Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

[bkeich]

I know everyone hates him, but Ryan Braun is owed $80 million for 4 years which is not too bad coming off a 900 OPS season and the defensive metrics still rate him as average. He'd be a better fit for us if he were left-handed. It is likely he will be dealt at somewhat of a discount this winter if the team that trades for him picks up the entire contract. He seems a pretty good bet to be worth 8-10 WAR over 4 years coming off a 4.4 WAR season.

To me he wouldn't be worth anything in Philly. He might help us win a few more games while we are a bad team and then be in steep decline by the time the team is starting to compete.

I would rather spend the money on a player or two that can be flipped for prospects when a younger player is ready to take their spot. Braun would be hard to put in that category because of the disdain fans have for him and probable decline in his skills (I.e he would be hard to sell). I also have no interest in having our younger players "learn" from him.

[andyb]

I know everyone hates him, but Ryan Braun is owed $80 million for 4 years which is not too bad coming off a 900 OPS season and the defensive metrics still rate him as average. He'd be a better fit for us if he were left-handed. It is likely he will be dealt at somewhat of a discount this winter if the team that trades for him picks up the entire contract. He seems a pretty good bet to be worth 8-10 WAR over 4 years coming off a 4.4 WAR season.

To me he wouldn't be worth anything in Philly. He might help us win a few more games while we are a bad team and then be in steep decline by the time the team is starting to compete.

I would rather spend the money on a player or two that can be flipped for prospects when a younger player is ready to take their spot. Braun would be hard to put in that category because of the disdain fans have for him and probable decline in his skills (I.e he would be hard to sell). I also have no interest in having our younger players "learn" from him.

Not sure about the "steep decline" part. This team should definitely be able to compete in 2018. Braun will be 34 then. 900 OPS is unlikely but an 800 OPS would be reasonable.

Forget the money because essentially the Phillies will have trouble spending money the next 5 years. They can add at least 3 $20 million plus salaries easily and still make a profit. This whole "it is too early because we won't be competitive" logic just does not make sense. A bigger question is whether he is the right fit. I would prefer someone left-handed. And then there is the prospect question. Would it be worth trading 3 top prospects or young players for Braun? Depends who they are of course.

Adding someone like Braun is a risk if they decline. But the money part is not the risk. And the team certainly needs an offensive boost. Maybe moves would need to be made in 2 years (though Braun would be another 1B option potentially), but it is not clear that the timeframe would make this a bad move. There are probably better fits out there. Hopefully we add at least one of them because a quality bat in the middle of the order would help everyone in the lineup.

[julio]

I think their primary focus in 2017 will be deepening the talent pool throughout the organization

, right now it's top heavy, Lehigh will have a tremendous team, Reading will be decent, Lakewood maybe, Clearwater?. The problem at the top is you quickly hit 40 man roster decisions, building up depth throughout the organization allows you to time promotions.

The first wave hits the beach in 2017-18, the second wave (Ortiz, Moniak, et al) 2020-21. I think they want a steady stream over big waves going forward.

I think the goal should be to make your organization strong regardless of level. I wouldn't say our major league team is filled with talent and at some point that needs to be the focus. Good organizations work on all of it at the same time.

Nice to see you two agreeing for a change.

[bigegypt0417]

I think their primary focus in 2017 will be deepening the talent pool throughout the organization

, right now it's top heavy, Lehigh will have a tremendous team, Reading will be decent, Lakewood maybe, Clearwater?. The problem at the top is you quickly hit 40 man roster decisions, building up depth throughout the organization allows you to time promotions.

The first wave hits the beach in 2017-18, the second wave (Ortiz, Moniak, et al) 2020-21. I think they want a steady stream over big waves going forward.

I think the goal should be to make your organization strong regardless of level. I wouldn't say our major league team is filled with talent and at some point that needs to be the focus. Good organizations work on all of it at the same time.
Nice to see you two agreeing for a change.

We've agreed twice in the last couple of weeks.

Although a minor quibble around being top heavy...but we're close!

[julio]

I think their primary focus in 2017 will be deepening the talent pool throughout the organization

, right now it's top heavy, Lehigh will have a tremendous team, Reading will be decent, Lakewood maybe, Clearwater?. The problem at the top is you quickly hit 40 man roster decisions, building up depth throughout the organization allows you to time promotions.

The first wave hits the beach in 2017-18, the second wave (Ortiz, Moniak, et al) 2020-21. I think they want a steady stream over big waves going forward.

