Offseason discussion/rumors

[CSF77]

I disagree. You can plug a substandard defensive player in at 2B. Teams have done this for years sacrificing defense for offense. For instance, Daniel Murphy, Rougned Odor, and Chase Utley all played over 1000 innings at 2B with negative defensive metrics. I'd make the case that CF is even more important defensively than SS. A CF who can't get to the gaps gives up doubles while a SS/2B who doesn't have range generally speaking is giving up singles. And even if your assertion of 2B being just as important defensively is accurate, there flat out aren't enough CF in the league worth talking about. There were 12 CF who had 2 or higher fWAR and about half of those did it on defense mostly a la Kevin Pillar. There were 17 2B. In other words, if Happ could play CF he's far more valuable there.

The vast majority of CF prospects look something like DJ Wilson does which is to say a 60/50/60 or higher grades on run/throw/field. Happ had 55/55/45. If you have good instincts you can get by with that run grade. For instance, Almora had a 50 run grade but he's got one of the best first steps in baseball. Like wise, you will often see teams skimp a bit on CF arms because the lack of depth at the position. But generally speaking, teams don't skimp on fielding. So, long story short, Happ can probably play CF in a pinch but you don't want him starting 150 games there.

And none of that is to crap on Happ because I think he's a fine 2B prospect. All I'm saying is there's no way he's realistically playing CF full time.

If he ends up limited at 2B it would be better to trade him. I would rather have Baez there.

 

[beckdawg]

There is plenty of video of Otani. You know baseball, watch him yourself leaving the results to the side. I'm talking as a pitcher here. His stuff is as good as I've ever seen and he can command all 4 of his pitches equally. Clayton Kershaw is the only MLB pitcher who you can say that about currently. MLB and NPB scouts have been aware of Otani since he was 12. He isn't a fluke. There isn't a team in baseball that wouldn't take him on their team tomorrow and some teams would have the money to do it. The risk reward says that if you can you do it.

I haven't seen a ton of video on Otani but one thing I did pick up was he was throwing 102 on his presumably 4 seam and like 88 on his breaking pitch which I assume was his slider. I didn't watch enough to see the overall quality of those pitches plus the 2 others you mention but it's pretty obvious why the hype is there assuming that stadium gun is accurate. That's basically the average separation in Chapman's fastball/slider combo(100/88 for him). That's simply going to be a devastating combo no matter who you are because your bat has to be so quick to catch up with the fastball that you end up so far in front of the breaking pitches. Kershaw as a comparison is 93/87/73 on his 4 seam/slider/curve. So, if Otani has a curve in the mid 70's range he's gonna be nearly impossible to square up.

All that being said, 10/300 strikes me as risky. I get the talent and age but that's basically paying a pitcher to be David Price/Kershaw when they haven't thrown in the majors. I think you'd probably be looking at a shorter deal. Tanaka for instance was 7/155 albeit him coming over at 25. Think something like 7/175 or 7/190 would be more likely.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I disagree. You can plug a substandard defensive player in at 2B. Teams have done this for years sacrificing defense for offense. For instance, Daniel Murphy, Rougned Odor, and Chase Utley all played over 1000 innings at 2B with negative defensive metrics. I'd make the case that CF is even more important defensively than SS. A CF who can't get to the gaps gives up doubles while a SS/2B who doesn't have range generally speaking is giving up singles. And even if your assertion of 2B being just as important defensively is accurate, there flat out aren't enough CF in the league worth talking about. There were 12 CF who had 2 or higher fWAR and about half of those did it on defense mostly a la Kevin Pillar. There were 17 2B. In other words, if Happ could play CF he's far more valuable there.

The vast majority of CF prospects look something like DJ Wilson does which is to say a 60/50/60 or higher grades on run/throw/field. Happ had 55/55/45. If you have good instincts you can get by with that run grade. For instance, Almora had a 50 run grade but he's got one of the best first steps in baseball. Like wise, you will often see teams skimp a bit on CF arms because the lack of depth at the position. But generally speaking, teams don't skimp on fielding. So, long story short, Happ can probably play CF in a pinch but you don't want him starting 150 games there.

And none of that is to crap on Happ because I think he's a fine 2B prospect. All I'm saying is there's no way he's realistically playing CF full time.

