Minor Update: Philles Pitching Prospects Emerging

Pete, where do you stand on Pat Gillick? I think he’s been fantastic as a GM. Sure, he’s had some big whiffs (Freddy Garcia, Wes Helms), but his tinkering was just what the Phillies needed to finally get them into the playoffs, and when he decided to blow things up when he first got here, I think he got rid of the right guys and kept the right ones.

SIXERZGUY: Pat Gillick deserves a lot of respect for what he’s accomplished throughout his career, but I didn’t think we were going to get “tinkering” from him. I expected more from him. I don’t think Gillick played any more of a role than sheer dumb luck did in us getting us into the playoffs. The Phillies have tinkered for years with middle of the road guys, guys at the tail end of their careers, etc… hoping that it would all come together. It very rarely did. The last time was ‘93. Think about it. Jamie Moyer, Jason Werth, Greg Dobbs…all turned out to be major contributors last year but, last April, who was jumping up and down proclaiming they would get us into the playoffs. The way I see it: Jamie Moyer=Danny Jackson, Jason Werth=Pete Incaviglia, Kyle Kendrick=Kevin Stocker(surprise mid-season callup), Greg Dobbs=Milt Thompson. Even though the tinkering came together last year and we got red hot down the stretch, we still don’t make the playoffs without a major collapse by the Mets. Another thing. The tinkering again seems ok so far this year. However, the main reason things have held together is because the bullpen has been stellar. We have seen this many times in the past where the starting pitching has not been good and the bullpen has kept us afloat for a few months. The starters are a major concern. Hamels appears to be our only sure thing. Myers and Kendrick are struggling. Moyer is ok now but he pitched well early last year only to fade over the last couple months. No reason to think the same thing won’t happen this year. Adam Eaton…PLEASE. My concern is what happens once the number of appearances by the bullpen climbs to 65-70-75-80 per guy and they wear down, which is inevitable if things continue as they are. We all heard Charlie Manuel ask for starting pitching over and over again. I know everyone always wants starting pitching but that doesn’t mean that we do not need it. Instead of tinkering, it would have been nice if Gillick made a run at Johann Santana. The Mets sent a bunch of prospects to Minn. and got him. We could have done the same thing. This article lists 8 pitchers in the organization with value. Are you telling me we could not put together a package to get a deal done? Bottom line: I don’t think Gillick got us into the playoffs last year and I don’t think he’s done enough to get us there this year either.

bski, after I finished reading Pete’s post, I was thinking the same thing - we couldn’t have gotten Santana with one of these guys? There is some validity to your “lucky GM” idea - the White Sox’ fall after their championship really surprised me. And the Phils have made it to only ONE postseason under Gillick. And it did take a historic collapse from the Mets to get us into the playoffs.

People talk about the Phils on sports radio a lot, and one thing I hear over and over is that the Phils don’t wanna go over a certain number for their payroll. If Gillick is hampered by that, then what he’s done is pretty impressive, no? Not exactly Billy Beane, but pretty good.

About the Mets… The Mets DID collapse, and we were able to overtake them, doesn’t that say something about the character of the Phils, and how it’s much better than the Mets’? Gillick should get credit for that character. Would I love to have Abreu’s skills back? Of course, but isn’t the clubhouse atmosphere much better without him? BTW, I thought that was horrible trade, we really didn’t get enough back for the guy.

Back to the character issue - I don’t think Burrell bounces back from his suckiness unless he’s surrounded by the high character guys around him. Also, he managed to wrap Chase and Bret up with those small-ish contracts, that’s pretty nice work, too.

