Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

[andyb]

The point is throwing money at RPs isn't a panacea, they're so darn erratic.
Basically, either target someone who has a good chance of durability or focus on building up depth in your organization with prospects and lot's of AAAA RPs and ST invites.

Lidge is a good example, Phillies got lucky in 2008, he held up and had a great season, but I doubt they got him thinking he'd give them one great season and then collapse.
Whereas Madson could have easily put up great numbers as a closer.

The problem with RPs is they only need two pitches, so they often turn it around with just a minor adjustment. A new grip on the slider, a mechanical adjustment on the FB, and a mediocre back of the pen guy becomes a top RP. Trying to predict that is an exercise in futility, though better coaching throughout the system certainly helps.

They are not as erratic as you claim when you take the smaller sample sizes out of the equation. Yes there are good seasons and bad seasons. Teams can also make their own luck to some degree, however. Relievers, just like any other position, are better if they are more talented. Spending money or resources lets a team acquire more talent. The Phillies at the moment do not have enough talent in the bullpen.

It is just "head in the sand" logic to say you can't improve that talent base. It does not have to be a panacea. But if we can drop the team bullpen ERA by a run we are talking saving maybe 60 runs a year. That means more wins. It is overly simplistic to say you need to add 15 wins in any one area of the team to be a panacea. We need to add 5 wins with young players maturing. We can add another 3-5 simply by taking an awful bullpen and making it average. We then can think of bigger ticket acquisitions to put us over the top. Seems a better strategy than simply having an awful bullpen and hoping it will get better by having better luck. We need several back of the bullpen types and then everyone else can handle their role better.

[zambonir]

Here's Part 2 of the Middleton interview.

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

*Q: How far away is the team that plays here now?

A: This summer, Matt prepared a study looking at the last six successful rebuilds. That included the Royals, Pirates, Mets, Orioles, Cubs and Astros. What the study shows is that it took the Cubs and Astros three years of rebuilding and then the fourth year they made the playoffs. The Orioles and Mets took four years of rebuilding and the fifth year they were in the playoffs. The Pirates were five years of rebuilding and the sixth year they were in the playoffs, and the Royals were six years to get to a winning record, seven years to get to the playoffs. So that kind of gives you a sense for the timeframe or the guidelines. No one has done it faster than three, and the longest was six or seven with the Royals. So that's kind of where I think people should be thinking about.*

[Austinfan]

You miss my point, the only good investments in the bullpen are top guys who have a good shot at being durable, the rest are crap shoots and you're better building depth than trying to buy 7th inning guys. You don't pay real money for guys who used to be good coming off arm injuries, Bailey was cheap, Hernandez was expensive. The key is not to pay for saves but for electric arms - but don't overpay because top bullpens are built around quantity as much as quality.

What will also help a lot is when the young pitchers settle down into a 5/6 man rotation that consistently goes 6 innings. What killed this bullpen was overwork, partially due to injuries and inning limitations, and partially due to young pitchers consistently running up 100 pitch counts by the end of the 5th inning.

Sev, Gomez, Ramos and Neris is a good start.
If Rodriguez and Arano can work their way up next year that would be a solid group.
If Pivetta can't break the ML rotation he'd be another good candidate.
And Therrian has a shot.

So it's not like they have to go out and buy 3-4 arms.
2016 was an audition season, there was no reason to invest big money in a bullpen for a 70 win team.

[olgrandad]

You miss my point, the only good investments in the bullpen are top guys who have a good shot at being durable, the rest are crap shoots and you're better building depth than trying to buy 7th inning guys. You don't pay real money for guys who used to be good coming off arm injuries, Bailey was cheap, Hernandez was expensive. The key is not to pay for saves but for electric arms - but don't overpay because top bullpens are built around quantity as much as quality.

What will also help a lot is when the young pitchers settle down into a 5/6 man rotation that consistently goes 6 innings. What killed this bullpen was overwork, partially due to injuries and inning limitations, and partially due to young pitchers consistently running up 100 pitch counts by the end of the 5th inning.

Sev, Gomez, Ramos and Neris is a good start.
If Rodriguez and Arano can work their way up next year that would be a solid group.
If Pivetta can't break the ML rotation he'd be another good candidate.
And Therrian has a shot.

So it's not like they have to go out and buy 3-4 arms.
2016 was an audition season, there was no reason to invest big money in a bullpen for a 70 win team.

I agree with your point of view. I like the idea of developing our own bullpen arms, as we did with Madson, Bastardo, Geary, et al. Not merely to save money (which can be used for other purposes, of course) but there should be less guess work in determining the qualifications and potential of the candidates.

