C Randolph...It's hard to hit in Lakewood and Clearwater

andyb 2017-08-16 20:01:41 UTC #21

I don't think Almaraz has done an awful job. I also am less sure that he cares about the hit tool as much as others on the board think he does. He still has a healthy appreciation for tools and projection. I also think that the top pick in the draft is a high profile organizational decision that is usually done by the GM off the scouting director's recommendation.

I was not wild about the Randolph pick because of defense. My problem with the Moniak pick was based on cost. The discount we got was not enough. If I could have had Senzel or Puk for the same bonus I probably go with them. When there is no obvious HS pick the rule of thumb is to go with the best college safer pick.

This year I am/was fine with the Haseley pick (other than doubling down on the same player as Moniak). It was the best player at that spot though again we may have overpaid a bit.

Almaraz has not been bad in the greater scheme of things.

allentown 2017-08-16 20:14:35 UTC #22

I don't think anybody has suggested that Almaraz is bad. I don't think he's even poor. He's at least fair, with a chance to be good. For somebody to take us from last to first and be able to add enough young talent to keep us there while picking near the end of the draft order, we need a scouting director and scouts who are very good to excellent. We need the level of skill, often termed luck -- and it was in the sense that other teams passed by great players, which got us guys like Utley, and Hamels way lower in round 1 than they should have gone and Rollins in round 2. We are a big money team. Both the Rule 4 draft and international quotas are stacked against big money teams, especially as they start to win. Scouts and executive salaries aren't counted against any of baseball's caps. We should aim across the board for very good to excellent, forging a best-in-baseball team of baseball professionals -- certainly top 5 in baseball. No evidence we are there at this point in time. Our farm is strong -- I agree with top 5/6 ranking -- but we've benefitted from great draft position, high international allocation, and the ability to trade some of our veterans for prospects.

flyers19rw 2017-08-16 22:11:40 UTC #23

That draft was bad from the start. Senzel was the best collegiate bat but there were concerns about his fielding and where he would end up positionally. The college pitchers had bad years. Some guys broke down; Puk couldn't find the plate and had some poor starts. H.S.ers are a gamble. The Phillies spun the dice and didn't hit seven or eleven so far. TJ surgery messes up the scheme. Stobbe has contact issues and Moniak has faded as the year went on.
Actually I have more confidence in MM. He has shown the ability to make contact in the past. I just wonder if TPTB in Lakewood have messed with him and his swing to get him to generate more power in his stroke. He's young and thin. Leave him alone and wait for his frame to fill out into an adult. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he ends up being Tocci pt. II but with greater strength when he is 22 years old. A Trout he never will be but a good player he may become. Patience.

Austinfan 2017-08-16 22:52:10 UTC #24

I think it's just too darn early.
Randolph has really been coming on strong the last couple months, if he puts a whole year together in Reading at 21, adjusted for the Reading boost, he'll be a hot commodity:
.296/.390/.464/.854 second half numbers

Moniak is a disappointment, but like Crawford, he was a talented HS kid who needed to add strength and learn how to adjust his swing to generate more power. There are some rumours his bat speed has slowed as he bulked up, but that may be part of the adjustment process. If by 21 he's not showing significant improvement, then I'll start using the "bust" word.

Haseley is adjusting to wood bats out of college, Hoskins struggled his first month in Williamsport, and hasn't had a OPS under .900 since. They may be working on his swing as well, since in college he was focused on contact. We'll get a much better feel for him next season.

Stobbe is a disappointment period, just not making contact. Too early to write him off, he's not Pujols yet.

nycphils 2017-08-17 13:24:45 UTC #25

It doesn't obviate any of the concerns about whether the scouting team, but when you look at the overall OF picture it is very bright in my view. The sheer pipeline of potential - even if several of the high picks like Moniak end up busts - looks like we will end in a very good place.

My thoughts:

Odubel is a top 1/3 CF in MLB at least, if not better notwithstanding his occasional concentration issues. Coming up behind are Tocci, Haseley, Moniak and with Quinn and Coppola following with a lesser but still non zero shot of being a serviceable (or for Quinn much better than that) CF

Altherr is looking like a first division RF - he was solid as a rookie, 2016 can be written off to injury and this year he's been great - solidly in the top 15 OF in the MLB based on OPS, and seems very good defensively. beyond that, the is the lottery ticket of Cozens - I think will never be a ML regular, but there's a non zero chance he turns into Aaron Judge, Haseley again, Tromp - also not high on him, but again a non zero chance he turns into an .800 OPS hitter, Jesus alastre and, Jaihlyn following in a 3-4 year pipeline.

In LF, Williams has been a very pleasant surprise already, with Tromp, Randolph and any of the others on the above lists could end up here.

That doesn't even count the possibility of an acquisition of one of Harper/Trout/Stanton types, which would just concentrate the competition for the other spots.

Seems to me they likelihood that we end up with a high end overall OF is quite good over the next 2-4 years.

bigegypt0417 2017-08-17 13:28:37 UTC #26

I don't understand how you decide when to point to SSS, by the way, Randolph is not a SSS and when you use it as a reason we should give a player more credit than they deserve?

andyb 2017-08-17 14:07:51 UTC #27

If AF's defense, second half stats as a concept are often a sign of a player improving as they get used to the level. I think Randolph is showing that he is potentially going to be a good offensive player. My problem with him is on the defensive side and the offense needing to be really good to offset the lower defensive value.

Though I suppose one could say that if trends continue in another decade baseball will be almost entirely three outcomes and defense doesn't matter. Personally I think offenses will adjust and defense will continue to be important.

allentown 2017-08-17 14:12:17 UTC #28

He's hit very well since May. He has increased his HR power this season, which makes him a likelier future LF. His early struggles may be due to swing adjustment to increase power. He is young for CLW, so his progress has been fine offensively, in most regards. His biggest challenge is that if he can't improve his defense, then his bat needs to be extremely good. Where he is currently lacking: 1) he can't hit LHP. His OPS split is .815/.610 on the season and 2) for a contact-first hitter who still needs to develop more power, even in the past 2 months he is striking out too much: 39Ks/159 AB -- that may improve as he gets more used to his new swing, but likely he has sacrificed contact for loft in his swing.

Austinfan 2017-08-17 15:18:40 UTC #29

With minor leaguers, one thing you look for is adjustments as they move up the ladder, athletes who've had success doing things the "wrong way" are often resistent to coaching until they reach a level where they struggle, then they have to incorporate changes in real time, and it often takes a while. Some never adjust, others adjust quickly, these are people, not automons.

I think one reason the Phillies like to promote prospects the last month is to give them a taste of "failure," i.e., challenge them by letting them see what higher level competition feels like, then send them to the FIL to get instruction. Of course, if they rise to the challenge, that's even better, but failure can be a harsh teacher and strong motivator.