2019-20 Offseason Rumors/General Chit-Chat

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I can imagine in my head that having three poor-range defenders in the OF can cause cascading defensive problems, but isn’t it also true that having a lot of high OBP guys in the same line up has a similar, positive cascading effect for runs scored? Do we still have a heavily GB-producing pitching staff? Can we trust Theo to have models of this kind of stuff?

 

You can definitely model it, and to a certain degree (in the value sense) a run is a run. However, we've seen the consequences of a team that has imbalances in building the roster this way, you get uneven performances, underperform pythag, etc. Given the outward messaging being around balance when it comes to the offense, I'd be surprised if they sought out an extreme in the form of 3 sketchy defensive OF being starters.

I can understand why a team like this could have more variance, but why would it be any more likely to underperform Pythag than overpreform?

 

They go hand in hand. Pythagorean assumes that variance is noise and eventually levels out, if it's a feature/bug of your team design, then you're more likely to underperform it. To put a name to the variance, a team that sacrifices outfield defense for some extra offense will be more likely to see variance in low scoring games where everyone's hitting poorly, or maybe when the wind is blowing in and the offensive advantage is neutralized and the defensive disadvantage magnified. We're talking in generalities here, but that's how it can manifest.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Is there any evidence that there are these kinds of team makeup effects on Pythagorean variance, or is it ad hoc theorycrafting?

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

You can definitely model it, and to a certain degree (in the value sense) a run is a run. However, we've seen the consequences of a team that has imbalances in building the roster this way, you get uneven performances, underperform pythag, etc. Given the outward messaging being around balance when it comes to the offense, I'd be surprised if they sought out an extreme in the form of 3 sketchy defensive OF being starters.

I can understand why a team like this could have more variance, but why would it be any more likely to underperform Pythag than overpreform?

 

They go hand in hand. Pythagorean assumes that variance is noise and eventually levels out, if it's a feature/bug of your team design, then you're more likely to underperform it. To put a name to the variance, a team that sacrifices outfield defense for some extra offense will be more likely to see variance in low scoring games where everyone's hitting poorly, or maybe when the wind is blowing in and the offensive advantage is neutralized and the defensive disadvantage magnified. We're talking in generalities here, but that's how it can manifest.

I don’t think that’s right. Variance goes both ways. If it trends toward underperformance, that isn’t variance. Thus, the modeling...

Edit: Are you saying this kind of line up would be more likely to win big and lose small, and thus pythag is a bad way to measure win prob? I half agree if that is what you are saying. I’m not convinced that kind of team would, in fact, be more likely to have that happen than the exact opposite asymmetry.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don’t think that’s right. Variance goes both ways. If it trends toward underperformance, that isn’t variance. Thus, the modeling...

Edit: Are you saying this kind of line up would be more likely to win big and lose small, and thus pythag is a bad way to measure win prob? I half agree if that is what you are saying. I’m not convinced that kind of team would, in fact, be more likely to have that happen than the exact opposite asymmetry.

 

Yes, that's the idea. I don't think it's some seismic difference, nor would it consistently come back to bite you(the 2018 Cubs were particularly snakebit by inconsistency, for example), but I think the effect is real. The other thing to consider is that if you're this imbalanced as a starting point, you're more susceptible to negative variance in the form of injuries, underperformance, etc. I've already spent more words on it than I truly believe its impact, but I'm also not super keen on an OF where Schwarber is expected to put up the best UZR.

[Cubswin11]

I’d have some interest in Lowrie/gamble on him bouncing back and being healthy if it meant we got something else out of it in a good young player (not Smith for us, but something else).

 

• As the Mets try to clear money for other moves, here’s a concept they are considering, according to major-league sources: Trading infielder Jed Lowrie and/or reliever Jeurys Familia by packaging him with a low-cost, zero-to-three year player such as first baseman Dom Smith.

 

Lowrie and Familia were two of Brodie Van Wagenen’s free-agent signings last offseason, his first as Mets general manager. Lowrie, who appeared in only nine games due to injuries, is owed $9 million next season. Familia, who had a 5.70 ERA in 60 innings, is owed $22 million over the next two.

 

[Deeg]

Castellanos’ defense is considerably worse than “OK”. Last season he improved to merely bad, but before that he was truly ghastly. Maybe you can carry one guy like that in the outfield (in LF) but certainly not two.

[Tryptamine]

Given the monetary limitations, I have no interest in NC. The OF defense would be bad and there would be very little money to fill the SP/RP needs of a team that was already only mediocre with him.

