Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

andyb 2016-10-17 20:12:00 UTC #201

So your goal is to count on picking higher in the draft next year? We are picking 8th this year. We have a young roster that theoretically should get better without any additional moves to bolster it. Not sure that counting on high draft picks next year is a viable strategy.

Now if you want to talk trading Rupp or Herrera and whether the return could be star quality players then that is a completely different discussion.

I do think you are dismissing the "use money in a trade" strategy too easily. Stars do get moved for financial reasons. It is an extreme version, but look at the Dodgers-Red Sox trade involving Adrian Gonzalez. Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett for a pile of largely mediocre players: James Loney, Allen Webster, Ivan DeJesus, Rubby De La Rosa, and Jerry Sands. Webster was a fringe top 100 guy at the time of the deal. De Jesus was seen as disappointing at the time and De La Rosa had undergone TJ surgery at the time of the deal. Gonzalez alone had more value than Grienke does now if the team acquiring Grienke is picking up all his salary. That is the reality of $30 million plus salaries to all the teams that can't easily have a $200 million payroll. If you are not competing you need to clear the salary space.

zambonir 2016-10-17 20:38:41 UTC #202

Well, it's not my goal. I have always (repeatedly!) said I think the team still wants a Top 10 draft pick next year, and would have preferred to still be Top 3 or Top 5 this year. Given the run differential, the numerous questions about starting pitching (and health), the delay on Crawford, Quinn and Williams, and the fact that I don't think they will be adding much talent (if they aren't making commitments of more than one year, as has been speculated by nearly every beat writer, if not Jon Heyman) it's not impossible that next year's team could be worse than this year's, especially if the defense isn't as good. Most fans won't like it if so, but that's also why they have a manager they can fire before selling 2018 as "we're almost there" with a team that can go over .500.

Sure, the Dodgers-Red Sox trade would be analogous to a Greinke trade. But the DBacks had a $70 million payroll with Greinke, and no need to clear salary space over the next two years if they are rebuilding. They'll pick up half to get players.

andyb 2016-10-17 21:04:38 UTC #203

Diamondbacks have $59 million in salary for 2017 for 4 players. They also have about $30 million in likely arbitration awards so they are around $90 million for half their 25-man roster.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/ ... utput=html
azsnakepit.com/2016/10/11/13 ... -estimates

They probably end up at $110 million assuming they sign no expensive free agents. They clearly can handle that but it is not a good team and even second tier prospects would help them. You might be right that they would pick up half to get players. If so I would not be interested. But that still does not mean one closes the strategy of looking for high priced players that are still good that can be acquired largely with money.

andyb 2016-10-17 21:19:01 UTC #204

A lesser trade candidate option might be Ervin Santana:
baseball-reference.com/playe ... er01.shtml

2 years and 28 million left on his deal. If the intent is simply to fill Hellickson's slot, Santana would be a potentially better version. Probably mid-level prospect cost. Not one of our top guys but maybe someone in the back of the top 10 plus a lottery pick.

tom81 2016-10-17 22:32:58 UTC #205

I would prefer signing the younger Hellickson to a 3 yr deal, w/o sending the back of the top 10 plus the lottery pick. It sends a good message resigning a player who performed well for you and apparently fit in well with the team.

Austinfan 2016-10-17 22:37:25 UTC #206

No one is going to get a deal like the Red Sox got from the Dodgers, saved them from a deep hole.

Conversely, we're a year or two away from the Rangers when they traded for Hamels, solid team with a very deep farm system where they could have lost good minor leaguers to Rule 5 (they lost Herrera) or minor league free agency if they didn't move some of the surplus.

Phillies have done a solid job building up the talent base, drafting #8 won't hurt this year, and if a LA draft is coming in 2018, time to spend in 2017, get 'em while the getting's good with a lot of big spenders out of the running.

zambonir 2016-10-17 22:53:56 UTC #207

Hellickson's not going to take a three-year deal. And no matter how much he liked playing here, he'll surely try to go to a contender if he does.

Klentak's goal is to keep the books clean, someone like Santana would do that to some extent, and he's flippable either season so your trade cost is probably a wash (unlike Hellickson, where Klentak wanted a better return than he gave up, given the amount of time involved).

My opinion is Klentak is willing to go even further than people think this year. He'll make the team worse short-term (by trading Rupp or even a starting pitcher) if it works for him long-term (though it could also make the team better if he could somehow extract a viable young OF). Even if that doesn't happen until the deadline there's no guarantee that moving in the prospects will make the team better for the last two months. The SP and LF he may or may not add will be flip candidates again, not higher-end players on longer-term deals.

Philsmania 2016-10-17 22:56:10 UTC #208

MLBtraderumors.com has it's offseason outlook of the Phillies.

mlbtraderumors.com/2016/10/offseason-outlook-philadelphia-phillies-7.html

allentown 2016-10-17 22:58:45 UTC #209

zambonir:

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.

Honestly, I think you're the one who's dreaming, but your dream sounds like a nightmare. There are very, very few prospects who are worth $50-75 million. So, if I am giving a lower-level eyewash prospect back, I better be getting one of the top 5 prospects in baseball if I am taking on a bad contract, which also consumes a roster spot. In fairness to you, perhaps you are talking about only taking on $10-15 mill worth of bad contract, in which case I don't need as primo a prospect back. My yardstick is that $50 million buys you a very good 23+ Cuban.

As to the Diamonbacks, if they are not interested in about $100 million in salary relief and want a good yield of prospect value on top of that saving, then I pass. I can buy a lot on the international market for $100 million so I don't need to deplete the farm for the privilege of greatly over-paying Greinke.

zambonir 2016-10-17 23:07:51 UTC #210

It sounds like you're (maybe?) content to not spend money in 2017 IF they spend it on international. We'll see.

