Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

schillingfan 2016-12-03 20:03:00 UTC #595

But see, again, you are back to cost-effective. You act like Philadelphia is the equivalent of a third world country among other baseball organizations. I don't care of we spend more than a player is "worth" (however we determine that) if we win, and I don't think Middleton really cares either. It's only a problem when you are spending way too much money on players relative to their worth and thus have a line-up that can't win and no economic flexibility to do anything about it. That's not THE PHILLIES problem.

It's not an intellectual exercise given to statistics students to build a team based upon getting the greatest value per dollar spent. Frankly, with a budget near the cap, there is going to be some wasteful spending. So what? If the money isn't spent it goes back into the owners' pockets, not into reducing the price of game tickets.

Is the winning team the one who gets the greatest return on dollars spent? Is a team that maximizes 90% of a $100 million budget more likely to win than a team that only receives a 50% return on $190 million? The problem I have is that I don't agree with your assumption that the sine qua non of winning is maximizing dollars spent to talent obtained.

andyb 2016-12-03 20:14:13 UTC #596

But that is generally not true. Every organization has some presence in Venezuela. We are one of 12 teams with 2 teams in the DSL. Maybe that puts us in the upper half but some teams choose to put their better players on one team only. Look at the number of teams signing prospects outside of the DR and you would find almost all of them with scouts beyond the Dominican and Venezuela. We have virtually no presence in Asia and Mexico for instance. That is our organization's choice. Others have much deeper European operations.

There just is no evidence for your thesis that the Phillies' scouts are dramatically better than those from most other organizations or that our complexes are dramatically better. We probably rank in the 10-15 range. Nothing to be ashamed about, but we are not one of the leaders.

allentown 2016-12-03 22:40:48 UTC #597

Julio --
Yes, it's possible that things have improved recently, but the best indication of where we stand is what is currently in our system. It may not be a current measure of the quality of staff at this minute, but we have no other metric to measure that. It does tell us precisely where we stand in terms of international talent in the organization as we move forward into this next change in the ground rules. Really, having failed to buy allocation for current season and the huge cost of Ortiz last year, the evaluation of the recent is VERY heavily dependent upon how Ortiz turns out. We have changed some personnel, but this has been Sal's show for quite a while. Last year and this year were our chances to gain on the pack. Next year we have no $ advantage and will be $ disadvantaged against many teams. I have yet to read an explanation of how the new CBA effects teams who shattered their current international allocation. Are those penalties simply forgiven, or what?

julio 2016-12-03 22:58:50 UTC #598

Can't disagree with this. What is currently in our system tells us what is currently in our system.

Read Jonathan Mayo's writeup on the CBA changes. It's linked in the CBA discussion thread, and this specific question has been asked and answered.

zambonir 2016-12-03 23:17:08 UTC #599

Time for a split thread on Latin American scouting and drafting philosophy?

I reckon there are still 3-4 members of the 40-man roster who won't be there by Christmas (and certainly not by February).

Austinfan 2016-12-04 06:08:04 UTC #600

Schillingfan, you're missing the point, there's a hard cap, so cost effective strategy is essential to maximizing your take in LA. The past is past, the opportunity to overspend is gone, now you have to work within the confines of a system where the only edge is spending on scouting and player development, not mega-bonuses.

What a player is "worth" under a hard cap is dictated by the opportunity cost of the players you can't sign due to an overpay. It's not a matter of being wiling to spend the money, because you're not allowed to.

And because the new penalties effectively establish a hard cap on salaries (watch the Dodgers scramble), you can't just spend money because you have it, because it may restrict what you do two years down the road. So cost effectiveness not only applies to LA, but to all ML spending as well.

