Phillies Prospect Lists

[andyb]

It is not too early to have a preliminary judgement on the last 4 years though. 2015 looks poor. 2016 will have a decent return, but maybe not relative to draft position and having a higher pool. 2017 is pretty neutral relative to expectations.

The whole point of a prospect thread is to rate them, and ideally rate them relative to our competition. Of course there is no definitive answer on whether a class is successful until the players are all 25+. But it is equally OK to also look at 2016 and think the relative value we are going to get for our number one pool is less than others with similar pools have gotten.

[Taudawg]

I read very few gripes about the Phillies drafts as they were happening in 15, 16 and 17. It is easy to criticize in hindsight, because it appears those drafts didn't or aren't working out. Let's remember Randolph was not considered a reach at 10...most scouts liked him at or around that number. Moniak was a top 10 talent, selected at 1 so the Phils could also nab Gowdy. You need a little luck to go your way. Utley was drafted 15th overall and has the very best WAR of any player EVER taken at 15th...by 20 points. The last Braves player picked #1 to post a 2 WAR was Mike Minor drafted in 2009. Not one Braves #1 pick since has posted a season 2 WAR.

[zambonir]

I believe the Braves' system is more about the international success (with or without the cheating). And if they didn't draft well from 2009 to 2014 why did we hire our director of scouting away from them?

Albeit, he was international, not domestic, which has also always puzzled me. But I think that tells you how managerial and process-oriented the job is, as does the fact that Klentak hasn't put in his own guy. You're not doing much scouting or even decision-making (the people above him make the big calls), you're running a department (with analytics now added to the scouts, and they've certainly made big changes there).

What you say, however, is the reason why development seems to have been the fall guys, rather than drafting.

[jimbomill]

I read very few gripes about the Phillies drafts as they were happening in 15, 16 and 17

I read plenty of posts about our wanting Stephenson, Happ and Kaprielian. I don't recall many folks on this board hoping for Randolph. in 2015.
For 2016, I recall a ton of posts hoping for Puk or Groome and even Senzel over MM. Once the pick was made, there were tons rationalizing the pick.
For 2017, Bukauskus was a more desired choice by many. Heck, Pavin Smith and Evan White were mentioned maybe even more that Haseley.

So, we all remember different things I guess.

[andyb]

It does not really matter though what any of us thought at the time of the draft. We are not the professionals. The Phillies and their staff are. So once a draft occurs, all the pre-draft reasoning is kind of meaningless since we pivot to judging the results.

If I recall I was generally positive on the 2016 draft. I liked the Moniak pick though thought they should have received a larger discount on the bonus. At that point the consensus was that the Phillies staff was valuing things like a hit tool more and that was refreshing. The problem of course is that it is hard to judge a HS hit tool and the Phillies appear to have judged poorly. The Gowdy pick was exactly what they should have done though it is fair to note that the HS pitcher the Braves got just before us (Wentz) was probably the pitcher we were angling for.

After that I generally like picks like Stobbe with athletic upside. I loved the JoJo Romero pick and was OK with balancing that with a safer pick in Irvin even though his bonus was a bit high.

Other than the Gowdy pick where there has been bad injury luck though, the Phillies really should be judged on the picks they made relative to where they were made and tangentially the bonus they got. At this point Senzel would clearly have been a better choice. Puk too even with the injury. The Phillies made these picks based on their own scouting and bonus value recommendations. Board opinions don't matter when we have results.

[Squire]

Agree. I don't understand the view that somehow the people whose full time jobs and who get paid quite well to make the decisions on behalf of the Phillies DON'T have to be smarter than a bunch of knuckleheads who post on a message board about the Phillies.

[bigegypt0417]

Agree. I don't understand the view that somehow the people whose full time jobs and who get paid quite well to make the decisions on behalf of the Phillies DON'T have to be smarter than a bunch of knuckleheads who post on a message board about the Phillies.

It does matter to a small degree...most of the people slamming their drafts liked them at the time...as did many of those who were grading drafts...they haven't worked out as of yet but I don't think it's a point that should be brought up.

