Philles Trade Freddy Galvis

[andyb]

Last year they got one top prospect, but 5 guys who garnered intermediate bonuses ($400-500K

Spend a million and a half more and you might get a second top prospect. Or 3 more $500K signees.

Why are you arguing that they spend less money? That seems to be your consistent position.

[phillychuck]

I sort of agree with Andy here. There's no reason the team shouldn't be in play for some of the high-tier bonus guys every year, yet you never hear the Phils mentioned with top-5 LA guys or top Cubans (MAG wasn't a top-tier guy) or any Japanese players at all. (The Phils were mentioned with Ohtani, but that seemed like speculation rather than a serious attempt to sign someone.)

I hope Klentak changes that going forward. And he SHOULD have been trading for allocations and investing.

[bigegypt0417]

I sort of agree with Andy here. There's no reason the team shouldn't be in play for some of the high-tier bonus guys every year, yet you never hear the Phils mentioned with top-5 LA guys or top Cubans (MAG wasn't a top-tier guy) or any Japanese players at all. (The Phils were mentioned with Ohtani, but that seemed like speculation rather than a serious attempt to sign someone.)

I hope Klentak changes that going forward. And he SHOULD have been trading for allocations and investing.

It's not their strategy...it never has been and they seem to be building a very successful LA program without changing their approach.

The Phillies are trading for allocations but they seem to be more interested in following a different model.

Looking at the BA top 10 list it seems this approach is working for the Phillies.

[Austinfan]

There are no top Cubans anymore. So it's a moot point.

As far as LA prospects, there are only a few each year that are "top," and even a lot of those flop. Top 20 or 30 in LA is pretty nebulous, you're projecting 16 (actually, when many of the deals are negotiated, 15) year old players. So I don't really get excited if we sign 4 in the top 30 or top 50, I suspect there's a rat's hair of difference between #30 and #50.

So it's not a matter of "saving" money, rather, given a limited amount of funds (even trading for allocations), an inefficient market where most of the top 20 are overpriced (because most teams don't invest heavily in LA scouting, so the top tier are better known, not necessarily better prospects), spreading the money around makes sense.

One reason I applaud the recent expansion of the international scouting group is that there's a market inefficiency in information begging to be exploited.
It's much harder to find a "hidden" American prospect given the saturation and availability of videos of practically any HS or college team.

[phillychuck]

While I certainly see your point, the Phils have depth but are lacking 4/5/6 WAR stars both in the big leagues and coming up in the minors (save maybe Sixto, but he's a long way away). Signing top-5 guys can give you a few superstars.

[bigegypt0417]

While I certainly see your point, the Phils have depth but are lacking 4/5/6 WAR stars both in the big leagues and coming up in the minors (save maybe Sixto, but he's a long way away). Signing top-5 guys can give you a few superstars.

Let's for example look at the braves class that everyone was giving them praise for...of all the players set free, how many were really as shiny as they were when they were signed?

There are philosophies that are at play here that fly in the face of how the Phillies have decided to do it. I understand that we can disagree on those but they it has been working for them.

[andyb]

That still does not even approach the question of why you are arguing that they should spend less. One can have a mid-level value strategy and still spend $8 million versus 6 or $7 million.

[allentown]

There are certainly a handful that are serious prospects whom I wish we had. I'm very happy that we have Guttierez and Maitan is better. Love to have him too. One can pursue both a mid-level strategy and take some primo prospects. We certainly had the money to do that in 2016.

[nycphils]

That still does not even approach the question of why you are arguing that they should spend less. One can have a mid-level value strategy and still spend $8 million versus 6 or $7 million.

It is possible that they simply stop spending when they think that the cost outweighs the return on the investment. You can disagree, of course, whether it really does outweigh, or you can take the view that since it isn't your money they should do it anyway, but it isn't a crazy (or cheap) notion.

There are a number of teams - Orioles jump to mind, but there are others - who sell off their allocations because they think that the returns from LA investment generally aren't worth the cost. Why is it so hard to understand that the Phillies may take the view that there is a limit to who they want to invest in in any given year and they are going to stop even if it is possible to spend more because they view those additional signings as not worth the money?

For me, they seem to be having success so, while it isn't my money so I'm looking for more, the strategy no longer seems cheap or unplanned so I'm ok with where we are. YMMV.

[allentown]

It is possible that they simply stop spending when they think that the cost outweighs the return on the investment.