This doesn't mean the Phillies shouldn't spend, but with an eye on the budget from 2018-2025 when they want to be competitve for an extended period. If there's a hard salary cap, you want a spreadsheet of expected salaries and plan 3-5 years ahead.

schillingfan 2016-12-04 20:57:23 UTC #601

Still not completely clear what the "hard cap" in the new CBA actually is going to be. But be it the draft, free agent-signing, the international draft and recent Cubans, your default as to philosophy of team building is always "cost-effective and not wasting money. There are lots of ways to skin a cat to stay within draft caps, international caps, overall budget caps. (apologies to my feline friends).

allentown 2016-12-05 00:04:52 UTC #602

Yes, and worry about spending too early, spending before the new team has all its people in place, spending at less than optimal efficiency, spending before we fully understand what we have on the farm -- all of that has caused the last ship to sail without us. We missed opportunities and now we are more thoroughly capped. Not spending 150% of international allocation in 2016 was merely the latest missed opportunity.

The hard cap on MLB salary is still a non-factor for the Phillies and will be for a couple more seasons.

There have been a multitude of excuses offered for the Phillies unwillingness to spend, but I do not find any of them particularly persuasive.

julio 2016-12-05 20:42:24 UTC #603

10 posts were split to a new topic: Phillies to Sign Reliever Joaquin Benoit

Phillies to Sign Reliever Joaquin Benoit

Lawman 2016-12-05 20:14:38 UTC #612

julio 2016-12-05 20:18:02 UTC #613

Well, of course they're willing to deal Odubel. It all depends on what the return would be. They do have center-field options, long-term.

Austinfan 2016-12-05 22:22:27 UTC #614

I only heard of one small allocation being traded, either teams didn't see enough talent worthy of additional money or sellers were holding out for real prospects.

This will be interesting now that all allocation money is tradeable, what is a 16 year old $1M bonus level LA player worth relative to say a 19 year old HS draft pick (who you held for the one year period before he's tradeable, or have they changed those rules?). We traded two fairly marginal prospects for the money to sign Ortiz, has the price gone up?

zambonir 2016-12-06 05:07:18 UTC #615

Salisbury

You can see what the main part of the article is. He also notes that someone will have to come off the 40 to make room for Benoit (obviously) and that Neris or Gomez could still be dealt (in theory). Klentak also has some positive things to say about the idea of Knapp as back-up catcher (sincere, hyping Knapp's trade value or depressing Ellis's salary ask?).

bkeich 2016-12-06 14:39:19 UTC #616

This is yet another surprisingly inactive offseason.

We added a possibly washed up LF who does not want to play LF. No matter what he is unlikely to be more than average, and there is evidence he could be worse than that.

We added 2 solid relievers.

We return a team that ranked last in baseball in most offensive categories, many of them by wide margins. Our 610 runs scored is almost 40 less than any other team and 115 less than average. It is not possible to win with those numbers.

Yes, we have a young team, but what positions do we expect to be better this year? Maybe 3B, maybe 2B, probably RF, probably LF. Not much else. SS, C and CF will probably regress. We might have 2 league average starters (CF and C) and possible for 3B and 2B. There are no positions that we have an elite or even very good player. This team is no better than what we saw last year and no real effort is being made to improve the team. No effort to spend the Comcast bonanza.

andyb 2016-12-06 15:17:56 UTC #617

I really want them to go after a left handed corner outfielder with some power. They have not been mentioned in the Michael Saunders mix but if he could be had on a 2-year deal they should be interested. Even 3 years would be OK as he is only 30 so those would be his age 30-32 contract years. If Williams or Cozens develop that would be great, but if we have any interest in dealing Herrera (likely to put Quinn in center with Altherr as a backup), then having another outfielder would be a good thing. Kendrick is likely to be gone after a year or less anyway.

julio 2016-12-06 15:26:17 UTC #618

I did not realize that it was April 1st. Where did the winter go?!

But seriously - the organization is committed to a long-term rebuild. Slapping something together in the short-term, to placate fans who are too impatient to wait for the long-term improvement, is likely to be counter-productive to the long-term goal. It's the kind of thing that panicky, PR-driven organizations do.

I much prefer to see the organization remain committed to the long-term goal. I've seen quite enough of the Phillies organization, over the years, slapping together short-term patches to give the appearance of improving the club.

