Discussion

nycphils 2017-10-04 20:57:28 UTC #61

Confused...I thought you were referring to Austinfan, Andyb and bigegypt0147...

California_Dreamin 2017-10-04 20:59:31 UTC #62

And, andyb, I agree with you and herein lies the difference in how people view this club. Some see the 66-96 record and think, the team is still a ways from being a .500 or better team, whereas some of us see the 37-38, 37-36 or 35-35 finish as more an indicator of where the team is right now.

I do not think this team is that far from being a +.500 team. What if Franco becomes the player we thought he would become? If this happens, and Kingery comes up and plays like scouts and Jordan think he will, you could make a case there is not 1 weakness in the entire 8 man lineup, with a decent bench to boot.

It's pitching that is the potential albatross and a Lynn or Cobb would help an awful lot in assisting the youngsters and taking some pressure off of Nola.

Austinfan 2017-10-04 21:23:23 UTC #63

FAs available this year won't make us a winning team, on the margin, adding Darvish and Lynn might mean 5 more wins (because one of the pitchers they'd replace would be a positive 1-2 WAR pitcher and between them they're unlikely to give you more than 6 WAR).
Teams that turn it around tend to do so with patches and young players emerging, then they pay to replace the patch with a more substantial player if their farm system isn't producing.

Houston got lucky with Altuve, had a bunch of high draft picks and added a bunch of players through low cost FAs and traded - but I suspect their success isn't sustainable because they haven't done a good job of building a talent pipeline.
Chicago built the talent base, then added FAs once they were a .500 team. Epstein bought his way to 100 wins, but didn't try to buy his way to 80 wins.

I think the Phillies are a year away from being major players, first they have to build the talent base at the ML level, get to .500, then target the FA that provides the most marginal improvement. While it was a good finish this year, they need to show that it wasn't a mirage, and to find out which young players are for real. And the only way to do that is to play them and see who sinks and swims. Franco is a good example, he's 25, did hit 23 HRs, has the hands and arm to be at least average defensively, but if by the end of next year, if he doesn't turn it around, you have to move on.

zambonir 2017-10-04 21:24:35 UTC #64

If you can get Lynn or Cobb at those prices you should. I'll believe it when I see it. Ditto Darvish according to AF's valuation.

This isn't really about baseball, this is about the fact that some people are optimists and some people are pessimists. What if Franco doesn't become the player we thought he'd become (which was never a star, at least not to most people, anyway). What if Hoskins only puts up a .750 OPS? What if Kingery struggles? And if we're so willing to believe the small samples and best possible scenario for all the position players, who's to say a Nola/Eickhoff/Velasquez/Pivetta/mid-level free agent can't win 84 games, especially if the defense and catching are improved (and keeping in mind that Thompson and Eflin and Lively are there to replace the inevitable injured guy)? If that happens you also upgrade the rotation at the deadline.

I don't think that myself, but I still think 2018 is as much about finding out which one or two of these guys are worth keeping as it is about going .500. If the offense is as good as it can be, the rotation can be 2007-2008 quality, i.e. find a Moyer or a Lohse or a Blanton, not a Lee.

julio 2017-10-04 21:31:20 UTC #65

And now, some actual news...

Austinfan 2017-10-04 21:37:31 UTC #66

GIven that we have six young pitchers other than Nola with ML experience (Eickhoff, Lively, Pivetta, Velasquez, Thompson, Eflin) and a couple solid prospects in AAA in Anderson and Eshelman (and Leiter, Leibrandt and Tavares as long shots), odds are that a couple will step up next year. And we don't need them all to be #2 starters, if three of them just become solid middle of the rotation guys (30 starts, 180 IP, 4.00-4.50 ERA, i.e., Eickhoff in 2016 or Lively for half of 2017), we'd have a pretty solid rotation.

And in 2019 we may have Kilome, El Garcia and Irvin knocking on the door.

Now my expectation is they'll probably either trade for a veteran pitcher with 1-2 years left on a contract or bundle prospects for a solid starting pitcher in his late 20s.