SIXERZGUY: Make no mistake, Gillick deserves credit for bringing in some pieces, but—and I can’t believe I’m saying this—Charlie Manuel deserves at least as much credit and maybe more for turning these middling pickups into a division winner. Charlie did a lot of pinch running, pinch hitting, late inning defensive replacing, situational bullpen pitching, etc… and he got a lot out of what he was given. Charlie seemed to have a great feel for the team and, most of the time, he got guys in and out at just the right time. He was usually able to put his guys in the position to be successful. I feel that Manuel bumped Gillick from a C+ to the B+ grade that Pete gave him. Think about it. The bottom line is winning. If Charlie didn’t get them to win, we’d be bashing Gillick for not bringing enough talent here to win.

bski, appreciate you taking the time to tell that story, it rules out my theory that being around good people helped him out. What did you originally think of Burrell? I still can’t believe he’s doing what he’s doing, but with how much he’s getting paid he should’ve been doing what he’s doing now on a regular basis.

It’s Ryan Howard that’s killing me. I don’t know the first thing about hitting a baseball (I don’t think Bill Conlin does either), but if something’s not working, you change up, right? Do you think Ryan going to a smaller bat would help? What the heck happened to all those lessons from Tony Gwynn?

SIXERZGUY: I just re-read your post. As far as what Burrell should be doing for what he’s getting paid, I don’t believe that. I understand that paying a boatload of money to a player that’s a stiff hurts the team through a lack of productivity and an inability to add other players. However, how much a player gets paid or how high he was drafted is not on him. It is on the organization (owner, gm, etc…) A player cannot truly place a value on himself as far as that goes. The organization decides whom to draft, how much to pay them, etc… When an organization drafts a player high and pays him a lot, that creates expectations. Many times, as we well know, the expectations are way beyond what that player can deliver. None of this is the players fault. Where is the chart that details how many hits, homeruns, rbi, runs, etc…should be produced for every 1 million dollars of salary? Even if the player is a fat, lazy, no talent, overrated slob with no work ethic it’s still the organization’s fault because they decided to sign him.

I will always side with the players over management. The players are millionaires but the owners are billionaires. Big difference. The owners get us to spend our taxpayer dollars to build them stadiums. They get sweetheart deals consisting of tax breaks, parking revenue, concessions revenue, luxury box revenue, etc… They own the cable channels that broadcast the games. Then they lie to us and tell us that their team is losing money. Bull****!! All of these owners became mega-wealthy by being very successful in some other business. So, we are supposed to believe that they were super smart running their business and building their fortune but now they are morons when they run their sports teams…please! They would not spend the money on the players if they did not have it. Read a couple books by Andrew Zimbalist and you’ll get a very clear picture of how the billionaire owners suck us dry. Then, after all this, the owners portray the players as greedy bastards. No way. All these guys work their whole lives to make it. Most of them don’t. Many of those that do don’t last very long. It’s a constant battle to stay on top and the window isn’t open for very long. The owners talk about a lack of player loyalty to their club. Sure they go for the money, but so would you and I because every player puts his body on the line and any day could be the end of his career. Also, after the five, ten, or fifteen year career is over, the owners don’t have to go through the multiple surgeries and years of pain faced by many players. Every player knows that if you slip there are plenty of guys waiting to take your place, and the owners will replace you in a heartbeat without thinking about any loyalty the club owes to the player.

SIXERZGUY: Let me try to get you un-stuck as far as my thinking regarding players and contracts. Every player is what he is and does what he does, period. It is the organization’s responsibility to place a value on that. When the organization misreads or overvalues the player’s ability they end up paying more than they should for that player. So, as a young player, if I produce 25hr, 102rbi, 35 doubles, etc…and the organization decides to lock me up long term because they think I will continue to improve. They expect me to get better, hence the expectation factor. Then we as fans see the mega-contract and automatically equate that with mega-productivity. However, I am still the same player. Sure, I want to improve and put up bigger numbers and I will work hard in the attempt to do that, but there are no guarantees that I will be able to. So, I’m saying we should not equate big contracts with big productivity. Ideally it SHOULD work out that way but many times it does not. Also, in many cases, the blame should not fall on the player but on the organization for improper evaluation or overpaying for expectations.

