The Good Phight: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Eagles miracle run continues with road win over the Vikings Bar-right-arrows



Give Me the Keys: a Plan for the 2007 Phillies, Pt. 2

Last week, I set out a three-step strategy for the Phils to build their 2007 pitching staff. Today, I do the same with the position side of the roster. Before diving into the specifics, though, three basic premises:

  1. The Phillies' 2006 offense was very good. But it clearly could have been better, and to argue that the guys on hand are fine and the team should solely concentrate on pitching is to all but guarantee that the hitting will backslide next year.
  2. It's very unlikely that the team will be better off trading Pat Burrell than they would be by keeping him. jonk made pretty much the exact case for Pat that I was planning to make; I'll just add that when you have a player who has obvious strengths and obvious flaws, there's often value in focusing on what he can do, not what he can't. The big objections to Burrell are that he's paid too much, and he doesn't hit in the clutch. jonk's piece showed why the latter criticism is unfair; the former is valid, but it's also just a fact of life that we should get over, perhaps with a few muttered expletives in Ed Wade's direction.
  3. Jimmy Rollins will hit about the same wherever you put him, but probably should stay in the leadoff spot until a clearly better alternative appears.
So with that out of the way, here's the Rest of The Plan.

Star-divide

  • Sign OF-L Brad Wilkerson: 1 year, $5 million

Why it works: Wilkerson was the centerpiece of the Texas Rangers' return in the Alfonso Soriano deal last winter. Some idiots, including yours truly, thought that Wilkerson in Arlington could out-produce Soriano in RFK Stadium. Not quite: he hurt his shoulder, hit .222, and missed the last two months. But he still notched 32 extra-base hits (including 15 HR) in 320 at-bats, and his career numbers at Citizens Bank Park are scary-good: .349/.394/.663/1.056 in 86 at-bats. Wilkerson probably will be non-tendered by Texas and looking for a one-year make-good deal before hopefully cashing in next winter. Say hello to your new right fielder, or play him in center and shift Victorino and his cannon arm to right.

  • Sign 1b/3b-R Wes Helms: 2 years, $3 million

Why it works: Helms seemingly has been around forever, but he's just 30, and has had his best two offensive seasons in the last two years. In 2006, he thrived playing mostly first base for the Marlins at a bargain $800,000 price. I'd be tempted to offer him the exact same contract Gillick gave Nunez last winter, because they'll be splitting time at the hot corner in an offense/defense job-sharing arrangement.

  • Sign IF Damian Easley: 1 year, $1 million

Why it works: Easley's old (37), but he's spry; he played every infield position (plus right field) for the Diamondbacks last season, hitting 9 homers and posting a .741 OPS in 189 at-bats. He could see time at third base and will join Jeff Conine to give the Phils a solid pair of veteran pinch-hitters.

This leaves the Phils with the following positional roster and financial obligations:

Starters--$32m
SS-B Rollins $7m
CF-B Victorino $0.4m
2B-L Utley $4m
1B-L Howard $0.5m
LF-R Burrell $13m
RF-L Wilkerson $5m
3B-R Helms $1.5m
C-B Ruiz $0.35m

Bench: $6m
Coste C $0.4m
Nunez 3B/SS/2B $2.1m
Easley IF/OF $1m
Conine RF/LF/1B $2m
Bourn OF $0.35m

With $38 million for the positional roster and $41 million for the pitching staff, plus $7.5 million or so to the White Sox for the Thome deal, the Opening Day payroll would be around $87 million. This would leave the Phils with in the neighborhood of $7 million for in-season upgrades, additional signing bonuses for next June's draft, or one dumb-assed move like trading for a veteran catcher or middle reliever.

I don't know if any of this is on the team's radar; my pessimistic suspicion is that they won't trade Aaron Rowand and he becomes the new David Bell (though, to be fair, he's a better hitter). And I have this bad feeling that Johnny Estrada is going to be the Phillies catcher next year, hitting an empty .260 but making Chris Wheeler gush with his veteran intangibiliciousness. Better options, however, are out there.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Thoughts
I think that the team you put together in both posts would probably win about 87 games next year.  If the Phillies just picked up Rowand and Moyer's options, and leave the team in tact, I think they would probably only win 81.  The biggest gain, as I see it, is picking up Wes Helms.  I think the difference between Helms and Nunez at 3rd is probably good for about 4 wins.

