Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

julio 2016-12-31 17:53:41 UTC #870

This is true - but the Phillies, if they choose, can trade Buchholz along with a large bucket of cash, which means their market for trading Buchholz can be much larger than Boston's market was - because Boston needed to shed the salary. The Phils can just eat it.

Buchholz at $13.5 million may not command much. Buchholz at $3.5 million would be a bargain, worth trading something of value for. Somewhere between those two numbers, there could be a deal - Buchholz + cash in return for prospect of real value.

I doubt if the Phils are looking for such a deal (or any Buchholz deal, really) at this point. The strategy appears to be to have him pitch; if he pitches effectively, he becomes that much more attractive to the market come mid-July. The Phils don't need a prospect in return this spring; they need prospects for the long run, and July's a fine time to make a deal.

Austinfan 2016-12-31 18:29:16 UTC #871

If the Phillies were to trade Buchholz or Hellickson, it would be at the end of March:

1) they'll have a better idea what they have in their young pitchers (Nola's elbow, Eflin's knees, Valesquez general health, progress by Thompson, et al)
2) inevitably some veteran pitcher will come up lame or have lost a couple MPH on his FB and hopefully the GM of a contending team is desperate

Otherwise wait until July. Since money is not an issue, why sell low, gamble that you can get more, since selling low just lands you more marginal prospects to be lost in the Rule 5 draft or the waiver wire.
Phillies have the organizational depth to gamble on upside, so they should be patient and risk getting nothing rather than settle for peanuts.

julio 2016-12-31 18:39:08 UTC #872

Good idea. Wish I'd thought of that!

harmony55 2016-12-31 18:48:34 UTC #873

julio:

harmony55:

Clay Buchholz at $13.5 million is still more than most clubs can absorb. Hence, the ongoing limited trade value.
This is true - but the Phillies, if they choose, can trade Buchholz along with a large bucket of cash, which means their market for trading Buchholz can be much larger than Boston's market was - because Boston needed to shed the salary. The Phils can just eat it.

Buchholz at $13.5 million may not command much. Buchholz at $3.5 million would be a bargain, worth trading something of value for. Somewhere between those two numbers, there could be a deal - Buchholz + cash in return for prospect of real value.

I doubt if the Phils are looking for such a deal (or any Buchholz deal, really) at this point. The strategy appears to be to have him pitch; if he pitches effectively, he becomes that much more attractive to the market come mid-July. The Phils don't need a prospect in return this spring; they need prospects for the long run, and July's a fine time to make a deal.

We can agree that Phillies don't have the same motivation to move Clay Buchholz that the Red Sox had. For that reason a trade of Buchholz is unlikely to happen.

But if the Phils tested the trade market this offseason, the return would approximate Josh Tobias ... another reason a trade is unlikely to happen.

julio 2016-12-31 18:56:37 UTC #874

I obviously do not agree with harmony55's last post... 🤷

bkeich 2016-12-31 19:12:01 UTC #875

But the return would be much larger if the Phils were willing to eat most of Buchholz salary.

There is logic to saying that we should let Kendrick, Buchholz and Hendrickson play and trade them at the trade deadline, but honestly I think all 3 are less than 50% likely to play well. All have very suspect histories or are getting older and on the downside of their career. If we want to hold on to guys for the trade deadline we need to improve our odds with more players or risk repeating the disaster that was the 2016 team. (no one available to trade).

harmony55 2016-12-31 19:26:24 UTC #876

julio:

This kind of depends on whether the Mariners want Clay Buchholz. The thing here is, the Phillies have absolutely no need to trade Buchholz, to Seattle or to anybody else. Unlike the Red Sox, the Phils can easily absorb Buchholz' salary (even if he's a complete stiff).

If the Mariners want Buchholz, and are willing to part with Seth Smith, and if the Phillies want Smith (and I have no idea if any of these players are really of interest to the teams that would acquire them) - the Phillies could trade Buchholz and $10 million to the Mariners for Smith. I'm not recommending this deal, but it's well within the Phils' resources.

So if the Mariners really want Buchholz, and really need him without taking on his contract (which I can well imagine might be an issue for them), the Phils could be in a position to trade "salary relief" in the form of cash to the Mariners with Buchholz, in exchange for a real prospect, whether Seth Smith or somebody else. And Josh Tobias is utterly irrelevant to that - it would be about the Mariners' need for Buchholz (if that's real), and the Phillies' ability to throw enough cash into the deal to leverage a prospect back in return.

This Seattle fan came over here to discuss Clay Buchholz only because a Phillie blogger for SB Nation mentioned Seth Smith in a piece headlined "Are There Any More Ways to Improve 2017 Phillies Roster?":

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2016/12/23/14060030/are-there-any-more-ways-to-improve-2017-phillies-roster

The Phillies indeed may have no interest in Seth Smith and, according to another SB Nation blogger, the Mariners have no interest in Clay Buchholz:

Still, I enjoy Hot Stove discussions. Happy New Year.

julio 2016-12-31 19:30:03 UTC #877

Happy New Year to you, too, Harmony55. (We'll get a separate thread up for that soon, I'm sure, too!)

