Pete Alonso

[Rcal10]

23 minutes ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Even if Stroman comes back, the Cubs absolutely have to address the starting rotation.  They can't go into the season being one injury away (Stroman, Steele) from disaster.

If Stoman comes back and the cubs sign Bellinger and Candelario they aren’t going to spend another $24M a year for 5+ years on another starter. I agree they need someone else, but it won’t be a TOR guy. They won’t spend that money. Might be looking at another Taillon deal. Maybe Montgomery or if ERod opts out, him. 

[Rcal10]

22 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I don't think, in an intelligent market, it's wise to try and outbid teams who are valuing him as a centerfielder. To make a more extreme hypothetical, Adley Rutschman's bat plays everywhere, but he absolutely gets more money if he went on the open market tomorrow because he can catch. The Dodgers probably shouldn't go offer him the biggest contract to play first base/DH. 

To TTs point, I know you don't want to be locked in to a rigid set of players, though I think there's a difference in having a bunch of shortstops locked up, under team control rather than this situation of having to pay top dollar for that flexibility. But also, if he's available for a price they think is attractive for someone to mostly play center, go do it, and no one says we need to be anchored to PCA? Go turn him into a cost controlled pitcher or whatever. 

So if no Bellinger and Ohtani gets out of control on pricing, who do they go get? I think if they can sign Bellinger they do it. PCA isn’t a lock to be a stud. And if he is they can move Bellinger. Put him in the corner outfield and deal either Suzuki or Happ for a MOR starter. Honesty it is a nice problem  to have having too many good hitters. Honestly Bellinger gives them. Lot of options. That has value too. 

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

So if no Bellinger and Ohtani gets out of control on pricing, who do they go get? I think if they can sign Bellinger they do it. PCA isn’t a lock to be a stud. And if he is they can move Bellinger. Put him in the corner outfield and deal either Suzuki or Happ for a MOR starter. Honesty it is a nice problem  to have having too many good hitters. Honestly Bellinger gives them. Lot of options. That has value too. 

None of this is wrong, I don't think, but when you're talking about paying top of market prices for these guys, the 'you can't have too many good hitters' conversation is different than like, the conversation around the glut of players in the minors. If you can't have too many good hitters, go get Cody and Ohtani, sign Chapman too, make a trade for Alonso and sign him too, we'll figure out where they go down the road. 

You can make plenty of arguments for signing Cody, and I get most of them. But if you go that route, I think you need to be open to things like trading PCA, or figuring out how to get value for Happ/Seiya, before you just move him down to first sometime in early 2024 if PCA continues his current path. 

[Rcal10]

6 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

None of this is wrong, I don't think, but when you're talking about paying top of market prices for these guys, the 'you can't have too many good hitters' conversation is different than like, the conversation around the glut of players in the minors. If you can't have too many good hitters, go get Cody and Ohtani, sign Chapman too, make a trade for Alonso and sign him too, we'll figure out where they go down the road. 

You can make plenty of arguments for signing Cody, and I get most of them. But if you go that route, I think you need to be open to things like trading PCA, or figuring out how to get value for Happ/Seiya, before you just move him down to first sometime in early 2024 if PCA continues his current path. 

Well there is a difference in signing Bellinger and the. PCA does become a solid bat and signing Bellinger, Ohtani, Chapman and trading to Alonso and then figuring out where to play them. There is no guarantee PCA becomes a solid player. If he does then yiu have a nice problem. Yiur scenario wouldn’t happen. Not going to spend that money. However I do get your point on if Belli is signed the. Cubs might need to look into dealing PCA. That would be interesting. So they go for another prospect in a prospect for prospect trade. Maybe PCA for a prospect arm? Maybe a top 3rd baseman. Or does he go for a proven Major league talent? Never thought of doing that, but it is interesting. 

[squally1313]

5 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

Well there is a difference in signing Bellinger and the. PCA does become a solid bat and signing Bellinger, Ohtani, Chapman and trading to Alonso and then figuring out where to play them. There is no guarantee PCA becomes a solid player. If he does then yiu have a nice problem. Yiur scenario wouldn’t happen. Not going to spend that money. However I do get your point on if Belli is signed the. Cubs might need to look into dealing PCA. That would be interesting. So they go for another prospect in a prospect for prospect trade. Maybe PCA for a prospect arm? Maybe a top 3rd baseman. Or does he go for a proven Major league talent? Never thought of doing that, but it is interesting. 

