Reader Top 30; #3

2010 Reader Top 30

The voting for #2 wasn’t quite as close as I thought it would be, but Trevor May comes out on top, collecting 252 of the 683 votes, good for 38%. He was followed by Phillippe Aumont with 142 and Tyson Gillies with 108. I’m really interested to see how the next 5 or 6 play out in the voting. I completed my Top 30 for the upcoming Phillies Annual 2010, which will be released in a few weeks. I’m going to keep my list top secret as to not influence the voting here. Check below the fold for more.

01. Domonic Brown, OF
02. Trevor May, RHP
03.

99 thoughts on “Reader Top 30; #3”

  2. Cosart should not be the #3 guy more like around 10-15th. got to meet him this summer and doesn’t seem to really care. plus seems like he’s week and gets hurt a lot.

    Like

  4. A couple of weeks ago my top 3 was set in stone. 4 – 6 were a bit harder but I had 4 or 5 guys I’d be comfortable with. Right now, I’m looking over the field and I’m having a tough time.

    Is Aumont the guy who has serious health issues or a guy with no health problems? Can he throw 97 with a very good secondary pitch or a guy who can throw hard with nothing else? Can he he a starter or will he top out as a closer? I have more questions about him than I have answers.

    Gillies is ahead of Gose but does he top out as a 4th OF’er? Biggest upside potential is probably Santana but the track record is too short. Or possibly Valle. But at #3, I want someone I really think will contribute at a Major League level.

    Aumont is my choice and I’m hoping he is the best of all things.

    Like

  5. Still on the Santana bandwagon but I have to admit I am being unfair to Gillies. Besides this team needs another player who gets on base.

    Like

  9. I think he’ll be 4th. I am really surprised people voted May #2…I think we love our own prospects a little too much.

    Like

  11. I like Gillies over Aumont – hard for me to get excited about a reliever. Even though he played in a hitters league it’s hard to discount the OBP.

    I still like Santana for #3. Even though it was a very small sample – it was a pretty dominant performance. You don’t just get lucky and jack a few over the wall as a 16 yr old. I look at sample sizes for pitchers, and for hits, walks, etc, you can get lucky there – but raw power is rarely a fluke.

    Like

  13. It’s Gillies. As Clyde said, if he was an original draftee we’d be gushing over him. His floor looks like a left handed Scott Hairston. His ceiling looks like Johnny Damone to me.

    Like

  14. boy this talent level has really dropped off if you have a 2 year draftee as your #3 already. also, not good to hear jacin’s report of cosart.

    Like

  16. I voted Gillies. It’s close, but have to go with the position player over the hot reliever that hasn’t logged a lot of IP. I think Gillies has more upside than Gose, because of superior plate discipline.

    Like

  17. Gillies, because I feel fairly confident that he’ll be a 4th outfielder, at the least. And I’m hopeful he will end up being better than that. So he’s a nice mix of predictability and potential.

    Aumont’s health scares me. Ramirez’s unimpressive season last year does likewise. But those are probably the next two for me, in some order.

    Like

  19. I am going with Aumont followed by Gose and Valle. Aumont because of his upside and I am assuming potential injury is not a factor here. We really have a big drop from 1 to the next tier of prospects. Gillies belongs at the bottom of the top 10, not near the top here. His stats are very misleading.

    Like

  20. Here we go again, knocking a guy for topping out as a closer. We knock a guy for potentially coming in to 60 games as opposed to starting 35. I am missing something I guess??

    Like

  21. Wildest Top 30 crapshoot of all time. Just put ’em all in a bingo spinner after #1 and call ’em out. It would be just as predictive. Reminds me of today’s stock market.

    Like

  22. ” I am missing something I guess??”

    Yes.

