Where is this team headed based on 2016?

[Austinfan]

Problem is GMs aren't lining up to "give" us players.
And our player values are not maxed out, so rushing to make moves this winter would be selling cheap.
Even with Rupp and Galvis, IF they're maxed out, they'll have the same or more value next winter (because even another season at their current levels makes them more valuable). Our prospects have limited value because few excelled other than the Reading duo, and everyone is skeptical of Reading numbers (neither was considered a top 100 prospect).

As far as free agents, the value depends on the player they're replacing, there are no IFs who'd provide significant value because they'd be replacing 2-4 WAR players, so they'd have to be 5-6 WAR players to significantly improve the team. A corner OF could have real value, but if you think the window is 2018-2020, what marginal value would they have in that period v the guys in Lehigh? A SP has to be 1/2 to be a real upgrade. Otherwise you're better off hitting the bargain bin for potential July trade bait that can get cut in ST.

The young pitching needs to pitch, I don't care what their ERA was this summer, I care about how they looked and whether they're improving, young pitchers need to start on a regular basis to improve, and pitchers like Thompson, Eflin and Asher dominated at the minor league level so it's sink or swim time. You don't sit them for marginal improvements, you sit them for a cornerstone pitcher.

The one spot where they could use help is the bullpen, but given the erratic nature of RPs, does it make sense to overpay for 2017 for a pitcher who might deep six it by 2019?

If they were an 85 team, spending to get over the hump makes sense, but a 70 win team needs 15-20 WAR to contend, and you simply can't buy that level of improvement.

[06hawkalum]

With a healthy rotation and a group of youngsters with another year of experience under their belts I would argue that the Phillies, as currently constituted, are about a .500 team heading into 2017. Considering that the NL WCs will both finish with fewer than 90 wins a case could be made that adding 5-8 WARs could lead to a postseason appearance for the Phils next year.

[bigegypt0417]

Problem is GMs aren't lining up to "give" us players.
And our player values are not maxed out, so rushing to make moves this winter would be selling cheap.
Even with Rupp and Galvis, IF they're maxed out, they'll have the same or more value next winter (because even another season at their current levels makes them more valuable). Our prospects have limited value because few excelled other than the Reading duo, and everyone is skeptical of Reading numbers (neither was considered a top 100 prospect).

Who said teams would line up to give us players? We're talking about making strategic moves based on teams that match up well with us.

Assuming Rupp and Galvis will keep their value through another year is not really something you can assume since both had better years than they have had before.

Other teams don't evaluate talent the way you do and don't hold the same age bias you have. they use their scouts and make deals based on those assessments.

[Austinfan]

I'd say even then you need to add 10 WAR, because you have to subtract the WAR of the players you bench for the additions. While anyone added to this bullpen would be a net gain, except for the corner OF spots, anyone else would be a marginal improvement.

When teams improve, it's usually internal, that is, players on the roster or the minors stepping up, Franco learning how to hit and becoming a 4-5 WAR 3B, young pitchers going from replacement level to 2-3 WAR. But when that will happen (and if) is unknown, it might happen next year, it might not happen until 2018.

There's a balance, Phillies became competitive starting in 2001, but couldn't get over the hump because they could never develop young pitching. So they were constantly patching with veteran pitchers, culminating in the awful Garcia trade.

[bigegypt0417]

I'd say even then you need to add 10 WAR, because you have to subtract the WAR of the players you bench for the additions. While anyone added to this bullpen would be a net gain, except for the corner OF spots, anyone else would be a marginal improvement.

When teams improve, it's usually internal, that is, players on the roster or the minors stepping up, Franco learning how to hit and becoming a 4-5 WAR 3B, young pitchers going from replacement level to 2-3 WAR. But when that will happen (and if) is unknown, it might happen next year, it might not happen until 2018.