Look at it this way. Ryan Howard had a monster 2006, won the MVP, and made what…about $350,000. It happens a lot where players are providing a lot more value to a team in their early years and the team is paying them next to nothing compared to other players. The Oakland A’s are a prime example. For years now they have been getting max productivity out of their players during their first few years in the league while they are cheap. Then they trade them just before their free agent years, load up on young talent, and keep the cycle going. The A’s underpay for the productivity they are getting.

The other side is when you have a player who has been productive for years and a team pays him based on what he’s done in the past. many times in that case the team ends up overpaying for his declining productivity.

I will finish this up in my next post. Right now I’ve got to get to work.

bski, you know what it was? I was trying to think in basketball terms, instead of baseball. Your explantion cleared it up.

But that leads me to ask this - (I’m going to being very general) The Magic showed that they’re not good enough to win it all, so they need to try and improve, but they can’t do that through free agency because they overpaid Rashard Lewis and have no cap room for other guys. Improvement through drafting and trades are still available to them.

Does Pat Burrell’s salary put the Phils in that kind of situation? I agree that the fault shouldn’t lie with Burrell. But if Burrell was making half of what he was making, and we used the other half on the offer to Mike Lowell (and Lowell signed), would the Phils be a better team? The 20 million spread out over Burrell/Feliz would instead be spread out over Burell/Lowell. For 20 million, shouldn’t we be getting Burrell/Lowell production, instead of Burrell/Feliz production? I think that in this sense, Burrell - and/or Feliz - are underperforming, and SHOULD be producing more. But this isn’t the player’s fault, management just overpaid.

SIXERZGUY: One last post to finish our discussion, and before I am banned from this site for life for long-winded posts. No, I’ve never heard of win score. I’m curious when it was developed because Bill James (who else) did develop a system called Win Shares. He put out a book by that title in 2002–yes I own a copy. Win Shares is basically a system to determine “wins created” by each individual player. It grew out of his “runs created” concept. Win Shares is a team based approach where 3 Win Shares are given to the team for every actual win. If a team wins 90 games in 2008 then the team total is 270 Win Shares. He then goes on to award Win Shares to individual players based on everything good each player did to help the team get those wins(individual hitting, pitching, fielding statistics). The goal is to level the playing field so to speak. For example, a player who hits .300 with 30 hr for a 100 win team should have the same number of Win Shares as a player who hits .300 with 30 hr for a 70 win team. There are less available Win Shares for the player on the 70 win team, but his performance played a greater part in the 70 games his team won.

It’s a really neat concept and James runs his formulas on every team from 1876-2001 and for every player by decade from the 1880s to the 1990s. He also has a list of all-time leaders and franchise leaders in Win Shares. It’s a pretty cool way to attempt to settle the barroom debates about who was better: Mike Schmidt or Mickey Mantle, etc…

SIXERZGUY: I am not totally against management and I’m not saying that it is all management’s fault. It’s that I’m more on the side of the players than the owners. The owners are “the man” and the players are just working for him, trying to get paid.

I admire the players union and, if I were a player, would certainly be a staunch defender of it. That being said, the current situation causes a lot of problems. You’ve got mega-wealthy franchises paying top dollar for mediocre talent which raises those salaries throughout the entire league. On top of that, when the truly great players compare themselves to the mediocre ones surely they deserve much more money. This pushes those contracts into the stratosphere. In addition, in order to get a lot of these guys, organizations must commit to long-term, guaranteed contracts with no-trade clauses, etc…effectively handcuffing what they can do for years to come. To me, the ALMOST ideal solution is one-year contracts with unlimited free agency. Your 2008 salary is determined by your 2007 stats. Improve your numbers and earn more money, hit the skids and your pay drops. This way guys are paid for their productivity. There could be a guaranteed minimum, definitely higher than what league minimum is now, there should also be some sort of salary protection for injuries, and the rest you earn by your production. Think of it like a commission on sales. The only way to become a big earner is to sell, sell, sell (or hit, hit, hit, in this case). This would virtually eliminate overpaying and leave us free to part ways with unproductive players. It eliminates years of frustration and player bashing on the part of the fans that results from a player underproducing during his long term contract. Obviously this provides little security for the players, which is a concern for me. It would be great to find a workable middle ground here but, based on the historical relationship between the players union and the owners, I am not overly optimistic

