2019 Phillies Season Discussion

[zambonir]

It goes in the "good trade, who'd we get?" category regardless. Swapped a guy they were gonna lose for nothing for a guy who doesn't have to be on the 40.

I'd still love to hear what actually went into it though. Did they just not think much of Pazos' performance to the point where he was truly the 4th LH relief option (behind Alvarez and Davis)? Has Morgan's performance made them less worried about the second slot at the major league level? Do they truly think Alvarez is better or are they just not ready to eat his $?

[andyb]

Dohy might have passed Pazos in the internal Phillies thinking as well.

[julio]

Dohy might have passed Pazos in the internal Phillies thinking as well.

Well, if Dohy hadn't passed Pazos in their thinking prior to yesterday, he certainly has now!

[Austinfan]

When was Pazos in their organizational thinking?

[julio]

When was Pazos in their organizational thinking?

Given that Matt Klentak is not, to my knowledge, registered at philliesphans.com, I don't think an answer to this question will be forthcoming.

[rkeden]

I know it is only April but I just watched the Rockies come from a 5-2 deficit including a 5 spot in the 9th (with two out) to lead the Braves 9-5. It would have been more fun in September but I got a kick out of it anyway. Love that the Braves announcers had the game in the win column when things fell apart big time. All three of our Eastern rivals lost again tonight.

Our win wasn't pretty but we will soon forget the details. I doubt that the Braves can say the same thing!

[andyb]

When was Pazos in their organizational thinking?

When we traded for him less than 6 months ago after he had a sub-3.00 ERA season? He was not the key part of the deal, but he was a pitcher we asked for that had a track record and then failed to impress when he got here. They probably liked him as much as Morgan over the winter, maybe more.

[Philsmania]

It's clear that Klentak doesn't like lefties. Yet, he works for an organization steeped in the history of Carlton, McGraw and Hamels. If anything, we need to give special preference to lefties.

[andyb]

I think it is much more that Klentak does not have any lefties. Whether he cares about lefties if they were equally as good as righties is another question. I think there is a fair shot we could go after Keuchel after the draft for instance if he is still available.

[zambonir]

A big difference between giving up on your fourth-string lefty reliever and being a little light on lefty starters (got two in AAA though). If he really hated lefties he would have gotten rid of Adam Morgan (as many here have wanted to over the years). Also he sure likes Alvarez!

[Austinfan]

Alvarez and Pazos to me were the same pitcher, marginal LH RPs who were just filling in a bullpen slot until something better comes along.
Morgan has worked hard to improve, mediocre FB/slider pitcher who developed a changeup, now has moved from his hittable 4 seamer to a much better 2 seamer.

RPs just seem to have a different trajectory than SPs, if a SP doesn't have it together by 25-26 it's usually over, but RPs often don't get it together until their late 20s.

[zambonir]

Alvarez and Pazos to me were the same pitcher, marginal LH RPs who were just filling in a bullpen slot until something better comes along.

Fungible, as they say. I don't think you're correct though, Alvarez has a track record, which is why they were willing to commit an non-optionable guaranteed $ slot to him. He's just having a Year, so far.

if a SP doesn't have it together by 25-26 it's usually over, but RPs often don't get it together until their late 20s.

So which is Morgan?

[Austinfan]

Morgan was a fail as a SP, but had gradually improved as a RP each season.

[andyb]

The vast majority of major league relievers failed as starters.

Relievers are "fungible" because they are less talented than the starters and we view their stats in highly variable small sample sizes. On the surface Pazos had as many positives as Morgan. They both had some major league success. Both can touch the mid-90s. But both are also very hittable when they are off in small sample sizes. In these days with a very busy 40-man roster that needs spots to fill holes like Gosselin and Rodriguez on the major league roster, it is just tough to keep 4 or 5 lefties in a bullpen rotation. Other needs are greater.

Hopefully they expand the 40-man roster to 41 or 42 when the MLB rosters expand.

[Austinfan]

These day most RPs are groomed as RPs in the minors, not failed starters who are converted in the majors.
Some will start their first few years in the minors, both to buildup arm strength and to give them enough innings to work on their stuff in game conditions.

