The Javier Baez Discussion Thread

[beckdawg]

Lol, Olt is 26 years old that had bad vision. I didnt want to trade for him. See, the funny thing is you take sample sizes wrong and get mad when I say something. I have no bias or "emotional" connection. I just dont fly by the seat of my pants on players which you seem to do. You have tried to push 50 bat sample sizes before. I am not the only poster who has told you this. So, dont take things so personal and if you dont want to respond to me thats fine. But, Im not going to sit here and judge a 21 year old kid. Oh and I talk data a ton on another site. I dont talk it with you because you make judgements on data before they ever have a chance to stabalize. Also, you suggested he get traded two weeks into being called up. You never did like him. Its cool. I dont like Almora. We all have our favorites, so go with how you feel. No problem, but I am going to state my end as well. Its called a discussion board.

Well first of all, I'm never mad and I've told you this before. If were mad I would have long since ignored you as I did with some of our more annoying former members. Secondly, to the bold point, if you wait for a data set to full stabilize then what's there to discuss? If you give a player 1000 PAs and he hits the way Baez has then it's pretty obvious that player isn't a major league player. The only interesting aspect comes when talking about changes in the baseline which inherently are small sample size because by the point they are baseline it's painfully obvious. For example, if I were to say Cliff Lee is a good pitcher now that's obvious to anyone. On the other hand, if I had said in 2008 that Cliff Lee has a 0.96 ERA in April and a 2.88 ERA in May after 72 IP and that the cubs should trade for him that's an interesting discussion. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong but at least it is something worth having an opinion on. I fully realize that 2 month periods aren't all a player can ever be or on the flip side of player playing well that it is what they are.

Also, as I said in my reply to parade, even if I am wrong in my opinion on Baez the player does that make the idea of trading him any less valid? You clearly have a high opinion of him which is your right. However, unless you are nearly certain he's going to be a 5+ WAR player or whatever term you prefer to use to describe that tier of player then you're almost certainly better off trading for someone who's already proven. I mean take for example the ARAM trade. Ramirez wasn't vastly proven but he'd had a 4.7 fWAR 2001 at 23. Bobby Hill wasn't a top 10 prospect but he was #48. If there's one thing we can agree on about Hendry was that he rightly understood the risks of prospects and when a quality pro was available he wasn't afraid to move them for ARAM/Lofton/Lee. People killed the Royals for the Shields trade. While I thought they paid a steep price and possibly even a bit much, Shields is a large part of the reason they probably will make the playoffs for the first in like 20 years and I say that when Myers has been a .256/.324/.401 hitter. I thought the trade was fine at the time and obviously think it's fine now. I have made similar comments on the A's trades this year.

As for Olt, I acknowledge it wasn't an identical situation. However, you're still talking about someone who only had 40 PAs in Texas prior to the trade and 180 PAs in the first half of this year. He was 25 to Baez 21, fair enough. But age vs production isn't linear case in point Lee. Olt was drafted at 21 and had 3.5 years of minors experience of which an injury set him back prior to this season. Baez was drafted at 18 and has had roughly 3. Additionally, while 21 is young it's not absurdly young. In the past 10 years 26 players have debuted in the majors at 21 to varying degrees of success despite what they did at age 21. As I said, it's not even that I feel your opinion on Olt was wrong at the time. I just think the vast difference in patience people are willing to have is a bit hypocritical from fans in general. Probably has something to do with the fact Baez is home grown vs Olt being someone else's cast off as well. And it's fine if you didn't like Olt to begin with. But surely you can see my point that you're treating Olt's first 200 MLB PAs different.

Where I take issue with you is when you act as though my comments have no validity. Are they word of god certainty? Of course not and I've never claimed they were. Is Baez going to hit for 41% K rate for the rest of his career? Almost certainly not. My point in talking in smaller sample sizes is it shows you where a player is now. It doesn't mean he will be there forever but if a player is playing poorly it shows the level of improvement needed. For example, to get to 25% k rate over 600 PAs he needs to be at 15.5% k rate over the next 400 which he almost certainly will not. Want a bigger sample size? Take that over 1000 PAs and he needs to be at 20% over the next 800 which he hasn't done at any level since A ball. Want to talk line drive rate when it stabilizes at 800 PAs? Over the next 585 PAs he needs to have a 24.2% rate. In either case, you're talking about a 22-26.5% k rate improvement and a 12% improvement in line drive rate which aren't small matters. That also ignores the infield fly data which should have stabilized by now. In other words, he'd flat out have to go on a tear and at present time there's no reason to believe one is coming. Keep in mind 25% k rate is rather poor and 20% LD rate is just league average. It's not like I'm saying he has to make that sort of improvement to be an MVP level player.