One last thought about expectations. Another aspect of it is with the managers and coaches. Everyone says it’s all about winning, but that can’t be 100% true. If it was, Burrell would have been planted on the bench for years. Part of the reason he was not is because he was being paid $14 million per year and we can’t possibly pay a guy that much and have him sit on the bench. Why not? Look at it this way, over the last few years we have been paying Burrell $14 mil per and our 4th and 5th outfielders on the bench got a few hundred thousand. That never changed. The payroll committed to outfielders stayed basically the same regardless of who was on the field. I feel the team would have been better served to make someone else the everyday left fielder regardless of who it was (Victorino, Roberson, Bourn, Dobbs, Werth) as long as they were more productive than Burrell. In that way the Phillies would have gotten more productivity from left field while spending the same amount of money. Let Burrell be the 4th or 5th outfielder. Who cares? Productivity wins ballgames, winning is all that matters, ergo only productive players get on the field. You see. Playing guys every day just because you are paying them “starters money” only exacerbates the whole “expectations” scenario because a guy is out there underperforming day after day. I’m not saying you bench a guy because he’s struggling for a couple weeks, everone goes through rough stretches. Burrell’s situation was different. He struggled big time for at least two years, yet he was in the lineup almost every day and we hammered him the whole time. So, part of it was ownership overpaying for him, part of it was him not producing, and part of it was the manager putting him out in left field day after agonizing day.

SIXERZGUY: I didn’t mean to overwhelm you. I just kind of got into the whole discussion and took off. I like Bill James a lot. He makes my head spin with all the formulas but he always lays out his thought process and explains how he got there. Also, his approach is very thorough and he tries to strip away a lot of the subjectivity of the stats.

For example, Richie Ashburn was always at or near the top of the NL in outfield putouts. Just looking at the numbers you would think Ashburn must have had unbelievable range and tracked down every ball in the outfield. He was a very good centerfielder BUT the Phils pitching staff back then was a flyball heavy staff, especially Robin Roberts. Many more flyballs hit off the pitchers=more outfield putouts. Conversely, you would not expect the Diamondbacks outfielders to lead the league in putouts because Brandon Webb allow about 1 flyball per start. Bill James tries to even things out so you can compare hitters that play in hitters parks like ours to hitters who play in pitchers parks like Dodger Stadium or The Padre’s Petco Park. Anyway, I highly recommend Win Shares.

Rob Neyer is a Bill James devotee, and I like him as well. He cowrote a book a while back called “Baseball Dynasties” that I thought was fantastic. I also have his “Big Book of Baseball Lineups”, “Big Book of Baseball Blunders”, and one he cowrote with Bill James called the “Guide to Pitchers”.

Digest the voluminous posts I’ve put up and let me know what you think.

bski, let’s take this one topic at a time, and let’s pose some of your declarations as questions - do mediocre players get overpaid by the richer teams in baseball, and does that inflate the salaries of the really good players by too much?

I don’t think this is too important of an issue. Many World Series winners have shown that you don’t need to spend tons of money to be good. So what if the Angels were the only team who could offer Torii Hunter what he wanted – he’s just one option at CF. Whatever numbers Torii Hunter is putting up now, was $18M necessary to get those numbers? No, there are other ways, certain players making way too much aren’t affecting other teams’ win-loss records by that much, you don’t have to break the bank to buy good production.

bski, great points re: buying production. Accumulating more talent than other teams (most, not all) is something that I think Pat Gillick has done very well, even though his big moves have been mostly stinkers. I think the Phillies have pretty decent depth. I can’t believe we finally have a bullpen, I don’t know how long I’ve been waiting for that.

