Offseason discussion/rumors

[TC in Mississippi]

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.

Let's not underestimate Quintana though. You say he's not great and isn't a #1 but let's look at that by numbers

Quintana numbers

3.41 ERA, 3.47 FIP, 7.82 K/9, 2.31 BB/9, 1.07/HR 9, 1.24 WHIP career averages

Over the last 4 years has accumulated 18.2 WAR in 814.3 IP

Mystery pitcher numbers

3.32 ERA, 3.98 FIP, 8.62 K/9, 2.41 BB/9, 1.0 HR/9, 1.16 WHIP career averages

Over the last 4 years has accumulated 15.9 WAR in 836.6 IP

These 2 stat lines are nearly identical but the mystery pitcher is universally considered a #1 and true ace, while you are saying that Quintana is not great and is a #2. That doesn't make sense given the closeness of the numbers and frankly the gap in WAR with Quintana far ahead of the mystery pitcher.

 

[beckdawg]

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.

I literally just gave you 3 trades that netted less value for Price(2x) and Hamels who are cy young type pitchers. I mean there's a physical limit to the number of trades that happened in the past 3 seasons involving arms of this quality. Off the top of my head, I mean I guess Matt Moore but don't think he's a great example given he wasn't great prior to the trade and his injury issues. Johnny Cueto for Brandon Finnegan, John Lamb and Cody Reed wasn't a barn burner. Rick Porcello for Gabe Speier, Yoenis Cespedes and Alex Wilson probably is a horrible example given where he was prior to the trade. Even if you want to expand that and go with James Shields(4 years ago), I don't think Patrick Leonard, Mike Montgomery, Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi was that much different from the Hamels deal. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that haven't been mentioned.

Out of all those trades the Miller to AZ deal is far and away the worst which is why it was so widely panned. The Shark trade looks worse now but looking at it in hindsight takes away the context. Shark had a 2.83 ERA and was 29 with another year of control and that trade also netted them Hammel who at the time had a 2.98 ERA. They were effectively buying 2 starters that looked like they would pitch for them in the playoffs. And while Russell obviously is a tough loss for them now, they were effectively giving up quality rather than a number of prospects they didn't have. Straily even at the time wasn't much and McKinney while decently rated was always going to have position concerns because his bat didn't profile well in a corner OF spot.

The Hamels/Shields trades were pricey but reasonable. Royals also got Wade Davis who turned into a big time reliever for them. Trades ended up more about quantity than an individual star player. As for the other trades, not sure they are all that comparable but needless to say the price wasn't that close to the Miller/Shark trades. Either way, you're talking about a sample size of less than 10 and you're picking the absolute best case and saying that's now "the price" entirely ignoring context.

 

[beckdawg]

Let's not underestimate Quintana though. You say he's not great and isn't a #1 but let's look at that by numbers

Quintana numbers

3.41 ERA, 3.47 FIP, 7.82 K/9, 2.31 BB/9, 1.07/HR 9, 1.24 WHIP career averages

Over the last 4 years has accumulated 18.2 WAR in 814.3 IP

Mystery pitcher numbers

3.32 ERA, 3.98 FIP, 8.62 K/9, 2.41 BB/9, 1.0 HR/9, 1.16 WHIP career averages

Over the last 4 years has accumulated 15.9 WAR in 836.6 IP

These 2 stat lines are nearly identical but the mystery pitcher is universally considered a #1 and true ace, while you are saying that Quintana is not great and is a #2. That doesn't make sense given the closeness of the numbers and frankly the gap in WAR with Quintana far ahead of the mystery pitcher.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I never said Quintana is a #2. I said he's really good and not "great." To me there's maybe 10 "great" pitchers in the league at any given time. And more to the point I literally said I'd personally rather Quintana long term than Sale who is probably in that great category. All I'm saying is when it comes to trades it's harder to sell guys like Quintana and Hendricks because they aren't over powering in the way that Sale is or to use a slight tangent, the way Chapman/Miller are.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I never said Quintana is a #2. I said he's really good and not "great." To me there's maybe 10 "great" pitchers in the league at any given time. And more to the point I literally said I'd personally rather Quintana long term than Sale who is probably in that great category. All I'm saying is when it comes to trades it's harder to sell guys like Quintana and Hendricks because they aren't over powering in the way that Sale is or to use a slight tangent, the way Chapman/Miller are.

