General Discussion

California_Dreamin 2017-05-31 03:47:21 UTC #561

I know all about the if/ands/buts of baseball but I can't help but observe what outfielder Derek Fisher and first baseman Josh Naylor are doing in the minor leagues and speculate oh just how close both of them came to joining the Phillies.

Suffice it to say that both are having monster offensive seasons and both were reportedly thisclose to becoming Phillie property. Fisher was actually involved in the initial Giles to Houston deal but reportedly the Phils got worried about Velasquez's arm issues [gee, wonder why they worried about that?] and substituted Appel for Fisher.

As for Naylor, the reports were that the Phils had a deal for him to come over from Florida for Hellickson at the deadline last July after the Naylor to SD deal fell apart when the commissioner got involved and encouraged the Marlins and Padres to re-work the deal, which they did. Frankly, I never did understand why the commissioner got involved and why this didn't irritate the Phils seeing as they were intent on moving Hellickson and would have garnered the 12th player selected in the 2015 draft.

Murphy's column today insinuates that one of the biggest reason's for the Phils slower than a tortoise move back up to respectability is their lack of quality young depth and by losing out on both Fisher and Naylor, this seems like another case. Appel looks quite problematic, VV may simply not have the ability to throw a baseball with injuring his arm and Hellickson is pretty much a wasted asset on a team with the worst record in baseball.

And I doubt that the team will garner a player with more potential than Naylor at this year's deadline, though we will have to see on that one.

California_Dreamin 2017-05-31 03:51:09 UTC #562

By the way, I am suddenly a SD Padres fan...they seem the only team likely to contest the Phils for the honor of having the worst record in MLB in 2017. While we are rightfully speculating on who the Phils might get with the 8th pick in the June 2017 draft, does anyone know if the 2018 draft is supposed to be a strong one or is it another one with no definite "star" material draftee on the horizon [like a Harper was]?

Austinfan 2017-05-31 04:42:08 UTC #563

Mostly lower cost international free agents.
I was surprised when I looked at rosters of winning teams, there aren't a lot of big money LA players on their rosters for the most part, there's a few teams, but not many.
Quick look at 2012 signings - BA top 20:

Jairo Beras OF - $4.5M, flop, in A+ hitting .228
1. Franklin Barreto 2B - $1.45, AAA with .841 OPS but .404 BABIP, RC+ 117
2. Luis Torrens C - $1.3M, Rule 5 claim, couldn't stay healthy
3. Jose Mujica P - $1M, jumped to AA this year, nothing special so far (4.4K/9 IP)
4. Alexander Palma OF - $800K, .712 OPS in A ball in 2016, yet to play this year
5. Gustavo Cabrera OF - $1.3M injured in 2014, has never recovered
6. Jose Castillo, P - $1.55M, struggling in A+ ball
7. Luiz Gohara P - $800K, didn't do much until 2016, then traded to Atlanta, just promoted to AA
8. Carlos Belen 3B - $1M, struggling in A ball
9. Luis Castro SS - $800K, failed physical
10. Wendell Rijo SS - $575 ($1.1M offer before he blew an ACL), still struggling in A ball
11. Amed Rosario SS - $1.75M, AAA with .912 OPS (Las Vegas) but .398 BABIP, RC+ 138
12. Amaurys Minier, SS - $1.4M, never got past rookie league
13. Richard Urena SS - $725K, struggling in AA
14. David Rodriguez, C - $600K
15. Deivi Grullon, C - $575, in Clearwater
16. Julio de la Cruz, 3b, $700K, never got out of rookie ball
17. Jose Almonte P - $610, pitching well in A+ ball
18. Sergio Alcantara, SS, - $700K, A+ ball, .678 OPS, RC+ 92
19. Frandy de la Rosa 2B - $700K, A ball, .761 OPA, RC+ 117
20. Jose Pujols, OF - $540K

Point is there are only a few legitimate prospects on this list, Rosario is ranked 8th on BA's 2017 top 100 list, Barreto 14th.
Francisco Mejia, 28th on BA's list, and Reynaldo Lopez, 31st, weren't on the top 20 list that year