I think the goal should be to make your organization strong regardless of level. I wouldn't say our major league team is filled with talent and at some point that needs to be the focus. Good organizations work on all of it at the same time.
Nice to see you two agreeing for a change.

We've agreed twice in the last couple of weeks.

Although a minor quibble around being top heavy...but we're close!

"Top heavy" appeared to refer to the high minors/Rule 5 challenges, and AF may well be right about that. We'll see how they handle roster trimming next month.

[bigegypt0417]

I think their primary focus in 2017 will be deepening the talent pool throughout the organization

, right now it's top heavy, Lehigh will have a tremendous team, Reading will be decent, Lakewood maybe, Clearwater?. The problem at the top is you quickly hit 40 man roster decisions, building up depth throughout the organization allows you to time promotions.

The first wave hits the beach in 2017-18, the second wave (Ortiz, Moniak, et al) 2020-21. I think they want a steady stream over big waves going forward.

I think the goal should be to make your organization strong regardless of level. I wouldn't say our major league team is filled with talent and at some point that needs to be the focus. Good organizations work on all of it at the same time.
Nice to see you two agreeing for a change.

We've agreed twice in the last couple of weeks.

Although a minor quibble around being top heavy...but we're close!

"Top heavy" appeared to refer to the high minors/Rule 5 challenges, and AF may well be right about that. We'll see how they handle roster trimming next month.

I could just be naïve but I feel like this group has a good handle on how to handle such issues...we'll see though.

[julio]

I could just be naïve but I feel like this group has a good handle on how to handle such issues...we'll see though.

Well, I don't see it as naïve - more just trying to stay optimistic about the new regime until/unless they demonstrate they're not competent (unlike some of our esteemed colleagues here, who seem ever-ready to fill the space under the bus! ).

[tom81]

I'd look to the Marlins to see if they would move Derek Dietrich. He is young and entering arbitration and the Fish don't really have a position for him. He is a decent left handed hitter which we could play at multiple positions. Miami writer implies he might be available for pitching help, we have some young pitchers they might be interested in. miamiherald.com/sports/spt-c ... 83436.html

[zambonir]

I certainly agree that we shouldn't lose our first rounder (or second, if are draft position is sufficiently primo in the 2018 draft -- all though if that happens it would mean 'the plan' is in retrograde) by signing a comped FA this winter or next. It would be really bad news for the team's development if our draft position were in the top dozen in 2018.

I still disagree. I think this year's team was meant to pick second (which it would based on run differential) or third (which it would have with three fewer wins) with 65-68 wins, which still would have been as many as five wins better than last year's team, though I don't think the front office really cared if the record was better. And next year's team was meant to pick 9th or 10th with 73-75 wins.

Both the 2015 and 2016 teams had expected win/pythagorean records of 62-100. Can next year's team realistically add 15-18 wins of run differential? Even if they did sign a better-quality veteran OF, "proven" closer (who, in terms of save percentage, couldn't do much better than this year's closer) and higher-end starter, I'm not sure they could, and they are not going to do any of those things. Hopefully they will add 10-12 wins of run differential from the improved play of the internal options, and the call-ups.

[Philsmania]

I certainly agree that we shouldn't lose our first rounder (or second, if are draft position is sufficiently primo in the 2018 draft -- all though if that happens it would mean 'the plan' is in retrograde) by signing a comped FA this winter or next. It would be really bad news for the team's development if our draft position were in the top dozen in 2018.

I still disagree. I think this year's team was meant to pick second (which it would based on run differential) or third (which it would have with three fewer wins) with 65-68 wins, which still would have been as many as five wins better than last year's team, though I don't think the front office really cared if the record was better. And next year's team was meant to pick 9th or 10th with 73-75 wins.

Both the 2015 and 2016 teams had expected win/pythagorean records of 62-100. Can next year's team realistically add 15-18 wins of run differential? Even if they did sign a better-quality veteran OF, "proven" closer (who, in terms of save percentage, couldn't do much better than this year's closer) and higher-end starter, I'm not sure they could, and they are not going to do any of those things. Hopefully they will add 10-12 wins of run differential from the improved play of the internal options, and the call-ups.

This is why I expect a record not too dissimilar to this one next year though it will be more "deserved" than this year's 70+ win season. All that luck and those one run victories earlier in the season probably helped us exceed what we should have been. We were, by far, the "luckiest" team in the NL this season with a luck score of 9. The Dodgers were the next closest at 1. The Rangers led all of baseball with a luck score of 13. And, the Cubs who had the most wins in all of baseball actually underperformed by four games. Per Baseball Reference and it's luck score.

