Where is this team headed based on 2016?

[Austinfan]

Hellickson would be fine as an innings eater, as an experienced pitcher who doesn't throw a lot of FBs he is a decent bet to hold up for a few years, and his changeup means he could remain effective even if his FB loses a little. But he's a #3/#4 at best, and should be paid as such. One year at $17M is ideal 2/30, 3/42, 4/52 is what I'd be offering. Discount each extra year for risk as he hits his 30s.

It's very hard to trade for #1 pitchers, there just aren't that many and teams tend to be reluctant to give them up, and at this point, trading for a #1 over 30 would be foolhardy, look at Lee and Halladay, a guy pitching well at 31-32 is still a ticking time bomb. Remember the Garcia trade - that's what happens when you get impatient. One pitcher isn't going to put them over the top.

When the Rangers traded for Hamels, it was with a contending team and a loaded farm system.
While our farm system is better, it's still a couple years from being that loaded, and we're a couple years from contending.
In the winter of 2018, if we're coming off a 85-90 win season, then you roll the dice.

[bigegypt0417]

It's very hard to trade for #1 pitchers, there just aren't that many and teams tend to be reluctant to give them up, and at this point, trading for a #1 over 30 would be foolhardy, look at Lee and Halladay, a guy pitching well at 31-32 is still a ticking time bomb. Remember the Garcia trade - that's what happens when you get impatient. One pitcher isn't going to put them over the top.

the Garcia trade was incompetence.

[andyb]

You are not going to get Hellickson for 4/52. Those are prices from 2 years ago. He is the top starter in a weak market and he is young and coming off a good season. It will be $15 million a year if we want him. More per year for shorter deals. His price could even approach $20 million a year. At that level we probably pass, though at $15 million it really is not a hard contract to absorb at all.

I strongly disagree that one needs to be coming off an 85-90 win season to trade for a number 1/2 starter. An 81 team team can make the playoffs by adding 5-7 wins. As Allentown said, you always look to make your team better. If we can do it by trading assets where we have other options (Galvis and to a lesser degree Rupp) it is worth thinking about at ANY time.

[EDmuch]

I really cannot see how Galvis and Rupp get you a No. 1 starter. Maybe if you add Williams and Moniak you might get someone interested. Greinke seems to be the only "No. 1" type how would be available at any kind of possible discount.

[allentown]

I really cannot see how Galvis and Rupp get you a No. 1 starter. Maybe if you add Williams and Moniak you might get someone interested. Greinke seems to be the only "No. 1" type how would be available at any kind of possible discount.

As AndyB said, we also could use a #2. Hey, it isn't as if there is no prior history for this. We traded for both Lee and Halladay We didn't trade anyone of Moniak pedigree in either of those deals. The key thing about Galvis and Rupp: they are not untested prospects. They are major leaguers coming off plus seasons. That has great value, for a GM who wants to say he's gotten some immediate help, but also wants cheap and controllable. Perhaps a third guy (a prospect) will have to be included. I'd include Williams if the deal got us a #1/2 in return. I think that deal lines up quite well with what we gave for Halladay or Lee.

A deal like Lee/Halladay isn't often available. It's easier to work such a deal when a team needs to dump salary at a time when most teams are unable to take on salary. We had to unload Lee, fairly cheaply, in order to clear salary to sign Halladay. I am by no means saying a deal such as the one I outlined above is available today or early in the off-season. You need to be ready to spend money, make trades, and add talent at any time, because these deals do become available, sometimes when you are least expecting it, and you can't say 'too soon, I'm not going to spend the big $ or trade young players, until my team has at least 85 wins.' Opportunity doesn't come knocking every day and ignoring it because of some hard and fast rule --- well, IMHO it would be silly.

[andyb]

We should not stress too much on getting a #1. I would take another Velasquez with high end stuff. And we don't have to go down the rabbit hole of saying that "you can't get a #1 for Rupp".

The points on Rupp are as follows:
* He has value as a league average starting catcher
* He is inexpensive (raising his trade value)
* He is potentially replaceable from within (with Alfaro and Knapp).

Add the fact that the team's ability to absorb a $25 million plus salary also has value and you can get a scenario where a Grienke comes at a significant discount. Now Grienke comes with substantial risk because of age and his poor season. But that is exactly why he comes at a discount.