But I don't see Klentak feeling any urgency to overpay a FA pitcher in this year's class, I think if an elite pitcher was available, they'd pay to play, but not this group.

flyers19rw 2017-10-04 23:03:05 UTC #67

I've been playing around with the concept of the Phillies taking on some of Miami's bills in order to obtain Stanton and Yelich. I've been looking for a similar situation and then trying to decide whether or not such a deal makes sense. The trade that immediately comes to mind is the Dodgers-Red Socks trade where LA took on Josh Beckett, Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford for what amounted to projects of little value. Its hard to figure out how much money LA took on in this deal. This is partially because AGon has a year left on his contract and secondly due to the fact that we don't know how much Crawford got in his buyout.
Roughly what I have discerned, and other might find more accurate salary numbers than I was able to do, is that LAD took on approximately $278 M in salary. For that they obtained 18.2 WAR (BB ref stats) which doesn't include AGon for '18. That amounts to approximately $15.275M per WAR. I have a hard time thinking that this deal was a success. It leads me to believe that doing such a deal for Stanton and Yelich could be extremely problematic. From a value perspective, it might be better to allow some other organization to jump in on this type of move.

flyers19rw 2017-10-05 00:40:24 UTC #68

CD, the Phillies are what their record says that they are which is 66-96. Sure they went 37-38 at the end of the season but that does not erase the 29-58 that came before that. I'll give the Phillies the fact that the schedule early on was tough; lots of games with the Nats, who are good, and Mets who had not broken down at that time. However the end of the season saw them playing many teams that were out of it or lackadaisical at that time of the year.
There is no way to get around the fact that the season is 162 games and even with the addition of Hoskins, Alfaro, Williams, et al., it's going to be a tough move to go from 66 wins to 81. Above all, they need more quality pitching. Until they get that it's going to be a struggle,

zambonir 2017-10-05 00:53:02 UTC #69

I mean, there's a middle ground there. The mid-August team was 50% new players in the starting 8, and the June 2018 team should be 75%. That's also a lot of unknown quantities. But better than a team relying on Kendrick (even though he was okay when healthy), Rupp, Joseph, Galvis and Saunders.

allentown 2017-10-05 02:43:22 UTC #70

The old, not-at-all-big-spending-or-rolling-in-new-stadium-wealth Phillies of Bill Giles signed Jim Thome to a 6-year, $85 million contract prior to the 2003 season. Their record in 2002 was 80-81 and they were 5 years from winning the NL East for the 1st time and 6 years from the WC. Although Thome wasn't with the Phillies for the full length of his contract, we did get Aaron Rowand for him and replaced him with Howard. An $85 million deal back then was one heckuva lot of money. If the Phillies of Giles could do that, rather than trade minor leaguers to get their marquee middle of the order guy, the Phillies of today with the Comcast contract can get their #2/3 SP with FA $ rather than minor league talent.

zambonir 2017-10-05 05:41:26 UTC #71

They could, but the difference is they need a pitcher. Thome would have been good for the life of that contract, and was (shockingly so, but that's what happened, no doubt in part because he went to the AL). A 31-32 year-old pitcher on a 4-5 year deal might only give you 2 seasons, and no trade return.

That being the case, preferring to get a 27 year-old is understandable. It just depends what you have to give up. But the Phillies can't simultaneously acquire a new #2 starter and plan to keep all of their current ML, AAA and AA pitchers, so the trick is deciding who you're willing to give up. Either approach might get you the same production for 2018-2019; giving up talent instead of money might get something for a lot longer (and will still cost money. Presumably if they go that route they will try to sign whoever they get if it makes sense).

The case has also been made that they should trade Nick Williams as part of the package for that pitcher, and then go out and sign JD Martinez or Justin Upton. That's another approach.

Be a whole lot easier if Quinn was healthy and Cozens had done better but then it would also be a whole lot easier if Velasquez and Eflin had turned into rotation locks.

bigegypt0417 2017-10-05 14:52:03 UTC #72

That might be but next off season is a class of free agents that's rarely seen. The last two years haven't exactly seen a crop of players I'd want to spend tons of money on.

EDmuch 2017-10-05 16:18:46 UTC #73

The 2018 UFA class for pitchers is not that outstanding. Carlos Carrasco will probably be retained by the Tribe. Hamels will be 35. There is not a lot of high quality there at the pitching level.

donaldorc 2017-10-05 18:29:12 UTC #74

I have to side with CD on this issue. Of all teams, the Phillies had more potential to be lackadaisical during the last half of the season than most others, considering the first half. But the infusion of the youngsters turned the attitude, the talent, and the record around.

Austinfan 2017-10-05 18:44:09 UTC #75

I think the second half surge was for real, but it's hard to project into 2018, which is one reason MacPhail is being cautious.
They really don't know what they have yet, is it a 75 win team that needs another year to marinate, or a 85 win team that's a couple tweaks away from contention.
By next July they'll have a much better feel for what they have.

There are so many young players you have to project that it creates a great deal of uncertainty for the FO, you can't figure on regression to the mean if there is no mean.
They won't really have a feel until ST, and even then it's guess work, say Eflin shows up healthy with an extra 1-2 MPH from buidling up his lower body, is he still slated for LHV?

