Offseason discussion/rumors

[beckdawg]

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.

Which is the exact reason I didn't want to get involve. Let it go man. Seriously this is a waste of both our times. I mean it's as simple as this. You're taking a 2-3 year sample and saying that is what matters. You're never going to convince me that sample size is predictive of the future. And the phrase a rising tide raises all ships comes to mind. if top end pitching were more expensive then middle tier pitching has to raise with it and so on. I just don't see that as the case and I've already gone through multiple examples of how so I'm done here.

 

[DanTown]

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

First off, the future is the only thing that matters. It doesn't matter what the past was, only what you reasonably expect the future to be.

Secondly, Chris Archer ranks 15th in fWAR the past three years and 14th for the past two years. I'd buy an argument for Quintana over Archer but Quintana has a lower ceiling than Archer but a higher floor so trade value becomes the difference but I'd be hard pressed if they were priced the same to take Quintana over Archer.

Third, it's the difference between losing but you get more value out of five years of Archer than three years of Sale. Those two years are HUGE value that Sale will be insanely hard-pressed to match. If Sale does really well and gives you 16 fWAR the next three years, do you really think Archer can't significantly eclipse that?

Four, the "best case" of Archer drastically outweighs Sale for exactly the reason of two extra years. If you want to say that Sale's max is 6 fWAR and Archer's is 5, there's a huge difference between five years of a 5 WAR pitcher and 3 years of 6 WAR pitcher where as there isn't that much difference between a 5 and 6 WAR pitcher.

 

[beckdawg]

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.

I assume you're looking at him as a starter. My thing is he can probably be an impact in the bullpen while they work on getting some of his issues ironed out and he can play the long role that Montgomery did as the #6 pitcher. With Wood and Chapman FA's and Montgomery likely moving to the rotation, Zastryzny is the only lefty in the pen right now unless you want to talk about Rosscup or Conceptcion. Zastryzny might be better off as AAA rotation depth anyways rather than a full time bullpen piece.

Basically, I see him as hitting a few areas of need for the cubs. One he's obviously young. Two, his stuff probably plays better in the bullpen. Three, the cubs need a long guy in the bullpen and they lack LH options right now. Four, they need potential starters for 2018 with Arrieta and Lackey being FA's and if I'm remembering correctly the FA market is pretty dry in 2018 too. And lastly, he's probably going to be a cheaper option in trade in a FA market that is a bit barren. Even if he doesn't end up working out as a starter, I think he can be a useful bullpen weapon the next few years. His slider is particularly strong.

 

[DanTown]

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.

It's not a myth. The greatest seasons in terms of WAR in baseball are done by hitters due to their ability to accumulate impact in the field, at the plate, and on the bases. Hitters consistently outperform pitchers at the upper limit. There has never been a time where Mike Trout was less valuable than Clayton Kershaw. Because a great hitter can help a good pitcher be better but a pitcher can't make a hitter hit.

 

[brett05]

It's not a myth. The greatest seasons in terms of WAR in baseball are done by hitters due to their ability to accumulate impact in the field, at the plate, and on the bases. Hitters consistently outperform pitchers at the upper limit. There has never been a time where Mike Trout was less valuable than Clayton Kershaw. Because a great hitter can help a good pitcher be better but a pitcher can't make a hitter hit.

No argument that *hitters can accumulate more WAR. I'd argue that it does not show who has more of an impact.

*EDIT hitters

 

[brett05]

Which is the exact reason I didn't want to get involve. Let it go man. Seriously this is a waste of both our times. I mean it's as simple as this. You're taking a 2-3 year sample and saying that is what matters. You're never going to convince me that sample size is predictive of the future. And the phrase a rising tide raises all ships comes to mind. if top end pitching were more expensive then middle tier pitching has to raise with it and so on. I just don't see that as the case and I've already gone through multiple examples of how so I'm done here.

Great. Glad you are done. I did not make any predictions or say we should. Time will tell if I was right that quality pitching has indeed become the rare commodity as it has shown to be over the past 2-3 years.

 

[brett05]

Third, it's the difference between losing but you get more value out of five years of Archer than three years of Sale. Those two years are HUGE value that Sale will be insanely hard-pressed to match. If Sale does really well and gives you 16 fWAR the next three years, do you really think Archer can't significantly eclipse that?

Four, the "best case" of Archer drastically outweighs Sale for exactly the reason of two extra years. If you want to say that Sale's max is 6 fWAR and Archer's is 5, there's a huge difference between five years of a 5 WAR pitcher and 3 years of 6 WAR pitcher where as there isn't that much difference between a 5 and 6 WAR pitcher.

