Offseason discussion/rumors

[CSF77]

Come on now...I love Bowie more than anyone.

Fernandez had that franchise altering talent. With out him they collapsed. Just proves that he alone was making them viable this year. Really sad for the game with his loss.

Case in point: With Sale and Q the sox still can't break .500. It really comes down to giving up every thing for a "ace" is not a smart game plan.

 

[CSF77]

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.

Why I was asking was because Al on BCB was pondering this question. I also believe he fell victim to the dry air in Azl. We have seen what a park factor can do to guys that depend on movement vs power pitching. Even Maddux jumped a full point in ERA on his 2nd tour then it dropped again in pet co and dodger stadium's. 2 pitchers parks. Zach went from a pitchers park in KC to another pitchers park in LA. Then he falls off the map in Azl. It is the same situation pitchers face when going to Denver.

All I'm saying is the park most likey was a major factor for him and he never adjusted to it. Him going back to a park there the air density is higher should put his numbers back to their career norms. And everyone will say Bosio is a genius and Theo stole another one. But in reality he just went to a park that did not suit him.

 

[beckdawg]

Why I was asking was because Al on BCB was pondering this question. I also believe he fell victim to the dry air in Azl. We have seen what a park factor can do to guys that depend on movement vs power pitching. Even Maddux jumped a full point in ERA on his 2nd tour then it dropped again in pet co and dodger stadium's. 2 pitchers parks. Zach went from a pitchers park in KC to another pitchers park in LA. Then he falls off the map in Azl. It is the same situation pitchers face when going to Denver.

All I'm saying is the park most likey was a major factor for him and he never adjusted to it. Him going back to a park there the air density is higher should put his numbers back to their career norms. And everyone will say Bosio is a genius and Theo stole another one. But in reality he just went to a park that did not suit him.

But that's the thing... k/9 and bb/9 are pretty environment neutral. I believe there's some physics behind breaking pitches not working as well in Coors but that's substantially higher and in the case of Miller his K/9 and bb/9 at home was 7.05 and 3.61 compared to 5.36 and 3.88 on the road. Greinke was better on the road at 8.89 and 1.80 vs 6.29 and 2.86. For him I can sorta buy the idea of a bad environment as that looks much more similar to his 2015. His ERA reflects that though at 4.81 in AZ vs 3.94 on the road.

For Miller however I see it as being more than just bad environment. Certainly playing in Arizona wasn't doing him any favors(7.39 home ERA) but playing on the road last season he was clearly still very bad(4.81). Maybe Bosio could get more out of him but there are some limits to his ability. Arrieta always had great pitches. All time his curve has a 39.8% k rate. And while his other pitches got better under Bosio, even in like 2011 with Baltimore his curve had a 34.4% k rate while his slider was at 23.4%. Even if you want to use a comparison of like Hammel, he has a career k rate on his slider of 29.2% and a 40.3% k rate on his curve. Paul Maholm had a 28.2% k rate on his curve and a 31.6% k rate on his slider. All of those pitchers had something to build on. When your best out pitch is a 94 mph 4 seam you got trouble because most major league players can hit a fastball.

I just don't see there being much more to wring out of Miller than what he did in 2015 barring some new pitch that he can get k's with. And that's not to say that he didn't have value in 2015. But you'd be buying someone who's coming off a bad year and hoping to improve that player. So, I don't really see him being worth much. I'd certainly give them Mark Zagunis for him but Arizona isn't going to do that. I'd possibly consider Candelario for him as well but I doubt Arizona would do that either. From there, I think you're pushing it in terms of what he's worth. And as mentioned, all things being equal there's other pitchers I'd rather have for someone like Candelario.

 

[CSF77]

I can see that. I almost believe his mechanics got out of wack compensating for the environment.

I'm not saying he wil be anything more than a younger Lackey. But if you are talking a trade for him being Candi as a center point and you let him figure his mechanics in Iowa and get him ready for the 2nd half.

We were lucky with injury last year. Nice to have that sitting if needed. Not to mention if he bounces back then he replaces Lackey and then you are looking at a #3 type post Arrieta.

 

[CSF77]

I believe it would cost more than Candi to get Smyly or guys of his talent. Those guys are in the upswing. Miller is at a low point and Azl may take that deal strait knowing that he will never adapt to Azl conditions. That maybe as good of a return as they get.

 

[beckdawg]

I believe it would cost more than Candi to get Smyly or guys of his talent. Those guys are in the upswing. Miller is at a low point and Azl may take that deal strait knowing that he will never adapt to Azl conditions. That maybe as good of a return as they get.

I mean maybe.... but Tampa reportedly needs to cut salary and Smyly might make $7 mil in arbitration. And while I like the possibility he presents as a buy low candidate, he had a 4.88/4.49 ERA/FIP last year. If he's the guy Tampa deals I struggle to see them getting a ton for him. Jeremy Hellickson followed a some what similar path. He was pretty good his first 2 years in Tampa but at age 26 and 27 he put up 5.17/4.22 and 4.52/4.15 ERA/FIP. Tampa ended up dealing him to Arizona for Andrew Velazquez and Justin Williams. Velazquez near as I can tell isn't much of anything as a prospect. Looks to be a no power utility infield type. Justin Williams is a 50 grade prospect who's their #15 prospect.

