MLB (Non-Phils) News and Notes 2016

allentown 2016-01-30 00:38:59 UTC #101

julio:

Here's Winkleman's top 20:

1. Crawford
2. Williams
3. Thompson
4. Appel
5. Alfaro
6. Randolph
7. Kilome
8. Quinn
9. Knapp
10. Eflin
11. Tocci
12. Pinto
13. Medina
14. Pivetta
15. Kingery
16. Pujols
17. Grullon
18. Canelo
19. Goeddel
20. Hoskins

And here are the top 17 as ranked by PP readers/voters:

1. Crawford
2. Williams
3. Thompson
4. Appel
5. Randolph
6. Quinn
7. Alfaro
8. Kilome
9. Knapp
10. Eflin
11. Hoskins
12. Kingery
13. Pinto
14. Cozens
15. Tocci
16. Goeddel
17. Medina

Total of 21 players listed so far (Cozens isn't in Winkleman's top 20 - Matt has him at #31). No Lively, no Windle, no Imhof, no Biddle.

MLB's current list has Lively, Windle, Imhof, and Biddle ranked well ahead of Tocci, Canelo, Medina, Grullon, and all but Imhof ranked ahead of Andrew Knapp. Some of that is just differences of opinion, but some of it looks like failure to update (Biddle?). MLB doesn't have Rhys Hoskins or Dylan Cozens in their top 30.

The thing is, our prospect list looks very different than it did last season. Part of that is the major acquisitions (Williams, Thompson, Appel, Alfaro), but part of it is internal growth - both good draft picks and young players taking a step forward in 2015.

For those who lusted after Rymer Liriano or Darin Cecchini - would you see one of them as a more interesting DH down the road (or corner outfielder) than Dylan Cozens, Aaron Brown, Rhys Hoskins? Winkleman sees these guys as from #20 (Hoskins) to mid-30s (Brown). If your argument is just "more is better," I can understand that.

Cecchini wouldn't make my top 30. I'd slot Liriano at about 19 or 20. I like him better than Pujols and Goeddel from Winkleman's list, but also have Cozens and Cordero in my top 20. On wanting Liriano, my argument is largely more is better, because perhaps half (or more)of our OF prospects aren't going to make it. I see our 1B/DH options, obviously stretching 5 years into the future, as Hoskins, Cozens, Encarnacion, Ortiz, and lesser chance for Sandberg and Joseph. Brown is a legit OF prospect a few years down the road, but I don't see him as a starter.

zambonir 2016-01-30 05:19:26 UTC #102

I know we'd have nothing to talk about if not for pointless arguments (which I enjoy as much as anyone) but the Liriano debate seems pretty simple: the professional scouts and analysts who work for the Phillies didn't particularly like him, period. If it was the old regime, you could try to find another explanation, including that they didn't know how to evaluate players or were just set in their ways. I suppose we don't really know if this regime knows how to evaluate players, but they are certainly not set in their ways, or passive about adding talent (or jettisoning it).

Austinfan 2016-01-30 06:26:17 UTC #103

Rymer Liriano wouldn't have been a bad pickup, but he's not some hidden gem I'd salivate over either.
He struggled in 2012 then went down and missed 2013.
After coming back from injury, he put up a wRC+ of 122 in AA and wRC+ 128 in AAA (b/c these are hitter leagues, I'm wary of raw statistics). Solid but not spectacular performances.
However, he turns 25 in June, for all you "age" fanatics, that has to be a big knock.

Fansgraph take:
fangraphs.com/blogs/projecti ... r-liriano/

Slinging_Southpaw 2016-01-30 12:10:54 UTC #104

I think a little perspective is needed here.
To get Rymer Liriano, you wouldn't have had to be giving up a big part of the future. You could have got him for pretty much nothing. This would be like found money.
Even if he went to Spring Training and struggled, we could then either keep him on the roster to let him work things out and be more of a defensive replacement for all three outfield positions(where he is an above average fielder with a cannon for an arm) or we could DFA him and maybe after that bad spring, he makes it through to Lehigh Valley and at what expense? Maybe we don't keep David Lough?
A little over a year ago Aaron Altherr was looking like a failed prospect. Now he looks like a big part of the Phillies future. Some kids take a little longer to figure it out and maybe run into the right batting coach along the way. I get that many don't agree on his possible upside, but I can't imagine that anyone would think the organization wouldn't be stronger today if Liriano was in it. Even if he never became the starting Right-fielder for the next ten years, what he could have been is a piece of the puzzle or if his value goes up, maybe a trade piece that gets us that person.
Acquiring Liriano was a no lose situation. Even if he didn't pan out, you gave up nothing to get him, found money.

julio 2016-01-30 15:02:19 UTC #105

This would have been true had Liriano been waived. But... he wasn't. He was traded, and it's simply not the same situation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the Padres traded Liriano to the club that made them the best offer - in their eyes, given their needs.