I agree that trading Rowand is the wise thing to do, but I don't really see why Wilkerson is the right call.  It seems to me that it wasn't just the injury holding him back this year.  His BB% went down a lot and his K% went up a lot, meaning that his plate discipline this past year was much worse.  I'm not quite sure why that would happen, but I don't know that a shoulder issue would affect that much.  I don't think he's worth 5 million anymore than I think Rowand is.

I'd like to see some sort of non-lopsided traded for bullpen help.  Do those happen anymore?  I don't really like any of the free agent pitchers available, and I'd rather just stick with Wolf & Moyer, or even just Moyer and give a shot to Germano and some of the other young guys for the 5th spot.

by MattS on Oct 16, 2006 11:40 AM EDT   0 recs

Wilkerson
Maybe you're right, but I think that it's just as possible he got off to a slow start, started to press, wasn't happy with the team and things just spiraled. There isn't always an explanation for why players have crap years. Dellucci's season with the Phils could have gone the same way; remember how awful he was for the first two months or so.

I just like the idea of buying low for an OF who can get on base and hit it out. If not Wilkerson, I'm open to other ideas.

I'm curious--how did you come up with the 87 and 81 win numbers?

by dajafi on Oct 16, 2006 12:50 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Projection Methods
I basically went through the team for next year and estimated some rate stats and my guess as to what VORP that is.  It was a lot of ballparking, and it was basically to get an idea of what to expect for next year.  I'll give you a couple examples.

Howard:
I noticed his BABIP was high at .362 but last year it was .358, and through a lot of the minors it was very high as well.  His K rate seems pretty constant at about 30-33% and his BB rate this past year was about 15% and I figured he'd duplicate that.  I noticed that while had 58 homers this year, he only had 25 doubles.  Throughout the last few years, he's generally had more doubles than that but fewer homeruns so I figured he'd probably end up with 31 2B/ 47 HR instead of the insane year he had.  I also noticed that Baseball Prospectus projected David Oritz at 30 years old to have a VORP of around 60-65 this year and that his 2003-2005 VORPs were nearly identical to the combined minors/MLB VORPs of Howard over 2004-2006.  So I combined all this and projected Howard would have a VORP around 65.

Hamels:
I guessed that he would probably be healthy this year.  Maybe that was optimistic, but I figured he would start all 33 games and pitch about 6 IP per start, because that's what he seemed to do most of the time the second half of this year.  So I put him at 200 IP.  Then I looked at some defense independent pitching stats, like QERA and FIP, for him this year to get an idea and noticed he might have pitched better than his ERA indicated.  I mostly ignored his minor league numbers before this year because there weren't very many of them.  His flyball rate is pretty high, so I figured his homerun rate would stay pretty high but be closer to the mean...I guessed 1.23 HR/9, also since he is only 22 now and has room for improvement.  I figured his K/9 would probably regress a little bit towards the mean, though since it seemed to be so high in the minors that I pinned him basically at 9.0 K/9. His BB/9 this past year was 3.26 BB/9, but his BB/9 rate was pretty low in the minors.  I also figured that there would be some age improvement in there and so I put him at 3.1 BB/9.  I calculated the defense independent pitching stats and threw in some sample BABIPs and LOB% to see what made sense, and I basically figured he'd have an ERA around 3.92 with a Run Average of 4.1.  In 200 IP, that's about a VORP of 42.3, so I guessed that would be his VORP.

I did two or three of these a day until I got the whole team.  That gave me the 81 wins.  Then I estimated the VORPs for the guys that you had suggested signing without going into that kind of detail.  I had pinned Nunez for a slight improvement of a VORP of -12.  Wes Helms played 1B this year 26 this year in only 300 or 400 PAs.  That wasn't so far above his usual amount, and I figured that number would be higher if he played 3B since VORP is adjusted for position.  I figured  he would regress a bit this year at 31 years old or whatever, and so I guess 25-30 VORP, making him nearly a 4-win improvement over Nunez.

In short, I'm a pretty big geek :-)

by MattS on Oct 16, 2006 10:43 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

thanks
Very interesting. If you feel like sharing the whole thing at any point (whether for the returnees, possible additions, whoever), I for one would really like to see it.

by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 10:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Projections
Here is my estimated PA/AVG/OBP/SLG/VORP for the Phillies hitters for 2007.  Please let me know if you think I over-under-estimated any players.  Also please ask me about any of the projections.  I clearly had to guess a lot more for guys who hadn't been in the majors for a while and for bench/bullpen guys.

