Where is this team headed based on 2016?

[bigegypt0417]

Problem is right now they don't know which players will or won't be part of the core.
You don't want to trade young players too early (before you have a good assessment on their probably upside) or older players too late (when their value starts to plumment).

We are not talking about players that aren't easy to identify. Rupp and Galvis are fairly easy to identify as guys with value who aren't going to be part of the core...

[Philsmania]

Despite some great success in the minors - primarily at AA and below, the major league club goes in to next year with a lot more questions and uncertainty than we would like.

If Williams, Crawford and Knapp had put up great years at Lehigh, this picture would look more optimistic. At best, optimism is delayed.

Altherr is a question mark as to whether he will ever hit enough to be a major league starter.

Quinn is a question mark as to whether he will ever be healthy long enough to be counted on.

Strong years by Alfaro, Cozens and Hoskins are reasons for hope, but they will all be AAA players next year.

Throw in the unexpected health issue and related uncertainty with Nola's elbow.

All in all, and barring any big and unlikely free agent signings for 1B and corner outfield, this team will start 2017 looking to be marginally better or worse than this year and with sustained success still a year or years away.

I think this was supposed to be the second tank season but we outperformed the pythagorian. There are a lot of questions still.

Positives to take out of this season:
Herrera proving he's a legitimate MLer
Eikhoff proving he's a legitimate MLer (I feared he would just turn to to be a flash in the pan in 2015)
Rupp's emergence
Galvis's and Hernandez's seasons which showed they may actually have value
Franco, at times.
Neris showing potential as a closer
After a rough start, Thompson settling in nicely at the ML level.
Ramos showing some potential, albeit erratically.

Negatives:
Pretty much the whole bullpen outside of Neris and Ramos
Altherr struggling although the injury gives him a mulligan
Williams and Crawford taking their steps backward
Nola's future become murky between his struggles and his injury
Efflin going from a positive to a question mark with his health.
Franco, at times. Yes, I saw good and bad in him this season.

[andyb]

Keith Law players he admits he was wrong about:
espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=5641

Includes Jerad Eickhoff. Notes the Phillies encouraged him to throw his curve more often and it has developed into a plus pitch.

"He is probably a league-average, No. 3 starter going forward with the arsenal he has –- average fastball, plus curveball, inconsistent slider that flashes plus but on which he makes too many mistakes –- and with 4-WAR potential, given his durability."

[Austinfan]

And this is why you should avoid FAs:

Scroll down the link -

"The average age of players reaching 5-plus WAR has dropped by about 18 months from the 1997-2006 period to the 2007-2016 period; it peaked at 29.4 years in 1999, and in 2016, it has returned to its low for the time period of 27.4 years."

If that doesn't scream post-PED, what does?

Eickhoff is a #3 starter right now, if he can improve that slider and master a changeup, he has real shot at becoming a #2.

[Austinfan]

Problem is right now they don't know which players will or won't be part of the core.
You don't want to trade young players too early (before you have a good assessment on their probably upside) or older players too late (when their value starts to plumment).

We are not talking about players that aren't easy to identify. Rupp and Galvis are fairly easy to identify as guys with value who aren't going to be part of the core...

Like I said, wait another year before coming to conclusions.

[zambonir]

If Pete wants a new job, publicly pressuring his new GM who's committed to a rebuild to add an expensive, aging veteran that will block the numerous prospects at Lehigh is probably not the best strategy. Klentak might go that route, but I doubt he appreciates being pressured to do so.

This is who Mackanin is, journalists ask him a question ("you're meeting with the GM Friday, what is your evaluation of the team going to be?") and he actually tells them what he thinks. I don't think he's very calculating about it, and maybe he should be. But Klentak didn't seem bothered by it at all. In fact, he seems to agree with the roster assessment, just not with the method of acquiring such a player, or if the value of doing (more wins, relieve pressure on other hitters as well as the pitching staff) outweights the downsides (a FA contract, giving up talent in a trade, blocking prospects).

Y'all already know what I think, winning 81 games next year isn't really a priority. Unfortunately for Pete that is also the reason he has the job. At his age it's unlikely he can parlay being the manager of this team at this time into another top job.

But hey, he could also get fired at this meeting (or at least, it's the meeting they are having before any such decisions are made).