My scenario was an obvious over exaggeration to try to illustrate that paying top dollar to create a glut of good hitters comes with a lot more complications than the glut developing naturally through the system. We've got one and a half good starters under contract for next year. Of course we could use a bat like 2023 Bellinger, but it's A. far from a guarantee, and B. a lot easier/cheaper (either in dollars or prospects) to find that kind of production out of the first base position than it is from center fielders. Trying to avoid turning this into a Ricketts conversation, pick whatever number you want for your fake salary cap number, adding Bellinger to the 2024 and beyond mix takes up a big chunk of it.

If we sign Bellinger and explore trading PCA, I would hope to god it's not for some other prospect. The window would officially be declared open (you'd argue it already is), go get someone who can play at Wrigley for the next 4 years. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

4 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

- Taking the pick on Bellinger, starting a RoY candidate all year for potentially more picks, and using the money to continue shaping the roster into the best team rather than a good team is gosh danged textbook GMidenting! 

 

I don't have a problem with this logic, but finding better uses of money than the **28 y/o** with a career 120 wRC+ and plus CF defense(and who you have a leg up on signing by already having 1st hand looks at and not having QO consequences) is not all that easy!  Not that Bellinger is the only way, but 'just spend it a different way' oversimplifies the narrow set of options to find players of a similar impact, doubly so with just money.

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, squally1313 said:

My scenario was an obvious over exaggeration to try to illustrate that paying top dollar to create a glut of good hitters comes with a lot more complications than the glut developing naturally through the system. We've got one and a half good starters under contract for next year. Of course we could use a bat like 2023 Bellinger, but it's A. far from a guarantee, and B. a lot easier/cheaper (either in dollars or prospects) to find that kind of production out of the first base position than it is from center fielders. Trying to avoid turning this into a Ricketts conversation, pick whatever number you want for your fake salary cap number, adding Bellinger to the 2024 and beyond mix takes up a big chunk of it.

If we sign Bellinger and explore trading PCA, I would hope to god it's not for some other prospect. The window would officially be declared open (you'd argue it already is), go get someone who can play at Wrigley for the next 4 years. 

For me, best case scenario is sign Bellinger and look into dealing Happ or Suzuki for either a first baseman or MOR pitcher. Probably the pitcher. Move Bellinger to right and whoever you don’t trade plays left. PCA play center. I think the Cubs could justify paying too dollar for Bellinger with the thought of moving him to right and have him also as insurance if PCA struggles

 

Best case scenario is a 3 team trade where Happ goes so somewhere. Alonzo comes here and prospects go to the Mets. Before anyone responds to this point, I know it isn’t happening. . Just dreaming. 
 

[squally1313]

8 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I don't have a problem with this logic, but finding better uses of money than the **28 y/o** with a career 120 wRC+ and plus CF defense(and who you have a leg up on signing by already having 1st hand looks at and not having QO consequences) is not all that easy!  Not that Bellinger is the only way, but 'just spend it a different way' oversimplifies the narrow set of options to find players of a similar impact, doubly so with just money.

I've already hijacked this conversation enough, but while we're here, can we talk about Bellinger's numbers vs his expected numbers/Savant numbers? Dude is out wOBAing his xwOBA by 58 points, and his xwOBA would put him 185th in the majors this year. Savant batted ball numbers aren't that better. His results this year have been great, and obviously he has a stretch of being genuinely elite in his past, but kinda feel like we'd be avoiding this guy if he hadn't delivered so much for our team this year. 

[mul21]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I've already hijacked this conversation enough, but while we're here, can we talk about Bellinger's numbers vs his expected numbers/Savant numbers? Dude is out wOBAing his xwOBA by 58 points, and his xwOBA would put him 185th in the majors this year. Savant batted ball numbers aren't that better. His results this year have been great, and obviously he has a stretch of being genuinely elite in his past, but kinda feel like we'd be avoiding this guy if he hadn't delivered so much for our team this year. 

I've asked this question/posed this hypothesis several times without any response, but I feel like he's significantly changed his 2 strike approach and is forfeiting some power for contact when he gets there.  His ability to dump a ball into LF instead of hacking and striking out has been noticeable this year and when you combine what I've observed with his significant reduction in Ks overall, I think that's a plausible explanation for some of the EV drop.

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I've asked this question/posed this hypothesis several times without any response, but I feel like he's significantly changed his 2 strike approach and is forfeiting some power for contact when he gets there.  His ability to dump a ball into LF instead of hacking and striking out has been noticeable this year and when you combine what I've observed with his significant reduction in Ks overall, I think that's a plausible explanation for some of the EV drop.

