Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

bkeich 2016-12-31 15:53:43 UTC #859

I am not a big fan of Mackanin but I don't see much evidence that he plays veterans over young players indiscriminately.

Ruiz lost the starting position to Rupp

Joseph played more than Howard, but I think management interfered and had Howard play more to try and generate a trade.

Why do we think that Altherr would be benched for Moss?

tom81 2016-12-31 15:55:28 UTC #860

I'm more or less in this camp too. I would much prefer one quality veteran OF on a one year contract than 2 marginal veteran OF's on 1 year contracts.

Soloman_grundy 2016-12-31 16:06:02 UTC #861

Moss would be a good addition if and only if he is a supplemental piece. I mean used as a PH, probably daily on days he doesn't start. Gets 1 start a week at 1B preferably against tough RHP to protect Joseph a bit and 1-2 starts in corner OF spots. This would generate 10-15 Abs a week which translates to 40-50 Abs a month which would get him 200-250 strategic at bats. This doesn't count DH in interleague games. Easily see a way he could be valuable but not interfere with growth mindset.

phillychuck 2016-12-31 16:30:52 UTC #862

bkeitch asks a good question...has Mackanin actually played veterans in preference to developing younger players?

In 2016 Bourjos was second among OFs in PAs, ahead of Goeddel. Not hugely significant, but there is one instance. Howard got way too many PAs.

In 2015 Francoer (and Sizemore) often played ahead of Ruf, Asche, Altherr (part season), and Brown (part season) in the OF. Howard played ahead of Ruf.

And that's the extent of the evidence for Mackanin (and he only managed part of 2015). I think we all fear the veteran entitlement that previous Phils' administrations certainly seemed prone to, but the current regime hasn't shown that flaw extensively yet.

harmony55 2016-12-31 16:57:34 UTC #863

But Clay Buchholz at $13.5 million was worth only Josh Tobias. I suspect the Red Sox shopped Buchholz around for months and settled for the best offer of Josh Tobias.

There is a probably a good reason the Phillies traded Tobias instead of first base prospect Rhys Hoskins, who will start the 2017 season the same age as Dan Vogelbach despite never getting an at-bat above Double A. Hoskins may be the closest comp to Vogelbach in the Phillies farm system although Hoskins significantly trails Vogelbach in the desired BB/K ratio.

phillychuck 2016-12-31 17:08:22 UTC #864

Harmony,

The Red Sox dumped Buchholz' salary because, given Sale, he was redundant. The Phils agreed to pick up the salary and traded a very low-valued prospect to paper over the transaction. It doesn't mean Buchholz' on-field value is equivalent to Tobias'--it depends on the money and the team who is looking to acquire either guy.

If the Mariners want Buchholz and want to trade Smith, were talking about 6.5 million for Buchholz (since Smith is projected to be about replacement-level this season). That, at least to me, would require an additional prospect of some value to the Phils in the trade. You may be right that Volgelbach is a bit too much, but perhaps the trade could look something like:

Buchholz
+ Stephen (for example)

for

Smith
+ Volgelbach

or the Phils could simply throw in some salary relief.

julio 2016-12-31 17:17:09 UTC #865

You're missing the point. In addition to Josh Tobias, the Red Sox got $13.5 million in salary relief - which will keep them under the luxury tax threshold. That has value. Significant value. The trade with the Phillies wasn't simply about trading player value for player value; it was about payroll management. This is a relatively unusual problem for the Boston Red Sox, and I suspect that many Sox fans may not yet realize that what happened here was a salary dump, not a trade of player value for player value.

I don't believe that the Red Sox "shopped Buchholz around for months." They exercised his 2017 option on November 3rd. As has been noted, on November 3rd, the Sox considered Buchholz to be worth $13.5 million; they were fine with his 2017 salary

So why trade him seven weeks later for essentially nothing? Why make a salary dump? Because, while they considered Buchholz to be "worth" $13.5 million in early November, by mid-December, they had a problem - a luxury tax problem.

