Phillies Hot Stove Discussion 2021-22

[flyers19rw]

Playing CF for the Phillies-Kris Bryant

[Sabin]

Thing is, a Byron Buxton who only plays 80 games a year is still twice as valuable as playing Odubel Herrera (or someone similar) for 160, and still not for twice as much money probably.

I think you have to be carful with this argument. Buxton may yield the a higher WAR in your example, but how many games does he actually play? 80? 40? Maybe he reverses trend and gives you 120? And, assuming whatever it is it leaves a significant number of games to be covered by a replacement, who is it and what's their projected WAR?

The Phillies may well move on from Herrera as it is; they surely would if a move for Buxton were made. The options they tried prior to settling on Herrera this season - which was virtually every other ML-ready CF they had - were dismal. So unless one were to make significant strides in the offseason (or the club adds another via trade/FA) you have to temper Buxton's productivity with that of the backups you have behind him. The Phillies have little to contribute with the latter, making the former a risky acquisition.

[allentown]

True, and the best of what we have (perhaps both Moniak and Kingery) will vanish in a trade for Buxton, probably along with a pitching/catching prospect. I hate this sort of trade which sacrifices some of our meagre stable of major league ready young talent for the privilege of paying $100 million to fill one of our many holes. I'd much rather just pay $100 Mill to an actual FA to fill one of our holes. The trade way you pay twice. I'm happy to sort out CF among Herrera, Moniak, and Kingery. I'm not happy to sort out SS with the guys we have in house. I stick with this preference, even if the pricey FA we sign costs us our 2nd round draft pick. Seager or Story if we are going big $ for a FA.

[andyb]

Do we really want to commit 100M?

The theory on signing Buxton is that you might get a $200 million plus player for $100 million.

[EDmuch]

It is my hope that DD is able to talk straight & convincingly to Middleton that whatever is done about the scouting, drafting & player development, it probably will not have any real impact until 2024 at the earliest, and most likely 2025. DD should then explain to Middleton that unless he wants to waste over $100 million dollars in salaries to Harper, Wheeler & Realmuto over the next 3 years, Middleton’s only move that has any chance of success before 2025 is to go all in and blow thru the salary cap for three years. DD should ask Middleton for an open checkbook for those 3 years & to trust that DD will spend the money wisely.

[zambonir]

think you have to be carful with this argument. Buxton may yield the a higher WAR in your example, but how many games does he actually play? 80? 40? Maybe he reverses trend and gives you 120? And, assuming whatever it is it leaves a significant number of games to be covered by a replacement, who is it and what's their projected WAR?

The Phillies may well move on from Herrera as it is; they surely would if a move for Buxton were made. The options they tried prior to settling on Herrera this season - which was virtually every other ML-ready CF they had - were dismal. So unless one were to make significant strides in the offseason (or the club adds another via trade/FA) you have to temper Buxton's productivity with that of the backups you have behind him. The Phillies have little to contribute with the latter, making the former a risky acquisition.

I dunno, I think if you did get 80 games and 3 WAR from Buxton, you can live with 1 WAR from your back-ups. Odubel gave us 1.8 and that would probably be okay if he was the 7th or 8th hitter in the order instead of the leadoff guy. Jankowski gave us 0.4, Vierling 0.3, even Quinn and Maton 0.2. Obviously I don't think you should pay a high price for Buxton if you don't believe he'll never play 100+ games for you but it's no better or worse than paying Cutch for an average annual WAR of 1.

If I could trade Moniak and Kingery as 2 of the 3 pieces for Buxton I'd do it yesterday. Nobody should be content going wth Herrera, Moniak, Kingery or Haseley. Herrera is not likely to be better next year (never mind they won't pick up his option and they will probably cut ties) and Kingery probably won't even be ready to compete for a spot on the 40 until May (labor dispute might help him there). One of Moniak and Haseley will likely be gone before then, while the other will compete for a bench spot (and may be better suited for LF).

It would be great if Kingery could rediscover his game though.

[Sabin]

Obviously I don't think you should pay a high price for Buxton if you don't believe he'll never play 100+ games for you but it's no better or worse than paying Cutch for an average annual WAR of 1.

I don't think Cutch has anything to do with the discussion of next year's CF. Your proposal of Buxton's number of games played is purely hypothetical; how can anyone be sure he's going to play 100+ games at this point?

[Austinfan]

Doesn't that cost you international money and draft picks?

One thing to do that to get to 95-100 wins and a legitimate shot at a WS
Quite another for 85-90 wins and a first round exit.

[andyb]

The draft pick penalties do not kick in now until a team is $40 million over the threshold ($250 million). I doubt there is any scenario where the Phillies would do that. And remember the players correctly want these thresholds increased in the next CBA and their argument of them not increasing as fast as revenues is very good. The MLB argument will be about the pandemic disrupting revenues, but that argument would likely only delay more significant increases tot he CBT.

