretical situation, devoid of any and all context, then you're right in that the play wasn't worth the potential risk. But that's not reality. Context is always a part of the situation. And to me, the context makes all the difference."

I'm curious as to what the rest of the phandom thinks. Feel free to chime in below.

Rotation, Rotation, Rotation

Alex Falzone — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:12:03 -0000

Sometime this morning, the NOAA recorded a large gust of hot air emanating from the Philadelphia region. What does this have to do with baseball, you ask? Well, it was likely due to the collective sighs of relief breathed out by the area's Phillies' phans, upon seeing this article in today's Inquirer. Aptly titled "Floyd likely to make Phils' rotation," the article gives us the following nugget:

The Phillies offered a blueprint of their pitching staff yesterday, and barring a trade or late addition, Gavin Floyd will be on the team.

The 23-year-old Floyd is expected to join Ryan Madson in the rotation this season.

Ryan Franklin is expected to move to the bullpen.

If this is true, let me be the first to thank Gillick for not trying to force anyone's hand here and keep his FA acquisition in the lineup. I'm personally much more comfortable with giving Floyd a chance than in recreating a CBP version of Home Run Derby with Franklin on the mound. Now I know that Floyd struggled mightily last year, but let's remember that he's still only 23, and he seems to have finally gotten the "Kerrigan" mechanics changes out of his head, which anecdotally seemed to cause his prospectdom to drop.

Franklin seems a perfect fit for the long reliever role, which allows Tejeda to go to AAA and start rather than waste away in the bullpen with the big club. It also ends the ridiculous notion of Madson going back into the bullpen just because they didn't have a 7th inning guy. This development, in my humble opinion, shores up both the bullpen and the rotation.

Also, let's compare the Mets' rotation to the Phils', since most analysts, fans, etc. have already conceded the division to them.

Pedro
Glavine
Zambrano (not the good one)
Trachsel
Bannister

Is that a better rotation than that of the Phils? I don't see it. Heilman seems to be stuck in the Ed Wade-era Ryan Madson role, in that he'd obviously help the team more in the rotation, but since he's proven he's valuable in the 'pen, the team is reluctant to switch him.

Granted, a rotation of

Lieber
Myers
Lidle
Madson
Floyd

is nothing to write home about, but other than Pedro, I'd take any of the Phils' starters over any of the Mets'.

My role for making this Mets comparison is in no way to denigrate the Mets' rotation, but simply to say that I think moving Franklin to the bullpen and having Floyd start is really going to strengthen the Phils overall. A move like this really limits the chances of a Paul Abbott-type situation. And while I have been unimpressed with Gillick's overall moves since taking charge, his penchant to stockpile alternatives (Franklin, Nunez, Gonzalez) is a nice change from what we're used to, even if the alternatives themselves aren't very appealing.

Myers, Lidle, Lieber, and......Ryan Franklin?

Alex Falzone — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:30:34 -0000

According to Jerry Crasnick of espn.com, the Phillies have signed RHP Ryan Franklin to a one-year, $2.6 million deal.

Color me unimpressed, which unfortunately continues a trend regarding every move GM Pat Gillick has made since his terrific Thome trade.

I've looked at The Baseball Cube, BP, Baseball Reference, and ESPN's stats page, and I honestly can't come up with anything worthwhile to put this move in a positive light. His K rate has dropped, his H/9 has gone up, he'll be 33 this season, his control keeps getting worse, and his G/F rate is below 1. See for yourself:

I guess you can attempt to hang your hat on the fact that he soaks up innings, but I look at that as a negative based on what I found above.

Want to be even more depressed? Look here, here, here, here, and lastly, here. Wondering about similar players? Look here and you'll find such luminaries as Bob Milacki, Scott Kamieniecki, and Elmer Dessens.

Also, this should put to rest the contention amongst a certain faction of Phillies phans that the Padilla move was part of some larger plan by Gillick and company to make the team better. Essentially, we traded Padilla for Franklin and approximately $1.5 million. Go Phils!

The Thome Contract, sabr-style

Alex Falzone — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:59:34 -0000

[editor's note, by Alex Falzone] This article was originally written on August 3, 2005.

