Where is this team headed based on 2016?

[Jlstcui]

I'll throw a couple of odd ideas out there, but ones which I think may be worth considering.

With Galvis having now hit 20 HRs and being an above-average defensive SS, a slightly nefarious thought occurs to me: with Crawford struggling in AAA, would it be worth weighing the possibility of trading him while the experts still view him as a great prospect, perhaps for a big bopper at a position where we don't have a fairly strong player, perhaps in the outfield?

I know that Galvis is generally viewed on this board as a so-so player overall, but his newfound power seems to be more than a short-sample aberration at this point. And if Crawford is still a hot prospect, he could command a serious hitter in return, but one who takes care of a different position. Then, if he somehow never quite fulfills his high potential, we'd be in the catbird seat. And even if he does, we would still be in rather good shape.

Second, and this is certainly a less radical thought, I don't see Altherr as a successful ML outfielder. He's a good defender, but it seems as though whenever he gets the chance to play more, he hits less. I suspect, fair or not, that he will either be a backup or elsewhere before long.

[andyb]

I wouldn't argue that increased spending would create problems. But that said, I'm seeing what look like arguments for spending for its own sake - e.g., arguments that the Phils aren't spending enough, but without any specifics about where they should spend more in ways that are consistent with the long-term goals of the organization.

Some say, "They should spend more on international players." Well, yeah...but the top international players (under 23) tend to be committed long before they're eligible to sign; how is an administration that was hired last September supposed to sign top prospects who committed to other clubs before that? If they're not working toward such agreements with future international prospects, then there might be an argument here - but it's too soon, IMHO, to be making that argument now.

Over-23 players? Who have they failed to sign that they realistically could have signed?

Free agents? More specifically, free agents who won't be over-age by the time the Phils are where they want to be, overall? Young free agents are very rare; 30-year-olds are stopgaps, who won't be part of the next Phils' core. Yeah, they could sign some stopgaps - perhaps make some fans feel better - but that would, IMHO, be kidding those fans. It would be Lance Parrish/Gregg Jefferies.

Trades of veterans for prospects, taking back bad contracts, or eating our own bad contracts? They've done that. They've traded every veteran asset they had, and done pretty well - and eaten some contracts, taken back one bad contract (Harrison), in order to increase the prospect return. Could they have done more? I rather doubt it; they don't have much left in the way of tradable veteran assets.

Draft intelligently, and sign the drafted players? Any complaints about this year's draft?

If the Phillies decline to spend when they have an opportunity to use money to advance the long-term objectives in a meaningful way, then I, too will be concerned about their spending level. But I haven't seen that - not since MacPhail/Klentak took the reins.

I absolutely agree that I would rather see the Phils spending more than just pocketing the profits. But not spending randomly, not spending in ways that don't further the long-term plan. If that means ownership makes larger profits, until such time as more can be spent productively - well, I don't really begrudge them that. I mean, they could cut ticket prices, I suppose; but I don't particularly want them adding expensive players to the roster unless those players really do project as part of the next long-term core.

There have been multiple over-23 prospects that the Phillies have bid for and come up short for some reason. There have a dozen Cubans that were added to the U23 market this year and we got exactly none of them when we have the ability to spend another $5 million plus. Those are not arguments to spend randomly. Those are markets where the current team has chosen not to spend - or simply played the market poorly. The Phillies knew 2 years ago they would have a large international allocation. They also have known for years that they could break the pool limit with penalties that are far smaller than the rewards.

These are valid questions why the Phillies choose to do this and efficiency is not an adequate answer.

I have also never advocated simply taking on bad contracts. I prefer deals for arbitration eligible players that become too expensive for their teams. Hellickson and Morton were small examples of this. There are more out there. And there are plays for a big contract like Grienke that they should consider because they have little chance of spending their revenue in the next 5 years if they don't add a couple of contracts like that.