[champaignchris]

 

I really liked Nick, though I question the dominoes that would need to fall for his fit on the team to not be very awkward

 

It would be adding a CF and trading Schwarber (or somehow Heyward) that would do it.

[Little Slide Rooter]

We need to scoop up Gausman, if for no reason than if we fail to do so, he’s destined to become a 12 time CY Young winner with the Cardinals.

[Tedward]

Here's a trade proposal from ESPN's David Schoenfield posted earlier this morning. Not sure I like the idea of moving two of our core guys for such a prospect heavy package, but there are some interesting names involved.

........................................................................................................

 

In a three-team blockbuster, the Houston Astros acquire C Willson Contreras from the Chicago Cubs and LHP Amir Garrett from the Cincinnati Reds; the Reds acquire 3B/OF Kris Bryant from the Cubs and RHP Josh James from the Astros; the Cubs acquire RHP Forrest Whitley and 3B Abraham Toro from the Astros and LHP Nick Lodolo and RHP Tony Santillan from the Reds

 

Whoa! This one has more moving parts than your typical sign-stealing scheme. Let's review each team:

 

Cubs: Reports say the Cubs are looking to make some trades, with Contreras and Bryant the two candidates we're hearing about in the rumor mill. They need young pitching to replenish a system that has failed miserably in developing arms. They get Whitley, who was the game's top pitching prospect a year ago before a lost 2019 season (although he still struck out 86 batters in 59⅔ innings), the Reds' first-round pick from 2019 in TCU southpaw Lodolo, plus a good bat in Toro, who had a .938 OPS in the high minors but is blocked in Houston.

 

Astros: With Robinson Chirinos and Martin Maldonado both free agents, their current catching tandem is Garrett Stubbs and Dustin Garneau. Unless Stubbs emerges as a stud we didn't know about, they need a catcher. Contreras is a two-time All-Star with three years of team control who hit .272/.355/.533. Garrett for James is basically an exchange of hard-throwing relievers, but the Astros acquire a lefty for the bullpen -- one might have come in handy for Juan Soto in the World Series, you know.

 

Reds: The Reds say they're going to spend to build from pretender to contender, and they just signed Mike Moustakas to play second base. That's a good start to boost an offense that ranked just 12th in the NL in runs (despite their homer-friendly park), but let's go another step and add Bryant. This move requires some creativity as the Reds already have Eugenio Suarez to play third base. But Bryant is going to play the outfield on this team (and his versatility is an added benefit). He started 29 games there for the Cubs in 2019, and he's plus-3 DRS in the outfield in his career. He's fine out there and, in fact, given his back issues a move to the outfield could be better for his career. The Reds give up two of their top four or five prospects, but here's the new lineup:

 

CF Nick Senzel

LF Bryant

2B Moustakas

3B Suarez

RF Aristides Aquino/Jesse Winker

1B Joey Votto

SS Freddy Galvis

C Tucker Barnhart

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I would laugh that off the phone for Bryant alone. I'd honestly have to think about it for Contreras alone. Trading Bryant and Contreras for 3 pitching prospects who have zero MLB innings and the Astros #14 prospect (a 3B) who got a cup of coffee this year is abject insanity. Whitley is the headliner and he hasn't reached 50 IP in a year since 2017. Another is a pitcher with 18 professional innings. I want to throw this trade proposal into the sun.

[Bryants Disco Ball]

Yeah, I'm OK with them trading anybody on this team, but not..............for horsefeathering that.

[Tryptamine]

Yeah that's absolutely miserable. Whitney's upside is crazy. But he's coming off an entirely list year. Lodolo is "safe", but is best case scenario mid rotation with back end more likely. A 3B whose bat is barely justifiable at the position and is just average with the glove. Then another SP with backend projections. The only guy with any projection beyond average is coming off a season with shoulder issues and a step back in command.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I haven't been able to kick the idea of piggybacking rotation spots out of my head(probably not surprising since I've liked it for years), so I'm going to indulge an offseason planned around it. The quick benefits:

 

- you avoid the 3rd time through the order penalty entirely, and can act quickly if a starter is losing it before then

- you can piggyback R/L and/or contrasting styles to prevent lineups being stacked to beat a particular pitcher's arsenal

- you lessen the likelihood of bullpen games because you're extremely likely to get 5-7 IP each time, which means the bullpen doesn't need a long reliever for long reliever's sake

- with the 3 batter minimum you're going to see more of a multi-inning reliever trend and this fits that need of one part of the piggyback overperforms(justifying a rotation spot) or underperforms(and slides into short relief).

