Depth Charts, SS

Depth Charts

At least a few decent options today….

Jason Donald (23) — Fidel Hernandez (22) — Freddy Galvis (18) — Jesus Villegas Andino (21) — Alan Schoenberger (19)

38 thoughts on “Depth Charts, SS”

  1. Jason Donald (23) —Freddy Galvis (18)

    Then way back in order:

    Fidel Hernandez (22) — Jesus Villegas Andino (21) — Alan Schoenberger (19)

    Like

  2. Donald (although he may have to move off SS), Galvis (we really don’t know anything but good D at this point and the shoulder injury troubling), Valenzuela (at least a young, primo bonus Latin A signing, way too early to tell anything), Hernandez (young and at least hits RHP), the others have shown no bat at all, although Schoenberger very young.

    Like

  4. Looks like not much after Donald. Can Galvis hit? Seems like this is as much a question mark as our 3b situation in the minors. At least they are young and have potential.

    Like

  5. Wasn’t there a kid that showed up for the last half of GCL last summer named Dennis Winn? Did he transfer down from Williamsport to get some game time? College kid, Louisiana Tech or something. Sorry, I should’ve just looked this all up. But, I thought he tore up his visit to the GCL, again, not traditionally a hitter’s league. But then he wasn’t invited to FIL (but neither was Sorgi, Murillo and several others).
    Can ThreshersFan shed some light on this kid? Was he drafted, FA or what?

    Like

  6. Donald, Galvis, ?, ?, ?.

    You know, this little depth chart exercise has made me better understand why the professional scouts don’t think too highly of the Phils’ farm system. There are so many areas where they are weak. The infield corner positions are, as a group, atrocious, the middle infield is only okay and the outfield is very weak at the upper levels. Pitching is a general plus, but there’s no group of guys who you know will be flat out studs like the group the Yankees had last year.

    Like

  7. Donald looks legit with the stick and if he hits this year like he did last year, he’ll project as a major leaguer to most people although perhaps as a back up but maybe a starter at 2B somewhere. As I’ve said many times, the Phils really need their Reading prospects to perform this year, even if only to create more trade value to get a 3B and more pitching. Galvis has a big time glove and arm but he’ll probably only play short season again as he turns 18 this year and hasn’t hit much yet. He could be 5 years away from the majors, if things go well and that’s a long time. The other guys are all possible prospects (I like Schoenberger) but there’s always shortstops around who can field ok and hit 250. Its special to find the guys that field great and hit ok or can hit great while fielding ok. As for all the trade talk yesterday about 3B, does anyone really think that a package of Jaramillo, Happ and Carpenter could get you Josh Fields? That’s nonsense, it would take at least Carrasco plus more to get Fields (and I’d still do it by the way). Its tough to get someone else’s A prospect today without sending them an A prospect. You only get A prospects for an expensive A major leaguer like Haren or Johan.

    Like

  10. Donald, Galvis, Schoenberger, Andino, Hernandez

    Donald really cranked it up a notch or two last season, and forced his way onto the radar screen. If he can play third at all, he shoots way up on the prospect ladder and could (maybe) be a mid-season call-up. Galvis is young and is solid defensively. After that, it’s pretty much a jumbled-up mess. Schoenberger is at least young, but I don’t know much about the other two.

    Like

  11. On Murray’s point about acquiring an A 3B prospect:

    What are the feelings in this group about overpaying from a surplus area (such as we have) to get a much needed player in a position of great need?

    For example, Carrasco, Jaramillo, and Bisenius for Fields. Not sure those are the players needed by Sox or whether that qualifies as overpaying. Just an example of the level of talent I am contemplating.

    Correlary question: Why don’t these types of trades happen more often? Most organizations must have areas of weakness and strength. Why not develop relationships with GMs in the other league or another division to correct those imbalances? Is it only the idea that organizations value prospects differently or is something else at work?

    Like

  14. Alex- Dennis Winn came out of college.Started in Williamsport. Send down to GCL to get playing time.Phils started him mostly at 2B. Although he played some SS and the occasional fill in at RF. When he made contact… He hit well. batted about .350 with decent power. Couple of 3B and HR and a about a dozen 2B. But, he also struck out about 20% of the time. Decent glove, too. His dad is a scout with the Royals. I asked him how he rates Dennis. He said that as long as the focus and desire is there… He could make the majors as a utility fielder.

