2019-2020 Phillies Offseason News and Speculation

[allentown]

The problem with a deal for Lindor is that it is for 2 years.

The real problem with Lindor is that there is no particular point in trading for a young star for 2 years as opposed to an older more expensive star for 2 years, at lesser cost in prospects. You save money in the short-term, but pay a high price in the longer term. What you lose long term is the expected positive performance in MLB at very low cost for Bohm, Stott, and whomever the third guy is. You then have to replace them with costly FAs. I don't think 2020 and 2021 are when our budget crunch arrives, so I'd rather sign a FA. Young stars still under team control are the most expensive guys to acquire, in terms of talent out the door in trade. It is done to get a cheaper, shorter contract.

[zambonir]

Well, it is worth about as much or as little thought as the two years we spent discussing whether or not the Phillies should trade for MIke Trout.

Bowden's article was really about the Indians. He said they should extend him, and if they don't want to or can't, they should trade him now, and to a team with the ability to extend him, in order to get the best return. I'd be just as happy - happier, even - to get him for just two years and not give up two of our three best minor leaguers (though it would still be a valuable package).

And Atown is right, you're probably better off just signing Gregorius or Moose (or both!) but Lindor (and Betts) are both considerably better players than any available FA hitter not named Rendon.

[bigegypt0417]

The problem with a deal for Lindor is that it is for 2 years.

The real problem with Lindor is that there is no particular point in trading for a young star for 2 years as opposed to an older more expensive star for 2 years, at lesser cost in prospects.

So is it worth the price if you extend him upon trading for him?

[andyb]

Makes it better but really no. The $30+ a year is fully valued and in his 30s he won't be worth that most likely.

But you also put yourself in this cycle of only winning through high salaried players. At some point we need low cost contributors because we are not the Yankees.

[allentown]

So is it worth the price if you extend him upon trading for him?

It depends upon how many years you'd have to extend him for. If we could extend him 3 years, I'd certainly do it. Four years, probably. Beyond that, probably not.

[zambonir]

But Lindor would probably get five-six years if he just waits to hit the open market, which gets him paid for 7-8 years. For an extension he's going to want an Arenado type deal (maybe not quite that much but he got eight years and broke Harper's AAV record, and also got an opt-out after three). The only variable in the Phillies favor would be the the current market and the unknown of the upcoming CBA but I don't think the additional security an extension provides gives him enough value without more length.

The best scenario for the Phillies is probably if the Indians keep him and then look to move him in July. That also allows them to see how the whole IF/Kingery/Bohm picture shakes out.

[allentown]

I agree that probably will be the market price and Lindor may well refuse an extension if he doesn't get that. However, it is not a price I want the Phillies to pay. If he were a free agent, even a FA with a QO, I'd not be unhappy if the Phillies gave him that many years/$ plus losing their 2nd round pick. I wouldn't give up two of our top 5 prospects plus another prospect -- with that last prospect being unlikely to be significant lesser value than the expected value from a second round pick for the privilege of adding him at a very high $/expected-WAR salary. Paying FA rates plus our best minor league talent is paying twice, or at least paying 1.5X which makes the primo-FA $/WAR too exhorbitant.

[BostonRoss]

I still think the discussion of Lindor is moot because there is not enough motivation on either side to make a trade. But that never stops me...

If you don't think that the Phillies can seriously contend in 2020, then there is no reason to consider a Lindor trade. But I think the Phillies can contend and will make the other necessary moves (starting pitching) to do so. But to contend, they need to improve the offense significantly, more than replacing Franco with Moustakas. Lindor is an elite player.

We don't know what Stott and Bohm will become, but no one is considering them as the next Ronald Acuna. I remember when Michael Taylor and Domonic Brown couldn't miss. But even if they don't flame out like Taylor and Brown (and chances are that one of them will, and maybe both), they won't help in 2020. I don't see this kind of trade (if it were even a real possibility) as trading three future All-Stars for half a season of Bartolo Colon.

