Music2004Man wrote:People were asking why the Phils would want to trade Abreu so I'm going to try to help out. I'm a Phils fan so I've been hearing a lot of talk about it for the last year or so.
Abreu is the best "player" on the team (if you look solely at the stats). As such he has the highest trade value on the team right now and he also has the highest salary. What the Phils see right now is that their team isn't constructed correctly. They have way too many SO's in the lineup, not enough left/right and a lot of holes to fill (SP, C, 3b, MR, CL). Abreu has always been a numbers guy with a big ego (he once had someone mow 30/30 into his yard). He gets all of his HR's early in the game when it doesn't matter as much. If you look at his average from the 7th inning on he hits about 230. This is the type of player who is steady and puts up numbers but doesn't always contribute to the well-being of the team. By dropping his salary the Phils will also be
IMO, those are horrible reasons ... sry
I am sure those homeruns in the first few innings are just as important the homeruns late in the game. And I have never heard anything negative about him from the clubhouse, and I read the Philly paper almost daily.
As for his late inning BA, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that opposing managers avoid his bat late and he gets a steady diet of picthes off the plate
Two things to say..... 1. First, I disagree that homers hit early in the game are as important as homers hit late in the game. A homer that puts you up 1-0 in the bottom of the first and a solo homer that is hit in the bottom of the ninth to win 4-3 both untie the score. Therefore they serve the same function but because one was hit in the ninth it wins the game for you.
They both "win" the game for you. Without that run, they'd be tied.
Music2004Man wrote:By hitting a homer in the first there are still many chances for the other team to change the outcome of the game.
There are just as many chances in both circumstances; they have 27 outs to decide the outcome.
This is like saying a win late in the season is worth more than a win early. Its simply a bad misconception.
Music2004Man wrote:People were asking why the Phils would want to trade Abreu so I'm going to try to help out. I'm a Phils fan so I've been hearing a lot of talk about it for the last year or so.
Abreu is the best "player" on the team (if you look solely at the stats). As such he has the highest trade value on the team right now and he also has the highest salary. What the Phils see right now is that their team isn't constructed correctly. They have way too many SO's in the lineup, not enough left/right and a lot of holes to fill (SP, C, 3b, MR, CL). Abreu has always been a numbers guy with a big ego (he once had someone mow 30/30 into his yard). He gets all of his HR's early in the game when it doesn't matter as much. If you look at his average from the 7th inning on he hits about 230. This is the type of player who is steady and puts up numbers but doesn't always contribute to the well-being of the team. By dropping his salary the Phils will also be
IMO, those are horrible reasons ... sry
I am sure those homeruns in the first few innings are just as important the homeruns late in the game. And I have never heard anything negative about him from the clubhouse, and I read the Philly paper almost daily.
As for his late inning BA, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that opposing managers avoid his bat late and he gets a steady diet of picthes off the plate
Two things to say..... 1. First, I disagree that homers hit early in the game are as important as homers hit late in the game. A homer that puts you up 1-0 in the bottom of the first and a solo homer that is hit in the bottom of the ninth to win 4-3 both untie the score. Therefore they serve the same function but because one was hit in the ninth it wins the game for you.
They both "win" the game for you. Without that run, they'd be tied.
Music2004Man wrote:By hitting a homer in the first there are still many chances for the other team to change the outcome of the game.
There are just as many chances in both circumstances; they have 27 outs to decide the outcome.
This is like saying a win late in the season is worth more than a win early. Its simply a bad misconception.
Blankman,
In both circumstances I agree that they have 27 outs to decide the outcome and I agree that both outcomes give you the lead but I disagree that both HR's win you the game. The HR in the bottom of the ninth has already had all 27 of the outs used up for the away team. They do not have a chance to tie or win the game. If a HR is hit in the first to put the home team up 1-0 then the away team still has 24 outs to tie or win the game. This game is not won after the first inning.
Well, I actually think there's more complexity to the argument than just "they're both runs". (though I also think that point is valid)
It's like the debate over closers - are they really all that important? I say yes, b/c there's something different about having no margin for error in the 9th - if they score a run, or two, the game's over. If it's the 7th or 8th, your team still has a chance to muster some character and score again.
