General Discussion

allentown 2017-06-15 16:38:13 UTC #781

But... we could have spent 50% more, without breaking the rules. All it costs is $ -- perhaps a couple of truly marginal prospects, but I suspect you find a team willing to do it entirely for a pile of cash. Really, I think most teams would prefer the pile of cash to the marginal prospects.

Austinfan 2017-06-15 17:02:21 UTC #782

What would we have spent that money on?
Teams rarely trade allocations early, because they don't garner significant value in prospects and have option value.
And the top guys were locked up a year ago or longer, so you'd have to make those deals last July to be able to spend the money.
There's not much evidence we were constrained from signing anyone we wanted, since once you get past the first 10-20, bonuses rapidly decline. So we had plenty of money to sign lots of $200K deals.

We should have followed SD's example years ago, but that's water under the bridge.

andyb 2017-06-15 17:12:04 UTC #783

More players that require more than $300K to sign? You just have a losing argument here. There were players available early and late (especially from Cuba). Allocations were inexpensive with so many teams in the penalty. Allocations could easily have been traded for in early July because a vast majority of signings come at the beginning of the period.

A spread the money strategy (with mid-level bonuses going to more players) works better with more money.

allentown 2017-06-15 18:28:20 UTC #784

I don't know what 'option value' is. There were quite a few teams this year who were barred from spending on expensive LA talent this year and couldn't possibly spend their allocation. Anything they get in trade for allocation is more than they would otherwise have.

You keep making the 'just right' argument, which is the same argument that apologists for the owners/GM always made when the team didn't break slots in the draft. It's build upon this fantasy conversation between the owner/GM and the scouting director. Owner to GM: "I want to do whatever it takes to strengthen the farm and speed up the rebuild. I promised that to our fans. I'd like to double your budget for acquisition of amateur talent. Just extra money for you to spend, you don't have to take it from your MLB salary budget. I really want to win!"
GM to owner: : "I'll ask our scouting and international directors, Sir, but I'm skeptical. The last time I spoke to them, they each told me that they were able to sign every single player they were interested in. There wasn't another guy out there who could possibly have helped us. They said that you could lay your fortune at their feet and they couldn't find anyone to spend that money on who could possibly speed the rebuild."
Owner to GM: "I'm serious about spending whatever it takes to build a winner. FA, buy a contract from another team, Cubans, Japanese... just tell me how large a check to write. Please, do check with the scouting directors."
Scouting directors to GM: "No, I told you this before! I don't want any more money! There isn't a Cuban or a Dominican out there whom I'd want to sign, if I had all the money in the world. I've filled our Dominican rosters with the best players I can find. I'd just be giving a $million or $400K to a lesser player than one I've already signed. Please, please, please don't force me to buy an expansive flop. Let the other teams waste roster spaces on those useless, over-priced, nothings."
GM to Scouting Directors: "Ok, I here you, it just seems odd that our base allocation and no money for Cubans and Japanese players just exactly matches the optimum amount for you to spend."
Scouting Director to GM: "Why would you be surprised. The Commissioner always knows best. If there was value in giving us a higher allocation, he would have given us a higher allocation."

Austinfan 2017-06-15 18:50:42 UTC #785

Why weren't those allocations traded left and right?
If they had no value, why didn't those teams give them away?

I can think of two reasons:
1) option value, so we're restricted to $300K, I got a long list, if no one is offering anything of value, I don't want to chance that I might lose a guy or two b/c I gave away half my allocation, so I'll wait until I know who we can sign
2) restricting competitor's spend, if they don't have more money, they can't bid up players above $300K, why should I help my competitors?

andyb 2017-06-15 19:08:55 UTC #786

A half dozen of the allocations were traded. The reason more were not was because there were fewer buyers. If you did not have a large allocation to start with then you could not trade for much more or enough to make a difference like signing a $2 million Cuban. With the largest allocation however the Phillies were about the only team where additional allocations would let them play in the Cuban market.

I also am confused about what exactly your point is on the option value. Teams selling allocations really don't care about the market. Frankly they might be the ones giving players $300K who only deserve $200K. They never had a shot at the better prospects anyway.

teabag259 2017-06-15 19:19:00 UTC #787

Re: Hellickson I heard a segment on MLB radio back in early to mid May and they discussed his "imminent" trade. The one guy (maybe Duquette) commented that he felt Hellickson's strong start was likely smokevamd mirrors because his K per 9 innings numbers were like half of what they were a year ago. He simply isnt missing many bats anymore. I fear that this is going to end up yet another case where the Phils hold onto a veteran too long and his value subsequently falls through the floor.

zambonir 2017-06-15 20:42:08 UTC #788

Nobody was really gonna acquire Hellickson in May (and they certainly weren't going to pay anything that reflected his April performance). He still has some time to bounce back. His true trade value has probably never changed at all over the past two years, when the Phillies got him for very little. Only his salary has.

The Roberto Hernandez trade is still the comp for me. If it's less than what they might have gotten last year (including the comp pick) that would be a bummer, but you do have to assign some value to the actual innings he pitched for the team too (good bad or otherwise). If they were hoping he'd magically look like a #2 starter this year and reap a huge return, that was probably a bad gamble, but nor was there reason to think he'd become (or is) worthless. The bet they lost was definitely the comp pick. It may be a bet Hellickson lost too.