What caused this was that on December 6th, the Sox acquired Chris Sale - which added Sale's $12 million salary to the Sox salary budget, pushing them over the luxury tax threshold. Sale's acquisition also rendered Buchholz surplus to the Sox' rotation.

So, perhaps the Sox "shopped Buchholz around," but not for months - for two weeks, at the end of which they made a deal, with one of the few clubs that had: 1) a need for a pitcher like Buchholz; and 2) the ability to just absorb Buchholz' $13.5 million salary.

Buchholz was "worth" only Josh Tobias in trade, because Buchholz at $13.5 million was more than most clubs could absorb - and because the Sox needed to get him off the payroll. Thus the salary dump.

harmony55 2016-12-31 17:28:46 UTC #866

I highly doubt the Mariners would trade six years of their projected starting first baseman for one year of Clay Buchholz at a neutral value of $13.5 million:

... much less add one year of its less expensive starting right fielder.

The Mariners were rumored to have rejected a Red Sox offer of Buchholz for Seth Smith before the Sox opted to sign Mitch Moreland to fill its need for a lefthanded bat. Seattle may become more desperate as Spring Training approaches but I can't imagine the M's trading two frontline position players for a pitcher who this month netted only Josh Tobias.

A 2016 11th-round draft pick in Josh Stephen does not tip the scales.

julio 2016-12-31 17:39:39 UTC #867

This kind of depends on whether the Mariners want Clay Buchholz. The thing here is, the Phillies have absolutely no need to trade Buchholz, to Seattle or to anybody else. Unlike the Red Sox, the Phils can easily absorb Buchholz' salary (even if he's a complete stiff).

If the Mariners want Buchholz, and are willing to part with Seth Smith, and if the Phillies want Smith (and I have no idea if any of these players are really of interest to the teams that would acquire them) - the Phillies could trade Buchholz and $10 million to the Mariners for Smith. I'm not recommending this deal, but it's well within the Phils' resources.

So if the Mariners really want Buchholz, and really need him without taking on his contract (which I can well imagine might be an issue for them), the Phils could be in a position to trade "salary relief" in the form of cash to the Mariners with Buchholz, in exchange for a real prospect, whether Seth Smith or somebody else. And Josh Tobias is utterly irrelevant to that - it would be about the Mariners' need for Buchholz (if that's real), and the Phillies' ability to throw enough cash into the deal to leverage a prospect back in return.

harmony55 2016-12-31 17:40:26 UTC #868

julio:

harmony55:

But Clay Buchholz at $13.5 million was worth only Josh Tobias.
You're missing the point. In addition to Josh Tobias, the Red Sox got $13.5 million in salary relief - which will keep them under the luxury tax threshold. That has value. Significant value. The trade with the Phillies wasn't simply about trading player value for player value; it was about payroll management. This is a relatively unusual problem for the Boston Red Sox, and I suspect that many Sox fans may not yet realize that what happened here was a salary dump, not a trade of player value for player value.

I don't believe that the Red Sox "shopped Buchholz around for months." They exercised his 2017 option on November 3rd. As has been noted, on November 3rd, the Sox considered Buchholz to be worth $13.5 million; they were fine with his 2017 salary

So why trade him seven weeks later for essentially nothing? Why make a salary dump? Because, while they considered Buchholz to be "worth" $13.5 million in early November, by mid-December, they had a problem - a luxury tax problem.

What caused this was that on December 6th, the Sox acquired Chris Sale - which added Sale's $12 million salary to the Sox salary budget, pushing them over the luxury tax threshold. Sale's acquisition also rendered Buchholz surplus to the Sox' rotation.

So, perhaps the Sox "shopped Buchholz around," but not for months - for two weeks, at the end of which they made a deal, with one of the few clubs that had: 1) a need for a pitcher like Buchholz; and 2) the ability to just absorb Buchholz' $13.5 million salary.