But I see the cause and effect you’re talking about: teams want to accumulate as much talent as possible - but the top tier talent will go to the richer teams first because they pay higher salaries - all that’s left are the 2nd tier and 3rd tier guys, and the poorer teams have to make do with that. With a 162 game season, the probabilities play out and the richer teams make the postseason. In the playoffs, the more talent you have, the better your chances of getting through 3 series to the title.

However, a couple reasons why I still stand by what I said earlier about not needing to overpay for production:

1) There are LOTS of 2nd tier guys, and very few 1st tier ones. The 1st tier FREE AGENT guys will always go to the richer teams - that’s a problem, I know, but that’s how baseball is. But with a lot of great players, the richer teams don’t have much room left and take only a few of the 2nd tier guys off the market. This leaves the other teams with decent leftover players to choose from.

2) A lot of the 1st tier players in the league aren’t free agents, they’re still young and in their arbitration years. If a team has drafted or traded well, they can have just as many 1st tier guys as the richer teams.

3) A lot of the 2nd tier free agents are dying to go to the richer clubs for the higher pay. But when many of those guys are looked over, they take lower salaries to go to the other teams. When Ryan Howard becomes a free agent and no one has a need for him except the Royals, and the Royals can only pay 3 mil/yr, then that’s what Howard has to take if he wants to keep playing.

BTW, very satisfying performance from Hamels tonight, after Brett’s stinker yesterday.

SIXERZGUY: There is an article in today’s Daily News online: “Phillies GM Gillick says Hamels will get his due in time”. The article gives an overview of both sides of what we are talking about with regard to overpaying or making sure the club is only paying for productivity.

PETE: Thanks. I asked for another opinion because I’m having difficulty getting my mind around the Myers situation. I agree that between Myers and Eaton, Myers has the better chance of turning it around. It is also true that Myers has bullpen experience which could come into play. The confusing part is that 1) Myers did not want to go to the bullpen last year and only agreed when the Phils promised he would stay there all year. 2) As it turned out, Myers performed well as the closer and said over and over how he loved it. 3) After last season when the Phils got Lidge and the topic of moving Myers back into the rotation came up, he was very much against it. 4) If he were to go back to the bullpen, as you say, he would not be the closer.

All of this complicates his situation. Would he even agree to go back to the bullpen in a non-closer role? If not and he continues to struggle, aren’t the Phils handcuffed? I wonder where his head is right now and I think the Phils are contributing to his troubles by asking him to move back and forth between the rotation and the bullpen. This is really turning into a big time mess for the Phils.

SIXERZGUY: No, I do not think it would be disastrous if we traded Ryan Howard. In fact it could be beneficial in the long run for the Phils. Look, I love R.H. He seems like a fantastic guy and he certainly is a major contributor to our success. Even with that in mind however, the Phils could make out better overall if they trade him for another valuable piece(say a top of the line starting pitcher, for example).

Here’s the situation with R.H. as I see it:
1) As I have previously stated during this discussion, it appears R.H. is looking at M.Cabrera’s deal with the Tigers as the minimum he would accept which means he’s looking for approx. 8yrs at $20mil per. The Phils seem to have no intention of going that long or that high with him because of a combination of a) they figure there is no way R.H. will continue to be mega-productive for the life of such a long contract and they will end up overpaying and getting stuck with another albatross contract, this one even worse than Burrell’s which finally expires after this year and b) they just flat out cannot afford to do it. In either case there is no way the Phils keep him, so they certainly should explore moving him. We would certainly miss his production. You’ve got to figure his replacement wouldn’t put up quite the same numbers, but then again R.H. isn’t putting up quite the same numbers now, is he? Still, depending on what the Phils get in return, there’s a good possibility that the productivity we get will more than make up for any loss from R.H.’s absence.

There are many ways the Phils could go if they decide to move R.H. The most obvious route would be to get a bona fide top of the rotation starter. Not only would it strengthen the rotation but it would also put less demands on the bullpen, strengthening it in turn. Another way would be to get a premier outfielder to take over left field after Burrell is gone. Heck, if Burrell is reasonable we can sign him to a new deal and have him play first base. R.H. doesn’t really remind anyone of Keith Hernandez out there, so how much worse could Burrell possibly be?

