Why Can't We Get Jason Michaels?

[NorthsideAvenger]

Here is the facts:

 

Michaels have been with the Phillies on a significant basis since 2002 (2001 he had a couple of coffee witht the team). And since 2002 here is the list of players the Phillies have trotted out to CF (excluding Michaels):

 

Doug Glanville

Ricky Ledee

Marlon Byrd

Eric Valent

Kenny Lofton

Endy Chavez

Shane Victorino

 

Two things: If Michaels couldn't beat the best of the scrubs that are on this list, what does that tell you about Jason Michaels: The ballplayer? And second: If Philly is willing to settled for Arthur Rhodes for Jason Michaels, what does that tell you about Michaels VALUE as a ballplayer. Now, his numbers are impressive, but apparently other teams were not knocking on the door to get Michaels, and that has to raise concerns about a player's value.

 

Look people here are overrating Michaels. Michaels played in one of the most friendliest players for a hitter, and he still only put up 1 homerun in 131 at-bats at home. Again his numbers are impressive, but apparently not impressive enough for other team GM's to want him badly.

 

Think about it:

 

The MARLINS need a CF, but they didn't talk about Michaels, sriously.

The ORIOLES needed a CF and settled for Corey Patterson.

The ANGELS needs a CF, but are prepared to put Erstad back in CF.

The Yankees needed a CF, and overpaid for Damon.

The Red Sox needed a CF, but elected for Coco Crisp.

 

You see where I am going....There were alot of teams needing a CF, but none seriously considering Michaels...hmm...I wonder why that is? :-k Outside of the numbers of prospect used to get him, I am fine with Pierre.

[CubinNY]

Here is the facts:

 

Michaels have been with the Phillies on a significant basis since 2002 (2001 he had a couple of coffee witht the team). And since 2002 here is the list of players the Phillies have trotted out to CF (excluding Michaels):

 

Doug Glanville

Ricky Ledee

Marlon Byrd

Eric Valent

Kenny Lofton

Endy Chavez

Shane Victorino

 

Two things: If Michaels couldn't beat the best of the scrubs that are on this list, what does that tell you about Jason Michaels: The ballplayer? And second: If Philly is willing to settled for Arthur Rhodes for Jason Michaels, what does that tell you about Michaels VALUE as a ballplayer. Now, his numbers are impressive, but apparently other teams were not knocking on the door to get Michaels, and that has to raise concerns about a player's value.

 

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Here is the facts:

 

Michaels have been with the Phillies on a significant basis since 2002 (2001 he had a couple of coffee witht the team). And since 2002 here is the list of players the Phillies have trotted out to CF (excluding Michaels):

 

Doug Glanville

Ricky Ledee

Marlon Byrd

Eric Valent

Kenny Lofton

Endy Chavez

Shane Victorino

 

Two things: If Michaels couldn't beat the best of the scrubs that are on this list, what does that tell you about Jason Michaels: The ballplayer? And second: If Philly is willing to settled for Arthur Rhodes for Jason Michaels, what does that tell you about Michaels VALUE as a ballplayer. Now, his numbers are impressive, but apparently other teams were not knocking on the door to get Michaels, and that has to raise concerns about a player's value.

 

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization.

 

Again, you're defending the decision making of an organization that just replaced it's GM as the basis of the argument.

[RockTheIvy]

Maybe Michaels has a drinking problem...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Maybe Michaels has a drinking problem...

 

Not quite drinking...

[Blueheart05]

Maybe Michaels has a drinking problem...

 

and anger problems. Of course, there are other players with similar problems who manage to function well on the field.

[CubDad4Ever]

No your missing the argument , more than obp for a player who has not show great power , defense or been put in the line up everyday to prove he can hold a smaller sample size , is not valued for good reasons by many orgnizations to the same level you would. Case in point for valuing metrics. Theo (sabermetric friendly man) Bill James , BoSox are about to sign a ss who is worse offensively than Nefi Alex Gonzales, all they write about and rave about is his defense . James in more thank one book( i have read ALL his books) talks about valuing defense and more than one stat To really understand a player. I used this because again if its Michaels available as a backup and platoon guy (and we could get him) fine. But the slappy - dusty- nefi talkers are making themselves one deminsional critics. God Bless Coach L.

