Post-season Prospect Lists

nycphils 2018-01-23 15:52:38 UTC #141

Randolph, Moniak and Haseley

To be clear, I’m not writing any of them off...however, can’t say any of them at the moment look like a great bet to be an above average regular

andyb 2018-01-23 16:52:49 UTC #142

I don't think anybody is writing off these 3 prospects. But it is also an honest observation that all three picks seem to have current value that is below the expectations of where they were picked.

BTW Law 1-50 is up with Crawford (10), Sanchez (23) and Kingery (33) so we have 6 of his top 100 not including Medina or Haseley.

phillychuck 2018-01-23 18:56:36 UTC #143

The only really clearly good first round picks we've made since Hamels are Nola and JP Crawford. We've forfeited 2 picks and drafted Drabek (borderline MLB) Cardenas (cup of coffee), Savery (cup of coffee), d'Arnaud (Average MLB), Hewitt (bust), Collier (AAA), Biddle (AAA), Greene (bust), Watson (bust), Gueller (bust), Crawford (MLB), Nola (MLB), Randolph(?), Moniak(?), and Haseley(?).

Our sub-par first-round drafting is one reason why we've been as hopeless as we've been. But, scrolling through most other teams at BBRef, many teams have been almost as bad, including teams I thought were excellent drafters (Braves, Jays, Rays, Cubs (outside of Bryant), etc.). even the Yankees and Cards aren't that good. Strassburg and Harper save the Nats--outside of them they've been mediocre, too.

zambonir 2018-01-23 19:17:38 UTC #144

It is ironic that Wolever's last two picks were his best, and (for now) better than the next two his successor made (I'm not bothering to include Haseley).

It's also fair to lament that the Phillies did not draft a single surefire star during the four years they had Top 10 picks. I just don't know if it's fair to expect it. I mean, you can, but you also have to appeciate the value of just producing a solid major leaguer, which hopefully Randolph and Moniak will still be. I don't think anyone pegged them as future repeat All-Stars in the first place.

allentown 2018-01-23 19:19:18 UTC #145

I think you have to consider draft position and especially to separate the actual first round from the comp round following the first round. Cardenas was the #37 pick, Gueller was #57, Collier was #34, Watson was #40, Greene #39. So, really more high second rounders than first rounders. Many of these weren't good picks and Greene was an absolute scouting failure -- we should have done better in the aggregate on these picks, but first rounder success wasn't the expectation.

Austinfan 2018-01-23 19:35:19 UTC #146

On the other hand, Ryan Hoskins is the diamond in the coal pile.
Hit a few of these guys and all is forgiven.

andyb 2018-01-23 19:37:17 UTC #147

I would have a slightly different take on that list if we want to put the last 3 draft picks in context (note also your list has sandwich picks and beyond the top 15-20 picks we need to understand that the failure rate is huge. Here is how I would think of all those picks after the first few years:

Drabek - looked like a decent pick early outside of injuries. Remember we traded Drabek for at least decent value before he got hurt again.
Cardenas - 37th overall pick was OPS'ing over 800 in Clearwater at age 20 when traded - average pick for us
Savery - bad pick. We took the injury risk/reward equation (not unlike when we picked Hamels) and lost
D'Arnaud - Again pick #37 - average ML catcher at this point in the draft is a good pick
Hewitt - Bad pick
Collier - Bad pick but remember 34th overall. Drafting in the top 10 has different expectations
Biddle - In the end a bad pick but after 3-4 years he was ranked on most top 100 lists. Then got hurt. A top 100 ranking from the 27th overall pick would be exceeding expectations even if he eventually was a bust.
Greene - Bad pick (again remember #39 overall, not really a first round pick)
Watson - Below average outcome so far. But 40th overall
Gueller - Bad pick. Lost velocity and never resembled who we scouted (though again, pick #54)
Crawford - Great pick so far. And yes this considers he was a number one. At #16 overall he is projected to be much better than the average value for the slot
Nola - Good pick. Expectations are high for a #7 pick
Randolph - Below expectations development so far (10th overall so a high pick)
Moniak - Below expectations development so far
Haseley - Really too early to tell. First year was not incredible but he was decent and fatigue could be a factor.