[zambonir]

I still thing this organization does not currently contain enough talent to be a solid playoff team several years from now. We are especially lacking in star players. I think there is a pressing need to add talent. That is why I don't agree that it is wise for Klentak to just take a whole year off for evaluation and not do the utmost to add talent. If somebody eventually becomes redundant as a result of adding talent, that can be addressed by trade. I think the Phillies need more of a sense of urgency. Slipping from the original turn-around schedule announced by Gillick is not a good thing and I won't pretend that it is. It is a mark of organizational indecisiveness, failure to commit sufficient $, and some questionable decisions.

Gillick had revised his assessment to 2019 in June of 2015, which, not coincidentally, is right before Middleton emerged and MacPhail took over. I don't think they are behind schedule given the ability to add talent in 2018 and 2019. But the "year off" was this season. I don't think tanking or not blocking players is the #1 reason they won't make a big move this fall, it's just that the talent isn't that good. Case in point, the #4 starter they acquired for nothing is probably the #1 FA pitcher available. Instead, they will go out and find another #4 starter. And another Bourjos type, but probably more expensive (just short-term) and with offense in mind.

You can see people starting to compare Klentak to Hinkie and they're not wrong.

[Austinfan]

Well, you don't block prospects to give $45M over 3 years or $64M over 4 years to 2-3 WAR players who are 30 or older.
If there are no FAs that are good bets to be 3-5 WAR at a position of need from 2018-2020, then the only FAs that should be signed are 1-2 year patches to buy time for the kids to grow up.

I mean are you going to sit Thompson or Asher or Eflin if healthy for a marginal upgrade in 2017 and slow their development?

[andyb]

Well, you don't block prospects to give $45M over 3 years or $64M over 4 years to 2-3 WAR players who are 30 or older.
If there are no FAs that are good bets to be 3-5 WAR at a position of need from 2018-2020, then the only FAs that should be signed are 1-2 year patches to buy time for the kids to grow up.

I mean are you going to sit Thompson or Asher or Eflin if healthy for a marginal upgrade in 2017 and slow their development?

I thought you were going to make Alfaro "earn" the catching job. But Eflin and Thompson and Asher, all pitchers with career ERAs over 5.50 automatically can be counted on for the future? Getting a number one starter would make the team better. If a Thompson or Eflin happen to be the 6th starter when that happens they then become excellent depth or they become potential trades to fill other holes.

This team's problem is that they have few stars. The prospects that should not be blocked are the ones that have a reasonable chance of becoming stars. On the pitching staff that is really guys that are here already in Nola and Velasquez. Beyond them there is a gap till Kilome. Every other prospect in between is more back-of-the-rotation material. And yes, they can be blocked if a team acquires a number one starter.

That is also the reason you think of trading Galvis and Rupp. They are nice players but average starters at best. Crawford and Alfaro both could be better (more certain with Crawford). So if the team has a goal of producing above average starters it is actually logical to get a number one starter and "block" someone like Thompson. And also trade Galvis because he is "blocking" Crawford. In each case they are trying to clear playing time for potentially the better player.

[zambonir]

The Good Phight on (maybe) trading Rupp:

thegoodphight.com/2016/9/29/ ... ce=twitter

[andyb]

The Good Phight on (maybe) trading Rupp:

thegoodphight.com/2016/9/29/ ... ce=twitter

Article loses me when discussing trade value. Giles is actually a decent comp on trade value. It is harder to get much better than a 2 WAR season out of any reliever while a catcher in his prime can do that with an average season. I think the framing is hurting Rupp's defensive value this season a bit, but he sure looks like someone that is going to be a 1.5-2.0 WAR catcher for the next 3 or 4 years (which will be relatively inexpensive). Catchers are probably more valuable than closers if you are thinking of intangibles.

The reason to trade Rupp would be only if you could get a haul approaching what we got for Giles (fewer players, at least one Velasquez-level talent plus a prospect further away is what I would want). I don't think about doing this if we don't have Alfaro and Knapp. But the fact that we do makes it an acceptable risk that could improve the team substantially.

[flyers19rw]

The Good Phight on (maybe) trading Rupp:

thegoodphight.com/2016/9/29/ ... ce=twitter

Article loses me when discussing trade value. Giles is actually a decent comp on trade value. It is harder to get much better than a 2 WAR season out of any reliever while a catcher in his prime can do that with an average season. I think the framing is hurting Rupp's defensive value this season a bit, but he sure looks like someone that is going to be a 1.5-2.0 WAR catcher for the next 3 or 4 years (which will be relatively inexpensive). Catchers are probably more valuable than closers if you are thinking of intangibles.

