General Discussion–Week Of Oct 13th

Other Stuff

First and foremost: Happy Columbus Day!

News and Notes over the last week:

–Rafael Chaves has been hired as the Phillies Minor League pitching coordinator .  Chaves had been working in the Dodgers organization as a special assistant for player personnel.  Carlos Arroyo who had been the minor league pitching coordinator in 2014 will return to his previous duties as a minor league roving pitching instructor

–Johnny Almarez was named as the Phillies new Scouting Director.  Almarez most recently was employed by the Braves where he was Directing of International Scouting and Operatins for the last five years and comes with an impressive pedigree of recognized and signed talent.

–INF Reid Brignac, P Jeff Manship and P Jeremy Horst all elected minor league free agency.

–OF Tony Gwynn and P Sean O’Sullivan were both outrighted off the 40 man roster and are now free agents.

–The Arizona Fall League has begun with mixed results for Phillies prospects.  OF Roman Quinn has had a rough beginning going 2 for his first 15 (.133) with 3RS and 3SB.  Logan Moore has seen action in 2 games this week and went 1-6(.167).  On the hill, Nefi Ogando has been impressive, appearing in three games in relief and throwing 4 innings, yielding just 1 run on 3 hits.  He walked 1 and struck out 3 while earning a save.  Adam Morgan made his AFL debut by throwing a perfect inning, while Ethan Stewart’s control problems have now translated to the AFL.  He made 2 appearances and gave up just 1 run on 1 hit in 3.1IP, however walked 5 and struck out an impressive 6 hitters. The dark side of the Phils AFL performance last week clearly went to Ryan O’Sullivan who gave up 6 runs on 7 hits in 2.1 innings of work.

Discuss.

201 thoughts on “General Discussion–Week Of Oct 13th”

  1. Quinn managed a very productive game last night despite not having a hit. 0 for 3 but adding two walks, two runs, and three stolen bases. He was also on the front end of a relay throw to nab a runner at third base late in the ball game. Good game for Quinn even without a hit.

    Would love to see a 2015 out of Quinn in the fashion of his 1st season at Williamsport where he put up a .370 OBP and .778 OPS.

    Like

    1. Marc Topkin of the St. Pete Times also had a write up about interest in Howard to Tampa Bay.

      In regards to what we should expect in return for Howard, is it really that low? I know we aren’t talking high end prospects but a projectable middle reliever in Jake Thompson? (Not the Jake Thompson from Detroit that went to Texas… i’ve seen this one, he has a great build but his ceiling is in DeFratus territory)

      Do we need another middle relief prospect? Or could we get a little more in return. I mean, Fausberto Carmonanandez got us two Top 20 guys, and you’re saying Howard can’t get us one?

      Like

      1. Yes. Right now the Phillies are willing to pay the bulk of his contract to get him off the roster.

        It is a whole addition by subtraction trade. It does not matter what we get back so long as he is not suiting up for the Phillies next year.

        Like

    3. I would pay just about all of the money for Howard to get a prospect in return. If we can get him off the roster, save a little money, and get back a fairly decent prospect in return then its a win. Howard’s future in Philly must come to an end. Who knows a change of scenery may do him some good. We may not need another bullpen arm, but we might as well take what we can get. You can never have too many quality arms. Plus, if are bullpen continues to be strong an some other bullpen prospects emerge we can start trading from depth to fill other holes.

      Like

    4. I like that one comment from a poster to that article……from a stock market saying…..’don’t try to catch a falling knife’…and Howard is a falling knife.

      Shame MLB does not allow the trading of ball players for Rule 4 draft picks…..Howard may be able to garner a 5th to 10th round pick.

      In any event, depending on contract monies the Phillies are willing to eat, a Thompson or Gannon may be the only players that could bring back a return.

      Like

      1. I always wondered why draft picks can’t be traded. Does anyone know if there’s a specific reason why teams can’t trade draft picks?

        Like

        1. And I realize that competitive balance picks can be traded, I’m talking on a wider spectrum of picks (Rd 1 – Rd 40)

          Like

        2. No offense but there is an obvious reason.

          Having a strong farm system is crucial to success at the major league level. If they allowed the trading of draft picks a team could conceivably destroy their team by trading all of their draft picks leaving a barren farm system.

          Like

      2. Or better yet if the email MLB had an amnesty rule like the NBA. Except didn’t have to pay much because the rest is no salary cap . Oh wait scrap that it would work

        Like

  4. Look around the AL. Howard gives you 20 HR and 85 RBIs. That is not being overly optimistic. Look at DH #s of O’s A’s Seattle TB. I think at 5Mill/yr, that is good production. So, if Phil’s agree to eat 50Mill, which I think it would take, they could end up with a Prospect

    Like

      1. So his stats are inflated by the declining talent around him? Im not a huge Howard apologist but his numbers probably wouldve been better if he actually had some talent around him.

        Like

        1. Sam, disgree with your assessment of Ryan Howard. Ryan Howard ranked near the bottom of RISP hitting of all baseball. How many times did he leave Revere, Rollins and Utley standing on 2B or 3B? I still can’t forget that home game against the SF Giants with runners on 2nd and 3rd with none or one out and a gaping hole on the left side daring him to hit it there-he struck out. He has refused to change his hitting style even though people like David Ortiz have urged him to do so.

          Like

          2. I get that his risp is bad…but more opportunities will result in more rbis…no matter what the rate. My comment was that origi.al comment said he benefits from talent around him and my point was the talent around him wasnt that good…so not sure what you disagree with

            Like

        2. Howard’s RISP was mediocre.
          He had plenty of runners in scoring positions and probably should have had driven in more.
          Then again the shift, and his slow afoot, cost him dozens of clean hits to rightfield.

          Like

  5. I’d rather get a competitive balance pick or international bonus pool money rather than org filler or a middle reliever for Howard.

    Like

    1. I forgot that rules allow for the competitive balance picks in trade, that would be a very viable alternative for Howard.

      Like

  6. I would also take anything for Howard. First he is a liability on bases, you need two singles on most occasion to score him from second. His range at first is terrible, he is just a shell of his former self, I believe you move him out of some respect for what he has done, I would never outright release him. Take anything in return.

    Like

  7. You take the prospect to help Howard save some face but the key is how much of his contract would another team be willing to pay.. If the Phillies can save $10-$15 million over the next 3 years it doesn’t matter what they get back in return.

    Like

    1. “Howard save some face”!
      I would think carting his truckloads of ‘Ben Franklins’ to the local bank helps to keep his face saved.

      Like

      1. He was a key part of the Phillies run atop the division and the league. That deserves more than just a kick out the door. That fact that Amaro made the mistake of offering him a big contract isn’t Howards fault. Only an idiot would have said no thanks.

        Like

      2. Wow save face, Howard is building a 25 million dollar mansion in florida, with his ex cheerleader wife, what else does he want.

        Like

  8. A lot of people are clamoring for the Phils to get rid of Howard, but it is not a high-priority item for me.

    Here are the reasons:
    1. The Phils will be a bad team in ’15 and ’16 with or without Howard;
    2. Trading or releasing Howard will not save the team much money; and
    3. In any trade, the Phils won’t get much back.

    The team should keep Howard, platoon him at first, use him as a DH against righties, and bat him sixth. Many of us have advocated a platoon for years. Now that it doesn’t make much difference one way or the other, maybe the Phils finally will yield to the evidence.

    Howard’s continued presence in the lineup is one ethical way for the Phils to improve their draft position in ’16 and ’17.

    Like

    1. Platooning Howard has been used these past two years, by the fact he is ‘rested’ vs lefthanded starters on occasions….its when he has to face the LOOGIES after the sixth inning that issues arise.
      Do you pinch-hit for your clean-up hitter in the 7th/8th inning with runners in scoring positions and you are trailing?
      I begin to make the changeover now, and move him to a team who may need him.

      Like

      1. Howard actually hit a bit better against lefties than righties this year. His OPS against RHP was an abysmal .658. Let that number sink in. We’ve got a starting 1B with an OPS of .658 against RHP.

        Like

    2. The main reason i move Howard is because he is blocking a younger guy…i agree 15 will be a bust…but 16 is sign for hope maybe not sucess but hope…JP, Nola, Biddle, Quinn, Dugan, Knapp all could be here.

      Like

    3. He no longer hits well against RHP either. As a starting 1B, he is beyond saving by platooning. Every game he plays he is a constant reminder of what is wrong with the Phillies. He really needs to go. He is a negative value player to us. If we get a couple chance prospects back for him and save a few $ and give Ruf a chance, then we are ahead of where we are today. We’ll also get more value out of the 1B position next season. Howard really truly does stink.

      Like

    4. If you buy the “Phillies owe something to Ryan Howard for what he gave the team from 2005-2011”–and I do, to some extent–the kindest thing you could do is gift-wrap him to an American league team and let him play DH the rest of his days, a la Big Papi. I could easily see Howard having a modest career resurgence as a “veteran clubhouse guy” for a young team in need of offense out of the DH position, of which there are many, including Tampa Bay. He may never hit 50 HRs again, but I could see 30-35 as a realistic target, and trading him away from Philadelphia, where he will always bear the burden of not being the player he is being paid for be–which is not his fault, really–will always wear on him. Don’t underestimate the possibility that a change of scenery plus less physical demands on his body could result in a return of at least some of his timing and power at the plate.

