Minor League Games - Monday, September 3, 2018

andyb 2018-09-04 19:17:55 UTC #21

We can all highlight prospects that developed properly and prospects that did not. Sometimes these changes are more about having one's own team personality-wise than any change in actual instruction. The game has clearly evolved into more of a 3-outcome game in recent years (for good or bad). Much of that is on the player acquisition side though and not the instruction side.

For hitting there has never been a major league regime that does not train its hitters to swing at strikes and not at balls for instance. What the Klentak regime is doing is nothing new. They are acquiring more players like Santana, but it is unclear our instruction of the players we have is that different. The analytics around swing path and launch angle are in a different category though I doubt that has anything to do with Jordan. Some teams like the Red Sox this year are notably being more aggressive at the plate and taking fewer pitches. The advantage of getting to the bullpen is smaller because bullpens are better (and the logic of 2 times through the lineup for a starter is much more about variety of pitches than fatigue).

More than likely this is personality driven and both sides decided it was time for a change.

allentown 2018-09-04 19:32:56 UTC #22

Likely true, but still represents continued churning in the Phillies management. This transition to the 'new regime' which people hold can only be held accountable once everyone's been in place for a while, just bought several more year of unaccountability on the player development front which, since it is very hard to tell where the problems lie, also buys several more years of unaccountability on the scouting front.

To me, this is not all that different than the round peg/square hole we saw with Bill Dancy and Michael Bourn as guys like Moniak are remade into guys they cannot become, if viewed with the realism lens. I think hitting instruction must be player/role specific.

zambonir 2018-09-04 23:56:02 UTC #23

Things don't always work out, and sometimes you don't know if they will work out until you actually try it, but I agree it is a little disappointing that MacPhail and Klentak didn't just clean house after Year 1 if they were gonna clean house. They all knew Jordan from Baltimore though, and probably didn't see this coming. Brass tacks it is like Arbuckle because they could have promoted Jordan to assistant GM, and instead Minnitti was promoted to essentially become his boss. That probably rankled, as much as any day-to-day philosophical disagreements,or dissatisfaction with Jordan's development of specific players.

And I do think it's a roughly five-year plan. The Astros went through this exact thing as well, they were still doing huge housecleaning as recently as last season. I don't think Almaraz or Klentak get a new lease on life just because someone like Jordan gets fired, and if things go truly bad - Kapler doesn't work out, team doesn't make the playoffs at least one of the last two seasons - the GM is unlikely to last either. But I'm not that negative, by any means.

allentown 2018-09-05 00:43:42 UTC #24

Well, it's been 6 years since the end of the 2012 season and we've had pretty much a rolling piece-meal churn.

zambonir 2018-09-05 03:08:28 UTC #25

Yeah but it's only Year 3 under this GM. Gillick may have started something but he didn't truly have a plan, or hire anybody, and he didn't even do that until 2014. We had to live through Papelbon and Burnett and Sandberg before that.

And obviously the Phillies had neither the draft position nor the drafting success that the Astros and Cubs did. Fortunately they have money.

I mean, I'll wear the label of apologist for the new regime until "the process" is complete. If some people feel it's meet the new boss same as the old boss I get that, but it seems to me that others just reflexively critique the front office regardless of who's running it or what their approach is. Which, okay, we do that to managers (and coaches) too.

fish 2018-09-06 00:08:31 UTC #26

In my miind the wave of talent necessary to complete a rebuild petered out after the first wave. Plenty of promising b-level arms, but the best of the group hit a bump in A ball. I don’t see any position players I would pencil in as someone good enough to lean on as a long term solution outside of Garcia and hopefully Bohm. When your best hope is a 17 year old in Rookie Ball, it’s like having to start rebuilding your farm all over again.

At this point any shakeup of the development group couldn’t hurt. The scouting group had big changes last year so have to wait and see about them.

bigegypt0417 2018-09-06 12:57:27 UTC #27

I would imagine all those experts who rank our system at the top of the league may disagree with you and your assessment. It's ok to be down on the system if you choose but you basically ignored a whole lot to make that statement.

andyb 2018-09-06 13:38:14 UTC #28

Baseball America ranked our system 18th in August in their mid-season update. The downgrade was largely due to graduations, but it was also due to the lack of expected progress from our recent top picks. 18th might be a bit harsh because BA emphasizes top 100 prospects too much, but it is hard to argue we are more than a mid-level system at this point and this is after drafting in the top 10 the past few years.

Note BA article behind a paywall.

Philsmania 2018-09-06 15:13:53 UTC #29

It's entirely possible that if next season either Sixto rockets through the system and graduates or ends up having Tommy John surgery we may have no prospects in the top 100. The fact that MLB.com at the close of the draft and sign period named Bohm our top position playing prospect stands out to me as an indictment of our crop of position player prospects.

allentown 2018-09-06 17:13:08 UTC #30

Yes, I think most of us and most of the baseball world views it that way. Crawford, Randolph, Moniak, Haseley, Bohm -- I'm confident that at least several of these guys are going to have their time as starting position players in Philly, but none has set the world on fire yet as in looking like a future star or even plus starter and all have to be viewed as at least minor disappointments at this stage of their Phillies' careers. Yes, the draft position does set expectations -- probably not fair to the player, but the first rounder is the guy TPTB have fallen in love with that year. Then the instructional guys have their turn. It's too early to say what these guys' MLB careers will look like, but to varying degrees, a real-time assessment is still appropriate. That assessment isn't a positive one and the team needs to find and correct the problem. I was enthusiastic when we drafted Crawford, Moniak, Haseley, Bohm, although I do think we should have taken at least one top pitching prospect during these years. We have one clear first-round success. Of course, it was the only pitcher we spent a first-round pick on, I am encouraged by how Moniak finished the season and all of these guys have time to succeed, but IMHO the weight of the evidence says something is wrong. My first totally amateur guess is that they draft a guy they've fallen in love with and promptly are unhappy with the type of player he is and try to make him into something he's not. I'm still baffled by Randolph. What was said on draft day wasn't bad. It also wasn't true. AF is correct: the prior top rating for the Phillies farm came largely from guys acquired in trade and extreme optimism based on draft position of recent #1a. The other guy who has shown some encouraging results plus some disappointing, and upon whom much of the fate of the farm depends is Jhailyn Ortiz. Only 19 and has shown power at Lakewood, especially for age 19, but he likely becomes a bat-only contributor and both is OBP and K-rate are really bad. Lots of time to learn and the youngest of our big $ amateurs, but it would be nice to have one true standout.