Similarly, with a homer in the 1st or 2nd, yeah it's a run all the same, but the other team knows it has plenty of time to tie the score. Whereas, a homer in the 8th or 9th is a dagger.
Ultimately, both are important. But I think a valid argument can be made about late inning runs (ie: Joe Crede's sudden "clutchness").
Bottom line, however, I think the criticisms of Abreu are a little farfetched and I hope the Phillies keep him. Trade Burrell instead.
There are no steroids in baseball. Just players Chuck Norris has breathed on.
I agree with you here because I would much rather trade Burrell. Abreu has been much more steady throughout his career (it's amazing all the Phils had to give up was Kevin Stocker to get him). There is talk that the Phils might actually trade both so we'll see what happens.
Music2004Man wrote:People were asking why the Phils would want to trade Abreu so I'm going to try to help out. I'm a Phils fan so I've been hearing a lot of talk about it for the last year or so.
Abreu is the best "player" on the team (if you look solely at the stats). As such he has the highest trade value on the team right now and he also has the highest salary. What the Phils see right now is that their team isn't constructed correctly. They have way too many SO's in the lineup, not enough left/right and a lot of holes to fill (SP, C, 3b, MR, CL). Abreu has always been a numbers guy with a big ego (he once had someone mow 30/30 into his yard). He gets all of his HR's early in the game when it doesn't matter as much. If you look at his average from the 7th inning on he hits about 230. This is the type of player who is steady and puts up numbers but doesn't always contribute to the well-being of the team. By dropping his salary the Phils will also be
IMO, those are horrible reasons ... sry
I am sure those homeruns in the first few innings are just as important the homeruns late in the game. And I have never heard anything negative about him from the clubhouse, and I read the Philly paper almost daily.
As for his late inning BA, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that opposing managers avoid his bat late and he gets a steady diet of picthes off the plate
Two things to say..... 1. First, I disagree that homers hit early in the game are as important as homers hit late in the game. A homer that puts you up 1-0 in the bottom of the first and a solo homer that is hit in the bottom of the ninth to win 4-3 both untie the score. Therefore they serve the same function but because one was hit in the ninth it wins the game for you.
They both "win" the game for you. Without that run, they'd be tied.
Music2004Man wrote:By hitting a homer in the first there are still many chances for the other team to change the outcome of the game.
There are just as many chances in both circumstances; they have 27 outs to decide the outcome.
This is like saying a win late in the season is worth more than a win early. Its simply a bad misconception.
Blankman,
In both circumstances I agree that they have 27 outs to decide the outcome and I agree that both outcomes give you the lead but I disagree that both HR's win you the game. The HR in the bottom of the ninth has already had all 27 of the outs used up for the away team. They do not have a chance to tie or win the game. If a HR is hit in the first to put the home team up 1-0 then the away team still has 24 outs to tie or win the game. This game is not won after the first inning.
So those first 3 outs don't matter? They couldn't have scored then?
There is a reason that MLB did way with the Game-Winning RBI stat, the only that I can recall them ever getting rid of. Its because it creates a huge misperception like you have right now. A run is worth the same thing no matter when it is scored. The more you score early, the less you have to do later.
Try to think of the game as simply 27 outs and realize that tying the game or taking the lead mid-game really doesn't matter. All that matters is which team totals the most runs. You ALWAYS have the same number of chances to win a game. Being down late in the game does not give you fewer chances to score runs over the course of the game.
I agree with you here because I would much rather trade Burrell. Abreu has been much more steady throughout his career (it's amazing all the Phils had to give up was Kevin Stocker to get him). There is talk that the Phils might actually trade both so we'll see what happens.
what holes do they have other than pitching?
The OF is set
The infield is set
They are solid at catcher.
Abreu is not going to bring in two or three arms.
Besides, they are moving the fences back in Philly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few FA pitchers sign.
I don't see where moving Abreu solves anything.
The Phils could compete this year.
Breaking them up for no other reason than to break them up becasue I am Pat Gillick and your not, seems foolish IMO ..
Music2004Man wrote:People were asking why the Phils would want to trade Abreu so I'm going to try to help out. I'm a Phils fan so I've been hearing a lot of talk about it for the last year or so.
