Phillies Sign 1B Carlos Santana

[allentown]

But... this does illustrate why I believe we would have a shot to land Darvish if Klentak went after him: we are one of the few teams who are able to front-load a contract and give a guy all the money he seeks in one fewer years. That's the big advantage from our low payroll and being a high revenue team. It's not an advantage that will be here for long, so it's good to have grabbed it. Signing Santana also makes us look better to Darvish.

[Austinfan]

Darvish will still want 5+ years, Klentak isn't giving that to him. Frontloading a sixth year doesn't change the basic equation.
Santana might have been a slight overpay, but he's a 3 WAR player, so figure 7 WAR or so over 3 years is only a $10M overpay at most. And we paid that in the bonus.
The last two years are 2yr/$35M, so as long as he doesn't crater (less likely for high BB power guys), he's a very tradeable commodity without picking up a lot of his salary.

If Hoskin shows he can't play LF but hits well, then you move Santana, if Hoskins can play LF or turns out to be a flash in the pan then you keep Santana.
Optionality.

[zambonir]

What we don't know if is the Indians or Red Sox were willing to give Santana four years, or if it was entirely about the dollar figure, but the key moment was still him agreeing to take a three-year deal (while being rewarded handsomely for doing do).

Would Darvish take four? I dunno, but he started the FA period as the top guy and if anything he is even hotter now (because the guys with QOs,or at least, Cobb, are asking for the same level of deal, so why not sign the one with no QO who might also be better, albeit also older. His WS performance is largely irrelevant, even if it hasn't turned out he was tipping.

Anyway, it was easier for the Phillies to overpay someone who wasn't the top guy, they wouldn't have been able to do that with Martinez or Hosmer. If they're not scared of the losing another pick they can probably make a move but I don't think they are going to beat the Cubs or Astros (or Rangers) for Darvish.

[andyb]

The last two years are 2yr/$35M, so as long as he doesn't crater (less likely for high BB power guys), he's a very tradeable commodity without picking up a lot of his salary

When we have the ability to pick up parts of any contract we trade easily, the lower dollar amounts of the back end of the contract have exactly nothing to do with whether he is tradeable. We can trade him as an $8 million a year player if we want and we could have done that if we backloaded it. You are just seeing things that are not there in this contract. We paid top dollar to get a top player plain and simple. And the way it could backfire is if Hoskins is a lesser player in the outfield because of defense. Klentak is betting that won't happen. But it sure is a huge risk with this deal if we get a 3 WAR player that costs us 1+ WAR on defense elsewhere (thus making him less than a 2 WAR player in the larger scheme of things).

[Austinfan]

It's not a huge risk because as I pointed out, the lack of a no trade clause gives Klentak complete optionality, he's not stuck with Santana.
And yes, the less money you have to throw in, the easier it is to trade a player.
Nor was Santana an overpay, even using $7-8M a WAR he's close to full value, at your inflated $10M an expected WAR, he's a bargain.

I suspect they think Hoskins will be an average fielder, they had enough time to observe him, note his athleticism, etc.
Doubt this was done in a vacuum. While Williams is potentially a better fielder, he was erratic last year.

[allentown]

While Williams is potentially a better fielder, he was erratic last year.

Almost all rookies are more erratic than established players. The quest to retain nostalgia and avoid rookie erraticness is one of the root causes of the Phillies' present half-decade of woe. Well, more correctly, those are two of the root causes. And I know, you are going to say the problem was not feeding the farm and giving up too many draft picks to sign middle relievers... but, that all flowed from over-valuing older vets and under-valuing rookies. Why feed the farm if, in your gut, you basically distrust rookies?

[zambonir]

Well, the real question is, which one gives you more WAR, on both offense and defense?

Santana 1B/Hoskins LF/Williams 4th OF

Hoskins 1B/Williams LF/TBD 4th OF

Obviously harder to answer without knowing the 4th OF (and if it's Quinn you still can't answer it without knowing how many games he'll play) but it is almost surely the first group. There are still fair questions about Williams on both defense and offense so going from him to Hoskins is not necessarily a downgrade, and neither is going from Hoskins to Santana (as one has to expect Hoskins to level off some).

And if they trade Williams (or any OF) for pitching that's a whole other calculation.

Kapler said yesterday that Santana will probably play some OF.

[julio]

When will Hunter be formally announced? phillies.com doesn't have him or Santana listed on the forty man roster yet. I was thinking initially that the roster was overloaded but then I remembered the Galvis deal and realized that de los Santos did not have to be put on the forty-man. Santana and Hunter will put us at the limit.

