Where is this team headed based on 2016?

[Philsmania]

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 MacPhail 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.

Generally, I agree. Although "five year plan" may seem like old school baseball jargon, even organizations that try to rebuild using new school approaches still seem to take five years to really get themselves into position to genuinely contend. See how the Astros, Mets and Cubs all committed to rebuilds after 2010 and blossomed into contenders last year. I guess it's simply hard to fast track these things no matter how you approach it, unless an organization has some extraordinary luck like drafting a couple of once in a generation talents a couple of years in a row. Hence, my expectation is that 2019 will be the season we really contend with 2017 being an "improved" losing season (75-80 wins) and 2018 being a season where we finish close to and hopefully over the .500 barrier and hang around on the periphery of the wildcard race.

[zambonir]

Generally, I agree. Although "five year plan" may seem like old school baseball jargon, even organizations that try to rebuild using new school approaches still seem to take five years to really get themselves into position to genuinely contend. See how the Astros, Mets and Cubs all committed to rebuilds after 2010 and blossomed into contenders last year. I guess it's simply hard to fast track these things no matter how you approach it, unless an organization has some extraordinary luck like drafting a couple of once in a generation talents a couple of years in a row. Hence, my expectation is that 2019 will be the season we really contend with 2017 being an "improved" losing season (75-80 wins) and 2018 being a season where we finish close to and hopefully over the .500 barrier and hang around on the periphery of the wildcard race.

Well, the Mets didn't "commit" to a rebuild, they were just broke. But overall, yes, agreed. I firmly believe Klentak is following the Cubs/Astros model and probably is disappointed the team's draft position won't be higher (especially considering the run differential - if he really was tanking, you can't say he didn't build the right offense for it). It will be a very interesting off-season. I have hard time believing he would really sign a QO free agent unless he is deeply confident that the player will be able to contribute through 2019. I don't think the team is being cheap, in fact I think it is heartening that they are prepared to weather the drop in attendance (and accompanying revenue) in order to execute their plan, knowing that it will pay for itself and then some once the place is full again (and the Comcast money allows them to do that).

If they dropped the ball on anything this year I think it was because Klentak did not want to make certain decisions based on the scouting infrastructure of the previous regime. That they were willing to take a year w/o making major any front office chances (or managerial/coaching changes) only further shows they were in no hurry.

[flyers19rw]

The Phillies probably have a five year plan/strategy in place. MacPhail most likely laid out his vision to Middleton/Bucks and they bought into it when they hired him. Mac has never been a quick fix, splashy move administrator. From what we saw of the GCL Phillies, he looks to be building a baseball player, rather than an athlete, laden farm system. Klentak was Mac's guy back in Baltimore so he knows the drill. Observations seem to indicate that Almarez is on that same page. The people in the organization who get it will stay. Those that don't, such as Brundage, will be dropped. Look for more chances in October.
As for the guys on the field, changes will come. Howard comes off of the books with his buyout. There's little salary left. This is a young team but still a poor one. The lack of fundamentals is appalling at times. That needs to be worked on and if the players can't learn, they'll be moved. The errors made on the base paths is horrendous. The failure to recognize the strike zone and work counts is suitable to Little League play not major leaguers. We'll see who the students of the game are by the player moves that are/aren't made. The greatest question going forward is whether the manager and staff to do the teaching is in town? My call is no. Sure wish that Showalter could cloned. The Phillies need one.

[Austinfan]

They've already replaced a few scouts and will probably replace a few more, and the rest are learning the difference between ball players and athletes.

But some of the problem is simply inexperience - right now they're playing lineups with no one with more than two full seasons of ML experience.

[Philsmania]

I was surprised at how few changes there were right after Klentak was hired. People were added--mostly in the analytics department--but not really replaced. I can't really remember any heads rolling at the time and most of Amaro's leadership team (Kerfeld, Wade, et al.) remained in place. I guess it was natural to expect a bit of a shakedown year.