      Like

        1. Brian Cashman, who was just extended as GM, is probably saying the same thing about ARod…if only there were opening somewhere else.
          How about this thought….Howard and Paps for ARod.the money is close, but the Phillies get an extra year from ARod. And the Phillies get the paparazzi that goes with ARod these days.

          Like

          1. We have two intriguing young 3B. I don’t want A-Rod. I really don’t think I could root for A-Rod any more than I could root for Delmon Young. A-Rod is likely the biggest cheater baseball has ever had and he’s been superlatively rewarded for cheating. Even if we had the brutal need for a 3B which we had a couple of years ago, I still wouldn’t want A-Rod on the Phillies, not even if the Yankees released him and we could sign him for just $1 mill a season. Beyond that, I think A-ROd will return from his time off essentially done, anyway. I think he’s at the stage of his career where he can’t approach average without doping. I think he’s learned his lesson: he got caught doping after there was no financial incentive left to dope. He’ll just play clean from here out, stink up the joint, and collect buckets of money.

            Like

        1. You’re right, but he hit 23 this year and he was all kinds of screwed up at the plate. That’s why I think he could still hit 30-35 if he were to have a modest resurgence. He’ll also still hit .230 and strike out 100 times.

          Funny, I was going to make a Rob Deer comparison but it turns out Deer (who I think of as the prototypical low-average slugger) only hit 25-30 HRs a year back in the 1980s, it really was a different time.

          Like

  9. It is understatement to say that the Phils are not a well run organization. I am never a fan of incompetence; so, I cannot root for the Phillies until there are wholesale changes in management. Rooting for the current team is rooting for Montgomery, Amaro, Dallas Green, and Ed Wade. It will not happen.

    OTOH, I continue to root for the players. Two players I would single out are Hamels and Rollins.

    IMO, Hamels is somewhat underrated. Of active players who have thrown 1,000 innings, he is fourth in ERA+, behind only Kershaw, Felix, and Wainwright. He is also seventh all-time in K/BB.

    While Hamels is a very long shot to the HOF under the best of circumstances, he has no shot with the Phils. My hope for Hamels is that he is traded this off-season to a NL winning team with a pitcher’s park. That should improve his ERA and win totals, things that still count (I don’t care what Hamels’ peripherals are, 10 wins a year over the next five years gets him an express ticket to the Hall of the Very Good. OTOH, if Hamels can reach 200 wins and a low career ERA with continued good peripherals and a better-than-average HR rate, he may have a shot at the HOF.).

    Rollins’ durability is taking him closer to the HOF with each passing year, but he is not there yet. IMO, four or five more years as a regular SS will get him there, but that would mean he cannot remain a career Phillie. If I were Rollins, I would be agreeable to a trade this off-season to a team that otherwise has a hole at SS for the next two-three years. If this cannot be done this off-season, I would look for the same deal after the ’15 season.

    Jimmy needs to look out for his own interests. Undoubtedly, as soon as Crawford is ready, the Phils would cut him loose.

    Like

    1. Correction: Hamels slipped a little this season and is now eighth all-time in K/BB. Two pitchers ahead of him are 19th century guys. The other five are Pedro, Mariano, Schilling, Haren and Cliff Lee.

      Like

    2. being jimmy has looked out for his own interest his entire career, i think he can probably handle that. hof for either of these guys? rollins has been overrated most of his career. hamels is good but not good enough

      Like

    3. Why would Jimmy want to force a trade when he can just pick the team he wants to play for as a free agent next offseason…? Trading him isn’t going to do anything to help the Phillies, no one’s giving up a top prospect for him and Freddy Galvis isn’t an every day player.

      Like

  10. Give Howard his due…huge power guy in his prime and he got paid for it…how many Philly fans (of all four teams) complain we never pay players…well we did and in hindsight its hurting…he got hurt and the talent around him also declined…if more guys were on base he wouldve had more rbis. This site is geared toward prospects obviously and he is now blocking a young guy. Sure i rather see Asche , ruf or Franco there. That is the main reason to move him. Dont forget this guy was an absolute beast for a 4-5 year stretch. An MVP. A part of a Championship team. (Also, i attribute his decline to Binoculargate…almost exactly when decline started…it was nice knowing when the fastball was coming…just saying)

    Like

    1. Amen. How many guys besides Howard in the history of baseball had a four-year run when they averaged 50 HRs? Off the top, my guess is five: Ruth, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and Kiner. Not bad company. Two legitimate HR hitters and the three most successful dopers.

      Like

      2. Howard will someday come back and be honored with a Wall of Fame ceremony.
        It will be a fitting testimony for his contributions for those great runs and the championship.
        But I think the prevailing thought is now to move on.

        Like

      3. how many of those guys struckout 190+ times a year.how many of those guys had their best year in their 1st full season and career path was basically straight down from that point on.how many of those guys had 3 putrid seasons in a row in their early 30’s?

        Like

        1. I don’t really think any of that matters. It’s what Howard was able to do when he didn’t strike out that made him special. Why does it matter that his first year was his best? What’s important is how he did in his best seasons, in whatever order they came. He was dominant for a several year period of time. He’s not the long-career-of-dominance type player, but neither was Sandy Koufax and he’s in the HOF. Howard got to 200 HR in fewer AB than any player in the history of the game. That’s a very real accomplishment, and his later declining/post-injury stats don’t erase that legacy. It’s a legacy that would have been even stronger had the Phillies not kept him in the minor leagues at least half a season too long. That’s not his fault. Despite OPSing 1.033 in Reading and .966 at SWB at age 24, Howard did not get to spend his full age 25 year in Philly. That is serious mismanagement on the part of the Phillies, just as they cost Utley a year of major league service. Howard has 334 career HRs and would be easily over 350 HR if he were brought to the majors promptly. Yes, the post-injury Howard is not a plus player. But please, let’s not diminish what he has achieved in his career and how much that meant to the recently-passed PHillies golden age. Also, let’s not blame Howard for the fact that the team shot up his ankle for months and that this likely contributed to the Achilles tendon injury. Howard was an absolute play-through-pain-and-adversity warrior for the 2011 Phillies. HIs numbers weren’t on a par with his best season, but he still hit 33 HRs, OPSed .834, and drove in 116 runs. The Phillies management wanted him on the field almost every day and he obliged with over 600 PA. Doing so destroyed what was left of his career. Let’s not pretend that the blown Achilles isn’t at least a contributor to his subsequent decline.

          Like

          1. I don’t know that you can call it mismanagement. I mean Thome was the 1B and was having very good seasons in Philly. They needed him there to start putting butts in seats for the new park. You could say “they should have seen a stud 1B coming up” but you never know with prospects and Thome was as close to a guarantee as it gets to knowing you are getting a 1B who puts up numbers.

            Like

          2. The ~85% of bats that didn’t result in home runs do matter. Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds were on a different planet than Howard as hitters during their peak, despite home run rates similar to Howard’s. Sammy Sosa was significantly better. Ken Griffey was closer to Howard, but much more valuable because he played center field.

            I love Ryan Howard. I have many fond memories of him, as I do all of the really good players who were part of this most recent Phillies run. I look forward to his return for his enshrinement on the wall of fame. But there’s no fair comparison between his peak and the peaks of those other players, including Sandy Koufax.

            Like

            1. Yes. I would add that the problem with Howard wasn’t that his first full year was his best, but that’s the only year when he was a truly elite player. He had other good years, and contributed to the team’s successful run, but, 2006 aside, his one core skill, while truly exceptional, was mitigated by his other deficits.

              On a career basis Howard’s value has been almost entirely his ability to hit home runs. In fact, I’d go further. Using WAR and the linear weight value of a home run, Howard’s home runs account for MUCH MORE than his value. That is, home runs aside, on a career basis, he is well below replacement.

              None of which is to deny he was a big part of the Philies’ run. After all, those home runs did provide a lot of value, and his ancillary skills were obviously better during his prime than they are now.

              Like

            2. Yes, Howard is not Babe Ruth. Neither is he Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Ken Griffey or Dick Allen. Bonds was a juicer, so his HRs need to be strongly discounted, but he also was a more complete player than Howard. Nobody is saying that Howard should be compared with the overall best position players/hitters in the history of the game. He doesn’t deserve to be in that class. Still, he was the dominant power hitter of his time and the historic speed with which he reached 200 HR is a very significant accomplishment, especially for a guy who as far as we no never juiced. That’s something for him to be proud of and for the Phillies to honor. His strikeouts and his poor D and running really don’t diminish his offensive achievement. Yes, he faded quickly. We thought when he came up that his body type wouldn’t give a long period of excellence. Perhaps it was that. Perhaps it was not adjusting to the shift. Perhaps it was the leg injury he played with through just about all of 2011, ending with the blown Achilles. It’s time to replace Howard, but I will remember him well. His good years were very good and they coincided with our golden era. He only had the four great years, but was an offensive force for us from 2005-2011. Even in his best years, he struck out a lot, but he also walked quite a bit. It wasn’t until after his Achilles tendon injury that he has sported a low batting average. He was generally around .280 and even had a .300+ season. If you knew what you were getting going forward, what would a rational team pay for Howard’s 2005-2011 seasons? They were worth quite a lot and in his best years, he was close to free. He also was a low-bonus guy out of college. His current contract is a disaster, but over his career I think Howard has earned what the Phillies have paid him.