[andyb]

You miss my point, the only good investments in the bullpen are top guys who have a good shot at being durable, the rest are crap shoots and you're better building depth than trying to buy 7th inning guys. You don't pay real money for guys who used to be good coming off arm injuries, Bailey was cheap, Hernandez was expensive. The key is not to pay for saves but for electric arms - but don't overpay because top bullpens are built around quantity as much as quality.

What will also help a lot is when the young pitchers settle down into a 5/6 man rotation that consistently goes 6 innings. What killed this bullpen was overwork, partially due to injuries and inning limitations, and partially due to young pitchers consistently running up 100 pitch counts by the end of the 5th inning.

Sev, Gomez, Ramos and Neris is a good start.
If Rodriguez and Arano can work their way up next year that would be a solid group.
If Pivetta can't break the ML rotation he'd be another good candidate.
And Therrian has a shot.

So it's not like they have to go out and buy 3-4 arms.
2016 was an audition season, there was no reason to invest big money in a bullpen for a 70 win team.

There is no data behind your assertion that the only good investments are for top guys though. That is where you go off the rails. Are $10 million closers better than $5 million middle-men? Of course they are. But you can sign 2 $5 million guys for the price of one higher priced arm, so you have more chances for a positive impact if some of them fail.

What you are stating is a strategy of "do nothing and hope for the best". And it is based on a likely assertion/tall tale that only the top guys are good investments. The Jake Diekman's of the world can also be good investments. And some mid-level free agents are good investments.

You seem to love Severino Gonzalez like he has illicit pictures on you. I see a reliever that had better stuff in short outings, but still had a 5.60 ERA. Gomez reverted to being essentially a nice 4th or 5th guy in the bullpen. Ramos is promising but is not a sure thing yet much less a back end guy. Neris has a bit of a trick pitch so may not be as good as he was this year going forward. All of these guys could be part of a decent back end of a bullpen. They are not front line guys and they really should be part of a group of 8-10 arms to provide some depth. Simply put, if we stay with our internal options our bullpen ERA will once again be in the 25-30 range next year. That is what you are recommending in essence and it is not a strategy that will help the team.

[Austinfan]

Teams don't let good players walk except in certain circumstances, when they're cash poor or they've determined, often with inside knowledge, that the player isn't worth what they're gonna get on the market.

It's not a matter of $5M or $10M pitchers, it's a matter of buying only "reliable" RP arms, those who are both good pitchers and likely to have a few solid years left in their arm. Loading up on second tier RPs is a waste of time, because their performance is so variable year to year you're better off with rehabs and rookies, Hernandez was a $5M arm. He was a good gamble because they weren't counting on him long-term, just hoping for a good start so they could flip him in July.

If a top guy is available, everyone moves back a notch in the pen, if that top guy is reliable, he buys you 2-3 years to develop more arm in-house.

[bigegypt0417]

Teams don't let good players walk except in certain circumstances, when they're cash poor or they've determined, often with inside knowledge, that the player isn't worth what they're gonna get on the market.

Or they've decided they have a cheaper and younger alternative. you can have more than two answers.

[Philsmania]

Here's Part 2 of the Middleton interview.

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

*Q: How far away is the team that plays here now?

A: This summer, Matt prepared a study looking at the last six successful rebuilds. That included the Royals, Pirates, Mets, Orioles, Cubs and Astros. What the study shows is that it took the Cubs and Astros three years of rebuilding and then the fourth year they made the playoffs. The Orioles and Mets took four years of rebuilding and the fifth year they were in the playoffs. The Pirates were five years of rebuilding and the sixth year they were in the playoffs, and the Royals were six years to get to a winning record, seven years to get to the playoffs. So that kind of gives you a sense for the timeframe or the guidelines. No one has done it faster than three, and the longest was six or seven with the Royals. So that's kind of where I think people should be thinking about.*

If I can nitpick a little bit, the Astros rebuild really took five years and started in Ed Wade's last season (2011).

[zambonir]

Here's Part 2 of the Middleton interview.

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

*Q: How far away is the team that plays here now?

A: This summer, Matt prepared a study looking at the last six successful rebuilds. That included the Royals, Pirates, Mets, Orioles, Cubs and Astros. What the study shows is that it took the Cubs and Astros three years of rebuilding and then the fourth year they made the playoffs. The Orioles and Mets took four years of rebuilding and the fifth year they were in the playoffs. The Pirates were five years of rebuilding and the sixth year they were in the playoffs, and the Royals were six years to get to a winning record, seven years to get to the playoffs. So that kind of gives you a sense for the timeframe or the guidelines. No one has done it faster than three, and the longest was six or seven with the Royals. So that's kind of where I think people should be thinking about.*

If I can nitpick a little bit, the Astros rebuild really took five years and started in Ed Wade's last season (2011).