[andyb]

I was surprised at how few changes there were right after Klentak was hired. People were added--mostly in the analytics department--but not really replaced. I can't really remember any heads rolling at the time and most of Amaro's leadership team (Kerfeld, Wade, et al.) remained in place. I guess it was natural to expect a bit of a shakedown year.

Every new GM has brought in some of their own people. There is also natural turnover that is probably something like 10% a year.

Of course one could argue that the scouts were never really the problem. There was probably more good than bad except for a few huge mistakes like Larry Greene. Every organization makes mistakes though. The question is whether they learn from that (or whether it was the people drafting who made the mistake - Larry Greene might have been a good risk a round or two later).

The biggest problems with the Phillies lack of development for a decade were all associated with resources. No high picks in the first round. Forfeited draft picks for free agents. No breaking the slot limits by a great deal when there were no pool limits. And no huge international spending. Good scouts can have bad results with one hand tied behind their back.

[julio]

I was surprised at how few changes there were right after Klentak was hired. People were added--mostly in the analytics department--but not really replaced. I can't really remember any heads rolling at the time and most of Amaro's leadership team (Kerfeld, Wade, et al.) remained in place. I guess it was natural to expect a bit of a shakedown year.

My recollection is that MacPhail/Klentak were pretty explicit about their intent to take some time to evaluate the existing personnel - that they were not going to just clear the house and start from scratch. That kind of evaluation, in a system that operates on an annual cycle (with different activities at different times in the cycle) takes time - you really can't do it without observing a full cycle, IMHO. So they said they would take time to evaluate, and they've done that. This is surprising?

I seem to recall a discussion/debate here when they made it clear that they weren't going to just make wholesale changes up front - some were of the opinion that anybody who worked for Amaro "needed to go," simply because they worked for Amaro, and were unhappy that certain people weren't immediately let go.

[Austinfan]

It was pretty obvious that the Latin operation was just fine, all they need was more resources.

The domestic scouting group is where the changes were made, and the biggest one was dumping Wolever and a year later Amaro. Start at the top, bring in the new guys, let them make their evaluations - but it's not like the scouting department was a disaster area, they actually did pretty decently after the first couple rounds - and that may be less scouting than the top guys making bad decisions.

[allentown]

It was pretty obvious that the Latin operation was just fine, all they need was more resources.

The domestic scouting group is where the changes were made, and the biggest one was dumping Wolever and a year later Amaro. Start at the top, bring in the new guys, let them make their evaluations - but it's not like the scouting department was a disaster area, they actually did pretty decently after the first couple rounds - and that may be less scouting than the top guys making bad decisions.

I think it probably was the top guys making bad decisions, because we seemed at least average or better in identifying talent in later rounds, even without the ability to break slots that other scouting directors were given during much of the Wolever years. It was the primo picks, when we had them, where we so often misfired.

In Latin America, I do think more resources were and are needed. I see no reason why we shouldn't have just assumed we would spend 150% of our allocation this year. Yes, good scouts can find guys who have a chance for a low bonus and we have gotten good pitching prospects via this approach. But such an approach is not at all inconsistent with signing more high-end, high-bonus prospects. Really, it isn't possible to run a quantity vs quality approach, without fielding more teams, such that you can actually instruct and play a higher number of Latin American kids each year. We could add another rookie team state-side or we could add another DSL team, or we could do both. If you can play twice as many interesting Latin American kids a year, compared to most teams, then you can start to get an edge with a quantity approach.

[Austinfan]

I think with the academies and two DSL teams, you have all the slots you need.

I suspect they sign a lot of guys that get a cup of coffee, some instruction some nutrition and weight training, and wash out after a year or two. The better prospects play on the DSL teams, but even then, given that maybe a half dozen get promoted each year, and after 3-4 years it's up or out (they usually start playing at age 17), you don't need more than 50 slots to play all the promising "fliers" enough to identify the winners.