              Like

      4. By my count, Howard also comes up just a little short on averaging 50 HRs over a four-year run, unless you are measuring your 4-years between two magic dates and not looking at full seasons.

        Like

        1. I’m looking at 58, 47, 48, 45 HRs for Howard’s best 4 seasons, which were consecutive. That’s 2 short of averaging 50, unless you’re counting post-season HRs, which I don’t think is appropriate.

          Like

    2. Well we do know that Howard’s total compensation/payment from the Phillies for the last 10 years or so is the highest in Phillies history.
      Maybe Cliff Lee comes in a close second.

      Like

    3. His decline is almost 100% due to the rise of Saber metrics is baseball and shifting.

      Injuries only hastened a decline that started in 2010.

      Like

  11. Certainly you move Howard if you can but if you can’t they have to have the resolve to not play him every day much like how the Angels handled Vernon Wells. At some point a suitor will come calling.

    Like

    1. He may miss playing football, but had he gone to play football I’m sure he’d miss that $725,000 dollars a little more. His numbers don’t jump off the page, but he is still very young and has plenty of time to develop.

      Like

      1. Next season is big for him. He needs to be playing in a full-season league and putting up better numbers. The positives are that his stats are slightly improved over last season. The NYP league definitely is tougher than GCL league, as he had to face a lot of college pitchers in addition to the HS and international pitchers who survived the GCL and its equivalents. I don’t buy the argument that he is a top 15 prospect for us, but he remains a legit 2nd- or 3rd-tier prospect.

        Like

        1. Really no guarantee he would have made it as a QB. How many guys in each college class make a successful transition to being an NFL QB? How many manage to even get drafted in the first 3 rounds. What are the odds that Cord would have been one of these guys?

          Like

          1. I wasn’t being totally serious, and it wasn’t meant to be a commentary on his performance. I just meant that if he had committed to be the QB at Mississippi State he would be on the (shockingly) #1 college team in the nation right now. Possibly.

            I remember earlier this year someone was referring to his college commitment and they were like, “it wasn’t to a real SEC school, it was to Mississippi State.” Little did we know!

            Like

  13. Really wonder how the rotation will shake out, I am sure there will be some temptation to kick the tires on Lester, Scherzer, and Shields and then there’s the Hamels situation he is probably at his peak value this offseason and there could be multiple teams bidding for him if the team decides to move him, Cubs, Dodgers, and Red Sox all have the money and prospects to try and acquire Hamels.

    Like

    1. Lester will be the most coveted SP out there as there is no compensation tied to him. I would bet highly against the Phillies signing any Free Agent SP with compensation tied to them.

      Lester is in a great position to cash in as the Yankee’s will loom large. The Yankees can’t help themselves they love sticking it to the Red Sox on their FA’s.

      I’d bet on the Phillies to look for 2 guys they can get for 2-3 year high AAV deals again with no comp.

      Like

      1. I think they’re going to try to sign a couple of Roberto Hernandez types. That worked well for them last year. Here’s a name I’ve been thinking about: Wandy Rodriguez. His numbers this year were pretty much in line with career norms, except he gave up a huge number of home runs. A whopping 20 percent of his fly balls this year left the park–I’m not sure I can even comprehend how it’s possible to give up a home run on one out of every 5 fly balls. That’s like stunning.

        Anyway, Wandy’s not going to light the world on fire, unless it’s to be used a kindling for the grill on which he is cooking a large suckling pig for a midnight snack, but I think he could potentially be a good bounce-back candidate a la Hernandez. He had knee surgery after his release from the Pirates in order to get ready for 2015.

        Like

      1. Very Risky Romus. I am opposed to trading Hamels until I hear what exactly is being offered for him.

        I’m not sure breaking the bank for any single player is a good idea when this club is thin on so many levels.

        Like

        1. I’d do it for a package headlined by Betts or Russell. 6 plus a potential for more years of a middle infield of one of those guys and Crawford would be very hard to pass up. The problem is getting more than just those guys because I’d imagine Ruben would need to have at least two blue chippers to pull the trigger on a deal and it’s hard to picture a team willing to take a hit to their farm system like that when they can just overpay for Lester.

          Like

        2. Understand the risk factor……also IMO .Ruben is a very riskless person to the point of fence-sitting.
          But this is a last place team, no matter how you cut it, and Hamels is your best return-in-value player.
          Clubs like the Cubs, Pirates, and even the Bosox have loaded farm systems and three prospects from any of them could be a good foundation to build on with Franco, Crawford, Nola, Biddle and Quinn all knocking on the door in a few years.
          ‘Fortune sides with he who dares’. Virgil (not Ozzie)

          Like

      2. I would rather trade Hamels and wait a year to replace him. That would give us time to continue to develop guys on the farm and get Franco some more big league playing time. It would also give us time to reassess how quickly we can contend. I think trading Hamels and getting another top 10 (hopefully top 5) pick is the best option right now. Then I would try and sign 2/3 of Jordan Zimmerman, David Price, and Mat Latos next year. I think if we trade Hamels we have to get at least one of those three and then can add a guy like Mike Leake, Ian Kennedy, Rick Porcello etc.

        Like

  14. I think the Phils pass on the 1st tier Ps, and spend their $ buying prospects via trade and going heavy after Tomas. I see a McCarthy, Liriano type P added to the rotation.

    Like

  15. Pay close attention to the Cubs this off season. They hold all the chips. They can spend money if they want to. They can deal from positions of strength if they want to at both the MLB level and the farm.

    Question is will Theo pull the trigger on the starting pitching he needs this year ( a year ahead of his stated plan) or wait on another year of seasoning for his position players. I’d bet on him to flip Castro for a SP this off season.

    Like

  16. Corff Sandberg is 2nd tier prospect, I will say that. Romam Quinn is 1st tier. Any questions?

    Like

    1. Crawford is a tier one prospect, Quinn is tier 2, Sandberg is tier 3. Tier one is admittedly somewhat vague, but I think we can limit it to the consensus top 20, 50, or 100 prospects in baseball. Quinn doesn’t make any of those cuts. Sandberg has a great build for producing power in the future and has some good scouting reports, but other than short bursts of performance really hasn’t shown much yet by way of on-the-field output. He’s young and he has time, but he isn’t t here yet.

      Like

      1. Everyone had their opinion and I also think Quinn is a tier one considering his comeback from those injury he would probably be on those lists. I think he’s done good considering all the changes he have been through compare to Crawford they didn’t have him playing different position and hitting switch he is a tough guy to try to accomplish all of this

        Like

        1. I’d agree that there has been a ton that has been stacked against Quinn over the past few years. You’ve outlined them but I’ll repeat . . Switch hitting is such a hard thing to do against college pitching and even high school pitching (side note; Trout was a switch hitter in HS, a decent one too) . . Now try it against professional pitching, it’s a tough task. Going from playing CF to another OF position isn’t easy (it may be less difficult of a position to play but when you are used to CF the switch to LF or RF takes some adjustment) let along switching to an infield position and the hardest (SS) at that. Then finally when he has an off season to work on everything he ruptures his Achilles . . Talk about bad luck. Next season will be Hugh for him, I can see him having a season that pushes him to top 50 status a la Billy Hamilton 2012 minus say 75 SB, it’s crazy to say that would still give him 75SB. Crazy. 2015 huge for Quinn.

          Like

  17. Really impressed with the Dodgers hire of Friedman, that’s a move that allows a big market team to remain in contention. Andrew Friedman with financial resources is a scary prospect for the rest of baseball.

    Like

    1. The Rays have not been that great lately as they have been drafting much later recently and some trades have not worked out for them. Interesting that he would pick LA to go to when Texas wanted him earlier and other teams would be interested in him.

      Like

  18. That is a move a forward thinking team makes. I agree, they have huge pockets, and realize they are not getting where they want to go just by outspending everyone. I would have like to see him here, but our opening won’t be until next year.

    Like

    1. You have to figure Friedman’s first move will be solving the log jam in the outfield, I wouldn’t at all be shocked if Puig is moved this offseason.

      Like

        1. Interesting, I don’t persoanlly love Puig’s skill set but I am sure he would appeal more to what the Phillies value in a player. I would rather have Seager but that deal is probably not going to be on the table.

          Like

            1. Yup. We’ll see but I don’t see him trading any of their young players this off season and that includes Puig. I see them moving Ethier and Crawford and not much else.

              Like

            2. Moving Ethier and Crawford would be similar to the Phillies trying to move Howard and Paps.
              LAD may have trouble moving them…..and possibly even Kemp if they so desire.
              Ned Colletti’s contracts with them make them unattractive, along with their age and past health issues.

              Like

            3. Moving Ethier and Crawford would be similar to the Phillies trying to move Howard and Paps.
              LAD may have trouble moving them…..and possibly even Kemp if they so desire.
              Ned Colletti’s contracts with them make them unattractive, along with their age and past health issues.

              Like

            4. Would you take Crawford today on a 3yr/$32 deal? Would you take Ethier on a 4yr/$35?

              Or Howard on a 2yr/$30

              That’s the holding team paying roughly half of each’s remaining salary. I think there are a handful of teams for each club that might be willing to take chances on a move like that.

              You might not return much by way of prospects but you are clearing salary.

              Like

  19. I’d look for Maddon to wind up there as manager in a year. I read he has a home out there and that is where he spends the off season. Maddon will say all the right things in this his last year under contract.

