2019-2020 Phillies Offseason News and Speculation

[flyers19rw]

Instead of going large on Cole, I wonder if going after two arms such as perhaps Wheeler and Porcello would be a better investment.

[Philsmania]

Instead of going large on Cole, I wonder if going after two arms such as perhaps Wheeler and Porcello would be a better investment.

Reminds me of how when the '93 season unfolded, Paul Owen's, when reflecting on Lee Thomas's work and how he signed multiple lesser free agents instead of making one big free agent splash, said while holding one hand open a certain width, "You need to improve by this much. Sometimes it's better to fill that space with multiple pieces instead of one big piece."

[fish]

I wonder if going after two arms such as perhaps Wheeler and Porcello would be a better investment.

I think you’d be just as likely to regret the 25 million sunk into those 2 next year by June.

[schillingfan]

Instead of going large on Cole, I wonder if going after two arms such as perhaps Wheeler and Porcello would be a better investment.

Reminds me of how when the '93 season unfolded, Paul Owen's, when reflecting on Lee Thomas's work and how he signed multiple lesser free agents instead of making one big free agent splash, said while holding one hand open a certain width, "You need to improve by this much. Sometimes it's better to fill that space with multiple pieces instead of one big piece."

Only if you are cheap.

[zambonir]

I mean, these are the decisions you get paid to make as a major league GM. Gerrit Cole plus Smyly etc. or Wheeler and Hamels, for instance?

But there's really no downside to signing the guy who immediately slots ahead of Nola rather than behind him.

I still think it will be only one free agent. A second starter, if they go get one, will be via trade.

[andyb]

The one place Hamels makes sense is to have a left-handed pitcher in the rotation if they jettison Smyly and Vargas (which seems more likely). They just need to make the right scouting and medical analysis of his poor second half performance. Hamels does have the stuff to survive diminished velocity late in his career. A quality changeup can survive with lesser fastball velocity if the speed separation is still good.

Hamels is more the 2nd pitcher they should get, not the first though. And the first is a more important decision if getting Cole cost a lot of money. At that point the combination of Cole and a lesser 2nd arm might be better than the combo of Hamels and a lesser first arm.

[allentown]

Hamels is more the 2nd pitcher they should get, not the first though

Agreed. Hamels is a risk, given age and the way he performed at end of season. He should be looked at the same way we look at Arrieta going into next season, but with a lower ceiling. The good news on Hamels is that the nostalgic connection gives the Phillies an edge, since we can pay more without foolish spending, because he will sell tickets in Philly. Being a lefty helps.

[Austinfan]

Harper would have signed with the Dodgers for less, Dodgers never made him a serious offer.
Money only matters when a player can't get the teams he wants to play for to make a competitive offer.
If he can't get his first or second choices, then he's more likely to go to the highest bidder.

[andyb]

Not sure you really know that. The Dodgers were offering more per year. Harper wanted the contract length, but part of his decision was to take less money per year.

Players want to win. Teams that can spend to the luxury tax line usually are winning teams. So players really don't have to sacrifice money to play for a potential winner. Hence money and other favorable contract terms is by far the most important factor behind large free agent signings.

[bkeich]

Cole Hamels was a great pitcher for the Phillies, but if you ignore that nostalgia he is almost the definition of what we don’t want.

We need pitching, desperately. Our pitching staff is terrible, we need at least 2 starters and 4-5 relievers probably. What we can’t do is take high risk types, you can do that when the team can withstand the loss of a pitcher, we are not in that position. We could take a high risk outfielder as we would have solid backup plans, but our pitching staff is way too thin to take pitchers at a high price that have a high likelihood of being hurt/ineffective.

Unfortunately, we need more of the low ceiling, high probability pitchers with the money, we just don’t have the money to take risks given the sheer number of pitchers we need.

[andyb]

Unfortunately, we need more of the low ceiling, high probability pitchers with the money, we just don’t have the money to take risks given the sheer number of pitchers we need.

I would argue that Hamels is relatively low risk, however, given his track record. We have more money than prospects also at this point. I am not sure we can acquire the younger mid-level starter we need in trades. The reality is we need to use our money in some way to improve our pitching because we don't have the young pitchers at this point that we can count on. Using money, even going into the luxury tax, seems a better solution than trading our top prospects. Teams are going to want Howard or Bohm or Stott for anything significant also. Moniak and Medina would not get us too much at this point.

[Florida_Sunshine]

I seem to recall the difference between the Phils and Dodgers was the length of contract and overall value was greater with us but the Dodgers offer was more per year. I also think it is not so clear cut in that a player always takes the higher number. I think the union wants that but somewhere along the line the player evaluates the team, the city and where and if he has buddies playing.