    As for other SS in the system… Like 3B, there is nobody worth getting excited about. Donald is good. But, his range is suspect and his overall fielding is average. He’s better suited for 3B. But, his arm may not be strong enough. Hernandez and Villegas are better than average fielders. But, neither one can hit. Galvis, maybe. But, He’s 24. At FIL he mostly played 3rd string to Cardenas & Mach at 2B. (Donald played most of the time at SS.)

    Like

  16. With Rollins signed through 2011, a position with not much to worry about. Just about enough time for Galvis to be ready for the 2012 season.

    Like

  17. James,
    I’ve got to strongly disagree with you on your comment about Carrasco for Fields straight up. I’d do that deal every day and twice on Sunday. Sure Carlos has lots of upside, but we’re talking about a Major League ready 3B who played on a horrible White Sox team last year and put up very good numbers including power numbers that would translate very well in our ball park. Granted, we don’t exactly NEED more offense, but scoring more runs than the other guys is the name of the game. I like the other pitching prospects we have enough to make that deal without blinking.

    Like

  18. Fields put up ok numbers. An OPS of .788 certainly isn’t super. I guess I’d make the trade straight up because pitchers always have an injury risk, but this is a reasonable trade. I think you are in good company with Gillick, but you are underestimating the market for starting pitchers. It is a lot easier and cheaper for the Phillies to add a position player than a starting pitcher. We pretty much need to grow our own. And a decent SP is going to cost a $48/4 commitment. When you say Fields would translate well to our ballpark, that is why it is easier to add a position player than a pitcher from FA.

    Like

  19. I don’t have a problem trading Carrasco for a 3B prospect, but I don’t want Fields. He’s going to struggle to hit about .260/.270 in the majors, and he’ll be good for 20-25 HR. I’m not all that impressed with him as a prospect at this point. I’d trade Carrasco for Andy LaRoche, but I doubt LA would need/want Carrasco unless they empty out their farm system for Bedard or Blanton or even Johan.

    Like

  20. Agree with Rickey Branch. Other than 3B our IF is covered for a few years and the Phillies have never been a team willing to spend on a belt when they’ve already bought suspenders. In-season injury reserve of quality in minors? Hey, the season tickets are already sold and you just say this was an unforeseen event.

    Like

  21. James,
    Fields hit 23 Homeruns in 373 AB at the major league level last year (his rookie year), so a projection of 20-25 HR in a full season is bunk. If he gets 600 ABs and doesn’t improve at all from his rookie year, then he’d hit 37 HR’s and have over 100 RBI. You’re telling me you wouldn’t trade Carrasco for that?

    Like

  22. Is it “bunk”…? That;s your opinion. I don’t think he’s going to be a 30-35 HR guy, I just don’t see it. He also hit .244 last year, and drew only 35 walks in 418 PA’s. I don’t think a .308 OB% is something we should be trading our best trade chip for. Fields is also a poor defensive 3B, and should be playing LF, which he will if Crede comes back healthy and isn’t traded.

    Teams are going to pitch Fields differently this season now that the book is out on him. If he doesn’t make major adjustments, he won’t hit 30 HR, and he won’t hit above .250. I’m all for addressing 3B, but I don’t think Fields is the answer, especially because he’s poor defensively and likely won’t stick at 3B in the majors long term.

    Like

  23. Fields future based on his minor league numbers is not so easy to discern as his BB rate is actually not unacceptable, but rather his K rate was too high in the bigs, leading to a low AVG, thus leading to a low OBP. Avg is pretty inconsistent as a statistical measure, but were he to live in the 260s-270s his OBP would likely be decent enough. Moreover, he’ll likely have years where its in the 290s as well as a years in the 250s. based on his subpar contact rates, he’ll generally have a low average with decent power. 20-25 seems pretty low, 37 seems pretty high. Neither outcome is unrealistic and, as far as I’m concerned, Fields is worth Carrasco either way. Carrasco screams mid-rotation starter, with a high chance of failure due to makeup issues, whereas Fields is on the cusp of a long, productive – if not star quality – major league career. A bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush and we need a 3rd baseman

    I’m not sure where you get the scouting report on his fielding, but BP’s statistical measures had him as average overall and to quote their 07 scouting report “nobody thinks he’ll have to move.”

    Like

  24. No, Carrasco does not scream ‘middle of the rotation starter’ unless you are counting a #2 starter as middle of the rotation or just saying he will be a #3 for us, at least early in his career, behind a healthy Hamels and Myers. And there really don’t seem to be significant makeup issues.