    I am with out a doubt intrigued to see what Friedman does there. I oft felt these guys in bottom feeder markets get the luxury of no pressure. Much easier to play and operate in sports when nobody outside your organization expects you to win. Sh!t half the people that show up for a Rays home game are probably there to root for the other team.

    Like

  20. A couple of thoughts on Cody Asche:

    I sense that a lot of people have soured on him. You don’t hear as much about him even from his biggest fans.

    But I’m kind of bullish on him. No more than I was, but I guess me previous .. optimism in my view, construed as pessimism by some … now looks more optimistic. A couple of specific thoughts:

    His defense improved over the course of the season.
    His hitting improved over the last month or so.
    The Steamer projection system sees him as essentially league average across the board in 2015.

    There is obviously a looming issue with Franco. Franco does look like the better prospect. Let’s assume that, through the first couple months of the season, Asche is a league average third baseman, and Franco tears up AAA. What then?

    I still don’t buy a position switch for either player. The question then is whether the team could get an appropriate return for Asche. Appropriate in the sense of an equivalent outfielder … i.e., similar experience level, league average with the potential for a little more. If so, I think they would have to pull the trigger. If not … well, it would not be the worst dilemma to have.

    Like

    1. I agree some what with the only difference in that scenario being I’d play Franco at 1B near term meaning 2015 should he get called up. Beyond that will be determined by what Asche does in 2015 playing everyday. He will either separate himself as an everyday 3B or force a defensive move for himself which can be worked on in winter ball some where.

      Franco again short term at his age would adjust fine to being moved back to 3B. I would say for him 2015 will be all about hitting big league pitching.

      Again I point to Pujols who was an excellent 3B in the minors that made the move to 1B as the easiest way for the Cards to have his bat in the line-up every day.

      I’m resigned to the fact that Howard is either gone this offseason in a trade or he comes back as a bench player getting a few starts here and there with Ruf your every day 1B.

      Obviously something will give in May/June if Franco is hot in LHV. Not a bad problem to have at all.

      Like

    2. I have watched Asche, and am so unsure about his future, I don’t know if he will field well enough, hit for enough power and improve his obp. The good part is we will get a full season to see if he improves.

      Like

      1. Asche is the type of player who will improve, even if it kills him.
        He turns 25-years old next season so he is still young.
        But can he better Franco’s defense at third…i think not.
        I heard Ruben mention Asche could have an opportunity in LF at some point.

        Like

    3. I’ve always been very high on Asche and I still see a lot of what excited me about him. He works very hard and continues to improve. His swing is terrific when he stays in the strike zone. His problem is that he goes out of the zone too much and looks bad when he does. His line drive rate is very high when he swings at strikes. Many young players have this problem initially and then improve at pitch recognition. Asche hasn’t improved as fast as I expected but he has improved. Schmidt has talked about this exact issue often on his Sunday games. He has also improved on hitting that inside pitch out of the park. His glove has also improved very much. Having said that, I’m not sure it will ever be better than Franco’s glove. I’m expecting Franco to start at LHV next year and Asche to start in Philly at 3B. However, I would really like to see him get some time in spring training at 1B, 2B, and LF in addition to 3B. I would love to see him converted to a super utility man like the Hairston brothers. Franco needs to stay at 3B, his arm is too good to be wasted at 1B. When he hopefully does well at LHV and forces his way up in June, I want it to be at 3B with Asche moving into a bench role.

      Like

    4. Just don’t see enough power for him to be anything more than a guy. Fine to have on your roster while he is making the minimum. They really should try to have him play multiple positions he could be a decent bench piece if he offered positional flexbility. Can’t imagine he’d get you more than a fourth outfielder platoon bat back in a trade.

      Like

      1. He doesn’t need to be THAT much better than he was this year to be an average regular as a third baseman. And if he is that, he is surely worth significantly more than a “fourth outfielder platoon bat.”

        Like

        1. I Don’t get he doesn’t have to be much better, it must be me. 309 obp, 10 hr in 434 abs. 250 hitter.16 errors in 121 games, war if I am right was .06, and 46 rbis. he need a lot of improvement, project those numbers and you have a 250 hitting 20 errors or more, 60 rbi third basemen. don’t think that is too great , but only my opinion/

          Like

          1. Yes, I also think Asche isn’t all that far from being an MLB-average 3B. I think you make an unfair statistical comparison in looking at the whole-season stats for Asche’s first major league season. He has improved during the course of that season. He started with an adjustment period in April in which his OPS wasn’t much above .400, or if you prefer his obp was only .242. He was also injured during the year. He is better MLB hitter today than he was at the start of the 2014 season. He also is a better fielder than he was then. I don’t think the RBI stat says squat — it’s a team stat and Asche wasn’t in a high RBI spot in the lineup, anyway. I don’t see his projected RBI rate as alarming in any way.

            Like

  21. Trades: Obviously the dodgers need to move an OF. They also need to rebuild their bullpen. Would they have any interest in Papelbon. If it wasn’t for his personality, I think teams realize the need for strong bullpens as they watch the Dodgers and Tigers fall apart and the Royals bullpen dominate. So Papelbon should have more value.

    Pap for Kemp? That’s a lot of salary to take back . . .

    Point being, we should look at a team like the Dodgers who have to move someone because they currently already have 4 OF’s and need to make room for Joc Pederson so the price should be relatively low. They also apparently need SP so Hamels/Pap for Kemp/Prospect/Prospect/Prospect?

    Like

    1. I looked up Pederson numbers, great obp, The only red flag to me is his strikeouts, The 33 homeruns in pacific coast league, is very hard to translate to majors, that is a thin air place to play. the ball really travels. that being said, He looks like a really good prospect, but is he so good that the dodgers wouldn’t move him?? with new guy making the decision it will be interesting.

      Like

    2. The Phillies stink and will stink for the near future. In any trades, you have to think younger. Any players we get need to be under 25 so that they will be part of the next great Phillies team (not Kemp). We don’t want any older guys. Pederson and Seeger are the guys to chase. I’d offer Hamels in a package to the Cubs, Red Sox, and Dodgers for 2 of their top prospects plus a decent 3rd prospect. I’d include Bastardo, Pap, or Byrd to expand the deal if necessary but you can only trade Hamels if you get back a guy who could become our #3 hitter (since we don’t have a future #3 hitter in our entire organization). Too many failed prospects. I would try to sign Tomas and then trade Hamels for hitting (Soler, Russell, and a young pitcher or Pederson, Seeger and a young pitcher or maybe Betts in a package) and then draft another pitcher at #10. Its going to take a few years….

      Like

      1. I agree with you. Those 3 clubs have the $ and the talent to make a Hamels trade. If we don’t get top prospects, simply don’t trade him. His $ is irrelevant as the market will pay more to Scherzer and Lester and come real close with Shields. I don’t do it if I thought the Phils would contend in the next couple of years. They won’t. This team is, if they get lucky and everything breaks right, at least looking at 2017. Why put Hamels through this torture for another couple of years?

        Like

        1. Hamels’ $ are relevant, very much so. In today’s world, you measure a trade by the net $ value of what you are giving up vs. the net $ value of what you are getting back. This is easy to say, but difficult to execute.

          Back in the old days – before players started getting paid seven-figure salaries, baseball trades were simply talent for talent, major leaguers for major leaguers and prospects were not involved.

          Somewhere along the line, maybe after everyone was getting seven figures but before the eight-figure salary became commonplace, GMs started to acknowledge that a player contract has two components, an asset side and a liability side. No longer are they just comparing one talent against another talent; now they must compare one set of dollars vs. another set of dollars.

          The asset is the contribution the player will make on the field over the life of the contract. The liability is the compensation the player is owed. The net value of a player’s contract is the difference between the two. And net value is the key number. Unfortunately, only the liability side is easy to measure. Expressing the asset side in dollar terms is a guessing game.

          Measuring the dollar value of a prospect has the added complication that it is uncertain that he makes the majors. Moreover, because of the lack of track record, measuring the asset side of six years of control over a prospect in dollar terms is even more of a guessing game. As we know, though, the good thing about new players is that they will be dirt cheap for three years and relatively inexpensive for three more years. Consequently, a new player’s contracts can have positive net value with even modest on-field performance. To quantify a prospect’s value, one could multiply the probability of the prospect reaching the majors (a fraction between zero and one) times his estimated net value in his six years under team control. Generally, the probability number for prospects in the lower minors will be lower than for prospects closer to the majors.

          What is Hamels’ net value? It’s the difference between the dollar value of his on-field performance over the next four years less the $96 million he will be paid.

          The asset side is a difficult calculation that will vary from team to team. One could estimate Hamels’ WAR over the next four years and multiply it by the dollar value of a WAR. Average WAR is too low a number to use since teams interested in Hamels would be contenders to which a single win is more valuable.

          In any case, Hamels’ net value would be positive and should yield a top prospect or two. Even better prospects if they are further away from the majors.

          If, however, the Phils add, say, $30 million to the deal, the net value of what the Phils give up should yield two or three top prospects. In other words, adding $30 million to a Hamels’ trade will get one more top prospect.

          Like

          1. I brushed over the calculation of the net value of any prospect package to be received for Hamels, but suffice it to say that this is a difficult calculation, the more difficult side to calculate and, possibly, a different calculation for all 30 teams.

            The most important point is that the money always matters – how much the players make, how long are the contracts, and how much cash a team is willing to put in any deal.

