Where is this team headed based on 2016?

[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).

[allentown]

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.

Cameron Rupp is not old. He's like 24 in catcher years. This was his age 27 season, and he will have almost 400 MLB ABs. Carlos Ruiz didn't approach 400 AB until his age 28 season. Galvis isn't old either. This was his age 26 season. He should just be entering his prime years. Both of these guys could have the best 4-5 years of their careers ahead of them. This season likely one of top 5 for each of them, but it is reasonable to hope for/expect four more of roughly the same quality.

[andyb]

They are not playing Alfaro every day because this month is more of a reward for him than anything else. Rupp is the starter and deserves to continue playing 2/3 of the time. There will be plenty of time for Alfaro to get at bats later on.

[andyb]

Cameron Rupp is not old. He's like 24 in catcher years. This was his age 27 season, and he will have almost 400 MLB ABs. Carlos Ruiz didn't approach 400 AB until his age 28 season. Galvis isn't old either. This was his age 26 season. He should just be entering his prime years. Both of these guys could have the best 4-5 years of their careers ahead of them. This season likely one of top 5 for each of them, but it is reasonable to hope for/expect four more of roughly the same quality.

Generally agree with that though there is not much statistical evidence that catchers last longer than players at other positions. The mental demands of the position do mean that it sometimes takes a couple of extra years for them to make it. The downside is that they then age quickly once they hit age 30 or 31. So while Rupp certainly looks positioned to have 4 or 5 more decent years, he could also be positioned for a relatively short career.

Galvis is also young enough where he could improve, but his situation is a little different than Rupp. His power this year is out of character with his past. His walk rate has also not improved as he added power. Power is up all over the league among players with marginal past power, so I am not sure this is anything more than an blip that is not sustainable. Hitters that have made true improvements tend to see increases in the walk rate or decreases in their K rate. Galvis is the opposite with fewer walks this year and many more strikeouts (103 last year, 136 so far this year). Galvis looks like he is swinging for the fences and leagues adapt on players with that approach all the time.

Both players have some value now. Rupp just seems the one where it is a little more sustainable.

[Austinfan]

Have you watched Galvis? Franco has a far more exaggerated swing with his helmet falling off.
Galvis actually has a pretty balanced swing, though once he got to 20 HRs he started focusing more on making contact to raise his BA.
Not saying Galvis will be a great hitter, he doesn't have the eye, but .700-.750 OPS is looking sustainable if he maintains his swing mechanics. And with his defense, that's a 3-4 WAR player.
Thing is he has to repeat it next year to be valued at that level.
In which case he'd be a very valuable trade piece in winter 2017.

[andyb]

Have you watched Galvis? Franco has a far more exaggerated swing with his helmet falling off.
Galvis actually has a pretty balanced swing, though once he got to 20 HRs he started focusing more on making contact to raise his BA.
Not saying Galvis will be a great hitter, he doesn't have the eye, but .700-.750 OPS is looking sustainable if he maintains his swing mechanics. And with his defense, that's a 3-4 WAR player.
Thing is he has to repeat it next year to be valued at that level.
In which case he'd be a very valuable trade piece in winter 2017.

Franco has more talent and can get away with that approach. He walked more and struck out less this year. Galvis is as good a bet for a 575 OPS as a 750 OPS. He is at 1.3 WAR this year. I think you are the only person on the planet who sees a 3-4 WAR player. Galvis' power is likely because he changed his approach. Why do you criticize every single other player with a bad BB/K ratio but not Galvis? Rollins got away with an aggressive style because he walked twice as much and struck out 50 times a year less. With Galvis the league is far more likely to make an adjustment to him that he can't handle.