    I think this is a part of the evaluation style that ignores age of a player. Carrasco played all of last season at age 20. He was dominant at Clearwater, allowing only a .199 oba. He significantly outperformed the two years older Carpenter. He only held his own at Reading, but he was VERY young for AA. His K/9 and oba were more than respectable, although he walked too many. Carrasco also has some filling out to do on his frame, which should improve his endurance and perhaps his already very healthy fastball velocity.

    Like

  25. The concerns over Fields defense were expressed in the past. I don’t know that he’s gotten better. Could he play there? I guess, I mean Wes Helms and Greg Dobbs played their last year, but his value will be directly tied to his bat. I’m not convinced his bat is going to be special. Carrasco’s development has slowed a bit, and I don’t think he’s really a true #1 at this point, but it’s far too early to give up on him, or say he’s definitely a #3 or a #4 or anything else. His brilliant 2006 was partially aided by his very friendly home park, but he still has plus pitching tools, and he still has a lot of upside. He reached 2A at age 20 and he struggled, as you’d expect a lot of 20 year old pitchers to struggle. Nick Adenhart was one of the best pitching prospects in baseball heading into 2007, he struggled at 2A at age 20, and people have started to downgrade his future as well. It’s kind of knee-jerk.

    I’m worried about Carrasco’s control, I’m not worried about his “makeup” or anything else. The Phillies have time with him, he might not help in 2008, but he also shouldn’t be traded for a guy like Josh Fields. Andy LaRoche is the type of guy who you might want to target, as his minors numbers were better than Fields and he’s a much better defensive 3B. If LA gives up too early, that’s an option to pounce on. I just don’t really like Fields going forward, and I don’t want to trade Carrasco for him.

    Like

  26. My question remains:

    Sure, we see Carrasco’s potential as a #2 or whatever, but other teams will look at the risk factors (command with CC mainly) and balk at a atraight up. Is it worth throwing in a B prospect (Jaramillo?) as an enticement, to fill a long-term hole more than adequately? It’s a theoretical question. Do you overpay in talent to acquire talent in areas of need, when you are scurrying every year or two to shore up the position?.

    Like

  27. No, you don’t overpay. Largely because the Phillies problem is pitching, and that is harder to acquire. We can bemoan the state of our 3B offense last season, yet we led the league in runs scored and were 10% ahead of the Mets, who were second in NL East in runs scored. You do not overpay for the priviledge of trading your best pitching prospect for a so-so 3B rookie, just because 3B is weak defensively. That is focusing on the wrong hole.

    Like

  28. it just comes back to overvalueing (spel?) what you have in your own cupboard. Carrasco has had well-documented makeup issues in the past – referring to his first call up to lakewood in 05 – and though I’m not a big believer in unquantifiable measures, it just seems he’s struggled every time he’s gone up a level. Though he certainly may workout, he’s far from a sure thing. btw, I don’t mean he’s got attitude problems when I say makeup, just that he apparently had a lot of trouble making adjustments and problems that have been included in past scouting evaluations.

    Let’s just be honest with ourselves. Carrasco is not a number 1. None of us are scouts and should not speak with the authority of one. What we can do is look at stats. Cole Hamels is a borderline number 1. Johan Santana is a true number 1. Carrasco’s performance pales significantly in comparison to either. And that is when one considers age/k rate/park factors etc. Could he be a number 2? a 3? sure. but what does that mean? What I think it means is that he could be a contributing member to a good rotation, and I don’t dispute that. I just offer that Fields WILL be a contributing measure to a good line-up, if not the 3 hitter.

    And I didn’t say or mean to offer that he was Helms in the field. I said his statitistical measures were average and the scouting reports by real scouts backed it up. average is not a bad thing. It means he is neither an exceptional or poor major league 3rd baseman. Helms/Dobbs is not average. And you don’t need Rolen defense to win.

    Like

  29. Also, in the interest of preventing offense, I realize that no one is saying that Carrasco is a #1. I’m just making a point that it shouldn’t be in the discussion, because he hasn’t shown anything in the minors that would indicate as much. Then the question becomes is he a 2 or a 3 or what. Right now he’s a young pitcher still looking to establish himself at AA. And Josh Fields himself is not important to my point. It’s just my opinion that a major league organization would generally do better were it to trade unestablished players with a small chance at stardom for young players who have already established or are at least far closer to establishing that they will be productive major leaguers.

    Like

  30. I think you’re overblowing a few things. First, Carrasco doesn’t have “major makeup issues”. The Phillies rushed him to A ball at age 18, he really struggled, and he let his emotions get the better of him on the mound. Do you see that as a makeup problem? He didn’t speak English, and he was playing in a full season league with guys 2-4 years older than him. He got knocked around, and he struggled with it. He repeated the same level at age 19 and put up big time numbers. “Makeup problems” are generally things like problems with the law, being a bad teammate in the clubhouse, etc etc. Carrasco’s problems seem to be confidence at times, and his control. That’s not a makeup concern.