    It’s kind of frustrating to see this – it was explained to you why starters are more valuable (short answer: starters pitch for more innings – that’s the relvant metric, not appearances). Now, I don’t expect you to agree with that analysis necessarily – you would be wrong, of course, but it’s a free country after all – but maybe you could, I don’t know, come back with some analysis of your own, a counterargument maybe, instead of simply ignoring what other have written. Or you could even simply join the cranky “numbers? what do THEY have to do with baseball” crowd and argue that, I don’t know, closers are more valuable because of some mystical “intangibles” crap – I don’t know, maybe the starters on teams with crappy closers don’t pitch as well because they worry too much about the closer surrendering the lead (no, I don’t believe that silly argument – my point is that at least that’s an argument, as opposed to mindlessless repeating of the same crap).

    Like

  23. Steve Jeltz – I think your question is legitimate. Papelbon is still closing in Boston. And dominant closers get really big checks these days. Some teams must think certain innings are worth more than others.

    Anyway, I would like to see Aumont develop as a starter in the minors. And I’d love to see a Josh Johnson clone some day. But if he turns into a Paplebon, I won’t complain. I promise.

    Like

  24. Went with Aumont again. His numbers were very similar to May’s (including IP!!) at a higher level, so he probably should’ve been #2, but what are you gonna do?

    Like

  25. If you went simply on James’ SONAR Score, Brown, Santana, Valle and Gillies top out on the hitter side. DeFratus and Bastardo would be the top pitchers.

    Which brings up a question: Is Bastardo eligible for the top 30? He’s on the 25 man roster but he only pitched 23 innings last year for Philly. He pitched 54 innings in the minors in 2009. Is he considered a big leaguer or still a prospect?

    By the way, I’m sure even James would say that you can’t pick the top prospects based on SONAR score alone. May’s SONAR score was well below other guys who won’t even get an honorable mention in the top 30.

    Like

  26. Larry,
    I get your point. However, if you have a really good closer, that has tremendous value. Look at 08, when Madson and Lidge made every game at the end of the season 7 innings. Look at the Mets the same year with all of the blown saves. I am just saying that if you have a great closing prosect, their is great value in that. See Rivera and Yankees.

    Like

  27. Voted for Santana again. Youth + potential + .896 OPS, albeit in a small sample size. He’s a long ways away, but he has a chance to really be something.

    Like

  28. I voted for Aumont because of his arm. I’m hoping and assuming the Phils will try him in the rotation to get him some innings because he needs experience. I’m hoping that Seattle simply babied their prize arm for the season after a tender elbow and the plan would be to stretch him out again now. I’m also trusting the ex Mariners staff, now working in Philly, who think this kid can be pretty good.

    Like

  30. mike77 Says:
    December 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM
    It’s Gillies. As Clyde said, if he was an original draftee we’d be gushing over him. His floor looks like a left handed Scott Hairston. His ceiling looks like Johnny Damone to me.

    Maybe Johnny Damon with a strong arm.

    Like

  31. There are an lot of votes being cast for Gose. Can someone who has voted for him explain what makes him a better prospect than Gillies?

    Like

  33. Mike77 – I didn’t vote for Gose – but I’ll try to make an arguement. One, he’s two years younger Gillies. Both guys are going to make it on speed, and Gose is A LOT faster. He stole more bases, and had a much higher success rate. He has a plus, plus arm for the outfield as well.

    Gillies had more power (home runs anyway) – but that can and probably should, be attributed to the league that he played in. I’ve never seen either in person, but judging from photo’s, Gose looks like he could fill out a bit more than Gillies…but that’s pretty unscientific on my part.

    Gillies had a MUCH higher OBP. Some of that is due to the ballparks he played in – but give him his due, he’s patient, and he makes contact. In Gose’s defense, his average plumeted that last six weeks of the season due to fatigue.

    I’d rate Gose a touch higher because of his age, and because I believe he has more upside (tools!!)…but if you factor the numbers/performance a little more you could easily go with Gillies.

    Like

  34. Ice-9
    “And I’d love to see a Josh Johnson clone some day”

    Hell bud I would love to see Josh Johnson even over Halladay only because of his age and how he survived the idiot Marlins.
    anyway that is a nice nice target to shoot at.