[bigegypt0417]

Doesn't that cost you international money and draft picks?

One thing to do that to get to 95-100 wins and a legitimate shot at a WS
Quite another for 85-90 wins and a first round exit.

You want the phillies to go into another "rebuild" and I dont think that's going to happen. The phillies, with the investments of some money can compete for the division next year...tanking to get higher picks shouldn't be a goal for a team with the talent they actually have.

[allentown]

One thing to do that to get to 95-100 wins and a legitimate shot at a WS

You just keep repeating this and it's beyond silly, it is actually willfully ignorant, because the facts are so readily available. If you make the playoffs you have a shot at the WS. Maybe not enough a shot that you would consider it 'legitimate' but a shot. The Braves reached the playoffs this year with 88 wins. The Phillies had only 92 wins in 2008, when they won the 2008 WS. They had only 93 wins when they returned to the WS the following season. You do not need 95-100 wins to win the WS. The Phillies had that many wins. The Phillies met your 95-100 win standard the following year, but did not reach the WS. The next year, they exceeded your standard with 102 wins and did not escape the division series. There is simply no basis for your 95-100 win standard.

Even if the Phillies spend and only reach the playoffs, without advancing, that would be a major step forward for the Phillies and their fans. It was a little step forward this past year to finally have a winning record. An extremely long stretch of no winning record and no playoff appearance has a corrosive effect on an organization and its fan base. It truly is important to break the second of those unacceptable streaks.

Yes, if we spend big we almost certainly lose our #2 draft pick, because the guy(s -- and I'm only proposing we get one guy) would most likely be subject to compensation.

[Austinfan]

Think in terms of variance, if I put together an 85-90 win team, the odds of making the playoffs are what, 50%?
If I put together a 95 win team, those odds are close to what, 80-90%

There are two factors to consider, one is that team performance varies around an expected value, two is the threshold for making the playoffs varies year to year.

Using money to make up a performance gap is a fool's errand, using money to improve your odds after you've built a good team is the better strategy. Since penalties escalate, you want to get the most value for your overspend.

I'm not against spending money, I'm against pissing away money.

I had no problem with Harper, Wheeler, and JT's extension because the money was reasonable relative to the player's age and expected future performance. So they're not 1-2 year fixes but cornerstone moves.

But I believe you should only spend on 30+ year old players for the most part as short-term patches that you can walk away from, the big mistakes in FA is paying for past performance.

[EDmuch]

AF you continue to set up straw men to knock down. No one is saying to throw money at over the hill players.

But if we sign Carlos Correa who is what? 27, 28. We would be signing a player in his prime who would be a solid addition to the core group and at a position of need.

[gmwannabe]

interesting mention of Curtis Mead on another site. moving up three levels this year and playing in the AFL. one never knows but looks like he might make it. kudos to the phils scouting that signed him, from down under, and kudos to the Rays staff for identifying him for the trade. hopefully not another George Bell or Ryne Sandberg.
gm

[julio]

AF you continue to set up straw men to knock down. No one is saying to throw money at over the hill players.

Kimbrel?

[zambonir]

I don't think Cutch has anything to do with the discussion of next year's CF. Your proposal of Buxton's number of games played is purely hypothetical; how can anyone be sure he's going to play 100+ games at this point?

In this comparison Marte, or some other 32-33 year-old FA, is Cutch. I'm just not sure the opportunity cost is worse on Buxton given his age and talent than it would be a on an older player. We picked Cutch for three years over the more injury-prone Michael Brantley on a two-year deal and Brantley wound up being better and healthier (and remained so this season).

I think you just never know, even with a history like Buxton's. But as the middle ground between Odubel Herrera and Marte, with the highest ceiling of either, hard not to be intrigued.

I would rather go all-in on Correa than trade for Buxton certainly. The biggest contract of the year probably, but if you fill that hole (both SS and in the batting order) you don't have to spend as much on CF or LF. Heck,

[EDmuch]

Seems to me consensus on this board is no Kimberll

[andyb]

I would not say no to Kimbrel. If it is picking up the last year of his contract AND not giving up any significant prospects then I would be OK with that. That last part will be difficult of course.

[zambonir]

Kimbrel's still appealing under the right circumstances (like the Sox paying half his salary and still not that much in return, or if he reaches free agency).

The only way to avoid ending up with another David Robertson or Kimbrel 2019-2020 is to never overpay for proven veteran late-inning relievers. In both cases you end up not having enough late-inning relievers. Phillies already have to replace 3 - let's assume Neris is back and they sign one other proven/more expensive guy, will Brogdon/Seranthony/Coonrod/Alvarado be enough for the other top spots?

[nycphils]

I think we will have a clearer picture of what to do once the non-tender deadline passes. I will be surprised if they can’t cobble together a 2-3+ WAR platoon at one or both of LF and CF from what we have (Odubel, Haseley, Vierling, Moniak) plus players available as inexpensive FA. If they can’t then you have to consider options like Buxton.