Ok, but my mystery pitcher is one of the highest paid in the game and was highly sought after in trade and in fact was traded for a huge package. Since Quintana makes 1/3 of that player I would think he would bring back at least that much.

 

[beckdawg]

Also for what it's worth, I'm assuming that mystery pitcher is Cole Hamels and I wouldn't consider him great either just really good. That's why I dislike the term "ace" because everyone wants to put the term on a clubs best pitcher. That doesn't mean really good players can't contend for a cy young. I wouldn't personally call Jon Lester "great" either and both Hendricks and Lester are 2 of the 3 finalists. Scherzer on the other hand is someone I would put in that great category.

To me there's essentially tiers of pitching. In the first bucket is basically anyone who's 9 k/9+ with a walk rate of less than 2.5. This year that equates to Scherzer, Syndergaard, Verlander, Bumgarner, Kluber, Danny Duffy, and Chris Sale. David Price at 8.92 is almost there. Think you can argue for leaving Duffy(lack of track record) out and including Price. And perhaps you can make an argument for Lester, Chris Archer and 1 or two others but that's would essentially be my list.

Think far too often we talk about the concept of "#1's." My view is there's really only 10 or so elite guys and then a bunch of guys who aren't really statistically that different in the top say 50. Certainly Hendricks had a better year than say Matt Moore or Jake Odorizzi but is he really that much more talented? Think you can make a similar case with Quintana and as mentioned I actually like him a lot.

 

[brett05]

I literally just gave you 3 trades that netted less value for Price(2x) and Hamels who are cy young type pitchers. I mean there's a physical limit to the number of trades that happened in the past 3 seasons involving arms of this quality. Off the top of my head, I mean I guess Matt Moore but don't think he's a great example given he wasn't great prior to the trade and his injury issues. Johnny Cueto for Brandon Finnegan, John Lamb and Cody Reed wasn't a barn burner. Rick Porcello for Gabe Speier, Yoenis Cespedes and Alex Wilson probably is a horrible example given where he was prior to the trade. Even if you want to expand that and go with James Shields(4 years ago), I don't think Patrick Leonard, Mike Montgomery, Wil Myers and Jake Odorizzi was that much different from the Hamels deal. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that haven't been mentioned.

Out of all those trades the Miller to AZ deal is far and away the worst which is why it was so widely panned. The Shark trade looks worse now but looking at it in hindsight takes away the context. Shark had a 2.83 ERA and was 29 with another year of control and that trade also netted them Hammel who at the time had a 2.98 ERA. They were effectively buying 2 starters that looked like they would pitch for them in the playoffs. And while Russell obviously is a tough loss for them now, they were effectively giving up quality rather than a number of prospects they didn't have. Straily even at the time wasn't much and McKinney while decently rated was always going to have position concerns because his bat didn't profile well in a corner OF spot.

The Hamels/Shields trades were pricey but reasonable. Royals also got Wade Davis who turned into a big time reliever for them. Trades ended up more about quantity than an individual star player. As for the other trades, not sure they are all that comparable but needless to say the price wasn't that close to the Miller/Shark trades. Either way, you're talking about a sample size of less than 10 and you're picking the absolute best case and saying that's now "the price" entirely ignoring context.

So in the past two-three seasons there are no examples unless I am misreading something. And my whole case is that this is the new norm which over the time period it appears to be. I could be wrong, but given the hauls people are getting for good pitching (you can add Miller and Chapman into it) I would appear to be correct.

