Phillies Prospect Lists

[andyb]

Why is there confidence that the new changes will work if the host of changes in the previous few years did not? Some of the analytic ideas are probably good, but we saw on the big club that they were implemented poorly.

I hope they are getting better at this. There is unfortunately little evidence of that so far though. This is Klentak's 5th year in charge. He does not get a pass for years 1-4.

[allentown]

It will be a plus if the Phillies just stick with an approach. All of this frenetic change is lethal.

[zambonir]

It's been more glacial than frenetic I'd say. 2016 and 2017 were basically static. Jordan stayed through 2018. Last year really the first one with a fully revamped development group (and, presumably, philosophy). But then, yeah, they go and change managers at the MLB level, and scouting directors too.

So no he doesn't get a pass at all but as with nearly everything else it seems like 2016-2018 were basically wasted. The 2016 picks were not made with the same organizational approach (to either drafting or development) and the '17-'18 drafts (while still good) were still entrusted to Amaro's guy (and it seems like he quite rather than implement what Klentak wanted. Maybe he was right!)

[Austinfan]

I think one problem was finding the right people, Young turned out to be a disaster, the Driveline guys have been here what, two years (Winkelman credits them with helping Damon Jones).

Given the inertia in the Phillies organization, it's not surprising that Klentak couldn't completely overhaul the organization in a year or two, I'm sure there was a lot of push back behind the scenes from the old guard. Kapler was a mistake b/c he lacked the gravitas to garner cooperation, whereas Girardi is the perfect balance, because he has the resume to obtain buy-in.

It may not all work, but at least they're finally trying.

[zambonir]

Young just wasn't well-suited for a teaching job. He may still be a great analyst. Or maybe the material he was tasked with implementing was't so great, and whatever Houston's secret sauce was didn't travel.

And we hired Bonifay from Houston too. These days Houston's magic gift for scouting and analytics doesn't look as good, and it's not like they've developed young pitchers. Just fairly high-end pros (and journeymen) who they made better.

[allentown]

It's been more glacial than frenetic I

I'd say our adoption of analytical insights from our inexperienced analytics department, without an effort to tailor these insights to the skills of individual players has been frenetic. It has certainly not been glacial when viewed against the life-cycle of a player's development. I feel strongly that once you decide to add a player to your organization, that the most productive approach for both player and team is to develop that player into the best version of that player's style of player that he can possibly be. If he's a contact hitter, you don't try to change his swing to get a higher launch angle. If he is a pitcher who does best with low sliders and FB, you don't force him to be a high FB pitcher, unless he shows an aptitude for that. In that case you still have to be very careful to explain and sell the change and how it can work for him. The Phillies prefer the square peg - round hole one-size-has-to-fit-all approach. If you want only square pegs in your organization, then develop the round pegs you have into the best round pegs they can possibly be and then trade them at the height of their value, while telling your scouts not to sign any more round pegs. I also did not understand the Phillies determination to turn Kingery into a utility guy.

[andyb]

t's been more glacial than frenetic I'd say. 2016 and 2017 were basically static.

That is not really true though. While it might have been undermining Jordan and others, we had a bunch of new hires in the front office and development staff in 2016 and 2017. We are on what seems our 3rd wave of changes under Klentak. The Drive Line additions might be great, but one could argue continuity is good too.

[Austinfan]

Continuity is not good when it perpetuates mediocrity.

The analytic problem was at the ML level, especially Young, and it's obvious from the pushback that he didn't understand how to use analytics.

All sports are exercises in applied game theory, and anyone who has been exposed to repeated games knows that strategies change over time in dynamic games due to learning. And anyone who has watched sports know that different players have different skill sets, and good coaching optimizes each players' set of sklls, instead of imposing a "one size fits all" approach.

The problem at the minor league level I suspect was just the time it takes to replace an entire system of coaches primarily hired b/c of their connection to the "ole boy" network. And to identify and hire new people who are better teachers with a better understanding of biomechanics, etc.

Now if we don't see more minor league players emerging the next two years, time to worry.
But given the last few decades of futility, I'm willing to be patient.

I don't expect miracles, but if you can incrementally improve a sizeable proportion of your prospects, marginal guys become viable backups, and players projected to be bench players become potential starters. If a bunch of players make substantial jumps this year, it would mean the changes are bearing fruit, if not . . .

