Phillies 2016-2017 offseason Discussion

[Philsmania]

I continue to be amazed at how many times something negative is said about a player in the media. Rupp could be or very well might be the best trade chip the Phillies could play this Winter. So instead of saying he needs to get better at x y z and improve at A B C, how about saying he is still relatively young and honing his craft and will only get better? Then stop talking. If a trade partner has specific concerns about a players' short comings, then that comes up in their discussion on the value when discussing the return.

Chances are, other organizations know all this stuff that's going out in the media, anyway. ML scouting most likely includes, "intelligence gathering" on other organizations, of course done within ethical bounds. Do you really think some GM is sitting in his office somewhere else reading philly.com saying "Dang, I didn't realize that Rupp has some things to work on defensively, he's not worth as much as I thought"?

For years, we've complained about the Phillies FO feeding us propaganda and not leveling with us. Now, they tell the truth about something and many here want them to put a happy face on everything.

[Philsmania]

Of course, isn't it part of Phillies' lore that they won the 1980 WS because they all hated Dallas? That's a hard myth to shake.

That said, I still think it's mostly much ado about nothing. If the clubhouse overall was not responding to or actually resents Mackanin, that would be bad, and we've certainly seen that before, but I don't think that's the case.

You know, there could be generational dynamics at work here. The players from the Greatest and Silent Generations were old school when men were supposed to be men and discipline was simply a fact of life. Being sensitive was seen as unmanly. And, yes it was a time when white men made all the rules, the time a certain presidential candidate wants us to go back to. The Baby Boomers (and the players of the Phillies first golden age from '74-'83 were Baby Boomers), meanwhile, reveled in the clash with questioning of authority from the Sixties on up. There's where the disdain between Dallas and the players may have come in. Meanwhile, Generation X and, even more so, the Millennials have an aversion to discipline and have always been treated in a more nuanced manner. And, fortunately, there is a greater degree of tolerance and sensitivity in the younger generations. What worked in older generations--clubhouse tirades, barking orders, men being men--just doesn't work anymore. Perhaps in Trump's time his locker room banter really existed in locker rooms. I don't get the sense that it does anymore though.

And yes, I think much of what Mack said this season was overblown. I didn't get the sense he "lost the clubhouse". We've seen times when managers have done that (think Leyva who began the '91 season on the hot seat with players griping about him in ST and didn't even last two weeks into that season, Bowa, Manuel in 2013, Sandberg). If there were any dustups between Mack and the players, they certainly didn't rise to those levels. There were ups and (yes, more) downs this season which was probably to be expected of a transitioning young team.

[Austinfan]

My recollection is that the issue was his pitch-calling, and communication with the pitchers. And maybe that is on the pitchers, not giving the younger player enough respect. But Rupp had very clearly won the starting job away from Chooch, and then there was a period where Ruiz started to play more again, and was paired with a few pitchers. It wasn't that major a change in the end though.

This article does put a lot of it on the pitchers.

articles.philly.com/2016-06-27/s ... y-catchers

100 starts before this season, it takes time to learn to call a game at the ML level.
And it will take as much time for Alfaro to learn to call a game, which is why they may want him as the backup as a rookie.

[andyb]

And it will take as much time for Alfaro to learn to call a game, which is why they may want him as the backup as a rookie.

Not sure there is evidence of any of that. I think there are more signs that they want Alfaro to play every day. In AAA to start the season and potentially the majors when there is an opening. The comments on Rupp in the paper also make it seem like the Phillies are likely to clear an opening for Alfaro when the time is right.

We also don't know anything about Alfaro's game-calling ability. Clearly catching is the most difficult position to master defensively, but we really need some evidence to say the Phillies don't like his game calling. As of now we don't have much. We do have Baseball America calling him the top defensive catcher in the minors, so it is not as if he is widely disliked back there. Each player is an individual and has their own unique development path.

[TheDave0206]

I'm a much bigger believer in developing your own closers than paying big money, but other than Neris, there isn't a ton of immediate options. Would Santiago Casilla be a possible low-risk, decent-reward-if-he-gets-hot option on a one year deal?

[Philsmania]

I'm sure if you go back you'll find some complaints from the veteran pitchers about Cooch's pitch calling his first couple seasons.
But it doesn't seem that Rupp was doing anything egregious.
While he doesn't have Alfaro's arm, he has a plus arm, and the base stealing is primarily the fault of a young rotation that haven't polished their mvoes to first.

Chooch became an iconic Phillie yet I remember times back in 2007 & early 2008 when many low information phans argued that Coste should start over him.

[allentown]

I'm sure if you go back you'll find some complaints from the veteran pitchers about Cooch's pitch calling his first couple seasons.
But it doesn't seem that Rupp was doing anything egregious.
While he doesn't have Alfaro's arm, he has a plus arm, and the base stealing is primarily the fault of a young rotation that haven't polished their mvoes to first.

Chooch became an iconic Phillie yet I remember times back in 2007 & early 2008 when many low information phans argued that Coste should start over him.