Another way is to look at the top 100 list and see how many are LA signings:
2. Yoan Moncada (Cuba) $31.5M - 2015
5. Gleyber Torres (2), $1.7M - 2013
8. Amed Rosario (11), $1.75M - 2012
11. Ozzie Albies - $350 - 2013
13. Victor Robles - $225 - 2013
14. Eloy Jimenez (1) - $2.8M - 2013
15. Francis Martres - ??? - 2012
18. Rafael Devers (3) - $1.8M - 2013
20. Vladimir Guerrero (1) - $3.9M - 2015
21. Anderson Espinoza- $1.8M - 2014
24. Manuel Margot - $800K - 2011
26. Yadier Alvarez - Cuba $16M - 2015
28. Francisco Mejia - $350K - 2012
31. Reynaldo Lopez - $17K - 2012
40. Franklin Barreto (1) - $1.45M - 2012
41. Jorge Alfaro - $1.3M - 2010
47. Leody Taveras (3) - $2.1M - 2015
49. Raimel Tapia - $175K - 2010
53. German Marquez - $225K - 2011
54. Franklin Perez (15) - $1M - 2014
67. Ronald Acuna - $100K - 2014
73. Lourdes Gurriel - $22M - Cuba 2016
80. Sixto Sanchez - $35K - 2015 (just noting that AJ Puk is ranked 83rd)
98. Adrian Morejon - $11M - Cuba 2016

What jumps out is bifurcation among LA signings, either they're top international prospects with big bonuses, i.e. top guys who'd be first to second round picks (given their bonuses), or low cost players with bonuses a few hundred K or in a few cases, 5 digit bonuses, but not a lot of guys in between. This suggests the 2nd tier LA players tend to be overrated, and spreading that money around is more efficient. Sign top guys or a lot of guys, but skip the 2nd tier guys.

LA is important, but the draft is more important. Around 70% of the top prospects (more if you exclude overage Cubans) come out of the draft.
And most of the top 20 LA signings flop, a much higher rate than the 1st rd, and even the 2nd round of the draft.
2012 is a one year snapshot, but the big bonus was a flop, the #1 ranked player was a hit, #11, and two guys who were afterthoughts, the other 18 ranked players have yet to make it.
So good scouts and beating the bushes is as valuable as spending lots of money.

zambonir 2017-05-31 05:30:24 UTC #564

It's hard to figure out what's wrong with Franco. This can't just be hitting the wall, pitchers catching up to him, not adjusting.

Someone will also have to explain to me why Matt Stairs is supposedly good at his job. (I am not saying he isn't, but he is currently presiding over a bigger short-term train wreck than the pitching coach).

His .393 OPS when ahead in the count is the second-worst since 1988 - the season Baseball Reference began tracking balls and strikes data - among batters with at least 65 plate appearances. He registered a .933 OPS last season when he was ahead in the count.

BostonRoss 2017-05-31 11:35:37 UTC #565

To me the problem isn't that the Phillies traded more WAR than they received. I suspect that's true of all sellers, even those that have maintained success. The problem isn't that they just didn't draft enough talent. That is a problem regardless of the trades. I think that both you and Murphy are getting at that.

andyb 2017-05-31 12:24:19 UTC #566

That list of current top 100 prospects seems filled with high priced Latin American signings. I imagine the next 100 would be also since many top LA prospects are signed so young that they need a few years to make those types of lists.

If your point is that LA prospects are riskier than draft prospects - of course that is correct. But LA prospects had no effective limit on spending. And the Phillies had lots of money and chose for years not to take advantage of that. The draft has always had more limits even before the pools came into effect.

Larger point is that 25%-30% of top prospects come from Latin America, like the overall share of MLB players. More money spent on those prospects will get you more of those prospects. Even if mid-level ones are more efficient. Teams need to get both mid-level and top-level prospects, especially if spending were virtually unlimited.

In short, this is yet another long list with a flawed premise. Spending more money on LA prospects gets you more and better prospects. Your own lists proves that. Everyone strives to sign the Sixto Sanchez prospects. But those are often a combination of luck and skill. If you don't spend money you generally fail. Mentioning Sanchez is kind of a misnomer. Are you saying as a GM you should sign only prospects for less than $100K? That is kind of what you are implying and it is a ridiculous strategy.