[andyb]

Now if we don't see more minor league players emerging the next two years, time to worry.
But given the last few decades of futility, I'm willing to be patient.

I just wonder why you give Klentak a pass on everything and then assume decades of futility. Klentak was hired in 2015. It has almost been 5 years. He does not get a pass on the first 4.

And there have NOT been decades of futility. We know the system went downhill after the late 70s and early 80s. But then it recovered largely under Ed Wade and Arbuckle. Rolen, Rollins, Howard, Hamels, Utley. These were all huge development successes from non-top 10 picks. Now Amaro (probably from higher-ups who were counting pennies) emphasized the major league roster and gave up draft picks and decided not to spend big on Latin America until his last few years. That is not a development problem though, it was a resource allocation problem.

Under Klentak we have had generally mediocre drafting and little success in Latin America (including not spending to the max when we could some years, but more importantly not winning the better prospects for our millions that we did invest).

You wax poetic about Klentak going up against the old boys network. There is probably some truth that they needed to weed out some coaches who did not welcome the analytics, but it is so more complicated than that. I look at results and Klentak has taken a top third system to the bottom third. With most of his draft picks near the top of the first round and above average international spending. Results matter and his have been mediocre. We are on the third shift of minor league personnel. Maybe he is learning on the job, but that suggests maybe he wasn't as good at the job as he was supposed to be.

[Austinfan]

Klentak didn't take a top third to the bottom third, the drafts and lack of development stripped the system before he arrived.

Only Rollins (2nd), Wolf (2nd) and Howard (5th) were non-1st rd picks, and only Rollins was a HS draftee. 1st rounders don't tell you about development, especially college 1st rounders, because they get picked that high because they're close to ML ready.

Starting in 2000:
Gomes (#4-1993)
Estrada 17th rd - 1997)
Anderson (2nd rd - 1995)
Valent (#42 - 1998)
Coggin (#30 - 1995)
Chen (LA)
Silva (LA)
Byrd (10th rd - 1999)
Michaels (4th rd - 1998)
Utley (#15 - 2000)
Myers (#12 - 1999)
Madson (9th rd - 1998)
Geary (15th rd - 1998)
Floyd (#4 - 2001)
Ramirez (LA)
Howard (5th rd - 2001)
Ruiz (LA)
Bourn (4th rd - 2003)
Hamels (#17 - 2002)
Mathieson (17th rd - 2002)
Kendrick (7th rd - 2003)
Zagurski (12th rd - 2005)
Marson (4th rd - 2004)
Happ (3rd rd - 2004)
Bastardo (LA)
D Brown (20th rd - 2006)
Worley (3rd rd - 2008)
Stutes (11th rd - 2008)
De Fratus (11th rd - 2007)
Savary (#19- 2007)
Galvis (LA)
Schwimer (14th rd - 2008)
Cloyd (18th rd - 2008)
AFTER 2012
Asche (4th rd - 2011)
Pettibone (3rd rd - 2008)
Diekman (30th rd - 2007)
Hernandez (LA)
Franco (LA)
Rupp (3rd rd - 2010)
Buchanan (7th rd - 2010)
Hollands (10th rd - 2010)
Giles (7th rd - 2011)
Altherr (9th rd - 2009)
Morgan (3rd rd - 2011)
Nola (#7 - 2014)
Neris (LA)
S Gonzalez (LA)
Quinn (2nd rd - 2011)
Ramos (LA)
Hoskins (5th rd - 2014)
Knapp (2nd rd - 2013)
SD (LA)
L Garcia (LA)
A Davis (12th rd - 2014)
Suarez (LA)
E Garcia (LA)
Kingery (2nd rd - 2015)
Haseley (#8 - 2017)
Irvin (5th rd - 2016)

The 2008 Phillies were a combination of high draft picks and good trades with a few FAs.
RA couldn't pull off the good trades to land young talent until the end:
Hamels for Alfaro
Rollins for Eflin
Giles for Velasquez
Papelon for Pivetta
Neshek for Hammer
Galvis for De Los Santos
R Hernandez for Arano

[andyb]

This is a long post that tells us absolutely nothing. Yes we had some lean draft years after 2008. This is because we drafted poorly at that time AND traded prospects AND gave up draft picks AND failed to invest in Latin America. We know that.