    Like

  35. Whether or not he keeps hitting, Gillies will make it on his speed and defense so he gets my vote here. If I were sure Aumont could be a starter I would have given him the nod instead.

    Like

  36. I’d be happy with a Paplebon or Johnson, but I’m not expecting/projecting that. I was trying to make the point that a developed closer could have considerable value.

    Interesting facts to me:
    – Josh Johnson is 6’7″ and 250 lbs (like Aumont)
    – Johnson was drafted in the 4th round in 2002 (unlike Aumont who was a 1st)
    – From Wikipedia: “After having dealt with ellbow problems throughout the 2007 season, Johnson had Tommy John ligament-replacement surgery on August 3, 2007. He has recovered surprisingly fast and made his return to the Major Leagues on July 10, 2008, only eleven months after having undergone surgery.”

    Like

  37. I went with Aumont. It’s hard to make a judgement based on seeing one innings worth of work on TV, but man did he look nasty. I hope the try him as a starter and only move him to the pen if his body fails. I am hopeful that his injury concerns are overblown.

    Next: Gose or Gillies – still trying to decide, but right now I’m leaning toward Gillies.

    Like

  38. While he’s still young, and a lot of his value lies in projecting his skill-set, I went with Gose here. What he did at his age in full-season ball (in his first real year as a non-pitcher) puts him above higher level prospects like Aumont and Gillies, who still maintain major question marks.

    Like

  41. Some scattershot thoughts, just to weigh in…

    LarryM: I’m done trying to use WAR to explain relative values.

    Which brings up a question: Is Bastardo eligible for the top 30?

    Bellman: Bastardo is eligible, as he hasn’t thrown 50 major league innings yet.

    Gillies, because I feel fairly confident that he’ll be a 4th outfielder, at the least. And I’m hopeful he will end up being better than that. So he’s a nice mix of predictability and potential.

    Chapel Hillian: well stated, agreed 100%. That’s my rationale as well.

    And guys, can we not throw around Josh Johnson comps for Aumont? Dude’s one of the best 15 starters in baseball, throws three above-average offerings, and barely walks anyone. The only thing the two of these guys have in common right now is their size.

    Like

  42. ****We knock a guy for potentially coming in to 60 games as opposed to starting 35. I am missing something I guess??****

    200+ IP is usually worth more than 60-80 IP.

    A 2/3 starter is worth more than all but an elite closer so unless he becomes Mo Rivera he’s probably worth as a starter.

    Like

  43. Regarding Gose vs Gilles, there’s no way any of us would rate Gose higher based on the season Gilles just had. Personally, I’d like to see him have a second good season before I anoint him but if he did that at Clearwater, we’d be going crazy over him. By the way, my understanding is that Gilles is faster than Gose (J James may be faster than both) but that is a spring training dream race waiting to happen.

    Like

  44. The best way to get a feel for the comparative value of starters vs. relievers is to look at what they make in free agency. Take a look at how much middle to back-end of the rotation starters make (i.e. $10-12MM per). Then take a look at what elite closers make (Lidge’s extension from 2008 is a great example).

    Like

  45. Ice and Phillyfriar
    god only knows how good JJohnson would of been if they didn’t bring him out again after a 90 minute delay which caused his elbow problems. If Aumont has the kink of toughness JJ as shown he might turn this trade around. IF

    Like

  46. Aumont should start and see what he can do. Move him to a late inning guy if that doesn’t work. Lower level guys should start first before getting moved. Look at Bastardo, he was a starter first, now looks like he will end up in the bullpen.

    Like

  47. I’m voting solely on projectability and talent. Who will have the longest and most productive major league career regardless of when they get there.
    That’s why I voted for Gose even though Gillies will likely get there sooner. Both should have decent careers but not in the same outfield unless one of them develops power.
    I posted earlier that I thought Gose was more likely to so I’m sticking to that.
    Now that Taylor is gone I’m projecting a 2014 outfield of Santana, Gose and Brown.