I would also appreciate it if you would stop telling me my opinion by saying things like "you never liked him." I told you before my opinion is solely based on how players play and based on how I believe they will transition long term which can change over time. You said similar things about me pre-season talking about Castro which is ironic now considering my thought process at that time was Baez at SS who according to you I don't like. I never hated Castro then and I don't hate Baez now. I believe the exact comment I made with regard to Castro at the time was we've already seen the best Castro and that I thought he was at tops a 3-4 fWAR player season to season but I didn't see growth for more than that even if he were to hit 20 HRs. In 134 games he hit 14 and is gonna finish with 2.9 fWAR. I'd say that was a pretty objective assessment even if you account for the injury. If this were really a case of me disliking someone I'd put a hell of a lot less effort into my criticisms.

 

[beckdawg]

Baez struck out. Great conversation. I haven't participated in that one before.

Veras had a previous MLB track record. Apples, oranges, strawmen, pitchforks.

This is a conversation you need to have with SilenceS. I haven't told you to wait for 1000 PAs or specific number of PAs. I did state when I would send him down next season, if adjustments weren't being made.

It doesn't matter how much or how little patience I have. What matters is how much patience the Club says they will have, and as usual they have been honest and up front about Baez.

The Club has provided indications that there won't be any trades of prospects this off-season. Since that's who actually controls whether he gets traded or not, I'd say your suggestion of trading him simply isn't very viable.

What do the cubs need to get better? TOR. Who is available via FA and who is available via trade? which one costs less?

Puig does not belong on a team that does not have a decent presence of veterans.

In reference to adjustment period, the exact number is irrelevant. Some may say 500 PAs. Some may say 1000 PAs. The point is you have to draw a conclusion. For you that's an ambiguous "next season." That's fine but again drawing a conclusion has to happen at some point. As for the Veras comment, I don't really feel it's apples to oranges. If you want to argue an opinion on Veras is more informed then sure. I agree. But if it's fair to call him out then it should be mentioned that his ERA the prior 3 years was 3.50, 3.59, and 3.62. What I'm getting at here is like with Olt people are willing to draw conclusions on short samples all the time including teams. If this was always a wait and see league there would never be a reason to cut Veras because 13.1 IP for the cubs this year should not out weigh the 200.2 IP he had the previous 3 seasons with a pretty good ERA.

As for the talk about the club, they also indicated that their intention was to re-sign Shark. I have no reason to suggest they are being dishonest. But, things change all the time. As for where they need to get better, TOR is obviously an option but it's far from the only one. You could start with something as simple as a lead off hitter unless you believe Coghlan is the guy. Alcantara/Almora/anyone else is a *might* at the best case. Also the "which cost less" analysis is a bit simplistic. Would you rather have 6-7 years of 30-36/7 Max Scherzer at $25 mil a year or 5 years+ of 24-28 Mat Latos or more accurately someone like him since he's not on the menu?

I don't know who will be available but I can tell you the numerous top tier starters who have been traded the past several years. Guys like Lee, Grienke, Halladay, Latos, Gio Gonzo, Shields...etc. It's likely some quality arm will be available. If there isn't someone of that level available then fine. There is no issue because you don't trade him for a second rate #3.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

When it comes to Baez he has two things going against him right now: his pitch selection and his mechanics. Theo has already said that he is more concerned with pitch selection as he would be at least a .230 ish hitter or better just by not swinging at bad pitches. If he fixes that, then step one is accomplished and he becomes a formidable hitter.

If he could then get his hind leg to stay in a fixed position, he may improve those numbers more.

But what this tells me is that what Baez needs is to just see more pitches so he can see spin better and lay off the sliders. Then when he fixes his mechanics he will be able to lay off high stuff more and rely less on an upper cut swing.

Talking numbers and sample sizes really tells us nothing at this point, as the only thing that matters is: 1) Can he be more selective? and 2) is he willing to alter his mechanics?

 

[Parade_Rain]

...For you that's an ambiguous "next season."

I was not as ambiguous as "next season". I specifically stated by mid next season.

That's fine but again drawing a conclusion has to happen at some point. As for the Veras comment, I don't really feel it's apples to oranges. If you want to argue an opinion on Veras is more informed then sure. I agree.

Well, that's good we agree, because that's exactly what my point was.

But if it's fair to call him out then it should be mentioned that his ERA the prior 3 years was 3.50, 3.59, and 3.62. What I'm getting at here is like with Olt people are willing to draw conclusions on short samples all the time including teams. If this was always a wait and see league there would never be a reason to cut Veras because 13.1 IP for the cubs this year should not out weigh the 200.2 IP he had the previous 3 seasons with a pretty good ERA.

There was no need for a wait and see on a veteran RP, when there were much younger RP being held back by his time on the mound.

As for the talk about the club, they also indicated that their intention was to re-sign Shark. I have no reason to suggest they are being dishonest. But, things change all the time. As for where they need to get better, TOR is obviously an option but it's far from the only one. You could start with something as simple as a lead off hitter unless you believe Coghlan is the guy.

