To my very uneducated eye, it looked like pitch-tipping might be a concern with him.

That number doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. He got destroyed. It doesn’t tell us why.

very good post.

Agreed. I basically stated the same over on the fangraphs comments for the article. You can take a look at it from Philly’s side, they made the playoffs and he contributed to two wins thus far in the playoffs (team wins not player wins), but there is nowhere near to enough information regarding what will come of the prospects, as you said , its really years away before we will really know.

Mao supposedly said, when asked about the consequences of the French revolution: “It’s too soon to tell.”

But, of course, you’d be less likely to write such a spirited defense of the long-term if Carrasco had pitched like Neftali Feliz.

Sorry, 2 players in very limited time in Cleveland. (Marson)

It’s a theme they are working on.

yes. this.

Disagree. I think the article is the same regardless of whether it uses batting average or WARP or whatever you want to use.

The issue is using any type of statistics without any meaningful application.

Thank you. Gotta say, though, it’s strange considering that Hulet covered the Indians deals in significant detail as they were happening, and generally with favorable views.

After the deadline, he ranked all 35 prospects that were traded, and the Indians did quite well by his ranking, especially considering the flak they’ve caught:

1. Wallace (A’s, for Holliday)
2. Poreda (Padres, for Peavy)
3. Bell (Orioles, for Sherrill)
4. Hagadone
5. Knapp
6. Alderson (Pirates, for Sanchez)
7. Carrasco
8. Stewart (Blue Jays, for Rolen)
9. Marson
10. Roenicke (Blue Jays, for Rolen)
11. Barnes
12. Price

16. Graham
20. Donald

A few notes about this:

• The Indians acquired fully half of the best 12 prospects swapped.
• The Lee deal in particular (in bold) nabbed 3 of the best 9.
• Hulet also notes four very young major leaguers who were swapped (Masterson, Richard, Hart, Clement). While you can make an argument about long-term value, the Indians definitely got the guy who (a) is the youngest by more than a year, and (b) who contributed most at the big-league level in 2009. So we got the best “young player” in addition to the #4 and #12 guys on that list.
• Even the least of the Indians’ acquisitions, Graham and Donald, were basically at the median on this list.
• Where is the love re: Garko for Barnes? Hello?
• Hulet is not even counting the DeRosa deal, which went down a month earlier, and which he loved. No question that Perez and Todd would break the Top 15, giving the Indians 8 out of the best 15 in among a list of 35.

Obviously, the Phillies have done very well for themselves, as the Brewers did a year ago. That is not a bad thing for the Indians; in fact, it’s a good thing. It has enhanced the reputation of the Indians for sending players to the NL who crush everyone. Yet this seems idea to confuse Hulet when he focuses on short-term stats. When he looks at just the prospects as prospects, he seems to think the Indians did quite well.

what don’t you understand? he spent 1 paragraph stating amaro was smart to not trade for halladay for turning down a request for the moon. he spent 1 saying how cliff did since the trade and 2 on how the prospects did. then proclaims:

That’s not a whole lot for the 2008 Cy Young award winner.

and drives it home pointing out how the indians were also forced to kiss their sister by surrendering ben freaking francisco, too. that they have better options at catcher and middle infield, intimating depth is pointless. also, knapp and carrasco aren’t superstars yet, but cliff lee is.

I don’t understand all of the criticism of the criticism of the trade

Because in this particular case, the “conclusion” of the author’s critique is entirely based on the way he chose to look at. A reigning Cy Young winner was traded for four guys, only one of whom had even a cup of coffee of major league experience. Two months later there is no possible way that comparing the performance of the respective parts is going to give you an appropriate view on the success or failure of the trade. Criticizing the trade is fine, but not using the approach Marc does. A proper criticism might try to look assess the current and future projected value of the pieces involved (I believe Victor Wang did something like this at THT), or try to assess the value of what the Indians got relative to what was possible (and in this trade deadline, no bigger package of guys were sent, so nothing better may have been possible), or try to consider the trade from a broader performance and economic standpoint of the two clubs. This article chooses option D, look at the numbers, which frankly is stupid.