Phillies Prospect Scouting Reports 2018

Austinfan 2018-09-17 13:21:05 UTC #61

Well, that's why we needed new blood in the organization.

One thing that defines smart people is the willingness to not be "original," rather, they try to learn from everything - and who better to learn from than the "splendid splinter?"

I like that Klentak wants to be sure that all the minor league instructors are on the same page, if you have an organizational philosophy, you want to teach it up and down the system, tweaking it for individual players, but generally sticking to the script. And this should extend to the scouts, you obtain players who fit your approach, and then teach them what you want them to do.

Maybe it won't work, but it's better than a system where players get different instruction at each level, and player evaluators are scratching their heads, uncertain if it's the player or the coaching.

Philsmania 2018-09-17 14:38:53 UTC #62

It will be interesting to see how Moniak does in Reading's bandbox next season. Haseley actually did better after his promotion there this year.

andyb 2018-09-19 16:55:55 UTC #63

Athletic on pitching prospects. The comments are really high on Howard and Medina. They do classify our quartet of upper level prospects (De Los Santos, Suarez, Anderson, Irvin) as lower ceiling back of the rotation types. Eshelman ranks below them also.

Romero ranks behind the top 3. Then more glowing comments about Llovera as the fast riser in the system. Could be next year's Seranthony (minus 3 inches of height and plus 20-30 pounds).

andyb 2018-09-20 10:56:50 UTC #64

And the hitters. Mixed impressions.

bigegypt0417 2018-09-20 13:58:15 UTC #65

I think it would be great if Luis Garcia became that prospect we've been waiting for...the one that shoots through the system and is a star...I hope.

fish 2018-09-20 14:01:22 UTC #66

Here's hoping they raid the development staffs of organizations that know how to develop hitters. And not the ones that just got fired by those organizations.

andyb 2018-09-20 14:25:20 UTC #67

I like Garcia a lot. It will be interesting to see how the organization values a defense-first SS through his development. Offensively he is very polished which helps explain the early success. Less clear though whether he has any sort of power and more than average speed. Now a gold glove SS who hits for a high average without much power or speed can be very valuable. It is something though that this organization has placed less value on of late.

I expect them to push him to Lakewood next year. No reason not too. Guzman can play both SS and 2B as a backup with the better prospect (Garcia) getting the most playing time at SS.

allentown 2018-09-20 14:38:34 UTC #68

“A lot of utility types,” an AL scout said. “That’s what’s kind of scary about them.”

Yes, that and the number of 1B/DH types they have among their better hitters.

Scariest comment from an outsider: difficult for Bohm to stay on 3B
Scariest comment from an insider: Randolph is athletic. From an outsider: Nobody outside the organization considers him a prospect. Minitti is being the optimist and playing up his good one month at end of season, but he still is a poor fielding LF with no power. The outsider said he doesn't even show batting practice power.

Good comments on the young catching. We will lose some of the older catching chance prospects in Rule 5. Good comments on Garcia. Interesting that Ortiz playing with glasses for first time.

allentown 2018-09-20 14:42:29 UTC #69

That could also describe Gamboa, although the bat isn't as good as Garcia's. I think it is an error that the Phillies devalue SS defense. At some point we need to learn if Crawford can become a plus MLB defensive SS. This 3B experiment strikes me as utterly asinine and a quick route to Crawford losing a fair audition as a starting MLB player.

fish 2018-09-20 14:53:43 UTC #70

The Randolph through Haseley picks look like they had a philosophy that it was better to draft a guy with a perceived hit-tool and that with strength conditioning they could add the power (apparently regardless of the frame). There were a lot of scouting changes before the last draft, and I think the picks of Bohm, Vierling, Simmons suggest they moved from that philosophy- so hopefully results will slowly start to turn.

andyb 2018-09-20 15:45:54 UTC #71

I am not sure this organization really has a draft philosophy. Clearly they have gone for some of these less toolsy hit tool types with number one picks, but that could be as much about the organization trying to manage risk as anything else (like with the Nola pick). All the command first pitchers they are drafting high (Seabold, Eastman) seem about managing risk as well.

At the same time they still draft some risky toolsy players especially with their above slot draft picks like Simmons and Pipkin and Jake Holmes the year before. What seems a shame is we have not really drafted a toolsy player with less risk which is what one hopes for in a top 10 pick. Moniak is the closest to that but even he is not that toolsy for such a high pick. He has first round tools - just not what one would call high first round tools.

