Minor League Games - Wednesday, July 26, 2017

bkeich 2017-07-27 03:14:52 UTC #18

That is honestly an error on the catcher, one of the worst jobs of tagging a player I have ever seen, but it is awesome. Crawford proves that if you at least try to get to the plate sometimes you can fool the other guy.

mdougherty12 2017-07-27 07:50:52 UTC #19

Wow, Kris Medlen started for Gwinnett.

Fun with Baseball Reference - the 2013 Braves won 96 games, with Jason Heyward, Justin Upton, Andrelton Simmons, and Freddie Freeman combining for ~ 19 bWAR and all 25 or under. The pitching staff included 27 year old Kris Medlen, 25 year old Craig Kimbrel, 22 year old Julio Tehreran, 25 year old Mike Minor, 22 year old Alex Wood, and 26 year old Brandon Beachy (only 5 games due to injury) plus a few more 20-something relievers.

Despite this collection of young talent, the Braves haven't had a winning season since.

Philsmania 2017-07-27 14:08:09 UTC #20

I didn't realize how young all those Braves still were at that point. Their 2014 season didn't end well (big second half swoon) and GM Frank Wren got canned. At that point, the Braves decided what they had wasn't good enough and that it was necessary to blow things up an rebuild. However, that goes to show that as I and others have been saying, the Braves had a lot more assets to work with and cash into even more assets than we did at that same point. Hence, it shouldn't be surprising that their rebuild went much quicker.

allentown 2017-07-27 14:24:05 UTC #21

This is certainly true. Since we need to surpass the Braves to get where we want our team to be, to me this is proof positive that there is ZERO excuse for the Phillies not to go all out in every avenue open to them to add every last bit of young talent that they possibly can. We just haven't been doing that. If, as BigEgypt says money can't possibly be an issue, then what is? Are we just depending on luck to get past the Braves to a WS? We should always be spending as much on international as the rules permit without losing future signing ability permits, we should have been successful players in the over-23, when highly drafted players are declared FA, we should be at the front of the line bidding for them.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-27 14:28:31 UTC #22

Yes A-town....we're depending on luck.

We're not doing anything to get better as you see proof of in the minors.

Your answer so far to catch up with the braves is throw more money at it.

That isn't an answer.

allentown 2017-07-27 14:41:41 UTC #23

And why isn't throwing money at it at least a partial answer? That's the one resource we have in abundance. Why don't you want to use it? By the way, you are giving me nothing but snide. I answer your questions, you don't answer mine. Is it because snide is the best you've got?

I didn't say we aren't doing anything to get better. I didn't say the minors aren't improved. But... the Braves' minors have improved more than ours, despite that. So, the question remains, what are we depending upon to catch the Braves who are stronger at both the MLB and minor league levels than we are? The Braves have a new stadium, they are determined to be the dominant team in the NL.

BTW, the Dodgers are now the dominant team in the NL. They got there by throwing money at the problem of not enough young talent. They spent HUGE in LA.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-27 14:51:11 UTC #24

There is a common theme to a few of those teams ahead of them...their influx came from trading substantial resources to grab multiple prospects. The Yankees and White Sox are two that come to mind.

allentown 2017-07-27 15:03:08 UTC #25

The Dodgers spent a ton of $ in LA. You still haven't answered the question. Why would it be a bad thing to throw $ at the international talent market? So other teams traded substantial resources to add young talent. As you and AF keep saying, we don't have those substantial resources of valuable MLB talent to trade. So exactly what are we going to do to make up for that deficit and pass these other teams.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-27 15:16:37 UTC #26

From the ton of money they spent in LA, where is it on the ML roster?

I'm curious since this is an example of the money bring thrown around...

allentown 2017-07-27 15:25:55 UTC #27

And I'm curious why you continue to refuse to answer simple questions? What is your problem with throwing money at the amateur markets to add young talent? Money is not in short supply for today's Phillies.

There recent signings are going to have to work their way through the farm. These were the fruits of busting allocation on the 16-year old LA market. Why would you expect an instant impact on the MLB roster. These are the guys who will extend the current Dodgers run, both as trade material and future key members of the MLB Dodgers.

If you look at the Dodgers MLB roster, you can see the fruits of past big international spends: Puig, Ryu, Maeda, Urias.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-27 15:29:52 UTC #28

I have no issue...my issue is your theory as to why.

No...it's not money.

If you are unhappy with the philosophy, cool.

Don't make it about money. It's not money.

nycphils 2017-07-27 15:31:13 UTC #29

To me, this is the key and the frustration - the real mistakes were made in the 2012 off season and 2013 when a .500 team, with a clearly downslope and injured Howard, a starting to break down Halliday, a long in the tooth team and a bad bullpen wasn't torn down. THAT'S when we could have gotten prospect hauls similar to what the Yankees and Sox did - Utley was still OPSing at almost .800, Rollins was still around .750, Lee made 30 starts and a 33 y.o. RUiz OPSed .925!

Place the blame there, not that a settled Hellickson trade was scotched by the AJ Preller debacle and klentak didn't have enough time to get a different deal put back together after he had told teams they already had a deal elsewhere. THAT'S the reason for the slow rebuild - we wasted THOSE assets, not Hellickson and Daniel Nava.

andyb 2017-07-27 15:34:34 UTC #30

Most of the Dodgers big LA spending was a couple of years ago and has not hit the majors yet other than Puig and one should probably count Julio Urias. The big spending choices are all over their MLB.com top 30:

Yadier Alvarez, #3 Dodgers, #51 overall
Yusniel Diaz, #6 Dodgers, #88 overall
Starling Heredia, #13 Dodgers
Omar Estevez, #15 Dodgers
Oneill Cruz, #22 Dodgers
Ronny Brito, #26 Dodgers
Carlos Rincon, #29 Dodgers

All of those players were signed as part of their 2015 international haul which got them in the penalty. There are a couple of other international signings from other years also in their top 30. There are a few others from their 2015 signings that also are decent prospects but could not make the Dodgers relatively deep top 30.