I liked Ruiz, based upon his Reading breakout, but understood the skepticism of other fans back then. Ruiz had a very unusual career arc. Even in his breakout Reading year, at age 25, he did not start the season as the starting catcher. He didn't reach 100 MLB AB until his age 28 season and the next year, 2008, his OPS fell to .620 and his BA to .219. Fans don't appreciate a catcher's D as much as we should and Ruiz was still very iffy with the bat in that championship season. There was still a lot of dispute on stat measurement of defensive value. BRef had Ruiz as a 0.1 WAR player back in 2008 -- +0.7 DWAR and slightly negative OWAR. Coste had an insane (for him) offensive season.

[zambonir]

Coste vs. Ruiz was not much of a real debate, but nobody really expected Ruiz to have the run he had. Right now Rupp would seem to be the opposite skill set. But either way, the fact that Ruiz panned out so impressively doesn't mean Rupp - or any other single player - will or won't, and it's probably unfair to Rupp that he has to be compared (as it was when Asche was frequently held up as an Utley-type player/personality).

[zambonir]

Buried in this Ryan Lawrence analysis of the 2016 infield is the "prediction" that the 2019 Phillies will have signed Manny Machado and moved Franco to 1B (with Alfaro, Crawford and Kingery rounding out the quintet).

phillyvoice.com/the-state-of ... e-infield/

[donaldorc]

Buried in this Ryan Lawrence analysis of the 2016 infield is the "prediction" that the 2019 Phillies will have signed Manny Machado and moved Franco to 1B (with Alfaro, Crawford and Kingery rounding out the quintet).

phillyvoice.com/the-state-of ... e-infield/

Hidden at the bottom of the page with absolutely no explanation.

[tom81]

mlbtraderumors.com/2016/10/2 ... t-id=74804
If I was Hellickson I would accept this offer if it was extended. That is a large certainty to give up while still offering him the chance to nogiatiate a multi year deal with the Phillies.

With the continued rise of the offer’s value, it becomes more and more enticing for free agents to accept the deal — particularly those whose free-agent earning capacity is limited to a two- or three-year contract

[zambonir]

As the story says, last year was the first time multiple players accepted a QO (and the year before was the first time ever). But last year the free agent supply was much larger/better. Hellickson is in a much stronger position, and is also on the young side for a UFA, so he is almost certainly not in a position where he has to settle for two or three years (four or five is quite possible). From what he said at the end of the season, he values that. It's not just financial security and injury insurance, it's knowing where you are going to live.

I don't think the Phillies want him to take the QO, and I definitely don't think they want to offer him a multi-year deal (because they aren't going to offer anyone a multi-year deal. Maybe two at the most).

[Philsmania]

I wonder how often teams and players "collude" on this stuff, come to a handshake agreement to make the QO and not accept it.

[bkeich]

I wonder how often teams and players "collude" on this stuff, come to a handshake agreement to make the QO and not accept it.

Raul Ibanez did it for us a few years ago.

Hellickson really isnt a collusion, he really is better off not accepting. He will be the #1 FA Starting Pitcher this offseason, and even if he is not really and Ace, he is young-ish (for a FA), coming off a solid season and has good "stuff" and makeup. He will get a 3-6 year contract easily and although I doubt he will get absolute top dollar his annual pay will be around the QO amount, but for multiple years.

I would rather have the draft pick. He just isnt worth what he will get paid (i.e. he is unlikely to be a consistent 4 WAR/year pitcher through the contract).

[andyb]

The question is not whether Hellickson is a 4 WAR pitcher consistently. That is a $30 million plus/year pitcher. As in Kershaw and a couple of others. The question is whether he is a 2 WAR pitcher or not. In 6 seasons he has had 3 good years all 3+ WAR. And 3 mediocre years at near zero WAR. The average (including a little injury time) is about 1.5 or 1.6 WAR per year. That is a $13-$14 million a year pitcher these days (WAR value was $8.3 million roughly last year). Maybe even a little more expensive with inflation.

A 3-4 year deal for Hellickson would cost more than that, but it is unlikely to approach $20 million a year. 3/48 or 4/60 seems a reasonable start though the market could get crazy pretty easily with few decent pitchers out there. It is a no-brainer to extend the QO. It is more complicated about signing him to a 3-4 year deal. We need someone to eat innings. We have money so overpaying a bit won't hurt us. The more complicated question is whether Hellickson is the right choice, or do they need to go for someone better. He is the floor talent-wise IMO. There are enough questions about all our young pitchers that we need someone at least as good as Hellickson to anchor them. Anything less in unacceptable and unwise if they want to compete sooner rather than later.

[Austinfan]

Never pay "WAR value," because it's set by the dumbest GMs ("winner's curse"). If you want to be a sub-.500 team, consistently overpay. What makes a good GM is recognizing value, any fool can pay the Fansgraph "market price."