When ownership used to bemoan draft spending because "almost all prospects fail" or something like that they were wrong. The hope is that the new regime is strong enough to explain that to the powers that be. There are ways to add wins to this current roster without impacting future talent and there are more ways to add future talent that have not been used to the fullest extent.

[julio]

I'll throw a couple of odd ideas out there, but ones which I think may be worth considering.

With Galvis having now hit 20 HRs and being an above-average defensive SS, a slightly nefarious thought occurs to me: with Crawford struggling in AAA, would it be worth weighing the possibility of trading him while the experts still view him as a great prospect, perhaps for a big bopper at a position where we don't have a fairly strong player, perhaps in the outfield?

I know that Galvis is generally viewed on this board as a so-so player overall, but his newfound power seems to be more than a short-sample aberration at this point. And if Crawford is still a hot prospect, he could command a serious hitter in return, but one who takes care of a different position. Then, if he somehow never quite fulfills his high potential, we'd be in the catbird seat. And even if he does, we would still be in rather good shape.

This is entirely dependent on your key assumption; e.g., Galvis' "newfound power seems to be more than a short-sample aberration at this point." If you're wrong, and Galvis regresses to his recent mean production, the Phils are royally screwed. If you're right, and the power surge is the result of PED use, and Galvis is caught (again), the Phils are royally screwed. You want to gamble that neither of those is the case?

Also:

Age 21 Minor League Performance:
[atable width=60%][tr][td]** Player [/td][td] Year [/td][td] Level [/td][tdr] PA [/tdr][tdr] OBP [/tdr][tdr] SLG [/tdr][tdr] OPS **[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Crawford[/td][td]2016[/td][td]AA[/td][tdr]166[/tdr][tdr].398[/tdr][tdr].390[/tdr][tdr].787[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Crawford[/td][td]2016[/td][td]AAA[/td][tdr]385[/tdr][tdr].328[/tdr][tdr].318[/tdr][tdr].647[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Galvis[/td][td]2011[/td][td]AA[/td][tdr]464[/tdr][tdr].326[/tdr][tdr].400[/tdr][tdr].727[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Galvis[/td][td]2011[/td][td]AAA[/td][tdr]126[/tdr][tdr].315[/tdr][tdr].364[/tdr][tdr].678[/tdr][/tr][/atable]
The data suggest that Crawford is about where Galvis was, five years ago. Crawford was better this year in AA than Galvis was at the same age, and a bit behind him in AAA (ignoring here that OPS doesn't adequately weight OBP vs. SLG). But Crawford has the potential for more power; Galvis has established that he's not going to have a credible OBP, ever, really.

Second, and this is certainly a less radical thought, I don't see Altherr as a successful ML outfielder. He's a good defender, but it seems as though whenever he gets the chance to play more, he hits less. I suspect, fair or not, that he will either be a backup or elsewhere before long.

"Whenever" he gets the chance to play more, he hits less? This is based on what? In 2014, Altherr appeared in five games. In 2015, he played, and played well (.827 OPS). This year, he suffered a wrist injury in the spring...then came back ahead of schedule, and yes, has struggled. But I don't see how you can look at that record and state what you wrote above; it simply does not follow from the data. The reality is that we just don't know about him yet, because we haven't had a chance to see if a fully healthy Altherr can keep up as opponents make adjustments.

[julio]

There have been multiple over-23 prospects that the Phillies have bid for and come up short for some reason.

Since last August?

There have a dozen Cubans that were added to the U23 market this year and we got exactly none of them when we have the ability to spend another $5 million plus.

Who among them did you want?

Those are not arguments to spend randomly. Those are markets where the current team has chosen not to spend - or simply played the market poorly. The Phillies knew 2 years ago they would have a large international allocation. They also have known for years that they could break the pool limit with penalties that are far smaller than the rewards.

Again - You're now arguing about what the Montgomery/Amaro administration failed to do. I don't think anybody disagrees - but I was pretty explicitly questioning why some here are criticizing MacPhail/Klentak for what Montgomery/Amaro failed to do.

