Discussion

zambonir 2017-07-11 16:58:15 UTC #101

I think we can safely say the Phillies missed their chance to trade Rupp. He was at a peak last July. But they probably wouldn't have traded Ruiz if they'd traded him, so it's more or a less a wash in total prospects acquired.

Rupp is definitely a guy I think has more value in the off-season. No playoff team needs a light-hitting catcher who's also not a defensive or pitcher-handling plus. He won't make a contender better. But he could still be a regular player (be it starter or back-up) on any number of middling or cash-poor teams who need a catcher for the next few years.

Philsmania 2017-07-11 17:04:50 UTC #102

It's also entirely possible that other teams weren't sold on Rupp who took big strides in 2016 but largely came out of nowhere. Same for Gomez. Any GM who traded for Gomez to bolster the bullpen for the stretch drive in 2016 would have rightly been roasted over the coals after Gomez blew up in September.

andyb 2017-07-11 17:08:17 UTC #103

I don't think I have an extreme position here. If we have a veteran player that does not figure to be with us in 2-3 years when we are competing or if we have a prospect ready (as with Joseph) why wouldn't we think of trading that player? If we have a veteran asset like Neshek, not trading him IS wrong. And not dealing Hellickson last year was wrong since his value could easily be replaced in the free agent market or through trades like the one we did for him in the first place. We could probably have signed Hellickson himself if we wanted to. Not trading him cost us a prospect pure and simple.

Yes deals in the offseason can be a little different. But the unique aspect of the deadline is that value is often higher because teams have short term needs. Long term deals like Hamels can also happen at the deadline. That one could easily have been in the offseason too.

AF seems to spin this into wanting stupid deals which is just wrong. I want the best deals we can make. I am fine with prospects that are far away as long as they have upside tools. And Klentak deserves criticism for messing up the deadline last year. Every neutral observer in baseball came to that conclusion. I like Klentak and much of what he is doing. But when he messes up he should be called on it. Part of why this rebuild is taking longer than it should is we are not fully using our financial assets.

zambonir 2017-07-11 17:30:53 UTC #104

But they wanted the comp pick. We know this. I'm confident the Phillies talked to every team that was willing to make an offer for Hellickson. At some point I'm sure they talked to all 29 teams, about something. I am not all "In Klentak We Trust" necessarily, but I find it totally believable that there was no offer out there that exceeded the value of the extra pick (which would have also increased the draft pool no?).

Would it have been better if that plan had worked and then they had gone out and gotten a pitcher another way? Sure, but it's not as easy as you make it sound, if all prospects are worth something, the guys the Phillies originally gave up for Hellickson, and then for Buchholtz, still go on the ledger. And actually having Hellickson, instead of scouting and acquiring a new pitcher, had and has value. Including what they get for him this year which won't be much, but won't necessarily be less than they could have gotten last year. Especially because of the money involved that the Phillies will be paying (even if nobody sees him as a $17 million pitcher).

I also think Klentak was very willing to trade Velasquez, Neris and Rupp and last year. If there'd been a good enough offer.

MLBTR is doing round-ups of each position, I think it's safe to say there's no market for Rupp, at least not from contenders.

andyb 2017-07-11 17:50:08 UTC #105

Naylor was worth more than a comp pick last year and we know Hellickson was deemed worth that. I just don't buy that there were no other deals out there as good as a comp pick. It defies logic. I think Klentak blew it plain and simple. And he lost the gamble that Hellickson would accept the offer. Why shouldn't Klentak be judged on the outcome of all that?

zambonir 2017-07-11 18:09:06 UTC #106

To me this defies logic. What's the argument? That he didn't try hard enough to make a trade, or that he turned down multiple other offers? Sure, judge away, but without knowing what those offers were there's nothing actually informing your opinion besides "he should have made a trade." At least with Naylor there's something to debate, but we also know why it didn't happen. IIRC it was also reported that at one point the Marlins wanted two starting pitchers from the Phillies (presumably either Velasquez or Eickhoff) to give back a good return.

Certainly a GM can get so tied up in one trade negotiation that if and when it fails, they're left with nothing. It's possible that happened. But unlike so many other years (like 2014) we are also aware of not one but two mitigating circumstances (the failed deal and the comp pick).

andyb 2017-07-11 18:14:14 UTC #107

At some point you need to judge a GM on whether they got something done or not. Klentak did not get this done for whatever reason.