 

[brett05]

Also for what it's worth, I'm assuming that mystery pitcher is Cole Hamels and I wouldn't consider him great either just really good. That's why I dislike the term "ace" because everyone wants to put the term on a clubs best pitcher. That doesn't mean really good players can't contend for a cy young. I wouldn't personally call Jon Lester "great" either and both Hendricks and Lester are 2 of the 3 finalists. Scherzer on the other hand is someone I would put in that great category.

To me there's essentially tiers of pitching. In the first bucket is basically anyone who's 9 k/9+ with a walk rate of less than 2.5. This year that equates to Scherzer, Syndergaard, Verlander, Bumgarner, Kluber, Danny Duffy, and Chris Sale. David Price at 8.92 is almost there. Think you can argue for leaving Duffy(lack of track record) out and including Price. And perhaps you can make an argument for Lester, Chris Archer and 1 or two others but that's would essentially be my list.

Think far too often we talk about the concept of "#1's." My view is there's really only 10 or so elite guys and then a bunch of guys who aren't really statistically that different in the top say 50. Certainly Hendricks had a better year than say Matt Moore or Jake Odorizzi but is he really that much more talented? Think you can make a similar case with Quintana and as mentioned I actually like him a lot.

Q over the past four seasons is no worse than a top 12-15 guy. And you can argue he squeezes into the top 10. He's the most underplayed player in all of baseball, by fans that is.

 

[beckdawg]

So in the past two-three seasons there are no examples unless I am misreading something. And my whole case is that this is the new norm which over the time period it appears to be. I could be wrong, but given the hauls people are getting for good pitching (you can add Miller and Chapman into it) I would appear to be correct.

And my point is you're looking at a sample size of 10 and drawing conclusions on the most extreme examples and saying the others examples don't matter because "reasons."

If you want to sit here and say Sale will go for the moon, while I don't agree I can see the argument. Sale is the type of pitcher that very very rarely gets traded so trying to put any sort of logic on what will/can happen is difficult. It ultimately comes down to the teams that want him badly enough having enough to make a giant offer. That sort of trade doesn't always come together because frankly it's hard to put the pieces together. And then you'll often end up with cases such as Price where he has 1 year left and you're rebuilding so you get what you can. I can totally buy that happening with the Sox. Sale is too valuable not to get the moon for so they keep him until they have to trade him.

Where my issue with you is that you're then applying that same logic on down the line to every available pitcher. If this huge value change were to happen then Matt Moore should have went for more. Duffy and Fox wasn't really that outlandish at all. When Shark was traded to your white sox they gave up basically Marcus Semien and nothing else really that worth while. Cueto didn't bring the moon. Wade Miley to the red sox didn't bring a huge haul..... on and on and on.

 

[brett05]

And my point is you're looking at a sample size of 10 and drawing conclusions on the most extreme examples and saying the others examples don't matter because "reasons."

If you want to sit here and say Sale will go for the moon, while I don't agree I can see the argument. Sale is the type of pitcher that very very rarely gets traded so trying to put any sort of logic on what will/can happen is difficult. It ultimately comes down to the teams that want him badly enough having enough to make a giant offer. That sort of trade doesn't always come together because frankly it's hard to put the pieces together. And then you'll often end up with cases such as Price where he has 1 year left and you're rebuilding so you get what you can. I can totally buy that happening with the Sox. Sale is too valuable not to get the moon for so they keep him until they have to trade him.

Where my issue with you is that you're then applying that same logic on down the line to every available pitcher. If this huge value change were to happen then Matt Moore should have went for more. Duffy and Fox wasn't really that outlandish at all. When Shark was traded to your white sox they gave up basically Marcus Semien and nothing else really that worth while. Cueto didn't bring the moon. Wade Miley to the red sox didn't bring a huge haul..... on and on and on.

"Reasons" I've given you evidence that things have changed IMO over the past two-three years. Why would I look earlier for that to be true? Maybe I am missing something but that to me is illogical.