[abuck1220]

As far as steals not being important , please, the single most important turning point in the 2004 run for the BOSOX was roberts steal off lights out in game 4 of the series against the Yanks.

 

my goodness, am i sick of hearing about that stupid steal. people act like the red sox stole their way to 100 wins and a world series that year. enough already. of course, the 'yay for steals!' crowd seems to forget that he was pinch running for a guy who got on via a WALK.

[CubDad4Ever]

As i am , for people who cant get there are many ways to evaulate and then subevaluate based on situation. God Bless Coach L

[RynoRules]

Here is the facts:

 

Michaels have been with the Phillies on a significant basis since 2002 (2001 he had a couple of coffee witht the team). And since 2002 here is the list of players the Phillies have trotted out to CF (excluding Michaels):

 

Doug Glanville

Ricky Ledee

Marlon Byrd

Eric Valent

Kenny Lofton

Endy Chavez

Shane Victorino

 

Two things: If Michaels couldn't beat the best of the scrubs that are on this list, what does that tell you about Jason Michaels: The ballplayer? And second: If Philly is willing to settled for Arthur Rhodes for Jason Michaels, what does that tell you about Michaels VALUE as a ballplayer. Now, his numbers are impressive, but apparently other teams were not knocking on the door to get Michaels, and that has to raise concerns about a player's value.

 

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization.

 

Again, you're defending the decision making of an organization that just replaced it's GM as the basis of the argument.

 

I mentioned this in the other thread and received no reply:

What about the fact that over the last three or so years, no other org. has been beating down the doors to get Michaels? If he's so underutilized yet so valuable, why haven't other fwd-thinking teams put togethr a deal for him? The argument that Bowa, Manuel and Wade misused him does not explain this.

 

EDIT:

 

BTW, CubsDad is not my twin and I don't have a second user name. O:)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

No your missing the argument , more than obp for a player who has not show great power , defense or been put in the line up everyday to prove he can hold a smaller sample size , is not valued for good reasons by many orgnizations to the same level you would. Case in point for valuing metrics. Theo (sabermetric friendly man) Bill James , BoSox are about to sign a ss who is worse offensively than Nefi Alex Gonzales, all they write about and rave about is his defense . James in more thank one book( i have read ALL his books) talks about valuing defense and more than one stat To really understand a player. I used this because again if its Michaels available as a backup and platoon guy (and we could get him) fine. But the slappy - dusty- nefi talkers are making themselves one deminsional critics. God Bless Coach L.

 

Are you reading the arguments? Michaels is a better defender than Pierre, he gets on base more, he hits for more power, he does just about everything better than Pierre. It's not one dimensional at all.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Here is the facts:

 

Michaels have been with the Phillies on a significant basis since 2002 (2001 he had a couple of coffee witht the team). And since 2002 here is the list of players the Phillies have trotted out to CF (excluding Michaels):

 

Doug Glanville

Ricky Ledee

Marlon Byrd

Eric Valent

Kenny Lofton

Endy Chavez

Shane Victorino

 

Two things: If Michaels couldn't beat the best of the scrubs that are on this list, what does that tell you about Jason Michaels: The ballplayer? And second: If Philly is willing to settled for Arthur Rhodes for Jason Michaels, what does that tell you about Michaels VALUE as a ballplayer. Now, his numbers are impressive, but apparently other teams were not knocking on the door to get Michaels, and that has to raise concerns about a player's value.

 

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization.

 

Again, you're defending the decision making of an organization that just replaced it's GM as the basis of the argument.

 

I mentioned this in the other thread and received no reply:

What about the fact that over the last three or so years, no other org. has been beating down the doors to get Michaels? If he's so underutilized yet so valuable, why haven't other fwd-thinking teams put togethr a deal for him? The argument that Bowa, Manuel and Wade misused him does not explain this.

