Jump to content


Photo

2015 Offseason


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#41 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 31 December 2015 - 11:16 AM

One team I am worried about in the Chris Davis sweepstakes is Houston. Houston had a great season with a young team and is at the point in their rebuilding process where they can supplement their young talent with a big name free agent, to put them over the hump. They are a big market team with a clear payroll, and showed last offseason that they are ready to spend.

The Astros DFA'd their first baseman Carter, so they have a need at the positions. Plus, CD is from Longview, Texas, only 211 miles from Houston. CD lives in Arlington, Texas in the offseason.
  • 0

#42 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 11:57 AM

Ironically, Jon Heyman of SI posted an article the other day saying Chris Davis is out of the Astros's price range:

Angelos may simply fear bidding against himself. But he can't know if Davis has anything comparable or close -- he'd fit the Angels, Cardinals or Astros (though Los Angeles/Anaheim and St. Louis people have downplayed that possibility, and no one believes Houston would pony up that sort of money; one Astros-connected person said, succinctly, "not in our plans" about Davis). The Blue Jays and Red Sox are two more teams that have been tied to Davis, and agent Scott Boras recently met with Hal Steinbrenner in Tampa, though that may be an even bigger longshot than the others.

http://www.cbssports...-more-mlb-notes


  • 0

#43 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 01 January 2016 - 01:40 PM

Houston is doing this via the farm and not FA.  Exactly what the O's should be doing.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#44 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 02:29 PM

Houston is doing this via the farm and not FA.  Exactly what the O's should be doing.


I agree that the farm is key. However, both the Red Sox and Cubs have proven you can supplement a strong farm system with the right FA acquisitions. Both the Red Sox and Cubs are loaded with young talent, but have chosen to spend in the right areas.

If the Astros signed Chris Davis they would be an instant AL favorite. Baseball prospects can be like lottery tickets. As loaded as a farm system the Astros have, there is no guarantee any of their hitters will turnout as good as Chris Davis will be over the next four years or so. The Astros made a deep playoff run this season, nothing is guaranteed in baseball. Their window to win is now.
  • 0

#45 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 01 January 2016 - 02:30 PM

Except I only expect CD to be worth anything for about 2 yrs.  After that he will be a liability with all the strikeouts.  


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#46 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 01 January 2016 - 02:31 PM

Like the O's they can't have a contract that drags them down.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#47 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 02:35 PM

Except I only expect CD to be worth anything for about 2 yrs.  After that he will be a liability with all the strikeouts.  


Fair point. No one can predict the future. Power hitting first basemen in good shape tend to age better than any other position. Texeira is still raking for the Yankees after he changed his diet and starting taking care of his body. CD takes excellent care of his body. However, if the O's have any doubt CD won't be productive for the next four years, don't re-sign him.

That is the risk. And you are right, the risk is disproportionately more for a mid-market team like the O's than for a big market team like the Red Sox or Cubs. But if CD produces like he did last year, the O's will be contenders for the immediate future. Big risk, big reward.
  • 0

#48 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 01 January 2016 - 02:49 PM

I just have to go with the stats of players in older age.  CD is already a SO machine.  That bat just slows down a little and then the flyouts will go up and the HRs will drop and the SOs continue.  Do you think the Yanks are happy with the Tex contract now?  

 

Do it the way KC and the Astros have been doing it with all farm and you will stay good much longer.  I also expect both to trade off parts for large returns in prospects to stay up and only pay key ppl.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#49 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 03:40 PM

I just have to go with the stats of players in older age.  CD is already a SO machine.  That bat just slows down a little and then the flyouts will go up and the HRs will drop and the SOs continue.  Do you think the Yanks are happy with the Tex contract now?  
 
Do it the way KC and the Astros have been doing it with all farm and you will stay good much longer.  I also expect both to trade off parts for large returns in prospects to stay up and only pay key ppl.


Yes, I do think the Yankees are happy with Tex's contract.

As for the Royals, they are built more similar to us than the Astros. We will see the next couple seasons whether they start selling off or keeping guys up until the end of their contracts. So far they have been buyers, not sellers...