C Ruiz:     525 .266/.333/.445 11.1
1B Howard:  680
.309/.416/.618 65.0 (47 HR)
2B Utley:   710
.290/.362/.512 53.0
3B Nunez:   550
.233/.323/.291 -12.0
SS Rollins: 730
.291/.343/.444 38.0 (16 HR)
LF Burrell: 530
.256/.381/.492 21.5
CF Rowand:  615
.257/.323/.418 12.5 (if RF, VORP=2.5)
RF Victorino:650
.281/.342/.372 5.8 (if CF, VORP=15.8)

C Coste:     240 .275/.322/.414 3.6
SS Sandoval: 160
.242/.290/.298 -1.2
2B Thurston: 200
.258/.302/.323 -1.5
LF Conine:   260
.266/.328/.373 -2.0
RF Roberson: 170
.259/.318/.317 -4.0

Runs Scored: 785.4

PITCHERS (IP ERA / BB/9 / K/9 / HR/9 / VORP)

Hamels   200 / 3.92 / 3.1 / 9.0 / 1.23 / 42.3
Myers    215 / 3.85 / 2.8 / 8.4 / 1.28 / 45.3
Lieber   180 / 4.75 / 1.6 / 5.2 / 1.45 / 18.0
Moyer    202 / 4.86 / 2.5 / 4.5 / 1.48 / 16.7
Germano  180 / 5.05 / 2.7 / 5.3 / 1.32 / 12.0

(if Wolf 165 / 4.96 / 3.7 / 6.8 / 1.45 / 14.0)

Gordon   62  / 3.77 / 3.5 / 8.5 / 1.30 / 13.3
Geary    82  / 3.51 / 2.6 / 6.5 / 0.85 / 18.7
Madson   88  / 4.70 / 3.0 / 6.8 / 1.20 / 9.7
Smith    45  / 5.20 / 4.2 / 7.2 / 1.20 / 2.0
Castro   60  / 4.50 / 3.5 / 5.5 / 0.90 / 6.2
Sanches  55  / 4.75 / 3.5 / 7.2 / 1.30 / 5.7
Condrey  60  / 4.35 / 2.8 / 4.6 / 0.95 / 7.0

Runs Against: 781.1

Record: 81-81

by MattS on Oct 18, 2006 11:38 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So what you're saying is...
  1. Offensive backslide because Howard isn't Babe Ruth, Rollins isn't Joe Morgan, and Nunez isn't a baseball player.
  2. Two good starting pitchers, and three utter turds.
  3. Lame bullpen
  4. Playing either Rowand or Victorino in RF hurts the team significantly
Hooray!

by WholeCamels on Oct 18, 2006 11:50 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Heh
Heheh, pretty much on all 4 counts though.  I wouldn't call VORPs between 10 & 20 utter turds.  NL Starters ERAs average about 4.71 so ERAs near there for a 3/4/5 doesn't sound bad at all.

The good news is that the team listed there costs only about $70M including the $5.5 owed to Thome.  The Phillies seem to be able to add about 1 win for every 2.7 million they spend, so spending another 25 million should put them around 90 wins if done right.  Unfortunately, I don't trust Gillick to do it.

by MattS on Oct 18, 2006 11:58 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The good news
is that there's enough money left to still add 18 or so Abraham Nunezes.

by enterpsmith on Oct 18, 2006 12:19 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think...
you might have the offense undervalued slightly, for 2 reasons:
  1. By my count, you have 6020 PA accounted for, with a cumulative OBP of .347.  Last year's positions players combined for a .356 OBP, hand had 6137 PA.  Assuming they still make the same number of outs, that's about 30 missing PA.  Probably only 4 runs or so.
  2. Plus, you haven't accounted for the 372 PA our pitchers had last year, and almost certainly will have again next year.  While generally poor PA, they'll still generate some runs...

by Shore on Oct 18, 2006 3:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

0 VORP
Wow, thanks for the cumulative stuff!  I did think about the pitchers PA but I assumed their VORP was 0, which for pitchers means average (replacement pitchers don't hit any better than ace pitchers).  I calculated the run total by adding all the VORPs and 600 which is about what an NL East team with 0 VORP will score.  The same thing holds true for the unaccounted for plate appearances...I figured that it would be random quad-A guys who contribute 0 VORP.  That's why I didn't do the out count or anything.  I'm really glad that it worked out so close though.