 

EDIT:

 

BTW, CubsDad is not my twin and I don't have a second user name. O:)

 

There's a multitude of reasons why a player isn't traded. Teams asking too much, offering too little, etc. The lack of Michaels being an everyday player isn't proof he is incapable of handling it, or that there is something wrong with him. That's just faulty logic.

[CubDad4Ever]

As is the assumption , he can produce the same numbers full time, a large difference by the numbers or by anyones logic who has competed in competitive athletics. God Bless Coach L

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As is the assumption , he can produce the same numbers full time, a large difference by the numbers or by anyones logic who has competed in competitive athletics. God Bless Coach L

 

This is ridiculous. The guy had around 350 PA's each of the last two seasons. He's not some specialist who only sees the light of day in certain situations. It's a greater assumption that he'll somehow fall apart with an extra 150-200 PA's than to assume he'll stay productive, and not fall apart for reasons that no one is able to provide, other than "there's a reason Philly never started him".

[RynoRules]

Here is the facts:

 

Michaels have been with the Phillies on a significant basis since 2002 (2001 he had a couple of coffee witht the team). And since 2002 here is the list of players the Phillies have trotted out to CF (excluding Michaels):

 

Doug Glanville

Ricky Ledee

Marlon Byrd

Eric Valent

Kenny Lofton

Endy Chavez

Shane Victorino

 

Two things: If Michaels couldn't beat the best of the scrubs that are on this list, what does that tell you about Jason Michaels: The ballplayer? And second: If Philly is willing to settled for Arthur Rhodes for Jason Michaels, what does that tell you about Michaels VALUE as a ballplayer. Now, his numbers are impressive, but apparently other teams were not knocking on the door to get Michaels, and that has to raise concerns about a player's value.

 

No one ever said the Phillies were a smart organization.

 

Again, you're defending the decision making of an organization that just replaced it's GM as the basis of the argument.

 

I mentioned this in the other thread and received no reply:

What about the fact that over the last three or so years, no other org. has been beating down the doors to get Michaels? If he's so underutilized yet so valuable, why haven't other fwd-thinking teams put togethr a deal for him? The argument that Bowa, Manuel and Wade misused him does not explain this.

 

EDIT:

 

BTW, CubsDad is not my twin and I don't have a second user name. O:)

 

There's a multitude of reasons why a player isn't traded. Teams asking too much, offering too little, etc. The lack of Michaels being an everyday player isn't proof he is incapable of handling it, or that there is something wrong with him. That's just faulty logic.

 

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

[CubinNY]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

What I'm saying is that when you have an organization as ineffective recently as the Phillies and who just fired their GM, using their action or inaction as justification(and to this point the ONLY justification) to devalue a player is faulty.

[Blueheart05]

As is the assumption , he can produce the same numbers full time, a large difference by the numbers or by anyones logic who has competed in competitive athletics. God Bless Coach L

 

This is ridiculous. The guy had around 350 PA's each of the last two seasons. He's not some specialist who only sees the light of day in certain situations. It's a greater assumption that he'll somehow fall apart with an extra 150-200 PA's than to assume he'll stay productive, and not fall apart for reasons that no one is able to provide, other than "there's a reason Philly never started him".

 

At the very least, Michaels will get 200 more ABs in 2006 if he plays full time. Assuming he hits near the top of the order, he should expect an additional 300 plate appearance than his 289 last year. By comparison, Crisp had 594 ABs in 2005.

 

I'll be curious to see how he performs for a full season.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Blueheart05

[RynoRules]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

 

Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't?

 

My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it? It can't be all about the Phils. If he's so good, someone would have made an offer that they could not refuse.

Edited January 23, 2006 by RynoRules

[Transmogrified Tiger]

As is the assumption , he can produce the same numbers full time, a large difference by the numbers or by anyones logic who has competed in competitive athletics. God Bless Coach L

 

This is ridiculous. The guy had around 350 PA's each of the last two seasons. He's not some specialist who only sees the light of day in certain situations. It's a greater assumption that he'll somehow fall apart with an extra 150-200 PA's than to assume he'll stay productive, and not fall apart for reasons that no one is able to provide, other than "there's a reason Philly never started him".

