Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

allentown 2016-10-15 20:10:10 UTC #181

I'm not arguing for a particular name, I am arguing for a concept. You just don't know what top-flight pitcher will become available. Both Lee and Halladay were surprises. Carlton was a huge surprise. What I am arguing is that if a guy who is worth $25-30 million over 6 years becomes available, that we are in an excellent budget position to sign him and should do so. You just don't know when these opportunities will arise, so I think it would be stupid for the Phillies to let one pass, just because the 'ideal' time to sign a big FA might be a year or two from now. In our position, we don't need to force a signing/trade if one isn't there, but our finances/salary commitments position us to strike right now if the right opportunity presents. We could strike twice, if two opportunities presented this off-season or in ST and not hamper our future budget flexibility one iota. To me, the dumbest thing is to keep sitting on the team wallet until a homegrown core wins 85-88 games. This is actually not that likely to happen. We have some very good talent in the minors, but no obvious stars. Hamels/Burrell/Utley/Ruiz/Rollins/Howard -- we don't have the sort of homegrown star talent working the way through the farm that powered the 2008 WC team. We had Victorino whose development we finished after picking him in Rule 5, signed Werth off the scrap heap and developed lesser pitchers like Kendrick and Madson. I don't see a comparable wave of talent either on the big-league Phillies or in the minors.

Austinfan 2016-10-15 20:11:08 UTC #182

Let's look at longevity of the TOP pitchers who pitched after 2000:

Pedro Martinez - last good season age 33
Greg Maddux - last good season age 36, hung on to 42, but was a #3 to #5 those seasons
Curt Schilling - last good season age 37, bounce back at age 39
John Smoltz - three good seasons age 38-40, but DNP 33, RP 34-37 - bizarro career
Tom Galvine - last good season age 40
Roy Halladay - last good season age 34
Kevin Brown - last good season age 35, bounce back age 38
Andy Pettitte - last good season age 33, bounce back at age 38, 41
CC Sabathia - last good season age 31
Mark Buehrle - last good season age 35, probably
Kevin Appier - last good season age 29, bounce back age 33
Johan Santana - last good season age 31
Justin Verlander - last good season age 30, bounce back age 33
Roy Oswalt - last good season age 32

Now this list is skewed toward longevity, since it's the top of the career WAR list
What it does show that most of the best pitchers stop being elite around age 32-34, the money is so good and/or they're so competitive some may pitch to their late 30s, and have a bounce back year, but are basically #4/#5 pitchers who are year to year.
Grienke may well pitch until his late 30s, but not as a top pitcher.
And we probably got rid of Hamels just in time.

zambonir 2016-10-15 20:41:59 UTC #183

I wouldn't call Lee or Halladay surprises. The Phillies were a World Series champion aggressively pursuing both players at the 2009 trade deadline in win-at-all-costs mode. And while this team is a long way away from overspending, that team actually did overspend, or rather, got cheap when the elevation got too high, or at least one of these three things - trading Lee, chosing to re-acquire Lee over Werth, trading Pence - wouldn't have had to happen.

Regardless of what people are arguing here I am not worried about this GM missing opportunities. If a trade or an unexpected FA value comes up that he likes, and that works not just for this year but for the next 2-4 years, comes up, he'll do it. I just don't know that it will, particularly at a trade price that works.

The Phillies are going to spend, but they don't have to (and shouldn't) be at $200,000,000 in the blink of an eye. But, they truly could go from $50 million to $150 million in the blink of an eye (two massive contracts, two or three internal long-term deals, a couple of trade acquisitions, minor FAs and arbitration). I don't think a Hellickson-type would trip them up, I just think they don't expect him to be worth it in two years. Even Halladay and Lee were not, in fact, worth their contracts. They were worth it because the inevitable collapse was part of the price of admission for the short-term gain. But this team isn't there yet. They will be.

Austinfan 2016-10-15 21:13:00 UTC #184

There's a couple other considerations:

1) free agents get to choose where they want to go, it takes a massive overpay to get a top player to go to a bad team, but once you're a 88 win team or so that's young with the arrow pointing up, they may even take a discount to be the guy who puts the team over the top

2) an owner may be willing to pay to win, but I doubt most owners really like to pay to lose, that is, pay a lot of money for a FA who'll get a team from 75 to 78 wins. So it's much easier to convince your owner to pony up $150-200 million when it is to have a shot at the WS than .500 ball. And squeezing into a one game wild card probably doesn't qualify as a legitimate shot at a WS (yes, long shots come in, but there's a reason they're called long shots).