When ownership used to bemoan draft spending because "almost all prospects fail" or something like that they were wrong. The hope is that the new regime is strong enough to explain that to the powers that be.

From where I sit, the changes in ownership constitute part of the "new regime." Presumably, MacPhail doesn't have to explain things to the "powers that be" in the way he might have needed to do, if he were dealing with the Buck brothers and David Montgomery...presumably, John Middleton and the second-generation Buck cousins already understand...presumably, that's why they hired MacPhail in the first place. And importantly...what evidence is there that they still hold the beliefs you cite?

There are ways to add wins to this current roster without impacting future talent and there are more ways to add future talent that have not been used to the fullest extent.

Again, you say "have not been used to the fullest extent." Do you think this is really true, in the time period since the end of last season? I mean, it has certainly been true over the longer haul - and that's a large part of the reason why we wanted to see Monty and Amaro "outta here." But in the last 11 months? What could they have really done differently/better? Pursued Rymer Liriano?

[Mike9559]

I think it's time to think bigger. We need a corner outfielder (or 2) for the middle of the order and we have plenty of assets. What's it going to take to get Trout from the Angels? Myers from the Padres? Puig from the Dodgers? Any outfielder from the Rockies?

[allentown]

There have been multiple over-23 prospects that the Phillies have bid for and come up short for some reason.

Since last August?

[quote]There have a dozen Cubans that were added to the U23 market this year and we got exactly none of them when we have the ability to spend another $5 million plus.[/quote]

Who among them did you want?

[quote]Those are not arguments to spend randomly. Those are markets where the current team has chosen not to spend - or simply played the market poorly. The Phillies knew 2 years ago they would have a large international allocation. They also have known for years that they could break the pool limit with penalties that are far smaller than the rewards.[/quote]

Again - You're now arguing about what the Montgomery/Amaro administration failed to do. I don't think anybody disagrees - but I was pretty explicitly questioning why some here are criticizing MacPhail/Klentak for what Montgomery/Amaro failed to do.

[quote]When ownership used to bemoan draft spending because "almost all prospects fail" or something like that they were wrong. The hope is that the new regime is strong enough to explain that to the powers that be.[/quote]

From where I sit, the changes in ownership constitute part of the "new regime." Presumably, MacPhail doesn't have to explain things to the "powers that be" in the way he might have needed to do, if he were dealing with the Buck brothers and David Montgomery...presumably, John Middleton and the second-generation Buck cousins already understand...presumably, that's why they hired MacPhail in the first place. And importantly...what evidence is there that they still hold the beliefs you cite?

[quote]There are ways to add wins to this current roster without impacting future talent and there are more ways to add future talent that have not been used to the fullest extent.[/quote]

Again, you say "have not been used to the fullest extent." Do you think this is really true, in the time period since the end of last season? I mean, it has certainly been true over the longer haul - and that's a large part of the reason why we wanted to see Monty and Amaro "outta here." But in the last 11 months? What could they have really done differently/better? Pursued Rymer Liriano?

I don't buy 'the world began last September' argument. MacPhail was here in June 2015 and Middleton was very involved prior to that. We spent 4+ million for Ortiz alone last season. It was clear we would have a higher allocation this international season. It seems to me that Middleton may have pulled back financially and I think it may be related to his sister's lawsuit over the inheritance and valuation of the family company. For whatever reason, the Phillies have really cut back on spending this season. You can offer excuses, but that is fact. Further fact is that if they don't do some quite significant FA/over-23 international spending for the MLB roster over this winter, or take on some key guys in trade, with the departure of Howard our 2017 MLB salary will be REALLY small.

