Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

Austinfan 2017-01-19 22:18:09 UTC #1041

Exactly. Unlike a proven veteran where age is the big consideration (along with salary), because the question is how long they can maintain that performance, with young players with limited track records, the question is whether the performance is a fluke or something sustainable.
Hernandez probably has the most value since his performance is similar to his full season in AAA in 2013 and commiserate with his raw talent.
Rupp is a question, can he maintain last year's power or improve upon it, same with Galvis, was his change in stance a blip or a sign that he's turned the corner.

Since their current trade value won't bring a blue chip, and we have plenty of red chip prospects, it makes more sense to play them this year and make a decision next winter about who to keep and who to trade.
The same applies to Joseph and Hoskins.
Now if someone offers a potential 5 WAR OF for Hernandez or Rupp, well, that's a different matter. But a potential 2-3 WAR OF, we got plenty of those at Lehigh.

andyb 2017-01-19 22:37:45 UTC #1042

Hernandez and Rupp both have value and would bring back at least a top 100 prospect. Could they get better? Sure. They could also get worse however. Rupp's season as you keep pointing out was in the 11-15 range in advanced stats last year among catchers. That has value even if you only buy into his skills about 90% like I do. And Hernandez just turned in a 3+ WAR season. Of course he could bring back a player with 5 WAR potential that is still in the minors (and thus has risk).

The danger of waiting is just as much as the potential reward. AND THE FACT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE CRAWFORD AND ALFARO AND KINGERY/VALENTIN is meaningful. There is risk in making a trade. The reward is also potentially greater since it is very possible we will throw guys llke Galvis and Rupp to the bench at some point this season if the prospects replace them. Then their value would be much worse than today even if they had been mostly repeating their 2016 season.

Crawford has a strong chance of being our best player by next season. Trading Galvis coming off a 20 HR season should be a no-brainer. He is already 27 and his value is just not going to change that much. He is a second-division starting SS and that has value and is more valuable to other teams because we are replacing him potentially with a first-division starting SS.

zambonir 2017-01-19 23:04:17 UTC #1043

I wish I could say I felt that way. But if Franco is Dave Hollins and Herrera is Victorino (or even a hair below Werth) that's still pretty good. I don't believe either of them are going to approach Rollins/Howard/Utley levels. Perhaps a better word for that level is "superstar."

As for much of the rest of the debate, it is entirely possible there are players in the system who will end up being stars (Herrera fits that description already). But it's still always a good to have more players who project to do so from Day 1.

Phils2020 2017-01-20 16:01:05 UTC #1044

Well the Dodgers are in need of a 2B now that they traded Kendrick. Would they want Hernandez? what would The Dodgers, be willing to give up for Hernandez? How about Starling Heredia , the # 13 prospect in the Dodgers farm system per MLB.com ? Is that asking too much?

Patchmk88 2017-01-20 16:50:10 UTC #1045

Personally I think if we did trade Hernandez we could get better. He is controlable, cheap, and an average regular 2b (maybe more if he continues to play like he did in the 2nd half of 2016).

Les229 2017-01-20 17:08:30 UTC #1046

I think the Phils have reached the point where they keep the good guys. I liked the Giles trade, but that was then. Now, the Phils are on the verge of contending. I don't want any more good guys for a hand full of lottery tickets. Trades should be for improving this team right now, not pie in the sky, bye and bye. Yes I would like to trade Hernandez, His shortcomings will get the team beat in a playoff scenario, but not for a rookie league star. He is a bonafide major league talent, such as he is, and his trade should strengthen the team in their pursuit of a pennant.

bkeich 2017-01-20 18:16:03 UTC #1047

As far as stars go, I agree with the earlier discussion that the "up and coming" players don't have obvious stars, except possibly Crawford, but this isnt a disaster. In the run of 5 years we just concluded we had Rollins, who came up as a very good player but it wasnt obvious he would be a star, he looked more like a solid ML player initially. Howard was almost a surprise, he had power but big holes until he got to Reading and destroyed the league, that seemed to give him confidence that lasted his whole career. Hamels was a future star from day 1. Utley looked like a solid ML player who wasnt going to be particularly good defensively and had OK but not great power (funny to say now). Victorino and Werth were reclaims or Rule 5 who were only possible players.

You need some luck. The more tickets to play we have for stardom, the more of a chance of one of the players we have being stars.

Alfaro might be a star. He has plus power and a rocket for an arm. He could be Pudge.
Nola is not flamethrower, but he could be a very, very good pitcher. I really thought he was on his way to a consistent 3.00 ERA guy until it all derailed.
Velasquez could be a very, very good starter. He has electric stuff and solid mental makeup, he just needs refinement.
There are others.

We just don't know until these guys get going. I would rather see a Hamels in the staff, but those guys are extremely rare.

I think we have a future core and we really don't know who the All Stars will be. Franco might be, Herrera, Alfaro, Velasquez, etc. are possibilities. These guys all need another 2-3 seasons to figure out how good they are.