3) has to be someone worth paying for, 6 year contracts for players 30+ years old are stupid, look at all the mega contracts given out the last five years or so, how many have worked out, how many have made a difference to the new team? When the right opportunity presents itself, you have to strike, but that's often a matter of luck - bad deals are always available.

andyb 2016-10-15 21:15:24 UTC #185

He only needs to be 80% of the pitcher he was at his peak. And his success had very little to do with velocity. Pitchers at his skill level tend to age very well. The odds are actually very good of him being better than a #4 starter even if you can't see it. Better than Asher being a #5 to pick one of your small sample size loves. There is also no major problem with his velocity. His separation speed on pitches is just fine.

Your problem is you are unwilling to spend money on anything. You claim otherwise but really only propose spending money on unrealistically unfavorable things.

Austinfan 2016-10-15 21:32:15 UTC #186

You don't pay $30M a year to upgrade your #5 pitcher on what would effectively be a 5 year deal.
And it's not a matter of Grienke being 80% of his peak, that's 2016, how about 2019?
I think Grienke will bounce back if he gets out of Arizona, problem is the next four seasons.

Velocity matters, it's not the be all and end all, Grienke at 91 MPH can get by, Grienke at 90 MPH is Hellickson (plus change and curve), Grienke at 89 MPH is Asher.
As your velocity declines so does your margin of error. And as you age and the pitches add up, not only does velocity decline so does stamina and durability.

If we could get Grienke for the same cost as Hellickson (3 years, $42-45M), then I'd throw in a couple tier B prospects.
But he costs $30M a year through 2021, even if Arizona picked up half the money, it's equivalent to signing a 33 year old pitcher to a 5 year, $75M deal.

andyb 2016-10-16 14:17:38 UTC #187

Austinfan:

You don't pay $30M a year to upgrade your #5 pitcher on what would effectively be a 5 year deal.
And it's not a matter of Grienke being 80% of his peak, that's 2016, how about 2019?
I think Grienke will bounce back if he gets out of Arizona, problem is the next four seasons.

Velocity matters, it's not the be all and end all, Grienke at 91 MPH can get by, Grienke at 90 MPH is Hellickson (plus change and curve), Grienke at 89 MPH is Asher.
As your velocity declines so does your margin of error. And as you age and the pitches add up, not only does velocity decline so does stamina and durability.

If we could get Grienke for the same cost as Hellickson (3 years, $42-45M), then I'd throw in a couple tier B prospects.
But he costs $30M a year through 2021, even if Arizona picked up half the money, it's equivalent to signing a 33 year old pitcher to a 5 year, $75M deal.

For someone who spent years arguing that velocity does not matter that much you are suddenly a convert? First of all, Grienke has not really lost much velocity. Second, velocity is less important to him than others because he has always varied the speed of his pitches including his fastball. He is the type of pitcher (like a Hamels) who can be just fine with a little less velocity.

While your previous list of pitchers a few posts back had absolutely no thesis or coherence, let's look at the 10 pitchers most similar to Grienke through age 32. It is not a bad list and is full of pitchers who pitched well into their late 30s. Grienke needs to be compared to pitchers capable of putting together 9 WAR seasons (he had 2 of them plus another 5 3+ WAR years). Plus medical science and Tommy John surgery and whatever Bartolo Colon did has clearly allowed elite pitchers to pitch longer these days more effectively. The list:

Justin Verlander (957)
John Smoltz (941) *
Mike Mussina (940)
Cole Hamels (935)
Bob Welch (926)
Bret Saberhagen (923)
Jon Lester (923)
Jim Bunning (922) *
Jake Peavy (920)
Jack Morris (918)

I'd say I would be happy to acquire most of those pitchers at age 33 for little prospect cost when my team is in a financial place where it is hard to spend the money on anything better.

Austinfan 2016-10-16 14:44:39 UTC #188

First, pitchers before 2000 should have greater longevity, because the game was different, velocity was much lower on average so batters didn't have to have the bat speed required in today's game, the Red Queen effect, and stress on pitchers' arms was less.

Second, Grienke averaged 91.3 last year and has gradually lost 1 MPH the last four years.