Yes, he's traded exit velocity for bat to ball and it's paid off for him. He's also benefited from the shift restrictions as well. Not having a guy standing behind 2nd has added more than a few points to hs BA and RBI totals. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by CubinNY

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

27 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I've already hijacked this conversation enough, but while we're here, can we talk about Bellinger's numbers vs his expected numbers/Savant numbers? Dude is out wOBAing his xwOBA by 58 points, and his xwOBA would put him 185th in the majors this year. Savant batted ball numbers aren't that better. His results this year have been great, and obviously he has a stretch of being genuinely elite in his past, but kinda feel like we'd be avoiding this guy if he hadn't delivered so much for our team this year. 

I'm not well read enough to have high confidence in this, but I think Bellinger's 2 strike approach bit is very relevant, and I think it's generally a *good* thing.  Bellinger's batted ball metrics(average EV, barrel rate, etc) that are are a *function of batted balls* are down, and that's because he has taken a huge bite of his K rate.  It's not an apples to apples comparison when so many more PA in previous seasons(good and bad) ended without a ball in play.  If we extrapolate things like hard hits or barrels on a per PA basis instead of per batted ball, it's still not at the standard he was at in his first few seasons, but it's a lot closer, especially when you consider the other side of the coin is cutting out a big chunk of K's.  That means there's dozens more balls he's putting in play in a higher BABIP environment(and which he has good speed to maximize), and it makes him harder to game plan and more platoon resistant.

That said, if I'm signing Bellinger I'm not doing so with the expectation that he's this 145 wRC+ guy going forward.  But I think his current line is closer to what we can expect than looking at his .328 xWOBA and thinking that's what he's got coming to him.

[squally1313]

Definitely fair on taking that into account. I think, to come full circle, splitting the difference between his wOBA and his xwOBA puts him kinda just on like, the second tier of first basemen? First basemen by fWAR, and then their wOBA this year:

1. Freeman .412
2. Olson .403
3. Walker .369
4. Y Diaz .398
5. Goldy .356
6. Alonso .358
7. Lowe .356
8. Naylor .379
9. Noda .363
10. Wade Jr .354

I'm not saying it's easy to find one of those guys, obviously. I'm just saying his numbers look way better in an outfield spot. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

1 hour ago, mul21 said:

I've asked this question/posed this hypothesis several times without any response, but I feel like he's significantly changed his 2 strike approach and is forfeiting some power for contact when he gets there.  His ability to dump a ball into LF instead of hacking and striking out has been noticeable this year and when you combine what I've observed with his significant reduction in Ks overall, I think that's a plausible explanation for some of the EV drop.

Are the metrics available in a way that breaks his 2 strike contact out separately from everything else?  The eye test gives us our hypothesis that his 2 strike approach is skewing the data, I would be really interested in what the data shows.

[chibears55]

3 hours ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Why? Pitching’s his side hustle

 

Would rather use the money that it'll cost to get him even just for him to hit, and who knows if or how much the surgery will have an affect on that next season, on bringing back Bellinger, Candelario, etc.

 

[chibears55]

2 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

If Stoman comes back and the cubs sign Bellinger and Candelario they aren’t going to spend another $24M a year for 5+ years on another starter. I agree they need someone else, but it won’t be a TOR guy. They won’t spend that money. Might be looking at another Taillon deal. Maybe Montgomery or if ERod opts out, him. 

They can always trade him or tell him they're gonna trade him and give him the option to decline the option and become a FA.

I'm not saying sign a guy via FA, I don't even think there a TOR type available this offseason,  im just saying IF one comes available to trade for like Darvish was, they could/should try and make that deal.

[Rcal10]

7 minutes ago, chibears55 said:

They can always trade him or tell him they're gonna trade him and give him the option to decline the option and become a FA.

I'm not saying sign a guy via FA, I don't even think there a TOR type available this offseason,  im just saying IF one comes available to trade for like Darvish was, they could/should try and make that deal.

If Stoman comes back and is healthy and does play the last year of his contract he is fine at $21M next year. But I agree they can also get another pitcher and it could be cia a trade. Sign Bellinger and trade a corner outfielder for a MOR starter. Works for me. 

[chibears55]

23 minutes ago, Rcal10 said:

If Stoman comes back and is healthy and does play the last year of his contract he is fine at $21M next year. But I agree they can also get another pitcher and it could be cia a trade. Sign Bellinger and trade a corner outfielder for a MOR starter. Works for me. 

I think he'll move on, especially since they told him they're not gonna extend him. 

I could be wrong but I think he'll be back pitching again this year, so he'll still have a couple starts to show himself and decide to not pick up his options. 