I am not comfortable with the ownership getting used to the status quo of taking ever larger profits from the team. They may fall in love with that and we may never approach the luxury salary cap, because the owners want to make huge profit. It is also not at all a good sign to hear Gillick saying his initial estimate for the year the team contends again was too optimistic. We are now officially slipping behind on the plan. Too many seasons since we've been above .500 to continue writing off seasons. We are no longer in the rebuilding sweet spot. We may well be out of top 10 draft position after this season and almost certainly after next year, but not good enough to be truly exciting. Sort of the past Sixers redux.

Seriously, when was the last time we heard Middleton speak of spending what was necessary to win. I don't remember hearing that recently. I think TPTB have down-shifted at least one gear.

[Austinfan]

Puig? Why?
Trout? The entire farm system.

Actually, right now is the worst time to be trading most of our assets, because they're good but not blue chip minor leaguers (even Crawford probably wouldn't bring a huge haul), so you're going to have to package a lot of prospects to garner a top hitting corner OF. And that player won't put you over the top by himself.

Sometimes you need to be a little patient, the current rebuild essentially started in July 2014, and was all in only last year. I think it's reasonable to give it 3 years before you start "reaching," that would be the winter of 2017, and that's when I expect Klentak to be more aggressive, when he has a better handle on the players he has in the system.

Joseph is a perfect example, he could have been claimed last year, now he's our starting 1B, and if he continues to improve, could be a .850 OPS hitter next year. Cozens could flop or be that corner OF. Hoskins could tear up Lehigh, removing any doubts that he's a prime hitting prospect, and be included in a package - but hitting at Reading won't make you a premier prospect in most team's eyes.

Don't care how many under .500 seasons they've had, the current group and it's commitment to rebuilding has had less than a year to implement their plan. Give them a little time before breaking glass.

[tom81]

I'll throw a couple of odd ideas out there, but ones which I think may be worth considering.

With Galvis having now hit 20 HRs and being an above-average defensive SS, a slightly nefarious thought occurs to me: with Crawford struggling in AAA, would it be worth weighing the possibility of trading him while the experts still view him as a great prospect, perhaps for a big bopper at a position where we don't have a fairly strong player, perhaps in the outfield?

I know that Galvis is generally viewed on this board as a so-so player overall, but his newfound power seems to be more than a short-sample aberration at this point. And if Crawford is still a hot prospect, he could command a serious hitter in return, but one who takes care of a different position. Then, if he somehow never quite fulfills his high potential, we'd be in the catbird seat. And even if he does, we would still be in rather good shape.

This is entirely dependent on your key assumption; e.g., Galvis' "newfound power seems to be more than a short-sample aberration at this point." If you're wrong, and Galvis regresses to his recent mean production, the Phils are royally screwed. If you're right, and the power surge is the result of PED use, and Galvis is caught (again), the Phils are royally screwed. You want to gamble that neither of those is the case?

Also:

Age 21 Minor League Performance:
[atable width=60%][tr][td]** Player [/td][td] Year [/td][td] Level [/td][tdr] PA [/tdr][tdr] OBP [/tdr][tdr] SLG [/tdr][tdr] OPS **[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Crawford[/td][td]2016[/td][td]AA[/td][tdr]166[/tdr][tdr].398[/tdr][tdr].390[/tdr][tdr].787[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Crawford[/td][td]2016[/td][td]AAA[/td][tdr]385[/tdr][tdr].328[/tdr][tdr].318[/tdr][tdr].647[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Galvis[/td][td]2011[/td][td]AA[/td][tdr]464[/tdr][tdr].326[/tdr][tdr].400[/tdr][tdr].727[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Galvis[/td][td]2011[/td][td]AAA[/td][tdr]126[/tdr][tdr].315[/tdr][tdr].364[/tdr][tdr].678[/tdr][/tr][/atable]
The data suggest that Crawford is about where Galvis was, five years ago. Crawford was better this year in AA than Galvis was at the same age, and a bit behind him in AAA (ignoring here that OPS doesn't adequately weight OBP vs. SLG). But Crawford has the potential for more power; Galvis has established that he's not going to have a credible OBP, ever, really.

