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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 |
44 comments
Comments
Thoughts
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 Matt Swartz on Oct 16, 2006 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wilkerson
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 up reply actions 0 recs
Projection Methods
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 Matt Swartz on Oct 16, 2006 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Projections
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 Matt Swartz on Oct 18, 2006 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what you're saying is...
- Offensive backslide because Howard isn't Babe Ruth, Rollins isn't Joe Morgan, and Nunez isn't a baseball player.
- Two good starting pitchers, and three utter turds.
- Lame bullpen
- Playing either Rowand or Victorino in RF hurts the team significantly
by WholeCamels on Oct 18, 2006 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh
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 Matt Swartz on Oct 18, 2006 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The good news
by enterpsmith on Oct 18, 2006 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think...
- 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.
- 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 up reply actions 0 recs
0 VORP
by Matt Swartz on Oct 18, 2006 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
by jonk on Oct 16, 2006 4:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A-Ram
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 up reply actions 0 recs
ARod
by Alex Falzone on Oct 17, 2006 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
unless
by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Arod to SS
by jonk on Oct 17, 2006 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
After today's moves
by David S. Cohen on Oct 16, 2006 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agree, mostly
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 reply actions 0 recs
but Schmidt isn't coming
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 up reply actions 0 recs
I had a couple of questions
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 reply actions 0 recs
Welcome, Athletics Nation
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 up reply actions 0 recs
victorino-rowand
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 up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the reply
by grover on Oct 17, 2006 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dellucci
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 up reply actions 0 recs
Then I guess my question is...
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 up reply actions 0 recs
Ideally,
by enterpsmith on Oct 17, 2006 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do not forget Burrell...
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 up reply actions 0 recs
How come you're so down on the Barbarian?
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 up reply actions 0 recs
Wait a second...
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 up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for asking Xats...
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 up reply actions 0 recs
A tad bit risky
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 reply actions 0 recs
Any rumors...
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 reply actions 0 recs
Sheffield?
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 reply actions 0 recs
and another thing...
by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shef news
by PhoenixPhilly on Oct 26, 2006 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is there another kind?
by phatj on Oct 26, 2006 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarcasm
by PhoenixPhilly on Oct 29, 2006 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Catcher
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 reply actions 0 recs
Lieberthal
by dajafi on Oct 20, 2006 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with bring back Lieby...
xats
by xatsman on Oct 21, 2006 9:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
depends on how you use him
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 up reply actions 0 recs
I wish managers handled this differently
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 up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with both of you
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 up reply actions 0 recs
Emergency catcher
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 up reply actions 0 recs
risk/reward and perception
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 up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