A team may be interested in giving him a 3-4 yr deal at 20 per, at 32, he looking more for extended years then upping the yearly amount, I would think.

[Backtobanks]

1 hour ago, TomtheBombadil said:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/its-time-to-rebuild-the-bombers/

Now I’m hoping horsefeathers really hits the fan and the Cubs have themselves a(n) Ohtani, Alonso, Gerrit Cole, and Clay Holmes offseason 

It will be interesting to see how the injury affects Ohtani's asking price.  Obviously, he'll get a pile of money, but his value is diminished if he's a DH only.

 

[Rcal10]

1 minute ago, chibears55 said:

I think he'll move on, especially since they told him they're not gonna extend him. 

I could be wrong but I think he'll be back pitching again this year, so he'll still have a couple starts to show himself and decide to not pick up his options. 

A team may be interested in giving him a 3-4 yr deal at 20 per, at 32, he looking more for extended years then upping the yearly amount, I would think.

I am fine if he moves on. Just not sure he does. And if he doesn’t it is because he is unsure of his value in the open market. So not like the Cubs could trade him. They need to hope he has a 1 year “prove it contract year”. And if he comes back and does pitch well, I would be fine with that team being the Cubs if they can get him for 4 years. I think you are giving too much emphasis on the Cubs not wanting to extend him. That was before the deadline and TBH they were not sure if they were in the race. Actually it was more likely they would sell. So of course they wouldn’t extend him before selling. And then right before the deadline he started struggling. Not going to extend then either. 

[Tim]

I don't think Alonso ages particularly well. He's already almost unplayable at 1B. I'm not interested in a long-term investment there, so I wouldn't be willing to give up major pieces to acquire him.

[Tim]

1 hour ago, TomtheBombadil said:

Unplayable at first? He’s not Lee or Grace or Rizzo but beyond that it’s far from dire. The Mets’ team defense collapses in the OF, 3B, and 2B. FGs actually has their 1B defense in the ancient and sacred order of Top 10 this year from my quick glance 

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders/major-league?stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&month=0&ind=0&pos=1b&sortcol=20&sortdir=asc&startdate=&enddate=&season1=2020&season=2023

Yeah, he's bad.

[CubinNY]

1st base is the least important defensive position on the diamond when playing 80 games in Wrigley. I get not wanting to trade premium minor leagues for him given his age and position, but let's not make up excuses. Also, he can slide into the DH role pretty easily. He is a great fit for the Cubs, but the price may be too steep. 

If they're not willing to let Mervis grow into the position, they are going to have to find a 1st baseman. Playing Bellinger there is a waste of talent. 

Edited August 25, 2023 by CubinNY

[Cuzi]

Using Fangraphs "Def" stat as an argument against a player is a hilariously dumb position to take. Even Fangraphs says you shouldn't do it on their website.

Quote

There is no reason why you should use Def instead of looking at fielding runs and the positional adjustment separately

Def is a measure used for all positions. Paul Goldschmidt is only marginally better than Alonso on that list. Why? Because 1B is one of the lowest positions on the diamond for defensive value, so no matter how good a 1B may be defensively, he's locked into a negative number because his value is incomparable to a SS.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

13 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

Using Fangraphs "Def" stat as an argument against a player is a hilariously dumb position to take. Even Fangraphs says you shouldn't do it on their website.

Def is a measure used for all positions. Paul Goldschmidt is only marginally better than Alonso on that list. Why? Because 1B is one of the lowest positions on the diamond for defensive value, so no matter how good a 1B may be defensively, he's locked into a negative number because his value is incomparable to a SS.

That report was filtered to 1B, the point was not the magnitude of the number but how high up the list he was among 1B over a multi-year span.  If you want to use RAA Alonso was -6 over that same time period.  For his career Alonso has a -1 UZR/150 and -11 cumulative RAA, there's no indication he's a positive 1B defender.

[Cuzi]

1 minute ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

That report was filtered to 1B, the point was not the magnitude of the number but how high up the list he was among 1B over a multi-year span.  If you want to use RAA Alonso was -6 over that same time period.  For his career Alonso has a -1 UZR/150 and -11 cumulative RAA, there's no indication he's a positive 1B defender.

It does not matter how its filtered. It's a stat that shouldnt be used beyond seeing who has better positional value on the diamond.

Over that same time span, Alonso has +2 DRS.

He's far from the best defender at 1B but he's also not as bad as you are trying to portray him when he's 5th in innings during that span and you are trying to compare him against guys that have played half of his innings.