Matt Moore? So you want to compare him to Q or Sale or Miller or Shark? Really? :smh: this is not like you. That said, the players given up in specs was not out of line.

Where are the non-trade deadline guys? Shark got a reasonable allotment back considering he was in a FA year.

I agree that the sample size is small. If I am right, it's going to get bigger.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

This offseason is going to tell a lot of tales in regards to pitching moving in trades. There is virtually no FA market to speak of and teams have indicated that they will listen to offers on the likes of Chris Archer, Sonny Gray, Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, Justin Verlander, Zack Greinke, Julio Teheran and Shelby Miller among others. If I were to guess I would say that 3-4 of these guys will actually move and show the market pretty clearly. These guys are a mix of young, old, potential, track record and past dominance. Of all these guys only Sale looks to be able to bring in the likes of a Yoan Moncada, Andrew Benintendi or Julio Urias. You're more likely to see deals, or proposed deal, including guys slightly down the prospect list like Rafael Devers, Ian Happ, Jason Groome, Cody Bellinger and Jose De Leon. When you look at teams looking for pitching it's hard to imagine the Cubs parting with young MLB guys like Baez or Schwarber, Boston parting with Benintendi or Moncada, LA dealing Urias or even a team like Washington parting with Lucas Giolito or Victor Robles although in the Nats case you might see a guy like Reynaldo Lopez moved. It's going to be fascinating but if I were to guess you won't see another trade like Dansby Swanson and Ender Inciarte for the likes of Shelby Miller.

 

[brett05]

Because of age and contract I'd probably rate it as:
1. Sale
2. Quintana
3. Gray
4. Teheran
5. Archer
6. Verlander
7. Grienke
8. Miller

 

[beckdawg]

"Reasons" I've given you evidence that things have changed IMO over the past two-three years.

And this is why I tried to give you an out to start with by saying I didn't want to discuss this but you kept pestering about it. You're saying the past doesn't matter because the future will be different. Fine, that's your opinion. But you're trying to disprove something and in doing so asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one claiming a change. And I'm sorry but to sit here and cite one of the most universally bad trades in the past 20 years as "proof" isn't worth any of our time. That trade was literally so bad it got the GM fired. That trade was so bad that in the good year Miller had in 2015 he was worth 3.4 fWAR while Ender Inciarte was worth 3.3.... and then you gave up a top 5 pick..... and a top 100 prospect. At no point was there any defense for this trade. It was bad then. It's horrible now. So, unless you're claiming the 29 other teams are morons I don't see a point in discussing it.

As for the Shark deal, I already mentioned why that trade should be considered different. Flat out it wasn't a 1 for 1 trade. Hammel was on pace for a 4 fWAR season give or take with the cubs which was identical to what Shark was on pace for. In hindsight it's easy to say that Shark alone netted Russell but that's not how it actually played out in real time. Given the way they were pitching at the time of the trade it would be similar to a team having traded for Kyle Hendricks and Jon Lester at the trade deadline this season. At the time we as cubs fans were talking about Shark getting 2 top 75ish prospects and Hammel getting 1 maybe 2 top 100. They ended up getting a top 10 prospect and think McKinney was like in the 90's. Straily wasn't a big piece at all. The trade was more about leverage than anything. Cubs jumped the market by doing it in early july to a team that doesn't work under normal parameters. Oakland had to go all in because they couldn't wait around for prospects to develop. Beane has talked about this. The cubs had 2 starters they needed badly and Oakland didn't have much in the way of lessor prospects.

So, if that's the evidence against the way trades have gone down for the past 20 years, I'm sorry but I don't see anything compelling about it. And I mean I'm not trying to be a dick here. I literally tried to brush off the argument multiple times. It basically comes down to this. At any given time there's maybe 4-5 teams that have enough talent to make a trade similar to the Cole Hamels deal. Not all of those teams are going to be willing to part with their entire farm system for one player. Not all of those teams may even like a particular player. In other words, it's harder than you think to drive up demand and that's why more often than not rumors end up being rumors. Trades have to make sense for both sides. Sellers will certainly ask the world but buyers are always going to have other options be it rehabbing a lost project(Arrieta/Montgomery) or building a great bullpen to fight poor starters(KC the past several years) or just building a better offense(Texas at the trade deadline).