It actually defies logic just as much to suggest there were no deals out there. The whole world knew that Hellickson was one of the better arms on the market. An asking price of the equivalent of a comp pick was not that much. We saw other deals for pitchers happen at the same time (though there was more of a relief market to be fair).

We don't know what deals were out there. We do know that Klentak failed however. In hindsight taking $0.80 on the dollar would have been better than the results where we essentially got $0.05 on the dollar since Hellickson could have been replaced in the offseason. One can make all the excuses you want, but Klentak failed to help the club here plain and simple.

Squire 2017-07-11 19:46:37 UTC #108

My favorite pet peeve of the deadline is lazy sportswriters. In response to a question as to what Neshek could fetch Gelb said "A-ball pitcher". Tell me the quality of the prospect I might get not the level. Sixto Sanchez is an A-ball pitcher. Jay Groome is an A-ball pitcher.

My other favorite phrase is when they say "low-level prospect" and I don't know whether they mean "a prospect currently assigned to a lower level" or a "low quality prospect"

Austinfan 2017-07-11 19:47:04 UTC #109

Phillies may not have valued Naylor as highly as you do, and thought Hellickson was all he was worth. Takes two to tango.
1B was not a priority for the Phillies, they had Joseph, Hoskins on the way, and players like Cozens, Ortiz and Randolph who may end up at 1B.
And of course, since then:
Hall (21) .273/.340/.542/.882 - A ball
Naylor (20) .297/.361/.452/.813 - A+

The compensatory pick might have been seen as more valuable since it would provide the flexibility of picking players at positions where the organization is thinner.

andyb 2017-07-11 19:58:37 UTC #110

Why do you even try that comparison of an older player at a lower level. Compare Naylor to Cornelius Randolph. They were drafted 2 picks apart. They are close to the same age and both have little defensive value.

You keep avoiding the main point. A prospect of Naylor's value is better than nothing. And we presently have nothing except paying Hellickson's salary (which we could pay to any free agent). And the prospect does not need to be a 1B which is a meaningless point. It could be at any position. Any legit prospect is better than nothing.

Austinfan 2017-07-11 20:02:49 UTC #111

But that's hindsight.
1) if Toronto wanted another pitcher plus Hellickson that's an overpay, especially if we're talking Eickhoff or Velasquez
2) Hellickson had value for the Phillies, a comp pick, or a veteran pitcher in 2017 who would take pressure off young arms and have trade value
So it's not trade him or receive zero value, it's make a bad trade or hold on to him for the value of half a season plus the option of trading him.

My point about Naylor and Hall is a 1B prospect must be a great hitter to have real value, Naylor was simply an overdraft, at least right now.
You can draft 1B later by the bushel and hope to get lucky.

andyb 2017-07-11 20:10:55 UTC #112

You have no idea if point 1 is true about teams wanting another pitcher. All trade deals that do not happen are matters of speculation. We have no idea what the Phillies got offered. On point 2 we could always sign another veteran pitcher, even Hellickson if we wanted to. So that point is weak.

The point about 1B is also weak. Naylor has about the same value as Randolph. It does not matter that he plays 1B or is not quite a top 100 pick. It matters that he had legit value in the same way Randolph does. I'd rather have another Randolph than nothing.

Bottom line is Hellickson had value and we got nothing. I don't care if the gamble of getting a comp pick was a good gamble. Because it did not work and we need to evaluate Klentak's performance on results and last year's deadline, for whatever reason, has to be considered a failure. Are you actually happy with what got done at the deadline? It sure looks like the performance of an inexperienced GM who could not make the right deals happen for whatever reason. Hopefully he has learned.

Austinfan 2017-07-11 20:19:42 UTC #113

We did get another veteran pitcher, oh what's his name?
They do break down and the better ones tend not to sign with bad teams for some reason.