by MattS on Oct 18, 2006 6:06 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Interesting
I love the Wilkerson move.  Get him cheap and at his lowest point.  He can be had for 2 years 4 mil a year I bet.  But, I do that only if I can get a big bat at third.  I think Ramierez is still a possibility and I do what I can to see if I can get him.  Helms is good on the bench, but I don't care for Easly, espeically if we get ARam, cause we have Nunez.

by jonk on Oct 16, 2006 4:44 PM EDT   0 recs

A-Ram
I know I'd rather have him for 2007 than do what I'm suggesting here. Not sure that I'd rather have him for 2008 through 2010 or 2011 at $13-14 million a year, but I could see it either way.

My strong hunch, though, is that it's academic and he's staying in Chi-town (gotta figure the newly acquired Piniella is on the phone with him tonight) or, failing that, he'll wind up with the Angels or Dodgers.

by dajafi on Oct 16, 2006 6:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

ARod
I forget where I read it, but rumor is that Sweet Lou wants to try to bring ARod to the Windy City.  Ramirez might be available after all.

by Alex Falzone on Oct 17, 2006 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

unless
Ramirez is the key component in a deal for A-Rod. I'm sure the Yankees would prefer to get Zambrano, but I don't see Lou/Hendry dealing him. Also, the Cubs could always keep both and switch A-Rod back to shortstop.

by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 10:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Arod to SS
IS exactly what they would do.  Prior for ARod?  I think Steiny would wet himself for that.

by jonk on Oct 17, 2006 11:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

After today's moves
I wouldn't be surprised if Gillick brings in Julio Franco to play third.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 16, 2006 5:53 PM EDT   0 recs

agree, mostly
The Phillies' 2006 offense was very good. But it clearly could have been better, and to argue that the guys on hand are fine and the team should solely concentrate on pitching is to all but guarantee that the hitting will backslide next year.

Why? What if our existing guys improved? Wouldn't the offense then get even better? Or if they duplicated their performance, wouldn't they stay the same? The only guys in the entire lineup who clearly overachieved last year were Dellucci and (probably) Coste. I don't see any reason why the offense will necessarily get worse without changes. Human beings have a natural bias for action over inaction that is oftentimes highly unjustified.

Still, I like the plan overall. It wouldn't cost very much, and might still leave some room to sign another starting pitcher.

You're right that there usually isn't a point where the offense is "good enough" and you can just concentrate on pitcing, or vice versa. If your offense is an 8 on a scale of 1-10 and your pitching is a 5, a move that takes your offense from an 8 to a 10 will help your team more than a move that takes your pitching from a 5 to a 6. The only question is: what's the best available move out there that will improve your team the most in either category.

But in this case, I think the best move out there could very well be to get Jason Schmidt, as opposed to any of the big name offensive players on the market. If Aramis Ramirez declines his option, that might change, but it would still be debatable.

by taco pal on Oct 16, 2006 8:09 PM EDT   0 recs

but Schmidt isn't coming
Think about it: why would he go from a pitcher's park on the West Coast with laid-back fans to CBP and the aura of misery that, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to surround the Phils? Why would he choose us over the Dodgers, Giants, Yankees or Mets?

That said, even if he would, I don't think I personally would want to give him $12-13 million a year for five years, which is about what he'll command. YMMV, of course, but I just don't like giving long-term deals to free-agent pitchers.

by dajafi on Oct 16, 2006 8:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I had a couple of questions
A couple Phillies are getting brought up over at Athletics Nation and I was wondering if you could give me some info on availability.

First off, do you think the Phils are interested in re-signing Dellucci? With Abreu gone I thought it was a likely thing especially if Philly could find a RH platoon partner.

Second, I can tell that you guys really like Victorino but do you think it's more likely that Philly is going to want Rowand to man CF for one more year in the hopes that Bourn will be ready to take over in 2008? If so, do you think the Phils would be willing to trade Victorino for an arm like Kiko Calero? More importantly, if the Phils would make that trade do you think that Shane has the chops for a full time CF gig?

I appreciate any insight you can offer.

by grover on Oct 16, 2006 10:46 PM EDT   0 recs

Welcome, Athletics Nation
First:  There seems to be some debate about this... It IS the obvious thing to do, but Dellucci was awful late in the year, and that kind of thing plays poorly with our old-school management.  Not to mention the fans.  I personally think he won't come back.

