2018-19 Phillies Off-Season Discussion (2019 version)

Patchmk88 2019-02-28 02:16:27 UTC #1215

https://mobile.twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/1100938891757015041

zambonir 2019-02-28 02:22:44 UTC #1216

Got more faith in news from Olney more than news from Steve Phillips (or Heyman).

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGoodPhight/status/1100559941461598208

andyb 2019-02-28 02:59:08 UTC #1217

We lost Crawford and Alfaro even if they are not technically prospects. And it is also a below average farm system. It is the accumulation of moves that have left us with less of the future. We did give value. And if we don't get Harper we'll have missed another opportunity to add value.

No one move does this. But an accumulation of moves that give up value eventually leads to an older team with fewer young prospects.

nycphils 2019-02-28 04:03:00 UTC #1218

To be fair, I don’t think the trades have stripped the system. Rather, draft failures (like turning 4 straight Top 10 selection into not one sure-fire above average major leaguer) and the potential wiff on Jaylin Ortiz years have done that.

allentown 2019-02-28 04:17:45 UTC #1219

There's a lot of truth in that, but it all adds up and reinforces the problem. Bottom-line is that there is a lot of dysfunction in the organization, and it is all working against the rebuild. The advantage we have over our competition is $ and cap space, and we aren't taking advantage of that.

EDmuch 2019-02-28 04:32:28 UTC #1220

I still do not understand why someone related to the drafting process has not been fired. Our drafting has been an abomination.

Jazzhead 2019-02-28 04:58:17 UTC #1221

I don't fault the Phillies for passing on Machado because they would rather have Harper. Rather, their mistake was failing to recognize how a signing of Machado by San Diego would set off an arms race in the National League West. If SD could spend $300 million on a ten year deal for Machado, then so could the Giants or Dodgers for Harper. A 10-year deal from either of those clubs likely turns Harper away from our deal. But such contract(s) would, I think, never have been offered had these rivals not felt compelled to do so by the Padres' action.

Florida_Sunshine 2019-02-28 07:05:12 UTC #1222

No, we don’t really know that it is a failure. Too many variables beyond our control. Did the Yankees fail when Cliff Lee chose us over the Yankees?

zambonir 2019-02-28 08:13:28 UTC #1223

They've probably fired/replaced at least half the scouts, while Almaraz doesn't necessarily get blamed for the high round guys. But I don't disagree. It's surprising Klentak didn't want his own guy, and sooner. But clearly they've opted to scapegoat/overhaul development more.

jimbomill 2019-02-28 11:43:12 UTC #1224

Bingo!

phillychuck 2019-02-28 11:43:19 UTC #1225

There is no one like Trout. Babe Ruth and Willie Mays don't play anymore.

andyb 2019-02-28 11:44:54 UTC #1226

The Yankees did not predicate years of strategy on landing one of these marquee free agents. And they freely spent well above any luxury tax line so they replaced Lee with others. In short, a lousy comparison.

The Phillies are trying to win now. Landing Harper or Machado was part of that strategy. The Realmuto deal sent future assets to win in the next 2 years. Win projections currently have the Phillies in the 82-86 win range. If that is true, then the strategy was executed poorly. If we do nothing more I will root for Williams and Franco to put up 900 OPS years. I just don't expect that to happen like I would with Harper or Machado.

Jazzhead 2019-02-28 13:14:09 UTC #1227

Not signing Bryce Harper is no "failure". He wasn't engaging with us in good faith anyway.

A failure is declining to improve the team while waiting for a mercenary. We clearly have succeeded in improving the team, at multiple positions, including the best catcher in baseball. Give me Realmuto any day over a guy who will DH as soon as the NL adopts the rule.

As for trading prospect assets in order to compete now, that's a failure only if we cannot sign Realmuto to an extension.

el-pietro 2019-02-28 13:33:10 UTC #1228

You keep saying this. You have no evidence that this is the case. You have not been in the discussions and are reading into tweets from various sources many of which are either not reliable or are mouth pieces for agents.

For all we know Harper has a price and the Phillies have not yet met it. If that is the case why should he sign for us? Even if its the highest number? Maybe he and Boras think it may be worth their while to sign a shorter deal for a higher AAV if they can't get the ten year deal they think Harper deserves. Or they may only be engaging with the Dodgers and Giants in an effort to encourage the Phillies to increase their offer. They are perfectly entitled to do so.

I'm very excited about the moves the Phillies have made so far, but in my mind at least they made those moves as part of a strategy that involved adding Harper or Machado or a similar level player. Moving from ~80 wins to ~85 wins isn't worth what they gave up. An 85 win may be more fun than an 80 win season but the outcome is roughly the same. You miss the playoffs.

Trading for Realmuto only makes sense in the context of a team who was 2-3 wins away from winning the division. Otherwise the risk in giving up Sixto is not worth finishing 3rd in the division and missing the playoffs. Similarly with the Segura trade. Giving up Crawford as part of a deal to get Segura made sense. Crawford will hopefully one day become Segura but we want to win today so we give up the future value of Crawford for the present day value of Segura. Why do that for a team that doesn't plan to compete to win the division?

You may say that we already have enough to compete for the division but you are basing that on hope and not on reality. Unless we see huge development from the likes of Williams, Franco, Kingery etc then this team is not currently constructed to win 90 games.

jimbomill 2019-02-28 14:07:08 UTC #1229

Do you evidence that this is the case? If not, have you just done what you accuse Jazzhead of doing?

el-pietro 2019-02-28 14:22:24 UTC #1230

I didn't assert anything. I suggested it was a possiblity. "For all we know". Jazzhead has multiple times said Harper never wanted to sign for us, not that he thinks Harper didn't want to sign for us. Theres a difference.

Squire 2019-02-28 14:25:26 UTC #1231

From what I am hearing Harper to the Dodgers seems more likely. I have a serious question for all you CBA experts out there.....could the Dodgers trade A.J. Pollock right now? I'm guessing not.

EDmuch 2019-02-28 14:32:33 UTC #1232

Morning reports suggest that the Phils FO think it is unlikely that Harper will with us.

Jazzhead 2019-02-28 14:33:49 UTC #1233

If it walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The evidence tells me that Harper and Boras are playing us to set the market, and not negotiating in good faith. Angelo this morning used the word "disrespect".

We clearly wanted Harper rather than Machado, and by most accounts have ponied up the dollars and years. What we forget to realize is that Machado's signing created a west coast market for Harper that hadn't existed before. Once the Padres sign their man, an NL West arms race is started. The Dodgers now want Harper, and so do the Giants - and the Giants are certainly as well positioned as the Padres to offer a ten year deal.

I think the Giants will get him,

julio 2019-02-28 14:41:03 UTC #1234

Not until June 15th, unless they get the player's written consent (which generally would require that the compensate the player in some way...). Article XX.B.(5)(a). Of course, if we operate on the premise that enough money will motivate any player to accept any team, then we could argue that it's just a matter of how much money the Dodgers would be willing to throw at Pollock to get him to agree.