And you could also say the Phillies' rebuild began in 2015. But I doubt Klentak and Middleton (or the Astros' Luhnow and Jim Crane) see it that way. Starting a rebuild is structural and multi-faceted, it's not simply the moment when you stop spending/trading prospects to win and start trading away older players. IMO Middleton and Klentak see this (the 2017 season) as Year 2. Later in the interview he does say he expects the Phillies to be on the shorter schedule of those examples (so long as players like Nola and Eflin are healthy).

The Astros' 2015 run was considered ahead of schedule, though they were supposed to do better this year (and then, according to Sports Illustrated, win it all next year )

[Austinfan]

Well, to me the rebuild started in July 2015, when they finally traded the core veterans and started stockpiling young players. But, the legacy of bad drafting and stingy spending on prospects before 2014 suggests they won't be faster than most rebuilds.

Which is why I have 2018 to be competitive, 2019-2020 when they're a serious playoff contender.
And I think their decision making should reflect that schedule, instead of accelerating the rebuild, they should "deepen" the rebuild (that is, spend on younger players, not try to buy 30+ year old #1 starters or power hitters).

[Soloman_grundy]

Here's Part 2 of the Middleton interview.

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

*Q: How far away is the team that plays here now?

A: This summer, Matt prepared a study looking at the last six successful rebuilds. That included the Royals, Pirates, Mets, Orioles, Cubs and Astros. What the study shows is that it took the Cubs and Astros three years of rebuilding and then the fourth year they made the playoffs. The Orioles and Mets took four years of rebuilding and the fifth year they were in the playoffs. The Pirates were five years of rebuilding and the sixth year they were in the playoffs, and the Royals were six years to get to a winning record, seven years to get to the playoffs. So that kind of gives you a sense for the timeframe or the guidelines. No one has done it faster than three, and the longest was six or seven with the Royals. So that's kind of where I think people should be thinking about.*

Not one of those teams had near the cash liquidity the Phillies have so that point in moot.

[phillychuck]

Here's Part 2 of the Middleton interview.

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

*Q: How far away is the team that plays here now?

A: This summer, Matt prepared a study looking at the last six successful rebuilds. That included the Royals, Pirates, Mets, Orioles, Cubs and Astros. What the study shows is that it took the Cubs and Astros three years of rebuilding and then the fourth year they made the playoffs. The Orioles and Mets took four years of rebuilding and the fifth year they were in the playoffs. The Pirates were five years of rebuilding and the sixth year they were in the playoffs, and the Royals were six years to get to a winning record, seven years to get to the playoffs. So that kind of gives you a sense for the timeframe or the guidelines. No one has done it faster than three, and the longest was six or seven with the Royals. So that's kind of where I think people should be thinking about.*

Not one of those teams had near the cash liquidity the Phillies have so that point in moot.

You'd certainly expect the cash to put us in the shorter time frame, wouldn't you?

[zambonir]

Here's Part 2 of the Middleton interview.

csnphilly.com/philadelphia-p ... -middleton

*Q: How far away is the team that plays here now?

A: This summer, Matt prepared a study looking at the last six successful rebuilds. That included the Royals, Pirates, Mets, Orioles, Cubs and Astros. What the study shows is that it took the Cubs and Astros three years of rebuilding and then the fourth year they made the playoffs. The Orioles and Mets took four years of rebuilding and the fifth year they were in the playoffs. The Pirates were five years of rebuilding and the sixth year they were in the playoffs, and the Royals were six years to get to a winning record, seven years to get to the playoffs. So that kind of gives you a sense for the timeframe or the guidelines. No one has done it faster than three, and the longest was six or seven with the Royals. So that's kind of where I think people should be thinking about.*

Not one of those teams had near the cash liquidity the Phillies have so that point in moot.

True. Mets were broke, Astros have always been cheap (and new ownership group not swimming in $), Cubs were heavily leveraged. Only the Cubs have a large payroll today. But if you read the interview I think you can expect Klentak & Middleton to spend $100 million (bringing total payroll to over 150) pretty darn fast (in 2018 and 2019). That doesn't mean they should spend in 2017. I think they would if the market was better - if there was a Jon Lester to lock up one year early or you can get one of the FA hitters more cheaply. But if you're also trying to protect your 2018 draft position (not a problem the teams above had in Year 2 or 3 of their rebuilds) quicker fixes don't make sense.

If the new CBA completely changes the QO system I think the Phillies would be be more aggressive about trying to win 81 games next year but otherwise not. And are there really any examples of a high-$ rebuilding team that has succeeded long-term? The Phillies already tried to do it the Red Sox/Yankees way and it didn't work (didn't work for the Yankees either).

[andyb]

The rebuild really started in 2014 and even 2013 can be seen as a year that kind of started the rebuild. In 2014 we still signed a few free agents like Marlon Byrd but that was spending money for a placeholder. There were no trades of young talent that year. And we did minor trades of guys like Roberto Hernandez.