Smoltz is a complete outlier, and he was still throwing at 92.7 in 2007 when he was 40 years old, didn't fall below 92 until he was 42.
Justin Verlander still averages 93.7 at age 33
Hamels at age 32 last season averaged 92.6, and is a lefty, has actually added velocity the last few years
Jon Lester at age 32 last season averaged 92.0 and has shown no decline the last four years

Jake Peavy's last elite season was at age 31, he's been a #3/#4 since, his velocity collapsed after 2012

Mussina was a junk balling lefty at the end of his career, last elite season was age 34, after that he was a #2/#3 until age 39.

Dinosaur pitchers on your list:

Bob Welch - last good season at age 32, after that he was basically a #5 starter
Jim Bunning - remained a top pitcher until age 38, but he was pitching in the 1960s, the "dead ball" era
Bret Saberhagen - last elite season at age 30 after two injury plagued years, bounced back after injuries at age
34-35. Only started 30 games one season after age 25.

Basically your list proves my point, it's highly unlikely that an aging pitcher losing velocity will pitch at an elite level the rest of his career, Grienke probably a #3/#4 the rest of his contract if he doesn't break down physically, he may have one bounceback season where he pitches at a #2 level.

andyb 2016-10-16 15:50:37 UTC #189

The whole point is that Grienke is an outlier because he belongs in that elite group of pitchers. No list also is 100% full of pitchers who were very good in their mid-30s. Any player acquisition is a bet on future performance. The AVERAGE performance of these pitchers is what counts and they say that it is a good chance that Grienke has multiple 3+ WAR seasons left in him. Maybe even another 5+ season.

You also cannot just dismiss pitchers of another era like Bunning. Elite pitchers can pitch well into their late 30s. Selective analysis does not cut it.

The key here is if the cost of acquisition is mainly money. That means we keep our top prospects. It also means we do more than "upgrade our #5 pitcher". Next year we would upgrade all 5 of our rotation spots with Grienke. He is potentially better than anyone else we have, so we upgrade the #1 spot. Nola is better as a #2 than a #1. Velasquez as a #3 and Eickhoff as a #4. They fit those roles much better. Eflin and Thompson can compete for the #5 spot and give us depth. Morgan and Asher can be in AAA or learn to be relief pitchers. A #1/#2 arm makes everyone better on this staff. And if you could acquire one with only money because you have such a low payroll, money that really does not impact young talent or any future free agent acquisitions, then why don't you do it. Grienke made less sense for Arizona because they have more financial constraints. But he (or a similar expensive acquisition for mainly money) makes a lot of sense for the Phillies.

If Mussina was merely a "junkballing lefty" whose last elite season was at age 34 - then it would be news to him because of course he was right-handed. But much more important are his WAR scores in his age 33-37 seasons: 4.5, 6.6, 2.4, 3.4, 5.0. That is 21.9 total WAR over those 5 years. Or something that is worth about the amount of money left on Grienke's contract at $8.3 million per WAR (and in 5 years the cost of WAR will approach $10 million). Which basically proves my point - that acquiring Grienke in a deal mainly for money has a pretty good chance of helping the team compete in the next 5 years. For a team without any 4 WAR pitchers at the moment, acquiring a guy with a decent chance of averaging 4 WAR over 5 years might make everyone on that team better.

Austinfan 2016-10-16 17:00:59 UTC #190

Problem is you have a truncated sample, the pitchers who continued to pitch, it leaves out all the guys who fell off the cliff.
The odds are highly stacked against Grienke finishing his career like Mussina, that's why outliers are outliers.
It's just as likely that he falls off a cliff like Peavy and gives you 3.7 WAR the next three seasons combined.

And the odds are stacked against Grienke having five 3 WAR seasons between age 33-37.
Declining velocity is not a good sign in an aging pitcher, nor is his fastball suddenly getting smacked around (full season isn't a SSS).
There are exceptions, Halladay had a sizeable decline at age 34 and a further decline at age 35 and pitched well for those 2 years before falling off the cliff. But he was a much better pitcher at age 33 than Grienke. And he had a repertoire of FBs.

Hellickson was a 3 WAR pitcher at age 29, I'd rather pay him for three years at $15M at age 30 than Grienke $30M for 5 years at age 33.

I wouldn't want Hamels or Verlander at that price either, they may have a good year or two left, but 4 or 5? The odds are stacked against that.

