Discussion

kmc1019 2018-02-01 14:47:50 UTC #662

Thanks, Squire.

Link to lengthy article on Appel's decision and situation:

Philsmania 2018-02-01 14:56:19 UTC #663

It doesn't sound like he plans to ever come back. What do the Phillies do with him, put him on the voluntarily retired list? The restricted list?

andyb 2018-02-01 15:12:08 UTC #664

I guess we'll see. Sounds like he is not pain-free yet from last year so he might be resigned to not wanting to fight through painful injuries for the small chance he can make himself into a reliever. One of the criticisms of players over the years who go to good academic institutions is that they don't want to succeed as much as other players and there may be some truth to that. He is a Stanford grad with millions in the bank.

David_Criss 2018-02-01 15:25:21 UTC #665

How does that work? If he comes back in a few months or next year is he property of the Phillies or a free agent?

allentown 2018-02-01 15:31:17 UTC #666

He's not the first major college program pitcher to be damaged goods when he signs his pro contract, although he is the most expensive.

bkeich 2018-02-01 15:34:20 UTC #667

Nice value pickup on Rosales

Sad ending for Appell who never really showed much given all his talent and chances. He had success in short stints, but all his seasons where disasters for one reason or another except in the he very low minors. Seemed like a good guy, hope he can move on

zambonir 2018-02-01 16:29:05 UTC #668

It's too bad we traded for him but at least we didn't draft him (not that they are suffering right now either).

People often criticize players for hanging on too long or deluding themselves so yeah, when you have the options, and the road to actually accomplishing anything as an injury-prone converted reliever is this potentially tough, why not get on with your life? He's probably got a decent chunk of change too, if he didn't start living like a major leaguer right away.

Philsmania 2018-02-01 16:46:40 UTC #669

The more I think about it, the more I believe that he would have been a sixth year free agent after this year. So, I am guessing, if he attempts a comeback in 2018, he'll have to attempt it in the Phillies organization unless they decline to offer him a minor league contract. 2019 or beyond will be to whoever gives him a chance.

Significant to note that there were no takers for him as either a waiver claim or Rule 5 pick after the Phillies removed him from the forty man. And, Appel hadn't even cracked any of the Phillies' top 30-50 prospect lists lately.

Frustrating Giles trade. Klentak was right in having concerns about Velasquez, seeing how things subsequently unfolded with him and his health and durability. Unfortunately, essentially replacing Fisher with Appel clearly backfired. Sometimes you can't win for losing. It's not like we can look back and say "What was Klentak thinking?!"

Phils2020 2018-02-01 17:11:14 UTC #670

Maybe it was the Astros who pulled back on trading Fisher, not the Phillies for saying we want Appel instead. Does anyone really know?

zambonir 2018-02-01 17:42:39 UTC #671

Nobody really knows but it was reported by enough credible reporters that it is most likely the case.

I get it, it wasn't simply, "since Velasquez might be injured, give us Appel, who is worth more than Fisher" (though he was). It was also, "since Velasquez might be injured, we want even more pitching."

One thing is for sure, Klentak hasn't been wrong about needing as many pitchers as possible.

And the Phillies also already had Williams/Altherr/Quinn, and still do. If Fisher turns out to be significantly better than Williams that will be disappointing, but as much because of Williams as because of not having Fisher.

EDmuch 2018-02-01 18:18:07 UTC #672

I don't know about that. There were a lot of people on this board who were very vocal about Fisher being the real deal while Appel was a huge question mark that I don't think Klentak should get a pass on it. Klentak made a bad move. Period.

andyb 2018-02-01 18:36:20 UTC #673

I was fine with the move when it was made. Appel was considered a better prospect, at least in the press though I was always a little wary about giving up Arauz so it was not a giant improvement to the deal. Where Klentak does not get a pass is apparently on the scouting end. Clearly the scouts were wrong. Injuries are part of Appel's struggles of course, but the glaring fact remains that performance has been a bigger part. He just has not been that good even when healthy.

So the intent of the deal was good - add another high end pitching prospect. But the scouting part of the deal (i.e. which high end prospect to get) was wrong and is deservedly a strike against Klentak's first big deal.

andyb 2018-02-01 19:21:46 UTC #674

We probably need a sports media thread, but I noticed today they had added 3 more U.S. cities including New York:

Philsmania 2018-02-01 19:51:17 UTC #675

I am beginning to think that The Athletic needs its own thread.

flyers19rw 2018-02-01 23:37:52 UTC #676

Sad to hear about Appel. Sort of reminds me of Mark Prior although he had a couple of decent seasons before he blew up.
Seeing guys as heralded as Appel and Prior fail due to injury just cements me to the idea that it works out best to take highly touted H.S. pitchers in the draft rather than collegians. The sooner an organization can bring an arm into their system so that they can control his development, the better it is. It's why I hope the Phillies nab Hankins, if he's there, instead of a college guy in this year's draft.

schillingfan 2018-02-02 01:39:04 UTC #677

In Prior's case I blame Dusty Baker for completely abusing his arm in the month of September, throwing over 120 pitches in several games on the run to the playoffs. He was never the same after that.

zambonir 2018-02-02 02:16:42 UTC #678

I was excited about Appel. It was risk/reward. I know some people (mostly CD) were hot on Fisher. Maybe the Astros suckered Klentak a little bit. But it was an insane return for a closer no matter how you slice it (especially given Giles' inconsistency), and the change-of-scenery/we-can-fix-him scenario was probably hard to resist.

David_Criss 2018-02-02 16:08:00 UTC #679

Funny how time changes things. When I first heard two years ago the Phillies got five decent pitching prospects for Ken Giles, we were overjoyed. In 2016 Velasquez looked, at times, like he might be the Johann Santana he had been compared to and Giles was scuffling with a 4 something ERA.
We all hoped a change of scenery is all Appel needed. Oberholtzer could be the next Randy Wolf or a solid lefty in the pen and Eshelman and Arauz were bonus.
Now Giles has a WS ring - Appel is out of baseball, Oberholtzer hasn't even received an NRI - something I was hoping the Phillies might give him - after being waived in 2016 by Philadelphia and pitching at AAA for Toronto last year.
The Phillies still have Eshelman, who will compete for a starting role this year; Velasquez, who hopefully can stay healthy and Arauz, who the team needs to decide if he is a starter or reliever in AA.
Who was it who said always go for the bat, because pitchers break down? So the Phillies still have three possible decent arms who will contribute at the Major League level.
I really wanted Appel to work out and I really wanted to see what he would do as a reliever before giving up on him.

zambonir 2018-02-02 18:17:38 UTC #680

I mean I think the trade was the same version of this truism, i.e. pitchers break down, so you need five to get one.

Oberholtzer was just a throw-in though, IMO. Like if the Phillies had traded Adam Morgan, except without the potentially happier ending. He obviously wasn't quite ready to stay in the majors or be a reliever but he was out of options (another reason he wasn't much of an asset at the time).

Austinfan 2018-02-02 20:10:06 UTC #681

The flip side is Neris saved 20 of his last 20 opportunities, and is as effective out of the pen as Giles (who is very talented but inconsistent). We spent money on Neshak and Hunter to go with Garcia and Ramos. So we dealt from a position of strength to bolster a position of weakness (SP).