    Like

  48. andyb–
    Once you discount Gillies’s homeruns to about zero for league and ballpark effects, I don’t really see how the rest of his stats can be all that deceiving. His obp is very likely real, hard to see how that is influenced much by park or league for a fast slap hitter. What I like about Gillies over Gose is the much better BB/K ratio and the 100 points higher obp. He reportedly is also faster than Gose, not that that seems all that significant.

    jacin —
    I don’t see how a fan meets a player and correctly decides he just doesn’t care. What does that mean? He didn’t want to talk baseball with you or sign an autograph. I’ve read nothing anywhere suggesting a poor attitude.

    If Aumont can be our future closer, that is quite valuable. Not sure we have any pitching candidates that project to better than a #3 starter.

    Like

  51. yeah, so, basically, a number 4 starter is generally more valuable than a closer.
    and you have to figure that aumont’s floor is out of baseball due to injuries in a year.
    so, He’s not in the top ten of our prospects.

    Like

  52. I think they will begin the star infield pickings in the near future. I think those positions are too blocked to bother with right now. It’d just be a wasted pick.

    Like

  53. It is true that they are blocked, but it would be nice to have a plan B in the system should something happen.

    Like

  55. Ask the Yankee’s if over the last 15 years they would have preferred a solid and reliable #3-4 or Mariano. I understand the rationale of starting pitcher’s being more valuable than relief pitchers but at the same time from what I’m reading the fact that someone is a relief pitcher is getting legitimately overblown. Once playoff baseball starts your better off with a very good back end of the bullpen arm than a number 4 starter.

    While a relief pitcher pitches fewer innings they also have a say in more games and for a closer they typically have a hand in every close game a team plays whereas if a #3-4 starter who people are saying is more valuable makes 30 starts he will have at least 5 clunkers, 5 more games where the offense goes off and that leaves 20 games that he has some impact on and probably goes 6 and gives up 3 or 4 runs. A stud relief pitcher could come into 65 games and have a direct impact on everyone of them either by extinguishing a late rally or starting an inning and getting a save.

    Like

  56. it doesn’t really matter what yankee fans think, ’cause mariano is really the exception. he’s probably as valuable as a good #3 starter. but really, the fact that any closer will probably only ever pitch 60-70 innings a season makes them less valuable than an average or mediocre pitcher who might pitch 180 innings. quantity counts as well as quality.
    besides, relievers are relievers because they can’t make it as a starter, at least usually.

    Like

  57. jpd I think your argument summarizes my whole problem with the overvaluing of marginal starting pitchers and that is the quantity of quality argument. I’d take a good starting pitcher over a good reliever but a marginal starter against a good reliever I’ll take the reliever every time, there are plenty of pitchers out there that can give you 180 innings and an ERA with appropriate peripherals of 4.5 but how many shutdown relievers are there? not as many as there are marginal starters. Again I’ll take those 60-70 high quality innings over 180 decent innings and that’s why i voted Aumont.

    Also the fact that a pitcher couldn’t make it as a starter probably means he lacks a 3rd pitch, if he has 2 dominant pitches than so be it, Joe Blanton has made it as a starter and Ryan Madson hasn’t but Madson has 2 pitches better than anything Blanton throws and Blanton probably couldn’t make it as a reliever.

    Like

  58. For the record, when I vote for Aumont I am going to do it with the assumption that he is capable of starting games. I don’t have full access to medical records so I don’t know what the condition of his hip is. But I intend to base my decision (for now) on what he can do, rather than his assigned role.

    Like

  59. Went with Gillies – maybe not as high an upside as others, but probably the one player left with the greatest chance to be an above-average or better major leaguer at a position where the team will probably need help in two years (when they jettison Victorino).

