to everyone–i dont care if sabathia was a rental or not, or harden was too risky–the bottom line here is that you have a world series caliber team that lacks a number 2 pitcher—so sabathia comes here, wins the world series and then goes to the yankees, are we really that upset that we finally win our first championship in 25 years?? my attitude is win at all costs!!—or we will slowly see the window close just like we have with the eagles—sure they will be competitive, but not championship caliber teams without a #1 wideout or a number 2 stud in the rotation…

bski—gotta ask ya bud—how the mets looking at the all star break??

It is a very interesting article about deadline deals. It has several quotes from GM’s that give you some insight into their thinking. Stark shows that the headline grabbing deals rarely make a big difference, especially when you are talking about a pitcher. Position players make a bigger impact. Also, the GM’s seem to favor the mid-level type deals. They say that you can help your club a lot more overall with these types of moves. And of course you hear, “Many times, the best deals are the ones you don’t make.” Anyway, it’s an informative read.

As far as the Phils are concerned, we’re better off not having gone after either Sabathia (too costly for a rental) or Harden (too risky). There is no way you can figure that a guy like Harden, who’s been on the DL 6 times in 6 years, is going to stay healthy from here on out.

Actually, I think staying away from any stud Oakland starter(maybe the bullpen guys as well) is the way to go. Since Oakland knows they don’t have the money to keep these guys once they become free agents, I think they ride them hard while they’ve got them. I don’t think they are trying to run them into the ground with total disregard, but they certainly are not going to be as careful with their studs as we are with Hamels, for example. We want to keep Hamels for a long time, so we are going to err on the side of caution with him as much as possible to make sure he’s around for a long time. Oakland doesn’t need to be concerned about this because they can’t afford to keep their guys around a long time. Plus, if you use them heavily, they pitch more innings and stay in games longer, which helps them get a few more wins. When you have a guy who has thrown over 200 innings and gotten 15-18 wins each year for several years, it increases his value. Everyone thinks the guy is a horse, when what he really is is on the verge of a breakdown. I have no direct proof of this, of course. But when you look at the big 3 from the early 2000′s: Zito, Mulder, and Hudson, you start to get suspicious. Each of them tallied around 220 innings per season year after year. Zito has been a disaster in San Fran, and looks pretty used up. Mulder has been injured frequently. In fact, he just came back last night against us and lasted only 1/3 of an inning and threw about 15 pitches before he got injured again. Hudson has been the most successful by far, but he has battled injuries as well.

It really could be nothing, but I just don’t see Oakland having any long term concern about their stud starters. It’s all about getting max productivity in the short term and raising their trade value as high as possible. Oakland gets all the prospects in return while the other team must deal with the fallout from the pitcher’s excessive workload.

Gotta disagree with you. Burrell was very good, as in, perhaps the best hitter in the NL, for the second half of last season. He has become more disciplined at the plate, and I don’t think a contract will prevent him from continuing that. I wouldn’t give him more than 3 years, and certainly nothing close to his previous contract, but if he leaves, we have a gaping hole in our line-up for RH power bat.