Klentak was hired in the fall of 2015. In the Spring of 2016 we were a top 10 system:

2016 Prospects: 2016 Organizational Rankings - Baseball Prospectus

That ranking had us 4th. Pretty sure every ranking had us in the top 10. Today we are generally below 20th (Keith Law just had us 22nd. Most others are not that different.

So Klentak DID take a system from the top third to the bottom third. And he drafted high. He had top 10 picks which just have to be cashed in on stars. Hopefully Bohm becomes one. He also had above average international spending until the last couple of years and where are the top 100 prospects from that period internationally. Hint - there are not any.

Facts matter. Making a long list of names is simply silly when it is not placed in context. What Klentak inherited was pretty good. He has traded some prospects like Crawford and Alfaro, and had graduations. That happens to every organization as the best prospects usually don't spend 7 years in the minors. The problem is we have not replaced them with more top 10 prospects. We have 2 very good prospects. Good organizations have 4-8 top 100 prospects.

Klentak has a mediocre record. I hope he has learned and these latest moves are good. I just have no reason to predict that they will be good.

[Austinfan]

"the Phillies added six new top-ten prospects in the last calendar year between the 2015 draft and the Ken Giles and Cole Hamels trades. The Phillies system may lack a true impact talent past JP Crawford, but Nick Williams has a chance to get there, and otherwise they have a nice blend of arms and bats, upside and floor. The 2016 subplot to follow: How Mark Appel and Jorge Alfaro deal with their change of scenery. Those two could make this ranking look overly conservative by the end of the 2016 season."

I.e. they were drafting and developing like a bottom five system, and the top ten ranking was almost exclusively guys in AAA and AA they had traded for, while the rest of the system was barren. Which meant it was going to take 4-5 years to turn it around through internal development.

Rankings tend to be based on AA and AAA "close to the majors" and a few exceptional talents at lower levels. From 2004-2013 there was almost no real talent added, other than guys like Galvis, Hernandez, Franco, Neris, Happ, Giles, Morgan.

2014 draft started a turnaround, but after that one pulse of second tier LA talent (figure 5-7 years from drafting at 16 to ML for LA), nothing until recently.

We'll see in the next couple years if Klentak has turned it around.

[andyb]

It doesn't matter how they got to be a top 10 system in 2015-2016. All those prospects are graduated now anyway. The problem is not the people we drafted in 2015 or earlier. Virtually any top 100 prospect from those drafts would have graduated by now. The problem is 2016-2019. They have not been replaced.

You yourself say that guys in AA and AAA make up lots of the top 100 (not totally true, top prospects can be at any level). Where are the replacements beyond Bohm and Howard. There just not enough of them. It does not matter what happened from 2004-2103 (which you totally miss). It matters who Klentak has drafted and signed.

And the result has been a below average system. Take the blinders off. Klentak has built a mediocre farm system.

[Austinfan]

Most prospects aren't close to top 100 lists for a couple years out of college, 4-6 years out of HS or LA.
A 2016 HS signee would be 18 in the GCL, and 22 in AA or AAA this year for the most part.
Hey, look at LHV, Moniak, Stephens,
college is faster, Bohm (2018), Howard, Seabold, D Jones, Brogdon, Russ, Dohy (2017), Irvin, Romero (2016) are in LHV, Haseley (2017) in Philly and graduated already.

2016 players, then take a year off for each season since then.
LA: 21 or younger
HS: 22 or younger

Reading: Parkinson, Falter, Warren
This is the hole in the donut, best college players are past here, the HS and LA players for the most part drafted/signed by Klentak haven't arrived, and the ones under RA suck.

Clearwater: Marchan, Gutierrez, Stott, Muzzioti, Ortiz, Morales, Lindlow, Miller, Glogoski
Lakewood: O'Hoppe, Aparicio, Guzman, Simmons, L Garcia, Stewart, Rojas, De La Cruz, Mesquita, Santos, Silva, Gowdy, Pipkin, B Brown, Lin, Schultz, Schultze

This is why development will decide where this organization is next year, either some of these players step up and next year's Reading team is loaded, and drives up their ranking, or they don't.

Below Lakewood, outside of a few big money LA guys (and they flop at a high rate) who knows?

[zambonir]

I don't recall there being any hires of note in 2016. One assistant GM. Nobody in development. Scout turnover merely routine.