The trade deadline has come and gone, and it looks increasingly like the Phils? big first-base decision?Thome or Howard??will be put off until after the season. Which slugger to keep and which one to deal likely will be determined by what clubs offer for both, other moves the Phils might make, and, inevitably, the PR ramifications of moving the team?s signature player.

But there?s another way to approach the question as well: What is Thome?s contract worth?

For this article, I borrowed very heavily from Nate Silver?s recent BP article. Silver?s article analyzed the future contract value of Manny Ramirez and what would be considered an acceptable return for the BoSox in extricating themselves from his considerable salaries over the next couple of years. I decided to do the same for Jim Thome, since his injuries this year have awakened phans to the realities of his remaining contract, which has some ready to Wally Pipp him out of Philadelphia. As you can see, I followed Silver?s methodology , just to try to nail down Thome?s value so that we have a starting point to talk about.

The following chart lists Thome?s annual salaries for the remainder of his contract. This includes both Thome?s prorated amount for the rest of the 2005 season and the $3 million dollar buyout he?s likely to collect in 2009, since it?s highly doubtful anyone would be willing to pay him the $13 million salary in lieu of the buyout. His actual salaries can be found in the first column, courtesy of Dugout Dollars.

In the second column, you?ll find Thome?s Marginal Salaries. Marginal Salary is a concept that the late Doug Pappas brought to the forefront a few years ago: since the minimum MLB salary is $317,000 and would have to be paid to a player filling that roster spot regardless, subtract that amount from what the player is actually making to get the Marginal Salary figure. This number represents the discretionary money that the team has decided to spend on a player, in this case Jim Thome, rather than a replacement player earning the minimum.

The third column lists the Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP) projected for the remainder of Thome?s contract (including the remainder of 2005). These totals come from Thome?s Five Year Forecast as predicted by the PECOTA system, which factors in age, skillset, comparable players, etc. to best approximate a player?s future performance. Notice that in 2009, the WARP is 0 instead of the estimated 1.4; the $3 million buyout negates any performance that year, since the team is literally paying Thome to leave.

**Contract Considerations for the Future**
Year	Actual Salary	Marginal Salary (MS)	Projected WARP
2005	3,795,000	3,478,000	1.9
2006	12,500,000	12,183,000	4.7
2007	14,000,000	13,683,000	3.2
2008	14,000,000	13,683,000	2.6
2009	3,000,000	2,683,000	0
Total	47,295,000	45,710,000	16.3

Now we get into the analysis. Each WARP was found to equal about $2,140,000, per Nate Silver?s study during the last offseason; that is, the 47 free-agent contracts that teams doled out before the 2005 season paid a bit over $2 million per future WARP. Thus, if you multiply the projected WARP totals by the $2.14 million value, the product will provide an approximate Market Value amount for the coming years. For example, let?s look at Orlando Cabrera?s deal. He signed with the Angels for four years and about $28.6 million. His projected WARP over those four years is 13.3. Divide the WARP into the salary, and the 2.15 figure that?s generated is the amount, in millions, that the team is paying for his expected future performance. This Market Value number is found in the first column in the chart below.

In the second column, you?ll see the Net Value amount, which we get by simply subtracting the Marginal Salary amount from the Market Value amount for each year. Positive numbers indicate that the Phillies received more actual value, in terms of WARP, from Thome than what they actually paidhim; negative numbers indicate the opposite. Unfortunately, you?ll notice a lot of negative numbers in this column.

The third column takes the Net Value amount and applies a 5 percent discount rate, since $1 today will be worth more than that same $1 in the future. Silver used the same rate, and while researching to find out whether this was an accurate figure, I discovered that it was, so I used it as a nice round estimate to get a present-day value.

