Looking ahead to the 2018 draft

[Philsmania]

Who will be our second 1-1 in two years?

[teabag259]

Beer seems like the surefire #1.

[fish]

Beer isn't the sure-fire guy anymore. Not quite as strong a season this year (still good) and a corner profile dings his stock a little bit. Still probably a top 5 guy.

[Squire]

Getting 1.1 wouldn't be the worst thing in the world again. What's frustrating to me is that I feel like the Yankees and Braves re-builds started after us and are way ahead of us.

[Austinfan]

That's because we waited two years, combination of decreased value of the veterans we traded and a lack of commitment to the farm system.
And some of the decisions, like taking Williams and Alfaro, who were completely lacking in plate discipline and have shown resistence to change, probably wouldn't have been made by Klentak.
The organization finally has come into the 21st century (RA: analytics? we don't need no stinkin' analytics!).

It wouldn't be the worst thing to have one more deep draft before things turn around, the farm system is top heavy, so three deep drafts in a row combined with a relatively aggressive (for them, they spent up to their extra 5% in LA and I'll bet they'll try to trade for allocations this summer) LA campaign (they signed a lot of guys, and I hope they continue that, given their track record of finding hidden gems) could finally build depth throughout the farm system.

It took a decade of neglect to build one of the worst farm systems in baseball, it'll take a couple more years to assure the turnaround wasn't just a one year trade flurry anomaly.

[fish]

I'm a bit jealous of the Rockies now too. It's now been a year and a half since the Phils have added to the rebuild by some other method other than drafting or traditional Latin american signings. That feels like a big problem, if not a big reason for the feeling like the rebuild has slowed to a near unacceptable level. It's how the club went about the last rebuild (except for the latin american signings)- and why it took 8 years to reach it's pinnacle. Patience is necessary, regression (by some) is inevitable, but failure to be creative is not what all these bright guys in management (and i'm not being facetious) have been assembled to do.

[Austinfan]

Rockies had six straight losing seasons before this year.

C Wolters (25) (3-10 Cle) acquired off waivers 2-16
1B Reynolds (33) - 1 yr $1.6M
2B LeMahieu (28) - (2-09 Chi) 2011 trade for Weathers and Stewart
SS Story (24) - (1s-11)
3B Arendo (26) - (2-09)
LF Parra (30) - 2016 FA 3yr/$26M, $12M option
CF Blackmon (30) - (2-08) .775 OPS at 27, .797 at 28, .933 at 29 - patience is a virtue, didn't even break into the lineup until he was 26 (2nd half of the season)
RF Gonzalez (31) - 2007 trade
UT Desmond (30) - 2017 FA, 5yr/$70M, bit pricey for a supersub who has had one .800+ OPS season in 2012

SP
Chatwood (27) - (2-08 Cal) 2011 trade
Senzatela (22) - 2011 LA signing, ranked #27, $250K bonus
Freeland (24) - (1-14)
Anderson (27) - (1-11)
Marquez (22) - TB 2011, $225K bonus, 27th ranked prospect when traded in 2016 for Corey DIckerson (28) (8-10), who has become a solid OF
RP
Holland (31) - injured in 2016, $6M FA, $15M vesting option for 2018
Ottavino (31) - selected off waivers in 2012
McGee (30) - Marquez trade
Oberg (26) - (15-12)

So a couple 2nd tier free agents, good drafting, trading a top OF prospect for a top pitching prospect and a RP, some waiver wire pickups
You need to hit on those top draft picks and make some smart trades.
And you need good coaching and patience with your prospects
But no big LA signings, no big FA signings

[bigegypt0417]

They had incredible resources to trade to get that rebuild working.

There is no way you can compare those situations...

[Austinfan]

Huh? Outside of Dickerson, who exactly was an "incredible resource" that they traded?
And they got TB's 27th ranked prospect plus a veteran middle RP for DIckerson.
Stewart was meh. The other trades were ancient history (i.e. before they started building this team).

Most of the Rockies' moves were small potatoes, the real key was drafting well in the first couple rounds (Story, Arendo, Blackmon, Freeland, Anderson) and a smart LA signing (Senzatela).

The lesson to be learned from Colorado, SF, St Louis, KC and so on is you don't have to throw around megabucks, you do have to have good scouts and good development, and make smart acquisitions around the edges.
That is, Phillies need to do better than Randolph, get players like Crawford turned around, be patient with Cozens (who should repeat AAA unless he finishes really strong), and so on.
They need to do better than Morton, Buchholtz, Saunders, et al, some of that was bad luck, some of that bad decisions - on the other hand, 5yr/$70M for Desmond is a gross overpay.

There's no one they can trade for or sign that will do more for them than fixing Herrera and Franco, and no pitcher they sign that will help more than getting their own young pitchers on track.
That's why I was glad to see them hire Stairs, who has a clue.
I'd like to see them land a first rate pitching coach and improve instruction throughout the minor league system.
But they also have to focus on the right players, not just talent, but coachability. No more drafting/signing hitters who just want to mindlessly hack, and power pitchers who think overthrowing is how you pitch.

[bigegypt0417]

I thought I quoted squire.

The Yankees had a boatload of valuable pieces to move...

[allentown]

THey were willing to actually spend $ to rebuild. We were not. They had a sense of urgency. We did not.

[bigegypt0417]

THey were willing to actually spend $ to rebuild. We were not. They had a sense of urgency. We did not.