Austinfan 2017-06-15 20:59:14 UTC #789

Hellickson - at best a #3/#4 starter, at worst a #5 innings eater and not that good at that (6 inning pitcher), he didn't have a lot of value, and the problem with the comp pick is no one was offering him a multi-year deal. Phillies could afford a one year deal, and didn't see getting enough in trade to compensate for losing a veteran bridge to young pitchers during a rebuild. His value may be zero if he doesn't turn it around, but they got lucky with Hernandez, this might be more like Bastardo.

Allocations - if you have $3M and a list of $300K guys you want to sign, you probably aren't going to trade $1M or so in allocations until you know if you can sign everyone you want, because the prospect you'll get back is so marginal, you hate to miss out on a couple signings because you traded that allocation (option to sign additional players) prematurely. But if you wait to trade, the allocation has less value because the expensive prospects have been locked up. I think you'll see a more vigorous allocation market this year because teams can't overspend, so those dollars have more value to teams that want to play heavily in LA, and teams that don't want to invest in the scouts, etc. to go beyond the obvious prospects will look to garner decent 2nd and 3rd tier prospects for their allocations. As the market becomes more predictable, it will settle around an equilibrium value that is related to the amateur draft bonus money adjusted for risk (that is, you have a bonus cap in both markets that have to be spread around prospects). .

andyb 2017-06-15 21:20:48 UTC #790

The reality is most teams can't find good prospects to spend $300K on. All teams need to do is offer $400K or more. The $300K line already inflates the market and the top 50 or so prospects are thus unavailable to the teams in the penalty.

Your logic just does not make sense. Yes teams could spend $300K on prospects worth $100K. But that is not much of a strategy. Teams also get $700K before they even get to the slots. So it is not like trading some of their allocations would leave them with nothing.

Allocation trades did happen. The cost was minimal. The Phillies chose not to do so when they are the team with the most to gain for trading for allocations. These are facts that one cannot ignore.

Austinfan 2017-06-15 21:51:01 UTC #791

I haven't been able to find a lot of information on allocation trades:

The Braves added a little more than $1.1 million to their international bonus pool via three trades on Thursday.
Cody Martin (7th rd 2011) was sent to the A's in exchange for the 53rd international bonus pool slot, which was set at $388,400.
Caleb Dirks (15th rd 2014) [24 years old, AAA 42K in 35 IP] and outfielder Jordan Paroubeck (2-13 SD) to the Dodgers for the 87th bonus pool slot, which is valued at $249,000.
Garrett Fulenchek (2nd 2014) to the Rays for the 73rd ($299,000) and 103rd spots ($195,200).
None were in the top 30, but Dirks is a legitimate prospect, Martin more of a AAAA pitcher. The others are flops they're dumping.

Haven't found any details on other trades.

andyb 2017-06-15 22:11:49 UTC #792

The Orioles traded all their slots for nominal prospects. There are a few others also. The cost of trading for allocations would have been minimal for the Phillies. Ashby to the Orioles could easily have been done for 1 or more slots rather than a player to be named (not sure we have received that player yet).

mdougherty12 2017-06-16 07:32:57 UTC #793

Matt Stairs on hiting at Fangraphs:

Austinfan 2017-06-16 12:45:58 UTC #794

After listening to him in the booth last season, Matt isn't packaging this stuff, he has really done his homework and loves the art of hitting.
Nice to hear him talk about not forcing himself onto kids, not trying to change how they hit but help them become more efficient in how they approach hitting.
But it's become obvious that each player has a different timeline, Franco's been working hard but it may take a couple more months for this new approach to become second nature, he's just wound aggressive and being patient is hard for him.
Herrera lives in Odubel world, and you can't remake him, but it sure looks like Stairs has him on the right track. Whenever he swings at a bad pitch now, he slaps his batting helmet as if to say to himself 'wake up."
Joseph stll chases too much, but he's gotten much better at working the count.
Rupp is the mystery man, and I suspect it's making Matt grey.
Galvis is an example how hard it is to change a young hitter, one week he's got that sweet, short stroke, the next he starts reverting back to swinging from the heels.

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-06-18 03:11:29 UTC #795

How soon after signing a free agent, can you trade them?

julio 2017-06-18 03:29:39 UTC #796

A club that signs an Article XX free agent may not assign that player's contract prior to June 15th of the succeeding season without that player's consent.

In other words, yes, somebody we signed as a free agent this past winter could be traded, today.

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-06-18 03:33:38 UTC #797

Thank you!!
Michael Saunders back to Toronto for a small bag of balls.
Devon Travis recently injured, send Howie Kendrick along for a bigger bag.

fish 2017-06-18 04:24:10 UTC #798

In what has to be the largest case of beggars can't be choosers, mlbtraderumors is reporting that Nick Cafordo of the Boston Globe 'has heard' that the Phils would need to have Christian Yelich Included in a Stanton deal. Presumably, that deal includes 'everyone' on the Phillies side.

kmc1019 2017-06-18 10:30:37 UTC #799

The Yelich angle in the article is pretty strange indeed in that it appears to be Phillies sources that Cafardo is speaking to and it is they who make the statement that we need Yelich on account of not having good Outfield prospects ourselves. Huh?

DurhamBull 2017-06-18 12:43:54 UTC #800

Can't complain about Kendrick! He's lost time due to injury, but other than that he's having a career year, even better than his 2011 All-Star year. And he's covering for Hernández while he's out which means the Phils can leave Blanco on the bench and a variety of would-be substitutes in AAA. Plus, why would you want to get rid of that grin? I wish I could smile like that.