The other factor is Grienke won't make us competitive in 2017, even if he bounced back and had a 5 WAR season, we're probably talking the difference between 77 and 81 wins, so you're really looking at his value from 2018-2021 when he's likely to be in decline.

andyb 2016-10-16 20:57:24 UTC #191

Austinfan:

Problem is you have a truncated sample, the pitchers who continued to pitch, it leaves out all the guys who fell off the cliff.
The odds are highly stacked against Grienke finishing his career like Mussina, that's why outliers are outliers.
It's just as likely that he falls off a cliff like Peavy and gives you 3.7 WAR the next three seasons combined.

And the odds are stacked against Grienke having five 3 WAR seasons between age 33-37.
Declining velocity is not a good sign in an aging pitcher, nor is his fastball suddenly getting smacked around (full season isn't a SSS).
There are exceptions, Halladay had a sizeable decline at age 34 and a further decline at age 35 and pitched well for those 2 years before falling off the cliff. But he was a much better pitcher at age 33 than Grienke. And he had a repertoire of FBs.

Hellickson was a 3 WAR pitcher at age 29, I'd rather pay him for three years at $15M at age 30 than Grienke $30M for 5 years at age 33.

I wouldn't want Hamels or Verlander at that price either, they may have a good year or two left, but 4 or 5? The odds are stacked against that.

The other factor is Grienke won't make us competitive in 2017, even if he bounced back and had a 5 WAR season, we're probably talking the difference between 77 and 81 wins, so you're really looking at his value from 2018-2021 when he's likely to be in decline.

But Mussina is not an outlier for Grienke. He is one of the 10 most similar to Grienke in major league history at the same age. That is why we use a neutral source like Baseball Reference to find similar players. Your haphazard comparisons don't even attempt to do that. Grienke has been an elite pitcher the past 10+ years. He needs to be compared to other elite pitchers.

There are no guarantees here. Probably a 30% chance of a deal like this being an expensive bust. Another 50% chance of Grienke averaging between 2 and 3.5 WAR, in essence an expensive deal but one that helps the team. And a 20% chance of averaging 4+ WAR and the deal not being expensive.

Comparing elite pitchers like Grienke to back end guys like Hellickson is just laughable. The whole point here is that we OVERPAY PURPOSELY to acquire a pitcher that can help us because the cost is money that might be otherwise wasted and not serious prospects. It is a more valid argument to say Grienke would not come for little prospect value, but I think the new regime in AZ will realize the merits of getting rid of the Grienke contract without much prospect return.

Austinfan 2016-10-16 21:12:29 UTC #192

Grinke WAS an elite pitcher, I used to have six pack abs.

andyb 2016-10-16 21:57:46 UTC #193

The comparison is to other elite pitchers at the same age. Many of them continued to be elite or close to that. The odds are pretty good that Grienke can do that too. That is why you look at the most similar players. To ascertain the odds of whether certain players age well or poorly.

zambonir 2016-10-17 00:01:32 UTC #194

Unfortunately, even if the Phillies were into upgrading the team next season and could live with Greinke's term - two things I don't are true - they won't be able to steal him. The D Backs are going to want a combination of money and talent that probably won't work for the Phillies, and they won't take a deal that's weighted towards more money and less talent. Someone will give them better talent.

Also, Greinke can block 15 teams, though I suppose it's possible his no-trade includes more good teams to preserve his leverage (like Hamels' did).

allentown 2016-10-17 01:40:00 UTC #195

I don't think Arizona will get strong prospects and big salary relief. I don't want to trade if it takes any of our better prospects. What we have to offer Arizona is salary relief, likely more than anyone else will provide, and lesser prospects as eyewash. They want it or they don't, but it's reasonable to try.

To AF: any pitcher is a risk. You need 1-2 top prospects to advance in playoffs, likely to reach playoffs at all. You can decide top prospects are way too risky for the price, but then you are really reducing your chances of winning. I don't think Greinke is unusually risky.

If what we are trading is basically just money, then we have nothing to lose, because we really don't have a better way to spend our salary cap over the remainder of this contract. We can afford it and it isn't going to leave us without significant remaining financial flexibility, as in a ton of remaining flexibility. Even with the most promising scenario of our home-grown guys warranting early re-upping, I just don't see a way that our salary outlay even approaches $200 million during the life of this contract without signing or trading for a couple guys like this.

zambonir 2016-10-17 02:12:59 UTC #196

I just suspect the DBacks need the good PR of a return more than they need to save the money. And their farm system needs the bodies (much like the Phillies' did w/ Hamels). I'm also not sure they need to save the money that badly, they can have one of the lowest payrolls in MLB even w/ Greinke accounting for 20-30% of it. Even with a new GM, ownership (and LaRussa, still Kendrick's advisor) will look to save face. It's just hard for me to see a scenario where all the factors (including Greinke's no-trade and the Phillies' desire to improve the team in 2017) line up. But Andy & AF can have this argument again when they sign Arrieta or Cueto or (yikes) Darvish.

zambonir 2016-10-17 05:01:00 UTC #197

bostonglobe.com/sports/reds ... story.html

Cafardo's column is good food for thought. If the Phillies were ready to aggressively add payroll and WAR, Chris Sale would be a fine target.