The reason to trade Rupp would be only if you could get a haul approaching what we got for Giles (fewer players, at least one Velasquez-level talent plus a prospect further away is what I would want). I don't think about doing this if we don't have Alfaro and Knapp. But the fact that we do makes it an acceptable risk that could improve the team substantially.

Here is a comment in an ESPN article regarding the O's and re-signing their FAs and particularly Matt Wieters, "The 30-year-old has hit .240 with 15 homers and 61 RBIs -- standout numbers for a catcher...." Well Rupp has better numbers than these. I'd think that teams would give up something valuable in order to obtain Rupp. Especially with his controllability.
Perhaps the O's would want Rupp. If Wieters walks and it looks like he will since he took a QO last winter to remain in Baltimore. Boras met with the O's management last week and was not able to cut a deal.

[zambonir]

Yeah, the article wasn't great. I think the reality is somewhere between the low returns he cited for less proven catchers and the Giles return. And like every trade discussion it is kind of circular. "We shouldn't trade him, he's too valuable!" "We should only trade him if the return is great!" "We need to trade him because he's going to regress! To a team that doesn't think he will!"

I also read the O's are happy to let Wieters go because there is going to be a fair amount of catching available this off-season.

But no question Rupp's price and controllability are valuable.

It's hard to seriously debate such a move when people bring very different expectations to the table. If you think it's bad to make next year's team worse you don't do it. If you think it's bad to promote Alfaro you don't do it. If you think it's bad because if Alfaro flops, you'll wish Rupp was still on the team in 2019, you don't do it. But the front office may not be worried about any of those things.

[Austinfan]

Let's see, we're gonna trade guys that some of you don't think are better than below average starters and get a #1 pitcher or a top starting player? Huh?

You don't trade low, if Rupp can't get you a big haul, you're better off having depth, and seeing what happens with him and Alfaro in 2017, unless he falls apart, Rupp will be worth at least as much as this winter. Same with Galvis.

Making trades just to make trades is senseless, they traded Giles because they got a haul for him, they traded the veterans because they were unlikely to be playing at a high level in 2018-2020 (even Hamels) and it was time to rebuild. But you don't trade 26 year old starters because a prospect MIGHT beat them out in a year or two. That's not how you rebuild a team. WHEN the prospects bet them out, then you can package your excess talent in a trade, the way the Rangers traded their second best prospect at each spot to us.

Same thing with free agents, anyone see a #1 pitcher in their prime on the market? Didn't think so. And you're gonna strip the rebuild to trade for a #1 pitcher (which would probably require Crawford plus 2-3 other top prospects)?

Fortunately, I think Klentak is a tad more patient.

[allentown]

Well, you don't block prospects to give $45M over 3 years or $64M over 4 years to 2-3 WAR players who are 30 or older.
If there are no FAs that are good bets to be 3-5 WAR at a position of need from 2018-2020, then the only FAs that should be signed are 1-2 year patches to buy time for the kids to grow up.

I mean are you going to sit Thompson or Asher or Eflin if healthy for a marginal upgrade in 2017 and slow their development?

It is really far from clear that a 4-year FA starting pitcher, reliever, or even an OF is going to block a superior prospect. If we have a glut somewhere, a trade can be made. You keep coming back to the $ inefficiency of FAs. I keep coming back to the extreme baseball inefficiency of not spending close to as many $ as you are able to. The zero efficiency of all those $ the team could spend, but chooses not to, swamps the inefficiency of paying extra per WAR in a FA. I still shy away from the older FAs. I still shy away from any comped FA. I prefer a younger, very talented over-23 international guy. To me, the lowest utility of available resources comes from pocketing money. The only argument I see for the current approach is that tanking yields better draft picks/budget and a higher international allocation, but even their the Phillies PTB have squandered an opportunity by not spending 250% of our international allocation. To me, that is a very large opportunity missed which belies the tanking to get more/better young talent argument. We just aren't going all out, either for young talent, for vets, or for over-23 international talent. Yes, as his swan song, Gillick extended his date for contention. I see that as a favor to TPTB. Clearly, prior to that Gillick saw a very realistic path to contending on his original date -- he is not a pie-in-the-sky kind of guy. Pushing the date forward means either the rebuild hasn't gone as well as planned or the financial commitment from the owners to push the home-grown talent over the top has waned. We used to hear very aggressive, very optimistic talk from Middleton about spending to win and winning. He's been quite silent of late. Something HAS changed. I'm not at all sure what that something is, but it is never a good thing when your team pushes the date for contention farther into the future. I have read the Klentak wants to wait and evaluate argument, but I'm not buying wrt our international spending. Sal and his team are very well regarded. Our new scouting director is very well regarded AND has LA roots. There is no valid concern here sufficient to justify leaving so much $ on the table, there just isn't.