For next season, Coghlan is the guy. He doesn't block any player from taking LF when hopefully Russell joins the club in August. Then the IF and whether Bryant moves to LF can be decided. Also, Coghlan is a known quantity in the clubhouse. That's important when it comes to growing the youngsters.

Alcantara/Almora/anyone else is a *might* at the best case. Also the "which cost less" analysis is a bit simplistic. Would you rather have 6-7 years of 30-36/7 Max Scherzer at $25 mil a year or 5 years+ of 24-28 Mat Latos or more accurately someone like him since he's not on the menu?

I would like Lester /strawman

I don't know who will be available but I can tell you the numerous top tier starters who have been traded the past several years. Guys like Lee, Grienke, Halladay, Latos, Gio Gonzo, Shields...etc. It's likely some quality arm will be available. If there isn't someone of that level available then fine. There is no issue because you don't trade him for a second rate #3.

Since hitting is a premium in MLB these days, they don't want to trade away their hitters, or at least who they think can hit at that level. They will go the FA route, if at all possible, or the TOR.

 

[Parade_Rain]

If he could then get his hind leg to stay in a fixed position, he may improve those numbers more.

Why would this have any bearing on improving numbers. Why would a hind leg stay in a fixed position?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Why would this have any bearing on improving numbers. Why would a hind leg stay in a fixed position?

I shouldn't have said fixed, I meant it shouldn't collapse, it makes him swing in an uppercut.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I shouldn't have said fixed, I meant it shouldn't collapse, it makes him swing in an uppercut.

The ball is coming at a downward angle. Mathematically speaking, the player is given the best shot of hitting the ball by having what you consider an uppercut. The barrel is on plane for a longer length of time. Carlos Pena had an upper cut from staying back and collapsing his backside a bit too much. Baez doesn't have that problem.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The ball is coming at a downward angle. Mathematically speaking, the player is given the best shot of hitting the ball by having what you consider an uppercut. The barrel is on plane for a longer length of time. Carlos Pena had an upper cut from staying back and collapsing his backside a bit too much. Baez doesn't have that problem.

You are being a bit too literal here, lol. Most swings will have some uppercut in them, but you can reduce it. Also Pena never hit tha thigh of an average, so he might have been able to hit for higher averages had he not collapsed his backside.

 

[brett05]

Ive seen worst post. Carry on!

Exhibit A quoted above....LOL

 

[Parade_Rain]

You are being a bit too literal here, lol. Most swings will have some uppercut in them, but you can reduce it. Also Pena never hit tha thigh of an average, so he might have been able to hit for higher averages had he not collapsed his backside.

Why would Baez need to reduce his upper cut? I never made a claim that Pena was a high average hitter. I used him as an example of someone who actually had a steep upper cut. Baez does not equal Pena.

 

[beckdawg]

Since hitting is a premium in MLB these days, they don't want to trade away their hitters, or at least who they think can hit at that level. They will go the FA route, if at all possible, or the TOR.

Maybe but my comments were never directed at what they will do. Like anyone else with an opinion it is what I would do. The only other thing I would add is that while hitting is indeed valuable in a post-steroid era, you have a consideration of various pieces. The cubs don't have to have the best offense in history or even the best offense in the league. To win you need the best team which is distinct from the best group of players. An argument can be made that Luis Valbuena who has put up a 2.9 fWAR season this year is a better player over the next 4 years for this team than Baez. He's left handed. He's one of the few cubs who doesn't strike out. He's the "vet presence" that is often talked about. You could arguably even bat him 1/2. That's by no means the only view and if someone wants to suggest Baez is a better bet that's fine. But it's one valid argument.

I also wouldn't be so hard set on they will go one route over another. By any indication the thought was the cubs last year were going to go hard on Tanaka.... which they did.... and still didn't get him. And if there's one thing you should never do it's to underestimate the stupidity of some teams. Two years ago did you realistically see a scenario where the Dbacks would trade a 24 year old Justin Upton who'd already put up 2 4.5+ fWAR seasons in 3 seasons? Did anyone see the multiple Marlin sell offs coming? For all we know Laurie could go nuts and decided to cut costs again putting Stanton and Jose Fernandez on the market. I agree that FA is the most probable path at this point but both of those previous events happened. If a Willis/Miggy deal is out there and costs Baez you're not going to turn that down.

 

[CSF77]

It is too early to make any trades. Right now they could push Russell to 3B. Bryant to LF then when Almora is due then that becomes a playing time issue.

My opinion is to let the problem of playing time happen before trying to trade out anyone.

Not to mention if Baez adapts next year and starts to look like a 30 HR 2B why would you even want to deal him out?

