Discussion

zambonir 2018-02-06 01:14:35 UTC #722

No doubt this ups the pressure on the Phillies. I don't really believe they will make decisions based on that, but their status as the city's last champion is over, and the Eagles were hard enough to compete with when they didn't have a title.

Austinfan 2018-02-06 02:22:41 UTC #723

Klentak can look at this roster and see that's it's probably 2-3 years away.
The starting lineup has potential, but guys like Alfaro and Williams are raw, Kingery will start in AAA, Crawford a rookie, and Franco an enigma. This group is likely to hit it's stride in 2019-2020.
And they have lots of young arms,but it'll probably take a couple years to see who develop into ML pitchers.

Unless they're going to trade a half dozen prospects, it's hard to accelerate the process, spending $50M on a couple FAs might buy you 6-7 WAR for a couple years (before the inevitable decline), but that's not nearly enough to get them close to 90 wins.

zambonir 2018-02-06 03:25:55 UTC #724

That was all true before they signed Santana. With Santana, if they wanted to sign Darvish and Todd Frazier (gone now) that would set them up to acquire another starter and perhaps catching depth at the deadline, if all broke right. But they're not ready to give up on Franco, which is fine. And they probably still sign another pitcher. Comments like Donald's and questions like Schillfan's are a reality in the Philly sports market though. The Phillies have been able to function in the a "Trust the Process" universe of patience for the last few seasons. That's gone now. Doesn't mean they'll undo decisions that have already been made five days before spring training starts, but it has changed the environment in which they're marketing their product.

California_Dreamin 2018-02-06 04:32:55 UTC #725

Lone Star Phan...I know that the '64 team had to carry Rick Wise and Johnny Briggs all year as bonus babies, which added to the amazing job that Manager Gene Mauch did for 150 games. He basically went with a 23 man roster from May-August though in fairness Wise won several games as a starting pitcher and Briggs was on rare occasion a contributor. As if that wasn't enough the club carried 6 rookies for most of the season...the above mentioned two plus Richie Allen, Alex Johnson, Danny Cater and John Herrnstein.

By the way, Ted Kazanski was a bonus baby, one of the first the Phils ever signed.

LoneStarPhan 2018-02-06 05:19:55 UTC #726

The catcher I was thinking of was Mack Burk, signed as a bonus baby September 29, 1955. He spent the 1956 season on the ML roster, hitting 1.000 with an OPS of 2.000 and an OPS+ of 447. He pinch hit once and got a hit. He appeared in one game as a catcher and pinch ran 13 times.

His only other ML at bat was as a pinch hitter in 1958, a K. Ended his ML career hitting .500

Tom Qualters was signed June 16, 1953 and as a bonus baby, went right on the active roster. He pitched 0.1 innings to an ERA of 162.00. As noted below, he didn't get into a game in the 1954 season. Qualters returned to the majors in 1957 and appeared in 6 games in relief. In 1958, after one game with the Phillies, he was sold to the White Sox and pitched in 26 games with a 4.19 ERA for them.

This Hardball Times article gives background on the bonus baby era and confirms that Burk and Qualters were the two Phillies in the mid-fifties period.

"The majority of Bonus Babies spent their two years anchored to the bench, picking up little more than the odd pinch-running assignment; one, pitcher Tom “Money Bags” Qualters with the Phillies, spent an entire season (1954) on the roster and never played at all."

andyb 2018-02-06 15:54:21 UTC #727

ESPN rookie "sleepers"

For the Phillies they pick Seranthony Dominguez. I have wondered whether he might take to the bullpen really well, sitting 98, and then get quick promotions like Giles did. Not sure his secondary stuff is as well developed.

The other potential sleepers are a little more boring from AAA like Valentin and Eshelman. Assuming prospects like Crawford and Alfaro and Kingery would not be considered sleepers.

allentown 2018-02-06 18:18:20 UTC #728

I'm trying to come up with 5 guys, but I think the year was 1964. Of course Rick Wise who was only 18 and went on to both a plus career and got us Carlton, and even pitched decently as an 18-year old. One for sure was OF John Briggs. Looking at Google, I see pitcher Dave Bennett who was 18 that season, which was his only MLB season and he got to pitch all of 1 IP. Also 1B Costen Shockley, a college kid who played 1B and has a 2-year career; he had only 35 AB and the Phillies traded him after 1964 as part of the package for Bo Belinsky, whom I remember.. I can't find a 5th guy, so perhaps 1964 wasn't the year.

