thundercleetz Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 2, 2016 Author Share Posted January 2, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 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/player/407893/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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 2, 2016 Share Posted January 2, 2016 http://m.mlb.com/player/407893/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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 I don't really get all the new stats so I will take your word on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share Posted January 3, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share Posted January 3, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 It is beyond me. I can't talk theoretical physics either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spen Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 WAR, what is it good for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 According to multiple sources on Twitter the Royals re-signed Alex Gordon, 4-years $70 million-range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varaven45 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 According to multiple sources on Twitter the Royals re-signed Alex Gordon, 4-years $70 million-range.Fudge ☹! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 7, 2016 Author Share Posted January 7, 2016 Would have done that deal in a heartbeat, maybe even five mil more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Would have done that deal in a heartbeat, maybe even five mil more...Gordon is a "hometown" hero. Grew up a Royals fan in relatively nearby Lincoln, NE, went to Nebraska, second overall pick, and now obviously brought a WS to KC. Apparently he has a full no trade clause (but he is close to vesting with the Royals which would give him the right to block a trade anyways). Royals might have gotten a discount, or other teams may not have wanted to give a fifth year to a 31-year old plus a draft pick. I've read Gordon is a guy who keeps himself in excellent shape and has a strict diet. Maybe giving him five years would be worth it? High OBP + excellent defense. Reports are saying Justin Upton is struggling to get a long-term deal and might have to sign a one-year deal. Even so, teams are getting very careful parting with draft picks. Another reason why I'd rather re-sign CD than go get someone else. Maybe this will get things going with Davis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 Yeah, the draft pick was key. Had forgotten about it. Not an Upton fan, but I'd gamble a year or two on him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 O's rumored to have offered Cespedes a 5-year contract in the $75-90M range. I don't know if it is serious or leverage against CD. Cespedes would be a monster in Camden Yards. Also, no draft pick required because the Mets acquired him midseason. Maybe that's why he got an offer over Upton. Cespedes might be less risky than Davis. Monster year last year, should be a 4 WAR player. Defense is average. About a week ago AJ tweeted at Cespedes. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14571920/baltimore-orioles-make-contract-offer-free-agent-outfielder-yoenis-cespedes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubberRaven Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 4 teams in 4 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 Yeah, the moving around has me bothered... but I would do the deal being discussed. Still doesn't help our OBP much, but I would take it. I think Upton is still on the table - and if we could get him for 4 or 5 years, I would care less about the pick. But I prefer Cespedes over Upton. Here's my beef: here's (another) bat that we're about to throw 5 years and 80+m at - or at least say we will. But we've never topped 50m on a pitcher. A big part of me would have just as well paid Chen what we're offering Cespedes. Or hell, pay them both and then not get Davis. Not really sure who's pitching for us this year. Though I did like that I heard Buck recently say that Bundy is up this year no matter what - he's out of options (not sure how that happened?) but Buck said, "If you have no options, you're not in pencil - you're in ink." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I'm not worried about the moving around. Cespedes had a cheap contract, and he got traded from contender to contender who failed to meet expectations (Oakland to Boston to Detroit). That's what happens when you're a good player with a cheap expiring contract. Happened with Tex before he signed with the Yanks. My concern with Cespedes is he is limited to LF. We already have two other guys, Hoes and Kim who are pretty much LFs only as well (Hoes can play RF but is better in LF, Kim can play 1B but his bat doesn't project there). Cespedes can play CF in a pinch if AJ needs a day off, but it shouldn't be a long-term play there. Regardless, we have struggled to get any production out of LF for years, so he would be a major upgrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubberRaven Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 We have done nothing to improve our pitching. I'm not impressed with any of these choices until we get a solid pitcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravnravn Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 We have done nothing to improve our pitching. I'm not impressed with any of these choices until we get a solid pitcher.Pitching is worse then it was last year, not having Chen every fifth day is going to sting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spen Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Chen? He wasn't even good enough to stay on the major league team last season! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc. Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 Chen? He wasn't even good enough to stay on the major league team last season! ;)Post of the offseason. There still is hope to be found... But we need to sign someone to brave the rotation a bit. Not Gallardo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.