I think you can argue that given this was just one down year Smyly nets more but I can't imagine it's that much more. Candelario is a top 100 prospect albeit barely. I don't think you would do just Candelario straight up for him and frankly with Duffy/Longoria they probably wouldn't want an MLB ready 3B. But something around Candleario's value and another top 30 prospect seems reasonable. Smyly's only got 2 years of control left and they are likely to be fairly expensive given his 2016 value. If he's around $7 mil in 2017 then his 2018 arb is probably over $10 mil.

I think it largely depends on what Tampa wants. I feel they have two options. In one hand they can get a AA/AAA player who's average. In the other, they can get someone with more upside but who's likely in A ball or lower. I don't think you can get both talent and someone that close to the majors for a player like Smyly. Given their status as a small market team, I feel like they generally are going to take the average ready player which is why someone like Mark Zagunis might make sense to them. Pair him with a flyer arm like say Pierce Johnson and I think you're getting a fairly decent return of players who could contribute quickly for them. Johnson would also free a 40 man slot for the cubs

 

[brett05]

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).

Yes he was fired. At the end of the season. If the trade was so awful, he'd have been terminated immediately. He was not.

You keep wanting to put the past 20 years but my argument has been the past 2-3 years. I think we are at a stand still there until you can come down to my original postulate time frame.

 

[CSF77]

I mean maybe.... but Tampa reportedly needs to cut salary and Smyly might make $7 mil in arbitration. And while I like the possibility he presents as a buy low candidate, he had a 4.88/4.49 ERA/FIP last year. If he's the guy Tampa deals I struggle to see them getting a ton for him. Jeremy Hellickson followed a some what similar path. He was pretty good his first 2 years in Tampa but at age 26 and 27 he put up 5.17/4.22 and 4.52/4.15 ERA/FIP. Tampa ended up dealing him to Arizona for Andrew Velazquez and Justin Williams. Velazquez near as I can tell isn't much of anything as a prospect. Looks to be a no power utility infield type. Justin Williams is a 50 grade prospect who's their #15 prospect.

I think you can argue that given this was just one down year Smyly nets more but I can't imagine it's that much more. Candelario is a top 100 prospect albeit barely. I don't think you would do just Candelario straight up for him and frankly with Duffy/Longoria they probably wouldn't want an MLB ready 3B. But something around Candleario's value and another top 30 prospect seems reasonable. Smyly's only got 2 years of control left and they are likely to be fairly expensive given his 2016 value. If he's around $7 mil in 2017 then his 2018 arb is probably over $10 mil.

I think it largely depends on what Tampa wants. I feel they have two options. In one hand they can get a AA/AAA player who's average. In the other, they can get someone with more upside but who's likely in A ball or lower. I don't think you can get both talent and someone that close to the majors for a player like Smyly. Given their status as a small market team, I feel like they generally are going to take the average ready player which is why someone like Mark Zagunis might make sense to them. Pair him with a flyer arm like say Pierce Johnson and I think you're getting a fairly decent return of players who could contribute quickly for them. Johnson would also free a 40 man slot for the cubs

i don't like that he only has 2 years of control. At this point I would have not had him on the play off rotation last year. I would say him and Montgomery are a push. Both the same age. Control is a minor factor. Both could bump up to the next level with refinement.

 

[CSF77]

Yes he was fired. At the end of the season. If the trade was so awful, he'd have been terminated immediately. He was not.

You keep wanting to put the past 20 years but my argument has been the past 2-3 years. I think we are at a stand still there until you can come down to my original postulate time frame.

A's wanted Hammel to push that deal through. Shark was the hot name at that time. Hammel did not start his 2nd half suck fest until then. Then they had to up their game with Lester.

That deal was driven by the fact they are small market and the had to force it that year due to their inability to sustain a long term run with their given resources.

Az was plain stupid. They over spent on Zach to keep him off their contenders then over traded to give him support. Those moves blew up in their faces and it should have been that way. Keep the market reasonable.

 

[brett05]

A's wanted Hammel to push that deal through. Shark was the hot name at that time. Hammel did not start his 2nd half suck fest until then. Then they had to up their game with Lester.

That deal was driven by the fact they are small market and the had to force it that year due to their inability to sustain a long term run with their given resources.

Az was plain stupid. They over spent on Zach to keep him off their contenders then over traded to give him support. Those moves blew up in their faces and it should have been that way. Keep the market reasonable.

I don't disagree with any of that. the"tea leaves" still show that proven pitching is worth more than proven hitting at this point. That's all I have been saying. And for the past two-three seasons that is holding true.

 

[CSF77]

I don't disagree with any of that. the"tea leaves" still show that proven pitching is worth more than proven hitting at this point. That's all I have been saying. And for the past two-three seasons that is holding true.

That is true due to supply and demand. A 3 WAR hitter is not equal to a 3 WAR pitcher. The market dictates which holds the higher value.

So it is more like the stock market.