Frankly I would prefer to have Chris Archer. But Archer is going to be more expensive trade-wise even if he does not have the pedigree. He is signed for 3/21 essentially with two modest option years that could be bargains. Archer could be the Cliff Lee type that becomes hugely expensive because he is young, good, and inexpensive. Of course he is 9-19 with a 4.02 so maybe people don't know how good he is. I might give up Rupp plus two of our top 5 prospects not named Crawford for him. He is that good IMO.

[zambonir]

Hellickson sounds halfway out the door. And while it is just the sportswriter talking here, the five year $70 and $80 million deals given to Ian Kennedy and Mike Leake probably are his comps. You can quibble over the talent aspect of it but that's balanced by his age and the weak market. The only thing in the Phillies favor is the market didn't seem to value him in July.

philly.com/philly/sports/phi ... _loss.html

I think most of this discussion today could go in the delusional thread. There is no way the 2017 team is going to sign an expensive veteran closer and I kind of doubt they would touch Chapman with his personal history anyway (and weren't the Yankees better without him?). A clever trade for a starting pitcher would make sense but someone like Greinke is signed through 2021 for an outrageous amount of money. The team is still a year away from making three-year plus commitments of any kind, which is why (again judging from the link above) they will also likely pass on Hellickson.

I think Rupp probably does get traded (assuming they re-sign Ellis or bring in another veteran). Galvis won't be in the off-season, to give Crawford more time (and less service time). There will be another batch of Morton, Bourjos and Hernandez types. They might be upgrades, they might just work out better, they might not. They will get one OF who will potentially be a bigger upgrade on paper, that's never guaranteed.

[Austinfan]

Alfaro isn't ready and is going to spend most of the season in Lehigh.
If they were really thinking about trading Rupp, they would have given Alfaro an extended look.
And if you trade Rupp to get a player to be competitive in 2017, huh? Whose the catcher? Ellis and his .200 BA?
If you trade Rupp for the future, what's the rush?

As far as Kennedy and Leake, Leake was simply better than Hellickson, and more durable.
Kennedy 5 for 70 was an overpay. In his last 5 years starting, he's average 1.1 WAR per year.
However, he's been far more durable than Hellickson.

I think durability concerns will keep anyone from giving Hellickson more than 3 years.

[bigegypt0417]

Alfaro isn't ready and is going to spend most of the season in Lehigh.
If they were really thinking about trading Rupp, they would have given Alfaro an extended look.
And if you trade Rupp to get a player to be competitive in 2017, huh? Whose the catcher? Ellis and his .200 BA?
If you trade Rupp for the future, what's the rush?

If '17 is a non-competitive season you sign a veteran to a 2 year contract. Fairly easy thing to do...

You trade Rupp when he's worth more than he may ever be.

[andyb]

Hellickson has been pretty healthy with only one serious injury in 7 years. He seems beyond that (assuming yesterday was only a tweak). There are much better arguments against Hellickson than durability. He IS durable. He is only a 6-innng pitcher for the most part, but he is pretty durable when you compare him to other 29-30 year old pitchers. More than half of them have a more serious injury history and Hellickson has had 27+ starts in all but one season in his career.

On Alfaro as BigEgypt said, you get a placeholder. I think Alfaro would still win the job at some point next season if they made a trade. And Knapp is also there and it is not like he is awful. Knapp seems to get points for calling games and handling a pitching staff. He had a .719 OPS and threw out 38% of runners in AAA. Rupp was pretty close to that in his age 24 season (755 OPS split between Reading and LHV and throwing out 34% of runners).

The team should not compete at all costs in 2017. It is still more about positioning for 2018. If trading Rupp helps them get there in 2018 (if they see Alfaro as the starter then) it almost does not matter when they trade Rupp. FWIW I'd consider trading Alfaro also. I just think they can get more for Rupp and am willing to roll the dice on Alfaro developing.

[Austinfan]

If you're gonna trade a young starter with only one year of starting experience, odds are he'll be a lot more valuable with two years of starting experience - if you think Rupp or Galvis will flop next year, so do other teams, so right now they're not valuable trade bait (unless you assume you're smarter than all those GMs out there). So there's no rush unless someone makes an offer you can't refuse.

Same with FAs, unless a young FA who is good value to this team comes available, only sign patches who fit with their long range plans.

