Give Me the Keys: a Plan for the 2007 Phillies, Pt. 1

by dajafi on Oct 13, 2006 1:41 AM EDT in News Comment 23 comments

For fans of perennially disappointing ballclubs, early Hot Stove speculation is as inevitable as the leaves changing colors and Terrell Owens bad-mouthing his quarterback. Just as inevitable, though, is the mass fantasizing about big-name stars with big contracts to arrive and solve the team's problems. But whether your flavor is Ramirez (Aramis or Manny) or Rodriguez (Alex), this is probably wasted energy: superstar deals are rare in any case, and Pat Gillick has gone on record suggesting that the Phils don't have a ton of "inventory" with which to swing huge trades this winter. And while Ramirez the Infielder could opt into free agency, my bet is if he does so, he lands in Los Angeles after a bidding war between the two teams based there.

Fortunately, I think I've come up with a six-move strategy that doesn't chain the Phillies to any long-term deals, involve a wish-casting trade ("well, why wouldn't the Marlins deal us Willis and Cabrera for Burrell and Madson?"), or engage the club in crazed bidding for a Zito or Matsuzaka. And if I've crunched the numbers correctly, it actually lowers the payroll.

Am I nuts, or just stupid? Read on.

Here are the first three moves, setting up our 2007 pitching staff, with explanations:

Trade OF-R Aaron Rowand ($5m team option) to Chicago White Sox for SP Freddy Garcia ($10m)

Why it works: The Sox probably have one more realistic shot to go for it all in 2007, with core lineup players Thome, Dye, Konerko, Iguchi and Pierzynski all more likely to decline than improve in coming seasons. Rowand's numbers for the 2005 World Champions weren't great, but it seemed like everyone in Chicago swore by his intangibles. They're going to move a starter this off-season, whether it's Garcia, Garland, or Vasquez, to make space for Brandon McCarthy. Garcia's price tag is steep, but he's a one-year commitment. In the NL, his peripherals should improve, and he's a horse--more than 200 IP each of the last few seasons. For the Phils, Shane Victorino is a cheaper alternative in CF, with more offensive upside.

Re-sign SP-L Randy Wolf or SP-L Jamie Moyer for $5 million

Why it works: It's already been rumored that the Phils are likely to bring one of the other of these Crafty Southpaws (tm) back, but not both. My preference would be Wolf, but if the market heats up and some team offers him a multi-year deal, the Phils don't need to go there. A one-year contract with a vesting second year and performance incentives would be ideal; if not, maybe Moyer can be persuaded to return as the fifth starter and dispenser of pitching wisdom.

Trade SP-R Gavin Floyd to Nationals for RP-R Ryan Wagner

Why it works: To be honest, I'm not totally sure it does. But Floyd is a gone goose, and in Wagner we see another former top draft pick who's disappointed his employers. Washington will be looking for starters, and to bring in an arm of Wagner's quality as a back-of-the-pen reliever with an opportunity to advance to a bigger role could be a nice flyer to take.

The last two relief slots should be open for spring competition. I assigned them to Eude Brito, the hard-throwing lefty, and Zack Segovia, an eventual rotation prospect, but any of a dozen 2006 Red Barons/marginal Phillies or journeyman bullpen arms could wind up in either slot. If a reliever with more major-league experience winds up there, add a few hundred thousand dollars to the tab.

That leaves us with this staff, and their estimated 2007 salaries. Some rounding went into the total roster-area numbers:

Rotation: $28.5m
Myers (R) $5.5m
Garcia (R) $10m
Hamels (L) $0.35m
Lieber (R) $7.5m
Wolf/Moyer (L) $5m

Bullpen: $12.5m
Gordon (R-CL) $7m
Geary (R) $1.5m
Madson (R) $2m
Smith (L) $0.35m
R. Wagner (R) $1m
Brito (L) $0.35m
Segovia (R) $0.35m

Back next week with the position half of the roster.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Kickass

Maybe the best preview I've seen so far. I like the idea of filling out the bullpen with young guys. They're cheap and have good potential. That most of the money would be spent on one guy in this scenario speaks to that (and how bad the Gordon signing was).

I do like the idea of picking up Ryan Wagner. He's a hard throwing bullpen guy, get enough of them, and one will pan out.