            Like

          2. If one applies a “net value” approach mechanically, one would end up being even more pessimistic than I am about the return for Hamels.

            But I think there is a premium for elite players, and, while many people much exaggerate this, a tendency for contending teams to value established veterans over prospects. That’s why we cam expect one top prospect, and a couple of good prospects, for Hamels. A pure net value approach would yield little in return..

            Like

            1. In calculating the net value, the probability factor for prospects, even top prospects, would be much lower than for established star players. Also, the value of a prospect eight or nine years out prior to free agency also needs to be heavily discounted for remoteness. Those are two separate, large discounts.

              After the discounts and after adding $30 million or so in cash, it is not difficult to see that the net value of Hamels plus cash would equal the net value of two or three top prospects.

              Like

            2. No.

              The ONLY time that two top prospects are possible would be a young (under 28 years old), well below market salary star with multiple years of control. Hamels qualifies on one of three criteria, arguably two if you kick in the cash. But he’s not young. His age matters. You can argue that it matters more than it should, but it matters a lot. THAT’S why two top prospects are out of the question. (Add in the fact that ALL of the potential suitors are organizations that value prospects highly.) I would also note that, even under ideal circumstances (all three criteria met), two top prospects as a return is quite rare. (Depending upon how you define “top prospects.”)

              Has there EVER been a trade for three “top prospects?” I guess it depends upon how one defines “top prospects,” but I think you would need a pretty broad definition of “top prospect” to be able to answer yes to that question.

              Like

            3. And as for your “discounts,” the first, for top prospects especially, is less that most people around here believe (in practice – let’s not get into abstract arguments as to what it “should” be), and the second is nonexistent. (Remoteness from free agency is a GOOD thing – you can argue that remoteness from becoming major league regulars causes a discount – probably so – but most “top” prospects aren’t THAT remote. it’s a very small discount, not a “massive” one.)

              Like

            4. The simple fact is that, increasingly the most forward thinking organizations – that includes all of the suitors for Hamels – do NOT “discount” top prospects much at all in considering trades for veterans. I know a lot of people around here don’t LIKE this fact, and think that the discounts SHOULD be large, but it’s a fact that they are not. The very rare exceptions to this (I can think of ONE in the past few years, the Oakland deal) don’t make it any less of a fact.

              Like

            5. Here the topic is net value. Let’s stay on topic.

              I referred to two specific discounts. One is a probability discount, i.e., the probability that a prospect reaches the majors and also the probability that the prospect performs at an expected level in any given year. The other is a remoteness discount, i.e., the discount a contender will apply to a prospect’s performance eight or nine years from now. A contender is more interested in next year’s performance and that of the year after; so, a contender will pay a premium for the performance of a Hamels next year and the year after and heavily discount a prospect’s expected performance in 2022 and 2023. It surprises me that you did not know what I meant by a remoteness discount.

              The rest of what you say is a re-hash of an old debate that we had and that you lost. I am not interested in going over old ground, but I would be happy to discuss further the net value calculation.

              Regarding a potential Hamels trade, you have two things supporting your position: one, the guys negotiating the trade could be Montgomery and Amaro, the two dumbest guys in the room; and two, the Phils may refuse to eat any cash, which would prevent their getting a max return. If these things happen, you can say that you were right all along. That will make some of us smile.

              Like

            6. And, Larry, just for the record, I seem to recall that, before the start of the 2014 season, your position was that, for Lee or Hamels, the Phils could only expect a No. 40 prospect and a No. 60 prospect. Your position has since changed as you attempt to get closer to the position of those of us who are more enlightened. 🙂

              Like

            7. Derek,

              Not only am I at work, I’m very busy at work. So this very incomplete response will be my last, at least for several hours.

              “8 or 9 years” is worse than nonsensical. Worse because measuring years to free agency cuts AGAINST your argument. The argument you are trying to make is “years before becoming a solid or better major league regular.” For top prospects, that’s generally somewhere between zero and two years. Now, is there a “discount” for that delay? For a contending team, yes. But it is IN PRACTICE a very small one.

              And as for me LOSING the debate, you’re most likely baiting me because no one could possibly that stupid. With ONE exception, the Oakland deal, EVERY deal over the past couple of years (and of course lack of deals as well) has proven me 100% right. The existence of ONE significant overpay (and one NOT in any event at all relevant to the Hamels situation specifically) does not overcome the Everest size mountain of evidence supporting my obviously correct position.

              Like

            8. Derek,
              I think LarryM had the better case here. One only has to look at the deals the Phillies have been in for ace pitchers in their 30s, who were making big $. Lee brought us Gillies, Aumont, and a throw-in. Not a particularly great deal, but not totally out of synch for many such trades. What did we pay to get Lee? What did we pay to get Halladay — and that was with Toronto sending us $6 mill? Since no team in recent years has under-valued prospects and draft picks to quite the extent that the Phillies have, I think you can view what we paid for Lee and Halladay at upper bounds for what an ace brings in a trade.

              A very young ace, still under arb is worth more, because he’s paid less than he’s worth. Hamels is an ace/near-ace, but his salary commitment seems to fully reflect that value. He is not an economic bargain.

              There is a significant discount from ceiling value, if you’re trading for guys down in the SAL or to a slightly lesser extent the FSL. That discount goes way down if you’re trading for top prospects who have finished a AA season or played in AAA. They are within roughly a year of the majors and the risk of flame-out has greatly decreased from the A-level leagues.

              If anyone offered the Phillies two top prospects plus a lesser prospect as has been suggested is Hamels’ worth, the Phillies will jump all over it. That deal won’t be forth-coming, because there are things which set a ceiling on Hamels’ value, particularly in the off-season.

              First, can we agree that a prospect who has survived at least a season of minor league ball at the equivalent of SAL league and retained his top-25 in baseball prospect status is worth one heck of a lot more than a first round pick in the bottom half of the first round? Than a pick in the top half of the 2nd round? Given the failure rate for such picks, I take that as a given, but if you disagree, please give a counter-argument.

              So, what Hamels is competing against are comped-FA. Hamels is paid at FA pitcher rates, so the cost difference between Hamels and a comped-FA isn’t great. So a team wanting to get a top starting pitcher in the off-season has a choice of Hamels vs in your case a guy in the top 25 of all baseball prospects, another guy in the top 50, plus a lesser prospect or… simply surrendering your bottom half of first-round or top-half of 2nd round draft pick and also saving yourself $1 million in the process.

              The other thing that limits Hamels value is that there will be teams looking to unload a star pitcher as a salary dump. To them, part of the value of the trade is purely economic, as it was when we traded Lee to clear budget space for Halladay. That the Phillies don’t have an economic need to trade Hamels, doesn’t mean that they will get better prospects. It just makes trading Hamels a less attractive prospect for the Phillies than it would be for a team hurting for $$.

              Like

            9. derekcarstairs —
              I think that you are confusing two universes. There is the universe of teams that is a contender and wanting to trade for an ace such as Hamels. Then there is the universe of teams which is willing to sell their top prospects for cash, something the commish certainly disapproves of. I don’t think there are many teams at the intersection of those universes. In the off-season, any FA with a QO only costs the salary plus a late-first- or early-second-round draft pick. That pretty much limits what a team will pay for a vet in the off-season to a prospect with the value of a low-first-round draft pick. Now, not everyone can get to sign the FA of their dreams, even surrendering the draft pick, so someone will give you more, but not a lot more. I doubt the commish would allow more money than Hamels’ 2015 salary to be sent with him in a deal.

              Like

            10. Allentown –

              A few points:

              1. As I have said in the past, an important point of making good trades is timing; with Lester, Scherzer, etc. available as FAs, perhaps, the Phils should delay a Hamels trade.
              2. Although Hamels has a market-rate contract, sending enough cash to make his a $15-million-per and well-below-market contract changes the picture; furthermore, since Hamels has only four years remaining on his contract, the contract that Scherzer signs, for example, could end up costing $100 million more than the Hamels contract plus cash; I see no league concern over the cash in a Hamels trade; the cash that the Phils paid when they traded Thome was a much higher % of the remaining dollars on Thome’s contract.
              3. Trades made under duress shouldn’t be compared to a Hamels trade; thus, you should disregard the Lee trade to the M’s and the trade to acquire Halladay (which should have been more lopsided, given the circumstances).
              4. I don’t think you will find a direct comparable with the Hamels trade I have proposed: trade of a healthy, 31-year old star pitcher with four years remaining on a well-below-market deal; since you won’t find a direct comparable, you should look at other similar trades and make the necessary adjustments; for example, one can look at the Samardzija and Shields trades and adjust for the fact that Hamels is the best of the three and that you will get more years of quality pitching (four years vs. one and a half); you can cite other trades, but, unless you make the necessary adjustments to account for differences with a proposed Hamels trade and translate those adjustments into prospect value, you are not accomplishing anything.
              5. This topic initially being discussed was the net financial value of contracts being exchanged in a star-for-prospects deal; this seems to have been lost in the ensuing comments, and, in particular, the use of discounts has been distorted; to value a prospect in financial terms, you can estimate the probability he reaches the majors; that is a number between 0 and 1 and is a multiplier of everything that follows; once a prospect reaches the majors, you must value each of his six years under team control; one way to do the valuation is by using projected WAR, although there are other and, no doubt, better ways to do the valuation; for each year, WAR is projected, multiplied by a $ value per WAR, and multiplied again by the probability he reaches the projected WAR (This is not the same as the probability the prospect reaches the majors; for each of the six years of team control, there would be a separate probability that the prospect reaches his projected WAR for that year.); for each of the six years, there will be a dollar amount; the dollar amount is further discounted, the further away from the present the bigger the discount (This is not simply a discount because of the time value of money; the primary reason for this discount is that a contending team will value more highly a player’s contribution this season and next than a prospect’s contribution several years down the road.); you add up the prospect’s six years, which have already been discounted twice, and you discount the total further by the probability that the prospect reaches the majors; with all the discounting that’s done, a prospect’s financial value to a contender is not as high as you might think; I am not disagreeing with the points you made about prospects from a baseball standpoint; they are just not germane when discussing the net financial value of prospects.

