Forum
Forum Navigation
Offseason Thread
#611 · January 12, 2019, 10:18 am
Read an article on the Braves website on the use of Statcast data in evaluating players. Not important on the specific players in the piece but taking a step back somewhat interesting on the some of the new metrics being used and the trend analysis in evaluations. Appears the traditional stats we mortals see are not sufficient from the teams' perspectives. Much greater use of "exit velocity", "barreling up the ball", and one I never heard of as a peek into what must be a robust of new age stats. Couple those stats with trending and we have little chance in understanding what Team A approaches a player for the future.
Other than being frustrating to the fans ... the media and agents who have based their approach on past performance are getting challenged. One element in the trend for shorter contracts has to be the statistical projection of diminishing performance potentially based on these stats that are already showing that diminishment is beginning along with global aging curves.
Going to be tough for the media types (especially ex-ballplayers) to accept this approach since they seem biased to keep paying players big money based on the past. Will we be seeing more Brian Kenny types making player evaluations for the media? Will there be a shift to more Statcast based projections and more sophisticated modeling to match what the teams appear to be employing?
Looking as though we are in the midst of a major break in player evaluation more clearly separating the past from the future ... and that will just confound we average fans.
#612 · January 12, 2019, 11:11 am
As with all trends and new ways to do things, you will definitely see teams start to follow these trends especially if the others find inexpensive success. However, then those types of players identified in this evaluation style will become more expensive and then other types of players will become less expensive. There is always more ways than one to win a baseball game.
#613 · January 12, 2019, 12:09 pm
Quote from Booster SD on January 12, 2019, 11:11 amAs with all trends and new ways to do things, you will definitely see teams start to follow these trends especially if the others find inexpensive success. However, then those types of players identified in this evaluation style will become more expensive and then other types of players will become less expensive. There is always more ways than one to win a baseball game.
Right but somewhat hedged by the fact that "diminishing skills" tend to show up in aging more expensive players while the younger less expensive players may not be in the phase.
Since younger players are currently pretty boxed salary-wise in years 1-3 and in arb in years 4-6 (which has been always well below open market value) ... it may become very hard for FA veterans who show diminishing skills to get either long term / or high salary contracts as compared to the past. Net, payrolls should go down and the game get younger.
I guess in part that is why the value of minor league prospects is at a high in the thinking of teams. Not trading the potential of low cost upside for 6 years might just be economically smart vs. getting a shorter term veteran at a higher cost with downside potential (which now the teams may better understand and project). Since we never really know which prospects actually develop into plus MLer (see Kluber) .. might be a factor in not trading even the less than top prospects. Will baseball morph into rosters mainly composed of players with less than 6 years service time and under age 30?
The menu for a work stoppage in 2022 with the end of the new CBA .... earlier FA? More liberal arbitration rules?
Get a prospect to the ML at 23-24 and they hit FA near 30 as they begin to go to the downside .... basically control at the players peak at his lowest cost. Then put pressure on the FA that if they want to continue to play and not get displaced by these younger lower cost studs ... take the shorter lower cost deal.
#614 · January 12, 2019, 3:53 pm
So JP Morosi is saying that CLE and SD are still in talks. They are rumored to want Morejon to be included in the deal. And that SD is reluctant to include either Lauer or Luchessi. Really, why on Earth would you let Lauer or Luchessi hold up a deal for Kluber? I would have no problem sending both Renfroe and Margot, Morejon, and Yates or Stammen to get Kluber.
Brian Connelly has reacted to this post.
Brian Connelly
#615 · January 12, 2019, 3:59 pm
https://www.mlb.com/news/padres-dodgers-seek-corey-kluber/c-302644484?tid=282421090
Here's the Morosi article.
I'd do either Margot or Renfroe plus a Quantril or Morejon for Kluber.
#616 · January 12, 2019, 4:01 pm
Myers back to outfield per espn
#617 · January 12, 2019, 4:16 pm
Quote from WindsorUK on January 12, 2019, 3:59 pmhttps://www.mlb.com/news/padres-dodgers-seek-corey-kluber/c-302644484?tid=282421090
Here's the Morosi article.
I'd do either Margot or Renfroe plus a Quantril or Morejon for Kluber.
To get Kluber, I would not have any problem including both Renfroe and Margot. Im not sold on Margot, and honestly would not have a problem with a with a small deal for Maybin and let him platoon with Jank. Or if I had to include another mid level prospect or some cash, I would try to entice CLE to take Myers, Margot, Yates, and Morejon to get Kluber.
#618 · January 12, 2019, 4:39 pm
Renfroe/Lauer/Morejon/Yates/Prospect I could live with.
I’d really like to keep Lucchesi though.
Need him in the rotation along with Kluber.
#619 · January 12, 2019, 5:32 pm
Not holding out a lot of hope for this deal. Yes, Preller clearly wants Kluber but with only 3 years of control he needs to preserve the ML players that will support the roster surrounding Kluber.
On the other side, Cleveland has an ever shrinking window to win (maybe 2-3 years) so needs to offset the loss of Kluber with ML talent. Really they don't WANT to deal Kluber but may be WILLING to deal Kluber for the right return.
The Indians seem to think they can contend with their SP even if they move Kluber ... so likely getting a ML SP is not high on the list. What they really need is OF ... and likely some "proven" level of ML production (likely 2). Then fill the deal out with a prospect or two.
Padres have the OF and prospects but might not move Margot ... he is only 24 with remaining upside but more significantly if the Padres want to contend in 2019-2021 they would be left with Jankowski (at best a 4th OF) and zero CF in the near queue. Cordero has not shown the ability to hit or play defense in the ML. None of the corner options are plus defensively so defense in CF is critical. Actually Cleveland has a "serviceable" CF in Martin but really need corners.
I would give the Indians a list of Myers, Renfroe, Reyes, and Cordero and let them pick two (Indians pick one ... Padres pull back one ... Indians pick a second) then fill out the rest of the deal with two prospects ... Morejon would be fine and then a mid-tier 4th. Frankly over the next 3 years not sure which of the corner OF I would prefer.
It keeps coming up the Indians would want a Chris Sale type return ... that was the #1 prospect in MLB (Moncada), about #34 in MLB (Kopech?), a good low minor league CF (Basabe not in top prospect list), and a real low minors RP. Can debate how that is working out for CWS.
Myers - Reyes (love his hitting potential but needs to be a DH) - Morejon (Top 100 prospect) - Lawson (Padres Top 30). Myers costs $64MM / 4 years (only $3MM in 2019) is offset by moving Kluber ($52.5MM / 3 years) so their is a money push the fits both teams' payroll concerns.
Side note: with the current options for SP ... the Padres cannot afford to deal Lucchesi or Lauer and expect to contend ... and they are trading for Kluber with the objective of contending. That logic sort of goes with Margot and for now Yates (2019-20).
Going to be a very difficult trade to pull off given the objectives of both teams are not that different ... and a 96 loss team can't be view as having all that much ML talent for a contender such as Cleveland.
#620 · January 12, 2019, 7:25 pm
If SD is to get CLE to take Myers, Reyes,Morejon, and Lawson for Kluber, I think they can absolutely afford to include L or L if needs be to finish the trade. If we are to clear the salary of Myers, then we can easily afford to sign Keuchel and then we have Kluber, Kuechel, and the other L pitcher plus the kids and Strahm, Mitchell, from last year for 2019. This year is a wash anyway. Then 2020 we are ready to rock with a rotation of Kluber, Keuchel, and Richards plus the best of the remaining kids that came up and are ready for 2020.