So in addition to Crawford and Nola I would add these other picks to the good list: Drabek, D'Arnaud, Biddle (though he eventually got hurt and lost value).

There are probably other sources but this article from Fangraphs starts to project the draft position vs WAR question. The average pre-FA WAR is the key number to look at:

Picks 1-5 - 9.2 WAR
Picks 6-10 - 5.2 WAR
Picks 11-15 - 4.1 WAR
Picks 16-20 - 3.5 WAR
Picks 21-25 - 3.1 WAR
Picks 26-30 - 2.8 WAR

After pick 30 we are talking WAR in the 2.5 range for most of the second round. We have clearly not been very good at drafting. But expectations really need to be tempered since we had so many low picks. The recent run is potentially troubling because it is 3 consecutive top 10 picks. There was talk around each of them that we overdrafted them a bit mainly because we liked their hit tool. Randolph was projected 4-6 picks after we picked them. We all know the debate on Moniak. And Haseley was clearly a hit tool type pick and remember we overpaid slot for him so that cost us a better player somewhere later in the draft.

The last 3 years are all below expectations for the pick slot SO FAR. Of course the players can turn it around. But it is undeniable that none of them have delivered good value and expected development for where they were drafted so far.

Austinfan 2018-01-23 19:59:23 UTC #148

Randolph was probably a mistake because of defensive projection, he has to really hit to approach 5-10 WAR in his first six ML seasons.

Moniak projects as an above average defensive CF, and Haseley as an above average corner OF, so they just need a good, not great, hit tool to be reasonable 10 WAR projections.

julio 2018-01-23 20:20:28 UTC #149

That might be true if you drafted all three of 'em three years ago - but if Haseley is the "stud," you wouldn't necessarily know that yet. We're talking 246 plate appearances. I would suggest that even if Haseley appeared to be your "stud" after 246 PA, he might well not be. It's simply not enough data.

I'm not sure I'm reading the same posts you are...

I'll bet I could find posts from fans grumbling about J.P. Crawford not being good enough... and of course, there are the "Nola isn't really an ace; more of a #3 guy" posts.

Philsmania 2018-01-23 20:37:18 UTC #150

Andyb mentioned Biddle. Speaking of Biddle, the Braves must really see something in him because he's still sticking around on their forty man roster...or the Braves' pitching prospect depth isn't impressive. Biddle didn't pitch after mid-July of last season. Did he suffer another kind of injury?

bigegypt0417 2018-01-23 21:09:09 UTC #151

You are making a statement to make a point that you really aren't able to make.

Haseley set the world on fire after signing and then seemed to fade in the late summer.

andyb 2018-01-23 21:40:02 UTC #152

I think people are noting that the performance of three picks in a row has been average or below average according to expectations. I know there is language about three misses in a row but in general people are also talking about performance "so far".

We get way too specific about cherry-picking words here. One can say the picks have been disappointing so far and still think they might be good players.

For all the talk about the Phillies changing their strategy to emphasize the hit tool over other more athletically oriented tools we might be seeing that a hit-tool based strategy is not that easy and may be just as hard to hit on as a toolsier strategy. It might be this GM's learning curve - if he is in love with OBP at the expense of defense he may be undervaluing the latter. That has been the pattern so far. We'll see if it works (i.e. Hoskins/Santana).

andyb 2018-01-23 21:42:27 UTC #153

HIgher levels often do that though. I am actually more worried though about scouts talking about his tools as a little underwhelming. He could easily have been fatigued after a long year and the transition from being a 2-way player. I was expecting reports closer to Benintendi though from scouts and we got something less than that.

schillingfan 2018-01-23 23:39:34 UTC #154

I miss the golden years of Phillies drafts under Arbuckl - first rounders Burrell, Myers, Utley, Hamels, and Rollins in the second round. Talk about hitting on your first round picks!

zambonir 2018-01-23 23:40:04 UTC #155

If Ryan Howard and Rhys Hoskins had a baby I would probably take him in the first round even though they were both low picks.

