Nice Win, Phillies - Now Sell, Sell, Sell

This isn't happening in 2012. Sell.

With their 12 inning win over the Giants in game three on Sunday, the Phillies salvaged a game in the series with the NL West leaders. This means the Phillies are 5-4 since the All-Star break, despite not really having a lot of time with all their big guys back yet.

That's nice, really. It's also not going to cut it. Time to sell.

I know that a lot of people don't want to do that, but do the math. The Phillies are 42-54, meaning over the final 66 games, taking 88 wins as the benchmark to get a playoff spot, the Phillies have to go 46-20 to get in the post-season this season, maybe. That might not get it done. Perhaps 44-22 could do it too. I guess it's possible, but ask yourself how plausible it is. They just lost two of three at home to a likely playoff team. Do you feel a huge stretch run pushing them in coming on? Honestly here, not emotionally, the answer almost has to be no.

Maybe you want to give it a few more days. Fine, you can give it the next three, but even with three more wins (not likely), the math is daunting. In an ideal world, they'd be playing the Braves and Nats now, instead of the next two series, so they could gauge from the head-to-head's, but again, they're 14 out, what's a series tell you? You're 10.5 out of the second Wild Card, and you're two full series from the deadline. How much more do you need to see?

I'm ready to sell, and sell plenty. I've set up the following parameters to any trade, and how we should judge it (or do it in the first place):

1. Do we want the player on the 2013 Phillies, and do we think we can actually keep them. If the answer to both is yes, then no trade. If no to either, get them out of here.
2. Does the player's contract prohibit the Phillies from being able to make moves for other needed players? Is this the best use of the money. If the answer is no to the first, and yes to the second, keep that player. If it's the opposite, get them out of here.
3. Does moving the player out open up a position for a younger, cheaper talent to get a shot to show they can play big league ball this year? If yes, move them.
4. Is there a reasonable target to replace that player who is better than them? If yes, do it.
5. Is the package of prospects filling needs and worth the player? If yes, then do it. If no, maybe not, but not necessarily. Remember, just because you have depth in a spot (say pitching), doesn't mean you shouldn't take more. If the first four criteria are met for the trade, and the talent is premium, you still make it, even if it's not filling an immediate hole. That's trade bait to fill other holes.

Those are the criteria by which I'm judging all rumors. For this reason, I'd probably say no to trading Cole Hamels unless the contract talks totally break down, under the guise of criteria one. I'd probably say don't trade Jimmy Rollins under criteria five (with the Dodgers), even though he meets some of the others. Even though I'd almost certainly trade Shane Victorino, I'd be weary of the Pirates, who want him at a discount for his services. A guy like Juan Pierre (who I can't believe is getting attention) could be gold since he's so cheap (and apparently getting attention), so the Phillies should see what they can get there. Guys like Polanco and Blanton should just be gone, since some teams seem to be somehow interested.

The Phillies should go into this with literally nothing "off the table," given their ability to spend money in the off-season as a big market, and their current position in the standings. They have the oldest team in the league, and they're 12 games under .500 on an injury plagued season. If that's not an invitation to sell, I don't know what is?

Sure, I think they should maintain a good portion of their core, but if someone blows you away with an offer for (for instance) Hunter Pence or Carlos Ruiz, you shouldn't pass on a good deal just because a player is good. Remember, there's nothing more dangerous to the league than a big market, willing to spend team, that is stock piled up with young talent. The Phillies should take advantage of that possibility. With that said, don't just trade to trade. Follow the criteria above on all trades, at least meet the majority of them on each move, and you can do very well here.

Comments

[Charlie Knoll]

Phillies should never get rid of Chooch. What the Fuck are you smoking?

[Daniel Berghoff]

I think they should start from scratch by geting good young talent in treades, shed payroll and evaluate the team during off-season. Then with their available money for payroll available sign four to six free agents to fill the holes.

[Daniel Berghoff]

For example the Dodgers claim they can take on payroll. Trade Ryan Howard, Rollins, and Halladay to them for Billingslsey, one of their bullpen mainstays, and two of their top prospects. Then trade Cole Hamels, Cliff Lee and Shane Victorino to the Rangers for young prospect Olt (3B of future), one of their young starters, a bullpen pitcher, and Josh Hamilton. Then trade Joe Blanton and Polanco to the Tigers for a prospects. Wiggington could then play third base until Olt was ready. Martinez second base, and Fred Galvez can play shortstop the when he gets off his 50 game suspension. Sign Jamie Moyer to start. They have Billingsley and Ranger starter, along with Kendricks and Worley to complete the starting rotation. Then next year the Phillies will have payroll to go after big time younger free agents.

[Bolsos Tous 2009]

Hello webbcwruzc,
Hello my agree with is Garrett feel a foul Juniour at Scappose incorporated School pronqlykadk
good bcwruzc!!

[ticketsolutions review]

Many people enjoy watching sports but few stop to think that after all it is all a big business. Clubs needs money to operate and players are simply assets being utilized to generate cash, either through performance or through sale. Unless a club is profitable, regardless of its results, it cannot last very long. Many times, cash flow generation and profit are the indirect result of winning games and being crowned champions, but this is not necessarily so.