The Pitchers we can trade for....

[Guest]

no thanks on shelby miller

 

Especially not if Contreras is involved. Ew.

 

I don't think I understand this sentiment. Contreras is a fine prospect, but Shelby Miller is a reasonably proven commodity at a position of need, and at an ideal time. The years of control and his age are also quite desirable.

 

I may be buying into his 2015 a bit much, but if that's the start of his ascent toward "prime," a prospect like Contreras is well worth it to me.

 

shelby miller is not good

[Guest]

like really not good

 

i would trade nothing good for him

[Guest]

[expletive] shelby miller

[Guest]

^hahaha drunk posting

 

i stand by the sentiment though. maybe not quite as aggressively. he's ok. i still don't want him.

[Gilby]

Meh, I think sometimes we can just lock in on the xFIP column on fangraphs and ignore everything else. Miller is young, throws hard, under control for three more seasons, and has been durable lately. It's also not like he hasn't gotten really good results - a 3.22 ERA in almost 600 MLB innings. He did throw a boatload of fastballs/cutters last season, but it was also his best season and came a big increase in GB%. I imagine he could adjust and use his curve more if needed.

 

I was on the "Contreras is a top 2 prospect in the system" bandwagon before it was cool, but I think a Contreras/McKinney package is fair. Maybe not my first choice to acquire Miller and give up Contreras (if it came to that) with all of the pitchers that are available, but I would definitely be happy to have Miller.

[Guest]

Meh, I think sometimes we can just lock in on the xFIP column on fangraphs and ignore everything else. Miller is young, throws hard, under control for three more seasons, and has been durable lately. It's also not like he hasn't gotten really good results - a 3.22 ERA in almost 600 MLB innings. He did throw a boatload of fastballs/cutters last season, but it was also his best season and came a big increase in GB%. I imagine he could adjust and use his curve more if needed.

 

I was on the "Contreras is a top 2 prospect in the system" bandwagon before it was cool, but I think a Contreras/McKinney package is fair. Maybe not my first choice to acquire Miller and give up Contreras (if it came to that) with all of the pitchers that are available, but I would definitely be happy to have Miller.

I like that deal a hell of a lot more than signing John Lackey.

[Guest]

I can be talked into Miller as a target a bit, he's been durable, has a Bosio-ready repertoire, he's at nearly 600 IP of outperforming his FIP by a decent amount so there appears to be something to his BABIP(though I'm not sure exactly what). There's a somewhat irrational part of me that's not really into him though, his peripherals are middling, he's a bit Lynnish in his pitch distribution, and with his ERA success his arb years won't be particularly inexpensive. I don't think Contreras and McKinney is a terrible value, but trading the likely price for Miller is not near the top of the list of rotation moves I'd like to make. Definitely not this early in the offseason.

[davell]

For some reason, whatever pitcher it is we trade for, I think it happens in lightning quick fashion, coinciding with a signing of Gordon/Heyward. Unless we trade for a guy without Soler being involved.

 

As for Miller, I doubt we'll value him high enough to meet what Atlanta wants for him. My guess is he'd fall below Carrasco, Salazar, Ross for us.

[rawaction]

For some reason, whatever pitcher it is we trade for, I think it happens in lightning quick fashion, coinciding with a signing of Gordon/Heyward. Unless we trade for a guy without Soler being involved.

 

As for Miller, I doubt we'll value him high enough to meet what Atlanta wants for him. My guess is he'd fall below Carrasco, Salazar, Ross for us.

 

Why is it assumed that Soler will be traded? I think if the Cubs were so willing to trade Soler, he'd probably be gone already.

[davell]

For some reason, whatever pitcher it is we trade for, I think it happens in lightning quick fashion, coinciding with a signing of Gordon/Heyward. Unless we trade for a guy without Soler being involved.

 

As for Miller, I doubt we'll value him high enough to meet what Atlanta wants for him. My guess is he'd fall below Carrasco, Salazar, Ross for us.