[donaldorc]

This is why I expect a record not too dissimilar to this one next year though it will be more "deserved" than this year's 70+ win season. All that luck and those one run victories earlier in the season probably helped us exceed what we should have been. We were, by far, the "luckiest" team in the NL this season with a luck score of 9. The Dodgers were the next closest at 1. The Rangers led all of baseball with a luck score of 13. And, the Cubs who had the most wins in all of baseball actually underperformed by four games. Per Baseball Reference and it's luck score.

Luck or not, the record is what it is because the games were played on a baseball field, not on a computer.

[zambonir]

This is why I expect a record not too dissimilar to this one next year though it will be more "deserved" than this year's 70+ win season. All that luck and those one run victories earlier in the season probably helped us exceed what we should have been. We were, by far, the "luckiest" team in the NL this season with a luck score of 9. The Dodgers were the next closest at 1. The Rangers led all of baseball with a luck score of 13. And, the Cubs who had the most wins in all of baseball actually underperformed by four games. Per Baseball Reference and it's luck score.

Luck or not, the record is what it is because the games were played on a baseball field, not on a computer.

It's not exactly news that luck is part of baseball. The better team doesn't always win. But would you build a team based on either of those realities? How would you even do it? Run differential happens to be a a more effective way to evaluate the team's complete performance, just like ERA tells you more about a pitcher than W-L and other stats tell you more about ERA. That doesn't mean they are opposing ideas. We can say the Phillies won as many games as they did and we can also say it happened due to some luck and some likely unrepeatable trends. Just like we can also say Freddy Galvis showed good power and defense but still made more outs than almost any hitter in baseball. Just like we can say Jeanmar Gomez had a very good year as a closer and still might not actually be a good closer.

Fortunately, we already know this GM is busy buying more computers (and people who program them), so he's not likely to think the team's W-L record tells him it was actually a better roster than last year's, or a roster that's turned any kind of corner yet. Who knows, maybe next year's team will be even luckier than this year's was. But maybe not. It will be better, at least, just not as good as some might wish.

[allentown]

Pythagorean W-L record must be taken with quite a few grains of salt, since blow-out wins and losses can play an out-sized role. This can come down to the last couple guys in the pen or the 5th/6th/7th starter. I think different managers deal with potential routs differently. Playing a lot of one-run games, even winning a lot of one-run games isn't a fluke. It is indicative of good pitching/defense and not-so-good offense. I think actual team W-L is a fairer measure. If I were to adjust that for anything, as a predictor of actual team strength going forward, I'd adjust for relative severity of injuries suffered by the team among guys who will be returning in 2016.

The Phillies suffer from a total lack of corner OFs and a shallow bullpen.

[Austinfan]

The good news is that corner OFs and bullpen depth are among the easier positions to address.

[Philsmania]

The good news is that corner OFs and bullpen depth are among the easier positions to address.

Fungibility!

[Philsmania]

It looks like the Royals may be looking to shed salary this winter. Any chance that we can take advantage? The caveat is that many of the guys mentioned in the below article have only one season of team control.

mlbtraderumors.com/2016/10/royals-payroll-constraints-2017-regress-money-rumors.html

[Austinfan]

Unfortunately, they aren't shopping what we're looking for unless you want a 30 year old RP or think Duffy is worth extending.

[allentown]

The good news is that corner OFs and bullpen depth are among the easier positions to address.

Fungibility!

It may be an easy position to fill and there may be some fungibility, but the Phillies have had a very hard time, for a very long time in growing their own OFs. It has been a huge organizational draft/development weakness, going back decades. We don't have a single home-grown player who is clearly able to be an OF starter for us next season. We used the #1 pick in the draft to get Pat Burrell and moved him off 1B to LF. That was the home-grown OF component of our last WC team. It truly has been an organizational black hole and a prime reason why we need FA/trade/over-23 international guys. Our best hope from trade was Williams and he has blown out a gasket. We have Herrera and Quinn in CF and Cozens potentially in RF, but with serious questions about Quinn and Cozens. And there is Altherr.

[Austinfan]

Which may explain Randolph, Pujols, Laird, Coppola, Ortiz, Moniak, Stephen, if at first you don't succeed . . .

[olgrandad]

Unfortunately, they aren't shopping what we're looking for unless you want a 30 year old RP or think Duffy is worth extending.

If Duffy were available, I'd jump!