    The problem is, everyone was really high on Carrasco after 2006, and those same people are now down on him after his 2007. He reached 2A at Age 20. Find a current list of top pitching prospects, and find the number of them that spent their entire age 20 season at 2A and dominated. It will be a very short list. No one here is saying Carrasco will be a #1. But he has top of the rotation tools. His fastball is very very good and might get even better if he fills out his frame. His changeup is a plus pitch, depending who you ask, and he’s improved his curveball to at least an average pitch, again depending who you ask. The big thing is that he’s only 20 going on 21. He’s still ahead of the curve in terms of his development and where most prospects his age are. People saw his big 2006 and immediately started asking when he could help the big team, which was clearly premature.

    The issue here is pretty simple. Our major league team’s biggest weakness is pitching across the board. We have two good starters and lots of question marks. We have a potentially good closer, an overpaid lefty reliever, and then a lot of question marks. 3B is a definite problem, but our offense is still the best in the league. We were the best in the league last year with Abe Nunez starting half of our games at 3B. Carrasco is not the savior for 2008, and I’m not opposed to trading him, but you’d better be getting at least an above average regular at 3B, both offensively and defensively. I don’t think Fields is that guy, and that is where this entire debate started.

    Like

  31. We will have to agree to disagree on what “makeup” problems mean. Gavin Floyd had makeup problems not because you had to be afraid he was gonna kneecap if you crossed him, but because he was a fraidy cat out on the mound. His “make-up” was that of a little beyotch. Of course, if he would kneecap you, that would be a makeup problem as well.

    I do think Carrasco is overrated, and I do think its a red-flag when pitchers continually struggle as they get pushed up the ladder. You seem to think he has 3 “average” to above average pitches, but I just submit that if they were indeed average to above average pitches, then he’d be an average to above average major league pitcher. Can we agree he is not? So they are average to above average compared to what?

    As for Fields, we can disagree on him in particular, but the idea is that there is a balance to be drawn between potential and readiness and people seem to overvalue potential cause then they can use sexy terms like he’s got “plus” pitches, and undervalue the fact that a given player has shown the ability to contribute.

    Like

  32. Maybe we just have philosophical differences when it comes to evaluating players. The Tigers just gave Rick Porcello one of the biggest deals ever given to a draft pick in June. Scouts drool all over his pitching tools. At age 19, if he were thrown into a major league rotation, he’d get his brains beat in. He has zero pro experience.

    When a scout describes a player’s tools, he’s looking at where he currently is, and what he’s expected to develop into. It’s dangerous to look at a player’s minor league numbers and assume he isn’t good enough to produce, or try to take those numbers and make major league numbers of out of them. Take yourself back to 2001. Chase Utley was a 22 year old playing in the Florida State League, high A. He put up a .734 OPS, hitting only .257 with a .422 slugging percentage. At the time, were you envisioning him as a 30+ HR 2B in the majors? If you’d just glanced at his stat line, would you assume he’d be garnering MVP votes 6 years later?

    Player development is not an exact science. Some guys develop sooner than others. Carrasco has a major league fastball right now. It’s 92-94 mph and it has movement. Now, his command of that pitch, not just the control, is where he needs to improve. That comes with logging innings in the minors, facing advanced hitters, and learning how to set batters up. His changeup and curveball would probably be a tick under major league average right NOW, but he’s only 20 years old and has only a half season in 2A. Most 20 year olds are not ready to step into a big league rotation and dominate. If Carrasco would have been kept at Clearwater last season for the entire year, his numbers probably would have looked dominant. In 17 June innings, he had a 15:1 strikeout to walk ratio. If you leave him there all season, he probably ends up with an ERA in the mid-high 2’s, he racks up the strikeout numbers, and everyone is excited. But they promoted him aggressively, and he got knocked around by much more advanced competition. However, the last time he got knocked around he rebounded the following season and was great. To assume that he’s just an average prospect now is foolish.

    Here’s the bottom line. Trading Carrasco right now for less than a potential stud is kind of silly to me. We have very few reliable starting pitchers in the majors, and we don’t have any can’t miss guys in the minors. All of our prospects have their flaws, but Carrasco has the most raw ability of any of them. Trading him for a position player only further weakens our available pitching options. Teams are lining up to give Carlos Silva 12 million a year for four years. Carrasco has the ability to be a lot better than Carlos Silva. Will he? Well that’s the ultimate question, isn’t it?