    Like

  60. Quality wins over quantity. I am not at all a believer in the specialness of the 9th inning, but still think a very good reliever who can be an effective closer trumps a decent #4 starter who can give you 200+ IP of mediocrity. The Phillies farm has a lot of pitchers who can reasonably be projected, absent injury, to #3 – #5 starters. We’ve produced that with Happ (really closer to a #2/3 in his performance to date, Hamels (#1/4, really confusing to date), Myers, Floyd, Kendrick. In that interval, our plus relief off the farm pretty much comes down to Madson. We pay umpteen $millions for Lidge and in the past have lost draft picks and payed big $ for not all that great guys like Mesa. If a couple relievers off the farm can staunch that flow of $, draft picks, and prospects to fill the primo bullpen spots from outside, that is worth as much to the team as #3 and #4 starters.

    Like

  61. Write in: JC Ramirez.

    For me, its between Ramirez and Aumont, but I see Ramirez as the better guy due to the fact that he’s coming up as an SP. And, of course, his bad numbers last year can heavily be attributed to pitching in an extreme hitters’ park in High Desert, even moreso than Coors/Arlington.

    Like

  62. Steve,

    Well, that’s what I was asking for, an argument. I don’t buy it, mind you, because those 9th innings would have to have about triple the impact of the starter’s innings (since starters pitch about 3 times as many innings as closers), and they don’t.

    I do think that a closer has somewhat more of an impact on a per inning basis than a starter, but not nearly enough to make up for the fewer innings.

    Like

  63. No matter what you say, some people don’t buy metrics like Wins Above Replacement. Repeating it won’t change it.

    Like

  65. “No matter what you say, some people don’t buy metrics like Wins Above Replacement. Repeating it won’t change it.”

    You’re sort of missing the point. I’m not even making the argument from the matric; I’m making a more fundemental argument (which, of course, also happens to be the reason why the metic agrees with me, but still needs to be engaged in it’s own right). Whether you buy the metric or not, in order to accept Steve’s argument, you have to believe that the inning worked by closers have roughly 3 times the impact of innings worked by starters. And even apart from sophisticated statistical analysis, that seems a lot to swallow.

    Now, the statistical evidence is there too, and you don’t need to use metrics such as wins above replacement. There are a number of things you would be likely to see if, in fact, closers were as valuable as starting pitchers.* For one thing, you would see teams with good closers winning dramtically more games than projected based upon their runs allowed and runs scored. But you don’t. I could go on; there’s just tons of statistical evidence, without using metrics such as wins above replacement.

    Now, as I alluded to in a prior post, there are those who basically reject statistical evidence all together, except maybe when they think it supports their position. Obviously I’m (by definition) not going to convince those people, but anyone amenable to statistical evidence should be reachable, even if they are suspicious of specific analytical stats (which often do have real flaws, as valuable as I think they generally are).

    “Should be” is not the same as “will be;” most of the human race is sadly incapable of critical thought.

    *Obviously a good closer is more valuable than a bad starter, but the point is that if Aumont has what it takes to be a 1, 2 or even 3, he will be more valuable in that role than as a closer. Obviously if he can be a good closer that would be more valuable than a failed, or even 4-5, starter.

    Like

  66. And again, all I’m looking for is a counterargument. Steve, when prodded, makes one, and it is the best one he can make even if I don’t buy it. That’s fine. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but it’s nice to see an attempt to, you know, engage my arguments, instead of simply seeing inarticulate grunts of disagreement.

    Like

  68. just because aumont may be a reliever eventually i am basing my rankings on him becoming a starter. he has better stuff right now then bastardo, cosart, and colvin, possibly may as well. bastardo right now may crack top 10 aumont is a top 5 talent in this system. for the record i would rather have a top 5 closer then and #4. sean west, tommy hansen, oliver perez, craig stammen. those are the currently project #4 starters in our division, i’m not scared give me a good closer any day.

    Like

  69. just was looking up gillies and aumont and see there both canadian. sees like the last few years we have had a lot of guys from around the world is this a new trend? back to cosart he is still young and hope he grows up has a great arm but when i was in clw for a couple weeks i got to see a few games and just saw him complain a lot and didn’t carry himself well. but thats just what i saw i hope im wrong. just wasn’t very impressed by him for all the hype.