Second:  Most people prefer Victorino to Rowand.  I certainly do... he's a better defender, despite Rowand's rep, and has a higher ceiling offensively, even if they're similar right now.  I think Victorino would make a great CF / bottom of the order hitter, though I think he could peak at a .290 with double digit doubles / triples / homers, which would be pretty sweet.  I don't think they'll move Victorino; I'd be surprised if Lopes wasn't hired primarily to tutor him on basestealing.

by Shore on Oct 16, 2006 10:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

victorino-rowand
My nightmare is that Gillick will let Dellucci go, and instead have Victorino and Rowand play fulltime in center and right (or vice versa). There are certainly lots of fans who want this arrangement, and Gillick seems to think along the same lines as this type of fan.

Victorino is an acceptable centerfielder, and even Rowand, as overrated as he is, won't kill you in center. But neither one of those guys is an acceptable corner outfielder.

by taco pal on Oct 17, 2006 2:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

thanks for the reply
see my comment below and chime in if ya like

by grover on Oct 17, 2006 10:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Dellucci
I think the team would like to have him back, but Dellucci wants to play every day and the Phils probably would use him in a platoon again. He also seems to have a preference for the AL--Texas in particular.

I'm with Shore on the Victorino question. That the Phils just hired Davey Lopes as (in Manuel's words) "baserunning guru" strongly suggests that they anticipate hanging on to Shane and hoping he can use his great speed to steal 30-40 bases and complement his decent gap power.

I do think he'd be a fine everyday CF.

by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 10:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Then I guess my question is...
How are you going to fit Victorino into the same OF with Rowand (this year) and Bourn? I like both Victorino and Bourn, and the only reason I haven't asked about Bourn is because I don't think he's ready for Opening Day '07. If the news reports are correct the Phillies are looking for more power and neither guy can be expected to provide that. So you have two players who best profile for CF, both this year and beyond.

Maybe a better question is this. If you woke up tomorrow and found out that the Phillies had traded Shane Victorino for Kiko Calero (3-2, 2 Sv, 3.41 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 58.0 IP, 67 K and 3 seasons away from FA) would you think that was a good (or at least fair) trade? You have CF depth to trade and a glaring need in the bullpen. Wouldn't Calero + Rowand + Bourn long term be as good or better for Philly than Victorino + Rowand + Bourn long term?

Thanks for the input so far and I look forward to your answer.

by grover on Oct 17, 2006 10:52 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ideally,
They move Rowand, who's more expensive.  I would be disappointed if the Phils traded Victorino for Calero because although Calero's good: 1) Next year is his age 31 season and he's arbitration eligible.  For 850,000, he's a bargain, at 2 million, not so much.  2) If the Phillies address the bullpen, it should be to get a co-closer, IMO, and I don't think Calero fits that mold.  3)  I'm personally not sold that Bourn will be more than a good reserve outfielder.  He started the year repeating AA where he posted a .276/.352/.367.  Once he was at AAA, he posted decent numbers, but that was powered by an amazing first month.

by enterpsmith on Oct 17, 2006 11:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Do not forget Burrell...
If I had my wish, our OF would be Vic in CF, Burrell in LF and another good bat in RF like a Sheffield-type...

I am not a big fan of the real Sheff due mostly to his showboating, grandstanding, clubhouse lawyering and such, but we do need another RH power bat...

Rowand was supposed to be this, but IMO he should be traded for pitching so if the A's want to do Calero for Rowand, tell me where to sign...:)

Bourn would be at most a bench player this year or back in AAA at worst...he is not ready for significant time at this level yet, but has good potential. Roberson is more of a fringe prospect IMO.

Conine should be bussed out of town asap...one way ticket, do not pass Go or collect any money.

I would not trade Vic for Calero...

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 19, 2006 7:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

How come you're so down on the Barbarian?
VFK,

Just wondering why you're so down on the Conine. As a bench player with some power don't you think he's acceptable? He isn't good enough to do more than spot start, do you think he is a bad pinch hitter?
I'm not necessarilly disagreeing with you but Conine  did impress me in his limited tour with the Phils this year.

xats

by xatsman on Oct 21, 2006 9:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Wait a second...
A bench player with some power?  He's got no power... 10 homers in 539 PA this year, 3 homers in 384 PA last year.  13 homers, in 923 PA, or 1 per 71 PA.