[quote]Second, and this is certainly a less radical thought, I don't see Altherr as a successful ML outfielder. He's a good defender, but it seems as though whenever he gets the chance to play more, he hits less. I suspect, fair or not, that he will either be a backup or elsewhere before long.[/quote]

"Whenever" he gets the chance to play more, he hits less? This is based on what? In 2014, Altherr appeared in five games. In 2015, he played, and played well (.827 OPS). This year, he suffered a wrist injury in the spring...then came back ahead of schedule, and yes, has struggled. But I don't see how you can look at that record and state what you wrote above; it simply does not follow from the data. The reality is that we just don't know about him yet, because we haven't had a chance to see if a fully healthy Altherr can keep up as opponents make adjustments.

Everyone is available in the right deal and I do believe you can win with Galvis as your SS if you surround him with better players. Galvis has a 1.1 dWAR this year. He is getting comfortable as an everyday starting SS and he is only 26 and won't be a FA till 2019. I'm in a minority but I'd love to trade Crawford, Altherr, some of the young pitching or catching in a package if you could get back someone like Christian Yelich or José Fernandez.

[julio]

It seems to me that Middleton may have pulled back financially and I think it may be related to his sister's lawsuit over the inheritance and valuation of the family company.

You're welcome to believe that - but there's simply no evidence, one way or another.

For whatever reason, the Phillies have really cut back on spending this season. You can offer excuses, but that is fact.

Yes, it's a fact. But they did what we wanted them to do. Why do I say that? Because of what caused that cutback - they eliminated about $75 million from their major-league payroll (Lee, Hamels, Utley, Papelbon). Did you want them to sign $75 million worth of free agents last winter? The reality here is that the vast majority of us wanted these veteran players moved. Do we have complaints about how they were moved? About the returns we got?

Oh, and trying to understand the reasons why spending is down doesn't constitute offering excuses. You can't dismiss all analysis as "excuses." That won't fly.

Further fact is that if they don't do some quite significant FA/over-23 international spending for the MLB roster over this winter, or take on some key guys in trade, with the departure of Howard our 2017 MLB salary will be REALLY small.

This is true - but is it a negative? I mean, they could pick up Howard's option, and continue to spend the money. But you don't want that; none of us does. That said, I agree that they should consider adding talent, whether over-23 international signings (assuming there's somebody out there who can actually make a difference), or through more trading - which can certainly include "spending" in taking on contracts that might be higher than market value. Free agents? There isn't a lot out there.

So yes, they've dramatically reduced spending. So what? You seem to be equating spending with effort, or with intelligent choices...but you know very well that spending does not equate to good management.

What have they failed to do - specifically - since the change in management, that would have furthered the rebuilding of this organization? I'm happy to comment on specific failures, or perceived failures - but you can't just look at overall spending and say "they've failed" - not unless spending, rather than actual improvement, is your metric.

[Austinfan]

They're also getting tight on 40 man roster spots, so any veteran you add will take away a prospect you can protect. So it's both money and value, it's only worth spending money on really good players or someone who fills a "black hole," so basically LF and maybe a closer. I mean spending $20M a year on a 3 WAR over 30 veteran pitcher when you have plenty of 26 year old 2 WAR pitchers seems kind of a waste.

[allentown]

It seems to me that Middleton may have pulled back financially and I think it may be related to his sister's lawsuit over the inheritance and valuation of the family company.

You're welcome to believe that - but there's simply no evidence, one way or another.

[quote]For whatever reason, the Phillies have really cut back on spending this season. You can offer excuses, but that is fact.[/quote]

Yes, it's a fact. But they did what we wanted them to do. Why do I say that? Because of what caused that cutback - they eliminated about $75 million from their major-league payroll (Lee, Hamels, Utley, Papelbon). Did you want them to sign $75 million worth of free agents last winter? The reality here is that the vast majority of us wanted these veteran players moved. Do we have complaints about how they were moved? About the returns we got?