I don't think we're talking $100 million contracts here. The Braves took Bronson Arroyo from the DBacks to get a prospect with him. And of course they also traded Shelby Miller for Dansby Swanson. That's the kind of deal I could see Klentak making for Velasquez if the Phillies' internal belief is that he won't hold up or fully pan out at a high level.

allentown 2016-10-18 02:07:17 UTC #211

Yes, I think I agree with what you are saying. I divide the universe of available players into two pots: guys in their six+-year period whom we get in the draft p oand through our international allocation on the one hand and auction-rate players on the other hand. Auction rate players cost more per WAR, regardless of how you get them -- FA, international over-23, trading for another team's high-salary good player, or re-upping our own players after their period of team control. The cost/adjusted WAR (adjusted for the projected lost WAR in trading for an existing contract from another team) should be about the same for any of these routes -- home-town discounts are rare and becoming rarer. International under-23 costs have risen, surpassing costs for signing similar quality drafted players, but I think still not up to auction-rate pricing. So, I really don't care where we get our auction-rate players from. I trust our scouts to evaluate the talent and physical projection of the various alternatives and choose the best. Doesn't mean we can sign our first preference, but our scouts appear to me to be above average. Second big point is that I don't believe a team is benefited by spending far less than they are able to spend. So... I'm just as happy signing international guys as signing primo domestic FA. I'm equally happy going the route you recommend, although I think you need to do it for significant guys to make a difference.

Philsmania 2016-10-18 20:35:40 UTC #212

mlbtraderumors.com today has its Rule 5 Roundup on all the Rule 5 picks. Goeddel, obviously, was one of the keepers though he struggled, he showed enough to stick. Stumpf bombed for us but apparently was dominating after being sent back to AA by the Royals after his return.

mlbtraderumors.com/2016/10/rule-5-roundup.html

David_Criss 2016-10-19 12:18:19 UTC #213

Stumpf was returned at the end of July if I remember correctly. I was surprised the Phillies couldn't find room to stash him on the 25-man roster for 4 or 5 weeks until the rosters expanded and then sent to AAA this Winter. Was it a 40-man space?

LoneStarPhan 2016-10-19 13:38:00 UTC #214

I think it may have been at the time, but I felt there were other options as well that could have been taken. I can only conclude that they didn't think he was worth keeping and projected that they didn't want to use a 40 man roster space for him this off season.

Austinfan 2016-10-19 13:49:48 UTC #215

I think he was 25, tearing it up in AA at that age merely would have made him one of a half dozen minor league RPs in the 25+ range in AA and AAA ball for the Phillies.

zambonir 2016-10-19 17:47:10 UTC #216

Yeah, I think they just decided he wasn't going to be able to help before 2018 and wasn't gonna be worth keeping when they needed more immediate help, even in the short-term. 40-wise, I believe it was to make room for Altherr, since they couldn't trade Bourjos.

tom81 2016-10-20 22:31:06 UTC #217

mlbtraderumors.com/2016/10/jd-martinez-trade-rumor-tigers.html?fv-home=true&post-id=75159

JD Martinez would look great in LF hitting 3rd of 4th for us next year. I hope we target this type of player next year and trade some of our prospects for some youngish talent on teams looking to cut payroll. I'm not advocating the deal below per say but I'd include Nick Williams in a package for Martinez.

motorcitybengals.com/2016/10/19/detroit-tigers-three-j-d-martinez-trades/2/

olgrandad 2016-10-20 23:59:08 UTC #218

Yeah, and throw in Anibal Sanchez into the deal as well....

zambonir 2016-10-21 01:14:04 UTC #219

There's no way the Phillies will trade players like Williams or Tirado for someone who can be a free agent after next season (unless he agrees to an extension before the deal is closed). If guys like Rupp, Williams or Velasquez are moved this year, it will be for similarly aged players.

Meanwhile, Zolecki talks about theoretical trades (like moving Velasquez), and:

It is too early to predict how many games they will win next season, because we don't know what the roster will be. But if the Phillies make a few necessary improvements (bolster the bullpen, add at least one veteran starter to replace Jeremy Hellickson and at least one veteran hitter), I see them in the 74-to-78-win range. Why not more? Because it is hard to make the jump from 71 to 81 or more with the worst offense in baseball and still so many questions on the pitching staff.

m.phillies.mlb.com/news/article/ ... le-trades/

fish 2016-10-21 12:11:28 UTC #220

zambonir:

There's no way the Phillies will trade players like Williams or Tirado for someone who can be a free agent after next season (unless he agrees to an extension before the deal is closed). If guys like Rupp, Williams or Velasquez are moved this year, it will be for similarly aged players.

Meanwhile, Zolecki talks about theoretical trades (like moving Velasquez), and:

It is too early to predict how many games they will win next season, because we don't know what the roster will be. But if the Phillies make a few necessary improvements (bolster the bullpen, add at least one veteran starter to replace Jeremy Hellickson and at least one veteran hitter), I see them in the 74-to-78-win range. Why not more? Because it is hard to make the jump from 71 to 81 or more with the worst offense in baseball and still so many questions on the pitching staff.

m.phillies.mlb.com/news/article/ ... le-trades/

I agree it would require an extension, but the trade package seems light on the Phillies side- unless Martinez' defense is a detractor. Probably has to include Neris, a big league ready starter like Efflin and Williams. I'd do it- and I think the Phils would jump at the chance to add a bat like that heading into his age 29 season (at the right price).