 

Why is it assumed that Soler will be traded? I think if the Cubs were so willing to trade Soler, he'd probably be gone already.

 

I think he's a better trade chip than Javy currently and figure that if the Cubs are focused on improving OF defense(as Theo has mentioned) then he's the logical guy to go. I can't see us saying that, leaving Schwarber/Soler on the corners and finding anyone who's likely good enough in CF to compensate for that myself.(maybe JBJ). Plus,the Alex Gordon rumors make it appear as if we're not set on the corners too. And I don't see Schwarber going anywhere, so that leaves Soler. With Gordon/Heyward or whoever likely being an answer.

[rawaction]

For some reason, whatever pitcher it is we trade for, I think it happens in lightning quick fashion, coinciding with a signing of Gordon/Heyward. Unless we trade for a guy without Soler being involved.

 

As for Miller, I doubt we'll value him high enough to meet what Atlanta wants for him. My guess is he'd fall below Carrasco, Salazar, Ross for us.

 

Why is it assumed that Soler will be traded? I think if the Cubs were so willing to trade Soler, he'd probably be gone already.

 

I think he's a better trade chip than Javy currently and figure that if the Cubs are focused on improving OF defense(as Theo has mentioned) then he's the logical guy to go. I can't see us saying that, leaving Schwarber/Soler on the corners and finding anyone who's likely good enough in CF to compensate for that myself.(maybe JBJ). Plus,the Alex Gordon rumors make it appear as if we're not set on the corners too. And I don't see Schwarber going anywhere, so that leaves Soler. With Gordon/Heyward or whoever likely being an answer.

 

Gotcha. Better get a helluva lot for Soler though. I'm thinking Harvey level rather than Miller level. But my concern is that even with a Heyward/Gordon to play RF, and a really good starter....there is still the need for a 2nd SP and a CF. Is there enough money for that?

[Guest]

Gotcha. Better get a helluva lot for Soler though. I'm thinking Harvey level rather than Miller level. But my concern is that even with a Heyward/Gordon to play RF, and a really good starter....there is still the need for a 2nd SP and a CF. Is there enough money for that?

 

Yeah that's where I am too. Trading Soler to get a SP doesn't do much because it opens one hole to fill another, instead of 2 SP and an OF you need 1 SP and 2 OF. Soler should be valued much higher than his performance to date so I could see him getting traded, but I don't think they're actively trying to move him just to get better defensively. Otherwise there'd be a lot more smoke around trading Schwarber too, and you can still get better defensively with age/experience appropriate improvement from those two plus a better defensive CF.

[rawaction]

Gotcha. Better get a helluva lot for Soler though. I'm thinking Harvey level rather than Miller level. But my concern is that even with a Heyward/Gordon to play RF, and a really good starter....there is still the need for a 2nd SP and a CF. Is there enough money for that?

 

Yeah that's where I am too. Trading Soler to get a SP doesn't do much because it opens one hole to fill another, instead of 2 SP and an OF you need 1 SP and 2 OF. Soler should be valued much higher than his performance to date so I could see him getting traded, but I don't think they're actively trying to move him just to get better defensively. Otherwise there'd be a lot more smoke around trading Schwarber too, and you can still get better defensively with age/experience appropriate improvement from those two plus a better defensive CF.

 

Well, there was smoke about trading Montero. If that happens, then they move Schwarber to catcher that could make sense to go after a corner OF. But it seems odd to obsess over OF defense and then make a more important defensive position weaker, especially for a team that either strikes out or induces ground balls almost 2/3 of the time it records outs.

[davell]

I'm kind of going off the Gordon reports. But if we added him and dealt Soler, it'd still just leave CF as the hole. If we added Heyward, I have doubts they'd want him in CF everyday and with his CF defense not being a given, having him bookended by Schwarber and Soler or Coghlan seems iffy to me on an everyday basis. That said, if you got creative and played him in RF some, used KB or Javy some in the OF.....You'd just need to find a 4th OF that is solid enough defensively.