It seems to me that the Phils are going to let this play out for a while and I think that’s the smart way to go. R.H. has two more arbitration years, meaning he is not going anywhere. While the Phils certainly are not wishing for it, if his productivity slips it is quite possible that he will be forced to lower his contract demands either in years or dollars or both and the Phils will be able to keep him. If he keeps putting up eye-popping numbers over the next two years it 1) helps the team a lot, possibly getting us to the WS, 2)cements the fact that there is no way the Phils can keep him, and 3) increases what we will get for him in return with any trade we make.

As far as Griffey, if it was a cheap, short-term commitment and he was part of a 4-man outfield rotation, I would be ok with it. Anything else, no thanks. I am not interested in giving up anything of value and paying a pile of money to a guy on the downslide who’s been consistently injured for something like the last 7 years. It’s way too risky for me.

Maybe it’s just me, but a three homer, 8 RBI night by a Phillie seems to be the type of thing a Philadelphia sports blog would write about. Mostly, I’m just glad he’s on my fantasy team. I just thought he was Werth a mention.

bski, quick initial response - please please please let there be someone out there stupid enough to trade us quality starting pitching for Ryan Howard

SIXERZGUY: You never know. Some teams are loaded with pitching and really need offense. Maybe a national league west team would be willing. Bonus, they are out of our division so we wouldn’t have to face Howard 19 times a year.

bski, watch the game, like I’ll be doing soon! lol…

PETE and SIXERZGUY: Rod Barajas(who made me sick last night) ties in to our previous discussion about Pat Gillick and how he rates as a GM.

It drives me bananas when GMs and managers go by “the book”. You know what I mean, “the book” that says you must always go right-right or left-left with your pinch hitter or relief pitcher regardless of what the numbers tell you. In this case Gillick went by “the book” when he brought in Barajas last year. Coste was very productive in 2006. He proved he could play well at the major league level. He was rewarded with a demotion to AAA. The Phils decided they needed a backup catcher with “big league experience”. They placed a higher value on Barajas’ “experience” than on the production Coste put up right under their noses, even though Coste’s production proved he was the better player. So the Phils blow $3 million ($2.5 million for 2007 + a $500,000 buyout for 2008) on a guy that gave us 4hr and 10rbi in 48 games and didn’t even play after the all-star break. The Phils called up Coste and once again he played well. It seems like the Phils have finally learned their lesson since they decided to go with Coste this year, who again is producing. Even after last year, Barajas still catches on with another team and remains in the league. It makes you wonder how many other guys out there are like Coste. Guys who are better players but never really get a shot because they are blocked by lesser players with the “big league experience” that teams value so much. Coste did get his shot but this was after 12 years in the minors. Still even when he got his shot and produced, he got sent back to AAA. He had to get two shots at the big league level and prove himself twice before the Phils finally believed in him enough to make him the backup catcher.

That’s what I was saying before. It should be all about production. If you spend money for production, you are ok. Garcia was a big mistake but at least he was a productive player throughout his career before we got him. Eaton has never shown he was very good. Why we signed him to a big 3 year deal is unfathomable to me. Barajas is another head scratcher. Needlessly spending money on a guy who is significantly less productive than a much cheaper guy you already have is baffling. We should have gotten much more for that money.

All of the reinforces my previous assertion that Gillick just cast a wide net and picked up a bunch of middling players in the hope that a few of them would be productive enough to help us make a run.