Buchholz was "worth" only Josh Tobias in trade, because Buchholz at $13.5 million was more than most clubs could absorb - and because the Sox needed to get him off the payroll. Thus the salary dump.

Clay Buchholz at $13.5 million is still more than most clubs can absorb. Hence, the ongoing limited trade value.

bkeich 2016-12-31 17:48:35 UTC #869

PC... Honestly I dont really count Bourjos playing ahead of Goeddel. Goeddel was not ready to be in the majors, which he proved. While I am sure he did learn he was so overmatched most of the time that playing him more might have actually hurt his development (crushing confidence).

Francouer playing as much as he did was not a good idea, but Ruf and Asche just didnt take the job (or lost it). Altherr did play once he came up and Brown was, well, Brown, I almost count him as a veteran at that point.

Howard playing so much was just silly, but I am not sure I necessarily blame Mackanin, it was often suspected that the team was trying to showcase him. Unfortunately, what they showcased was that his defensive liabilities overshadowed what little offense he did provide even when he was hot. Might have been better to leave it a mystery.

I am not implying that I think Mackinan is a good coach, I don't as was shown with his media mishandling with some players last year, but he hasnt had the talent to succeed yet either.

julio 2016-12-31 17:53:41 UTC #870

This is true - but the Phillies, if they choose, can trade Buchholz along with a large bucket of cash, which means their market for trading Buchholz can be much larger than Boston's market was - because Boston needed to shed the salary. The Phils can just eat it.

Buchholz at $13.5 million may not command much. Buchholz at $3.5 million would be a bargain, worth trading something of value for. Somewhere between those two numbers, there could be a deal - Buchholz + cash in return for prospect of real value.

I doubt if the Phils are looking for such a deal (or any Buchholz deal, really) at this point. The strategy appears to be to have him pitch; if he pitches effectively, he becomes that much more attractive to the market come mid-July. The Phils don't need a prospect in return this spring; they need prospects for the long run, and July's a fine time to make a deal.

Austinfan 2016-12-31 18:29:16 UTC #871

If the Phillies were to trade Buchholz or Hellickson, it would be at the end of March:

1) they'll have a better idea what they have in their young pitchers (Nola's elbow, Eflin's knees, Valesquez general health, progress by Thompson, et al)
2) inevitably some veteran pitcher will come up lame or have lost a couple MPH on his FB and hopefully the GM of a contending team is desperate

Otherwise wait until July. Since money is not an issue, why sell low, gamble that you can get more, since selling low just lands you more marginal prospects to be lost in the Rule 5 draft or the waiver wire.
Phillies have the organizational depth to gamble on upside, so they should be patient and risk getting nothing rather than settle for peanuts.

julio 2016-12-31 18:39:08 UTC #872

Good idea. Wish I'd thought of that!

harmony55 2016-12-31 18:48:34 UTC #873

julio:

harmony55:

Clay Buchholz at $13.5 million is still more than most clubs can absorb. Hence, the ongoing limited trade value.
This is true - but the Phillies, if they choose, can trade Buchholz along with a large bucket of cash, which means their market for trading Buchholz can be much larger than Boston's market was - because Boston needed to shed the salary. The Phils can just eat it.

Buchholz at $13.5 million may not command much. Buchholz at $3.5 million would be a bargain, worth trading something of value for. Somewhere between those two numbers, there could be a deal - Buchholz + cash in return for prospect of real value.

I doubt if the Phils are looking for such a deal (or any Buchholz deal, really) at this point. The strategy appears to be to have him pitch; if he pitches effectively, he becomes that much more attractive to the market come mid-July. The Phils don't need a prospect in return this spring; they need prospects for the long run, and July's a fine time to make a deal.

We can agree that Phillies don't have the same motivation to move Clay Buchholz that the Red Sox had. For that reason a trade of Buchholz is unlikely to happen.