              Like

            11. Derek —
              Yes, a lot of those trades were made under budget duress, but I think that is really the most common circumstance in trades. Thus the ‘duress trade’ is always lurking in the background as an alternative to the team like the Phillies who might want to trade an ace, but don’t need to cut spending. You don’t really get more back because you aren’t under duress. The other team has the same alternatives regardless of your situation and will acquire the top pitcher it wants on the best terms available. For a team not hurting for $, that is Lester. For a team without a primo first rounder and money, that may well be Scherzer. There doesn’t seem to be a strong reason for a trading partner to overpay for Hamels. I’m not buying the send Hamels and a lot of cash to buy a prospect. First, because if a lot of money is sent, I think the commish calls foul. Second because most teams seeking an ace for multiple seasons aren’t hurting for $ and while Hamels’ contract isn’t a bargain it also isn’t over-priced or overly long. Perhaps the Phillies could get away with sending cash to a team like KC or Oakland, I doubt that approach works with the Cubs, Boston, Yankees, or either LA team.

              Like

      2. It won’t be Soler and Russell or Pederson and Seager. For Hamels you get one top prospect, another mid to back end top 10 prospect in a good syste, and a lottery ticket younger prospect with upside. From the Cubs a realistic offer might be Soler/Russell, McKinney/C.J. Edwards, and Gleyber Torres/Eloy Jimenez

        Like

        1. I would do that for Soler. I don’t know if the Cubs would though. Unfortunately for us, the Cubs, Sox and Dodgers all have the money to pay a little more for Scherzer or Lester and keep their top prospects if they want.

          Like

        2. I agree that that none of the 3 teams will offer their top prospects initially. Only the As, who traded Russell and maybe regret it now, traded a top prospect at the deadline this year, teams aren’t trading prospects. However, the Cubs have stated that they’re ready to win now and the Dodgers just brought in Friedman because they want to win now. RAJ should have a unique opportunity to have teams competing for Hamels. I expect Scherzer to go to the Yankees or return to Detroit and I expect Lester to go to the Cubs. The Cubs can’t win by adding just Lester but adding Lester and Hamels makes them a contender. Plus they can afford to give up Soler AND Russell because of Bryant and their existing SS situation. The Dodgers would love to bring Hamels back to CA and to add him, a big game performer, to their team that came up small. It could be an opportunity for RAJ.

          Like

    3. Um, given how much offense is at a premium, I think the Dodgers would probably be expecting a little more for Kemp than a disgruntled, overpaid closer. I’m not saying they won’t offload him, I’m just saying they won’t offload him for a player who is a worse personality, plays a much less valuable position, may well be getting worse, and will be similarly overpaid for two of the five years Kemp has left on his contract. The Dodgers are perfectly willing to eat salary, so I would look for Friedman to trade whichever of their three overpaid outfielders will yield the best return in terms of young talent.

      On the Phillies end, I’m not sure the value of getting ride of Papelbon is worth taking on the additional $60 million in contract commitments for another declining player. Maybe if he was the last piece they needed, etc. But they’re rebuilding. This would be the rare trade that actually hurts both teams.

      Like

    1. Romus, you should know nothing will be done this offseason until the John Middleton/Ownership Group power struggle is resolved-so should David Murphy. Another dud article from Murphy who is beating a dead horse figuratively and tells us nothing. He should have interviewed the new Scouting Director and asking his thoughts on changing the scouting culture.

      Like

      1. What Murphy does, in his what-seems like his weekly berating of the Phillies management, is keep opening wounds that the Phillies front-office would like to go away.
        Many readers feel like you do about him repeating the same old stuff with a different title/headline, but he actually keeps the fires burning.
        And bad publicity is what this team tries to avoid.
        And yes interviewing the new scouting director would have been a nice thing…..but we know how that will read…..’thankful for the opportunity with such a fine and successful organization yada yada yada’
        readinf between the lines, Eskin may have said it best….the Braves were happy the Phillies hired him

        Like

        1. I disagree, I think David Murphy does himself a disservice when he says the same thing all the time and shows no creativity-he becomes a one trick pony, unreadable and loses all impact.
          I find Howard Eskin to be a real hypocrite when it comes to the Phillies as he does not have a inside source to them so he beats up on them(which is easy now)-he was one of the first people to go on the CBP field and celebrate when we won the WS with a Phillies jacket.
          We all know the Phillies need a ownership fix as Montgomery was Santa Clause to the players but we should concentrate on what can make this team better not cry over spilt milk.
          Most everyone I read liked the hire of the Braves International Scouting Director and the changes that he will bring and the only reason he came here was that he got a promotion.

          Like

          1. We agree to disagree then.
            IMO, Murphy’s repeated prose may be unreadable for some, but he is correct in his assessment. However, some of his anti-Phillies rhetoric stems from the Phillies and Ruben’s dismissal of the metrics value side of baseball operational management. And he will repeat that often times.
            As for Eskin, his style and attitude are not big attractions for me, but he has been correct in the past with ‘scoops’. So until otherwise, I am open-minded to what he says.
            And not sure how you can objectively judge whether or not the other GM hires, with Friedman’s aside, were poor hires. It is like saying the Yankees hiring of a prior mediocre coach like Joe Torre in the mid-90s was a poor hire.
            I reserve judgment and ley it play out.

            Like

            1. Romus, the other GM hires could work out but they did not the fanfare of Friedman. However, Arizona, Colorado and San Diego have owners who get involved in decisions and could make the GM’s life difficult. Friedman will be under pressure as well as Atlanta’s new GM to win every year. I just wish my company treated us as well as the Phillies treat their employees but that approach does not work in todays baseball and business practices.

              Like

            2. philabaltfan…..I will agree with you there….the Phillies do give their employees plenty of leeway in the accountability department, and that is rare in the world of bottom-lines and profitability. Ruben is like a cat….plenty of lives.

              Like

  23. Forgot this point but only the hire of Andrew Friedman was truly an improvement for any of the teams changing GM’s. The other teams have ownership issues just like the Phillies (especially Colorado).

    Like

  25. After reading about and discussing the possible return for Hamels it seems like most people think/expect we would get one of a team’s top 5 prospects, a back end top 10 prospect, and another prospect in the 15-20 or so range. I wonder how much of a difference including Byrd and/or Bastardo would have in a deal. Neither would probably make a huge difference, but together they may help bring back a good return.

    Cubs and Boston are obvious potential trade partners. IMO Seattle or Baltimore could be sleepers for Hamels. The Orioles have been quite aggressive lately and a trade for Hamels and Byrd would help their club. Hamels would be the ace they wanted when they signed Jimenez. Adding Byrd to the deal could could be an inexpensive option to replace Cruz if he leaves.

    I would expect the Mariners to pursue pitching through free agency, but if they miss out on pitching Hamels could be an option. King Felix, Hamels, and Iwakuma would be a very nice start to a rotation in Seattle.

    Like

    1. I think Hamels gets you the 2nd prospect in a strong system or the top prospect in a week system and a lesser prospect. He does not get you two primo prospects, but he also doesn’t get you zero.

      Like

  26. But, if we go by what Larry M suggests, that the teams we would expect to want Hamels will part with 1 top prospect only, how do you make that trade? If you are not adding significantly to the team, keep Hamels. Prospects, no matter how highly regarded, are iffy. So, take any one of these scenarios where you get 1 top guy, how does that help you? They can offer 3 or 4 lesser guys, and the chances 1 of them will impact a team’s future success, is small. That is why, if I don’t get 2 guys that I think can be starters on a Playoff team, for example, Cain Escobar and Odirrizzi for Greinke, I don’t want to trade Hamels.

    Like

      1. You are probably right. But what I don’t understand, and I am not trying to bait you, rather I enjoy reading your viewpoints, and often learn from them, is why you would. Hamels is a proven top of the rotation starter, and since you don’t think we can get a top 25? prospect, plus another top whatever number you pick, how does the team get better? Even if you guarantee that the 1st guy is an every day player. If trading Hamels does not set your franchise on a course for success, and I suggest that just 1 guy who can make your team doesn’t do that, why trade him?

        Like

        1. Hamels is in his prime and your best trade chip. This is not a team that will compete for a title in the next three years.

          You might as well trade him and get some quality players that can help this team down the road.

          Like

          1. Hamels is only 30 and he is at least a near ace. I think he’s a legit ace. No reason not to count on Hamels more than 3 years down the line if he is used effectively by the Phillies and not forced/allowed to rack up the abuse points he did this season. Two years at big $ to Burnett is insane. Not so Hamels. He remains in his prime. Ace-type pitchers can extend their prime and be quite effect at ages 34-35. This year, RAJ put a big, two-year bet on Burnett’s age 37 and 38 seasons. Not at all the same thing.