I also don't think much of the square peg round hole thing. If they're doing that, it's to players they didn't really choose in the first place (Eflin, and arguably Moniak since I think it's clear Klentak deferred to Almaraz and Gillick and the scouts he inherited). Or players they don't think will actually be good if they don't change (which still might apply to Eflin, and you could include Franco in there).

The idea that Moniak, particularly, has ignored the wishes of the coaches and development staff to do some thing on his own simply isn't true. What he has achieved in recent years has been because of the staff, so they are either right, or they actually are flexible enough to have some give-and-take.

None of which changes the fact that the system isn't good enough. But it's still too early to put anything on Bonifay and the top people under him. If anything the disappointing year is probably a direct result of them putting in so much new stuff for the first time. Which, again, they should have done in 2017 if not 2016. But they didn't.

[andyb]

I don't have the whole list, but here is one article from 2016:

Phillies bolster front office with series of new hires

This is also after they had an initial wave in late 2015/early 2016 with Ned Rice and Andy Goldi (from Google for analytics). There were also a bunch of scouts hired in this period (though most teams add/subtract a half dozen each year).

2017 saw even more changes. There was not a period where Klentak evaluated current staff without significant changes. It is just fiction to say he has not and to use it as an excuse for a mediocre farm system today.

[andyb]

That is another pointless list. Top 100 prospects usually identify themselves as such within a couple of years of signing (like Bohm and Howard). They also do not stay in the system that long. You can make lists of B and C level prospects all you want. It just does not make our system better than others. You make a long list of prospects that will be at Lakewood. I would surmise that our Lakewood team is no better than average prospect-wise compared to other Low A teams. Everybody has lots of possibles in the lower minors. Our system would be rated better if the prospects themselves were better.

[zambonir]

Well, Minnitti is exactly the guy I was thinking of. In 2017 (he was hired in November of 2016) he was merely a special assistant. To me that's still two years of glacial change (very little in 2015, baby steps in 2016). And Ned Rice is just the contracts/major league roster guy.

Finally, in 2018 (technically December of '17) Minnitti became Jordan's boss (Sal and Almaraz too), was part of the Kapler hiring committee, and brought in Ochart (clearly that wasn't Jordan's hire), as well everyone since.

So I'm not defending the results, I just still think there was a lot of wheel-spinning. Some of that is probably on MacPhail who seems temperamentally conservative (and worked with both Rice and Jordan, as well as Proefrock, in Baltimore) But I don't think you can say they've made big changes that have failed - we don't know if they have yet. This is really just going to be the second year where everything should be in sync at every level, third year at best if you assume Jordan had already been sidestepped.

And we can still question the drafts, of course. Though we're about to have the first one with new blood so we'll see if it looks different than a Klentak/Almaraz draft (let alone an Amaro/Gillick/Almaraz draft).

It'd be nice if they were better, don't get me wrong! We clearly are not top-tier at anything. Certainly not as good as the Braves! As has been said a few times, it seems like the last ax to fall should be international.

It will all be moot in a way because if the Phillies do well at the major league level everyone will stay. If they don't, the new GM will have to decide who to keep.

[andyb]

So I'm not defending the results, I just still think there was a lot of wheel-spinning.

Which is exactly my point. They brought in a lot of people and took a few years to decide if they were the right people. I hope the new hires are good. I am just not assuming they are good.

It is just indisputable though that Klentak started with a good system and now has one that is universally below average. If we had not traded Sixto we'd be rated better, but it would still be below average. The back end of our top 10 is pretty mediocre. We have not traded a huge volume of prospects beyond Sixto also. That is the result of the decisions we made to really not go all in at trade deadlines.

Thus the only conclusion is that the mediocre state of the system is on Klentak. He does not get a pass.

[phillychuck]

I think right now the farm system might be a bit underrated nationally. We have two very strong top-100 guys in Howard and Bohm. The next 20 guys are a mixture of AA/AAA guys who have not shown above-average big league potential (been a bit disappointing, projecting as utility types or second-division starters) and younger players with potential and tools. Where the system goes depends mainly on the development of the "tools" guys (examples--Morales, Garcia, Rojas, Muzziotti, Simmons) and a couple of the AA/AAA guys (Moniak, De Los Santos, Maton, Seabold) exceeding expectations. Stott is sort of in his own category as he projects well and has performed well so far but doesn't have a "carrying" tool; he's just average or above across the board. I could see a huge bounce-back year for the system if things go right.