I wonder though if it wouldn't be the worst thing to let Rowand walk and resign both Wolf & Moyer. That basically gives us a rotation of five #2 starters.

by DanT on Oct 13, 2006 3:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice work, Dave

I like the first two steps, a lot. Garcia eats 210 innings, pitching at or just above league average, and he probably goes 18-9 with this offense. Sign me up.

I'd prefer Wolf, but Moyer as the 5th isn't so bad. I don't think he's coming back, though, so they'd better get moving on one of those fronts now.

But I don't want Wagner, for four reasons:

His control sucks - that drives me crazy.
He doesn't strike people out, which makes me think his 'stuff' is overrated.
He gives up a lot of hits... more than his innings, which - combined with lousy control - makes him Franklin-esque (Ryan, not Ben).
He's a reliever, and his name is Wagner. I've had my fill, thanks.

As much as I think Floyd's a disaster at this point, I'd probably keep him in AAA, and hope he dominates. If Moyer's the 5th, and his grandkids want him to retire or something, we need some insurance. He might be it.

But it's a minor quibble... solid plan. Can't wait to see the hitters.

by Shore on Oct 13, 2006 8:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wagner

I have some of the same concerns, particularly the low K rate. I think I just wanted to include a "my problem for your problem" deal, though I guess it could be argued that Wagner hasn't been with the Nats long enough to be "their" problem. He's definitely the least significant of these moves, and if you replace him with any of the cheaper guys on this list, I don't think it changes anything. Maybe Octavio Dotel would be a worthwhile flyer for 2007.

Also, though again it's a minor point, I remembered last night after I'd posted this that Fabio Castro is on the Phillies roster. Given that Charlie seems to like having three lefty relievers, maybe he winds up in there with Smith and Brito.

by dajafi on Oct 13, 2006 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, a cheap bullpen!

I like it. Even with Gordon's big raise, that's something like $4 million cheaper than last year.

by phatj on Oct 13, 2006 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

a refreshing change

The Phils overspent on the bullpen in every season of the Late Wade period, and continued to do so this year (though Gillick's only sin there was Ryan Franklin, and he at least shipped him out eventually). This was and is doubly idiotic: for one thing, relievers are the least likely group of players to reproduce their performance from one season to the next, and two, their work is probably far less important to the goal of winning games over the course of the season than lineup regulars or starting pitchers.

If you look at playoff teams over the last six years or so, they generally spent a far lower percentage of payroll on bullpen than the Phils have. I can't believe that's a coincidence.

by dajafi on Oct 13, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gillick plus

One thing I've liked about Pat Gillick so far is his seeming non-obsession with expensive PVMR (Proven Veteran Middle Relievers). Middle relievers are mostly gonna break your heart and piss you off; why pay one $3M to do it when you can pay him $750K and use the savings to shore up the bench?

by WholeCamels on Oct 13, 2006 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I really like the Garcia idea.

But even if the Phils add a Wagner type, I think they still need another arm for the back end of the bullpen.

Geary should be given a wider roll but his success this year was a result of an improved BB rate. You have to figure on some regression there. Madson's been solid out of the bullpen but hitters have been really squaring up against him the last two years (25% LD in '05, 22 in '06) and while both his BB and K rate are likely to improve next year, you can't be confident they'll go back to 2005 levels. Plus, Gordon is an injury/performance risk, and we all saw what happened when Gordon went down this year.

I also have serious concerns about having a Brito and Segovia down there. Brito's control makes him ill-suited for the majors and though I like Segovia's groundball tendencies, he hasn't pitched above AA yet.

I understand the aversion to a vetern bullpen --although I believe Gillick is on record saying that he prefers a younger rotation and an older bullpen -- but the Phils' experience with said vetern setup men over the past few years isn't all bad. Felix Rodriguez and Ugueth Urbina had DIPS ERAs of 2.18 over 20 IP and 3.76 over 52.3 IP, respectively. They should, as always, try to find the next Cla Meredith, for example, but I don't think you can just assume you're going to.

by enterpsmith on Oct 13, 2006 2:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

so, who?

Below the elite level, relievers are a crapshoot. (And sometimes even the elite ones are a crapshoot--if a Billy Wagner or Eric Gagne gets hurt, you're screwed.) You might find some bargains, but even the Felix Rodriguez example kind of makes the point: we got a good half-season from him in 2004, but the last two years, not so much.