SIXERZGUY: When I first started following the Phils as a kid, 30+ years ago, they were not on television very much. Mostly just on Sunday. I grew up listening to baseball on the radio. I always loved Harry and Whitey. As much as I like watching the game, I still prefer listening to it(except not now—I absolutely can’t stand Larry Andersen). I think my main problem with televised games is the announcers have a tendency to talk too much. (plus we have too many announcers for the broadcast). Everybody has to say something and that adds up to way too much talking for me. I can SEE what is going on. All that talking is just sensory overload for me. Most of it really just gets in the way. All you really need is a solid play by play man and a good color man to give player info., give some stats, explain some situations, etc…Vin Scully is flat out fantastic. To me he’s the best there is for baseball. I’ve always liked Joe Morgan. I think he does a good job of identifying situations and explaining them. In the NBA, I think Jeff Van Gundy is fabulous. He gets a little goofy sometimes but he sees everything that is going on, picks out a lot of little “inside the game” types of things, and explains them very well.

As far as Howard I agree with you. As I’ve said here before, I don’t believe the Phils should lock him up now. If I’m the Phils, Howard has got to prove to me that he will consistently deliver mega numbers before I even consider the contract demands he is making. Again, time is on the Phils’ side on this issue. Howard has this year plus two more arbitration years, so he’s going to have to put up big numbers for 3 more years which is no easy task.

Regarding Charlie Manuel and his handling of Burrell and Howard, here’s how I see it. Burrell had his breakout year in 2002. He then had back to back miserable seasons in 2003 and 2004. After that he developed his foot problems. Taking all of that into account, Burrell had no ammunition to back himself in any argument he might have with Manuel over lack of playing time or being benched for stretches. I think Burrell was forced to accept the fact that he was hurting the team and had no grounds to make any demands. He rebounded in ‘05, ‘06, and ‘07 but remember I stated before that early in 2006 Burrell really struggled and Manuel sat him a lot. He bounced back and was very productive in the second half of ‘06. What this all means to me is that Manuel’s approach with Burrell is simple. If you produce you play, if not you sit. Burrell has been in the league several more years than Howard which I think allows him to play well when being used this way. Howard is a different case entirely. His first 2+ years in the league were phenomenal. Way beyond anything Burrell ever did. I think you are right. I think Manuel’s approach with Howard is to show the utmost confidence in him and I think that is ok for now. Even though Howard is 28 he still doesn’t have that much big league experience. Plus I don’t know what his psychological makeup is and whether or not he could handle being used like Burrell is. Based on what he has done so far in his early career, I think Howard does deserve the confidence Manuel is showing in him. I also think he deserves time to work his way out of this. In his defense, Manuel did sit Howard for a few games a couple weeks ago and I think we will see him do it again if Howard continues to struggle. Now if Howard has a lousy year and it continues into next year then I think Manuel has got to start thinking about changing how he uses Howard. If his numbers stay way down Manuel will have to do something and Howard would have no way to object. Manuel could start doing what he does with Burrell. He can pinch run for Howard late in games, take him out for a late inning defensive replacement, sit him against lefties, drop him in the batting order, etc…

As far as the race question, I have no idea. I find the suggestion very disappointing and I hope that Phils fans are not supportive of some players and unsupportive of other players based on race. It is absolutely ridiculous.

SIXERZGUY: Many good posters on Deep Sixer and here as well but the Zo Zone is pretty weak by comparison.

I’m not ticked off about Gavin Floyd either. Pitching is tough. Sometimes it just takes a guy several years to get it together. There have been many more pitchers who have become successful after switching teams at least once(I’m including the minor league level in this) than there have been pitchers who have been drafted, developed and had major league success with one team. Many times pitchers meet up with a pitching coach that works well with them when they switch teams. The new pitching coach can help them develop a lesser pitch or add a new one to their repertoire. You can only stay with a guy for so long before you’ve got to move on.

Let me clear up Giambi for you. He is an admitted steroid user. He used them for years and then got on the Balco regimen. No more ‘roids=severely diminished production.

As for Eaton, he was a little better in San Diego than he is here, but not by much. He spent 6 years with the Padres and 1 with the Rangers and, other than 2005, none of them were all that great. Gillick knew what Eaton was and could not possibly expect him to deliver much more for us. Very bad 3 year deal.