I've never said do nothing or don't spend, I've always said make moves that have real value down the road and aren't just shuffling players to look like you're doing something, or spend money just because you have it.

TRUST THE PROCESS!!!

[bigegypt0417]

If you're gonna trade a young starter with only one year of starting experience, odds are he'll be a lot more valuable with two years of starting experience - if you think Rupp or Galvis will flop next year, so do other teams, so right now they're not valuable trade bait (unless you assume you're smarter than all those GMs out there). So there's no rush unless someone makes an offer you can't refuse.

Same with FAs, unless a young FA who is good value to this team comes available, only sign patches who fit with their long range plans.

I've never said do nothing or don't spend, I've always said make moves that have real value down the road and aren't just shuffling players to look like you're doing something, or spend money just because you have it.

TRUST THE PROCESS!!!

Cameron Rupp is 28 years old.
Galvis is not that much younger.

Your theory makes almost no sense in that you have everything to lose if they regress. I trust a proces which takes advantage and sells high.

[Austinfan]

You don't have "everything to lose" because their value isn't that high, they don't have proven track records and weren't premier prospects.
So you have limited downside, but substantial upside if they repeat or improve on their performance, because then they'd be proven commodities in their prime years.
Meanwhile, it buys you a year to see if their replacements are actually good enough to start.

If they have more value than I presume, "someone will make an offer they can't refuse" and they'll be traded.
But if you don't get that kind of offer, there is no reason to trade them just to make a deal.

[zambonir]

If you're gonna trade a young starter with only one year of starting experience, odds are he'll be a lot more valuable with two years of starting experience - if you think Rupp or Galvis will flop next year, so do other teams, so right now they're not valuable trade bait (unless you assume you're smarter than all those GMs out there). So there's no rush unless someone makes an offer you can't refuse.

Same with FAs, unless a young FA who is good value to this team comes available, only sign patches who fit with their long range plans.

I've never said do nothing or don't spend, I've always said make moves that have real value down the road and aren't just shuffling players to look like you're doing something, or spend money just because you have it.

TRUST THE PROCESS!!!

Trading Rupp would be the process. Including the part where it might make the team worse short-term. But if you are prepared to go with Ellis and Knapp (followed by Alfaro) you have to hope Ellis bounces back (a big hope, given his age and position).

Even in the age of analytics, GMs are not a monolith, and different team have different needs. Just because Klentak may or may not have decided Rupp is not the team's future (on a team that isn't looking to make the postseason until 2019) doesn't mean another GM might like him.

I just think the repeated media hints regarding Rupp, from the public questions about his pitcher-handling to the trade speculation is a case of smoke=fire. My argument is not that the Phillies should or shouldn't trade Rupp, it's that they will. Certainly could be wrong.

[andyb]

I do not think they would want Ellis if the role might be that of a starting catcher. He fits as a backup to Rupp, not Knapp. If they traded Rupp I think they bring in someone younger on a short deal. Of course Alfaro or Knapp could have a great winter and change some thinking, but most teams take a safer approach and have more redundancy at catcher than at other positions.

[EDmuch]

Maybe the one they trade, as part of a package, is Knapp.

[kmc1019]

Does anyone have an explanation as to why Alfaro has not been playing more or receiving more at-bats? It seems to me we are wasting valuable opportunities and development time by having him sit on the bench and watch. I understand and agree that he is ticketed for Lehigh next year, but that is no reason for not playing him more now.

[Philsmania]

While it definitely makes sense to sell high on Rupp, Galvis and, I would add, C. Hernandez, the question is whether other organizations are as sold on them and their value as we are. Right now, they've all just had one good season and, as a result, haven't really proven themselves in terms of consistently performing at a good level. In contrast, Giles was effective for two seasons, albeit mostly in a set up role.

[Philsmania]

Does anyone have an explanation as to why Alfaro has not been playing more or receiving more at-bats? It seems to me we are wasting valuable opportunities and development time by having him sit on the bench and watch. I understand and agree that he is ticketed for Lehigh next year, but that is no reason for not playing him more now.

See also, "Why Gomez being sent out there for every last save opportunity instead of Neris?"

[Austinfan]

Alfaro because they don't think he's ready, and they brought him up to give him a taste of ML baseball and because a 3rd catcher is a nice luxury to have around.

Gomez is closing because Pete is insane (or Gomez has compromising picture of Pete with an intern of either sex).