There's a balance, Phillies became competitive starting in 2001, but couldn't get over the hump because they could never develop young pitching. So they were constantly patching with veteran pitchers, culminating in the awful Garcia trade.

You make arbitrary standards in order to make deals when all other arguments fall away. you cant make assumptions of marginal improvements until you know who they are trading for. You looking at this team and saying any addition is marginal means we're watching a different team.

Teams improve using all their resources to do so. they build internally and add pieces where they can through the other outlets. Using the example of a putred trade made over a decade ago isn't a good reason. I'd rather we look at the trades they've made recently including one where they traded a young closer to improve themselves. the Giles trade is the type of trades I'd be looking for.

[flyers19rw]

For a team to move up ten games in the won-lost column in a year is a lot. This organization won sixty-three games last season. As of now they are up seven games over that. The next step would be to make it to .500 in '17. Again, that would be a big step forward. They still would not be a WC contender.
This season has not gone as I expected it to go. I thought that they would get off to a shaky start and then show gradual improvement after the AS game as some of the young players began to assert themselves. If anything, the season went the reverse of my expectations. I put this mostly on Mackanin. He did not develop the young players as one would have hoped. Ragging players in the press and calling for improvements via trades and FA doesn't help build confidence with the players that are here. For this reason, I hope that he is let go in the off season.
As for the players that are here, lets face it, the season has been an audition for the future. What we have here are a bunch of guys that are attempting to show that they are major league quality players. There are no stars here as of yet. They scream of the need for leadership. To have the need for a team meeting with a week left in the season underlines that and further speaks to this weakness on the part of the manager. To then have that meeting called by two players who are probably at the end of their time in town; a recently acquired player and another whose career is at its termination is mind boggling. There are some serious systemic problems in the organization that need to be addressed before determining which players should stay or go. MacPhail/Klentak have a lot of work to do this coming off season.

[allentown]

I think you have to add talent when you can and keep building upon what you have, not simply sit back until the home-grown team passes some hurdle to justify adding outside talent. There may not be the talent you need at that point, but there was a year earlier. These things go in cycles. Last year there was FA SP. This season there is FA top relief pitchers. Yes, the average reliever is up and down and should be treated as fungible. A lot of the top guys are consistently good. Chapman is only 28 and has cranked out five straight plus seasons. Like any pitcher, he can break down at any time, but he is young for a closer and I see him as a decent bet to still be going strong 4-5 seasons from now.

The Phillies are in a position where they have the advantage of a lot of budget space at the MLB level, but not a need to push things now, so it is a matter of seizing opportunity as it presents itself, with a focus on 2018 and beyond. I'd rather have one guy who I think I can count on for 2018 and beyond than 3 one year stop-gaps, because it is highly unlikely we will make it over the top next season.

I think AndyB's approach can work. Yes, there aren't a lot of teams lining up to give us talent, but there most definitely always are GMs anxious to shed $s. They need to take something back. Guys like Galvis and Rupp are plus guys to take back in such a deal: they've got the 2016 stats the GM can point to, they're young, and they're cheap -- all things a GM wanting to shed $ now and compete at a later date is interested in. I'm not in a hurry to shed Rupp or Galvis, because I think they could have more trade value next year and also because we can definitely use them next year.

I agree with AF that we do not need to add a FA IF at this time. I disagree about SP. Assuming Hellickson leaves (or really even if he stays) trading for a top-notch #1/2 SP who can contribute down the road would be a plus. With Nola and Eflin having to work there way back from injury and the younger guys likely still on some innings limit, there is certainly room in our rotation for such a top SP. As I said above, we don't need to force a trade this year, but if the opportunity is there to land a top SP in a reasonable trade, then I think it would be foolish to pass it by, just because we don't think we can make the playoffs in 2017. Having the guy going into next off-season, is going to make 2018 look a lot brighter.