MLBAM has added the Hunter signing to the roster and the transactions page, dated 12/15...within the past 15 minutes or so...because I tweeted Zolecki and asked him why it wasn't there!

[andyb]

Well, the real question is, which one gives you more WAR, on both offense and defense?

Santana 1B/Hoskins LF/Williams 4th OF

Hoskins 1B/Williams LF/TBD 4th OF

Slightly more complicated though because you could have used the $20 million somewhere else on other WAR. Agree that Williams has major questions on defense too, but my point is more that if Hoskins is always going to be a negative fielder then it almost does not matter what everybody else does. You are essentially taking 3 WAR of value from Santana and automatically discounting that value.

I know the Phillies don't seem to be interested in it, but this move would make lots of sense if they had planned to move Hoskins for a pitcher. That is in no way a knock on Hoskins. It is a recognition that he has very high trade value off his season last time and he alone (with no other major prospects) might get you that young, controllable starter they want (like Stroman or Archer).

Is a Philles team with both Santana and Hoskins on it better than one with Santana and Stroman instead?

[phillychuck]

I don't usually say this, but if they trade Hoskins I'm going to be very upset, regardless of the return. I feel personally connected to his success last August/September because I was such a big booster, and, as a fan in general, I love to see our own minor league guys succeed. That's why Schmidt/Luzinski/Bowa/Boone/Moreland/Smith and Rollins/Utley/Howard/Hamels/Chooch/Vic (to some extent) were such fun for me. If they had traded Hoskins straight up for Stanton, I know Stanton is the better player right now, but I couldn't have rooted as hard for him.

[zambonir]

I don't want them to trade Hoskins, but I also agree you'd be selling high, and the right young pitcher would be, if anything, an outsized return for a RH 1B. And a really outsized return if Hoskins goes the way of Brown, Franco or Tommy Joseph, not that history suggests he won't adjust and progress.

I think Kapler's interest in playing guys at multiple positions is significant here. As is the fact that the team isn't really expecting to win 90 games in 2018. They have a year to experiment, and see what they have. Best-case, Hoskins does well enough in every way. Medium-case he isn't working out in LF but is still hitting, so maybe he does get traded. Worst-case, he doesn't hit enough to be the long-term answer at either position.

[allentown]

I totally agree. I like home-grown stars. Beyond this, I think the return for Hoskins would be woefully inadequate. I think of the 5 super-great years we got from Ryan Howard and then I remember his reputation inside and outside the Phillies organization, while he was tearing up Reading and the Phillies' failed attempt to trade him for a middle reliever. In 2004 Howard spent September in Philly and put up close to a .900 OPS, but in only 29 ABs, Anyone think that he would have returned anything of significance in a trade a that point? A year or two later, he would have brought a large return? Now Hoskins has close to 200 MLB ABs with a higher OPS than Howard had, but I still don't think his actual value has been set and we would be cheated if we traded him. Trading your emerging successful rookies is the losing game of extreme pessimists: "he's a mirage, trade him while he still has value!" I refuse to play that game.

[allentown]

Worst-case, he doesn't hit enough to be the long-term answer at either position.

That is the worst case, sort of the hybrid worst case is he is a guy who would have hit at 1B but defensive woes in LF mess with his head.

[Philsmania]

I don't usually say this, but if they trade Hoskins I'm going to be very upset, regardless of the return. I feel personally connected to his success last August/September because I was such a big booster, and, as a fan in general, I love to see our own minor league guys succeed. That's why Schmidt/Luzinski/Bowa/Boone/Moreland/Smith and Rollins/Utley/Howard/Hamels/Chooch/Vic (to some extent) were such fun for me. If they had traded Hoskins straight up for Stanton, I know Stanton is the better player right now, but I couldn't have rooted as hard for him.

Agreed. You follow these guys coming up and you want to follow these guys as Phillies. It was a bummer to see Ken Giles traded even though it made eminent sense (unfortunately, that one is not looking to hot now). They are not in the same position now that they were back then so it makes less sense to trade him now.

[zambonir]

That is the worst case, sort of the hybrid worst case is he is a guy who would have hit at 1B but defensive woes in LF mess with his head.

Looking at what successful teams have done with versatile players and knowing this front office feels the same way, I'm done with that kind of thinking. People change positions or play multiple positions all the time. If they're good, and developed properly overall, they will be fine. The second part being the thing the Phillies haven't always mastered. But I'm a lot happier doing it for Carlos Santana or Manny Machado than David Bell or Delmon freakin' Young.