Oh, and trying to understand the reasons why spending is down doesn't constitute offering excuses. You can't dismiss all analysis as "excuses." That won't fly.

[quote]Further fact is that if they don't do some quite significant FA/over-23 international spending for the MLB roster over this winter, or take on some key guys in trade, with the departure of Howard our 2017 MLB salary will be REALLY small.[/quote]

This is true - but is it a negative? I mean, they could pick up Howard's option, and continue to spend the money. But you don't want that; none of us does. That said, I agree that they should consider adding talent, whether over-23 international signings (assuming there's somebody out there who can actually make a difference), or through more trading - which can certainly include "spending" in taking on contracts that might be higher than market value. Free agents? There isn't a lot out there.

So yes, they've dramatically reduced spending. So what? You seem to be equating spending with effort, or with intelligent choices...but you know very well that spending does not equate to good management.

What have they failed to do - specifically - since the change in management, that would have furthered the rebuilding of this organization? I'm happy to comment on specific failures, or perceived failures - but you can't just look at overall spending and say "they've failed" - not unless spending, rather than actual improvement, is your metric.

Two things they haven't done which I believe they should have done, which would make a difference in shortening the time to contention: 1) be a factor in the over-23 Cuban and Japanese markets. There have been more Cubans hitting the market this year and 2) spend 150% of our international allocation.

[allentown]

They're also getting tight on 40 man roster spots, so any veteran you add will take away a prospect you can protect. So it's both money and value, it's only worth spending money on really good players or someone who fills a "black hole," so basically LF and maybe a closer. I mean spending $20M a year on a 3 WAR over 30 veteran pitcher when you have plenty of 26 year old 2 WAR pitchers seems kind of a waste.

Yes, FA WAR costs more than home-grown WAR. It's only a waste if that money can be spent to add that 3 WAR more efficiently or if adding the 3 WAR keeps us from getting a truly primo top 5 draft slot. I don't think either of those problems are pertinent to the current Phillies. FA cost per WAR becomes an issue when it prevents you from keeping your own home-grown young players or from seizing a bargain which unexpectedly becomes available. Our salary budget is a very long way from either of those problems. I pick an expensive 3 WAR pitcher over the alternative: the owners pocket the money and get used to pocketing that much money each season.

[allentown]

Quinn has come back to earth a bit after a good start right after his recall and is now batting only .226, so maybe we shouldn't pencil him into the Phillies' 2017 Opening Day lineup just yet. He has shown some nice things though, especially the 107 point swing between his BA and his OBP.

I agree he should not be starting 2017 in Philly. He needs some time in Allentown. I think he's done jus fine in his MLB cup of coffee. He is young and because of injury doesn't have close to the normal minor league AB for a draftee his age. Odds are very high that he will be just fine as an MLB starter within a year, if he stays healthy.

[Austinfan]

Replacing a 2 WAR young pitcher with a 3 WAR veteran on a 3 or 4 year contract is counterproductive for a number of reasons:
1) you're slowing development of the pitchers you'll need in 2018-20 when you are competitive
2) you're giving up a 40 man roster spot to a veteran who won't be around when that prospect is gone
3) you're spending a lot of money for a marginal upgrade, not a good trend

It's not about not spending money, it's about spending money wisely.
Winning 2 more games in 2017 is kinda meaningless.
So you want to spend in areas where you are clearly deficient (LF, closer) or where you can get a major upgrade - is there anyone out of Cuba or Asia who qualifies as the later this year?

Replace Hernandez or Gomez with a better RP, keep Hellickson or upgrade, keep Ellis or add another veteran catcher to mentor Rupp, Alfaro and the young pitchers.
But don't sign guys to spend money to show you're doing something, that's the Ed Wade way.