 

[CSF77]

Maybe but my comments were never directed at what they will do. Like anyone else with an opinion it is what I would do. The only other thing I would add is that while hitting is indeed valuable in a post-steroid era, you have a consideration of various pieces. The cubs don't have to have the best offense in history or even the best offense in the league. To win you need the best team which is distinct from the best group of players. An argument can be made that Luis Valbuena who has put up a 2.9 fWAR season this year is a better player over the next 4 years for this team than Baez. He's left handed. He's one of the few cubs who doesn't strike out. He's the "vet presence" that is often talked about. You could arguably even bat him 1/2. That's by no means the only view and if someone wants to suggest Baez is a better bet that's fine. But it's one valid argument.

Valbuena IMO is fine up until Russell and Bryant force the issue. End of the day it is going to come down to potential. Valbuena is what he is but the youth have potental to become more. The same can be said about Cog. He is a good player right now and going into next year.

The way I look at it Baez and Alcantara need time to adjust. So having 2 players in the line up that are what they are like Cog and Valbuena makes sense. Thus later in the year when Baez and Alcantara are "more" adjusted to the league and are becoming dependable then you add 2 more projects like Bryant and Russell.

Having 4 adjusting at the same time would be a huge mistake.

 

[CSF77]

Note that Soler was not a part of this. That dude is inhuman.

 

[beckdawg]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/...eup-and-how-that-could-impact-this-offseason/

For once it's not me saying this...

Who doesn't fit as well? Javier Baez. He will strikeout and he will make up for some of that power, but with his inability to make enough contact to hit for average coupled with what should be no better than an average walk rate, I think he tips the scales to far the other way. I think Baez forces the Cubs to work hard to balance out his deficiencies.

I'm not sure I agree with his thoughts on Alcantara but the comment about Hamels for Baez/Alcantara/Jackson is an interesting concept at the very least. I would probably set my sights higher if you're going to move Baez and especially with Alcantara but I have to admit dumping Jackson as part of the deal does have some merit.

 

[chibears55]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/...eup-and-how-that-could-impact-this-offseason/

For once it's not me saying this...



I'm not sure I agree with his thoughts on Alcantara but the comment about Hamels for Baez/Alcantara/Jackson is an interesting concept at the very least. I would probably set my sights higher if you're going to move Baez and especially with Alcantara but I have to admit dumping Jackson as part of the deal does have some merit.

Would rather go all out and sign lester or scherzer then trade Baez and Alcantara just for 1 starter..

 

[JimJohnson]

LMAO at people wanting to trade Baez already.

Let's trade all our prospects that don't hit .350 as soon as we bring them up.

 

[brett05]

http://www.chicagonow.com/cubs-den/...eup-and-how-that-could-impact-this-offseason/

For once it's not me saying this...



I'm not sure I agree with his thoughts on Alcantara but the comment about Hamels for Baez/Alcantara/Jackson is an interesting concept at the very least. I would probably set my sights higher if you're going to move Baez and especially with Alcantara but I have to admit dumping Jackson as part of the deal does have some merit.

Can't see Phi making that deal

 

[JZsportsfan]

People think the Phillies should net some massive haul for Hamels. But realize he is owed over $100 million still. That reduces his market tremendously as only a handful of teams would even contemplate taking on a deal of that magnitude. His value is determined by his demand. If only the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, maybe Angels can be in the mix that doesn't leave much. The Angles and Yankees have little to trade, so that leaves three teams unless a surprise candidate emerges (almost always does). But realistically there is only a few teams that will enter serious negotiations with the Phillies and they should be desperate to get this rebuild underway.

Plus his contract is market value. There is no additional value to be had. If the Phillies are looking to follow the Cubs plan I can think of no better way than to replace Hamels in the rotation with Edwin Jackson.

I don't see the Phillies taking on Edwin Jackson. I could see doing that deal however just to take the flyer on Baez/Alcantara

 

[beckdawg]

People think the Phillies should net some massive haul for Hamels. But realize he is owed over $100 million still. That reduces his market tremendously as only a handful of teams would even contemplate taking on a deal of that magnitude. His value is determined by his demand. If only the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers, maybe Angels can be in the mix that doesn't leave much. The Angles and Yankees have little to trade, so that leaves three teams unless a surprise candidate emerges (almost always does). But realistically there is only a few teams that will enter serious negotiations with the Phillies and they should be desperate to get this rebuild underway.

Plus his contract is market value. There is no additional value to be had. If the Phillies are looking to follow the Cubs plan I can think of no better way than to replace Hamels in the rotation with Edwin Jackson.

I don't see the Phillies taking on Edwin Jackson. I could see doing that deal however just to take the flyer on Baez/Alcantara

I'm not sure how realistic it is and as I said I'm not sure Hamels is the person I'd go after in a trade of Baez but I though it was an interesting idea though.