 

So to do this right, I think for each rotation spot you want the 2 players doing the piggyback, plus at least 1 decent alternative that is either optionable or occupying a different bullpen role.

 

Trades (basic framework, might need minor additions on either side)

 

- Contreras for Luzardo and Daulton Jeffries

- Quintana for Margot

- Bote for Chirinos

 

Signings

 

- Alex Wood

- Jason Castro

- ZOBRIST, I'm paying him what it takes to go for one more year, his bat and 2B defense both remain fine

- Strop, or your favorite FA of similar cost

 

 

Castro/Caratini, Rizzo, Zobrist/Hoerner, Baez, Bryant, Schwarber, Happ/Margot, Heyward. Kemp or your favorite cheap position player is the only other position player

 

Hendricks, Lester, Darvish, Chirinos/Luzardo, Wood/Chatwood

Kimbrel, Wick, Ryan, Wieck, Strop/FA, Luzardo, Chatwood, AAAA(Maples, Mekkes, Mills, Underwood)

Alzolay, Jeffries, Cotton, and Rea backup the piggybacks in Iowa or take that AAAA spot

[Post Count Padder]

Oh Orioles

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Cubswin11]

A 4 for 1 for Bundy seems like a lot, even if they’re just organizational filler types. Bundy is damaged goods.

 

[Cubswin11]

Brewers sign Justin Grimm to a minor league deal

[Bertz]

A 4 for 1 for Bundy seems like a lot, even if they’re just organizational filler types. Bundy is damaged goods.

 

 

Yeah, Brett's having a mini meltdown on Twitter over this and I don't get it. Bundy when he threw 95 had promise and untapped potential. Bundy now that he throws 91-92 is just a dude. If we ended up with him I would have been fine with it, but he's not very different from other mediocre options like Julio Teheran or Gio Gonzalez. That's a guy you settle for in January not one you proactively acquire the first week of December.

[Tryptamine]

If the Orioles trade Mancini, they may be historically awful this year. This a bad look for MLB when you run out a team that isn't even remotely competitive and it's not like they're making room to give prospects a shot.

[Cubswin11]

A 4 for 1 for Bundy seems like a lot, even if they’re just organizational filler types. Bundy is damaged goods.

 

 

Yeah, Brett's having a mini meltdown on Twitter over this and I don't get it. Bundy when he threw 95 had promise and untapped potential. Bundy now that he throws 91-92 is just a dude. If we ended up with him I would have been fine with it, but he's not very different from other mediocre options like Julio Teheran or Gio Gonzalez. That's a guy you settle for in January not one you proactively acquire the first week of December.

Yeah the velo drop is concerning. I too would’ve been fine doing a comparable deal for him, but this early I’m fine waiting it out. I’d rather just give Gausman the $5-7 mil Bundy is making this year anyways, but there’s plenty of FA yet who I think you could reasonably project to be as good as Bundy next year that we could afford and there’s also the possibility we get a SP in some sort of trade. I’m fine sitting this one out on December 3rd and letting things play out.

[Cubswin11]

No idea who this is but he’s got a blue checkmark

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Tryptamine]

What does it cost to add Mancini and Hunter Harvey? Mancini is basically Castellanos, but cheaper and Harvey has closer stuff when healthy.

[Cubswin11]

What does it cost to add Mancini and Hunter Harvey? Mancini is basically Castellanos, but cheaper and Harvey has closer stuff when healthy.

Mancini is so bad in the OF and starts costing really money the next 3 years through arbitration. He’d have to come really cheap to me because that’s a big risk to try and back yourself in the corner with that potential OF defense.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Yeah, Brett's having a mini meltdown on Twitter over this and I don't get it. Bundy when he threw 95 had promise and untapped potential. Bundy now that he throws 91-92 is just a dude. If we ended up with him I would have been fine with it, but he's not very different from other mediocre options like Julio Teheran or Gio Gonzalez. That's a guy you settle for in January not one you proactively acquire the first week of December.

 

I'm not a huge Bundy enthusiast, but he was a 3 win pitcher with a 92 mph average fastball in 2017. It's decreased from that point a bit, but I think there's room to think he can be that guy again. At a cost of 5-6 million and the equivalent of Mekkes/Maples in trade I can see the appeal.

[Post Count Padder]

[tweet][tweet]

[/tweet][/tweet]

 

None of these guys were top prospects and are all like a year or less removed from the draft.