California_Dreamin 2018-02-06 19:36:53 UTC #729

Nope Shockley was not a bonus baby needed to be protected, in fact he didn't come up till June. Bennett was on the roster at the start of the season [28 man roster] but was sent down when rosters were sliced to 25 on May 1. He was recalled in June, pitched one game in relief of his brother Dennis and was then sent down, never again to pitch in the major leagues.

The '64 Phils had two bonus babies to protect, Wise and Briggs. Both had solid major league careers, and of course Wise was best known as the pitcher who A] started an won his first major league game in Game 2 of the DHer after Bunning tossed his perfect game, B] became a Phillie hero on the night he pitched a no-hitter and hit two home runs in the same game and C] was traded for a somewhat mediocre pitcher...guy named Steve Carlton!

donaldorc 2018-02-06 19:53:41 UTC #730

Thanks for the memories! I loved Rick Wise and hated the trade at the time! How wrong I was!

California_Dreamin 2018-02-06 20:25:48 UTC #731

donaldorc...you know, so did I and the consensus at the time of the trade was that Phillie phans were not happy with the deal. That changed pretty quickly...after starting the '72 season with a 5-6 record, Carlton won 15 in a row and finished the year with one of the most dominant seasons ever...a 27-10 record on a team that went 59-103.

julio 2018-02-06 21:24:42 UTC #732

That's a fairly common phenomenon. For instance, phans by and large weren't thrilled when Willie Montanez was shipped to the Giants, either... but they got over it.

zambonir 2018-02-06 23:52:31 UTC #733

The truck leaves Friday.

Gelb notes that if Yu has a five-year deal in hand the Phillies are likely out. He also implies the Phillies simply may not like the other three pitchers enough.

allentown 2018-02-07 19:56:31 UTC #734

zambonir:

The truck leaves Friday.

Gelb notes that if Yu has a five-year deal in hand the Phillies are likely out. He also implies the Phillies simply may not like the other three pitchers enough.
theathletic.com
Should the Phillies be content with one of baseball's lowest...

This Friday morning, the Phillies will arrange their customary photo op with the Phanatic as he...

I am still hopeful that the Phillies will sign a quality FA SP, hopefully Darvish. If they stand pat, I will view it as a disgrace and discount any talk by Middleton about how eager he is to spend to win. While he has been the managing partner, our spending has collapsed at the MLB level and international spending for young FA has not been e qumaximized and older international FA ignored. The indictment from the quoted article:

"it is staggering to see the Phillies — as currently built — outspent by 28 other clubs. Only Oakland, according to accounting by Cot's Contracts, has a lower projected payroll than the Phillies.
The incredible reality is this: The Phillies could add a $25 million per year player between now and the start of spring training and still rank in the bottom 10 of major-league payrolls."

I find that utterly pathetic and a total dissing of Phillies fans.

Austinfan 2018-02-07 20:18:05 UTC #735

Meh, rebuilds are rebuilds.
Darvish is not Halladay. Not even close, and Halladay wouldn't have made sense in 1999.
I rather he keep his powder dry and make a big move next offseason if some of the kids develop.
And I'd prefer to trade for a veteran contract than give 5-6 year deals to players I consider 2-3 year guys.

What I would like to see is to spend some money on short-term deals and bad contracts in return for something of value.

I just don't see them as contenders unless 2-3 young pitchers step up, Crawford is for real, Franco rebounds, etc.
It's after the young players step up and you win 85+ that you open the pocketbook.

If things work out, they'll be up against the cap in a few years, any solid starter will cost you $20+ as they approach free agency, so if you have a couple top starters and four top position players you're looking at say $130-150M right there. Even if you extend them a couple years early, the discount won't be huge if someone like Hoskins is for real (what do 40 HR 28 year old OF/1Bs make these days?).