    I’m not saying to never trade prospects. But you have to trade the right ones for the right players. Josh Outman is more flawed than Carrasco as a prospect, and I’d certainly trade him in the right deal. Carrasco has a special arm, and he’s still very young. Unless you get not only immediate help, but also long term impact help, I don’t see the need to trade him. Trading him for a mediocre pitcher, or a 3B prospect with flaws of his own doesn’t seem like something I’d get behind. But everyone has different strategies. I just think you, Will, are underestimating the importance of age related to level in this particular debate.

    Like

  33. Referring to your Utley comparison, we can all point to players who worked out and those that didn’t. Players who surprised and players who dissappointed. But its only informative to do so to the extent that it demonstrates probabilities of success and failure(though I would point out that Utley’s ISO power was actually pretty impressive, and his numbers were dragged down by an unusually low BABIP). The probability of success for Carrasco is still realtively low as he is still pretty far away from being a successful big league pitcher, at least from what we know now.

    In the current case, I am skeptical of Carrasco due to slow adjustment periods, ok K rates (6.85 in Clearwater is not encouraging, your small June sample sized notwithstanding), high bb rates and a HR rate that spiked significantly last year at both high A and AA. I think there is a high probability that he’s much ado about nothing. There is also the probability that he’s gonna be great. Of course, no one knows. But I do think there is a natural tendency to have rose-colored glasses on when evaluating what you see (or in our case, read about) every day and I think Carrasco falls into that category.

    Like

  34. Fields? If we could try and get a quality 3b stud why him? I would rather have Vitters though Vitters would cost alot more than Carrasco I think. Still did anyone see the playoffs? We could have had Mike Schmidt on our team and still would have lost that series, though we may have won a game, because our pitching was sub par. If we have 1 move to make via trade I wouldn’t want to make it on Fields.
    We need pitching and not an up and down offensive player who can’t even take an intentional walk.

    So 3B isn’t manned everyday by the same player…who cares. Every team has a position where they try and piece it together, what makes us any different? It seems pointless to waste trade value and yrs of Carrasco on Fields.

    As to “make up issues”, I think there is something to be said if he struggles at each level, but there is even more to be said if he learns from those struggles. He did in Clearwater so he gets a chance to do it again in Reading.

    Also seeing the amount pitchers are going for it just doesn’t make sense to trade the few who might pan out.

    Like

  35. It is less clear what Will’s objections to Carrasco are with each post he makes.
    Not a sure thing? No player is a sure thing. Including Hamels or Fields in 2008. Carrasco’s history says he is pretty darn good.

    Trouble adjusting as he moves up? Really? Here we have a guy who holds his own at AA at age 20. That says he has moved up extremely fast and prospered as he did so. Myers was 21 his year at Reading. Hamels also reached Reading at age 21.

    Continually struggles as he moves up? He moved up from Lakewood to Clearwater between 2006 and 2007. As a guy who was still young for his league at Clearwater, he was close to unhittable. Six wins against two losses, an ERA of 2.84, an oba of .199, 6.85K/9, 2.84 BB/9. Those are dominant numbers.

    Like

  36. Will, I’m not sure how long you’ve been reading my writings here, but I think I’m far from a “rose colored glasses” kind of guy. I readily point out the flaws of our prospects, and I was accused of many things this summer for being critical of a number of our guys. Again, I simply think this is just a case of you looking at raw numbers in a vacuum. Carrasco’s overall numbers at Clearwater don’t look impressive, but when you consider his age relative to the average prospect’s age at High A, then consider that he was promoted midseason it helps to explain things. I’ve voiced concern over his HR rate. I’ve voiced concern about his control. But at the end of the day, his tools still do matter. He’s not a guy with fringy stuff who dominated in A ball and all of sudden everyone is projecting great things from him. The raw stuff has always been there.

    I’ll also point out that the jump from A ball to 2A is the toughest jump for a prospect. The quality of competition at 2A is higher than any other level, and probably even moreso than 3A, as most teams don’t put their elite talent at 3A for anything longer than a stopover to the majors. Carrasco is a young 20, as he didn’t turn 20 until March. He faced advanced competition at both stops, and he showed flashes of dominance. Finding a #2 starter is a lot tougher than finding a 3B. The cost of free agent pitching in relation to its worth is far more inflated than the price of a good 3B.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree here.

    Like

Comments are closed.