 

 

At any rate, I think if we're operating on 130 mill, we'll be able to address our needs. Back loading, deferring, trading off Wood, Hammel, Coghlan.....We've got room to add a Heyward/Gordon type, a Shark/Lackey type, a traded for starter and find a stopgap OF.

[Guest]

I'm kind of going off the Gordon reports. But if we added him and dealt Soler, it'd still just leave CF as the hole. If we added Heyward, I have doubts they'd want him in CF everyday and with his CF defense not being a given, having him bookended by Schwarber and Soler or Coghlan seems iffy to me on an everyday basis. That said, if you got creative and played him in RF some, used KB or Javy some in the OF.....You'd just need to find a 4th OF that is solid enough defensively.

 

 

At any rate, I think if we're operating on 130 mill, we'll be able to address our needs. Back loading, deferring, trading off Wood, Hammel, Coghlan.....We've got room to add a Heyward/Gordon type, a Shark/Lackey type, a traded for starter and find a stopgap OF.

 

Adding Gordon and a capable CF is a pretty difficult task, there aren't that many CF out there unless you want to piecemeal a platoon together.

 

Also, adding 2 SP and trading Hammel+Wood doesn't address their needs. The whole reason to get 2 SP is so you have legitimate options as the 6th/7th starter. You don't have to keep Hammel specifically, but getting rid of him means you need 3 SP.

[davell]

Back loading or deferring to keep the 1st year of salary down is how I think they'll accomplish it.(signing bonus too) Even if they go big on Price, structuring it like Scherzer last year saves a ton off the 1st year of payroll.

[SRQCub]

Signing Heyward and trading McKinney and Contreras for Miller would be an excellent offseason, imo. No way I could see myself turning my nose up at it.

[Guest]

Signing Heyward and trading McKinney and Contreras for Miller would be an excellent offseason, imo. No way I could see myself turning my nose up at it.

They can get guys as good as Shelby miller who won't cost nearly as much.

[SRQCub]

Signing Heyward and trading McKinney and Contreras for Miller would be an excellent offseason, imo. No way I could see myself turning my nose up at it.

They can get guys as good as Shelby miller who won't cost nearly as much.

 

Who, exactly? And if they can, why aren't they?

[Guest]

Signing Heyward and trading McKinney and Contreras for Miller would be an excellent offseason, imo. No way I could see myself turning my nose up at it.

They can get guys as good as Shelby miller who won't cost nearly as much.

 

Who, exactly? And if they can, why aren't they?

 

he's not very good. just a guy. they've managed to find guys like that just about every year. maybe he's a guy who can consistently outperform his peripherals by as much as he did last year, but as bad as they are, that's not something i really want to hang my hat on given the cost being talked about.

 

as for why aren't they, they want probably want someone better and don't want to buy high on shelby miller.

[SouthSideRyan]

Signing Heyward and trading McKinney and Contreras for Miller would be an excellent offseason, imo. No way I could see myself turning my nose up at it.

They can get guys as good as Shelby miller who won't cost nearly as much.

 

Who, exactly? And if they can, why aren't they?

 

he's not very good. just a guy. they've managed to find guys like that just about every year. maybe he's a guy who can consistently outperform his peripherals by as much as he did last year,r.

 

Or as much as he did in 2014. Or 2013.

[Guest]

Signing Heyward and trading McKinney and Contreras for Miller would be an excellent offseason, imo. No way I could see myself turning my nose up at it.

They can get guys as good as Shelby miller who won't cost nearly as much.

 

Who, exactly? And if they can, why aren't they?

 

he's not very good. just a guy. they've managed to find guys like that just about every year. maybe he's a guy who can consistently outperform his peripherals by as much as he did last year,r.

 

Or as much as he did in 2014. Or 2013.

 

yeah, still don't want him.

 

is 2014 supposed to be a feather in his cap or something?

 

i remember when these same arguments were being made for jeremy hellickson.

[Guest]

Hellickson still has a career ERA about a half run better than his FIP, the difference is that FIP is not good at all and not close to Shelby Miller's. Miller also throws much, much harder so there's not a great comparison to be made there.

[Guest]

Hellickson still has a career ERA about a half run better than his FIP, the difference is that FIP is not good at all and not close to Shelby Miller's. Miller also throws much, much harder so there's not a great comparison to be made there.

 

when he was "good" it was like a run and a half. sooooooo yeah. he did a lot of catching up.

 

fwiw, they have like a 3 mph difference in average FB for their career. significant, certainly. i'm not trying to imply otherwise. i think "much, much harder" might be overstating things. it's not like it's haren vs. chapman or something.

 

the comparison was obviously more of a generalized "guy who allegedly had a knack for outperforming peripherals having chickens come home to roost" type of thing than any direct comparison of their styles, anyway.

[Guest]

Full disclosure, this was from before this season (right after the trade), which obviously makes a big difference, but they compare him to two other notorious peripheral outperformers in Cain and Hellickson

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-fascinating-jason-heywardshelby-miller-swap/

 

The long-term cost will essentially boil down to what you believe Shelby Miller is. Is he a top-flight young pitcher, the guy who has produced +6 WAR by runs allowed in 370 big league innings, and just turned 24? or is he a two-pitch tease, overrated by run prevention, heading for a short-term crash when his mediocre peripherals catch up with him? A strong case could be made for both outcomes.

 

Miller throws a lot of fastballs up in the zone, and as Eno noted through multiple conversations with pitchers this year, high fastballs can produce some terrific results, often inducing a lot of useless contact that isn’t captured in FIP-type metrics. If Miller’s approach to pitching up with a good fastball makes him a guy who can sustain a BABIP in the .270-.280 range, the underwhelming strikeout rates become a lot less problematic. If you’re a Braves fan who wants to be excited about this deal, here’s the first ~400 IP comparison you want to use.

 

Cain was always better at home run prevention than Miller, but the template is similar, and it’s certainly possible that Miller is a (somewhat worse) new version of the Cain skillset. If Miller’s FIP-beating ways prove sustainable to a significant degree, picking up four discounted years of a quality young arm is a very solid return for a single year of Heyward, especially if the Braves don’t see themselves as strong contenders in 2015.

 

But Cain is notable because most pitchers can’t do what he’s done, and not every young hurler who posts a low BABIP for 400 innings is definitely going to follow in his footsteps. Here’s another, less-rosy comparison for Miller, again with career performance through the equivalent of two full seasons.

 

A couple of years ago, the arguments for Hellickson were the same as they are for Miller today. Maybe he’s just good at inducing a lot of popups, and because he’s a flyball guy, he’s always going to run lower than average BABIPs, so he’s underrated by metrics that focus only on walks, strikeouts, and home runs or ground balls. Hellickson managed to keep things going through age-25, and then promptly fell apart, pitching poorly and getting injured. The Rays just shipped him to Arizona for two lower level prospects rather than bet on him returning to prior form.

 

More often than not, guys who post big gaps between their ERAs and their FIPs regress towards the latter, which is why FIP and xFIP work for most pitchers. It doesn’t mean Miller is definitely not an outlier, but he probably isn’t at outlier to the degree that he’s been so far, and he’s probably more of an okay pitcher than a very good one.

 

But even four years of an okay young arm is pretty valuable. After all, we’re looking at league average starters making $10-$12 million per year in free agency, and Miller will a little more than the league minimum this year, with three below-market arbitration years to follow. Even if Miller is more of a solid arm than a future ace, the Braves are getting a lot more quantity of value here, and they’re allocating it into the years where they think they might be more able to contend.

 

Maybe he really is more Cain than Hellickson, but why bother gambling on it given the price we're talking about? It's buying at the top end.