Lucky_Beagle 2018-02-07 20:18:17 UTC #736

Would you have been happier if they kept Galvis and kept Crawford in the minors for another year? It would have helped to increase their payroll although maybe cost them some wins. I suppose they could bundle a few more rookies and trade for an expensive player to help drive up the cost of the payroll as well. Let's check back in a couple of years and see where the payroll is before getting too concerned about it. They showed the willingness to pay when they had the players to pay. Some might even say it was this willingness to pay (Howard) that cost them a few extra rebuilding seasons.

zambonir 2018-02-07 21:26:46 UTC #737

Yeah, it doesn't bother me. They've been very clear about their plan and their timetable. These are the same sort of debates that have happened around the Sixers (and would about the Flyers too, if they weren't already spending to the cap).

The proof will be in the pudding over the next two years. If they can't, won't or are unable to spend money on anything they need (which will depend on how all these young players work out) that would be bad, but if that turns out to be the case it's not something that could have been fixed by a few signings this year or last year either. And Santana - and the $ devoted to RPs - was already a pretty big surprise.

Arguably, what happened was a shift in strategy, everyone thought they would sign a starter and maybe one ho-hum vet reliever (which is what Neshek was last year) and instead they focused on more/better relievers (due to the change in how the pitching staff is going to be handled overall) and a bat.

Beyond that, w/o giving up on Franco, Alfaro or at least one of Williams/Altherr, it's not like they could add that much payroll, and you can make the case that letting these young pitchers sink or swim has just as much as value as doing so with the position players.

Anyway, what's amazing is, this is still a non-definitive debate until we're sure the Phillies aren't actually signing anybody. Whether it's a Cashner or a Darvish.

andyb 2018-02-07 21:33:27 UTC #738

The Phillies do not need to up their spending to some artificial competitive amount commensurate with their market size. That does not mean they need to be 28th or 29th however. The Galvis trade made sense because Crawford is likely the better player. The opposite is true with the starting rotation however. Any number of the top starters out there would fit comfortably as one of our top 3 starters. That takes pressure off the younger starters also. Spending on pitching improves the team.

It is silly to suggest Darvish needs to be Roy Halladay for the Phillies to even consider him. Are the Cubs stupid? No. Darvish is the best starter on the market and is also relatively young compared to some of his peers. He is attached to no compensation. And a 5-year deal likely would have zero impact on the salary cap. By the 5th year only Nola and maybe Hoskins out of our young players would be making big money. We might have a bunch of $5-$10 million arbitration players but a $200 million payroll can handle that plus Darvish and plus 2 other guys that combine for $70 million (remember Santana is off the books then).

The final point is that if the Phillies have a $70-$80 million payroll which is their current trajectory then they are wasting money on the current payroll that could make the team better in the future. That opportunity is never coming back. It really does not matter if it is not guaranteed to make them contenders in 2018 or 2019. As long as it does not hurt the future (which a 5/125 for Darvish would not), then why not take more of a shot at the present.

andyb 2018-02-07 21:40:42 UTC #739

Except they won't all cost $20 million. Manny Machado's 3 arbitration salaries were $5 million, $11.5 million, and $16 million. Donaldson got $23 million but he is a special case MVP level player who is older.

In the 5th year of a long term deal the team is done with the Santana contract. Nola hopefully makes good money by then. The best Hoskins' scenarios probably have him at $15 million max (it will be his 5th year arbitration, not 6th). Who is going to make $20 million in 5 years among their young players? Really hard to think of anyone outside Nola who would. Herrera has a 2022 option for $11.5 million so not him.

In 5 years outside of adding more than $100 million AAV in free agent salaries it will be hard for the Phillies to get to close to $200 million. Just saying a big contract will give them luxury tax issues does not make it true with the current arbitration system.

zambonir 2018-02-07 22:05:48 UTC #740

The only way the Phillies will have cap/tax issues is if a really high # of their own players fail; i.e, they are overpaying for an OF or 2B or C (or even a new 1B) on the free agent market (in addition to the one star hitter and one star pitcher we expect) by 2020 or 2021.

I like Darvish, I'm just not sure they can get him. And I'm not sure I like the other three guys. But we'll see, right now it seems certain they won't all be signed by Wednesday, and supposedly the trade market is still active too.

Philsmania 2018-02-07 23:32:43 UTC #741

Phillies sign veteran utility infielder Ryan Flaherty to a minor league contract with a spring training invite. No word on whether there is any kind of an opt-out. Classic good glove, no bat utility infielder.