[zambonir]

Our opinions shouldn't matter but Taudawg is not wrong that the Phillies' picks weren't wildly out of sync with the rest of the world. My recollection of 2016 is that the top guys were considered largely interchangeable depending on position age and risk (i.e. there was a time when Jason Groome could have just as easily gone #1). And drafting 10th in 2015 that was probably also true of everyone taken between 8-14. But sure, compared to the teams who made better picks, they got it wrong.

It's just hard to really assess the problems or needed changes when the 2015 draft was pre-Klentak and (IMO) the 2016 draft still had to rely largely on the inherited scouting (and still largely nascent analytics) apparatus. He owns them now, because he kept Almaraz, plus he's still using guys like Charlie, Bowa, Mackanin and Gillick as advisers, but lots of other changes have been made, and it's still too early to tell what they really mean or if they'll bear fruit.

Seems to me there's as much of an issue with the international stuff, in terms of the current overall weakness. Luck and lottery tickets are great, Venezuela's nice, and everyone thinks Sal shoots the moon (and therefore just assumes his bosses aren't giving him enough support or money) but it is an equal (if not greater) component of system strength or weakness.

[andyb]

The relative balance at the top of the draft (according to most public sources) did make that 1-1 pick a little trickier. I just feel it is on the Phillies to still make the right choice. One can't give them a pass just because there was no obvious choice like Bryce Harper.

In 2015 I don't think the draft was universally praised BTW. I thought Randolph was a bit of a reach. We gave the Phillies the benefit of the doubt in that they were considering hit tools more seriously, but I also remember questioning the value of a SS that was immediately moved to left field that did not have much speed or power (which one would expect from a high pick). The fact is we know much less about these prospects compared to basketball and football, so we tend to give the team more of the benefit of the doubt at draft time than in those other sports.

[bigegypt0417]

Also...the 2016 draft is not close to having its ending written. Moniak had a very good second half at clearwater and will play at reading as a newly minted 21 year old.

Hopefully we see Gowdy begin to develop as well.

[zambonir]

Well, indeed, Moniak's future is unwritten. And he was also never going to be Bryce Harper. I definitely remember people who disliked the pick at the time because his ceiling was said to be Steve Finley. That's actually a very high ceiling, but not a star.

[andyb]

Nobody is making a definitive rating of the 2016 (or any recent draft though). This is a prospect rating thread. It is very proper to rate the picks from the 2016 draft with how they are doing today relative to where they are drafted. That is a preliminary rating, but it is the best we can do at this time. I am not saying the draft was a failure. What I am saying is that the Phillies to this point have accrued less prospect value than expected based on where they drafted. Maybe a B-/C+ grade if one was trying to put a grade on it. That might represent good value if they had been drafting 10th or 15th. But they weren't.

People get way too sensitive when you note that Moniak is not as good as the average 1-1 pick and that so far they have gotten little from Gowdy or Stobbe (3 guys who got more than $10 million of cumulative bonuses). Those are facts as things stand today. Maybe it will change in 5 years, but then we can revisit the statement as to whether the draft is a success or failure at that time. Now all we can do is note their progress and compare it to other players drafted around the same time or signed for similar bonuses.

[DurhamBull]

I noticed that Stobbe didn't play much in 2018. Was he injured? It looks like more or less a lost season for him.

[Taudawg]

I certainly would like for the Phillies to draft better or have (create) more luck in drafting, but when I use BR's draft sort tools https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/ - the Phillies aren't really bad. Take the top ranked Padres for example...sort their 1st round picks. The only player of note in last decade is Trea Turner who now plays for Nationals. Yes, you can say recent 1st round picks like Gore and Quantrill, etc are top 100 prospects, but their minor league numbers are not great so are they still ranked based on pre-draft reputation (a-la Alec Bohm)? The Padres top 3 prospects are international signings.

[fish]

the Phillies aren't really bad. Take the top ranked Padres for example...sort their 1st round picks.