But if you look at the Phillies RPs, the only ones who were slotted as SPs who became RPs are Madson, Morgan, Bastardo and Savary.
Arano, converted at 21 in Clearwater
Neris, always a RP
Ramos, always a RP
Rios, swing starter until he hit Reading at 23
Davis, started 11 games at Lakewood, then strictly a RP at Clearwater at 23
DeFratus, converted to RP at 21 at Lakewood
Giles, started 6 games at Lakewood at 21, then strictly a RP
Diekman, starter first two years in the system, then a RP at 22
Stutes, starter at Reading at 22, then converted to RP

[andyb]

But you listed all those guys that were starters that were converted in the minors. It is rare that someone is a reliever from day one. Most of the time the conversion happens in the minors. With Morgan it was a little later because he failed in the majors. In general though, they want the better prospects to throw more innings in the minors than the lesser prospects. Then after a few levels they figure out what role is best for them.

[julio]

These day most RPs are groomed as RPs in the minors, not failed starters who are converted in the majors.
Some will start their first few years in the minors, both to buildup arm strength and to give them enough innings to work on their stuff in game conditions.

But if you look at the Phillies RPs, the only ones who were slotted as SPs who became RPs are Madson, Morgan, Bastardo and Savary.
Arano, converted at 21 in Clearwater
Neris, always a RP
Ramos, always a RP
Rios, swing starter until he hit Reading at 23
Davis, started 11 games at Lakewood, then strictly a RP at Clearwater at 23
DeFratus, converted to RP at 21 at Lakewood
Giles, started 6 games at Lakewood at 21, then strictly a RP
Diekman, starter first two years in the system, then a RP at 22
Stutes, starter at Reading at 22, then converted to RP

Andyb didn't specify that most relievers failed as starters in the majors, only that most of them had failed as starters. Exactly two of the pitchers Austinfan listed (out of 13) were characterized as "always a RP." He's confirmed andyb's point, not contradicted it. He's tried to argue that these guys started out as SPs only for development purposes - implying that they were always "slotted" as eventual RPs. To my knowledge, he has no basis for asserting that other than that 1) it supports his argument; and (possibly) 2) he may "believe" it. Failing actual contemporary quotes from Phillies development staff (e.g., "We're starting Joe Blow to build up his arm strength, but we're going to convert him to relief in two years."), we don't know what the organizational thinking/planning was in most of these cases.

It's true enough that the Phils, at least, only have a few examples of guys who were given starting opportunities in the majors, then converted to relief for one reason or another. But that's not what andyb was talking about.

EDIT: I see andyb made the same point himself, while I was composing.

[Austinfan]

Phillies have said they like some young pitchers to start in the low minors, even if they plan to convert them to RPs.
This applies especially to HS and LA pitchers, who need to build up arm strength and develop secondary pitches.

College juniors and seniors are a different matter, while they might start in college, the reason they're around later in the draft is they're not projected as ML starters, so it's either succeed as a RP quickly or move on.

And due to injuries, etc., some slotted as RPs get spot starts in the low minors as the 6th or 7th SP (Rios) - if they were SP candidates they'd be starting every 5th day.
Stutes was the only one who was a starter as high as Reading.
As you can see with someone like Viza, when they see them as a starting candidate, they'll give them 2-3 years at AA and above to prove them wrong.

[zambonir]

I also don't think it isn't true that RPs don't "get it together" until later in their careers compared to starters, it's just that the sample sizes to judge them are always less definitive and they have more opportunities to fail and try again (including if they fail as a starter), whether on the job, by being sent down, or by catching on with another organization.

You just don't get as many chances to stick around if you're a failed starter, first you lose your major league job, then there isn't room for you in the AAA rotation, then there isn't room for you on the 40. At that point (or even earlier in that process) you've either been converted to a reliever or been moved to another team (i.e. Lively, Thompson, Leiter Jr., even Hutchison to some extent, though not originally for the Phillies).

And if Morgan was right-handed and the Phillies had been good he probably wouldn't have gotten the development time he did.

[schillingfan]

If the Phillies slot someone as a reliever the minute they enter the organization, it means they don’t think the the player has the skill set to succeed as a starter. The only Phillie High draft pick I remember on someone intended to be a reliever was Ricky Bottalico. Starters are more valuable than relievers. If a pitcher is a successful starter he’s not going to be converted to a reliever. Starters are more valuable and even middle of the road starters are more valuable except for the rare Mariano Rivera who had one perfect pitch. If Mariano had more plus pitches, he would have been a starter. Relievers are fungible because they are less talented and thus less valuable.