I agree with your skepticism on CD. However, if we are not going to re-sign CD we need to trade everyone and start over. Given Angelos is 80-some years old, that's not going to happen, and he'd rather be in that mediocre area than start over.
  • 0

#50 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 08:50 PM

I think the longer CD sits on this market... the better the odds are for the O's. Seems to me, more and more, like Duquette is calling Boras' bluff... "You think you'll find more elsewhere? Good luck."

 

Meanwhile, read some stuff about O's going after Denard Span. Injury questions, but he's exactly what we need to lock down the other OF spot... but O's are apparently very weary of going beyond one year. I get it, but sometimes you have to take small gambles. Three years cannot be seen as the end of the world. 

 

And ... WHERE'S THE PITCHING?! Kazmir was just taken at a bargain, I'd argue. 16m per year. Chen will get at least that for an extra 3 years. How are we not in that game?


  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#51 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 10:02 PM

I wonder how serious the O's are about Yovani Gallardo? He's not an ace, but still relatively young and consistent. A solid 2/3 guy on most teams.
  • 0

#52 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 01 January 2016 - 11:01 PM

Oy. Gallardo is ... fine. But I say that in all the worst ways. I'm sure he's actually exactly who we'll wind up with, but he's just going to be another in a long line of 3/4 (he's not a2/3 in my mind and as he ages) that we'll be selling to the fans as a" game changer." But at 15m a year he'll look exciting.

Just another year of 5.2 inning starts from every guy in our rotation. And then we'll wonder why our rotation isn't really locking things down and why we're just an inch off the rest of the division.
  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#53 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 02 January 2016 - 10:08 AM

Oy. Gallardo is ... fine. But I say that in all the worst ways. I'm sure he's actually exactly who we'll wind up with, but he's just going to be another in a long line of 3/4 (he's not a2/3 in my mind and as he ages) that we'll be selling to the fans as a" game changer." But at 15m a year he'll look exciting.

Just another year of 5.2 inning starts from every guy in our rotation. And then we'll wonder why our rotation isn't really locking things down and why we're just an inch off the rest of the division.


I see your point. Gallardo would be a Ubaldo-like signing. Like Ulbaldo, Gallardo had a few spectacular seasons in his early 20s, but even only at 29 he is no longer that same type of pitcher. Also like Ublado, he may be a 30+ start pitcher but hasn't gone over 200 IP much.

I would be OK with getting Gallardo on a three-year deal. If Tillman can return to 2014 form, Ubaldo can pitch like the first half of 2015, and Gausman takes the next step, Gallardo would be a very nice piece to that equation. Lots of IF's there though😆
  • 0

#54 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 02 January 2016 - 11:09 AM

Yes, I do think the Yankees are happy with Tex's contract.

As for the Royals, they are built more similar to us than the Astros. We will see the next couple seasons whether they start selling off or keeping guys up until the end of their contracts. So far they have been buyers, not sellers...

I agree with your skepticism on CD. However, if we are not going to re-sign CD we need to trade everyone and start over. Given Angelos is 80-some years old, that's not going to happen, and he'd rather be in that mediocre area than start over.

http://m.mlb.com/pla...3/mark-teixeira

 

So the last 4 yrs Tex has been injury prone.  His HR production is down.  His avg is way down.  His SO look higher.  I would say his contract is like the Arod deal.  One they wish they hadn't made.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#55 thundercleetz

thundercleetz

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Towson, MD

Posted 02 January 2016 - 11:25 AM

http://m.mlb.com/pla...3/mark-teixeira
 
So the last 4 yrs Tex has been injury prone.  His HR production is down.  His avg is way down.  His SO look higher.  I would say his contract is like the Arod deal.  One they wish they hadn't made.


WAR in 2009 was 5.3, Yankees won the WS. 2010: 4.1, 2011: 3.4, 2012: 3.8 in only 123 games. 2013 he was injured and only played 15 games. 2014 was a terrible year with 1 WAR in 123 games.

As a result of 2014, Texeira remade his entire diet and re-dedicated himself to taking care of his body. Results showed: 3.8 WAR in 2015 in only 111 games. I'll give you the durability point the last three years, but the WAR is impressive for 2015 regardless.

