Offseason rumors/discussion thread

Put this another way, would you trade Javy Baez for Addison Russell and Monty? Simmons was more valuable that Baez in terms of fWAR last year. That's how silly this article was and that's before you even get into the fact that I think it's factually wrong suggesting they need to save money some how. This team gave Pujols and Hamltion big money not long ago. They can spend when they want to. They haven't because they haven't had a team good enough to be worth spending on.

beckdawg said:

Put this another way, would you trade Javy Baez for Addison Russell and Monty? Simmons was more valuable that Baez in terms of fWAR last year. That's how silly this article was and that's before you even get into the fact that I think it's factually wrong suggesting they need to save money some how. This team gave Pujols and Hamltion big money not long ago. They can spend when they want to. They haven't because they haven't had a team good enough to be worth spending on.

Click to expand...

That and Arte Mareno is stubbornly opposed to the luxury tax

beckdawg said:

Put this another way, would you trade Javy Baez for Addison Russell and Monty? Simmons was more valuable that Baez in terms of fWAR last year. That's how silly this article was and that's before you even get into the fact that I think it's factually wrong suggesting they need to save money some how. This team gave Pujols and Hamltion big money not long ago. They can spend when they want to. They haven't because they haven't had a team good enough to be worth spending on.

Click to expand...

Now I said that I would aim higher and target Q in lieu of Montgomery. That trade makes them better

CSF77 said:

That trade makes them better

Click to expand...

Not sure how you figure that. Q was worth 1.4 fWAR in 2018. Russell was worth 1.4 as well. The worst part of this idea is the fact that the theory behind it is they are trying to win in 2019. So, you're telling me that a team that wants to win in 2019 is going to go into the season with their presumed starting SS being a guy who's out until May? The move wouldn't even save you much money because Russell and Q make more than Simmons does once you factor in arb for Russell. And of course that sets aside the fact the reason that Russell is out until may is a DV issue that is bad PR.

The trade makes 0 sense. If you're a team that wants to win in 2019 you don't trade a 5 win player for two or more players worse than that player. If they simply HAVE to get better via trade they have numerous interesting prospects they can trade. There's literally nothing in this idea that makes sense for the Angels.

Jacob deGrom's agent is one of three finalists to be Mets' GM.

??????

beckdawg said:

Not sure how you figure that. Q was worth 1.4 fWAR in 2018. Russell was worth 1.4 as well. The worst part of this idea is the fact that the theory behind it is they are trying to win in 2019. So, you're telling me that a team that wants to win in 2019 is going to go into the season with their presumed starting SS being a guy who's out until May? The move wouldn't even save you much money because Russell and Q make more than Simmons does once you factor in arb for Russell. And of course that sets aside the fact the reason that Russell is out until may is a DV issue that is bad PR.

The trade makes 0 sense. If you're a team that wants to win in 2019 you don't trade a 5 win player for two or more players worse than that player. If they simply HAVE to get better via trade they have numerous interesting prospects they can trade. There's literally nothing in this idea that makes sense for the Angels.

Click to expand...

Russell played 130 games. He has accumulated 8.9 WAR. over 4 years. So he is a 2.25 WAR player.

Q's 1.4 WAR was his lowest sense he was a rookie. 24.7 WAR over 7 years. 3.5 WAR player.

Shoot any player can be viewed more or less on any given year that is why you look at the mean.

I would look at their value as 5 WAR (both repressed closer to 6) and then control. Russell 3 year. Q 2 years.

Simmons gave them 5.5 WAR (3.34 Mean so I'm giving you his career best year) . Control: 2 years. So in reality the value is very close.

If the argument was flipped for a guy you wanted I really don't think you would have repressed their value as you did Beck... I get finding a .5 WAR prospect due to their bad years but not wiping their history away. Both are on the plus side still vof their careers and both could bounce back to their mean value.

CSF77 said:

Russell played 130 games. He has accumulated 8.9 WAR. over 4 years. So he is a 2.25 WAR player.

Q's 1.4 WAR was his lowest sense he was a rookie. 24.7 WAR over 7 years. 3.5 WAR player.

