Phils Acquire Pat Neshek

Lucky_Beagle 2016-11-04 23:49:12 UTC #12

mid season trade candidate?

julio 2016-11-05 00:25:24 UTC #13

The "or cash" part is a requirement when there's a player to be named later. It's not always mentioned in the press announcements, but it's a requirement under the Major League Rules - as a backup if the clubs cannot, for whatever reason, agree on the "player to be named later" by the deadline (which is six months after the trade is formalized).

If I had to speculate in this case, my guess would be that the player Houston has targeted is a player who the Phils will not be protecting in the Rule 5 draft, and the final determination about what player (or cash) won't occur until after the draft - and will depend on whether the targeted player is drafted.

Austinfan 2016-11-05 00:41:38 UTC #14

It's not going to be a very good player, he's overpaid and 36 years old, and at best a 7th inning pitcher.
Had a great year in 2014, after wandering in the wildnerness from 2008 to 2013, last two years, FIP of 3.94 and 3.68, not exactly exciting.
In fact, this one has me scratching my head, sounds like they're giving up on a few guys and want him as a one year patch.

andyb 2016-11-05 02:10:29 UTC #15

They are not giving up on anyone. They only have a couple of relievers at this point anyway that are reliable. Adding Neshak adds some quality depth. The prospect cost will be minimal if anything. Neshak is a good reliever and they do not have enough of them. Since they will be hard pressed to have a team salary over $100 million this is a good use of their cash. Why waste it? There is a good chance he is productive for them and if they are not competitive will turn into a better prospect midseason. It does not matter that he is overpaid by a couple million. It is a 1-year deal and they have the cash.

Austinfan 2016-11-05 03:09:05 UTC #16

When you give a 36 year old RP a 40 man roster spot (and probably a 25 man spot, when does the option have to be exercised?), you must be dumping some veteran RPs (Garcia?) to make room. It would sure suck to lose Tirado just to keep Neshek.

julio 2016-11-05 03:34:27 UTC #17

Not sure what you're asking/thinking here, Austinfan. Neshek goes on the 40-man roster immediately (it now stands at 32). The 25-man Active roster does not currently exist - it will be set just before Opening Day - and that's totally unrelated to exercising the contract option. As for the contract option, see the Key Dates thread (that is why it's there); options must be exercised by November 7th - Monday. Further, if you read the press release I posted (at the start of this thread), it states that the Phillies have already exercised the option. I didn't write that - the Phillies press office did.

zambonir 2016-11-05 04:07:07 UTC #18

It is basically the same as the Hernandez deal, just a different acquisition method and higher salary. Certainly doesn't mean they are giving up on anyone, there were always going to be some bullpen arms added, even if it's just more Andrew Bailey types, and guys like Garcia, Klein and Araujo have never been locks. I guess you can wonder about Gomez, but since money is no object, no reason not to keep him as well.

His platoon split was bad last year, but not nearly as pronounced over the course of his career. A tiny sample (55 batters) at a position that is always too small of a sample anyway.

zambonir 2016-11-05 04:18:31 UTC #19

I know speculating is (most of) the fun of what we do here, but I'm personally not going to worry about losing Tirado until A) he's left off the list and B) he's drafted. If perhaps before C) he's returned.

They were always gonna add some guys to the 40 via this kind of trade or waiver claims, just like last year. Also, if they do lose a player in the Rule V because of this (indirectly), but then trade Neshek at the deadline for two players, net win (particularly with the four months of work added in).

Other teams were interested in Neshek; it's not completely impossible the Phillies flip him before he even throws a pitch for them.

Trades are definitely going to be more fruitful for them right now; if Neshek was a free agent he wouldn't have wanted to play for the Phillies, and if he did he would have required at least a two-year deal.

donaldorc 2016-11-05 09:00:29 UTC #20

If this is the case, why didn't Houston just trade him? I think they want to throw him into the mix of RP and hope a few stick.

tom81 2016-11-05 12:38:04 UTC #21

We can afford to pick up his salary in a trade for a good prospect and probably Houston can't. I do agree that we probably want to throw him into the mix.

andyb 2016-11-05 14:13:33 UTC #22

The larger point is that we have a lousy bullpen and just added a competent pitcher for little more than cash, which we have lots of. A pitcher on a 1-year deal that has zero impact on the future. A pitcher that had to be acquired at this point because of the need to pick up his option.