But if the Phils tested the trade market this offseason, the return would approximate Josh Tobias ... another reason a trade is unlikely to happen.

julio 2016-12-31 18:56:37 UTC #874

I obviously do not agree with harmony55's last post... 🤷

bkeich 2016-12-31 19:12:01 UTC #875

But the return would be much larger if the Phils were willing to eat most of Buchholz salary.

There is logic to saying that we should let Kendrick, Buchholz and Hendrickson play and trade them at the trade deadline, but honestly I think all 3 are less than 50% likely to play well. All have very suspect histories or are getting older and on the downside of their career. If we want to hold on to guys for the trade deadline we need to improve our odds with more players or risk repeating the disaster that was the 2016 team. (no one available to trade).

harmony55 2016-12-31 19:26:24 UTC #876

julio:

This kind of depends on whether the Mariners want Clay Buchholz. The thing here is, the Phillies have absolutely no need to trade Buchholz, to Seattle or to anybody else. Unlike the Red Sox, the Phils can easily absorb Buchholz' salary (even if he's a complete stiff).

If the Mariners want Buchholz, and are willing to part with Seth Smith, and if the Phillies want Smith (and I have no idea if any of these players are really of interest to the teams that would acquire them) - the Phillies could trade Buchholz and $10 million to the Mariners for Smith. I'm not recommending this deal, but it's well within the Phils' resources.

So if the Mariners really want Buchholz, and really need him without taking on his contract (which I can well imagine might be an issue for them), the Phils could be in a position to trade "salary relief" in the form of cash to the Mariners with Buchholz, in exchange for a real prospect, whether Seth Smith or somebody else. And Josh Tobias is utterly irrelevant to that - it would be about the Mariners' need for Buchholz (if that's real), and the Phillies' ability to throw enough cash into the deal to leverage a prospect back in return.

This Seattle fan came over here to discuss Clay Buchholz only because a Phillie blogger for SB Nation mentioned Seth Smith in a piece headlined "Are There Any More Ways to Improve 2017 Phillies Roster?":

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2016/12/23/14060030/are-there-any-more-ways-to-improve-2017-phillies-roster

The Phillies indeed may have no interest in Seth Smith and, according to another SB Nation blogger, the Mariners have no interest in Clay Buchholz:

Still, I enjoy Hot Stove discussions. Happy New Year.

julio 2016-12-31 19:30:03 UTC #877

Happy New Year to you, too, Harmony55. (We'll get a separate thread up for that soon, I'm sure, too!)

I'm not surprised that some blogger mentioned Seth Price. Bloggers (and posters at places like this!) throw all kind of things against the wall. That, of course, means little about what might be going on in the minds of GMs - a good percentage of the time, the blogger/poster "ideas" are pretty absurdly one-sided (e.g., we'll trade Buchholz, Aaron Altherr, and Freddy Galvis for Mike Trout. Hey, why wouldn't the Angels do that?!).

zambonir 2016-12-31 21:58:50 UTC #878

Yeah, we still have PTSD. Managerial discretion is overstated in general, I think. But if Klentak signs Moss for $4 million or more, it's not gonna be for 200 ABs (and if Moss chooses to sign with the Phillies, he will have been promised a satisfying role). Even with Bourjos, Mackanin didn't have to be told to play Bourjos (and if Klentak had wanted to see more of Goedell, he could have made that happen without it turning into a "don't tell me how to make my line-up" drama).

At the same time, Mackanin has publicly stated he wanted a veteran bat or two in the line-up this year, so it would seem Klentak is trying to help him out (or simply agrees that is the case). I think worrying about blocking Alther might be besides the point, I don't think the Phillies are planning to play him full-time regardless. It's just that a well-paid Moss is likely to be handed more starts than a Bourjos/Franceoeur type (or Quinn).

Moss would have been a fine almost-everyday player on a team without Kendrick.