[andyb]

This is entirely dependent on your key assumption; e.g., Galvis' "newfound power seems to be more than a short-sample aberration at this point." If you're wrong, and Galvis regresses to his recent mean production, the Phils are royally screwed. If you're right, and the power surge is the result of PED use, and Galvis is caught (again), the Phils are royally screwed. You want to gamble that neither of those is the case?

Also:

Age 21 Minor League Performance:
[atable width=60%][tr][td]** Player [/td][td] Year [/td][td] Level [/td][tdr] PA [/tdr][tdr] OBP [/tdr][tdr] SLG [/tdr][tdr] OPS **[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Crawford[/td][td]2016[/td][td]AA[/td][tdr]166[/tdr][tdr].398[/tdr][tdr].390[/tdr][tdr].787[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Crawford[/td][td]2016[/td][td]AAA[/td][tdr]385[/tdr][tdr].328[/tdr][tdr].318[/tdr][tdr].647[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Galvis[/td][td]2011[/td][td]AA[/td][tdr]464[/tdr][tdr].326[/tdr][tdr].400[/tdr][tdr].727[/tdr][/tr][k1][/k1]
[k2][/k2][tr][td]Galvis[/td][td]2011[/td][td]AAA[/td][tdr]126[/tdr][tdr].315[/tdr][tdr].364[/tdr][tdr].678[/tdr][/tr][/atable]
The data suggest that Crawford is about where Galvis was, five years ago. Crawford was better this year in AA than Galvis was at the same age, and a bit behind him in AAA (ignoring here that OPS doesn't adequately weight OBP vs. SLG). But Crawford has the potential for more power; Galvis has established that he's not going to have a credible OBP, ever, really.

The flaw with looking at "data" like that is that you are isolating one minor league season which was the only minor league season that Galvis had an OPS over 610 and comparing it to Crawford's worst minor league season. Plus Crawford's strength in OBP is a more important determinant of major league success. So the data really does not suggest that Crawford is about where Galvis was 5 years ago. It is kind of a cherry-picked comparison season. This is not to suggest that Galvis was not beginning to show signs of power. He was and it helps his profile because without it he is probably not a starting major league shortstop.

Yet another reason why using all of the data on a player in a comparison is more important than any single season. A player's entire record including scouting reports and tools is important. Crawford had a disappointing end of the season in 2016. He keeps getting hurt also which is not great. But he still projects as a far superior major league shortstop than Galvis currently is. And it is reasonable to doubt Galvis' power a bit if he continues to have such a low OBP. He'll now get fewer strikes to hit and he better draw some walks or the power could diminish.

[Slinging_Southpaw]

Is Galvis on PED's? Maybe, but that's not why he's hitting HR's. This reminds me of J-Rolls heyday. Easy, smooth swing, ball jumps. He's just barreling it.

[Austinfan]

It has been frustrating to watch this team spiral downward, and I think it's natural to think it's time to turn it around and start winning - but you can't blame McPhail and Klentak for the decisions that delayed the start of the rebuilding process by two years - so those losing seasons should have no impact on the timetable for the rebuild. The shame of 2013-2014 is they were a losing team that just got older and continued to draft badly, nor spend in LA or trade for prospects. But that's water under the bridge.

We're two years into the rebuild, realistically this team won't be competing to get back to a WS until 2020. It's not just getting new talent at the ML level, it's the time it takes for that talent to mature, few championships teams are loaded with rookies and second year players, you need a core of young but experienced veterans in their 26-29 year old peak years.

Since I see 2017 as the third year of the rebuild, and 2018 as the first year to expect them to be competitive (over .500 with a shot at a wildcard), I'm in no hurry to make drastic moves to win now. I see next year as all about player development and evaluation, by the end of the year we'll have a much better idea whether the guys on Reading this year will be contributing in 2018. We'll know which young starting pitchers have built the stamina and taken the step up with their command and secondary pitches to be reliable members of a starting rotation. And in winter 2017, Klentak will know which young players are expendable, and can be packaged to fill a position of need.