            Like

    2. Anonymous — You have to really trust that your scouts can identify a prospect who is a future star, rather than a Tyson Gillies or Domonic Brown.

      Since the Phillies don’t need to shed Hamels’ salary, there is only one reason to trade him: to get a prospect who will turn into a near-comparable value major league player as Hamels is now, but will hit his peak a half dozen years from now, when the Phillies are contenders. If our scouts can’t identify the future star with very high reliability, then odds are we lose this trade.

      Like

  27. Here’s a crazy idea: bring back Mike Maddux as pitching coach?

    http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/out-of-managerial-hunt-mike-maddux-still-wants-to-return-to-texas-rangers.html/

    He just missed out on the Rangers managerial job, new guy from the Pirates is coming in, Maddux has ties to the Phillies organization. I think he has a pretty sterling reputation, he’s always being mentioned for vacant managerial openings, and obviously Sandberg and McClure’s handling of the staff left something to be desired this season.

    Like

    1. I wouldn’t mind if the Phillies signed Lester, themselves. There is a big, big difference signing a 30-year old vet to a multiple-year deal and signing a 35 or 35+ year old player to a multiple year deal.

      Like

  29. I seem to remember a team trading their top hitting and pitching prospect (and then some) for a 32 year old pitcher with 1.5 years on his contract. And that wasn’t even a LH ace pitcher.

    I’ve said this in other posts but if I was the Phillies GM I’d kick in money to all trades I made with this team. The way I look at it is; you are either playing players to play here and lose or you pay a good amount of their remaining contracts to get better prospects.

    Like

  30. How about Hamels and Howard (no money at all) for an A level washout and an option for a new popcorn maker? Are there any other Larry Greene’s around the league? Everyone wins!!!

    Like

    1. No, the Phillies lose big time. The Phillies do not need to save money, the Phillies need to add talent. Losing Hamels and not getting substantial talent back is a huge hit to the Phillies future. Hamels is the one vet on the team who is able to contribute to our next contending team.

      Like

  33. Larry Bowa, being very honest and forthright, on Ryan Howard this morning:
    “I think personally, it would help him just to get off his feet and not being able to have to stand out there for nine innings every night, But there’s also talk that this is really going to be—last year was his first full year since that [Achilles] injury [he suffered in 2011] and he thinks he’s gonna get stronger and better, so again, we’re going to have to wait and see. But I think an America League team—I think he can help an American League team.”

    And he mentioned teams competing in the playoffs for the WS do not have large amount ofstrikeouts in the middle of their lineup. I guess the reference is to Ryan Howard -190Ks, and Marlon Byrd-185Ks.

    Like

    1. It is not at all unreasonable that not playing the field will improve his hitting. Look at the change in Thome’s OPS when he became a DH — from awful to over 1.000.

      Like

      1. Now only to convince some AL GM to take Ryan Howard.
        last week a poster made a reference to perhaps a remote Tampa Bay Rays interest in Howard.

        Like

      2. I think Bowa is very wrong about the strikeouts. Howard was once among the most feared and productive middle of the lineup hitters in baseball. He actually struck out at slightly higher rate then than he did this past year. Of course he was hitting a lot more HRs back then. I think Bowa is obsessed about strikeouts, because of the kind of hitter he was. Thome also racked up the same level of strikeouts with the Phillies and was very productive. There are three problems with Howard in his prime vs Howard today and strikeout rate is not one of them — he’s walking only 2/3 as much as he did in his prime, he’s hitting less than half the HR rate he did in his prime, and his BA is off 30-40 points from his prime. Just totally wrong diagnosis on Bowa’s part.

        Like

        1. No it was not a wrong diagnosis.
          He specifically mentioned ‘the middle of the lineup’….375 ks total……I am curious, what other playoff team had that many Ks between their 4th and 5th place hitters?
          Bowa’s style is abuipt and abrasive at times, and many do not agree with it but he says what he thinks.

          Like

          1. You place way too much value on Ks, and saying what did the playoff teams have is not that good a measure of how good the middle of their lineups were, because they were playoff teams for many reasons. Look at the 2006 Phillies, I’d say darned good middle of the lineup with Howard and Utley. Also 313 Ks between them, but far more significantly, an OPS of 2.00 between them. A K is just another way of making an out. If you want to judge a middle of the lineup offensively, add the OPS+ of the two guys. The holy grail of low strikeouts is just a fetish. Give me two guys in the middle of the lineup who hit 80-90 HR and OPS 2.00 between them, and I don’t really care how often they strike out. Give me a leadouff guy who can get an obp over .350 and efficiently steal bases and I don’t care how often he strikes out. One doesn’t need to assign some mythical negative values to explain why the middle of the Ph.illies lineup was inadequate this year: Utley had an OPS of .746, Howard had and OPS of .690, and Byrd had an OPS of .757. The three of them combined for only 59 HRs. They could have had combined Ks of only 120 and that still would have been a crap middle of the lineup. When Brown hit in one of the middle of lineup spots, he was even worse.

            Like

            1. By the way, the Phillies have tried to trade both Howard and Byrd and presumably still wish to move both of them. They should be high-lighting their strengths, not tearing them down. So why is total dumb-ass Bowa ripping them?

              Like

            2. I mean, I get what you’re saying in theory, but there’s not a GM in baseball (or a fan in baseball) who doesn’t already know that. Is there some GM out there who you think picks up a newspaper, sees Larry Bowa’s quotes about Howard’s decreased mobility and strikeouts, and yells: “Lloyd! Pull up Ryan Howard’s baseball reference page! I’ve got some research to do!”

              Like

            4. Might be the dumbest post ever. Seriously, I mean that. Strikeout is just another way to make an out? Christ, you sound like Amaro himself. Then you go on to say basically it’s all good as long as there is a lead off hitter with obp of .350 stealing bases. Well, how many times do you have to see a guy stranded on 2nd-3rd with ZERO outs? We have to stop this defense of players because they “used to” be a great middle of the lineup tandem. You’re referencing 2006, dude. Wake up. but I guess you’re on par with the state of this organization in that you can’t understand the current state of the game. This fan base is pathetic.

              Like

            5. A strikeout removes the possibility of scoring a runner, or advancing a runner. It also removes any possibility of increasing OBP by means of a fielder’s choice or error, or a walk for that matter. And perhaps most obviously, it removes the possibility of getting a base hit. Highlighting the OPS of the middle of our lineup strengthens the argument that strikeouts are most unproductive. I hear what you’re saying though, to an extent

              Like

  34. I’m convinced we need to move the team to be a better fielding team asap and I don’t think Revere can be a CF on a winning team because of his defense. This year’s playoffs have really showcased defense and we’re short in that area, especially in 1B, LF and CF. I’ll give Asche a pass because he’s improving and because I think Franco will have that job mid season. I want to trade Revere right now off his best season and off back to back 300 seasons. I could probably live with him in LF if I had a Kemp in his prime in CF but we don’t and we won’t. I’m sure he could bring us back something of value. In looking for a replacement, I was thinking about Bourjos, who failed in St Louis, but who is a gold glove caliber defender. The Cards need to trade at least one and maybe two OFs, so they’ll probably be trading Bourjos to someone in my opinion. Any thoughts?

    Like

    1. It does seem the right time to try to trade Revere. The Phillies, by the most optimistic assessment I can muster have one really bad and one sort of bad season ahead of them before we can anticipate them being a contender in 2017, so now is certainly the time to experiment with kids and fliers. Now is not the time to be fielding a mostly old vet lineup.

      Like

      1. Looks like Royals GM Dayton Moore’s star is really shining bright these days.
        Wasn’t long ago he and Ruben were considered to be two of the ‘wanting’ GMs in baseball.

        Like

        1. Yep, I’ve been thinking the same thing. Funny how a couple of balls bouncing one way or another–and the Royals were thisclose to missing the playoffs or being in a one-game playoff with the Mariners–can make a GM look like a genius. If the Phillies manage to scrape together a couple runs against the Cards in Game 5 of 2011, maybe they win the World Series and maybe everyone says, “Ruben Amaro made the bold trade for Hunter Pence” the way people now say the Shields trade was a masterstroke (even if it is still likely to haunt the Royals down the line). It’s all pretty random. People just tend to hate Amaro because he’s very unlikeable.

          Like

  35. My life is busy, and even if it wasn’t, I no longer enjoy futile back and forth arguments with people who refuse to actually engage my arguments.

    But I do want to point out a pattern I see time and time again with “arguments” supporting unrealistic expectations regarding trades. The structure goes like this:

    (1) The commenter proposes an “objective” measure of trade value (that tends to value veterans highly and prospects lowly, at least from the perspective of a contending team).
    (2) Commenter points to one or two deals which, they argue (generally incorrectly) support their valuation process.
    (3) They conclude, explicitly or implicitly, that every one of the many deals that don’t follow that valuation (i.e., almost all of them) represents a failure of negotiation on the part of the seller.