And yet Baez defense was on clear display in the post-season at 2B. Not having that at 2B could have cost them the WS title.

 

[beckdawg]

And yet Baez defense was on clear display in the post-season at 2B. Not having that at 2B could have cost them the WS title.

Think we're talking about two different things. You're saying defense at 2B is important. Ok but that's the case any where. I'm saying that if Happ can play average defense in CF and average defense at 2B he's far more valuable in CF because most CF can't hit at even an average clip in the majors.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I haven't seen a ton of video on Otani but one thing I did pick up was he was throwing 102 on his presumably 4 seam and like 88 on his breaking pitch which I assume was his slider. I didn't watch enough to see the overall quality of those pitches plus the 2 others you mention but it's pretty obvious why the hype is there assuming that stadium gun is accurate. That's basically the average separation in Chapman's fastball/slider combo(100/88 for him). That's simply going to be a devastating combo no matter who you are because your bat has to be so quick to catch up with the fastball that you end up so far in front of the breaking pitches. Kershaw as a comparison is 93/87/73 on his 4 seam/slider/curve. So, if Otani has a curve in the mid 70's range he's gonna be nearly impossible to square up.

All that being said, 10/300 strikes me as risky. I get the talent and age but that's basically paying a pitcher to be David Price/Kershaw when they haven't thrown in the majors. I think you'd probably be looking at a shorter deal. Tanaka for instance was 7/155 albeit him coming over at 25. Think something like 7/175 or 7/190 would be more likely.

He may start at 10/$300 mil but I think it'll end up closer to 8/$210-$220 to be honest. Unless of course someone like the Dodgers or the Yankees make him a must have at all costs. I don't see Theo and company doing that type of thing but he is exactly the kind of pitcher they want.

 

[fatbeard]

He may start at 10/$300 mil but I think it'll end up closer to 8/$210-$220 to be honest. Unless of course someone like the Dodgers or the Yankees make him a must have at all costs. I don't see Theo and company doing that type of thing but he is exactly the kind of pitcher they want.

I thought the kind of pitcher they wanted was young and cost-controlled. Nothing about 8/220 strikes me as "cost-controlled."

 

[brett05]

I mean Schwarber is a nonstarter almost certainly in any trade. If they were going to deal him they would have dealt him for Miller. As for Baez, I doubt the cubs would deal him either though I think there's a case to be made you'd be better off with someone like Happ anyways as the main piece. I'm obviously not the best one to support Baez here but to me his variance would be too high for a rebuilding team. Sure if he totally figures out hitting he could be a 5-6 win player with his defense. But, the obvious downside is if he doesn't progress. For my money, if you're trading a star during a rebuild you go with safety. Happ is about as safe as you get outside of generational hitters like Schwarber and Bryant were in the minors. Happ has hit .272/.362/.452 in the minors and is a switch hitter with 20/20 potential. That's pretty safe.

That thinking safe strategy is largely why the cubs are where they are right now. They went with college hitters at the top of the past several drafts and gambled in smaller ways such as trading for Arrieta and drafting pitching lower. Overall though I'm not going to bother getting into specifics about what Quintana or Sale will cost with you because we've largely been down this road before and you place a far higher price on pitching. That's not to say you're wrong but as I mentioned in the reply to TC, if that's the going price for Quintana I'd be interested in him.

And my value on pitching comes from what they are getting on the market the past few seasons (Miller/Shark). Hey, if the Cubs wanted to give us Bryant and Happ for Q i'd be down with that.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I thought the kind of pitcher they wanted was young and cost-controlled. Nothing about 8/220 strikes me as "cost-controlled."

You're talking about $27.5 mil AAV. The $40 mil pitcher is coming. If he's a top 5 pitcher in the league $27.5 will be an absolute bargain in 5 years.

 

[beckdawg]

And my value on pitching comes from what they are getting on the market the past few seasons (Miller/Shark). Hey, if the Cubs wanted to give us Bryant and Happ for Q i'd be down with that.