This doesn't mean you don't spend, just that every move should be focused on 2020, that is, winning in 2017 is a low priority, adding pieces that will be peaking around 2020 the highest priority. You can't control when a team will become competitive, crap happens and lightning strikes, but you can focus on adding talent and building organizational depth. It would be great to add a 25 year old Cuban or Japanese player who would be a serious upgrade, signing a 32 year FA as anything more than a short-term patch would be counterproductive. I have no problem breaking the bank in LA next year when our allocation will be far smaller, and even trading for allocations (if possible) has far less value. I have serious reservations about trading 26 or 27 year old starters because a prospect MIGHT be able to replace them in a year or two unless someone makes me an offer I can't refuse.

[andyb]

There have a dozen Cubans that were added to the U23 market this year and we got exactly none of them when we have the ability to spend another $5 million plus.

Who among them did you want?
]

The answer is any one or two of the top 30 talents that we did not get. A list:
Adrian Morejon
Norge Ruiz*
Cionel Perez
Vladimir Guttierez
Lourdes Gurriel*
Alfredo Rodriguez
Lazaro Armenteros
Jorge Ona
Yanio Perez*
Jonathan Machado
Randy Arozarena
Ronald Bolanos

This is the mlb.com top 30 list. 12 Cubans available. None would have required 2 years lead time. Three (*) still available though Gurriel probably waits till he turns 23. Note with all the new Cubans the Phillies signed only 1 top 30 talent on the MLB list (Morales at 22).

The Phillies have the room to spend more than $8.4 million. To date we have spent less than $4 million (and the amount for Muzzioti does not look like a great expenditure to me at this point. It was a reactive move to perhaps paper over the failure to get other top prospects.

With the number one bonus pool we are simply not taking advantage of it at this point even if we want to stay under the pool limit. This is hard to argue from the data out there (and I have defended the Phillies on this in previous years).

[schillingfan]

Replacing a 2 WAR young pitcher with a 3 WAR veteran on a 3 or 4 year contract is counterproductive for a number of reasons:
1) you're slowing development of the pitchers you'll need in 2018-20 when you are competitive
2) you're giving up a 40 man roster spot to a veteran who won't be around when that prospect is gone
3) you're spending a lot of money for a marginal upgrade, not a good trend

It's not about not spending money, it's about spending money wisely.
Winning 2 more games in 2017 is kinda meaningless.
So you want to spend in areas where you are clearly deficient (LF, closer) or where you can get a major upgrade - is there anyone out of Cuba or Asia who qualifies as the later this year?

Replace Hernandez or Gomez with a better RP, keep Hellickson or upgrade, keep Ellis or add another veteran catcher to mentor Rupp, Alfaro and the young pitchers.
But don't sign guys to spend money to show you're doing something, that's the Ed Wade way.

By your analysis it's not about spending money at all. It's about making wise personnel decisions. The good news is we don't have fiscal constraints which could hamper our ability to acquire a talent, and even have abundance, which could be used as bait to attract talent or relieve another team of a contract that is too onerous for that team, but not the Phillies.

Frankly, it's not about money at all. It's about identifying talent both within your own system, other systems, free agents, the draft and spending what it costs to acquire that talent. While we will have a pretty small budget, we also have a pretty sparse attendance these days, so I would not be averse to spending money to make the team better and fill seats. Do not want to go into a downward decline where revenues dip, despite the new TV contract, because the team is so lousy, thus reducing our budget.

[Austinfan]

With the Comcast money, I don't think budget has much to do with spending, and give the payoff from winning (think of the revenue generated by a million extra butts in seats, not just ticket sales but concessions and parking), I doubt they're pinching pennies.

I just think that Klentak has a strategy he's following, and it's based on rebuilding the team, and not relying on quick fixes to win a few more games. As far as international spending, I'll reserve judgement until we get more data, they did sign something like 2 of the top 20 and 5 of the top 50 or so.