The "utility type" line is a little scary because it does remind one of the system 20 years ago when they really did draft low ceiling types in the pre-Arbuckle era. Arbuckle pushed us into riskier toolsy players like Rolen and Rollins in the 2nd round that ended up paying huge dividends. Can we still do that with our overslot picks like Simmons? Or should we really be doing that more in the 2nd or 3rd round?

allentown 2018-09-20 17:50:19 UTC #72

We should be doing it with earlier picks. When you do it later in the draft, your universe has been self-limited to high-ceiling prospects which other teams failed to notice. It worked with Howard and Altherr and Hoskins, which shows the benefit of continuing to try to get a guy who can be an impact player in the middle of the top-10 slotted picks. The first round pick is still the pick where you should get the biggest impact and safety first is a bad philosophy. It should be talent first and take the safest guy among the top 2 or 3 talents still active on your draft board. The Phillies seem to have all but ruled out pitching in the first round, yet Nola is our only clear first round winner in the past half dozen years and the only first round pitcher.

Austinfan 2018-09-20 23:05:20 UTC #73

There's some luck involved as well.
Moniak was a gamble on Gowdy, Senzel is the only pick that's doing well, Anderson is OK, the others, meh.
Haseley was the best hitter on the board. Doing better than his teammate Smith.
Bohm was pretty much consensus at #3. I'd still take him over Madrigal, who I think has limited upside.

Maybe we should have gone with Senzel, but no "sure thing" when we drafted.
If Gowdy bounces back the decision to take Moniak will look much better.

Squire 2018-09-20 23:21:25 UTC #74

Kevin Gowdy has nothing to do with Mickey Moniak. They could have picked any other player and still met
Gowdy’s bonus number. Only one player got more than Moniak (Senzel by a measly 100k)

zambonir 2018-09-21 00:01:16 UTC #75

Sure but assumption is that if Senzel had been taken 1-1 by the Phillies he would have wanted more money than he got as the 2nd pick (especially by a small-market club). Ditto several of the other HS players, who got what they got because they were picked lower (and perhaps, dropped because of their salary demands). Pint and Groome, for instance, got more than slot where they were taken, and presumably would not have accepted 30% less than slot from the Phillies.

andyb 2018-09-21 00:02:06 UTC #76

Senzel was the obvious alternative to Moniak so in hindsight I am guessing the Phillies wish he had been their pick that year. He would be in the majors now if not for a hand injury. Interestingly he looks to be playing some outfield next year as the Reds already have Suarez at 3B and Gennett at 2B for the time being.

Stepping back it is hard to argue that the Phillies have done pretty well with their last 4 number one picks. Still early, but Randolph and Moniak and Bohm have all performed below what one would expect from their draft slot. Haseley is about what one would expect, though of course it would have been nice if a number 8 overall pick had developed into a top 100 pick. One can say the group is disappointing so far in the same breath as saying they are all prospects to some degree. Like it or not, expectations are higher with top 10 picks.

Austinfan 2018-09-21 00:12:27 UTC #77

Couldn't care less about "top 100 picks", either they make it or they don't, and only time will tell.
Randolph was a whiff, the other three are far too early.
Same with BA dissing Ortiz at 19, who cares?

Except for a few exceptions who emerge far earlier than would be expected, most HS/LA players don't make it until 21-22, and college players between 23-25.
I mean if you did a redraft, where would Hoskins go?

tom81 2018-09-21 00:35:11 UTC #78

The Reds are obvious trade candidates for us next year, they have a great 3B and their best prospect plays that position and we are weak at 3B. Hope something gets explored at least this offseason.

andyb 2018-09-21 01:14:21 UTC #79

But wouldn't it nice to have prospects that were seen as top 100 prospects? Your whole post avoids the main point. Do you actually think our last 4 number one picks as a group have performed well? Given that they were all top 10 picks? Trying to justify that with Hoskins is kind of avoiding the whole subject.

allentown 2018-09-21 01:40:06 UTC #80

That's just silly. It's like saying you don't care if we have a 1st or 2nd round draft pick, they'll make it or they won't. And yes, of course a team can hit with a later round pick. All teams do. Us finding Howard and Hoskins doesn't make us unique. The first and second rounders have a better chance of making it and if you draft for multiple skills, they have better odds of being a well-rounded player when they do make it. I'd much rather have 10 guys in the top 100. I know many won't make it, while some guy ranked 500 will make it, but if you have a ton of top 100s, the odds are in your favor.