 

[CSF77]

There's only one guy that it would have been worth trading Bryant for. he died this year

 

[CSF77]

Arizona does not favor pitchers that rely on ball movement. The dry air works against Them.

 

[beckdawg]

This offseason is going to tell a lot of tales in regards to pitching moving in trades. There is virtually no FA market to speak of and teams have indicated that they will listen to offers on the likes of Chris Archer, Sonny Gray, Chris Sale, Jose Quintana, Justin Verlander, Zack Greinke, Julio Teheran and Shelby Miller among others. If I were to guess I would say that 3-4 of these guys will actually move and show the market pretty clearly. These guys are a mix of young, old, potential, track record and past dominance. Of all these guys only Sale looks to be able to bring in the likes of a Yoan Moncada, Andrew Benintendi or Julio Urias. You're more likely to see deals, or proposed deal, including guys slightly down the prospect list like Rafael Devers, Ian Happ, Jason Groome, Cody Bellinger and Jose De Leon. When you look at teams looking for pitching it's hard to imagine the Cubs parting with young MLB guys like Baez or Schwarber, Boston parting with Benintendi or Moncada, LA dealing Urias or even a team like Washington parting with Lucas Giolito or Victor Robles although in the Nats case you might see a guy like Reynaldo Lopez moved. It's going to be fascinating but if I were to guess you won't see another trade like Dansby Swanson and Ender Inciarte for the likes of Shelby Miller.

I'm back from a nap. If I was a bit moody before blame that on my allergies that have been bugging me and making me feel a bit feverish. Anyways, sleeping a bit had me thinking on this. The short version is I doubt most of those players get traded. Verlander i could see getting moved. He's on the hook for 3 years $28 mil/year plus a $22 mil vesting option year in 2020 which i'm sure basically everyone but him hopes doesn't vest. Despite how good he was that's kind of a toxic asset for detroit as a 34 year old pitcher producing 4-5 fWAR thru 34-37 seems pretty unlikely. Given the relative lack of options think if detroit eats say $10-15 mil they could pretty easily move him for something decent.

I don't really see Archer or Sale moving. Archer with 5 years left on a reasonably priced deal is arguably worth more than Sale is. Short answer here is I can't see anyone truly parting with enough to warrant those teams moving the players. Similarly, I can't really see why Miller and Gray would be traded at their arguably low points. In both cases you'd be far better off hoping they put together a good first half of 2017 and dealing them at the deadline instead. The braves reportedly are buyers this year so trading Teheran doesn't seem likely either.

Quintana is kind of interesting. As I mentioned, I don't think he'll demand an unreasonable haul of players compared to the Sale/Archers of the world just because he's not as dominating as those 2 can be. And given that I could potentially see the Sox moving him for a couple reasons. The first is it honestly makes little sense to move him and Sale at the same time if they are rebuilding. You'll get more value by limiting the available options out there by doing it say now and at the trade deadline or now and next offseason. The other thing is he's not likely to get better meaning this is almost surely his peak value.

As for Grienke, I'm sure the dbacks will try to move him but they are still on the hook for $172.5 mil over 5 years. For a 33 year old pitcher who had a 4.37/4.12 ERA/FIP last year that's going to be an incredibly tough sell. To even have a shot I think Arizona would have to eat close to $50 mil and even then I'm not sure he yields a huge haul. That would essentially put Grienke at around $25 mil per from 33-37 which would probably be more than he would get if he were a FA even this year.