I think the way to do is to bring in two truckloads of NRI contract invitees, the whole S/WB bullpen from this past year, and let them battle it out for the last 2-3 slots. Beyond that, if you don't trust Wagner, maybe the Mets won't re-sign Mota (though I think they will) or perhaps there's a trade to be made for the next Justin Duscherer type. But IMO whenever you're contemplating paying over $2-3 million or so for a non-elite reliever--especially when they can command multi-year commitments--the odds are so high you'll regret it that there's not much point.

by dajafi on Oct 13, 2006 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Philosophy

My point isn't so much philosophical as practical. I like the idea of a young, cheap bullpen filled with hardthrowers. It's just taht I don't see any good organizational options and the Phillies' situation dictates, IMO, that they need someone proven who can setup and close in a pinch.

As for specific examples:
Otsuka would be a good choice: 7.1 K/9, 1.3 BB/9, only .5 HR/9.

Marte wouldn't be bad either: 9.3 K/9, 3.9 BB/9, also only .5 HR/9.

Salomon Torres could be a trade target (although his 2009 salary is high).

by enterpsmith on Oct 13, 2006 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good plan...

One question would be do people feel we need to get more value for a former 1st round pick SP aka Gavin Floyd than a RP?

I would keep Gavin this year like Shore said, hope he does well and raises his value again, and then deal him at the deadline or next off-season...selling low is something the Phillies do far too often IMO and is not a great usage of resources...

The one I would trade is Gordon...I would have done it this past trade deadline after his amazing 1st half, but he almost certainly will not be worth his salary next season and I think closer by committee or hot hand or situational matchup is smarter...

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 13, 2006 3:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pitching Staff Keys

Sounds like a plan to me. If Gillick does not trade for a starter, would he sign both Wolf and Moyer? And would a starting 5 work with 3 of them left-handed? In the pen I want Gordon to stay as the stopper. If healthy, 7 million is not too much to pay for a closer who can still throw hard and has some off-speed stuff to go with it.

by jerseygrown on Oct 14, 2006 12:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

3 Lefties

Wouldn't be a bad thing; you definitely want to avoid multiple guys consecutively that have the same 'stuff' and velocity. Btu 3 LH would help, for example, against the Mets, who can't hit LH.

by Shore on Oct 14, 2006 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bullpen still lacks a legit arm

I'd still like to see at least one proven, solid bullpen arm added.

Otherwise I agree with everything. Although if they brought back Wolf and Moyer, I'd be happy. If anything they'd be very valuable trade chips in the 2nd half.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Oct 15, 2006 10:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

there are no "proven" bullpen arms

This is my whole point. You can pay upwards of $8 million for a brand-name closer who brings some degree of reliability, but I don't think you want to do that. Otherwise, it's a crapshoot.

Think about the implications here. The search for "proven bullpen arms" obsessed Ed Wade (and, for all I know, still haunts his dreams). It led him to acquire Jose Mesa, Rheal Cormier, Turd--I mean, Turk--Wendell, Dennis Cook, Dan Plesac, Mike Williams, Roberto Hernandez, Tim Worrell, Todd Jones... you know the names. Millions upon millions of dollars were spent, and we got maybe five quality seasons combined out of all those guys. The rest sucked; we literally would have been better off with a decent quad-A reliever.

Sorry to rant on this at length, but the idea of "proven relievers" has killed the Phils so badly that I can't not go at it.

by dajafi on Oct 16, 2006 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

The words "proven" and "reliever" make my head spin.

I agree completely dajafi. There are a small handful of proven relievers in all of baseball. We couldn't re-sign one of them, the other is going into the ministry after he finishes his career with the Yankees, and the other is never leaving Southern California. I'm not sure there are any others.

And, when you think about it, that makes sense. When guys regularly pitch only 50 to 80 innings per year (if healthy!), random variation plays a huge role in their results. It's very easy for a proven bullpen guy to go from a 2.00 ERA one year to a 5.00 ERA the next. Just look at all the guys Ed Wade acquired....

by David S. Cohen on Oct 16, 2006 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Relievers vs. Starters

Yeah, it's dangerous to make decisions based on small samples, but isn't that a different problem? Doesn't that just mean that the people making decisions are incompetent?