Shoot any player can be viewed more or less on any given year that is why you look at the mean.

I would look at their value as 5 WAR (both repressed closer to 6) and then control. Russell 3 year. Q 2 years.

Simmons gave them 5.5 WAR. Control: 2 years. So in reality the value is very close.

If the argument was flipped for a guy you wanted I really don't think you would have repressed there value as you did Beck... I get finding a .5 WAR prospect due to their bad years but not wiping their history away. Both are on the plus side still vof their careers and both could bounce back to their mean value.

Click to expand...

I represent their value as I did because Q had an ERA near 4 the past 2 years with the cubs and Russell hasn't been the player you're suggesting he is since 2016 either. As for whether or not they can bounce back that's beside the point. You're suggesting that the Angels want to win in 2019. You know what winning teams don't do? Trade guys who are playing well for guys who "might bounce back." It's one thing if you're a noncompetitive team taking a chance on a guy with talent but it's totally another when you're actively trading a 5 win player for worse parts. Winning teams don't do that.

I'm sorry but you're being absurd if you really think a team would consider this trade. It's just as absurd as Viva el birdo saying the cubs would trade Kris Bryant for 2-3 prospects and like Dejong. It's so much harder to accumulate guys on the high end of talent than it is to find guys like Q and Russell. And I say that as someone who's defended both literally this year.

And the worst part of all of this is it's not even like this was a media rumor as you originally suggested. It was a fan blog posting a story trying to connect dots that have no business connecting. I doubt the Angels would even consider that trade without Russell having the DV suspension/PR issue. I mean Simmons was basically the same value as Machado was this year and the O's apparently wouldn't trade Machado for Russell in those talks either and Machado had less control while Russell had more.

People need to accept the fact that Russell in this current state is not worth anything in trade. Look at what a far better player in Chapman cost the Yankees. None of the players they gave up were top prospects and if i'm not mistaken I don't believe mlb.com even has any of them in their top 30 prospects. Chapman was a far more valuable asset than Russell before the DV issue. So sitting here suggesting he's going to be any kind of get in a trade for one of the top 20 players in baseball this year is crazy. I mean you may as well be suggesting instead of Simmons they should get Trout for Q/Russell because that's just as likely to happen as Simmons being traded for those two.

I could buy trends. Like Heyward has a history as a Cub and that supersedes what he did before.

But Q was near 4 WAR and this year took a nose dive. You can’t say that his player value is 1.4. There is nothing to back it except a off year. Now if he was on a trend of downward production then it would affect his trade weight.

Russell is an interesting case. He has battled injury over the last 2 years so he has durability issues going in. Then he will miss a month. Then personal issues. You really can’t equate his value based off a stat. He has some baggage going in that drags him down.

But to be honest here 100%. Theo should retain him and let him rebuild value. I would limit him to a UI but for the most part it would be to get him correct mentally again.

Now if they decide that his value is nil and that this is not going away anytime soon they would be smart to save the payroll hit and not offer. Waste of resources

Now time will tell on that part and honestly none of us know what is going on with him as we speak.

Onto the pen:

Morrow is projected as the Cubs' closer in 2019. The club may be a little more careful in how it uses him, and again, it wants to make sure there are other options. That doesn't mean the Cubs will look specifically for a closer, but they would like relievers with experience in those situations. They did have pitchers who fit that description this season in Brandon Kintzler, Justin Wilson, Steve Cishek and Pedro Strop.


"I think we're very comfortable with Morrow as part of a deep and talented 'pen," Epstein said at the end of the season wrapup. "We have to recommit to him in a very structured role, and stick with it to do our best to keep him healthy and set some rules and adhere to them and build the pen around that."

Click to expand...

This was from the Cubs site. It really has the feel of adding a sub closer. I think that is the best way of putting it. Morrow will be on a limit this year. He will be the closer and you can expect Strop as helping him out but.... they will need a 3rd guy with closing exposure.

But the build the pen around him kinda says everything. There will be change.

Speculation on my part:

Strop contracted. Chavez contracted. Cishek and Smyly also retained. This gives a decent base to go around Morrow. I see them needing a LOOGY a 2nd 2 inning arm and a high leverage arm with closing exposure.