 

At the very least, Michaels will get 200 more ABs in 2006 if he plays full time. Assuming he hits near the top of the order, he should expect an additional 300 plate appearance than his 289 last year. By comparison, Crisp had 594 ABs in 2005.

 

I was just upping the total to qualifier status, which is 500 PA's to my knowledge. It wasn't any type of prediction.

[CubinNY]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

 

Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't?

 

My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it?

 

Lot's of things in life don't make sense. Why did the Cubs sign a back-up SS to a 2.5 million dollar contract?

[RynoRules]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

 

Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't?

 

My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it?

 

Lot's of things in life don't make sense. Why did the Cubs sign a back-up SS to a 2.5 million dollar contract?

 

Is your point that Michaels' situation doesn't make sense? If so, I agree. Which leads me back to my original point; the sensible thing would be one of the following:

1) Play the guy every day; or

2) trade for him and play him every day.

 

It sure does not make sense that neither of these things has happened. Therefore, its reasonable to think there is something about him we do not have knowledge of. Its possible that there isn't, but there's enough evidence, IMO, to suggest that there is.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So your argument is that no one has traded for him b/c either the Phils asked too much or the other teams offered too little, which is essentially to say that the Phils are dopes and are the reason he was not traded during his 20's?

 

Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Isn't it possible that he is just more suited for and productive in the 4th OF role?

 

No. That sounds like a reasonable assumption based on known information. What I bolded is a self-fulfilling prohecy. It is Dusty logic.

 

Its not really. Its the role he's been for years with the Phils. Could n't they be right and/or know something we don't?

 

My point isn't that Michaels is not an attractive optiion; he is. Its that it just does not make sense that he hasn't been used more often or traded to a team that recognizes his potential. If we "know" it, why hasn;t someone else picked up on it?

 

Lot's of things in life don't make sense. Why did the Cubs sign a back-up SS to a 2.5 million dollar contract?

 

Is your point that Michaels' situation doesn't make sense? If so, I agree. Which leads me back to my original point; the sensible thing would be one of the following:

1) Play the guy every day; or

2) trade for him and play him every day.

 

It sure does not make sense that neither of these things has happened. Therefore, its reasonable to think there is something about him we do not have knowledge of. Its possible that there isn't, but there's enough evidence, IMO, to suggest that there is.

 

You have to understand that this is a weak argument though. When you first found out about Michaels, did you first see why he got the playing time he did? Of course not, most(if not all) people rightly look at performance first. This is a case of moving way down the list of things that you can find wrong in a player, and making inferences about the player based on situations out of his control, and under control of inept management.

[CubDad4Ever]

I will say again it apparently makes more sense to many fine organizations in baseball , to pay a nefi like ss money (a gone, everett, cabrera) Like i said , im in your dish on michaels , because you only value on base, even in an underpowered,non centerfielder type with 250 pa to go to prove he has value beyond 4th outfielder status. If he can only play corner of , he has even further to go. People are rightly valuing defense more and more in the post steriod era , it affects pitching greatly, unless your whiffing every guy. That being said Michaels would be a great 4th of . and like Nefi a great insurance policy , who will not kill you starting . The difference is Nefi plays a more critical position. I dont want nefi in the hall . I dont want him batting leadoff , I would prefer him not starting at 2nd. But if he has to start at ss . He wont be the reason we dont make it to the series. God Bless Coach L

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I will say again it apparently makes more sense to many fine organizations in baseball , to pay a nefi like ss money (a gone, everett, cabrera) Like i said , im in your dish on michaels , because you only value on base, even in an underpowered,non centerfielder type with 250 pa to go to prove he has value beyond 4th outfielder status. If he can only play corner of , he has even further to go. People are rightly valuing defense more and more in the post steriod era , it affects pitching greatly, unless your whiffing every guy. That being said Michaels would be a great 4th of . and like Nefi a great insurance policy , who will not kill you starting . The difference is Nefi plays a more critical position. I dont want nefi in the hall . I dont want him batting leadoff , I would prefer him not starting at 2nd. But if he has to start at ss . He wont be the reason we dont make it to the series. God Bless Coach L

 

You really aren't reading the responses, are you?