Going back to 2013 we again signed mainly placeholders like Delmon Young. We did do the Revere trade where we traded young talent (May and Worley) for other young talent (Revere). And Bonilla for Michael Young. So 2013 is a hedge year more than a rebuild, but it was at least neutral in reversing the flow of young talent where in 2012 and before it had been a negative flow.

Counting 2014 we are now 3 complete years of having an inflow of young talent. It certainly accelerated mid-2015, but we are definitely more than 1 year into the rebuild. We needed time for our prospects to develop like Crawford and Nola and others. Now that 3 years are passed (and with a few trades) we are ready to enter the next phase.

[zambonir]

I completely agree that the Phillies were doing judicious, rebuilding-like things that far back, just like the Astros were earlier (they traded Roy Oswalt in 2010 after all. Berkman too). But I am sticking with my interpretation of Middleton's interview. The intention to rebuild started with Gillick taking over, but the actual rebuild, which is about a lot more than the 25-man roster, began the day Matt Klentak was hired (since MacPhail did not take over that season either).

Which doesn't really change the timetable - the 3-4 year shorter period Middleton cites still means a playoff team in 2019, which is also what Gillick ultimately said. And before that, spending money, ideally with a winning team, in 2018. But not in 2017.

David Murphy's column today is also a good read, and I think provides insight into why Klentak might make a big trade this off-season.

philly.com/philly/sports/phi ... llies.html

For instance he wonders if the Phillies could move Velasquez in the same way the Cubs traded Cashner for Rizzo. Much easier said than done to get another Rizzo, but when you have money and are still two years away from trying to compete, you could make a move like that and still be able replace what you gave up later via FA or other trades (from farm depth you might not have now but will then).

Buying a bad contract is still not a bad idea in the right situation. But overall I think it's more likely than not that the team we are watching next April won't have any starters who are signed to multi-year deals.

[Austinfan]

PHillies didn't start drafting decently until 2013 (Crawford), Knapp (2), Pullin (5th), Viza (32), 2014 (Nola), but Hoskins (5th) is the only other serious prospect out of that draft.
They didn't spend seriously in LA until 2015, depending on Sal to make the most of the money before then.
So the real turning point was trading Rollins, Utley and Hamels.

[julio]

Prospects, or actual major-leaguers, from recent drafts:

2010: Rupp (3), Buchanan (7), Hollands (10)
2011: Quinn (2), Morgan (3), Asche (4), Giles (7)
2012: Cozens (2), Pullin (5)
2013: Crawford (1), Knapp (2) (Viza at 32 is a stretch)
2014: Nola (1), Hoskins (5)
2015: Randolph (1), Kingery (2), Williams (3)
2016: Too soon to really know.

[philsphan67]

Good read today. I was really impressed with AJ Ellis, don't think I'd bring him back and I know he is lobbying for a job. But he had nice things to say about McClure, Mackanin and the young pitchers.

philly.com/philly/sports/201 ... eason.html

[zambonir]

And we're only two drafts in with Almaraz and one draft in with Klentak (and even that one had to be based largely on the previous regime's scouting and analytics - or lack thereof).

The Phillies caught a semi-intentional break in 2012, IMO, when they were unable to sign (or meet the inflated price of) a FA CF. Had they landed Bourn or Upton they would not only have been stuck with another aging expensive player gumming up the rebuild, but wouldn't have J.P. Crawford. Presumably that was part of their reluctance at the time. I believe they liked Pagan the best because he was cheaper and not tied to a draft pick. And then they got Revere.

[allentown]

PHillies didn't start drafting decently until 2013 (Crawford), Knapp (2), Pullin (5th), Viza (32), 2014 (Nola), but Hoskins (5th) is the only other serious prospect out of that draft.
They didn't spend seriously in LA until 2015, depending on Sal to make the most of the money before then.
So the real turning point was trading Rollins, Utley and Hamels.

Encarnacion signed for $1 mill in 2013 and was the #4 rated LA player. That counts as serious spend.

I do take your larger point. In fact it echoes what I used to say (and still believe). The Phillies change in strategy took place in multiple steps. In 2011 and 2012 we had some comp picks, some signing problems, but didn't have a first rounder either year. The first step began during and after the 2012 season. It was a change from totally selling out the future to try to eke out a little longer present run and switched to a more balanced approach. The first sign of change was trading Pence and Victorino toward the end of 2012. Then we did not lose a draft pick signing a FA -- in fact we haven't lost a draft pick since 2012. Then a more serious draft in 2013 and paying big coin for Encarnacion. Then the almost-all-college draft in 2014 and the firing of Wolever before 2014 ended. That was a big personnel change for the team. We went into rebuild mode in 2015, both with the trading of vets and the trade for international slot $. The $4 mill for Ortiz was, at least for the Phillies, a huge commitment to LA.