I can't think of a player we've had that we let go from the DSL (unlike say Garcia and Neris who we found) who was successful elsewhere.

[allentown]

I think with the academies and two DSL teams, you have all the slots you need.

I suspect they sign a lot of guys that get a cup of coffee, some instruction some nutrition and weight training, and wash out after a year or two. The better prospects play on the DSL teams, but even then, given that maybe a half dozen get promoted each year, and after 3-4 years it's up or out (they usually start playing at age 17), you don't need more than 50 slots to play all the promising "fliers" enough to identify the winners.

I can't think of a player we've had that we let go from the DSL (unlike say Garcia and Neris who we found) who was successful elsewhere.

That is fine, but if you have more capacity, you can sign and try to develop more players. What you describe is the infra-structure that most teams have. It isn't a competitive advantage.

[zambonir]

I was surprised at how few changes there were right after Klentak was hired. People were added--mostly in the analytics department--but not really replaced. I can't really remember any heads rolling at the time and most of Amaro's leadership team (Kerfeld, Wade, et al.) remained in place. I guess it was natural to expect a bit of a shakedown year.

My recollection is that MacPhail/Klentak were pretty explicit about their intent to take some time to evaluate the existing personnel - that they were not going to just clear the house and start from scratch. That kind of evaluation, in a system that operates on an annual cycle (with different activities at different times in the cycle) takes time - you really can't do it without observing a full cycle, IMHO. So they said they would take time to evaluate, and they've done that. This is surprising?

I seem to recall a discussion/debate here when they made it clear that they weren't going to just make wholesale changes up front - some were of the opinion that anybody who worked for Amaro "needed to go," simply because they worked for Amaro, and were unhappy that certain people weren't immediately let go.

They explicitly said they weren't going to make major changes the first year. Presumably the downside of last-minute change was greater than the upside of new blood.

It also helps, of course, that Almaraz was already new and Proefrock had a previous relationship with MacPhail. Looper was shifted to adviser, and Rice was hired.

While I think it's very unlikely Jordan or Almaraz or Agostinelli would be moved out, anything can happen. Who knows, Ondo and Lakey might not be keepers. Presumably they will add another assistant GM (it's not like they can't afford it), maybe also give Almaraz or Jordan that title (Wolever and LaMar both had it). Also easy enough to sweep out or just quietly ignore some of the longtime senior advisors and special assistants. I would expect more analytics/scouting hires too.

[schooldoc]

In his Sunday notes column, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe suggests there is mutual interest in a new contract with the Phils for Jeremy Hellickson.

"1. Jeremy Hellickson, RHP, Phillies — The Phillies would like to get Hellickson signed before he hits free agency. That’s one of the reasons they didn’t trade him at the non-waiver deadline. Hellickson (12-9, 3.57 ERA, 1.142 WHIP in 181⅓ innings) is also showing signs he’d like to stay in Philadelphia, but with a dearth of starting pitching in free agency, Hellickson may want to see what’s out there before committing quickly."

I still think he declines the QO.

While on the one hand I think it's pretty hard to argue that the 2017 Phils are better without Hellickson than with him, I'd be very careful offering him a multi-year deal. Not sure I would have the appetite to give him, say, 4 years and $55-60 million. That's my best guess at Boras' asking price.

[bkeich]

In his Sunday notes column, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe suggests there is mutual interest in a new contract with the Phils for Jeremy Hellickson.

"1. Jeremy Hellickson, RHP, Phillies — The Phillies would like to get Hellickson signed before he hits free agency. That’s one of the reasons they didn’t trade him at the non-waiver deadline. Hellickson (12-9, 3.57 ERA, 1.142 WHIP in 181⅓ innings) is also showing signs he’d like to stay in Philadelphia, but with a dearth of starting pitching in free agency, Hellickson may want to see what’s out there before committing quickly."

I still think he declines the QO.