There is nothing to say you don't re-sign Sale or get compensation for him in a draft, or the ability to trade him before his deal expires. In no way is Archer in the same value as Sale going forward. Sorry.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

There is nothing to say you don't re-sign Sale or get compensation for him in a draft, or the ability to trade him before his deal expires. In no way is Archer in the same value as Sale going forward. Sorry.

It's too situational to make a blanket call. If I'm Boston, and I have a true ace in Price signed for a long time, Archer is more valuable to me than Sale. On the other hand if I've got an ace but he's short term rather than long term I look at Sale first.

 

[SilenceS]

Im still trying to figure out if the Cubs were the best team this year.

 

[beckdawg]

Im still trying to figure out if the Cubs were the best team this year.

I mean they are obviously the worst team in baseball. Most overrated in the history of the sport no?

 

[brett05]

Im still trying to figure out if the Cubs were the best team this year.

And as I pointed out, it's better to win the World Series than to be the best team.

 

[brett05]

It's too situational to make a blanket call. If I'm Boston, and I have a true ace in Price signed for a long time, Archer is more valuable to me than Sale. On the other hand if I've got an ace but he's short term rather than long term I look at Sale first.

Specifically it can vary, generally it really does not.

 

[CSF77]

I assume you're looking at him as a starter. My thing is he can probably be an impact in the bullpen while they work on getting some of his issues ironed out and he can play the long role that Montgomery did as the #6 pitcher. With Wood and Chapman FA's and Montgomery likely moving to the rotation, Zastryzny is the only lefty in the pen right now unless you want to talk about Rosscup or Conceptcion. Zastryzny might be better off as AAA rotation depth anyways rather than a full time bullpen piece.

Basically, I see him as hitting a few areas of need for the cubs. One he's obviously young. Two, his stuff probably plays better in the bullpen. Three, the cubs need a long guy in the bullpen and they lack LH options right now. Four, they need potential starters for 2018 with Arrieta and Lackey being FA's and if I'm remembering correctly the FA market is pretty dry in 2018 too. And lastly, he's probably going to be a cheaper option in trade in a FA market that is a bit barren. Even if he doesn't end up working out as a starter, I think he can be a useful bullpen weapon the next few years. His slider is particularly strong.

I wouldn't blow service time as a BP arm. It is far better to keep him in Iowa to retain that time. They will need that time after Jake and Lackey leave vs losing a year in a role that they can fill with on hand players.

If a starters drops and he is performing in Iowa then call him up. If he is still working it out then promote Williams.

What they need is options for SP more than anything right now.

 

[DanTown]

There is nothing to say you don't re-sign Sale or get compensation for him in a draft, or the ability to trade him before his deal expires. In no way is Archer in the same value as Sale going forward. Sorry.

First, Sale's trade value decreases as you have him due to time towards FA so if you want to say "I want two years of his pitching value than I want to trade him", you're going to get more trade value out of Archer with three years of control than you are with Sale only having a year of control. Again, time before FA is a HUGE difference in the two guys. The only reason you'd take Sale over Archer is you simply believe he's going to be a 6 WAR pitcher where as Archer will be a 2-3 WAR pitcher. I think it's really hard to make that argument hence why I disagree with it.

 

[brett05]

First, Sale's trade value decreases as you have him due to time towards FA so if you want to say "I want two years of his pitching value than I want to trade him", you're going to get more trade value out of Archer with three years of control than you are with Sale only having a year of control. Again, time before FA is a HUGE difference in the two guys. The only reason you'd take Sale over Archer is you simply believe he's going to be a 6 WAR pitcher where as Archer will be a 2-3 WAR pitcher. I think it's really hard to make that argument hence why I disagree with it.

Since Archer has had only one year above 2.5 bWAR it's pretty easy to make the case actually

 

[DanTown]

And as I pointed out, it's better to win the World Series than to be the best team.

Well those are comparing two completely different events. You have drastically more personal control in putting together the best team in baseball where as the World Series is mostly a random sample regardless of how talented the team is.

 

[DanTown]

Since Archer has had only one year above 2.5 bWAR it's pretty easy to make the case actually

And by fWAR, it's a much harder case. And again, you're trying to PREDICT the future not recap the past.

 

[brett05]

Well those are comparing two completely different events. You have drastically more personal control in putting together the best team in baseball where as the World Series is mostly a random sample regardless of how talented the team is.

Again one is cut and dry (the World Series Champs) the other because of scheduling is subjective.

 

[ijustposthere]

Again one is cut and dry (the World Series Champs) the other because of scheduling is subjective.

Not really. Both are pretty cut and dry.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

Im still trying to figure out if the Cubs were the best team this year.

We were until the Indians eliminated us 3-1.