I use $7M per expected WAR because if you're paying more, you can't afford a winning team (you don't get a lot of discounts from young players, because rookies and second year players tend to have low WAR as a group, see Franco, and by the 3rd-4th year, arbitration sets in and WAR becomes more expensive).

Question is what to expect from Hellickson?
His average was 1.5 WAR, but he was definitely improved last year.
However, no gain in velocity, no improvement in his changeup or control is likely, so there's little upside left, only downside.
I'd say 6 WAR over the next three years (and anything longer would be foolish) isn't unreasonable.

3yr/$42M would be a good deal, 3yr/$48M a slight overpay, anything higher or longer wouldn't be worthwhile.

The reason to resign him would be as an innings eater until the young pitchers mature, and then flip him.
Which means you'd want to structure a contract that's front loaded to make it easier to trade him.

[bigegypt0417]

3yr/$42M would be a good deal, 3yr/$48M a slight overpay, anything higher or longer wouldn't be worthwhile.

the problem with your scenario is that the market and how it works means you will lose out every single time. You cant keep building deals on what you believe will be the only useful years. That isn't the current state of baseball and it isn't how compeiting big market teams work.

[andyb]

Never pay "WAR value," because it's set by the dumbest GMs ("winner's curse"). If you want to be a sub-.500 team, consistently overpay. What makes a good GM is recognizing value, any fool can pay the Fansgraph "market price."

I use $7M per expected WAR because if you're paying more, you can't afford a winning team (you don't get a lot of discounts from young players, because rookies and second year players tend to have low WAR as a group, see Franco, and by the 3rd-4th year, arbitration sets in and WAR becomes more expensive).

Question is what to expect from Hellickson?
His average was 1.5 WAR, but he was definitely improved last year.
However, no gain in velocity, no improvement in his changeup or control is likely, so there's little upside left, only downside.
I'd say 6 WAR over the next three years (and anything longer would be foolish) isn't unreasonable.

3yr/$42M would be a good deal, 3yr/$48M a slight overpay, anything higher or longer wouldn't be worthwhile.

The reason to resign him would be as an innings eater until the young pitchers mature, and then flip him.
Which means you'd want to structure a contract that's front loaded to make it easier to trade him.

You get to set your own value of WAR? Ignoring data and neutral sources?? I prefer the math of places like Fangraphs when it came up with the $8.3 million number. You also cannot equate that with the salaries of pre-free agent players. Those players cannot be acquired simply for dollars. Apples and Oranges.

And you also don't answer the fundamental question of the team needing to add a veteran starter that is at least as good as Hellickson. If that takes more money than in your ideal scenario then you are recommending either doing nothing or accepting a rotation worse than last year. In each case that is unacceptable to me. Plus in terms of the overpay that offends your sensibilities, it is really a minor concern on a team with lots of payroll room. The Phillies will not pay more than the market for Hellickson as there is no reason to do that. Plus the market is somewhat depressed because of the QO.

This paints a scenario of the Phillies having all the leverage in the world. A draft pick for a QO is great. A 1-year deal for Hellickson is probably great also. And a multi-year deal won't be above market and likely would be somewhat below market value because of the QO. Again a great scenario for the Phillies because they can always say no. The question to focus on is whether we want Hellickson (not to flip him, but to pitch for us) or whether we want to acquire someone better.

[Austinfan]

Sure I can, because I work off the premise that there are only two kinds of FA signings that make sense:
1) value (underpay)
2) strategic (where synergies make the player worth more than his "market" value)

Otherwise, paying the going rate for free agents dooms you to mediocrity, like the Phillies the last few years when they had a big payroll and a sub-.500 team. Branch Rickey always has the last laugh.

The Phillies don't "need" veteran starter as good as Hellickson, they have 7 young starting prospects plus another 3-4 who'll start the season at Lehigh. Hellickson is a luxury that allows them to be a bit more conservative with their young pitchers, but he'd still be their 3rd or 4th best pitcher after Nola, Eickhoff and Velasquz. A top RP would have more value, but I'm not sure they're a priority destination this offseason for the couple RPs that would be worth pursuing. A top RP would be "Strategic" because the young RPs would be moved down the pecking order, strengthening the entire pen. Hellickson would merely be a small upgrade from Eflin or Asher or Thompson or Morgan.

[andyb]

It is just as likely that the Phillies can easily overpay (i.e. $10 million or more per expected WAR) simply because they have more payroll room. Unused dollars do not help make the team better. Overpaying hurts the Phillies less than just about any other team (PLUS AT NO POINT HAS ANYONE RECOMMENDED THAT THE PHILLIES OVERPAY FOR HELLICKSON).

Facts are facts though. The value of WAR is set by the market and just because you think it is too much does not change the facts.

The Phillies DO need a veteran starter. Ideally a #1 or #2. We all just saw Nola and Velasquez and Eflin fail to get through complete seasons. None are certain things for the future (though it is likely we have 2-3 decent starters long term). We have a bunch of #3-#5 starters at the moment and few that project to something better than that. That is a problem if you want to win in the future.