I’d go even further- I think the Padres, Braves, and White Sox #1 picks the last 4 years are all pretty “meh” considering draft position. Not excusing the Phillies, because somehow the Astros and Dodgers still seem to do better.

Before the last draft the Phillies did a bit of an overhaul in their scouting department. I’m still receptive to seeing how they perform. The Bohm and Vierling picks look better in terms of targeted hitters.

[el-pietro]

The Astros have drafted a lot of very good players but even they don't have a blemish free history of first round draft picks and we shoudl be very familiar with that!

Between 2009 and 2015 the Astros selected 13 first* round players. Six of those players have made the majors so far. I think its unfair to judge their picks form 2016-2018 too harshly yet as they are still progressing their the minors. So 6 of 10 have made it to the majors.

Those 6 players have combined for 55.9 fWAR and 57.1bWAR which is very impressive but that is mostly made up by three players, Springer, Correa and Bregman.

2009 - Pick 21: Jiovanni Mier - has not made the majors - After 10 years I think its fair to call that pick a bust
2010 - Pick 8: Delino DeShields Jr. 4.1 fWAR, 4.2 bWAR. Not a complete bust but not exactly a success either. Hes a marginal role player at best, which is useful but for the 8th pick you probably want more.
2010 - Pick 19: Mike Foltynewicz: 6.9 fWAR, 4.1 bWAR. Strange one, he had been below replacement and then average between 2014 and 2017 but was an all star in 2018. Interesting one to track going forward as he is in his age 27 season, was 2018 a one off or is this who he is now? He was traded as part of a package for Evan Gattis (5.4 WAR for the Astros) and a player who has not yet made the mahors. Overall probably a good pick for the Astros.
2010 - Pick 33 Mike Kvansnicka - has not made the majors - After 9 years I think its fair to call that pick a bust
2011 - Pick 11: George Springer - 18.2 fWAR, 18.7 bWAR. Probably their best value pick for the position. Also won a World Series MVP which doesn't show up in the stats and is very valuable.
2012 - Pick 1: Carlos Correa - 15.3 fWAR, 18.3 bWAR. A very good pick, any team would be happy with the level of production he has provided.
2013 - Pick 1: Mark Appel - has not made the majors, is a complete bust. Is he even in baseball anymore? They did manage to package him along with Vince and two other eventual nobodies for Ken Giles who helped them win a world series, so they are probably happy overall but the draft pick was not used optimally.
2014 - Pick 1: Brady Aiken. has not made the majors, isn't in organised baseball anymore and they didn't even manage to sign him, so a complete bust except...
2015 - Pick 2: Alex Bregman. fWAR 12.1, bWAR 12.7 They turned that failed draft pick into a star who has already helped them win a World Series and is only 2014
2015 - Pick 5: Kyle Tucker fWAR -0.7, bWAR -0.9. Only reached the majors last year so a bit early to write him off.
2015 - pick 37: Daz Cameron. Has not made the majors yet.

They originally had 4 picks in the top five, including 3 number 1s and two of them were disasters. However they turned one of those disasters into a number two pick who is a star and traded another as part of a package for a closer who has been hit and miss but who did contribute to a WS.
Its not too different from what the Sixers did with 4 top 3 picks between 2014 and 2017. Astros got Correa and Bregman. Sixers got Joel and Ben. Springer is the key difference.

I'd definitely take their draft success but it shows that number 1 is rarely a guarantee.

[BaseballCat]

Daz Cameron was traded to the Tigers to get Verlander which worked out very well for the Astros. His minor league numbers are solid for a 22 yr old center fielder.

[mdougherty12]

Kyle Tucker doesn't turn 22 until July, and he's generally regarded as among the 15 best prospects in MLB, so I would agree that he shouldn't be written off just yet.

[Taudawg]

Moniak is younger today than the day Bregman was drafted. Certainly not comparing the two, but there's still time...

[jimbomill]

but there's still time...

I still am hoping he blossoms into a very good player.