    Like

  71. Allentown says…

    “We pay umpteen $millions for Lidge and in the past have lost draft picks and payed big $ for not all that great guys like Mesa. If a couple relievers off the farm can staunch that flow of $, draft picks, and prospects to fill the primo bullpen spots from outside, that is worth as much to the team as #3 and #4 starters.”

    …….

    I think you overstate the case a little bit by lumping a reliever in with a #3 starter (maybe #4/#5 instead of #3/#4), but I think your overall point is an excellent one.

    While it might be true in general that starters are more valuable then relievers, we know that the Phillies specifically have spent years trying to find a legit ace closer.

    The team has invested millions, traded players, and forfeited high draft picks in the search for premier relievers…and what was the return? We thought Wagner was the answer, and then he wasn’t. We thought Lidge was the answer, and now I can’t even be sure about that anymore (although he was still worth it for 2008).

    So if the farm system can start pumping out quality bullpen pitchers, maybe even a stud closer, then that allows the team to re-direct resources elsewhere…like re-signing Werth or somewhere else.

    That could be very valuable. And I am more optimistic with guys like Rosenberg, Schwimer, Mathieson, and maybe Aumont (although like most everybody else I would much rather see Aumont be returned to the rotation and succeed there).

    Like

  73. Insisting that all starters are more valuable than all relievers requires that you believe that the 4th inning is as important as the ninth.

    I am intrigued by the arguments that there is no such thing as clutch hitting on a consistent basis, though I am not completely convinced yet.

    But there appears to be ample evidence that pitching in the 9th inning is harder than pitching in the 4th. Therefore, a pitcher capable of pitching to their potential in the 9th is more valuable than one who is not. Is Aumont? Don’t know. But we are talking prospectively, here.

    As a social scientist, I would argue that it is misguided to ignore statistics and reasonable metrics. But I would also argue that it is as much a distortion of reality to reify the numbers by suggesting that only things that can be measured matter or that any metric is better than no metric. Not everything can be measured accurately.

    I’d rather have a good reliever in the 8th or 9th over a good 3 or 4 starter. Failure by either has an impact on a pitching staff and a team. I’d rather weather the impact of a mediocre #3 starter than a mediocre closer.

    So, all things being equal, I’d rank a potential closer or 8th or 9th inning reliever higher than a potential #3 or #4 starter.

    Like

  74. “Insisting that all starters are more valuable than all relievers requires that you believe that the 4th inning is as important as the ninth.”

    No, it requires that you believe that the 4th inning is at least 1/3 as important as the ninth. 200+ IP versus roughly 60 innings pitched. (Parenthetically, and the following does not apply to closers who almost always pitch when the game is on the line, but non-closers often pitch in situations LESS meaningful than the typical 4th inning, i.e., when the team is behind of ahread by several runs).

    “So, all things being equal, I’d rank a potential closer or 8th or 9th inning reliever higher than a potential #3 or #4 starter.”

    Well, a “8th inning reliever,” or (especially) a ninth inning non-closer, are going to be pitching in a ton of completely meaningless, or almost completely meaningless, innings when the team is behind or way ahead. But regarding closers, your not far off – except I’d say 5 or 5 instead of 3 or 4.

    But Aumont has the potential to be a 1 or 2. Why not see if he can realize that potential before giving up on him as a starter (unless there really are disqualifying health issues)?

    To put it another way, if you give up on him as a starter, his “ceiling” is much lower – even by your reconing, a closer is only as valuable as a #3 starter.

    Like

  75. 4 or 5, that is.

    And NO ONE said that “all starters are more valuable than all relievers.” A GOOD starter is (a lot) more valuable than a good reliever.

    Like

  76. The best closer in the history of baseball makes $15MM per year, the same amount of money that Derek Lowe makes. The Yankees pay A.J. Burnett $1.5MM more per year than they pay Mariano Rivera. That should put it in perspective.