I also seem to recall that Harper could have played things out longer, one against the other, and seemed happy with where the Phils were and was happy with the decision to come here based on where negotiations were at the time. I am also surprised, but happy, he did not ask for the opt out which we all thought would be a part of his deal.

[tom81]

Our pitching staff is terrible, we need at least 2 starters and 4-5 relievers probably

I’d try to add a top of the rotation started this’s off season and wait to the trade deadline to see if you really need that second one. We do need some relievers this offseason and will pick up some. Hope we get lucky as they are a crap shoot.

[EDmuch]

If we could actually somehow get Cole as our No. 1, I think we could work out a low cost deal with Hamels to get him as a No. 4. But getting that top line pitcher should be the first priority. Signing Garrett Cole, Cole Hamels Mike Moustakis and two right handed relievers would set us up pretty well to be a serious contender next year. But,of course, the key to all of that is getting Garrett Cole. And boy is that going to cost some dollars.

Oh yeah, and finding a hitting instructor to work full time in the off-season with Hoskins.

[EDmuch]

I agree with those who say we do not have the farm system to support a significant acquisition via trade. This off-season it has to be all about throwing the money around.

[julio]

Signing Garrett Cole, Cole Hamels Mike Moustakis and two right handed relievers would set us up pretty well to be a serious contender next year.

...saith Mister George Steinbrenner!

[andyb]

He would use up too much of the money for the risk of a 36 year old.

The only thing I disagree on is this. It assumes that we could not just write off a failed 2 year/$25 million contract as a risk worth taking. I think they could. I agree with the risk of a 36-year-old pitcher which is why I qualified the sentiment with scouts and medical people finding a logical reason behind the second half decline that is fixable. As for risk, I think I would bet on Hamels being better than Arrieta because of track record and overall health.

If the team is making a profit, why can't we go $10 million over the competitive balance tax line? If it would let us add Cole and Hamels. Theoretically we could get under next year if we wanted to when the Arrieta contract ended. The Nationals exceeded the cap to try to win. Why can't the Phillies under the right circumstance. I'd love to promote young pitchers, but Howard really needs to go into the season as about our 7th or 8th rotation option. He is going to need a half season with the AAA/ML ball (and the need for innings in general as his stuff is pretty raw at the moment).

[allentown]

Unfortunately, we need more of the low ceiling, high probability pitchers with the money, we just don’t have the money to take risks given the sheer number of pitchers we need.

I think what we most need is a high ceiling guy who can be at least a #2. Low ceiling guys are easier to get. I'm not at all sure that there are many low ceiling, high probability guys out there. Also not at all sure that they are cheap. Actually, Hamels, on a short contract, is someone I would put in that category. We may have find our #5/6/7 pitchers on the farm and in dumpster dives. Same for the pen guys. As SF often writes, most relievers are up and down and almost totally fungible. That argues a low $, volume strategy, with many expected not to make the team out of ST -- guys that don't over-winter on the 40-man in large measure. I'd also try to add depth in the Rule 5.

[bkeich]

If the team is making a profit, why can't we go $10 million over the competitive balance tax line? If it would let us add Cole and Hamels. Theoretically we could get under next year if we wanted to when the Arrieta contract ended.

I agree, but is it a realistic idea? This team has always shown a "good boy" team that never goes over things like tax limits. I would love to see us do it, but I just dont see us doing it, we never went over the international limits, we never went over the draft limits and since there was a tax on salary we have never really even approached it.

The other thing is it is easy to say "we can go over for one year", but of course next year when we have other needs that we dont see now (like CF is for us now) than fans will want to go over again, etc. Arrieta will come off, but others will need contracts and we will be back to needing a starting pitcher, reliever, maybe 2B, 3B, LF, etc.

Not our money, we really don't know how much pressure the other owners put on Middleton to continue to be a profitable endeavor. They might not need the money, but might just see it as the "right" thing to be profitable. We are probably still the most profitable team (or close to it) and unfortunately I dont see that changing.

[andyb]

The other thing is it is easy to say "we can go over for one year", but of course next year when we have other needs that we dont see now (like CF is for us now) than fans will want to go over again, etc. Arrieta will come off, but others will need contracts and we will be back to needing a starting pitcher, reliever, maybe 2B, 3B, LF, etc.

The reality is we'll never be great unless we can develop our own young prospects (or make trades for younger, controllable players). I don't want to trade our best prospects. That would enhance the possibility of Bohm and Howard and Stott and others becoming contributors that would let us get under the luxury tax line in the future (and that line might increase substantially in the next CBA).

A good GM can walk and chew gum at the same time. Spending money and developing talent can be done side by side. I am actually hugely disappointed with our international year so far (dedicating lots of money to an overage player and then having nobody quite as good to spend it on after that happened while also trading a slot). Every opportunity to develop young talent should be maximized. I am not saying they should fire Sal over this, but it is a major blot on his record and someone should be accountable.