But:

1) We don't know whether the Phillies had any interest in Liriano - whether Klentak spoke to the Padres about him or not. We will likely never know about this, and we should be careful that we don't let speculative "beliefs" about what "must" have been going on in Klentak's mind somehow grow into legend or "common knowledge," because these imaginings get repeated over and over on this board.

2) We don't know how the Padres value Seidenberger (the pitcher they got for Liriano). It's easy for us to just look at his stats and say, "He's crap; we could have done better than that!" It's easy, but it's not very realistic. Seidenberger is a young player, and what the Padres' scouts saw may have been very different from what somebody looking at his baseball-reference.com page sees. I'm a stats person - but with young players, scouting and projection matter, too.

3) We're going to differ about how valuable we think Liriano may be, given his minor league performances and his contract situation. Contract situation? Liriano has no options remaining, so he cannot be placed on a 40-man roster and optioned to AAA in April. Further, he has played in seven minor league seasons...so if he's not on a 40-man roster, he will become eligible for minor league free agency - I assume at the end of the 2016 season, but that may depend on whether he's signed a contract for 2016 or not; his original contract would have bound him to play in seven seasons, and he's done that.

Given the above, what should the Phillies have traded to get him, since "getting him" might well consist of watching him play for four weeks in Florida, and then cutting him loose? (He either makes the 25-man roster or he's gone.) CD said he'd rank him ahead of Lively or Windle; would it have been wise for the Phillies to trade a Windle or a Lively for that four weeks of spring play, and the chance (probably relatively small) that Liriano would force his way onto the 25-man roster?

Slinging_Southpaw 2016-01-30 15:21:08 UTC #106

julio:

Slinging Southpaw:

To get Rymer Liriano, you wouldn't have had to be giving up a big part of the future. You could have got him for pretty much nothing. This would be like found money.
This would have been true had Liriano been waived. But... he wasn't. He was traded, and it's simply not the same situation.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the Padres traded Liriano to the club that made them the best offer - in their eyes, given their needs.

But:

1) We don't know whether the Phillies had any interest in Liriano - whether Klentak spoke to the Padres about him or not. We will likely never know about this, and we should be careful that we don't let speculative "beliefs" about what "must" have been going on in Klentak's mind somehow grow into legend or "common knowledge," because these imaginings get repeated over and over on this board.

2) We don't know how the Padres value Seidenberger (the pitcher they got for Liriano). It's easy for us to just look at his stats and say, "He's crap; we could have done better than that!" It's easy, but it's not very realistic. Seidenberger is a young player, and what the Padres' scouts saw may have been very different from what somebody looking at his baseball-reference.com page sees. I'm a stats person - but with young players, scouting and projection matter, too.

3) We're going to differ about how valuable we think Liriano may be, given his minor league performances and his contract situation. Contract situation? Liriano has no options remaining, so he cannot be placed on a 40-man roster and optioned to AAA in April. Further, he has played in seven minor league seasons...so if he's not on a 40-man roster, he will become eligible for minor league free agency - I assume at the end of the 2016 season, but that may depend on whether he's signed a contract for 2016 or not; his original contract would have bound him to play in seven seasons, and he's done that.

Given the above, what should the Phillies have traded to get him, since "getting him" might well consist of watching him play for four weeks in Florida, and then cutting him loose? (He either makes the 25-man roster or he's gone.) CD said he'd rank him ahead of Lively or Windle; would it have been wise for the Phillies to trade a Windle or a Lively for that four weeks of spring play, and the chance (probably relatively small) that Liriano would force his way onto the 25-man roster?