Zach Duke might be interesting as the LOOGY.

Late inning arm: With what Theo said I don't see them going big name here. Greg Holland would be a interesting if his value dropped. Jeurys Familia too pricey. David Robertson if the price is right. He is pretty much an ideal person for what you are looking for.

CSF77 said:

But Q was near 4 WAR and this year took a noose dive. You can’t say that his player value is 1.4. There is nothing to back it except a off year. Now if he was on a trend of downward production then it would affect his trade weight.

Click to expand...

Just citing his WAR completely misses the context. Look I like Q. I've defended him in the past when everyone was talking about how much of a bust the trade was. But you need to understand what you're suggesting here. You're talking about trading one of the 20 most valuable hitters in baseball for a guy who's had a 4 ERA the past 2 years. Q has never been an elite starter in terms of K's. His value has always been durability.

A team isn't going to make that trade. If they are that desperate for starting pitching they have the prospects to go after deGrom or Syndergaard and the Mets probably are going to consider moving them. Q isn't going to move the needle that much because while he's durable he's just not that great. He has the same problem Hendricks does in that when he's good he's a pitcher more than a guy with elite stuff. Most teams aren't going to be that impressed by guys like him. Personally i think that type of pitcher is undervalued but there's a reason teams horde higher tool pitchers rather than the type of pitchers the cubs draft.

And don't get it twisted, I understand why you think this is good for the cubs. It almost certainly would be great for them. But I'm not throwing shade on this idea because it's bad for the cubs. I'm denouncing it because it makes almost no sense for LA. If they want pitching they have other options without trading Simmons. If they want to trade Simmons they will get better offers.

beckdawg said:

Just citing his WAR completely misses the context. Look I like Q. I've defended him in the past when everyone was talking about how much of a bust the trade was. But you need to understand what you're suggesting here. You're talking about trading one of the 20 most valuable hitters in baseball for a guy who's had a 4 ERA the past 2 years. Q has never been an elite starter in terms of K's. His value has always been durability.

A team isn't going to make that trade. If they are that desperate for starting pitching they have the prospects to go after deGrom or Syndergaard and the Mets probably are going to consider moving them. Q isn't going to move the needle that much because while he's durable he's just not that great. He has the same problem Hendricks does in that when he's good he's a pitcher more than a guy with elite stuff. Most teams aren't going to be that impressed by guys like him. Personally i think that type of pitcher is undervalued but there's a reason teams horde higher tool pitchers rather than the type of pitchers the cubs draft.

And don't get it twisted, I understand why you think this is good for the cubs. It almost certainly would be great for them. But I'm not throwing shade on this idea because it's bad for the cubs. I'm denouncing it because it makes almost no sense for LA. If they want pitching they have other options without trading Simmons. If they want to trade Simmons they will get better offers.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I personally believe the Cubs would lose too much myself on that deal. They have Baez and Zo up the middle. Losing Q puts Chatwood or Montgomery in that slot with Smyly hovering. Not really a smart trade for a guy that would be a luxury.

As far as the roster goes I’m honestly feeling that they should go after Suzuki and give him a solid chunk at catcher. That allows Joe to use Contreras more in the Corner OF. His bat fell last year and getting him in the OF should help. At min platoon with Schwarber and not catch Darvish.

I accually like the idea of bringing guys in but it has to make sense. Contreras is a gifted athlete. Gifted catcher no. If you are up against a running team his value soars. Every day though no

CSF77 said:

As far as the roster goes I’m honestly feeling that they should go after Suzuki and give him a solid chunk at catcher. That allows Joe to use Contreras more in the Corner OF. His bat fell last year and getting him in the OF should help. At min platoon with Schwarber and not catch Darvish.

I accually like the idea of bringing guys in but it has to make sense. Contreras is a gifted athlete. Gifted catcher no. If you are up against a running team his value soars. Every day though no

Click to expand...