What we have never done is had an international spending year where we added 7 top 30 prospects in one haul (and another 5-10 mid-level prospects).

EDmuch 2017-07-27 15:36:22 UTC #31

That slide was an awesome play by JP. Seems that he does have his mojo going again. Good for him and the Phils.

allentown 2017-07-27 15:39:30 UTC #32

Except it's about money to you. You specifically said 'throwing money at the problem isn't the answer'. I've asked you multiple times why throwing money to gain additional young talent isn't at least a partial answer. I guess you haven't been able to think of a sensible response. Ironic, you're making it about the money. YOU don't think they should spend the money internationally.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-27 15:42:31 UTC #33

No, you're the one stating it's about throwing money around...spending more money...we need to maximize the money.

I'm not sure if your response was a ploy but it doesn't work. You are arguing about using more dollars.

Not me. If they used more dollars, I wouldn't say a word.

allentown 2017-07-27 15:49:51 UTC #34

So... you're just going to assume that however many $ they spend on amateur talent is the right amount of $. You won't object if they spend more. You won't object if they don't spend more. But I'm silly to suggest they should spend more. Not a ploy on my part at all. You first said throwing money at the problem isn't a solution. I said money is the one resource we have in abundance, and we should use some of it. You seemed to object to that. Now you're saying if that is what Klentak decides to do, it's great with you. So, bottom line, you just don't want to hear any opinions which are different from what Klentak does.

Austinfan 2017-07-27 16:33:44 UTC #35

The money argument is moot, that was the old FO.
I doubt even if Klentak wanted to, he could have spent the money last year, because those deals were mostly negotiated before he came aboard (including the Cubans, if you're read about the sleazy Cuban player smuggling operation).
And it also limited the value of trading for allocations last year, because the top 50 were locked up by teams committed to overspending (especially the Padres).
Whether we should have done so is now just spilled milk.

This year the Phillies signed more than their share of LA talent, they traded for allocations to do so, while continuing their shotgun approach to LA signings.
"The best of both worlds."

At some point you can't spend more money under the current rules, because once the top 100 are sewed up, a lot of your signings don't require much cash, but they do require a lot of footwork, so spending on scouts and local connections is a better use of money. And even with ten teams out of the running this year, 20 teams were chasing these prospects and the Phillies still got 4 of BA's top 50.

As far as over 23, let's see who becomes available, Phillies are at a disadvantage with Japanese players (who prefer the West Coast and media markets).
There isn't much left to come out of Cuba, so what else is out there?
Even with the Comcast money, it's hard to compete with 2 LA teams, 2 NY teams and Chicago, and Seattle is a big Asian hub.

bigegypt0417 2017-07-27 16:55:42 UTC #36

Your silly to suggest they don't spend more because of money.

julio 2017-07-27 21:33:35 UTC #37

It's not silly to suggest they should spend more. It may be silly (I would tend to agree it is mistaken) to argue that they didn't spend more simply because they didn't want to spend more money - as opposed to because they didn't see anything worth spending more on. The two are not the same.

Also, IMHO, it's pointless to rehash what Wade/Gillick/Amaro did not do to your (or my) satisfaction. They are gone. You cannot fault the current administration for what the prior administration did, or did not do. (You really don't believe it's all Obama's fault, do you? )

You argue that the organization could have spend more internationally.

Under-23 players:

You're not talking about the round that began 7/2/17, because we don't know what they spent - we know they traded for allocation, but not how much. And the cycle's not over - they could still trade for additional allocation.
You're talking about what they spent in the round that began 7/2/16? They spent their allocation, but did not trade for, nor spend additional allocation...so they could have spent how much more? $2.8 million or so. OK, fair point. But I have to agree with others here - there's no evidence that they passed on this expenditure because of budget considerations (lack of funds/unwillingness to spend), as opposed to market considerations (nothing they deemed sufficiently desirable to buy). You could argue that the organization should always spend to the limit, regardless of the quality available on the margins - but that's a legitimate management choice. You may disagree, but I don't think you can impute that's due to stinginess, as opposed to a philosophical difference (e.g.,, we're not spending to the limit just to sign organizational fodder).
Rounds prior to the one that began 7/2/16? Not on Klentak's watch; not relevant to a discussion of Klentak's performance.

Over-23 players: You're really talking about one cycle here. Klentak came aboard in October 2015. In November 2016, the rules changed, and "over 23" became "over 25," so for a period of a couple years, there are few if any such players worth pursuing (an occasional defector).

With regard to the 2016-17 cycle (after the rule change), given the paucity of over-23 talent out there, not already signed, it seems to me that to make a credible argument, you need to name names. Who specifically was out there that the Philles might/should have pursued, but did not?
With regard to the 2015-16 cycle, you have something of a point - although expecting Klentak to start pursuing big-ticket international players as soon as he joined the organization, before he knew what he had, may be asking a bit much. You're also assuming that the in-place scouting organization would be in a position to advise him about such players on Day 1 (e.g., that they had been so tasked by his predecessors), and that he was willing to trust their judgment on Day 1 (would you have been?). So maybe a missed opportunity here... but IMHO entirely understandable.
Anything/everything prior to October 2015? Again, not on Klentak's watch; not relevant to a discussion of his performance.