I certainly get that he wasn't waived, he was traded. I even mentioned that in a couple posts. He was traded. I even posted that I would have traded Tirado for him. I would have traded Sweeney for him.
There are plenty of other players I would have traded for him to give him a shot to make the team. I also know that he doesn't have options, so in order for us to get him to Lehigh Valley he would have to be DFA'd first, though that doesn't mean "he's gone." Even if he can become a free agent, you can make it worth his while to stay, if he shows you anything worth keeping.
For me, that's worth giving up more than what the Padres got in trade. Look, I'm not the only one that was surprised by Liriano being DFA'd, I've seen several article questioning this, so I'm not the only one that thinks San Diego made a mistake.
A big part of me being so hot for Liriano is that he can play all 3 outfield positions and that he has the arm to play anywhere, so even if the bat doesn't come around, he still could be a solid back-up. If he was limited(speed and arm) to LF, I would probably pass on him too.

Austinfan 2016-01-30 15:38:52 UTC #107

Why would you trade Sweeney, who has a shot at being a switch hitting OF, or a fireballer like Tirado, for what is essentially a four week tryout?
Sweeney has been more up and down, but his 2014 season was better than Tirado in the same league, and we have two years to see if he can develop.
We have a year to see if Tirado can develop.

I think we have "bird in the bush is worth two in the hand" syndrome here.

Slinging_Southpaw 2016-01-30 15:53:19 UTC #108

Those two were basically the "ceiling" of who I would trade for Liriano, because I think Liriano has a higher ceiling. There are lot of prospects well below them that I'm sure would've gotten the job done.

"bird in the bush is worth two in the hand" " title="Confused"/>

andyb 2016-01-30 16:30:59 UTC #109

The big reason to not trade for Liriano is that you are not prepared to keep him on the major league roster all season. Out of options so you need to be prepared to do that or lose him on waivers at some point. That is what makes a trade for any sort of prospect too expensive.

andyb 2016-02-01 17:53:52 UTC #110

fangraphs.com/blogs/instagra ... tion-tool/

Fangraphs on ERA vs FIP. One can see the quality of the Phillies' 2015 defense by the difference between the two numbers. Unfortunately there is not likely to be great improvement this year. Altherr is the only clear improvement over last year if he plays regularly, though one would hope for small, incremental improvements from Franco and Galvis. Bourjos could help a tiny bit, but I also suspect that Herrera's defense was not quite as good as the metrics. A Crawford promotion could help improve both SS and 2B (Galvis).

julio 2016-02-01 18:08:28 UTC #111

andyb:

www.fangraphs.com

ERA/FIP Visualization Tool | FanGraphs Baseball

I've made an interactive visualization tool for earned run average (ERA) and fielding independent pitching (FIP) across Major League Baseball. You've seen this visualization before in many of Owen Wat

Fangraphs on ERA vs FIP. One can see the quality of the Phillies' 2015 defense by the difference between the two numbers. Unfortunately there is not likely to be great improvement this year. Altherr is the only clear improvement over last year if he plays regularly, though one would hope for small, incremental improvements from Franco and Galvis. Bourjos could help a tiny bit, but I also suspect that Herrera's defense was not quite as good as the metrics. A Crawford promotion could help improve both SS and 2B (Galvis).

We had two defensive holes in the outfield for most of 2015 - LF and RF. Asche and Francoeur got the most innings; Dom Brown, Grady Sizemore, Darin Ruf in LF? Darnell Sweeney? With the current OF complement (and notwithstanding its limitations), I really don't expect to see many such OF innings. We have four outfielders (Altherr, Bourjos, Goeddel, Herrera) who are good defensively; Cody Asche is not - but he may not be in the outfield corps by Opening Day, and he may not play much if he is (and I would hope that Darin Ruf never appears in LF again, unless somebody goes down during a game). My guess is that we'll see defensive improvement at both OF corners.

In the infield...no real improvement on Opening Day. If we see Crawford, you are absolutely correct - he'll improve SS, and if Galvis moves to 2B, he'll improve the defense there (this latter depends on Cesar Hernandez not being so productive with the bat that he can't be displaced by Galvis at 2B).

Austinfan 2016-02-01 18:20:10 UTC #112

I think we may see some IF improvement, Franco, Galvis and Hernandez are all inexperienced, so no reason to assume they won't improve (though as Asche showed last year, no reason to assume they will improve, either).