Hitting big on a low pick doesn't make up for whiffing on a Top 10 pick. Better to do both. But it's also good to draft well when you're winning. Right now it is fair to wonder if Almaraz and company will do any better once they're picking 20th or 29th, but there's just enough data.

allentown 2018-01-24 00:25:36 UTC #156

I don't know what saying Nola isn't an ace has to do with writing off prospects. One certainly doesn't need to be an ace to be a successful first rounder. I'll say it though: I DON'T NOW AND NEVER HAVE REGARDED NOLA AS HAVING ACHIEVED ACE STATUS. I won't say he is necessarily a #3, but I'd call him a #2/3 SP at this point. He may rank higher than that in future.

On the last three picks, I haven't given up on any of the three, nor do I think any of them has taken a significant step forward to look like a future star. I think the fairest assessment is that none of the 3 has YET to stand out as plus pick. At this point I have the most hope for Haseley and the least for Randolph (I think he'll end up with a decent bat, but not plus for a LF and doesn't look to become a defensively average LF). Moniak is likely the guy who will require the most time to evaluate, since like Galvis he needs to develop strength and that may take until he's 23-24 and like Galvis that strength has a ceiling. He's certainly not a bust at this point, but for a 1.1 had definitely been a bit disappointing.

My biggest concern about our last 3 first rounders (apart from no pitchers) is that they were all touted for very plus hit skills and none of them has demonstrated a plus hit skill to date. It may come. Placement has been fairly aggressive, you can't point to Haseley being tired, but none of the 3 have stats which shout: "Great Hit Skill!" That's a concern, until that performance emerges on the field. They all have a chance and aren't busts, but they don't look head and shoulders above guys like Quinn, Altherr, Cozens, Odubel, Williams.

allentown 2018-01-24 01:20:52 UTC #157

I totally agree. I'll go farther and say that I view the success in finding talent beyond the third round as evidence of having at least some excellent scouts in the organization, but also see problems in rounds 1, 1.5, and 2 as evidence of problems in the upper levels of the scouting organization, from GM and senior advisors down to cross-checkers. Rounds 1 through 3 consume most of the draft budget and will naturally get the most scrutiny from the higher ups. Later in the draft, a guy is much more likely to be picked because a trusted area scout really loves him. Round 11/12 may be another point where the top of the scouting/management ranks get more involved in evaluating 'stretch' H.S. kids to go significantly over round 11+ default slot on.

zambonir 2018-01-24 04:47:29 UTC #158

I mean there is NOT enough data of course.

I will say Nola seems to have been exactly what he was promised to a be. If he turns out to be a #2 starter or an ace he'll have exceeded expectations. He was drafted for his floor and it's a good floor.

I have no idea what the Phillies drafting and scouting apparatus is, especially these days. We are still really only one draft in to seeing the full power and philosophy of the Klentak era and the analytics department playing a role. And a data-driven front office should be able to have more of an impact in the later rounds w/o actually personally scouting anyone.

Even with the Moniak draft we don't know how much MacPhail and Klentak yielded to the guys who had been working on it all year. If memory serves, Gillick was heavily involved that time too (personally scouting Moniak).

jimbomill 2018-01-24 12:06:10 UTC #159

Hitting on a late rounder is as much luck as anything else. Whiffing on several Top 10 picks in a row is an epidemic that needs to be fixed.
As written earlier, they still might turn out OK, but that's just whistling walking through the graveyard. The data we have is that performance is well below expectations.

jimbomill 2018-01-24 12:09:32 UTC #160

Actually, I correct myself as Nola has been good, if not very good. Randolf, MM and Haseley are the scouting errors I am talking about.