There will be an average return/$ on both the draft and international season, just as there is a maximum allocation for each. The return on any player is going to be a probability-weighted value based on the ceiling and floor assigned by the scouts and how much the scouts think the guy has to learn and how much physical development he needs to attain that ceiling. Obviously, the first guys the scouts seek to sign will be the ones with the highest probability-weighted value and later signings will have lesser value, but they all have some value. If the team spends less than allocation, then they have left some of that attainable value on the table. If the team spends the money elsewhere, in what they think is a more productive fashion, up to the point of what their cash stream and financial position allow them to spend, then in their own eyes they have made decisions to maximize overall baseball value and we may just disagree with the specific choices they made. But... if they spend less than allocation and less than they are financially able to spend in total for all avenues of spending, then they have consciously chosen to maximize retained earnings over maximum baseball value. For a team in as poor shape at the MLB level and with as few seeming future stars on the farm as the Phillies, this seems a poor choice which reduces the Phillies' chances to contend sooner rather than later and too have a prolonged period of contention. Even plus prospects who may never fill a hole on the MLB Phillies can be part of a trade to fill such a hole. Since we are talking 5-6 years into the future, you can't just say 'we have enough OFs or catcher, or whatevers on the farm'. Trades can happen exactly because you have redundancies in the pipeline.

[bigegypt0417]

That still does not even approach the question of why you are arguing that they should spend less. One can have a mid-level value strategy and still spend $8 million versus 6 or $7 million.

is the issue I'm pointing to that they are spending less or spending differently?

Once again...there aren't many teams that have spent more.

[Austinfan]

Since they sign their share of $10K LA prospects, at some point they may simply feel the remaining prospects are more trouble than they're worth (probability of success is so low it doesn't justify coaching resources, etc.).
And there are probably a few where the demand so exceeds the expected value that they don't want to set a precedent (hi, we're idiots, demand whatever you want).

I think some teams make the decision that LA spending plus associated costs (sufficient scouts to identify 2nd and 3rd tier prospects who aren't easily scouted) isn't worth the return.

The alternative today is to go all in with an expanded scouting group (which will cost millions, not so much salary but travel and lodging, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, DR . . .adds up).
Sure, they should have overspent back in the day, but water under the bridge.
If they're trading for allocations and spending on the scouts required to identify all viable candidates, then they're pretty much "all in."

[andyb]

Once again...there aren't many teams that have spent more

There are only like three teams that could spend more. Just don't see why you don't think they should spend that extra million or two. One can say the team is doing better than in the past while also saying they can do a bit more.

[andyb]

If they're trading for allocations and spending on the scouts required to identify all viable candidates, then they're pretty much "all in."

Not if they are not spending as much as they can. Why invest in scouts if you are not going to let them do as much as possible. And no, signing $10,000 players is not a viable strategy. It is something every team does on a complementary basis and nobody here is recommending they do it as a big part of their strategy. In the same way we draft 20 college non-prospects every year. Every now and then somebody makes it, but as a strategy it is not lousy.

[andyb]

There are a number of teams - Orioles jump to mind, but there are others - who sell off their allocations because they think that the returns from LA investment generally aren't worth the cost.

The Orioles are generally laughed at in the industry, so what they do is not relevant. What is important is the availability of cash also. Half the teams in baseball cannot just spend money because they are constrained by profitability. The Phillies aren't. But most teams try to spend what they can as the dollars per WAR with international or draft spending are by far the best ways to spend money in baseball. The Orioles are dumb and cheap, plain and simple, and what they do is not endorsed by most of the rest of the league.

[bigegypt0417]

Once again...there aren't many teams that have spent more

There are only like three teams that could spend more. Just don't see why you don't think they should spend that extra million or two. One can say the team is doing better than in the past while also saying they can do a bit more.

have you decided they wont?

[andyb]

have you decided they wont?

That is just being argumentative. I am just evaluating what I have seen so far. And the 2016 spending (zero allocations acquired) is in the books. Of course they could add additional allocations but they are kind of running out of high end prospects available to sign this year. They should not throw money away, but it is likely they have lost the chance to sign some high end prospects earlier in the year that are not available now.

The basic problem is that they went into this period planning to spend $5 or $6 million and should have been planning on spending $8 million from the beginning. I can't believe there are so many people who have a huge problem with saying the Phillies have done fairly well on international spending this year but probably could have done better.

[zambonir]

How 'bout that Freddy Galvis trade huh?

I think it's too soon to evaluate Klentak's international strategy, and irrelevant to talk about what happened 3, 5 and 10 years ago. UNLESS, that is, the team's strategy hasn't changed much at all because it's actually Sal's strategy.

With this year's flurry of personnel moves including the elevation of Minnitti to Assistant GM, we'll see where things go next.

[schillingfan]

I generally agree that if you have the money and can spend it (acquiring allocations or whatever), you should. To me the limit is whether the LA player(s) you want to sign are better than than what you would have to give up? This includes both the players you would have to trade to acquire the extra allocation or the guys you would have to cut from your system to make room. (I'm assuming there are some kind of limits, either roster, visa or playing time and coaching attention to give).

[David_Criss]

Trading Galvis means Franco will be the starting 3B in 2018. I had hoped the foursome would have stuck around to really push Franco. He now has no competition for the job. Hernandez is pretty limited to 2B and Crawford fills in at SS. I sure hope Franco is able to take this as a sign of the confidence the team has in him to live up to his potential.