Had a similar idea re: contreras but different reasoning. Catchers get banged up a lot and it really slows down their offense which clearly is contreras' appeal. Suzuki would be ok I suppose. I'm more partial to just a straight framer like Martin or if you don't wanna trade Martin Maldonado. If for example you did get Martin, I think you could let him catch roughly half the games but potentially play Contreras at either 1B or OF from time to time so that he still get a similar amount of PAs that he did this year just with less wear from catching all those games.

We are in the same boat here. Leveling out his swing was a factor and honestly his production drop was key to Davis getting canned. It just feels like losing his production was a huge factor.

Martian would be nice. I see the Jay’s in turn over and I doubt they take our trash. They would rather get talent in return and she’d pay roll.

F/A wise best is Yasmani Grandal. That would be a change of the guard. I doubt Wilson’s EGO could handle it. I doubt that it could handle Suzuki as is. Might be his biggest problem honestly. 120 games at catcher is a toll and it affects production. That is 42 games that his bat is subtracted. Coming up he swapped LF with Schwarber and it worked for them. I think that he has forgotten the value of rotation to lessen the toll

CSF77 said:

As far as the roster goes I’m honestly feeling that they should go after Suzuki and give him a solid chunk at catcher. That allows Joe to use Contreras more in the Corner OF. His bat fell last year and getting him in the OF should help. At min platoon with Schwarber and not catch Darvish.

I accually like the idea of bringing guys in but it has to make sense. Contreras is a gifted athlete. Gifted catcher no. If you are up against a running team his value soars. Every day though no

Click to expand...

Definitely need an old catcher on the roster. When Contrares became the elder on the roster, things changed. That was why I would have rather started the year with Darvish's personal catcher Gimenez because it put an old man on the roster over contrares in experience. Yes, Willson made the all star game from a strong first half, but ultimately he reached that goal and eventually fell apart.

anotheridiot said:

Definitely need an old catcher on the roster. When Contrares became the elder on the roster, things changed. That was why I would have rather started the year with Darvish's personal catcher Gimenez because it put an old man on the roster over contrares in experience. Yes, Willson made the all star game from a strong first half, but ultimately he reached that goal and eventually fell apart.

Click to expand...

They valued a bat more. They even traded to get that.

This subject is kinda taboo honestly.

On hand got a kid who rakes. Leveling his swing and pushing him into heavy use behind the plate affected him.

Has A ego.

Lacks plus framing skills.

I’m thinking framing is not a thing that improves with time. It is a skill set. If it was a learned ability then Welington Castillo wouldn’t suck still.

I believe durability and game calling will improve with time.

So it really depends if you are all in on framing or is it a factor. Honestly O was a bigger one because they changed the tune in 2017. Fell in love with the bat and his athleticism.

I do believe that they will have to make a change in back up. The smart move is to find his equal and create a platoon system for them to keep their AB’s up. I personally would love Grandal. Trade Schwarber and use LF to switch both vs losing AB’s. Even if it was on a personal catcher basis. That way you wouldn’t see this 2nd half drop and each catcher can focus on their starter more.

It makes sense and it would improve the O. They can afford it. Grandal has been at the top in framing so there is that. Only issue is a pride issue in Wilson. Would he look at team first or not.

https://www.bleachernation.com/2018...dding-will-start-at-10-years-and-350-million/

Not really feeling that at all.

Just circling back on another thing I just noticed, I was wrong suggesting Smyly would cost $7 mil this year which is technically true but in terms of luxury tax the way they structured the deal makes him only cost $5 mil towards that. In that light, as a potential impact lefty reliever that's more palatable.

beckdawg said:

https://www.bleachernation.com/2018...dding-will-start-at-10-years-and-350-million/

Not really feeling that at all.

Click to expand...

10/350. It would depend on how it was structured. If you bonus him 50M and rework Hamels to 2/28. It becomes far more palatable. 30M AAV then. Age wise prime years.

I don't feel that it is the smartest move but it is a impact move.

CSF77 said:

10/350. It would depend on how it was structured. If you bonus him 50M and rework Hamels to 2/28. It becomes far more palatable. 30M AAV then. Age wise prime years.

I don't feel that it is the smartest move but it is a impact move.

Click to expand...

Id be surprise if either got 10 years unless there were options...
and neither will get 35 per