To test whether relievers are really undependable, it follows that their DIPS should vary a lot from year to year. Here are 8 pitchers' performances over the past three years:

Linebrink: 3.17, 2.56, 3.76 - 20%, 47%
Shields: 2.90, 2.82, 3.76 - 3 %, 33%
Otsuka: 2.48, 3.03, 2.89- 22%, 5%
Torres: 3.23, 3.23, 4.05 - same; 25%
Avg: 19%

Glavine: 3.99, 3.56, 4.26 - 11%, 19 %
Suppan: 4.65, 4.48, 4.68 - 4%, 4%
Millwood: 3.59, 3.75, 3.93 - 4%, 5%
Arroyo: 3.87, 4.41, 4.14 - 14%, 6%
Avg: 8%

This isn't a random sample, but it also isn't cherry picked, either. It seems to me that sample size can account for the difference.

by enterpsmith on Oct 16, 2006 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BP study

BP did a study into whether three previous years performance predicts a fourth and compared starters to relievers. It's available here, although I can't tell if it's free or not.

The results? Here are some (and the third is contrary to my original position - that there are at least some elite consistent relievers):

"Reliever FRA and RA are still nearly three times as random as that of starting pitchers."

"First, relievers are nearly twice as unpredictable as starting pitchers. Second, in any given season, over a third of relievers will have an FRA more than 1.46 runs more or less than their previous three year average."

"Even when separating starters and relievers into three groups, the elite relievers do not suddenly become surer bets. Relievers who post low FRA numbers--in this case, 2.50 or below--in any three-year stretch have a .008 r-squared to their next season and the difference between their previous three year stretch and the next season has a standard deviation of 1.15. Similar starters have a consistency of .100 and a standard deviation of 0.67. Once again, relievers show a distribution of performance just less than twice that of starters, but while relievers were about a third as consistent as starters (as measured by r-squared), the elite relievers show almost no consistent ability to remain as such."

"But even when comparing three-year groups of relief performance--attempting to remove the small-sample-size issue--relievers never approach the consistency of starting pitchers."

by David S. Cohen on Oct 17, 2006 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

DIPS

The article does bring up two things that are relatively accurate in predicting future performance: SO rate and BB rate. RA isn't a defense independent stat, so while these two factors influence RA, they don't play as big a role as they actually do in measuring a pitcher's effectiveness. Given this, it isn't surprising that my estimations based on FIP (even if my particular results have sample flaws) are more accurate than using FRA.

My point has never been that teams should just throw money at the bullpen and hope it sticks. You have to be smart about it. It's just that the process of putting a bullpen together isn't akin to being lost in a dark forest without a compass.

by enterpsmith on Oct 17, 2006 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

"It's just that the process of putting a bullpen together isn't akin to being lost in a dark forest without a compass." I agree with that.

It should almost never be the case that a team spends a ton of money on a "veteran proven" reliever based on a smattering of good years. That's a recipe for disaster. But, that doesn't mean there aren't indicators of who might be better than others; teams should certainly look at those.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 17, 2006 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point...

But still, teams do it. The Mets did very well this year with a bullpen consisting of guys like Heilman, Sanchez, & Wagner. They had at least 3 solid arms to go to in the bullpen. Did the Phils even have one?

I understand that the Phillies have had very little success in acquiring bullpen talent. However, that is no reason not to try. I'll be really annoyed if they leave this bullpen as is and try to sell me on the idea that they can't find anything better... Bottom line is that it's not good enough and if they don't make some sort of move to improve it, they just aren't trying.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Oct 16, 2006 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heilman and Sanchez

I'll give you Wagner, but going into the season would you have considered Heilman and Sanchez reliable bullpen arms? No way.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 17, 2006 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to be fair...

both those guys were/are fairly young, pretty healthy and clearly talented. I way prefer going that route--especially considering that Heilman was home-grown and Sanchez was a trade pickup--to signing the Roberto Hernandez and Tim Worrell types for millions of dollars based on their save totals from previous years.

If the Phils were to get a Sanchez or Guillermo Mota type reliever this winter, for a reasonable price in dollars or talent, I'd be fine with that. But the point holds: the non-elite relievers just aren't reliable enough to merit a big investment.

I still think the best way to do it is to fill two trucks with NRIs and minor-league free agents as well as your own farm guys, and let the best three or four fill out the bullpen. You'll get a relief corps at least as good as the average Wade-era Phillies 'pen, for about one-fifth the money.

by dajafi on Oct 17, 2006 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree completely

I wasn't saying Heilman and Sanchez aren't good and promising. I'm just saying that coming into the season they were hardly the proven relievers some people seem to want.

Your model of building a bullpen is the same as mine - try lots of things, be flexible with roles, and see what sticks. Just don't overpay for past performance because it's almost completely unreliable.

by David S. Cohen on Oct 17, 2006 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs