Marmol to Dodgers for Guerrier, July 2 Slot Madness Ensues

[Hairyducked Idiot]

He might be. Or he might be Feldman, but cheaper, younger, and around for longer.

 

Feldman had consistently good peripherals for a long time.

 

There's a difference between finding value in guys who have been good but superficial numbers make them look bad, vs. finding guys who have been actually bad that you think you can turn into good.

 

Feldman and Arrieta have identical career xFIPs.

 

Not that xFIP is the be all end all, but he also has a nice K/9 (much nicer than anything Feldman had put up). He's not devoid of nice looking peripherals.

 

Why would you use career numbers for Feldman?

[mul21]

I feel like the IFA money is being undervalued here. When you look at the money figure the Cubs got out of it, I agree it does not look impressive. However, think about it in terms of player acquisition. The Cubs signed Jefferson Mejia for just under the amount of pool money they acquired through the moves today.

 

Now, I know Mejia is far from a sure thing, but he is a kid with a ton of upside. If I told you we traded Feldman, Clevenger, and Torreyes for a 6'7 220 lb 18 year old that can throw in the low 90s with top of the rotation ceiling, would that make you feel any better?

 

No, because they could have signed without making any of those trades.

 

Do you honestly think that Hoyer is going to acquire all that IFA pool money and not use it?

 

That has nothing to do with what you asked. The extra pool money isn't allowing them to add the elite guys, it's allowing them to add the 2nd tier guys after spending their own money on the elite guys.

 

Not true. The top 3 guys they had targeted would have likely exceeded their pool allowance even with the 5% overage included. Not 100% as it will depend on what the last big bonus turns out to be.

[Guest]

He might be. Or he might be Feldman, but cheaper, younger, and around for longer.

 

Feldman had consistently good peripherals for a long time.

 

There's a difference between finding value in guys who have been good but superficial numbers make them look bad, vs. finding guys who have been actually bad that you think you can turn into good.

 

Feldman and Arrieta have identical career xFIPs.

 

Not that xFIP is the be all end all, but he also has a nice K/9 (much nicer than anything Feldman had put up). He's not devoid of nice looking peripherals.

 

Why would you use career numbers for Feldman?

 

Because I'm not gonna try to figure 3 year xFIP on my own, but if you did take 2010-2012 only, it probably wouldn't be that much better.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not true. The top 3 guys they had targeted would have likely exceeded their pool allowance even with the 5% overage included. Not 100% as it will depend on what the last big bonus turns out to be.

 

They could have still signed the top 2. It's still just allowing for the second tier 16 year olds, not the elite.

[scarey]

I feel like the IFA money is being undervalued here. When you look at the money figure the Cubs got out of it, I agree it does not look impressive. However, think about it in terms of player acquisition. The Cubs signed Jefferson Mejia for just under the amount of pool money they acquired through the moves today.

 

Now, I know Mejia is far from a sure thing, but he is a kid with a ton of upside. If I told you we traded Feldman, Clevenger, and Torreyes for a 6'7 220 lb 18 year old that can throw in the low 90s with top of the rotation ceiling, would that make you feel any better?

 

No, because they could have signed without making any of those trades.

 

Do you honestly think that Hoyer is going to acquire all that IFA pool money and not use it?

 

That has nothing to do with what you asked. The extra pool money isn't allowing them to add the elite guys, it's allowing them to add the 2nd tier guys after spending their own money on the elite guys.

 

First of all, how could you possibly know that.

 

Second of all, the Cubs have targeted players that they want to acquire. Some of those guys may not get the big bonus money, but they have people in place to evaluate these players. If they don't use up all their money on big bonus players, the guy that signs for 50K could be a must have according to their evaluators, but the market set their value low for whatever reason. Jason Parks talked in the BN interview about not favoring pulling in all big bonus guys. There's a reason for that. There's value in those lesser bonus types (Castro, Lake, and Candelario are great examples).

 

Theo and staff didn't just throw out a bunch of trades and see what kind of money they got back. They had a figure worked out based on what kind of money they already agreed to pay out to these players. They did the work today to secure that figure.

[jersey cubs fan]

First of all, how could you possibly know that.

 

Second of all, the Cubs have targeted players that they want to acquire. Some of those guys may not get the big bonus money, but they have people in place to evaluate these players. If they don't use up all their money on big bonus players, the guy that signs for 50K could be a must have according to their evaluators, but the market set their value low for whatever reason. Jason Parks talked in the BN interview about not favoring pulling in all big bonus guys. There's a reason for that. There's value in those lesser bonus types (Castro, Lake, and Candelario are great examples).

 

Theo and staff didn't just throw out a bunch of trades and see what kind of money they got back. They had a figure worked out based on what kind of money they already agreed to pay out to these players. They did the work today to secure that figure.

 

Look, you are the one who tried to equate this to trading for the 16 year old. They didn't have to trade stuff to sign him. They could have just signed him, and he wouldn't have been the only one.

[Castros trade value]

Slot money= towards Eloy Jiminez bonus money. Edited July 2, 2013 by Castro's trade value

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because I'm not gonna try to figure 3 year xFIP on my own, but if you did take 2010-2012 only, it probably wouldn't be that much better.

 

xFIP

Feldman 2010-2012: 4.25

Arrieta 4.45

 

That's not an insigificant difference given the way that xFIP squeezes the outliers toward the middle, and I still say xFIP/FIP overrates high BB guys.

[scarey]

First of all, how could you possibly know that.

 

Second of all, the Cubs have targeted players that they want to acquire. Some of those guys may not get the big bonus money, but they have people in place to evaluate these players. If they don't use up all their money on big bonus players, the guy that signs for 50K could be a must have according to their evaluators, but the market set their value low for whatever reason. Jason Parks talked in the BN interview about not favoring pulling in all big bonus guys. There's a reason for that. There's value in those lesser bonus types (Castro, Lake, and Candelario are great examples).

 

Theo and staff didn't just throw out a bunch of trades and see what kind of money they got back. They had a figure worked out based on what kind of money they already agreed to pay out to these players. They did the work today to secure that figure.

 

Look, you are the one who tried to equate this to trading for the 16 year old. They didn't have to trade stuff to sign him. They could have just signed him, and he wouldn't have been the only one.

 

So, sign Mejia and not have an opportunity to sign Jimenez so you can hold onto Feldman/Clevenger/Torreyes is what you're saying?

Edited July 2, 2013 by scarey

[Guest]

He might be. Or he might be Feldman, but cheaper, younger, and around for longer.

 

Feldman had consistently good peripherals for a long time.

 

There's a difference between finding value in guys who have been good but superficial numbers make them look bad, vs. finding guys who have been actually bad that you think you can turn into good.

 

Feldman and Arrieta have identical career xFIPs.

 

Not that xFIP is the be all end all, but he also has a nice K/9 (much nicer than anything Feldman had put up). He's not devoid of nice looking peripherals.

 

Why would you use career numbers for Feldman?

 

Because I'm not gonna try to figure 3 year xFIP on my own, but if you did take 2010-2012 only, it probably wouldn't be that much better.

 

What's kinda fun is to match them up by age:

 

xFIP

Age   Feldman  Arrieta
24     6.08*    5.17
25     5.09     4.52 
26     4.43     3.65
27     4.69     4.89*
28     3.72*    2014
29     3.87     2015
30     3.89     2016

* = < 50 IP

[mul21]

 

So, sign Mejia and not have an opportunity to sign Jimenez to hold onto Feldman/Clevenger/Torreyes is what you're saying?

 

He's not making any sense at this point and is just arguing to argue. Apparently just signing two big name IFAs is a solid class for him and we don't need to add anything else, especially that highly thought of guy ranked around #25.

[Rob]

First of all, how could you possibly know that.

 

Second of all, the Cubs have targeted players that they want to acquire. Some of those guys may not get the big bonus money, but they have people in place to evaluate these players. If they don't use up all their money on big bonus players, the guy that signs for 50K could be a must have according to their evaluators, but the market set their value low for whatever reason. Jason Parks talked in the BN interview about not favoring pulling in all big bonus guys. There's a reason for that. There's value in those lesser bonus types (Castro, Lake, and Candelario are great examples).

 

Theo and staff didn't just throw out a bunch of trades and see what kind of money they got back. They had a figure worked out based on what kind of money they already agreed to pay out to these players. They did the work today to secure that figure.

 

Look, you are the one who tried to equate this to trading for the 16 year old. They didn't have to trade stuff to sign him. They could have just signed him, and he wouldn't have been the only one.

 

Sure, they could spend all the money they wanted to on international free agents. Of course, if we don't have the bonus pool to get that straight with the league, we aren't allowed to sign any of those players next year.

[XZero771679666304]

I'm not thrilled with this return, but I'm not surprised. Feldman isn't even Paul Maholm, with only half a season of control left.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Age   Feldman  Arrieta
24     6.08*    5.17
25     5.09     4.52 
26     4.43     3.65
27     4.69     4.89*
28     3.72*    2014
29     3.87     2015
30     3.89     2016

* = < 50 IP

 

That is kinda interesting, but what would happen if we compared them to all the other pitchers with similar performances through age 27.

[Guest]

The Dodgers are sending Marmol to AAA.

[Guest]

 

Age   Feldman  Arrieta
24     6.08*    5.17
25     5.09     4.52 
26     4.43     3.65
27     4.69     4.89*
28     3.72*    2014
29     3.87     2015
30     3.89     2016

* = < 50 IP

 

That is kinda interesting, but what would happen if we compared them to all the other pitchers with similar performances through age 27.

 

So you think Feldman is an outlier?

 

The more important takeaway for me is that 1) Arrieta was quite good last year and 2) we should be getting the best seasons of Arrieta's career as a Cub.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The more important takeaway for me is that 1) Arrieta was quite good last year and 2) we should be getting the best seasons of Arrieta's career as a Cub.

 

Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age.

 

I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two.

[jersey cubs fan]

First of all, how could you possibly know that.

 

Second of all, the Cubs have targeted players that they want to acquire. Some of those guys may not get the big bonus money, but they have people in place to evaluate these players. If they don't use up all their money on big bonus players, the guy that signs for 50K could be a must have according to their evaluators, but the market set their value low for whatever reason. Jason Parks talked in the BN interview about not favoring pulling in all big bonus guys. There's a reason for that. There's value in those lesser bonus types (Castro, Lake, and Candelario are great examples).

 

Theo and staff didn't just throw out a bunch of trades and see what kind of money they got back. They had a figure worked out based on what kind of money they already agreed to pay out to these players. They did the work today to secure that figure.

 

Look, you are the one who tried to equate this to trading for the 16 year old. They didn't have to trade stuff to sign him. They could have just signed him, and he wouldn't have been the only one.

 

So, sign Mejia and not have an opportunity to sign Jimenez so you can hold onto Feldman/Clevenger/Torreyes is what you're saying?

 

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying your made up equivocation is not relevant.

[XZero771679666304]

The more important takeaway for me is that 1) Arrieta was quite good last year and 2) we should be getting the best seasons of Arrieta's career as a Cub.

 

Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age.

 

I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two.

 

Is this the generally accepted peak, or Kyle's "peak"?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The more important takeaway for me is that 1) Arrieta was quite good last year and 2) we should be getting the best seasons of Arrieta's career as a Cub.

 

Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age.

 

I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two.

 

Is this the generally accepted peak, or Kyle's "peak"?

 

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pitcher_Curves_All1.png

 

FIP stops improving and begins getting worse between 27 and 28.

[KingCubsFan]

I think Arrieta may be a reliever for this team long-term, anyways.

[Guest]

The more important takeaway for me is that 1) Arrieta was quite good last year and 2) we should be getting the best seasons of Arrieta's career as a Cub.

 

Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age.

 

I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two.

 

Is this the generally accepted peak, or Kyle's "peak"?

 

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pitcher_Curves_All1.png

 

FIP stops improving and begins getting worse between 27 and 28.

 

Seems like that actually says it peaks at 25-26. Unless I'm reading wrong.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Seems like that actually says it peaks at 25-26. Unless I'm reading wrong.

 

You are. That's the rate of change every year, so it's kind of confusing.

 

At 25-26, the rate of improvement starts slowing down (hence the uptick in the line), and at 27-28 the improvement stops (crosses the 0 line).

[XZero771679666304]

The more important takeaway for me is that 1) Arrieta was quite good last year and 2) we should be getting the best seasons of Arrieta's career as a Cub.

 

Feldman's pretty obviously pretty high on the outcome scale for pitchers with his performance through that age.

 

I don't agree with the second part at all. If he follows the standard pitcher aging curve, we're already in the second half of his peak and the downward decline begins in a year or two.

 

Is this the generally accepted peak, or Kyle's "peak"?

 

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pitcher_Curves_All1.png

 

FIP stops improving and begins getting worse between 27 and 28.

 

I see. That decline looks pretty insignificant until about 31-32, though.

[Guest]

Seems like that actually says it peaks at 25-26. Unless I'm reading wrong.

 

You are. That's the rate of change every year, so it's kind of confusing.

 

At 25-26, the rate of improvement starts slowing down (hence the uptick in the line), and at 27-28 the improvement stops (crosses the 0 line).

 

Oh, derp. I get it.