[andyb]

Let's see, we're gonna trade guys that some of you don't think are better than below average starters and get a #1 pitcher or a top starting player? Huh?

You don't trade low, if Rupp can't get you a big haul, you're better off having depth, and seeing what happens with him and Alfaro in 2017, unless he falls apart, Rupp will be worth at least as much as this winter. Same with Galvis.

Making trades just to make trades is senseless, they traded Giles because they got a haul for him, they traded the veterans because they were unlikely to be playing at a high level in 2018-2020 (even Hamels) and it was time to rebuild. But you don't trade 26 year old starters because a prospect MIGHT beat them out in a year or two. That's not how you rebuild a team. WHEN the prospects bet them out, then you can package your excess talent in a trade, the way the Rangers traded their second best prospect at each spot to us.

Same thing with free agents, anyone see a #1 pitcher in their prime on the market? Didn't think so. And you're gonna strip the rebuild to trade for a #1 pitcher (which would probably require Crawford plus 2-3 other top prospects)?

Fortunately, I think Klentak is a tad more patient.

Reading comprehension my friend. The suggestion to get a number one pitcher is completely independent of trading Rupp. We trade Rupp because we might have a better catcher in Alfaro. We trade/sign/acquire a number one/two starter because we have money. Creative GMs figure out a way to do that when they have the ability to add $100 million to their payroll if needed.

Trading Rupp and Galvis is also about trading high, not low. I am not a believer that there is any more improvement out there in them. Other teams may easily disagree and both have value. So at the worst it is trading them at medium value with the knowledge that we have prospects that could easily be better than they are. A starting catcher in the 1.5-2.0 WAR range that is young and inexpensive should bring back a couple top 100-level prospects. That is why you make trades like that. We need more top 100 prospects because half of them won't make it.

Doing nothing is sometimes as bad as your trading for the sake of trading concept. My goal is to produce a contender by 2018 using available resources including money. Your goal seems to place too much value in guys like Galvis and Rupp and completely wastes the potential higher value in Crawford and Alfaro/Knapp.

Sometimes the reason you accumulate prospects is to acquire things like #1 starters. Zach Grienke should be very much available and may not cost much in terms of prospects because of his contract. That is the kind of deal you look for. Just hoping Klentak is smart enough to realize that if he does not use his money to improve the team then he is wasting resources.

[allentown]

I don't see a #1 FA pitcher, but I do see Chapman. You can only add pieces as they become available.

[andyb]

I don't see a #1 FA pitcher, but I do see Chapman. You can only add pieces as they become available.

The pitcher would most likely come in a trade. And it does not really have to be a #1. A #2 would be better than what the team currently has and would be nice alongside their younger arms. Grienke is an idea. He is coming off a down year but AZ is a depressing and tough place to pitch now so if he is healthy he might come cheap. The entire Tampa rotation might end up expensive for them at some point (Archer?, Odriozzi?). Kansas City has some pitchers that might get expensive on them also.

[allentown]

I don't see a #1 FA pitcher, but I do see Chapman. You can only add pieces as they become available.

The pitcher would most likely come in a trade. And it does not really have to be a #1. A #2 would be better than what the team currently has and would be nice alongside their younger arms. Grienke is an idea. He is coming off a down year but AZ is a depressing and tough place to pitch now so if he is healthy he might come cheap. The entire Tampa rotation might end up expensive for them at some point (Archer?, Odriozzi?). Kansas City has some pitchers that might get expensive on them also.

I agree with your approach. I believe we can afford to do Chapman and what you propose. Whether Chapman would be willing to sign on is a separate issue.

[bigegypt0417]

I don't see a #1 FA pitcher, but I do see Chapman. You can only add pieces as they become available.

The pitcher would most likely come in a trade. And it does not really have to be a #1. A #2 would be better than what the team currently has and would be nice alongside their younger arms. Grienke is an idea. He is coming off a down year but AZ is a depressing and tough place to pitch now so if he is healthy he might come cheap. The entire Tampa rotation might end up expensive for them at some point (Archer?, Odriozzi?). Kansas City has some pitchers that might get expensive on them also.

I agree with your approach. I believe we can afford to do Chapman and what you propose. Whether Chapman would be willing to sign on is a separate issue.

I like the approach as well. I also believe this is the FO that can be trusted to pull off these types of moves.