Forum
Forum Navigation
Around the League...non Padres
#121 · January 7, 2019, 11:26 am
Quote from Booster SD on January 7, 2019, 10:30 amI heard that back in the day, there was a trade deadline when trading between leagues, so there is precedents for something like this. So you could have a trade period, then a FA period after that. Perhaps you go with a open trade period from the start of the GM Meetings to the end of the Winter Meetings. Then you can have a FA period from the start of the Winter Meetings to say Jan 15th. Then to not allow any transactions until the start of Spring Training.
Can always debate the best trade window timing ... but I would lag the start to the Winter Meetings ... that only gives the teams about 6 weeks from the end of the World Series to do all their in-house end of season stuff while having organization meeting on evaluation of their own players and target players. There is a lot of ground work to set up strategies surrounding trades and FA signings. Plus a Winter Meetings to mid-January sort of sits the action right in the center of the off-season ... leaving 6 weeks to speculate prior and 6 weeks or so to complain (or rejoice) prior to ST in full swing.
Doubt they can do much about creating a window for FA signings ... aside from the mega pushback by the union / agents ... the line that really can't be crossed is setting a final date when a FA can sign agreed to by MLB owners. Remember "collusion" ... the league lost that round. Probably could create a start date ... maybe the Winter Meetings to coincide with trades window opening ... which would pressure all in that window to fish or cut bait on moves. However, the league has to let FA sign at some point and even if they could not "officially" sign until ST ... they still would negotiate and have agreements pending the end of the no signing period.
Just speculation but the "trade window" would do a lot to accelerate the FA signings so teams can basically set their rosters by the end of that window and not limit their options to FA only.
#122 · January 7, 2019, 4:44 pm
Quote from 3fingersplit on January 6, 2019, 7:31 pmWee Willie Keeler would have killed any shift......"Hit it where they ain't"
The art of hitting is actually becoming a lost art.....hitting behind a runner, hit and run, run and hit, driving pitches foul line to foul line...how the bunt for a hit, sacrifice, squeeze and launch angle ?......I was teaching that in the 90's
98% of the players in the league would have never gotten through a full BP
Wee Willie Keeler and to a lesser extent Rod Carew, Tony, Pete Rose, ETC were not facing a string of matchup based power RP's all throwing 96+... they were facing SP's throwing some insane # of innings/yr probably averaging 5-10 (more?) MPH less on their FB than today's SP's who mostly try to get through 5 IP. Whenever us fans cry about how "in the good old days" Babe Ruth or whoever would have done this or that without recognizing how dramatically things have changed we (me included) are showing we're in the WRONG demographic for baseball to remain popular as a sport.
Multiple posts are being contradictory too; when I go to a game & am not sitting in the $$ seats behind home plate... I want to see & hear the bat connect with the ball. Don't care if it's a hit or an out. Fielding plays are fun to watch too. The game gets 3x more interesting when there's a baserunner, etc. IF we want more of that; have to limit the shift... otherwise the mathematical odds of success just favor changing your launch angle to try to hit HR (as does arbitration), and forget all the other hitting fundamentals.
#123 · January 7, 2019, 9:10 pm
Quote from Brian Connelly on January 7, 2019, 4:44 pmIF we want more of that; have to limit the shift... otherwise the mathematical odds of success just favor changing your launch angle to try to hit HR (as does arbitration), and forget all the other hitting fundamentals.
The statisticians say you need 1.5 bases. It says nothing about how you get them. Limiting the shift is promoting bad baseball.
#124 · January 9, 2019, 8:02 am
Has there ever been a slower off season? Man, this is BRUTAL!
I guess we'll have to wait until camp starts before teams start signing/trading guys?
#125 · January 9, 2019, 9:01 am
Quote from WindsorUK on January 9, 2019, 8:02 amHas there ever been a slower off season? Man, this is BRUTAL!
I guess we'll have to wait until camp starts before teams start signing/trading guys?
Seriously! Started off promising better than last year, but has just ground to a halt here. Maybe all revolving around Machado & Harper? Kind of funny to see sites keep posting "non-news" about those 2...
#126 · January 9, 2019, 10:07 am
Media (all forms), agents, players, fans all seems frustrated with the situation ... and are scrabbling to analyze it, build filler scenarios, and just complain.