PA per homer, over the last 2 years:

Conine:  71
Lieberthal:  30
Howard:  13
David Bell:  59
Rowand:  43
Victorino:  60
Utley:  23
Burrell: 21

Marlon Anderson:  30
Marlon Byrd:  70

Aside from the backup middle-infielder types, Conine's got as little power as anyone in the league anymore.

And what exactly impressed you in his limited tour?

by Shore on Oct 22, 2006 2:13 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thanks for asking Xats...
Shore certainly covers the power issue in his post, but more than that Conine represents two Phillies philosophical mantras that I think do harm to our organization:

He represents the Phillies "veteranosity trumps talent" mantra regarding picking up bench or pen pieces and the "gritty leadership = wins" mantra regarding bringing in experienced retreads who have "won" before to teach our young'ins how to play...

Moyer fits this, Conine does, Hernandez, Rhodes, Gordon, Fasano, AGon, Nunez, White etc. The benefit is they are cheap and easy to bring in...the downside is most of them stink like feet or, at best, are mediocre...

I have always believed in talent trumping all and that talent = wins and that winning leads to gritty play, chemistry, leadership etc. because essentially it is fun to win and you generally like people you win with.  

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 24, 2006 2:57 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

A tad bit risky
But I suppose why not, except that maybe Wes Helm won't want to sign at that price.

Wilkerson is a interesting gamble, but for a more sure fired guy, why not try Gary Sheffield? and get Wilkerson as a backup? he would surely offer the right handed power to cover Howard. and will sign a short(er) term contract.. and is comming off a shitty season due to freak injury but has been an iron man for a long time. he should come at around 10-12M a year now if the Yankees turn down his 13M option.

Since it is unlikely for the Phillies to land a big pitcher, why not try to load up the offense and exploit the home field advantage to the max?

 

by RollingWave on Oct 16, 2006 11:47 PM EDT   0 recs

Any rumors...
...about the impending Rolen vs LaRussa blowup and how this might affect our offseason?

I like the Helms move but Easley seems like one of those expendable Jose Valentin types that are always impossible to predict when their one final flameout year is.

by das411 on Oct 17, 2006 1:54 AM EDT   0 recs

Sheffield?
I didn't give the idea much thought when I was putting this story together, but it occurs to me that Gary Sheffield could be an interesting option for the Phils.

Sheffield will play next season at age 38; the Yankees have a $13 million option for him next year, but I don't see them exercising it with all their other outfielders. He's coming off a year mostly lost to a wrist injury; before he got hurt, though, he looked fine, and even after coming back in late September he had two homers in 28 at-bats. All we know about Sheffield that we didn't know before is that he can't play first base very well, which wouldn't be an issue with the Phils.

There are a few questions here. One, did the wrist injury do any long-term damage to Sheffield's bat speed, his great strength as a hitter? Two, if he is on the market, what will it take to bring him in? I'd be fine seeing the Phils add Sheffield for two years, $20 million, maybe even a bit more money, but a long-term deal doesn't work for us. Three, will Sheffield's bad reputation screw up the clubhouse? He's a world-class complainer who's known to take shots at teammates.

Still and all, if you want to find a righty power bat to protect Ryan Howard, he's a pretty intriguing option.

by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 3:01 PM EDT   0 recs

and another thing...
Sheffield will begin 2007 with 2390 hits and 455 home runs for his career. He seems like the sort of guy who will play until his numbers merit near-automatic Hall of Fame inclusion; whether that's a plus or a minus for potential employers is another question.

by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 3:03 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Shef news
Looks like Shef doesn't want a one year deal.  Imagine an angry Gary Sheffield...  Here is just one article of many.

by PhoenixPhilly on Oct 26, 2006 2:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Is there another kind?
I'm having a hard time imagining a happy Sheff.

by phatj on Oct 26, 2006 10:09 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Sarcasm
That last comment was laced with sarcasm.  Unfortunately, that did not come across.

by PhoenixPhilly on Oct 29, 2006 1:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Catcher
I am still worried about our catcher situation with Ruiz and Coste...my assumption is Gillick and the Phils are done with Lieby, but that Gillick wouold feel more comfortable with a vet like a Ausmus or Zaun-type...

Part of me says Coste had a career year and that he will never be that player again...he could be a good backup, but is Ruiz a real 120 game starter?

Good player, great defensively...pitchers seemed mostly to respond to him although again that is hard to quantify accurately, but really needs to be better offensively to be the starter IMO...Can a more equal platoon scenario work better? Could we carry 3 catchers if Gillick added the vet?