Outside of 2014, his WAR numbers are in line with his career averages pre-New York. The Yankees got exactly what they paid for in Tex, which I'm sure they'd be happy with considering Tex put the Yankees over the hump and won the WS in 2009.
  • 0

#56 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 02 January 2016 - 07:07 PM

I don't really get all the new stats so I will take your word on it.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#57 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 02 January 2016 - 09:11 PM

I don't really get all the new stats so I will take your word on it.

 

Some are trickier than others, but a quick rundown:

 

WAR = wins above replacement, RAR = runs above replacement (WAA and RAA are alternates based on "above average")

 

RAR compares stats put up by a player to the hypothetical stats by the AAA (or back-up MLB) player that would replace them if they weren't on the team. Because a guy like Manny Machado hit X HRs more and Y doubles more etc etc... the stats (really, really in depth accounting of how much those numbers all matter in terms of probability of run-scoring), they get a score. +17 for example would mean that player created 17 MORE runs for their team than "replacement."

 

WAR pretty much turns RAR into "wins" added or lost. I forget the exact calculation, but a certain number of extra runs, of course, hypothetically means a certain number more wins. 

 

These numbers can also be done for defense (technically becoming "runs saved" - +17 is 17 runs a player stopped from scoring based on good D) and then of course they can also be negative. A -1 RAR means that player contributed one run fewer to his team than a random replacement could have. 

 

WAR is more cited than RAR. As a general rule, a WAR of more than about 3 is pretty decent. ESPN's top 50 WAR last year (offense only) takes you down to about 3.5. Below that is pretty average. 0 is pretty worthless. If you cross 6 you are an MVP candidate. If you cross 8, you are having an all-time great season. Barry Bonds' 2001 campaign got a WAR around 12. Mike Trout in 2013 got a 10ish, best seen in a decade. Trout, in other words, won the Angels 10 games that a replacement wouldn't have.

 

As a wrap-up... WAR is (probably over-used) as a metric now to sum up what you got from a player. When Cleetz says the Yanks got what they expected... he's just saying they paid for a WAR of about 4 and have been getting it. Maybe not in the same way (more power, less avg or so...) but they're getting the wins. Only thing I would question in that analysis is... how much does that much WAR cost today? If you can get a +4 WAR from a first basemen for less money, then the market has actually moved against the Yanks and that contract.

 

Just because it would be interest to bring around to Davis... in his two good seasons, Davis had a WAR abour 5.5 and 6.5 - good for top 5 among 1B in the league. In 2014, he fell to a very average 1.8, but still more than one might expect given his struggles. But it pretty much means in 2/3 seasons, Davis has been on par with the likes of Votto, Goldschmidt (crazy 9 WAR last year!), even Cabrera. Meanwhile, Adrian Gonzalez has been a very consistent 3.5-4.5 WAR. Even Pujols has been only about a 3-4, with his great year this year. So, Davis perhaps deserves numbers in that realm?


  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#58 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 02 January 2016 - 09:14 PM

I see your point. Gallardo would be a Ubaldo-like signing. Like Ulbaldo, Gallardo had a few spectacular seasons in his early 20s, but even only at 29 he is no longer that same type of pitcher. Also like Ublado, he may be a 30+ start pitcher but hasn't gone over 200 IP much.

I would be OK with getting Gallardo on a three-year deal. If Tillman can return to 2014 form, Ubaldo can pitch like the first half of 2015, and Gausman takes the next step, Gallardo would be a very nice piece to that equation. Lots of IF's there though

 

Haha - not just a lot of IFs, but man... isn't that what we do every single year? 

IF Tillman has a career year - again. And Ubaldo does. And Gallardo does. And Miggy does. Well, golly - we'll have Four #2-3 starters on this team!

 

Maybe we should just actually buy/develop/find ourselves a legit guy who doesn't need a career year and a lot of good mojo to have a true #1 season.