 

[CSF77]

Miller is at 3.166 service time. His earliest F/A is 2020. The Cubs needs for a starter begin in 2018.

So if they deal for him then put him into AAA I believe this service timer doesn't move until he logs in to major league service. Not sure if this is true but I didn't see anything to prove it false. So in view of this they could in theory push that control to 2021. And they have pulled stuff like this in the past so it not beneath them. Add to it he is a year younger than Hendricks so it is really not a huge issue of burning up his prime years.

Seeing his results last year it justifies him in Iowa getting back on track.

 

[DanTown]

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.

Bryant is worth more than either Q or Sale together. I really hope that wasn't a serious suggestion. If it was, I'll simply know to never have a reasoned baseball discussion with you ever again.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

That is true due to supply and demand. A 3 WAR hitter is not equal to a 3 WAR pitcher. The market dictates which holds the higher value.

So it is more like the stock market.

No but a trade sending 40 WAR for say 20 WAR for a pitcher, assuming the money balances and there are no added values of option and the like, is too much. Now 40 WAR for 32 WAR in pitching over the life of the deal? That makes sense.

 

[DanTown]

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

I'd argue that due to his rare stuff and contract (5 years of control at a super low cost with the last year being 11M compared to only three years of Sale), Archer is no lower than 2 on this list. And in fact, Fangraphs made the argument he'd cost more than Sale and I tend to agree with it. It would be illogical to pay more for Sale and get two less years just to get what, 10% more pitcher? 5%?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-archer-is-likely-to-cost-more-than-chris-sale/

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I don't disagree with any of that. the"tea leaves" still show that proven pitching is worth more than proven hitting at this point. That's all I have been saying. And for the past two-three seasons that is holding true.

I agree, but that's why this season is so fascinating. For instance everything I heard about inquiries for Sale from Boston is that the White Sox would not even engage in talks unless Yoan Moncada is at the top of the deal. With the Dodgers they're said to want Urias and Pederson. For guys like Sale, and to a lesser degree Archer and Sonny Gray, it's going to be interesting if teams move Moncada level prospects for those guys. If they do then this trend will continue, if not cost of trades might go down a little but potential FA in the near future, like Yu Darvish and Jake Arrieta, are going to be licking their chops. That would say that money is less valuable than prospects. It's going to be very interesting to watch.

 

[DanTown]

I don't disagree with any of that. the"tea leaves" still show that proven pitching is worth more than proven hitting at this point. That's all I have been saying. And for the past two-three seasons that is holding true.

While that's true at some level, hitters reach an upper bound on their value in a way that no pitcher could ever replicate due to the potential injury for pitchers and the fact that a dynamic pitcher impacts at most 35 games where as a dynamic hitter has a chance to impact every game. Trout, Bryant, Betts, Donaldson, and Seagar were all above 7 fWAR this year where as with pitching we've only seen seven fWAR seasons since 2011 (Halladay, Kershaw X4, Kluber, Arrieta). There is simply no way a team would ever be able to convince the Cubs to trade Bryant or the Dodgers trade Seager because of how much value that ONE player gives is irreplaceable to a team that has even average depth.

The only way you could ever get a guy like Trout is because the Angels are so bad everywhere else that if you did give them four or five good players instead of one transcendent one, they'd be better off. And the fact they simply can't add enough to win with Trout before he leaves in four years.

 

[JaySix]

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

Of course you are right, not arguing that, it would be a huge risk and a shorter deal would be better.

It's just that he is insanely talented and it makes it tempting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brett05]

I'd argue that due to his rare stuff and contract (5 years of control at a super low cost with the last year being 11M compared to only three years of Sale), Archer is no lower than 2 on this list. And in fact, Fangraphs made the argument he'd cost more than Sale and I tend to agree with it. It would be illogical to pay more for Sale and get two less years just to get what, 10% more pitcher? 5%?

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-archer-is-likely-to-cost-more-than-chris-sale/

It's the difference between winning and losing. Archer only rates as high because of youth. If it's performance based he's clearly #7

 

[brett05]

While that's true at some level, hitters reach an upper bound on their value in a way that no pitcher could ever replicate due to the potential injury for pitchers and the fact that a dynamic pitcher impacts at most 35 games where as a dynamic hitter has a chance to impact every game. Trout, Bryant, Betts, Donaldson, and Seagar were all above 7 fWAR this year where as with pitching we've only seen seven fWAR seasons since 2011 (Halladay, Kershaw X4, Kluber, Arrieta). There is simply no way a team would ever be able to convince the Cubs to trade Bryant or the Dodgers trade Seager because of how much value that ONE player gives is irreplaceable to a team that has even average depth.

The only way you could ever get a guy like Trout is because the Angels are so bad everywhere else that if you did give them four or five good players instead of one transcendent one, they'd be better off. And the fact they simply can't add enough to win with Trout before he leaves in four years.

It's a myth that hitters have more impact than starting pitchers. If you look at the amount of interaction each has over 5 games it's about the same if not a slight lean toward pitchers. That's part of the reason they get paid so well.

Hitters have 8 other guys (7 in the NL) to pick them up. Starting pitchers have zero.