Like I said I'm not really interested in discussing that. I feel like you use extreme cases as the norm. Both of those trades even at the time of the trade were largely viewed as pretty one sided. David Price was traded twice in the past 2 years and didn't net anything close to that value as a counter example. So, if that's how you view things i mean... you're welcome to your opinion but I really don't see any realistic scenario where we're going to agree here. If anything, the Miller/Shark trades should be cautionary tales not "hey let's offer this much for a pitcher!" cases. If the sox can get someone to give them that then they certainly should take them up on the offer but that would be them gouging the other side and that isn't a "fair deal."

 

[CSF77]

And my value on pitching comes from what they are getting on the market the past few seasons (Miller/Shark). Hey, if the Cubs wanted to give us Bryant and Happ for Q i'd be down with that.

It would cost more than Q to even talk about Bryant. MVP finalist for a #2...lol

 

[CSF77]

You're talking about $27.5 mil AAV. The $40 mil pitcher is coming. If he's a top 5 pitcher in the league $27.5 will be an absolute bargain in 5 years.

Cost controlled usually means not in Arb yet or in arb 1-3. The more control the higher the talent cost. Now that kid has legit talent but that is the same as signing a F/A on the market. The difference is you are paying for a known track record vs a guy from a league that pitches guys 1 per week and has been a history of injuries to those pitchers when adapting to the MLB routine.

We didnt see it with Maeda yet but he is not a power pitcher. But Tanaka and Darvish both did and they are harder throwers.

So a guy that has stuff like Kerry Wood...ya. And Woody also went on the DL early and later in his carrier.

So it is a risk. Is the talent there? Yes but the risk for injury is greater also with these known factors leading up to a decision.

 

[brett05]

Like I said I'm not really interested in discussing that. I feel like you use extreme cases as the norm. Both of those trades even at the time of the trade were largely viewed as pretty one sided. David Price was traded twice in the past 2 years and didn't net anything close to that value as a counter example. So, if that's how you view things i mean... you're welcome to your opinion but I really don't see any realistic scenario where we're going to agree here. If anything, the Miller/Shark trades should be cautionary tales not "hey let's offer this much for a pitcher!" cases. If the sox can get someone to give them that then they certainly should take them up on the offer but that would be them gouging the other side and that isn't a "fair deal."

First Price was not affordable for TB, and the Tigers bailed as they were'nt going to be paying him either when things did not work out for them either. Not a fair analogy really.

Right now the market is showing good pitchers get more in return. Great controllable young pitchers more so. Sale and Q are those types. It logically says they should get a higher return. Doesn't mean they will, but foolish to trade for less.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

And my value on pitching comes from what they are getting on the market the past few seasons (Miller/Shark). Hey, if the Cubs wanted to give us Bryant and Happ for Q i'd be down with that.

Let's examine that. The money is probably a wash as Quintana is due $36 mil over the next 4 years (although the option years mean you can move on in the case of an injury so that adds some value) and Bryant will start getting some serious money in arb after 2017 which could be about that in his last 4 years of control. You can count on Quintana to contribute about 4.5-5 WAR per season but for the sake of argument let's call that 5 so accumulated in his 4 years of control you're talking 20 WAR. Bryant, on the other hand, will probably average at least 7 WAR and he has 1 more year of control so that's 35 WAR. On it's face that deal is lopsided and you want to add a player who's floor is probably an average MLB player to that, so maybe 6 more WAR over 2018, 19 & 20 making it 41 WAR for 20 WAR? C'mon now. Now, Baez, Happ and another prospect, or even substituting Almora for Happ, for Quintana I get.

 

[brett05]

It would cost more than Q to even talk about Bryant. MVP finalist for a #2...lol

I'm just saying if the offer is there. And Q is a #1.

 

[CSF77]

I'm just saying if the offer is there. And Q is a #1.

 

[SilenceS]

Bryant could average 40 plus home runs and a .290 plus average for the next ten years. He is a generational hitter. He is almost at Trout level of untouchable.

 

[beckdawg]

First Price was not affordable for TB, and the Tigers bailed as they were'nt going to be paying him either when things did not work out for them either. Not a fair analogy really.

Right now the market is showing good pitchers get more in return. Great controllable young pitchers more so. Sale and Q are those types. It logically says they should get a higher return. Doesn't mean they will, but foolish to trade for less.