I wouldn't turn down a good trade for a youngish corner OF. Williams ran into problems the last two months of the year, Quinn ended the year with another injury, Cozens is a year away and needs better command of the plate, Altherr may or may not regain his power after the wrist injury. It just isn't obvious that a plus prospect as a starting corner OF is going to be blocked. If we end up with 3 plus corner OFs, that's not an awful problem to have. We have a lot of good OF prospects in the upper minors, but history says half of them aren't going to make it.

[Philsmania]

For a team to move up ten games in the won-lost column in a year is a lot. This organization won sixty-three games last season. As of now they are up seven games over that. The next step would be to make it to .500 in '17. Again, that would be a big step forward. They still would not be a WC contender.
This season has not gone as I expected it to go. I thought that they would get off to a shaky start and then show gradual improvement after the AS game as some of the young players began to assert themselves. If anything, the season went the reverse of my expectations. I put this mostly on Mackanin. He did not develop the young players as one would have hoped. Ragging players in the press and calling for improvements via trades and FA doesn't help build confidence with the players that are here. For this reason, I hope that he is let go in the off season.
As for the players that are here, lets face it, the season has been an audition for the future. What we have here are a bunch of guys that are attempting to show that they are major league quality players. There are no stars here as of yet. They scream of the need for leadership. To have the need for a team meeting with a week left in the season underlines that and further speaks to this weakness on the part of the manager. To then have that meeting called by two players who are probably at the end of their time in town; a recently acquired player and another whose career is at its termination is mind boggling. There are some serious systemic problems in the organization that need to be addressed before determining which players should stay or go. MacPhail/Klentak have a lot of work to do this coming off season.

The problem is that the Phillies are pretty much stuck in terms of where they are with a manager. Next season may be one season too early to bring in the "manager of the future" since he's going to lose an awful lot of games. Having said that, the Pirates did that with Leyland in '86. He lost 98 games his first year but, in time, grew with the Bonds-Bonilla-VanSlyke-LaValliere-et al. nucleus. And, it is beginning to look more and more lilke Mackanin and Klentak may not be on the same page. While I don't expect him to be fired after the season, it wouldn't surprise me if he comes out of his meeting with Klentak next week as the team's former manager.

[andyb]

I would think at this point it is greater than 50-50 that we retain Hellickson. And if we do so it will be on a 3-4 year deal. There is little financial cost to doing so and I think Hellickson might realize that the best 3-4 year he might get could come from the Phillies who have both money and a need for Hellickson. Even with his decent season I think he would have to sign for a yearly discount as teams now realize the cost of giving up their number one pick. With the Phillies he could get 4/60. Might be more like 4/45 or 3/35 with another team. Hellickson is right to want a multi-year deal. This is his only bite at the big contract apple and he would risk a lot on a 1-year deal.

The question for me is whether the Phillies are better off taking the compensation pick and then trading a lower level prospect for another Hellickson that might be a bounce back candidate. I think there is value in knowing what you have with Hellickson and he is the sort of youngish high command arm that tends to age fairly well (I think anyway).

[Austinfan]

Hellickson would be fine as an innings eater, as an experienced pitcher who doesn't throw a lot of FBs he is a decent bet to hold up for a few years, and his changeup means he could remain effective even if his FB loses a little. But he's a #3/#4 at best, and should be paid as such. One year at $17M is ideal 2/30, 3/42, 4/52 is what I'd be offering. Discount each extra year for risk as he hits his 30s.

It's very hard to trade for #1 pitchers, there just aren't that many and teams tend to be reluctant to give them up, and at this point, trading for a #1 over 30 would be foolhardy, look at Lee and Halladay, a guy pitching well at 31-32 is still a ticking time bomb. Remember the Garcia trade - that's what happens when you get impatient. One pitcher isn't going to put them over the top.

When the Rangers traded for Hamels, it was with a contending team and a loaded farm system.
While our farm system is better, it's still a couple years from being that loaded, and we're a couple years from contending.
In the winter of 2018, if we're coming off a 85-90 win season, then you roll the dice.