While on the one hand I think it's pretty hard to argue that the 2017 Phils are better without Hellickson than with him, I'd be very careful offering him a multi-year deal. Not sure I would have the appetite to give him, say, 4 years and $55-60 million. That's my best guess at Boras' asking price.

Honestly, I would rather have the sandwich pick. Hellickson has had a nice season, Bu lets not forget the previous 3 were bad (and the 2 before that were good to be fair). He isn't an elite pitcher, he is an average starting pitcher who will be 30 at the start of next season. We don't really have that much need of an aging 30 year old starter compared to the #35 or so pick (or at least the allocation of that slot).

We could find a pretty similar starter (maybe older) to eat innings next year, he just isn't a guy that will be good by the time our team is competitive.

Sadly, I am now convinced that there isn't much chance of being competitive next year. Our offense is the worst in the majors (by a wide margin) and our pitching is pretty close to that. Our record is actually deceptively better than the team has played. Add that to the fact that once again I think the ownership will simple keep the Comcast windfall and make only marginal attempts to use the money to improve the team.

[andyb]

I would disagree that Hellickson is unlikely to be good by the time the team is competitive. Is there anyone out there who does not think the team should be attempting to compete by 2018? Maybe they are still bad at that point, but it would be almost malpractice to not add pieces to the team by then. For me the question is more whether Hellickson at $17 million a year would prevent them from adding a $25-$30 million/year arm in time for 2018 (along with our lower cost crop of kids).

[zambonir]

Broken record I know, but I don't think the team is pocketing money, they are "tanking" to some extent but are also only interested in short-term deals, to keep their options open in future seasons or even the immediate season (as was the case with signing Bourjos instead of someone better). And the players who get those deals just aren't expensive.

With Hellickson I think the Phillies would be delighted to re-sign him at favorable terms, but they are not likely to get those terms. If he takes the QO, they will still be happy, they get the player w/o a commitment that prevents them from signing a $25 million starter in 2018 (not that they couldn't afford both, but assume a hitter too) and can either trade him in July (ameliorating the loss of the pick) or make another run at signing him.

The advantage for Hellickson in taking the QO is he likes Philly, it's crazy money, and if he did get traded, he would no longer have a QO attached to him next season (though we also don't know what the system might be).

We'll see what Klentak is really interested in for 2017 vet-wise. He could find someone who needs a one-year deal to re-prove himself or he can gamble on someone who he thinks will help the team through 2019. But he's not going to be aggressively building a team that can win 85 games next year. If that happens it will be because Franco breaks out, Joseph hits 40 HRs, Crawford and Williams thrive after being called up, and the the returning young pitchers excel.

[zambonir]

The Phillies' plans are certainly no secret

m.phillies.mlb.com/news/article/ ... -progress/

*Could the Phillies acquire a free agent or two in the offseason to support the team's young hitters? It is possible -- a corner outfielder seems most likely -- but it is not a fait accompli. In fact, it would not be a total stunner to see the 2017 Opening Day lineup include catcher Cameron Rupp, first baseman Tommy Joseph, second baseman Cesar Hernandez, third baseman Maikel Franco, shortstop Freddy Galvis and outfielders Odubel Herrera, Roman Quinn and Aaron Altherr; especially because the upcoming offseason's free-agent market is considered relatively weak, and future ones are considered much stronger. That particularly includes the 2018-19 offseason, which might feature Bryce Harper and Manny Machado.

"I don't think you want to make a long-term commitment to a player that is not a game changer in your mind, if you think you have an internal option that might be better," MacPhail said. "You want to keep the flexibility there. At the same time, nobody has too much pitching. Any time an opportunity arises in pitching, I think we have a responsibility to pursue it. But there's no, 'We're going to be dormant for a year and in two years, watch us.' That's not the way it should be. The way it should be is we're always open.