    Like

  77. Since we are all divided, what can we say about the lack of infield talent? When do you think the Phillies need to draft high-round infield talent? Or is it too late?

    Like

  78. It’s never too late, but we have already sentenced ourselves to our third consecutive fill in at 3B. The search for a replacement looks to be a well over decade long affair. If we get lucky and a quality college 3B prospect falls to us in the draft, he might be ready when Polanco’s contract expires. If a great HS 3B prospect falls to us, we will have another 2 or 3 year plug in guy after Polanco. Already too late for a HS SS replacement for Rollins. If we drafted a good college guy, the timing could match. We have time for an Utley replacement. So — better hope Galvis learns to hit or Villan ups his overall game and Rollins takes a turn to the upside over the next several seasons.

    Like

  80. It is frightening to look at the lack of infield talent in the system. I thought that they may try to deal from a surplus of minor league outfield prospects to garner a 3b prospect this offseason. Obviously, that won’t be happening at this point. I guess when they did invest heavily in infield prospects with Rollins and Utley, they were rewarded big time. But, I know there have been a few misses to a lesser degree at 3b with Mattair and Costanzo and maybe Mach and the kid from Texas at 2b? This coming draft should try to fill some of that gap early. But, you never know what will be on the board when their pick rolls around.

    Like

  81. I have a theory on why our system is devoid of middle infield prospects, but its tough to understand the regular misses at 3B and 1B, though Singleton looks like our first legit 1B since Ryan Howard.

    Like

  82. I think the Phillies should draft whoever is at the top of their board rather than for position, at least in the 1st couple rounds. It’s more important to have guys develop into useful major leaguers than be worried about filling positions, especially infield where skinny 18 yo shortstops hit growth spurts and become rightfielders and your 3b of the future ends up at 1st.

    As for starters vs. relievers, Blanton’s a pretty good #3 starter, would anyone really trade him straight up for Fernando Rodney or Matt Capps, two guys with very respectable save numbers? I wouldn’t. What about Brian Fuentes or Heath Bell, who led the leagues in saves? I still wouldn’t. If Ryan Franklin can post 38 saves with a 1.92 era, you have to rethink the way you value relievers.

    Like

  83. I agree with JBird. You have to take the best available player – and a lot of pitchers – when it’s going to take them 4-5 years to make the majors anyway. If a college 3B was available who was a first round talent I’m sure the Phillies would take him, but those guys don’t just fall out of the sky.

    Like

  84. jacid you meeting cosart and getting that opinion is like when i met schmidt ,hated his guts but he was a great player, some guys just have that attitude but to say he doesnt care is harsh in my opinion/

    Like

  85. Jacin to knock on, in my opinion, the pitcher with the best pure stuff in the system is pretty low. Between him and may we have a lot to look forward to in the future. Cosart is number 3 on my list. If I’m not mistaken most high school kids have some growing up to do ala drabek. Look forward to seeing him and may grow in al aspects next season

    Like

  86. mikemike: my point was, which is more valuable, Blanton or a closer who put up respectable numbers last year, not would you sign them. Their employment status doesn’t have any bearing on the argument.

    Like

  87. One more for Gillies…can’t ignore that OBP + speed combo.

    Aumont is too much of a risk in terms of injury for me, and I’m with Larry M on the reliever value argument, too.

    Looks like Aumont will win out, though, at this point.

    Like

  88. Take the best player available is a fairly nebulous concept that has a lot of organizational bias built into it. Yes, if I need a SS and Pat Burrell is there when I pick, I take Burrell. If I badly need a 3B and Bonds or Griffey are there, I don’t take the 3B. But, unless you are willing to seriously bust slot and an almost universally recognized primo guy like that falls to you, that is not the choice you face drafting at #27.

    It was only through specially tinted lenses that guys like Golson, Hewitt, Dugan are ‘the best player available’ who must be drafted. They are projects and were drafted as such. If you’re going to draft a project at a position at which you’re well endowed, you might as well draft a project or even a slightly lower ceiling/surer thing at a position of need.