[bigegypt0417]

It's very hard to trade for #1 pitchers, there just aren't that many and teams tend to be reluctant to give them up, and at this point, trading for a #1 over 30 would be foolhardy, look at Lee and Halladay, a guy pitching well at 31-32 is still a ticking time bomb. Remember the Garcia trade - that's what happens when you get impatient. One pitcher isn't going to put them over the top.

the Garcia trade was incompetence.

[andyb]

You are not going to get Hellickson for 4/52. Those are prices from 2 years ago. He is the top starter in a weak market and he is young and coming off a good season. It will be $15 million a year if we want him. More per year for shorter deals. His price could even approach $20 million a year. At that level we probably pass, though at $15 million it really is not a hard contract to absorb at all.

I strongly disagree that one needs to be coming off an 85-90 win season to trade for a number 1/2 starter. An 81 team team can make the playoffs by adding 5-7 wins. As Allentown said, you always look to make your team better. If we can do it by trading assets where we have other options (Galvis and to a lesser degree Rupp) it is worth thinking about at ANY time.

[EDmuch]

I really cannot see how Galvis and Rupp get you a No. 1 starter. Maybe if you add Williams and Moniak you might get someone interested. Greinke seems to be the only "No. 1" type how would be available at any kind of possible discount.

[allentown]

I really cannot see how Galvis and Rupp get you a No. 1 starter. Maybe if you add Williams and Moniak you might get someone interested. Greinke seems to be the only "No. 1" type how would be available at any kind of possible discount.

As AndyB said, we also could use a #2. Hey, it isn't as if there is no prior history for this. We traded for both Lee and Halladay We didn't trade anyone of Moniak pedigree in either of those deals. The key thing about Galvis and Rupp: they are not untested prospects. They are major leaguers coming off plus seasons. That has great value, for a GM who wants to say he's gotten some immediate help, but also wants cheap and controllable. Perhaps a third guy (a prospect) will have to be included. I'd include Williams if the deal got us a #1/2 in return. I think that deal lines up quite well with what we gave for Halladay or Lee.

A deal like Lee/Halladay isn't often available. It's easier to work such a deal when a team needs to dump salary at a time when most teams are unable to take on salary. We had to unload Lee, fairly cheaply, in order to clear salary to sign Halladay. I am by no means saying a deal such as the one I outlined above is available today or early in the off-season. You need to be ready to spend money, make trades, and add talent at any time, because these deals do become available, sometimes when you are least expecting it, and you can't say 'too soon, I'm not going to spend the big $ or trade young players, until my team has at least 85 wins.' Opportunity doesn't come knocking every day and ignoring it because of some hard and fast rule --- well, IMHO it would be silly.

[andyb]

We should not stress too much on getting a #1. I would take another Velasquez with high end stuff. And we don't have to go down the rabbit hole of saying that "you can't get a #1 for Rupp".

The points on Rupp are as follows:
* He has value as a league average starting catcher
* He is inexpensive (raising his trade value)
* He is potentially replaceable from within (with Alfaro and Knapp).

Add the fact that the team's ability to absorb a $25 million plus salary also has value and you can get a scenario where a Grienke comes at a significant discount. Now Grienke comes with substantial risk because of age and his poor season. But that is exactly why he comes at a discount.

Frankly I would prefer to have Chris Archer. But Archer is going to be more expensive trade-wise even if he does not have the pedigree. He is signed for 3/21 essentially with two modest option years that could be bargains. Archer could be the Cliff Lee type that becomes hugely expensive because he is young, good, and inexpensive. Of course he is 9-19 with a 4.02 so maybe people don't know how good he is. I might give up Rupp plus two of our top 5 prospects not named Crawford for him. He is that good IMO.