**Marginal Salary vs. Market Value for the Future**
Year	Market Value (MV)	Net Value (MV-MS)	Discounted Value
2005	4,066,000	588,000	588,000
2006	10,058,000	(-2,125,000)	(-2,018,750)
2007	6,848,000	(-6,835,000)	(-6,493,250)
2008	5,564,000	(-8,119,000)	(-7,713,050)
2009	0	(-2,683,000)	(-2,548,850)
Total	26,536,000	(-19,174,000)	(-18,185,900)

Taking into account the rest of 2005 and the $3 million buyout in 2009, the Phils stand to ?lose? just over $18 million over the rest of Thome?s contract, provided he exhibits a slow decline in performance. Of course, after suffering through this season with injuries, his future performance is anything but clear. I tend to think that he?ll bounce back next year to perform reasonably well, probably something a little below his 2004 performance; this thought aligns with PECOTA?s projections as well. However, if he does not return to some semblance of the 2003-2004 Thome, then the numbers above probably drastically underestimate the extent to which the Phillies would get burned on this contract.

Having looked at Thome?s future performance above, let?s consider the value that the Phils have received from Thome thus far. The following two charts follow the same framework as the two above, but instead list only the results to date.

**Past Years of Thome's Contract**
Year	Actual Salary	Marginal Salary (MS)	Actual WARP
2003	9,500,000	9,183,000	7.8
2004	10,500,000	10,183,000	5.7
2005	7,700,000	7,383,000	0.8
Total	27,700,000	26,749,000	14.3

**Marginal Salary vs. Market Value in the Past**
Year	Market Value (MV)	Net Value (MV-MS)
2003	16,692,000	7,509,000
2004	12,198,000	2,015,000
2005	1,712,000	(-5,671,000)
Total	30,602,000	3,853,000

As you can see, the Phillies made out pretty well in the first two years of Thome?s deal. But the first 2/3 of this year drag the numbers down overall. Still, up until the trading deadline, the Phils had received almost $4 million in performance over what they had paid Thome (and that?s with his awful numbers so far this year). Looking a little farther out, the break-even point for the Phillies appears to be 2006. Assuming that Thome meets PECOTA?s projections in 2006 (4.7 WARP, or a little less productive than he was in 2004), the Phils will actually still come out ahead (about $1.8 million) on Thome?s deal because they only stand to lose about $2 million in 2006. But let?s not forget that PECOTA?s prediction of 1.9 WARP for the rest of 2005 is probably too high. Assuming that Thome rebounds to put up a 1.0 WARP (which isn?t out of the question if he comes back within a couple weeks and performs at something close to his former level), the Phils will lose a couple million more this year, so that would probably even out all the money.

Of course, this is a lot of assuming. No one can predict what will happen to Jim Thome. Will his back/elbow/hand injuries recur? Even if they don?t recur, will he still be able to swing the lumber as menacingly as he?s done in the past? Unfortunately, for all the good will that Thome?s arrival brought to the Phillies? franchise, it appears that the time has come to consider moving him.

So what does this all mean? Well, if Jim Thome stands up and offers the Phillies to buy him out for $18 million, the Phils should make like Kris Kross and jump at the opportunity. Of course, Thome won?t do that. So should the Phils look to move Thome this offseason, which most phans agree is a logical thing, then the Phillies should look at paying no more than $18 million (38%) of Thome?s remaining total salary. This would be the ultimate sunk cost. Of course, it?s not unreasonable to expect that in any deal for Thome, the Phils would be receiving some players in return, as it?s unlikely that Thome is D-U-N done. So the better players that the Phils are offered, the more money the club can dangle for another team to take on Thome.

Abreu for Wells?

Alex Falzone — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:05:45 -0000

From Salisbury's article today in the Inqy:

"According to one executive, the Phillies discussed a trade that would have sent rightfielder Bobby Abreu to the Toronto Blue Jays for centerfielder Vernon Wells. The Jays, who are looking for a corner outfielder, turned thumbs down on the proposed deal because Abreu is owed at least $31 million over the next two seasons.

A Wells-for-Abreu deal could still come to fruition if Abreu would waive his no-trade clause and the Phils would eat some of his salary. That deal could help the Phillies on two fronts. It would give them a proven centerfielder and open right field as a possible landing spot for Ryan Howard if they're unable to deal Thome."

Did anyone else fall out of their chair when they happened to stumble across this in the middle of the article? I like Wells, but at first glance without any further study, trading Abreu to fill the CF spot, moving Howard (who we've all been told absolutely, positively, no way Jose can play the outfield) to RF, and leaving Bourn, Golson, et. al. out of a spot seems a foolhardy move.

Any thoughts?