So they got Halladay in a deal without giving up their best prospect (Brown)...then turn around and resign the major piece of that trade in a year (Lee).

 

 

Yeah, sounds like they have no idea what's going on... :lol:

 

Did they not give up players for Oswalt? Did they not come out and say they had no chance to re sign Lee so they traded him? If they thought so highly of Lee why did they trade him at all?

Ruiz had a career year at age 31. Rollins may bounce back, but he hasn't hit since 2008. Ibanez is 38 and in decline. Polanco is 35 and in decline. Victorino is still a decent player, but he is 30 and will likely start to lose some of his production. Howard, who averaged nearly 50 homers per season from 2006-09, hit 31 a year ago.

 

All indications are that the lineup is in decline.

 

Seems to me it's in decline and they lost their best right handed hitter who was arguably their best overall hitter from last year.

Edited December 16, 201015 yr by SSC

There's no doubt that their lineup is in decline. Jimmy Rollins has not been the same player for the past 2 seasons or so. A lot will depend on how Brown steps in.

 

I will say that Polanco & Ruiz do not scare me at all. Howard strikes out a ton and Rollins has struggled. The key to the Phillies lineup was Rollins & Victorino getting on base. When that happened, they were brilliant. When it doesn't happen, they're beatable.

An argument could be made that this move helps their bullpen too. It will limit the innings needed, and Philly has Madson & Lidge in the 8th/9th. Assuming Madson doesn't throw a temper tantrum and Lidge can get the ball over the plate, the bullpen shouldn't be a huge issue. How often will Halladay, Lee, Oswalt, Hamels be leaving before the 6th or 7th? Not very.

Ruiz had a career year at age 31. Rollins may bounce back, but he hasn't hit since 2008. Ibanez is 38 and in decline. Polanco is 35 and in decline. Victorino is still a decent player, but he is 30 and will likely start to lose some of his production. Howard, who averaged nearly 50 homers per season from 2006-09, hit 31 a year ago.

 

All indications are that the lineup is in decline.

 

I'm not really sure how you can say their lineup is in decline.

 

Like you said, Ruiz had a career year last year. Clearly not in decline

 

Rollins will be what he is. 15-20 hr and a .270 hitter. That's basically his career line. He was injured all last year so it's pretty had to base anything off that. It's hard to ask for more production out of that from SS today.

 

Ibanez is in decline. Still a solid option, IMO.

 

You can make an argument for Victorino if you really want based on his stats last year. I'd be willing to bet he bounces back to his career averages next year.

 

Polanco was pretty spot on his career averages last year.

 

Howard is in decline based on his stats. But he's still one of the top 1B in the league. Not really sure that's a decline.

 

Their lineup might be getting up there in age, but in decline? I don't think so. Just my opinion. And it's all relative to what it's being compared to anyway. A lot of players numbers have dropped since 2006. Overall league numbers for offense have dropped since then.

 

They can be in decline in your mind, if that makes you feel better. But the fact is, they are still a top offense in the NL.

Did they not give up players for Oswalt? Did they not come out and say they had no chance to re sign Lee so they traded him? If they thought so highly of Lee why did they trade him at all?

 

Probably to get the best pitcher in baseball...

I'm not really sure how you can say their lineup is in decline.

They've got a lot of guys that are aging and not likely to get better, and they just lost the guy that was their most productive hitter last year.

 

Like you said, Ruiz had a career year last year. Clearly not in decline.

He had a career year at age 31. There is no reason to think his production won't decline in 2011, and that is the season we are discussing.

 

Rollins will be what he is. 15-20 hr and a .270 hitter. That's basically his career line. He was injured all last year so it's pretty had to base anything off that. It's hard to ask for more production out of that from SS today.

He played 155 games in 2009 with an OBP of under .300 and that happened after he turned 30. His production dropped farther in some ways last season. That probably isn't a coincidence.

 

Ibanez is in decline. Still a solid option, IMO.

As he declines further, he will get to the point where he isn't. Considering his age, that can happen at anytime.

 

You can make an argument for Victorino if you really want based on his stats last year. I'd be willing to bet he bounces back to his career averages next year.

He's now 30, which means a decline is just as likely as a bounceback.

 

Polanco was pretty spot on his career averages last year.

He's 35, and his numbers have declined in the last four years. They will likely to continue to do so.

 

Howard is in decline based on his stats. But he's still one of the top 1B in the league. Not really sure that's a decline.

You say he's in decline based on his stats, then say you're not sure. Which is it?

 

Bottom line ... two years ago, he was a perennial MVP candidate. His numbers weren't MVP-caliber last year and he is in his early 30s. Yes, he is likely in decline.

 

Their lineup might be getting up there in age, but in decline? I don't think so. Just my opinion. And it's all relative to what it's being compared to anyway. A lot of players numbers have dropped since 2006. Overall league numbers for offense have dropped since then.

You don't think age matters?

 

They can be in decline in your mind, if that makes you feel better. But the fact is, they are still a top offense in the NL.

It's not about feeling better ... it is about looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion. If you want to make an argument to the contrary, go right ahead.

 

I didn't say they still didn't have one of the league's best offenses, but given the loss of Werth's production and the fact that most of their lineup is over 30, a decline is very likely.

Probably to get the best pitcher in baseball...

They already had him when they traded Lee ...

They already had him when they traded Lee ...

 

You really think Lee is better than Halladay?

You really think Lee is better than Halladay?

I didn't say that ... they could have had both Halladay and Lee. They had them both at one time and didn't have to trade one to get the other.

They've got a lot of guys that are aging and not likely to get better, and they just lost the guy that was their most productive hitter last year.

 

He had a career year at age 31. There is no reason to think his production won't decline in 2011, and that is the season we are discussing.

 

He played 155 games in 2009 with an OBP of under .300 and that happened after he turned 30. His production dropped farther in some ways last season. That probably isn't a coincidence.

 

As he declines further, he will get to the point where he isn't. Considering his age, that can happen at anytime.

 

He's now 30, which means a decline is just as likely as a bounceback.

 

He's 35, and his numbers have declined in the last four years. They will likely to continue to do so.

 

You say he's in decline based on his stats, then say you're not sure. Which is it?

 

Bottom line ... two years ago, he was a perennial MVP candidate. His numbers weren't MVP-caliber last year and he is in his early 30s. Yes, he is likely in decline.

 

You don't think age matters?

 

It's not about feeling better ... it is about looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion. If you want to make an argument to the contrary, go right ahead.

 

I didn't say they still didn't have one of the league's best offenses, but given the loss of Werth's production and the fact that most of their lineup is over 30, a decline is very likely.

 

Last time I check age 30 was still in your prime for baseball. 33-34 is when decline starts. Not at 30. I guess we'll see how their offense does this season...

I didn't say that ... they could have had both Halladay and Lee. They had them both at one time and didn't have to trade one to get the other.

 

It was a 3-way trade. They didn't have them both at the same time.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/14/phillies.halladay.lee/index.html

It was a 3-way trade. They didn't have them both at the same time.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/14/phillies.halladay.lee/index.html

They didn't have to deal Lee ... they could have easily kept them both. If they had, they may not have needed Oswalt and his salary.

Last time I check age 30 was still in your prime for baseball. 33-34 is when decline starts. Not at 30. I guess we'll see how their offense does this season...

Most studies show a player's prime in the 27-29 range, perhaps extending to 30. A lot of players decline once they hit 30.

They didn't have to deal Lee ... they could have easily kept them both. If they had, they may not have needed Oswalt and his salary.

 

But they did trade him in the deal to get Halladay, so what you had previously said was pointless.