Yes we have more 40-man problems than in the past. I actually think we protect Tirado. There are just a bunch of A-level prospects like Tocci and Canelo and Anderson that we will not have to protect because they will not get selected. If we lose a Miguel Nunez the world is not going to end. We'll have to add 3 or 4 more 40-man pieces anyway before we get to Spring Training. Better to slip prospects through the rule 5 than to put them on the 40-man too early.

zambonir 2016-11-05 15:51:24 UTC #23

I said "it's not completely impossible." Just like it's not completely impossible the Phillies trade Velasquez. Presumably the Phillies were most willing to step up and exercise the option, while other teams probably bluffed, hoping the Astros would not pick it up and they could get him for nothing.

I'm sure, if he performs, Neshek will be more valuable in July, when he'll have less money left (which the Phillies can just pay) and teams' are clamoring for relief help. And he has value pitching for the Phillies. But if some team's set-up guy went down with an injury in March, or Klentak was in talks about another deal and a GM expressed interest, ya never know.

andyb 2016-11-05 16:25:44 UTC #24

Houston traded him because he is worth $3-$4 million a year, not $6.5 million. They are salary limited and they can do something better with the $6.5 million. If they did not trade him they would have bought out the option. So they save $500K immediately and get to use the full $6.5 million on something else.

We are different as the $6.5 million is less important to us. Neshek improves our bullpen and it is a modest price to pay for that.

Slinging_Southpaw 2016-11-06 00:38:48 UTC #25

zambonir:

Austinfan:

It would sure suck to lose Tirado just to keep Neshek.
I know speculating is (most of) the fun of what we do here, but I'm personally not going to worry about losing Tirado until A) he's left off the list and B) he's drafted. If perhaps before C) he's returned.

They were always gonna add some guys to the 40 via this kind of trade or waiver claims, just like last year. Also, if they do lose a player in the Rule V because of this (indirectly), but then trade Neshek at the deadline for two players, net win (particularly with the four months of work added in).

Other teams were interested in Neshek; it's not completely impossible the Phillies flip him before he even throws a pitch for them.

Trades are definitely going to be more fruitful for them right now; if Neshek was a free agent he wouldn't have wanted to play for the Phillies, and if he did he would have required at least a two-year deal.

Tirado is doing a pretty good job in the Winter Leagues at staying in a Phillies uniform(3 IP/7BB).

andyb 2016-11-06 01:08:31 UTC #26

The quandary with Tirado is that he has the stuff to move really quickly and be a major league closer (not reliever, closer). Think Roberto Osuna who became the Blue Jays closer out of A+ ball. But the odds of him actually doing that next year are slim as currently he is definitely not ready for the majors.

The protection decision weighs high end stuff against complete non readiness.

Philz08 2016-11-06 16:16:04 UTC #27

A pitcher on a 1-year deal that has zero impact on the future. Not entirely true. I have heard he has a nasty slider. If thats true, perhaps he could teach others on the staff this slider. That would in theory have an impact on the future. Always a bright side

donaldorc 2016-11-06 17:31:06 UTC #28

You must be a half-full sort of guy/gal.

Philz08 2016-11-06 17:53:22 UTC #29

I believe we are on our way up. A good power bat would certainly be of alot of help

BostonRoss 2016-11-07 02:07:13 UTC #30

I'm not all that high in Neshek due to his age and peripherals. His FIP has been well above his ERA for several years. ERA isn't a great stat for relievers who often come in or leave during an inning. The small sample size if innings means that the fate of inherited runners (both by the reliever and those who succeed him in a game) can have a disproportionate effect on ERA.

That said, this is a good move. The downside is very low (unless the PTBNL is significant), and Neshek sure isn't taking anyone's spot (anyone good, anyway). You do have to have a pitcher out there every inning, and it's better not to have to use guys like some of the ones that we've sent out there the last couple of years.

Les229 2016-11-07 03:28:35 UTC #31

I think he will be better than some of the guys that they sent out there this past season. At his age he is stop gap. I don't see him as a potential candidate for closer. He doesn't throw hard enough. If the ptbnl is actually money instead of a prospect, this is a good move. The last month, or so of the season, the relief pitching was pretty brutal. He is a candidate for catch and release, but the Phils haven't had any luck with that ploy the past couple of years.