(I intentionally avoided players below AA, they are just complete unknowns)

allentown 2017-01-20 19:59:12 UTC #1048

Add to your list of surprise/serendipitous additions Chooch who coming into his first full season at Reading wasn't even the #1 catcher on the team for the first part of the season. He found his offense that season and soared from there. Without Kyle Kendrick, of all people, coming up in mid-season we don't have that WC, despite Kyle not being able to record even 4K/9 as a Phillies major leaguer. What really turned the tide and got us the WC was the Lidge trade and the insane season he had in 2008.

fish 2017-01-21 04:04:51 UTC #1049

Every single move they made this winter has been with the intent to make sure the acquisition was not a hinderance in 2018. The closest deal they made to add more young talent was to dump Cordero for a lesser arm who didn't need to be protected. Ruben Amaro had a winter like this when I guess he forgot he should have been rebuilding. Back then we made the excuse that the dead payroll didn't give them flexibility. I don't expect trades for trading sake, but was there really not a single move they could find to try make 2018 and beyond better rather than just trying not to hurt it?

tom81 2017-01-21 12:35:31 UTC #1050

And it a given that not one of Kentrick, Saunders, Benoit, Bucholtz and Neshek can be moved during the year for younger talent that will improve 2018 and beyond? I think the strategy employed was outstanding this offseason.

fish 2017-01-21 15:16:25 UTC #1051

I don't have a problem with those moves- I'd agree that they were even necessary. As we saw last year, it's no guarantee they will be flipped later though. I just don't get how they haven't been able to add any new young talent with the potential to be a part of something beyond 2017. They have money to take chances.

Patchmk88 2017-01-21 16:36:27 UTC #1052

What young talent is out there that they can add with just money? There were no young talented free agents so they couldn't do anything there. To trade for young talent you have to give up young talent most of the time. The two things we could have done to add more young talent without giving away something (in terms of our young talent) is to take on a horrible contract from a money strapped team if they will throw in some nice prospects, or sign a young international star. We have never done the latter (although I wish we would), instead opting to not go over the international spending so that we don't have to sit out a year. The former is hard to do (Atlanta has done it a couple of time) because there aren't a ton of team willing to do it.

I think what we've done this year is bring in some pieces that can be moved at the deadline if we aren't contending (which I don't suspect us to) and they are producing. If they are not performing then you sit them on the bench and bring up a prospect who has mastered the minors. Since they are only signed for one year, we have no obligation to play them. Next year and the year after is when we will fill holes with free agents and trades.

Austinfan 2017-01-21 16:56:27 UTC #1053

We took on a big contract to sweeten a trade.

Problem is to find big contracts that teams want to dump but aren't so long that they'll constrain decision making down the road, so a couple years is fine, but a lot of bad deals that extend to 2020 are out there, but I can't see what a team could give that would make those contracts worthwhile.

schillingfan 2017-01-22 22:55:27 UTC #1054

I'd take on a contract that extended to 2020. Beyond that I think the budget gets more difficult. But right now we have no bad long term contracts of that length and the cap is going to increase and the money will be there, since we are a big market team. Of course the issue is always if the talent we are getting back is enough to take on the risk of the longer contract.

andyb 2017-01-23 19:37:54 UTC #1056

Dodgers and Cesar Hernandez - more articles out there suggesting there is a possible fit. Obviously the return would have to be significant, but if you are not sold on his defense and think that some combo of Kendrick and Galvis could be a bridge to Valentin/Kingery then it is not the worst "sell high" option.

donaldorc 2017-01-23 20:18:14 UTC #1057

Brookover has an article in yesterday's philly.com that shows his, Mackanin's and my optimism about Franco becoming a superstar for the Phillies.

Patchmk88 2017-01-23 20:26:46 UTC #1058

Great read. If he can become more patient and realize that he doesn't have to try to hit every pitch 480 feet, he will be an all star type player.

julio 2017-01-23 20:27:18 UTC #1059

... and if Franco somehow doesn't become a superstar, we can run him out of town!

bkeich 2017-01-23 21:25:47 UTC #1060

Just a funny article.

Comparing him to Ryan Howard and saying "Howard wasnt even in the Major Leagues yet", yea, but not that long after he was Rookie of the Year and MVP. Sorry, it would be a miracle if Franco put up those numbers in the next 2 years.

Comparing him to Mike Schmidt and saying Schmidt hit 0.196 at that age. Yea, and then he won 3 straight HR crowns on his way to 8.

Franco doesnt have to be a superstar. He really doesnt. He needs to be a very good player, and he almost certainly will be. He can flat out hit,a and as others have said once he learns he can't turn a baseball into individual atoms he will be. Implying that he has to be the Superstar that carries the team is just silly, if we have one of those guys (now or in the near future) it is almost impossible to guess who it will be, maybe him, maybe Crawford, maybe Herrera, maybe (pick one you like). No one player must take that role for this team to succeed.

Comparing him to Howard and Schmidt just makes his issues worse. He isnt those guys, he is very unlikely to be that type of player, and the next 10 years can go very well even if he is "only" a very good player.

zambonir 2017-01-23 21:52:46 UTC #1061

I thought those comparisons were still flattering. A reminder that he is still putting it together. No, he's not likely to be Schmidt or Howard next year. He's probably not a superstar. If he is Burrell or Abreu that would be fantastic. Julio's comment about the fans running people out of town is on the money too, but if you are a player of that caliber on a team with one or two superstars (and a playoff team) you are beloved. When you are on a bad team - in Franco's case, he carries the burden of being the only notable homegrown hitter for the last two seasons - the spotlight can be unfair.

So long as the rest of the team's development (and free agent signings) work out over the next two years, Franco will be fine. If he's ultimately only the fifth-best hitter on the team rather than the first or second-best that should mean that the roster has improved. But he still only had the fifth-best OPS last season. He doesn't have to be Schmidt, which would make him the best 3B in the game, but I'd like him to be one of the three best in the NL.