And hence why I really don't want to get involved in this. You say it's not a fair analogy but you pick two examples where literally everyone was saying Arizona was fucking stupid last offseason and another where the A's were throwing caution to the wind to win at the trade deadline. Those aren't typical norms either. The fact of the matter is, the going price for a #1 starter going back 20 years has generally been 2 top 100 prospects and some flyers on the back end. I could literally cite 25-50 trades of starters this way but I honestly don't want to get that in depth on this as I've mentioned.

Some teams are able to get more than that. Some do worse usually because they over play their hand and wait too long. But the point is that's generally the baseline. If you want to argue Sale goes for similar value to Cole Hamels(3 prospects in the 50's) I think that's a reasonable argument. But if you're starting with the Miller trade I frankly think you're being ridiculous because as mentioned people were saying as news broke that trade was one of the worst in recent memory. And the front office that made that trade no longer has a job.

As for Quintana, I like him a lot personally but I think you're going to run into the same problem when talking about Kyle Hendricks. Hendricks struck out more batters and walked fewer this year and Quintana has more of a pedigree but by in large I think they are quite similar. Problem is both are really good and not necessarily "great." When you're striking out over 10 guys per 9 like Sale does it's easy to get buy in from scouts. When you're career k/9 is under 8 it's far more difficult. So, I'd be surprised if they get an amazing haul for him despite the fact that I'd honestly rather have Quintana long term than Sale.

 

[brett05]

And hence why I really don't want to get involved in this. You say it's not a fair analogy but you pick two examples where literally everyone was saying Arizona was ... stupid last offseason and another where the A's were throwing caution to the wind to win at the trade deadline. Those aren't typical norms either. The fact of the matter is, the going price for a #1 starter going back 20 years has generally been 2 top 100 prospects and some flyers on the back end. I could literally cite 25-50 trades of starters this way but I honestly don't want to get that in depth on this as I've mentioned.

Some teams are able to get more than that. Some do worse usually because they over play their hand and wait too long. But the point is that's generally the baseline. If you want to argue Sale goes for similar value to Cole Hamels(3 prospects in the 50's) I think that's a reasonable argument. But if you're starting with the Miller trade I frankly think you're being ridiculous because as mentioned people were saying as news broke that trade was one of the worst in recent memory. And the front office that made that trade no longer has a job.

As for Quintana, I like him a lot personally but I think you're going to run into the same problem when talking about Kyle Hendricks. Hendricks struck out more batters and walked fewer this year and Quintana has more of a pedigree but by in large I think they are quite similar. Problem is both are really good and not necessarily "great." When you're striking out over 10 guys per 9 like Sale does it's easy to get buy in from scouts. When you're career k/9 is under 8 it's far more difficult. So, I'd be surprised if they get an amazing haul for him despite the fact that I'd honestly rather have Quintana long term than Sale.

You keep saying you don't want to discuss yet that is all you are doing.

Bring examples over the past two-three seasons that shows the prices paid for Miller/Shark are not the new norm.

 

[JaySix]

And I would laugh so hard.

Japan is not the bigs. All of these analogies that keep getting pitched are awful.

Paying big dollars for a HS kid (which only you suggested) would not only be INSANE, it would be TREASON to the sport.

Never said paying big money to a HS kid, I was pointing to the fact this rookie (as he would be) is a professional ball player that would likely be ready for the MLB day 1 as opposed to HS/college players that need to come up through the minors. So Ohtani is essentially a free agent yet he is 22 years old. You don't get free agents at 22 so this is not a normal scenario.. (and that's why you see the big money)

You dismiss the J-league very easily, the last guy coming over from the Nippon Ham Fighters was Yu Darwish, but he was 26 years old. He didn't exactly take long to adapt to 'the bigs' did he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

Never said paying big money to a HS kid, I was pointing to the fact this rookie (as he would be) is a professional ball player that would likely be ready for the MLB day 1 as opposed to HS/college players that need to come up through the minors. So Ohtani is essentially a free agent yet he is 22 years old. You don't get free agents at 22 so this is not a normal scenario.. (and that's why you see the big money)

You dismiss the J-league very easily, the last guy coming over from the Nippon Ham Fighters was Yu Darwish, but he was 26 years old. He didn't exactly take long to adapt to 'the bigs' did he?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again the trash pile is much bigger than the exception. Wise money steers clear of 10/300.