    Now, just to state the “argument” that way should make it obvious why it isn’t valid. But to state just the biggest flaw (of several flaws), “value” is ALWAYS dependent on what the buyers and sellers are willing to pay/accept. Value is not “objective.” And, increasingly, MOST organizations, MOST of the time – and especially the successful ones (which tend to be buyers of veterans) – value top prospects highly and are unwilling to trade them. And it should be obvious (but it apparently isn’t to some) that the fact that ONE respected GM is willing to buck that trend tells us NOTHING about whether OTHER GMs are willing to buck that trend.

    I haven’t seen ANYONE try to argue that I’m wrong on that point. They’ll ignore the point, or (hilariously) argue that it isn’t relevant (I’m looking at you Derek), or merely assert (without evidence or analysis) that it’s wrong, but I’ve never seen ANYONE actually try to make a cogent counterargument.

    One quick point on Derek’s argument: if you adopt his basic excess value argument, it actually supports MY conclusions, unless the discounts for prospect uncertainty and readiness are HUGE. Not to mention the fact that he leaves out the discount factor which should be applied to the veteran, especially a veteran pitcher (injury/decline risk).

    In fact, for some prospects (admittedly not most), I’d argue that there is a HIGHER discount factor for the veteran than for the prospect. Who carries more risk over the next 4 years, Hamels or Betts? Hamels, pretty clearly.

    Now off to the mountains for the weekend with my friend. You can be sure I won’t have time to further engage you guys for a few days.

    Like

      1. I’m too old to make the obvious rejoinder – and besides, my friend and I will be spending part of the weekend hiking, so yeah, I’m bringing warm clothes.

        Like

          1. ‘Rejoinder’…..legalese on the part of LarryM, the attorney….retort or reply, can be a bit snarky if he wanted it to be ….however I was not insulting him, just playing with him.

            Like

      2. I hate the mountains. Romus do they have internet in mountains.?? are there cell phone towers. I wont go there , I don’t want to kill what I eat, and step in bear sh””

        Like

        1. Yes, in most places, they have the cellular and ‘net connectivity.
          Maybe some remote cabin way back in the woods could be an issue.
          And watch where you step.
          And if in the Pocono’s in PA….better watch for gun-toting Eric Frien still on the lam from the police.

          Like

  36. Maybe it is my being dense. But, I don’t understand how a Pitcher like Hamels has less “value” than some prospect, no matter how highly touted, because he is a proven MLB All Star and the prospect is a maybe. And, if you are not offered a substantial return for Hamels. why trade him? The number of highly thought of prospects who have flamed out is very high. We traded a Cliff Lee, owed only 9Million for 2010, for nothing, AND he came off of a WS where he, and Chase Utley, almost won it by themselves. How did that help the team? It didn’t. So, we should try to duplicate that mess by trading Hamels? No, and the “value” to a team of making the Playoffs, which Hamels helps do and the prospect does not, does not seem to count. And, those who think it should are somehow not getting it.

    Like

    1. Certainly, from a simple baseball how much can he help a team’s win total stand-point Hamels has much more value today than a hot shot prospect does. A team shooting for the WS is going to value him very highly. Now, this view gets adjusted a bit by business considerations, the lux cap, and the current circumstances of a team.

      On the business side: a players net value is his on-field performance minus his salary. Nothing is more valuable by this measure than a star-quality young player in his early arb years. That’s what you hope that hot shot prospect becomes. As an example, take Hamels himself. Young Hamels of 2007 and 2008 had ERAs of 3.39 and 3.09, WHIPS of 1.12 and 1.08, and W-L records of 15-5 and 14-10. Hamels of 2014 had a 2.46 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, and 9-9 win-loss. The young Hamels earned $400K and $500K for those two seasons. Today’s Hamel earned $22.5 million. Clearly the younger Hamels is a humongous bargain and pitched almost as well as today’s Hamels, adjusting for falling run production since 2007, the younger Hamels pitched as well as today’s Hamels, Making those two years worth $44 mill net to the team, compared to the value of today’s Hamels, saying he’s fairly priced and giving a net value of $0. In reality, he was worth more than $22.5 mill.

      Team circumstances: Now look at the real baseball value to the team. Today’s Hamels on a bad team only nets you a 9-9 .500 record. The younger Hamels played on good teams so he contributed more wins. In other words, even with Hamels, the Phillies are a last place team. It is the very rare pitcher (Carlton) who can put up a great win total for a crap team. I call this the Ernie Banks or Marlins effect: a star doesn’t have a lot of real baseball value on a bad team. The Marlins traded their stars for youth until they accumulated a critical mass of talent and made a run. This is an approach that low-budget teams must follow to succeed. They time-shift the baseball value of their roster, so that they can be good for a year or two with a low-salary team, perhaps once a decade.

      Lux cap: You can only have so much total salary on a team. Sometimes somebody has to go. It’s usually a fairly expensive guy with enough value to be traded. That’s the Lee trade. The Phillies were at their budget max but had a total crush on Halladay. They couldn’t afford both Lee and Halladay, so they took the one they lusted for. When the salary budget was later adjusted, RAJ reacquired Lee, being able to stay under his budget with both pitchers. The original problem necessitating either a trade or not getting Halladay arose because Halladay suddenly became available at a time when RAJ had already spent his whole budget.

      It likely doesn’t make sense for the Phillies to trade Hamels. They aren’t the Marlins, so $ aren’t that big a deal. It comes down to how important is it to time-shift talent. The answer to that question depends upon how long you believe Hamels can continue to perform at about his current level vs how long you think it will take for the Phillies to field a contender.

      Like

  37. When I look at hamels, I see a number one left hand pitcher. which are hard to find. I see a guy who is still young with, by today standards a good contract, not a crazy commitment. A world series mvp. And he is coming off a great season, forget his record, look at his numbers. If that doesn’t bring you at least two top prospect, and a second tier prospect he doesn’t move. imo. I have seen the overvalue of prospect on here and in baseball, I believe it cost tigers, and if you seen kc bullpen, you saw the value of a bullpen. something we had to give, in right deal. so if teams keep overvaluing prospect and wont move them. Then they didn’t learn anything from Detroit. who had the prospect and money to make the right deal.

    Like

    1. Fans are prone to say “God, if my team could just win a world championship, I would die a happy man and willingly buy season tickets for the rest of my life in gratitude to the team delivering what I’ve hoped for all these years. No price in $ or emptying every prospect from the farm is too high a price to meet that goal. IF they get the WC, I don’t care if they ever go to the playoffs again.” I saw a lot of that on Phillies boards prior to and during 2008. The story immediately changed to “The Phillies owe it to their fans to go all-in and achieve something historic, something we can really brag about. If they Phillies can win back-to-back WC or even better 3 in the next 4 years, then I don’t care if they ever go to the playoffs again. Trade every minor leaguer to get whatever it takes. I will be a loyal fan forever if they make this commitment to us.” And the Phillies went all-in, and we had the golden age and a lot of NL East pennants and another WS appearance. Then the inevitable happened to a team that put 100% of its resources at the major league level. The MLB team crashed hard. Those friends who pledged loyalty for life? Not so much — attendance plummeted. Attendance is based on what can you do for me now.

      It isn’t a smart business practice for a KC or Detroit to bet it all on one season. Baseball teams thrive by consistently reaching the post-season. As we learned with Pence, there is no ‘if we just add this additional star to fill our last hole, then we are a lock’. It doesn’t work that way. The magic piece can be dirt cheap or cost a ton, or there just isn’t a magic piece, or the guy you thought was the magic piece messes with the team chemistry and makes things worse. A Ross can be a post-season star, while a Pence is a dud.

      Like

  38. If defense is one of the key ingredients to success…maybe the Phillies ought to try getting a Peter Bourjos for CF, if they can move Revere for some value.
    And 2015 is an odd-numbered year. and Bourjos has his best seasons in the odd years, after sub-par seasons in even-numbered years.

    Like

    1. I was thinking they should trade Brown for Bourjos and move Revere to left field. Bourjos and Brown are both players that have been a disappointment, but Bourjos can at least play defense, by the way both of them are arb. eligible and about the same age

      Like

      1. That works for me.
        Revere can still hi at the lead-off spot and Bourjos can go to 2nd in the order if JRoll wants to go lower down in the order.

        Like

      2. Anonymous, so you want two Left hand outfields one cant hit the. other cant field and has no power. wow I wish I could understand that logic. All that would do is get us the first pick in the draft next year

        Like

  39. Romus that was the untouchable guy that we couldn’t get if we traded our whole team. Remember??? I don’t see how a guy who cant hit will help a team with a bad offense. I want a guy who can hit and field. I think the one position where you take defense over offense is catcher.

    Like

    1. rocco….everyone wants ‘a guy who can hit and field’. And yes traditionally catching was stressed more for defense then offensive production. But sometimes you have to be flexible. Bourjos does have some offensive capabilities…it seems only in odd years, but he has done it in the past.
      I see how Drew Stubbs has somewhat resurrected his career and I think Bourjos can do the same if given the opp.

      Like

  40. Offense is down everywhere. Steroids are out and offense is back to what it used to be with only a few guys hitting 30+ homers and small ball very much in vogue. Defense and relief pitching become even more important. Bourjos should very much be available with the Cards having an excess of OFs (no, they don’t want Dom Brown). I could see Bastardo making that deal happen and maybe with a minor league throw in. The Phils not be good and will be able to offer Bourjos 500 at bats to see whether he is more than a 4th OF. Give me Tomas in LF and trade Revere for a pitcher and trade Byrd for a young RF

    Like

Comments are closed.