Note I left off the teams who may not be all that upset. Although much is gravitating to the status of Harper and Machado ... maybe in part ... but I don't see it as the primary driver of this landscape.
All of the others live in the way it used to be (and want that to continue) but now almost all teams have extensive analytical departments and GM who doggedly follow their models. We are somewhat limited to the standard player metics (and of course emotion of wanting to win now) but confident the team models are looking at factors that are more in depth such as projected performance decline due to aging, velocity drops, injury history, and a ton more. Then they put a value on what comes out and pretty much use that as a ceiling for FA signings or trade value.
I am guessing the new modeling approach consistently delivers a lower player value than the past approaches. When the teams want to pay less ... everything comes to a stop. Worse is that would guess their modeling also shows (except for some elite players) the masses are interchangeable parts that are best valued at the lower contract ... and there are a lot among the masses. Then throw in the risk aversion to longer term contracts ... again analytics probably show the over the term of the deal in does not pay .... hence teams go shorter (maybe higher AAV) but agents don't like that.
This may be the future of winters for baseball since teams in the end get the same array of players the would (give or take) but at a much lower cost and with less long term risk. The agents (Boras) started the leverage game with just holding out the mega stars but now the teams see that same game as a winner for them on all the rest.
So, blame all this on the analytics departments ... the same folks who gave you extreme shifting, launch angle (3 natural outcomes), elimination of the SB, the "opener" SP, no 3 times through the line-up for SP, and most recently the full on mix/match of LHH/RHH as deployed by the LAD. Logic ... better odds of winning per the models. Unfortunately if all 30 teams employe similar logic does not the "advantage" go away? We are then left a baseball as we have never seen it .. and for most that is not a good thing.
#127 · January 9, 2019, 7:09 pm
Is there any analysis that corrects for talent disparities between teams that can show whether shifts, limiting SP exposure, etc correlates with wins?
#128 · January 10, 2019, 7:27 am
Fenn, Good analysis as always re changing nature of FA. It is awfully hard to find true long term FA deals where the signing team clearly "won" in the long run as the player aged....
Something that hasn't been discussed much is whether either of these 2 players personality-wise is "that" guy: the one you're going to build your entire team around. The youth & ability is there. But is the drive & leadership ability? Marketing is one thing. Respect in the clubhouse is another. I frankly don't know if I hand either of these guys a 10 year 300 MM+ deal as an owner.
They are clearly influencing "next in line" $$ wise guys regardless of position like Keuchel.
#129 · January 10, 2019, 7:54 am
It is beginning to look like the dam is getting cracks ... and the teams are winning.
Grandal signs for 1 year / $18+MM after reportedly rejecting a Mets 4 year / $60MM. I guess his logic is that next winter he will be a FA without a QO attached and a year in the hitters paradise of Miller Park will boost his value. On the other hand, he will then be a 31 year old catcher seeking a long term deal.
Dozier signs with the Nationals for 1 year / $9MM ... another 1 year deal which is what the teams want for these type of veterans.
At this point .... more intrigued by the new standard for long term deals in terms of years ... especially for the lower / mid-range FA. Higher AAV / shorter duration shift more performance risk to the player ... that is probably good for the team and the fans in the long run.
#130 · January 10, 2019, 8:02 am
BCon, I cant agree more. Prior to the playoffs; I thought Machado was that type of guy, I have my doubts now. And I will be honest, I never thought much of Harper. I think he is the biggest me first guy in MLB, with the exception of maybe Puig. Think of some of things that Harper has done in the past. Took the GED to get out of HS one year early, went to a JUCO in Nevada so he only had to do one year prior to entering the draft, one of the strongest catching prospects ever, and he changes positions to get to the ML quicker, and to be a FA as early as possible to make the most money possible. Supposed to be one of the best hitters in ML, but he cant beat the shift? And not sure if this is on him, but according to Steve Phillips and Eduardo Perez on MLB XM, WAS was one of the weirdest feeling clubhouses in all of Spring Training that they visited last season. I will pass on both. IF SD has big money to drop on a top tier FA, spend it next year on Rendon or Gerret Cole.