Four of eight starting positions may be better...but look at the three you characterize as "probably regressing." You think that Herrera will regress. Well, maybe. Shortstop and catcher? If there's regression there, it will be decidedly short-term - because two of the brightest prospects in the organization (Crawford and Alfaro) are waiting in the wings. You're complaining because they're not ready right now? You want the Phillies to acquire somebody - to block these two in six months to a year? Have you thought this through?

bigegypt0417 2016-12-06 16:02:16 UTC #619

Not really sure the tigers have pieces to send back...their system isn't very deep...

bkeich 2016-12-06 16:04:09 UTC #620

Honestly, I was just trying to start some conversation. I understand the long term goal, but I am frustrated with the teams inability (unwillingness) to use its excess capital to improve the team. They are making no attempt to acquire players that can either be flipped for prospects or take on bad deals and prospects (similar to Harrison) or push the young players to at least be average players (most of them are not).

Yes, I do realize that Alfaro and Crawford may change my assertion, but honestly I don't expect them to put up the numbers that were put up last year by Galvis and Rupp. Last year was probably an aberration for Rupp and Galvis as both hit much better than anticipated, and I would not expect any of the 4 to put up those numbers this year. My point was that without doing something to improve the offense we are likely to be just as bad as last year, and we were one of the worst offensive teams in recent memory last year.

Why not acquire a player that can push some of our young players. Kendrick might be able to push Hernandez, but who pushes everyone else? Why just continue to role out the same players that combined to be awful last season? Would adding a quality infielder and a quality outfielder really set back anything? For example, 1B. Joseph was a nice surprise, but even as he was he was a 0.5 WAR player. That isnt very exciting and there isnt much reason to believe he is going to get significantly better (his minor league stats looked really good for a catcher, but for a 1B he is not a strong offensive player). Yet he will be our starting 1B, the most important offensive position.

We could use the $80+M that the owners are keeping somehow to improve the team, improve the rebuild. Or they could cash the checks. Which is better?

julio 2016-12-06 16:04:23 UTC #621

I found this fascinating. Compare Kolton Wong to Cesar Hernandez.

IMHO, Cesar compares pretty favorably

julio 2016-12-06 16:34:46 UTC #622

I just think it's very premature to make this kind of judgment. Opening Day is four months away. Saying "they're making no attempt..." is based on what? Pass judgment on the off-season when the off-season is over - not at the beginning.

Galvis "hit much better than anticipated"? His OPS+ was 79. His lifetime OPS+ is 76. Yes, he got hot late in the season, and some fans decided he's somehow turned a corner. I have my doubts about that - but I see no reason why he can't reproduce that OPS+ (79) in 2017 - he's been at that number for the past two seasons.

Rupp probably peaked, offensively, last season - he was 27, and that's a pretty common age to be peaking. I don't know that he'll repeat (OPS+ of 99), but again, I see no reason why he can't replicate his career average (OPS+ of 90) in 2017. A bit less than 2016, but... what are the options? I doubt you're going to find a competent catcher on the market, who can better an OPS+ of 90, who will sign short-term - or who is available in a reasonable trade. Who did you have in mind?

Tommy Joseph has a total of 347 major-league at-bats. OPS+ of 115. Not overwhelming - but with that sample size, it's (again) premature, IMHO, to be passing judgment. If you bring in some veteran...you never find out about Joseph.

Lastly, I simply don't buy the argument that "they need to spend the money." Spending money does not necessarily equate to improvement. Fixating on the payroll, instead of progress against the plan (the long-term plan - not "making it look good" in the short run), is (again IMHO) wrong-headed.

If we see specific opportunities - that make sense in terms of the plan - that are foregone, because they would "cost too much," then we can have a conversation about that. But I haven't seen that (with the possible exception of arguments about international spending this winter). I've seen people complain that they're not spending enough in general, or that they're not doing enough to improve the short-term product - but skimping against the long-term plan. Haven't seen that case made.