That's why I don't expect major commitments this winter, I think they want a better feel for strengths and weaknesses before they shell out 9 figure contracts, and no one in this FA class is a slam dunk.

zambonir 2017-10-05 18:49:43 UTC #76

Possibly Kershaw. Possibly Price though he seems less likely to opt out (or be attractive) at his age. Dallas Keuchel. A few other "names."

Looking it at I would agree there might be some benefit to getting someone in the fold this year but my guess is they just aren't interested in top FA pitchers, period, unless they can make a run at Kershaw or get lucky on a deal (in either season). But that doesn't mean they won't be able to add two pitchers over the next two seasons.

For 2018, trading for one guy who's a #2 and getting one other Hellickson/Morton type makes sense to me. That second pitcher should still be insurance, someone who buys development time and yes, is maybe even flippable. Unless you really think only two of Lively, Pivetta, Eickhoff, Velasquez, Eflin and Thompson (to say nothing of Eshelman) should be starting in the majors this year, or possibly ever.

Philsmania 2017-10-05 19:00:11 UTC #77

Rangers have a $6MM option on Hamels for 2019 and, if picked up, he would be one of the only things on the Rangers' books (as of now) in 2019. So, unless Hamels completely craters in 2018, I imagine the option gets picked up.

nycphils 2017-10-05 19:47:30 UTC #78

If the Rangers crater (not impossible) but Hamels is still average or better at age 35, they'll pick it up but probably be willing to deal him.

I keep saying it I know, but Sabathia is the back end guy I'd go for - the Yankees are expected to offer him 1 yr/$8m(ish) and not go higher. Would I do 1 yr/$13m or even 1 yr/$10m with a mutual option with $10m if the team picks it up and $5m if Sabathia picks it up? Probably. He's still pitching reasonably well, but no long commitment, $$ the Phils can easily afford and plenty of experience (and a LHP) to shut up the veteran loving critics (not that that is particularly important). He might need to be DL'd at some point to rest his knee, but that isn't so bad for a team with lots of young guys to audition.

He'd be attractive at the deadline as well if need be.

allentown 2017-10-05 19:57:31 UTC #79

I also think the second half is real and that the Phillies ended up the season as a roughly .500 team, with a lot of position talent, but a severe dearth of starting pitching. That's why I likened our current status to the Phillies after 2002, when they splurged on Jim Thome. This time the splurge needs to be a SP. Given the size of the payroll and the lack of success on mid-level pitchers via FA/trades over the past 3 seasons (we paid $11+ million/WAR and only one of the 3 guys we acquired through more than a few tactics), I think it would be beyond stupid to repeat that effort and expect a better result. We need to buy a higher quality SP.

I look at your comment about a lot of young players needing to be sorted out and draw the opposite conclusion. I don't want to trade prospects who might have shaken out to be a cheap yet significant part of our future. Guys who are clearly second tier, whom we must trade or lose talent through the Rule 4 I'm fine with trading, but not our brighter prospects, regardless of level in the org. We have tons of $ and cap space and it is foolish not to take advantage of that.

I'll also say that if the team goes cheap this winter that this will greatly diminish my trust that they will go big with the next FA class. That class doesn't seem a better source of SP than this class, in any case.

flyers19rw 2017-10-05 20:57:45 UTC #80

If the Phillies players felt that Mackanin was going to get fired at the end of the season, the team may have gone lazy. However he had that extra year on the deal which probably made some players pay attention when they might of zoned out. There is no doubt, that for a three week period, Hoskins turned around the lineup. Altherr recovered as well. Then Lively, Pivetta and Thompson pitched some nice games which became winners. IMO, the work of those three starters did the most to make the end of the season look better.
The big question is will this roster produce a winning record in '18 without some serious infusion of predictable positive play? I don't see it.If they want to be contenders for a WC spot next season, they need to add two reliable starters as well as add bats that can be counted on to produce. If they don't do that, they'll be hard pressed to win 75 games.
Its time for the franchise to spend money and put a winning team back on the field. As of now, according to Hero Sports, they have $5.85M committed to next season. Are settlements will push that up a tad. No team has less money on the books for '18 than the Phillies. The next three are Oakland ($13M); CWS ($14.95M) and Milwaukee ($25M). MacPhail talked this week about not wanting to jump into expensive situations and instead put money into analytics, the ball park, etc. These things don't exclude spending on players.
The city has tolerated the breakdown and supposed rebuild of the franchise fairly well. However its time for ownership to put a better product on the field. It may cost big bucks to make moves like getting Otani; trading for Stanton and Yelich; signing FAs like Lynn and Cobb; getting a Moustakas or the like. These are the costs of doing business. Its not like the Phillies don't have the finances to make some big moves. Its time to invest. I thought that the Giles era was behind us.