You judge decisions at the time they were made, everyone has 20/20 hindsight.
Good decision making will hit the mark more often than bad decision making.
If you take risks you know you're gonna lose them some of the time.

schooldoc 2017-07-11 20:22:49 UTC #114

As suggested by some in this thread, I think it is a very fair criticism of Klentak to say that he has not taken advantage of all of the opportunities available to him over the past 12 months to move assets at their maximum value. Hellickson and Rupp are two of those examples.

I am in the camp that thinks Galvis is the example presenting itself now. Whether it's right now or this offseason, the time has come to look at what Galvis' value is on the market and capitalize on it if the right deal comes along.

In my opinion, the chances of a statistical decline from here for Freddy exceed the chances of improvement. Also, what's the real significance of the "leadership" he is allegedly providing? Would the Phils be 35 under instead of 30 games under, if it weren't for Freddy's leadership? Look...Freddy seems like a likable kid and I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I think this is old-school hogwash.

I'm okay with seeing how things pan out the rest of this year into the offseason on this. But if JP projects to 90 percent of what Freddy is next year statistically...and I think he will...for a rookie's salary instead of Freddy's $6-7 million, they need to move Freddy and bring up JP.

zambonir 2017-07-11 20:28:30 UTC #115

That's a pretty big ask for a live Internet chat, but also, what does he really know? At some point I imagine he actually would, based on a combo of rumor and actual reporting, be able to offer something a bit more specific.

What I thought was more interesting about that chat was his prediction that Hernandez and Galvis (but not Rupp or Joseph) would be in the 2018 Opening Day line-up (with Crawford and Kingery arriving after a few months. I suppose that's a pretty easy prediction to make.

andyb 2017-07-11 20:31:17 UTC #116

A refresher from last year:

"Nothing? Not even Jeremy Hellickson? Seems like a bold move for a team that can still use every prospect it can get."

They mention Jeanmar Gomez also. Not saying he was going to get a top 100 prospect, but dealing him when he was riding 3 consecutive months as a successful closer might have been a good idea. One needs to look with rose colored glasses to think last year's deadline was anything but a failure.

Austinfan 2017-07-11 20:56:44 UTC #117

You really think the rest of the league didn't know Gomez was doing it with smoke and mirrors?
That's why they pay scouts.
WE KNEW, so the odds are they knew.
"nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free"

Now if RA had starting trading guys after 2012, or the summer of 2013, we'd have finished the rebuild by the end of 2015.
But that's when they had players with real trade value.

Me, I'll be happy with 2-3 A ball prospects in the top 300 or so for Keshek and Nava. Nava has real value as a July pickup, really good year so far and no one cares if he crashes in 2018. 1B/LF/RF switchhitter who can PH has value to a playoff contender.
Kendrick has to get off IR and show he has his stroke to garner a return. Healthy he has the most value of any of our trade bait
Hellickson will be a tough sell without some good starts (with his velocity over 90 and the changeup working) over the next two weeks,
Benoit won't get you squat.

EDmuch 2017-07-11 21:16:57 UTC #118

I am wondering if we can agree that last year's trade deadline and its results were,,,,, last year.

allentown 2017-07-11 22:32:53 UTC #119

Of course we can, but that will impact the discussion... how? When we know the results of this year's trade deadline, which we've speculated upon, that will be the prime topic. The old saying: the past is prolog is valid. The best predictor of what a person or organization will do is what they've done in the past. History counts. The Phillies are in a bad situation. It's useful to understand how we got there and was is and is not being done to gets us back to contention.

zambonir 2017-07-11 22:42:41 UTC #120

Well yeah that's the other thing, it was Klentak's first season, and we know he was conservative about nearly everything. Like it or hate it, it's an explanation.

Certainly you can't win the trade deadline if you don't play. The very logic of the trade deadline (and trade deadline coverage, and fan interest in the trade deadline) demands activity. But I still don't see how the Phillies would have come out of it with a net gain in assets.

They got three players (two that they still have) for Ruiz instead of trading Rupp.

And they kept Hellickson instead of getting Naylor (for instance) but would have had to trade the equivalent of Josh Tobias or Sam McWilliams or David Whitehead to replace him this season. Sure, Naylor or some other return may have been worth more with all else being equal, but the draft pick was also in the mix. And they'll still get something for Hellickson this time.

Still only July 11, I doubt we have a trade for 10 days (though moving Neshek over the weekend not a bad idea).