[zambonir]

Bowden's point was that the Indians could get the best possible return if Lindor would agree to the extension. I agree with Atown that I don't want to give up that return. You're hurting the farm and taking on a ton of money . I want to give up less and only get him for two years. Nobody gave up their top prospects to get Hamels, J.D. Martinez, Gerrit Cole. An extension can come later. But it all depends when the Indians want to move him.

Lindor also shuffles the deck in kind of a weird way. He'd be the SS, Segura would be the 2B and then what? Can you still afford Moose or is Kingery your 3B? Or Segura? What about CF? Or could you actually trade Segura (assuming Kingery is your 2B).

Heck if I were the Indians I might ask for Kingery.

[BostonRoss]

I don't want to hurt the farm, but I would to get a talent like Lindor. The money doesn't really bother me. Even with the commitment to Harper and hopefully Realmuto (and Nola, eventually), they can afford it. Most of the other bigger contracts will be off the books in a year or two.

It might well be cheaper to get Lindor midseason (a la J.D. and Hamels), but it would be worth it to me to have an extra half season of him, plus not have tow worry about whether he would be available later.

I would be happy to see additional creative thinking to accommodate Lindor. Trading Segura occurred to me as well. Even trading Kingery instead of the prospects would appeal to me--he's only six months younger than Lindor and not nearly the player. I wonder whether the Indians might be interested in Hoskins?

There are lots of ways that the Philllies might improve; most of them are pipe dreams, but I don't want to rule out any but the silliest.

[Austinfan]

I doubt Lindor is close to enough to put the Phillies over the top and for a two year stint, it doesn't make sense unless he's the missing piece, not one of a half dozen missing pieces.

[bigegypt0417]

Yeah..just sit back and hope it all works out with what you got...that's basically your idea for getting better.

[zambonir]

There may well be a half-dozen missing pieces but the Phillies can fill them all. Two SPs, a big bat, one higher-end RP, a bench piece, another reliever. Lindor would be your big bat.

[BostonRoss]

I agree Lindor would be the biggest piece, but not the only piece needed to contend next year.

(Look at me, still talking as if it's realistic to expect Lindor is coming...)

[zambonir]

FWIW (source is MLB.com's Feinsand)

Report: Stephen Strasburg could re-sign with Nats before Winter Meetings

[David_Criss]

The Phillies announced that they’ve acquired lefty Cristopher Sanchez from the Rays in exchange for minor league infielder Curtis Mead. Sanchez has been selected to the 40-man roster, per the team, as have three other players: right-hander Mauricio Llovera and left-handers Garrett Cleavinger and JoJo Romero.

Sanchez and Robert Stock..........

[allentown]

Lindor would be a big piece. Maybe he individually would be the biggest piece... but adding him doesn't bring us close to where we want and need to be. The Phillies biggest weakness is pitching and that is what we need to focus upon. We may well succeed with just an interim upgrade at 3B, as far as our starting lineup is concerned. We need to add two plus SP and several good relievers to succeed. Our pitching simply isn't nearly good enough, even to be carried by a strong lineup.

[andyb]

Sanchez is an interesting add. Guessing the Rays had 40-man issues and we clearly had more room to play with. 6'5" lanky lefty who throws in the mid-90s. Took him 6 years to get to high A of course, but the stuff must have enough potential that the Rays were nervous about losing him. I liked Mead. Relatively young and a decent combo of offense and infield defense. Clearly has some utility potential.

Cleavinger is a bit of a surprise. As an older LHP I am guessing they felt he could stick with somebody as the third lefty out of the pen. Marchan is our unprotected guy. Hopefully we can buy the young catcher another year of development.

[BostonRoss]

The Rays traded another guy to the Reds; so they must have had a roster crunch.

[EDmuch]

Rays do have a major roster crunch. It is because they have so many good prospects in their system that they recognize they cannot protect them all and so they are judiciously trading some of them. I was in Tamp for the first two weeks of November and one of the main themes on the sport page of the Tampa Bay Times was that the biggest problem the Rays had was that they have so many valuable prospects that they can't protect them all and so they were going to have to develop a trade strategy to convert some of their Rule 5 eligible prospects into non-Rule 5 prospects.