I'm not surprised that some blogger mentioned Seth Price. Bloggers (and posters at places like this!) throw all kind of things against the wall. That, of course, means little about what might be going on in the minds of GMs - a good percentage of the time, the blogger/poster "ideas" are pretty absurdly one-sided (e.g., we'll trade Buchholz, Aaron Altherr, and Freddy Galvis for Mike Trout. Hey, why wouldn't the Angels do that?!).

zambonir 2016-12-31 21:58:50 UTC #878

Yeah, we still have PTSD. Managerial discretion is overstated in general, I think. But if Klentak signs Moss for $4 million or more, it's not gonna be for 200 ABs (and if Moss chooses to sign with the Phillies, he will have been promised a satisfying role). Even with Bourjos, Mackanin didn't have to be told to play Bourjos (and if Klentak had wanted to see more of Goedell, he could have made that happen without it turning into a "don't tell me how to make my line-up" drama).

At the same time, Mackanin has publicly stated he wanted a veteran bat or two in the line-up this year, so it would seem Klentak is trying to help him out (or simply agrees that is the case). I think worrying about blocking Alther might be besides the point, I don't think the Phillies are planning to play him full-time regardless. It's just that a well-paid Moss is likely to be handed more starts than a Bourjos/Franceoeur type (or Quinn).

Moss would have been a fine almost-everyday player on a team without Kendrick.

zambonir 2016-12-31 22:08:34 UTC #879

bkeich 2016-12-31 22:17:21 UTC #880

zambonir:

Yeah, we still have PTSD. Managerial discretion is overstated in general, I think. But if Klentak signs Moss for $4 million or more, it's not gonna be for 200 ABs (and if Moss chooses to sign with the Phillies, he will have been promised a satisfying role). Even with Bourjos, Mackanin didn't have to be told to play Bourjos (and if Klentak had wanted to see more of Goedell, he could have made that happen without it turning into a "don't tell me how to make my line-up" drama).

At the same time, Mackanin has publicly stated he wanted a veteran bat or two in the line-up this year, so it would seem Klentak is trying to help him out (or simply agrees that is the case). I think worrying about blocking Alther might be besides the point, I don't think the Phillies are planning to play him full-time regardless. It's just that a well-paid Moss is likely to be handed more starts than a Bourjos/Franceoeur type (or Quinn).

Moss would have been a fine almost-everyday player on a team without Kendrick.

How many games do you think one of Herrera, Kendrick, Altherr, Joseph and Hernandez will be unavailable. I bet it is more than 100. In all of those cases you could start Moss, in the other cases he could serve as a backup / PH / take over for rest / tough RH pitcher sub. I wouldnt have much trouble convincing Moss that he will get extensive playing time without really interfering with any of our younger players getting to play.

Add by signing Moss it gives us one more possible trade deadline player that might return a prospect if he is playing well. We need as many of those as possible as last year we failed completely to take advantage of being a "selling" team.

zambonir 2016-12-31 22:34:36 UTC #881

Kendrick has said he prefers to play a single position, if he is the LF I don't think you'll see him in the IF. And Herrera and Hernandez both started more than 140 games (at one point it was looking like Herrera would start all 162) last year. Joseph probably would have, had he been on the team all year (and Howard wasn't).

I don't think Moss is a guy you sign to flip, but maybe. I'm fine either way, I don't care if this year's team is better than 2017 if the goal is to keep trying out young players. If the goal is to win more games, or to add veterans who are valuable as holding patterns while the young players develop, that's okay too. If Klentak does make a bigger move for an OF then (as with Buchholz) that suggests he is worried about the team's depth and health. Given Quinn, Altherr and Joseph are always going to be one bad dive or baserunning collision away from injury (Altherr to both wrists, Joseph to his head) that would be understandable.

BtownFan 2017-01-01 21:16:03 UTC #882

On Cozens tweet: I agree, especially if you're slow on the base paths, but gotta keep that OBP above .350 at the same time like Howard.

BtownFan 2017-01-01 21:30:58 UTC #883

If Kendrick plays 2B over César consistently, I'll be sorely disappointed by Phils' management. With Odubel in center, we can hardly win when also playing Quinn, especially with Joseph and Franco at the IF corners and César and Galvis in between. This means the Phils need Altherr to live up to his promise (18 or so HRs and a .350 OBP). I can see using Quinn as the swingman in the outfield and as a good sub for Odubel, but his lack of power will hurt the Phils chances to move up in the standings unless we can get something superior to Kendrick in left. I still have trouble getting my head around this expenditure. The Buchholz deal makes sense to me though, given the extreme youth of the starting staff otherwise.

BtownFan 2017-01-02 01:46:56 UTC #884

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-01-02 10:38:59 UTC #885

The Red Sox don't have a deep enough farm system to acquire a pitcher like Buchholz.

andyb 2017-01-02 15:54:12 UTC #886

I think those Red Sox stories are way overblown. First they would wait till they absolutely KNOW a pitcher is hurt before replacing them. Second, their front line starters and depth are fine to go with for a couple of months even if they have issues at 4th or 5th starters. Why blow the salary cap now when you can wait till July and still be 8 games over .500 with what they have. These stories are just writers with lots of time and nothing to write about over the holidays.

tom81 2017-01-02 17:09:24 UTC #887

Maybe the Dodgers look to get Kendrick back since they haven't filled their 2B hole yet

Slinging_Southpaw 2017-01-02 23:13:58 UTC #888

I'm sure you're right..............but if we traded him back and ate 11Million of that contract, what do we get in return then?

allentown 2017-01-03 00:14:35 UTC #889

Probably an investigation by the Commissioner's office for buying prospects.