If Hoskins was LH like Howard I don't think anyone would be even a little pessimistic about him. The bar is just a lttle higher for a RH 1B. That's not to say he's gonna be Ruf or Joseph but he might just be a very good player. Trying him in LF only potentially increases his value, internally or externally.

As with all of these debates they are meaningless when the terms are different for everyone. "I would trade Hoskins straight-up for Marcus Stroman" is not part of the same conversation as "remember when we were willing to trade Ryan Howard for a middle reliever." Most likely neither are plausible scenarios, but if you had to choose between a package of Kingery/Sanchez and one more Top 30 prospect vs. Hoskins and one Top 30 prospect to get a really good young controllable pitcher, which would you rather? (I know your answer is free agent, but again, not the same debate.)

[allentown]

I would trade Hoskins and a top 30 prospect, who wasn't in our top 12 for a really good controllable young pitcher. I would not do Kingery/Sanchez plus the same top 30 guy. And FA is the route to go, especially if Klentak isn't trying to build a post-season team for 2018. Otherwise, it is trading future WAR for 2018 WAR, or merely rearranging the deck chairs, for a team which isn't a contender in 2018 and has tons of money to spend. Expend the excess resource, don't spend the scarce resource.

[zambonir]

But not exactly. Marcus Stroman is 26. Gerrit Cole is 27. Lance Lynn and Alex Cobb are 30. If you acquire the younger player you are giving up future WAR for future WAR (in 2020, or even 2021 depending on the player) in years where the older free agent (who also still costs you a draft pick, and replacing the lost allocation) might be hurt, ineffective or completely gone. And you have a chance to extend the young player (the sooner you do that, the more likely it can happen.

I am not dying to trade those top names though. Williams, Hernandez, one or two of the current MLB/AAA pitchers, sure. But I gotta think they are gonna sit on Hernandez 'til the deadline or next year (and if you are willing to consider trading Kingery instead of Hernadez that decision can also wait until then). Middleton gave an interview yesterday in which he said all the teams with controllable young pitching are asking way too much right now. If Alex Cobb's agent follows in Santana's footsteps and calls to say they'd take three years, great.

[allentown]

I agree that age of a pitcher is an issue, although if a guy has been pitching well I don't see ages 30--32 as substantially worse than 28-30. Admittedly 33-34 is riskier. Truth seems to be, however, that regardless of age projecting 4 healthy years for any pitcher is risky and even 3 is iffy. I think the risk is a bit less for the best pitchers. I just don't see young ages of 26 and 27 as any sort of semi-guarantee the guy will hold up. I'm cynical enough to see a controllable pitcher who is that young and has pitched well and is being pitched in a costly trade as a guy whom the trading team knows something about, which 6 months from now we'll wish we had known. I'm more comfortable with a FA or a guy I'm quite sure the trading team simply can't afford to pay. Damaged-goods Freddy Garcia was only 30 during his wasted season in Philly. A truly awful trade in which we gave up young pitching talent. At least back then Gillick had the excuse that the Phillies team was far closer to winning than the current Phillies are.

[andyb]

The part of the equation that leans towards the free agent side is still money. It is not just evaluating the cost of a prospect versus the cost and risk of a contract to an older player. What makes the Santana deal fine even if it hurts our defense to the point where it costs us a win or two is that the deal uses cash that would not otherwise be spent.

I don't care how we do it - free agent, taking bad contracts in deals, buying international players - whatever we do to use our cash position in ways that don't diminish our future talent represent a plus for the team.

Now as for trading an outfielder, I am fine if one of our four OF is the key to getting a young starter like Stroman. A young outfielder sitting is also potentially an under-utilized resource. And young pitchers will be better than old pitchers.

Hopefully Klentak is more aggressive about using our cash position. Santana was a good start but it falls short of what the Yankees and Dodgers have just done (i.e. use cash to steal talent from poorer teams). We need to do a little bit of that (and maybe sign Juan Contreras the last of the big ticket Braves prospects available).

[David_Criss]

Signing Santana means the end of Tommy Joseph in Philadelphia. I don't think we see an OFer traded. Hoskins in left, Herrera in center with Williams and Altherr platooning in right ala Thompson/Incaviglia and Chamberlain and Eisenreich in 93. Who knows if Altherr can stay healthy and letting Williams play his way into the big leagues this year, I think will do him a lot of good, especially if he struggles a bit.Certainly won't be the best defensive outfield, but count me in as surprised it was a 1B the Phillies signed.