[zambonir]

Hellickson sounds halfway out the door. And while it is just the sportswriter talking here, the five year $70 and $80 million deals given to Ian Kennedy and Mike Leake probably are his comps. You can quibble over the talent aspect of it but that's balanced by his age and the weak market. The only thing in the Phillies favor is the market didn't seem to value him in July.

philly.com/philly/sports/phi ... _loss.html

I think most of this discussion today could go in the delusional thread. There is no way the 2017 team is going to sign an expensive veteran closer and I kind of doubt they would touch Chapman with his personal history anyway (and weren't the Yankees better without him?). A clever trade for a starting pitcher would make sense but someone like Greinke is signed through 2021 for an outrageous amount of money. The team is still a year away from making three-year plus commitments of any kind, which is why (again judging from the link above) they will also likely pass on Hellickson.

I think Rupp probably does get traded (assuming they re-sign Ellis or bring in another veteran). Galvis won't be in the off-season, to give Crawford more time (and less service time). There will be another batch of Morton, Bourjos and Hernandez types. They might be upgrades, they might just work out better, they might not. They will get one OF who will potentially be a bigger upgrade on paper, that's never guaranteed.

[Austinfan]

Alfaro isn't ready and is going to spend most of the season in Lehigh.
If they were really thinking about trading Rupp, they would have given Alfaro an extended look.
And if you trade Rupp to get a player to be competitive in 2017, huh? Whose the catcher? Ellis and his .200 BA?
If you trade Rupp for the future, what's the rush?

As far as Kennedy and Leake, Leake was simply better than Hellickson, and more durable.
Kennedy 5 for 70 was an overpay. In his last 5 years starting, he's average 1.1 WAR per year.
However, he's been far more durable than Hellickson.

I think durability concerns will keep anyone from giving Hellickson more than 3 years.

[bigegypt0417]

Alfaro isn't ready and is going to spend most of the season in Lehigh.
If they were really thinking about trading Rupp, they would have given Alfaro an extended look.
And if you trade Rupp to get a player to be competitive in 2017, huh? Whose the catcher? Ellis and his .200 BA?
If you trade Rupp for the future, what's the rush?

If '17 is a non-competitive season you sign a veteran to a 2 year contract. Fairly easy thing to do...

You trade Rupp when he's worth more than he may ever be.

[andyb]

Hellickson has been pretty healthy with only one serious injury in 7 years. He seems beyond that (assuming yesterday was only a tweak). There are much better arguments against Hellickson than durability. He IS durable. He is only a 6-innng pitcher for the most part, but he is pretty durable when you compare him to other 29-30 year old pitchers. More than half of them have a more serious injury history and Hellickson has had 27+ starts in all but one season in his career.

On Alfaro as BigEgypt said, you get a placeholder. I think Alfaro would still win the job at some point next season if they made a trade. And Knapp is also there and it is not like he is awful. Knapp seems to get points for calling games and handling a pitching staff. He had a .719 OPS and threw out 38% of runners in AAA. Rupp was pretty close to that in his age 24 season (755 OPS split between Reading and LHV and throwing out 34% of runners).

The team should not compete at all costs in 2017. It is still more about positioning for 2018. If trading Rupp helps them get there in 2018 (if they see Alfaro as the starter then) it almost does not matter when they trade Rupp. FWIW I'd consider trading Alfaro also. I just think they can get more for Rupp and am willing to roll the dice on Alfaro developing.

[Austinfan]

If you're gonna trade a young starter with only one year of starting experience, odds are he'll be a lot more valuable with two years of starting experience - if you think Rupp or Galvis will flop next year, so do other teams, so right now they're not valuable trade bait (unless you assume you're smarter than all those GMs out there). So there's no rush unless someone makes an offer you can't refuse.

Same with FAs, unless a young FA who is good value to this team comes available, only sign patches who fit with their long range plans.

I've never said do nothing or don't spend, I've always said make moves that have real value down the road and aren't just shuffling players to look like you're doing something, or spend money just because you have it.

TRUST THE PROCESS!!!