Regarding a number of misperceptions by the faithful during this restructuring period, one side effect is anticipating never-ending deals to acquire more prospects and/or to make room for the Triple-A talent of the Philadelphia Phillies if the losing continues.

Adverse Reactions:

When a prescribed remedy fixes a problem, it doesn’t always come without unpleasant complications.

In Major League Baseball, like other industries, many decisions are repetitive. For instance, a manager employs his closer in the ninth inning, and the front office sends the better player back to the minors and keeps their second choice because he’s out of options. And these are only two basic examples among the many. Moreover, the opinions expressed here have their basis in these patterns repeated in all MLB organizations. Yet keep in mind, no writer is in the room and franchises only reveal so much. But they have tells.

During the weekend, Double D, a poster from another site, showed concern regarding general manager Matt Klentak and the duration of the rebuilding process. Well, since management in the big leagues doesn’t often have luck with a three-year timeframe, they expect an adventure of four or five campaigns if things work out.

By design since 1965, teams on the bottom draft first and the champions go last. In other words, the champs grow old and drop in the standings. Ergo, Double D, organizations dread restructuring with decline in attendance, their fan base, their revenue streams and the albatross of expensive contracts. But finishing in the basement with little hope of recapturing past glory is the final straw before the moving of aging stars for youngsters.

If you review some Phillies sites, you’d see why some locals have concerns about trading Aaron Nola; for instance, Klentak should give the Angels whatever they want for that Mike Trout fella. Yeah, they’d take Nola, Odubel Herrera, Aaron Altherr, Tommy Joseph, Nick Williams and Vince Velasquez. We could get the best player in baseball and might be in the mix for a Wild Card like them. It’d be like dealing Cole Hamels and Ken Giles for Trout. What?

On a few threads, you’d see dealing Nola would produce the take the Phils got for Hamels. No way! Hamels was 31 then and Nola’s 24. They owed the southpaw $86 million or so, while Nola’s getting slightly above the MLB minimum ($0.544 million).

How ’bout Giles? He was 24 and making less money than Nola. Well, they moved a closer for a starter and potential ace, who could handle the ninth if the rotation gig didn’t work out.