Nobody 2017-05-31 13:13:26 UTC #567

This is what I was talking about when I was complaining (and sometimes ranting) about the Phillies mostly miserable Draft and LA efforts from 2004-2007, and 2009-2015.

Even the great club from 2006 to 2011 took 10 years to build mostly thru the Draft. And even then the Phillies got incredibly lucky to have guys like Rollins, Utley, Hamels, and Howard fall to them in the draft.

Being at the right place at the right time is a big part of this. It's the difference between having the chance to draft Bryce Harper #1 overall vs Mickey Moniak. Going forward the Phillies are going to need skill AND luck (being at the right place at the right time and making the right decision).

Frankly, while I am very happy the former Front Office members are finally gone after 30 years of mostly general incompetence, I agree with Allentown that the Phillies are still not aggressive enough with their amateur talent acquisition strategy. Although the caveat is that many opportunities the Phillies used to have available to them have now been eliminated (unlimited Draft and LA budgets, etc)

It isn't a good situation, and after this organization dug themselves into a giant hole (crater really) by spending less in the Draft and LA than probably any other team in MLB from 2004 thru 2012, there is no easy way out of this. This franchise is still probably another 3 years away from even being just merely consistently competitive. That's assuming they get lucky along the way.

This is not intended really as a criticism. I am not even angry anymore like I used to be. That time period when something could have been done to correct course has passed. Now I am just resigned to how difficult a true rebuild is.

Austinfan 2017-05-31 13:28:52 UTC #568

The one bright spot is that drafting seems to have improved considerably since 2012, they're not only donig better with 1st rd picks, they're ifnding players in the top ten rounds:
2012: Cozens, Pullin, Perkins (who's made some adjustments and is shining this year), Anderson (21)
2013: Knapp
2014: Hoskins [but Imhof/Brown/Oliver is a pretty pitiful 2nd to 4th rd group]
2015: Kingery [Wiliams/Martin bad use of 2nd/3rd rd picks] Fanti (31)
I'd still like to see more effort to upgrade the scouting, they're finding more legitimate prospects, but still too many prospects who can't eve get out of A ball successfully

The point I'm making on LA is the focus shouldn't be on top 20 or top 30 lists, outside of the top 3 or so, it all comes down to scouting, both quality and quantity (money, because there's a lot of ground to cover to find hidden gems). Due to paucity of information (young age, lack of quality and visible competition) and higher variability, the tail flattens faster than in the amateur draft. Which also suggests the reason to trade for allocations is if you have a shot at the top few players, after that, it's not worth trading a real prospect to get money to sign more second tier guys. "Go big or go home." However, there is no limitation on money spent on scouts and facilities.

flyers19rw 2017-05-31 13:28:53 UTC #569

How can a scout predict what a fourteen to sixteen year old can be at age twenty-three? They're lucky if they can project an eighteen year old's future. However that is what MLB is dealing with in LA.

Philsmania 2017-05-31 13:35:32 UTC #570

Clemson sophomore OF Seth Beer is getting a great deal of buzz. With a name like that, Philadelphia would LOVE him. Tank for Beer!

Also, are saying that you are no longer a Phillies phan?

Austinfan 2017-05-31 13:40:28 UTC #571

Yep, that's why the curve (probability of success) flattens out so fast after a couple "can't miss" prospects.
In the amateur draft, it's easier to identify the long-shots and they get pushed down the curve.

What's interesting is the bonus curve in LA is far more erratic, suggesting teams are making commitments before they know how good these kids will probably be, and in the 1-2 years between the commitment and when the kids are actually signed, there's a lot of change in the pecking order.

andyb 2017-05-31 14:18:25 UTC #572

Your problem is that you keep making this point to argue that the Phillies should not spend more money. We already spend a lot on scouts. We already have the network to find prospects like Sanchez. We already have good facilities. It is not like anyone on the board is arguing against this.

What we are saying is that the Phillies have not taken advantage of opportunities (including this year to trade for additional allocations) to spend more money in Latin America. That is indisputable. If Sal had more money he'd spend it on more or better prospects. Your argument says nothing about that. Or you are saying that the Phillies should not bother spending money competitively in Latin America because it is all a waste. Sometimes it is hard to discern what your argument is since you avoid the major point that the Phillies could be spending more in Latin America and you seem to dismiss that spending more might get them better players.

Patchmk88 2017-05-31 14:19:43 UTC #573

The thing that kills me is that his K rate has gone down and his BB rate up (a little - although it has slowed during his recent slump). I haven't watched many games lately (too depressing), but when looking at statcast he seems to hit the ball with an exit velocity over 90 mph more times than not. His situation really perplexes me.

Other than him though, Herrera has taken a significant step back. Joseph is streaky as usual - we'll say he looks better but that is yet to be seen, Hernandez is having a similar output to the end of last year, Rupp has stayed about the same, and so has Galvis.

I agree with you. Not sure why everyone is giving Staris credit. Our two young stars have gotten substantially worse and the rest of the team is pretty stagnant. It is a sad time for watching the MLB team.

allentown 2017-05-31 14:35:55 UTC #574

You keep arguing either/or and a false either/or at that. You say LA kids are very young, under-developed physically, and thus unpredictable, so it's dumb to spend big money on bonuses. You've said quantity over quality is the way to go. But... the Phillies aren't set up to emphasize quantity. Most MLB teams have 2 LA development teams, which means they have exactly the same number of players under contract, so except for the laggard organizations with only 1 LA team, there is no difference in quantity. There could be a difference in having an extra low-level rookie team in the states, as at least one organization does, but the Phillies haven't done that, so again no quantity advantage.

Yes, big $ signings can flop, but they have a higher chance of success and stardom than the low-cost signings. Your list proves that -- it is not loaded with low-$ signees, so quantity has not trumped quality. You can do both, just as you do in the draft. You have big-$ draftees, but that doesn't prohibit doing a good job of finding gems (often just middle relievers or bench guys, but sometimes an Altherr or Howard) in rounds 5 to the end of the draft.

You seem way overly hung up on the concept of $ efficiency, when the Phillies are currently awash in $ and the goal needs to be to maximize talent not maximize $ efficiency. It's also a tad ironic that you are such an ardent proponent of the theory of signing guys like Saunders, Kendrick, Benoit, Hendrickson, Burnett and on and on to flip for prospects, when recent history has shown that approach to be the least $ efficient way to add talent for the rebuild. It is as if you are stuck in a very old paradigm in which a team could flip an old, not-all-that-good Larry Anderson for a future All Star. That approach hasn't worked for the Phillies. The further irony is that the Phillies had ample $ to follow your preferred approach and also spend 50% more on international under-23 talent, AND be big players in the over-23 international market, AND sign a primo FA.

Austinfan 2017-05-31 14:40:15 UTC #575

Franco's struggles I think are more the league adjusting to him, and him not adjusting back.
He's been feed a steady diet of sliders, mostly low and away, and he can't keep from chasing them.
I think Stairs is trying to help him, but sometimes the player is just brain dead (Franco works hard from all reports, but like Galvis, he can look good for an AB or a day, then reverts to swinging from the heels - and that's exactly what Stairs is trying to stop him from doing).

Herrera's problem is the league adjusted to him as well, too many moving parts to hs swing, and pitchers figured out it kept him from reacting fast enough to inside fastballs, so second half last year started to pound him inside and that has continued. He is a bigger problem in the sense that he needs major restructuring of his swing.

Joseph has had a heck of a May, if that continues the rest of the year, he's going to post big numbers.
.994 OPS, .314 ISO, 9.2% BB, 20.4%K, BABIP .317
Now whether he can sustain that is the question. But he's still relatively inexperienced, so some inconsistency is to be expected.

Rupp is frustrating, he's improved his plate discipline, both walks and fewer swings at pitchers outside the K-zone, but it hasn't helped his hitting.
His platoon split has gotten worse to the point that Knapp may get the majority of starts hitting LH.

With a lineup full of young hitters, patience is counseled. I mean look at Yelich, would you give up on him b/c he's hitting .248?
I think Stairs has a good idea what he's doing, the team has become more patient at the plate, but some young hitters are struggling with the adjustments the league is making to them. That's the problem with a young team, one reason teams with players 25-30 are more consistent is you've weeded out the players who couldn't adjust to what the league did to respond to their early success.

Part of rebuilding is cycling through a bunch of players until you find a core group that can maintain sustained success.
Unfortunately, that process can be painful to watch firsthand.

andyb 2017-05-31 14:42:31 UTC #576

One can be efficient with dollars in Latin America and still spend more. If I had an extra $2 million I would probably prefer to split it among more $300K-$500K bonuses if we were shut out of the top prospects. If we did not have enough relationships with mid-level prospects I'd throw it at a Cuban or two. It is not an excuse really to say that we are too late in locking up deals though. Sal has been doing this for 20 years. If he knew he had extra resources going in he would plan accordingly.

Austinfan 2017-05-31 14:46:08 UTC #577

Reading comprehension is a lost art, it seems.

"Go big or go home."
Pretty obvious to me, sign the biggest money guys or spread the money around a lot of players, because the second tier guys just aren't worth their money.
That's a strategy, not a recommendation not to spend. With the caps now in place, even if you pick up additional allocations, if you blow that allocation on a couple second tier guys instead of spreading it around, you might as well just burn it. Because after a few top talents, the odds of success drastically fall off. So just ignore those top 20 or 30 lists of LA talents. Even a year after you make a commitment, it's impossible to rank these players.
It simply reflects that most 15-16 year olds, outside of a few exceptional talents, are too hard to predict. Which 15 year old DR pitcher will add 40 lbs by 20 and 6 MPH to his fastball?

And the Phillies have realized that, their worst signings have been the guys like Pujols and Encarnacion, now they spread their money around on athletic IFs and pitchers, players more likely to "blossom" unexpectedly rather than try to identify the right 15 year old hitters who've never seen a serious breaking ball.

andyb 2017-05-31 15:06:15 UTC #578

You have not made a case that the second tier guys are not worth the money. Do they fail more often? Yes. But that is because they are 16 and they have a higher variability in outcome. Second tier guys do succeed more often than the unknown guys. Pujols was a second tier guy BTW. Encarnacion probably is a mistake, but he was barely a million so not exactly a top tier guy. But if we double the number of players we sign in the $500K-$1 million category (which requires more money) we then increase the shot of developing more prospects.

We have had some success among these second tier guys. Carrasco for one. The three SS we signed a few years ago (Gamboa, Arauz, Brito) have all had some degree of success to make me think they were worth signing.

There is not a reading comprehension problem here. You are arguing to spend less money. I am arguing to spend more. Efficiency is about how you spend the money, not how much. We have always spread bonuses around and I am fine with that. We just did not spend $2.8 million internationally unless something drastic happens in the next 16 days. Those slots would have cost us very little to acquire (frankly Asher could have been dealt for all of Baltimore's slots). We chose not to and that is a mistake and a missed opportunity.

Austinfan 2017-05-31 15:17:18 UTC #579

You make blanket statements with no support: "frankly Asher could have been dealt for all of Baltimore's slots."
We have no idea who Klentak has talked to about allocations. Teams may hold onto to them because no one is offering enough to offset their "option" value.

2nd tier LA prospects now go for $1-2M. Remember, 2nd tier is the players after the first 2-3 top prospects, the falloff in talent is that drastic. In the states, the long tail would finish HS, go to college and move up the draft.
Phillies have been signing prospects below that 2nd tier, going for multiple players who didn't garner as much interest (cost as much).
One reason I think the top 20 or so get overpaid is many teams don't want to invest in scouting so they focus on a smaller pool of players, who then get overbid.
And players who mature physically at an early age probably get overbid as well, despite less upside (odds are an earlier maturing kid will have less future physical development, growth isn't linear but occurs in spurts).
A "late bloomer" in LA is a kid who doesn't show anything until age 15-16 (i.e. 1st year of HS in the states). By which point a lot of prospects have already been committed and there's less money available.

Again, the most important money you spend isn't bonuses, but on buying the right scouts, whether LA or the states.
Focusing too much on how much you spend obscures that it's more important how well you spend, or look at all the bad 1st rd picks the Phillies made last decade.

andyb 2017-05-31 15:34:00 UTC #580

Your argument would only make sense if anyone was saying the Phillies should not spend money on things like scouts and facilities. You have yet to come close to any coherent argument that says spending less money will get you better players.