 

Again - if Gallardo is what we get and what we bet on... then, we're betting on a staff with no leadership to create a magic out of a bunch of middleweights. And we'll get some of it. Here and there. Maybe one guy will have a great year. But we'll get a lot of 5.2 starts and a looooooong bullpen.


  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.

#59 papasmurfbell

papasmurfbell

    Hall of Famer

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,187 posts

Posted 04 January 2016 - 08:28 AM

 

Some are trickier than others, but a quick rundown:

 

WAR = wins above replacement, RAR = runs above replacement (WAA and RAA are alternates based on "above average")

 

RAR compares stats put up by a player to the hypothetical stats by the AAA (or back-up MLB) player that would replace them if they weren't on the team. Because a guy like Manny Machado hit X HRs more and Y doubles more etc etc... the stats (really, really in depth accounting of how much those numbers all matter in terms of probability of run-scoring), they get a score. +17 for example would mean that player created 17 MORE runs for their team than "replacement."

 

WAR pretty much turns RAR into "wins" added or lost. I forget the exact calculation, but a certain number of extra runs, of course, hypothetically means a certain number more wins. 

 

These numbers can also be done for defense (technically becoming "runs saved" - +17 is 17 runs a player stopped from scoring based on good D) and then of course they can also be negative. A -1 RAR means that player contributed one run fewer to his team than a random replacement could have. 

 

WAR is more cited than RAR. As a general rule, a WAR of more than about 3 is pretty decent. ESPN's top 50 WAR last year (offense only) takes you down to about 3.5. Below that is pretty average. 0 is pretty worthless. If you cross 6 you are an MVP candidate. If you cross 8, you are having an all-time great season. Barry Bonds' 2001 campaign got a WAR around 12. Mike Trout in 2013 got a 10ish, best seen in a decade. Trout, in other words, won the Angels 10 games that a replacement wouldn't have.

 

As a wrap-up... WAR is (probably over-used) as a metric now to sum up what you got from a player. When Cleetz says the Yanks got what they expected... he's just saying they paid for a WAR of about 4 and have been getting it. Maybe not in the same way (more power, less avg or so...) but they're getting the wins. Only thing I would question in that analysis is... how much does that much WAR cost today? If you can get a +4 WAR from a first basemen for less money, then the market has actually moved against the Yanks and that contract.

 

Just because it would be interest to bring around to Davis... in his two good seasons, Davis had a WAR abour 5.5 and 6.5 - good for top 5 among 1B in the league. In 2014, he fell to a very average 1.8, but still more than one might expect given his struggles. But it pretty much means in 2/3 seasons, Davis has been on par with the likes of Votto, Goldschmidt (crazy 9 WAR last year!), even Cabrera. Meanwhile, Adrian Gonzalez has been a very consistent 3.5-4.5 WAR. Even Pujols has been only about a 3-4, with his great year this year. So, Davis perhaps deserves numbers in that realm?

I get the above replacement but I don't get how you compare a player to some made up player.


  • 0

k2-_2564f5e3-aa08-456b-81e9-b7cffd9b394d

Fako, Joe Fako I am the Pick Machine!!!


#60 dc.

dc.

    Don't Really Give A...

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,569 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore, MD

Posted 04 January 2016 - 08:11 PM

It's just a benchmark - all players offensively are compared to the same "made up player" and for defense it's the same made up player by position. Pretty much, they pick a starting stat point and number of "runs" that player contributes. It really doesn't matter what that number is as long as it's consistent.

 

It's also not a fully "standard" stat - so different sites/groups set that baseline at different levels, but roughly the same. Baseball Reference, my preference, uses a composited league average for their replacement player every year (so in a year when everyone hits more homeruns, 50 HRs has a little bit less value).  They also use an 'average' but it's still not WAA because league averages don't represent an average player - average players are better than league averages.

 

Baseball Reference says that team full of "replacements" (aka 0 WAR players) should win 48 games in a season (294 winning percentage). And if you add up the WAR on a team, it should give you the team's actual (or pythagorean) record - so a team with a combined +17 WAR would have won about 65 games.

 

Anyway - it's all over the place but the numbers add up pretty accurately the way they use them and measure them, so I trust it. 


  • 0
Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster too. And when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users