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 19, 2006 7:41 PM EDT   0 recs

Lieberthal
If you're going to do that, and Lieby's knees are up for it, just bring him back at a low salary. He can start twice a week and pinch-hit. He'd probably be great.

by dajafi on Oct 20, 2006 9:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The problem with bring back Lieby...
is the Phillies short bench. If you're going to carry 12 pitchers like the Phillies did for most of last year then its hard to justify 2 backup catchers when you only have 4 bench spots I think Lieby would come back at a low salary, he said as much late last year but the Gillick appears determined to move on at catcher.

xats

by xatsman on Oct 21, 2006 9:45 AM EDT   0 recs

depends on how you use him
The problem with having one backup catcher is that almost by definition, you can't use him in any circumstance other than when the starter has to leave the game. Consider the just-ended NLCS: Ramon Castro, one of the better backups in the game, didn't show his face once. (He would have gone in if Game 7 had reached extras, as Randolph pinch-ran for LoDuca in the 9th.)

Having two potential backup Cs actually increases the manager's flexibility, because you can use one as a pinch-hitter or (as in the case of Coste) play him at another position with the knowledge you can move him behind the plate if things go wrong.

Piazza might be the ideal guy here, because he's both useful as a bat in all circumstances and can (sort of) play 1b, but both are also true of Coste, if you trust that he'll hit next year.

I'm also not entirely sold on the 12-man pitching staff, but that probably should go into another conversation.

by dajafi on Oct 21, 2006 2:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I wish managers handled this differently
If I were a manager and had a useful hitter as my (only) backup catcher, I'd use him in games the main catcher starts as a pinch-hitter (or at other positions if he could play them).

If the starter got hurt and I had already burned my backup, oh well. I'd have my emergency catcher finish that game and find another catcher before the next.

Now, a team with an injury-prone starter (a.k.a. the Phillies with Lieberthal) would probably be well-served to carry three catchers anyway, especially if one of them can play another position.

by phatj on Oct 21, 2006 9:16 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with both of you
I'm not sold on the 12 pitcher idea at all but I was just pointing out that having all those pitchers weakens the bench significantly. You're right daj, however, that this is a discussion for another post.

I agree with you phatj that a third catcher can be very useful but, as you point out, it has to be the right kind of catcher. Someone who can creditibly play another position like 1b or the of.

Personally, I'm not sold on the "emergency" catcher stuff since these supposed catchers are so bad they never catch unless the other catchers have broken legs. If you are measuring a players playing time in innings and not games, I have hard time taking him seriously at that position.

xats

by xatsman on Oct 21, 2006 10:45 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Emergency catcher
The whole point of this guy is that he'd never be used except in an emergency in a single game. He's just an expedient to get through the game in which the regular is injured (assuming the backup has already been used), then the GM promotes someone from AAA, picks up someone off the waiver wire or makes a trade.

So yeah, he's probably a pretty bad receiver. And maybe you're likely to lose that one game if you have to use him. But my point is that you can increase your chances of winning lots of other games by using your backup catcher to do other things. It's a risk I'd take.

by phatj on Oct 21, 2006 10:55 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

risk/reward and perception
...maybe you're likely to lose that one game if you have to use him. But my point is that you can increase your chances of winning lots of other games by using your backup catcher to do other things. It's a risk I'd take.

Me too. I'm re-reading "Moneyball" right now; a big recurring theme is how most executives and field managers do their business in such a way as to minimize the risk of criticism (we often call this "The Book"). If your backup catcher can do other useful things (pinch-hit), limiting his usage to starting day-game-after-night-game and break-glass-in-case-of-emergency is just dumb... but like so many dumb things in baseball (cough closer cough), it's somehow managed to become conventional wisdom.

by dajafi on Oct 22, 2006 8:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Duty_calls_small
Burrell Rumored to be signing 16MM deal with Rays.
Meltingface_small
How 'bout Sammy?
Images_small
Where will Ibanez be in the lineup?
Gm_carson_small
Chad Durbin Q&A
Jimmy_scott_small
Phillies OF ?Marks
Meltingface_small
BP's Kevin Goldstein Ranks the Phils Prospects
Meltingface_small
10 NRIs to Clearwater
In-browncover-070724_1__small
Who should the Phillies sign next?
Headshot_small
A World Series Story
Small
A Rant on LH Splits, Rotoworld, and Ibanez

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Site Meter