To me the more interesting pitchers are guys under the radar. I've long mentioned my interest in Drew Smyly. Similar to Quintana, Jake Odorizzi likely has similar value and isn't as difficult to move if they are willing to part with more than Smyly. Michael Pineda could be an intriguing project if the Yankees are willing to part with him. Like wise, Nathan Eovaldi has some positives. The Mets would seem like a logical seller of pitching. Overall, though that's where I see most of the moment going. Guys who show some potential upside but have some glaring flaws. I'd also look for teams to try and buy prospects who haven't worked out yet. I don't know that Arizona would move him yet but Archie Bradley is the type of player I'm talking about. Former top 10 I believe pitching prospect who has a 5.02/4.10 ERA/FIP over 177.1 innings. Jon Gray would be another similar name who hasn't had that breakout year though I think Colorado would be foolish to sell him.

The other thing to keep an eye on is teams who changed front offices. Arizona obviously did. Minnesota did. Seattle did last year and still might be open to moving around some parts. Those GM's might not be as staunch holding onto prospects because they didn't draft them and they might view those high prospects in an entirely different light.

 

[CSF77]

What would Shelby Miller's trade value be at right now anyways?

 

[beckdawg]

What would Shelby Miller's trade value be at right now anyways?

Pretty difficult to say. I would say something like a fringe top 100 player at this point. My thing on Miller is he has below average k/9 and bb/9. I said this before he was traded last year but I didn't see that as the beginning of a career upturn. To me he looks like a #3 pitcher. I just don't see real upside with him. I think realistically the best case barring some huge change in what he's been is basically what he was in 2015. At 3.4 fWAR he's basically what the cubs got out of Lackey.

It wouldn't surprise me if Mike Leake is more valuable than Miller of the next 4-5 years. And that's not to say Mike Leake doesn't hold some value but Miller's best two pitches aren't really swing and miss pitches. His cutter is his best pitch and hitters have hit .243/.279/.351 off it with a 82 wRC+. His curve is his second best pitch and hitters have hit .230/.273/.353 off it for a 85 wRC+. The best k rate on any pitch he has is his 4 seam fastball at 22.7% which is right around league average. Just as a comparison here, Hendricks who prior to this year was labeled a 2 pitch pitcher has more swing and miss stuff than Miller. Hendrick's change up on his career has a 30.5% k rate with a 22 wRC+. His Curve is 20.2% with a 53 wRC+. His Cutter is 20.6% with a 92 wRC+. And unlike Miller, Hendricks is exceptional with location.

Price being equal I'd far rather take a chance on Drew Smyly or Micheal Pineda. Both have devastating sliders. Pineda's career k rate is 35.7% on his with a 65 wRC+. Smyly's is 34.6% with a wRC+ of 68. And both have better overall k/9 and bb/9. Pineda is at 9.17 k/9 and 2.10 bb/9 on his career while Smyly is at 8.71 k/9 and 2.54 bb/9. That's not to say Smyly and Pineda don't have issues. Both give up far too many HRs. But the difference is if you fix their problems they have top of the rotation stuff where as Miller's stuff is pretty average.

 

[TL1961]

There's only one guy that it would have been worth trading Bryant for. he died this year

David Bowie?

 

[beckdawg]

David Bowie?

Clearly he was talking about Prince.

 

[beckdawg]

Saw this on Otani...

And Otani himself has good reason to wait, because at just 22 years of age he’d be subject to MLB’s current international bonus rules. While that could change if the CBA is modified, as things stand his signing would be subject to a 100% tax on the amount by which a bonus exceeds a team’s signing pools. Given his anticipated value, that would represent an enormous hit to his earning capacity. Plus, ten teams — the Yankees, Red Sox, Rays, Diamondbacks, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs, Giants, Royals and Blue Jays — wouldn’t even realistically be able to pursue him, since they are banned from giving out more than $300K to international players in this signing period.

I believe 23 with 4 years of pro experience makes you exempt from IFA rules. As such I can't imagine he's posted before then. If he's worth $200 mil there's no way you can realistically then pay 100% tax on top of that as well as the IFA penalties that come with it.