Yankees or Rockies?

[Austinfan]

Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Angels aren't good comparables.
The Phillies have money, but not that kind of money (I expect Middleton to spend, but Phillies is really a 2nd tier market and lacks the media advantages of NY and LA - and it's not the first choice of the mega-rich)
We've seen the Yankees and Dodgers use money to overcome mistakes, we don't have quite that margin for error.

There's a middle ground, we can spend more than Colorado, KC, and probably a little more than SF and St Louis, but we also have to be smart and make that money count. Like Epstein did.
I thought the Herrera deal was a good move, even with his struggles, the cost is low enough to make him a viable trade candidate unless he totally tanks, and even then it's affordable.
Using money to lock up your own players early (and through their late 20s when they'll have maximum value) is worth a couple "misses."
I think we can afford a couple solid role players as FAs the next couple years, but I'd stay away from bidding wars for "names," unless it's someone like Trout who'd actually want to come here.
Face it, the premier FAs are going to choose NY (media and if you have $200+M, Manhattan is a lot more fun than Philly) or S California (media, hedonistic playground).
And overpaying for over 30 FAs is just stupid. See Pujols, etc. You can buy that kind of production a lot cheaper.
There are guys available every year at a reasonable cost who can fill holes at a slight overpay without locking you up for a decade.

To make this work, you have to be smart.
As the Angels have shown, if you use money to overcome the deficiencies in your farm system, it doesn't work for long. Despite winning the draft lottery (i.e. late 1st rd pick that surprised) with Trout.
And while the LA overpay opportunity has passed us by, throwing money at scouting and player development is always an option.
To me the real issue is whether we're drafting/signing/developing players at a higher rate than most teams.
If not, no amount of spending will make/keep this an elite team.

[bigegypt0417]

Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Angels aren't good comparables.
The Phillies have money, but not that kind of money (I expect Middleton to spend, but Phillies is really a 2nd tier market and lacks the media advantages of NY and LA - and it's not the first choice of the mega-rich)
We've seen the Yankees and Dodgers use money to overcome mistakes, we don't have quite that margin for error.

We are on par with those teams from a financial perspective. They are comparable but what I was discussing is we didn't have a group of high profile players to trade like the Yankees.

[Austinfan]

We did. We just waited too long.
Had we traded players after the 2013 (it would have been gutsy doing it after 2012), Utley, Rollins would have garnered a haul, Ruiz would have had value.
Lee and Papelbon could have anchored big trades.
Hamels at age 29 would have landed a king's ransom.

We are in the ballpark financially (but still below) but not as a FA destination, I mean be realistic, if you were looking at $300M, would a few million more make a difference compared to a destination where you could really enjoy that money?

[bigegypt0417]

We did. We just waited too long.
Had we traded players after the 2013 (it would have been gutsy doing it after 2012), Utley, Rollins would have garnered a haul, Ruiz would have had value.
Lee and Papelbon could have anchored big trades.
Hamels at age 29 would have landed a king's ransom.

We wouldn't have gotten anywhere near what we saw the Yankees got in exchange for their talent. Selling off in 2012 would have been an extremely hard pill for the fanbase to swallow.

[allentown]

And how much harder a pill have the fans actually had to swallow as a result of several (losing) seasons in which they got to ride the nostalgia express. Apparently, the only spending AF countenances as 'efficient': signing second and third tier FA to fill holes for a year and be flipped for prospects is actually the most financially inefficient method possible. What did we get for Morton and what will we get for Buckholtz. Even if they play half-way decent from here to trade deadline, what sort of prospects can we reasonably expect to acquire for Saunders, Kendrick, Benoit? We've invested tens of $millions in them. Does anyone really belief we'll get even $5 million worth of prospects back. We could have added to our LA signings for less than $5 mill and had better prospects. We could have added more future value than the vets we signed for same or less $ on the over-23 international market. We've followed this flipping vets strategy for several years now. What have we gained from that? Not an anywhere close to a competitive MLB team, not a respectable MLB team. Quality of prospects for anyone we flipped in that time? How is this remotely efficient? It seems like money down the toilet to me. Far better to spend in international market or for FA who can contribute for a number of years or take-on-salary trades to get prospects or guys who can contribute for years. Those who always push for financial efficiency, seem to be pushing the least financially efficient way to run a rebuild. It isn't a rebuild strategy at all. It is an inferior patch and fill strategy -- the sort of hopeless game the Sixers played pre-Hinkie.

[allentown]

Many of the teams you list as the ones we can match spending with are baseball's 'official poor' -- teams who get extra charity draft picks and a larger international allocation to compensate for their poverty. If we just spend like them and don't get the perks of not spending, we have no chance to succeed. We are a large revenue team. We have been effectively penalized for years as a large revenue team. If we don't use those $ to compete, then we are at a disadvantage compared to virtually everybody. And we are currently sitting as close to the absolutely worst MLB team, so we have a lot of catching up to do. In our own division, the Braves have both a better MLB team and the highest rated farm. So, surpassing them with our existing strategy doesn't exactly compute.

[DougLindsay]

Yankees benefited from giving up nothing for a wife beater and getting a top 10 guy for him.

[allentown]

Well, they did well in a baseball sense. We kicked Domonic Brown out of RF to accommodate a guy whose career was already bust and who had just assaulted an elderly Jew in a hotel lobby not long before we signed him, so we don't base all our signings on personal virtue.