Abreu is the best "player" on the team (if you look solely at the stats). As such he has the highest trade value on the team right now and he also has the highest salary. What the Phils see right now is that their team isn't constructed correctly. They have way too many SO's in the lineup, not enough left/right and a lot of holes to fill (SP, C, 3b, MR, CL). Abreu has always been a numbers guy with a big ego (he once had someone mow 30/30 into his yard). He gets all of his HR's early in the game when it doesn't matter as much. If you look at his average from the 7th inning on he hits about 230. This is the type of player who is steady and puts up numbers but doesn't always contribute to the well-being of the team. By dropping his salary the Phils will also be
IMO, those are horrible reasons ... sry
I am sure those homeruns in the first few innings are just as important the homeruns late in the game. And I have never heard anything negative about him from the clubhouse, and I read the Philly paper almost daily.
As for his late inning BA, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that opposing managers avoid his bat late and he gets a steady diet of picthes off the plate
Two things to say..... 1. First, I disagree that homers hit early in the game are as important as homers hit late in the game. A homer that puts you up 1-0 in the bottom of the first and a solo homer that is hit in the bottom of the ninth to win 4-3 both untie the score. Therefore they serve the same function but because one was hit in the ninth it wins the game for you.
They both "win" the game for you. Without that run, they'd be tied.
Music2004Man wrote:By hitting a homer in the first there are still many chances for the other team to change the outcome of the game.
There are just as many chances in both circumstances; they have 27 outs to decide the outcome.
This is like saying a win late in the season is worth more than a win early. Its simply a bad misconception.
Blankman,
In both circumstances I agree that they have 27 outs to decide the outcome and I agree that both outcomes give you the lead but I disagree that both HR's win you the game. The HR in the bottom of the ninth has already had all 27 of the outs used up for the away team. They do not have a chance to tie or win the game. If a HR is hit in the first to put the home team up 1-0 then the away team still has 24 outs to tie or win the game. This game is not won after the first inning.
So those first 3 outs don't matter? They couldn't have scored then?
There is a reason that MLB did way with the Game-Winning RBI stat, the only that I can recall them ever getting rid of. Its because it creates a huge misperception like you have right now. A run is worth the same thing no matter when it is scored. The more you score early, the less you have to do later.
Try to think of the game as simply 27 outs and realize that tying the game or taking the lead mid-game really doesn't matter. All that matters is which team totals the most runs. You ALWAYS have the same number of chances to win a game. Being down late in the game does not give you fewer chances to score runs over the course of the game.
I don't know man, maybe I'm missing something here. I apologize if this is my misconception but maybe I'm just not seeing it right now. In my mind a homer in the first to put you up 1-0 doesn't win you the game but a homer that you hit in the bottom of the 9th to put you up 4-3 does win the game because the other team has doesn't have a chance to change the outcome. I realize that I'm posting the same thing that I have in the past but this is the part that I understand. I don't want to hijack this thread anymore so if anyone wants to discuss this in PM that would be great just let me know.
Point being I'm really interested to see what the Phils could get for Abreu when the FA OF crop is really pretty thin this year.
I agree with you here because I would much rather trade Burrell. Abreu has been much more steady throughout his career (it's amazing all the Phils had to give up was Kevin Stocker to get him). There is talk that the Phils might actually trade both so we'll see what happens.
what holes do they have other than pitching? The OF is set The infield is set They are solid at catcher.
Abreu is not going to bring in two or three arms. Besides, they are moving the fences back in Philly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few FA pitchers sign.
I don't see where moving Abreu solves anything. The Phils could compete this year.
Breaking them up for no other reason than to break them up becasue I am Pat Gillick and your not, seems foolish IMO ..
Lieberthal is solid? Do you know how much he makes? The Phils can't have Abreu & Burrell in the same lineup. That was 294 between them both. Burrell isn't worth as much as Abreu, plus I think Abreu makes more. Abreu had a horrible 2nd half, and he plays horrible on the road. And in Philly, a player who doesn't "give it all" is a turn off to fans. Abreu would be perfect for a team in a small-market.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by blankman » Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:22 am 
They couldn't have scored then? 