It wouldn't hurt to replace Howard with even an average fielder, which is why I'd be pulling him for a defensive replacement in the late innings on a regular basis.

flyers19rw 2016-02-01 18:31:20 UTC #113

Why is there the assumption that when Crawford comes up, that Galvis (Career-.241/.282/.352/.634) will move Hernandez (Career-.269/.331/.333/.664) off of 2B? Hernandez was the best leadoff man for the team last season. It wouldn't surprise me to see Galvis moved to another team that needed SS when Crawford is brought up. He'd be a decent trade chip. Especially if Crawford was brought up in July/August. It always seems that there is a contending teams that needs middle IF help at that time of the year.

julio 2016-02-01 18:32:17 UTC #114

Not much improvement, I don't t hink. If Howard and Ruf are aggressively platooned, there will be some defensive benefit at 1B. Expecting much improvement at the other three positions, in the absence of personnel changes (JP Crawford) is not realistic, IMHO.

Austinfan 2016-02-01 18:48:24 UTC #115

I think Galvis is most likely to improve, he was a better fielder in the minors than as a full-time SS, but a lot of infielders improve with experience.
Franco is hard to judge, he's got average range at best, but supposed to have good hands and arm. So again, with experience (anticipation) he may get to a few more balls.

I don't expect a quantum jump, but I would hope for incremental improvement with an inexperienced infield - one reason I'm ready to give up on Asche is he showed no progress last year - since work ethic isn't an issue, that raises the suspicion he's "reached his level of incompetence."

julio 2016-02-01 19:00:51 UTC #116

I would tend to agree about Asche.

As for incremental improvement...I guess I don't expect much (perhaps some from Franco, as he gets more familiar with opposing hitters). Personnel changes will improve things, but not until the second half of 2016, at the earliest.

julio 2016-02-01 19:42:59 UTC #117

You'll get Ruf part-time in 2016, and somebody different in 2017. Not much point in agonizing about Howard's continued presence; it's a short-term thing...it will pass.

andyb 2016-02-01 21:05:36 UTC #118

Galvis will need to be close to Hernandez offensively for the move to make sense. I just remember the year he played 2B for Utley and was very good. It is possible his range and arm are only average at SS but are very good for 2B. His strongest defensive aspect is his hands and that will play anywhere.

flyers19rw 2016-02-01 21:13:37 UTC #119

andyb:

flyers19rw:

Why is there the assumption that when Crawford comes up, that Galvis (Career-.241/.282/.352/.634) will move Hernandez (Career-.269/.331/.333/.664) off of 2B? Hernandez was the best leadoff man for the team last season. It wouldn't surprise me to see Galvis moved to another team that needed SS when Crawford is brought up. He'd be a decent trade chip. Especially if Crawford was brought up in July/August. It always seems that there is a contending teams that needs middle IF help at that time of the year.
Galvis will need to be close to Hernandez offensively for the move to make sense. I just remember the year he played 2B for Utley and was very good. It is possible his range and arm are only average at SS but are very good for 2B. His strongest defensive aspect is his hands and that will play anywhere.

IIRC, Galvis had some back issues two or so years ago. That bothers me about him. For that reason, if I had to choose between the two of them and all things were equal. I'd keep Cesar. Unfortunately all things aren't that way. Cesar needs to pick up things with his glove if he wants to stay here.

andyb 2016-02-01 21:54:03 UTC #120

flyers19rw:

andyb:

flyers19rw:

Why is there the assumption that when Crawford comes up, that Galvis (Career-.241/.282/.352/.634) will move Hernandez (Career-.269/.331/.333/.664) off of 2B? Hernandez was the best leadoff man for the team last season. It wouldn't surprise me to see Galvis moved to another team that needed SS when Crawford is brought up. He'd be a decent trade chip. Especially if Crawford was brought up in July/August. It always seems that there is a contending teams that needs middle IF help at that time of the year.
Galvis will need to be close to Hernandez offensively for the move to make sense. I just remember the year he played 2B for Utley and was very good. It is possible his range and arm are only average at SS but are very good for 2B. His strongest defensive aspect is his hands and that will play anywhere.
IIRC, Galvis had some back issues two or so years ago. That bothers me about him. For that reason, if I had to choose between the two of them and all things were equal. I'd keep Cesar. Unfortunately all things aren't that way. Cesar needs to pick up things with his glove if he wants to stay here.

Not that we have much payroll, but Cesar is not eligible for arbitration and Galvis already is. So Cesar is less expensive for a couple of years, especially if we only see him as a bridge to 2018 when someone like Kingery or Valentin could be ready.