Braun, Trout, Wade Davis and even Stanton also mentioned as players who could (emphasis on "could") be traded.

But those are the kind of deals that require a lot more certainty about what you already have, in order to give some of it up. Sale's price would be high given his controllability and relative cost. For example Cafardo suggests Jackie Bradley Jr and Moncada as the main pieces which for the Phillies would=Herrera and Crawford.

But it's hard not to think the Trout fantasy is actually credible, and Klentak (as both a former Angels guy and the steward of a Philly team) knows it. If your whiteboard includes two $25 million FAs and a $25 million trade acquisition in 2018 and 2019, as well as room to add payroll at the 2019 deadline, that's another reason this off-season will be quiet. If the Angels do put Trout on the market the Phillies might not want to miss that shot (even though it might not be the only one).

andyb 2016-10-17 10:39:43 UTC #198

I would argue that a Chris Sale would be a poor target to go after. First, he is very, very good. Second he'll be only 28 next season. Third, he is signed for only one more year with 2 below-market option years.

All of those factors would make the cost of Chris Sale in prospects extraordinarily high. Like start at Crawford and add in 3 more prospects out of our top 10 (Randolph, Kilome, Alfaro for instance). All of them. For 1-3 years of Sale.

The whole argument about Grienke is that he is the type of player that the team should go after if they do not want to give up their prospect base. Grienke is expensive and coming off a down year. That is why he could be moved for very little. Sale is cheap and coming off a good year. So all of baseball would want him and he could be a final piece for rich and poor teams alike.

Trout could actually make more sense in a few years when he gets more expensive and assuming his performance comes down to earth a bit. Of course California has more resources so a trade with them without serious prospect return is not likely.

In short, we need to look for players we can acquire largely with money that are still good. If they don't exist in the free agent market we need to find them in the trade market. To do this we should concentrate on teams like Arizona and Pittsburgh and Tampa and Kansas City and Milwaukee that are salary-limited. Catch them in a down cycle and pillage their roster by taking salary. That is what we should do.

allentown 2016-10-17 17:16:05 UTC #199

I totally agree Andy. Our objective should be to use our $ to increase the total amount of talent in the Phillies system. Given that we are a ways away from WS competition, we don't want to trade the future for the present by trading away our good prospects for major league vets. We should be seeking money-only and almost-money-only player acquisitions. Trading redundant minor leaguers (Knapp or Goeddel or Eshelman or Appel are the best guys I would be okay with trading) or trading major leaguers we can do without (Asche or one of the relievers) is fine.

zambonir 2016-10-17 19:56:08 UTC #200

I just think you guys are dreaming about what's available on the "pillage" market. Most of the names A-Town mentions above are going to bring back another Hellickson (which is fine). If the Phillies were able to put together a Seattle-for-Cliff Lee type package it would be more than they want to give up right now (a year from now, maybe not). If the DBacks trade Greinke it isn't going to be because they are desperate to unload his salary, it will be because unloading some of his salary in exchange for a strong package of prospects makes sense for them.

If the players are good, there is always going to be another team which also has money plus more motive/depth to make a better deal than the Phillies can.

Of course Sale (or Trout) doesn't make sense if the Phillies aren't trying to win before 2019 but Greinke really doesn't either. The only difference is by 2020 Sale would be gone whereas there's a high chance Greinke would just be dead financial weight. Which is also fine, if he brings great value to the team for the next three years, but helping next year's team win 75 games and the 2018 team win 83 isn't truly great value.

In the other thread today talk is about the lack of stars in the minor league system. That's not gonna be easily addressed picking 13th or 19th in the next two drafts, and Klentak knows it.

The way to use the money is how the Braves did last year. Take somebody's dead weight or untradeable contract, coupled with a prospect, give some token back in return. If the player can also actually eat some innings for you or fill an OF hole, all the better.