"But I think we have enough promising kids in the system that some of that offensive fix will come from within. And we have enough financial flexibility going forward that those areas where we don't have internal solutions, we're going to have the wherewithal to find external solutions."*

[allentown]

The Phillies' plans are certainly no secret

m.phillies.mlb.com/news/article/ ... -progress/

*Could the Phillies acquire a free agent or two in the offseason to support the team's young hitters? It is possible -- a corner outfielder seems most likely -- but it is not a fait accompli. In fact, it would not be a total stunner to see the 2017 Opening Day lineup include catcher Cameron Rupp, first baseman Tommy Joseph, second baseman Cesar Hernandez, third baseman Maikel Franco, shortstop Freddy Galvis and outfielders Odubel Herrera, Roman Quinn and Aaron Altherr; especially because the upcoming offseason's free-agent market is considered relatively weak, and future ones are considered much stronger. That particularly includes the 2018-19 offseason, which might feature Bryce Harper and Manny Machado.

"I don't think you want to make a long-term commitment to a player that is not a game changer in your mind, if you think you have an internal option that might be better," MacPhail said. "You want to keep the flexibility there. At the same time, nobody has too much pitching. Any time an opportunity arises in pitching, I think we have a responsibility to pursue it. But there's no, 'We're going to be dormant for a year and in two years, watch us.' That's not the way it should be. The way it should be is we're always open.

"But I think we have enough promising kids in the system that some of that offensive fix will come from within. And we have enough financial flexibility going forward that those areas where we don't have internal solutions, we're going to have the wherewithal to find external solutions."*

That would be a very serious mistake. Quinn has not shown that he is reading to jump from AA to the major leagues. This would be a way to ruin another prospect.

[allentown]

Broken record I know, but I don't think the team is pocketing money, they are "tanking" to some extent but are also only interested in short-term deals, to keep their options open in future seasons or even the immediate season (as was the case with signing Bourjos instead of someone better). And the players who get those deals just aren't expensive.

With Hellickson I think the Phillies would be delighted to re-sign him at favorable terms, but they are not likely to get those terms. If he takes the QO, they will still be happy, they get the player w/o a commitment that prevents them from signing a $25 million starter in 2018 (not that they couldn't afford both, but assume a hitter too) and can either trade him in July (ameliorating the loss of the pick) or make another run at signing him.

The advantage for Hellickson in taking the QO is he likes Philly, it's crazy money, and if he did get traded, he would no longer have a QO attached to him next season (though we also don't know what the system might be).

We'll see what Klentak is really interested in for 2017 vet-wise. He could find someone who needs a one-year deal to re-prove himself or he can gamble on someone who he thinks will help the team through 2019. But he's not going to be aggressively building a team that can win 85 games next year. If that happens it will be because Franco breaks out, Joseph hits 40 HRs, Crawford and Williams thrive after being called up, and the the returning young pitchers excel.

With the new Comcast agreement, there is no doubt the team is pocketing money now and will pocket it by the bucketful next season, if they don't start spending rather big on FA, over-23 international guys, blowing out next summers budget on under-23 international guys, taking on an expensive contract from another team, or re-upping one of our guys early with a front-loaded contract to minimize the salary growth of the contract over time. The MLB salary commitments are extremely small for next season and the media revenue has increased tremendously, so huge amounts of money will be pocketed. IMHO, that is beyond debate and the only debate is whether there is a good enough baseball reason for the owners to pocket this windfall and for that to be a good thing for the team and its fans. But please, don't try to sell me the improbable non-fact that the team is not pocketing money.

[zambonir]

That would be a very serious mistake. Quinn has not shown that he is reading to jump from AA to the major leagues. This would be a way to ruin another prospect.

I think that part is pretty speculative, especially since it is preceded by the prediction that they do get a corner OF. Quinn would really have to light it up in spring training, and even then, the team would have already had to have signed at least one if not two OFs (be it a starter, platoon guy or bench bat).

But with Quinn and Williams both possibly pencilled in by August...