    Some positions are repeatedly overdrafted. Whatever one things of ‘best player available’, guys with a good chance of success at catcher, shortstop, and 3B tend to go higher in the draft than guys with a good chance at other positions. It will be extremely tough for the Phillies to find a legit 3B of future outside the first round.

    Like

  89. The Phils will ocntinue to draft the best player on their board but will go left side of the infield in the event of a tie. Unfortunately, the future after 2011 doesn’t look great at this point. However, the present looks pretty terrific. I’m having fun looking at my prospect list and trying to figure out who might make the majors for the Phils in the next three years. If Brown has a great season next year, maybe he gets a shot at Werth’s job in 2011 but that would be all lefty leaning, so probably unlikely. Gilles, if he has a great season again next year, may get pushed and get a shot in 2011 because he bats righty. It might depend on how Ibanez does next year. We already know that Victorino can play RF. No one else is even close as a position player.

    Like

  91. I believe the Phillies whiffs on Latin American prospects like SS Carlos Rodriguez and 3B Wellinson Baez hurt considerably as they were projected to be top prospects when signed.

    Like

  92. The Phillies were quite high on CRod and Baez when they signed them and for a few years after, but I don’t recall either being regarded as among the primo prospects of their international class. The injuries to Chapman and Richardson at 3B really hurt, as did the overprojection of Baez and Fischer, Mattair, and Costanzo.

    Like

  93. The best player available argument seems a bit overplayed in baseball. Given how many players are drafted, and given that baseball selections are not necessarily the top rated player on the board (see Murray above), and given the general crapshoot that is the baseball draft, the difference between the best shortstop a team’s list and the best centerfielder seems pretty arbitrary.

    Were there above average major league infielders drafted in the past several years in rounds, say, 1-5? Would it have been a mistake if the Phillies had taken one of these players instead of an outfielder?

    The inability or unwillingness of the Phillies organization to draft quality infielders or to obtain them in trades (e.g.: with the Mariners) baffles me. In a world of good, it is an organizational failure.

    Like

  94. “The inability or unwillingness of the Phillies organization to draft quality infielders or to obtain them in trades (e.g.: with the Mariners) baffles me. In a world of good, it is an organizational failure.”

    They have their best shortstop, second baseman and first baseman in franchise history playing in the same infield at the same time. And they were all Phillies draftees. In what world is the Phillies infield a problem. Are we seriously freaking out because Chase Utley’s contract expires in 2013?

    Like

  95. My theory is that it is extremely difficult for players to remain at SS and 2B because of the defensive rigors, and finding guys that can hit that can stay there are even more rare. I think some teams shy away from spending high draft picks or giving huge bonuses to middle infield guys if they have doubts about that player staying there. Because if you can’t stay at SS or 2B, the next logical place is 3B or a corner OF spot, and the threshold for offense at those positions is much higher than SS or 2B.

    Like

  96. “They have their best shortstop, second baseman and first baseman in franchise history playing in the same infield at the same time. And they were all Phillies draftees. In what world is the Phillies infield a problem. Are we seriously freaking out because Chase Utley’s contract expires in 2013?”

    alan thank god someone is in the same boat as me, i’ve mentioned that a few times myself.

    Like

  98. Third Base was supposed to be filled by that Costanza guy. Third Base is an issue that needs to be filled via free agency instead of the draft, as it’s too late. SS is something we can fill in free agency though, and 1B and 2B are far away, we can probably hold off on drafting that position high for a year or two.

    That’s how I see it. Odds are we need to resign Victorino and Werth now that we’re down to one major outfield prospect. Our payroll will have to go up.

    Like

  99. Well, Costanzo posted a impressive .620 OPS between AA and AAA last year at Age 25 for Baltimore…didn’t quite pan out.

    A far cry from his 27 HR effort in Reading at Age 23.

    Like

Comments are closed.